• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Why Game Will Never Suffer From Overexposure
Who Wrote This? »

Game Will Help Ugly Guys

May 4, 2009 by CH

I was lounging in placid contentment on a sofa in a local lounge like a proper post-history, citizen-of-the-world nihilist enjoying the flume ride down the rump of American decline when I spotted a somewhat unkempt man with awkward mannerisms take a seat at a small table to my right. He was a little more homely than the average man, nearing 40, and bereft of any fashion sense. (For those who need the catharsis of another 800 comment thread on race, he happened to be black.) He moved in an ungainly way, as if hobbled by a long-ago hip injury. I watched bemused as he tinkered about his table, moving his chair in and out, fussing with napkins wedged between the ketchup bottle and salt shaker, and generally projecting an air of Rainman-like social unease.

A minute later, a woman approached him for what appeared to be a first or second date. Looks of recognition led me to believe they had met before. He clumsily stood from his chair, his motions so quick and jerky that the chair made a loud screeching noise as it was pushed back violently from the table. She was a black woman, in decent shape (read: not fat), and a point or two higher than him on the cross-gender physical attractiveness scale. He took a couple steps toward her and held his arms out for a hug, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. I surveyed her facial expressions. She was clearly not enthused about being there. She walked tentatively toward him, a crooked smile perched on her face, and prevented him from achieving his goal of a full-contact hug by arching her body away from his and giving him the long-distance “two pats on the back” pseudo-hug.

“So great to see you!” He blurted out the words like a burp and maneuvered for a tighter hug and kiss. She deftly evaded his sneak attack and left him stranded, kissing the air a few inches from her right cheek, his lips pursed outward in puffy, parched hunger for soul-nourishing reciprocation that would not come.

Impatient with his bumbling overreach, she snippily replied, “Ok, let’s sit down.” He vigorously nodded his head and mumbled “Ok, ok” and they both sat at the tiny romantic table next to the window that would not be able to works its magic that evening on this couple. I turned away, unable to bear the sight of their slo-motion heart wreck any longer.

******

Game could have saved this man.

Pulling up in a Ferrari would not have helped him. Receiving a standing ovation by the staff and patrons when he entered the eatery would not have closed the deal with his date. She would have raised an inquisitive eyebrow at his Ferrari or his mini-fame, her loins would have briefly stirred, but she would still be left sitting across a man with crippling beta mannerisms. Her smile would have rapidly decayed to disgust. Her disappointment would have been palpable.

But had he not jumped up from his chair when she arrived; had he not lunged desperately toward her for the hug and kiss his demeanor suggested he hadn’t gotten since his Mom saw him off on his first day of school; had he teased her humorously about the scarf she was wearing on a mild spring day; had he moved slowly and gracefully with the practiced insouciance of a wanton Casanova used to bedding women much hotter than her; had he been dressed with a little more care; had he stopped smiling like a vapid goofball for two seconds; had he qualified her about her worldliness and sense of adventure —

— he might have gotten the lay. Maybe not a 100% guarantee of getting the lay, but a damn bit better than the 0% chance he had BEING HIMSELF.

Recently, the Audacious Epigone challenged Game as egalitarian wishfulness. He, like so many others who have yet to delve deeply into the world of Game for themselves, claims that game will only help those who are already gifted by genetics with good looks or income-boosting and social adaptability-enhancing high intelligence. Now I am not one to shy away from the ugly truths, so there is merit in what he says; given equal facility with game, a good-looking man will do better than an average-looking man. A rich man will trump a poor man. A witty man will pull more than a dull man.

But rarely is skill with game distributed so equally. As I mentioned in the comments to Audacious’ post, excepting fame and vast wealth the most powerful lifestyle change the typical man can make to improve his lot with women is to learn game. The psychosocial dominance and alpha mimickry that game teaches is worth a garage full of Ferraris. Give a beta a Ferrari and he’ll look alpha while driving. Give a beta the self-confidence and swagger of someone who drives Ferraris and he’ll look alpha all the time.

Realistically, homely betas wielding the power of game won’t bang dime pieces (much). But they will begin to experience the pleasure of banging chicks 1 to 3 points higher on the looks scale than what they are used to scoring. And for most lifelong betas, that nontrivial step up the pussy ladder will feel like nirvana.

It is no exaggeration to say that game would have elevated the status, and hence the pussy-lubing power, of the clumsy, homely beta at Busboys far beyond his natural no-talents. And for a mere fraction of the cost in time and energy than he would have spent raising his status in more conventional, and socially-approved, ways.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Beta, Game, The Big City Life, Ugly Truths | 231 Comments

231 Responses

  1. on May 4, 2009 at 1:07 pm SeaFighter FSF-1

    Did you at least say hi to VK? Wait, what.

    LikeLike


  2. on May 4, 2009 at 1:30 pm The G Manifesto

    “The psychosocial dominance and alpha mimickry that game teaches is worth a garage full of Ferraris.”

    So true.

    One of the greatest myths is that Cars get you girls.

    I have driven sick rides in my day and it rarely helps.

    (Witness 99% of the Ferraris you see, it is always a guy solo, with no girls or a guy and his buddy).

    Game and Swagger get you girls.

    And smoking cigarettes, custom suits, mastery of your environment etc.

    – MPM

    LikeLike


  3. on May 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm Michael Wears a Hat

    A lot of the anti-game group tend to think that if game works, men would pick it up left and right and use it effectively; the existence of counterpoints, like the poster on epigone’s blog, take up game for some period of time and see little advancement. Therefore, game is not particularly effective.

    The reality is that many of the aspects of game are designed to cover up/repair flawed aspects of the beta male that have been inculcated for decades. Teaching a guy to neg works great in theory; in practice, a man will experience little success even if he negs on occasion, because his overall beta behavior exposes the truth of his pretend-alpha activity. The neg might give him a slight in, but that in will vanish in the face of some subtle behavior he isn’t even aware of that demonstrates his inherent weakling mindset.

    Some guys are fortunate in that they are inherently somewhat dominant/good looking/successful, and merely suffer from improper tactics in the gaming of women. For those men, basic game acts to correct those false tactics and quickly serves to improve their results with women.

    For the majority of guys, especially those guys who actually try out game, they don’t have the fundamental behavior to actually succeed on a large scale just by adding a few specific tactics. They require serious behavioral modification, and few have the dedication required to do so. I was one of these when I first started reading about and trying to implement game. I had some success when I just started out, but that was due mostly to the increase in approaches. I’ve only started seeing serious changes in my overall behavior in the past few months, and I’ve been actively working toward that for over two years. How many guys devote a few months, then give up?

    LikeLike


  4. on May 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm Waistband

    “And smoking cigarettes, custom suits, mastery of your environment etc.”

    Desert Eagles too, G. You gotta have those. Worth 3 custom suits from London… And that mastery on the environment shit. Can you make it stop raining?

    LikeLike


  5. on May 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm The G Manifesto

    Waistband,

    “And that mastery on the environment shit. Can you make it stop raining?”

    Yes.

    Move to Southern California.

    – MPM

    LikeLike


  6. on May 4, 2009 at 1:49 pm The G Manifesto

    Michael Wears a Hat,

    Well said.

    “How many guys devote a few months, then give up?”

    Probably tons.

    Me?

    I am married to the Game.

    And every fly girl in the world is my mistress.

    – MPM

    LikeLike


  7. on May 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm 11minutes

    Since alphas do not need any more game, and omegas are hopelessly lost, I believe it is the middle of the spectrum (average betas) who gain the most from learning game..

    LikeLike


  8. on May 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm Firepower

    black male, 40-ish with a limp hip?

    to get laid like the old days, Bo Jackson needs another NIKE endorsement…

    LikeLike


  9. on May 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm Mr.M

    Superb that my question regarding game comes under this post…

    Why would a girl do the following behavior?

    Scenario –
    I’m at a club celebrating something a friend’s (and 4 others) birthday. 2 girls, whom are friends of my friend, come up to us and start talking. Quick summary of the girls:

    Girl A – Gregarious, out spoken, most likely drunk – 7
    Girl B – visibly more reserved (probably due to A being so out there) but definitely not uptight/awkward, not drunk – 7.5-8
    * I would venture that A to get most of the attention/pickup attempts simply because she’s the more talkative of the 2
    ** Both are 22-23

    A does 90% of the speaking of the 2 girls for the beginning, for which some of the comments I throw some playful negs, or look across at B and give her a look like “Wow, your friend is drunk off her ass.” A leaves (I think to get drinks), and during that time B starts to tell extremely bad jokes…3 or 4 of them. I’ve got a huge threshold for finding something funny, these were def not funny… one of her jokes had no punchline (wtf?).

    So…why did B start spewing forth such nonsense? I don’t think she felt uncomfortable without A there. It was just…odd. thoughts?

    LikeLike


  10. on May 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm RJS

    Mike,

    Game is behavior modification, even if not fully internalized, and it produces results from merely carrying out the techniques. Exposure to game can produce produce results in beta men who heed words of wisdom from men like Roissy, Roosh and VK. I took a day game workshop with Roosh and it changed my life. I learned some basic techniques and most importantly, not to be outcome dependent.

    Days later I was on a roll, constantly opening with women, even in the street with some strange hot Russian chick who didn’t cross at the light so she could keep talking to me. I felt so proud of myself after that.

    I was a huge beta, and I had the alpha coming through after only a couple months and am having more success with women than I thought possible. Game can change the underlying behavior rather quickly if exposed to the right teachers. Someone who teaches great techniques, like Roosh and someone who teaches biomechanics and how fucked up most women think, like Roissy, are the proper balance for life affirming and transformative results.

    LikeLike


  11. on May 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm Gaia

    —Move to Southern California.—

    Moving because of the weather? Beta.

    LikeLike


  12. on May 4, 2009 at 2:02 pm Firepower

    let a guy dhv

    LikeLike


  13. on May 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm Michael Wears a Hat

    RJS: You took a day game workshop with a quality gamer. Behavioral modification can certainly be done quickly in the presence of somebody who internalizes all the theories and behavior. How many guys can the Rooshs/Styles/Tyler Durdens of the world actually reach? I would expect for every one guy in the game who takes a workshop, there are a hundred or more who try to learn the skills, but don’t take a workshop, either through fear or lack of funding.

    If game becomes widespread enough that quality teachers are available and affordable for a large chunk of men, the dynamics of learning the game will change massively. Right now the barriers are still very, very high.

    LikeLike


  14. on May 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm JAW

    Neil Strauss should have titled his book “The Game, Moneyball for Sex.” It’s the exact same thing.

    LikeLike


  15. on May 4, 2009 at 2:12 pm dick fuel

    timely and rational application of “biomechanics” to induce psychological states shouldn’t necessarily be mutually exclusive with attainment of wealth or status

    this blog focuses on women, but the premise of game extends to many social endeavors

    behavioral reductionism.

    this is the human brain mimicking the adaptive “reasoning” of a goal-directed computer.

    LikeLike


  16. on May 4, 2009 at 2:20 pm maurice

    Like anything else, you will get out of game what you put in. You can’t learn to ski or play the piano if you quit after a few months. There are actually two parts: the change in worldview, which diametrically opposes a lot of the PC received wisdom, and the use of particular skills and behaviors. The first of these is easy and intuitive to most men; the second is much harder, because overturning years of ingrained bad behavior patterns can be very hard.

    Are you sure the B&P couple was on a date? Maybe it was something work-related or some kind of networking – at least for her. That might explain some of it.

    LikeLike


  17. on May 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm Chuck

    roissy,

    good post. nice to get back to the fundamentals.

    you hit on one point that is not stressed enough in discussion of game, and RJS mentioned it when he speaks about learning not to be outcome dependent.

    we aren’t all going to get 9s and 10s on a regular basis, yet in discussing game with other guys (mainly on this board) one would get the impression that every other guy gets 9s and 10s on the regular.

    its like the stock market. you only hear of a guys’ “wins” but never his “losses”.

    guys who seek an improvement in their love/sex lives need to develop a good sense of themselves and their capabilities. i’m not sure of my exact location on the 1-10 scale of desirability, but i’m usually aware of the women that are within a point or so of my locus.

    LikeLike


  18. on May 4, 2009 at 2:29 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Me?

    I am married to the Game.”

    I think you have to be or else it doesn’t have real value.

    I think game can either be mimicked superficially to get a ONS or it has to be used consistently and permanently in order to maintain a woman that is attracted to game-filled personality (yes, those girls are worth having).

    I guess people come to this site with different goals. Some seem to want to bed hot women, some want a hot girlfriend, some want some specific girl.

    The thing about game is that you have to use it consistently and thoroughly to keep the woman it attracts. Even 1 yr into the relationship, you have to be able to remember to lay the smack down on any acting up your gf does. I personally think it becomes hard to maintain dominance after being in a relationship for a while because I rely on the woman being there to listen to me. I need to reveal myself and my vulnerabilities to her, and I no longer maintain the advantage gained from knowing more about her than she does about me. But then again, I am a girl, so maybe men don’t have this need.

    “given equal facility with game, a good-looking man will do better than an average-looking man. A rich man will trump a poor man. A witty man will pull more than a dull man.”

    Game without wit? ok, that’s a tough one.

    I know you guys think I have nothing useful to add, but pretend this isn’t coming from me: Wit is generally crucial to game though I suppose it is possible for a few to master the strong and silent lady killer personality. The important thing to remember is to direct the sarcasm to the girl or something she values. Avoid self deprication, which is usually how people use sarcasm.

    LikeLike


  19. on May 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm Zdeno

    Game will help ugly guys, but will it help stupid guys?

    The net impact of game is a redistribution of sexual success from the stupid to the smart. Part of this is because of the medium by which “game” is disseminated (the internet) but mostly, it’s because learning and implementing game is highly g-loaded – reading, understanding, noticing patterns, experimenting and making inferences from the results – all things that get easier, the smarter you are.

    You can’t effectively learn game with a <110 IQ. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Style/Mystery/Tyler Durden/etc all come across as being several standard deviations to the right of the bell curve.

    By the way, this analysis explains the growing intersection between practitioners of game and reactionary, anti-feminist political sentiments. The winners from the former were the losers from the polygamization of western society.

    Cheers

    Zdeno

    LikeLike


  20. on May 4, 2009 at 2:35 pm omw

    There are a few guys in my life who could certainly benefit from even a handful of “Game” techniques. (Or even a judiciously-applied slap upside the head.)

    Like the utterly sweet and very striking single dad who apparently imagines that discussing home decor is a good way to establish a romantic rapport with women. (??!)

    I’m in no position to lecture him: Act Like A Man, Dammit!

    but he’s a hell of a great guy and one hates to see him strike out again and again, for sheer boneheadedness.

    Still, guys like that have the fundamentals and really, the things holding them back are basically cosmetic. They are houses with good bones.

    The gardens are choked with weeds and the paint is peeling, but it is nothing 1500 bucks at Home Depot and several weekends of sweating won’t cure.

    Others would need to find enough motivation to tear everything down to the studs. Throw away all the worthless bric-a-brac they’re so attached to, rip out all the old landscaping, haul off the old drywall, take a jackhammer to the old tile floors– all that before they can even start thinking about what color to paint the master bedroom.

    LikeLike


  21. on May 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm Chuck

    Zdeno:

    you bring up an interesting point.

    i think wrt Game, there is a sort of breakpoint of two different camps of intellect.

    first, it is possible to overthink game. i have been baffled by the attraction women have for some of the stupidest guys i’ve come across. the stupidest among us (and there is a negative relationship between testosterone and intelligence) don’t overthink seduction. they say what comes to mind. they are genuine by default, and that trait is appreciated by women.

    now, if you are referring to learning game, i see your point on high IQ, but i’d argue that more naturals have average to below average IQ.

    on the other hand, guys who are smart *enough* to implement game will benefit as well. these guys though have to be smart enough to mask their game techniques. also, they have to be smart enough to know that they are prone to overthink game and act accordingly. i think this exemplifies someone like roissy.

    LikeLike


  22. on May 4, 2009 at 2:44 pm Zdeno

    “Moneyball for sex” is apt. At least, that’s what I thought when I first got into it circa 2004. Men go out and experiment with different approaches to women, retain what works and discard what doesn’t. But I’ve learned since that application of game is far from scientific.

    The problem with trying to reduce game to crude inductivism is that their are just too many “hypotheses” to try. Openers, conversation topics, responses to her saying this or that – you can’t realistically test everything, or even most things. The main insight of game is the narrowing down of the set of hypotheses that are worth trying. Once that’s done, there is some merit in taking a scientific approach. The Moneyball approach was almost purely inductive, and for the purposes of drafting baseball players, it worked.

    But you can figure out game without experimentation. I think you can boil down 95% of the insights of game over the past few decades into the following points:

    1) You will get laid more if you approach lots of girls than if you approach none.

    2) Forget everything society taught you about women

    3) Study men who succeed with women and do what they do

    I figured these three things out in high school, and while I’ve learned a lot from studying game over the past few years, I don’t feel like I would be a whole lot worse off without it.

    LikeLike


  23. on May 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm Rum

    Your comments about exotic trinkets like Ferraris are basically correct imho but I would add a caveat. A lot depends on the womans age. The younger they are the less they seem care about purely material status markers. 30 or above are often more inclinded to use money markers as guy-filters. So it can be a conversation starter if you need that.
    I grew up around exotic automobiles & motor racing and have never been without something truly interesting to drive. I am easily bored and really fast cars can definitely help with that.
    Thing is, I recall the day a member of a name-brand rock group came out to the track at which I was working. Yes, he had a slick car on a trailer but it was nothing special. What he did have was what seemed like a motor-home full of 9s,10s giving him lascivious glances. It was for me like being allowed a peak into a different world. I gained a lot, I think, by getting to see the difference beween a symbol and the thing itself.

    LikeLike


  24. on May 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm Lance

    roissy,

    this post demonstrates exactly why i’m always a tad perplexed whenever you show too much affinity for the steve sailer-genetic determinist crowd. genes matter. fine. that’s not the end of the story. those guys seem to look suspiciously at something like game and attempt to dismiss it as some form of progressive political correctness.

    i see game as much more an expression of the enlightenment principle that reason applied to any end will produce marked improvement. that’s the basic ethos behind the men who started this country. while the genetic determinist ostensibly seems to be anti-progressive, they actually end up with an incredibly similar worldview as many progressives. remember that the obsession with IQ and eugenics came about in the very progressive early 20th century.

    the most emailed story at nytimes.com is an article from an american expat living in the netherlands and extolling the virtues of their social democtratic model. towards the end of the model, he pulls his head out of the SWPL sand and admits to a few of the downsides. this quote demonstrates what i’m talking about:

    Another corollary of collectivist thinking is a cultural tendency not to stand out or excel. “Just be normal” is a national saying, and in an earlier era children were taught, in effect, that “if you were born a dime, you’ll never be a quarter” — the very antithesis of the American ideal of upward mobility.

    the idea that you should just accept your genetic lot is akin to the diea that you should just accept your place in the hierarchy. that’s a fundamentally collectivist argument. more importantly, it’s empirically false. if there has ever been a great equalizer in attracting women, game is it.

    here’s the times link:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

    LikeLike


  25. on May 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm dougjnn

    Roissy–

    Great back to fundamentals post.

    This may be your best post addressing the concerns and arguments of game skeptics.

    It’s also an excellent general introduction to game.

    The thing is though as you say not everyone is going to be able to learn game to the same degree, even if they put in the same large amount of effort.

    But it seems to be the case from what you and other PUA’s say that it isn’t always obvious who’s going to be able to thoroughly learn and internalize game and who won’t be able to.

    I don’t know, I kinda think I’d be able to predict pretty well after meeting in person and talking to guys for awhile.

    LikeLike


  26. on May 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm lurker

    “to get laid like the old days, Bo Jackson needs another NIKE endorsement…”

    —Bo knows game. Every game.

    Seriously, Bo was the greatest athlete I ever saw. Onlyl Jim Thorpe can compare all time.

    And don’t bring that faggy ass Deion Sanders shit; Deon played a weaker position in football and was a joke as a baseball player. Prime Time was all flash and TV time, but Bo and Jim wiped the floor with him.

    LikeLike


  27. on May 4, 2009 at 3:00 pm Anon

    Billy Bob Thornton = ugly + game. Oh ye doubters and haters, what more proof does one need?

    LikeLike


  28. on May 4, 2009 at 3:06 pm lurker

    Billy bob also apparently has a huge rod.

    LikeLike


  29. on May 4, 2009 at 3:06 pm Thursday

    1. Game is of most benefit to smart guys who already have decent overall social skills. If you aren’t smart enough to understand and retain the material, it will do you no good. If you don’t have at least some social intuition, it is going to be really hard to pick up on the nuances. However, I agree with Roissy, anyone can improve somewhat from learning game.
    2. Contra Peter, it is possible to be a funny, good looking, sociable guy and still fail _abysmally_ with women. Success with women involves a specific skill set that is only partially applicable to friendship or business. General social skills are not in themselves enough.

    LikeLike


  30. on May 4, 2009 at 3:07 pm dougjnn

    OMW–

    Like the utterly sweet and very striking single dad who apparently imagines that discussing home decor is a good way to establish a romantic rapport with women. (??!)

    I’m in no position to lecture him: Act Like A Man, Dammit!

    but he’s a hell of a great guy and one hates to see him strike out again and again, for sheer boneheadedness.

    Still, guys like that have the fundamentals and really, the things holding them back are basically cosmetic. They are houses with good bones.

    The gardens are choked with weeds and the paint is peeling, but it is nothing 1500 bucks at Home Depot and several weekends of sweating won’t cure.

    Have you considered suggesting they read some PUA sites or books?

    Actually, I’d think YOU could translate the basics pretty well, or at least be a strong introduction to the notion that relationship game really can work and that pickup game can get a man started even though he’s only interested in an attractive and good wife.

    In other words you values are in some ways at the polar opposite of the PUA community’s: you believe in going right to committed relationships and then marriage once a man finds a suitable partner. In other ways they’re congruent: you too believe that many men need to rediscover the outward markers of a strong masculine character, and to not only be comfortable in taking the overall leadership role, not to say a playfully, listening and delegating dominant one, but to communicate that by playfully teasing her in the early pickup / courtship stage.

    LikeLike


  31. on May 4, 2009 at 3:15 pm Thursday

    As for naturals, most of them seem to be of average to above average in intelligence. They don’t seem to be among the dumbest guys. You have to have some ability to learn in order to do well.

    However, being too smart isn’t good either. I suspect that one of the main reasons so many smart guys tend to do so poorly with women is that they are the ones most vulnerable to internalizing bad ideologies. Less intelligent people can’t actually understand most ideologies, so mostly they just go with what feels right to them. Naturals are, well, more natural.

    LikeLike


  32. on May 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “this post demonstrates exactly why i’m always a tad perplexed whenever you show too much affinity for the steve sailer-genetic determinist crowd. genes matter. fine. that’s not the end of the story. those guys seem to look suspiciously at something like game and attempt to dismiss it as some form of progressive political correctness.”

    I agree. The thrust of this blog is a little perplexing.

    If one believes in the deterministic capacity of innate tendencies, why try to teach game? Certainly, only some people are capable of learning it, but perhaps they would have learned it on their own through trial and error without ever reading this site. I know I did.

    I am not at all certain about this- can game be taught or not? In my case, I know it can be learned, but I was not taught. I learned by myself from observation and internal understanding. And granted, I have the enormous times 10 advantage of actually being female and therefore having a good understanding of female psychology.

    LikeLike


  33. on May 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm ironrailsironweights

    But had he not jumped up from his chair when she arrived; had he not lunged desperately toward her for the hug and kiss his demeanor suggested he hadn’t gotten since his Mom saw him off on his first day of school; had he teased her humorously about the scarf she was wearing on a mild spring day; had he moved slowly and gracefully with the practiced insouciance of a wanton Casanova used to bedding women much hotter than her; had he been dressed with a little more care; had he stopped smiling like a vapid goofball for two seconds; had he qualified her about her worldliness and sense of adventure –
    – he might have gotten the lay.

    Most of the improvements you describe are not Game. His mistakes, for the most part, sound like he was acting too needy (been there, done that, so I know of what I speak). Dropping the neediness would have improved his prospects, and that really isn’t what is meant by Game.

    Specifically, my reasoned guess is that the man’s chances with the woman would have been much better if he had refrained from jumping up in the chair and from lunging forward for the hug/kiss, hadn’t smiled in such a goofball manner, and dressed a little better. That is without doing the more Game-y things you describe (negging about the scarf, acting insouciant, and getting into the worldliness and sense of adventure). This isn’t to say that taking these additional steps would have hurt, but only that they probably weren’t really necessary.

    Peter

    LikeLike


  34. on May 4, 2009 at 3:19 pm Sean

    I’m glad you posted about this. I thought the post on twitter would go unexplained, and this train wreck sounded like a good story/life lesson.

    LikeLike


  35. on May 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm Michael Wears a Hat

    “Dropping the neediness would have improved his prospects, and that really isn’t what is meant by Game.”

    Game covers every aspect of attracting a female. Negs and so forth are only specific tactics.

    LikeLike


  36. on May 4, 2009 at 3:24 pm ironrailsironweights

    Contra Peter, it is possible to be a funny, good looking, sociable guy and still fail _abysmally_ with women. Success with women involves a specific skill set that is only partially applicable to friendship or business. General social skills are not in themselves enough.

    I don’t know … as far as I can recall I’ve never known any guys who were both (a) sociable among other men, with plenty of friendships, and (b) successful in their careers, who nonetheless were total flops with women. Having (a) alone or (b) alone is not necessarily sufficient, but if a man has both he should be able to manage okay with women.

    Peter

    LikeLike


  37. on May 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm Sean

    @lurker

    Either way, BBT still has to have game to get to the point where he can prove himself WITH the rod.

    LikeLike


  38. on May 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm anon78

    Peter – “Most of the improvements you describe are not Game”

    Um, yes, they are. Maybe this is why you’re so strident in your belief that only good looking guys and nascent naturals can benefit from reading about game–you don’t actually understand what game is.

    Which makes me wonder–why DON’T you recognize those improvements as behavioral improvements covered by game? You read this blog as much as anyone else here.

    LikeLike


  39. on May 4, 2009 at 3:33 pm Sean

    @Peter

    I’m no expert, but from what roiss has said, I get the impression that squashing neediness IS an element of game, especially for those who feel the urge to act needy, in order to “show interest”; acting aloof is part of game, and aloof people aren’t needy.

    Amusing (if fake) example of neediness to the extreme:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_girlfriend_boyfriend_achieve?utm_source=a-section

    LikeLike


  40. on May 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm dougjnn

    feministx–

    The thing about game is that you have to use it consistently and thoroughly to keep the woman it attracts. Even 1 yr into the relationship, you have to be able to remember to lay the smack down on any acting up your gf does. I personally think it becomes hard to maintain dominance after being in a relationship for a while because I rely on the woman being there to listen to me.

    This is quite good and insightful.

    It’s not so hard to maintain (light outside the bedroom) dominance when that’s what you want to do in you gut. Game helps you (me) overcome cultural messages that if I followed them would trip me up sometimes. Perfection isn’t necessary though, especially once things are well established.

    I need to reveal myself and my vulnerabilities to her, and I no longer maintain the advantage gained from knowing more about her than she does about me. But then again, I am a girl, so maybe men don’t have this need.

    I don’t know that I NEED to do that, but I want to, and I find it works to draw us closer. The thing is to not reveal all vulnerabilities, especially those wrt her. Communicating deep wanting her on an emotional level is fine, or really great with most women, though she should do so first and more. It’s a good idea to keep it so you do know a little more about her than she about you. Especially re: your vulnerabilities to her, including by extension yours to prior women.

    As for you’re being a girl making these needs greater, yes that’s generally true, although I think many men have them strongly too. Even more men have been thoroughly taught by our media and educational and many home cultures that they SHOULD, and that having them without reserve and without edge is the surest way of attracting and keeping an attractive woman. Which is of course WRONG.

    In other words it’s important to keep a differential on these things. It’s completely unnecessary and probably wouldn’t work with the vast majority of women for any length of time to make these differences absolute. One can feel if you’re doing it right by feeling the subtle power and affection flow – which doesn’t have to and shouldn’t go 100% in one direction, but that needs to be the dominant one.

    LikeLike


  41. on May 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm Mr.M

    If one believes in the deterministic capacity of innate tendencies, why try to teach game? Certainly, only some people are capable of learning it, but perhaps they would have learned it on their own through trial and error without ever reading this site. I know I did.

    I’ll agree with the trial and error aspect of game and success in relationships; at least from my own experience.

    However, not everyone is exposed to the amount of trial and error to determine exactly what works, and what does not work. Further, game puts a simple, perhaps instructional, approach to talking to women. it also helps to dispel a lot of bullshit notions about what women respond to (chivalry vs asshole).

    LikeLike


  42. on May 4, 2009 at 3:43 pm dougjnn

    Iron/Peter–

    Dropping the neediness would have improved his prospects, and that really isn’t what is meant by Game.

    That’s EXACTLY what’s meant by game. Or rather that’s definitely part of game.

    However as Sara once wisely pointed out albeit in a new agey kind of way, (yeah she does sometime say wise things from her feminine core, below various levels of hurt and opposition to “artificial” game) wanting is attractive, but needing is not. Especially I’d say to women.

    Upon first attracting her, you even need to keep the wanting her part in check and ambiguous. The right internal stance is you might want her, depending on how she proves herself.

    LikeLike


  43. on May 4, 2009 at 3:43 pm ironrailsironweights

    Which makes me wonder–why DON’T you recognize those improvements as behavioral improvements covered by game? You read this blog as much as anyone else here.

    It’s all a matter of how one views things, but I’ve always considered Game to be a set of actions (for example, negging), and not merely the avoidance of undesirable behaviors (for example, acting needy).

    Peter

    LikeLike


  44. on May 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm maurice

    Agree with Chuck, Zendko, Thursday, FemX et al on the need for brains, wit, and social savvy to be successfuly with game. And that it can tip the scales from the naturals, rich, top-dogs, etc. to determined smart guys. But those three traits don’t always go together as natural traits in the same person. Wit is a very different thing from intelligence. Very bright guys, as noted, tend to have sub-optimal social skills and experience. Hence the nerdy guys like Mystery and Style inventing a very geeky language and methodology to compensate intellectually for what they never picked up on socially. (They and a lot of the rest of us – am not picking on them.)

    Posit that a lot of bright, formerly nerdy guys have learned some game and social skills. How do women see them? Can’t they see that the likes of Mystery, Style, Tyler (and a lot of their clones from the workshops) are reformed nerds? And not sterotypical Alpha Males? In his book, Neil actually got mistaken for Moby in a club, ferchrissakes. (Although to be fair it did get him a lot of attention because Moby is a famous musician.)

    I guess the point is like the biological argument above. Game can’t make you different from what you are. It can improve your performance in an interaction, on a date, in the bars, but over time, in a relationship, it’s hard to sustain behaviors that don’t come naturally to you. Agree with FemX on this. But a kind of wholesale personality makeover, or evolution, seems to be possible – I certianly see myself and my views and behaviors chaning over time, and not only because of PUA principles.

    Thoughts?

    Also, speaking of Neil Strauss, apparently he’s going to be on Jay Leno tonight – I just saw that in an e-mail. FYI for those who care. He’ll probably be promoting his new book “Emergency” – about his immersion in the world of survivalism writ large. Frankly, chicks are more entertaining to me than guns, but it was an interesting read anyway …

    LikeLike


  45. on May 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm Thursday

    Peter:

    I don’t know … as far as I can recall I’ve never known any guys who were both (a) sociable among other men, with plenty of friendships, and (b) successful in their careers, who nonetheless were total flops with women.

    I know, because I was that guy. Furthermore, my observations match those of T. (Ricky Raw) on most of the bankers and lawyers he knows in New York.

    Most of the improvements you describe are not Game.

    That you would say this despite being a regular reader of this blog makes me doubt your perceptiveness.

    LikeLike


  46. on May 4, 2009 at 4:20 pm omw

    I like to suggest Doc Love’s articles to guys like that, Doug. More Meeting Ms. Right than Fucking a Dozen Dimes.

    What can I say? I hate to be morally responsible for the delinquency of an unsupervised geek. ❤

    This, provided the subject even comes up; and still, you know how they are. They just think whatever they are doing is fine, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Change is uncomfortable! There’s someone out there for everyone! She’ll be into WoW and obscure 19th century composers, just like me!

    Blah blah blah.

    Ah, men. 😉

    LikeLike


  47. on May 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm Lance

    However, being too smart isn’t good either. I suspect that one of the main reasons so many smart guys tend to do so poorly with women is that they are the ones most vulnerable to internalizing bad ideologies. Less intelligent people can’t actually understand most ideologies, so mostly they just go with what feels right to them. Naturals are, well, more natural.

    this is a good point. to add to it i would say that really smart guys tend to have had a demonstrated success in making sense of complicated subjects. think about your stereotypical sceince or math nerd. the problem is that as complicated as these systems may be, they pale in comparison to the human, and especially the female, mind. smart guys are used to understanding systems that obey some for of rational and logical system. noone has ever explained to them the system that undergirds attraction.

    add to that the fact that male behavior has deep social, cultural, and evolutionary roots. it’s really difficult for a non-natural to just spontaneously become great at attracting women. most men are scared shitless to even attempt something like a neg. the need for female approval and the fear of social ostracization are ingrained so deeply that many men never learn to see past them. it’s this point where game becomes important. so many of the things that make certain men successful with women are counterintuitive to what the majority of men believe about women.

    T.’s posts on the madonna/whore complex talk about these things and they’re really spot on. so many men have this one sided view of women that results from a one sided view of their mothers. this is where the gene crowd is just plain wrong. looks matter to women, but attitute and behavior matter just as much if not more.

    LikeLike


  48. on May 4, 2009 at 4:33 pm jaakkeli

    If one believes in the deterministic capacity of innate tendencies, why try to teach game? Certainly, only some people are capable of learning it, but perhaps they would have learned it on their own through trial and error without ever reading this site. I know I did.

    If you believe in innate IQ, why bother teaching people to read? Surely those with the innate capability for literacy will learn it on their own. I know I did.

    LikeLike


  49. on May 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm Tyler

    Game isn’t always about winning the girl over. It is about getting what you want. That is why it can apply to so many other aspects of your life.

    It makes your more confident is dealing with people in general. I started a new job and even though my boss has the “power,” she is the one looking for my acceptance. DHV stories, facial expression control in our conversations, the utilization of silence, confidence in movements and statements are all things that become intuitive after practice. I would beg to differ with anyone who claims “game” doesn’t exist.

    LikeLike


  50. on May 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm Bhetti

    OMW: Funnest part of forming relationships is being introduced to different interests as well as mutual ones. That is my explanation for being roped into trying WoW. I enjoy the ingame silliness/conversation more. It was good stress relief around time I had to deal with Ms Suicide Call Yes I Have Taken The Pills No I Don’t Want Help friend.

    It’s really silly when a geek/nerd takes themselves or their specialisation too seriously.

    I reckon a person can convince you to try something if they truly enjoy it. Avoid boring rants is the number one tip for this. Selling me on liking fixing up cars probably doesn’t involve giving me an essay on a tight suspension vs not. (I know nothing of cars, suspensions can be tightened…?) Getting me under the hood might, showing me how you do it and letting me look up anything I’m interested in might.

    LikeLike


  51. on May 4, 2009 at 4:47 pm dougjnn

    feministx–

    If one believes in the deterministic capacity of innate tendencies, why try to teach game?

    Even those who believe that genes play a much larger role in many areas of mental ability and personality than most scientists, rarely believe it’s more than about 60-70% in an almost nowhere seriously deprived environment like the US, with environment / culture being responsible for the rest. Learning game can rewire part of one’s “culture”, i.e. software.

    Certainly, only some people are capable of learning it, but perhaps they would have learned it on their own through trial and error without ever reading this site. I know I did.

    So did I. But most people can’t. One has to be unusually able to think outside of the given cultural categories, unusually observant, and unusually able to intuit and deduce conclusions (creatively intelligent) to be able to do so if you didn’t learn it growing up from a combination of the culture you swam in and the male role models you emulated.

    That cuts out just a few people.

    Enter systematized and continuously somewhat improved and updated Game from the developing PUA community.

    LikeLike


  52. on May 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm jaakkeli

    You don’t need an excuse for trying WoW. You’re a girl.

    LikeLike


  53. on May 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm omw

    Don’t you think sometimes nerds get into the boring rant as a way to show you how much they KNOW?

    It’s an awkward attempt at demonstrating higher value, but with no sense of proportion.

    LikeLike


  54. on May 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm omw

    “So, have you heard this concerto before? Yeah? Well, I hope it wasn’t *Richard Stolzman’s* version! What a douchebag. You don’t LIKE him, do you? Good.”

    ew! LOL.

    LikeLike


  55. on May 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm Tood

    As I can’t say often enough :

    1) MODERATE competence in Game is worth about $2 Million to your net worth. Just as $2M goes farther in a small town than in NYC, the same applies to Game. Thus, killing yourself with late nights at the office to earn a promotion 2 years hence (only to pay 45% in taxes), is a poor use of time relative to learning Game.

    I have, in past threads, defined what is required to achieve moderate Game competence.

    I am not talking about advanced Game here (which very few ever achieve. I don’t think Roissy or anyone else here has truly advanced Game).

    2) Game is worth more than being a 10 in looks for a man. Most inside-the-box, Game-unaware Betas cannot comprehend this. Bodybuilding/other looks-improving efforts are a poor use of time relative to Game.

    3) Two types of people benefit the most from learning moderate Game skills :

    a) Misguided Betas who are good-looking, well-employed, and have other traits a woman might like, but have such a Beta worldview/dating approach that they continually punch below their looks/resume level, because they listen to what women say they want. They waste tons of money on very little return, due to lack of Game. They fail to notice most IOIs. Asian men populate this group heavily, as do white engineers, doctors, and MBAs. Their analytical minds make it easy to digest Game concepts, but many still have trouble doing approaches regularly, which is the biggest stumbling block for this group.

    b) Naturals who already are good at approaching women and escalating, but don’t really understand the theory behind their success. Game can supercharge their results.

    Outside of these two groups, the magnitude to improvement is less, as is the likelihood of learning sufficient Game.

    LikeLike


  56. on May 4, 2009 at 4:57 pm Gunslingergregi

    With 2 mil I could buy and sell porn stars all day long lol

    LikeLike


  57. on May 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm Gunslingergregi

    Don’t ya think advanced game would be by being outside the box. You have pussy. You have woman who already treat you as a god. You have all your basic needs met. Then you unleash yourself on the world with all the time in the world to play.

    LikeLike


  58. on May 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm dougjnn

    My life has been blissfully untainted by participation in or even witnessing of WoW, though I’ve been hearing about it for years. Usually disparagingly.

    LikeLike


  59. on May 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm Tood

    “One of the greatest myths is that Cars get you girls.”

    Yep. Add bodybuilding and fancy restaurants to the list of elite Beta time/money traps.

    LikeLike


  60. on May 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm kim

    What does WoW stand for?

    LikeLike


  61. on May 4, 2009 at 5:19 pm Gunslingergregi

    Dougjnn,
    If you want to have fun playing with business ideas ultima online is a better choice for a game. I havn’t played wow either.

    LikeLike


  62. on May 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm Gunslingergregi

    Also if you want to see what a perfectly level playing field is like and that their will still be poor people in it play same game. Interesting stuff.

    LikeLike


  63. on May 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm Tommy

    very intelligent people have more trouble in social situations (of all kinds) because they are more perceptive, and notice things which most people do not. So bad body language, tone etc weigh heavier on them.

    LikeLike


  64. on May 4, 2009 at 5:22 pm Tood

    “What does WoW stand for?”

    World of Warcraft. One of many interminable video-game pursuits (like Second Life or Everquest) that lesser Beta’s choose to pursue rather than the 4s and 5s that they would otherwise be consuming their time and money on.

    Participation in such video games is inversely proportional to real-world people-skills like Game. The Star Trek fans of the 90s are now WoW players.

    When 3-D/VR/Holographic games with tactile interfaces emerge, and porn applications emerge for them (no later than 2020), 6s and 7s will suffer the same fate as the 4s and 5s of today.

    LikeLike


  65. on May 4, 2009 at 5:22 pm Gunslingergregi

    People in that game used to complain because houses where too expensive even though to get money everyone has to get money through the same routes.

    LikeLike


  66. on May 4, 2009 at 5:24 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea but tood my first wife is one who got me to start playing lol

    LikeLike


  67. on May 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Game isn’t always about winning the girl over. It is about getting what you want. That is why it can apply to so many other aspects of your life.”

    It does work with anything. It will work with your boss and your friends. This is probably why alpha males tend to have more than one kind of success in life.

    “If you believe in innate IQ, why bother teaching people to read? Surely those with the innate capability for literacy will learn it on their own. I know I did.”

    “Even those who believe that genes play a much larger role in many areas of mental ability and personality than most scientists, rarely believe it’s more than about 60-70% in an almost nowhere seriously deprived environment like the US, with environment / culture being responsible for the rest. Learning game can rewire part of one’s “culture”, i.e. software.”

    Here is the issue- the alpha male is technically a relative position, by definition. If we assume that what women are attracted to is really the alpha male, then game learning can only work so long as few people attempt to learn it. It’s like studying your ass off for the SAT if no one else studies for it. Your score will be much better in that case. But if everyone studies for the SAT and you also study hard, then your score will reflect your innate intelligence relative to others.

    If we are to assume that what women want is not an alpha male, but just a dominant male, then attempting to develop a dominant personality is a more powerful tactic. This way, a person’s dominance is not compared to others but simply taken on its own value within the relationship.

    In some respects, women are attracted to the alpha male in the relative sense. Even the poorest most ill educated male today is more able to provide for a woman than the alpha male of 1000 years go. But just because the poor man will not cause starvation for her children, does not mean women are more attracted to poor men of the modern world than women were attracted to poor men 1000 years ago.

    But it is possible that women’s attraction to personal dominance is an absolute and not a relative interaction. Or perhaps she only needs him to be dominant in relation to her, rather than dominant in relation to other men.

    My personal hunch is that a set level of dominance within a relationship is adequate. There is a threshold that depends on each woman and once it is crossed, more dominance has marginal returns.

    LikeLike


  68. on May 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm kim

    Ha Tood, thank you for the very descriptive/inclusive answer.

    LikeLike


  69. on May 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm Gunslingergregi

    All of life is just a game.

    LikeLike


  70. on May 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm Tood

    That being said, being addicted to a blog for too many hours out of the day (even a blog about Game), is scarcely better than being addicted to WoW.

    LikeLike


  71. on May 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    Don’t think there is really any doubt that we will not need to go outside at one point if we can make it past the stage of perfect war.

    LikeLike


  72. on May 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “this is a good point. to add to it i would say that really smart guys tend to have had a demonstrated success in making sense of complicated subjects. think about your stereotypical sceince or math nerd. the problem is that as complicated as these systems may be, they pale in comparison to the human, and especially the female, mind. smart guys are used to understanding systems that obey some for of rational and logical system. noone has ever explained to them the system that undergirds attraction.”

    There are plenty of reasons why extremely intelligent men would be less able to attract women.

    Firstly, because of IQ SD differences, there are fewer high IQ women than high IQ men. Most people relate best to people of their own IQ level, so men with too high IQs are at a disadvantage.

    Secondly, sexual attraction is primal enough to not depend on very high IQ-related traits. If you think high IQ doesn’t help a man attract women, think of how little it helps a woman attract men.

    Third, it seems that really high IQ men base their priorities on their rationalizations. They may somehow rationalize that game is not worth the effort. And if you really looked at the logical steps underlying the rationalization, maybe it would be true, but most of us aren’t really capable of understanding such ideas.

    LikeLike


  73. on May 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm Tood

    “Firstly, because of IQ SD differences, there are fewer high IQ women than high IQ men. Most people relate best to people of their own IQ level, so men with too high IQs are at a disadvantage. ”

    Thanks for being a woman who admits this.

    “Secondly, sexual attraction is primal enough to not depend on very high IQ-related traits. ”

    Yes, but sperm banks screen for high IQ/education (as well as height, looks, medical history, etc.) So while women may not be attracted to incremental IQ, they certainly want their children to have the highest possible IQ. All parents do.

    LikeLike


  74. on May 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “So while women may not be attracted to incremental IQ, they certainly want their children to have the highest possible IQ. All parents do.”

    Funny. I honestly do not because I see that excessive IQ leads to reduced liklihood of reproduction. In other words, I want grandchildren. People are also more successful with IQs below the extreme genius range. I wrote that in my blog post about marrying for good genes.

    “Thanks for being a woman who admits this. ”

    Admit what? I have never seen a study that shows otherwise.

    LikeLike


  75. on May 4, 2009 at 5:52 pm Bhetti

    I don’t notice what you guys are talking about in terms of Asians: you mean East Asian, right?

    Maybe there’s discrimination on the slim builds.

    Some are hopeless but I know at least one who’s mastered teasing and amused mastery to a fine art. He’d do brilliant if he tried using those skills on a female for dark ends and I think part of that is just him thinking being overmuscled and brawny is required. I can’t believe all that raw talent is wasted. I remember this exchange:
    me: Food’s on me next time!
    him: What food? Not that I’m gonna complain. You’d best not be joking.
    me: You’re eating with everybody else at my party.
    him: No, Bhetti. I demand a special meal, just for me.
    me: *gets hit by image, experiences disbelief he may not be finding life easy with women, changes subject*

    I shall question him closely and nosily on love life, then direct him to good resources so that he can stop the insecurity about the tiny Asianness.

    jaakeli: I don’t need an excuse for WarCrack simply because I’m female?! Blasphemy!

    No, seriously, why can a woman get away with it?

    As games go, it’s really not one of the better ones out there and a time/money suck with no challenge.

    LikeLike


  76. on May 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm Tood

    “Admit what? I have never seen a study that shows otherwise.”

    Most ‘feminists’ (self-proclaimed) refuse to acknowledge that men and women have the same median IQ, but that men have a higher standard deviation. Admission of this would discredit their tactic of saying ‘sexism’ is why there are so few women at the top of most fields (while conveniently ignoring that more men are also at the bottom for the same reason).

    “I honestly do not because I see that excessive IQ leads to reduced liklihood of reproduction.”

    Only if seduction/attraction were the only channels of reproduction.

    It seems you are not familiar with sperm back selection criteria. This has nothing to do with Game or attraction, but has a major selection effect on babies born through sperm bank usage. Every male sperm donor to a top-tier bank will have an IQ above 140 and height above 6’0″. Each of these men will have about 10 children, with 10 different women. Thus, their genes have a disproportionate impact on the population (even if their Game is zero). And a man can donate to more than one bank (as I am presently seeking to do).

    LikeLike


  77. on May 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm kim

    That’s true. I’ve been guilty of that this past weekend. It’s finals time and this has been providing a mental break from contract law and other things I’d rather not be reading about.

    LikeLike


  78. on May 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    Jaakeli

    Why would guys need an excuse to play a game. That is who they are for lol

    Apparently woman are jumping on act though.

    Shit I went over here to get rich in real so that I could have a woman and play games at the same time. He He He

    LikeLike


  79. on May 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    mission accomplished.

    Fucked up that goals change. lol

    LikeLike


  80. on May 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm JAM

    Peter:
    >I don’t know … as far as I can recall I’ve never known any guys who were both (a) sociable among other men, with plenty of friendships, and (b) successful in their careers, who nonetheless were total flops with women.

    Thursday:
    > I know, because I was that guy. Furthermore, my observations match those of T. (Ricky Raw) on most of the bankers and lawyers he knows in New York.

    EXACTLY. Anyone who’s hung out with a lair long enough knows what I’m talking about. Yes there’s a lot of churn in the coal-mine. But the number of diamonds that just need a bit of spit-and-polish is mind-boggling. Often so much so that you wonder what the hell is causing these guys to initially perform so badly under their later-realized potential?

    OMW:
    >The gardens are choked with weeds and the paint is peeling, but it is nothing 1500 bucks at Home Depot and several weekends of sweating won’t cure.

    >Others would need to find enough motivation to tear everything down to the studs. Throw away all the worthless bric-a-brac they’re so attached to, rip out all the old landscaping, haul off the old drywall, take a jackhammer to the old tile floors– all that before they can even start thinking about what color to paint the master bedroom.

    And that is the issue. Essentially all of the guys who fail lack motivation or (very, very rarely) circumstance that enables their motivation (e.g., having to work too much to make subsistence ends meet).

    People are lazy. The between-the-lines implication in The Game is compelling: Strauss dropped out of *life* for a *year* to get good.

    Not many are willing to go even 5% of that distance. I, for one, have given up giving friends unsolicited advice on the topic. Unless they feel that they have no option but to take action, it’s essentially a waste of my time and theirs to try to help them.

    LikeLike


  81. on May 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm Lupo

    “So…why did B start spewing forth such (bad jokes) nonsense?”

    I’m pretty sure some dumb article in Cosmo is telling young wimmens to do crap like this as some kind of character building, or shrinking dudes heads experience, because it’s happened to me several times in weird contexts. Weirdest was one time my buddy and I were lighting up the bar with our mighty witticisms about our giant dongs and so on. Some 22-23 y.o. nerdy girl tapped on my pal’s shoulder, and we turned around to get a series of very bad knock knock jokes. I made fun of her until she went away, because it was completely retarded. “You’re not making this easy for me,” she said. Duh. It shouldn’t be easy to make a fool of yourself, idjit.

    LikeLike


  82. on May 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm jaakkeli

    jaakeli: I don’t need an excuse for WarCrack simply because I’m female?! Blasphemy!

    No, seriously, why can a woman get away with it?

    WoW obsession is girly. Seriously. I’ve never actually tried WoW, but from what I’ve heard it seems like the obsession typically involves joining a group and getting stuck with obligations and the illusion of “doing something for the group”. Real men run away from needless commitment.

    It may be my illusion, but women tend to be much more obsessive gamers. Men/boys will more commonly consider gaming one way to pass those weekdays while waiting for the weekend partying and then it all begins to feel like stupid kid stuff at some age between 15 and 25. Women are not really fewer in number in the obsessives but they’re far fewer among the casuals.

    LikeLike


  83. on May 4, 2009 at 6:41 pm Gunslingergregi

    Naa Jaakali blogs are the woman stuff games are the mens stuff. Games doing something. Blogs talking about doing something. I just don’t have access to a high speed line for gaming.

    LikeLike


  84. on May 4, 2009 at 6:42 pm Gunslingergregi

    Or I wouldn’t be reading a blog.

    LikeLike


  85. on May 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm Hope

    Bhetti, horde or alliance? I play a blood elf priest and paladin. 🙂

    LikeLike


  86. on May 4, 2009 at 6:51 pm jaakkeli

    Gunny, you can still play solo. If you need other people to game, you’re a girly man liberal!

    I can’t even play games even though I have a good line, since my computer can’t run anything made after 2002 or so and I don’t think there are too many people playing Age of Empires today. Maybe I would like some newer games, I don’w know.

    LikeLike


  87. on May 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm David Alexander

    One of many interminable video-game pursuits (like Second Life or Everquest) that lesser Beta’s choose to pursue rather than the 4s and 5s that they would otherwise be consuming their time and money on.

    Maybe some of us have more fun in chasing orcs (or trains or new highway signs) around than chasing women. Blame high IQ, low testosterone, and porn. Just like how Roissy enjoys the thrill and chase of using game on Washington’s finest beauties, some men enjoy playing games, and in my case, I love seeing a train rush by at high speed.

    Who doesn’t love 25kV @ 60 hz constant tension catenary? 🙂

    LikeLike


  88. on May 4, 2009 at 6:54 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea delta force ii was the shit. Stomping guts all day long after work he he he. Plus you can become a legend in the game. I am still waiting for one of my old team to recognize lol

    You can stomp alone or have an elite team.

    ][-][*

    LikeLike


  89. on May 4, 2009 at 6:56 pm Gunslingergregi

    Plus going against 50 other people more fun.

    “”””DA,
    Maybe some of us have more fun in chasing orcs (or trains or new highway signs) around than chasing women.””””””

    It is nice while playing the game to get a blowjob. So yea woman usually come in handy for that. lol

    LikeLike


  90. on May 4, 2009 at 6:56 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Each of these men will have about 10 children, with 10 different women.”

    Are you sure that is what actually happens? You said the limit was 10 per man, but that leaves the possibility that any number of men’s donations result in 0 children.

    It’s funny that we prioritize this. It is why there are 1 billion brownies.

    Anyways, so I’ll be sure that my sons are broke during college so they have to sell their internal fluids for money. I’ll probably have to give them growth hormones to get them to 6 ft though. My 5 ft is hard to compensate for.

    And being that I am my vulcan-like self, I can see that I will still be shorter than a man who is 5’6″ even if I wear the highest heels I own, so it is advantageous for me to be willing to date short men since so many women are disinterested in them. They may be as rich or alpha like as a taller man, but they are likely to attract fewer women, so it’s like less competition for something that is of equal value to me. If I ended up with a short man, my children will certainly need growth hormones (good that I plan for this before they are conceived).

    But anyways, I want grand babies. I want to see them.

    LikeLike


  91. on May 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm Gunslingergregi

    Plus whos gonna keep the house clean cook clean your drawers love you feed you provide some real life stimulas and have your kids.

    LikeLike


  92. on May 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm jaakkeli

    Maybe some of us have more fun in chasing orcs (or trains or new highway signs) around than chasing women. Blame high IQ, low testosterone, and porn.

    So now you have a high IQ?

    A-HA!

    BUSTED!!!

    LikeLike


  93. on May 4, 2009 at 7:01 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Admission of this would discredit their tactic of saying ’sexism’ is why there are so few women at the top of most fields (while conveniently ignoring that more men are also at the bottom for the same reason).”

    The IQ difference is at best a secondary explanation for the acievement difference. The obvious reason women lack at the top is lack of drive. The obvious reason for that is because women like spending time and effort on their children.

    When you take children out of the equation, much of the achievement difference disappears. Women are never the top mathematicians, but they are overrepresented at the top of a class even though class rank should reflect the SD difference in IQ.

    LikeLike


  94. on May 4, 2009 at 7:07 pm Gunslingergregi

    “””””””””””””fem
    The IQ difference is at best a secondary explanation for the acievement difference. The obvious reason women lack at the top is lack of drive. The obvious reason for that is because women like spending time and effort on their children. “””””””””””””””

    NO it is because sucking dick only can get them so high.
    They can only get pulled up by looks till they are right beneath top. After that there is no guy to make them the top. Get it now.

    LikeLike


  95. on May 4, 2009 at 7:08 pm Gunslingergregi

    Oh and probably “career” too or whatever bla bla bla

    LikeLike


  96. on May 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm David Alexander

    It is nice while playing the game to get a blowjob. So yea woman usually come in handy for that. lol

    You plus your right hand!

    No, I must admit, if she’s good looking enough and has nails, and has a good technique, you’d probably want her around for that too.

    OTOH, jerking off beats penis in vagina sex…

    Plus whos gonna keep the house clean cook clean your drawers love you feed you provide some real life stimulas and have your kids.

    I’ll cook and clean for myself. And what stimulas? Her nagging and drama issues? As for kids, well, I’d love kids, but I’d probably be an awful dad, and I’d spend all day wondering if it was worth it and if the kids have low IQ. Plus, kids get in the way of spending money on first class flights to ride first class on a high speed rail line. 🙂

    So now you have a high IQ?

    Whiskey said so last night, and he’s always right…

    Actually, this is a generalized case, especially since I don’t play WoW, and my brother has resisted despite the fact that most of his friends do so.

    LikeLike


  97. on May 4, 2009 at 7:15 pm Gunslingergregi

    Like the current chick that got my job. She said he wasn’t really like her boss at another area more of a friend. He is 4 levels up from me lol I don’t feel so bad about not getting the job.

    LikeLike


  98. on May 4, 2009 at 7:15 pm schoolboy

    This is your life and its ending one minute at a time.

    LikeLike


  99. on May 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm Mr.M

    Lupo – I hope that’s not the case, it was probably the dumbest thing i’ve seen in quite awhile. it seemed like she was trying to qualify herself, without being asked/prompted, and failing horribly to do so.

    LikeLike


  100. on May 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm Gunslingergregi

    Da it doesn’t I jack every day. I crave fucking pussy like a madman though. Just got to find the right woman. I didn’t crave every woman I have fucked like a madman posessed by demons. Just two so far.

    LikeLike


  101. on May 4, 2009 at 7:19 pm Gunslingergregi

    lol schoolboy I would say you should go and join special forces for something cool to do. It is my one regret. You can also do that as an officer while going to school.

    LikeLike


  102. on May 4, 2009 at 7:21 pm Gunslingergregi

    Never met an sf guy who regretted it. Plus this chicks husband just went to new job teaching and makes 250g’s a year doing it. Former sniper.

    LikeLike


  103. on May 4, 2009 at 7:25 pm Tood

    “Are you sure that is what actually happens?”

    Probably. The limit is strictly enforced, as before the law, there were some men with numbers much higher than that. Plus, I get calls from time to time to donate more (much like being called up for military duty).

    “”If I ended up with a short man, my children will certainly need growth hormones ”

    You can always get the sperm of a 6-foot + man (of whatever race you like), and have a child.

    “But anyways, I want grand babies. I want to see them.”

    Are you sure you are a feminist? Are you aware of the value-systems of most who call themselves ‘feminists’?

    LikeLike


  104. on May 4, 2009 at 7:25 pm jaakkeli

    Plus, kids get in the way of spending money on first class flights to ride first class on a high speed rail line. 🙂

    Why that way, if you’re a rail-experience addict? First class is about eliminating all that’s special about the experience and making it like any other means of travel.

    Me, if I’d have money to travel, I’d take the first train to Pyongyang or somewhere in the worst class they have.

    LikeLike


  105. on May 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm Gunslingergregi

    Plus no woman how can you re-enact the goodbye scene from an old movie on an old russian train lol

    Jaakkeli
    Why don’t you have the money to buy a ticket on the first train to pyongyang?

    LikeLike


  106. on May 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Are you sure you are a feminist? Are you aware of the value-systems of most who call themselves ‘feminists’?”

    Yes, and I agree with their value systems. They believe that there is no such thing as innate gender roles and that it is a social construct.

    What I believe is far more dangerous. I accept that gendered personality is innate, but I think the categorical difference is less than ideal for society.

    One day I hope that biological interventions will be invented so that women and men can be functionally equal as groups though individuals may differ within those groups.

    So, roissies of the far future watch out. What the feminists cannot destroy with “pretty lies”, we must destroy with biological warfare.

    LikeLike


  107. on May 4, 2009 at 7:32 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “You can always get the sperm of a 6-foot + man (of whatever race you like), and have a child. ”

    No. A tube of semen does not look nice in the family photo.

    LikeLike


  108. on May 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    before that happens your feminized society will be wiped out by another. lol

    LikeLike


  109. on May 4, 2009 at 7:37 pm David Alexander

    Why that way, if you’re a rail-experience addict?

    It’s much more fun to ride in luxury and comfort than in the back sitting next to a stinky in an uncomfortable seat. First class doesn’t reduce the experience, but IMHO, enhances it even further, making it much more enjoyable. OTOH, who wants to freak out about being underdressed in a first class car of suit-wearing businessmen of a different race/ethnicity?

    Of course, second class is still better than not riding at all. 🙂

    making it like any other means of travel

    It’s the sound of the traction motors, the view of the backyards, landscapes and stations, and the higher speeds that makes train travel special.

    LikeLike


  110. on May 4, 2009 at 7:38 pm Tood

    “Yes, and I agree with their value systems.”

    I am not sure you do. You say that you just want marriage with no dating. You want children and grandchildren badly.

    “They believe that there is no such thing as innate gender roles and that it is a social construct. ”

    Name a successful society in all of human history that was feminist.

    Plus, can you admit that modern divorce laws (in the US and UK) are horrendously biased against men?

    “One day I hope that biological interventions will be invented ”

    Invented by whom? Men, of course.

    “so that women and men can be functionally equal as groups though individuals may differ within those groups. ”

    Aha! That disqualifies you from modern ‘4th wave’ feminism or whatever. They will never admit that a change (through bioengineering or otherwise) is necessary.

    LikeLike


  111. on May 4, 2009 at 7:39 pm Mr.M

    Fem-x,

    why do you think women will win out in biological warfare, and not the opposite?

    LikeLike


  112. on May 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm Rum

    With your “biological warfare” to reduce gender differences, to make us more alike do you mean by making women smarter or by making men dumber?

    LikeLike


  113. on May 4, 2009 at 7:45 pm Gunslingergregi

    Really she wants to be hitler. Interesting.

    LikeLike


  114. on May 4, 2009 at 7:46 pm jaakkeli

    Why don’t you have the money to buy a ticket on the first train to pyongyang?

    Cuz I’m broke. Right now I’m on benefits and it doesn’t make sense for me to get a job. Any money I earn will be simply deducted from the welfare money, so I’m refusing part-time jobs since I’d get NO money that way, the welfare office would take it all. I’d just be working for the money that I now get for free. And I have a thesis to write so I’m not going to get a full-time job.

    Oh and BTW the reason I’m on benefits is that I ruined my credit rating. When your credit is ruined, you can no longer get student loans, but you can get welfare. (And how did I ruin my credit rating? I didn’t pay a library fine of about 10 euros.) The upside to welfare is that you get more money and no debt, but the downside is that you can’t earn any extra or they’ll take it away.

    Socialism. Got to love it.

    LikeLike


  115. on May 4, 2009 at 7:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    To do what you are saying would require that there are no men or woman but only an asexual being that has its own kids.

    LikeLike


  116. on May 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm Gunslingergregi

    So your going to school still. Even though you can’t get student loans.

    LikeLike


  117. on May 4, 2009 at 7:49 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Name a successful society in all of human history that was feminist. ”

    The modern western world. Beat that for success.

    “Invented by whom? Men, of course.”

    Maybe. If we need biophysicists, but there are enough female biologists to do it if the focus on it.

    “why do you think women will win out in biological warfare, and not the opposite?”

    We won’t necessarily “win”.

    “With your “biological warfare” to reduce gender differences, to make us more alike do you mean by making women smarter or by making men dumber?”

    The women will become more rational and the men less crime prone.

    LikeLike


  118. on May 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm PA

    Right now I’m on benefits and it doesn’t make sense for me to get a job.

    Ten years ago I would have been appalled by you. Today you’re kind of my hero.

    Socialists wanna play? let’s play mutherfuckers!

    LikeLike


  119. on May 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm Glengarry

    If you need practice, try sales, esp. sales to women. And think about what’s going on.

    LikeLike


  120. on May 4, 2009 at 7:51 pm Gunslingergregi

    Talk about a female system. One mistake that lasts a lifetime. Jesus christ and society will never allow a man to kill himself. What the fuck. That shit amazes me. Hopefully as things get worse that will change.

    LikeLike


  121. on May 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm Tood

    “The modern western world. Beat that for success.”

    Wait – don’t feminists love to complain about how sexist the US is? Doesn’t Sweden have a law banning urinals as sexist? Didn’t Spain outlaw macho men? Feminists seem very unsatisfied with the condition of women within the Western world (despite their acceptance of the status of women in the Islamic world).

    “If we need biophysicists, but there are enough female biologists to do it if the focus on it. ”

    99% of scientific innovations have been done by men. Even in the last decade.

    “The women will become more rational and the men less crime prone.”

    In other words, SWPLs.

    LikeLike


  122. on May 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm PA

    Ten years ago I was broke, lived in grouphouses, and bummed around the country. And I was more conservative than a bank accountant.

    Today I have net positive wealth, family, mortgage, and job and I’m becoming a radical.

    LikeLike


  123. on May 4, 2009 at 7:54 pm Mr.M

    fem-x,

    actually as crazy as you are…i believe in 300 (eh, probably much sooner) years the western world will quite vastly different than it is now as result of male/female conflict.

    ever see the movie wicker man? ugh, creepy shit.

    LikeLike


  124. on May 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm Gunslingergregi

    Easier to work your ass off and save money. Then drop off the map. Fuck it.

    LikeLike


  125. on May 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm Gunslingergregi

    So when you want to take a train somewhere you can.

    LikeLike


  126. on May 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm Gannon

    For short term relationships, women care about two things:
    1. Looks 50%
    2. Game 50%

    For long term relationships, women care about three things
    1. Looks 33%
    2. Game 33%
    3. Wealth 33%

    That’s why dating High school girls is more difficult: since daddy pays for everything, they don’t care how much you make.

    LikeLike


  127. on May 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm Gunslingergregi

    Mr M
    Way WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the fuck sooner is the world going to vastly change.

    LikeLike


  128. on May 4, 2009 at 7:58 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “In other words, SWPLs.”

    Well, SWPLs might be equally irrational across genders. Equal rationality would be preferable.

    “Wait – don’t feminists love to complain about how sexist the US is? Doesn’t Sweden have a law banning urinals as sexist? Didn’t Spain outlaw macho men? Feminists seem very unsatisfied with the condition of women within the Western world (despite their acceptance of the status of women in the Islamic world).”

    That is only SWPL feminists. I am not white, so I can’t be a SWPL. People that have actually seen patrairchal societies know perfectly well that the western world is not nearly as oppressive towards women.

    I personally don’t know any feminist women from non western backgrounds that are cultural relativists. I want the whole world to be like Sweden.

    LikeLike


  129. on May 4, 2009 at 8:00 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    Mr. M, I know. Some people who think too much see a conflict of insane proportions brewing.

    http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/04/your-real-worst-nightmare.html

    LikeLike


  130. on May 4, 2009 at 8:05 pm Gunslingergregi

    “”””””””””””PA
    Ten years ago I was broke, lived in grouphouses, and bummed around the country. And I was more conservative than a bank accountant.

    Today I have net positive wealth, family, mortgage, and job and I’m becoming a radical.””””””””””””””

    Thats because then you didn’t have to fear beating the game.

    LikeLike


  131. on May 4, 2009 at 8:06 pm schoolboy

    PA:

    I’m curious, what made you change your ways?

    Also how did you?

    LikeLike


  132. on May 4, 2009 at 8:09 pm Gunslingergregi

    Naa fem I am gonna be the one to implement it.

    LikeLike


  133. on May 4, 2009 at 8:09 pm David Alexander

    Right now I’m on benefits and it doesn’t make sense for me to get a job.

    That’s how welfare worked here in the United States. For a number of the welfare recipients, they would have preferred working, but working would entail the loss of their healthcare and subsidized housing, and thus, working would mean a decline of living standards, so there’s no incentive to leave welfare. The problem of course stems from hard income caps that aren’t gradual in scope leading to where one dollar more in income bars one from collecting anything.

    Interestingly, you could argue that with Section 8 and EITC, the US has moved to a perpetual workfare program where one gets more from working.

    And how did I ruin my credit rating? I didn’t pay a library fine of about 10 euros.

    The secret of Europe, the strict credit system that makes it hard to borrow or repair credit…

    And how did I ruin my credit rating? I didn’t pay a library fine of about 10 euros.

    So Finland doesn’t have “free” university?

    LikeLike


  134. on May 4, 2009 at 8:09 pm Chuck

    Feminstx:

    “One day I hope that biological interventions will be invented so that women and men can be functionally equal as groups though individuals may differ within those groups.”

    Those biological interventions are here, and they are not your friend Feministx. It’s called cloning and it will do much more damage than your gender than it will to mine.

    Read “Harrison Bergeron” by Vonnegut.

    http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

    Should we handicap all males to restrict their physical strength? Should we dull their innate mathematical superiority so that women can catch up? What are the ramifications of these things?

    LikeLike


  135. on May 4, 2009 at 8:14 pm Mr.M

    Fem-x,

    yeah, i’ve read that post…while i don’t particularly like your militant tone between the 2 sexes, i do agree that western society is headed to a bad place.

    i’m predicting that the smarter, more well-read males refuse to propagate, and that eventually we will be a world of low-IQ losers. I see that a lot where i live already…homeless couples having 10+ kids.

    LikeLike


  136. on May 4, 2009 at 8:15 pm David Alexander

    It’s called cloning and it will do much more damage than your gender than it will to mine.

    All of the talk about artificial wombs makes one consider the following question: If availible, would single men raise children without women? You could argue that adoption agencies are rigged against single men, but it’s not like one sees a surge of men saying they want to adopt. I’d argue that the biggest users of artificial wombs will be single women and married upper class women who want children without the health consequences of pregnancy including physical deterioration.

    LikeLike


  137. on May 4, 2009 at 8:18 pm David Alexander

    more well-read males refuse to propagate, and that eventually we will be a world of low-IQ losers

    The problem is that high IQ in general is a check against having children. Low testosterone means a weaker sex drive, and the high IQ are more likely to think about the consequences of having (more) children. Plus, the high IQ are more likely to use condoms, use birth control, pay for an abortion, and use these methods effectively.

    LikeLike


  138. on May 4, 2009 at 8:21 pm omw

    You can already hire out a surrogate mother in India for around 10K, from what I understand.

    LikeLike


  139. on May 4, 2009 at 8:21 pm Max from Australia

    I agree with this post, you have to remember Game is not about logic it is about feelings- Compare the outcomes of Claude Vorihon vs Mel Gibson

    1) Claude Vorihon* a 62 year old dude who has slept with 400+ women and is flooded with money from all over the world while he lives in Las Vegas (allegedly gambling the money)

    2) Mel Gibson who has stood by his wife for 28 years is getting slammed by the media and is about to loose HALF A BILLION dollars for sleeping with a Russian model.

    *Claude Vorihon or Rael a former French sports-car journalist founded a UFO based religion and is now flooded with cash and “The Order of Angels” founded in the 1990s, consists of over a hundred Raëlian women….the Daily Telegraph wrote that members of the order not only provided sexual pleasure for Raël, but also helped donate eggs for efforts towards human cloning.

    LikeLike


  140. on May 4, 2009 at 8:28 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “It’s called cloning and it will do much more damage than your gender than it will to mine. ”

    I don’t see what the fuss about cloning is. There is no sensible motivation for a person to clone themselves.

    “i’m predicting that the smarter, more well-read males refuse to propagate,”

    Tood should prosteletyze.

    “yeah, i’ve read that post…while i don’t particularly like your militant tone between the 2 sexes, i do agree that western society is headed to a bad place.”

    What bad place? Western society is the only one that is not now in a bad place.

    DA, I admire your analysis. You should donate your baby juice to the world.

    LikeLike


  141. on May 4, 2009 at 8:28 pm Mr.M

    DA – that coupled with a more female-controlled society will = me happy to die alone.

    LikeLike


  142. on May 4, 2009 at 8:29 pm Mr.M

    What bad place? Western society is the only one that is not now in a bad place.

    this is quite debatable…

    LikeLike


  143. on May 4, 2009 at 8:31 pm David Alexander

    DA, I admire your analysis. You should donate your baby juice to the world.

    There is no market for negro baby juice even if it was high IQ.

    LikeLike


  144. on May 4, 2009 at 8:31 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “this is quite debatable…”

    If you are woman, it is not.

    LikeLike


  145. on May 4, 2009 at 8:35 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “There is no market for negro baby juice even if it was high IQ.”

    You sure? There have got to be some black women out there in need.

    So far as I know, there isn’t much market out there for brownie eggs either. Pity.

    LikeLike


  146. on May 4, 2009 at 8:36 pm Eurosabra

    The thing is, game is often the only thing one CAN do, given the opportunity costs of various high-status endeavors. One of the things obscured by Style’s ascent is that he had the option of working on his game with the masters, originally as a paying customer, for a year. The average gamer doesn’t have the capacity to radically improve any element but the effectiveness of his contact time in set.

    LikeLike


  147. on May 4, 2009 at 8:44 pm Rum

    Re: Sweden

    I spent some time there last summer. My friends described in detail how large numbers of un-digestable immigrants are steadily ruining the social contract
    Scratch the surface of a Swede and you find a Lutheran who is not hung up about sex. But they do not commit crimes and they do pay their taxes.
    Watching large herds of Chador Covered Aphganis or whatever looked kind of strange there. Then I was told that certain suburbs of Stockholm are unsafe nowadays . But the immigrants seem to like it there. especially the womenfolk with 12 kids. Very generous welfare system – paid for by hard working Swedes with 1.5 children.
    Human nature does not bend that far in that direction without snapping – sooner or later.

    LikeLike


  148. on May 4, 2009 at 8:51 pm David on ipod

    The problem is that it is easier to be white than black, and as a black person one must understand the consequences of giving birth to black children in our world today. It is not some magical evil racist issue, but merely the fact if you are black you are percived tone different in ways that are sometimes negative with few redeeming positives and for high iq black children that can be frustrating.

    LikeLike


  149. on May 4, 2009 at 8:55 pm joel

    Roissy,

    This was a great, short description of a socially inept, insecure, clumsy man who put way too much importance in what a woman thinks of him. He allowed her to control him, and the dynamics of the situation, not vice versa. Pure genius. Thanks. I saw the younger version of myself in every move he made. This essay should be required reading in Freshman English. The errors made by the man would be errors in almost any social context, not just picking up a girl.

    BTW, about Mel Gibson. Treat women well, get f*cked over. What is new? One of my new inlaws is an older man with about 10 kids (nobody, not even his children, really knows the exact number ) with multiple ex wives and girl friends, currently has a much younger girlfriend and a child with her. She supports him.

    He is not even good looking. But, he can’t be accused of treating his women or his children well.

    Go figure.

    LikeLike


  150. on May 4, 2009 at 8:58 pm Gunslingergregi

    Then if I did achieve something it would be like oh wow that black guy really made something of himself. As a white guy achieving something it is like ok just another white guy.

    LikeLike


  151. on May 4, 2009 at 9:08 pm whiskey

    David Alexander is a very High IQ guy who is playing the emo cards his relatively low testosterone levels and appetite for risk gives him.

    Lost in this is the ugly secret that women prefer men of average IQ with higher testosterone levels to that of low or high IQ men both of whom tend to have lower levels of testosterone. Women would prefer the highly risk-preferring Bad Boy of average intelligence to that of a man with higher intelligence and less risk preference. This includes a strong preference for violent men even if they are abusive.

    David A is simply playing that “emo” game which sooner or later will land him a high quality woman who is younger, significantly more attractive than himself, and values him for his high IQ instead of disparaging it. He’s taking advantage of the variation in women which might be smaller than men but still exists. Not many women prefer “sensitive” high-IQ types but enough do so that David A’s chances overall of finding SOME woman are high.

    As far Feminism creating Western Civilization, please, that’s a laugh. The Aim of Feminism is the profoundly stupid fantasy of having a society of women who have sex with Alpha males, remain young and pretty forever, and have Beta males gladly take care of the Alpha’s children. That’s a stupid utopia, stupid in all areas of human behavior (i.e. real life humans don’t act like that).

    Western Civ was built on suppressing women’s sexuality and the Alpha Male, for a relatively free, fair, and socially enforced “flat” playing field where men competed on romantic and beta provider levels for a woman they would not SHARE with other men. This created a deep and wide investment in society by nearly all men, and far greater utilization of talent. In China, brilliant Eunuchs built fantastic inventions that never went anywhere, where in the West, lower IQ men passed on constant improvements and new devices that were constantly improved, generation after generation, by descendants. That is why firearms were invented in China, but the firm of Beretta, founded in the early 1400’s, continues to this day.

    Women of course are completely absent from weapon-making, and human nature makes possession of more and better weapons than potential threats a prerequisite to being conquered.
    ——————-
    As for ugly guys, the best payoff is not game but fame. Anyone with an ugly son should push him to become a famous musician, to practice every day to get laid, and have a plan to get famous. Even guys like Rick Ocasek, Steven Tyler, Seal, Lyle Lovett, and Kenny Chesney, routinely pull women far outside their attractiveness because of FAME.

    Even loser guys who don’t bathe regularly like David Arquette or has-beens like the Peter Brady guy can pull astonishingly hot chicks with just a modicum of fame.

    How much game does Steven Tyler have? None. All he needs is “Hi. I’m Steven Tyler.”

    Of course it’s a long-shot for most, so game CAN improve ugly guys chances, but it’s trade-off (limited time, money, etc) to say which you are better off at with ugliness.

    LikeLike


  152. on May 4, 2009 at 9:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    For instance has whiskey ever adressed me by name from his holier than though white acedemic area.

    Answer no

    He has addressed da.

    See what I am saying easier to be black.

    When you have some type of anything it is good.

    When you are white and in pain white academic people will not have the decency to put you out of your misery. They will however as has been noted before shun you.

    [editor: please, gunslinger, you’re not a bad guy. but try to condense your stream of consciousness into one comment instead of one hundred.]

    LikeLike


  153. on May 4, 2009 at 9:17 pm JerrDogg

    > One of the greatest myths is that Cars get you girls.

    I hope so… I always drive a PoS…always have… always will… By the way… read the “millionaire next door” …most rich people drive 4 year old GM sedans.

    LikeLike


  154. on May 4, 2009 at 9:19 pm jaakkeli

    The problem of course stems from hard income caps that aren’t gradual in scope leading to where one dollar more in income bars one from collecting anything.

    The problem for me is that any money I earn gets deducted from the benefits and the office Nazis watch every euro on my bank account. If, say, I had a blog with Google ads giving me 5 euros per month, they’d take that all. If I took my old TA part-time job that gave me a nice few hundred euros per month extra, I’d get nothing, as they’d take it all. It’s very important that no one abuses this system by working.

    I’m trying to fix this by getting on a different sort of a benefit where I could actually earn some money and not lose it all right away, but I hear it’s a coin toss on whether you’re actually given it and I applied months ago. I hear it might actually take half a year to get an answer and until then I’m stuck doing nothing.

    The secret of Europe, the strict credit system that makes it hard to borrow or repair credit…

    It’ll go away in a few years but there’s nothing I can do right now. I’ve been told it’s impossible to get rid of the mark any other way. Right now I can’t get any sort of a loan except maybe from Vanya and Igor down the street.

    So Finland doesn’t have “free” university?

    University is free but I have to live. I used to be in the cheap student housing, but I left when I THOUGHT I could handle it on my own and the last time I had to wait almost a year for student housing, now it would take longer since fresh students go first. Still, a benefit of the econ crisis is that bread lines are back in full force and it’s easy to get free food.

    LikeLike


  155. on May 4, 2009 at 9:20 pm schoolboy

    Whiskey:

    When will our Western society fall into the point of no return? Also what time frame will you think this will occur? (5 yrs or 10)

    I value your intake on such a matter.

    LikeLike


  156. on May 4, 2009 at 9:21 pm chic noir

    PA
    Ten years ago I was broke, lived in grouphouses, and bummed around the country. And I was more conservative than a bank accountant.
    Today I have net positive wealth, family, mortgage, and job and I’m becoming a radical

    Yea, kids will do that to you 😉

    DA, did you read that link I posted for you about the blk boy with the 125 iq?

    LikeLike


  157. on May 4, 2009 at 9:22 pm chic noir

    @schoolboy- how old are you?

    LikeLike


  158. on May 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm Gunslingergregi

    Jerrdogg,
    Yea millionair next door. It is true because by the time you buy all the toys big cars and all else you have no money in bank.
    Of course in my area you can buy duplexes for 24000 per house and rent them for 350 per side so when you have 100000 then you slap that down on a 460k loan to get 20 of them. You then start making 14400 a month. Now you can buy the car you want along with the house.
    The end.

    LikeLike


  159. on May 4, 2009 at 9:30 pm jaakkeli

    Oh yeah and unemployment here among men in their twenties is about 25 % and rapidly growing. So it’s not like I’m terribly unusual.

    LikeLike


  160. on May 4, 2009 at 9:35 pm ironrailsironweights

    I don’t consider such things as not acting needy and taking some care with your appearance to be “Game” because they are basic bits of knowledge that your father and grandfathers knew. Of course every generation thinks that it invented the wheel, but reality is quite different. To the extent that Game really is a new development, which seems to be the case, it involves not our ancestors’ common knowledge but such relatively new concepts as negging (though even they’re not all that new).

    Peter

    LikeLike


  161. on May 4, 2009 at 9:36 pm Tood

    “So far as I know, there isn’t much market out there for brownie eggs either. ”

    There is. Who said otherwise?

    LikeLike


  162. on May 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm schoolboy

    Chic:

    Why do you ask?

    LikeLike


  163. on May 4, 2009 at 9:45 pm Gunslingergregi

    Nice meeting you all. I probably should be more focusing on finishing my personal project for myself anyway.

    PA just follow the house thing. Shit kind of easy. lol

    LikeLike


  164. on May 4, 2009 at 9:48 pm novaseeker

    Western civ?

    Permanent decline mode now. No way to stop it, because the only “brake” on that would involve legal changes that are politically impossible in light of the women’s vote, and social changes that are also politically impossible in light of the feminist-dominated media and entertainment industries.

    How long? It could take a while. I expect we will see fatherlessness spread like a plague through the general culture. Then we will see feminist legislatures passing laws that make cohabitation into marriage, either after a certain period, or immediately upon child birth. Then, when men shun that, you will see other measures like single men taxes and such. The state will stumble and fumble to try to find men to invest in these undesirable women and their children, but eventually it will lead to a general collapse — probably what is needed.

    The wildcards: reproductive techs like artificial wombs, artificial sperm, cloning, mandatory DNA paternity testing and so on. All of these change the sex power struggle to one degree or another. The way they play out, both scientifically and politically, will have a large impact on who “wins” the endgame of the current civil war between males and females in our species.

    LikeLike


  165. on May 4, 2009 at 10:04 pm JerrDogg

    Gunslingergregi,

    Slumlording 2 tenants at a time? Wouldn’t that’d only work if you could set up a series LLC in your state without getting raped on franchise fees. Otherwise you get some crappy tenants or code enforcements against you and you start losing your investment.

    LikeLike


  166. on May 4, 2009 at 10:04 pm schoolboy

    Novaseeker:

    Are we just going to be spectators during this whole collapse?

    Is there nothing we can do, but just wait it out and let it destroy itself?

    LikeLike


  167. on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 pm novaseeker

    Are we just going to be spectators during this whole collapse?

    Is there nothing we can do, but just wait it out and let it destroy itself?

    Two options:

    1. PUA — hence this blog.

    2. MGTOW — men who retreat and go their own way, apart from social norms.

    There is no political solution — women have enough political power to preserve the female-friendly status-quo. So you can either work the system (PUA) or withdraw from it (MGTOW), both in a hope to bring the system down sooner, so that we can move on to the next phase.

    Make no mistake. Enforceable marital monogamy will return as a norm. But it never will as a result of a democratic process.

    LikeLike


  168. on May 4, 2009 at 10:27 pm schoolboy

    Novaseeker:

    PUA it is.

    After all ‘Game’ really is forever.

    Also, nova have you read Roger Devlin’s essay’s? If you haven’t consider it an obligation to do so.

    LikeLike


  169. on May 4, 2009 at 10:29 pm novaseeker

    Yes I’ve read all of his stuff.

    I am not a PUA, but an MGTOW, but I like to hear what PUAs say because it is interesting and in general we agree about women, just differ in our approach to them.

    LikeLike


  170. on May 4, 2009 at 10:31 pm Gunslingergregi

    I will talk to some professionals before I do it. If it is that hard to improve an area of the states and fix up some places. I live on 500 a month right now. I could sink most of that money right back into the houses till they where mint condition. If there are too many legalities. I will just sink the money in indo I already know what my return is there.

    LikeLike


  171. on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 pm schoolboy

    Oh I almost forgot Nova, check this blog out. This guy named POOK (an old PUA) made a post on MGOTW.

    Scroll down to see it. Its called, “Time to move beyond MGOTW”

    http://dapook.blogspot.com/

    LikeLike


  172. on May 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm novaseeker

    Yeah I have seen that, too. I don’t agree with it, but then again I think perspective is largely age-based. At my age, I am done with the game and women and so on — makes my life simpler. But I accept that others feel differently. I do not agree with his blog post, but that’s life.

    LikeLike


  173. on May 4, 2009 at 10:45 pm schoolboy

    You were a member at sosuave?

    That is where it all changed for me.

    LikeLike


  174. on May 4, 2009 at 10:49 pm novaseeker

    No, because that isn’t my specific interest. I like to learn what PUAs do, from a perspective of intellectual curiosity about a significant underground cultural movement that is taking place which just so happens to often share common assumptions with me about the underlying issues.

    But I have never had any interest in PUA practice. That’s not to knock it — it’s just to say that my interest in it is intellectual rather than practical.

    Happily single and alone and bachelor.

    LikeLike


  175. on May 4, 2009 at 11:12 pm Lupo

    Mr.M: “it seemed like she was trying to qualify herself, without being asked/prompted, and failing horribly to do so.”

    Yes, exactly. Perhaps it is an empathy building experience to try to put them in the shoes of the idiots who hit on them. *twitch* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Chyeah, right. More likely something Cosmo told them will net them a bigger fish, or will give them unstoppable super powers. Whatever it is, it is a trend for certain.

    LikeLike


  176. on May 4, 2009 at 11:18 pm Comment_Feministx

    Feministx wrote:

    Firstly, because of IQ SD differences, there are fewer high IQ women than high IQ men. Most people relate best to people of their own IQ level, so men with too high IQs are at a disadvantage.

    This can be generalized a lot.

    Since high IQ men have less men that they can relate well to, they tend to have less social skills in general. Which is what we see.

    So they then walk into the dating market with less women near their intelligence level… and lower social skills to go after that smaller group. Fun all around.

    maurice wrote:

    Again, comments page hijacked by FemX attention-whore needs. Just sayin’ …

    Feministx, you have acquired one authentic female enemy! Your response was odd though…

    feministx wrote:

    Umm. I’m not really doing anything aside from providing placid responses to comments. No one needs you to play moderator here. It’d be pretty beta if we did.

    Did you not know that maurice is a female proper name in English? Or do you just not understand female infighting?

    LikeLike


  177. on May 4, 2009 at 11:31 pm whiskey

    Gunny — I have nothing to say to you because as a Soldier serving in either Iraq or Afghanistan (forget which one) you are both a better man and I am in your debt. So thanks for your service and protecting my ass. Sincerely no BS.

    I don’t think academic BS means anything, rather just an opportunity for most men to have a woman relatively equal in status and looks who is his alone. Absent that all the academic BS means nothing.

    Schoolboy: I think Adam Smith was right, “there is a lot of ruin in a nation” but eventually the margin runs out. About 20 years or so looks right to me. Britain collapsed faster, New Zealand less so, with places like Italy, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden in between.

    The most likely future absent technological issues is: men competing for short-term, “shared” women via thuggery, almost no male cooperation, education and measures of higher IQ viewed as “gay” because women don’t like High IQ in men, general thuggery somewhere between the Black Ghetto and White British Underclass.

    The kicker is “Artificial Game” or designer pheromones. What if … you could concoct a perfume that would make you irresistible to a woman you just met? Now, biochemistry what it is, a perfume would only work on a specific subset of women, i.e. some but not others. That’s still better than zero game and then it’s just a matter of so to speak, “roiding up.” Like using various chemical cheats to get big fast while lifting. You still need to lift, but you can build muscle quicker than doing it “naturally.” Same way you still need to master basics of game, but powerful pheromones tell women you are indeed “Alpha” as long as your Game does not specifically disprove it.

    Naturally women will want counter-pheromones, and their own for Alphas, so you’re looking at a chemical arms race with the winner being whoever pays the most. Attempts to outlaw these things will be about as successful as that to outlaw weed, and provide a huge and booming black market. Probably far outstripping cocaine, heroin, and other drugs combined.

    LikeLike


  178. on May 4, 2009 at 11:38 pm Rum

    Re: roids
    First, they cause your testicles to shrink. Next, you get horrible stretch marks. After that you get heart valve damage (like A. Schw-negger) then you get various cancers, and after that the really serious complications begin to take hold.

    LikeLike


  179. on May 5, 2009 at 12:04 am Comment_Feministx_And_Players

    Feministx wrote:

    The thing about game is that you have to use it consistently and thoroughly to keep the woman it attracts. Even 1 yr into the relationship, you have to be able to remember to lay the smack down on any acting up your gf does. I personally think it becomes hard to maintain dominance after being in a relationship for a while because I rely on the woman being there to listen to me. I need to reveal myself and my vulnerabilities to her, and I no longer maintain the advantage gained from knowing more about her than she does about me. But then again, I am a girl, so maybe men don’t have this need.

    End Feministx

    It does for all men in any relationship. HOWEVER, I think that this is particularly bad on players and female-female relationships. Both players and women have a general tendency to focus strongly on their sexual relationships.

    This focus causes any long-term relationship to steadily devour their other interests. Think back to when the long term relationship started. Go through the thing you did at that time. Then go through the things your gf did. Then go through the things you were still doing a year into the relationship… and the things your gf was doing a year into the relationship. It’s fairly certain one list is shorter than the other. How much shorter determines whether you have the potential for big trouble or not.

    This can hit serial seducers… like hard-core players and feministx… REALLY hard because their main hobby isn’t compatible with a closed, committed relationship. It’s theoretically possible they will end up flirting with women on the internet in order to maintain their hobby. I have no evidence that this would happen though.

    There are many negative effects to a relationship taking up most of your free time. First, you have to be ‘on’ most of the time, and that is tiring as feministx said. Second, your gf has to have most of her emotional/mental needs met by you… which is tiring as well. And if she doesn’t get them met, then she is likely to make more trouble… more energy drain. The relationship can become a black-hole sucking in the rest of your life. ESPECIALLY with female-female and player-female relationships because women and players already tend to over-focus on their sexual relationships.

    So to end this little parable..

    Blessed are the Husbands with wives that can entertain themselves without making trouble,
    For They Shall Have Quiet On Earth.

    Feministx wrote:

    Not needed though. My brother has a seemingly similar personality to Roissy (extroverted, sarcastic, philosophical) and he attracts an *insane* amount of attractive women and he is probably 5’7″. And it’s definitely about him attracting them and not him pursuing them. Whenever I go out in my hometown, the hot waitress, cashier etc. he went to HS with will get so excited about running into him. They light up and you can just see the crush in their eyes.

    End Feministx

    An infatuation that is not worn by continual contact can last years…. every bit as strong, if not stronger, than when it started.

    The simplest solution to this problem is take something from before the relationship that you liked doing… and start doing it again. Of course, you’ll also need to take something your GF was doing from before the relationship and get her doing that to. It doesn’t need to be ‘right before’. Favorite hits can work…

    Or what the hell, do something new.

    LikeLike


  180. on May 5, 2009 at 12:08 am David Alexander

    The wildcards: reproductive techs like artificial wombs, artificial sperm, cloning, mandatory DNA paternity testing and so on. All of these change the sex power struggle to one degree or another.

    Artificial wombs and sperm would probably benefit women mostly primarily because it will be used to delay child birth and avoid the physical damage that pregnancy causes. Given the low demand by single men for adoption, I don’t forsee men using such tools to raise children on their own except for a small handful of men who want have kids. I suspect the rest who has paternal inclinations may invest in their nieces and nephews.

    Mandatory DNA testing combined with escape clauses for cuckolded men will probably free beta males from raising children that aren’t their own leading some women to simply bypass marriage to betas. OTOH, if the alphas are discovered, then expect the financial decimation of the alpha male.

    David A is simply playing that “emo” game which sooner or later will land him a high quality woman who is younger, significantly more attractive than himself, and values him for his high IQ instead of disparaging it.

    Now that’s funny. Oh wait, I suspect by the term “more attractive”, you mean low IQ, possibly in a low paying position, and a single mom preying on me looking for a dad and financial boost with medium-term plans to cuckold, right?

    OTOH, it could explain a few things…

    Western Civ was built on suppressing women’s sexuality and the Alpha Male, for a relatively free, fair, and socially enforced “flat” playing field where men competed on romantic and beta provider levels for a woman they would not SHARE with other men.

    Actually, I’d argue that it was a suppression of beta male freedom that turned idle surplus men into productive units for families and society, while suppressing open female sexuality. Of course, the alphas live off the fruit of the beta labour, and still get first shot at the best looking women with great sex leaving the surplus with inferior quality sex over for the beta males.

    LikeLike


  181. on May 5, 2009 at 12:20 am Comment_Epigone

    Epigone inspired this post… but I doubt anyone bothered to take the minimal look necessary to see why he would write such a thing in the first place.

    Nothing complicated, nothing strange. Epigone is facing an important point in his life, and is weighing options.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-scale-social-crags-of-age-gap.html

    Anyway, the first mental block Epigone must overcome in my opinion is that his Game post assumes that women are attracted to men by the same things that attract men to women.

    Men and women are different, and Epigone must accept that to make any progress in any direction. He must rip the feminist programming declaring we are the same out of his head. Women and men are different. Men are attracted to women by different things than attract women to men.

    Other people with more experience can probably tell him how to handle the real-life situation better than I.

    LikeLike


  182. on May 5, 2009 at 12:24 am novaseeker

    Mandatory DNA testing combined with escape clauses for cuckolded men will probably free beta males from raising children that aren’t their own leading some women to simply bypass marriage to betas. OTOH, if the alphas are discovered, then expect the financial decimation of the alpha male.

    Indeed and that is the crux of it. Bring it down.

    Actually, I’d argue that it was a suppression of beta male freedom that turned idle surplus men into productive units for families and society, while suppressing open female sexuality. Of course, the alphas live off the fruit of the beta labour, and still get first shot at the best looking women with great sex leaving the surplus with inferior quality sex over for the beta males.

    Well, but under the current system, women are always available for attractive ‘alphas’ (defined by me as sexually attractive men, whether natural or PUA), whereas natural betas who refuse to go PUA are left with the bitter dregs: either undesirable women, or marriages to desirable women, followed by divorces with their ex-w’s reverting to alphasex.

    So I don’t see it as freedom for betas unless betas really do become free — that is live independent lives.

    LikeLike


  183. on May 5, 2009 at 12:45 am whiskey

    DA I would lay odds that within five years you are in a serious relationship with a single woman, no kids or significant exes, several levels above you in physical attractiveness, and about the same IQ, i.e. > 130.

    It’s “Ducky Game” or Emo Game or whatever you want to call it. It DOES work. I’m sure it will work for YOU.

    But the supply of smart, geeky goth girls who love the sensitive guys who railfan and write emo stuff is not large.

    LikeLike


  184. on May 5, 2009 at 1:08 am Darth Maul

    Any correlations between Game and IQ? For you IQ fetishist.

    IQ and achievement versus Natural Game and achievement.

    Learning game doesnt square very well with deterministic genetic predispositions views.

    LikeLike


  185. on May 5, 2009 at 1:18 am David Alexander

    I would lay odds that within five years you are in a serious relationship with a single woman, no kids or significant exes, several levels above you in physical attractiveness, and about the same IQ

    With nails and all my mundane and trival fetishes and physical requirements met too?

    Somehow, a part of me just wants to screw up on purpose just to prove you wrong…

    Well, but under the current system

    One could argue that my problem with either system is that it relies on beta males to sacrifice themselves in exchange for very little. They may earn more, but the money is handed over to others, and the sex is inferior to what the alphas get. Plus, under both systems, the beta is lied to by society and by his female partner about his attractiveness and usefulness. Once one realizes the truth, one begins to ask if worth going through this sacrifice under the old system or the current system. I suspect that we need to come up with a system that gives beta males alpha sex and better reimbursements for being the cogs in the machine.

    LikeLike


  186. on May 5, 2009 at 2:21 am Tood

    “I suspect that we need to come up with a system that gives beta males alpha sex and better reimbursements for being the cogs in the machine.”

    Sexbots.

    However, at this point, a Beta male who does not discover Game, has only himself to blame. This is not the 1990s where it was hard to even find out about the existence of Game – it is heavily advertised. Betas who still ignore it are not thinking people and deserve their lot in life.

    LikeLike


  187. on May 5, 2009 at 5:04 am Paul Atreides

    jaakkeli:

    “And I have a thesis to write so I’m not going to get a full-time job.”

    What makes you think anyone would hire you?

    Anyone who manages to ruin their credit rating by first not paying a small library bill and then ignoring REPEATED reminders by the library AND a collection agency is instantly a complete fuck-up in my eyes.

    You’re obviously not ready to function in the real world despite the right-wing pretensions you keep spewing on the web. Not to worry, though – you’re certainly not alone in that regard.

    Socialism. Got to love it.

    Some nerve. Sounds to me like “socialism” is about the only thing keeping your useless ass alive right now.

    Keep failing at life.

    LikeLike


  188. on May 5, 2009 at 7:41 am Markku

    Re: Sweden

    I spent some time there last summer. My friends described in detail how large numbers of un-digestable immigrants are steadily ruining the social contract
    Scratch the surface of a Swede and you find a Lutheran who is not hung up about sex. But they do not commit crimes and they do pay their taxes.
    Watching large herds of Chador Covered Aphganis or whatever looked kind of strange there. Then I was told that certain suburbs of Stockholm are unsafe nowadays . But the immigrants seem to like it there. especially the womenfolk with 12 kids. Very generous welfare system – paid for by hard working Swedes with 1.5 children.
    Human nature does not bend that far in that direction without snapping – sooner or later.

    The ratio of workers to non-workers is signifigantly poorer among immigrants than among the existing population and remains so for a very long time because current immigrants are mostly uneducated refugees and not workers with a job waiting for them. That is a recipe for disaster.

    The ethnically Swedish minority of 5% in Finland has a party of its own, the Swedish Folk Party. It is represented in the government by Astrid Thors who is Minister of Europe and Immigration. She is hell-bent to recreate the conditions that are eroding Sweden in Finland. The parliament has passed a new law that greatly expands the grounds on which asylum may be granted from those covered by the Geneva convention of refugee admission. It includes a novel concept of “humanitarian protection” including environmental disasters and war as grounds for asylum. The result is that the country is flooded with asylum seekers in the middle of one of the worst economic depressions after WW II.

    Our country is ruled by morons who don’t care about the long term future of the country by one iota.

    LikeLike


  189. on May 5, 2009 at 7:58 am gig

    I support muslim immigration to Sacndinavia. if the muslims start consuming lots of welfare, than scandinavians would not be able to fund utopian projects in the Third World.

    Dude, every Human Rights organization, every environmental NGO in Brazil receives money from the Axis of Evil, UK-Holland-Scandinavia.

    The sooner the muslims stop the flow, the better.

    LikeLike


  190. on May 5, 2009 at 8:08 am gig

    claims that game will only help those who are already gifted by genetics with good looks or income-boosting and social adaptability-enhancing high intelligence

    this is a misconception. Most men are born programed to put women in pedestals. Add to this feminist indoctrination, and we have masses of men not living up to their own potentials.

    Once they learn game, they will improve up to their own genetic potentials, who are the real upper bound to any men.

    LikeLike


  191. on May 5, 2009 at 8:30 am xsplat

    As an ugly guy, I suggest a holistic approach. Go to a place where your money has more value, and where your social standing has more value.

    Compromise in areas that are less important to you, regarding females.

    From that place of optimizing your position and focusing on your prime needs and desires, practice your social skills over and over until you are those skills – in a unique and comfortable and intriguing way. Be interesting, even to yourself.

    Having good skills in a poor environment is not as advantageous as poor skills in an advantageous environment. Going after a woman in all ways above your station is not as advantageous as going after a woman above some of your station and below other aspects of your station. Know what to choose, and what to give up.

    And then being ugly is fuglin fun. You can in some cases do far better than handsome young guys. Providing you can fuck like hell.

    LikeLike


  192. on May 5, 2009 at 9:09 am SeaFighter FSF-1

    None of these idiots started with the socialism talk until Glenn Beck (an Omega male) et al started on it. Buy a fucking clue.

    LikeLike


  193. on May 5, 2009 at 10:58 am Da_Truth_Hurts

    If you are bodybuilding to attract women, you are doing it wrong. Strength training and eating right is fundamental to quality of life.

    Combining a healthy body + game is better than game. I’m 33, going to be 34 soon, and I still look young. Its not an all or nothing thing. You are a man, you should be a complete man.

    Also, there are no known cases of death from proper steroid use by adult men. Its when morons abuse them, that it amplifies a narcissistic personality. Also not using the right balances of hormones, estrogen blockers and such.

    Look up the AMA studies on proper male hormone use; the only side effects were swollen nipples and acne. The average persons misconceptions about steroids is quite funny.

    LikeLike


  194. on May 5, 2009 at 11:34 am Obsidian

    Very interesting post and followup comments.

    As has been noted, yes its hard to believe, but true-there is such a thing as a Black “Rainman”, and it ain’t a pretty sight.

    All of the observations Roissy noted are attraction killers, no doubt about it, and I 100% agree w/his central point: all things being equal, Game trumps leading man looks (Style), big money/toys or even fame-because those things are only good to get you in the door; in order to keep things in play, you need something else, otherwise those very things can begin to work against you.

    Interestingly enough, I spoke about the importance of toning down sudden, quirky movements, “slowing down” in speech and gait, etc just this past weekend, and Roissy himself has spoken on this months before that. Then he gives this very useful field report showing what happens when one doesn’t heed such things. To those whom it would apply, please take note.

    A few quick personal things I’ve learned and do, then a few comments wrt Zdeno’s recent IQ-Game observations.

    I’ve found that its a very good idea to get the lay of the land on where you intend to take your date. This allows you to get to know the food/drinks, the people serving, and most important to me, the layout of the place. Chalk it up to a lifetime in the hood and being just a weebit paranoid, lol, but I don’t feel comfortable sitting in such a way that I can’t see who’s coming through the door.

    I tend to sit w/my back to the far wall, usually at one of the larger tables (say, a table meant for 4), so I can keep an eye on the door. I always arrive early, at least 15 minutes beforehand. Being early helps you stay calm, focused and in control of the situation, as well as doing your homework.

    As for clothes, I agree w/Roissy to the extent that they should fit well, and when in doubt, keep it simple, classic and neat. Well fitting jeans, a nice button down, solid color shirt, and well-maintained shoes usually do the trick everytime, at least it has for me. Top it off w/a fresh cut/shave, a bit of nice colonge, maybe a nice watch, you’re set.

    If you’re scheduled to meet at a certain time, say, Noon, and she arrives a few minutes after, hit her w/something light along those lines-I do that a lot, because I’m known for my punctuality. “You’re late”, while gently smirking works well for me.

    That table thing I spoke of above is no joke, I’ve played around w/it for years and have figured it out. For example, yesterday I had an appointment w/doctors and afterward, on th recommendation of some of the staff, I decided to stop down in the chow hall to try out some of the cuisine. I did exactly what I noted above-choose a big table, back against the wall, directly accross from the front door. As I sat alone eating my meal, about 15 people, staff and patients alike, seemed to go out of their way to greet me, the word “Sir” always included. Body language, is everything.

    Oh, and I never sit accross from my date. Too confrontational, plus she obstructs my view. Instead, she always sits next to me. Promotes intimacy and in her mind, equality.

    Try it out and report back the results.

    As for Zdeno’s comments-I’m curious. If its generally accepted that Black Men tend to have more natural Game than everyone else, yet Black folk on average are considered less intelligent than everyone else on average, how does this square with Z’s observation that one w/less than 110 IQ isn’t likely to go far w/Game?

    Please explain?

    The Obsidian

    LikeLike


  195. on May 5, 2009 at 11:47 am Novaseeker

    One could argue that my problem with either system is that it relies on beta males to sacrifice themselves in exchange for very little. They may earn more, but the money is handed over to others, and the sex is inferior to what the alphas get. Plus, under both systems, the beta is lied to by society and by his female partner about his attractiveness and usefulness. Once one realizes the truth, one begins to ask if worth going through this sacrifice under the old system or the current system.

    I think this understates the satisfaction level of the typical beta male under the old system. When fatherhood was a stable reality, many men *did* want to have children, and found great satisfaction living in families as fathers and husbands. You may say that this was based on a lie, because their wives all were pining to bang the alphas, but that’s an overstatement. You have to remember that the social, cultural, legal and religious programming was completely different, and tended to steer women away from those desires rather than toward them. Most women, like most men, wanted stable, monogamous pair-bonds, even if they each struggled with that — hence the programming about loose sexuality in every era prior to this one.

    I honestly don’t think that compares to the current system at all, because the current system has marginalized fatherhood as an institution by making monogamous marriage highly unstable. So your typical beta is much worse off under the current system than under the old one — and I think the typical woman is as well, once she gets past the part of her life where she is sating her sexual whims.

    I also don’t see the ancien regime as one which was designed to supress beta freedom. We flipped, as a species, from pair bonding to polygamy with the rise of agriculture, which created a much greater degree of stratification. That supported the polygamous system. Over time, as that stratification lessened somewhat and the betas became relatively stronger and wealthier, the polygamous system was no longer sustainable. The reversion to pair bonding, together with strict rules on monogamy, almost certainly happened as a way to keep peace among the men by dividing access to women among them more equitably. I don’t think it had anything to do with suppressing beta freedom, because I highly doubt that the beta males of 10,000 years ago felt “free” by being excluded from marrying a woman.

    LikeLike


  196. on May 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm xsplat

    Of all the comments, which has root in todays rooting? Theory is meant as commentary to practice, not the converse. Students standing up in class, offering opinions, as if a forum meant egalitarian equality of all voices.

    Where does your throat come from?

    LikeLike


  197. on May 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm xsplat

    Of all the comments, which has root in todays rooting? Theory is meant as commentary to practice, not the converse. Students standing up in class, offering opinions, as if a forum meant egalitarian equality of all voices.

    Where does your throat come from? When you are in love and mingling – where does your throat come from? Your belly, or hers, your manliness, or her feminity? Your voice found it’s place in culture, and you carry that to the next woman.

    And next time you will adjust, but your throat will carry your holism – your embodiment of your past present jazz. Your ability to jazz.

    Who in these comments jazzed today, and of what weight carries whos opinions?

    The jazz masters talk of music.

    The rest, talk of politics.

    LikeLike


  198. on May 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm xsplat

    When we mingle, we learn what next to offer.

    LikeLike


  199. on May 5, 2009 at 12:31 pm omw

    Yeah, Obsidian, why do couples sit across from each other, like an interview? There’s something cold, artificial about that.

    Even old married couples sit that way, and surely they know each other well enough to share some buttspace in a booth.

    LikeLike


  200. on May 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm xsplat

    OMW – I guess you have hit upon something. What is the cure?

    My suggestion is renewed passion, and the only way I know that is possible is with a new object of passion.

    What’s your suggestion, that you have tried, and that has worked for you? Nuther words, no fem social engineering bul crap.

    LikeLike


  201. on May 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm omw

    Xpy, dove. Are you drinking again? 😉

    LikeLike


  202. on May 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm PA

    That table thing I spoke of above is no joke

    I’m glad you brought that up Obsidian. Sometihing I thught about as well. Interestingly, my approach has been and is the opposite: I let the girl sit against the wall, and myself on the outside, which sometimes means with my back to the room.

    The reason I let her sit on the inside is to give her a feeling of being tucked away. It seems instinctual — like sitting in the aisle seet when with a girl on the Metro. Symbolic protection, plus my own mobility.

    (I often see boyfriends/husbands sitting at the wondow, with the woman at aisle: seems a wimpy and non-dominant seat choice)

    I do, however, prefer to sity against the wall with a view of the room when with guys — the king’s seat, like in your description.

    Interesting how we have contracting approaches to sitting with a girl, though they apparently work for us respectively.

    LikeLike


  203. on May 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm xsplat

    And for the hopeful – it was a joke. Respectable OMW will always maintain a public and private persona. Men get confused, as we hold facts into a holism, and expect women to have one ego.

    Women are fractured, and delight to each other in just how fractured they can be. Madonna/Whore? Nothing compared to a womans power. Nor to the power of the gossip of the concert of women. Women gossip for one reason – to restrict men’s access to fertile pussy, and to push away men’s access to fertile pussy. Seems like two reasons, but that’s just women. Women hate each other, viciously, but as a tribe, used to control social discourse. One upon a time. If the girls didn’t let you fuck her, or told you to run, that was that, because they gossip. They are one big ugly force. With whoever has the best shoes controlling the force.

    Oh, man – this is a confused post. Ask a specific question if you want other than ideas that are too far apart from each other to be a grouping of meaning. I do best when queried.

    LikeLike


  204. on May 5, 2009 at 1:00 pm xsplat

    Some social animal

    Interesting how we have contracting approaches to sitting with a girl, though they apparently work for us respectively.

    Yes, interesting, how we can talk about this, among equals. Just like women can talk without noticing tit size or facial features.

    And by the way, the next topic of conversation will be chosen by me, and if not, I’ll move towards the bar.

    LikeLike


  205. on May 5, 2009 at 1:30 pm Obsidian

    OMW,
    My guess is that a lot of people don’t really think about these things, but it’s always been odd to me, so I decided to change it for myself. Been doing it for years, and I honestly do think its made a difference in terms of whether I would go on to enjoy her later on or not. So much goes on in a Woman’s mind on the subconscious level that such a seating arrangement *can* cause her to keep her defences up, which of course, translates in not much happening later on down the line. I like fostering closeness right away, get things off on the right foot.

    O

    LikeLike


  206. on May 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm Obsidian

    PA,
    Oh no, my friend, actually we’re on the same page. I too always have the lady sit on the “inside track” if you will, same deal if we’re walking down the street, she’s always on the inside, I’m on the outside. If we’re at the movies, she’s closer to the wall, I’m closer to the aisle. Women are very security conscious, little things like this account for a lot.

    And the whole “king” thing makes sense wrt my own experience yesterday. My position in the cafeteria makes lots of sense, plus I’ve never felt good about siting at small tables. Whenever possible, I either sat at the biggest table I could find, or booth, etc.

    O

    LikeLike


  207. on May 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm Audacious Epigone

    I am uncomfortable making assertions without empirical backing, but I don’t really disagree with you. You misread in saying that I think adopting game only helps the rich get richer–to the contrary, it helps the poor more, because it gives them a little bling to flash around when they’d otherwise have nothing, while the rich are already operating closer to game’s optimum and consequently are closer to the point of diminishing returns. Confidence, assertiveness, smooth operating, creating sexual tension verbally and non-verbally, and everything else involved in game, ceteris paribus, raise a man’s desirability.

    To the extent that we’re in disagreement, it’s in not seeing how you square this in ranking game as being of greater importance than physical attractiveness, or in charging that studies like the one mentioned are of little value because they judge responses to questions, not actual behavior–if the participants were being disingenuous, wouldn’t we expect them to place dependability, compatibility, intelligence, status, etc above looks, as it this last one is socially viewed as the most shallow of attributes to be taken in by? But girls still say physical attractiveness trumps everything else (as Agnostic points out, the advantage probably lessens as women age, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is still at or near the top before menopause).

    I am not sure how the other pointers like dressing well and lifting for definition are ‘contentious’. Are there a meaningful number of men who do not believe these things help? My experience has been that those who deny they do are slobbish or lazy, and try to rationalize this by claiming that cleaning and toning up makes no difference, so why bother?

    I did not at all mean to insinuate you are analogous to a snake oil’s salesman, just my feeling that many guys are selling themselves short in believing rehearsing various lines will turn them into Casanovas, quixotically refusing to know themselves.

    What’s the problem with giving them too much hope? Unattainably high expectations mean more time striving for something that will never come, with unrealistically high standards that aren’t going to be met. So guys who expect too much out of game delay going after what they are able to get–and there is probably a an IQ floor of around 11o for those who take an intellectual interest in it. I want smarties to get to work as soon as possible.

    More generally, it strikes me as a socially pathological lifestyle. Black guys have the most game. They consistently outscore other groups in perceptions of self-confidence, have higher levels of assertiveness and higher levels of testosterone (which is presumably correlated to most ‘alpha’ qualities). They have more sexual partners, are more likely to cheat, and are far less likely to stay with the mother of their children than other men are–all signs of the greatest desire to hit the g-spot and move on. Is this worthy of celebration or emulation? Should I be happy that a sharp, healthy, affluent, perspicacious, good-looking stud like yourself is working to put more notches into his belt instead of working to penetrate more of his wife’s eggs? That, with all his influence, he ridicules the virility of men who push strollers when, excepting Israel and the US (which is right on the cusp, with whites and Asians below it), every Western nation on the planet has a total fertility rate below replacement?

    LikeLike


  208. on May 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm Obsidian

    Audacious Epigone,
    I’ve yet to read your blog that sparked this thread, but I’m wondering if you can help me w/something.

    As you noted above, it is generally believed that Black Men tend to have the most “natural game”.

    On the other hand, however, it is also generally held among race realists, that Black people tend to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians, on average.

    Additionally, it has been suggested by some, that Game in its formal sense, is best suited and aimed for high IQ White and Asian Males-some suggest that the minimum IQ needed to “wield” Game effectively is 110.

    So, I’m asking you and anyone else so inclined-how do we reconcile all of this? Please explain?

    I’m heading over to your site to check out your comments.

    O

    LikeLike


  209. on May 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm David Alexander

    many men *did* want to have children, and found great satisfaction living in families as fathers and husbands

    Mind you, the opportunity costs were much lower. We didn’t have PlayStations, jet travel, and porn as an example, and if one didn’t join the religious life, one was looked upon as an oddity in the local community. Plus, given the time needed to spend on tasks like cooking and cleaning in earlier, one could argue that a nearly cheap maid was needed. We had much lower standards of living which in turn affected our demands for what we could expect from life. In our modern world, our standards are higher, and the plain looking local girl who gives basic, orgasmless penis in vagina sex is no longer good enough.

    tended to steer women away from those desires rather than toward them

    If you believe that beta males are being programmed to be weak and meek, and that the programming damages and frustrates them, then programming of women should have a similar affect as well. Those desires didn’t simply go away, and it’s possible that they could be invoked by the simple act of an alpha male acting in an alpha manner.

    because the current system has marginalized fatherhood as an institution by making monogamous marriage highly unstable

    To a certain extent, you’re right on that front since in many cases, people view fathers as sort of a mere cash cow with no other redeeming factors. Hence why courts will agree to child support, yet routinely deny custody or basic visitation with children. Yes, there may be a few bad apples, but that should not allow courts to tar and feather all men as useless except for cash. Mind you, that reaffirms the idea that beta males are merely interchangable drones merely useful as cannon fodder for society.

    Regardless, even if you turned marriage into a system where no-fault reigns, but alimony and child support are not automatic, but merely optional components that can be easily restricted or rescinded, you’ll sill see women dumping their beta husbands for alpha males or an increased use of covert methods for having sex with alphas.

    I highly doubt that the beta males of 10,000 years ago felt “free” by being excluded from marrying a woman

    But in a modern sense, a beta male who is excluded from marriage is free of the responsibilities and duties of supporting a family, and they are free to enjoy the fruits of our modern society that allow for an enjoyable life.

    As I said earlier, once a man realizes the truth about female attractiveness towards him, what is the point of even bothering with women when you know that they will never truly find you attractive. Yes, we did shape female choice as society via varying methods, but ultimately, it is effectively affirmative action for beta males, and one could argue that it is an insult to them. I want a girl to pick me for me, not because she can’t have sex with alphas. Without the choice of alphas, it’s merely a false choice that in the real world could easily turn out the other way.

    It seems instinctual — like sitting in the aisle seet when with a girl on the Metro.

    Screw that, I get window seat. I’m the railfan.

    LikeLike


  210. on May 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm David Alexander

    Black guys have the most game.

    Black Americans, or does this include Caribbeans, Latino men of African origin, and Africans of varying reasons?

    Should I be happy that a sharp, healthy, affluent, perspicacious, good-looking stud like yourself is working to put more notches into his belt instead of working to penetrate more of his wife’s eggs?

    That’s the weird part. Given good health, looks, and affluence, a man has no incentive to get married and have children as it’s a giant opportunity cost from enjoying his life with little responsibility, good finances (to pay for luxuries), and multiple highly attractive partners that he has the energy to deal with due to high T levels.

    LikeLike


  211. on May 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm Thursday

    Additionally, it has been suggested by some, that Game in its formal sense, is best suited and aimed for high IQ White and Asian Males-some suggest that the minimum IQ needed to “wield” Game effectively is 110.

    An average to slightly above average IQ guy is more likely to be a natural, but if he isn’t a natural, he isn’t going to be able to learn much.

    A high IQ guy is less likely to be a natural, but if he isn’t he is more able to learn.

    (And please, people, we’ve done the race thing to death.)

    LikeLike


  212. on May 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm chic noir

    schoolboy
    Chic:

    Why do you ask?

    Just curious. I’m trying to form a pic in my head. I do this with all of the regular commenters.

    LikeLike


  213. on May 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm novaseeker

    DA —

    Mind you, the opportunity costs were much lower. We didn’t have PlayStations, jet travel, and porn as an example, and if one didn’t join the religious life, one was looked upon as an oddity in the local community. Plus, given the time needed to spend on tasks like cooking and cleaning in earlier, one could argue that a nearly cheap maid was needed. We had much lower standards of living which in turn affected our demands for what we could expect from life. In our modern world, our standards are higher, and the plain looking local girl who gives basic, orgasmless penis in vagina sex is no longer good enough.

    These are fair points. Marriage was always a trade-off for men. If you look at Charles Darwin’s own deliberations he wrote as to whether or not to get married, you can clearly see that even then it was clearly viewed as a trade-off by men.

    Regardless, even if you turned marriage into a system where no-fault reigns, but alimony and child support are not automatic, but merely optional components that can be easily restricted or rescinded, you’ll sill see women dumping their beta husbands for alpha males or an increased use of covert methods for having sex with alphas.

    I think that cuckolding is a wired behavior in women, so yes I would agree. Marriage without enforced monogamy isn’t really marriage, and when you introduce no fault (even without the incentives of child support and alimony), it again undermines fatherhood by making dad optional — mom can boot him whenever she wants to for no reason. So I expect that in any regime which allows easy divorce and has no real social rules about extra-pair sex, you’re going to have a lot of cuckolding going on, and a lot less interest by men in investing in children and the broader society. So in that sense I think you’re quite right.

    But in a modern sense, a beta male who is excluded from marriage is free of the responsibilities and duties of supporting a family, and they are free to enjoy the fruits of our modern society that allow for an enjoyable life.

    As I said earlier, once a man realizes the truth about female attractiveness towards him, what is the point of even bothering with women when you know that they will never truly find you attractive. Yes, we did shape female choice as society via varying methods, but ultimately, it is effectively affirmative action for beta males, and one could argue that it is an insult to them. I want a girl to pick me for me, not because she can’t have sex with alphas. Without the choice of alphas, it’s merely a false choice that in the real world could easily turn out the other way.

    I agree that under the current regime, the best courses are either PUA or what you are saying here — those are the two rational choices for men who are not natural alphas.

    I do think that the ancien regime, however, was better for society overall. It may be true that most women are attracted to a small percentage of men, but forcing the issue through monogamy was socially beneficial for both men and women as members of the broader society. It may be technically accurate to say that many women throughout history were pissed that they had to marry a certain guy to whom they were not terribly attracted, but at the same time most of them found happiness in their lives with their children and family life nonetheless. The values were different. People did not prize sexual fulfillment as the core human value, as our current society often does.

    I would agree that trying to recreate that in the current environment is virtually impossible. So in the meantime, PUA or avoid, I think.

    LikeLike


  214. on May 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm Default User

    chic noir

    I’m trying to form a pic in my head.

    Speaking of pictures what is your current gravatar a picture of? If it is of you, you look kind of skinny.

    [note for the archives – the gravatar may be different when you are reading this]

    LikeLike


  215. on May 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm David Alexander

    I do think that the ancien regime, however, was better for society overall.

    As I’ve stated, the ancien regime made everybody sacrifice since everybody had to give up something with the exception of the alpha males who still had access to the best women and had the means to support a mistress.

    but at the same time most of them found happiness in their lives with their children and family life nonetheless

    When the choices are merely limited to being married to a local peasant or farmer or starving or joining a convent or being shunned by one’s community, then of course, having children can seem like a happy option. Once other options come into play, then happiness proves itself to be something that’s relative.

    People did not prize sexual fulfillment as the core human value, as our current society often does.

    Sexual knowledge is more widespread, and I suspect that the spread between the ugliest and prettiest is wider than in any generation.

    I would agree that trying to recreate that in the current environment is virtually impossible. So in the meantime, PUA or avoid, I think.

    Despite being a loser in the current environment, the ancien regime isn’t attractive because it still attaches responsibilities, and given our current knowledge of sex and female attraction, it’s impossible to go back to an era pre-blowjobs.

    The only way you’re going to solve the problem is to create a way that women can find men attractive without going PUA.

    LikeLike


  216. on May 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm novaseeker

    The only way you’re going to solve the problem is to create a way that women can find men attractive without going PUA.

    I don’t see that happening.

    LikeLike


  217. on May 5, 2009 at 6:42 pm doug1

    Obsidian–

    Additionally, it has been suggested by some, that Game in its formal sense, is best suited and aimed for high IQ White and Asian Males-some suggest that the minimum IQ needed to “wield” Game effectively is 110.

    So, I’m asking you and anyone else so inclined-how do we reconcile all of this? Please explain?

    Why can’t you understand this? It simplicity itself.

    It doesn’t take much in the way of brains to group up having natural game — though real lack of intelligence does hurt attractivenss to increasing numbers of women, starting with white and NE Asian women. (That’s part of why in the event, blacks aren’t actually nearly as successful with white women especially those that aren’t super sluts as some theorize or as quite a few beta and omega white men fear.) Natural game comes from genes, who your role models were when you grew up, and the mini culture you grew up in — in this case heavily black American as opposed to or white American culture, or white culture as filtered by the black ones.

    Learning as an adult and accepting and making a part of your basic psyche something that’s a bit complicated and very different from what you believed growing up does take a much higher threshold of brains.

    LikeLike


  218. on May 5, 2009 at 8:39 pm Benedict Smith

    that was a stripper or an escort on a “date”. duh.

    LikeLike


  219. on May 5, 2009 at 10:39 pm schoolboy

    Chic:

    I’m barely in college. So take your age-range guess. Thats all you need to know. Also i’m not white nor black nor asian nor indian.

    Have fun “fantasizing” men who frequent a blog.

    LikeLike


  220. on May 5, 2009 at 11:55 pm feministx.blogspot.com

    “Again, comments page hijacked by FemX attention-whore needs. Just sayin’ …

    Feministx, you have acquired one authentic female enemy! Your response was odd though…

    feministx wrote:

    Umm. I’m not really doing anything aside from providing placid responses to comments. No one needs you to play moderator here. It’d be pretty beta if we did.

    Did you not know that maurice is a female proper name in English? Or do you just not understand female infighting?”

    I know Maurice is a girl. I’m not sure how to assess my understanding of female infighting, but I don’t think you need to worry about me. I’ve got it covered.

    “The simplest solution to this problem is take something from before the relationship that you liked doing… and start doing it again. Of course, you’ll also need to take something your GF was doing from before the relationship and get her doing that to. It doesn’t need to be ‘right before’. Favorite hits can work…”

    Ok, thanks. I guess in the beginning of relationships we usually go to parties more, but as it progresses I don’t like doing that because I have an odd fear that she will meet someone new if we go out and socialize too much.

    LikeLike


  221. on May 6, 2009 at 3:01 am Bhetti

    Hope: Horde. Undead warrior.

    jaakeli: I hate not being able to play it casually. I don’t know if there’s much of a way where you don’t play it obsessively without getting your money’s worth.

    LikeLike


  222. on May 6, 2009 at 11:23 am Audacious Epigone

    Obsidian,

    I’m guessing that there is roughly a 110 IQ threshold for people who are intellectually interested in studying and discussing game in internet comment threads. But there are plenty of guys of middling and below average intelligence who are naturally self-confident, assertive, high-energy, etc who have good game even though they don’t dissect it academically. Elevated self-perception is inversely correlated with intelligence. Inductivist has posted on this theme a few times, and Richard Lynn has chronicled it on an international level.

    None of the guys I play basketball with (in a mixed working class/working poor city) talk about what constitutes good game–they just state that they’re ballers and you’re not (probably because you’re a fag)!

    The ones who stand to ‘gain’ the most from studying it are sharp guys who trend autistic, are introverted, are not good-looking and fit, fear rejection, etc, because they meet two requirements: 1) They enjoy thinking about it, and 2) It doesn’t come naturally.

    LikeLike


  223. on May 6, 2009 at 1:50 pm Firepower

    chics always fall for a brad pitt avatar. its predictable – use it

    LikeLike


  224. on May 9, 2009 at 7:59 pm chic noir

    schoolboy
    to Chic:
    I’m barely in college. So take your age-range guess. Thats all you need to know. Also i’m not white nor black nor asian nor indian.
    Have fun “fantasizing” men who frequent a blog.

    I really don’t care what race you are, if your cool then your cool end of discussion. No, not fantasizing, just putting a face with with the comments that’s all  . I figured you were on the younger side, it’s all good 

    LikeLike


  225. on May 19, 2009 at 10:46 am Kamal S.

    Quote: Mr.
    “this is quite debatable…”

    Quoth feministx:
    “If you are woman, it is not.”

    Actually, only if you are utterly blind it is not.

    There are always winners and losers in every world order. Even in Sweden.
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/06/Suicide-plagues-Swedens-Sami-youth/UPI-75731223303860/

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120055375/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Perhaps an intelligent and educated woman of foreign extraction occupying certain class strata is isolated from some of the more unpleasant consequences of modernity as it exists in the US and many parts of Western Europe.

    Such a one, let’s say vous, hailing from, and rebelling against, a traditional patriarchal environment, may buy into certain shiny pretty progressive ideas current because such a one imagines that such progress must be better than the abuses of patriarchy endemic to her native cultural milieu and what she sees, or reads, historically of such abuses here.

    However the real world, in all cases, is more nuanced.

    It is possible to utterly miss a massive undercurrent of unease with post-modern progress, one that is simply part of the general mindscape of Women and Men native to this culture, and largely submerged due to society’s generally consumerist bent, but one that becomes more explicitly articulated as things get worse. And they are getting worse, for many more than you would imagine.

    Roissy’s blog, and the dating scene both you and he notice, and that we all participate in, simply shows symptoms of more fundamental real disequilibrium. Is the grass always greener on other sides? Perhaps.
    If you want the entire world to look like Sweden, this speaks volumes about how un-critical of your own ideas you are. For the world to look like Sweden it would have to be racially and culturally homogenous, have a certain rate of population growth, and enjoy certain levels of prosperity at all levels of society. There are matters of established culture and history, And even still, there is a need to subsidize a superstructure that enforces social habits that are somewhat contrary to our biological reality. Where do such funds come from? Through redistributive payments extracted from society, recycled through society’s machinery, and given back in the form of a Nerf world, plush safe Womb.

    A womb for serfs, a womb for slaves. Ostensibly happy and content slaves.

    Well fed, well fucked, but fundamentally vacuous and confused serfs.
    Those who want to return to the womb are children. And incapable of evolving further.

    And I argue, and you can find data to support it, that such serfs are no where nearly as happy as you might think.

    Could it be that for all of your intellect, you are quite simply blinded by ideology? An ideology that at times partially belies some of your own fundamental biological urges even?

    Realize, there are always winners and losers in every world order. If your fortune is to associate with the winners, you may be somewhat unaware of the losers. Oh, you may think that you are aware. But I wager that in fact you are not. The fact that you could make a blindingly naive statement to the effect that the world in every way is better now than in the 50s may be proof of this. A snide observation would be that intelligence and education both are often wasted on the wrong people, but it’s closer to the truth that we are all blind of things outside our idealized visions of the world. All of us.

    Life’s struggle is realizing this.

    The opposing statement by some conservatives that the 50s were a paradise also illustrates their naïveté and myopic vision… but we aren’t talking about them, we are talking about you now. There is some truth to your opinion of course. But there is some truth to theirs. In some ways the world was a better place decades ago, in some ways what we think of as progress was actually something that destroyed essential matters. While in some other ways there certainly has been progress.

    The world is “better” according to some subjective criteria, but decidedly worse according to others. And even still it is just a matter of where you stand and what your background is. As an example, take race, most progressive blacks are very happy with the world as it is, especially after Obama’s election. But I know many older black folk, working class and middle class alike, of previous generations who are convinced that in many ways blacks in this country were much better off in the 50s during segregation. Not in every way, but in many ways. They had the life experience of what their communities were like then, and now. And their discernment causes them to realize that some what they thought was progress actually had the effect of weakening their communities and families.

    Or take many working class whites, for many, male and female, the world was much better in the 50s, Lower inflation, more secure family structures, more secure employment markets, a thriving industrial sector, and social dynamics that ordered society in such a way that each at least knew his or her own place. People who bought into a revolution while young and now sit back and question it. Bastardry matters, your dismissal of the point that “misogynist” bring up concerning the effects of fatherless families shows almost blinding stupidity. The effects of fatherlessness will vary based on a family’s support infrastructure. For millions of people a fatherless family is more unstable and results in certain pathologies that plague them for their lives. Certainly not in certain classes, but for the vast majority of society things may look different than what you expect.

    There are always two sides to every story, that you know only one and see only one is simply proof of myopia. The sentiment of limitless modern progress through social engineering and science is passé. The best minds of the west took a decidedly nihilist turn 2 generations ago, and for good reasons. The world is a far uglier place than your misty eye feminist futurism would suggest. And I’m not just talking about illiterate Pathans throwing acid on women’s faces or Hindu husbands setting their wives saris on fire or arranged marriages.

    My contention, and many would agree to some extent, is that things have only gotten better as an aggregate sum total for a few, and worse for many, in ways both blatant and subtle. My contention is that for those with the balls to get outside their closed insular social circles and actually go out into society at large, and see what is going on, they would figure out that we are not marching exactly forward.

    The idea of social progress if studied historically, in depth, reviews many monstrosities.

    What you believe to be social progress here has only improved the lot for a small elite minority, the rest of society has experienced massive dislocations and unrest as a consequence of the bright eyed revolutions that assorted social revolutionaries of all stripes, from the Helen Gurney Browns, to the Gloria Steinem’s, to the Jerry Rubin’s, to the John Dewey’s, to the H.G. Wells’s and Bertrand Russels of the world, all naively believed, unto their dying day. Bloody useful tools, the lot of them.

    Hell hath no fury like a progressive with a wounded past, with a chip on her shoulders and a desire to change the world, whose ideas of paradise are funded by foundations ran by those with the most to gain from subverting the status quo. Take John Dewey, a collectivist socialist whose ideas were pushed and supported by gentry anglophile elites like Conant and Anglais, establishment men, and funded by quote conservative industrialists who had the common sense to realize that Dewey’s infantile socialist playground was an idea place to train productive, drone like, workers would consume their shite en masse without question. Conant himself lamented the state of the American High school decades later after seeing the result of his own ideas in practice.

    The slow demise of what remains of the traditional family, the removal of traditional sexual values and its replacement by the surrogate tit nipple of the welfare State has produced for lower to lower-middle class whites and blacks alike, not limitless social of massive societal and familial degradation, unease, anomie, alienation, that escapes the studies you may happen to read. Perhaps if you got out more often you would notice.

    All of this makes it easier for a certain type of person to get laid, of course, absurdly easy. Given a bit of disposable income, I find late nights with café society to be a delight, vapid for soul, but not without its pleasures.
    Once we figure out (or are taught) to look behind the curtain there are delights to be had, but they strike me as empty delights – I feel a soul killing emptiness afoot that I cannot deny, and it is disquieting, to me. The devil is in the details and the nuances,

    LikeLike


  226. on May 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm Kamal S.

    Obsidian:
    “….but I don’t feel comfortable sitting in such a way that I can’t see who’s coming through the door.

    I tend to sit w/my back to the far wall, usually at one of the larger tables (say, a table meant for 4), so I can keep an eye on the door. ….. That table thing I spoke of above is no joke”’

    This is hilarious, I always do this at all of my haunts.
    It’s just instinctive. I roll in, survey the layout, scope things out while walking in, find a nice size table and sit back to the wall. I prefer corners near windows, or near back doors. Anyone who walks in basically gets my gaze and I can size them up.

    Mondo Bizzaro, weird. If I’m forced to sit with my back to the door or the rest of the room I grow really, really, uncomfortable. I’ve tried breaking myself out of this habit but I can’t, so I just roll with it.

    LikeLike


  227. on May 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm Chic noir

    UH kamal and Mu, add me to the group who likes to she who is moving about around them. When I’m in a spot where my back isn’t against a wall, I’m constanlty looking around to see the who is moving where.

    LikeLike


  228. on May 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm Chic noir

    *likes to see*

    LikeLike


  229. on May 19, 2009 at 10:22 pm Kamal S.

    It just feels… creepy if your back isn’t against a nice wall or corner, my intuition and mad well honed psychic skills do give me some degree of sight from behind my head. But exercising such powers is tiring, and do it too often and it does takes its toll.

    It takes its toll indeed.

    LikeLike


  230. on May 19, 2009 at 10:51 pm Comment_Whatever

    Kamal, the webpage link in your name doesn’t seem to work.

    LikeLike


  231. on August 6, 2009 at 1:23 pm George Sodini Was At A Seduction Seminar « Roissy in DC

    […] male mate value increasing strategies and tactics; from negs to wardrobe upgrades to avoiding the worst beta impulses when interactions with women don’t proceed […]

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    Mabui on The Confound Of Silence
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    cortesar on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    Carlos Danger on The Confound Of Silence
    Captain Obvious on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Captain Obvious on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Captain John Charity… on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Captain Obvious on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Dread Forman on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
  • Top Posts

    • Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat Catladies Hate Trump
    • Slutty Women Are Unhappier Than Caddish Men
    • The Great Men On Holding Marital Frame
    • ¡SCIENCE!: The NPC Leftoid Hivemind Is Real
    • Manifest Depravity
    • The Diminishing Returns Of Anti-White Virtue Signaling
    • Beta O'Rourke
    • Mocking The Globohomo Corporatocracy
    • The Confound Of Silence
    • Revolutionary Spirals To Civil War 2
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: