No Endgame, Equilibrium Maybe

Very recently Magnum moved to New York City. We had dinner tonight and talked about several topics. One of them inspired this post.

I made a comment about his recent post “There is No Endgame”.

I was concerned that people online were misunderstanding the idea of “endgame.” Sounds like I care too much about what people online think. I don’t really care that much. However, it is important when dealing with impressionable minds of men who will be going out and talking to girls to communicate clearly and encourage them to know what they want, such that they have a chance of getting it. Most people don’t know what they want.

Personally, I am interested in having a family, though there is no guarantee that it will happen for me. Yes, I could knock up a girl and reproduce, but I want to do more than that, I want to create a family and thrive.

That sounds like I’m pursuing an endgame get a wife, make a baby, the end. Game over.

Krauser wants a wife. Roosh wants a wife. Actually a lot of guys want a wife.

I agree with Magnum on this that there is no endgame. A wife and/or family is not the endgame. We all die alone. If you get into a relationship and that grows into a family, you still run the risk of a woman losing attraction for you and freeing herself from the situation in a way that an American lawyer gets paid (by you) to make painful and expensive (even if you’re not married – California laws are that bad). There is no end to that risk – you signed up for the relationship maintenance contract.

When Magnum says “So I’m at peace with being a player forever.  As a man you have to be able to bring new women into your life on an ongoing basis, and pair-bond with them as you see fit.” this is certainly a valid option. And it seems to be a common interpretation of “No Endgame.”

However, I think it’s such an important topic, I wanted to share another perspective. My perspective.

Equilibrium is not “Men and Women are Equal!” Equilibrium is the balance between the male seduction and protection and the female submission and support. I’m not going to call it ying and yang, but I could.

If you are able to build a relationship with a rough equilibrium, then the amount of work needed to maintain the relationship is significantly reduced. Not going to call it easy mode because relationships are hard, but building it from an equilibrium is easier. How it starts is how it goes. You end up putting in about as much energy as you get out of it, give or take. No resentment builds, and you get the benefits of being in a relationship. Neither spouse is a drag upon the other. 1 + 1 can equal 3.

Equilibrium is related to ideas of the 3rd level of seduction, as described in a great post article Nash wrote last year:

“What do I need to do to make her feel beautiful? What does she need to relax? What can’t she see about herself that would make her glow? What makes her feel sexy? What opens her heart? What fantasies does she need to explore? What does she need to feel to have the experience of a lifetime? What makes her melt? What does she need to feel such that she can shine for me? What does she need to feel so she can surrender to me… and really let herself “go?” What would the experience be that would make her more than eager to come back and do it all again?

And it is illustrative to cite a few quotes by a woman, Patricia Albere, from that same post describing how a woman knows or feels when equilibrium is and isn’t there:

“If he takes you someplace you want to go, then you can surrender to him. A lot of men don’t know where they are going. They’re not that attuned to you. They don’t necessarily care how it is for you, they are way too selfish. There is something that just doesn’t happen.”
— Patricia Albere

“You can tell that a lot of times men just want what they want, and they want you to show up in a way that they can get off on the whole situation, and it’s not too much of a turn on for women. You kind of know if the man is actually really connected and wants something to happen for both of you.”
— Patricia Albere

A woman in equilibrium is also exploring ways of supporting you, trusting you, surrendering and submitting to you, pleasing you, opening up to you, and taking care of you. She makes you sandwiches, so to speak.

Nash’s post goes deeper than I want to for purposes of this post, but it’s worth reading for a deeper understanding of seduction.

I’ve had 2 relationships built with equilibrium.

How does one build a relationship with equilibrium?

First, let me tell you a personal story to provide some context:

I did nightgame some years ago, and occasionally I would have an intense lover connection with a girl I met at a bar or a club, and occasionally I would experience a non-lover connection from a girl where she is interested in me for whatever reason, but the sex was more… …dutiful. The reasons women decide to have sex are all over the map.

I also tried some online game, and girls online seem to be sometimes looking for lovers or sometimes boyfriends and they are optimizing from among a wide selection of online men and probably aren’t even that happy with the results, and in NYC women will struggle with getting commitment from a guy. My experience with online dating was lackluster. I was able to meet and date and seduce girls but almost all of the sex was the sort of dutiful sex, a version of “keep you around because you are an interesting option” maintenance sex rather than the lover mode of “I desire you” sex.

My experience in daygame has provided me with almost exclusively lover sex from the girls I have met. The girls that make it through my filter really want me and want to please me and the sex is good. I work hard and approach a lot, but I’m happy with the results, and I see more improvement in my future.

That lover connection is the spark that creates conditions where equilibrium can happen.

Start with that connection as lovers, she is really attracted to you and has raw sexual desire for you. That can happen superficially and it is called limerence, but at least in my mind’s eye, I’m talking more about a deeper level of seduction (level 3), where the man makes her shine and protects her, and she supports and pleases him.

So anyway, you start off as lovers in a deep level of seduction. You enjoy her, your psychologies and social class backgrounds are matched enough that you don’t find each other annoying (or mismatched enough that you find each other exotic), and maybe even enjoy talking and spending significant time together or your love languages match well. If the things you want in life are similar (babies being the biggest one usually), you have an approximate equilibrium. The man can choose to commit to the woman (who, not always, but usually hopes to convert him from a lover into a lover and a provider – the big score) and even get married and/or make a baby.

This here is the point that a number of guys might consider endgame, but it’s actually just a (possibly temporary) equilibrium.

One can also get married and make a baby without being in equilibrium. Sometimes people figure it out and grow together and sometimes they don’t and/or they grow apart. You can imagine how it plays out.

Equilibrium can break down if it’s not maintained. It can happen in many different ways: some guys relax and play video games now that they don’t have to spend time chasing girls and are getting regular (perhaps just dutiful) sex from a girl they like enough and who puts up with them. Or he loses his job and she resents him while she works to keep the household afloat. Or she gets fat from eating her feelings and he loses attraction for her.

Equilibrium requires work. The guy is not free from the responsibility of leading and staying attractive as best they can, or even being a good father if they have kids. That’s another side of “there is no endgame.” You don’t get to rest. You might get to rest when you are dead – but I’m not even certain about that.

Women have responsibilities too, they should remain attractive as best they can (despite time and nature and gravity working against them), they should be supportive, and may have significant responsibilities as a mother. They shoulder some of the responsibility for maintaining equilibrium, but even at their most equal, it’s still probably at least 51% the man’s responsibility to maintain this equilibrium.

So back to Magnum, when he says he is “at peace with being a player forever.” He’s expressing that he can get close enough to achieving that equilibrium on his terms and doesn’t have to lock it in with exclusivity or marriage. He can have relationships for the timeframes and intimacy level he wants. He has the skills to make that happen, so it’s a good choice for him, until he changes his mind and wants something else.

It’s possible to maintain the equilibrium and have a family without locking it in with exclusivity and marriage. However, society isn’t there yet, and there are many cringeworthy examples of attempts to do so provided by new age communes and fringe religious groups around the world.

Yes, the legal system discriminates against men in marriage. Most men are not able to choose beforehand the jurisdiction their marriage would be litigated in in the event of a divorce (divorce laws in all 50 states of the US all vary, as do countries in the world), and even if they could, judges can throw it out. So yeah, there is significant risk of marriage. That’s not news. However, starting in equilibrium and putting in the work to maintain that equilibrium helps manage that risk – and gives you a fair shot. If you have some basic game and frame control, go to the gym and take care of your health, have a mission or even just a job, you’re probably going to do better than most guys and have a lower (but not zero!) chance of divorce, and if you do get divorced, you have the skills to start over again. Your odds are better than the even odds of divorce statistics, but it is not riskless.

For me, there is no endgame either. I am looking for an equilibrium to create a family and I think it may make sense to lean on the traditional structure that society provides (an example being a marriage in a jurisdiction that is not as dysfunctional as the United States or Anglo countries), but I also recognize the responsibility that I will have to maintain that equilibrium possibly until I am dead. That’s my interpretation of “No Endgame.” Maybe I won’t find it. Maybe I will one day come to a realization similar to what Magnum has realized about himself. We’ll see.

One thought on “No Endgame, Equilibrium Maybe

  1. “So back to Magnum, when he says he is “at peace with being a player forever.” He’s expressing that he can get close enough to achieving that equilibrium on his terms and doesn’t have to lock it in with exclusivity or marriage. He can have relationships for the timeframes and intimacy level he wants. He has the skills to make that happen, so it’s a good choice for him, until he changes his mind and wants something else.”

    Runner this is one of the best posts I’ve read in a while. You captured what we talked about and developed it further. This concept of equilibrium is exactly what I meant when I say “there is no end game” for men. We don’t ever get to rest on our laurels, but if we put in the work we can have relationships on our terms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *