Occasionally, after you have been dating a girl for a few weeks, she will ask if you are seeing other girls.
This is the worst sort of beta bait because it is so innocuous sounding. What man wouldn’t want to reassure a girl he is dating that she’s the only one for him? Most betas will chomp down on stinky bait like this so hungrily that it will cause the girl to second guess whether she is high enough in dating market value that she can safely leave the guy for better prospects.
BETA: Nooo baby, I’m not dating anyone else. I wouldn’t even think of dating anyone else while I’m with you. I really like you. All I can think about is you. [Gentle shoulder grab and big, wet eyes.]
GIRL’S SUPEREGO: Oh, that’s good to hear. [GIRL’S ID: Tool.]
Your job, as a man who routinely dates quality women, is to never let her ego convince her that she is too good to be dating you. The best way to do this is simply to not fail her status ascertaining shit tests.
Beta bait and shit tests are similar concepts with some notable distinctions. Shit tests occur with the most regularity and intensity during early game, and at times when the relationship is on the skids. They are normally loaded up front to help the girl quickly take the measure of your alphaness. Beta bait happens at any time while dating a girl, and are spread out evenly in a relationship as a sort of low level boyfriend diagnosis script.
Shit tests are more obvious than beta bait, and thus easier to pass for men with excellent awareness of female hypergamy tactics. A shit test can be quite bold and shocking to newb ears and thus scare off lesser men, but the inveterate player always operates with the frame that shit tests and other assorted confusing and bitchy female behavior are an opportunity rather than an obstacle to demonstrate his mate value. A girl who is giving you shit is a hell of a lot closer to sex with you than a girl who is indifferent to your existence.
Of the two, beta bait is by far more dangerous than shit tests. If you fail a shit test, you move on to the next girl within your field of view. Your pain is over quickly and time is saved for mining new whore. But beta bait is subtler and more insidious; you may not even recognize you’re being baited until she’s screaming “HALF!” and the kid suddenly doesn’t look like you anymore.
But what truly makes beta bait so devilish is that the girl doesn’t even have to know she is baiting you. In fact, it is a mistake to think most girls are aware of their hypergamous status testing. Some are, particularly the heavily made-up club regulars who delight in frustrating men with sassy snark pulled from a crib sheet of well-worn bitchitudes. (I remember this one girl who used to say “take a picture, it’ll last longer” to just about every man she caught checking her out. I wonder what her line will be when she’s 35? “Take my picture, please”?) But most girls aren’t aware of how their female nature operates. To a girl, tossing out beta bait is as unconscious an act as a man chubbing out when admiring a perfectly rounded ass.
It doesn’t matter whether the bloody chum slips off the boat’s deck unsupervised, or if it’s tossed into the water with joyful gusto; you must resist biting into it regardless how tempting it is. Shit tests have less room for error. You fail the first shit test and you may as well write her off. In contrast, beta bait isn’t pass or die; you can safely take the bait occasionally without dooming your relationship, but you should aim for a pass rate of 75%. Once you start latching onto beta bait 50% or more of the time, your days as a man she desires to fuck are numbered.
Back to the original scenario, here is an example of how to resist the bait:
HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.
ENLIGHTENED YOU: Naturally. *kiss*
Note here that you aren’t sappily proclaiming your undying loyalty to the girl, while still easing her mind a little that (perhaps!) she is the only one you are dating. When you must give a girl an answer to something that reeks of beta bait, agree with her without *super* agreeing with her, if you catch my meaning. Sexy alpha answers nimbly dance the semantical line between truth, evasiveness, and provocativeness. Succinctness is always better than loquaciousness. Informality always beats formality. Hints are preferable to straight answers. Is this patronizing to girls? It sure is, and they wouldn’t have it any other way.
What I wonder when reading things like this, along with a lot of other pieces of advice that direct you to be evasive with a girl is what if she decides to follow up with specific questions? What happens in this scenario if after you throw out “Naturally,” she laughs and says “but seriously, are you seeing other girls?”
I can only see evasiveness working for so long before your evasive answers have the fundamental effect of saying “yes, I’m seeing other people,” whether you say that or not – so much for the mystery.
LikeLike
It’s complicated
LikeLike
“Sexy alpha answers nimbly dance the semantical line between truth, evasiveness, and provocativeness.”
Very good point. That’s something I’ve been working on for some time now, but this is a good way to put it.
I’ll keep that in mind.
LikeLike
A. Slightly off topic: If you’re at a loss for what to say to a shit test, what about defaulting to flashing a big shit-eating grin and saying “So I’ve got your attention”?
B. “Take a picture, it’ll last longer”? Jesus, that’s feeble stuff. I’d say “If I pull the string in your back, will you say that again?”
LikeLike
Puh-lease… the way to deal with picture girl is to give her something to think about.
“Take a picture, it’ll last longer.”
“Hey, that’s a great idea! At least the picture will still look good when you’re 35.” 🙂
LikeLike
As a bit of a recovering germ phobe, I wouldn’t even utter such words. Whether or not you’re currently seeing another girl has little impact on what you might have contracted in previous relationships (and not even be aware of yet). I’m feel utterly sorry for females who think they can determine a man’s STD status simply by looking at them, clothing brand names, type of vehicle driven, salary, etc. I don’t even know how someone can even consider bareback (and possibly any penetration) without STD testing. You can say required STD testing is major beta bait, perhaps. But really, what other highly reliable way is there to determine STD status? “Oh, he looks sweet. He’s probably clean.” And I’ve noticed the lenient promiscuous behaviors that have occured since the 60s/70s have really infiltrated most female minds as well. “Almost EVERY female will get HPV at SOME point.” No, not everyone. Basically, STDs exist (some apparently nastier than others), and there are reliable, relatively painless ways to test for them. Making any judgments before ascertaining such knowledge is unreliable, risky, and likely prone to error. That guy you met at the mall might have herpes. The dude you humped on the bus at 2 am might have gonorrhea. Honestly, ladies, whatever your 1-10 looks ranking is, you should be striving for a big fat ZERO for your STD rating.
LikeLike
I don’t get it…condoms certainly suck but why does a dude who wants to keep his options open for highest quality want a) to risk pregnancy and/or b) risk the ridiculously high STD statistics among young, promiscuous individuals.
This sounds like the wrong kinda caveman logic to me.
LikeLike
YOU: So, you know, these condoms really suckass. lozzllzlz We should think about experiencing the beauty and intimacy of skin on skin contact. penis2anus as i am tryingto get an article published in the weekly standard. lzozlzl
HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls, and that you won’t [publish it in teh National Review.
YOU: OK then when we have threesomes I promise not to look at her while you’re eating her out while i’m doing you doggy doggy from behind lzozlzl or I’ll wear a blindfold or a visor that keeps me focused on your ass lzozl work with me we’ll figure it out we always do lolozlzlzlzl
LikeLike
I wish I had a greatbooksformen commentary track on every episode of “The Pick-Up Artist.”
LikeLike
i don’t know about this. i’m all about passing shit tests and not taking beta bait, but i’m not so much about raw dog. if a chick is letting you in sans rubber, how many other dudes have done the same. and how many other girls have those other dudes been with. even if a girl has only been with a couple of other guys, the exposure is exponentially increasing.
not to mention the power a woman has over you if one of your boys slips past the goalie and you knock her up.
LikeLike
I like how you say that a shit test is an opportunity to demonstrate higher value. If you aren’t getting shit tested, you’re just wasting your time entertaining her, right?
LikeLike
Yeah, the fastest rising HIV infected population is heterosexual women, apparently. Receptive hetero intercourse carries a much lower risk (1 in 1000) of HIV than teh buttsex (1 in 100) – but the risks for STD’s add together. So a chick with Herpes and HIV will have a greater chance of giving you HIV. Plus hetero chicks do teh butsex more and more anyway – probably the reason for their higher HIV infection rates.
Of course, here in the first world, the low number of HIV infected women plus the low chance of transmission in a single act of intercourse means you’re unlikely to get an HIV infection from a one night stand.
But you never know where any chick has been. That sweet med-school student you were dating probably spent a summer in africa building a village with Medecins sans Frontieres, and likely got plowed by a high status, highly educated local. Who might be a closet bull queer who gets his pick of the local ass buffet.
Oh, the best part! Most STIs are transmitted through relationship concurrency – mistresses and tail-end-of-relationship affairs. I.e. you’re raw-dogging your girlfriend, but took the beta bait, failed the shit tests, and now she’s getting reamed out on the side. The guy she’s seeing has a friend with benefits, they also raw-dog, etc, etc.
LikeLike
>>RobertGoulet
If she persists, she’s being a whiny inquisitive brat. Agree and amplify.
HER: “Seriously, are you seeing other chicks?”
YOU: “Today or just this week?”
I made every mistake in the book with my ex, including the above – but I did do something right:
once she was down in my bar, and she came in the door just as i finished making out with another girl. She hung around, left a little later – when she got home she texted me
“I hope I didn’t ruin your chances with the other sweet girls”
Because I am a dork, I didn’t realize I had really shown her I’m da man… my beta reaction was to comfort her, but my drunk laconic side won:
“What did you expect?”
She promptly fell in love.
LikeLike
“i’m all about passing shit tests and not taking beta bait,”
True measure of alphaness (and I’d love to see a post on this), getting a female to kill for you. Unless you can “inspire” this type of behavior (albeit: extreme), you’re just another nameless schmoe. So, you regularly get laid by 10s, but do they bail on you when you ask them to waste someone or do they happily oblige?
LikeLike
Most STDs are harmless and can be cleared up with a few pills or a shot.
As for HIV, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a straight guy to catch it via heterosexual intercourse. It just doesn’t happen, and there is no straight male HIV epidemic.
LikeLike
^^^^
most stds can be sandpapered off as long as u do it like pretty qucik which is why i always take sanpaper with me when going to american womenz homes zlozlzlzlz and fancy apartments they get with ikea furniture purschesed with fresh hot beernanke cash fiat debt cash for tehir furniture which will cause a war on down the line but that is the genius of bernanke to give all the welath to his friends and all the risk and rock to otehr lzozlzllzlzlzl anyways what i am saying is that sandpaper is cheap and it takes care of 99% of stds
LikeLike
“Most STDs are harmless and can be cleared up with a few pills or a shot.”
Maybe as a female, I just have an impossibly high standard, but there seems to be nothing appealing about having lesions, open sores, or grossly-colored liquids oozing out of a bodily orifice. Unfortunately, the above mentality I quoted from your comment is way too common in females today. If you’re popping antibiotics, alongside your daily multivitamin, you’re probably doing something wrong and should reevaluate your behavior accordingly.
LikeLike
When I was first learning game, a girl once spat out the ‘take a picture’ line at me. I took one with my iphone, showed it to my wing, and gestured at her as he started laughing at the ridiculousness of the situation. She must have thought we were making fun of her because she slapped me and stormed off.
Gentlemen, consider yourselves warned. Do not take what women say literally.
LikeLike
^^^
“Gentlemen, consider yourselves warned. Do not take what women say literally.”
ok thankx!! lzozlz
LikeLike
In this post the one key learning for passing that shit test is to re-frame it so she gets jealous.
This also plays into the “pre-selected by women” component of attraction.
Before I understood game, my thinking was linear and logical.
I discovered game after I blew it big time with a girl who was gaming me. I answered all her questions logically and was on my best behaviour.
Some great shit tests that I failed spectacularly:
Her: “Oh…I was wondering, since you’re not married at your age are you gay?”
Me: No no….Of course not.. I was married before blah blah blah FAIL
Now: Oh yeah…If I wasn’t so gay, I’d be so into you right now
or: Yes…I’m a lesbian….
Another: Her: seeing make-up on my collar from dancing with other girls: “Wow…your wife or girlfriend must be jealous if you have that kind of make up on your collar:
Me: Oh…I don’t have a girlfriend FAIL
Now: They’re used to it…but you sound jealous…
After discovering game…I now detect and deflect shit tests with relative ease:
Some recent ones:
Me: I was quite sick after my recent business trip and I was looking for a nurse, too bad you weren’t around.
Her (nurse by profession): Yah, I’d give you an injection…in the butt..
Me: You’d like that wouldn’t you…
xxxxxxxx
Her: Where were you born?
Me: In a hospital
Her: ahhh…I can’t talk to you…
Me: [In this case, I was over-gaming, so laughed it off and softened it up]
Me: walking up to girl with cocktail in hand to take her on dance floor.
Her: Do you really want to dance with me?
Me: Not really….[grab her and begin dancing]
I’m learning that there are limits to how far you can push back without being a complete asshole and scaring them off.
Though, by comparison, the girl whose shit tests I failed lost all attraction for me.
The hard-case girl whose shit-tests I constantly passed, somehow had a change of heart and stepped back.
But has since slowly come back and the chemistry between us after 4 weeks of no contact is strong.
So the moral of this is that while at the time, shit tests seem to be off-putting…if you continue to pass them, you can maintain hand and have a greater degree of control over the frame.
LikeLike
“Naturally” … gross really? Wtf.
“Maybe, I’ll think about = No and it’s complicated.” All much better responses, so that when she catches you cheating, you can deny and evade. If you agree with her then you are giving her power.
Beta bait will kill you if you are aiming for one night stands, flings or screwing on the first date. Women seek short flings with alphas, while having long term beta relationships.
LikeLike
Dude, yes, condoms suck but are you in control or is your little head in control. Condoms are meant to protect guys (at least in my world).
LikeLike
“As for HIV, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a straight guy to catch it via heterosexual intercourse.”
And what about a straight female? I suppose you’re going to tell me I have a better chance of contracting HIV from fondling greatbooksformen’s fiat dollars?
LikeLike
@ExtraStout,
“As for HIV, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a straight guy to catch it via heterosexual intercourse. It just doesn’t happen, and there is no straight male HIV epidemic.”
IMPOSSILBE, bro? What kind of research did you do? It’s definitely possible. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse, going from a woman to a man is the rarest way of spreading the disease, but it’s still possible.
LikeLike
All this hysteria about raw dogging. When i was single last two years i banged over sixty chicks – less than five with protection. No problems with stds ever after getting tested.
LikeLike
As a bit of a recovering germ phobe, I wouldn’t even utter such words. Whether or not you’re currently seeing another girl has little impact on what you might have contracted in previous relationships (and not even be aware of yet). I’m feel utterly sorry for females who think they can determine a man’s STD status simply by looking at them, clothing brand names, type of vehicle driven, salary, etc. I don’t even know how someone can even consider bareback (and possibly any penetration) without STD testing. You can say required STD testing is major beta bait, perhaps. But really, what other highly reliable way is there to determine STD status? “Oh, he looks sweet. He’s probably clean.” And I’ve noticed the lenient promiscuous behaviors that have occured since the 60s/70s have really infiltrated most female minds as well. “Almost EVERY female will get HPV at SOME point.” No, not everyone. Basically, STDs exist (some apparently nastier than others), and there are reliable, relatively painless ways to test for them. Making any judgments before ascertaining such knowledge is unreliable, risky, and likely prone to error. That guy you met at the mall might have herpes. The dude you humped on the bus at 2 am might have gonorrhea. Honestly, ladies, whatever your 1-10 looks ranking is, you should be striving for a big fat ZERO for your STD rating.
+1
LikeLike
British guy:
“All this hysteria about raw dogging. When i was single last two years i banged over sixty blow up dolls as we do over here in cockneyland – less than five with protection. No problems with stds ever after getting tested.”
LikeLike
I doubt there’s ever been a more sexually permissive society that at the same time was so paranoid about the mechanics of sex, as evidenced by the commenters who apparently require orientation seminars, legal contracts, and full-body neoprene suits before letting anyone near their genitals.
LikeLike
BETA BAIT ALERT: MAJOR BETA BAIT TO FOLLOW.
I suppose the issue of safe sex is the “real” alpha separator. Maybe it’s more alpha to always wear a rubber and refuse bareback even if the woman begs. Or maybe it’s more alpha to absolutely demand lab screening of every lay (sorry: one night stands are out unless you’re sleeping with a girl who has a career as a medical technologist and works at a 24-hour lab) to display higher value. Or maybe real alphas come from superior genetic material and are immune to all STDs?
Alright, that wasn’t really beta bait. I know it’s hard to hear the sarcasm over Al Gore’s Internet. I’m a chick. STDs present a significant concern. And I’d personally consider myself as being a negative number on the 1-10 attractiveness scale if I contracted one. I suppose I can see how guys would be somewhat slightly less concerned about STDs, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why not every female is overly concerned.
LikeLike
It’s called birth control for a reason; someone is controlling the birth. In the past 50 years there have been over 40 methods of birth control made commercially available over which only women have control of regulating. In the same period of time only 2 are available for men, the humble condom and vasectomy.
If you are not controlling the birth, she is. For as much as the community decries the general duplicity of women, and considering the circumstantial statistics for single mothers over the last 50 years, are you really willing to put the trust of controlling a birth that will tie you to that woman for a lifetime in her hands? Every ambition, every decision, every action you’d hope to achieve in your future ride on your controlling the birth. Women can never begin to appreciate the magnitude of trust a man places in them by this simple act.
There are precious few “accidental” pregnancies, and there are no accidental births. This conversation should never occur. Always wear a condom, it is your ONLY insurance.
LikeLike
“This conversation should never occur. Always wear a condom, it is your ONLY insurance.”
yah when i get pulled over by a cop i whip it out and show him my condom on my long cock lzozlzlzl and i say it is my only insurance.
LikeLike
“as evidenced by the commenters who apparently require orientation seminars, legal contracts, and full-body neoprene suits before letting anyone near their genitals.”
Legal contracts ONLY drawn up by an ALL FEMALE legal team. I can NOT stress that point enough. It doesn’t count, if it was written by a male lawyer.
LikeLike
@ExtraStout
You sir are either pandering to the peanut gallery, or are grossly misinformed.
Take HPV/genital warts for example, the most common STI. Statistics place the estimate at roughly 50-80% positive for the sexually active population, at some point in their lives. That’s astoundingly high. And guess what… it’s a virus, meaning that it never goes away. Even if you haven’t had a flare up for years, it lies dormant in your body and you are at risk for infecting others.
Complications for women are especially severe, since they don’t have the benefit of examining their junk from the inside out. Cervical dysplasia, when unchecked, leads to further cell abnormalities and eventually cervical cancer. The only treatment for cervical cancer is radiation therapy, which renders women infertile. Consider that when you’re thinking about the future mother of your children.
Condoms, while a nuisance and not 100% effective against DTIs like HPV, are a must unless you are in a fully committed LTR. Use polyurethane ones. They transmit heat and don’t stink like latex. It’s as close as you get to the real thing.
LikeLike
Just had the snip.
Now let whichever evil bitch ho I meet next try and convince me she’s pregnant and shit test me that way.
LikeLike
“as evidenced by the commenters who apparently require orientation seminars, legal contracts, and full-body neoprene suits before letting anyone near their genitals.”
Oh, and the neoprene suit is essentially useless if it was manufactured in a facility where the females only earn 40 cents on the dollar. (*rolls my not-quite almond-shaped eyes*)
LikeLike
How about this response:
HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.
YOU: I thought you trusted me?
LikeLike
QUESTION!
There’s a girl who whenever I make jokes about her “boyfriend” she gets serious and tells me not to mention his name. What does this mean?
Btw she is occassionally flirting with me and making sexual hints but never actually puts out.
LikeLike
I feel that in order to pass this test, the woman has to of already thought of raw dogging you. Giving an evasive answer at this point will mean nothing if you haven’t already sparked the hamster nibblings.
LikeLike
I think the point here is that there’s a difference between agreeing to remain monogamous while barebacking (to avoid STDs) on the one hand and, on the other hand, being so desperate to assure her that you’re *not* seeing someone that you wind up telling her that you *can’t* see someone else.
A better example would have left out the rawdogging comment to avoid mixing beta bait with legitimate questions. E.g., she asks you that question before fucking you, even with a raincoat.
LikeLike
Another reason to use condoms: do you really want to be on Patient Zero’s branch for some untreatable strain of an old disease? Antibiotics are becoming less effective and we don’t have the medical technology that would fix the problem.
The third world might be in for a serious reduction in population as they do not wear condoms, do not want to wear condoms and will not wear condoms. If enough of their women go infertile from some incurable STD, the screams of genocide and conspiracy will be deafening.
LikeLike
Step 1. Prick condom with a pin before sex.
Step 2. Break condom during sex.
Step 3. Calm girl down.
Step 4. Get girl aroused again, raw dog it.
LikeLike
“… i have to know you’re not seeing other girls”
“of course you do”
the tone of voice you need to use should be obvious
LikeLike
“Theomicrist
How about this response:
HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.
YOU: I thought you trusted me?”
Too passive aggressive, too redolent of being a fake-ass little twat.
“Naturally”, *kiss* is infinitely better.
LikeLike
Al and Tipper Gore break up after 40 years of marriage.
Damn.
LikeLike
I’d love to see a post about dealing with douchebag males – within a group of girls – who try to tool you (sort of like a male shit test). For example, by grabbing or pawing at you to display dominance or trying to shout you down.
They’re called AMOGs, right?
LikeLike
Perfect timing for this post. Last night I got tossed into a minefield of beta bait questions, the main one “How many other girls are you seeing right now”. I deftly maneuvered my way out of it without confirming nor denying. Funny thing is, this was AFTER rawdogging her morning, noon, and night over the holiday weekend, AND only about ten minutes after she let me blow a load in her ass.
Buyers remorse, I suppose.
“But what truly makes beta bait so devilish is that the girl doesn’t even have to know she is baiting you.”
I learned years ago that although women aren’t always testing you, they are ALWAYS judging you. Even the inadvertent bata bait, shit tests, whatever you want to call them…..they are all landmines that you must avoid in order to keep the gina a-tinglin’.
One more thing….this whole abstinence movement has created some STD paranoid motherfuckers.
LikeLike
“Al and Tipper Gore break up after 40 years of marriage. ”
Best line I’ve seen on this: “I guess the marriage was unsustainable.”
LikeLike
Rollo
Always carry a passport. It’s your only insurance.
LikeLike
for a bit I thought this would be about dating transsexual girls
LikeLike
Q:”I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.”
A:”I’m careful”
Q:”I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.”
A:”Not right now.”
Q:”I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.”
A:”I see them wherever I go, and it drives me nuts. They’re so cute! I fall in love 10 times a day.”
Q:”I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.”
A:”It’s been a while.”
Q:”I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.”
A:”Yes. But they’ve been tested and they don’t fuck around”
LikeLike
Perhaps fashion consultant Naomi Wolfe was onto something in 1999 when she said that Al Gore is seen as a beta to Clinton’s alpha. (she used the terms alpha and beta)
From today’s Yahoo article:
“He’s [Al Gore] very much a gentleman you know, with me around the house,” Tipper said. “I know he’s dog tired and he could be sitting down and doing something and I need something across the room, he’ll get up and get it.”
LikeLike
“Take a picture, it’ll last longer”?
Say, “Okay”, pull out your IPOD, Droid, etc. and take her picture!
LikeLike
There’s a pathology of paranoia that is starting to develop in these posts. The gist of the advice can basically be summarized as “do not acknowledge any real connection with her at any time. Do not communicate with her honestly. Do not ever give her the security of knowing that you are there for her.”
I have to say it is a pussy approach to relationships. It is operating under the constant fear that once she knows the real you, and feels that you are there for her, she will look to leave you for someone else. So to avoid this, (the pathology goes), you keep her in a perpetual state of uncertainty and she will always be pursuing security from you like a horse chasing a carrot on a stick.
You will never share your life with another person if you are always living in fear, always one step removed from your own life, tactically trying to control things that are inherently uncontrollable. You have to live your life in the first person, not the 3rd person. If you want to maintain a LTR, you have to share yourself, learn to tolerate some risk, and buy into something that you won’t be able to always control.
[ed: reread the post. i said “first few weeks” of dating the girl. if you’ve been with a girl for a few months, then yeah, you can go ahead and approach the relationship with more sentimental romantic candor. but she’s gotta earn that first, which means you have to be getting the sense that the shit tests and beta baits are diminishing in frequency. if the chick loves you, this positive change will start to happen around month three.]
LikeLike
Q”Take a picture, it’ll last longer”
A”What?”
Q”Take a picture, it’ll last longer”
A”What?”
Q”Take a picture, it’ll last longer”
A”WHAT?”
Repeat until she figures out you are yanking her stupid chain. Then non sequitur as if the stupid conversation never happened.
LikeLike
That’s not to say that being helpful to yuor wife is beta. It’s just odd that, perhaps unfairly to Al Gore, this is the one Tipper quote about Al in the article.
LikeLike
Sidewinder
Yes, and no.
Yes, you can’t avoid the risk. No, you don’t have to step in front of the train and turn your back.
Yes, play the game. And realize that you are supposed to fall in love, if you do it right.
Not making her uncertain is just being stupid.
LikeLike
@ xsplat,
I agree that you need to guard against become some soft herb man-child. I also agree that its helpful if you always keep your dating market value up there, so that she always knows (without these stupid games) that other women would want to jump into her shoes. Hell, I agree with most of the stuff she posts.
But the repetition of this stuff, and the advice of avoiding a true connection with the gal in nearly universal circumstances (even in birth control discussions?), starts to reveal a pathology that is dysfunctional.
[ed: try not to focus on the condom narrative device. that was meant more as a joke to deliver the theme of the post, which is that when a girl is looking for signs of connection, you shouldn’t be the typical man by jumping all over it to demonstrate your undying devotion and loyalty. that’s what is meant by not chomping down on the beta bait.
iow, play it cool. that’s the alpha way. when enough time has passed and her love is strong, then demonstrations of romantic vulnerability are encouraged and even helpful to a relationship. but if you plan on routinely dating hot women then you need to be aware of how easily a woman of high caliber can slip away if you don’t make her work for your connection early and often.]
LikeLike
[ed: reread the post. i said “first few weeks” of dating the girl. if you’ve been with a girl for a few months, then yeah, you can go ahead and approach the relationship with more sentimental romantic candor. but she’s gotta earn that first, which means you have to be getting the sense that the shit tests and beta baits are diminishing in frequency. if the chick loves you, this positive change will start to happen around month three.]
Ya, I don’t know. Being domesticated is a graver risk than most men realize. I think it’s best to err on the side of feeding your inner tomcat. Even if only with words.
You want to keep her just on edge enough, and sometimes that means making her very, very on edge, and not backing down no matter if she starts throwing shit or threatening to leave or calling the cops or whatever the hell is it is she is trying to do to domesticate you.
She stays with you. You don’t stay with her.
It’s painful, and it sucks, but you can’t ever, ever, ever fully let your guard down.
Not even when you sleep.
LikeLike
I agree. Using the same level of game appropriate in the first 3 months later when the girl is in love with you, is just going to cause an unnecessarily tumultuous relationship.
Shit tests and beta bait are still there, but muted, and reciprocation of love becomes more important.
LikeLike
Sidewinder, he already corrected your misreading. I wonder if you honestly believe that stupid games are being played, or if an internal attitude is being expressed through the use of stories and anectodes and what if situations.
It’s the internal attitude that can be transmitted. This isn’t about a rule book.
I agree with you that meaningful connection is essential to a meaningful and enjoyable life.
I disagree that games are stupid.
LikeLike
“THE MYTH OF HETEROSEXUAL AIDS: A NINE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE OF FEAR AND (MOSTLY) LOATHING”
http://fumento.com/aids/pozaids.html
Makes some valid points.
LikeLike
Given the time-frame suggested, I don’t completely disagree with the post. I think my overall criticism would be that the situational examples start to resemble a rule book, and they imply that by conducting one’s outward behavior in the right way, you can become or at least resemble an alpha. This may be true for very good actors, but I think it misses the point: alphaness is an internal quality. An alpha can look into his girlfriend’s eyes and say the sappiest shit and he’s still alpha. And the opposite is also true: a beta can recite the correct answer with the perfect delivery and he’s still a beta in her eyes.
These posts place too much emphasis on the verbal, which is probably because blogs are verbal mediums, and this obscures the fact that alphaness is primarily non-verbal and status-based. Who you are, how you look, how you hold yourself and how you talk go much further in the girl’s evaluation of you than what you say. I don’t envy the editor’s difficult job of trying to explain non-verbal alphaness using a verbal medium. My only suggestion would be that instead of emphasizing verbal word-play with the gal, more guys would be better served by working out, eating right, intellectually challenging themselves…basically by improving themselves for its own-sake. And in fairness to the editor, he has suggested these things in prior posts.
LikeLike
Sidewinder, I can see you are trying to be balanced, and I understand your aversion to the rule book mentality.
However the fact that certain rules irk is the friction required to get you to think about the inner attitudes required.
Yes, it’s a major attitude shift for us men to proclaim that our cock has mysterious ways that the woman does not and will never control.
I know you personally would hate to have to hold even that attitude. You want to give up the mystery, in favor of communion.
Sorry, but I think that attitude is not strategic, and it doesn’t take into account as much reality as do other attitudes. Stupid, in other words.
LikeLike
You should write a post on SATC2.
LikeLike
that is an interesting articlle that roosh posted a link to. it seems that some pressure group or special interest is always making the case for this or that looming specter that threatens to do away with us all. and the powers that be are always receptive to using that message as a means of excercising more and more control over the populace.
whether it be AIDS or drugs; climate change or islamic terrorism; the story stays the same.
LikeLike
lzozlzlzllzozozzlzl
guys let gbfm sum it up
get da most pussy 4 the least amount of money time
dat is game
if you’re not teh first cock there chances are you won’
t be the alst and you don wann be the last.
pump dump move on lzozlzlz
lzozlzl
LikeLike
ps – i don’t really worry about AIDS. i wear a condom mostly to make sure i don’t knock up some chick and then to avoid herpes; you keep that shit for life, like luggage.
LikeLike
““THE MYTH OF HETEROSEXUAL AIDS: A NINE-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE OF FEAR AND (MOSTLY) LOATHING””
I think by the late 80s every sentient teen knew that straight AIDS was a crock of shit. When you don’t see any of your peers falling dead from it, you figure you’re being fed some crap.
LikeLike
“whether it be AIDS or drugs; climate change or islamic terrorism; the story stays the same.”
I wouldn’t put Islamic terrorism in the same category as AIDS and global warming; after all AIDS and the climate don’t write declarations of war on your ass.
LikeLike
that’s cause you haven’t realized yet that it’s all bullshit.
LikeLike
@ xsplat,
“I know you personally would hate to have to hold even that attitude. You want to give up the mystery, in favor of communion.”
This is not true. Here’s an excellent example that I am particularly proud of: my wife figured out that I had been looking at some internet porn. She sits me down to confront me with it, giving me this look like I had done something terrible that I need to apologize for. I didn’t say hardly anything other than “you need to back off” while maintaining unwavering eye contact and SHE was the one who left the room crying ashamed. And she has never mentioned it since.
I’m all for maintaining upper hand. But in LTR and marriage, you have to do it the direct way, not the evasive word-play way. I still do the verbal stuff with her, but its more half-serious joking than anything.
LikeLike
sidewinder
As opposed to?
Sorry, I’m missing whatever fine distinction you are trying to make.
If directness is your style, use directness. I know it’s mine.
My style is to use my finely honed inner searchlight to figure out what I truly feel. Then to keep using it and see the effects of what happened in the past whenever I expressed these feelings. And to say exactly what is true. In a CALCULATED way, in order to have the effect that I want.
Just don’t forget step two, is all.
The style of step two is up to you. Mine is playfulness and directness. As well as a few dozen other styles. All true, and true to myself.
LikeLike
Remember those big U shaped tubes that Loony Tunes characters could use to redirect bullets?
YOU: So, you know, these condoms really suck. We should think about experiencing the beauty and intimacy of skin on skin contact.
HER: I dunno… maybe. But if we do this I have to know you aren’t seeing other girls.
YOU: Actually, I was going to suggest we both get tested for STDs.
LikeLike
@Extra Stout
“As for HIV, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a straight guy
to catch it via heterosexual intercourse.
It just doesn’t happen, and there is no straight
male HIV epidemic.”
@Orignal JB
“The third world might be in for a serious
reduction in population as they do not wear
condoms, do not want to wear condoms and
will not wear condoms.”
And finally, the long but very informative
(copied from above) link:
http://fumento.com/aids/pozaids.html
Let’s inject some sanity here. Yes, it is
EXTREMELY unlikely that a man will contract
AIDS from a woman, even raw-dogging.
PROVIDED that he has no OTHER STD,
such as produces open sores. Even
active herpes can make the odds somewhat
worse than negligible. This is the reason
that AIDS spreads in the Third World,
lots of people have syphilis, chancroid
(ulcus molle) and other nasties, in themselves
not deadly assuming medical treatment,
but often left untreated.
A woman getting AIDS through vaginal
intercourse has somewhat non-negligible odds,
but even here the long odds are heavily influenced
by other circumstances. Does she
have open sores? (Hard to know for
sure with a female.) Has she been genitally
mutilated? (This is highly relevant, as she
may tear during intercourse.)
Or even – is she menstruating.
So that’s why the Third World is really different!
Seriously. Sad, maybe, but true.
Oh, as to
@Rollo Tomasi
“Are you really willing to put the trust of
controlling a birth that will tie you
to that woman for a lifetime in her hands? ”
If you are in a country where you do not normally
reside, you are pretty safe. (Beware of cross-border
agreements, particularly within the EU, however).
Especially if you make it KNOWN that you don’t
live in-country, a woman is much less likely to
try to pull a pregnancy-for-money, as she
probably realizes that it will be at best
(for her) very complicated to collect.
Xplat alludes to this by talking about passports.
Thor
LikeLike
“Succinctness is always better than loquaciousness. Informality always beats formality. Hints are preferable to straight answers. Is this patronizing to girls? It sure is, and they wouldn’t have it any other way.”
Damn straight. Goes right back to the post from the other day…
“It’s complicated.”
LikeLike
My rule is to always be available for other women, at least theoretically.
In the beginning, with an 8+, you always have to maintain the impression that you’re with her but could be with anyone.
This is key to winning her over.
The whole raw-dogging it issue is beside the point. The issue is to never give out that you’re OneItising her.
She needs to think that she’s winning a prize, capturing you from other women.
Everything you do has to reinforce this in the beginning.
Later on, just proceed as if this is the case, but don’t really let her forget it at any point.
LikeLike
Of course, the best way to make sure she thinks she’s won the prize is to have more than one woman.
More than one current or possible interest.
If you can get away with it.
LikeLike
Traps work best when the food _is_ aware of your danger, but somehow thinks that I have been tamed towards it (and only towards it).
There is nothing more useful than a food that thinks I am under its thrall. It will attract other foods to watch in cackling delight as I eat them. Eventually they grow too cocky and one has to digest them though, but it’s good while it lasts.
LikeLike
Also, Sidewinder, I think somewhere along the line you missed what is the whole purpose of these communications. I think you are seeing trees, and not the forest.
Some of us guys have been with a lot of women. There comes knowledge from that that is similar between men, regardless of our purposes and styles and intentions and personalities. One type of knowledge is an internalized sense of attitude – of me first. Another is a heightened sense of drama, timing, presence, humor – all aspects theater and emotional and intellectual manipulation. We learn to be calculated and precise in our movements and speech.
If you practice the craft of writing, you can’t escape your own style, and yet each effort builds upon previous efforts until your style seems effortless. My writing, for instance, is not “natural” at all. It is the interest that I can freely spend from the money in the bank that I’ve invested in terms of the effort I’ve put in in the past.
What game is is people who have investment experience trying to give the meta narrative through small examples.
I hope that made sense to you.
LikeLike
‘(I remember this one girl who used to say “take a picture, it’ll last longer” to just about every man she caught checking her out. I wonder what her line will be when she’s 35? “Take my picture, please”?)’
Pure gold.
Bully on illustrating too that in a relationship you actually need to bite on the Beta bait the odd times. Alpha behavior is attractive, but too much of it is phony looking.
LikeLike
True measure of alphaness …, getting a female to kill for you. Unless you can “inspire” this type of behavior (albeit: extreme), you’re just another nameless schmoe.
Fantasizing about people of the other sex killing for you seems a bit, uh, female. But I’ll play along.
No, the passing grade is to have a stable of 10s kill for you; knock at least one of them up; shoot her in the head while she’s pregnant with your kid yet runs off to marry someone else; get custody of the child born while she’s in a coma; and finally have two movies made about your later life.
LikeLike
“You can say required STD testing is major beta bait, perhaps.”
Beta bait? I was the one who insisted on STD testing with a girl. That she agreed to do it was one sign she didn’t have something to hide.
“Almost EVERY female will get HPV at SOME point.”
Apparently by the time a woman has had three sex partners, her odds of contracting HPV are above 75%. Four sex partners and it’s practically 100%.
HPV is incredibly easy to catch (condoms don’t work that well) and is untestable in men, so I have a hard time even calling it an “STD” in the sense that it’s something someone should disclose to their partner and take precautions for.
[ed: all right i took out the rubber part because so many commenters are missing the point of the post. i see i have to be clear as day around here.]
LikeLike
they STD info is good to have.
Not like any commenter can say anything about the point you’re making. You’re right, end of story.
LikeLike
H – “A girl who is giving you shit is a hell of a lot closer to sex with you than a girl who is indifferent to your existence.”
Profound, and, oh, how I wish I understood this when I was young. Shit tests were something I was totally clueless about back in the day; when I received ’em, I simply assumed the bitch was just being a bitch and ejected.
LikeLike
They like it when you lie. The truth hurts anyway.
LikeLike
Badger, HPV is not easy to catch if one simply avoids having sex with people who have it, or people who have sex with people who are likely to have it.
As I’ve said before, the who often matters more than the what.
For that reason, Editor, I think you should have left the rubbers part in. It’s more honest and more relevant since rawdogging is a privilege that a woman should have to earn. It means a guy trusts her enough to ride her bareback.
So guys shouldn’t see it as something one sided like he has to earn it from her. It’s a two way trust thing.
For wifely types, trust is a turn-on. There was an episode on _Seinfeld_ once about “spongeworthy”.
LikeLike
hey what you’re doing here is kinda like college and helping teh guys out teahcing tehm anbout life and unlike college and even better than coolege it teaches them the truth as opposed to teh bullchist lies that are used to anal rape tham in the fiat pyramid schammes of work, life, and marraige lzzlzlzlzlzl
thye need to establish men’s studies prormas and teach your blog acorss the land zlozlzlzlzlllzlzlz but teh university might not like it as the univeristy prefers hard core porn have you ever read a feminist studies book?> lzozlzllzlzlzl! omg the vagina monologues is rated xxx so the university and neocons might not like you and might ban your course for not being perverted and butthexy enough as you talk about love in a more classical sense like croquet or something lzozlzlllzzl
but many many many would take it you should see about offering ti online and letting university;s subscribe to it.
what would you call it?
The Truth about Womenz & Such 101
LikeLike
GreatBooksForMen writes with the fluency of a 12 year old autistic boy, but is still somehow jocular.
LikeLike
yah yah early on in life tehy saw i was special and put me in the class for the artistic children where we finger paineted all day lzozlzlzozl and then one day leaving the class i saw that tehy had misspelled “Artistic Pupils” as “Autistic Pupils.” lzozlzllzlzll! fucktard dummies!!!!
LikeLike
That sounds about right.
LikeLike
Basically you’re lying without lying. Still lying and you’ll pay for it one day. She simply doesn’t want to waste her time. A real man will respect that. A jerk like CR advocates the cunning (stupid) approach to just about everything. You only end up caught in your own trap thank God. She on the other hand she is asking for it but has no clue. In the end she will hopefully wise up whereas pua types are too stupid to ever wise up. Cunning is not wise…please!
LikeLike
If you’re NOT seeing another girl,congratulations,you’re a beta! If you ARE seeing another girl,and you lie about it,you’re a beta pussy,too! The only thing to say in this case is,” Yes,but I only fuck her…I male LOVE to you!!”
LikeLike
There does come a time when you need to come clean or outright lie. I’ve been in situation (with intelligent women) where it was just impossible to be misleading or to run on implication alone. You have to make firm statements and stick to them.
At that time, once you’ve established a relationship, cheating is off the menu unless you’ve got a remarkable girl.
But the trouble is the intertidal zone: Make a mistake there and you get nailed. It’s tricky to navigate it.
The best thing, I’ve found, is to approach the girl when you think you can and take hand: say, you need to establish what’s going on, and discuss it, and discuss it on your terms.
But only do this when you have to: you’ll be able to sense when it’s getting there.
Any girl worth her salt will approach you before you get a chance to do this, because it’ll be an issue for her.
And a hot girl (9-10) who’s sleeping with you more than a few times will start to wonder.
Managing this process is not really prone to pat answers or approaches; you need to be really subtle and careful about how you deal with each individual woman. Minor differences can spell major strategy requirements.
And sometimes, you just can’t manage it. You just need to be up front. And if you’re going to fool around, you just have to lie. And if you get caught, you might have to spin it or cut your losses.
LikeLike
thats MAKE love to you..heh heh heh
LikeLike
@The Rational Male
Lol what? The abstinence movement didn’t do this. It’s the kids who were suckled and fed on increasingly explicit sex education for the last 25 years. I don’t see religious types typically knowing the details of various STD transmission rates, about dental dams, “effective consent”, male psychology being demonized, and all the other PC horseshit witnessed in places like liberal college orientations.
Many people are paranoid about STDs precisely because the morality has been removed from sex, turning it into a weapon and the soulless fluid mechanics it’s become today. Those in the abstinence movement may be naive to a fault, but they’re not the ones with sex on the brain, hectoring people nonstop and turning sex into a politically paranoid random experience between near-strangers. That’s thanks to feminism. And maybe Ben Bernanke. 😉
LikeLike
@john
Freudian slip?
LikeLike
@john
“Make love”?
You’re not serious, are you?!?
LikeLike
we got a thiiiing that’s called male looooooooooove
LikeLike
He is so on target as usual.
Two recent observations about male-female interaction.
Know a middle age couple. Him, the last word in a beta male way. Nice guy, small, retiring, intelligent, educated, not wealthy. Her, about his size, more earthy and sensual and outgoing.
Learned that her first marriage was to a bad boy who beat her. He turned into a stalker for a while, and young from his lifestyle. Looks like she freaked out from that and went all the way the other way with her new husband. Not sure how many stops she had before and after the bad boy before she “settled.” Typical female behavior as so well explained by him. These are both educated people.
I went to an appliance store over the Memorial Day weekend. Big sale on expensive washers and driers. I was only there for about 20 minutes, but I saw at least four youngish couples seriously looking over those nice front loading washers with companion driers. Prices starting at $1200 for both. The female 1/2 was obviously the instigator in each case. Now, here is the question.
Is this a shit test, making a young husband buy her an expensive washer/drier (or whatever) in an economy where everybody is afraid the ax might fall on them next? Should an alpha husband simply say no, we can be just as clean at less than half the price? Is she trying to show off to her friends, showing them what a high priced whore she is?
Anyway, I left disgusted. I am still waiting for the repair man to come fix my drier for $140. Do the math.
LikeLike
Lesson learned today: AIDS is something that happens on fgts asses.
LikeLike
That Tom Leykis advice is pretty lame. he says to treat a date like a deposition and say as little as possible because anything you say can be held against you. he doesn’t seem to understand that there can be a positive value to words as long as they are the right ones.
LikeLike
People, check the body language of this kiddo-
Natural born super alpha. If that kid lives to 30, he’ll hit the ladies of Asia like the next Ghengis Khan.
[ed: G manifesto: the early years.]
LikeLike
positive proof that cigarettes make you look cool.
apparently lots of indonesian kids are smoking. they are obviously building a war machine of supermen to take over the world.
LikeLike
“Basically you’re lying without lying. Still lying and you’ll pay for it one day”
lolzlzlolzolzozl
oh wait, she’s a girl. For a moment I thought it was a deluded guy. But she’s a chick lying to us to protect the sisterhood.
I always thought speech in women is like nipples in man, a genetic leftover with no purpose at all.
LikeLike
“Bareback, baby? Only if your husband watches and cries.”
LikeLike
@Tinderbox
Lol what? The abstinence movement didn’t do this. It’s the kids who were suckled and fed on increasingly explicit sex education for the last 25 years.
Wrong target. Religious conservatives assume that Sex Education leads to Sexual Immorality.
Not at all: it’s the culture that did that. Sex ed has consistently been shown to lead to lower teen pregnancy, lower STD transmission rates, and healthier attitudes towards sex.
The problem is that most religions are obsessed to the point of distraction with controlling sex and access to sex.
Teenagers are going to get up to it.
Religion is incapable of self-analysis or rigorous intellectual consideration of issues made up of many variables.
Christian morality when it comes to sex was particularly perverse: There are few more extreme anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-sexuality philosophies around.
it was so bad, that when people realized that reproduction wasn’t the inevitable result, they abandoned repressively self-destructive Christian sexual morality voluntarily.
This is independent of anything else to do with religion.
There’s a way to embrace human sexuality and not repress it and still maintain a moral stance. It’s actually easier; morals are enforced by peer pressure and social codes, and religions require mass ignorance and “faith” to do the same thing.
Social conventions are much, much, much more stable and meaningful when they’re based on more than just fairy tales and mumbo-jumbo.
As soon as you realize that half of the fables in any religion are patently absurd and untrue, out goes the absurd morality. Intelligence is the enemy of religion.
So, these days, basing sex education on good ol’-world Christian sexual morality is a recipe for disaster.
It’s too late; we have science and knowledge and it’s impossible to regenerate mediaeval ignorance.
Attacking sex education gets nothing.
LikeLike
Did I miss something in the original post? I don’t see an ‘acceptable’ response to the original question…
LikeLike
Christian morality when it comes to sex was particularly perverse: There are few more extreme anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-sexuality philosophies around.
If you’re gonna write millions of words per thread like you have nothing else to do with your day, can you at least not sound like a 14 year old who just read Nietzsche cliff notes?
Christian morality, like pretty much any major religion’s morality, is geared toward procreative ends and is pro-sex within marriage. And traditionally people used to marry at about the age that kids today start fucking.
LikeLike
*chic noir swats PA’s bottom*
PA, play nice.
LikeLike
I remember a gf threw this question at me early in the relationship. I remember responding with a spirited defense of polygamy. She naturally huffed and puffed but was defeated in the debate. All went very well.
LikeLike
“”[ed: try not to focus on the condom narrative device. that was meant more as a joke to deliver the theme of the post, which is that when a girl is looking for signs of connection, you shouldn’t be the typical man by jumping all over it to demonstrate your undying devotion and loyalty. that’s what is meant by not chomping down on the beta bait.””
To review, the 3 components of attraction:
1) leader of men
2) pre-selected by women
3) protector of women and children
The shit test in this post deals with stoking #2.
By making the woman jealous, by appealing to her fears/dread, you will avoid the beta bait and pass that shit test.
I think there’s a tremendous “fear” among men that this question doesn’t sound like a shit test or beta bait.
But a deeper examination reveals that by caving into the woman with the response listed:
“”BETA: Nooo baby, I’m not dating anyone else. I wouldn’t even think of dating anyone else while I’m with you. I really like you. All I can think about is you. [Gentle shoulder grab and big, wet eyes.]
GIRL’S SUPEREGO: Oh, that’s good to hear. [GIRL’S ID: Tool.]””
The seed is planted in the woman’s head that the guy is bendable…then it sets up a dynamic where the woman will set up more tests to establish dominance in the relationship.
I’ve fallen into this trap too many times.
Sometimes I slip up or get lazy, or too tired to come up with some rejoinder.
Sometimes you have to calibrate on how to respond without sounding like a complete jerk.
But the point of the post is to understand how the power play shifts early in the relationship with seemingly “innocent” questions like this.
Scroll to 4:03
Diane: “Sam you’ve been with a lot of women….”
Sam becomes a whimpering beta…and fails this spectacularly….
LikeLike
@Gorbachev
“Christian morality when it comes to sex was particularly perverse: There are few more extreme anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-sexuality philosophies around.”
Well, maybe “few more”. But Islam takes the prize,
by a mile. Start with various forms of FMG. Male
sexual satisfaction is OK (IF you are one of the chosen,
remember polygamy drains the pool of nubile women).
Women’s sexuality is forcibly repressed.
But then, Islam was carefully optimized for survival,
totally well crafted – if you are desert tribe living
mainly on raiding caravans. This leads to very high
male mortality, thus polygyny is called for.
(Today, they raid ships instead, minor adjustment.)
LikeLike
Actually, they raid the “kuffar” West because they can’t produce anything for themselves then proclaim everything about it “haram” while they knock back Johnnie Walker Black and proclaim it is better to strive and fall short than to not strive at all.
LikeLike
@anonymous
“they knock back Johnnie Walker Black and proclaim it is better to strive and fall short than to not strive at all.”
Ay, there is the rub. “Moderate” Muslims are NOT
comparable to say moderate Christians, at least
not since the Enlightenment.
A moderate Christian is somebody who believes in
Jesus as the redeemer (without that, you are not
really a Chirstian at all). However, if moderate, you
don’t believe that every word in the Bible is the word
of God.
A “moderate” and JW-swilling Muslim generally believes
that the Koran is the word or God (as revealed to Mohammed) and, by training from very tender years,
believes that NOTHING in the Koran should be doubted
or questioned. That he guzzles JW just means that he
is not as OBSERVANT as he – in his heart – believes
he should be. Thus, it is usually easy to radicalize
even a “moderate” Muslim, he has the building blocks
built in and pre-programmed like in the movie “Telefon” .(sp?). There is a well undestood step-by-step process
for this.
A moderate Christian can of course in some cases be
radicalized, but it means starting from scratch, more
or less.
LikeLike
gorbachev
If you go by what they say, and how long they scream, yes. But if you withstand their fury for however long it takes em to realize that you refuse to be monogamous, most women won’t leave you for refusing monogamy. Not right away, at least. You should have a minimum of 3 to 6 months left before it’s more than she can handle and she is capable of prying herself out of your sphere. And you may have a lot longer if she’s playing around also.
And even if longer term stability is your goal, don’t expect the girl to just agree to what you want. You have to stand up in front of the hurricane fan for a while as she and her friends feed shit into it. She’s going to cry.
Don’t be fair. Eventually she may decide letting you fuck girls was her idea all along.
LikeLike
xsplat,
Your premise is that the woman who wants you to be monogamous is not way superior to all the other women you might be with. But if you can keep her, a 9 with a great personality who is completely into you is worth any number of 6’s and 7’s.
Gorbachev’s current issue is that the woman he is chasing is much hotter than anything else on the menu. It makes sense for him to cool it with the others until he has secured her; but he is operating in the top league now and he admits it will be difficult for him to avoid an explicit statement that he is not going to screw anyone else while he is with her.
Without losing hand, he can (assuming Wednesday works out for him) convey that she is the only one he is *currently* screwing. He already plans to mysteriously “resolve some things” which she will interpret as dumping other girls he has been dating although those girls may actually be left with the impression that no bridges have been burned. That frees him from scrutiny for a while, but he is worried about preserving his options. He is contemplating lying as the only way to fool around with other women while keeping PCG.
I say: Gorb, it’s too early to be looking ahead to this. You’ll ruin the frame. You can be 100% honest about your previous relationships right now, and honesty is very powerful. There are two ways to keep a girl properly worried about losing you, but in this case only one of them works because she eclipses the other girls so much.
That is, “you might not turn out to be good enough for me and I might have to look for someone better eventually” is the right way, and “right now there are other girls who appeal to me despite the fact that I am with you so you’d better keep on your toes” is the wrong way. See the subtle difference? The wrong way, you say she has already been found to be imperfectly enthralling, so she gets mad and kicks you to the curb; the right way, she knows you have found nothing wrong with her so far but still feels the need to keep qualifying herself to you.
With a girl who was less sure about her value relative to other girls, both methods of instilling insecurity might work, but when she knows damn well there is nobody currently in your orbit who will outshine her, she simply won’t believe she has to worry about a specific current rival. Her worry has got to be eventually losing your interest, not that she’s currently inadequate.
I’ve noticed that some high quality, non-slutty girls are much more likely to forgive interest in a girl you knew before you met her, and poisonously angry if you develop a liking for someone new. They only partially understand men: they know men differ from women in not naturally ceasing to find a partner attractive once someone better has come along, but they want to be so much more than enough for you that you would lose interest in new women, which is unrealistic but necessary for them to not feel inadequate. The corollary is if she knows she is hotter than any other girl you’ve had, she’ll expect exclusivity.
With a slutty girl you can stay noncommittal, expecting that she’ll stick around for the O’s, but that ain’t happening for you with PCG.
Fortunately, you can still be honest if you deflect slightly, viz.:
Girl: You’re not going to mess around with other girls, right?
You: I’m not interested in them, I’m interested in you. (Note shift to present tense, and use of specific “them”rather than generic “other girls”, to show that they exist and it will be your choice not to pursue them.)
Girl: But you won’t do it, right? Because it would be over for us then.
You: I have no intention of losing you. (True but irrelevant.)
Girl: So you won’t cheat?
You: Do I get to cheat if you cheat first? (Bat the grenade back her way.)
Girl (shocked): I would never do that!
You: All right, then. You won’t mind allowing me to cheat if you cheat first. (Follows from her previous statement — if premise will never occur, safe to draw any conclusion from it.)
Girl: I didn’t say that!
You: So I have to stay faithful even if you cheat? (Checkmate.)
Girl: If you cheat I’ll cut your balls off.
You: It’s a deal. (Technically you still haven’t promised not to cheat.)
LikeLike
Am I the only one that pictures greatbooksformen as a crazy genius in an insane asylum and every lolz is him foaming at the mouth while laughing?
LikeLike
Gorbachev:
It’s too late; we have science and knowledge and it’s impossible to regenerate mediaeval ignorance
gorbs, have you interacted with any, um, real people lately?
the sheer ignorance evident in this post, combined with the unnecessary pomp in your spelling – ‘mediaeval’? really dude? – show me (maybe that’s ‘shew’ me, in gorby world) that you don’t step much out of your personal box.
people are fucking stupid, gorbs.
shockingly, jarringly, scarily, heart-rendingly stupid.
stupid enough to make one shake one’s fist at the sky in impotent rage against the gods of dawkins’s mount improbable.
case in point:
* in the middle ages, people staunchly believed in mythology, christian and otherwise, for which there was no evidence — i.e., no evidence for, and no evidence against.
* in the modern age, people staunchly believe in mythology, pc and otherwise, for which there is READILY VISIBLE COUNTEREVIDENCE IN ALMOST ALL AREAS OF THE AVERAGE PERSON’S LIFE.
for instance, people actually believe that there is, or ever has been, ‘misogyny’ or ‘discrimination against women’.
now what were you saying again?
LikeLike
@johnny five
gorbs, have you interacted with any, um, real people lately?
the sheer ignorance evident in this post, combined with the unnecessary pomp in your spelling – ‘mediaeval’? really dude? – show me (maybe that’s ‘shew’ me, in gorby world) that you don’t step much out of your personal box.
Nice to know someone is paying attention. So I threw out a bit of bait.
people are fucking stupid, gorbs.
shockingly, jarringly, scarily, heart-rendingly stupid.
stupid enough to make one shake one’s fist at the sky in impotent rage against the gods of dawkins’s mount improbable.
I love this image.
* in the modern age, people staunchly believe in mythology, pc and otherwise, for which there is READILY VISIBLE COUNTEREVIDENCE IN ALMOST ALL AREAS OF THE AVERAGE PERSON’S LIFE.
for instance, people actually believe that there is, or ever has been, ‘misogyny’ or ‘discrimination against women’.
now what were you saying again?
Well, in all fairness, the ability to keep competing ideas in the mind even when they’re in conflict is a major aspect of human intelligence. Of course, so is cognitive dissonance.
As we get smarter, we ger better at fooling ourselves.
I’d just like to point out that religion is half the cause of the social collapse we’re experiencing today. Filled with pat answers, inflexible dogma, arbitrary morality based on ill-considered opinions, etc., … it’s caused as much of this social collapse as feminism.
The difference is that feminists should know better. We expect the ultra-religious to be stupid.
LikeLike
@Polymath
xsplat
Your premise is that the woman who wants you to be monogamous is not way superior to all the other women you might be with. But if you can keep her, a 9 with a great personality who is completely into you is worth any number of 6′s and 7′s.
This is the issue. How I could proceed with a 7 with whom I was just getting involved with casually and a 9 who is intrigued and into me but who could – honestly – pretty much get any guy she wanted ever anywhere without even trying, well, … the approach has to be different. While I’m trying to keep her qualifying herself, on some level, she has vast options.
Gorbachev’s current issue is that the woman he is chasing is much hotter than anything else on the menu.
Ever. It’s freakish. Really, I’m in constant shock and utterly out of my element. It may not seem like proper game frame, but any guy (who isn’t movie-star attractive) who doesn’t question himself is delusional or a true Alpha.
Elegant, smart, cultured, solid 9.
It makes sense for him to cool it with the others until he has secured her; but he is operating in the top league now and he admits it will be difficult for him to avoid an explicit statement that he is not going to screw anyone else while he is with her.
You got it: It will be impossible. I might have grace period; but as soon as it goes to a few overnights, I’ll be in relationship territory if she’s still into me and I’ll at least have to swear off other women. For sure. No debate on that with this girl.
While I have no fundamental problem with this, because I’m not an insane horndog, and monogamy is fine when it’s appropriate, … and I don’t want to have to lie, … it’s that I’ve got got to be decent to all concerned.
Management. I have to consider feelings.
That is, “you might not turn out to be good enough for me and I might have to look for someone better eventually” is the right way, and “right now there are other girls who appeal to me despite the fact that I am with you so you’d better keep on your toes” is the wrong way. See the subtle difference? The wrong way, you say she has already been found to be imperfectly enthralling, so she gets mad and kicks you to the curb; the right way, she knows you have found nothing wrong with her so far but still feels the need to keep qualifying herself to you.
I agree with this analysis in theory.
This will be my approach:
AFTER we’ve had sex, and are talking, I can be honest with her. I didn’t plan to meet you. While I don’t have a GF, there is a situation I wish to revolve properly because it’s the decent thing to do. You know, life is complicated, I didn’t expect to meet someone so smart and cultured, anyway (other girl) and I can’t just bolt. But you and I are special. Important, Etc. All true.
I’ve noticed that some high quality, non-slutty girls are much more likely to forgive interest in a girl you knew before you met her, and poisonously angry if you develop a liking for someone new… The corollary is if she knows she is hotter than any other girl you’ve had, she’ll expect exclusivity.
She’ll be there awfully fast. She’s not slutty and will expect any man with her to be giving her attention. The non-relationship grace period will be shorter than usual.
With a slutty girl you can stay noncommittal, expecting that she’ll stick around for the O’s,
This is the key for slutty girls; keep it fun, filled with Os like apples in an orchard, and change it up all the time. You end up with permanent partners as long as you want them. That’s easy to manage. Having more than one actually helps you to keep them all.
LikeLike
I’d just like to point out that religion is half the cause of the social collapse we’re experiencing today. Filled with pat answers, inflexible dogma, arbitrary morality based on ill-considered opinions, etc., … it’s caused as much of this social collapse as feminism.
your screeds against the church are, uh, peculiarly intense; they exude a very personal animus. have you had some particularly bad experiences with the church?
in any case, there are two things you’ve really got to realize here.
one, this statement is suffused with irony, as ‘civilization’ itself is inseparable from religion.
what makes alphas cooperate with, rather than exploit, betas?
what infuses impulsive people with future time orientation?
when men band together and fight for a cause that is greater than themselves, what is the cause that is greater than themselves?
what makes people work for the greater good, indeed even to believe in the very notion of the greater good in the first place?
whatever your answer to these questions, it WILL be a form of ‘religion’ based on ‘arbitrary morality’, whether one of the traditional religions or one of the secular religions. take your pick.
short version: the fact that essentially all of the world’s great architecture and music flows from religion is not a coincidence.
has religion caused some pretty bad shit? yes, of course it has.
religion is powerful. like almost all other forms of power, it can be used for good or for bad. therefore, not surprisingly, religion, throughout its long and storied history, has been used both for good and for bad. i’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
perhaps the most interesting part of this eruption, though, is your redundant phrase ‘arbitrary morality’, which seems to insinuate the existence of a non-arbitrary morality.
praytell sir, what morality is not arbitrary?
second, you seem to view ‘rationality’ and ‘justification’ as almost divine, and you despise ‘pat answers’.
news flash: people are not turing machines, with a fucking terahertz clock speed, who can suss out the far-reaching ramifications of all their actions. they need a framework that, even if founded upon ‘rational’ ‘justification’, is on its face dogmatic, so that they don’t have to contemplate every decision in their entire lives for hours chessmaster-style.
almost all decisions in everyone’s lives are made according to some sort of ‘inflexible dogma’ or ‘pat answer’.
tell me, gorbs:
do you think it’s wrong to kill random people if they look at you the wrong way?
do you think it’s wrong to steal things from people who have worked hard for them, because they’re shiny and you like them?
assuming the answers are ‘yes’, where do you think these mores originate?
hint: the answer is not a giant global-scale game of prisoner’s dilemma. rather, the answer is the big imaginary prison warden in the sky.
as for your pat-answer-free world, i’d like to introduce you to the world’s two most successful anti-religious leaders: (a) mao zedong, (b) josef stalin. nice track record there buddy.
third, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE REALLY STUPID, and can’t even grok abstract notions of ethics. again, you show your ignorance of … real people. in what rarefied enclave do you pass your days?
you know how six-year-olds need to be afraid of someone’s tangible anger to have ‘morals’?
replace six-year-olds with average people (who really aren’t that much more sophisticated than six-year-olds), and replace someone’s with some deity’s.
It may not seem like proper game frame, but any guy (who isn’t movie-star attractive) who doesn’t question himself is delusional or a true Alpha.
try ecstasy.
or sleep deprivation + stimulants. on 2 hours of sleep + ephedra overload every man is a caveman.
movie-star attractive gets you the audition, but not the part. flimsy excuse.
LikeLike
The difference is that feminists should know better.
bullshit.
most feminists are the female equivalent of high-iq pale male nerds who live in their basements.
remember:
BOTH
(a) disconnect from the real world, and
(b) specialization of knowledge, at the direct expense of breadth,
INCREASE with iq.
consider the aforementioned pale nerds. they probably know much about debugging unix systems, and perhaps about bilking free iphone apps, but they will almost certainly know LESS about EVERYTHING ELSE in the world.
less about relationships.
less about race reality.
less about how to fix cars.
less about how to fix broken friendships.
less about successful networking.
less about people who are not exactly like themselves.
the higher the iq, the less acquainted i would expect the person to be with the sordid realities of real reality, although granted they would probably be better at conceptualizing such realities in the abstract.
and feminists?
high iq pale nerd women, mostly too unattractive in both persona and physicality for real relationships (partly by design), who exist largely in the purposely cloistered world of academia?
they should ‘know better’?
sounds like you should know better.
dude, feminism is just the base female biological urge (obtain alpha seed when ready to breed, exploit the rest of the male population to the fullest) writ large.
feminism is absolutely nothing other than the primal nature of women, freed from the shackles imposed by
…
… wait for it …
…
religion.
LikeLike
@ johnny five and Gorbachev,
While you appear to disagree, I think both of you make insightful observations regarding religion and feminism. I disagree that feminism is base female primal behavior. In fact, I think it is highly unnatural and only possible due to the hyper-capitalist world we currently exist in, where human beings are completely alienated from their nature, and their place in the larger flow of nature. Modern christianity and feminism share much in common as they are both premised on humans (or their ‘souls’) as separate/alienated from the material processes of natural reality. To both of them, human behavior is dictated by either free will, socialization/social constructions, temptations of sin…external forces acting upon a genderless, free-floating soul.
But it is perfectly rational to expect an economic system that objectifies value as an external standard (money) to spin off ideologies that eventual strip humans of their nature to use as interchangeable parts in the larger economic system. It isn’t due to any conspiracy, its just the result of generations and generations of the refinement of the system due to the rational choices of the people caught within it.
LikeLike
@ Johnny Five:
great post. Smokem if ya gottem!
LikeLike
@ johnny five,
On your two points re religion:
1. I believe you are confusing cause and effect. Religion didn’t cause any of those things, but is rather a mirror of a particular society’s general ethics. As to the examples of middle ages architecture and music, this is a result of the institutions that financed the projects and how they relied upon their power. But I think my larger objection to your point is that you confuse social utility with intrinsic validity. What I mean by this is that while the masses may benefit from mental opium, and social order may be strengthened, that in no way supports the intrinsic worth of the irrational ideology. And Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the medieval church, islamists, are all apologists for irrational ideology. History has demonstrated it is an overall net loss on human civilization.
2. I agree that people must arrive upon a morality that is easily accessible in order to make quick choices in life. But that in no way necessitates an arbitrary “bible told me so” basis for one’s moral code. It is not difficult to understand the “golden rule” as rational social conduct without relying on it to have originated from Jesus or Buddha or what have you. And for one to have a non-arbitrary morality derived from reason, personal observation and experience is not difficult at all, and does not require one to think through every situation starting from scratch. Once one figures out that stealing is a poor choice in rational terms, he doesn’t have to rethink it over and over again. And whether based on reason or scripture, even the most bright line of moral codes is always breached. Take “thou shall not kill” for example and think about collateral deaths caused by bombings, or the death penalty and you end up making the same reason-based utilitarian arguments that the secular moralist makes.
LikeLike