No, Being Interesting Isn’t Enough

There’s an author who is apparently niche-famous in polyamory circles and quite prolific on at least one online question-and-answer service. He writes well. Let’s call him “Mo.”

Mo frequently bashes anyone who’d label themselves (or be labeled by him) as “incel,” “MRA,” “MGTOW,” “redpill,” or “Manosphere,” and their talking points.

The older I get, the less I accept most labels as concrete. “What do you mean by that?” is a very helpful question. “Incel,” strictly speaking, means “involuntarily celibate.” How can someone be blamed for something that’s involuntary? Well, the term “incel” has come to mean, in common usage, a lot more than simply being involuntarily celibate. But there are people, including men, who are involuntarily celibate who do not behave in ways or think in ways Mo cites as so detestable.

Mo often writes that all those other guys (and probably many more outside of those labels) are wrong when they say a man needs to be rich, powerful, famous, tall, built, very handsome, and/or play games to get women. He says what a man needs to be is interesting. Mo is interesting, you see. Those other guys aren’t. Or their uncouth behavior or offensive beliefs override their level of interesting. (Leonardo DiCaprio must be really interesting, right?)

Here’s the problem. There is usually an enormous disconnect between what Mo and the other men are talking about.

What is meant by “get women” (or whatever phrase one might use)?

In Mo’s case, it is “have sex with a woman who doesn’t expect exclusivity from me or much of anything else, nor will she be exclusive with me.” Mo wouldn’t mind, in fact it might turn him on, if his wife bangs 100 men in one night, none of them him. In turn, there are at least two or three other women Mo is apparently banging on a regular basis, or at least when he can see them. Mo engages in orgies and apparently his relationships are all open (polyamory doesn’t automatically mean an open relationship).

We know what Mo looks like. And he readily admits to being poor.

It’s a good thing Mo has no interest in monogamy. Because if he did, he’d quickly find out that being “interesting” (and what he might think of as enlightened) would not be enough. His choices in available women would be quite limited. (I’m curious as to how many women he was actually able to get before he became niche-famous.)

But because he lives as though he doesn’t mind if any of the women he’s banging, even his wife, bang other people, they are willing to use him as a dildo. Heck, he even lets them beat him for jollies.

If he’s to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt him, he hasn’t been monogamous since literally his first sexual experience, since it was with multiple people.

Mo wants multiple women sexual partners, which, if we’re being honest most men want but are willing to at least attempt to suppress. But that’s where the common ground ends. The men he’s saying are wrong about women AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME POOL OF WOMEN AS MO.

Mo doesn’t want monogamy.

Mo doesn’t want to have kids.

Mo doesn’t want to be a provider.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as husband material.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as boyfriend material.

Mo doesn’t want a woman most men would consider wife material.

Mo doesn’t want what most men would consider girlfriend material.

None of those women expect Mo to protect them, provide for them, fulfill all of their sexual needs, fulfill all of their romantic needs, father/raise children, build wealth for retirement, eventually be grandpa, or any of that sort of thing. He’s basically a dildo that gets passed around between multiple women, though he presents it as more meaningful or deep than that. 

“Sounds great to me,” you might think. Except these women aren’t really what you’d want. Nor are they what the men Mo mocks want. 

These men he mocks want a classic “girl next door” type of woman, not a “girl from the street corner” type, even if the street corner is online. Some want virgins; Mo will not date/have sex with a virgin, as he’s stated many times.

They want a woman to be THE woman in their life: their girlfriend, and maybe their wife and the mother of their children. They don’t went her to be the village tramp.

If one were to leave the other, it would be a significant life event and cause much difficulty, whereas if Mo “left” any of his lovers, they might have to find another man to beat them - consensually, of course, so that makes it OK, or something - or they could simply do with one less lover or beater.

These women the guys are seeking wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other men, and the men wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other women - at least not without the spouses also there. Mo calls this very standard condition of monogamous marriages controlling and abusive, because it means telling someone else (your spouse) who they can’t spend time with.

It’s a big disconnect. 

What Mo is doing is like responding to people who say, “It’s hard to find a true, close, enduring friendship” with “No it’s not! I just made a friend on Facebook by being interesting!” It’s like saying to someone who wants to grow their own food homesteading that they can drive through at Krispy Kreme and get a doughnut.

He’s never been in a monogamous situation. Never had a woman to himself, never pledged himself to one woman. He’s never had to financially support a woman on an ongoing basis, as far as I can tell.

Conversely, many of the men who would be labeled as “Manosphere” or “redpill” and the like have been “traditionally” married and may still be married. Tom Leykis, who I’d guess Mo would have significant disdain for despite overlaps in their politics and sexual behaviors, was, last I knew, married and divorced four times.

What these men are encountering is a situation in which they are being held to ridiculous standards and obligations to so much as get a date or two, let alone have a serious relationship.

These men are dismissed for not being at least six feet tall, earning at least six figures, not having a six-pack (toned abs) and/or not having a penis at least six inches in length. If any one of those criteria isn’t met or surpassed, these men are passed over, no matter how interesting they are, unless the men are wealthy, famous, or powerful.

A woman who wants a man to be her lifelong wallet, bodyguard, sperm supplier, etc. isn’t going to find a man who is “interesting” to be enough; not unless he’s meeting all those other criteria. 

Rather than mock these men and claim I have the answer because I’m interesting, I try to help them with the truth:

1) Odds are, they won’t have a lasting, happy marriage with what they’d consider a great wife. Almost no man will find that these days, but if they are determined to try, they should look for certain criteria, avoid certain things, and they should take certain steps. 

2) Running game works.

For either of those, being “interesting” isn’t sufficient. 

I’m here to help other men, not mock them. I’m not superior to them. I’ve simply observed and processed a wide spectrum of relationship advice and real-life relationships. I know what it’s like to be “traditionally” married, I know what it’s like to be in serious monogamous relationships, I know what “works” as far as running game, because I dated before I knew about it and then I later dated implementing some of it.