There’s a lot of chatter among the cuntocracy about how men aren’t “manning up” and doing their duty to marry off all the single ladies. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason for this male abdication of the sacred institution of marriage is the poor quality of the women on offer.

Just how bad is the marriageable American female market? Jay in DC writes,

‘Hot 99.5′ is basically the hippest and most relevant DC radio station in that it has the youngest listener demographic.

They are currently holding a contest for “new brides” to post their hottest photo to win the contest (1,000 dollar prize). Now granted, more intelligent chicks are probably NOT going to put their pic out there. But there are about 100 submissions up there already so this is a pretty good cross-section of not only DC, but really the US.

Behold men, and look upon your ruination. Betas WILL marry anything. ANYTHING, and this is what keeps the perpetual cycle of disgusting fat entitled average americunts reproducing.

I really advise you take the 15 minutes or so to REALLY look at every photo. This is our future. Out of those 100 photos there are FIVE women I would date, a few more I would fuck, and 3 I would marry if they had the classic femininity to go with their looks.

That is a SAD ASS RATIO. 97 to 3 in a pretty good statistical sample are marriageable? Welcome to the USSA.


p.s. Don’t bother posting comments, they will be shot down in seconds, just enjoy the grotesquery that is these women in bridal gowns.

Browsing the blushing attention whores, I’d have to concur with Jay’s assessment; the majority of the American East Coast brides are beastly. Beauty and the beast, inverted.

Beta males won’t marry anything. That is a stretch. Ugly, older, masculine, and fatter women DO pay marriage marketplace costs that you won’t be able to readily discern in their smiling wedding day photos. The hidden nature of the cost does not preclude its exorbitance.

And what is that exorbitant cost? Settling. It’s all of the better men with whom the post-prime, pre-Wall, porky-princess American bride had to give up hope of fettering to a marital contract. As age, size and attitude veer away from the feminine ideal beloved by the vast majority of men, women will find it harder — sometimes impossibly harder — to land the man of their dreams. They will have to settle for second, third, or even 30th best if they want to be married at all.

And so what you don’t see in those blushing blimp pics are the men they truly wanted who pumped and dumped them, or ignored them for their prettier friends. What you also don’t see are the hapless losers who vowed last-ditch lifelong monogamy to a land whale in exchange for avoiding the walking death of incel, as their hearts privately sank away in forlorn regret.

That is the individual, human dynamic. What about the big picture? Interesting — in the horrible sense of the word — things happen when the supply of attractive women drastically shrinks in proportion to the supply of megafauna, feminists, careerist shrikes, manjaws, and bitter spinsters. When the marriage market essentially become an outpost of Wal-Mart (Wall-Mart!) — cheap, throwaway, high fructose corn syrup goods — men experience what could be described as an exogenous “restriction of range” problem when they set out to find marriageable women.

Instead of a normally functioning sexual market where men are presented with many options among marriageable women of varying degrees of attractiveness (who nonetheless meet the men’s threshold for long-term commitment worthiness), what transpires in a shit market like what we have now is a massive limitation in men’s acceptably attractive mate choices and a replacement with a dichotomous mate choice system. In a dichotomous mate choice system, beta males no longer have the luxury of choosing between, say, a feminine slender 6 and a tomboyish slender 7. Now they’re restricted to choosing between involuntary celibacy and marriage to a ghastly apparition.

Unfortunately for the progress of the human species, the male sex drive is so strong that more than a few hard-up betas and omegas will choose the sad, dreary marriage to a circus sideshow over the soul-crushing solitude of sexlessness.

Beauty is truth. CH is among the greats in asserting the truism of this plea for an aesthetic sensibility, and for good reason. When ugliness of body is the norm, ugliness of character and, ultimately, of nation is sure to follow.



Your romantic fortunes (or misfortunes) will make much more sense, and become less a product of chance, once you understand that women are burdened with a split personality, each one desiring a different sort of man. A woman’s compulsive attraction for both male sexiness and male security explains a lot about her seemingly lunatic behavior.

In fact, almost everything women do, in and out of the reproductive sphere, can be profitably viewed through the lens of their “Sexiness/Security Schism” (SSS). And a schism it is, because rarely do the two ur-traits occur at equal strength in the same man.

Game has to take into account the existence of the female SSS, and that’s why many game tactics appear, to the neophyte, contradictory or bafflingly contextual. A clear demonstration of this refracted female sexual psychology is the shit test. A single shit test can have radically different meanings depending on the balance of sexiness and security that a girl perceives in a man, and on the ratio of each she desires at that moment.

ImmoralGables forwards an insightful piece of game advice that hits upon the female sexiness/security schism:

Listen up playas. There are two kinds of shit tests you need to know about (credit to RSD Todd)

1) Value Shit Test – “Why are you talking to me?”
This is where you show why you are entitled, that you’re a man, that you’re not perturbed by her beauty, that you’re have solid frame that can’t be flayed. This is a good time to agree and amplify or just ignore and keep plowing

2) Comfort Shit Test – “Why are you talking to me?”
This is where you assuage her concerns that you’re just using her because she has a vagina. Now you can go the route of providing non-physical reasons as to why she’s attractive, “You’re quirky, I like that.” But RSD Todd showed a really good one that doesn’t step into her frame “Wow, that’s a really modest thing of you to say. Why would a girl like you think that?”

When a woman is seeking sexiness, her unrehearsed interrogation will take the form of value filters. The value shit test is a test for male aloofness, state control, abundance, coolness, and social acumen. When a woman is seeking security, she’ll prod for signals of attainability and seriousness. The comfort shit test is lethal to newbies because they don’t recognize it before it’s too late, and because this shit test can sound *exactly* like a value shit test. But the context in which it is delivered is everything.

What works to neutralize value shit tests won’t for comfort shit tests. For this reason, Agree and Amplify is not a good response to the latter. All that will accomplish is boxing yourself into the “entertainment monkey” cad caricature she can have fun with and then safely and without regret disengage from once the act bores her. The best Comfort Shit Test response alleviates a girl’s insecurity while strengthening emotional closeness.

Another example of a deceptively similar Value/Comfort shit test:

“I bet you’re a player.”

If you get this early on, it’s a value shit test. She secretly wants you to be a player who is loved by women. That’s male mate value. Your reply should adhere to the amused mastery format: “That’s what your mom said too. Strange.”

If she says this during a one-on-one moment of deep rapport, long after she’s dropped numerous indicators of romantic interest, then it’s a comfort shit test. Now would NOT be the time to escalate flirty tension. You want to release the tension, e.g., “I’m looking for someone I click with. I don’t think I’m different than you in that regard.”

Value shit tests tend to happen a lot with higher SMV girls who perceive themselves (at least initially) as out of your league. Comfort shit tests happen with lower SMV girls who fear you’ll use them for short-term sexual gratification, or with high SMV girls who experience a downward shift in their self-perception from the expert application of your SMV equalizing game.

The results from an experiment to domesticate wild foxes has led scientists to theorize that the transformation of humanity from hunter-gatherers to modern civilization is essentially a grand scale project in the domestication, i.e. feminization, of men. Reader D.R. writes,

I heard a radio segment the other day you might find interesting. It examines the physical changes that occur in animals when they’re domesticated, and then applies it to humans as we’ve gone from hunter-gatherer to modern society. Among other changes (like pointy to floppy ears in foxes), the animals became more feminine as they became more sociable. The cause? Lower testosterone. Here’s the link:


Be warned: the show has that npr cheesedick feel to it, but this must be the kind of crap necessary to make science palatable to the masses.

John Scalzi explained.

What a shame that the price to be paid for civilized prosperity is male castration. And that’s not a figure of speech. More domestication means lower testosterone. And there is tantalizing evidence of this being a worldwide phenomenon. Sperm count and quality have been falling for generations. Fertility is dropping in all but the most testosterone-y regions (Africa).

The trade-offs would superficially appear to be worth it, (especially for women), but what if we telescope outward to the distant future? What happens to a nation of manboobs and male feminists? A dearth of masculine aggression has downsides: apathy, conformity, lack of creativity, disposition to believe feelgood platitudes. But perhaps worst of all, the fate of such feminized nations is always the same: overrun by manlier cultures.

(For a laugh, check out the comment from “Gigi Jacobs”. A perfect distillation of NPR leftoid psychological projection.)

Soccer Post

This is the obligatory CH soccer post. Suave commenter gig chastises,

I am not reading/commenting here as much as I would like to, but seriously, the World Cup is happening.

You have 4 years to talk about girls. Americans have bought 5% of tickets to the finals, btw. Now there should be a permanent post on the Cup

Lastly but not the leastly, world cup games in Brazil are almost carnival-like.

American SWPLs love, or pretend to love, soccer, because it has a low barrier to entry for the world’s poor. All you need is a field and a ball.

I have a soccer prediction. If the Mestizo-ization of America continues apace, soccer will indeed become a big thing here. As white America tags along magnanimously and warms to soccer, and its programs get better, expect an American “stamp” on the style of play. More fast breaks, more football-type (the real football) strategizing, more partition of talent. And less gay flopping.

Personal impressions into the matter aside for the moment, social science examining the issue of sex differences in manipulation skill and proclivity to manipulate are scarce. But a recent study definitely fingers women as the more manipulative sex in at least one major life domain.

Parental mate choice manipulation tactics: Exploring prevalence, sex and personality effects.

Parents and children are genetically related but not genetically identical, which means that their genetic interests overlap but also diverge. In the area of mating, this translates into children making mate choices that are not in the best interest of their parents. Parents may then resort to manipulation in order to influence their children’s mating decisions in a way that best promotes the former’s interests. This paper attempts to identify the structure of manipulation tactics that parents employ on their daughters and sons, as well as on their daughters’ and sons’ mates, and also to estimate their prevalence. On the basis of the structure of the derived tactics, four hypotheses are tested: Mothers are more willing than fathers to use manipulation tactics; parents are willing to use more manipulation on their daughters than on their sons; the personality of parents predicts the use of tactics on their children and on their children’s mates; and the personality of children and of children’s mates predicts the use of tactics on them. Evidence from two independent studies provides support for the first three hypotheses, but mixed support for the fourth hypothesis. The implications of these findings are further discussed.

So mothers are more apt than are fathers to manipulate their children. What is the underlying evolutionary reason for this particular sex disparity?

Women being physically weaker, having less access to weaponry, having little control over wealth, and consequently being less aggressive, need to resort to manipulation in order to promote their interests effectively. [...]

Furthermore, due to internal gestation, mothers are 100% certain that their children are their own; this is not the case for fathers, however, who are less certain about paternity. This indicates that mothers see their interests as being more overlapping with the interests of their children, and so they have a stronger concern about the latter’s mate choices. For instance, a bad mate choice on behalf of their children that compromises the fitness of their grandchildren (e.g., a mate who is likely to run away) will be more costly to mothers, who are certain that these grandchildren are actually their own, than to fathers, who are less certain. Accordingly, mothers will be more likely to interfere than fathers if they believe that a choice is not good for their daughters or sons.

This female facility with manipulation extends to the romantic sphere. In a state of nature (no Pills, no abortion, no female economic self-sufficiency or legal coddling), women run a MUCH greater risk of life-altering changes from a single act of loving penetration. Manipulation is the tool women use to level the playing field… or, more precisely, to tilt the playing field to their advantage in a modern social environment where every lever is already halfway pulled in their direction.

The irony of this biomechanic reality is that it runs totally counter to feminist and white knight blather about “manipulative cads/PUAs/niceguys/jerks/patriarchal oppressors”. The intimate, limbic knowledge that women are in fact the more manipulative sex drives self-regarding women (and their effeminate male custodians) to project this instinctive female power onto their protagonists. This is especially true of ugly women who most certainly feel the burn of male rejection and female ostracism more hotly.

Another consequence of the asymmetry in parental investment, with women being a scarce reproductive resource, is that parents are more interested in controlling the mate choices of their daughters than of their sons (Perilloux, Fleischman, and Buss, 2008). In particular, as men strive to gain access to women, by controlling the latter, parents can better control mate choice (Apostolou, 2010). Furthermore, due to the risk of pregnancy and the value that men ascribe to the chastity of women (Buss, 2003), the mating behavior of daughters is likely to be more consequential than the mating behavior of sons. For instance, a sexual adventure can commit a daughter’s parental investment to a man that her parents do not approve of, and/or damage her reputation, compromising her future chances of attracting desirable mates. Last but not least, parents cannot be certain of their relatedness to grandchildren fathered by their sons, but they can be certain about their relatedness to their grandchildren mothered by their daughters. This means that parents may have more genetic interests at stake in the mating choices of their daughters than of their sons, which in turn would motivate them to control their daughters more.

Overall, as parents are more interested in the mating behavior of their daughters than of their sons, it is predicted that they will be more willing to use manipulation on the former than on the latter.

Women vs women, redux.

Blaming the patriarchy (or the matriarchy) is beside the point; these forces molding the behaviors of men and women are without moral dimension. They exist to serve a god which in its feral simplicity frightens and offends the conscious human sensibilities which themselves are unwitting servants to the prime directive.

Interestingly, younger parents are more likely than older parents to employ manipulative tactics on their children.

One possible explanation for the latter finding is that the residual reproductive value of younger parents is higher than the residual reproductive value of older parents. In other words, parents have more reproductive years ahead of them when they are younger than when they are older. In a pre-industrial context, and most probably during ancestral times, parents would control their children’s mate choices so as to arrange beneficial marriage alliances, and they could divert this cost in their own reproductive effort (Apostolou, 2014). For instance, a father could use the bridewealth he received from the marriage of his daughter to get an additional wife for himself, while a mother could use the resources derived from a beneficial alliance to mother additional children. However, these reproductive benefits are exhausted with age, which means that older parents have less to gain from controlling their children. As a consequence, there will be less intense selection pressures exercised on older parents to control mating, which in turn may result in older parents being less interested in using manipulation to influence their children’s mate choice.

Follow the bouncing ball on this one. Age of first marriage and first child in the West have been increasing for decades. If the theory above holds, that suggests an aggregate decrease in the number of daughters who are feeling pressured by their parents to marry well. Hello, alpha fux…

So who is the most manipulative of them all?

Our findings suggest that the highest degree of manipulation will come from relatively young mothers with low conscientiousness and will be applied predominantly to their daughters.

And the least manipulative?

Highly conscientious, older male parents are the least likely to apply manipulation on their children and especially on their sons.

Age mellows, via multiple pathways. And sons are less stressful on fathers than are daughters. Spread the seed, guard the eggs.

What forms of manipulation do parents, and especially mothers, use? And how do these forms differ when used on sons or daughters?

For daughters, 12 tactics emerged (see Table 1), which largely overlap with the tactics that have been identified by Apostolou (2013). In particular, we have been able to replicate 8 of the 12 tactics: “hardball,” “matchmaker,” “coercion,” “prevention,” “whom one should marry,” “carrot and stick,” “chaperoning,” and “guilt trip.” Two more tactics that emerged here are closely related with previously identified tactics. In particular, the “advice and support” tactic is close to the previously identified tactic of “advice and reasoning.”

However, although there is some overlap, acts associated with reasoning do not load on the tactic that emerged here. It appears that acts associated with support (usually when something goes wrong with respect to romantic relationships) load highly instead. Similarly, the “social comparison and moral advising” is close to the “social comparison” tactic; however, the tactic that emerged here also has an aspect of moral advising. It seems then that parents use social comparison to demonstrate to their daughters what is morally right and wrong. The “use of relatives and friends” tactic did not emerge here. Instead, one tactic that emerged is “monitoring,” where parents closely monitor their daughters’ activities and try to get information about their behavior. Finally, the “emotional manipulation” tactic is similar to the “silent treatment” tactic, although in this case several acts that involve emotional manipulation also load.

For sons, 12 factors emerged as well (see Table 1). Nine of these closely overlap with previously identified tactics: “hardball,” “matchmaker,” “coercion,” “prevention,” “whom one should marry,” “carrot and stick,” “chaperoning,” “guilt trip,” and “use of relatives and friends.” As in the case of daughters, the “advice and support” tactic emerged, which is similar to the previously identified tactic of “advice and reasoning.” Also, the “emotional manipulation” tactic emerged, which is similar to the “silent treatment” tactic. The social comparison tactic did not emerge, but as in the case of daughters the “monitoring” tactic emerged. Overall, it appears that the structure of parental manipulation on sons is similar to the one on daughters. But there are differences, one being that the “social comparison and moral advising” tactic emerged only for daughters, whereas the “use of relatives and friends” tactic emerged only for sons.

“Social comparison and moral advising” is probably the unconscious default shaming tactic that parents use on wayward daughters because women are, on the whole, the more lemming-like sex. Women respond to the prospect of social ostracism more viscerally than do men.

Women are on average the more manipulative sex, but there is field evidence that some men are master manipulators in their own right. Pickup artists and assorted practitioners of the crimson arts have co-opted the manipulative power of womanhood for their own romantic and sexual benefit. They have taken what is women’s strongest hand and added a Joker for the five of a kind. These maestros of the muff understand that women are solipsistic creatures who fall in love with their reflections, and thus with the men who are adept at holding the mirror up to them.

single moms, the shit that keeps on giving… and taking!

Email #1: “Steve” sincerely asks,

Important question:

Can sluts fall in love?

Absolutely. But they can also fall out of love. And they do both more easily than non-sluts.

Sluts are a strange amalgam of genetic, environmental, and “gray area” influences. Hormones are a good example of a gray area somewhere between the environment and genes which shapes character. While I’ve no hard evidence, I’d bet that sluts release less oxytocin than normal women do during lovemaking, which means the hard slut is less likely to emotionally bond when she’s spermally bonded.


Email #2: A reader has a question about needy ex-girlfriends.

My question is regarding ‘the rules of contact with your ex after a breakup’.

My gf and I recently split after 1 year (her idea) due to her feeling that our relationship had run its course and wasn’t going to progress. Despite the fact that I disagreed, I had no choice but to respect her wishes and let her go. I’m back to my single-guy-Alpha ways but she continues to contact me from time to time (weeknight texts ‘just thinking about you and wanted to say hi’ or late Sat night “we just got our hair done up for the night!”)

What in the fuck is one supposed to do w that? Half of my friends who I trust for counsel think I should refrain from replying or contacting her and just move on, re-fill my bullpen, etc. The other half are advising that I continue to pursue her, text w her, try to be around her, treat her like a human/friend etc. I’m curious what your experiences have taught you in similar situations.

Any kind of unsolicited contact from an ex-girlfriend, no matter how trivial or weird, is proof that she still has feelings for you. This sounds like a break-up she never really wanted, but considered a last ditch effort to bring you to heel. Or it was prodded by subterfuge from her jealous girl friends.

(When a girl breaks up after falling out of love, you will rarely, if ever, hear from her again unless necessity dictates.)

Whatever advice you’re getting, it’s nothing compared to the knowledge that you are sitting in the driver’s seat. You have hand. Lots of it. Use it like an acromegalic pimp.

She wants the lines of communication open, because she still has hope you’ll give her what she needs. Reply, but only a fraction of the time she texts. Initially, keep it friendly and frivolous, but don’t allow yourself to get boxed into a “friends forever?” interrogation. If she starts down that road, first, know she doesn’t really mean it, and second, amputate that rotten limb of conversation promptly. “You’re so funny” is a reply that will light a fire under her hamster’s ass. Anytime she sends you one of those “just thinking about you” texts, reply “aw that’s sweet.” If she texts, “just got our hair done”, reply, “thanks! i needed to know this.”

The idea is that you are reinforcing your relative higher value by repeatedly and (some would say) sadistically mocking her eagerness to keep you in her life.

Allow for a few weeks of this empty banter, then maneuver her into your fornication zone with a disarming suggestion: “If you need to talk, you can swing by tomorrow (tonight’s no good)”. Through the expert deployment of ambiguous promises, you want her to believe you are warming to the idea of a committed, conventional long-term relationship. The goal is increasing perceptions of your “commitment attainability”, and that will require some feints to the beta side. Convinced of your good intentions, you can extract sexual goodies in this manner for another six months or so, before the process begins anew.


Email #3: “Chris” writes,

You’ve changed my life massively for the better, but now I’m not sure how to handle a girl I actually want.
She’s involved in the stuff I like (strength sports) and is overtly sexual, so she was off to a good start.  I chose to ignore a personal red flag (she trains horses). I set up for us to go somewhere fun and eat after, but the morning of, she cancels on me. I responded along the lines of that’s fine, but next time she has to make the plans, and so I gave up and deleted her contact info.

Never say “that’s fine” when a girl flakes at the last minute. That’s rewarding bad behavior. “lol” would have been a far superior response.

Knowing how these things work, I checked tinder and saw she was active right before that, most likely made plans with someone of higher status.

Your inner game is weak. You’re making a lot of assumptions that, even if they were proved true, do you no good to dwell on.

I DO actually like her and would like to, at the very least, bed someone who commonly complains on twitter that most guys aren’t man enough for her.

Any girls who “””brags””” in this way on a social media platform is very insecure about her ability to land an alpha male, and LOVES assholes. I can already tell by the jive of your email that you’re a niceguy, and that won’t do for girls of her nature. You need to turn your dick dial to “bring da movies“.

Should I write her off entirely and forget it since attractive 19 year olds are plentiful anyway? Or is there a decent way back in? My birthday is soon if that would afford an opportunity, though anything to do with that seems too friendly to restart on.

Birthday smirthday. You think a girl you aren’t fucking cares about your birthday? Turn hard dick on her, swirl her mental fallopian grooves, and marinate for a while. Right now, she’s dreaming a rough rider will saddle up and shove her face in the hay.


Email #4: “Andrew” (not WK) is lost in a land of maneaters.

How do you differentiate between genuine interest and her showing interest in hopes of your attention/making you an orbiter?

Do you ever flirt about sex with her? If not, she sees you as Castrate the friendly ghost.

A girl I met a couple months ago has been showing a pretty solid amount of interest lately. Touches me, punches me when I tease, calls me cute, plays with my hair, etc. I follow everything in your blog, I follow a lot of Rollo’s advice, Roosh, etc. The reason I’m asking is, she’ll initiate a text, I’ll reply with something relevant, and she will reply hours later, but usually she never replies at all. This has happened about 3 times now and since then I’ve completely avoided texting to minimize the risk of desperation ruining my shit in person.

Beta bait. She’s threw out the chum (her texts), you replied on cue (and with relevancy no less!), she released you back to the ocean of dullboys.

Do you have a website you check when you’re bored, just to see if there is anything new? And when there isn’t, you just exit? I feel like I’m her “website”. She texts me, finds nothing interesting, and doesn’t respond. She trying to make me an orbiter or something?

She’s probably fishing for a reason to be attracted to you, but all she’s pulling up are old tires. This sounds less like a beta orbiter invitation than a girl who began sexually curious but suffered a dearth of confirmatory evidence. You can bet other guys are in her life, which drives down the value of your communication. You’re in sort of a limbo; not a love interest, not a desexualized beta buddy. Like the emailer above, I think you need to go the Full Asshole to reinvigorate her waning interest.


Email #5: “Christian”, a reader with some fame cred asks,

Love the site. I check it every day. Opened my eyes to game and the red pill mentality. Thank you x10000000

Anyways, I have a job in media where I am in the public light. Small market gig but I’m on TV here and some people recognize me when I go out. I want to know your thoughts on how that could change my options when it comes to getting laid.

It’ll increase them. That’ll be $300.

I tend to avoid online dating sites for these reasons (don’t want to be recognized). I also tend to avoid bringing up my career w girls i meet unless asked.

This is a smart ploy. Fame’s pull on women is most powerful when it’s discovered rather than disclosed. Plus, you’ll have a particular need to filter out golddiggers. Fame is so powerful a tingle generator it’s best to be faux embarrassed about it.

I feel like my career is holding me back from achieving the life I want w women. I’m insecure about being recognized.

Being recognized is not your problem. Managing post-coital expectations is your problem.

I relish when I’m out of town and gaming chicks because I can be as free w my words and actions without that fear.

Any words of advice for those that have similar issues?

A lot of male public figures have mistresses and active sex lives. Yet you only hear about a small percentage of them blowing up the media each year. How do the rest manage their harems? Most women are so thrilled to be with a famous guy they’ll be very careful about rocking the boat. If this is your quandary, you’ll need to be more forcefully up front about what you expect from women, and what they can expect from you. Allowing drama to flourish just for the fun of it is a luxury you may not be able to afford.

If you want girls to “love you for who you are” instead of for the fame, well, the platitude princess can help you with that. She leaves quarters under pillows!


Email #6: Austin uncovers a new, potent form of shit test.

I’ve got a question about some game.  I feel like recently I’ve come across a (potential) shit test that I’m not familiar with, it usually goes something like

Her: You remind me of my ex boyfriend (playfully)

I like to go bold here

Me: So you’re saying I’m extremely handsome

usually puts them a little off or they pick some other quality, but I’m not sure where to go from here, thanks Gents

Context is crucial. If this shit test is delivered playfully, it means “oh no I’m falling for one of these guys again”. Your reply was OK, nothing really self-sabotaging about it, but I would have said something else. (It would feel a little gay to compliment a girl’s ex on his looks, however indirectly.) Where you go from there depends on her reaction. If she picks another quality, tell her you feel objectified, and (with a hammy smile) inform her that her flirting is horrible, and she needs to step up her game for a special snowflake like yourself.

The only real concern you should have with passing shit tests is, well, passing them. You don’t have to smash it to smithereens. A “D” is a passing grade. All you need to do is avoid getting defensive or overly emotionally engaged — e.g., “I remind you of your ex?! How so??” — and you’ll be fine.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,957 other followers

%d bloggers like this: