Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Stanley Kubrick On Game

Hat tip: Sunny Bunny.

The readers have responded to this post’s game challenge with a show of force. It’s a good sign that men who come to this blog are still interested in learning how to pick up women. The scrotal sack of Western man is not yet drained of life.

Many commenters felt that it was a fool’s errand to pursue a girl who had shot her hand up and and barked “No!” before the man could get one word out.

Game shaman YaReally essentially subscribed to this point of view.

And the instant “No” girls aren’t judging you as a human being because they haven’t met and interacted with you. They’re just lumping you in with a type of low-value guy because for whatever reasons that’s the headspace they’re in at the moment and she wasn’t aware of you doing anything to NOT be lumped in with those guys before you approached.

It’s all very simple. Ones and zeroes, binary shit: If you’re high-value in her mind, she’ll talk to you, if not she’ll lump you with the rest and not give you a chance. So you can either walk away and take the loss, or figure out how to build your value to her. Those are the two options. She still won’t owe you shit even if you build your value, and she doesn’t owe you the opportunity TO demonstrate higher value. IDEALLY, you DHV’ed in front of her before approaching so you don’t get the “No” in the first place, but assuming that’s happened you have two options: You either find a way to DHV or you move on.

I don’t disagree with Ya or with readers who’ve expressed a similar sentiment; as a matter of principle and of practice, it’s best to NEXT a No Girl with apathetic prejudice. If you’re getting a NO! and a Heisman before you’ve opened your mouth, you’ve got a high hurdle that’s not worth the effort to jump. YaReally’s ideal suggestion — to promptly backturn the No Girl and engage an adjacent group while loudly announcing within No Girl’s earshot “wow, that girl HATES me. I didn’t even get past the word ‘hi’. Looks like I’ll be a virgin forever. :(” — is, in my view, the best option from among a really limited set of options.

But the original reader asking for advice did not ask for the ideal response; he asked for the response that would “salvage and optimize” the interaction with No Girl. He wanted to know what he could say or do that would have a chance of turning No Girl around, despite the heavy odds against him. That’s why his question was the topic of a “Test Of Your Game” post.

Assuming he doesn’t have the convenience of an adjacent mixed set he can leverage YaReally-style, he’ll have to game No Girl on her terms. That means a direct verbal or nonverbal reply. The best of the commenters’ suggestions follow. For some, I’ve included a grading system. Entertainment Value measures how hard you, and perhaps No Girl’s circus elephants, would laugh if you were there watching it happen.  Workabiliity describes how easy or difficult it would be for a newb to pull it off in the field. And Game Tightness is an appraisal of the chances that the response would actually spur No Girl’s curiosity and attraction.

 pupton1974 writes,

By saying “Talk to the hand” she has announced her status as a bitch. Hold nothing back. I don’t want to turn her lemon into lemonade. I want her to feel like the turd she is. Any of these with a “don’t give a fuck” smirk could take her down a peg:

1) “Eww, it looks like you’ve pitted out that blouse really bad.”
2) “Put your arm down, you’re attracting flies.”
3) “Raise your hand if you have a yeast infection.”

#3 is the best. “Raise your hand if [X]” is a good all-purpose takedown of the No Girl’s signature “talk to the hand” maneuver.

Entertainment Value: A+
Workability: C (These lines can be a mouthful under pressure.)
Game Tightness: D (Don’t expect this tack to result in a mutually satisfying interaction.)

***

monster211 writes,

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: *sneeze all over her hand, wipe your nose with your arm while sniffling and then wink while nonchalantly grabbing your crotch*

I would pay to see a guy sneeze violently on a No Girl’s jivemama hand.

Entertainment Value: A
Workability: D (You’d better be able to sneeze on command.)
Game Tightness: F (Hard to see this leading to a love match.)

***

Days of Broken Arrows flashes his Macchiavelli card,

“No.”

“Um…I was going to ask if you were one of my sister’s friends. She died last month. Have a nice day.”

Cold as ice. I can’t think of a better wedge between No Girl and her friends. The shame will burn to the bone.

Entertainment Value: C (A downer for everyone but you.)
Workability: C (You’ll need good acting chops.)
Game Tightness: B (If she believes you, she’s yours. If not, she still might be yours. At least, one of her friends will want to console you.)

***

Danny Kovach channels a young alpha male:

“Your hands look like my grandma’s”

Entertainment Value: B
Workability: A (Short and sweet.)
Game Tightness: B (More insult than neg, given the context. Don’t expect miracles.)

***

Anonymous couples the high five with a disqualification,

hahahaaa, my immediate response was the high 5 with a huge grin on my face before i even finished reading, maybe followed with ‘eww, whats that on your hand, thats fucking disgusting’ and then a ‘made you look’.

I like the high five. It’s quick and easy to pull off on a No Girl (she might not even see it coming, what with her head facing the other way), it’s surprising, it’s amusing for you and her friends, and it can open up a lot of disqualification possibilities and enable follow-up ramble game. It’d be really funny if you execute the high five, grinning like a jerk, as you’re passing by her to talk to her friend. An alternate but similar version of the high five is “rock paper scissors”; start playing the game with her when her hand shoots up.

Entertainment Value: B (High fives lift everyone’s mood.)
Workability: A (Easy peasy lemon squeezy.)
Game Tightness: C- (Outside chance No Girl turns into Yes Girl.)

***

corvinus takes a shot at her id,

“Hmm, no wedding ring. Figures.”

Another superb shiv that draws its blood without much thrashing about. But as another commenter suggested, it might be more “game savvy” to frame this reply differently, less spitefully. “Hmm, nice wedding ring.” Nuanced wording can create wildly different impressions.

***

gnarlinbrando writes,

*sexy grin and slight chuckle to yourself* then look to her friends:

“Is she always this much fun?”

This is a classic PUA neg. The goal is to embarrass her and DHV yourself, while getting her group to switch allegiance.

***

DangerWolf opts for the nonverbal, physical tease,

Immediately back-turning and talking to another girl, then slowly backing up into her and, if she objects, shouting “no!” with the hand gesture is also fun.

Just sticking around No Girl after the fact can make it deliciously awkward for her and fun for you, as long as you aren’t sticking around nursing your butthurtness. This tactic only works if you have a YaReally-esque scenario set up where another group is directly adjacent and available to open.

***

Boron and a host of commenters went the palm reading route,

Pretend to read palm.
“And this is your cat line. I see A LOT of cats in your future.”

Entertainment Value: C (Most people aren’t good at this.)
Workability: D (You’ve really got to command her attention for the duration.)
Game Tightness: B (If it sticks, you’re in like WIN!)

***

leahnnovash tries the plausible deniability strategy,

If she is alone, simply ask if I can take one of the extra chairs.

Entertainment Value: B (Could be really funny if timing is perfect.)
Workability: B (How good is your state control?)
Game Tightness: F (It’ll save face, but not much else.)

Others suggested similar versions of Plausible Deniability Game (cf., Francis Beam’s comment about sipping her drink and wincing). It’s popular among the commentariat. Done well, yeah I do think this can take the wind out of No Girl’s sails, but the dynamic between you and her won’t be much altered. Also, PD Game could backfire if it’s obvious you first approached her with an intention to hit on her.

***

whorefinder blows up the joint,

flash and smoke and smell of sulfur. Whorefinder appears

Why, thank you, kind sir. However, the treatment for this kind of Obama voter, er, See-You-Next-Tuesday rag is a bit different…

1. Observe hand.

2. Slowly check the crowd’s reaction from left to right.

3. Smile in friendship and extend your own hand, shaking hers, and pulling her onto her feet.

4. Quick, sharp kick to her stomach, double-middle finger to her face , and STUNNER, STUNNER BY GAWD J.R. ITS A STUNNER!!!!!

….

5. And only THEN rape….on the floor in front of the entire bar/club.

Stone Cold Awesome Rape! Rape on, gentlemen, rape on!

flash and smoke and sulfer. Whorefinder vanishes

Entertainment Value: A+ (A++ if smoke bomb included.)
Workability: F (Good luck!)
Game Tightness: F (Rape Game Tightness: A)

***

newlyaloof writes,

Girl: No!
You to her friend: Hmm. I like your friend. She’s feisty.

This is another take on “making lemonade out of lemons” game. The “feisty” line has been a staple of PUA tactics for a long time. The idea is that it signals your imperturbability. Nothing gets under your skin. Chicks like that about men.

***

anotheronetakesthepill,

That’s right. No, I don’t wanna get you pregnant

Funny, quippy, jerkish. Wanna see just how much funnier, quippier, and jerky you can get. Post your progress. #TINGLENATION.

***

Area Man reminisced,

This comment from a few years ago is still the winner:

“So I guess a blow job in the parking lot is out of the question?”

Entertainment Value: B- (Entertaining for you, not for her.)
Workability: B- (Gonna be tough to say this with a straight face.)
Game Tightness: D- (May work on a crazy slut with a history of dating serial killers.)

***

Eeyore tries Disagree&Amplify,

Disagree and amplify [meta, you're agreeing to play disagree]. Yes! Yes like you’re Ben fucking Kingsley. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Dean Moriarity turned up to 11. Preach it. Sell the fuck out of yes, like you’re discovering it for the first time. Yes is America, Apollo 11, and that first girl who let you feel her up when you were supposed to be doing homework. What the fuck is no? No is no. No is nothing. Yes is everything else. Yes is what you want, what she wants, what everybody wants. So yes. Yes to yes. Fuck yes. No fucking no. Yes.

My hunch is she will either (a) disagree more and more playfully or (b) shrink away (and look at you in awe). Regardless, your name for her is Yes. The rest is superfluous.

D&A is taking a page out of Toddler Game. If you are truly a No Fucks Given kinda guy, I say try it out. NOYESNOYESNOYESYESYESNO!!!YESYESYESEVERYTHINGYES
WE’RECOMINGUPYESATHOUSANDYESSESMLADY!!!!

Anyone who tries this is required to report back to CH with his results.

***

Steve enlightens us all,

If you don’t have a fart ready to fire, a burp will do.

Entertainment Value: B+ (Until the smell hits.)
Workability: F (Unless you ate a burrito beforehand.)
Game Tightness: Who cares? I don’t think I’d stop laughing if I saw this go down.

***

Anonymous gets to the heart of the matter,

“who’s gay”

The trick to this reply is NEUTRALITY. It only works as intended if your facial expression and vocal tone are blank and monotone respectively. If you insert emotion, it’s liable to come off angry.

***

Nathan imaginatively writes,

Keep it simple:
sticking your tongue out and ice cube to the neck/down the dress


‘At least I’m not wasting my time’, 360, moonwalk away

Whorefinder has competition in the Totally Unrealistic But Awesome If You Can Pull It Off Game challenge.

***

Finally, from Mean Mr. Mustard, there’s Penis Game.

Entertainment Value: Busts the grade curve.
Workability: A+ if flaccid, C+ if erect.
Game Tightness: A+ in Toronto and Wellesley.

Men instinctively know to avoid single moms and BPD headcases. No man wants to help raise another man’s kid, and crazy drama whores aren’t much fun after the post-coital glow wears off.

Now we can add another archetype to the list of women to avoid: The Credentialist Whore.

Reader Dr. Giggles explains,

Perhaps we’ve found another type of woman who, like the single mom, should be avoided by men at all costs. Call her the credentialist bachelorette. She carries baggage like the single mom in the form of spiraling college debt which you end up subsidizing, by either paying for everything during the relationship, or outright paying the debt itself once married. Unlike the bastard spawn you can kick to the curb once it turns 18, the debt may last into her golden years, according to a recent Beta times article.

A woman who whores herself out for useless college credentials like an MA in Vagina Pondering, and amasses a mountain of debt on her quest for status feels and anonymous urban fucking, is a horrible long-term relationship prospect. Not only will you invariably get stuck directly or indirectly paying off chunks of her debt, you will have to deal with her insufferable “credentialed girl” entitlement lovingly honed from years fobbing her bills off on her daddy. If you’re really unlucky, she might be the type of CW to unload on you about the patriarchy during a first date.

File the Credentialist Whore, along with the Single Mom and Crazy Bitch, under “pump and dump”, and don’t even think about moving in with her. Sex is a lot more satisfying when you’re not paying for it in some form or another.

Researchers performed a historical analysis of cohabitation in the US and discovered that previous estimates of cohabitation understated the pace of change after 1960, and that the cohabitation rate before 1970 and going back to 1880 was historically low. After 1970, cohabitation rose dramatically, and has not stopped rising.

1970 appears to be the foremost dividing line between “good, functional, beautiful America” and “bad, dysfunctional, ugly America”. So many social ills explode with a ferocity sometime around 1970, and continue exploding right to the present day. Count them out.

Single momhood.
Obesity.
Male unemployment.
Divorce. (Appears to have plateaued recently, thanks in part to fewer marriages.)
Total marriage rate.
Alternative mating arrangements.
STDs.
Abortion.
Low White fertility.
Astronomical debt.
Crime. (Though crime began a long decline in the 1990s, thanks in part to mass incarceration and internet porn.)
Feminism.
Equalism.
Multiculturalism.
PC neoPuritanism.
Anti-white and anti-free association Acts.
Wiggers.
SJWs.
Slut parades.
Fat acceptors.
Credentialism.
Bryan Caplan.
$22 trillion wasted in malign “war on disparate outcomes”.
Hijacking of every major public institution by the Left.
Diversity graft.
Welfare replacing workfare.
Parasite shamelessness.
Surveillance nation.
Manboobery.
White population displacement.

And the Big Kahuna that arguably precipitated or magnified at least half of the culture diseases in the above list:

The 1965 Open Borders to the Non-White European World Act.

It makes one wonder if a supervillain dumped a mind-altering drug in American water supplies in the summer of ’69 that stripped citizens of the character traits which were responsible for the relative sanity of previous generations.

Cohabitation, like abortion, may not necessarily qualify as a social ill (e.g., cohabitation “works”, so far as we know, in the Swedish parts of Sweden), but let’s just say both are leading indicators of trouble brewing in the mating market.

And a generation unable to talk straight or feel healthy human emotions because they’re either utterly brainwashed into true belief or cowed into sociopathic self-policing by anti-white shock troops is a leading indicator of a culture on the verge of giving itself over to the sweet release of death.

Some social problems, notably crime, are cyclical, following patterns for which we yet struggle to identify causes. But even the cyclical social ills experience a radical jump and disheartening persistence after 1970 that set them apart from previous incarnations. Emergence of new ills and amplification of old ills is the story of late 20th century and early 21st century America. Ebola ain’t got nothin’ on whatever post-1970 shadow poison rots the soul of this once glorious nation.

Demography Is Destiny

What does a nation in slow-motion self-destruction look like? A diligent reader supplies a handy graphic and description of the demographic doom that foretells the last days of America as we know her.

*****

Here’s why the country is doomed. Below are demographic breakdowns of the two major parties in 1976 and 2012, based on presidential preference vote. Republicans basically look now like the way they did in 1976, but see how the Democrats have changed! Was 85% white now just 56%. Soon the Democrats will be a minority-majority party. But blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will always vote 70-30 or more with the big-government/emperor/caudillo party. It’s part of their genetic/cultural heritage and will not be changed by things like ideas or arguments. It’s just how those folks are wired.

This is also why the country is so polarized generally, even in the absence of a major polarizing issue like slavery or Vietnam, and why the country has gone from high-trust to low-trust. We’re all just too different from each other now and there’s no turning back. Like I say, we are doomed. But you knew this already. Keep up the good work. Many thanks for your ongoing posts and tweets.

Racial Breakdown of Major Parties
1976 vs 2012
Based on Presidential Preference

Democrat                              Republican
1976           2012                       1976           2012

85                 56         White          94                88
15                 24          Black           3                  2
2                   14       Hispanic        1                  6
N/A              4           Asian           N/A            2
N/A              2           Other           N/A            2

Source: Roper

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_76.html

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

PS: Demographic breakdown of voters then and now (in percent):

                 1976      2012
White       89         72
Black        9           13
Hispanic  1           10
Asian        N/A     3
Other        N/A     2

******

Because whites still comprise a (precarious) majority of the electorate, if Republicans can increase their share of the white vote by 5-10%, they can win at least for a few more election cycles. But the demographics are baked in the cake. As the youth bubble of latinos and asians bulges into voting age and whites retract as a percentage of the population, it will require ever greater super majorities of the white vote for the GOP to maintain electoral viability. This is not likely unless catastrophe were to change the hearts and minds of liberal city-state SWPL whites to join with their core white Americans as a voting bloc. As whites are perhaps the most ideologically diverse race in the world, and as white leftoid egos are virtually impenetrable to logic or even notions of self-preservation, it would require a catastrophe of truly epic proportions.

Then there is the question of whether Legacy Republicans even deserve the white vote. Their actions to date say no. At best, GOP pols are niceguy orbiters hanging around the hot chick Democrat nodding along to every inane thing she says, occasionally showing flashes of desperate masculinity, then getting shot down and trying to laugh it off with a feeble “just kidding”. At worst, they’re closet degenerates, traitors, and cheap labor whores.

More likely is an American break-up. Secession is a better bet than hordes of single white ladies and pasty manlets scared at the last into voting Republican. I can envision a regional and city-state partition of America in my lifetime. The omens are too clear now, and too many omens are pointing toward and converging on the same dire outcome.

The unmistakable impression of America is of an empire in rapid decline. As I believe we are entering the acceleration phase of decline, it’s useless to entertain ideas of reversal. The clock won’t be turned back because it can’t be turned back. Poolside, in these times, beckons.

What is “the No Girl”? Reader Sentient explains,

Another FRIDAY CHALLENGE… If you have been out opening girls, you will come across the NO girl… Like before you even get a word out, she shoots up her hand and says “No”… and there you are! (fwiw – seems to be the younger girls who do this the most, may be something they are taught?).

By scared, sharting betas who allow them to get away with it.

The Scenario:

You are in a bar, see a girl (maybe a single, maybe with a girlfriend, let’s say no guys in her group) and you go over to her and start to say something and she shoots you the hand and just says “No”… That’s it… “No”… and turns away…

What can you do to salvage and optimize the interaction? Let’s see your tight game, albeit it may be a Hail Mary…

The No Girl is usually a 6 or 7 who thinks she’s a 9. Her autonomic rejection is an act put on for the purpose of self-medicating her ever-vigilant ego. Truly beautiful women will rarely do this because 1. they aren’t approached that often by men and 2. they don’t have to prove their worth with SMV striver antics. The No Girl is more often found in groups, because it’s fun to insta-reject a man for the amusement of your cackling bitch friends.

Of course, displaying resentment or feeling insulted will redound to the No Girl’s victory. If you want to turn a No Girl into a Good To Go Girl, you’ll need a honed reaction that at once conveys your imperturbability and your cocky disregard for her faggy theatrics.

Having been the recipient of a few No Girls in my time, I can offer suggestions:

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: “Hey chill out, I was just gonna tell you you have food on your face.”

The “chill out” part is important. You want everyone within earshot to understand she’s a crazy bitch for reacting so hostilely. Social shaming is bitch taming.

Alternate version:

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: “Hey chill out, I came over to talk to your friend.”

There’s also the nonverbal response:

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: *high five the girl’s outstretched hand* “All right! On the flip side!”

Then there’s the silent stone wall technique:

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: *sit down, look at her in silence with a wry smile for a few uncomfortable seconds, force her to make eye contact with you* “Charmed, as well.”

This one, if done with the requisite composure, can quickly turn her crowd to your side.

Finally, I’m a fan of the “make lemonade out of lemons” school of game:

GIRL: *hand shoots up* “No!”

BABY’S ARM HOLDING AN APPLE: “No, you don’t use Palmolive. Have you seen your callouses?”

Now it’s your turn to solve this sexual market riddle. Best answers featured in a future post.

In a word: Credentialism.

Credentialism, as defined by CH, is a system where the signaling value of a credential exceeds the content value of the acquired knowledge implied by the credential.

Keep this definition in mind, because it will explain a lot about the shortcomings of assortative mating data.

Assortative mating is the theory that people pair up according to social class, which in modern America is nearly synonymous with educational class. Proponents of assortative mating theory speculate that a cognitive elite — and perhaps soon a racial elite — is evolving from the observed mate choices of the upper classes to marry solely among themselves. Sort of like an “educated class inbreeding”. The mechanism by which educated class inbreeding happens is through meeting one’s mate on college campus, or later at the office or within social circles, both of which tend to be segregated by smarts and its proxy, college degree.

The more generations that pass through the filter of selective breeding for credentials, the likelier that a distinct race of übermensch becomes a permanent piece of the American social scene. A Bindi-style caste system is not far behind.

The flaw in assortative mating theory lies in its major premise: That credentials are as accurate a gauge of smarts and knowledge and social class now as they were in the past.

There’s no doubt women have flooded academia, and now outnumber men on campus by a nontrivial margin.

The fact that the female representation in college has risen so dramatically in such a short time period tells us that genetics are not the driving factor. Women did not suddenly become smarter, nor did they become smarter than men, during their rise to higher ed prominence. No, what happened instead is one-parent families became unaffordable in The Disunited States of Diversity, and, more pertinently, the average college degree lost a lot of its value.

Crudely, women have flooded into college to earn shit degrees like Communications, English, Education, and Women’s Studies.

Liberal arts degrees are useless degrees, because everything you’d wind up doing in a cubicle job with such a degree can be learned in two weeks if you have half a brain. In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt that they must pay off by marrying in their dried-up 30s a no-game-having, scarcity-mentality, provider beta male.

The uselessness of humanities degrees to real world value creation is exacerbated by the diversity industrial memeplex, which has further eroded the college cachet by the necessity of dumbing down and grade inflating the degree programs that vibrant students swarm into on the largesse of creator class endowment money.

What you are staring at is the twisted face of credentialism, the college debt racket and status whore end game that proves nothing except that women can be gifted conformist suck-ups in the stampede to earn a parchment declaring them competent at arranging client meetings, thinking inside the box, and mingling with white collar men who satisfy their hypergamous desire.

Empty, status striving credentialism is the reason assortative mating theory is flawed. Men and women aren’t matching up by IQ or class; they’re matching up by credential. Except that, on average, the men’s degrees are actually worth the paper they’re printed on.

Assortative credentialism is the more precise term for the marriage trend that we observe took off after women stormed the campus citadel. Conflating runaway credentialism with IQ misses the fact that today’s paper pushing woman with a communications degree was yesterday’s equally competent secretary with a high school degree, and perhaps even yesteryear’s farmhand mother with sharp instincts for survival.

So there will be no genetic überwench class. This isn’t to say an evolved cognitive elite is impossible; rather, what appears to be happening is less IQ stratification than a perverse reiteration of the patented CH BOSSS (Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy) sexual market mechanism to reduce wealth and class inequality. The high school grad secretary of yore has been replaced by the college grad secretary of today. And as long as she stays thin and pretty, she’ll catch the eye of that high status man, and GSS data will erroneously pick this up as mate sorting primarily based on college experience or IQ.

There’s another flawed premise bedeviling assortative mating theory: It’s not really assortative MATING as much as it is assortative MARRYING. Whatever marriage trends we see between degreed SWPL women marrying degreed SWPL men are happening later and later in life, late 20s to early 30s. But before then, during those prime female nubility late teens and 20s, marriage rates are low among the “inbred educated class”. However, women aren’t waiting fifteen years in stark celibacy before assortatively marrying. There’s plenty of Pill and rubberized reproduction-thwarted mating going on between ages 15 and 30. The mating is what really animates men, moreso than the marrying. And women *are* assortatively mating, if by assortative we mean women are choosing to fuck sexy alpha cads who aren’t interested in footing the living expenses bills for women with feminist studies expertise who delight at the prospect of earning a paycheck to throw back mimosa-fueled single lady brunches.

Like I’ve said, it’s no coincidence that charismatic jerkboy game rose to prominence at the same time female college attendance and credentialism skyrocketed.

UPDATE

Audacious Epigone adds his pence to the assortative marrying topic.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,026 other followers

%d bloggers like this: