Archive for the ‘Game’ Category

Women of all (pre-menopausal) ages and all social strata are fascinated by mental parlor tricks. They enjoy the self-revelatory aspect of psychological quizzes, and especially those versions which summon the senses and amplify the feels. Once a girl is emotionally charged, it’s a simple matter to anchor her good feelings to your company.

Today, I will reveal a very special game routine that as far as I am aware exists nowhere else in the game literature. It is a proprietary and leather patented CH blend of neural witch-craftery that engages girls so powerfully they won’t want you to stop. This routine — what I call the Imagination Test — is ideal during that getting-to-know-each-other phase of the pickup, (or what PUAs call the comfort stage). You could try to use it at any time during a pickup, though; the routine is designed to work within a broad array of contexts.

The premise is uncomplicated. Like an acting class instructor, you guide the girl through various sensual exercises simulating brief scenarios or actions that you choose at your discretion. For example,

“Imagine you’re holding an ice cream cone and the scoop falls out to the ground. Feel your face change as your disappointment rises.”


“Imagine it’s midnight and you hear a loud knock at the door. All the lights are out and you have no idea who it could be.”

The gist of this routine is to heighten the emotions that a girl feels in your presence. The mere evocation of sensual stimuli will produce authentic elevations in her emotional calibration, much the same way that adopting power poses will produce real elevations in a man’s testosterone level and feeling of confidence. Couple the mimetic onslaught with a shrewdly anchored hand to thigh or forearm and when she recollects her dreamy night feeling the fuzz of an imaginary peach you concocted from thin air, her mind will travel a short hop from fruit to you, farmer of emotions.

By getting a girl to essentially play-act imaginary stimuli recruiting one or all the senses, her mind opens to further exploration with you and she becomes quite a bit more pliable to your commands, (a pliability to which she secretly yearns to release herself). The Imagination Test is, besides a stimulant for bored girls’ wary ennui, a demonstration of your creativity and originality. Rest assured, there are few men riding these kinds of thought trains through the stony skulltunnels of girls just met. Women are always looking for men set apart; this routine is one way to accomplish that.

The hard part is not the routine itself, but the sophisticated segue you must have to open an unweird social space for the routine. A couple of springboards I use that work well:

“Are you interested in learning a little bit about yourself?”


“Many girls can get by on their looks, but not many can get by on their imaginations. How good is your imagination?”

Neither segue is failsafe verbillade, but they’ll get the job done often enough.

Further examples of the Imagination Test:

Imagine yourself…

stroking a puppy’s belly.
searching through a dark attic with a flickering flashlight.
holding a pigeon to your chest.
seeing a loved one for the first time in a long time.
overhearing your parents having sex.
catching a whiff of a man’s cologne.
smelling freshly mown grass.
tasting something you hate.
feeling an ice cube on your neck (or breast, if mood permits).
massaging a lover’s face.
letting rose petals slip through your fingers.
wrapped in a sheer satin curtain.
breaking warm bread fresh out of the oven.
gently tracing the face of your grandmother.
rolling your fingertips over a strong back (substitute female body part if you think she’d be down for the FFM).
biting into a juicy sweet melon.
revealing yourself naked for the first time to someone you love.

After your hypnotized hussy has gamely visualized and phantom experienced your sensate novellas, the opportunity is rich for a well-placed neg or a grudging acceptance of her imaginative, if unexpected, spark. Too, there is the chance to reveal to her (fib, really) what her mien during the exercises says about her personality (feel free to wing it here). As long as it’s about her and her centrality to the cosmos, she’ll feel that ever-present but slyly nebulous “connection” that women so love and that men strive to fabricate for slits and tingles.

Your post-thespian responses can run the gamut:

“When you tasted the food you hated, your mouth made this funny snarl, like a dog trying to lick away peanut butter.”

“When you smelled the grass, you had this incredibly serene look. What was it that made you so contented?”

“You put your hands behind your back when you imagined being naked. This small movement tells me you want no obstacles between yourself and a lover.”


Seduction comes in three stages for a reason: it’s the rediscovery of a natural mating rhythm that has likely remained unchanged for eons beyond memory. Now you, reader, imagine a woman’s heart as a pot of water on the stove. You tease her and challenge her to turn on her burner. You draw her in with words festooned in emotional garland to warm her lifeblood. You raise her temperature with feints toward the gas jet until she is boiling over. Tease, engage, escalate.


Maxim #20: First, lead by defying. Then, lead by inspiring. Finally, lead by desiring.

All steps, however abbreviated, must come in their order to inflame her curiosity, just as your eyes must travel the expanse of her body and the inflection points of her face, and your ears receive the chirp of her voice, to form the full measure of your lust.

Read Full Post »

Romeo Had Game

A dataslut at FiveThirtyEight tallied the lines each pair of characters spoke to each other and found that Romeo was following Poon Commandment V.

Juliet speaks 155 lines to him, and he speaks only 101 to her. His reticence toward Juliet is particularly inexcusable when you consider that Romeo spends more time talking than anyone else in the play.

And yet these two are the most famous star-crossed lovers in literature. Romeo knew, or more precisely Shakespeare knew, that women — and female readers — love a man who doesn’t give away the store.

In general, Shakespeare’s female lovers lavish a larger share of their lines on their men than the men do on them. This is true not just of “Romeo and Juliet,” but of “Macbeth,” “The Taming of the Shrew” and all four couples in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The only real exceptions, tellingly, occur in the plays where the women pose as men: “Twelfth Night” and “The Merchant of Venice.” (Antony and Cleopatra spend roughly equal shares of lines on each other.)

:lol: There’s more egalitarian relationship communication when the women pose as men. Says it all, really. But you feminists keep telling manboobs to emote like girls; that’ll really make them more attractive to women.

Forget modern culture in its totality. Everything important you need to know about men and women you can find in the works of Shakespeare.

Read Full Post »

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

Read Full Post »

Peacocking — the art of dressing ostentatiously to attract positive female attention — has been a staple of game theory for a long time, ever since Mystery proved in-field that gaudy outfits were like flames to moths.

But peacocking has been controversial from the start. Some players thought it looked try-hard, and whatever initial impression was made on women would dissipate soon after. Some thought it would invite antagonism from other men. Still others argued that too much peacocking made a man seem unattainable and this was ultimately self-defeating to his goal of getting loved.

All these were plausible objections. CH has long been on record for finding a peacocking “sweet spot” — unique, but not too outrageous, and accented with peacocky accoutrements. The goal should be to stand out without looking like a dork completely out of his element.

Thankfully, the ❤️science❤️ is rolling in to help clear the confusion on this perennial topic. One important result emerges from the latest slew of studies: Context, and self-confidence, matter.

Anyone who has felt like the odd duck of the group can take heart from new research from Harvard Business School that says sticking out in distinct ways can lend you an air of presence or influence. [...]

Less work has focused on what others think of those who try to communicate that they are different or worthy of attention. Efforts to be different are interesting because humans are wired to conform and be part of a group.

In a series of studies published in the Journal of Consumer Research in February, Silvia Bellezza, a doctoral student, and two Harvard professors sought to examine what observers thought of individuals who deviated from the norm in the workplace and in a retail setting. Some of the work was conducted in the lab on students. Other studies took place in the community and involved passersby or attendees of a seminar. Most of the studies included about 150 participants. What they found was that being a little different can socially benefit people—in some situations.

The following parts of the experiment were heavily context-dependent:

In their first study, they asked shop assistants and pedestrians in Milan to rate what they thought of people who walked into luxury stores wearing gym clothes. The subjects also rated those who wore outfits typically considered more appropriate, like a dress and fur coat.

Pedestrians were more likely to think that a well-dressed individual was more likely to have the money to buy something in the store. Shop assistants thought the opposite. Those more familiar with the luxury retail environment were more likely to assume that a gym-clothes-wearing client was confident enough to not need to dress up more, and therefore more apt to be a celebrity making a purchase than someone wrapped in fur.

The same pattern emerged in subsequent studies conducted in other settings: Students afforded more respect to a fictitious bearded professor who wore a T-shirt than to a clean-shaven one who wore a tie. Candidates entering a business-plan competition who chose to use their own PowerPoint presentation background were tabbed more likely to win than those who used the standard background.

Lesson: You don’t want to look like every other button-down, jeans-wearing dude. The safe play won’t get you much negative attention, but neither will it earn you much positive attention. You have to dress with deliberate “social risk amplification” in mind. In the courtship arenas of bars et al, you should strive to look like a man who has nothing to prove and isn’t concerned with people’s expectations.

But, there are limits to the effectiveness of nonconformism:

There are boundaries to the benefits of looking different, the Harvard work showed. If an individual was viewed as accidentally out of sync with everyone else, such as mistakenly wearing a red bow tie rather than black at a formal event, that erased positive feelings about him among those surveyed. Those opinions only improved when the survey group believed their contrarian acted differently on purpose.

“In order to think that the person’s a big shot, you have to understand that the person is willingly engaging in this nonconforming conduct,” Ms. Bellezza says.

One reason Mystery’s peacocking worked so well was because his attitude and the context within which he operated (nightclubs) conveyed intention. No woman would assume he “accidentally” wore a feather boa. He wore his flagrant peacocks’ attire with purpose. That is, he owned it. Contrast is king, but only when overconfidence is co-king.

There’s one more important caveat:

In addition, the environment must give cues that suggest a person’s talent or wealth. Standing in the front of the classroom or walking confidently into a luxury store already imply some level of belonging. But when an observer didn’t know whether the person they view is part of the group, eccentric dress was seen as a negative, according to the researchers.

Peacocking has to be framed. If you’re a newbie to game dressed in Victorian coat, spats and Celtic pendant, but carrying yourself with the body language of an anxious and uncertain man in a roomful of strangers, you will signal too much outsiderness. You will be shit tested and ostracized as a dork. Your already weak frame will be smashed to smithereens.

The solution is 1. peacocking only in the company of people who are already familiar with you (social proof) or 2. tempering your flash in the company of strangers so that you don’t unduly alert any of them to your outsider status.

Body language, as usual, is key here. The stronger — i.e., more alpha — your presence, the easier it will be to stand outside the crowd dressed in odd or inappropriate clothing. The irony of successful peacocking is that you have to act like you belong to afford the social risk of dressing like you don’t belong.

Maxim #42: Contrast in how you dress is received better by the group when you are socially proofed.

Corollary to Maxim #42: If you peacock, don’t wait long to befriend the group. Peacocking should be framed as “This is totally normal. The problem is everyone else’s weirdness about it.”

There are times when communicating high rank and competence becomes more important, such as during a shake-up in management at work. Signaling one’s place in a group reduces uncertainty, but sometimes the goal may be to fit into the group, and sometimes to signal that one is a high-status person in the group, says David Dubois, a marketing professor at Insead in France and Singapore.

Given the strong female predilection for higher status men, signaling high rank within a social milieu is more crucial to seduction success than is signaling group membership. You can dress conservatively and fit in, and you’ll make lots of asexual friends that way, or you can dress a little crazy and attract women intrigued by your handicapping boldness.

Dr. Poole’s best practical advice: “Don’t talk a lot if you have high status. People will assume you’re competent and when you talk, they will listen to you.”

Poon Commandments V and VI.

Mystery’s peacocking was not a superficial ploy. He thrived on negative attention from women because he knew that it was simpler to attract an antagonistic woman than it was to attract an indifferent woman. He knew he had the game cattle to go with his furry hat. This latest series of studies examining peacocking may overlook that calculation: Eccentric dress to provoke negative social appraisal as a means of accelerating courtship.

The Bottom Line

Don’t peacock until you’ve improved your body language and have learned how to talk to women confidently and handle the inevitable shit tests you’ll get when you start dressing in a unique manner. The clothes alone won’t make you a player. If you peacock, don’t stand around waiting for women to notice your courageous sartorial ensemble; approach promptly, and act like there’s nothing unusual about how you’re dressed. Remember that a major goal of peacocking is to provoke negative attention which, in women, is a direct pipeline to their sexual interest. If you struggle with negative attention, don’t peacock. You don’t need to go full-body peacock to raise your relative in-group status; subtle cues of risk-taking alphatude — jewelry, tattoos, shoes — can work just as well if the social context is skewed toward a conformist, bland dress code.

Read Full Post »

A Crib Sheet Of Game

Normally, CH is averse to feeding the conventional misinterpretation of game as robotically intoned one-liners, but short and sweet one-liners do serve a purpose beyond their use as saving throws in high pressure situations. Keeping at one’s mental disposal a crib sheet of snappy lines for retrieval during the typical scenarios one would meet and seduce girls benefits in two ways:

1. Test-driven lines really can get you out of a jam or closer to victory.

2. More importantly, mentally rehearsed and memorized “charisma cues” are conditioning stimuli that habituate one to think and feel more like a natural who is at ease in the company of beautiful women.

Number 2 is crucial. A repository of game-approved lines, called upon at will, grooms your attitude to align more closely with that of successful womanizers. As you say these lines to yourself, and as you deploy them in a growing number of social situations, your overall attitude — your “inner game” — begins to take on the characteristics of a man who is naturally good with women. You begin to visualize yourself as an alluringly savvy man self-assuredly parrying the clit-hardened jousts of intrigued women. You are recreating it till you make it, and recreation is greatly aided by having knowledge of the sorts of things that naturals often say to women when they’re just winging it.

Maxim #43: You rely on “pickup” lines to eventually discard reliance on pickup lines.

So the pickup aka courtship line is less about the particular arrangement of its individual words to influence female receptiveness than it is about how, over time, it rearranges your mental self-conception.

Related, a reader writes,

This is a question I’m sure many readers would like to know. I find myself having beta tendencies. I sometimes find myself in shit tests and girls testing my alphaness in person and via text. To keep my attitude and mind right I continue to refer to the 16 Commandments and the Maxims, which I’ve found a portion compiled online. Obviously for shit tests I agree and amplify, act aloof etc.  But is there something like a complete list to reference? Something like the commandments plus the maxims, plus any other info in a list form? For quick reference?

Any suggestions on how to kick your mind back out of beta trap? Love the site and will donate £50 if this list is compliled.

What do you do to keep on track? How do you consistently keep the right mindset? Without slipping.

I work between London and Milan, so that’s why I’ll donate in GBP. It’s roughly $84.

I’m not entirely sure what this reader is getting at, but his letter does provide inspiration for a “crib sheet” of game. This post started with a lesson in one-liners, and for good reason. Kicking your mind out of “beta traps” is easier when you know how alphas actually talk to women. The first step to trying something new and unaccustomed in real life is to try it out in your head. Ask any man of high achievement his program for success and he’ll tell you he imagined where he would be long before he got there. Little boys don’t wait till forty to dream of being astronauts.

So, in the spirit of the reader’s request, what follows is the CH Crib Sheet of Game you can either write on a notecard and keep in your wallet, or just store in your head for instant access. The Commandments and Maxims are great, but a bit lengthy for practical retrieval, so the crib sheet will mostly focus on digestible concepts and one-liners.

The one-liners obviously apply to different situations, but the goal here isn’t to identify an exact match between line and application. Rather, the goal of the lines is to change your state of mind. The simple act of repeating them to yourself, and having them available should you need them, will imbue you with a sense of what it feels like to be a seductive man. This sense will carry over into real improvements in your masculine attractiveness.

This is by no means a complete list. The CH archives are now so huge and unwieldy that trawling it all for every gem is a time-suck too great for even a team of expert data miners. Therefore, as a general aid to the CH audience and as a specific answer to the reader above, all commenters are welcome to add entries to the Crib Sheet of Game, which will be updated on a regular basis and reposted from time to time, perhaps with its own reference page.




Agree & amplify
Disqualification, yours and hers
Social proof/preselection
Play practical jokes
Amused mastery
Sexual Intent
Kino/Physical escalation (ABE: Always Be Escalating)
State control (composure)
Future pacing (sarcastic or sincere)
Assume the sale
Plausibly inadvertent self-promotion
Calculated vulnerability (faux beta game)
Be chased, don’t chase
Descriptive, emotive language
Backhanded compliments (negs)
Don’t seek approval
Three second rule
Master the art of curious absences
Never apologize to yourself or anyone for your desires as a man
Own your bone
Be critical
Flip the script
Better an asshole than a beta


Power poses
Slow movements
Eye contact
Minimal smiling
Impatient outward glances
No hands in pockets
Open legs
Straight back
Hold your drink low
No fidgeting
Low vocal tone
Slow speech/accentuate every word
Don’t laugh at own jokes
Take up space
Approach after first mutual look
Avoid nervous tics/self-grooming
Pregnant pauses
Look straight or up, never down
Center yourself around your crotch
A little bit of swagger never hurts



good job!
bring da movies

it’s complicated
thanks for the medical report
who brought their little sister?
nice shoes. those are really popular now
it’s a good thing we’re friends
is she always like this?
i don’t buy girls drinks but you can buy me one
your flirting needs work
don’t get the wrong idea
slow down, i need to be wined and dined first
you and i would never work out
what else do you have going for you besides your looks?
i’m just looking for that one woman i click with
your parents must be proud
wait… you’re not a lesbian?
are you allowed to talk to other men without his permission?
speaking from experience?
i didn’t know this was a job interview
where’s the fun in that?
you’re not a dull person, are you? good, let’s go!
don’t get used to it
don’t get clingy
miss me already?
that’s mr. asshole to you
my heart will go on
someone’s in love
hey, hands off the merchandise
this whole thing?… it’s not working
i bet you wrote the book on it
i bet you say that to all the guys
you’re special
let’s stop by my place real quick. but don’t sit down, we’re not staying
if i didn’t know any better i’d say you were trying to pick me up


Progressive resistance weight training
Fitted clothes
Get out in the sun
Curb your porn habit
Find the fashion sweet spot between trendy and splashy
Don’t eat agribusiness crap
Be irreverent
Minimize your online presence beside that needed to pick up American attention whores
Think like a free man
Strive to do what is personally advantageous
Never forget Father Time is breathing down your neck.

Read Full Post »

Tinder Game

Fresh off the forum.swole reservation, here are some screen captures of Tinder chats that brilliantly demonstrate aloof alpha attitude, push/pull, and disqualification game.

(For those of you in the blessed dark, Tinder is a hook-up application that works by tracking girls near you and giving you the chance to “like” them. If a girl matches your like, Tinder will automatically start a conversation between the two of you.)

The man behind these chats is a self-professed “average” looking dude.

Note the evasive framing. “Next time I visit my friends”. She’s an afterthought to him, and she loves it.

“fun sized”. :lol: He qualified her, and now she’s in the psychological space of the chaser, rather than the chasee. Girls love to chase, because the experience is so foreign to them. (And because they perceive a man they are chasing to be an alpha male. If he wasn’t alpha, they wouldn’t be chasing him, naturally!)

He disqualifies her with the firmness. She immediately backpedals.

Sarcastic use of conventional courtship tropes is like a mini value booster. It’s saying, “I know the score, this isn’t my first rodeo, so I’m gonna fuck with social expectations for laughs.” When she throws some beta bait at him, (“dinner and drinks”), he swats it away with the dog park idea.

“#” is the new “…”.

More beta bait, which he evades with a cocky self-disqualification. This fries her hamster circuit, leaving an opening to follow-up with a direct command.

Modern flirting. She’s trying to entrap him into blubbering like a lovesick beta so she can escape the spiral of her increasing horny level. Instead, he sidesteps her hoop with a raunchy joke.

Calculated vulnerability game. Shine like an alpha diamond to draw the women in, then surprise them with a little velvety soft beta plush toy hiding behind your back.

This was a clinic in how to bag the modern woman. Godspeed players, and may your hunt turn this world into a tinder, gentler place.

Read Full Post »

Continuing with our latest CH series exploring the historical records for choice bits of wisdom that would be the equivalent of PUA game and Heartistian theories of the sexual market today, reader Arbiter forwards this excerpt from a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (before it became a women’s rag. Rag. Heh.):

The author explains the “Sissy”:

He is polite and rather anxious to please. He wishes always to do the thing which happens to be the proper thing at any given time. He never would think of initiating anything novel or starting out in a new and unexpected course. He likes very much to be with ladies, and ladies like him – in a way. He is a most useful creature and absolutely harmless, intended by Providence to carry wraps and rugs, to order carriages, to provide theater-tickets, flowers, bon-bons, opera-boxes and four-in-hands, according to his means and the position which he holds. He will call regularly upon a girl and in fact upon all the girls he knows, and he will keep it up for years, and it will never mean anything to him or to them, for he is essentially a tame cat…He is really an indispensable person in our modern life; for it is desirable that young women should have some male creature about them to fetch and carry – one who will do it all for the mere pleasure of the service, and who will never agitate them and disquiet them or make them feel it necessary to be on their guard.

“In a way”. :lol: :lol:

In 1902, (a modern age to the men living back then), men knew what being a beta orbiter meant. Thus we have proof that the sexless friendzone and the female exploitation of servile, supplicating men for “beta bux” have existed for over 100 years, and probably a hell of a lot longer than that.

He then proceeds to describe the qualities that make men respect other men. The explanation is long, but in short he must be honorable, reasonable, courageous and gentle.

The last one does not mean being effeminate, but a refinement in character:

Intellectually it means intuition, sensitiveness to all impressions, and the imaginative element which illumines the dark places of the mind and shows the way to great achievement. Temperamentally it denotes gentleness, and the tenderness which is the perfect complement to strength. It is to men who have this last and finest gift, that other men, since history began, have given not alone their liking but their service, their devotion, and their very lives.

What then is the conclusion? Men like in men these traits: the honor that ennobles; the justice that insures the right; the reasonableness that mellows and makes plain; the courage that proclaims virility; the generous instinct that disdains all meanness; the modesty that makes no boast; the dignity that wins respect; the fineness and the tenderness that know and feel. But when one thinks of it more carefully, may he not sum it up in just a single sentence, and accept it as truth, that all men like a gentleman?

Beta niceguys reading the above passage are undoubtedly saying to themselves, “Reasonableness? Generosity? Modesty? Tenderness? Hey, wait, I have all those qualities! Why don’t men admire me and women invite me to their beds?”

Because, dear beta, you must impress upon people you are those virtuous things by choice, and not by necessity. And the way to prove that is by first demonstrating that you are capable of behaving in the opposite fashion, as suits your needs.

Take a page from the sexy jerk. Watch how he shits with impunity on the polite norms of society, gets the girl and the admiration of his friends, and then pulls a rabbit out of the hat with a sudden and unexpected generous gesture that provokes an explosion of love kibbles raining on his dinner plate.

People, particularly women, overdose on virtue quickly. The scarcity principle applies here. You don’t want to be that dependable guy who’s always there for her; you want to be that inscrutable dark triad jerk whose occasional forays into the Light are greeted with glowing encomiums and flowering furrows.

Read Full Post »

The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528 by Castiglione, dispenses courtship advice that will sound very familiar to modern practitioners of the crimson arts.

[T]he book, whose subject is the proper behavior of men and women at the courts of Renaissance princes, was written by Baldassare Castiglione, an aristocrat, soldier and diplomat who died, at age 50, less than a year after publication of his magnum opus. [...]

For Castiglione the courtier should be acquainted with great literature, know music to the point of being able to play an instrument, be skilled at the arts of oratory, and in conversation employ exquisite tact and apply the art, in his memorable phrase, of “cheating expectations.”

Poon Commandment VI.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

AKA, cheat her expectations.

Not only must the courtier acquire all these skills, he must display them with a casual air of easy mastery. The ideal courtier, Castiglione writes, “must put every effort and diligence into outstripping others a little, so that he may be always recognized as better than the rest.” But he must do so without showing the least strain or hint of affectation. He is to accomplish this through sprezzatura, the art of artlessness, or the art that hides art.

Amused mastery. Demonstrate higher value. Don’t be try-hard. All concepts of modern pickup artist seduction technology that were once Renaissance era wisdom.

The point of the courtier making himself so charming, and of his elegant display of mastery of the arts, is that through them he will raise himself in the prince’s esteem, thereby seducing him into heeding his advice. If the excellence of the courtier’s cultural attainments is “the flower” of his training, “the fruit” lies in helping his prince “toward what is right and to warn him against what is wrong.”

People will hear you better if they are first charmed to fondness.

Game denialists who deploy, among their many ineffectual fusillades against Chateau Heartiste, the argument that game is an aping of the primitive cultures lack all historical perspective. European philosopher-kings knew game, and knew it so well they elevated it from the savannah and refined its practice to suit the demands of their world-beating civilization.

Seduce your fair women to ecstatic surrender. Anything less would be… uncivilized.

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH extended definition of Game:

Applied charisma, i.e. psychological mastery over human perception.

This broader definition is important, because it clarifies to the lay reader the applicability to game to human interactions and pursuits other than those involving romantic gratification. For instance, notice the commonality between Poon Commandment V

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

…and the advice in this article to emulate the email habits of successful businessmen:

Want to get ahead? Emulate the super-successful and never send a long email. [...]

“For various reasons, short emails are more associated with people at the top of the food chain. If you also send short emails it puts you in the company of the decision-makers,” said Will Schwalbe, co-author with David Shipley of Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better. Short emails, he said, are “much more respectful of everyone’s time.” [...]

Writing short emails shows confidence in what you have to say.

It also shows high status. As in matters of the female heart, the person who invests less is admired/loved more. Replying with a shorter email than the one you receive will influence the perception of the person with whom you are communicating to presume your status as relatively higher than his or her own. This is because people instinctively infer, justifiably or not, that the lower investment party is less interested in seeking approval, and indifference to the approval of others is one signal of high value, particularly for men whose fitness — reproductive or otherwise — is determined in large measure by non-physical attributes.

Perception control is the energy source of game. It’s why overconfident men succeed with women just as they do in the world of business.

High status businessmen, like players who seem to have a supernatural pull over women, don’t get mired in long-winded transactions and deliberations with their customers/clients/love interests. They command respect and awe, and inspire curiosity, by holding back when others have an expectation or a desire for more, and by maintaining an emotional and social circumspection that entices estimation and affection.

Read Full Post »

How To Outgame Manipulative Women

PrettyWi$e, a possible troll whose question nonetheless serves to impart a useful lesson, asks,

My girl sent me a nude about 20mins ago… And replied saying “oops wrong number”. I will admit it did get under my shit, but should I even respond to such crap?

What this reader’s girl is running is a form of Reverse Eavesdropping Game. Or, if you prefer simplicity, she has dropped a massive shit test on him.

This is why I suspect the reader is a troll. A common troll tactic on game blogs is to lie about a girl the troll “knows” who uses the game tactics found here to befuddle men. The suspicion is justified because in the real world women hardly ever resort to arcane male game tactics to get men into bed. If a woman wants to bed a man, she only needs to look cute enough and signal her availability.

Troll or not, if you play the field you will encounter the occasional playette who co-opts male game for shits and giggles, or who loves to incite dramatic bursts of jealousy to externally validate her sexual worth. You should know how to handle them.

The correct response to a girl “accidentally” sending you a nude she wants you to think was meant for another man is “bad lighting”.

Other good responses:
“you and ur dad have a weird thing”
“nice save”
“if you want me you just have to ask”
“your flirting technique needs work”

The attitude of indifference and non-reactiveness conveyed by these responses is what matters. There are other responses that would work well, as long as whatever you say has an air of nonchalant condescension and assumed high value. The brilliance of such a reply is that it simultaneously robs the manipulative girl of a victory dance while instantly flipping the script so that she is on the defensive, riddled with doubt about her attractiveness and scrambling to regain the upper hand.

Game doesn’t have to be this malevolent to work, but some girls are just begging for the hamster whip.

PS If this reader’s scenario ever happens to you, it’s a good bet the girl wants you badly and is showing it by making you chase her. Think about it. If a girl really did accidentally send you a nude of herself meant for someone else that she didn’t want you to see, she wouldn’t follow up with an implied apology. She’d go into hiding and hope you don’t bring it up. Or she’d already be two steps out the door on you and in that case not give a shit what you think about her antics.

PPS Another countermeasure to manipulative bitch game is radio silence. If you don’t respond to her incitement to jealousy at all, the next time you and her meet she’ll be chin-deep in hamster turds wondering what you’re thinking about her mischief-making. Keep up the ruse of feigned obliviousness as long as possible, even post-coitally, and she’ll hardly be able to contain her frustration with your inscrutability. An added bonus is that this gives you time to determine if she really is cheating, and to execute the “pump and surprise dump” finishing move should you discover she’s been disloyal. “Ah, that was great. I hope I left some in your tank for that other guy you’re banging. You’re gonna need it.” Right after, toss a razor blade at her. She’ll probably need that too.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,843 other followers

%d bloggers like this: