The perfect distillation of it on Craigslist:
drop dead heart stopping beauty – m4w
Reply to: XXX
Date: 2009-01-24, 9:25PM ESTsaw you at the Blooms store on minnniefield rd I let you in front of me just to see ( no harm in mind no stalker) If a woman could truly be that beautiful and you truly are.You bless the earth with the imprint of you foot upon it,s soil
If you want to know why Game works so well, it’s because there are so many of these chumps out there in circulation. You’ll be a wolf among sheep.
If the schmuck was so taken with the woman, why didn’t he try to talk to her, instead of posting something on Craigslist that she’s not likely to see? Sometimes I just don’t understand people.
Peter
LikeLike
lol, funny stuff.
LikeLike
Stay sick!
http://montreal.en.craigslist.ca/mis/1006226643.html
LikeLike
I would have done the same thing (i.e. nothing, I guess), except I wouldn’t have told anyone.
LikeLike
I don’t know whether to be sad that this guy’s life is this sad, or happy for another man failing hard enough to take him completely out of the game.
LikeLike
Wow… do people really do this? I probably don’t have much “game” now and perhaps never did but at least I walk go up to the best looking woman I could find when I was in college, look them in the eye and ask “So when are you going to start doing me and stuff?” Lame, but at least I _talked_ to the women I thought were hot. Sometimes it would even break the ice.
LikeLike
The cutest thing on earth: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/mis/1006736064.html
LikeLike
listen to a woman when she talks about a guys she’s really not interested in or a bad date she went on. you’ll almost never hear her say something like ‘he just showed too little interest in me’; or ‘he didn’t compliment me enough’; or ‘he didn’t call me enough or return my calls fast enough’. despite this, so many guys think the way to impress a girl is by turning it on strong.
one of the reasons is that we’ve all seen movies where the guy gets the girl at the end through some theatrical over-the-top display of his feelings. the problem is that certain men see these movies, focus on that moment, and think that’s the way to get the girl. watch the rest of the movie. even crappy romantic comedies contain their share of truth. there’s almost always some obstacle that the heroine has to deal with before she ends up with the guy. and there’s almost always moments where she’s just not sure if the guy really likes her. women may sometimes want romantic gestures and effusive compliments, but only from guys that they’re involved with. pedestal game has absolutely zero value in attracting women
LikeLike
This is one I did a few months ago. KISS: Keep it simple, stupid.
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/mis/972563417.html
LikeLike
Excellent example. I can no longer hear the word ‘pedestal’ in this context without thinking of Romany Malco’s character in 40 Year Old Virgin. He knew.
I’m curious about this “missed connection” phenomenon. Has anyone here actually scored as a result of casting a message-in-a-bottle into the craigslist ocean this way?
I can’t imagine the probability of ROI being worth the time taken to compose such a post. I’d love to hear a contrary anecdote, though.
LikeLike
This is bad for the woman too. She is getting this type of admiration today. After she ages and hits the wall, she will get dramatically less.
That sort of downward revision in expectations is hard for any human to cope with.
LikeLike
Tood has good points.
won
Basically, women trade-off love/affection/sex for lots today, in favor of none as they get older. Their FTO is very low, one reason why single motherhood or unmarried mothers is very, very high.
There’s a bit in the Washington Post about a single mother who is ecstatic that Obama is President because now her boy won’t pester her about having a Dad anymore, since Obama was from a single mother. It’s SWPL to the nth Degree with a heaping dose of female selfishness (me before kid) mixed with high degrees of low FTO.
This kind of pedestal idiocy is the result of two things.
One: SWPL exhibitionism and status competition, the guy obviously WANTS his pals/circle to see it, to think “aaaawwww, what a sort of nice, kind of gay guy” where his girl pals will think he’s “sweet” or whatever.
Two: nearly all men have no clue as to women’s FTO. They think that women are like them, with delayed gratification and so on. Hello? The Beauty industry caters to women’s low FTO and tries to pretty-up the aging cougars who find themselves no longer wanted and without any real options.
LikeLike
There is nothing wrong with speaking like that to a woman. If you’re paying her by the hour.
LikeLike
This *is* very sad, because of what we here know about the reality of Social Dynamics, & quite frankly, Women. A lot of my Brothers suffer for lack of Knowledge.
Lance, you bastard, I read your blog! 😉 good stuff, man. Keep blogging.
The Obsidian
LikeLike
Indeed. A hot woman is much more vulnerable to depression later in life as her looks fade, if she hasn’t snagged a good husband in time.
A dramatic drop in your life prospects in a short time is something that is too hard for any human to cope with.
An average-looking woman does not experience such a drop, having never been so high. A man does not experience such a drop, only a slow, gentle landing that takes decades.
To go from peak market value to middling/cougar status in the space of 7 years from age 30 to 37 is something no-one except a hottie experiences. It is a much bigger shock than a man faces if he goes bald (which even then, has some partial workarounds).
Any woman who wants to have 2 kids cannot afford to marry any later than 30-31, and even then, there is no margin for error, or luxury of ‘having a 3 year gap between kids’, or ‘not having kinds until 2 years of marriage’.
LikeLike
You being attractive, funny, intelligent and/or good-looking is far more effective than being a lovesick puppy.
God, I hate the media.
LikeLike
Tood said:
“An average-looking woman does not experience such a drop ( in beauty), having never been so high.”
I respectfully disagree with this. Here’s why: Look at high school yearbooks. Young girls are cute. Even below average young girls are cute simply because they have that youthful look and energy.
But “cute” or “kinda cute” does not age nearly as well as “beautiful.” In around eight years, when the youthfulness fades, you have a woman who now looks “odd” or off-kilter to people.
LikeLike
“..despite this, so many guys think the way to impress a girl is by turning it on strong.”
This is because women TOLD these guys that this is what works. Their mothers, sisters, female friends, etc. all fed the Beta guy these lies.
A guy has to think outside the box to even appreciate the concept of game. The VERY FIRST step to understanding game is recognized that what a woman SAYS she wants is useless. Emulating GUYS who do well with women is the key.
About 95% of men will never grasp this concept. They will spend their lives bouncing between beliefs that a bigger bank account, bigger biceps, and more supplication will finally help them ram through resistance.
One trick to play is whenever you see a hot woman with a guy who is clearly neither rich nor good-looking, ask your beta friends how he got her. Their answers will betray how little they have really thought about the subject, and how deep-seated their misconceptions are.
LikeLike
Speaking of beta, I was wedding shopping this weekend (getting married in the summer). Check out this wedding cake ornament that I saw in a store:
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2004/WeddingCake.htm
Any dude who’d have that is asking his wife to leave his beta-ized butt.
LikeLike
“Here’s why: Look at high school yearbooks. Young girls are cute.”
I don’t know. A lot of college girls are certainly youthful (and fertile), but not attractive.
If they are overweight even at age 22, then they don’t experience the dramatic plunge that a hottie experiences, from having never been that high.
It would be interesting to see if a 22 year old who is significantly overweight does better than a 38 year old cougar who used to be a 9 and is still attractive fully clothed. Apples and oranges to be sure, but the head-to-head would be interesting. Much like the ‘who would win a street-fight between a boxer and a wrestler?’ interminable debate.
LikeLike
Kirt33,
You are getting married?
GET A PRE-NUP! Frame the subject of how it is beneficial to both parties (given how the wealthier party can accrue debt and losses during marriage, etc.).
But do NOT get married without a pre-nup!!!! A pre-nup is no guarantee, but it helps, and reduces her chance of going down the path of divorce in the first place.
I hope your future wife makes equal or greater money that you.
Seriously. I mean it.
LikeLike
On movies that unsuspecting guys emulate and inevitably end up in betaland: Anyone seen Wall-E? May natural selection have mercy on the boys who saw it and believed such behavior would get them a girl.
LikeLike
“Anyone seen Wall-E?”
Yes, that is dangerous. What seems honorable and romantic is very tempting, but leads only to failure and frustration. Somehow, girls watching this don’t get similarly brainwashed into responding favorably to such devotion. I wonder why that is?
LikeLike
Slightly off-topic: Can anyone tell me what the hell is happening with DC’s upper class white women and why they starve themselves to skeletons.
I just found two pic of my old high school crush on a friend’s MySpace page. Back then, she was a totally buxom babe, with the kind of teen body that instantly inspired sexual fantasies.
But in the new pics she looks absolutely emaciated — freaky thin. I wish I could share these pics to see what you guys think. She’s single and we’re one degree apart. I was thinking of maybe making inroads, but now I don’t know. I was never much into Karen Carpenter.
LikeLike
So Wall-E is going to have more influence on a little boy then his father?
LikeLike
“So Wall-E is going to have more influence on a little boy then his father?”
Well, yes. The father is presumably managed to get married, and while he might be a Beta, as long as he manages to not get divorced, it matters much less for him now that he has procreated.
LikeLike
OOL: (Is this acronym obvious?)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29546
LikeLike
Days, it’s because Americans have discovered yaba and BZP, and perhaps the ladies in DC have a good source.
I don’t know about her specifically, but it’s something to look out for.
This I learned while browsing around bodybuilding and weight loss forums…that folks in the major metropolitan areas were picking up on this tip from Thai women and ravers who’ve been to Thailand.
It’s in Israel now too, but so far it’s mostly just young half junkie girls doing them.
LikeLike
Betas and AFCs of the ages unite
There is a lady sweet and kind,
Was never face so pleased my mind;
I did but see her passing by,
And yet I love her till I die.
Her gesture, motion and her smiles,
Her wit, her voice, my heart beguiles;
Beguiles my heart, I know not why,
And yet I love her till I die.
Had I her fast betwixt mine arms,
Judge you that think such sports were harms,
Were’t any harm? No, no, fie, fie!
For I will love her till I die.
Should I remain confinèd there
So long as Phoebus in his sphere,
I to request, she to deny,
Yet would I love her till I die.
Her free behavior, winning looks,
Will make a lawyer burn his books.
I touched her not alas not I,
And yet I’ll love her till I die.
Cupid is winged and doth range
Her country so my love doth change;
But change she earth or change she sky,
Yet will I love her till I die.
Glenross leads are not for me,
Heart and blue balls ache for thee.
And while an AFC I hie,
yet will I love her till I die.
LikeLike
“It would be interesting to see if a 22 year old who is significantly overweight does better than a 38 year old cougar who used to be a 9 and is still attractive fully clothed. Apples and oranges to be sure, but the head-to-head would be interesting. Much like the ‘who would win a street-fight between a boxer and a wrestler?’ interminable debate.”
Interminable debate?
A young “significantly overweight”/obese heifer vs a “38 year old cougar who used to be a 9 and is still attractive fully clothed”?
That’s a 1-2 vs a 5-7. Easy decision.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, according to studies done, overweight Women get more sex than the skinny chicks DBA spoke of earlier. Hmm.
O
LikeLike
The reason pedestal themes are so common in romantic comedies, by the way, is that they actually are appealing to men and women.
Women do fantasize about being placed on pedestals, but by men that they consider their dream alphas.
[That they would lose interest in such a man for the Next Alpha is a triviality. As R Devlin noted, female desire contradicts itself]
This is like getting hit on at work. Great when it’s an alpha, “harassment” when it’s a beta.
Most men don’t get the fact that being the an alpha is a prerequisite for women appreciating your love-sickness. If you a famous rock star, of course she will be excited by your devotion. She just doesn’t want to be the lead singers alcohol-forgotten fan pussy of the night, she wants to be his Chosen One.
But, if you are the shy nerd from English class, it’s not exciting, it’s creepy.
Romantic comedies co-opt this formula and edit out the uglier aspects in a way that lets men and women feel good about themselves. No dwelling on the fact that women are hypergamous or that men are adding the female to their notch count and bragging about the blowjobs to their friends.
LikeLike
from a tactical point of view, pedestal game fails for exactly the same reasons that negs work. a well-delivered neg is actually a compliment, but one that raises a man’s value rather than completely debases it the way this unfortunate craigslist poster has done.
not to mention, any woman that responds positively to being put on a pedestal right from the beginning is either too needy or too vain to even consider pursuing.
Can anyone tell me what the hell is happening with DC’s upper class white women and why they starve themselves to skeletons.
i think this is, in part, because many urban woman have stopped trying to actively impress men, but rather seem more interested in impressing each other. no guy… well, no self-respecting guy gives a rat’s ass what brand of handbag his woman carries or where she got her shoes. i like a woman who has a sense of fashion, but isn’t a label whore. the stereotypical urban female persona, whether it be ‘sex in the city’ or SWPL, is meant to compete with other women over shit like who has the most trendy brands, who has the nicest condo, who has the most pussy-whipped boyfriend. a lot of guys have become so beta that they’ll chase anything with two legs and a hole. it’s rather sad.
the real question is: will things get so bad that there will be a time when pedestal game actually starts working?
LikeLike
Lance,
In a word: NO. Women are as hardwired to seekout the Alpha as we Men are hardwired to seekout T&A. The End.
I strongly recommend a crash course in serious Neg Bomb Throwing for any Pedestal so-called “Gamer”. Skillful use of Negs will net a Man some seriouso Poon. On the Strength.
O
LikeLike
‘pedestal game’ is an oxymoron. Pedestal psychology is the opposite of game.
But it pedestal tactics do work on women from very sexually repressed countries (India, China, etc.). Women are stil frozen into a Disney-movie level of maturity.
LikeLike
@whiskey
I’m guessing from context and experience that FTO stands for “future time orientation”. Is this right?
It would be helpful for non-expert readers for writers to define an acronym when first using it if it isn’t, say, in the first five google hits or included in Wikipedia, urbandictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, etc.
BTW, thanks for all of your thought-provoking and insightful posts exploring the larger societal consequences of our degenerating values and behaviors.
LikeLike
Tood: It would be interesting to see if a 22 year old who is significantly overweight does better than a 38 year old cougar who used to be a 9 and is still attractive fully clothed.
Lest such anecdotes be used against the obvious, I would like to point out the following. Technically, for all women, hotness may not peak at an early age, but potential hotness does. For example, an aged woman losing her hitherto excessive weight surely must regret not having done it earlier.
—
DoBA: Slightly off-topic: Can anyone tell me what the hell is happening with DC’s upper class white women and why they starve themselves to skeletons.
I believe such behavior is based on misconceptions (or self deception) about the monotonicity of hotness. More specifically:
1) that the overall fade of beauty could be compensated by going over the top in one area (weight); and
2) that if slender is good (which is true), then thin must be excellent (which is false).
—
Finally, here’s something I’ve been pondering lately: why are musicians idolized, given that a lot of the more romantic song lyrics epitomize betaness?
LikeLike
Rain And:
You summed things up well, as least as far as I am concerned. The cynicism on this site is reflective of many men who have been rejected by countless women. Women do enjoy being romantically enraptured, but by the man of their choice. And that man is in their estimation an alpha type. Most men think that if they simply work hard enough they will win a woman over. If she is not into you to begin with, then you will never win her over, you will only earn her contempt, feel humiliated, and spend a good part of your life thereafter venting on blogs about how horrible all women are. Most men don’t know how to cut their losses early, coolly walk away, and go after the next chic who interests them. As one girl told me, “Most men are nothing more than women with penises. They bitch and moan more than we do. I hate it.” Butch up boys, and stop whining.
Why are you even wasting your time writing on here? Shouldn’t you be out right now finding babes or deliciously fucking the ones you claim to be scoring? As far as the Craig’s list add: people who post adds online looking for love are losers, pure and simple. Don’t degrade yourself by ever doing that, unless you are looking to have sex with a prostitute, which is at least an honest transaction.
I can tell you from lots of personal experience that women do enjoy romantic gestures, and that a woman can be entirely won over, seduced, and fucked because of them. And I am not even talking about love here. It is possible to draw a woman into love if you know how to write her nice love letters. I have done this many times in my life. The key is that you already have to know her, made the first few gestures, and be aware of her sensibilities. She has to already like you, be interested in you, and want you on some level. Why do women love romance novels? Because part of them loves to fantasize about being swept away by a strong man. It also appeals to their verbal natures. This goes back as far as Jane Austin, if not farther. But as I said above, writing romantic notes to complete strangers online is the sign of a loser, a creepy dude living in his mother’s basement, or a psychotic. Such things will only earn a woman’s contempt.
The average American man-boy, with his infatuation with sports, sense of style that does not go beyond a baseball cap, intellectual capacity no greater than a fourteen year old, and command of the English language not much greater than a chimpanzee, is at a gross disadvantage when it comes to winning over women. If you can cultivate both inner and outer masculine strength combined with mental agility and emotional depth, you will win over many women. It is almost guaranteed, unless you are completely ugly or just a born loser who likes to write women on Craig’s List.
The infantile hatred and misunderstanding of women by many on this site is rather amusing. You have your work cut out for you, Roissy as you try to educate these boys. You know as well as I do Roissy that your laws of game do not apply to all situations and people; to many, perhaps most in our depraved culture today, but not to all. I sense you are probably laughing at as many of your disciples here as I am. After all, you have openly claimed to be “passionate romantic” or something to that nature.
LikeLike
This dude is both beta AND creepy.
If there’s such a thing as “anti-game,” this is it.
LikeLike
that guy is a fucking douche
got a talented ingenue (maybe a fatale but unclear)
sector diversification underway…
serious balls are required for the epic videotaping session over the circus act.
LikeLike
“why are musicians idolized, given that a lot of the more romantic song lyrics epitomize betaness?”
For the musicians themselves, it is OK to sing Beta lyrics once alpha-ness is already established (i.e. singing on stage before a large audience).
Check out any youtube video of a Michael Buble concert. 80% of the audience is female, even though he sings old songs with Beta lyrics.
LikeLike
DeCaelis,
Excellently well put. I’ve said several times that Game is as much an *inner journey* as much as it is an outer. Most Men simply are not introspective, self aware, etc. And in my view, w/o this, one can never master Game. Simple as that.
Mystery says that in order for a Courtship to work, the Female must be attracted to YOU, FIRST. No attraction, no comfort, no comfort, no seduction, the End. Attraction, Comfort, then Seduction. In that order. In order to get her attracted, you have to meet, and when you meet, you have to approach, and when you approach you have to have your shit together for an opener or series of openers. Its not an easy task at least not early on, but through introspection, and studying Women well, one can be successful.
Having said all that, let me also say that Rejection hurts. Even when one has mastered the ability to whether it all, still it stings. I don’t think its something Women will ever understand because Life is so utterly different for them. But in the end its neither here nor there. Either you, as a Man, do what is required to give your genetic legacy a fighting chance to live on, or, you choose to meet an Evolutionary End. Its really that simple.
Every Man here has tasted the bitter draught of Rejection, fellas. We’ve all been there. It will forever be with us, and even the best among us cannot escape it. In order to succeed, you have to change the way you look at Rejection. For me, I’ve learned that there are simply some Women that are inaccessible to me for whatever reason, and move on. That’s all you can do, move on. Life’s too short being bitter over what should have gone down. And your bitterness will carry over into future dealings w/other Women, who are very sensitive to such things.
I think we as a society are slowly coming to the realization that in so many ways, we’ve cheated our sons. Whether that realization will come in the form of blaming the “Girl Power” movement of more recent years remains to be seen. But what we do know is this: there are now several generations of Men who don’t know how to interact with Women, at all. And in the Black community, where im from, its even worse. If we know anything about studying animals is true, its that how they mate tells a lot about how they will fare in the future. To that end, insofar as Humans go, I think Game is just about the best thing going. Because all other options have either been exhausted, are obsolete, or never worth much to begin with.
Life is, afterall, what you make it. Can’t do much about the hand we’re dealt but we can change how we see things.
At least, that’s how I see it.
The Obsidian
LikeLike
Tood,
So Wall-E will always dictate the behavior of a boy born to a beta. Interesting.
I assume that Wall-E would have no effect on a boy born to an alpha though, correct? I mean, do alphas ever give birth to little betas? Do betas ever give birth to little alphas?
Please clarify
LikeLike
Finally, here’s something I’ve been pondering lately: why are musicians idolized, given that a lot of the more romantic song lyrics epitomize betaness?
They are not directed at any woman in particular. When women say that they want a lovestruck, obedient man that does anything for her, they mean that they’re thinking about a particularily desirable man and *fantasizing* about having the power and desireability to turn a very desireable man into something like that. It’s not about the man, it’s all about the woman.
She fantasizes about completely changing a cad, since she wishes that she had the power, but if the man actually does give her that, then she’s going to realize that she had more power than she thought and will start fantasizing about whether she can get an even better man to do that.
The rockstar gives the fantasy and never fulfills it. She gets to fantasize that the rock star is speaking directly to her and the pretend experience that she’s turning a star into a lovestruck puppy… but it never really happens, so it never really gets ruined.
LikeLike
“So Wall-E will always dictate the behavior of a boy born to a beta. Interesting.”
It will likely instruct him that Wall-E-type behavior will yield fruit. This will cost him years of time and vast money.
“I mean, do alphas ever give birth to little betas? Do betas ever give birth to little alphas?”
Given that Game is learned in most cases, rather than hereditary, all combinations are possible.
Do you not understand what ‘Game’ actually is?
LikeLike
Lance — spot on. Women ARE constantly competing with each other, that’s the whole point of most female-oriented TV, which is mostly written by gay men by the way: Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives (mega-status whoring), Big Love (same), and so on.
Rain And — great points, let me expand them a little. MALE Romantic Comedies are written by and for men, and basically validate loser strategies of one sort or another. Examples would be most Apatow movies, geeky kind of fat nerd gets the girl by showing a little more guts, or 40 Year Old Virgin, or what have you. Sarah Marshall is another one. Semi-romantic but very MALE comedies would include Office Space and Idiocracy, where getting the girl is considered important but the girl is not the pristine, nice honey but a woman with a checkered and colorful to say the least sexual past. A woman worth having but not a tragedy if she goes somewhere else.
There are of course the Male action movies where rescuing/saving the girl is important, Die Hard being the best known. So you have a continuum of male behavior, total geeky pedestal stuff like “Knocked Up” (which did deal with women aging out of hotness briefly) to Office Space (lead wins by not playing) to Die Hard. That’s male-written movies.
Guys avoid like the PLAGUE anything that reeks of chick-lit rom-com crap. That would include While You Were Sleeping, or PS I Love You or Made of Honor or 27 Dresses or stuff like that. Jay Leno makes middle brow jokes about biting his arm off to escape stuff like that. It’s women that see that, on their own, which is why revenues are down compared to male-oriented movies (that get date-night action, since men pay, and men on their own).
Scotchfiend — yes Future Time Orientation. Was in a hurry. Thanks.
DeCaelis — you are likely a woman. Can’t see that the water is wet. We are talking about a fundamental shift in women’s choices and desires over the last 30 years or so, and one that is indeed accelerating. Women DO NOT enjoy romantic stuff unless you are “Alpha” which means the most socially dominant man in the social network of the woman.
Therefore, it is USELESS to spend ANY TIME at ALL on Romance, without first securing SOCIAL DOMINANCE. The way Black men in the ghetto secure social dominance is shooting people. The way White British underclass men secure it is by breaking bottles on people’s heads (hint: it’s not funny like the movies).
Romance is a NICE TO HAVE, it is the icing on the cake, it is for most men rather useless unless one has first secured social dominance, and really that means in effect a BRUTAL race to social dominance by physical thuggery.
Only a few men can credibly become rich celebrities. Or be genetically gifted. Or be tremendous athletes with records of accomplishment. Or inherit great wealth. These are the ways of traditional social dominance and what women select on. Men, all men, CAN use various forms of violence and intimidation and thuggery to secure social dominance. More now that social climbing through earnings is choked off in a depression.
The idea that women will EVER get romance in a significant form, in the current marketplace favoring short-term time orientation of socially dominant men is a fantasy of unicorns and rainbows. What you will get, is Snoop Dogg’s stylings of how plans to have sex with you, or if you prefer Eminem’s rage-filled rants. That’s about it.
Game is in fact, socially useless. If enough men adopt it, women will still pick the top 10% which only accelerates the race to the bottom. It is useful to a few men who know it if most do not. It is at best a temporary band-aid for a few men. Most men can no more master Game than they can become accomplished Martial Artists. They don’t have the time, dedication, spare resources, and such to train all day. Mastering Game is likely on the same level as becoming an Olympic level swimmer. Takes years of dedicated training, gifted genetics, and even then it’s limited to an elite few and subject to chemical cheating.
Reality — there are a significant pool of men untied to women, who simply won’t care and will actively dislike pretty much anything to do with women, their interests, and desires.
The problem is not lack of game. It is most properly described the big shift in female future time orientation, towards lots of sex now with as many Alphas as possible over securing love/companionship later. You cannot have both, and women will indeed share in the misery one way or another.
Obsidian — Thought Experiment. Every Black Man in the Ghetto adopts game, women’s selection criteria (top 10% of men only) remains the same? What changes? Answer: nothing.
LikeLike
chyeah, “pedestal” always reminds me of 40 year old virgin…..I bet he lays this shit on girls at the bar too, and is surprised when they allow him to buy them drinks all night only to a) leave with another guy or b) inform him of their husband.
LikeLike
“bigger shock than a man faces if he goes bald (which even then, has some”
Even going bald isn’t bad. Just shave your head or cut it super close. Chicks don’t notice it if you do that. I still have 95% of my hair so I guess I’ll come to that later, but I can’t really see it affecting your appeal much if you shave it or cut it really close. Baldness is an indication of high testosterone.
LikeLike
Tood said:
An average-looking woman does not experience such a drop ( in beauty), having never been so high.
DoBA said:
I respectfully disagree with this. Here’s why: Look at high school yearbooks. Young girls are cute. Even below average young girls are cute simply because they have that youthful look and energy.
No, Tood’s take is accurate. Guys are not nearly so generous in their assessment of young girls as you present, as they take the youthful energy for granted until they’re a good bit older themselves. And no amount of youthful energy is going to make a 5 into an 8, anyway.
We, the average-looking, never invest ourselves in our looks in the first place. This spares us having to cope with any significant loss brought on by the passage of time, since we never had far to fall. A by-product of never being able to rely heavily on your looks is that you tend to enrich other aspects of your life. Doing so continues to yield benefits as time goes on.
LikeLike
Obsidian:
Life is, afterall, what you make it. Can’t do much about the hand we’re dealt but we can change how we see things.
At least, that’s how I see it.
You do Epictetus proud.
LikeLike
Whiskey,
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a woman. And I can assure you that after thirty years of pursuing women romance does work. Unfortunately your definition and obsession with “alpha” males is a bit too limited and harsh.
What I advocate is a return to some sort of standards in life. The thuggery you talk about is indeed a sad fact of life. Using the standards of the black or any ghetto as a model for human interaction is something I prefer to avoid.
I for one reject all this crassness and harshness. I am here to tell you that someone can be a man, love and enjoy women, and not be a thug. And not all women are the cold hearted harpies you make them out to be. Yes, too many are today. But not all and if you tried love you might find that out.
LikeLike
It is most properly described the big shift in female future time orientation, towards lots of sex now with as many Alphas as possible over securing love/companionship later.
It actually makes quite a bit of sex. Why waste your youthful years in a boring relationship with men that you’re not attracted to, and can’t have children with due to the poor financial state when you can bang alphas, have a fun time, enjoy yourself, and then when the betas have finally finished paying off student loans, you can date them, move to the ‘burbs, buy a home and have kids, especially if you’re old, tired, and the guy chooses based on post-peak looks instead of pre-peak looks.
LikeLike
There are of course the Male action movies where rescuing/saving the girl is important, Die Hard being the best known.
WTF whiskey?! DON’T DISS DIE HARD! The rescue-the-girl part of that film was just the obligatory excuse for the hero to KICK SOME TERRORIST ASS, the one thing in the world that’s even more awesome than boobs. Just as artificial, phony and still necessary as the token black cop who got to shoot one bad guy in the end.
Notice how clicheic all the “plot” elements are – the wife, the token black guy, the slimy reporter. That’s because it’s NOT A RESCUE MOVIE. It’s not a plot movie at all. It’s porn, with a pretend plot to tie together the action scenes, except that it’s not sex porn, it’s AWESOME ASS KICKING porn.
LikeLike
I think the whole romantic comedy/ sappy singer betaness gaining chicks may be the “catch him when he’s not looking” phenomenon.
Chicks enjoy figuring a guy out. Hence why neg-ing a girl, not returning her calls, and being aloof drives her wild. Women enjoy drama and a man who seems to have things he enjoys more than her.
In a romantic comedy, what a woman sees are the things women never see but *hope* men are doing behind their backs—worrying about pleasing them, writing poetry, etc.
Likewise, a singer singing beta songs is offering her a glimpse into his personal life—without him singing it to her. She sits in the audience, and he’s not looking at her–it’s a glimpse into his soul without her thnking that he notices her.
But women want to see this in secret–they don’t want it out in front. If the singer wrote songs about her as an individual, she’d run–think how many rock star marriages break up.
Women want the illusion of seeing the man behind the curtain in secret—not having the man give her a tour and declare that everything he does is for her.
LikeLike
“Most men can no more master Game than they can become accomplished Martial Artists. They don’t have the time, dedication, spare resources, and such to train all day. Mastering Game is likely on the same level as becoming an Olympic level swimmer. Takes years of dedicated training, gifted genetics, and even then it’s limited to an elite few and subject to chemical cheating.”
I don’t agree. It is no harder than learning an exotic new language fluently, or learning to play a musical instrument well enough to be in a small-time concert.
While being a true master is hard, it is not necessary. A man who becomes moderately competent in Game will do very well with women. He does not have to aspire for extreme Game expertise, with an aim of getting a series of 10s and then running your own seminars.
I define moderately competent at Game as being :
1) Able to do approaches consistently and well
2) Able to execute negs, and ability to qualify the girl
3) Ability to avoid beta-bait for the most part, and not supplicate to the girl/put her on a pedestal
4) Able to use stories to build rapport/comfort escalate sexual state
5) Able to manage the logistics of using an excuse to get her back to his place, and escalate from there
Being moderately competent in these 5 areas will put a man in the top 5% of all men. Now, if it is important to rise from top-5% to top-1%, that is another story.
But a man who is decent in these 5 things will do substantially better than a millionaire who is still Beta in his interactions.
LikeLike
Hey, does anyone know if this works?
http://apocalypseopener.com/
LikeLike
Tood, I agree. Good list. Besides, the early returns on game are staggering.
The first time I came across anything dealing with Game was at around 30, when an Alpha acquaintance sent me a link to Doc Love’s articles on AskMen. I went through his archives basically reading his stuff over an entire night.
The reason my learning curve is so sharp early on is because I had enough good looks to get girls interested at a glance, and I had just enough natural game to get by. But the problems came afterwards, when I’d burn myself by overriding my better judgement and putting on a super-Beta act, bewildered once again as to where things went wrong.
At first exposure to Game, you learn basics, like I did just by reading Doc Love’s articles: don’t have long phone cnversation; don’t compliment her; don’t call her the next day; etc etc.
The first step, from no Game to learning one’s first few practical basics, makes a world of difference.
LikeLike
Hey, does anyone know if this works?
I think it would. Like the guy in your link wrote, it’s critical to ask the qestion, and then not say anything. Not saying anythign is the key.
Something similar worked for me once in my early 20s. I was alone with a girl outside of a house where we were at a party. I barely knowe her, and we were outside to have a smoke, coincidentally at the same time. She was cute, I was slightly drunk (just slightly; I had to drive later) but she was sober… and when our eyes sorta met, I just blurted out, completely out of the blue, but calmly and with a smile:
“[name], woudl you go down on me right now?”
Outwardly, I was smiling, inwardly I braced myself: I expected her to get furious, scream, get some guys to kick my ass, something. But her face just kind of froze in its expression, she got a nervous and confused look on her face, and said “but there are people around”
I said, somewhat on autopilot — this kind of boldness was a new territory for me: “there is no one around.”
There were people within earshot, but no one was in the immediate vincinity. And to my utter amazement, she kneeled down and went to work.
LikeLike
@ obs:
thanks for the props. and i hope you’re right about women always prefering alpha behavior to beta. sometimes living in DC makes me wonder though.
@ todd:
the learning a language analogy is a good one. after all, what is learning game, but learning how to speak and understand femalese? and though not everyone has the ability to learn or the time to committ to becoming fluent, being able to make conversation goes a long way.
LikeLike
Dave Alex,
For the umpteenth time, you’re using some alien POV to justify your antisocial stances. Most Women, even the poor ghetto ones, don’t need Men to take care of them. You’re in a 1950s Ozzie & Harriet timewarp.
Now, yea, Women are drawn to the best guy they can find, but why should that be so bad? What’s so wrong about you improving yourself? Still waiting for an answer to that one.
Holla back
O
LikeLike
Jaakeeli,
Im curious: what kind of action movie would appeal MOST to you? Or, if none exists, what would you like to see?
Thanks.
O
LikeLike
Most Women, even the poor ghetto ones, don’t need Men to take care of them. You’re in a 1950s Ozzie & Harriet timewarp.
It’s not that women need men to take care of them, but that beta men are a logistical advantage in terms of parenting. So while a single mother can live a middle class lifestyle, the addition of another person’s earnings makes things easier. In other words, if a female makes $50K, the beta male’s job is to hand over the bulk of his $50K salary over to her in order to make her life easier.
My concerns have generally been with Whiskey who believes that the Ozzie & Harriet timewarp was the best thing for beta males, while I argued that the arrangement helped nobody by making women mate with men they never liked, and men were fleeced of their hard-earned income and energy. As far as I’m concerned, Whiskey lives in a delusionary fairytale, and if this place is where pretty lies perish, then his lie needs to go next.
And trust me, even with all the game in the world, no self-respecting white (or hell, black) girl would marry me if I worked in a call center making my current wages.
you’re using some alien POV to justify your antisocial stances
I’m not anti-social. I like hugs. 🙂
LikeLike
Whisky,
About your thought experiment, wherein all males suddenly acquire game at the same time (and the end result is that nothing changes: women still go for the top 10%)… I can’t really disagree with that as an academic exercise of considering an edge-case. However, I don’t see how useful it actually is in supporting your claim that game is “socially useless”. I mean, clearly it will never come to pass that all men acquire identical skills simultaneously. Rather, a few motivated individuals will learn, while the remainder will not.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but it sounded similar to this: “gunpowder has no military advantage over arrows, for imagine if everyone was given a gun…”
LikeLike
PA,
Thanks for the info and backstory, man. I think a good number of us are on similar ground-we got some natural Game, but need the “finishing touches” of Formal Game to really round things out. And what you and BDS say alone is an excellent start for say, a Dave Alex. Or anyone else for that matter.
Your question to the girl at the party is what Robert Greene, in his The Art of Seduction would call The Bold Move. Alphas do this a lot more than Betas do. And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense-today’s world affords few chances for Men to do “bold” things. So, scaling it down to something like you did at a party, is actually pretty big, if that makes sense. Most guys would never do that, and one of the things Game teaches, is that you MUST be the standout guy, doing things no other guy would do. Women are ALWAYS drawn to the standout guy in some way, be it the guy who’s the coolest, or the guy who’s the funniest, or the guy who’s the smartest (don’t get it twisted folks, being smart gets many a Woman’s knickers wet-the trick is not to be “House MD” smart), and so on. And in that sense just about every Man has what it takes to stand out in a crowd.
Take Dave Alex, for example. If he gave a bit of thought to it, he could take the very same “weird” interests of his-his fascination of trains and railways for example-and turn them into somethin Women would be fascinated by. They would want to know more about it, because Dave Alex is so passionate about the subject. And Passion moves Women more than anything. This is why in order for Game to work, one has to do it with FEELING.
I hope he don’t mind my saying this, but the other day, Sparks wrote me. We recently hung out a bit, and he said that he used my “I Hate You” opener on some sets. He said that a few girls asked him if that was a PUA line or something. LOL! He didn’t say exactly how he responded, but he did say that he got some phone numbers out of it.
Now, let’s go back over that scenario. Do you know what I do when I hear stuff like that from a Target?
I keep talking, in a very animated way. I ignore what she just said and keep talking, tossing out multiple threads, stories, a Neg slipped under the door, stuff like that. Most guys would get stalled by what Sparks’ experienced, you can’t do that, just barrell right thru it, keep talking. If you’re in the middle of a routine like that, finish out anyway, or toss in something else, or hit er w/a Neg, then go back and finish. That’s what I do.
And I agree w/DeCaelis wrt Whiskey. True, the Hood has more than its fair share of Neer Do Wells. No doubt about it. But it also has lots of other Brothas, who just so happen to do well with the Ladies too. The thugs ain’t the only ones gettin’ the gals, although admittedly they ain’t home on Sat night alone.
I think the issue a lot of guys are having a hard time wrapping their head around, as Dave Alex’s posts repeatedly show, is that they’re slow on the uptake: as Whiskey notes above, the Times have changed. Women don’t need Men anymore to survive. That means their selection criteria has changed. They can choose based on things other than a steady paycheck and he loves the children. Need that be so bad? Are Men by and large, so empty, so berfet of anything else in life, that they can offer nothing else?
Let’s go back to PA’s party scenario. Did that girl who blew him at the party really care that he wasn’t the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Or a multi-million dollar making jock? Or some heart throb celeb? It didn’t seem that way to me. Seemed to me she liked the Man in front of her, that she was turned on by him simply because he dared to make The Bold Move. That’s it.
And I’ll let you in on something else. I recently spoke of what I call Operation Iron Horse. That’s the girl I met on the subway to work early in the morning. She’s fine as May Wine. All the Brothas on the train know who she is. The difference btw me and them?
Im the only one who stepped to her. The other guys, didn’t, and when she unleashed the Bitch Sheild on me, they cowered even more.
They also gave me mad props for standing in the fire and calmly turning it back on her, through just sticking around, hanging in there, tossing in Negs and showing higher value, and compliance testing her. Among other things. If nothing else happens, the one thing I learned, truly, is that you have to do the things other guys won’t do. Most other guys won’t approach a seriously hot babe like that on the sub or anywhere else.
Which explains why, if nothing else, m,y train ride was just a bit more interesting than theirs.
Y’all holla if you hear me
The Obsidian
LikeLike
Dave Alex,
No, you ARE antisocial, because you assiduously avoid any contact that contains within the chance for something more than the kind of hugs where the Woman sticks her butt out away from you and lightly pats you on the back for 1.5 seconds. And that’s something you gotta work on. Working in a call center is irrelevant, because that doesn’t prevent you from having Women in your sphere, right NOW. Nor does it have anything to do w/getting married. Another red herring. This has nothing to do with getting hitched but getting laid. Period.
Again: Women don’t need Men to survive, Dave. Period. So your scenario above is as delusional as you claim Whiskey’s to be, and in that I don’t disagree. Seems like you both got some splainin to do.
O
LikeLike
To DeCaelis:
You make a lot of definite statements. You are absolutely certain about so many things.
If I cared, I’d read you a few more times to see if I could be sure that you were the classic hypocrite you seem to be. You like jabbering about God, so that definitely is a point in the hypocrite column.
You also reflexively put little people down. That’s like so tough!
It’d be interesting to hit you verbally really hard to see if your springs broke. I’ve learned from experience that’s actually pretty easy to do.
Telling men, men in AMERICA to suck it up more? We allow our wives to be alpha’s whores and willingly pay the child support on their child… because the whore doesn’t want to name the alpha! We allow Hindus and Mexicans to take our jobs without a whimper! Really, I mean, REALLY, what does it take to impress a two-bit little punk like DeCaelis?
Oh, I know DeCaelis, that’s not what you said! Of course, IT WAS. For those beneath DeCaelis, the little people saintly DeCaelis enjoys mocking. DeCaelis, of course, holds his lovely self to a far easier, less suffering standard. DeCaelis, like any woman, has many different sets of standards to apply to many different people. He is also, like, so tough! So conventional, so strong!
Oh boy, look at DeCaelis’s mighty attack on “feminism”(beta men I mean):
Porn and Eorotica:The Darkness and Ugliness Of Most Porn
Beta Men need to have the lock put on their stall! Beta Men are OUT OF CONTROL!
DeCaelis has trully chosen a fearsome foe to do battle with, as benefits such a noble brave woman as himself!
Beta Men are out of control!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
But at least they don’t fight back!
Oh, and for soul-chilling anti-feminism lines, I’ll repeat the one from my little tirade:
We allow our wives to be alpha’s whores and willingly pay the child support on their child… because the whore doesn’t want to name the alpha!
[For poor little beta’s out there, all states have laws that require you to support your wife’s children by other men if various conditions are met. In California, and many other states, it is if the judge says so. In others, you have a few years after the birth to contest, or you have to pay. No state makes the whore say who the actual father is. Apparently they assume your wife was taking to much cock to ever figure out who the father actually was!]
And that, beta’s, is what actual anti-feminism sounds like. Why bother lying, the truth is so much worse!
LikeLike
Mu, good action movies have three things: either an awesome hero or an awesome villain and lots of clicheic characters to fill in the needed pauses in action. Tthe hero’s woman, the token black guy, the annoying whiz kid, slimy reporters, lawyers and other clicheicly slimy people etc.
It’s more common for movies to have awesome villains than awesome heroes but Die Hard is an exception and I like the hero type – the almost anti-hero almost regular guy that just gets exaggerated luck and gets away with stuff always beats boring martial arts masters and superheroic supermen in silly costumes.
LikeLike
Jaakeeli,
Then The Punisher is more your shot. He’s not a “superhero” in the sense that he has no special abilities, like a Spider-Man or has lots of money like a Bruce Wayne. He’s just a hardened combat soldier who lost his wife and family to thugs, and wants to wipe the world clean of them. Period.
Have you ever seen The Punisher films? I saw the first one but haven’t gotten around to the second.
O
LikeLike
“We allow Hindus and Mexicans to take our jobs without a whimper! ”
‘Take”your’ jobs?!?!?
Ever heard of the free market? If the ‘Hindu’ does the same work with far less complaining than your fat ass, and with no need to take a 40 min break at 3 PM to go get ‘capuccino’, even though you still leave at 4:45, the ‘Hindu’ is more attractive to the employer.
It is no more ‘your’ job than it is his, you lazy bum.
LikeLike
Hey, does anyone know if this works?
http://apocalypseopener.com/
No less an authority than Richard Feynman claims it does.
LikeLike
‘pedestal game’ is an oxymoron. Pedestal psychology is the opposite of game.
But it pedestal tactics do work on women from very sexually repressed countries (India, China, etc.). Women are stil frozen into a Disney-movie level of maturity.
culturally, in places where pedestal tactics are unheard of because they imply femininity, using them is the behavioral equivalent of peacocking.
add to that that women want everything (both all-consuming devotion and total Alpha fuck-offishness), and pedestaling in definitively anti-pedestal cultures fills a market niche.
vs ‘the West’, where this behavior is the rule, for all sorts of reasons (including the narrative simplifications of the RomCom). feminized culture, etc etc.
LikeLike
If he gave a bit of thought to it, he could take the very same “weird” interests of his-his fascination of trains and railways for example-and turn them into somethin Women would be fascinated by
I think you’d be pleasantly surprised. Trains can easily bore the hell out of anybody within about 60 seconds of mentioning it unless you’re a railfan. Nobody wants to hear about how the Hudson Bergen Light Rail signaling system works, routings of trolley lines in Philadelphia (yes, SEPTA Rt 23 used to be a trolley), how the pilot controls work on a TGV, or the advantage of 25kV AC @ 60hz overhead catenary over third rail. Even the photos of the trains aren’t compelling enough to keep them occupied with the exception of my niece and nephew, and they’re biased since I give them money and buy them ice cream.
Seemed to me she liked the Man in front of her, that she was turned on by him simply because he dared to make The Bold Move.
Either PA radiated some degree of charm and attraction, or she has low standards for sex partner.
because you assiduously avoid any contact that contains within the chance for something more than the kind of hugs where the Woman sticks her butt out away from you and lightly pats you on the back for 1.5 seconds
Well, one must take into account that the women that I hug are the women that I generally have no interest in having sex with. These women are (or were) good friends and provide great company for me, but I’ve never viewed these women sexually, and I was never sexually attracted to them.
Besides, sex is replaceable with masturbation. Hugs aren’t replaceable with anything.
Working in a call center is irrelevant, because that doesn’t prevent you from having Women in your sphere, right NOW.
If you have a charming personality or some degree of game, it may paper over the low rank, but in the long-term, the low pay will catch up to you, and she will find somebody who doesn’t embarrass her in public when she mentions your employment.
And no, I don’t want the low ranking women who work in a call center either. I’d rather stay single then deal with friends and family talking about her or dealing with the dirty looks from other random strangers.
And that’s something you gotta work on.
As I’ve stated before, I’m aware that game works, but I’m not interested in your game. If I don’t get the girl that I want, I’ll be quite content and I’ll accept the consequences.
LikeLike
NOTICE! NOTICE!
Slender young slut seeks money and time of beta male to help take care of alpha male’s baby: http://charlotte.craigslist.org/w4m/1007787003.html
LikeLike
tood:
for the slower readers, the answer is “because learned behavior can be affected by environmental influences, but instinctive behavior largely cannot”.
—
thursday:
yes, it works. it obviously won’t work anywhere close to one hundred percent of the time, but anything with a nonzero payoff for zero effort is golden in my book.
rough analogy: it’s like shooting a twenty-point shot from half-court. some of them will be total airballs – most of them, if you haven’t practiced from that range – but hitting even one of them makes it all worthwhile.
in fact, if you’re unusually well-built, good-looking, or physically intimidating, then this sort of thing can work more often than traditional, neil strauss style game. if you look like brian urlacher, you’d have to be a total moron to use opinion openers, etc. instead of just going for the jugular.
LikeLike
to comment_decaelis:
dude.
rip van decaelis isn’t a woman. he’s just in his mid-40s, old enough to be on the tail end of the generation in which that sort of sycophantic shit just may have worked. and, as is par for the course on the internet, we also have no assurances of the quality of his targets.
he is of course self-righteous enough not to have noticed that the world has changed since his little game of ninepins.
LikeLike
Johnny five said:
“rip van decaelis isn’t a woman. he’s just in his mid-40s, old enough to be on the tail end of the generation in which that sort of sycophantic shit just may have worked.”
Johnny is right. I checked the guy’s blog he is in his mid 40s and rhapsodizes about why ballroom dancing is sexier than stripping and why pornography is art.
I’ll agree with the first of these. As for the second, well anyone who think porn isn’t art hasn’t watched Sasha Grey drink milk squirted out of Sandra Romaine’s ass.
Anyone seen that?
LikeLike
Forgive the self-promotion involved in this, but …
Evo-bio fans might enjoy visiting my site this week. I’m running a five-part q&a with the brilliant Greg Cochran about some wild recent ideas he’s been having. Check it out:
http://www.2blowhards.com
And leave questions and comments — on Friday Greg will be dealing with a selection of them.
LikeLike
A wolf in sheep’s clothing don’t you mean? Great. It’s what all women crave.
LikeLike
DeCalis — i’ve seen your words almost word-for-word spoken by women. What they really mean is, first be Alpha. THEN be romantic.
For most guys, the struggle to be Alpha is itself fruitless. Being romantic ONLY WORKS when everyone starts from the same playing field. Sad to say, women will experience only fleeting bits of romance from a momentarily engaged Alpha, before he dumps them for a hotter, younger chick.
And they themselves created that situation. By demanding Alpha above all else.
Women only care about status/situation, they don’t have rules. They have status/power evaluations. A beta guy being romantic is pathetic. A guy who is socially dominant is romantic. But that requires social dominance.
You are not THINKING. Think: how can MOST GUYS be socially dominant? Answer: they CANNOT BY DEFINITION. Period. Social dominance is like an episode of Highlander. There can be only one. And that one is what women want. Therefore, every guy with the ability to figure this out will race to social dominance. Which ends inevitably in thuggery because that is how social dominance gets settled in the end.
If you don’t like the violence in the Black Community? Guess what? It’s almost ENTIRELY CREATED BY BLACK WOMEN. Who demand social dominance and therefore create that race to the bottom. Just like White British underclass women created the same thing.
Jaakkeli — Die Hard is the best movie ever made. Period. Agreed on that.
Tood — For most guys, Game is not going to change their lives, because what is happening is that most guys are getting to the same level. It’s the Feiler Faster Principle: instead of it taking years for Game to filter to the masses, Strauss was on the View, for crying out loud. VH1 had a show about it. Game basic mastery will merely put every AFC on the same level as every other AFC, and women will start to demand not the basics but MASTERY. Guys like Mystery or Strauss or Matador.
All Game does is put AFC into the knowledge of WHY they are being rejected — as more and more men adopt it, women’s selection criteria changes ever upward.
That’s the dirty little secret of female empowerment — they demand ever higher social dominance in their men.
DA — the Fifties were indeed a golden age. A good deal for society and Beta males. Betas had families, had skin in the game, could be called upon to work hard and sacrifice if need be, much deeper resources than the thin spread of fragile and decadent elites. My concern is not spiritual or personal enlightenment, but a stable system that provides a two-parent family (proven superior) and massive/deep resources. That is the nuclear family, not the single motherhood junk that is now.
Podunk — my point is that firearms get adopted rapidly, once their use is seen, and so don’t provide an advantage long-term. Obsidian seems to think it’ will solve the crisis of shifting female choice. I do not. Hillaire Belloc wrote in the 1890’s:
“Whatever happens,
We have got
The Maxim gun
And they have not.”
Except now they have the AK-47 and the nuclear bomb. Advantage neutralized. Game will spread rapidly to at least 50% of the male population in the next ten years. So women will simply pick off the top 10% of the half of the male population, with the rest at least knowing quite will WHY they are rejected and of course that knowledge very incendiary.
Obsidian — women avoid smart guys like the plague. High IQ correlates strongly with low testosterone. Men of IQs around 130 have the same testosterone as men with 70 IQs, on average, according to GNXP links/studies. Women despise smart men, and prefer average IQ men with lots of testosterone. Every smart guy I know who is successful with women does his best to conceal his above average IQ.
Sara — that is my point. Women’s cravings must be regulated, controlled, neutralized, confined, just as men’s are. Women would quite happily share a dominant Wolf in Sheep’s clothing, and ignore all the other guys. Men would happily slaughter each other for a harem. Neither is healthy … for society. Right now, women need a good dose of moral and social constraints, including IMHO a huge hefty tax bill for the social ills of single motherhood.
Why shouldn’t women (who earn more than men) be forced to pay the toll for single motherhood? Perhaps every divorced, or single mother should get a tax bill of another 6% on her federal and state taxes. Why not?
LikeLike
Die Hard is also fairly unique in that the action is contained within a single location. It’s a large building with different floors that don’t really resemble each other, but most action flicks nowadays are all over the damn place location wise. You lose a lot of intensity moving around all the time.
Look at the last huge action film, The Dark Knight. Gotham wasn’t good enough, Batman had to jet off to Asia via plane and yacht. Multiple awesome locations aren’t nearly as impressive as Hollywood thinks they are, as we’ve already seen it all by now. It really fucks with continuity.
LikeLike
Whiskey wrote: “Women avoid smart guys like the plague. High IQ correlates strongly with low testosterone. Men of IQs around 130 have the same testosterone as men with 70 IQs, on average, according to GNXP links/studies. Women despise smart men, and prefer average IQ men with lots of testosterone. Every smart guy I know who is successful with women does his best to conceal his above average IQ.”
Amen to that. I’ve learned to stop myself all the time when conversing with women, early on. I don’t have problems later on, if she’s already attracted to me and it isn’t our first meeting.
I’ve learned what I find intellectually stimulating most women find boring. This probably has to do with being a nerd, but I bet some of it is rooted in what Whiskey wrote about. I once dated a creative writing major that I could talk literature with, but never anything published prior to 1960.
You can make major headway talking about The Hills though.
LikeLike
Good Morning Dave Alex,
Still trolling the bottom of the Bullshit Excuse Barrell, I see. Let’s get right to it:
First off, what other people think of who, or why, you spend YOUR time with, is none of their FUCKING BUSINESS. You’se a grownassed Man and don’t need to explain anything to anybody. Its that kind of attitude that among other things, holds you back from any chance of happiness in this life.
Two, Dave, of course folks’ eyes are gonna glaze over if you go into the nuts and bolts of trains, man. Its just like me and Astrology-most people don’t care to hear about Solar Arc this, and Midpoint that, Navamsa this and Dasa that. The idea is to communicate in *broad* terms, the history of trains, and they become an integral part of our country’s history. When im speaking of astrology, I do it in terms that speaks directly to the listener, and I deliberately scan out all the technogeek speak. Study Obama, man. Note how he talked during the campaign. He didn’t go into specifics, instead he spoke to broader themes that inspired people. You really need to get Greene’s Art of Seduction, he talks a great deal about this.
Three, both T and I and others in this forum have noted that Proles consistently get laid more than do ther so-called Professional betters, and the proof of that pudding can be seen right in this space. And let’s be clear: the quality of Women they get are just as good, often better, than many Professional guys. Im a personal witness. I keep tell you man, it ain’t about money, unless you just dealing with a straight up gold digger, and if that’s the case, you shouldn’t need Game to spot that. Its about being interesting, being spontaneous, being funny and being confidant. Period. Women can take care of themselves now. The things I mentioned they can’t buy, if they could they would have by now.
Four, no, jerking off is not equivalent to, or a legitimate replacement for, sex. It is a solitary activity that is the domain of antisocial activity when taken to extremes, and I think most everyone would agree that’s the case with you. The reasons by now are clear: FEAR. ANYTHING that requires you to risk something in the pursuit of a Woman in a sexual way you avoid like the plague, and worse, you refuse to do anything to improve yourself in the least. So let me cue you in on something brother: your success or lack thereof, w/Women, is a reflection of your life overall. And I think the other fellas in the room would agree with that. Its a holistic thing, a rising tide lifts all boats. You don’t even play good defence, you just don’t wanna get hit period. But Life is a full contact sport, kid.
Get in the Game.
O
LikeLike
and you know what else is beta?
foreplay.
if you know what you’re doing, your woman should be absolutely thrilled to be taken by you.
right there.
right then.
ecstatically receptive.
dripping wet.
foreplay, and any form of lube other than spit (hi chic!), are for betas and old people.
LikeLike
Whiskey,
Two quick points.
One, I can’t relate at all personally to the “Too High Male IQ” thing mainly because all the Women I’ve had in my life adored my intelligence, in fact it was a huge sticking point. Now, having said that, let’s be clear: I think most here would agree, that the ability to do Blue Collar industrial work to the tune of 60 hours-plus a week, for years, would suggest a higher than normal amount of testosterone. Given that im also a Black Male, this would make sense as well. So many there could be some ethnic/racial slant to this? For example, Malcolm X never turned off Women, Black or White, and clearly he was intelligent. So while I do admit that there is something to be said for “House MD” levels of IQ, I can’t personally relate.
The second point I want to quickly raise is simply this: you do seem to admit to want to see more restrictions on a Woman’s choice of mate. OK-so, how do we bring this about? What measures do we use, and, more importantly, what punitive measures do we bring to bear? I’d love to hear your ideas.
But let’s be clear: in order for what you’re talking about to work, not only would Women’s choices be restricted, but she would also have to choose among Men she may not truly want. Sounds dangerously close to the Taliban to me.
But maybe I’m overreacting. Let’s hear what you’ve got to say.
Holla back
The Obsidian
LikeLike
Correction: my high intelligence has always been a huge *selling point*. My bad, typo error.
I think, as I’ve previously stated, there might be a racial thing here at work. Most of the “Too High IQ Club” I’m aware of are usually White Males although a case can be made for Asian Males as well. Black Males on average have higher T-levels, and so can combine brain power and aggression in a way that perhaps the Too High IQ Guys can’t. Its definitely something to consider.
Hmm…
O
LikeLike
Guys, I just spent two hours of my afternoon conversing with one of my second husband’s friends about WW1 and WW2 history and corporations conspiring to topple the monarchies and rule the world themselves.
…yet I still have a vagina, and was pointedly conscious of this during the whole afternoon. Funny that.
If he wasn’t married, I’d do him and have his nerdlings.
I’m sure I’m not alone in this since someone did marry him when he was a younger, scrawnier geek, and bore him three offspring who are definitely his. She wasn’t bad looking in her day either.
Lowering your standards might increase the number of women whose interest you gain, but what good is it to have alot of women who you can’t even talk to?
LikeLike
obsidian, this is pretty simple. women think about high intelligence in much the same way as we do, with “high-T” substituted for “hot”.
viz.:
for us men, high iq is a big plus in a woman, but only provided she’s hot enough. if she’s not hot, then the high iq is irrelevant.
for women, high iq is a big plus in a man, but only provided he’s high-T enough. if he’s not high-T, then the high iq is irrelevant.
roissy’s negative market-value points for high male iq are duly noted, but those negative points only accrue because high iq has such a strong negative correlation with high testosterone. in other words, women’s reasoning is more along the lines of “high iq –> low-T wimp –> ewww” than strictly “high iq –> ewww”.
—
finally, mr. o, “david alexander” is either (a) a comically exaggerated caricature of a real person, as he’s said himself, or (b) altogether imaginary.
stop wasting your time. you’ll develop full-blown carpal tunnel before you make a dent, and you’re only encouraging him/it/whatever.
i’m pleased to see you’ve taken on “obsidian” 24/7. i almost feel a paternal vibe.
LikeLike
Whiskey – Except now they have the AK-47 and the nuclear bomb. Advantage neutralized.
Even worse when they have RPGs, IEDs and bio-chem weapons.
…women avoid smart guys like the plague. High IQ correlates strongly with low testosterone. Men of IQs around 130 have the same testosterone as men with 70 IQs, on average, according to GNXP links/studies. Women despise smart men, and prefer average IQ men with lots of testosterone.
High IQ is not the problem. It’s the type of high IQ of the semi-autistic math/computer science/reductionistic science types that is the problem.
High literary IQ and high interpersonal IQ are highly valued by women. I don’t buy into the single type of IQ theory self-servingly promoted by people with that particular cognitive bias.
Anyway here are some film clips of my favorite Beta character.
A Beta trying his best!
LikeLike
Heh. I was a 22-year-old college dropout working as a dishwasher at a restaurant, about six months prior to going into active-duty Army.
I felt confident in that particular situation, so I must have been radiating something that attracted her. But there were “hotter” guys than me at that party. And yet? What Obsidian says about the Bold Move is true.
LikeLike
there is a strong prejudice here against high IQ.
unless you start discussing with the girl the impact of the El Nino stuff on our current weather OR the Russian-American conflitcs in eastern europe, or even worst, the RAM memory of your PC, an unknown girl won’t have ANY clue about your high IQ. Suppose youfollow that “appocalipse opener” that someone linked to. How could the girl infer your IQ from that?
In my view it works this way: low T causes her to reject the guy. She will rationalize her rejection by blaming his nerdiness. If she is attracted, the once she discovers his high IQ she will rationalize her attraction based on it. IQ is not that important. Digit ratios are much more important. Roissy could have taken that IQ question in the test for the dating market value and substituted it for a measurement of the digit ratio of the guy.
LikeLike
Women avoid LOW-T like the plague. Saying they avoid high IQ is false. High IQ correlate with low T, but the ideal man she is searching is one with high IQ and high T.
Her attraction to any random man will be determined not by his IQ but by his T and his game, which probably correlate even stronger then IQ and T (though here the correlation is negative) . Once she decides about him she will delude herself that her decision was based on his IQ and no on his T.
LAstly, someone proposed a scenario where every men have game. This is unreal. It is like saying: imagine every men has a digit ratio that is strongly below 1.
LikeLike
J5,
Thanks! I’ve always been of the view that if you’re gonna do something, DO IT. Especially something like this. Women can’t stand halfassed dudes.
As for Dave Alex, I would beg to differ a bit, for this reason: he knows that spiel he runs down on y’all White boys won’t work on me. There ain’t nothing he can say that will. I done seen and did far and away more than him, and if that ain’t the case I know at least one other Brotha who has. And im here to let him know, straightup, that his excuses, attention whoring and the like is BULLSHIT.
He *could* be fake. If that’s the case, then maybe what I write could serve to help some other dude reading along. If so, Al-Humdillah.
O
LikeLike
Obsidian,
Malcolm was not intelligent; he was a huckster. He fooled many people into believing he was spouting intellectually backed truths and arguments and that he was brave when what he was really doing was telling angry, violent mobs exactly what they wanted to hear: white was evil, he told lies and was stupid, blacks were best.
Reading his Autobiography is a study in pseudo-intellectualism. Test every single fact he alleges and you’ll find yourself discovering he was making up whatever was convenient at the time.
He was violent and loud and a leader. That’s why he was popular with any ladies who were around.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but most men won’t bother to take the effort to learn game; humans are too inherently lazy. Why isn’t every guy hitting the gym and getting abs; it will certainly attract women, but most men, again, are too lazy to do anything about it. Realize that so many people are just content to sit on their asses at home on a Saturday night watching porn, rather than actually finding a real girl
LikeLike
Whiskey: the Fifties were indeed a golden age.
Not for everybody. Not by a long shot.
LikeLike
@ whiskey
If you don’t like the violence in the Black Community? Guess what? It’s almost ENTIRELY CREATED BY BLACK WOMEN. Who demand social dominance and therefore create that race to the bottom.
your logic is circular. i take your point to be that since black women demand high-t, socially dominant men, black male behavior becomes ever more aggressive in an attempt to woo black females. perhaps, but you’re claim that women ‘created’ it is an act of volition and not observation. you could just as easily claim that since black women live in a world of violent black men, it behooves them to find the most violent and dominant to protect them and their children. like almost all issues involving social equilibria, there is no one true answer as to what caused it.
@ lurker
most hucksters are intelligent; that’s how they get over on people. while i’m no malcolm x scholar, i know that he lost a lot of the hate rhetoric once he left the nation of islam. and the black muslim movement wasn’t particularly violent. in fact, they prided themselves on discipline and self-relience. were their ideas corrupt? of course.
LikeLike
Hello Lurker,
Question: how is a person you described Malcolm was, able to singlehandedly dismantle an entire panel of Harvard Law Profs? Plus Malcolm debated folks to a standstill both in jail and out.
But whatever, OK-how do you explain MLK? Intelligent, yes? And we know, for a fact, that Women loved him. Paul Robeson? DuBois? The list is pretty long, man. As Nicole has said, there are quite a few gals out there that dig a guy w/a brain.
Holla
O
LikeLike
I don’t know what you’re referring to with ” singlehandedly dismantle an entire panel of Harvard Law Profs,”
but in terms of debate, I can tell you Malcolm X didn’t debate. Basically, he broke all the basic rules of debate. For example, in his Autobiography, a prison teacher instigates an intellectual debate on a subject (i think it had something to do with Mussolini/Italy). Malcolm then brings up a totally unrelated fact—the pope blessing bombs that were used by Italian armies in Ethiopia—and uses it to drive the black prisoners to his side of the debate. Basically, X was a very poor intellectual, but he preyed upon his audience’s anger—hatred of whites—and fed into that until debating him openly would result in his being jeered to oblivion. He would just say inflammatory remark after inflammatory remark, with no rhyme or reason behind them and only tangentially (at best) related to the debate at hand. Heck, this is a guy who thought Atilla the Hun sacked Rome.
And Harvard Law? First, law school professors choose winners based on their already pre-approved decisions. Second, Harvard collectively gets on its knees for any left-wing intellectual, no matter how intellectually bankrupt. Witness Cornell West.
MLK was beloved because he was a leader—he could have spouted jibber jabber, so long as crowds followed him, women would too. Ditto Dubois. Bush, Clinton, Obama, heck any political leader gets groupies by the podium effect and the fact that people will follow him. Even Saddam Hussein and Hitler had groupies. There is no
As for Robeson? An famous actor, considered handsome and in good shape for his time, with a great voice? His intelligence mattered not. He was the podium effect + abiliy to sing + great body+ (for non-blacks) a rarity in a non-black world –a peacock, if you will. No woman was attracted to him for his interpretation of Othello.
Intelligence rarely grants anyone groupies/love. I can think of only one instance–Albert Einstein.
LikeLike
@whiskey
Thank you for clarifying. I still think your projection that half of the men in the world will know game in 10 years is extremely optimistic. Skills tend to propagate slowly, even when their existence is known to all. How long has masonry been around? Raise your hand if you’re a master mason.
Let’s face it, most people are too busy watching TV to expend effort in acquiring a skill, and those who are willing to expend the effort are often more concerned with more pressing matters like skills that are directly related to work. Game, as a skill, is a bit more akin to learning to play the guitar – it’s unlikely to put food on the table (unless you’re one of the lucky few). While everybody is aware that the skill exists, and you can’t swing a stick without hitting a guy who owns a guitar, how many can actually play it. Even most who have devoted years to trying still can’t play.
I think mastering anything is a task that most people are not willing to do. They’ll often go through amazingly contorted rhetorical gymnastics in order to convince themselves that the skill is not useful. In some sense, this is what I feel you may be doing: you’ve built up a hypothetical strawman case that will never come to pass, and feel victorious when knocking it down. It’s much easier than doing the work, though. I get that.
Perhaps the fault lies in Obsidian’s question. Maybe it was the question that was utterly abstract, idealized, and devoid of practical usefulness. If that’s the case, then I understand how the answer would be too.
LikeLike
Huckster’s might be somewhat intelligent, but more so they are survivors. They know with a lot of bluff and false confidence you can convince a lot of people to believe in you. They develop one skill—flaming rhetoric in favor of their idea that boasts of confidence and self-delusion.
The difference between them and true intellectual leader is hard to discern at first glance, which is natural, as people don’t follow intelligence, only leaders. For example, if a leader starts blaming a sitting president’s policies for Europe hating America and an economic downturn and that his hanging out with terrorists and insane racists is totally copacetic with his intellgent plan and keeps repeating “hope” and “change”, well….
Let’s just say a lot of people can be fooled. However, when the thread is pulled and the sweater unravels, it starts to fall apart.
Malcolm X is probably lucky (in terms of legacy) that he was assasinated. Had he lived to a ripe old age and continued his speech-making, he likely would have alienated many followers once they got over the intoxication of his rhetoric and found that the liquor wasn’t very sustaining without meat behind it. Ditto with Kennedy, a rich boy with little cred historically, but is still lionized.
LikeLike
OK Lurker, then how about Frederick Douglass?
O
LikeLike
It is absurd for whisky to suggest that most men have already learned, or are about to learn, Game, simply because Style was on the View and VH1 had a reality TV show. There are 100X more movies and shows that reinforce Beta behavior. Wall-E alone was seen by vastly more people than the VH1 show was.
Far too many men won’t even recognize the genius of game, preferring to default into a belief that success is derived through looks and money. Whisky has oviously never tried to explain the Game to average Beta guys. Of the few that recognize the value of Game, 90% will never be able to do approached consistently. No approaches = far too few opportunities to practice any subsequent part of game.
So whisky is dead, dead wrong.
Later he says that Game will spread to 50% of the male population in the next 10 years. Not only is that 10 years away, but I highly, highly doubt it.
LikeLike
Douglass was a great speaker; ergo, I would assume he had female followers. But its doubtful any followed him because of his brain.
Obsidian, are you insecure about this “No black man is beloved for being intelligent” meme? Because its all men and intelligence.
Fact: A woman who says she appreciates intelligence in a man is like man saying he likes a girl for her personality.
LikeLike
Right On, Podunk. Could not have said it better myself.
O
LikeLike
Thank you, Obsidian.
Now I’m interested in this ongoing thread with regard to a man’s intelligence as an asset or liability on the feminine balance sheet. I’ve found that women adore intelligence, but I did not always believe this to be the case. I realized, though, that my former belief that intelligence was a liability was actually an illusion.
There are other traits that often accompany having an outlier IQ that are the real turn-off: pedantry, the need to constantly dominate intellectually, an inability to switch it off in contexts that don’t demand it, a constant need to be ‘right’, or to get the last word… these traits signal insecurity, weakness. They adopt an implicit frame that she is qualifying him. They signal that he wants praise and recognition for being a smart little doggie.
One can eliminate these behaviors without sacrificing intelligence. When that happens, your IQ becomes an asset.
LikeLike
Fact: A woman who says she appreciates intelligence in a man is like man saying he likes a girl for her personality.
a couple of things. this is an oversimplification. there are certainly many women who i have appreciated for their personality. is a great personality enough to get me attracted to a 3? no, but i would certainly rather be with a very cool, very smart 7 than a self-absorbed, self-entitled, and vacuous 9. that’s just me. i’m sure different men place different value on personality, but most place some value on it.
the other thing with intelligence is that it is essentially a passive capacity until it is put into use. women value achievment; and since intelligence is often correlated with achievment, intelligence certainly has value.
LikeLike
podunk:
“There are other traits that often accompany having an outlier IQ that are the real turn-off: pedantry, the need to constantly dominate intellectually, an inability to switch it off in contexts that don’t demand it, a constant need to be ‘right’, or to get the last word… these traits signal insecurity, weakness. They adopt an implicit frame that she is qualifying him. They signal that he wants praise and recognition for being a smart little doggie. ”
—-In other words, acting alpha in your intellectual strength=dislike of women. However, men act this way physically, women get all hot and bothered.
What women want intellectually is a man smart enough to say something witty and be able to end up in a powerful position. Street smarts, not book smarts. Book smarts=unattractive.
Lance:
“women value achievment; and since intelligence is often correlated with achievment, intelligence certainly has value.”
—No. Women value the acheivement; how you get it is meaningless to her. Whether you got to be group leader because you’re smarter than everyone else or because you murdered your opponents doesn’t matter. Her pussy drips because you lead. Your intelligence in getting there is unimportant.
LikeLike
Lance: “no, but i would certainly rather be with a very cool, very smart 7 than a self-absorbed, self-entitled, and vacuous 9.”
Lance, the point is to get the most attractive female around. If you’re looking for personality, go to eharmony. I’ll take your vacuous 9 and fill her up with enough of my cock so that her personality is taking care of.
LikeLike
Women are NOT repelled by high-IQ. Indeed, professions that require high IQ (medicine, law, Wall Street) are attractive to women.
What women don’t like is a man who is 1) into very esoteric hobbies (nerdy), or 2) has to be right all the time.
In fact, a man with high IQ can do a lot of qualifying/subtle negging of a woman if done the right way, and strengthen his game.
LikeLike
“When that happens, your IQ becomes an asset.”
YES. All the top PUAs have high IQs. Many have engineering backgrounds that helped them learn Game from an analytical approach (JDog, Matador, and Lance Mason for starters – all three were engineers, the ultimate high-IQ beta provider socially handicapped profession).
LikeLike
Podunk>
I have anecdotal evidence that missed connections works. It was my first ever posting too.
Tuesday saw a hot chick in a bar with two friends.
Wednesday posted to CL. You: broad smile, hat, sat near wherever. Me: striped shirt, standing wherever. Exchanged looks, etc. Tell me your hat color.
Thursday AM reply from hijacker. “I’m not the hat girl, but I remember you. I was the girl wearing whatever.”
Thursday PM reply. “I’m the hat girl, my roomie saw your posting and told me. My hat was whatever [correct] color.”
I exchanged mail and facebook messages with hat girl but it never went anywhere. She was just curious who posted about her.
I exchanged mail with the hijacker who turned out to be equally hot, went out the following Monday, made out with her in her car parked in the street and she went down on me.
An uncommon scenario no doubt, but I can’t say missed connections doesn’t work.
LikeLike
I too agree with Podunk. Learning Game is no harder than learning a totally different language or a musical instrument. In fact, both analogies apply quite well.
50% in 10 years is absurd. I don’t think it will be more than 5-10% in 10 years.
Ballroom Dance is very valuable in meeting women (due to the structure, the frame, and the ratio of women to men). Yet how many men have taken it up, and put in the effort to become good?
The barrier is that practicing Game takes a lot of courage, which practicing Mandarin or the violin does not. I still maintain that 90% of guys cannot do approaches. A guy who cannot do approaches never masters Game since there are too few opportunities to practice anything else.
LikeLike
@Lurker: I’m not sure that your way of rephrasing it is equivalent to what I’m saying: “In other words, acting alpha in your intellectual strength=dislike of women. However, men act this way physically, women get all hot and bothered.”
From my perspective, those traits are not acting alpha. Rather, they are acting beta.
Consider an analogy to the male body: women like a nice physique, that inverted-trapezoidal upper body shape. They like a man who can handle himself, and muscular tone.
The analogous traits that come along for the ride in many men who work out are: the constant need to flex their muscles without a hint of irony or jest, constantly talking about how much they can bench, being so absorbed in their physicality that there is no other aspect of their persona…
In my opinion, an alpha does not need to constantly assert his position. It’s enough that he knows he can crush the competition, and that the competition knows this too. Once he’s there, he doesn’t have to keep proving it ad nauseum.
Constantly needing to assert dominance may actually signal that he is only tenuously holding on to his position as the top dog, which will sent her eyes in search of the contenders.
LikeLike
Lance, the point is to get the most attractive female around. If you’re looking for personality, go to eharmony.
‘the point’ is to mazimize my own happiness. if you’re happy with stupid hot girls, then more power to you. my argument still holds: your vague generalization that men don’t value personality is verifiably false.
No. Women value the acheivement; how you get it is meaningless to her.
again, this is incredibly simplistic. and the claim that you know what has meaning to every woman is a tad hubristic. the human mind is capable of incredible feats of reason and rational insight if only you first make the slight concession that you don’t know everything.
if you’re point were true, then game wouldn’t work. game is based on signalling attractive traits to women in the absence of actually posessing these things. that is why an alpha with no money can outgame a wealthy beta. intelligence can serve as a signal of future achievment; therefore, it most certainly has value to women. it can also signal that a man is an anti-social dork. it all depends on how it is deployed.
LikeLike
A flower, just for you.
LikeLike
” the Fifties were indeed a golden age.”
Dead wrong. What about Jim Crow and lynchings? What about being drafted and set to Korea? What about the absence of all the technology we enjoy today?
Plus, the Fifties were only 10 years long. If a Beta married in the fifties, his marriage would span into the 60s and the 70s. Tough times followed the fifties.
The idiots who romanticize about the 50s being some Garden of Eden don’t grasp that the 50s only lasted 10 years. It was not some perpetual wonderland that people could be frozen into.
LikeLike
sigh. these dudes need to get a clue.
LikeLike
why cant I post?
LikeLike
Lance:
“and the claim that you know what has meaning to every woman is a tad hubristic.”
—-the claim that every woman is her own unique flower is incredibly betaistic.
“the human mind is capable of incredible feats of reason and rational insight if only you first make the slight concession that you don’t know everything.”
—the female mind is not capable of any of those things.
“intelligence can serve as a signal of future achievment; therefore, it most certainly has value to women.”
—a woman doesn’t care how you became alpha. she only cares that you are alpha. women hook up with alpha men, not men who they think might be able to be alpha men in the future. To think a woman is interested in pygmalion-ing you because of your iq is folly.
LikeLike
What about Jim Crow …
Was that worse than having white no-go areas in contemporary American cities?
… and lynchings?
You mean like the Jena Five? or do you mean the Knoxville atrocity?
In other words, we swapped 19th century lynching for the black-on-white murder epidemic we’ve had over the past 50 years, and which eclipses in sheer numbers any white-on-black killing done between the 1860 through 1950s?
Is what we have today such a step forward?
LikeLike
Sorry for the inconvenience but when I tried to post nothing appears and I get moved to the top of the page.This has happened to me before on other sites.Happen to anyone else out there?Does anybody know why,and how to correct it?
LikeLike
Plus, the Fifties were only 10 years long. If a Beta married in the fifties, his marriage would span into the 60s and the 70s. Tough times followed the fifties.
The idiots who romanticize about the 50s being some Garden of Eden don’t grasp that the 50s only lasted 10 years. It was not some perpetual wonderland that people could be frozen into.
Note that the Fifties as a cultural/political period did not necessarily coincide with the 1950’s as a decade. One might argue that the cultural Fifties did not come fully into being until 1953 or 1954 with Eisenhower as President and the wind-down of the Korean War. On the other end, the cultural Fifties persisted well into what the calendar showed to be the 1960’s, with their end being gradual and marked by events including JFK’s assassination, the Beatles, and the Vietnam War.
As for whether the Fifties however demarcated were a true golden era, I suspect that things look much brighter in retrospect. Indeed, I’ve heard things along this line from older people who remember the era. There was general but uneven prosperity, with a short but severe recession in the latter part of the decade. The military draft continued even after the end of the fighting in Korea. Perhaps worst of all, people genuinely feared nuclear war with the Soviet Union; unlike today’s fear of Islam, the 1950’s fear of nuclear annihilation was not merely panty piddling paranoia but actually had a grounding in reality.
Peter
LikeLike
PA, come on. True, Blacks kill Whites more than the other way around, *today*. But to attempt to make the argument that this wasn’t the case back in the day is absurd. Lynchings were rampant in the early part of the last century, easily documented. Black Men would disappear w/impunity, etc. So let’s be reasonable here.
Same deal with these supposed “no go areas” for White folks. I see White folks ALL THE TIME in the hood. But then Philly is a college town. Go figure.
What is interesting to me here is the seeming fact that one, guys w/the kinds of “House MD” IQ don’t want to do anything to change their own lives, and worse, then have the nerve to think that they are ENTITLED to the hottest babes around. Go figure.
Cognitive Dissonance anyone?
O
LikeLike
I’d agree with Obsidian. Lynching in the early 20th century often was attended by crowds in the hundreds, and with full consent of law enforcement. Often, the black man merely looked at a white woman.
Today, black crime against whites is a problem, yes, but whites can give black areas a wide berth. I have no desire to ever go to those no-go areas, and don’t expect to be missing anything good. Black on black crime also occurs, and does not affect whites directly.
Getting drafted and sent to Korea, the lack of modern technologies, etc. were problems. I don’t have any desire to be in the 50s.
LikeLike
Obsidian, sorry, I just needed to smack down a politically correct dummie who was regurgitating syllables that had been fed to him since elementary school. Yeah, a lot of the things about the old days sucked, and a lot of the things we have today suck too.
LikeLike
@ PA:
In other words, we swapped 19th century lynching for the black-on-white murder epidemic we’ve had over the past 50 years, and which eclipses in sheer numbers any white-on-black killing done between the 1860 through 1950s?
why the either/or? is it really that difficult to concede that 1950s america was a terribly unjust place for many americans and at the same time condemn PC multiculturalism?
not to mention, your analysis is simply not true. it rests on this notion that white men have become the perpetual victim and always have a disadvantage and face more adversity than non-whites and women. that’s straight delusional. a couple of examples:
this idea that whites face such grave danger every time they end up in a black neighborhood implies that blacks don’t face similar danger in the same situation. you really think the predatory thugs that inhabit inner-city ghettos won’t pounce on a black victim as readily as a white one? in fact, in many places (like college towns) criminals may avoid white targets because they know as long as they prey on blacks, or more precisely, locals, only, there is less likely to be an aggressive response from law enforcement.
look at the supreme court for another example. look at the respective treatment that antonin scalia and clarence thomas receive in the liberal and mainstream press. they’re both often dismissed as right-wing extremist. there tends, however, to be a grudging respect for scalia’s legal mind, whereas thomas is often dismissed as basically an uncle tom who just follows along with whatever his conservative masters tell him. a wall street journal reporter wrote a book on the supreme court last year and the mainstream media was collectively surprised at the revelation that scalia often takes hi cues from thomas.
one more: sarah palin, a woman who rose to governer of her own state on her own two feet, is derided by feminists; while bill clinton, the very stereotype of the powerful, philandering white male is given the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
? , please, don’t socialize your problems.
Podunk and Tood are right about the negative side of high inteligence. About the dissemination of game, this topic appears almost every week in this blog. I am on the side of the unbelievers. Game works in every men, but for the 40 year old virgin, it means the difference between a celibate death and marriage with a 40 year old cougar who probably has a child from some alpha who scored her in her late 20’s. Maybe 35 years old, so that she can still give birth to a child
Game as most people imagine, turning celibate guys into Roissy/Roosh style PUA’s works with very few men, who were born higher betas/lower alphas but were brainwashed by the feminist propaganda or put women in pedestals.
LikeLike
Obsidian/Nicole,
When we say women prefer men with lower IQs, we’re not taking about people who deal with and/or are members of the black intellectual community. I’m not sure how this thread got to talking about WEB DuBois.
We’re talking about the twentysomethings we meet in bars, who all have the same streaked blonde hair, who all wear the same clothes and who all watch the same TV shows and movies.
If you attempt to hit these women with any type of out of the box smarts, you get rejected. Trust me on this. There is even a study that says although women complain about men liking football, they don’t like or trust men who don’t.
It’s nice Nicole is the exception with her WWII talk, but if you talk WWI with 99 percent of women out there, they’ll tell you to go away and then call you a stalker.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Palin was vilified because she was a pro-life woman. Had she been pro-choice (not out of the question for a VP candidate on a centrist Republican ticket),
you would have seen countless softball interviews and stories praising her as “the reformer in the woods,”
about how she is an enlightened mind in the redneck backwoods,
and her hunting would have been held up as an example by Gloria Steinem of women “seizing the symbols of patriarchy and shaking them to the ground.”
And Tina Fey’s impression would have been much more positive, or else non-existent.
Feminism is built on abortion. It is the main plank in the movement. If you’re for it, you’re a feminist. If not, you’re not. Bill Clinton had free reign to do whatever he wanted to women because, in the words of one severely messed up feminist, “I’d give him oral sex just for keeping abortion legal.”
LikeLike
@ lurker
reading your last comment reminds me of that scene in austin powers when dr. evil talks about his father claiming to be “the inventor of the question mark” and accusing “chestnuts of being lazy”.
there’s a concept in statistics and quantitative methods known as robustness. basically, the more strict your assumptions are, the less robust your outcomes will be. your generalizations produce idea that aren’t very robust; and, therefore, not particularly useful.
LikeLike
@ lurker
let me put this another way: your claims to have all the answers simply increase the likelihood that you have none of the answers.
LikeLike
whiskey:
Whiskey, you keep repeating this like a broken record, but it’s simply not true. For a change, try looking at the world around you before you make conclusions based on inferences from amateur-science blogs and (possibly) your own personal frustrations. Yes, there are people with high IQ who are extremely socially inept and/or physically unattractive, and who don’t do well with girls, and there are also extremely charming and dominant men who perform poorly at IQ tests. However, ceteris paribus, intelligence is on the net an *advantage* with women. You sound like you’re just venting your frustrations when you keep repeating this “women despise smart men” nonsense.
Your observation is correct only in that the modern American social and educational system tends to produce technical and scientific professionals who are, on average, highly nerdy. But this is a peculiarity of the American system, not some deep insight into human nature. Nerdiness is a reflection of poor social skills, physical unattractiveness, lack of style, and ignorance of how women’s minds really work. None of this is a necessary side-effect of intelligence — on the contrary.
LikeLike
Game works best for :
1) A man with good looks and a good job, but who has been brainwashed into Beta traits, and thus gets little action. Such a man would have got much more action in a different era, or different culture, but needs Game in this environment. So Game is needed to get him back to the social status he otherwise might have had.
2) A natural who was already doing moderately well, but can now use these tools to become supercharged.
3) A divorced guy who has had his confidence and self-esteem shattered, and needs to recover to what he once was.
An Omega with a bad job can still benefit from game, but there is a ceiling as to how far he can rise.
LikeLike
Ah, Lance, let me know how well flashing your Mensa credentials works at happy hour tonight.
People who believe women are attracted to intelligence (book smarts) are the same people who believe OJ’s looking for the real killers.
If women were attracted to intelligence, the library at MIT would be overloaded with horny pussy. In fact it’s not. The MIT guys only get their pussy when they either start their own companies and become CEOs or make enough money to pay women to get wet for them. And, conversely, athletes would not have groupie pools the size of Lake Erie.
Intelligence is de-selected for by women. Except when they have to select the intelligent guy because he’s used his intelligence to become Alpha. Women don’t like men smarter than them, only more powerful; women don’t want to try to manipulate someone who can out think them. Street smarts, by contrast, are selected for.
The Ancient Greeks understood this concept well. They had this immortalized in the competing gods Apollo and Bacchus. Apollo was the god of poetry, music, foresight, and was, in the objective criteria of the day, the most beautiful of the Gods. He was the symbol of high intellect and civilization amongst them.
In contrast, Bacchus was the god of wine and drunken stupor, was portrayed as ugly, and threw wild orgies of drunkenness called “Bacchanalia.”
In the ancient Greek legends, Apollo NEVER could get laid. Every mortal woman he approached ran from him/rejected him–he was constantly resorting to rapes, bribery, and pursuit for his lusts. See Daphne and Cassandra. His cult was little followed by women in Greece.
In contrast, Bacchus had a famous following amongst female devotees, and was actively pursued by the women in both legend and fact through drunken, orgiastic rituals. Suprisingly, Bacchus took few female lovers.
The moral? Apollo, the intellectual, was resoundly rejected by women. Bacchus, the street smart party dude, was beloved.
The ancient Greeks understood the difference between intelligence and partying, and which one women really preferred. Read your legends, Lance.
LikeLike
Lance:
“your claims to have all the answers simply increase the likelihood that you have none of the answers”
—Lance, like most betas, views confidence from theory substantiated by factual results as a sign of being incorrect.
I love guys like Lance. His beta-ness makes the girls all the more easy targets for game.
LikeLike
“If women were attracted to intelligence, the library at MIT would be overloaded with horny pussy. In fact it’s not.”
Lurker hit that one out of the park. I’ll add:
If women were attracted by intelligence, honor society high school boys would be juggling multiple girls, not the football team thugs.
There’s no doubt a sector of upper middle class women marry guys for smarts so they can have a better life. But we’re not on here to learn how to be those sucker Beta providers, are we?
LikeLike
Thank you, Days.
LikeLike
@ lurker (i wonder where you lurk. it’s most certainly not around a library):
i’m simply pointing out that you have a very poor understanding of quantitative methods and empirical evidence, and that fact increases the likelihood that what you say is going to be pure rubbish. a chimpanzee can employ ‘facts’, but it takes some actual thought to make sense of them.
see if you can follow me here. when you claim to have THE one true answer to any phenomenon, you’re aiming at a much smaller target than when you offer some general point. imagine a man with a rifle who claims that he can hit the side of the barn standing next to another who claims that he’s going to shoot straight into the center of a pre-existing bullet hole. also imagine that you have no previous knowledge of either of these two men’s shooting skills. on whom would you put your money?
your comment about apollo and bachus was quite interesting and contained some very good insights. your comment that women are incapable of reason and rational thought is an overblown generalization; and, therefore, profoundly… well, not profound.
i’ve actually written a blog post in which i agree with some of what you say:
http://lance-cristal.blogspot.com/2008/10/hes-so-smart-he-agrees-with-everything.html
notice, however, that i make an observation, offer a theory, and ask questions meant to challenge that theory. see the difference?
LikeLike
If a woman is ugly, lacks social skills, and is bad at conversation, yet is extremely smart, I don’t think many guys would be very attracted to her. This woman would then then run around, and claim that men are not attracted to smart women, and that they only like stupid hot bimbos.
I think it works the same with women. If a guy is ugly, wimpy, and bad at conversation, yet smart, then no, he probably isn’t going to get very many women. Yet I don’t see many women favoring the Down syndrome guys either, so intelligence is not a deterrant either.
I think that a certain amount of brain power is a necessary, but not sufficient quality for a guy to have to really able to score with women. The problem with the extremely high iq crowd is that high iq’s at the extreme end of the scale tend to be highly correlated with autistic, and autistic-like behaviors, which definitely will turn off most women. But that is more the behavior, and not the brains.
LikeLike
@ lurker (i wonder where you lurk. it’s most certainly not around a library):
i’m simply pointing out that you have a very poor understanding of quantitative methods and empirical evidence, and that fact increases the likelihood that what you say is going to be pure rubbish. a chimpanzee can employ ‘facts’, but it takes some actual thought to make sense of them.
see if you can follow me here. when you claim to have THE one true answer to any phenomenon, you’re aiming at a much smaller target than when you offer some general point. imagine a man with a rifle who claims that he can hit the side of the barn standing next to another who claims that he’s going to shoot straight into the center of a pre-existing bullet hole. also imagine that you have no previous knowledge of either of these two men’s shooting skills. on whom would you put your money?
your comment about apollo and bachus was quite interesting and contained some very good insights. your comment that women are incapable of reason and rational thought is an overblown generalization; and, therefore, profoundly… well, not profound.
i’ve actually written a blog post in which i agree with some of what you say:
http://lance-cristal.blogspot.com/2008/10/hes-so-smart-he-agrees-with-everything.html
notice, however, that i make an observation, offer a theory, and ask questions meant to challenge that theory. see the difference?
LikeLike
I’ll go one step further :
Isn’t one form of Intelligence defined by identifying the source of a problem, identifying the solution, and working towards the solution?
So a high-IQ engineer who still blindly continues his Beta habits, rather than observing guys who actually are successful, isn’t really that smart. He is smart in one way, but quite blind in another. Therefore, overall, he isn’t smart enough to overcome his challenges.
True intelligence would constitute searching to learn the secrets of the guys who are successful, then discovering Game, and seeking out methods to learn Game.
Wouldn’t that be true problem-solving intelligence? Isn’t outside-the-box thinking a measure of intelligence?
LikeLike
Lance:
“i’m simply pointing out that you have a very poor understanding of quantitative methods and empirical evidence”
—and I’m simply pointing out that you have a very poor understanding of women and game.
According to you, that should be netting you some very fine honeys while I’m off shuffling my feet for being a mysogynist. Wodner why the opposite is true…
“a chimpanzee can employ ‘facts’”
—-in your case, apparently not.
“your comment that women are incapable of reason and rational thought is an overblown generalization; and, therefore, profoundly… well, not profound.”
—It’s hard to be profound on a universal truth recognized for centuries. Smart men have been saying the same thing for generations. While gloriously rolling in pussy. Intelligent betas, on the other hand, are always making excuses for their feminist masters.
“see the difference?”
—between my ability to pick up women and yours to stay at home and punch the clown and pretend they secretly like you for your knowledge of Ovid? Yes, lancy boy, definitely.
I repeat: If women were attracted to intelligence, the library at MIT would be overloaded with horny pussy.
LikeLike
DOBA:
There is even a study that says although women complain about men liking football, they don’t like or trust men who don’t.
I’d like to see this. Got a link?
LikeLike
lurker:
perfect example of what i mean. i refuse to accept your overblown theories; you assume that i have no game and quote ovid as a seduction technique. is it so hard for you to just admit that you can glean very little useful information about my personal life from a few postings on the interweb?
i get it. someone told you that women like confidence, and since then you’re incapable of admitting that you don’t know everything about everything. every time you post, you take a complicated issue, boil it down to a sentence or two, and pretend you have THE answer. basically, you do a very poor roissy impersonation.
very fine honeys
who are you, barry sobel?
If women were attracted to intelligence, the library at MIT would be overloaded with horny pussy.
there’s a very simple point that you can’t seem to grasp. extremely high intelligence is highly correlated with poor social skills. just because women aren’t attracted to poor social skills, doesn’t mean they don’t value intelligence. in fact, if women de-selected for intelligence, as you claim, the human race would be getting dumber. despite the anecdotal evidence, human IQs rise over time. account for that fact.
LikeLike
“Intelligent betas, on the other hand, are always making excuses for their feminist masters. ”
My point is, that very act makes them less intelligent than they think. They may be very brilliant in mathematics or science, but their intelligence is not well-rounded.
To not discover Game, and learn why Game is the paradigm that gets around female dominance, despite the exposure that Game is now getting, is an example of NOT being able to identify and correct a problem, and hence the person actually is NOT that intelligent.
LikeLike
“is it so hard for you to just admit that you can glean very little useful information about my personal life from a few postings on the interweb?”
—-Beta is as beta does.
“someone told you that women like confidence,”
—Can’t be true. They clearly like intelligence. Ken Jen got all the chicks in high school.
“and since then you’re incapable of admitting that you don’t know everything about everything.”
—why admit what isn’t true?
“basically, you do a very poor roissy impersonation.”
—I would never try to mack on roissy’s estimable game. I just like slapping you around, beta boy.
“extremely high intelligence is highly correlated with poor social skills.”
—How did you miss the former but get the latter?
“if women de-selected for intelligence, as you claim, the human race would be getting dumber.”
—except where intelligence has given someone alpha status. For example, a great general or a great banker or great businessman in history used intelligence to gain power. Women by and large, however, preferred the common dumb soldier to the simpering academic. So yes, intelligence was de-selected for. And yes, we are getting dumber; see Springer, Jerry.
“despite the anecdotal evidence, human IQs rise over time. account for that fact.”
–Intelligent Alphas are much smarter at spreading their seeds than lesser alphas. Also, as the generals, they kill off the offspring of the dumb pairings. It’s a self-enforced parsing; women ensure that only the smart +strong genes survive; in the absence, women happily spread their legs for the strong over the smart genese any day.
LikeLike
you take a complicated issue, boil it down to a sentence or two, and pretend you have THE answer.
Well Lance, he could do what you do, which is not address the issue at all. He could put up straw men and ineffectively try to knock them down, as it appears that is your expertise. That and condescension, over bloated ego, and empty rhetoric.
LikeLike
“If women were attracted to intelligence, the library at MIT would be overloaded with horny pussy.”
You know, I agree that this line is humorous and plays well with a certain audience, but it contains so many flaws. First is the conflation of intelligence with being a hard-at-work nerd. Second is the tacit assumption that women aren’t kept away from said library by something else – such as a unidimensional personalities, or the fact that a library is a work environment, or that one really needs to be student or faculty to justify their presence. Third is another tacit assumption that any random trait that women find attractive will work even better if it’s turned up to 11 in a person devoid of any other traits they might also desire. So, yes it makes a great one-liner, but it comes off as a statement about intelligence made by someone on the outside looking in.
LikeLike
ah, podunk, you assume that I was never in one of those libraries looking out for someone to teach me the way to nail those cheerleaders eagerly spreading their legs for the stupid rappers and basketball players at the nearby orgy.
thank you roissy for all you do.
LikeLike
Beta is as beta does.
oh, i get it. it’s like forrest gump, except you changed the words. that’s very witty.
I just like slapping you around, beta boy.
you really are a legend in your own mind. i hope that’s working out for you.
lurker really is the living embodiment of the saying, ‘a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ in deference to another saying, ‘never wrestle with a pig. you get dirty; the pig has fun’, i’m going to end this little debate with you, lurker. i’ve sufficiently made my points. the last word is all yours.
ps – when i mentioned wrestling with pigs, did it remind you of your weekend? you know, with all those ‘fine honeys’?
LikeLike
“that’s very witty.”
—Glad you could catch on there, lancy.
“the last word is all yours.”
—It always is.
“ps – when i mentioned wrestling with pigs, did it remind you of your weekend? you know, with all those ‘fine honeys’?”
—That’s no way to talk about me and your mom. But your girlfriend, yeah; it does remind me of when she tried to join us.
LikeLike
Hmm…nothing I said rested upon that assumption. I merely think the statement’s appeal is entirely superficial, regardless of whether or not you spent time there. It’s easy to parody: “If women found money attractive then Fort Knox would Slit Central Station.” I wouldn’t buy that statement either…not even if uttered by someone who worked for the treasury department.
LikeLike
False comparison, podunk. Women do not find money attractive; women find men with money attractive. Women would no more hang out at Fort Knox than they would hang out with Deep Blue if they valued smarts.
Wall Street bars are littered with models and 10s sitting around, waiting for Mr. I-Banker to buy his way into her pants. Because Wall Streeters are men with money.
Just as jock hangouts are frequented by jock sniffers.
And biker bars are infested with biker sluts.
And rap clubs have rap groupies.
We thus know women will congregate in places where men having the skill/ material good they crave go. Like I said, the fact that prime grounds for snagging the top .0001% of human male intelligence in a young, single form is a definite signal that women do not value intelligence. Science fairs and libraries are not known for being flush with buxom beauties aching for a taste of Mr. Fulbright.
It ain’t superficial if it’s true.
LikeLike
Correction: “Like I said, the fact that prime grounds for snagging the top .0001% of human male intelligence in a young, single form are devoid of women looking for a hookup with such men is a definite signal that women do not value intelligence.
LikeLike
“If a guy is ugly, wimpy, and bad at conversation, yet smart, then no, he probably isn’t going to get very many women. ”
I know that personal anecdotes don’t count for much, but this is not my experience. Let me share with you all what I found out THE HARD WAY in college.
I used to have my hair long, travel in and out of my dorm with my guitar and became sort of a mystery guy to the girls on my dorm hall. They eventually had some sort of contest to see who could meet me.
When one of them did meet me, she said — eventually — she was disappointed. She thought I was the coolest guy around but I “acted like Woody Allen” and “was sort of nerdy.” She expected Mr. Rocker Dude but got Mr. SmartyPants. She turned off.
The reason for this is that I could not small talk with women and used to go directly to nerdy intellectual talk. We were in college, so I figured this would play.
Wrong. I’m living proof behavior matters, and game works (although at the time I didn’t know the word “game,” I had to remake my public persona without guidance).
LikeLike
I know an MIT guy that is:
1. Not good looking
2. Under 5’2″
3. Not exactly the life of the party kind of guy
4. He sucks at all sports
5. Beta
He met his wife while in college – this was well before he had any money, etc. She’s a real hottie and makes a lot of money herself. In fact she’s hot enough that even though she’s aged a lot I’d dump loads in her if it didn’t violate 123 different social taboos to do so (he’s one of my best friends).
How’d he do it? I asked her and she told me that he was just her dream man and that she’d do anything to have him. I don’t really get it. Fluke?
LikeLike
A few choices:
1. Fluke.
2. HUGE SCHLONG.
3. From same culture?
4. Passing resemblence to childhood crush (ricky schroeder? will smith? *gulp* corey feldman?)
5. They’re both gay and using each other as beards.
6. In the bed room, he fuckes her so hard she bleeds. And she likes it. And she also likes looking at the bruises his handcuffs make on her.
7. She’s got a child molestation fetish.
8. He’s got a secret talent (accordian master, stand up comedian, etc.)
Seriously, 2, 3, 4, and 6 sound reasonable.
LikeLike
Days said, “We’re talking about the twentysomethings we meet in bars, who all have the same streaked blonde hair, who all wear the same clothes and who all watch the same TV shows and movies.”
:: cringes ::
Oh…Ewes…
Well…carry on then. :: decides to go fondle some damn body’s goatee to purge her mind of the image ::
:: twitch ::
LikeLike
lurker,
“4. Passing resemblence to childhood crush (ricky schroeder? will smith? *gulp* corey feldman?)”
I think you solved the mystery. That must be it. It certainly isn’t the others. She also had a huge crush on Clay Aiken.
I’m really happy for my friend. I think he got lucky big time. Except for the Clay music crap that he probably has to endure. That would be hell.
LikeLike
“False comparison, podunk. Women do not find money attractive; women find men with money attractive.”
But that’s exactly where the comparison holds up: women do not find intelligence attractive; women find men with intelligence attractive. I posit that the denizens of the MIT library lack is manhood, and it is this that is keeping women at bay. That and the stench of Asperger’s Syndrome.
LikeLike
Podunk:
“But that’s exactly where the comparison holds up: women do not find intelligence attractive; women find men with intelligence attractive.”
—-Wrong. You’re just splitting hairs now, and you know it.
The MIT guys are men with intelligence, period. So was Ken Jen (pre-Jeopardy fame). So is every science department at every university. So is every chess club. So is every Mensa meeting. They’re not all social degenerates—yet they’re also not generating a huge groupie following. Heck, if that were the case, there would be no biker/rap/jock groupies—they’re all social misfits and outcasts, with much difficulty getting along socially.
Face it, unless you’ve got some huge secret proof of nerd/big brain groupies, you’re sunk.
The point is the same: men who have more money/athletic prowress/musical ability/fame/toughness than most are infinitely more attractive than men with more intelligence. Women will deal with intelligence when it brings them the alpha–i.e. if the intelligence gets their men money or power or fame. It is the money/power/fame that attracts the women.
You could be the smartest guy in the office and it wouldn’t make you a whit more attractive—in fact, women would be turned off from you because they can’t confuse you as much as before. But the richest? The guy with the best job? Now you’re talking.
LikeLike
Wait, jerrDogg:
Your friend is a 5’2″ version of Clay Aiken?
Poor mofo. Well, at least the universe balanced it out on this one.
LikeLike
I think people are talking across from each other. I think most people are stating that intelligence, in and out itself, is not a deterrant, and that many women would prefer, all other things being equal, a smart guy over a dumb one.
Lurker seems to be arguing that intelligence is not an lure for women. That women are not attracted to just plain old intelligence in isolation, which I don’t think anyone is really arguing against.
The same way that men aren’t hanging around slobbering after intelligent women who don’t have anything otherwise to offer, most women aren’t hanging around intelligent guys who otherwise don’t have anything else to offer.
But as stated before, extreme intelligence seems to bring along with a high correlation with Asperger-related behaviors. Which are not a turn-on for anyone. Hanging around the Mensa/MIT people as a group, you will quickly see that. Unless you are one of them.
LikeLike
Anyonymous:
1. I am arguing that intelligence is a deterrent. All things being equal, women would prefer a man slightly dumber than them. Sitcom Mentality, or whatever you want to call it: women simply believe they should be the brains of a relationship, or at least “in control.”
2. Podunk is arguing that men with intelligence, in isolation, is more attratrive to women.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean by “in isolation” in that summation, so I’m not sure it’s a fair summary. I most certainly do not think that intelligence unbalanced by other attributes is attractive to women. Therein lies one problem I have with the MIT scenario, for it glosses over the dearth of other attractive traits among that demographic. I’ll admit they’re intelligent, but I won’t concede that this calibre of intelligence is unavailable elsewhere, despite how much the MIT crowd likes to pat themselves on the back. The thing that really differentiates them is that they’re willing to bust their ass to get a diploma from a very tough school. They seem to like to think that this makes them more intelligent than people elsewhere, and other people often buy into that myth, too. But the harsh truth is that they have no monopoly on intelligence, and so women need not congregate there to get it if they want it.
I mean no offense to anyone who might be emotionally invested in the particular school they attended, of course.
LikeLike
are you fucking kidding?
women who really feel “in control” of a relationship will control the relationship just long enough to find someone else who can control them.
lurker, i bet you a bottle of louis xiii that you’ve never even had a friendship, let alone a romantic tryst, with an intelligent woman. an intelligent woman likes nothing better than to match wits with an intelligent man … and lose.
being bested on their own turf will soak that turf.
trust me.
go out in the field and learn for yourself.
it’s not often that someone can so thoroughly discredit himself in two sentences.
LikeLike
and let me repeat what i said to obsidian above:
to any of us who have ever interacted with real women, this is beyond obvious.
for all you morons who actually think women are turned off by intelligence itself, rather than the pussy traits that are usually concomitant with it:
imagine a real-life equivalent of House MD. all those brains, but packed into a suave, confident, handsome exterior. or imagine a fratty jock type who just so happens to be really smart, or a smooth black dude with brains like obsidian.
better yet, go find one of these archetypes and shadow his social interactions. you have friends, right?
i dare you, i DARE you, to find one woman who would begrudge this man an ounce of his intelligence.
LikeLike
Gotta stand up and testify in support of J5’s comments in response to Lurker. I done had some serious action from Brainy Chicks, and have come to the conclusion that it is they who are the hottest sexually. Also, Game works stronger and longer on them than do the clubhoppers and barflies. But then im biased-I don’t do Dumb Broads.
O
LikeLike
Podunk:
I have given other examples of high intelligence men divorced from financial/social dominant positions, e.g. the typical university research lab, a mensa meeting. None of these examples have groupies, AFAIK.
Like I’ve implied, show me an example where a male group is dominated by high IQ individuals who are not richer than most or not famous etc.–e.g. the only standout criteria from the norm is their high IQ–and that they have a significant female following, and I will recant. Otherwise,
Also, Podunk:
“but I won’t concede that this calibre of intelligence is unavailable elsewhere, despite how much the MIT crowd likes to pat themselves on the back.”
—–Please, Podunk. The MIT-caliber of intelligence is 1% range. Simply because its not the only place you can find top 1%-ers doesn’t mean that they’re not going to be pulling ass should women value intelligence as a measure of attraction.
The equivalent athletically of top 1% in brains is a Division 1A/Professional sports team or the Olympics. Sure, the Clippers or KC Royals don’t get the groupies the Lakers or NY Yankees do, but rest assured they get a lot of hot jock sniffing skank ass for their troubles. The fact is, where a top 1% athlete is, so will go groupies; even a Michael Phelps, a dork from a minor, unwatched sport (except every 4 years, when even fencing becomes hot) is scamming poontang left and right for his mastery.
Likewise, the richest or best lawyer in San Antonio or Phoenix is not pulling in nearly the quality of ass as the best or richest in New York or D.C., but rest assured, he’s gotten quite a few come ons at the firm victory parties and at bars from admirers from the gallery from some very wet 8s and 9s.
Fact is, Top 1%-ers from areas that women find attraction get groupies. MIT guys; chess clubs; research scientists; and Mensa members do not. Unless you have proof of groupies solely on the basis of intelligence, you’re argument fails here.
LikeLike
Johnny five:
1. I love the Short Circuit reference. “Hey lazer lips, your mother was a snow blower. Whoo-hoo!”
2. “lurker, i bet you a bottle of louis xiii that you’ve never even had a friendship, let alone a romantic tryst, with an intelligent woman.”
—-Wrong.
I went to a T5 college and T5 grad school, according to U.S. News & World Reports. I shared class time with Fulbright and Marshall scholars and future PhD’s, as well as future CEOs, Congressmen, and probably a future president or Cabinent official at least. And I dated many girls in both schools, and they were all highly intelligent.
While the initial attraction in some cases began with a disagreement in class, this was largely a push-pull, neg-ing situation, where a girl is intrigued by your ability to not be her lapdog. However, its not like she will agree with you—she is obviously, in her mind, smarter than you; but, like breaking a puppy, she enjoys the challenge.
After 2 dates, a highly intelligent girl wants to know that she is smarter than you, quite simply because to a highly intelligent girl, she is the smartest person around. She wants the Sitcom Situation, where you are her pawn and stupid male. If you do not concede her point, and deliberately fuck with her worldview, she wants out.
I will concede one point—your intelligence level may help out if she is a status whore with classmates–i.e. I have the smartest boyfriend/top of class guy—but she definitely doesn’t want you to be smarter than her. And its more about being the top of the class guy than being smart that she wants.
“an intelligent woman likes nothing better than to match wits with an intelligent man … and lose.”
—Nope. She wants to best you. A woman can’t match a man physically without being a freak; therefore, she needs the satisfaction of being able to manipulate you using her “superior feminine” wiles.
“being bested on their own turf will soak that turf.
trust me.
go out in the field and learn for yourself.”
—-Please, little man. I’ve soaked more of that turf than you could ever lay seeding in. I realized that keeping intellectualism out—-going onto unintellectual subjects—was the way to go. A woman gets wet from your being a man, not by your crossword ability.
A woman’s brain has nothing to do with her sex drive, because women do not behave rationally.
“it’s not often that someone can so thoroughly discredit himself in two sentences.”
–It took you a few more, bitch, but you got there.
LikeLike
Was that worse than having white no-go areas in contemporary American cities?
Somehow, there’s some part of me that feels that it’s safer for you to walk around in a ghetto, than for me to walk around a rural area.
LikeLike
Johnny five:
“to any of us who have ever interacted with real women, this is beyond obvious.”
—blow up dolls do not count, little man.
“imagine a real-life equivalent of House MD. all those brains, but packed into a suave, confident, handsome exterior.”
—translation: imagine a sarcastic asshole with good game who doesn’t get tongue tied easily. Hmm, sounds like an alpha to me. And alphas don’t discuss the periodic table or the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine when on the prowl, dip shit.
Women consider House attractive not because of his brains, but because he is an alpha: in charge, cocky, always with a fast one liner that puts down anyone who challenges him, and thoroughly socially proved by his ownership of his own hot boss, Cutty and the blond sweet girl from season 1, both of whom bow to his whims and both of whom are hot for him. Not to mention the various female guest stars who hit on him and validate his sexiness in the eyes of female viewers. He’s the untouchable troublemaker.
House could be the freakin’ janitor on the show, and if the show portrayed him the same way, he would still be the alpha.
Heck, if you ever WATCH the show, you’ll notice how many times he screws up a diagnosis before the end, and often times one of his assistants save him. I’ve watched the show with doctors, and they get pissed because his methods of solving a disease are completely illogical and dangerous (i.e. jump to the sexy conclusions and perform dangerous procedures instead of going from the simplest explanation to the most complex, like responsible doctors do). Fact is, its not House’s brains that are getting him the female viewership.
“or imagine a fratty jock type who just so happens to be really smart, or a smooth black dude with brains like obsidian.”
—translation: I’m trying to get obsidian on my side because my argument has bigger holes in it than johnny five’s mom.
“i dare you, i DARE you, to find one woman who would begrudge this man an ounce of his intelligence.”
——dare me? I’ve dated a bunch. With women and intelligence, they want to to think they’re smarter than you. An intellectual debate with a woman is a futile task.
Little man, go read Roissy’s post on Girls and Politics, where he states that you have to get women onto other subjects in the smoothest way possible. No matter how right you are, a woman will just anrgy when you prove her wrong. She doesn’t think logically, she thinks emotionally, and if she you embarass her with your intellect, she’s going to be pissed at you, not bow down to your genius.
Now go back to hitting on cougars, boy.
LikeLike
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article407729.ece
” REALLY is brains not brawn that women look for in a man. An exhaustive study of people from primary school to middle age has proved that clever men are much more likely to marry than those with lesser intelligence.
But for female high-flyers, the reverse is true. Their chances of walking up the aisle are considerably lower than those of classmates who left school at 16. ”
Women value intelligence, men, not so much.
LikeLike
I understand where you’re coming from now. Your whole point hinges on using the presence or absence of groupies to determine the set of traits that women find attractive – sort of like using gravitational lensing to detect a singularity, perhaps? Or more like reasoning from a (faulty) set of axioms in lieu of direct observation? They’re not that hard to get close to, dude. Just observe them. 😉
LikeLike
Please, the study also notes that rich men are more likely to be married and find mates.
Duh. The intelligence alone opens the door to wealth/fame/power, like I’ve said all along: its not the intelligence women value, its if the intelligence grants them alpha status.
The intelligent women having trouble finding a mate? Hmm, is it because they are so successful, they can’t find a man who out-alphas them? Sure, they could make do with a man smarter than them but less successful, but why settle?
LikeLike
lurker
I don’t know what you’re referring to with ” singlehandedly dismantle an entire panel of Harvard Law Profs
UH no he debated. There is taped proof of course.
LikeLike
Podunk:
“Your whole point hinges on using the presence or absence of groupies to determine the set of traits that women find attractive”
–Your whole point is that women find intelligence attractive. To prove that point should be simple: in the absence of any other alpha traits, high IQ men should simply be pulling in more women than simiularly situated men of average or below intelligence.
It works with athletic prowress (amateur olympic or college athletes). It works with leadership/command (army). It works with money (wallstreet). It works with music (seedy musicians). Therefore, it should work with intelligence, if intelligence is truly selected for.
Hence, places where intelligent men without any overriding alpha traits congregate should be known as places where women flock to for companionship.
Yet you can name no such area, despite a plethora of options. You can take MIT out and substitute any undergrad of high intellectual respect: Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, Oxford. You can cite intellectual societies or groups that engage in intellectual activities: Mensa, scrabble people, crossword puzzle societies, chess clubs, etc.
The point is that you cannot show that high intellect alone garners greater female response than being normal. In fact, by and large, women are turned off by men from these groups. Later success by these men garners a following, not the cause of such success (intelligence).
– “sort of like using gravitational lensing to detect a singularity, perhaps? Or more like reasoning from a (faulty) set of axioms in lieu of direct observation?”
—I see now why you were trying to defend this point so much. Rest assured, however, that your intellect can help you to garner chicas, but only if you use it to acheive a goal they find attractive.
“They’re not that hard to get close to, dude. Just observe them.”
—Been with a lot more of the lovely ladies than you, dude, once I stopped trying to make them like me for what I wanted them to like me for, and started dealing with reality.
Good luck, kid.
LikeLike
Ah, so it’s wealth/fame/power, a side effect of intelligence, that they truly crave. Stimulating conversations, perspicacity, and wit do nothing for them. I see the light now. Carry on.
LikeLike
WOmen aren’t attracted/repelled by inteligence. They are attracted to game/manliness or simply, attitude.
ABout women wanting to be the bosses in relationships, this falls in the same category of women wanting sensitive, romantic men. Their stated desire is frontally contradicted by their behaviour in reality.
“I went to a T5 college and T5 grad school, according to U.S. News & World Reports. I shared class time with Fulbright and Marshall scholars and future PhD’s, as well as future CEOs, Congressmen, and probably a future president or Cabinent official at least.”
So your life experience includes many alphas who happen to be high IQ. Say what you want, any member of the US congress, let alone thePresident of the United States, will have his groupies confering him alpha status. And you are the one saying that inteligence is a defect. Either you are wrong about inteligence/female attraction or your life experience is not as stated. You may have studied with them, but not banged as many girls or made as many friendships as you say. Man, your story goes like this:” I am an extremely high IQ guy (T5 schools) who lived with only high IQ guys, many of them were alphas (nobody sees a nerd playing WoW and thinks: dude, there is the future senator for Pennsylvania) and we all banged many girls (at least you and the alphas/congressmen to be). From this experience I infer that inteligence is the single most important factor repelling women”
LikeLike
ABout the MIT library, I think it is a false scenario.
WOmen in MIT are attracted to the same thing that women anywhere: game+manliness. So they go the the fraternities where game lives. There they have a pool of highly inteligent men with game.
A true comparison would be between the Lacrosse team of MIT and of local college in Alaska. Having to chose between two sets of men with game and manliness but highly unequal in inteligence, I am sure women woudl go for the MIT guys
LikeLike
Why not Harvard? Somewhat less Aspergy reputation than the MIT folks, and from what I hear, do have their share of groupies who present themselves in the general area to maximize contact.
LikeLike
I want to share a memorable vignette with lurcher and johnny 5 re: men’s intelligence.
I remember the exact moment that I considered my future husband seriously as a man. We worked together in a lab course (human anatomy). My initial impression was that he was a bit goofy and socially awkward. I preferred to think of him as a friend, which we were. We each dissected an arm, and then presented our findings to our other partners who had each been dissecting the legs. As my future husband presented, I realized that he had a superior organized understanding than I did of the task we completed. He out-did me; I resigned myself that he was “intelligent” enough for me to be attracted to, after which I viewed him as a attractive man .
So, lurcher, you state that women want to win arguments, out-smart you, etc. True;. you are then safely off their radar as a desirable man. If you assert your intelligence in a dominant way, they will be forced to look at you as a potential mate. Women who self-identify as intelligent can not even begin to consider a man as attractive unless he is equal or more intelligent than themselves.
Anonymous above linked to the British study that found the same. Intelligent 11 year old girls were less likely to marry than the intelligent boys.
LikeLike
podunk:
“Stimulating conversations, perspicacity, and wit do nothing for them. I see the light now. Carry on.”
—glad to see you’ve entered reality. Carry on.
gig:
“ABout women wanting to be the bosses in relationships, this falls in the same category of women wanting sensitive, romantic men. Their stated desire is frontally contradicted by their behaviour in reality.”
—it’s not about being the bosses, gig, it’s about the ability to manipulate. Truly, women want an alpha, but they also want to feel like they can get something from a man by deceit. If she thinks she has a trump card she can use on you when the going gets rough, she’s happy to be underfoot.
“So your life experience includes many alphas who happen to be high IQ.”
—they’re not alphas yet. many are betas but are learning about power. College/grad school is an eye opening experience for many betas, because you see how arbitrary power is and begin to game the system. Not always, but many times.
“Say what you want, any member of the US congress, let alone thePresident of the United States, will have his groupies confering him alpha status. ”
—True, but these are not ready yet.
“And you are the one saying that intelligence is a defect.”
—-Pure intelligence, divorced from accomplishment or wealth or power, is a turn off, yes. These boys haven’t yet learned or gained power or game.
Blagoveich is a good example. According to one report, he was relatively invisible in law school– a true beta–not even a classmate who campaigned with him remembered being in class with him. Now he has risen to governor of a major state (about to be deposed, true, but still an alpha).
“Either you are wrong about inteligence/female attraction or your life experience is not as stated.”
—Nope. The boys in school hadn’t yet acheived anything yet. Their high intelligence would lead to alpha later, much like the MIT high acheivers haven’t, but will in 10-20 years and be rolling in pussy.
“You may have studied with them, but not banged as many girls or made as many friendships as you say.”
—Oh I did, once I realized what roissy has made abundantly clear: a woman does not think rationally, so do not engage her as a rational being.
Once I got that point (late in college), it was like Christmas every day: those high IQ chicks, who expected to debate me, were in fact laying down on a saturday night with a guy who just insulted their favorite band and made out with them on a dirty frat couch after laughing off attempts at discussing class work.
“Man, your story goes like this:” I am an extremely high IQ guy (T5 schools) who lived with only high IQ guys, many of them were alphas”
—you confuse future with past again
“From this experience I infer that inteligence is the single most important factor repelling women”
—from the experience of the first few years trying to debate smart chicks and getting them pissed off when I proved them wrong, and then switching to engaging the animalistic, instinctual side of their personality instead of their brains.
Experience taught me this: you can hand a chick her hat intellectually, or hand it to her as she leaves your room Sunday morning. The choice is yours.
LikeLike
Lastly, one question for all. How does a woman you are hitting on a bar discovers your high IQ?
My answer: by your lack of game. High IQ people make the connection between an israeli airstrike in Iran and unemployment at home, so they care at least a little about iran’s nuclear program. But only the most retarded nerd would talk about it in a bar. So the girl goes back to her friends and instead of saying “a nerd hit on me” blaming his failure in his inteligence, not in his lack of game.
LikeLike
Look, you all can go on believing women love intellectual men and brains, or you can get laid by realizing its something women say to justify themselves and game them.
If the intellectual women in the study truly loved intellectualism for its own sake, they’d marry smart guys who make less than them. They don’t. They want the man who has acheived more.
Harvard boys do not have groupies. Rich kids at Harvard who sell drugs around campus have ladies pawing at them left and right.
anony:
“Women who self-identify as intelligent can not even begin to consider a man as attractive unless he is equal or more accomplished than themselves. ”
FTFY
I’ve said my peace and stand by my statements. Believe what you want; I go by experience, not pie-in-the-sky beliefs and the words that women tell you are true.
LikeLike
I’m not even sure what you are arguing at this point lurker. The study directly contradicts your assertion that woen want guys who are dumber than they are. Most of the women who have posted have contradicted this as well. Is intelligence enough to make a loser who is unattractive in every other way, extremely attractive to women? No. But I think, and the study backs me up, that it definitely makes a guy more appealing than otherwise.
Yes, I doubt browbeating and berating some girl is going to attract her to you, especially if she wasn’t already attracted to you. But showing a cool confident mastery of a given subject, especially one that she knows, so that she can appreciate it, will definitely win you some points.
LikeLike
That Anatoly protopopov guy, who wrote the treatise of love ROissy links to, commented about the problem when unmasculine men become rulers. His examples, if I remember, are Louis XVI of France and Nicholas II of Russia. Just see a picture of any of them. You can’t get anymore beta. SO betas do rise to the top, even in democracies, as Blago shows.
In college, money counts for little. It becomes much more important AFTER college. Your beta friends who will become alphas didn’t need money as much as game in college. By what you say about them, they look like beta-providers to me. Waiting for decapitation in divorce courts.
LikeLike
Anonymous:
“The study directly contradicts your assertion that woen want guys who are dumber than they are.”
1. One study does not prove squat. 1000 studies do.
2. The study shows that those with the higher IQs among men were highly successful and made lots of money. That was point earlier: women do not like intelligence in an of itself, but tolerate it when it brings about the things women really crave in a man: power, social dominance, wealth.
“Most of the women who have posted have contradicted this as well. ”
—-Rule # 1: Never take anything a woman says seriously.
A woman will lie to save face. That’s why women say they want caring, sensitive beta boys, only to have roissy violate them six ways to sunday behind their backs. Its the same as saying that a guy likes a girl for her personality. Women want people to believe (especially themselves) that they want a man for his brains. Experience shows otherwise.
“Is intelligence enough to make a loser who is unattractive in every other way, extremely attractive to women? ”
—-Thank you for making my point. Athletic success, musical ability, outlaw image, or financial power on ” a loser who is unattractive in every other way” WILL make them attractive to women. Or haven’t you noticed how easily NBA stars pull quality pussy despite being socially degenerate losers?
ntelligence does not. QED.
“I think, and the study backs me up, that it definitely makes a guy more appealing than otherwise.”
–The study proves nothing other than intelligence helps acheive wealth and success. Which attract women.
“But showing a cool confident mastery of a given subject, especially one that she knows, so that she can appreciate it, will definitely win you some points.”
—–Showing knowledge of a subject she knows will only incite a “let’s see who’s better” campaign. Knowing a subject she does not–such as Captain Picard’s birthdate—will bore her. Women are interested in being on top of the social ladder, and an alpha male gives them that. they have no interest in being tit-for-tatted, which is different from a neg.
LikeLike
gig:
“His examples, if I remember, are Louis XVI of France and Nicholas II of Russia.”
—-what’s your point? These are people who inherit via birth, not democracies. Anyone can rise to lead if their born to it.
“SO betas do rise to the top, even in democracies, as Blago shows.”
—Shoing that tow betas inherited crowns by birth do not prove Blago a beta in any way. His actions show him to be alpha: high risky behavior (selling the seat), bold confrontation (press conferences, refusal to resign), and narcissitic tendencies that have come out (grabbing people’s cell phones to make a call) show his alpha ness.
Pay attention. Facts can be your friends, or your worst enemies.
LikeLike
So where is your empirical evidence that women find men of low iq so alluring? If that was the case, Retarded guys would be beating women off with a stick. I don’t see that.
LikeLike
His overconfidence came from beta entitlement.He though that he deserved everything that was denied to him in his “beta days” before governorship. Do you think that Clinton or Obama would have handled it so poorly?
There is even a blind governor in the US. Can it get more beta? The Soviet Union was hardly a hereditary system, and still it was rule from the late 70’s till 1985 by men who couldn’t breathe by themselves, let alone get an erection. betas do rise to the top but once there they have far less freedom of action than alphas.
LikeLike
an intelligent woman likes nothing better than to match wits with an intelligent man … and lose.
Nope. She wants to best you.
Actually, we prefer a draw.
A woman’s brain has nothing to do with her sex drive, because women do not behave rationally.
Clearly you haven’t interacted with many intelligent women, then. We’re out there, buddy, but we’re not putting out for the guys who think we’re idiots, sorry.
Women who self-identify as intelligent can not even begin to consider a man as attractive unless he is equal or more intelligent than themselves.
Exactly.
If the intellectual women in the study truly loved intellectualism for its own sake, they’d marry smart guys who make less than them. They don’t.
Actually, some of us *do*. And then learn too late that he starts out resenting, and ultimately loathes, us for “outperforming” him.
That only has to happen to a girl a couple of times before she makes it a point to eschew relationships with a badly-skewed balance of power, whatever the form that power takes. I have no intention of ruling anyone’s life, nor to have mine ruled.
Experience taught me this: you can hand a chick her hat intellectually, or hand it to her as she leaves your room Sunday morning. The choice is yours.
Or you can do neither. Which wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
LikeLike
Anonymous:
“So where is your empirical evidence that women find men of low iq so alluring?”
—-It’s not low IQ per se, just lower than hers. Her superiority rests in her ability to manipulate. She doesn’t want Corky, but not Einstein either.
Yet we all know women of High IQ who date trogledytes–knuckle dragging thugs who nonethess have power over her due to their dominance, either socially or in some thug trade. What she craves is Alpha dominance and success, not Beatrice/Benedict reparte.
gig:
“His overconfidence came from beta entitlement.He though that he deserved everything that was denied to him in his “beta days” before governorship.”
—Please. Beta boys do not go off swearing at the newly coronated president-elect’s staff and try to play hardball with Jesse Jackson’s family ( a true Alpha himself). If caught, beta boys do not challenge the legislature to a fight in the press. Alpha’s do. A beta would ahve shrivled up and called for mommy, running away and squeling to the feds on whatever he had/ could make up on Obama.
“Do you think that Clinton or Obama would have handled it so poorly?”
—-let me put it this way. Do I think Clinton or Obama would have gotten caught as badly as this man or another governor, Eliot Spitzer, did? No, but Spitzer is an alpha dog; he just let his cockiness run away with him. If you think Spitzer is a beta, then there is really nothing I can say but have you been paying attention.
Clinton is smarter than these other 3, and would have never gotten caught on the phone selling this seat. He’s been through too much to know better. He would have done it with a light touch.
Obamessiah is not as smart as Clinton, but he, too, is too cautious to let this happen had the tables been turned. He’s a master of the no paper trail, doncha know.
Being alpha doesn’t mean you don’t make mistakes. It means you are bold, and bold often, and try to take. Blago’s reach exceeded his grasp on this one. Doesn’t mean he’s suddenly beta.
LikeLike
Anonymous:
“Actually, we prefer a draw.”
–And by draw, she means, “one where you admit I’m right but refuse to agree.”
“Clearly you haven’t interacted with many intelligent women, then. We’re out there, buddy, but we’re not putting out for the guys who think we’re idiots, sorry.”
—oh, baby, I can feel you getting wet for me right now.
“Actually, some of us *do*. And then learn too late that he starts out resenting, and ultimately loathes, us for “outperforming” him.”
—no alpha cares, because he just controls his wife and takes what he wants from her paycheck. a beta just says yes dear and builds slow resentment until you’re spreading your legs in frustrating for me on a night you’re “working late.”
“That only has to happen to a girl a couple of times before she makes it a point to eschew relationships with a badly-skewed balance of power, whatever the form that power takes.”
—Translation: a girl only has to be with a “nice guy” beta a few times before she’s screaming for someone to choke her, hold her down, and call her a bitch while he fucks her.
“Or you can do neither. Which wouldn’t surprise me in the least.”
—-Your verbal spitfire is belied by the puddle at your ankles, dearie.
LikeLike
“glad to see you’ve entered reality.”
-What else could I do when faced with overwhelming force of argument. It’s not like there’s anything else about your manner of discourse that could have been the turn off, ergo it must be your towering intellect. And it’s not like merely talking less could have given you a false positive.
LikeLike
Podunk:
“It’s not like there’s anything else about your manner of discourse that could have been the turn off”
—I’m sorry, little boy, I didn’t realize my job was to turn you on. I believe that is the job of your home love machine, the Dell with the porn sights flagged.
“ergo it must be your towering intellect”
—flattery will get you everywhere.
“And it’s not like merely talking less could have given you a false positive.”
—passive-agressiveness. How beta of you.
LikeLike
“And by draw, she means, “one where you admit I’m right but refuse to agree.””
Actually, by “a draw”, I meant, “a draw.” HTH
“Translation: a girl only has to be with a “nice guy” beta a few times before she’s screaming for someone to choke her, hold her down, and call her a bitch while he fucks her.”
Well, if you’re going to pretend you can just reconfigure a clearly-articulated statement by MAKING SHIT UP, then you live in a nice little fantasy world.
“Your verbal spitfire is belied by the puddle at your ankles, dearie.”
Yeah! Like I said, a fantasy world.
Good luck with all the hate-fucking.
LikeLike
the Fifties were indeed a golden age
The problem is that type of set up only works when women are unable to earn middle class wages, and men believe that their wives love them. As far as I’m concerned, women will never be attracted to beta males, and they’ll never love their beta husbands, and tricking men into believing this is wrong. Beta men should just grow up and realize that nobody will ever love them or find them attractive, and that if a woman shows any interest in them, it’s because she can’t get an alpha.
I assure you if the men of the 1950s knew that their wives were only using them, they would leave them en masse. Nobody likes being used and played off as a patsy.
First off, what other people think of who, or why, you spend YOUR time with, is none of their FUCKING BUSINESS.
You’d be pleasantly surprised. It is their business. What other people think of you is highly important, especially if it’s your family members, and if one wants acceptance, then yes, you’ll have to defer to their opinions of you.
Dave, of course folks’ eyes are gonna glaze over if you go into the nuts and bolts of trains, man.
Well, that’s the thing about railfanning. It’s a very nuts and bolts type of subject that tends to attract weirdos and sub-beta males. Even the historical stuff is boring, and the only women who seem interested in that aspect are the ugly ones that nobody wants to bang.
Three, both T and I and others in this forum have noted that Proles consistently get laid more than do ther so-called Professional betters, and the proof of that pudding can be seen right in this space.
Yes, the proles may get laid more, but who really wants to be a prole, especially a black prole in a white country.
Four, no, jerking off is not equivalent to, or a legitimate replacement for, sex.
I think you’d be pleasantly surprised. I’m getting better orgasms from masturbating than I did from real sex. Masturbation is a perfectly legitimate alternative to sex, and it requires little to no effort to achieve 75% of what real sex offers. Yes, one does miss the female, but the trade off is that you get an orgasm at one’s personal convenience instead of relying her questionable interest.
ANYTHING that requires you to risk something in the pursuit of a Woman in a sexual way you avoid like the plague, and worse, you refuse to do anything to improve yourself in the least.
Of course. Hell, I even admit to the fact that I’ve never asked a girl out ever, and I probably never will since at the age of 25, one could argue that I’m a male spinster, and that no girl with any self-respect would give a de facto date virgin a chance. Regardless, I’m still happy with who I am as a person, and judging from my friend who decided to go play alpha, I don’t think that I could take that leap. So I’d rather be happy alone then be misery and fraught with guilt in a quasi-mean guy state.
Get in the Game.
I will not kneel before Zod.
LikeLike
Anonyymous:
“Actually, by “a draw”, I meant, “a draw.” HTH”
—Nothing like the anger of a woman to prove you’ve hit the nail on the head.
“Well, if you’re going to pretend you can just reconfigure a clearly-articulated statement by MAKING SHIT UP, then you live in a nice little fantasy world.”
—-The next time she meets her alpha lover on the side, she’ll hand hima transcript of what I wrote and put his hands around her throat for him.
“Yeah! Like I said, a fantasy world. Good luck with all the hate-fucking.”
—So we’re still on for 11, then, baby?
LikeLike
That is not my achilles heel.
LikeLike
podunk, then why are you rubbing yourself so gingerly?
LikeLike
I only read lurker and PA. The rest of you PC NAM-loving leftists will burn in the coming civil war.
LikeLike
“Nothing like the anger of a woman to prove you’ve hit the nail on the head.”
No anger, dude, just bafflement that you can misconstrue a concept as simple as “a draw”, that’s all.
If women truly avoid smart guys, you must be knee-deep in pussy…while you’re pounding out your ad hominems on teh Internets. Good for you!
“The next time she meets her alpha lover on the side, she’ll hand hima transcript of what I wrote and put his hands around her throat for him.”
Ew. Someone’s been watching too much low-quality porn….
“So we’re still on for 11, then, baby?”
Oh, honey. How about Never? ‘Cause Never works perfectly for me.
LikeLike
“No anger, dude, just bafflement that you can misconstrue a concept as simple as “a draw”, that’s all.”
—Apparently you feel we are fighting to a draw, but yet you do not withdraw. Strange…;)
“If women truly avoid smart guys, you must be knee-deep in pussy…while you’re pounding out your ad hominems on teh Internets. Good for you!”
—She wrote this with one hand between her legs.
“Ew. Someone’s been watching too much low-quality porn….”
—But you’re definitely a high-quality performer, babe. No dubt about that.
“Oh, honey. How about Never? ‘Cause Never works perfectly for me.”
—–She said, as fantasized about how to give me her numebr on a public message board.
LikeLike
Well, I am quite impressed by the vitriolic hatred displayed against me on here. I must be doing something right to rile up Roissy’s little followers.
Day of Arrows. I never rhapsodied about pornography being art. Quite the contrary: I said that 95% of all porn is trash. My question was where do you draw a line between erotica and art, and can porn EVER be considered art, or have artistic value. There is no answer to the question of course. Some porn seems to be of a higher level than most however, so the question is could it be considered art.
As far as me being a hypocrite, I can only speak for myself. What I am trying to do is engender an honest discussion about certain things dealing with sex and spirituality. I think that is usually the opposite of hypocrisy.
Your site is becoming a little pathetic Roissy. A man of your writing and intellectual capacities could do more than cultivate the kind of mindless nonsense that is written on here. I used to enjoy reading this site but it is quickly becoming a parody of itself, filled with mindless little boys so anxious to impress you and everyone else with their supposed “alphaness”. It is becoming a joke. Also, the level of hatred on here would amusing too if it were not so disturbing at times. I get the sense your readership is more and more becoming nothing more than a bunch of high school kids, frat boys, or unemployed thugs. I am tired of it.
From now on I will be visiting other sites. Thanks for the entertainment but it is getting old now.
LikeLike
Tood wrote:
“We allow Hindus and Mexicans to take our jobs without a whimper! ”
‘Take”your’ jobs?!?!?
Ever heard of the free market? If the ‘Hindu’ does the same work with far less complaining than your fat ass, and with no need to take a 40 min break at 3 PM to go get ‘capuccino’, even though you still leave at 4:45, the ‘Hindu’ is more attractive to the employer.
It is no more ‘your’ job than it is his, you lazy bum.
Technically, since I’m on the extreme end of overly-complicated problem solving, it would take two, or even three normal Hindu’s to perform the same amount of high-end work as I can do. Lower level work, I’d only be marginally faster than one average Hindu engineer.
Which doesn’t matter if they are paid a third as much!
So, Tood, old-boy, all your advocating is that I should let my wages decline by half of more! Then I’d be ‘competive’. Because I’m already BETTER than the average one.
A fitting thanks for my people wasting the time building this ‘technologically advanced’ world you seem to care about.
Message recieved.
LikeLike
A fitting thanks for my people wasting the time building this ‘technologically advanced’ world you seem to care about.
HAHA you’re personally no more responsible for building this technologically advanced world as the hindu engineer you criticize. so no need to thank you. now if you can exhume and resurrect your long-dead ancestors, who may or may not have actually had a role in creating this technologically advanced world depending on whether they were from the small minority of elites in european history or part of the vast majority of working class proles, we’d gladly thank them. you? not so much.
LikeLike
DeCaelis is a female passing herself off as a man.
I’m not saying her opinions are wrong just that she is not completely honest about her identity for what ever reason.
I think it’s because she is trying to spy on the enemy.
LikeLike
rip van decaelis:
and you wonder why commenters think you’re a woman?
exactly one poster has come within earshot of a personal attack on you, and even that poster (“comment_decaelis”) was nowhere close to “vitriolic”.
i mean, seriously.
only bitches (a term inclusive of both male and female bitches) take the impersonal personally.
grow up. you’re a bit old to be throwing tantrums in public.
let’s have a look at your own content, shall we?
This is a blog dedicated to an open, honest discussion about sex, love, relationships and God in our world today.
hold the god, and that’s EXACTLY what roissy’s place is.
“where pretty lies perish”.
note: honesty is often rough around the edges. quit bitching.
let me just say that I have traveled much in the realms of sexuality
yeah, roissy’s sexploits are just mindless nonsense, huh.
In the realm of sexuality I am a bit of stubborn disciple though, preferring to follow my own instincts more often than not.
your instincts are outdated. on the current major metropolitan social scene, “useless” would be indulgent.
but i’m glad we’ve cleared up the reason why you continue to insist that you’re right and that everyone here who deals with younger women on the daily is wrong.
thanks for that. thanks. don’t know what we’d do without ya, pal.
I am also disturbed by the general coarseness of our culture and world today. I think a blog would be a good place to vent. I enjoy beautiful things, whether in women, art, literature, architecture, music, or other areas of life. I would like to see a return to a certain standard of civilized behavior in our culture today.
…and these things are of course anathema over here, right?
Raw honesty is the best method
So for the faint of heart or those under a certain age, this blog is not for you.
it must suck not to meet the minimum qualifications to post on your own blog. that’s gotta hurt.
I used to enjoy reading this site but it is quickly becoming a parody of itself, filled with mindless little boys so anxious to impress you and everyone else with their supposed “alphaness”.
so go away. you think anyone gives a shit?
also, it’s clear that something here has hit a nerve with you, as you were suddenly moved to delete, from your “about” page, your own “mindlessly impressive” [your words] bragging about having four women in the past year, including two simultaneous relationships (“which later became a problem”).
…and, for that matter, your age.
what’s really the story, bro?
LikeLike
ok, lurker, here we go again.
and you were doing so well this morning. tsk tsk.
each of these two statements is in direct contravention of the other.
you do realize that being able to “out think [sic] someone”, in the sense of out-manipulating a womanipulator, falls under the umbrella of street smarts… don’t you?
“out-thinking” in the sense of being able to pwn her at scrabble is completely irrelevant to her womanipulation.
solid arguments. i’m impressed.
and all those t5 schools of yours… you’re so, like, alpha!
this is so wrong i don’t even know where to begin.
in fact, i will issue a clarion call to all of roissy’s readers:
ANYONE else on this forum who concludes, from direct experience, that intelligent women actively want LESS intelligent men for dates and/or relationships, go over there and stand with lurker.
notice that you’re the one who said “dates”. i’ll grant you that these women will sometimes slum it with an edgy but stupid bad boy for sex.
i venture you’ll be standing alone.
show me one place where i’ve equated being a brainiac with actually broaching nerdy topics in the field.
you know what else alphas don’t do?
brag about where they got their diplomas, in a forum where that information is completely irrelevant.
finally, i don’t know what kind of “intelligent women” you’ve been “dating”, but indirect erudite references, such as literary allusions and clever wordplay, will work WONDERS on educated chicks.
brilliant!
most guys know this by the fourth grade.
solution: don’t embarrass her.
if you’re not a complete moron, you can demonstrate complete intellectual superiority without “embarrassing” anyone. just be indirect enough, and then change the subject smoothly.
example:
this one brainiac chick was starting to wax all philosophical on me, in a way that was making my eyes glaze over a bit. eventually, she got to the point at which she wasn’t really saying anything anymore. it was clear to me that she was very well read and well educated, but the increasingly platitudinous content of her discourse was starting to grate on me.
now you, lurker, apparently think that the ONLY way to appear more intelligent than she, at the time, would be to coarsely call her out on the meaningless of her words, and perhaps to cite enough philosophers to convince her you’ve read more than she has.
this is not the correct approach.
the correct approach is AMUSED MASTERY.
my response: i waited for her to shut up, then paused just long enough for the silence to become uncomfortable (for her), and then said, “i see you’ve been reading your derrida.”
she understood.
in one sentence, i had not only shut her up, but i had also revealed that i was at least as well-read as she.
THAT is the sort of thing that smart women want.
—
your writing reads like a fifteen-year-old’s. maybe seventeen, if you excise all the ad-homs.
LikeLike
and finally, lurker, let’s revisit this little piece of verbal pyrite:
goddamn fucking straight they don’t.
conclusion:
smart women involved with less intelligent men WILL womanipulate those men relentlessly, and WILL leave those men when they’re done batting the yarn around for a while.
by contrast, smart women WILL NOT generally try to womanipulate men who are demonstrably smarter than they, especially if that’s in both street- and book-smarts.
these are the ONLY men to whom smart women, regarding them as superior males, will respect enough to defer to. and what dumbass would be caught dead with a woman who didn’t ultimately defer to him?
but hey, if you want to act stupid so that women never stop shit-testing you, you go right ahead.
LikeLike
Well, fellas, all I can offer is my own humble experiences. And on that basis, to a Woman, virtually all of them told me, when I asked them what it is they dug about me, was (top of the list) *my smarts*. I don’t know how else to put it.
Now, I DO think that what Willard said is right on the money-there are different kinds of intel that makes a huge difference, and, that what J5 is saying about the combination of book and street smarts, is what a lot of Women really get turned on by. Again, I’ve had Women tell me that to my face, that they like the mixture of both in me.
Dumb Broads straight up turn me off, always have goin waaaay back. Brainy or even Nerdy gals are *dangerous* in the bedroom, do not get it twsited fellas.
In that im usually the kind of guy who keeps a Woman in his orbit for at least a year or so, I don’t think I’d qualify as “slumming it” for any of these gals.
As for really smart chicks having a harder time getting married, hmm, never really thought about it until now. I suppose the reasons offered are as good as any.
O
LikeLike
damn straight.
i’ve had many, many women find it murderously sexy that i like to sit in the bathtub reading the works of ortega y gasset, or perusing gray’s anatomy (not to be confused with grey’s anatomy) for fun.
of course, they would only admit these things after i’d fucked them so thoroughly that they couldn’t tell left from right, night from day, or pleasure from pain.
—
meanwhile, “lurker” is almost certainly unfortunate enough to have a law degree (who the hell else would actually refer to their UNDERGRAD as “t5”? … sweet jumping jesus). if these are lawyer chicks, then, yeah, fine, y’all can have that. lawyer chicks are so fucked up in the head that they just might, might, actually be like that.
this doesn’t change the fact that they will NOT respect you, and WILL use you and lose you, unless they regard you as of superior intelligence.
period.
full stop.
end of story.
LikeLike
J5
nobody here agrees with lurker. at least none came to say it. His fixation in inteligence as the single most undesirable trait a man can have is some sort of beta frustration.
His opinions cannot be the result of his personal experience as stated.
LikeLike
A possible explanation:
“Women Feel Most Beautiful Aged 32”
LikeLike
Should be on the other thread
LikeLike
#157 lurker, Your third postulate has a lot of truth to it. Exotic has its own appeal.
LikeLike
Obsidian:
“And on that basis, to a Woman, virtually all of them told me, when I asked them what it is they dug about me, was (top of the list) *my smarts*. ”
“Again, I’ve had Women tell me that to my face, that they like the mixture of both in me.”
—Obsidian, I like you man. How can you be so daft on this? You’re actually listening to what a woman tells you she likes? Did they say they also liked the fact that you were “sensitive” and that you “listened to them”?
Rule # 1: Never take anything a woman says seriously.
You’re getting the ego blowjob that a woman wants both of you to believe. She wants to believe that’s what she likes about you.
News flash: She doesn’t. She liked you for all the ways she’s not supposed to like you. Because you acted like a man. Because you neg’ged her. Because you wouldn’t put up with her crap and you took control. After that, she wouldn’t have cared if you couldn’t read, write, or spell.
No girl gives an IQ test before going to bed with you. They all give a shit test. Think about it.
They no more dug you for your smarts than you dug them for their personality.
Listening to short circuit boy here is going to get you in trouble, Obsidian. Trust me when I say the only boob he’s fondled is the one on his special order “real girl.”
“Brainy or even Nerdy gals are *dangerous* in the bedroom, do not get it twsited fellas.”
—-And? Brainy/nerdy gals also don’t give two shits about how smart you are, unless you crush their ego by being smarter than them. They’re freaks because they’ve suppressed the sexual side of themself in their quest for a degree. They’re hungry to be treated * like a woman* and not *like an intellectual equal.* They’re the perfect candidates to go caveman on.
Obsidian, why are you making a classic mistake of thinking a woman’s brain is the same as her libido?
LikeLike
Short Circuit boy makes so many damn obvious errors, I can’t believe Obsidian is falling for them. Johnny 5 is a classic beta trying to pretend that beta behavior makes him an alpha:
“if you want to act stupid so that women never stop shit-testing you, you go right ahead.”
—–hahaha.
As roissy (and other) true PUAs have pointed out, women NEVER STOP SHIT TESTING YOU. I know, beta boy, you think that you’re so smooth you just rearrange the entire instinctual nature of women. You don’t; they just gave up caring about your beta ass and starting getting fucked by the local bartender while you were “reading grey’s anatomy.”
You’re doing exactly what roissy makes fun of in this post, but in another way: you’re putting them on a pedestal for loving you for your wittle brains.
” i’ll grant you that these women will sometimes slum it with an edgy but stupid bad boy for sex.”
—As in “everytime she tells me she’s working late, but that’s ok, she always comes home to me.”
“you know what else alphas don’t do?
brag about where they got their diplomas, in a forum where that information is completely irrelevant”
—You know what betas do? Try argue someone has never dated a “smart” girl before, and when they get owned, the beta retreats and goes “oh you were just bragging.”
“indirect erudite references, such as literary allusions and clever wordplay, will work WONDERS on educated chicks.”
—Translation: one time, J5 was begging this drunk ugly chick for sex, and he quoted the Earl of Rochester, and she laughed in his face and he had to go home with her fat friend.
“i’ve had many, many women find it murderously sexy that i like to sit in the bathtub reading the works of ortega y gasset, or perusing gray’s anatomy (not to be confused with grey’s anatomy) for fun.”
—-Yes, they do, while you’re soaking your two-incher in the tub, it gives them time to text the hottie guy whose tongue was down their throat last night.
“this doesn’t change the fact that they will NOT respect you, and WILL use you and lose you, unless they regard you as an alpha.”
-FTFY, beta.
gig :”nobody here agrees with lurker. His fixation in inteligence as the single most undesirable trait a man can have is some sort of beta frustration.”
—keep telling yourself, kid. While you’re out burnishing your academic credentials and running to the thesaurus like Short Circuit boy has been doing here, I’ll be grabbing that woman you’ve been working on for 5 hours right in front of you and sucking face. She’ll be so happy that a man came along and engaged her libido, not her brain, that she’ll flip you the bird as we head back to my place for some sweaty, non-verbal sex.
You betas who think intellectual discourse nabs a woman, I defy you to go to DC and try this crap. As Roissy has said, getting a woman off her intellectual kick (there, politics) and onto something sexual is the way to nail some brainy chick.
LikeLike
Shorty Circuit, lemme ask you a question: if brains are so sexy to a woman, why don’t high IQ societies have groupies?
LikeLike
wow, j5—are those cricket chirps I hear coming from your direction?
LikeLike
j5, you better run, lurker’s going bite your legs off.
Shorty Circuit, lemme ask you a question: if brains are so sexy to a woman, why don’t high IQ societies have groupies?
Because high IQ societies are full of people who join high IQ societies. If you were to set up a society for those who can bench press over X pounds, would that society have groupies?
Another thing you don’t get is that attacking someone intellectually is usually (but not always) the submissive posture. If a cop pulls you over, he can get you in a lot of trouble if you resist, so you do the submissive thing and try to reason with him. Even if you win an intellectual debate and convince him that he can let you go with a warning, your position was submissive.
LikeLike
Jaakkeli:
“If you were to set up a society for those who can bench press over X pounds, would that society have groupies?”
–actually, yes. We have those types of societies: bodybuilding clubs/groups, competitions, etc. And, as Arnold Scwartzenegger has talked about, there were plenty of gym rats eager to hump a well-chiseled man.
“If a cop pulls you over, he can get you in a lot of trouble if you resist, so you do the submissive thing and try to reason with him. Even if you win an intellectual debate and convince him that he can let you go with a warning, your position was submissive.”
—are you really comparing an intellectual competition with a girl to a cop pulling you over?
First, I’ve never heard of anyone arguing a cop out a ticket. Girls can cry or flash their leg, and a man can go, “I’m sorry officer, I was speeding, I was in a rush.” Sometimes cop let’s them out. but anyone going, “Hey, I wasn’t speeding, you’re wrong” gets handed a summons. Unless you’ve had other experiences. You argue the ticket in court.
Second, if you act like you do around a cop to a woman, you’re beta. The cop can cuff you and throw you in jail; the woman can just throw a hissy fit and walk away. You don’t get into an intellectual debate with a cop; you do with a woman. And an intellectual debate is never beta unless you’re conceding points you could win and throwing in the towel to get laid. Winning a debate is alpha; politicians who win them are alpha.
The problem is that when a woman loses, she doesn’t say,. “he had the better argument, ” she gets hurt and her vajayjay closes up. Women are emotional wrecks, insecure and revenge-minded. For an experiment, ask a husband what’s a better way to get laid on a particular evening: defeating his wife’s talking points on which TV show is better, or changing the subject to how to make her cum best.
Logic: We report. You decide.
LikeLike
****
HAHA you’re personally no more responsible for building this technologically advanced world as the hindu engineer you criticize. so no need to thank you. now if you can exhume and resurrect your long-dead ancestors, who may or may not have actually had a role in creating this technologically advanced world depending on whether they were from the small minority of elites in european history or part of the vast majority of working class proles, we’d gladly thank them. you? not so much.
****
Well, if I HAD wasted all the time the fifty year old engineers(or are you so young you don’t know the difference between a tape-reading TSR-80 or ATARI Pong to a Pentium-5 PC?) I’d be pretty mad about how I’m being treated RIGHT NOW. Because the people, you know, ALIVE RIGHT NOW, who are responsible for the computer revolution are treated very badily indeed.
It’s pretty easy to look at the theft wreckage of Microsoft. From it’s beginning, stealing from Gary Kildall, to stealing from Apple, to stealing from QuatroPro, Wordperfect, Dbase, and on, and on, and on.
This also applies to hardware, of course.
So I’m afraid the magically high-fantasy goal post has IN FACT been met. HA HA.
LikeLike
two minutes after the preceding post?
seriously?
some of us, while enjoying the fruits of roissy, don’t sit around all day on the internet.
read for comprehension.
this is becoming tiresome. you’re not a hot woman, so i don’t want to have to train you.
didn’t you notice when i said:
this is not the correct approach.
the correct approach is AMUSED MASTERY.
my response: i waited for her to shut up, then paused just long enough for the silence to become uncomfortable (for her), and then said, “i see you’ve been reading your derrida.”
then i changed the subject.
—
so far, zero people are standing over there with you.
LikeLike
–actually, yes. We have those types of societies: bodybuilding clubs/groups, competitions, etc.
COMPETITIVE groups. Women like THAT. There’s nothing competitive about Mensa. You take a test and then you’re in. It’s not about striving for something, it’s about people who once took a test.
The appropriate comparison group is “people who are too lazy to work out much but who are still naturally kind of strong”. I could join. We don’t get groupies for it but we still have an advantage over guys who look like stick figures.
—are you really comparing an intellectual competition with a girl to a cop pulling you over?
Yes. I’m throwing an example on how reasoning is often submissive behaviour.
Second, if you act like you do around a cop to a woman, you’re beta. The cop can cuff you and throw you in jail;
WHICH WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. In that situation you’re forced into a submissive stance. So, what do people do in a submissive stance?
First, they signal the stance: they say they’re “sorry” and such. Then they proceed to reason, attempting to convince the cop that there’s good reason to believe they won’t do it again right away. Even if the cop buys your reasoning and you intellectually “win”, he was still the dominant.
In other words, when people are forced to be submissive, they try to reason with the dominant or to please him in some way (but giving stuff to cops is a bad idea unless you’re in Moldova). Similarily, you often see men switching to reasoning or pleasing with a woman when the woman has the power in the situation (the power to walk away, deny sex etc).
Winning a debate is alpha
Yes, exactly, that’s why we see the nerds who know everything ruling the world of women and that’s why bitter athletes complain about the groupies of debate club geeks. You’re contradicting yourself.
The problem is that when a woman loses, she doesn’t say,. “he had the better argument, ” she gets hurt and her vajayjay closes up. Women are emotional wrecks, insecure and revenge-minded. For an experiment, ask a husband what’s a better way to get laid on a particular evening: defeating his wife’s talking points on which TV show is better,
You equate “winning an argument” with a neurotic need to force your ideas on other people. There’s no way to “defeat” someone’s tastes on TV shows with logic.
It’s like talking to an OCD case about women only wanting unhygienic men. Really, women don’t want a filthy guy but they don’t want the obsessive, either. The same with “intellectualism”. Women don’t want a stupid guy but they also don’t want the obsessive who has to “defeat his wife’s talking points on TV shows” to get his dick up.
LikeLike
Whiskey’s post:
“Obsidian — Thought Experiment. Every Black Man in the Ghetto adopts game, women’s selection criteria (top 10% of men only) remains the same? What changes? ”
Answer: The Holocaust Part II.
Black Men are approximately 5-7% of this country’s population. When you factor that down to prime male age (16-60), you’re probably talking about 4 to 5 percent of the population in general, and 7-9% of all men. So if every Black Man in America were to learn game, and were to actually do the groundwork to make said knowledge of game successful (weight, any job, stc.), then we would temporarily be unstoppable. Our numbers would be low enough so that almost the entire race would be in the top ten percent that women desire.
Now let’s be honest with ourselves. There aren’t nearly enough fine women in our own race to please that many men, especially now that we would have the ability to pull the best of the best from any ethnic group we wanted. The hottest of every race would have black boyfriends (knowing true game wold mean no marriage). At that point we disenfranchise White Alphas, and Sub-Alphas who have to settle for sixes instead of eights, and now beta whites are pushed even further to the bottom of the pool.
All by a race, that a lot of whites still hate, even though they’ll be nice to us in public. At some point they’re not going to take it anymore. Then revolt, in the same way people expect betas to revolt in the curret society.
LikeLike
“All by a race, that a lot of whites still hate,”
er….. blacks are much more racist than whites. Whites are actually the least racist group.
LikeLike
Oh boy, it looks like the beta boys from the library are trying to justify their existence. Here’s your smackdown, girls:
johnny five:
“some of us, while enjoying the fruits of roissy, don’t sit around all day on the internet.”
–Translation: Battlestar Galactica came on.
“so far, zero people are standing over there with you.”
—Correction: zero betas are over here with me. The woman you were too afraid to make eye contact with last night? She’s not standing over here, either; she’s more comfortable on her knees.
jaakkeli:
“You take a test and then you’re in. It’s not about striving for something, it’s about people who once took a test.”
—Mensa people hold competitions between Mensa groups all the time. Pick a month, their doing a crowssword competition, a Sudoku fight, a chess tournament, etc. They are constantly testing each other competitively. And yet, hmm, no groupies. I wonder.
“I could join.”
—said the man the alpha Classie Freddie Blassie would most definitely call “a pencil necked geek.” Keep dreaming there, kid.
“Yes. I’m throwing an example on how reasoning is often submissive behaviour.”
—-So according to Jaakeli: being nerdy=attracts women. Using reason=beta. So roissy reasoning how women think=beta. Game, therefore, is beta. Nerdy, however, is the new alpha.
And now we enter the Twilight Zone.
“Similarily, you often see men switching to reasoning or pleasing with a woman when the woman has the power in the situation (the power to walk away, deny sex etc).”
—Like you do.
“Yes, exactly, that’s why we see the nerds who know everything ruling the world of women and that’s why bitter athletes complain about the groupies of debate club geeks. You’re contradicting yourself.”
–Clearly this little beta thinks all world leaders are nerds. I should like him to tell Clinton, Bush, Putin, and the rest they have small cocks. And that chicks aren’t attracted to them.
No, winning a debate is about dominating your opponent to prove you are incharge—debates are about socially embarassing your opponent, not about scoring intellectual points. Anyone who merely chooses a leader based on IQ and not on social dominance is going to find their country behind the eight ball as their “intelligent” candidate is bullied all over the place.
Alphas who get elected–and most are alphas–hire intelligent advisers to give them advice, but the alpha is the decider. Most campaign advisers and chiefs of staff are smarter than the candidate, but can’t lead squat; their job is to bend the leader’s ear.
BTW, I’m sure you vote for the nerdiest person to win, because he reminds you of yourself.
“You equate “winning an argument” with a neurotic need to force your ideas on other people.”
—Kind of like your obsession here, beta boy, isn’t it?
This is hilarious. It’s like a banker talking to two hobos who insist their richer than him. He can point out all the facts to the contrary, show them his car, his house, his three mistresses, and his $10,000 rolex and they will refuse and declare that because they live in a cardboard box, they are richer. Sooner or later, he just shakes his head and walks away. And they die of TB that night.
LikeLike
I repeat:
Women do not like men for intelligence.
They are repelled by men more intelligent than them.
They will put up with an intelligent man only if the intelligence has brought him the money/power/fame/status she craves.
LikeLike
lurker,
You are wrong. Women are NEUTRAL to intelligence, unless it has gotten the man weath/status.
Being NEUTRAL is not the same as being repelled. I hope you can comprehend that.
It seems you are insecure about this point.
LikeLike
More lurker simple-mindedness :
“Shorty Circuit, lemme ask you a question: if brains are so sexy to a woman, why don’t high IQ societies have groupies?”
Men who are body-builders don’t have groupies either. Men who are businessmen and wear suits don’t have groupies outside their conference center.
You are confusing the ‘lack of groupies’ with being actively REPELLED by something. That is a very dumb thought process.
By your logic, the absence of horny women waiting outside of the weight room at the gym means women are actively repelled by muscles. The absence of horny women gathered outside of Brooks Brothers means that women are repelled by men who wear expensive formal clothes.
LikeLike
GNP For Apes,
Please define “Racist”?
Then, please explain that African Americans are MORE “Racist” than Whites?
Thanks.
O
LikeLike
Obsidian,
Read Myth #3 here.
Even Larry Elder says blacks are more racist than whites. Of course, he isn’t really black, after having said that.
Blacks inject the dimension of race into every aspect of their lives. If they get a flat tire, the tire company is racist for making tires black.
The White House is racist for being ‘white’.
Whites are the least racist of all groups – i.e. most likely to befriend and even marry people of another race.
LikeLike
Obsidian,
I point out to you that foreign blacks, such as those in the West Indies or in Africa, also think poorly of African Americans. They find them to be delinquent, spoiled, obese, and uncouth. Do a bit of research on this.
In China and Japan, it is commonplace for a black person, even Condi Rice, to be referred to as a ‘Monkey’ in the mainstream newspapers.
In the Middle East, black slaves were routinely exterminated when it became to expensive to feed them.
White Americans actually treat African Americans better than any other group in the world.
Hence, African Americans are just about at the top of the list of people who ‘don’t know how good they have it’.
LikeLike