Reviving Girls

Forget about “opening sets”. Thinking in those terms produces a now or never mentality that is toxic to the proper cultivation of inner game, aka sustained overconfidence. A little bit of pressure is necessary to motivate oneself out of a comfort zone or lazy habit, but too much pressure will fray the smooth, self-assured delivery that is the lifeblood which oxygenates any seduction.

Plus, “opening” implies a continual search for opportunity. When opportunity presents, you pounce. When there is no opportunity, you remain unengaged. Categorizing girls into tiers of opportunity encourages the empowerment of multiple, and usually contradictory, modes of thought and behavior in oneself, which will spill over and pollute your tight game when you need it most. For instance, if you are a cold, unresponsive statue or a dull chit chatter when in the company of taken girls or less attractive girls, then the radical attitudinal shift you will have to muster when you “turn it on” in the company of girls who are available and attractive will seem of outsized difficulty, and you will have burned out before you’ve said one word.

The one mode of thinking will infect the other mode of thinking. To build a better man, you must jettison the ballast of the lesser man.

You must begin substituting the idea of opening sets, or opening in general, with the idea of “reviving” girls. You are reviving them from their slumber of sleepwalking through a world filled with bland beta males. You are reminding them what it is like to interact with a man who knows how to speak to them in the way they primally crave to be spoken to: flirtatiously, cavalierly, confidently, sexily.

In this reality, every girl you meet has come pre-opened and pre-approved, no matter her actual status as a potential lover. You flirt with all of them, because the world’s girls are yours to enjoy, and opportunity for sexual closure is relegated to a more manageable role as a happy coincidence to the goal of improved communication with the opposite sex.

This means you game — i.e., flirt and tease and generally parry in a fashion you wouldn’t with your male buddies — low opportunity girls as genuinely as you would high opportunity girls. Does she have a boyfriend? Is there a ring on her finger? Is she a bit too old for your taste? Is there a kid in tow? Is she a lawyer? Is she not your type? Doesn’t matter. You flirt with those women like you would with single women you really desire. This process builds a base of intuitive and instinctual game that cements in your brain until you don’t need to invoke a separate personality every time you square off with a legitimately high opportunity girl. It also helps to relieve the pressure when a real prospect does come along, because the alpha attitude — aka JERKBOY CHARISMA — will be second-nature to you.

As with all general rules, there are exceptions. Don’t go overboard flirting with every fug you meet. There are two problems with being so indiscriminate with your flirtatious charms. One, some of the fugs will become a little too eager to spin your light flirting into a green light to jump your bones. The less perspicacious of the fugs will have to be put down with swift and deadly force, like you would a charging rhino, and that could leave you with a bad feeling if you’re a nice guy at heart.

Two, an undue reliance on fugs to sharpen your seductive mien is more liable to dull your edge and get you stuck in a fug rut. Nobody likes getting stuck in fugruts, least of all pick-up newbies who are the kinds of men who would get stuck there and stay there, spiraling downward into an abyss of self-loathing and doubts about ever winning the love of better women. You’re a flirting cad machine, but you’re not the sloppy town man ho. Rein it in a bit when the girl is so ugly you can’t stop the smelling-poop look of disgust from materializing on your face.

Revive girls. Coax their inner sex demoness out into the world. Flirt with those taken 5s like you would those single 8s. You may be surprised to find that the ease and self-control with which you dazzle the 5s is unfailingly there to serve you when the time comes to blow the doors off the hottie 8s.

Read Full Post »

Stop Looking At Girls From Across The Room

If you don’t first rid yourself of bad, beta habits, acquisition of positive, alpha habits will be harder to internalize. One thing I see men do all the time is glance up from whatever they are doing to look at cute chicks across the room in hopes of eliciting reciprocal flirty eyeplay. What usually happens next is… nothing.

Girls are not going to suddenly find you irresistibly attractive because your bedroom eyes keep checking them out. They might be flattered or spooked, but rarely aroused. To spark arousal in women, you have to talk to them, with either your mouth or your body. And that means closing the distance fast.

The main problem with multiplying glances is that it tends to become a fallback zone in which to comfortably escape from making the difficult choice of opening a girl and finding out if she’s worth your attention. If you want to go years in between lays, waiting for that one killer glance which will send a girl into your arms, then this “strategy” is for you. But most men prefer their love lives are less insufferably arid.

Refraining from looking around a room multiple times at every girl is a step toward washing the feeble beta from your soul and replacing it with a more powerful alpha frame of mind. You will be tempted, of course, to check out pretty girls. Resist it, and supplant that temptation with another one: to WALK UP to pretty girls and speak to them.

Read Full Post »

Men With Options

How many women do men really want to fuck? The answer, if surveys are to be believed, is a bit less than infinity. Scientists are baffled. A reader writes:

I’ve said on your blog that I consider you a bit of an outlier, someone who places much more importance on sex than the average man. I thought I should bring some data to back that up.  The average man seems to only want about 6 lifetime partners. And gay men, who presumably can get as much sex as they want don’t all go hog wild. If we judge by teh gey only about 32% have more than 10 partners, while only about 18% had more than 20.  Perhaps numbers would be higher without AIDS, but blowjobs (raw) and sex with condoms are both pretty safe, even for gays, so I’m not sure how much to count that. However, even with AIDS, 18% is nothing to sneeze at so you’re not that much of an outlier. As for myself, I too sympathize at least somewhat, in theory, with the guys who want to rack up large numbers. But I try not to judge other people’s sexual proclivities by my own.

None of this contradicts the finding that men are considerably more promiscuous by inclination than women. It just means they aren’t outrageously more promiscuous by inclination.

Ah, self-reported data. Of sexual desire. The least trustworthy data there perhaps exists. As I’ve noted before, people are never more apt to lie than when they are being asked about their sexual habits, or about their sexual desires. The hamster is a rationalization machine first and foremost for sugar-coating lust, the most primeval of the primeval emotional juggernauts that silently yet relentlessly infuses and guides our every thought and action.

But that aside, I actually don’t have much beef with what this self-reported survey data says. I’m not at all surprised that men, when asked how many women they would want to sleep with in the next months or years, would choose a number not fantastically higher than that chosen by women. The hamster resides in male brains as well, (though it is a far less sturdy specimen than that found spinning in female brains), and will happily spit out “acceptable” answers that adhere to social expectations for virtuous behavior. Sometimes these acceptable answers are completely unintentional, and reflect less a hypocritical posturing to conform to cultural pressures than an ego-assuaging, knee-jerk bromide to buttress one’s self-conception.

But reality has a way of intruding on happy thoughts. If a researcher had asked me at age 18 how many women I would want to sleep with in the year ahead, I might have offered, with some haughty self-righteousness derived from precious feelings of romantic abandon and insta-pedestalization, one or two as my optimal number. Had that same researcher asked me, ten years later and post red-pill (as the scallawags would say), how many women I had slept with in the previous year, the number would have been considerably higher than the one I suggested was optimal before a pussy potpourri of options opened themselves to me.

To put it more simply, most men are not going to admit, to themselves or others, that they want to fuck hundreds of women. Or, more precisely, they aren’t going to admit that they would be interested in fucking hundreds of women if the option to do so were readily and uncomplicatedly available to them. Men and women both don’t really like to think of themselves as sex fiends.

And this goes as well for gay men, who, though they have less formidable obstacles to hurdle on the path to sexual release than do straight men, are still nonetheless straitjacketed by some unforgivable rules of the sexual marketplace, such as the fact that ugly gay men are not going to have the same number of opportunities for amassing partner counts as that afforded to handsomer gay men; and of those opportunities the less favorably endowed do have, the urge to capitalize will be much enervated.

And therein lies the crux of skepticism I hold about these sorts of “hey, tell me about your sex life and most secret fantasies!” self-reporting surveys: they aren’t telling me what men, or women, would do IN REAL LIFE if they had no restrictions on their buffet of mate choice. They are only telling me what numerically-bounded desires men and women — most of them by nature enduring severe restrictions on their sexual or romantic opportunities — are acclimatized by circumstance and lifelong experience to expect, and thus to valorize, for themselves.

To find out what men would avail themselves of in real life, we have to examine what kinds of partner counts real men with virtually UNLIMITED OPTIONS acquire. For that, we need to find those men who live with few, if any, constraints on their ability to fulfill their desires.

Men with few restrictions on satisfying their carnal cravings are men with options. By restrictions, I mean anything that could act as a force against the full realization of one’s desires. If most women don’t find you desirable, then you are working with limited options, and this is true no matter how much you tell yourself or others that your small sample platter is just the right amount to slake your desire. If women find you desirable, but social expectation or political calculus discourage your follow-through, then you are working with limited options.

For these reasons, some very alpha men who could theoretically clean up with women don’t make the UNLIMITED OPTIONS MAN cut. A married CEO who could conceivably entertain a harem of adoring lovers is limited by his wife, children and close acquaintances to behave according to certain norms that preclude harem-building. The President of the United States, a super alpha by dint of his station alone, would suffer tremendous blowback from the consequences of sleeping with even a tiny fraction of his admiring thong-y throngs.

No, the men of our modern society who are free in the best sense of the word… the men who have limitless options with women… are unmarried rock stars and famous actors. There are others, but these two groups best exemplify the unchained man. What kind of man has the lustful fervor of millions of women directed at him, and who would not suffer much of any consequences in his personal or career life from indulging in his bounty?

Well, George Clooney comes to mind. Here’s a guy whom women love, and who would not jeopardize his career or social status by sleeping with the maximum number of lovers his heart (and groin) can accommodate. And how may women does such a man with nearly unlimited options accumulate over a lifetime?

A lot. And these are just the women the media know about. Or the women Clooney wants the media to know about. The true number is likely in the hundreds, maybe thousands if we count one night stands and short flings.

PUAs also make the list of men enjoying veritable limitless options. The haters will slip into hate overdrive upon hearing this, but skilled womanizers, as many PUAs are, luxuriate in the attentions of many women, and don’t pay a price for satisfying their desire. The successful PUA does not have a wife or family to protect from his predations, nor does he have a political career that would crumble from public airing of his dalliances. He is, in contrast to the mass of mediocrities railing against his lifestyle, a free man able to meet his own needs, in whatever capacity he deems satisfactory.

This is not to say that men don’t desire long-term relationships with women, or to say that men would not be happy banging fewer than one hundred or more women in the course of their lifetimes. It is simply a perspicacious reminder that, as with women, what men may claim about their ideal number of lovers is often less a true measure of their visceral desire than it is a mental palimpsest revealing underneath the restricted range of limited options within which they necessarily resign themselves.

To quote by way of illustration a billion ugly, obese feminists with severely curtailed options in the dating market:

“I don’t NEED a man!”

My take on this matter, sociological stabs at the truth notwithstanding to the contrary, is that most men are inclined to periods of “settling down” monogamously with a woman of outstanding quality, but that most men would also rack up considerable numbers of lovers between and during their monogamous downtimes if there were no consequences to suffer and they had the option to acquire those lovers relatively effortlessly and expediently.

Since most men labor with a limited menu of options, what we see transpiring in the real world are the top 10-20% of free men acting in accord with the rhythms of their primitive compulsions, and a horde of less-free men learning to love their meager choices.

You want to be a man with options.

The option to love recklessly, or love faithfully.

The option to marry, or to sow your oats as an eternal bachelor.

The option to have kids, and to be assured of your paternity.

The option to date monogamously, or to date profligately.

The option to stay, or to leave. On your terms.

The option to give ultimatums, and to ignore ultimatums.

The option to screw around, or to start a family.

The option to do what you want, when you want it, and to do what others want, when you want it.

This year is the Year of Men With Options. There has never been a time more suited to teach men the art of options than right now, when options everywhere for men seem to be shrinking.

This dwelling of ideas will be your guide.

Read Full Post »

The Benefits Of Older Fatherhood

A common anti-male prerogative hater tactic is to concern troll womanizers about their life trajectories. It usually takes this form:

“What are you going to do? Spend your best years banging one woman after another, and then wind up old and alone? Don’t you want healthy kids?”

Those players who want kids have nothing to worry about. Men produce viable seed well into their dotage, and can theoretically create a lasting legacy with one final, righteous spurt from their deathbeds that sends them to valhalla with a smile on their faces.

Women cannot do this. Once a woman’s eggs are gone, (late 30s to 40s for most women), she is out of the reproduction business altogether. For her, any more sex will strictly and necessarily be for pleasure and intimacy purposes. Or bribery to get her husband to fix the water heater.

But why take my word for it? The science is out and it shows that men benefit from older fatherhood in ways that women will never benefit from older motherhood.

1. A recent study has shown that men who exercise regularly improve the quality of their sperm, counteracting the effects of aging.

[A] new study shows exercise could make sperm quality better; improving a man’s reproductive health.

Diana Vaamonde, a researcher at the University of Cordoba and lead author of the study said in a press release, “We have analysed qualitative semen parameters like the ejaculated volume, sperm count, mobility and sperm morphology.”

For the study the men were also tested for hormone levels that included follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T/C ratio that the researchers explain provides a better picture of the environment needed for sperm creation, in addition to giving a picture of the general health of the 31 men included in the study.

The results showed men who exercise more had faster swimming sperm that was more perfectly formed, compared to their sedentary counterparts. Exercising appears to create a more favorable environment for sperm creation that comes from healthy hormone levels.

The good news is the researchers say it only takes moderate exercise to keep your sperm in good shape.

According to the CDC, it’s possible to change a man’s sperm with healthy lifestyle changes.

As far as we know, there is no amount of exercise in the world that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 1, older moms 0.

2. Another study find that older men who eat healthy have less age-related damage to their sperm.

As far as we know, there is no amount of healthy eating that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 2, older moms 0.

3. A study which acts like a shiv to the feminist careerist heart finds that the risk of autism goes up considerably more in the children of older mothers in all age ranges than it does in the children of older fathers.

The older a mother is when she gives birth, the higher her child’s risk of autism, new data show.

A smaller effect also is seen for the age of the father, but only when the child is born to a father over age 40 and a mother under age 30.

As far as we know, there is no amount of feminist delusion that will make an older woman’s eggs relatively as healthy as an older man’s sperm.

Score: Older dads 3, older moms 0.

4. Finally, a Stanford study finds that it is evolutionarily good when older men have kids with younger women. May-December romances weed out life-shortening mutations and promote health and longevity in the human population.

Old Men Chasing Young Women: A Good Thing

It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species, according to new findings by researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Evolutionary theory says that individuals should die of old age when their reproductive lives are complete, generally by age 55 in humans, according to demographer Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate in biological sciences at Stanford. But the fatherhood of a small number of older men is enough to postpone the date with death because natural selection fights life-shortening mutations until the species is finished reproducing.

“Rod Stewart and David Letterman having babies in their 50s and 60s provide no benefit for their personal survival, but the pattern [of reproducing at a later age] has an effect on the population as a whole,” Puleston said. “It’s advantageous to the species if these people stick around. By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes.” [...]

In the paper, the researchers analyzed “a general two-sex model to show that selection favors survival for as long as men reproduce.” The scientists presented a “range of data showing that males much older than 50 years have substantial realized fertility through matings with younger females, a pattern that was likely typical among early humans.” As a result, Puleston said, older male fertility helps to select against damaging cell mutations in humans who have passed the age of female menopause, consequently eliminating the “wall of death.”

“Our analysis shows that old-age male fertility allows evolution to breach Hamilton’s wall of death and predicts a gradual rise in mortality after the age of female menopause without relying on ‘grandmother’ effects or economic optimality,” the researchers say in the paper.

So older fathers are gifting us all more years of life on this chortling roil. When you say your prayers this Sunday, be sure to include an hallelujah for dirty old men.

Score: Older dads 1 billion, older moms 50 cats.

I wonder if this means that aging cougars settling for younger, desperate beta males — as seems to be the trend lately in the West — is shortening the human lifespan? Cougars? Yuck. Dashing gentlemen? Yay!

I’m enjoying life right now sans sprog, but I anticipate that when I get older there is an outside chance I will feel a pull toward creating from my dark matter-infused slamseed a few heirs to suckle at my much younger lover’s milky white teats. While I have never been concerned with any possibility of setback in that hypothetical department, it’s nice to know the science affirms my life choices as not only practicable, but also moral.

Also, as an anecdote, I know a couple of older fathers — married to women ten years or more younger than themselves — whose sons are the most well-adjusted, confident, and happy boys I have ever had the pleasure to impart with my shadowy wisdom to meet. Sue me for extrapolating from personal observation, but it’s my impression that the most stable and loving families with the happiest and most grounded kids are those where dad is older than mom. Selection effect for older, high status alpha males by younger women? Perhaps. Or maybe older dads, wielding a history of knowledge and a wider perspective that younger dads don’t yet possess, simply bring more gravitas to family affairs, and therefore naturally and organically induce respect and admiration from their kids.

***

I expect this post to really chafe the hides of a few flabby-rumped cunts and their manboobed apologists. There will be much Q_Q and gnashing of labia. And it will be good.

Read Full Post »

Heartiste’s First Law Of Fatherhood

Men have a lot to say about fatherhood and imparting the values and knowledge that will assist sons (and daughters) in navigating a rapidly decaying culture.

Reader AAB writes:

The problem with fathers not teaching their sons about masculinity is that those sons grow up to become emasculated men, then fathers. A few generations down the line, your entire male population has been raised entirely by women (whilst the emasculated fathers were at work), and you end up like Japan, full of Hikkomori (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
), Grass Eaters, and Incest (
http://seedofjapheth.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/japanese-incest/
).

In a similar vein, anon writes:

The problem is that game has radically changed in the last 50 years. Your father’s info is obsolete in the bloody pulp that cultural marxism has left of our culture. Modern young women are LOL pathological narcissists who are nearly impossible to talk to without inducing a headache (not the case 50 years ago), so Pa isn’t going to provide the knowledge to work with them. This site is a “how to” for MODERN women with their pathologies.

To quote a british 13 year old in a sexting article yesterday “When you grew up you asked a girl to kiss, today you ask them for sex.”

John O’Sullivan, a former National Review editor, has a First Law which states that:

Any institution not explicitly conservative will become liberal with the passage of time.

Sounds about right. I think the same formulation can apply to fathers and sons and the active sexual market.

Heartiste Maxim #70: Any son not explicitly taught about the ways of women by an experienced father will become more beta under the influence of his mother.

Corollary to Maxim #70: A society of ascendent female academic, workforce, political and family influence necessarily emasculates its sons and masculinizes its daughters.

The urge to pedestalize women seems to be innate in many men, and the absence of strong fatherly guidance away from such sappy, self-defeating thinking is a luxury only a few dark triad demonic spawns of single moms can tolerate without suffering total emotional castration. A father who neglects his duty to teach his son all he knows of women — the good the bad and the hypergamous — or who teaches him the wrong lessons, or who leaves the teaching of such valuable lessons to the mother, is a tragic participant in the slow but steady betatization of his son. Don’t be that father.

Read Full Post »

Why Don’t Fathers Teach Their Sons Well?

How many of the men reading this have fathers who give (or gave) them realtalk about women? How many had heart to hearts with Pops about what women really desire in men? Reader Zombie Shane writes:

I have a theory about “The Natural”.

It’s kinda the White Peoples’ version of Amy Chua and the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

And here’s the theory: I think that some Dads CHEAT and teach their sons all the secrets at a very young age.

Kinda like what Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel used to do with that fat obnoxious kid on The Man Show.

Can you imagine how much more poontang you would have scored in the early years if your Dad had taught you the forbidden secrets?

But instead your Dad forces you to be self-taught and to learn all the lessons for yourself.

Yeah, long-term, it’s a much better character-building exercise to absorb all the “hard knocks”, and to learn from experience, but wow, can you imagine if you had had the “White-Peoples-Amy-Chua-Dad” in, say, Middle School?

Being an 8th-Grader and hitting on all that fine-assed perky young just-barely-pubescent poontang?

Shit damn, man, shit damn.

Actually, on second thought [thinking about all that jailbait tail], maybe I should thank my Dad for keeping me out of prison [or at least out of Reform School] at that age…

The fact that you had a dad around to raise you is a leading indicator he is a beta male who himself didn’t know the secrets to women. That’s my theory for why more fathers don’t teach their sons the truth about women: they don’t know it themselves!

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a beta male for a father. If you like civilization you can thank beta male fathers.

Another theory that perhaps explains why so many fathers neglect their duty to impart the lessons of love to their sons is that they feel embarrassed talking about these topics. Even the most cold-blooded womanizers would squirm a little when the time came for them to teach what they’ve learned to their sons. And it’s easy to understand why: when you know women inside and out, you can’t help but be aware of their unsavory natures. Any talk with your son is going to necessarily implicate his mother.

Finally, there are some fathers who are so alpha that they actually view their sons as competition. To them, revealing the secret of snatch is like fraternizing with the enemy. These aging Lotharios wistfully long for the days when pubescent poose clung to them like dryer lint. In some dark recess of their minds, they harbor an envy for their sons which motivates them to conceal their knowledge.

Ultimately, though, I think the best explanations for the dearth of fatherly wisdom regarding female nature is that there are too few fathers experienced in the ways of women to know what to teach, and there are too many fathers protective of their children’s mothers who fear the risk that dangerous knowledge would tarnish by association the esteem with which the children hold their mothers (and sisters).

There is also the theory — and I throw this out here for completeness — that fathers are somehow genetically or psychologically predisposed to encourage their sons to attain resources and status to win the attentions of high value women, and that this mitigates against them teaching their sons the dark arts of seduction which would enable them to short circuit the laborious process that is the conventional method for attracting women.

As regards the origin of Naturals, the greatest influence on them is likely to have been their peers rather than their fathers. Or, if they have been influenced by their fathers, to have been influenced *despite* their fathers’ reticence to share their wisdom. I suspect Naturals benefit from three advantages, in varying degrees of imprint, that most men don’t have:

1. Fathers and friends who teach them the effective (note: I did not say morally righteous) alpha attitude through their own behavior with women.

2. Favorable genetic traits in whatever ratio, which may include sociopathy, narcissism, lack of empathy, mesomorphy, good looks, high sociosexuality, intelligence, artistry, humor.

3. Fortuitous successful early encounters with girls that set the budding Naturals on a path of alluring self-assurance.

So… if your father was an unapologetic cheater, you see vaginas in every Rorschach test, and you got your first knob job at the ripe age of seven, chances are good you are a Natural with women. Chances are also good you would not be able to teach other men what you know, because you only know it intuitively.

Read Full Post »

The Natural’s Dilemma

The Natural — the man who has a seemingly otherworldly ability to entrance women. The Natural — not the CEO, nor the jet fighter, nor the doctor — is the man most men secretly admire and wish they had some of his mysterious mojo.

But in reality he does not possess any magical abilities out of reach of ordinary men. The Natural is similar to the self-taught pickup artist, with the critical distinction being that the former assimilated the lessons of love earlier in life. His masterstrokes paint the canvas of women effortlessly because he has been in training since he first noticed that girls and boys are different. If you break down the game of Naturals, you’ll learn that their maneuvers and tactics and strategies, far from being indefinable essences that only a very few lucky can lay claim to, are in fact identical to the blueprints of learned game.

Neither is the Natural necessarily good-looking. Many Naturals, perhaps most of them, are nondescript in the looks department. But because there is good reason to think a lot of them have inherited the Dark Triad suite of personality traits, they are skilled at presenting themselves in a way that projects their sex appeal, or invents it whole cloth, if need be.

No, what the Natural has that mere mortals don’t is this: UNSTOPPABLE CONFIDENCE. They had the ALPHA ATTITUDE at a young enough age that it became ingrained to such an extent they rarely yield to the temptation to doubt their appeal to women.

But the Externally Validated Natural who has spent a lifetime leaning on his looks/social connections/fame to get laid has a dilemma. As a reader puts it:

I’ve said it many times before, the most pathetic thing in the world is a natural who has lost his mojo.

The very blessing that makes The Natural an early adopter ladykiller is the curse that hobbles him later in life when challenges arise that introduce cracks to his impenetrable edifice of entitlement. You see, the Externally Validated Natural has not bothered to learn the crimson arts. He has not mastered the state control that is necessary when inevitable dry spells occur, or when glances from women are fewer and farther between, or when uppity women with visions of mcmansion upgrades dancing in their heads give him shit he is not accustomed to receiving. He has never studied how to remain aloof and indifferent in the face of female fickleness because he has rarely experienced what life is like as a beta male who must battle to be loved, rather than watching love fall in his lap like autumn leaves.

The Natural who understands on a more than superficial level the nature of women, and who has a working familiarity with game concepts, is a force ten charmer. Most Naturals don’t; they do the right things without knowing how or why they do them. When success eludes them and the expected warmth from women is missing, they are left with nothing, no storehouse of knowledge or pride of past successes achieved through self-aware hard work, to pull them up from a dangerous downward spiral into the betatude they never quite understood either.

Read Full Post »

The Female Snarl And The Male Smirk

The female snarl has become a topic of conversation, which is not surprising because American women in general are becoming less feminine and more churlish. When in the past women would gently demur the solicitations of beta and omega males, today they prefer the unrefined art of snarling like a hyena over a fresh kill, the kill being their overworked vaginas. Meanwhile, alpha males witness them snarling ungenerously and think, “Marriage material? Nope. Pump and dump material? Yes!”

don’t bother me. i’m pooping a purple saguaro.

The author of the linked article posits that the frequency with which women snarl correlates to their age and the sexual market threat level of the targets of their disapproval.

A woman arguably snarls between five to twenty times a day. The frequency is directly related to maturity. The more immature, the more the snarl appears. High school, consistently snarling. College, frequently. Twenties, sporadically. Thirties, only when they see a younger woman. There have probably been a couple snarls while reading this.

Ha haa. I’d add that the snarl is increasing among all female age groups, though younger women do use it more profligately, and with good reason: there are more beta males lasciviously eyeing their goods for penile plunder. What’s a hot babe to do? She has to fend them off by the hundreds, and a fat cockblock won’t be there for her every time. So the snarl is unfurled like a banner of bitchiness.

Why do women overuse the snarl to such potent effect? Simple: they don’t get called out on it by their designated targets. Most beta males wilt like flowers in the high noon summer heat when they get blasted with the snarl shockwave. “Oh, sweet fancy moses, excuse me for so presumptuously intruding upon your oxygen supply. I shall slink away now and hope my penis has reemerged from under my pubic bone when I return hope to fap the night away.”

The thing is, the female snarl is exceedingly easy to call out without resorting to butthurt confrontation.

“Nice face.”

“Are you pooping?”

“Sniffing for grubs?”

“You look like my hamster! Wait, don’t stop doing that. It’s great!”

“Finally got a whiff of my sex panther cologne, eh?”

Or, you could answer the female snarl with the male equivalent:

i’m sorry, are you supposed to mean something to me?

Ah, the alpha male smirk. As penetrative of women’s self-entitled bitch shields as their snarl is of beta males’ self-confidence. The perfectly timed smirk is the best comeback plus more. It instantly patronizes, condescends and belittles, without so much as revealing an iota of spite or care that might be used by a woman to anchor another bitchy barrage.

A fantastically egregious bitch — let’s say, a chubster wearing too much makeup and muffin top who thinks every man wants her and deserves her worst shit tests — requires a bit more… encouragement… to reform her ill-suited attitude. In such circumstances, the smirk won’t pack the necessary wallop. You’ll need something edgier.

Read Full Post »

Economic Game Theory Support For Male Relationship Coyness

A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.

Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.

The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we’re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.

In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn’t and he’s looking for commitment or he’s not. Therefore, he’s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.

Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There’s no apparent upside to guy D.

That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man’s dating outlook?

• guy A: he’s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
• guy B: he is incapable of commitment
• guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
• guy D: he’s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I’m not in his league)

Guy B is an interesting case, but I don’t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he’s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can’t get it from guy B. That said, he’s better than desperate guy A.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It’s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don’t chase game.

• guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don’t chase game
• guy D: indirect only; don’t chase game only

If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you’ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don’t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.

You can also simulate a “seek no commitment” outlook by treating the woman poorly.

An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.

You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.

If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.

And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.

If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.

If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women’s senses and so fulfilling to women’s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.

Best case scenario for men who can’t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it’s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being “too nice”.

So far, so good. But… I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman’s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to “chase” an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don’t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.

I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.

Read Full Post »

Being The Right Kind Of Asshole

Occasionally, an oh-so-sincere skeptical reader will insist that being the jerk women love doesn’t work, because he/she/it saw some guy calling a girl a bitch once, and that guy didn’t get laid.

The height of counter-argument prowess!

As this blogasmic beacon of bounteous love has written before, there is a critical distinction between being a “caring asshole” that signals to women you are desperate for their vaginas, and being an aloof “uncaring asshole” that signals to women you could do without their vaginas, which ironically makes their vaginas feel strong love.

(I will leave aside for another post examination of putative examples to the contrary, such as those supreme assholes like Chris Brown and Mexican drug lords who, full of care, beat their women to pulps yet still enjoy the undying love of their attractive targets of affliction.)

If you are having trouble dissecting the meaning of being an uncaring asshole, think upon the personality quirks that define a man who has inherited (or honed) the suite of Dark Triad traits. He is closest to the manifestation of the ideal uncaring asshole.

Reader Ripp writes:

“The Dark Triad are the component parts of the one overarching attitude that most defines and forges the successful womanizer: overconfidence.”

Agreed, academically. To qualify overconfidence:

The art of exhibiting these qualities is commonly misrepresented by being a deliberate asshole; a ‘caring asshole’. Irrational overconfidence, or ‘cockyness’, doesn’t hit the mark.

Calculated arrogance, effectively demonstrated pre-selection, a refined non-reactive attitude to shit testing and a mysterious self-serving aloofness comprises the “attitude” described above.

Uncalibrated “overconfidence” is try hard. Yielding true overconfidence at the correct moments hits the mark:

“Listen. I don’t know you…and you need to understand. I’m one charming mother fucker.”

This reader has a point. If you have to shout your overconfidence from the rooftops, you have shown the exact opposite: a lack of self-confidence.

But most Dark Triad Dudes are irrationally overconfident, if by irrational we mean that there is very little objective evidence that would buttress a case for their degree of self-regard. The reason they do well with women is because women don’t subconsciously care as much for objective measures verifying a man’s overconfidence as they care for the overconfident attitude itself. And, remember, when we’re talking about sparking vaginal tingles, it’s a woman’s subconscious you want to massage, not her conscious awareness. The subconscious is orders of magnitude more powerful than the conscious, in which the latter pretty much acts as a highly advanced rationalization machine permitting expression of the desires of the subconscious.

Again… it’s the ALPHA ATTITUDE chicks dig. You have the attitude, and you can pretty much roll with any undersized or overstuffed portfolio of objective accomplishments. If you don’t have the attitude, you will be dismayed to find that your curriculum vitae is not helping you get laid as much as the numbers you crunched told you it would help.

Naturally, it’s better to have both aligned — you’ll find it easier to maintain congruence if your objective status matches your signaling status — but if you had to choose one, choose signaling status. It’s way simpler to achieve, and more fun to apply!

I’ll give you a quick glimpse at a minute in the life of a caring asshole, so that you can better appreciate why he fails with women while his equal but different douchehead cousin cleans up with the ladies.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares too much: “Well, fuck you, nobody asked for it.”

Girl: “You just did.”

Asshole who cares too much: “I was kidding. I would never go out with a bitch like you.”

There’s no denying this guy is an asshole, and there’s no denying he would be a miserable failure with women (although, it has to be said, he’d still do better than the typical mincing betabot). So where did his assholery go wrong? For that, we need to contrast him with his uncaring asshole bro.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “My heart will go on.”

Girl: “Well, you did seem like you wanted it.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “That was before I got distracted by your sister.”

In every technical aspect, and according to every feminist by-law, this guy would qualify as an asshole. And, yet, there’s just something about him….

wait… phew… I channeled some woman’s hamster there for a minute. Strange experience.

The second guy knows about charm and delivery, and executes with purpose. That purpose being, to reflect, “Goddamn, I am a sexy beast. A stylish sniper of love. Excuse me whilst I make 1080p love to myself.”

He is as far from your typical niceguy as he is from your hothead asshole above who calls women bitches at the drop of a hat. But an asshole he is, and the right kind of asshole, the kind that women, the world over, will always and forevermore fall head over haunches for despite their squid-inking claims to the contrary.

Read Full Post »