Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Over in the comments section of a Mangan post about the possible direct health and happiness benefits of marriage, The Anti-Gnostic writes (replying to another commenter),

The biggest upside for men of marriage over cohabitation is that breaking up is harder in a legally recognized union. Since most breakups/divorces are initiated by women, making it harder to separate benefits men more than women.

I’m going to venture a hypothesis that most break-ups of cohabitation arrangements are initiated by men, and most marriage break-ups are initiated by women.

Divorce itself is not hard. You file a paper that says the marriage is over. Women will get the children, because the man will have a harder job with longer hours, and most households don’t have enough net worth to fight over.

I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion.

CH is on record stating that the incentive structure of marriage has changed to favor women’s discretion. That is, wives are now incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. The data — especially the “wives initiate 70% of divorces” figure — strongly suggest that the CH view is the correct one.

But constitutional white knights — you know who you are — claim that figure could just as easily mean that 70% of husbands are shitty spouses. Well, maybe. But that interpretation is no less speculative than the opposite, and in fact is less sustainable under scrutiny, because the simpler explanation for the 70% female divorce-initiation figure is that men and women are about equally represented among the crappy spouse demographic, but women initiate more divorces because they perceive that a host of benefits will accrue to them from severing their marriages. Husbands, in contrast, perceive no such benefits, and are thus more loathe to divorce even when their wives are insufferable.

One way to test this hypothesis, as The Anti-Gnostic implied above, is to look at which sex initiates more non-marital break-ups. If men really are crappier partners than women, then the break-up initiation rate will be roughly the same inside and outside of marriage. The break-up initiation rate should skew approximately 70% in favor of women in whatever form of relationship they’re in. The premise behind this assumption is that a person’s romantic character or “livability” traits are fairly constant throughout life.

Using the variable FAMPER3 (“During the last year, did you… 3. Break up with a steady boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance?”) from the General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, we find that men broke up their non-marital relationships almost twice as often as did women.

GSSbreakup

Surveys about people’s sex lives are distinctly untrustworthy, but the GSS does give us a peak behind the curtain at trends in relationship dynamics. As claimed here at the venerable Chateau, it would appear that women have more to lose from breaking up non-marital long-term relationships and more to gain from breaking up their marriages, (and vice versa for men.) This makes sense to any astute observers of the sexual and marital markets; women are on their best behavior prior to marriage, before they’ve gotten a boyfriend or fiancé to sign on the dotted line and tacitly forfeit HALF. A woman’s peak attractiveness window is much shorter relative to a man’s attractiveness window, and this incentivizes women to make nonmarital relationships work until such time that money has changed hands and kids have popped out.

Men, on the other hand, have a lot more to lose in divorce, and a lot less to lose in nonmarital breakups, and this male-peculiar incentive structure is seen in the differing rates of breakup initiations by sex in and out of marriage.

To put it in Heartistian terms…

Maxim #30: Men can leverage their commitment far longer than women can leverage their sex.

Skeptics may note that the GSS question as posed doesn’t specifically ask who initiated the breakup, but the wording strongly implies it. (Perhaps a Master GaSSer could fine tune the data at his pleasure?) But the very fact that there is a sex difference in breakup rates between nonmarital relationships and marriages is ample evidence that social and legal incentives can influence the motivations of men and women.

The substantiating evidence so far, in surveys and in the field, is that women are more responsible for the rise in divorce, and that their self-justification for divorce has gotten more fickle and more self-aggrandizing rather than less.

A final note: If you look closely, you’ll see emanations and penumbras of female hypergamy in the GSS results above.

Krauser is one of a small handful of pickup artists (old skool translation: womanizers) CH respects who are legitimate voices in a wilderness of heavy-handed marketing and shyster phonies. He’s got tight game, avoids hype, keeps it on the level, and his style isn’t overheated histrionics that only appeal to a minority of highly extroverted men. For those who require proof of poonhoundery, Krauser used to post up documentary XXX videos of the girls he was banging, and CH can confirm they were a quality lot. (Probably a good idea he stopped doing that.)

Also, for you “only looks matter” trolls, Krauser is not a Clooney clone. So you can rest easy that his lays are earned by the nimbleness of his tongue than by the twinkle of his bedroom eyes.

Krauser has a new book out — a monster by the looks of it — called Daygame Mastery. Word on the street is that it’s the Encyclopedia Britannica of day game. Quote:

  • The vibe chapters explain targeting, cold reading the potential targets, girl archetypes plus their traits and his own take on approach anxiety (which I hadn’t heard before). There’s also some interesting stuff on stateless game rather than getting into state.
  • The street chapters cover everything from stopping, body language, subcommunication, tone, different opening methods and his own template on opening. This is further broken down to show how it works. The conversational section is fascinating, it gives examples on advancing with hooks or rapport and then expands further.
  • There is a short game/long game segment is fantastic and it could be a book in itself. Instances of text chats are shown and every sent/received text is dissected, the same is done with social media. Krauser shows how to build the most appealing facebook profile and then more real world examples of the chats he’s had and why they have worked.
  • The date model is incredible descriptive, detailing everything from how to react if she’s late, venue selection/how to run each venue, types of language/body language to use, physical escalation, when it’s on/not on. It’s like every nuance of this phase has been considered.
  • The last segment of the book delves into some special situations such as same day lays, interloping men, frame crush, fine tuning to the girl and dealing with difficult girls, again with examples of each.

There’s no questioning Krauser’s reservoir of game knowledge, and it appears he has stuffed this tome with just about everything he knows. And possibly just about everything anyone knows on the subject.

Be warned, at $100 it’s steeply priced. But it looks worth it. So if you have the loose change, CH gives a (preliminary) recommendation. If you’re one of those men who has tired of night game and the club scene (and if you’re over 25 this likely applies to you), then daygame is where your focus will naturally gravitate. Being able to meet girls in the daytime and capture their interest, is very empowering in the realist sense, not the bitter feminist sense.

A book this exhaustive should be read like one would read a textbook for a class; deliberately and diligently. Take a break from every chapter to apply what you’ve read to the field. One caveat: It’s easy to get caught up regurgitating an endless loop of PUA books while losing sight of the ultimate goal. I suspect a lot of men buy these books with the feeling that the material provides handy excuses to never approach a woman in real life. Maybe you’re one of those men who convinces himself that you’re growing as a player by reading about penetrating insights into female nature and courtship techniques? The books have their place, but don’t let them substitute for actual experience applying the lessons contained therein. You don’t need more than two or three highly regarded resources to learn what you need to know to get started seducing women the way they love to be seduced.

Homeless Helper Game

If you live in a metropolitan region where there’s a nontrivial per capita population of homeless, and you see the same street bums lounging on the same spots of sidewalk on your daily constitutional, you can run what I call Homeless Helper Game.

The concept is simple. Buy your lunch and a little extra, like a pastry. Under pretense of charity, and in full view of some passing cuties, kneel down in front of the bum and hand him the pastry, saying “you look like you could use a bite”. Act like you think no one is watching you (that means no glancing around for approval, unless you can conceal it really well).

The homeless guy of course will be elated. The girls will be wet. No girl, no matter how cynical or corporately manjawed, can resist this display of alpha male generosity. Why alpha male? Because providing charity is alpha; receiving charity is beta, veering into omega territory.

The trick is to spin your insta-DHV into a conversation with one of the passing cuties. Occasionally, a girl will approach you to say she noticed and thought it was a great thing you did. Reply with a faux humble “I didn’t think anyone saw that. Now I’m kind of embarrassed.”

Otherwise, you’ll have to situate yourself near a girl you know witnessed your act of charity, say at a bus stop or pedestrian crossing, and make a show of crumpling up the paper from which you withdrew the pastry you gave to the bum. If she’s at all intrigued, that will be enough to get her talking.

This isn’t a high volume game tactic. There are way more efficient ways to meet women. But it’s a fun addition to your seduction skillset and a great way to spice up an otherwise ordinary stroll. Oh yeah, and you fed a homeless guy, which is better than giving him cash money which will inevitably be spent on liquor.

CH’s power grows, but it hasn’t grown enough to prevent thieves from plagiarizing classic Chateau tomes. See for yourself.

Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo article titled “How to Get Your Ex-Girlfriend Back” that dates to September 19, 2007.

Rule number one: Let her leave. Don’t beg and plead for her to stay or text and call her incessantly after she does. This only adds to the image of you being needy and nothing without her and as we all know, women love power. Take at least 3 days before you even consider contacting her. If she doesn’t get a hold of you in those 3 days, consider waiting longer, to each his own. When you finally do talk to her be in control of your emotions. It is vital at this point that you do not let her get under your skin. VITAL! Keep the conversation general and don’t pester her or talk too heavily about getting back together.

And here’s the related CH article titled “How to Win Back an Ex-Girlfriend” published on April 10, 2007.

The less experienced man caught offguard will need to learn the art of turning it around after her decision to leave is made but before she has reached the no-looking-back stage.  Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.  The key is in the timing.  A mathematician has shown that the dumper’s loneliness and nostalgia for the broken relationship peak at about 3 weeks after the breakup, unless she has found another man in the interim.  Therefore, your job is to let her go and not speak to her for 3 weeks.  This will amplify her feelings of loss.  Then, at her most vulnerable 3 weeks later, call to say hi.  Keep the convo short and friendly.  Chances are best right at this moment that she will offer to meet you for drinks.

Once more, from the Yahoo article,

Women want what they can’t have any while they love the chase, keep your distance and keep them wondering. If she calls, don’t immediately answer or don’t answer at all. If she leaves messages call back at your convenience. Have some back bone and discipline, don’t be a lap dog! If you try to make plans with her and she either denies or agrees and then blows you off, don’t offer again, let her make the next move.

And the (earlier) CH version,

You must be the one to leave first.  Minimize face time.  Don’t call her.  Be friendly but ambiguous.  Don’t inquire into her life.  Laugh off her crappy attitude.  Most importantly, act as if nothing is wrong.  If she senses you are acting aloof out of spite the spell will be broken.  Eventually, she will wander back to you, bewildered and intrigued, filled with doubt about her hasty judgment.  You will resume a pattern of dating and sex that eerily resembles the first few weeks together.

Even the writing style is similar.

It’s a net benefit to society that the Rude Word of CH is disseminating to the masses, but blatant plagiarism is a theft too far. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to be done about it. Libertardians bemoan a trend to excessive copyright litigation, and they perhaps have a point (if only they could see how diversity and copyright mania intersect), but on the ground, in the ascii alleys of ideas, stuff is stolen all the time and there’s little recourse to those unwilling to pay the fee in time and energy to right the wrong. If you value the freedom that anonymity gives to speak truthfully and boldly, you have to put up with a fair amount of idea pilfering.

 

Feminine Woman Of The Month

It gives great pleasure to the Chateau lordship to bestow upon deserving women the honor of Feminine Woman of the Month. Alpha and beta males, manboobs, and feminists all get their due here, but it is the feminine woman, the woman who defies the weight of social pressure urging her to advance an androgynous ideal with her own clarion call for a triumphant femininity, who more than earns the Chateau’s respect and admiration. In this twisted transculture, few voices, outside of men with descended testes, will speak for the rare woman who accepts her natural feminine role, embraces it, and revels in it.

So the first recipient of the coveted CH Feminine Woman of the Month is Kirsten Dunst.

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” Dunst, 31, said in an interview for next month’s Harper’s Bazaar UK.

“We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking — it’s a valuable thing my mom created.”

“And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armor. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work.”

Some would call this madness. But madness is simply temporally displaced truth.

The sisterhood went psychotic.

The stuck pig always squeals loudest before the killing blow. A vapid feminist entity politely demurred,

“Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it,’’ wrote Ryan, who evidently considers herself an expert on gender theory.

Notice how this VFE defines the worth of an idea: Are you getting paid to propagandize it? If not, your opinion is automatically discredited. This, folks, is what runaway credentialism unmoored from accomplishment or truth value looks like.

“So I guess my marriage is doomed to fail because I don’t have kids and write d- -k jokes for a living and my husband is more of a cat person than a dog person,” Ritzen concluded.

Her marriage may “survive” — in the loosest interpretation of the word — but her lineage will die.

“THANKS, KIRSTEN DUNST.”

Such butthurtness over a few harmless words about femininity. Why, one would almost think this feminist cunt wasn’t so satisfied with her egalitarian romantic life.

In the newly released issue of W Magazine, Dunst was asked by the mag’s guest editor, filmmaker Sofia Coppola, if she was ever hit on sexually by a director.

Dunst laughed.

“I don’t give off that vibe,’’ she said. “I think that you court that stuff, and to me it’s crossing a boundary that would hinder the trust in your working relationship.’’

Smart girl. Feminists cleave to their victim card like a newborn chimp to its mama’s teat. But it takes two to tango. When young starlets are “preyed upon” by older, powerful directors, it never occurs to these “gender theorists” – or rather, it does occur to them but they choose to ignore that tiny part of their brains where reason and recognizable humanity reside — that women are attracted to powerful men and will flirt with them and encourage on-the-job trysts that can be later back-rationalized as sexual harassment when regret begins to assert its domain.

Maxim #67: Women regret the cocks unwrapped; men regret the poon untapped.

A resurgence of femininity — not “womanization“, which in this zeitgeist is the opposite of femininity — would be a step toward restoring what America has lost. Kirsten Dunst may not be a raving beauty, but she’s cute enough, and who among you men, reading her words like they were an arterial sip from a chalice of life-giving blood upon parched heartlips, didn’t bump up her SMV a half point?

Men desire vulnerable women as women desire self-confident men: Ravenously.

As reported by NPR (I’m sure with gritted teeth), a Pew Study finds

that the milliennial generation has a low level of social trust. There are several possible causes for this distrust, including a skewed social media culture and a faltering economy. [...]

One explanation for this, the study suggests, is growing racial diversity – 43 percent of millennial adults are non-white, making this the most diverse generation in America.

Holy macaroni! Is the SPWL stronghold of NPR about to grapple with the CH aphorism “diversity + proximity = war“?

She says, minority groups have long had low levels of social trust.

CAMILLE LEAK: I think that, ultimately, it stems from their history of having to deal with persecution and discrimination, whether in their personal lives or within the business setting. [...]

Leak suggests that the Internet itself is another reason millennials are so distrustful.

LEAK: I mean, there’s a reason why catfish is now a verb.

Ah, no. This being NPR, leftoid headquarters, the bleeding obvious escapes them. Social distrust can’t be up because diversity is making the full court press and severing ethnocentric communal bonds. No no, it has to be white privilege, persecution, or the internet. Hey guess what? I’ll add another theory to the mix that’s no less nebulous and unfalsifiable than the catch-all assertion of white privilege: Dissembling media leftoids are causing the rise in social distrust.

So who’s the one in five that says, yeah, people can be trusted? Sara Bakken’s one of them. She lives in South Dakota. She says, if she were to meet someone on the street, chances are, she could trust them.

South Dakota is 84% white, 21% higher than the national average.

Camille Leak says, low levels of social trust shouldn’t be mistaken for a pessimistic world view.

LEAK: It’s just being savvy and being realistic, and I think that’s what it is for a lot of millennials. It’s not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It’s about being realistic.

Do Millennials strike you as hard-headed realists? Maybe they are when they aren’t whining about microaggressions or the patriarchy or extolling the artistry of anime.

Despite this lack of trust, the study says, the millennial generation is the most upbeat about the future of the country.

“The basis of optimism is sheer terror.”
- Oscar Wilde

There was one other interesting tidbit to come out of the study:

Within the millennial generation in particular, multicultural consumers have a much higher level of influence on their non-Hispanic white counterparts. So we’re seeing that even outside of areas like trust, non-Hispanic white millennials have begun to adopt certain multicultural [sic] behaviors or characteristics.

Translation: A drop of wine into sewage makes sewage. A drop of sewage into wine makes sewage.

Diversity + proximity = war. Keep saying it leftoids, until your heads explode scanners-style.

*deep breath*

Email #1

This reader has a problem many masters of the muff have encountered. Unless you’re a psychopath, in which case you need not bother yourself to read further.

I am in a pickle and I seek advice from like-minded individuals. Any response is appreciated!

I have been seeing this girl for about five months now. Met her through a mutual friend after ingesting tons of red pill and game articles. The first time we met we played tennis with a couple of other people. I thought she was cute and had decent athletic ability, but she definitely wasn’t super hot in my opinion. I’d rate her a 6.5. Great body, long blonde hair, but her face is a little beat.

Anyways throughout the time I’ve known her I’ve gamed her VERY WELL and she’s responded better than I could have hoped. In short, she’s smitten. She treats me like a king and is probably the sweetest girl I’ve ever dated. She also craves sex from me like its the last time she’ll ever get it. Regularly tells me I’m the best she’s ever had etc.

My problem is this: Although I enjoy her company, the way she treats me, and her enthusiasm for my dick, I am not super physically attracted to her. The face really throws me off. I have successfully parried a number of her attempts to secure commitment from me, but I see things coming to a head relatively soon. Is the player cursed with being a heartbreaker?

If you haven’t broken a heart, you haven’t loved.

I don’t want to settle down, but I feel awful hurting her.

This is a normal reaction for non-psychopaths. The guilt you feel is a primal recognition of women’s shorter reproductive windows and of the harm your unserious dalliance is doing to her SMV. Naturally, you must do what is best for you, and it helps to consider that women will act in their own best interests as well when they have romantic leverage to exploit.

It seems to me that the manosphere (especially returnofkings) often mentions the lack of true feminine American women. I have definitely found one, but I still am not satisfied. I want it all. I want a beautiful face, a rock hard body, and a subservient nature. Are my standards too high? Am I an asshole? Am I foolish to think I can have it better? Thank you in advance for any insight.

The dissonance you are experiencing is caused by your laboring under an inverted female attractiveness pyramid. Femininity is desirable, but it’s almost nothing if there’s no beauty. Beauty is necessary if not sufficient for a man to fall in love with a woman. This is true for all men, though you may be tempted to think otherwise by observing men’s choices or their claimed level of contentment with this or that subpar woman. But it makes sense that there would be a disconnect between what men actually desire and what they settle for, because limited sexual market options are very hard for either sex to swallow, so justifications and rationalizations for settling are the norm rather than the exception.

All this is to say you aren’t an asshole nor are you foolish, if you have good reason to believe you can do better. The discomfort you feel is the core reactor of your mental apparatus — your id — warning you that life is short and you can plow higher quality poon, so why are you wasting it on throwaways? A very cynical view of love can be summed thus:

Maxim #53: Love is when you’ve been granted a temporary reprieve from wondering if you can do better.

As for the particulars of the heart you’re about to dash against the tidal rocks, there are three ways to do the dirty deed dirt cheap.

1. Be direct.

“This isn’t going to work anymore for me. You’re a great woman but I have to move on to find what I really want.”

Just pull that band-aid off. Leave no doubt or hope behind.

2. Cut off all contact.

No phone calls, texts, social media, anything. She’ll eventually take the hint. Upside: You don’t have to see her blubbering face. Downside: You have to live with the thought of confusion and pain tearing her apart for a couple of months.

3. Lie.

“I’ve been dating this other girl.” “I’m married.” “I’m gay.” “I’m sterile.” “I have a rap sheet.”

Scratch that last one. It’s likely to backfire.

***

Email #2

She’s a man-eater baby. So help this reader escape her maw.

I have been reading this site and Rollo’s for while now. And I am learning so much. I am 50 and I have met a solid 9 26YO and we have been together for about two months. She was fun and funny and beautiful Certifiable, She works as a promotional model and has done a couple of magazines. Sex has been awesome. About a few weeks ago things started to go sideways. More attitude. Less available. More shit tests so I got to the point where I told her she needed to respect me otherwise I am gone. Well it did not work.

Ultimatums are TNT. Handle with care. They don’t work as often as “tough alpha guy” advocates think they do. If there is any power differential favoring the girl, no matter how small, your ultimatum will be perceived as the last gasp of a butthurt ego, and fail.

She agreed completely and then went back to the same thing.

So then a few days ago I went silent. Only responding to her texts and only briefly. It seemed to work.

Tacit ultimatums >>> spoken ultimatums.

She sent me dirty photos. And kept initiating. I stayed uninterested.

This was your opportunity to gently mock her. “Did you know your left boob is a little smaller?”

Then yesterday she kind of gives me all of these reasons why she has been unavailable. I waited a while and then sent her a text just saying. “I am really not feeling it….” Then she sent me an indignant wat? and then a dirty pic.

She sounds kind of stupid. I say that because girls with low intelligence tend to lean on the display of their bodies to regain lost relationship hand. Smarter girls will go the verbal route first.

I said nice and then went silent again. At the end of the day she sends me long blow up text about four paragraphs about I need to talk to her and let her know where I am at with our relationship and she has other options. Which she does, she is really hot. No apologies. But she admits that she is a bitch.

When a man “admits” he’s an asshole, he usually isn’t. When a girl admits she’s a bitch, she usually is.

So then I wait a while and send her a text back saying call me…she sends back “I have the vagina you call me…”

“Does your vagina have ears?”

I sent a lol and I called her.

Big mistake. She tossed up a hoop. you jumped through it like a circus poodle.

Figuring she had enough and was ready to behave. We had a good conversation and set a date to get together tonight for some playtime.

We texted today with some light bantering, and I kept it short and aloof. Then in the afternoon she sends a slightly insulting text out of the blue.

Too much back and forth. Dude, the brutal truth… the impression I’m getting, and I’m sure the readers here are getting, is that you’re a marionette dancing on the ends of her strings.

I went dark again. Have not communicated since. And we are supposed to see each other tonight.

What would you masters do? I could stay dark and blow off the date?

Text and say you have to cancel, something came up. Leave it at that. Don’t text again.

Meet up with her and not do anything, hoping that me going dark was punishment for her bad behavior? Should I punish her for this?

You’re stuck on a reward-punishment hamster wheel and it’s sucking the fun out of your time with her. Thinking about how to “punish” a girl is not the attitude of a take-it-or-leave-it outcome independent alpha male. You want this chick badly, and it’s making your head spin. You need time away to clear your head and to clear hers.

Meet up with her and tell her she is acting like a brat and I am walking away until she shapes up?

You know what’s funny about ultimatums? Half the time they’re exactly what women want to pry from you. She’s in control, and you’re being piloted like a piper cub. You’re becoming predictable, and once she tires of batting you around like a cat toy she will go full sayonara. Bet on it.

I know I started this relationship from a beta frame, does that mean all is lost?

No. What it means is that you’re still in a beta frame, just under an alternate configuration.

Please help a brother out. Look at this like a remedial tutoring session.

I gave you advice above. Icy silence. Two in the kitty. Restored mentality of abundance. Keep in mind that the large age difference means you’ll have to be more detached from her than you could afford if you were closer in age. Once she’s groomed to appreciate your menu of options (true or not), you can throw out feelers to see if she’d be into a longer-term commitment. But that time isn’t now, under these conditions.

It’s been a while since this email was delivered. Let us know what transpired.

***

Email #3

A younger reader has a question about Snatchchat.

I’m new to game, 20 years old, going to a community college in Colorado. I’ve had enough natural game to get by throughout the years, but this blog has opened my eyes. Your text game principles are gold, and have helped me a lot. Now I’ll get to the point. There’s a new craze I’ve noticed recently, and that’s snapchat. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, you take a picture, write a caption, and send it to someone and they can only view it for ten seconds till it’s gone forever. Could you do a post on snapchat game perhaps? Some tips would be useful. I’ve gotten nudes through it before (which sucks because you can’t save them ). I have a beta friend who snapchats the gayest stuff like “beautiful day out.” Any tips on how to be alpha on snap chat?

Snapchat is really not a very good platform for gaming girls. It’s designed with female needs and desires in mind, and that’s why it’s suddenly a “craze”. Women drive crazes. (It takes a crazy to know a craze.) The main benefit to girls (particularly borderline personality disorder attention whores) is that the spontaneity of Snapchat allows them to better judge a man’s grace under pressure, and the privacy feature (such as it is) encourages them to flirt more openly than they would otherwise, possibly leading less experienced men astray who are apt to misconstrue playfulness for sexual interest.

But like all female-catered consumer products (99% of total commerce) there are ways to hack the stated or adopted purposes of such social lubrication mediums to exploit them to your benefit. Snatchchat is no exception.

First, like the reader says, rule number one is DON’T BE BETA. If you’re snapchatting “beautiful day out” with pictures of a field, you have already lost. Incel is your future.

Second, have fun with it. If you treat Snapchat less like a dating app and more like a neg facilitator, you’ll be able to springboard from it to a more intimate platform, like flesh and blood real life. Examples:

Here’s my pussy. your turn.

If she sends you a follow-up poon pic, snapchat back a pic of a crying baby. Tease the female prerogative outta her.

Or, snapchat a photo of your unopened robe, with the caption “here comes a dick pic”. Wait a while (to build delicious tension), ignore all her protestations, and then send this:

You get the idea. Whatever you do, don’t get caught in an endless snapchat loop. Because while she’s snapchatting you with one hand, her mouth is servicing the cock of another man.

Jesus Had Game

Jesus wept? Oh no, my friends. Jesus charmed!

Jesus, like so many leading protagonists in the great books for men, had game, and used it to mesmerize the fuck outta his audiences of admirers. There’s a direct line throughout history leading from the thorny crown to the furry hat. Jesus was mystery, and Jesus was the first Mystery.

Proof of Jesus’ mad skills with the coy doubters comes to us via this nifty list of his best follower pickups.

One of the best-described of all charismatic leaders is Jesus. About 90 face-to-face encounters with Jesus are described in the four gospels of the New Testament.

Notice what happens:

The Son of God is about to raise your buying temperature.

Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?”

The text goes on that Jesus does not look up at them, but continues to write in the dirt with his finger. This would not be unusual; Archimedes wrote geometric figures in the dust, and in the absence of ready writing materials the ground would serve as a chalkboard. The point is that Jesus does not reply right away; he lets them stew in their uneasiness.

Jesus used tension to build attraction.

Minutes go by. One by one, the crowd starts to slip away, the older ones first– the young hotheads being the ones who do the stoning, as in the most primitive parts of the Middle East today.

Finally Jesus is left with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightens up and asks her: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She answers: “No one.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says. “Go now and sin no more.” (John 8: 1-11)

Jesus is a master of timing. He does not allow people to force him into their rhythm, their definition of the situation. He perceives what they are attempting to do, the intention beyond the words. And he makes them shift their ground.

Jesus forced others into his frame.

He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.

Jesus passed shit tests.

Jesus is a charismatic leader, indeed the archetype of charisma. Although sociologists tend to treat charisma as an abstraction, it is observable in everyday life. We are viewing the elements of it, in the encounters of Jesus with the people around him.

Game is applied charisma. I wonder if Jesus was a Dark Triad? Or should I say, Dark Trinity?

(1) Jesus always wins an encounter [...]

Jesus never lets anyone determine the conversational sequence. He answers questions with questions, putting the interlocutor on the defensive. An example, from early in his career of preaching around Galilee:

Jesus has been invited to dinner at the house of a Pharisee. A prostitute comes in and falls at his feet, wets his feet with her tears, kisses them and pours perfume on them. The Pharisee said to himself, “If this man is a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him– that she is a sinner.”

Jesus, reading his thoughts, said to him: “I have something to tell you.” “Tell me,” he said. Jesus proceeded to tell a story about two men who owed money, neither of whom could repay the moneylender. He forgives them both, the one who owes 500 and the one who owes 50. Jesus asked: “Which of the two will love him more?” “The one who had the bigger debt forgiven,” the Pharisee replied. “You are correct,” Jesus said. “Do you see this woman? You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet them with her tears and dried them with her hair… Therefore her many sins have been forgiven– as her great love has shown.”

Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.

The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.

Jesus the charismatic alpha male was unpredictable. You expect him to say one thing; he says another. AMOGs show deference and vaginas weep on cue.

(2)  Jesus is quick and absolutely decisive

As his mission is taking off in Galilee, followers flock to hear him. Some he invites to come with him. It is a life-changing decision.

A man said to him: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”

It is a shocking demand. In a ritually pious society, there is nothing more important that burying your father. Jesus demands a complete break with existing social forms; those who follow them, he implies, are dead in spirit.

Chicks hate mincing betaboys. Jesus was not a mincing betaboy. Chicks dig rule breakers. Jesus was definitely a rule breaker.

The Pharisees complained, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus perceives who will make a good recruit, and who will not.

Jesus was practiced in the art of target selection.

(3) Jesus always does something unexpected [...]

Some of the disciples said indignantly to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus said. “She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.  But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare me for my funeral.” (Mark 14: 1-10; Matthew 26: 6-13)

A double jolt. His disciples by now have understood the message about the selfishness of the rich and charity to the poor. But there are circumstances and momentous occasions that transcend even the great doctrine of love thy neighbour. Jesus is zen-like in his unexpectedness. There is a second jolt, and his disciples do not quite get it. Jesus knows he is going to be crucified. He has the political sense to see where the confrontation is headed; in this he is ahead of his followers, who only see his power.

When was the last time you saw an alpha male do the dull, boring thing? Never.

(4) Jesus knows what the other is intending

Jesus is an intelligent observer of the people around him.

Jesus was situationally aware.

He is highly focused on everyone’s moral and social stance, and sees it in the immediate moment. Charismatic people are generally like that; Jesus does it to a superlative degree.

Jesus lived in the moment. Jesus did not suffer “paralysis by analysis”.

Jesus’ perceptiveness helps explain why he dominates his encounters. He surprises interlocutors by unexpectedly jumping from their words, not to what conventionally follows verbally, but instead speaking to what they are really about, skipping the intermediate stages.

Jesus knew how to “elicit values”, and build deep connections with people.

(5) Jesus is master of the crowd [...]

Crowds are a major source of Jesus’ power. There is a constant refrain: “The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” His enemies the high priests are afraid of what his crowd of followers will do if they attack Jesus.

Jesus was socially proofed.

[His disciples] are the privileged in-group, and they know it. Jesus admonishes them from time to time about their pride; but he needs them, too. It is another reason why living with Jesus is bracing. There is an additional circuit of charismatic energy in the inner circle.

Push-pull game.

Jesus can still arouse this crowd, but he cannot silence it. He does not back off, but becomes increasingly explicit. The metaphors he does use are not effective. His sheep that he refers to means his own crowd of loyal followers, and Jesus declares he has given them eternal life– but not to this hostile crowd of unbelievers. Words no longer convince; the sides declaim stridently against each other. The eloquent phrases of earlier preaching have fallen into cacophony. Nevertheless Jesus still escapes violence. The crowd is never strong enough to dominate him. Only the organized authorities can take him, and that he does not evade.

Alpha males can be taken down by a state-sanctioned beta male show of force.

(6) Jesus’ down moments

Even an alpha male occasionally gets cockblocked.

Leaving aside the miracle itself and its symbolism, one thing we see in this episode is Jesus conflicted between his mission– to demonstrate the power of resurrection– and his personal feelings for Lazarus and his sisters. Jesus let Lazarus die, by staying away during his sickness, in order to make this demonstration, but in doing so he caused grief to those he loved. The moment when he confronts their pain (amplified by the weeping of the crowd), Jesus himself weeps. It is the only time in the texts when he weeps. It is a glimpse of himself as a human being, as well as a man on a mission.

Vulnerability game.

Finally Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor. Jesus gives his usual sharp replies, and indeed wins him over. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asks.

King of the Poon, amirite?

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asks in return, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a player? Only if you want me to be.”

In the crises, Jesus’ interactional style remains much the same as always; but the speaking in parables and figurative language has given way to blunt explanations. Parables are for audiences who want to understand. Facing open adversaries, Jesus turns to plain arguments.

Sometimes it’s necessary to drop the flirty banter and aloofness and draw a line in the sand that you don’t want a woman to cross.

Jesus the alpha male. Jesus the PUA (of disciples). Jesus the master of the crimson arts. Men followed him. Powerful men feared him. Prostitutes paid *him*.

Jesus is risen, indeed!

It was a brief vignette shoehorned into the end of the day that nonetheless attested to a meaningful psychological and social difference between the sexes.

I was walking

dislodging a buttplug

down a busy sidewalk when I noticed a young-ish black (and possibly gay) guy asking for high fives from passersby. He had something like a clipboard in his hand, but I wasn’t interested enough to determine whether he was a snazzily dressed street bum performing for loose change or a campaigner for some idiotic cause.

In the time it took me to first notice him and walk past him, three (white) women and two (white) men were accosted by his street performance shenanigans. As each neared, he would spit his loudmouthed pitch and histrionically hoist his hand for a high five. All three women complied, reaching upward to meet his hand with sheepish grins and blushing faces. The two men sneered or frowned and swerved away from his entreaties.

(If you’re wondering what I did, I didn’t swerve. I walked right into his jabber zone and right out of it without an iota of acknowledgment.)

The scene was a reminder how emotionally manipulable women are, compared to men. I’ve seen similar scenes unfold hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, and the same sex disparity in call-and-response emerges: Women are more apt to obey the commands of an annoying (if friendly) stranger than are men. This instinct is likely a property of women’s greater predilection for group cohesion and agreeableness, probably mixed in with some latent desire to submit to a man who’s large and in charge.

One reason game works so well on women has to do with their greater degree of emotional manipulability. A man who understands that women are more impressionable creatures who will reflexively follow strong leadership is a man who gets laid. Indecisive betas earn women’s disgust and cruelty; decisive (some would call “douchey”) alphas earn women’s love and respect.

Some game concepts, like calculated scarcity, are universal and will work, more or less, on both sexes. But women are much more susceptible to these unisex game techniques because of the nature of their paper-thin emotional defenses against such manipulation. This is how you know that the occasional dumbfuck female contrarian who comes on here to shriekishly assert how game works just as well on men is full of shit. Yes, some of these game tactics can work on men… weak beta men with dispositions not unlike that of women. In contrast, game works on all women, and works best, ironically, on the best-looking women.

Should You Confirm Dates?

I’ve never been on board with the habit of calling or texting a girl before a date to confirm that it’s still on. I get the idea of it — if she’s about to flake, you save yourself the hassle and indignity of getting caught out alone — but practical considerations aside, the very act of confirming dates conveys lower value. Assuming the sale means assuming she’ll be there at the agreed upon time. It doesn’t mean assuming she forgot, or she might not show, and you have to double check to be sure her oh-so-busy schedule still allows time for your meager and annoying company.

Given the inherent DLV of date confirmations, men are advised to avoid the practice altogether or, if circumstances require confirming a date, to confirm with sly obliqueness that sidesteps the trap of self-betatization.

On the subject, a reader asks,

Long time reader here who has improved game, life style and understanding of women in general.  Here’s my question.  I always find it DLV to confirm a first date with a new girl, and have devised a few C&F methods, but here’s a new one I seek your opinion on.  I send a text a few hours before the date:

ME: I already have plans for tonight, but I’m free tomorrow night

HER: what/ok/whatever

ME: Wrong person, obviously I have plans with you tonight.

It does 2 things – 1. Shows that maybe another girl is reaching out to you and 2. You’re actually confirming.

Thoughts? A better version?

TIA

This is a twisted version of Reverse Eavesdropping Game. It’s a manipulative ploy to project high male mate value by (not so subtly) insinuating the fullness of your dance card. And, as the reader has noted, it’s a sneaky method to confirm a date with a girl without appearing like you called to confirm.

The difficulty with this tactic is the substantial risk of transparency. How obvious is it that your text was actually meant for her and not for another imaginary girl? The less obvious, the better Reverse Eavesdropping Game works. If you think the context is right and the impression you left with her is congruent with the believability of these texting tricks, then give it a whirl. Otherwise, I’d say skip this style of overwrought sneaky fucker texting and try these alternatives to confirming dates instead:

1. The preemptive “I’ll be late” gambit.

Need to confirm a date? Not sure if she’ll show up? Text her a few hours beforehand to tell her you’ll be late.

“just letting you know i’ll be ten minutes late. don’t be tragically sad.”

The beauty of this trick is that it simultaneously makes you seem higher value (you’ve got a busy life) while leaving the door open for her to announce an intention to flake if that was her plan. You aren’t confirming anything; you’re assuming she’ll be there. Her reply will be either “ok” in which case you have pretty good evidence she’ll show up or, if she was planning to cancel, she’ll be trapped in a corner where she either has to baldly lie (most girls won’t do this) or fess up that she won’t make it.

2. The “Wear something cute” gambit.

This is a classic PUA end-run around a potential flake. You text, “Wear [X] and [X] tonight” a couple hours before the date. No direct confirmation, no DLV. The assumption of her presence at the agreed time and place is tacit. If she doesn’t reply, she’s lost interest and is likely going to flake. If she does, her reply will tell you enough about her intention, or lack thereof, to show up that you can cease any further communication until you’re face-to-face with her (or until you’ve deleted her number).

Hope this helps!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,842 other followers

%d bloggers like this: