A Girl’s Dilemma: The Appreciating Asset Boyfriend

A foreign girl [country of residence redacted to protect privacy], cute but not so pretty that she would elicit crippling approach anxiety from the average beta, writes the following:

Hi,

I’m writing to ask for advice – I’m sure you get this a lot, but I will be truly grateful for any form of response. I’ll be as succinct as I can.

I’m [early 20s], [non-American], and a very happy girlfriend of an alpha. I met him [a number of] years ago and it was pretty much love at first sight, he was not like all other men who seem like children compared to him. I’ve been chasing him for two years but he was always involved or interested in other girls. We were always good friends but even after I told him I loved him he said he didn’t see me that way, even though we had slept together a couple times.

But now we are together and I’ve never been happier. When I think about other men I’ve slept with I feel disgust and I didn’t like it (I thought I was one of those girls who just couldn’t enjoy sex) [ed: a lot of female “libido problems” would disappear if such women started fucking alphas. this is something the feminist and therapist lobbies will never tell you] and I somehow always ended up in charge. When my boyfriend is dominant, I feel like I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be.

He was always smart and very intelligent but lacked motivation. But since we started dating, he seems very focused on studying (we are in the same [graduate level] course), getting better [occupational field] qualifications (he’s even enrolled me for the same [credentials] he’s pursuing) and finding a high paying job. I can’t say I object, but I feel like I should be doing the same for him.

I gave up smoking to pay for gym equipment and membership (although he said he’ll pay for both, since it’s a gift to himself) and started putting more work into studying, but I feel like it’s not enough. He jokes that he loves me the way I am unless I gain weight, which I would never do. I try to engage in his hobbies (he occasionally likes [male-oriented hobby], which incidentally I do too). But is there anything else I can do to keep him pleased with me? Do you know if some gym classes (like yoga or pilates) are better for making girls more attractive quicker?

I attach a picture. I know my nose is quite big and my chin is too manly [ed: her nose is big, but her chin and jawline are not too manly], but I cannot afford plastic surgery and my boyfriend says I’m still too young to even think about it.

Anything you write will be very helpful, I really don’t want and can’t afford to lose him and go back to either being alone or dating boys or macho idiots.

I write to you because my friends are not objective – your writing is harsh, but usually right to the point without the sugarcoating. And, well, my girlfriends have no experience with men like my boyfriend.

Thank you in advance, I really hope you will find the time to help a girl become a better woman.

Best wishes,

[Anon]

Before I, or the more helpful commenters, can give you the answers you need, it’s important to understand the dynamics of your relationship with your alpha boyfriend. Having no personal experience with you or the way you and your boyfriend behave together, all we can go on is what you wrote in your email, and your attached photo. For instance, I have to assume your boyfriend really is the alpha you claim he is. And I have to assume you are as happy with him as you say you are. Without those assumptions, I can’t offer any advice that isn’t tainted in its premises, and therefore useless. Your honesty, then, is assumed for purposes of discussion.

Right off the bat, I will make a prediction that your relationship with him won’t last. I know it shakes you to the core to hear this, but your history with him leads me to this conclusion. I wish I could tell you otherwise, and I hope I’m wrong because you write like a sweet girl. And, no, my prediction has nothing to do with your looks (though if he is an alpha male with numerous options in the dating market, I should warn you that, despite your cuteness and slimness, your looks are probably not competitive enough with the sorts of girls he could conceivably attract).

The warning sign for impending relationship fracture is the two years you spent “chasing him” while he was banging other girls. This is the action of a man who is not wholly enamored of your feminine charms. It may seem a contradiction to you because you read this blog and know that it counsels men to reconstruct the seduction process so that the girl does the chasing, (and we can see how well it worked on you), but there are differences between game and genuine apathy. This boyfriend of yours likely falls in the latter category.

Now I’m going to tackle your other admission against interest: your boyfriend’s focused pursuit to raise his status since he began formally (i.e., exclusively) dating you.

When men get into comfortable relationships, what normally happens is a slackening of the masculine drive to excel. There is even scientific evidence for this; after marriage, men in a variety of occupations — science, math, business — experience a reduction in their productive output. The most parsimonious explanation for this phenomenon is that once a man has landed a woman and codified it with a marriage contract or a commitment to date exclusively, the fire in his belly slowly burns out because he no longer feels a compulsion to impress potential mates.

But in your relationship, your boyfriend has done the opposite; he has stepped up his striving for personal achievement and, consequently, higher male status. Should he succeed, he will be more attractive to more women with better looks. This is bad news for you, because… say it with me…

OPTIONS = INSTABILITY.

There are two main reasons why a man would suddenly become motivated to excellence after he starts dating a girl (and before they have had any children together).

Reason #1: He has shot out of his league.

That is, he is equal or lower value than the girl, and this subconscious recognition fills him with anxiety. He can’t believe he is dating such a prize female, so he works extra hard to keep her around.

Reason #2: He has settled.

Sometimes a man decides to settle for a girl who is less attractive than the kinds of girls he could get if he put a little effort into it. Men normally do this because they lack confidence, game, or energy to pursue higher quality prospects, or they have settled because the girl is a low maintenance rebound from a previously painful breakup. What then happens is that these men feel trapped in their less-than-ideal relationships, and become motivated to improve themselves so that they can leave the relationship without enduring too much celibate downtime between the comforts of the ex’s pussy and any future pussy. It’s the “monkey swinging from branch to branch” theory of relationship management.

My conclusion — and I really do hate bringing you this news, but I suspect it’s something you knew all along or you wouldn’t have written this blog in desperation seeking advice — is that your boyfriend falls into category #2, based on the information you have divulged about your history with him.

Your dilemma showcases the inherent tension in all male-female couplings: a woman’s sexual market value will nearly ALWAYS depreciate after her early 20s, while a man’s sexual market value can conceivably appreciate for DECADES more. This tension underlies the mechanics of almost every jot and tittle of our feelings when desire overcomes us. It is the poison pill slipped into the chalice of delight.

Since I fear your relationship with your boyfriend is doomed, I suggest you enjoy the remaining time you have with him to the fullest, but keep an eye out for replacement suitors. Don’t dismiss men out of hand because you “have a boyfriend”; think about practicing your dormant flirting skills, even if you don’t intend any interaction to lead anywhere.

If… IF… I am wrong about the dynamics of your relationship (and this possibility does exist), and your boyfriend does truly love you and want to be with you and only you for a long time, there are a few things you can do to reinforce his attraction for you.

1. Get a nose job. You’re not too young for rhinoplasty. I don’t know why your boyfriend is telling you that, unless it’s to make you feel better. You can easily boost your attractiveness rating by a half to a full point with a smaller nose.
2. Don’t ever gain weight. You’re doing well on that score.
3. Since you’re already slim, you can improve your body by toning it up. This means weightlifting. Hit the gym and do squats, presses, and triceps exercises. Don’t worry about “becoming too muscly”. That’s just an excuse fat and lazy girls use to avoid the weights. No woman becomes too big from weightlifting unless she takes steroids or works out seven days a week and eats like a pig.
4. All the girls I see going and coming from a local strength yoga class have the most beautifully righteous asses I have bore witness to on any women. I suggest you join a strength yoga class. The cause and effect may be backwards, but it’s worth the membership if there’s a chance you will achieve an ass like that.
5. Stop supplicating to your boyfriend. A lesson in basic human psychology is in order. The more you act like a sycophant — abiding his every trivial wish, excessively lavishing love and unearned praise on him, pretending to enjoy all his hobbies — the more he will begin to believe you are unworthy of his commitment, particularly since you do not bring incredible beauty to the table. You need an inner game correction. Make (small) demands of him, temper your flattery, have your own hobbies. Play a little hard-to-get. Be coy, not slavish. Be sexy, not slutty. Be feminine, not desperate. You may even want to flirt with other men and try to make your boyfriend jealous. Don’t overdo this, though. If he’s as alpha as you say he is, he’ll have no trouble upping the jealousy ante with his own flirtations.

Men who have good game will play hot-cold-hot-cold with women because it builds attraction. Men with experience know that playing a male version of hard-to-get is catnip to women’s sexual psyches. Women are especially vulnerable to this sort of seductive manipulation, because it is essentially a co-opting of their own devious courtship tactics.

Women naturally tease, feint and misdirect because it is in their nature to do so; such behavior helps screen the unflappable alpha males from the bewildered betas. Men do not naturally tease because all their screening is done within seconds of seeing a girl; her beauty, or lack of it, is comprehended instantly.

But once a woman falls in love, as you have done, she surrenders all possession of the faculties which served her well during the courtship dance. A woman in love is a woman stripped of all her armor; she is exposed. You are exposed. Your emotional nakedness prances around every word you write like a frantic sprite.

It is possible for a woman to keep a beta male slavishly devoted to her by pushing him away and pulling him back with enticements of sexual or emotional gratification. Ironically, the very success of such manipulation renders the beta male more unattractive, resulting in a self-defeating loop for the woman. You should not worry that pulling away from your boyfriend will make him unattractive, but you should worry that too much manipulation will drive him away. While male manipulation of this sort is highly effective on all women, the equivalent female manipulation is much less effective on the most desirable men, the alpha males. An alpha male will simply exercise his many options to secure replacement women should his current lover become too burdensome or wrapped up in gamesmanship.

However, the avoidance of sycophancy is not the same as cunning gamesmanship. I suggest you take a step away from your alpha boyfriend and give him mental room to appreciate your worth. Right now, from all appearances, you are suffocating him. Your actions are working against your interest. Check yourself.

*cracks knuckles, leans back with hands behind head* Where else will you find this valuable advice for free? You can thank me by emailing nudie pics of yourself. Please do not Americanize your facial expressions.

Read Full Post »

The Battle Of The Sexes, Abridged

Polygyny advantages alpha males and beta females.

Monogamy advantages beta males and alpha females.

Guess which system advantages civilization?

Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms — benefits the individual? The managerial globalists? The cognoelite? The lumpenproles? Figure out how each group benefits and you’ll know which system is ascendent, and which is actively and passively undermined.

Read Full Post »

Feminist Gets Pumped And Dumped By PUA

A masochistic reader (you’d have to be in love with your own pain to read any of the yeasty discharges fouling up Jizzabel) sent along this turgid confessional from a feminist who got banged out by a player four hours after they met for a first date drink. Her account of the date leaves the distinct impression that she was played by a guy who knows game very well. Let’s examine the techniques he employed to snare his prey.

I went on a date a month ago with a boy I met on an online dating site. “Met” meaning he’d sent me a few witty messages and his pictures were decent enough to warrant an IRL pass.

No long-winded phone calls making his interest in her obvious. Just a few witty (translated from the femspeak: terse/cocky/funny/asshole-ish) emails which implied his non-neediness and her interchangeability. So far, he’s off to a good start.

He was a strong conversationalist. We talked politics and he impressed me with a nuanced understanding of the debt ceiling debate. He knew about the Arab Spring.

How does the old saw go? Treat a lady like a broad and a broad like a lady. Mr. PUA knew he was dealing with the typical urban feminist slut who would swoon over a man who flattered her intelligence. So sprinkle in a few ledes he read in the NYBetaTimes about the Arab Spirng and , voila!, instant charma.

We discussed the unexpected but peculiarly gratifying direction our late 20s had taken both of us.

Again, translated from the femspeak: She was glad he assuaged her ego with comforting euphemisms about being an unmarried childless woman in her late 20s.

He made me laugh.

“He made me tingle.”

One drink turned into two,

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker!

two neighborhood bars into three,

This is the standard game tactic known as “bouncing”, or “time distortion”. By taking a girl to a number of places on a single night, you leave her with the impression that she’s known you longer than she has. It’s very effective at building comfort, as we will see.

and when he kissed me in the street, I was elated.

When a PUA gets a street kiss, that’s a green light to go for a same night lay. Women don’t make out in public places unless they are really into the thought of sex with you.

He wanted to see me again, he said. I agreed, the enthusiasm audible in my voice.

Audible enthusiasm is also a SNL green light. Also, note how he doesn’t set up a day and time to meet again. He just says he wants to see her again. Make your intentions known, but make them known vaguely, without promise, so that they could plausibly be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by women. Chicks dig ambiguity even more than they dig ambivalence.

As he walked me to the train, he asked me if I would come over for a nightcap. Just one. He offered to pay for a cab to take me home afterwards, as I had to work early.

Always escalate, until you have hit her limit. Push, push, push. It’s what women — even, maybe especially, feminists — secretly crave from men, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. There’s no worse feeling than having a pussy in the hand, only to see it disappear because you pulled back at the last moment out of some quaint deference to dating etiquette or mangina virtue. Or fear.

I — like many women I know — harbor a quiet but persistent internal voice that cries, “If you like him, don’t go!” The voice that says men don’t respect women who sleep with them too quickly. The voice that says despite the fact that you’re turned on, you’re a grown-ass adult and goddamn it you want to, as the female you should be the one to decline, to demur, to hold off for another night.

I’d never understood the reasoning behind that voice.

Silly feminist. The reasoning is simple, if you would free your mind of its stifling propaganda shackles. Men really do devalue women who put out too quickly. Sexual evolution has granted men the insight to recognize that slutty women are likely to continue being just as slutty after committing to them, and that is bad news for men who want to know their children are really theirs, and who want to avoid the divorce raping that inevitably follows when a wife pursues the feral eat, pray, love self-actualization life trajectory. Those pesky little feelings that swarm around your cortical ham, if you would stop drowning them out with femcunt agitprop, are early warning signals to behave in a more stereotypically feminine manner lest you harm your reproductive fitness.

I suspected I was internalizing cultural judgments about “easy” women.

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

The traditional refrain, “don’t buy the cow if you can get the milk for free,” which implies women should withhold sex to ensnare a partner, insulted me.

What’s a horny slut with daddy issues to do? Listen, lady, either embrace your sluttiness and stop kvetching to the cunty choir, or keep your legs closed. You can’t have your cock and keep it, too.

Years of dissecting dating mishaps with my friends taught me that if you want a relationship or even just the potential of one, it’s best to wait.

Betting is now open on how many cocks she has satisfied. We’ll start with 30.

In my mind, the waiting period was for no other reason but to increase the odds of a relationship. It was like dating lore passed on between friends. We don’t know why it works but it does.

It’s amazing that women have to relearn this common sense in their late 20s, after a decade or more of cock carouseling. Was there a wholesale abdication of parenting in the last two generations? A massively successful brainwashing campaign? Rhetorical.

Nevertheless, it’s best if women don’t start making men wait, because I was getting used to the easy peasy sex. Feminism has been very, very good indeed for men who want to play the field, and have the skills to do so. A return to patriarchal norms would really cramp my style.

But the way my date kissed me up against the brick wall outside the subway stop was enough to convince me my internal voice was an antiquated Debbie downer, squawking nonsense irrelevant for the modern woman.

Pushing a woman up against the wall to kiss her and grope her unleashes powerful, primitive, quasi-rape-y forces of submission within her. It’s one of my go-to moves.

I went to his house. We headed straight to the bedroom. Sex — intense, unexpected, rough and satisfying. Afterwards, as promised, he called me a cab.

By 3 a.m. I was home. And utterly freaked out.

I think it would bother women to know that men NEVER feel the urge to freak out after a one night stand. Not even the weepy beta males. Nope, slipping into sleep with a huge grin plastered on our faces is closer to what happens.

I hashed this over with multiple friends during the next few days. One suggested I just forget about the guy and be happy I’d had good sex.

The group Samantha.

Another brought up respect — if he wanted a real relationship with me, he would have proceeded with more respect for my body.

The group fatty.

I received a single lackluster text from him a few days later.

And that kid went ha haaaw! Who couldn’t see this coming? Apparently, her.

She should be thankful she got to experience a night of pleasure from a man who knows how much women crave being gamed. But women being what they are, (bless their overstimulated hearts), the fleeting waves of pleasure quickly gave way to self-absorption and tedious reinterpretation. The rationalizations that follow are some of the best frenetic hamster spinnings you will read in a long time.

Still distraught over the experience, I told [my mom] the bare-bones version of the story: I slept with someone four hours after meeting them and now I felt shitty and I couldn’t identify why.

I wanted to know what she — a world-experienced, non-judgmental woman — thought about sleeping with someone you’re interested in dating so soon? What she said was the best argument I have ever heard for waiting to have sex.

When you first meet someone, she said, you don’t actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them. […]

The mirage is sexy. But herein lies the danger. The potential for a schism to exist between the mirage and reality is huge. The probability of being disappointed is gigantic. That disappointment is compounded when intimacy is involved. You sleep with a stranger. You feel like you know them. But you likely don’t at all.

This may not be an epiphany for other people. But it was for me. After that night, I felt shitty not because I’d been “slutty,” whatever that means, but because I felt foolish.

I slept with an idea of a man. I slept with how that man made me feel. But that man didn’t exist, except in my mind. When I realized this, I felt… blah blah blah

Zzzz… zzz… *snort*… zz… huh, wha… oh, hai there. Must’ve dozed off. Wow, yeah, totally see what you’re saying. Totes. I bet you’ve learned a valuable lesson from all these experiences.

I’m still going out with guys and getting tipsy

Well, you know what I (sometimes) say… be true to yourself! Whatever that means.

Read Full Post »

How The Pill Will Change Your Game

In response to my request for information about the Pill and how it influences female mate choice, Chase Amante writes:

Hey brother,

Just browsing your blog and saw this. I’ve done some research on this before; have a very recent blog post up on it now, referencing a trio of studies on attraction and the pill (including one just published by the Royal Society on the 12th).

The post’s here:

http://www.girlschase.com/content/whats-best-way-pick-girls-get-ones-looking-you

If you want to head over to the abstracts yourself, they’re here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/10/rspb.2011.1647.abstract

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/3/203.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X05002564

Fascinating stuff when you dig into it.

Best,
Chase

So now we have our answer. Basically, what all these studies boil down to is the following: Women on the Pill are put in an artificial state of non-ovulation, which influences their mate choice selection criteria so that they prefer soft, herbly beta provider males throughout their entire monthly cycle and into perpetuity. In other words, women are being brainwashed by the Pill.

The studies are filled with data that support the obvious conclusions we can draw from the central thesis.

– When women in LTRs or marriages go off the pill they will suddenly find their beta boyfriends, whom they met while under the influence of the Pill, very unattractive, for reasons which they cannot articulate except in the loosest female terms like “we grew apart”, or “I just don’t feel it anymore”, or “he stopped being attentive to me”. Surprise divorcerape follows. Corollary: Men whose GFs or wives go off the Pill need to be EXTRA WARY of possible infidelity.

– Women who don’t take the Pill will be more receptive to same night lays with high value men (that is, men who display “social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness”) during the ovulatory week of their cycle. Game will help you identify these women and quickly lead them to sex.

– Committed women on the Pill will be less likely to cheat on their boyfriends.

– Committed women not on the Pill will be more likely to cheat during their fertility windows.

– Women not on the Pill will go out more to social venues when they are ovulating, driven by a mysterious vajlust to meet men.

– Women on the Pill tend to become Netflix kinds of girls.

– Women not on the Pill will flirt more with men during ovulation. Boyfriends of these women will jealously mate guard until the ovulatory threat has passed.

– Women on the Pill will be less receptive to cocky/asshole alpha game, if they are in committed relationships. But they may be more receptive to beta provider vulnerability game.

– Women in relationships with betas or lower value men will be more dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill. Women in relationships with alphas or higher status men will be less likely to be dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill.

– Average looking women not on the Pill will get a chance to experience the thrill of a jealous boyfriend when they are ovulating. Hot women will be with alphas who never get jealous. Ugly women will continue to be ignored.

– Women on the Pill will be more (sexually) appreciative of a beta’s resource investment. Women not on the Pill will be turned off by betas attempting to buy their love.

– A woman on the Pill will likely have longer relationships with the men she dates. This is probably because she will wind up dating betas who like to cuddle and look at baby pictures with her. A woman not on the Pill will have shorter relationships because she will date alpha cads who can’t be tied down for very long.

– Perhaps most interestingly, and a corollary to the above, a woman on the Pill when she met her partner, who then goes off the Pill, will be MORE likely to initiate a separation/divorce should one happen, even when the chance of a separation is lower for her than it is for a woman who met her partner while not on the Pill. What this means for men is that women on the Pill who then go off it while in an LTR won’t agitate for a break-up; instead, they’ll cuckold the poor beta bastards, resorting to dumping them only when they can’t take their supplication anymore. Women NOT on the Pill will simply choose to leave the relationship to hop aboard the cock carousel for another spin. So in one sense, at least, women who don’t take the Pill are more moral than women on the Pill, as the former would choose to end an asexual relationship or marriage over keeping it alive on a resuscitator and cuckolding on the sly.

So what does all this mean for men? How will it change the application of game?

– If you’re a niceguy beta with zero game, your best shot at sex is finding a girl on the Pill during the nonfertile phase of her monthly cycle who is single and owns at least two cats and two fat friends who constantly remind her by their presence how awful it is to be alone.

– The worst prospect for a niceguy beta is an ovulating hot chick not on the Pill who is just out of a relationship with man who became too beta for her. You may as well tuck your junk between your legs, because that is how seriously she will entertain your courtship attempt.

– As C. Amante mentioned in his post, hot ovulating chicks who are natural (sans Pill) will make pilgrimages to clubs, bars and Las Vegas to meet new men as if they were sex Meccas, and they will do so with or without a cluck of hens in tow. A hot chick alone in a bar on a weeknight is virtually guaranteed to be ovulating and hungry for cock. You want to target these spots for increased odds of quick, easy sex.

– It is impossible to efficiently sort out natural girls from Pill girls during the daytime, so day gamers will have to judge which girls are ovulating and horny according to other criteria. Subconsciously recognized odors may help. So will watching her body language for signs that betray unobstructed ovulation, such as hair twirling, leg crossing and uncrossing, heel dangling, and self-caressing.

– As Amante also noted, a chick who is really flirting with you during the day time is a virtual lock to be ovulating and off the Pill.

– If you think a girl is not on the Pill and is ovulating, you want to physically escalate sooner rather than later. Such a girl will become bored with a man who doesn’t make an early move on her.

– A girl on the Pill will be a breeze to talk with if you are a game-less beta, because she won’t bother with any of that messy flirting, teasing or shit testing that so vexes betas. Her non-ovulatory state ensures that she will be a pleasant chat partner who likes talking about puppies and food, and who thinks penises are icky.

– A girl who is not on the Pill and is ovulating will want sex fast, and she will want it hot, so she will shit test you hard in hopes of quickly uncovering whether you are an alpha worth fucking or a beta worth rejecting. If you talk about puppies with her, she will laugh in your face.

Maxim #20: The meaner a girl is with you, the likelier she wants to fuck you.

Corollary to maxim #20: The nicer a girl is with you, the likelier she thinks you’d make a great eunuch friend.

Things are really going to get interesting once there’s an oral contraceptive for men. Or is that, too, part of the masterplan to emasculate the Western male?

Read Full Post »

The Pill And Female Mate Preference

This blog has touched upon the effect that the birth control pill, now a fifty-year-old institution, has on women’s attraction mechanism. However, the studies examining the matter don’t seem to agree. I have read, (and experienced), contradictory evidence that supports both theses that women on the pill prefer niceguy betas or badboy alphas.

Does anyone have clear, updated information on this topic? It strikes me as one of major importance in any discussion about changes in Western female temperament, mating preference and even looks. Not to mention, the pill may cause changes in men who have to drink the water that is now polluted with estrogenic compounds. The subject deserves more rigorous science than it is currently getting. Naturally, it’s understandable why feminists would be loath to broach the subject, but that’s no excuse for the paucity of corroborating science by non-feminists, aka rational people.

UPDATE

JR writes:

I don’t know of any recent scientific studies, but you only have to think rationally in order to shed light on the topic. Unless the pill has in fact affected women’s biochemical processes, it stands to reason that they have reverted back to a more or less ‘pre-cultural’ preference for ‘alpha males’ of the crudest variety because the pill has freed them from considering the potential negative consequences of sexuality.

The female preference for alphas is basically a given, so the only question is: are there artificial forces preventing them from chasing them constantly?

This is a good point, and one that’s been discussed before. The pill exerts a psychological and a physiological effect on women. How much emphasis to give each effect is up for debate (though I tend to agree with JR that the psychological influence is just as strong as the physiological influence), but that there is an influence seems to me unassailable. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature without some kind of blowback.

Note that the psychological conditioning caused by the pill is not limited to just the pill; condoms and other forms of prophylactics would have the same mate choice conditioning effect as the pill, if not to the same degree. The difference with the pill is that it alone could seriously fuck with the physiological engine of female mate choice.

Read Full Post »

Niceguys Lose… Again

Proud-to-be-an-omega-male linked to two studies and wrote:

[These two studies are] a gift for Heartiste, both of which are just more science supporting what [is] stated countless times on this blog.

The first study, titled “Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype” provides evidence for the widely held observation that niceguys don’t get as much sex as badboys.

Proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that women often say they wish to date kind, sensitive men, but, in reality, still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. We investigated the relationship between men’s agreeableness, physical attractiveness, and their dating success across different relationship contexts. One hundred and ninety-one male college students completed a computerized questionnaire to assess their levels of agreeableness and aspects of their dating history. Twenty college-aged women rated the men’s photographs for attractiveness. Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.

The sexual appeal to women of disagreeableness in men comes up quite often in studies examining the topic of mating preferences, and the results are usually not feelgood pablum to warm the hearts of weepy romantics or righteous white knighters. The executive summary: chicks dig jerks. The god of the golden rule wept.

So you want to get laid? Try being less agreeable, less nice, and less accommodating. I bet your mom won’t teach you that, and I doubly bet you won’t hear that advice from any übercredentialed marriage counselor or couples therapist, shysters the lot of them.

The second study confirms more reality-based (aka anti-feminism) wisdom that niceguys are preferred by women for low-sex long-term relationships, but shunned for hot n’ sexy flings.

Many researchers have attempted to discover what types of men women consider most desirable for relationship partners. This study investigated university women’s (N = 165) perceptions of ”nice guys,” specifically whether women perceived nice guys to be more or less sexually successful than guys who are considered not nice. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used. The qualitative analysis was useful in understanding women’s differing interpretations of the nice guy label. More than one half of the women agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners. However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. As hypothesized, women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners were more likely to choose the nice guy as a dating partner. The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships.

You’ll note a couple of conclusions here. One, more than half of coed women (the hot ones in the age bracket we care about) agreed that niceguys have fewer sexual partners. This is bad news for niceguys, because female preselection is a powerful attractant that men can wield to entice women. If women think you don’t get any, you are more likely to not get any. It’s self-fulfilling.

Two, more than one half of women reported a preference for a niceguy over a badboy as a date. That means a little less than one half of women had no preference or PREFERRED A BADBOY for a date! That is an astounding number, if you think about it. The leverage the niceguys hold over women looking for LTRs is not as great as they like to think, nor is it equivalent in effectiveness to the leverage that badboys hold over women seeking sexytime.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the word “date”, as used by the women in this study, means “sexless date”. Women who placed less importance on sex — i.e., frigid ice queens — were more likely to asexually date a niceguy. So, yeah, niceguys are preferred for sexless dates that result in their wallets being considerably lighter and their dicks drier at the end of the night. If you are a niceguy, this news has GOT to make you feel like a sucker. A dupe. A fool. A chump. To paraphrase the memorable GBFM:

“Why would you pay more for less that guys before you got hotter, tighter, younger for free?”

Good question. Any takers?

The third study is a gift from me. You’ll have to get access to the full study to read some of the juicy tidbits within, which basically support the darker, more cynical CH hypothesis that badboys not only get more sex, but they get more chances to convert that sex into loving LTRs, should they so desire to go that route.

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? by McDaniel, 2005

So this study, the most recent one, tells us that women prefer badboys for short term *and* long term relationships. Man, those niceguys can’t catch a break! The theory is simple: If badboys are rounding the bases to home plate a lot more often and a lot quicker than niceguys, despite women’s opinions that niceguys make for better high commitment dating partners, then badboys are also getting more opportunities to escalate relationships into the long-term category. The fact that a lot of badboys choose not to convert short term flings into LTRs does NOT mean that the opportunity for them to do so is not available.

In other words, you need to get your dick in the pussy door before you can even begin to think about any one chick as a potential girlfriend or wife.

Now maybe the dating scene was different in the past. But we don’t live in the past. We live in the here and now, and that means doing what you need to do to get what you want. Are you adaptable?

None of this is to say that niceguys don’t have their place in the universe. After all, some women at some time must have desired niceguys, or they wouldn’t be around today. In fact, there may have been a fairytale moment in human history when genuine niceguys scored the majority of bangs and impregnated the majority of wombs. But the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (coming soon to theaters near you) shredded that (partially contrived) sexual compact, and the state of nature — aka the forager mentality — has reasserted itself, with consequences none can know, but based on prior results aren’t likely to be good if civilization is your thing.

The evidence in total is becoming clear. If it’s sex with cute, young chicks you want, then being a badboy, or learning to be a simulacra of a badboy, is your best avenue to success. If it’s LTRs you want, even then your best bet is to be a badboy, because fast sex opens doors to long term (and long germ, if you aren’t careful) possibilities.

But clearly women, and particularly women of more northerly latitudes, retain a vestige of love in their hearts for reliable, predictable niceguys as LTR fodder, and this is borne out in many studies; it’s scary to take a chance on a badboy who might leave you to the harsh winters to raise your kids alone. So ideally, as the master seducer you wish to become (or you wouldn’t be reading here), the pose to strike is one of charmingly aloof badboyness coupled with hints of undercurrents of loving, dependable niceguyness. Not too much more than a hint of an undercurrent, though. You don’t want to frighten the kitty; you want to entice the kitty with dangling strings.

With experience, you’ll be able to accurately gauge when you are pushing a woman away instead of drawing her closer. You’ll know when you are being too cocky and aloof, and you’ll adjust accordingly with a sappy story about your deceased labrador or your adorable niece whom you can’t stop doting upon. Similarly, you’ll know when you are being too cloying or treacly, and you’ll step back into laconic alphatude so that she may have the pleasure of resuming her chase of you.

An armored badboy attitude + a vulnerable niceguy underbelly = winning combination to unlock pussy for long term goals.

For short term goals, you don’t need to be much else besides a jerk.

Read Full Post »

Another Game-Validating Scientific Study: Make Decisions, Get Laid

It’s been said before on this blog that women are turned off by men who don’t take charge, and are particularly contemptuous of men who relegate the decision-making process to them. Women, contrary the bleatings of the feminism lobby, are more sexually attracted to men who remove some of the need for female independence.

Well, chalk up another scientific validation of a CH game concept: Women who make more decisions have less sex.

A new study published in the Journal of Sex reports that the more decisions a woman makes on her own, the less likely she is to have sex.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University arrived at these results after they surveyed women from six African countries about how intimate they were with their partners. They focused specifically on the last time these women had sex “as well as who had the final say on decisions ranging from healthcare to household purchases.” For women who answered that they were in control of such decisions, researchers found they had less sex and more time had passed since their last encounter.

The usual caveats about racial population group differences apply, but the general finding is, in my observation, applicable to women from all racial backgrounds. As women take control of more of the major decisions in a relationship (or in their lives in general), their ardor for their male partners (or for men in general) decreases.

Here’s the money quote:

Not only were these women having less sex, but “the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.”

To bring this closer to home, dominant and assertive Western white women probably have higher testosterone levels than normal women, so there is a good chance they are sluttier as well. It may therefore be the case that women who make a lot of decisions sleep around more. But does that necessarily translate into more sex for them than for women who are in more gender polarized, satisfying relationships with dominant men? No. Within relationships of a given matchup, it could very well be the case that less assertive (read: feminine) women have more sex with their dominant male lovers than more assertive women have with their indecisive beta male lovers. Assertive, dominant women — you know the type, lawyercunts to a T — when they aren’t lashing the whip upon the flayed backs of their beta provider suckups, are studiously avoiding having sex with them. These types of women get more emotional satisfaction out of nagging and berating and using their betaboys than they do out of fucking them.

(And what do the betaboys get out of these relationships? Well, they get a woman. Sort of.)

I think we’ve all scratched our heads and wondered why a particular domineering woman with a high-flying career had a schlubby, charmless milquetoast for a boyfriend or husband. You may rest easy as order is restored to the universe, because a lot of these odd pairings hide demented secrets of sexual aridity and pathological nagging. And now science has shed light on the phenomenon with evidence confirming conventional and PUA wisdom that dominating women really do have less sex than their sweetly submissive peers.

As the reader who emailed this study wrote:

“Has science EVER gone the other way on Game? [Ed: No.] Has msm EVER failed to spin even the most egregious bullshit about female psychology into a positive for women? [Ed: No.]

The advice for men: take decisions away from your woman, take the punch out of her dominant streaks, and you will be rewarded with 100 times more sex.”

You got it.

I’ll relate a pleasant little story from my own life. As my propensity in moments of self-amusement tends toward the satisfyingly manipulative, I have dabbled in the perverse arts of anti-game just to witness and enjoy the predictable reaction it induces from a girlfriend. So this one time, in band camp, my girl asked me what we should do for the evening, and instead of my usual tack of offering a couple suggestions (but not more!) and announcing with royal decree which one I would prefer and she should also prefer, (absent any severely allergic disagreement on her part), I hemmed and hawed and diplomatically dodged “I don’t know” and “What do *you* want to do?” and basically foisted the decision-making process entirely onto her. Priceless to the point of caricature, the expression on her face spoke a million words. And none of them flirty or sexual.

There are some primal forces of nature that were never meant to be meddled with.

Read Full Post »