My First Experience With A 10

One time in South Beach I wandered into one of the art deco hotels and found myself surrounded by models. It was 1AM and I was drunk so it seemed like a good idea to roam the halls of a random hotel and crash any parties in progress. Every other room door was open and filled with beautiful people smoking pot, lounging on bean bags, and languidly caressing each other. There were hippie beaded doors and silk see-through fabrics substituting for real doors from which billowing clouds of pot smoke would emanate. The whole place gave the impression of walking through an interactive diorama of set pieces featuring the genetically perfect in their native habitat doing what they do best — snorting hedonism like an eight ball.

Passing by one of the rooms a girl shouted out at me to come in and join them. “Hey you, whatever your name is, don’t be shy!” I was barely out of college and had no game for this type of situation so all I could do was nod at the group and feel my pupils dilate to maximum aperture to take in the breathtakingly beautiful women. An occasional 9 or 10 walking down the street is a rare treat and can knock a guy right out of his daily humdrum stupor, but a roomful of 9s and 10s in seductive half-naked poses, doing that thing where you’re high and laughing without any noise coming out of your mouth, and gesturing for you to come closer where you take in their natural aromas, will make you catatonic. I tried hard to ignore the male models scuffling around the room in their underwear and felt relieved that the purity of my heterosexuality was not challenged by their six sigma good looks.

I sat on the purple shag rug next to one of the girls, a waifish brunette with olive skin and Mila Kunis lips. Her body and face couldn’t have been crafted any better by a master sculptor. I admired her flat stomach under her half-shirt dangling like an awning off her boobs.

“Where are you from?”
“Nowhere.” (I was very angsty back then.)
“Well, Mr. Nowhere, spark it up! You look tense.”
She handed me a spliff. I coughed on my first drag.
“I should warn you, it’s strong leaf.”
Suddenly, she leaned over and planted her lips on mine. The sensations overwhelmed me. I felt like I was having an out of body experience. We kissed for a few seconds. She pulled back and laughed as she slapped the back of her hand against her forehead.
“Hey dude, beer’s on the balcony.” One of the male models was talking to me.
I looked over and saw that my new love had her hand on his knee and he was chuckling. I stood up and went to the balcony. There was no beer in the cooler. Looking around, I saw that no one was paying me attention anymore. I left to find my friend.

That night was a glimpse into another world, a secret society of blessed people who are above 99.999999% of humanity, flouting every known convention and not giving a fuck. I fondly remember my first kiss with a 10 better than I do my actual first kiss. Enjoying the pleasure of a truly stunning woman is an experience like no other on this earth. Mediocre women — even attractive 8s — don’t provide the same profound depth of stimulation. I don’t know how so many men can get it up for ugly women.

In the age old question of quantity versus quality a balance must be struck. The super alphas will cycle through a rotation of the hottest women. Everyone else must compromise in some way. Variety in itself is a turn-on, but steady sex from one exceptionally beautiful woman is more rewarding than new sex with a plethora of plain janes.

Beautiful women are worth holding out for. By “holding out” I mean “saving your commitment”. One night of sex with a 10 is equal to ten years of sex with fifty 6s.

Tomorrow I will discuss the quantity vs quality pussy issue in more detail.

Read Full Post »

You deserve a 10

I’m sure some scoffed when I gave that advice to men, but it turns out I was right! To increase the likelihood of a happy relationship men should be with women who are more attractive than themselves.

Women seeking a lifelong mate might do well to choose the guy a notch below them in the looks category. New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.

The mysteries of the herb factor solved.

The study involved asking couples a personal question and evaluating how supportive each partner was of the other. Couples were rated separately for hotness of looks.

Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses’ issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.

“A negative husband would’ve said, ‘This is your problem, you deal with it,'” McNulty said, “versus ‘Hey, I’m here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'”

A group of trained “coders” rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. About a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.

If my wife was getting fat I wouldn’t tell her it’s her problem. I’d be on her flabby ass like Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. I’m supportive like that.

Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking.

Men — bat out of your league. Not only will you be happier, but so will she.

In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.

I’ve seen this in real life. My good-looking buddies who slum it with borderline chicks treat their girls like shit. This proves it’s practically a moral imperative to sleep with girls who are hotter than you think you can get.

Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.

So it seems the mismatch in looks is actually a perfect match. “Equitable is unlikely to mean the same on every dimension,” Ariely said during a telephone interview. “It just means that overall two people make sense together.”

Aiming for hotter chicks than what everyone tells you you deserve is not only great motivation and a guaranteed way to improve your game, it is scientifically and morally justified. Since I am a font of human kindness and a light unto the world, I will only hit on 9s and above tonight.

Read Full Post »

When A Girl Needs An Asshole

I met a pretty blonde girl for a first date at one of my favorite lounges (that is to say, the lounge met the requirement of being conveniently located within walking distance of my place). Halfway through the marry, boff, kill game we had the following conversation.

Her: Have you seen that VH1 show The Pickup Artist?

Me: Yeah, why?

Her: The main guy from the show, Mystery, hit on me at St Louis Bar a few weeks ago.

Me: Was he wearing a fuzzy hat with aviator goggles and a Victorian jacket over a t-shirt that said “Mystery”?

Her: Yes! Just like in the show.

Me: [thinking to myself a trip to Poland sounds good right about now] How did he do?

Her: He asked me for my opinion about something, and then made fun of me. I called him an asshole and told him to fuck off.

Me: Lemme guess… you were kind of attracted to him, right?

Her: No! He’s an asshole.

Me: Wow, you’re one of those! I thought you guys were a dying breed.

Her: One of what?!

Me: You’re drawn to assholes. It’s OK, you can be honest. I won’t judge.

Her: [stares at me for a few seconds] I’ll admit that in the past I was drawn to assholes. But there was no way he was getting a chance with me. The guy is a D-list celebrity. Not even! He’s a total douche.

Me: And yet a month later you’re still thinking about that moment.

Maxim #3: Whenever an attractive girl tells you she hates assholes, or describes her experience in the past dating assholes and claims to avoid them now, or recites a laundry list of asshole-y things guys do that she disapproves of, you can bet your weight in gold bricks that she needs you to be an asshole to her.

After this illuminating conversation I knew that I had miscalibrated her and realized I should have played up my asshole side. Consequently, likelihood of a second date was low. When I go out with girls I have a system where I rank them according to how much asshole behavior they will need to open their legs heart for me. I’m usually pretty good at this and can switch on my asshole persona at will.

For instance, if she’s a 10 on the 1 to 10 asshole craving scale, I will occasionally tell her, with a flash of anger, to “shut the fuck up” when she tries to shit test me. If she’s a 1, I’ll be Mr. Nice Guy and compliment her on her choice of shoes. If she’s in the middle of the asshole craving scale (where most cute young girls are), I’ll get her to buy me an expensive drink. Normally, I can accurately assess whether a girl is an asshole craver early in the pickup, usually within the first minute, by how bright her eyes shine when I disrespect her. If she pushes me away in mock indignation, that tells me I’ve hit pay dirt. But this time my date’s calm, intelligent, giggle-free demeanor and conservative dress had me fooled into thinking she had a low asshole craving quotient. A rookie mistake.

A part of me was pleased that I was on a date trying to get into the panties of the same girl that the infamous Mystery tried and, presumably, failed to pick up a few weeks earlier. But a bigger part of me was grossed out by the nagging thought that every girl I’ve dated in the past three years has been hit on over and over by hundreds, maybe thousands, of acolytes of the game all running the same routines and wearing matching armbands and unusual pendants.

Later that night, after the date, I went to another bar and asked two girls how well they knew each other. They said the night before a guy had given them “the best friends test and asked us what shampoo we used.” I made a mental note to pirate the Pimsleur series on learning Polish.

Read Full Post »

State Of Mind

i loved that he was so powerful i was nothing.
– O 

What is it that separates those select few men from all the rest? The ones who seemingly have no trouble getting pussy when they want and how they want it? The ones who wield illimitable power to inflame the desires of women?

The key to their power is not money or sports cars or beach houses or post graduate degrees or 50 inch plasma TVs or chocolate covered strawberries on a bed of rose petals or any of that shit. All of that is incidental and is only important to the extent that it improves your state of mind. No, the real source of this power is already within you. It is how you SEE YOURSELF. It is your decision to move through the world without apology, to set aside complaining for decisive action, to let your brass balls do your talking for you.

The quintessential masculine quality women can’t resist is SUPREME UNSHAKEABLE CONFIDENCE. You can be poor, out of shape, stupid, unemployed, addicted to drugs, and meet every one of society’s standards for LOSERNESS but if you radiate those confident vibes that say you are PERFECTLY FUCKING PLEASED WITH YOURSELF you will get laid ALL THE TIME. And the kinds of girls who get wet for such men aren’t just bar sluts. Smart women, women with high self-esteems and MBAs and, yes, even — ESPECIALLY — HARDCORE FEMINISTS will crave the cock of the man who exudes such power and happily take it IN THE FACE and UP THE ASS if it means he will grace her with the pleasure of his company for a little while longer.

THIS is the kind of power that matters. FUCK the normal rules. You make the rules now. They tell you to give give GIVE till it hurts, to do your duty and throw yourself in the blood-soaked grinding gears of the KorporateAkademiaKredentialist Krell Machine in service to society’s great gaping maw and then maybe… MAYBE… one day you’ll be lucky enough to get chained for life to some mediocre pussy and infrequent, tepid sex, whereupon you will work yourself tirelessly to the bone shuffling your ungrateful brats through one societal sacramental rite of passage after another feeding the endless, insatiable hunger of the machinery of the state. And they will pat you on the head for your devotion to the cause with lateral promotions and certificates of exemplary service and announcements in the wedding pages of the local paper and a brand new set of steak knives.

FUCK

THAT

NOIZE.

There’s a dirty little secret they don’t want you to know. And everyone is in cahoots, from the alphas to the betas to the keepers of the vagina. It is this: You don’t need to play by their rules to get what you want! Women will still FLOCK to you if you shit all over everything you were taught you needed to do to earn their love as long as you do it with STYLE and UNWAVERING BOLDNESS and a TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT attitude. Because the simple truth is that the right attitude counts for more than all the material possessions in the world.

The POWER is in your head.

Read Full Post »

The Morality Equation

In my post on morality I offered a few thoughts on the shifting sands of moral certitude:

If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering

a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?

b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?

I concluded with the following wholly scientific effort at a layman’s definition of morality:

Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing

Commenter “godparticles” picked up where I left off and admirably quantified my definition:

I would probably give more weight to S (status posturing) like this:

M=(g+E+q) x S

…where M is defined as the strength of a moral decision. I guess you could create a scale of relatedness for g, a scale of convenience for E, a scale of likely material return for q, and a scale for the explicit ingroup approbation of the moral position, decision, or action for S.

Let this serve as an innocuous example: A middle-aged, poor black man recently asked me for a dollar outside a grocery store. I was sitting in my car waiting for a friend, and he approached with the opening, “I’m not trying to start any trouble or anything, but can I get a dollar for the bus…” I don’t usually carry cash, and that’s what I told him and he left… even though I knew I had a few bucks in my wallet. I’ve been begged for more cash before after having pulled out my wallet so that wasn’t going to happen again.

So the g was 0. The E was actually high. The q was 0. And the S was 0 (no one was watching to approve). HOWEVER, if my (very liberal) friend had been in the car, the S would have increased and multiplied by the E would have led me to give him the buck.

I liked godparticles’ strengthening of my morality equation so I refined the variables and scoring and added an example of my own in the comments:

given: M = (g + E + q) x S

where M = degree of moral umbrage and the likelihood of taking action to rectify the perceived injustice.

g = genetic affinity
E = expediency (I define this as fluid morality, which is similar to moral convenience. You’re more likely to adopt a moral position when it works to your benefit or is relatively painless to act upon.)
q = tit for tat
S = status whoring

The scale for each variable is 1-10, where 1 = no impact on your decision and 10 = influence of the utmost importance.

Let’s say you’re at a party with friends and your brother (who is in attendance) blurts out a racist joke (he has an awkward sense of humor). A hush descends over the crowd. Your response hinges on a series of subconscious calculations:

g = 10 (he’s your brother!)
E = 2 (it’s tough to call out a racist joke at a party and risk dragging out the discomfort. it’s even tougher when it’s your brother’s public humiliation on the line.)
q = 1 (you’re contemplating a moral action that will prevent your loss, rather than win you gains.)
S = 6 (you risk losing the approval of your friends if you seem as if you are acceding to your brother’s faux pas. acting will not raise your status, but it will prevent you losing status.)

calculating M we get:

M = (10+2+1) x 6 = 78

If M resides on a scale from 3 to 300, where a score of 300 equals a moral action that is easy to take, quite personally beneficial, and encourages the sort of self-righteous preening that feels almost as good as sex, then in the scenario I outlined above a score of 78 means you would probably hesitate briefly before deciding to evade your moral discomfort by changing the subject and yelling out “WHO’S UP FOR SHOTS!!!”

An M of 1 means “Kill em all and let bog sort them out”.

Now I’m curious how other common moral dilemmas would rank using the morality equation. Here’s an example from the battlefront:

You and your buddy are in a bar. He notices two girls, a hottie and her friend who was born to cockblock. He tells you it’s all his and he’ll signal you to join when he needs a wingman to occupy the obstacle. He approaches and soon the girls are laughing. You get the signal and move in, doing your best to draw the CB’s attention away from her friend and to you. But your natural charm infects both girls and the cute girl starts touching your arm and tossing you the flirty eye. Your friend is losing the set but you have a good chance of acquiring his target’s digits. You think about number closing her. The morality variables look like this:

g = 2 (no genetic relation to your friend but racially he looks like you.)
E = 7 (any decision you take would be easy to act upon, but getting her # could potentially cost you your friend’s respect since he’s standing right there. because it is only one friend and not a whole group of friends you feel you can smooth out the situation later with a little one on one.)
q = 8 (if you get her # you have a shot at adding a notch. if you don’t get her number you retain the wingman services of your friend for the future.)
S = 6 (you will gain a lot of status points with your friend if you don’t number close his target for yourself. but it is just one friend.)

M = (2 + 7 + 8 ) x 6 = 102

On the morality scale of 3 to 300, there is a one in three chance that you will put your friend’s feelings before the pussy.

Ask yourself, does this result match up with your personal experience dealing with the same situation? Would a good friend opportunistically number close your target 2 out of 3 times?

Read Full Post »

Is Female Beauty Increasing?

Anecdotally, I suspect it is. Adjusting for age and weight, there seem to be more pretty girls than ever before. If you opened two high school yearbooks side by side, one from 2007 and one from 1987, and restricted your sample size to those girls who weren’t overweight, I bet you’d come away with the impression that the girls of 2007 look better. And it’s not makeup; it’s a real difference in facial bone structure.

Changes in the culture are happening to shift the beauty spectrum rightward.

1. Birth control, especially condoms since that is the form of contraceptive that can be controlled by men, is putting selection pressure on what kinds of women are winning the genetic sweepstakes. With birth control, men are no longer having kids with the first women who will sleep with them. They are trading up to find that great-looking woman for whom they can finally ditch the condom and seriously entertain the notion of having children. It doesn’t take much of a change in mating patterns — even  a slight shift in the numbers of children born to hot chicks versus plain or ugly chicks will make a noticeable impact after a few generations.
2. While dumber women are having more kids than educated smarter women, alpha males — the ones making the beaucoup bucks, slapping backs at parties, and sporting Mitt Romney lantern jaws — are having more kids than the beta males. How does this happen? Answer: Serial monogamy and mistresses. Beauty and IQ correlate to a degree as smart guys tend to marry hot women, so you’ll find proportionately more smart hotties than dumb hotties, but there are still plenty of beautiful women of middling social class that will turn the eye of an alpha male. So when the high IQ wife of 15 years who bore her alpha husband 1.2 children gets old and unattractive, he turns her in for a younger woman, oftentimes a less ambitious woman because he’s learned his lesson, and has children with her. Result: More daughters born to alpha male fathers are beautiful than those born to beta fathers.
3. Women are settling less than they did in the past, at least during their prime years (17 to 26). I’ve gone over the reasons for this before. Their financial independence, higher status relative to men, and entitledness are working in concert to delay marriage and childbirth, lengthening the time they hold out for their ideal Mr. Right. Marriage and two kids with a mediocre provider beta has been swapped for a swingers life of contraceptively insured sex with a small pool of desireable alphas. See: Sex and the City. Result: Women who do have kids during their prime fertile years are likely to have them with the strong seed of an alpha, thus ensuring a higher number of hottie daughters.
4. Obesity. No analysis of continuing human natural selection in the U.S. is complete without a nod to the obesity epidemic. Obesity reduces fertility. And men find it repulsive. The consequence is selection pressure for children born to attractive thin women by quality men, contributing to the increase in beauty among the daughters of those quality fathers.

Beauty is a commodity, like gold or athleticism, and any increase or decrease of it in the general female population will have profound effects on the dating market. More supply means lowered demand and more hot babes giving blowjobs on the first date. Less supply means greater demand and more hot babes thanking guys for expensive dinners with a peck on the cheek.

The trick is to game women as if their beauty was oversupplied.

Read Full Post »

Compassion Creates More Cads

I have a theory. Here it is:

The welfare state has created more pump and dumpers.

I only have casual observation, not hard data, to back up my theory. I base it on the exponential increase in the past ten years of businesses teaching pickup skills to men. These are real businesses with satisfied clientele who pay in the thousands for weekend seminars and “boot camps” to learn how to turn women on.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

The betas either learn to adapt or learn to love celibacy. The “seduction community” has grown organically out of the cultural soil to help these guys adapt. Now, instead of spending their money on diapers, these guys are spending it on in-field instruction in nightclubs.

Our genes only care about one thing: What is the winning reproductive strategy? Today, that winning strategy is seduction, sex, and splitting, leaving the kid to be raised by an unwitting chump.

The result of this sea change in relations between the sexes will be a future of more cads and fewer monogamously inclined men. The pendulum will eventually swing back as a world full of players and fatherless children cannot sustain itself, but there will be much wailing and gnashing of genitals before that day arrives.

Ultimately, compassionate policies to help protect us from ourselves will backfire. Losers need to suffer and be excluded from experiencing the happiness of financial security, love and sex for the health of society as a whole.

Culling the weak — it’s cruel, it’s cold-hearted, it’s uncompassionate… it’s necessary.

The executive summary: 

Women are the more compassionate sex.
Their compassion compels them to vote for welfare statism.
Welfare statism drives down the asking price of provider betas.
Hit and run players fill the void.
Therefore, women are responsible for the very types of men who hurt them most.

And that kid went HA HAWWW!

Read Full Post »