Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for 2012

Reader Aureo wants to know if this conversation he had with a girl he likes has cleared or obstructed the path to sex with her.

I want to bang this girl [ed: don’t we all!], but she just got a boyfriend so the antislut shields are up. Yet I know she likes me, so it’s only a matter of good logistics.

I once forgot her name and called her something else, and since then, every time we see each other, we make up a different (and normally dramatic) name, and laugh.

This is a conversation we just had, in which she subtly shoved me off:

Me: Danielle Marie Delacroix! (fake names we say)
Her: Mr. Alexander von Luparius the Third!
Me: *long weird name*
Her: Yeah, but you can call me Diane (her real name) ^^
Me: I don’t like that name that much ^^
H: ¬¬ i suppose we must do something about it, they dont call me “hard fists” for anything!
M: Ill beat you up like no one has!
H: haha I was just telling you mi nickname, as a curious fact.. haha
M: ok ok, I thought you were threatening me, still our issue remains.
H: we can talk it, we can spare some lives, some broken bones and stuff.
M: not to mention a few destroyed building and a public riot. Anyway, how do you like to be called?
H: haha elementary my dear Watson: Diane, and you? how do you like to be called?
M: so I lived deceived ALL this time?
H: yeah, all this time, but yes, sorry cowboy
M: It’ll be time to make up names for another person, then.
H: do you remember how all this came up?
M: yeah, I called you Valerie or something.
H: yes
M: so?
H: so nothing
M: so nothing what

then the conversation died.
how did I do?

You didn’t specify, but I’ll assume this was a face-to-face, three dimensional conversation you had with the girl, rather than email or text. So we’ll proceed from that premise.

First, I like the fake name game. That’s a great way to reframe a social faux pas like forgetting a girl’s name, and it incorporates a pared-down form of role-playing which is catnip to girls.

Second, your flirtation skills are very good. You know how to keep a convo rolling with light, witty banter. But all light all witty banter soon makes Jack an unsexy, entertainment monkey. Flirty talk is like starring in a sitcom: you gotta shoot for going out on top, otherwise all anyone will remember about you is your crappy last couple of seasons where you spent your episodes trying too hard to recapture your old glory.

Do you know where you blew it? Right after she asked “how do you like to be called?”, and you replied by continuing along the playful path you were already skipping happily down. Her personal question about your name (a major IOI from a girl, don’t forget) was your cue to get real with her for a minute. Girls love flirting, but they love it even more when a man knows how and when to segue from innocuous flirting to charged sexual energy. Had you dropped the jokes and your smile, replaced them with a steady gaze and serious expression, you would have stood a better chance at moving your conversation onto more fertile ground.

A lot of guys make your mistake; they get excited when they see the positive reaction and laughs that their playfulness elicits in a girl, and they do as men do — if some playfulness is good, then more must be better! But girls don’t think like men. Girls love unpredictability, they love being kept on their toes, and so they love a man who can turn on a dime from cocky to sexual tension.

Always keep the end goal in mind when you are flirting with a girl. Your end goal is not the elicitation of fleeting laughs or light forearm touches. It is penis in vagina. PRIMORDIAL PENIS IN COSMIC VAGINA. Never forget that. Temper your pride and your excitement at managing to keep a girl interested in a conversation with you; that giddy excitement will obscure the path to your ultimate goal by diverting you from the sequence of moves you must make, as the man, to seduce a woman into bed.

The next time you are playfully engaging a girl you want to screw, I want you to ask yourself “Is my penis in this girl’s vagina? No? Then there is more work to be done. More need to lead. No rest for the turgid.” Flirt on, flirt off, young Danielson.

Read Full Post »

How often have you heard feminists bitch and moan about the responsibility that women must bear for using birth control? You’d think the womb whiners would be happy that a male Pill was tested and found effective, ready to market. But, no. That would be thinking rationally, and feminists are allergic to reason and logic. Here’s a video of a Brazilian endocrinologist who recalls the time he was at a conference discussing the male Pill when a gaggle of feminists led by the ugly Betty Friedan (his words, accurate nevertheless) shouted him down with chants of “No male pill!”.

So why would feminists be against a male Pill? According to the doc, their answer is that they don’t want the decision to have a child or not taken away from women. In other words, they believe that men having decision-making power over their own reproduction is tantamount to taking that reproductive power away from women. The male Pill, in a twisted feminist’s mind, is akin to outlawing abortion or the female Pill.

I’ve said it before, but it always bears repeating because the message isn’t getting out fast and far enough: feminists don’t give a rat’s ass about “equality” or phantoms of inequality; all they care about is power. Feminism is a power grab, plain and simple. It is war by politics, its artillery ideological zeal and the veneer of intellectual sophistry. Feminists want the ability and unanswerable freedom to have a kid or not have a kid completely at their own whim, regardless of the man’s feelings on the matter and with no concern for his opinion or his presupposed legal rights. A male Pill robs women of the option to ensnare men in gotcha pregnancies, and that is a dilution of female power that feminists just won’t tolerate.

The motivating impulse of feminists, besides the ugliness of its fiercest advocates, is hatred for male sexuality. Feminists loathe male desire. Their envy of men’s relative sexual freedom, men’s libidinous vitality, and men’s broader psychological landscape manifests as an abhorrence of the peculiar characteristics that distinguish the male sex, in drive and personality, from the female sex. Feminists routinely lie in service to their hatred, a hatred which is unquenchable.

Feminine women are not like this. Feminine women love men for who they are, love to bathe in the energy of male sexuality, and love the innate advantages that men bring to the division of love and labor between the sexes. Feminine women are not feminist women. It’s good to remind the good women of that truth, and to beat the soulless ugly machine feminists, male feminists included, over the head with that same truth.

Read Full Post »

This post, where I speculated, based on nothing more than my personal, clear-eyed observations, that conservatives and liberals have a “look” which I, and most people, can identify with a quick glance, spurred plenty of discussion, most of it taking me to the shed for lack of scientific rigor. Liberals seemed greatly displeased that I insinuated the male of their kind seems always on the verge of bursting into tears. (Note I also said that liberals look smarter than conservatives. But the implication of their weakness hit home a little harder than the flattery of their intelligence.)

As if on cue, here’s a study that basically proves my contention, jot and tittle.

Here we found that individuals’ political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats.

Game. Set. Snatch.

Some of you may ask, “What is it like, oh Lord and Savior of Powerful Malehood, to be burdened so heavily with objective rightness?”

I tell you now, it is a burden I would not place on my worst enemy, for the sweet thrust of psychologically impaling my haters is one I want to savor all to myself. Thou shalt not interrupt the Master when He is mid-Holy Skullfuck.

The coda to the study higlights an often overlooked (understandably, if you are a blank slater) aspect of human nature.

These data suggest that perceivers’ beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others’ political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.

In other words, pattern recognition is a valuable aid to anyone navigating the chaos of the real world, their denials they engage in such nefarious human-like activity to the contrary notwithstanding.

Read Full Post »

Reader Ramon asks:

So I’m chatting with my current stripper of the quarter and I ask her, “why do chicks dig jerks?”. Her take: “they grow out of it”.

Background On this girl – 28, divorcee, cock carousel until 24, fun but with interesting phobias. I’d call her a 6-7.

What’s your take on her comment?

I actually do think that girls “grow out” of digging jerks. Unfortunately for the niceguys of the world, that growth doesn’t occur until the late 20s for the typical woman, and later than that for very pretty (highly estrogenic) or very delusional (also highly estrogenic) women. So while women may grow out of digging jerks, men don’t “grow into” digging cougars. The niceguy, as always, is left with second-best (or one-thousandth worst).

Also, it’s important to define what we mean by “grow out of”. The definition is fluid depending on the options available to the woman who is claiming to be over jerks. A 28 year old, rode hard and tossed away wet, neurotic divorcée stripper — a chick who has likely opened her wormhole to a fleet of interstellar assholes — is going to have been so psychologically drill-pressed by her history of disappointments trying to nail down jerks for long term commitment that she may very well begin to gravitate to the sensitive ministrations of relatively doting men.

But then it won’t take more than a few weeks with a niceguy to remind her how much she viscerally desires the wrong kind of man.

So, what I’m getting at is this: a woman who has “grown out of” dating jerks is a woman who is too old, too crazy or grown too fat to appeal to the unruly jerks who truly excite her. Her limited options dictate her claimed preferences. Which is another way of saying she’s settling for niceguys. That’s an explanation of the thinking process of your aging stripper. Now, this is not the whole story; I suspect that age-related decreasing estrogen levels, coupled with a subconscious reappraisal of SMV caused by failure to either capture the attention of sexy jerks or to keep them around for very long, WILL objectively alter a woman’s dating preferences to some degree. Women do have two competing mating algorithms clashing for dominance within their psyches: the desire for fun sexytime and the desire for comforting providertime. When she is young and at her desirable prime, her sexytime id holds more of her cortical territory. When she is older and beginning to fade into sexual obsolescence, her providertime id battles back and claims victories, hoisting its banner of sour grapes.

tp;dc (too precise, didn’t comprehend): The hottest chicks dig the biggest jerks. Less attractive chicks dig jerks too, but can’t get them, so they pretend they don’t like them. Older women will be easier for niceguys to pick up. A minority of cute, young chicks genuinely adore niceguys, but there are too few of them to go around to satisfy the innumerable niceguy demand for them.

PS Beware the stripper who says she’s over assholes. You will be tempted to throw her a compliment or a cuddle, thinking she has illuminated the way to her poosay. You will be rebuffed. Your working assumption should be that any chick who claims to be over jerks is not over them at all, and has probably dated more jerks than girls who admit they like jerks.

***

Anon pleads (probably too late):

Prom season is approaching. Any related game advice for the younger crowd? I know high school isn’t representative of the “real” dating/hookup scene, but there are similarities. Any tips?

Smile mischievously, and pin the corsage directly over her boob. Not kidding. Worked for me. If corsages are out, have two flutes and a bottle of champagne waiting for her in your car (or the limo, if the driver is down with underage drinking). Dance with another girl, and make sure your date sees it. Smoke outside, come back in reeking of it. Keep a flask of bourbon and a condom in your jacket pocket, and be sure the outline of the condom shows through. And, as always, remember that this is the time of life when girls’ asses will never be tighter; take post-coital pictures for a masturbation photo album when you are elderly! God, I love good, old-fashioned American traditions.

***

Rhett wonders:

I was wondering if a girl says she loves you way too early , would this be considered beta bait? I haven’t spent much time with this chick, i banged her the first night i met her and twice since discounting sex iv only spent about ten hours with her.

Not necessarily. Read her face when she says it. You should be able to tell the difference between a sincere expulsion of loving tribute to your alphaness and an insincere shit test. However, do note that EVEN IF her “I love you” is sincere, it could still serve as a subconscious shit test for her, in that if you answer “I love you too” right back, you could unknowingly give her way too much hand so soon in your new relationship. Since you’ve only spent ten hours with her, I suggest a cocky reply is in order. Make a finger gun and wink at her while saying “Right back atcha.” Gauge her response. Does she giggle? You nailed it. Does she seem on the verge of tears? Wrap her up in a hug and tell her you love spending time with her, and you can’t wait to see where it leads.

***

B. writes:

Have you seen the new HBO show ‘Girls’?  Writtten by a young woman who is also the star, the series starts with a young woman’s life bottoming out:

1. Parents cut off her income
2. Loses her internship at a publishing house
3. Boyfriend loves her too much

I’m serious.  To describe the nightmare situation for a young woman today, she shows a girl whose boyfriend never stops being nice to her.  And her friend even makes fun of her for it.

Thanks for making my life better,
B.

No, I haven’t seen it, but I may have to, since it’s been the talk of the town lately, and besides, there have been claims that the chick writer(s?) has cribbed a lot of ideas off of Le Chateau Heartiste. Hence, the supposed realism of the show. I’ll save an analysis for a future post.

***

Customer Service writes about a game tactic which involves pretending to be your ex-girlfriend to make prospects jealous and, hence, horny for your deviant love:

I moved back in with my parents and I started lying about my living situation because too many vaginas sealed up.

I started telling girls that I lived with my ex girlfriend and couldn’t move out because she was still in love with me.  Ergo sex at the girls’ places.  Bingo. Proceed.

However, I need a way to keep my leads warm so I tried this exchange on two cold girls [where I] pretend my ex gf finds my phone.

… out of the blue, after regular texting game …

me:  “hey, how do we know each other”

… silence or no response …

me: 2 mins later, “where did we meet”

… by this point the girls start to clue in that it’s not me on the other end and they’ll reply with something short ….

me:  “this is Tim’s ex girlfriend, i want you to know that I am still in love with him, stay away from him, he doesn’t love you”

… the one girl I used this line on responded by saying OK…

me: (to both girls) “did you sleep with him?”

… I didn’t bang these girls, one responded with a smiley face and the other cold lead said, “he’s your ex now, so relax”,  NOT ONE GIRL DENIED SEX.

What do you think of this game tactic?  I haven’t decided how to follow up with this scenario.

Wow. All’s I gotta say is, this is gold, Jerry! That is, it’s gold for finding out how manipulative and devious girls can be when their jealousy is incited by a bit of the ol’ ultrapreselection. I assume, since you didn’t mention it, that you hadn’t slept with these two girls you were texting while impersonating your ex-gf; therefore, the fact that neither one denied make-believe sex with you says two things about the female id:

1. they love the idea of being the “other woman”, and

2. they are DTF.

Chicks come born with a preinstalled harem mentality which can be triggered the moment they realize they are in the company of a man who keeps the company of multiple women. The typical woman is psychologically equipped to transition into concubinage with an alpha male if her buttons are pushed in the right order. Your “impersonating ex-gf” game tactic appears to have done that. It’s a total mindfuck, and for that, I award you:

Le Chateau Heartiste VIP (Very Important Player) entry to the Scarlet Room. (Bring cat-o’-nine tails.)

But how about your game tactic as a means of getting closer to sex with your prey? It’s gets a little trickier here, because you’ll have to be careful about slipping up and tipping your hand. But you’ve got valuable inside info on your two prospects; the image of having sex with you has been self-planted in their heads, and you come to them a proven commodity: the man whose ex-gf is so crazy jealous in love with him she stalks his phone for interlopers. To put it bluntly, you come pre-DHVed.

I suggest the next time you want to meet either of them, ignore what went down when you were stealing the identity of your fake ex-gf and proceed as if everything is normal. Wait for them to bring it up. When they do, say something like “Yeah, my ex is nuts. Thinks we’re still gonna get back together. Gotta put a lock on my phone.”

PS I wouldn’t say you can’t move out because your ex is still in love with you. That doesn’t sound plausible. Explain instead that you and your ex split the rent and it makes sense financially for you to live together for a little while longer, until you’re sure she has her life in order and can afford her own place. This fake explanation has the added benefit of hitting that “protector of loved ones” button that all girls possess.

Read Full Post »

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Read Full Post »

Traditionalists, anti-gamers and the usual assortment of sour grapers who want to believe men who are successful at bedding women aren’t winners in the social status or self-indulgence sweepstakes, often resort to the argument that having kids makes a man alpha. This “It’s not the number of bangs, it’s the creating of womb issues” theory is very comforting to a certain mindset.

Helpful reminder: before the age of aquarius contraception, a beta male achieving one bang in his lifetime had a decent shot at impregnating a woman. There aren’t many men, or women, who would argue that managing to have sex once in his life qualifies a man for alphatude, regardless whether the act results in a baby or a blank.

The alpha male of yore — before effective condoms and the pill were widely available — may have been distinguishable by his large brood, but today that signal no longer applies. Today’s alpha male can, and does, easily thwart his genetic programming to make lots of minialphas through the use of such anti-fertilization show-stoppers.

Therefore, the best signal now for how alpha a man is remains what was outlined in this post. The definition contained therein may offend your socratic sensibilities, but great truths often distill as tautologies.

Interestingly, men of the lower classes, because they are prone to forego or misuse contraceptives as befits their constricted time horizons, can more readily be categorized as beta or alpha based on how many children they sire with roaming single moms. In the upper classes, the opposite reality endures; the alpha male is often the one who puts off having children so that he may enjoy his youth chasing skirt, contraceptively freed from the consequences that would otherwise gestate should he direct his amore toward dumber, poorer women who don’t possess the conscientiousness or common sense to swallow a pill on a regular basis.

This is, really, the great advantage that boffing smart chicks offers to men: worry-free sex. Sparkling conversation is just icing on the cake.

Read Full Post »

How do you respond to a girl you have had sex with who now claims to have a boyfriend and wants to break it off with you? Readers happily offered many excellent suggestions to the fumbled game demonstrated in this post. A few stand-outs follow.

From reader Khall Drogo:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”

Me: “Guilty as charged”

Her: “And we’re not fucking again blablabla”

Me: “ok”

She’d be dripping wet and would beg for my cock until the day I die.

This is my favorite. I love the “guilty as charged” line. Why? Because it simultaneously passes her shit test (by not appearing apologetic or spiteful), and refrains from forcing any renewed sexual rapport that will re-trigger her anti-slut defense. “ok” is a good answer, but I prefer “right”, as it leaves more pellets in the hamster cage for the little critter to feast upon.

***

Flahute:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
Me: “You were irresistible”

Similar to the above, this instills the girl with positive feelings without ingratiation that could risk pushing her away. The trick to giving girls good feelings is to not make it seem like you’re just saying them to get back into their panties. Limiting yourself to three-word replies is a great way to restrict your range of potentially self-incriminating betatude.

***

Holden Caulfield channeling GBFM:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
GBFM: “that’s cuz u likes my lotsa cockas lolzlolzlozlolzzzzz”
Her: “Giggle”.

Haters: Don’t try this at home – The GBFM is a legend.

Maybe you’d have to be GBFM to pull this off, but it’s still better than anything a beta might spit out. Let’s look at what’s right about this reply:

Cocky? Check
Assumes the sale? Check.
Aloof and indifferent syntax? Check. The pussy is… bernankified.

***

Days of Broken Arrows:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
(10 hours later) Me: “My dog* died.”

* Substitute a family member, if necessary.

I call this “sympathy game,” and have found it’s the quickest way to de-bitch a potentially raging bitch. It switches off their bitch defenses and makes them Florence Nightingale. You can also substitute illness, as needed, just make it a good one, not the flu.

Sympathy game is a variant of vulnerability game. It’s incredibly effective, but easily abused. Too much sympathy game can kill a tingle dead. Beta males are known for leaning too heavily on sympathy game, and alpha males too little. Like Baby Bear’s porridge, you gotta get it just right.

Sympathy game delivers its biggest payload when the girl doesn’t expect it. Imagine you are a girl who has just (presumably) destroyed a man’s hopes with the IHAB excuse. You expect he will reply with some cloying request to meet again, or some spiteful put-down. Instead, he lobs the “my dog died” grenade right twixt your labia. That’s the kind of unpredictability that girls swoon for in men. It’s important to remember that the nurture instinct, while anhedonic in nature, is almost as strong in women as the hypergamy instinct. You should leverage both to your advantage.

***

chi-town explains the direction the text exchange *should* have taken, rather than the one it did:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Its informative about her need to be defensive but costly information to retrieve. The wrong conversation all together. The attitude should have been :

Her: “we are not doing that again text”
Him: “What?”
Her: “Fucking”
Him: “Oh that. What about it? ”
Her: “you and I are not fucking”.
Him: “Just that or is this a good bye?”
Her: “What do you think is going to happen?”
Him: “Upon reflection, I am certain I was not thinking ahead”

etc….

Sex is not on your mind and neither was she entirely. When it was, it wan’t about the sex….Women are along for the ride…Women are the ones who bring up sex while you change the subject. You don’t care about the outcome etc..

Her:

* why wasn’t the sex on his mind?
* wait, maybe he sees something deeper because he implies something else? But still..

Women have a subconscious mental algorithm which sole purpose is to assume that men are always angling for sex with them. Now, this algorithm serves them well because, in fact, most men *are* angling for sex with them, if the women are attractive. You can use this knee-jerk, sex-supposition female reflex against them to incredible effect: the man who does not follow the script playing out in a woman’s head is automatically more intriguing than 99% of the men she encounters in her life. This means not biting down on her “beta bait” by, for instance, asking for answers why more fucking isn’t forthcoming, or insinuating more fucking is on the table. Doing the opposite — acting like the sex wasn’t foremost on your mind, and she’s making a mountain out of a molehill — will ensure the conversation remains centered around your frame, and steadily pushing against her barricaded ego.

“The defensive couch is where pussy tingles are born. Squirt!”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: