Science Validates Game

Many housebroken betas and feminists (two sides of the same coin in some respects) ask me to prove game works. They want double blind, controlled experiments. I usually reply that such a thing is nearly impossible. Surveys will tell us nothing, as we have learned by now that women will often say things utterly at odds with what they wind up doing. And the complexity of women’s attraction triggers is an order of magnitude more complicated than men’s. Women only need to look good. Men need to do A through Z, in the right order at the right time, and with just the right cocky grin. “Proving” female game is therefore a much easier proposition than proving male game, which, if it were undertaken, would require placing probes in random vaginas and following around players and poseurs for hours as they work their magic, then having hidden cameras in bedrooms to capture on film if the deal was closed.

But all is not lost for the hardened skeptics. Science is slowly, inexorably, proving that the maxims and many precepts of game are true and real. It has proven the effectiveness of the neg, and now a new study is out validating the critical game concepts of “fake it till you make it” and alpha body language.

Body Posture Affects Confidence In Your Own Thoughts

Researchers found that people who were told to sit up straight were more likely to believe thoughts they wrote down while in that posture concerning whether they were qualified for a job.

On the other hand, those who were slumped over their desks were less likely to accept these written-down feelings about their own qualifications.

The results show how our body posture can affect not only what others think about us, but also how we think about ourselves, said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State University.

When you act like an alpha, you’ll begin to feel like an alpha and consistently behave like an alpha. When you mimic the behavior of the powerful, you yourself become powerful in reality. This is why body language is so important to picking up girls. Jettisoning bad body language and acquiring good body language begets self-confidence, and the two interact in a positively reinforcing biofeedback loop.

It doesn’t matter if your self-confidence is unjustified. All that matters is that you act confidently and think confidently, however irrational. Not only does the act of faking confidence eventually morph into real confidence, it also has the pleasant side effect of making women swoon.

Recall Poon Commandment XI:

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

Here’s an interesting result from the experiment:

[The study] suggests people’s thoughts are influenced by their posture, even though they don’t realize that is what’s happening.

“People assume their confidence is coming from their own thoughts. They don’t realize their posture is affecting how much they believe in what they’re thinking,” he said.

“If they did realize that, posture wouldn’t have such an effect.”

Can you consciously think your way into self-confidence? Yes, but Anthony Robbins tapes are probably not as effective as aping nonverbal alpha cues.

This research extends a 2003 study by Petty and Briñol which found similar results for head nodding. In that case, people had more confidence in thoughts they generated when they nodded their head up and down compared to when they shook their head from side to side.

You are not a special snowflake. You are a circuitboard of neurons, veins and chemical agents completely at the mercy of your material components acting in concert to keep you clueless about its essential goal. Soon, sooner than you think, you will degrade into your constituent parts and nothing you say or believe now will matter at all.

Game seems to engender predictable responses from the snowflake crowd. Bitter bitches and envious betaboys who want to keep you in your place will say “Oh but this isn’t natural! You can’t fake alphaness for long if it isn’t who you are.” But, in fact, you *can*, because the longer you fake it the more natural it becomes. With time, it won’t be fake at all.

Then they will say “Oh, but you’ll get called out once the mask slips. Your true colors will show.” Neither is this true. Hold the mask up long enough and like Jim Carrey’s movie character it fuses with your soul. But let’s assume for purposes of discussion that the anti-gamers are right about this point. Will it make any difference to men wanting to have more choice and fun with women? If the choice facing a beta is between no game and no sex, or game and three months of sex with hotter women until they clue in on his true nature, which choice do you think most men will take?

Finally, the doubters will cleave to their cherished pet theory that there are “naturals” and then there’s everyone else who shouldn’t even bother trying. But they miss the flaw in their thinking: Naturals also faked it till they made it. The difference between them and the competition they leave behind is that naturals began their journeys of faking it at a much earlier stage in life. Now, granted, their journeys likely began earlier because of genetic advantages they inherited at birth, but they didn’t sit on sofas waiting for pussy to fall in their laps. They chased, they pursued, they strutted, they mimicked, they boasted and they gamed until they got so good with women people started calling them naturals. And success with women breeds more success with women, until it doesn’t even look like they’re trying anymore.

Betas should take a page from the naturals’ playbook and fake it like a champ. Women will love them for it.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Some Men Bang Below Their Level?

Take a look at this picture:

This is Steve Phillips, 46 year old ESPN baseball analyst and former Mets GM, with his 22 year old mistress, a lowly production assistant he met on the job. The bitch mistress filed for a restraining order against Phillips the day *after* she left a taunting letter with his wife saying she (the bitch mistress) and Steve were meant to be together. Chutzpah, thy name is woman.

(Note that stalker behavior is more likely to occur when the status differential between the man and woman is significant. A woman will fall in love VERY quickly and effortlessly with an alpha who deigns to dump a fuck in her, while this same woman would need years to decide whether she loves the provider beta who dotes on her.)

Here is a photo of Phillips’ aged wife, Marni, mother of his four children:

After viewing the first picture with much disgust and confusion, most of you were probably asking “What the HELL was he doing with her?” And you’d be right to wonder. Phillips is a good-looking dude, high status, and presumably loaded. There are thousands of hot 22 year old women who would gladly smoke his pole.

The mistress looks like a fat dyke. I’d rate her a beer-fueled 2. The only thing she has going for her is her youth (24 year age difference between Phillips and her), which goes to show that even an ugly dyke-ish 22 year old can be more sexually appealing to men than their aged wrinkled wives. Although after looking at the pic of Marni Phillips for many minutes of close examination, I’d have to conclude that it’d be a close call deciding which one I’d fuck. I think I’d choose Marni. Her boobs give much love.

So why do some men with options choose to date, or cheat with, unattractive women below their level?

First, keep in mind that the reason we notice weirdo combinations like Phillips and his pig-faced mistress is because they are so rare. We notice that which defies expectation, and we ignore that which is the same old same old. 99% of men with Phillips’ status are either dating or cheating with much hotter women. So don’t get your hopes up, ladies.

Remember, too, that what you see is not always what you get when a good-looking man slums it with an ugly woman. Because a man’s dating market value is determined by so many more variables than those which can be observed by the naked eye, we cannot always assume that a good-looking guy is high status in the same way we can safely judge a good-looking girl is high status. (A woman’s social status is based almost completely on her looks.) That good-looking guy with the ugly girl may have crippling personality flaws, no money, no job, no charisma, no humor, no self-confidence, no ambition, or no game. He may also be too lazy or fearful to put in the extra effort to get a girl closer to his level.

But these unusual dating disparity exceptions do exist, and here are the reasons why I think some high status men will choose to lay with gross women:

• Variety is the spice of life. Sometimes a new, ugly pussy is more rewarding than another night of the same, slightly less-ugly pussy.
• Convenience. Many alphas won’t make the minimal effort required to meet hot chicks in the wild savannahs of their cities. The pigmalion intern you see every day who will drop to her knees instantly to suck you off can be, from a cost-benefit calculation, the better deal of the moment.
• Pure laziness. Some men think it’s undignified, degrading, or less than manly (ha!) to actively chase women. They prefer to have the ugly pussy fall in their laps. This rationalization by lazy men is known as “sour grapes”. Unfortunately for them, it’s actually more degrading to bang an ugly woman than it is to pursue hotter women, even when that pursuit leads to rejection. There is honor in the chase.
• Insecurity. A powerful man with deep-seated psychological issues who likes to be in control may opt for the ugly mistress he can easily dominate. A hotter mistress would require more tact and manipulative ministrations to keep in line, a tall order which could send him into a self-hating spiral of spite. Some men don’t like a challenge; they prefer a supplicative sex slave. These are the same kinds of men who solicit hookers. Also see: laziness.
• Hidden lack of self-confidence. He’s alpha on the outside, beta on the inside.
• Paper alpha. There are men who are alpha with other men, but graceless, befuddled pussies with women. It’s not many, but they do exist.
• Youth is its own quality. A man quickly grows bored of sex with an old wife. An ugly 22 year old will suddenly start to look a lot more appealing than even sex with a “beautiful for her age” older wife.
• Experimentation. Many unattractive girls will do things in bed that a wife or a better looking woman would never do. If a girl is willing to accept A2M and post gym workout teabagging, she will bump up the queue.
• Odd fetishes. There are guys who like to fuck sheep. Rare outliers are part of the wonderful tapestry of humanity.

Some of you will suggest that maybe the ugly mistress has a sparkling personality, and Phillips was drawn to that. No. When a man is an alpha, women all around him, including hot ones, will suddenly have sparkling personalities. Bitch shields drop as fast as panties with the right man. Compatibility and sparkling personalities can be easily spoofed when the proper incentives are in place.

None of what I listed above should provide succor to weak, lazy men who wish to dumpster dive and enjoy their buddies’ approval at the same time. Steve Phillips forever sullied his good name by hooking up with this beast. If you’re going to take a mistress, be sure to take one who brings honor to the title.

Read Full Post »

Women Want You To Cheat

Here’s a quote from a female commenter to an article about emotionally unavailable men that was posted over at one of those loser feminist sites that rhymes with Jizzabel:

This is me, I love my husband but every once in awhile I wish he weren’t so into me. I think I’m still emotionally unavailable but pretending not to be, because I know that deep down I do care about him, I’m just not really into caring yet.

The verdict is in: Women want men to cheat on them. Oh sure, they don’t *consciously* want their men to cheat, but unbeknownst to all but the most self aware women, their ginas tingle uncontrollably for men who can — and do — score some poon on the side.

Whenever a wife says she “cares about” her husband, you can bet her pussy has turned drier than Death Valley. Female “caring” is the anhedonic guilt blurt of the higher brain rationalizing the disgust of the hindbrain. This commenter’s marriage is doomed. Her husband is a romantic beta with visions of pedestals dancing in his head. He needs to pull back fast if there is any hope of avoiding divorce rape. Going to a hooker won’t cut it; the wifey needs to know her husband can win over women with his natural charms. Going to marriage counseling won’t cut it; tag teaming with a pseudoquack to berate her husband mercilessly while he sits there taking it like a dutiful herb schlub is no way to excite ginas. Doing more domestic chores won’t cut it; contrary to popular belief women aren’t aroused by men acting like women.

Here is my five point plan for saving faltering marriages:

1. Stop giving compliments, flattery, and gifts.
2. Come home from work late every night.
3. Buy yourself new, stylish clothes.
4. Cheat. If she asks, deny. No need to confess to the wife. She’ll be able to smell the competitor vaj juice on you.
5. After three months of executing the above four points, unexpectedly tell your wife her ass looks great.

I challenge any multiple credentialed psychotherapists to prove me wrong. My simple five point system based in a clearheaded understanding of male-female biosocial differences VERSUS the peer reviewed, academically accredited expertise practiced by the husband-shaming marriage counseling industry. Mano a mangino.

Care to bet whose solution saves more marriages?

Read Full Post »

Feminism As Sexual Selection Strategy

There is a theory in evolutionary science called the Social (or Machiavellian) Intelligence Hypothesis which suggests that our large brains evolved to help us become more socially, and hence reproductively, successful in increasingly complex societies. In other words, manipulation and mate choice go hand in hand.

I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. In essence, feminism is an advanced biocomputational Turing test; a giant social subcommunication roadblock devised and embraced by women and, at least in principle if not in practice, by alpha males intended to ensure the continuation of the hypergamous weeding out of lesser men who don’t possess the savvy to play by ever-shifting sexual market rules. Feminism is only superficially about female equality; at its core it is a ginanomicon of secrets to which only socially adroit men are privy.

Why feminism? Why now? In a word: Beta males acquired too much power. The ascendance of the beta male (and, not coincidentally, the rise of American power) through the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, exemplified by the common man seeing his income and standard of living rise and his opportunities for marriage with quality women rise in response, resulted, as is necessary in the zero sum sexual market, in a lessening of female market leverage to satisfactorily satiate their hypergamous impulse. As I wrote back in this post:

Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both. So sayeth human nature.

With more beta males in the ranks of the economically and socially empowered, and *relatively* fewer alpha males monopolizing the keys to a happy life, the expression of women’s natural hypergamous compulsion was partially thwarted. More men in the running for pussy means fewer men on the chopping block. Which in turn means a blurring of the distinctions between competing men that women rely on to make their mate choices. Women need those omega-beta-alpha male distinctions because they are programmed from cosmic conception to choose from amongst numerous suitors. Cramp their style, and women will find a workaround to indulge their style again. It is their pleasure and their punishment.

Given the endless appetite of women to date up (even though there is evidence that engorgement of this appetite makes them unhappier), this wide and deep Beta Ascendance was an evolutionarily unstable environment. New complex memes would naturally arise in reaction to assist in pushing the evolutionary envelope of what qualifies as an alpha male, and here feminism and its discontents, its counterintuitive criteria and amorphous edicts, entered the vacuum left by the absence of widely practiced hypergamy to serve as the newest iteration of female sexual selection strategy. And the winners were the alpha males who could mouth the right platitudes while practicing the dominant behavior that put the lie to those same platitudes.

During the saturation phase natural selection resulting from the costs of having large brains checks further increases in cognitive abilities.

Feminism as a meme has reached its saturation phase. Further filtering advantage for women is no longer possible, and in fact a shrinkage of the market position of men who embrace feminism is under way in earnest. Now that the era of feminism is winding down (despite its last gasp ineffectual thrashing to the contrary), what will be the next organically emergent sociosexual meme to separate the alpha wheat from the beta chaff? My nomination: Nonjudgmentalist Game.

We are entering the Era of Amoral Alpha Players. Remember ladies: You get what you give.

Read Full Post »

Go To Speed Dating Events Where The Women Rotate

Speed dating sucks, but if you’re set on attending speed dating events make sure you know beforehand that the women will be the ones rotating from table to table. Science explains to us why this is so:

The researchers found that the speed daters who approached their partners relative to those who stayed sitting would experience a greater romantic desire and chemistry toward their partners, and were more likely to respond “Yes, I would see this person again” to their partners. In other words, the people who rotated from person to person were less selective than those sitting, regardless of which gender was doing the rotating.

When men rotated, women (the ones sitting) were more selective. But when women did the rotating, men (the ones sitting) were more selective. Nothing else changed in the experiment, so it was the act of doing the approaching (or being approached) that helped determine a person’s selectivity toward their partner.

The researchers go on to tentatively, yet giddily, conclude that “gender norms” and “subtle institutional gender bias”, such as that exhibited at professional speed dating events where the procedure is to always have the men rotate, could account for why reams of past research has shown that women are more selective at dating.

“Although Western civilization has become increasingly egalitarian over the past century, certain social institutions remain gendered, some in subtle, almost invisible, ways. The present research identified powerful consequences of a particularly subtle gender bias: the near-universal tendency to have men rotate and women sit at heterosexual speed-dating events. […]

“Speed-dating scholars have appropriately adopted many procedures from professional speed-dating companies, so it is not surprising that this gendered norm [men rotating] has largely persisted, even for events organized and hosted by scholars. The present results, however, present a cautionary note: Even subtle gender norms can have important consequences for romantic dynamics.

Indeed, when researchers adopt a procedure without controlling for it, they risk missing a component of what they study. In this case, researchers just assumed that since men rotate in real-life, they should do so in speed-dating experiments. This may have skewed the results of past studies that used this speed-dating procedure, especially those that examined women’s “selectivity” — selectivity that may have been a result of the procedure itself, not the women.”

Maxim #81: Whenever you hear or read the words “gender”, “gendered”, “gendered norm”, “subtle gender bias”, or “increasingly egalitarian, yet there remains…” know that you are dealing with a leftwing equalist, blank-slate believing fruitcake who cannot deal with the fact that men and women are biologically different from birth.

So does the study really demonstrate that women are not as selective about dating as was previously believed by all of humanity for the past thousands of years? Eh, ya gotta read the disclaimers:

“What implications do the present findings have for the extensive literature demonstrating that women are more selective than men when choosing mates? On the one hand, this sex difference did not significantly reverse at events where women rotated, so on average there was at least an overall trend in the present data for men to experience greater romantic approach (i.e., to be less selective) than women.”

Answer: No. But thanks for playing!

I’ll explain what is going on here. One, the fruitcup researchers want desperately to cast doubt, however threadbare, on the burgeoning scientific and cultural acceptance of the important role played by biological determinism. They are emotionally invested in inflating and slanting the data to conform to their worldview. Scientists, particularly those in the soft girly sciences, are not immune from emotional bias. This is why I believe the time has come to shove it back in their faces and institute affirmative action and quotas in universities and social science departments to force them to hire academics with a realist bent. Diversity will be their strength, by force of law.

Two, while the reversed rotating speed dating study doesn’t do anything to overturn the extensive research showing that women are the more sexually selective sex, it does highlight an important concept of game that men should be aware of: namely, the principle of perceived higher value. Men who remain seated at speed dating events while the women bounce from man to man are essentially boosting their alpha male status. As any man who’s lived a day knows, when a girl approaches you either directly or indirectly (via a proximity indicator of interest) she will perceive you to have higher status than if she were the one being approached. The facts of your actual status are irrelevant. Perception is reality, so if certain body movements and positionings cause a girl to perceive you have higher status than her, she will be more open to a romantic tryst with you.

The researchers misjudged the rotating speed dating women’s universally shared desire for higher status males as lowered selectivity. The women weren’t being less selective; they were being just as selective as they always are, except now there were more higher status (i.e. seated) males for them to choose from. If anything, this study demonstrates that more men learning game will not result in women adopting stronger selection filters for men with only the tightest game. I have said before that more men running game is analogous to more women with beautiful faces — both will increase the total number of gina tingles and boners, respectively, at least until enough millennia have passed for new evolved preferences to emerge. Game, like beauty, exerts a power over the opposite sex too primal to be denied.

This principle of perceived higher value doesn’t work in the reverse: A woman’s value is almost entirely a function of her looks and the fact that she has a vagina, so there is little a woman can do, outside of makeup and good lighting, to alter a man’s perception of her beauty. Truly desperate ugly girls could slip a vision impairing drug into his drink, maybe a funhouse mirror drug that causes him to think she looks like Katy Perry.

Besides teaching men that they should refuse to get off their seat at speed dating events, this study helps confirm some other valuable body language power moves I’ve written about, like the forearm grab and the importance of keeping your back to the bar. I’d further suggest learning the “finger curl come hither”. Curl your finger and motion for her to come to you; the power dynamic will be all in your favor. As D likes to say, in an affected haughty French accent: “Zay come to ME!”

Women will often test men for their commitment to their repertoire of alpha power moves. How many times have you talked to a girl across a small distance in a loud room and she motioned for you to come closer to her? Beta bait. Alphas never bite; they respond “No, you come here.” Subtle, not so subtle? Douchey? Who cares, the shit works to light up a woman’s loins.

Read Full Post »

Science Proves Women Are Secret Sluts

I was recently invited to join the moderated Yahoo group “Evolutionary Psychology”. Curious, I moseyed on over to take a gander and found a link to this study which raised my testosterone-laden eyebrow:

Study reveals complexities of female arousal

September 21st, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Psychology & Psychiatry

Challenging the idea that women’s sexual motivations are tied exclusively to romantic emotions or reproduction, a new study by psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin found women’s sexual decisions are motivated by a shocking array of reasons that range from the mundane (“I was bored”) to a sense of adventure (“I wanted to know what it was like before getting married”), and from the altruistic (“I felt sorry for him”) to the borderline evil (“I wanted to give him a sexually transmitted disease”).

“Understanding why women have sex is extremely important, but rarely studied,” said David M. Buss, evolutionary psychology professor. “One thing that’s interesting about our study is that it goes against the stereotype that men desire sex for pleasure while women have sex only for love or commitment.”

Detailed in their new book “Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between),” Buss and Cindy M. Meston, clinical psychology professor, collected personal accounts from more than 1,000 women of diverse educational, ethnic and religious backgrounds on their reasons for having sex.

“We knew motivations for sex were more complex than what had previously been talked about in the literature—having a baby, love and physical pleasure,” Meston said. “But we were still astonished by the amazing diversity of sexual motivations—from curing a headache to feeling closer to God to getting their partners to take out the trash.”

Other findings:

• Thirty-one percent of women, at some point, purposely evoked jealousy in their sex partner, compared with only 17 percent of men.
• Eighty-four percent of wives, at some point, said they had sex out of a sense of duty, compared with 64 percent of husbands.
• Thirty-eight percent of women admit to “poaching” someone for a short-term fling.
• Fifty percent of women reported having sex to cure a migraine headache.
• Women, in general, are turned on by men with deep voices and symmetrical bodies.

Yes, women like to fuck. But there is a caveat. They only like to fuck men higher than them in status. Female hypergamy doesn’t disappear; it just acclimates to changing incentive structures. Tyler Durden was hitting upon a truth when he wrote about the existence of a matrix-like secret society. A small pool of alpha males really is hogging a disproportionate amount of vaj action when that vaj is at its most desirable. The fact that most betas eventually settle down with a road-worn, heart-stomped wife in their late 20s/early 30s doesn’t disprove the reality of the secret society.

Regarding the findings, is anyone surprised that women deliberately evoke more jealousy in their partners than do men in theirs? Chicks are natural drama whores. If they aren’t getting their drama fix their holes close up and become dry like sandpaper. The alpha male, with his beguiling aloofness, multiple partner juggling, unspoken ability to score new pussy on a whim, unpredictable outbursts of occasional anger, and steady stream of neg hits, is like a walking minstrel show to a girl. Snagging one as a boyfriend means the Shakespearean fun never ends!

I’ve written before that the men who are most successful at seducing women are the men who co-opt women’s tools of the trade. They steal women’s most powerful weapons and use them against her in the battlefield of mate choice. Seducing women as a woman seduces a man leaves her incapacitated, defenseless to your charms. They know not how to respond because they’ve encountered so few of your kind.

Eighty-four percent of wives, at some point, said they had sex out of a sense of duty, compared with 64 percent of husbands.

Audacious Epigone posted some General Social Survey data (reader beware: the GSS should be taken with a grain of salt on the subject of human sexuality and sex habits) purporting to show that married men have just as much sex as single men who aren’t losers with women. Note that if more wives than husbands are submitting to sex out of a sense of duty instead of a sense of lusty vigor, you can be sure that the sex lives of the single men are a hell of a lot more fun than the dreary two stroke tangos with dead fish that the married men stoically endure.

Thirty-eight percent of women admit to “poaching” someone for a short-term fling.

Preselection, yo. Experience with women compels a man to put his dog on a higher pedestal. Or his plasma TV.

Fifty percent of women reported having sex to cure a migraine headache.

Which is promptly restored from banging her noggin against the headboard.

Women, in general, are turned on by men with deep voices and symmetrical bodies.

If man was made in god’s image, was god symmetrical, or intriguingly idiosyncratic, like Lyle Lovett?

Read Full Post »

How Much Can Game Do?

Many detractors and doubters of the crimson arts, including but not limited to a rather peculiar yet endearingly patriotic and bracingly truthful subculture of HBD quant geeks, have tried to find and exploit fissures in the foundation of the Chateau by accusing yours in Christ of inflating the good that can be gained from game. They claim I overlook some very basic HBD (human biodiversity)-approved limitations imposed on men by immutable biological factors outside the reach of self-improvement efforts.

Oh, really?

What do they think I’m running here? An archipelago of pretty lies? It’s time to set the record straight about what exactly game can accomplish for the man who wants more choice in women. And what better way to do so than through the use of a handy chart?

If you are:                      then tight game will bring you this:
an omega dreg              an improvement from involuntary lifelong celibacy
to a couple bangs per year with 2s and under.

a lesser beta                a few bangs per year with non-obese 4s and 5s and
the freedom to delay marriage to a tubby plain jane
for a couple of years while still fruitfully playing the field.

a garden variety          an end to month-long dry spells, the exquisite pleasure
provider beta               of occasional sex with a girl above the threshold of
genuine attractiveness (7), and a fiscal windfall from
having gained the ability to bed women without
spending godawful sums of money on them.

a greater beta              double digit lifetime partners, one “8” girlfriend at least
ten years younger, and an ability to consistently get sex
by the third date and blowjobs on the regular. bonus:
you can reject cougars with impunity.

a lesser alpha              triple digit lifetime partners, one “9” short-term girlfriend,
one threesome, and one multiple concurrent relationship
with a 7 and an 8.

a natural alpha            300 lifetime partners (should you choose to accept this
mission), multiple threesomes and orgies, long term
unmarried loving relationships with 8s and above,
and the freedom to hit (deserving) women
without worrying they will leave you or call the police.

a super alpha               the world is your harem.

******

The dreg to super alpha continuum represents categories of men whose corresponding dating market value traits have been averaged for each group. For instance, a lesser beta could be a very short man with a middling income and dull personality, or a normal height unemployed man with no money and decent looks who has crippling approach anxiety and horrible fashion sense. Similarly, a lesser alpha could represent a tall man with good looks and above average income, but possessing some geeky personality quirk holding him back from reaching his full potential with women. An omega is a man whose product is unwanted by any buyer. Unlike the economic market, the sexual market is a zero sum game, so some unfortunate souls at the far left of the bell curve will be unable to find a buyer of their product. In fact, omegas will have to pay for the privilege of dumping their wretched products on the market.

As I’ve written before, what men like in women is simple. In descending order of importance, here are the female attractiveness traits that men desire in women:

Beauty.
Femininity.
Sexual eagerness.

In descending order of importance, here are the male attractiveness traits that women desire in men:

Psychosocial dominance (game).
High status/fame.
Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
Wealth.
Good looks/height/muscularity.
Cleverness/smarts.
Dependability/reliability.
Sexual prowess.

A man along the alpha-beta-omega axis will exhibit the above traits in varying degrees of magnitude. The more of each attractiveness trait a man possesses, especially of those traits at the top of the pyramid that most attract women, the greater in intensity, amount, and quality of female attention he will fetch. A super alpha is a man who has maxed out in each category of attractiveness. An omega is a man who possesses little to none of these traits. A typical beta provider is likely a man who is low in the top four traits, average in looks and smarts, high in dependability, and low in sexual prowess.

Using girlish and pretentiously wonky Will Wilkinson as an example, he would score thusly:

Psychosocial dominance: Not enough information. He could very well be an alpha in his dealings with girlfriends.
High status/fame: High. He has fame within his tardlike liberdroid circle of equalist boilerplaters. Every male endeavor (except video gaming) has female groupies.
Personality: Average. He loses points for feminine demeanor and unmanly vocal skills, but gains points for passion.
Wealth: Assuming his income status is solidly SWPL, he’d be at the high end of this category.
Looks: Average. Feeble muscularity counterbalanced by boy band/art fag face.
Cleverness: High. He should thank his libertarian god for blessing him with a high (but uselessly applied) IQ.
Dependability: Not enough information. But he has the face of a sneaky fucker, and he’s still unmarried in his 30s (which I approve of), so I’m going with low.
Sexual prowess: Not enough information (thank god). Could be a limp noodle, could be a tantric dynamo.

If very low = 1, low = 3, average = 5, high = 7, very high = 9, and godlike = 10, and weighting toward the top four character traits, we can calculate a rough sexual market value score for Will Wilkinson:

7.1

Will Wilkinson is a greater beta.

Attracts girls in the 6-8 range, doesn’t need to turn off lights to enjoy sex, once got a BJ in an alley, his half-Asian girlfriend will cry if he proposes to her, has accumulated 5-15 partners (plus one very pretty boy).

If Wilkinson scores high on psychosocial dominance and sexual prowess, he would bump up to a lesser alpha. Rarefied company indeed, Will! As it stands, his ineffectual bloviating about relationship exactness and complementarity to the contrary notwithstanding, Will perfectly obeyed the biomechanical law of the sexual market and cashed in his market value chips for a cute, slender chick who ranks about a 7.5 on the female dating market value scale (10 being Monica Bellucci in her prime).

Of course, Wilkinson, like most purveyors of palatable lies, does not believe in game, or even in the primacy of the sexual market (his type are liable to sneer “reductionist!” whenever confronted with the reality of humanity’s base animal nature and their enslavement to it). Why, if only the entire left hand side of the male curve would just get a grad degree and an enlightened attitude toward women, they too could enjoy the fruits of cute half-Asian girls!

The great majority of men are not genetically capable of getting grad school degrees, but they are capable of learning some rudimentary game. Concepts like negs, social proof, qualfication, compliance, and body language. And in the winner-take-all seduction sweepstakes, all else equal, an uneducated man wielding tight game will beat a game-eschewing educated man waving a diploma 99 times out of 100. Bet on it.

Again, using the example of Will Wilkinson I outlined above, we can roughly deduce what a man of his market value — greater beta — can accomplish with knowledge of game and assiduous application of it in the field. If Will is willing to shed his preconceptions and start reading up on all the free seduction material now available on the internet, plus find himself a mentor who could correct him when he fucks up in set, he could enjoy a lifestyle that includes dating and fucking girls even younger and cuter than his current girlfriend, and put off marriage indefinitely for the same benefits found within long term loving relationships with girls who, because they are so enamored of him, won’t pressure him for an expensive princess wedding.

Game is not a skeleton key that will open every locked pussy. It, like most human improvement projects, has its limitations; a 5′ 2″ ugly, dull, 60 year old factory line worker living in a rancid basement hovel is not going to go from celibacy to boffing supermodels no matter how advanced his game. But game’s limitations are much farther out than most men realize. That ugly, short, boring old guy won’t bang supermodels with game, but he will discover a world of fuckathon fun among 45 year old divorcees of mediocre attractiveness.

As game, or in weightier parlance, psychosocial dominance, sits at the pinnacle of male character traits that women find attractive, a man will get more bang for his social investment buck by learning game than he would by working hard at improving himself on more conventional metrics such as career advancement, wealth generation, educational attainment, or material acquisition. He should do all those things to the best of his ability, of course, but if he could only choose one path to pussy, I would counsel him to learn the science of seduction. A grad school degree requires an additional 6-7 years of commitment after high school plus crushing debt; career advancement requires years of kissing ass and working late; wealth generation requires a lifetime of prudent financial management; material acquisitions require hard-earned money and their effectiveness at attracting and keeping pussy is questionable.

But game, the beautiful drama, needs only six months to one year of study and practical application before a man will reap the rewards of tingly ginas. When you are running game, you are saying powerful things, you are behaving powerfully. And when you behave powerfully, you really are powerful. Game is power. And it all rests on one very simple, very true, premise:

Women are mostly the same in what they find attractive in men.

And the male trait they love the most? Dominance.

Weep unfathomable tears of bitterness, equalist shits. Weep ’em good.

Read Full Post »