Another sign that we are living in the r-selected age of a rising cad/tramp society (and a declining dad/damsel society) is the perception among women that having a low marital market value (LMMV) won’t hurt their long-term romantic prospects or rebound to their eventual unhappiness.
Reader duderino writes,
I broke it off with a fuck buddy a while back and she posted this popular meme, directed at me.
“I’m not the girl you’re going to marry, but I’ll be the one you’ll be thinking about 20 years from now when you’re having polite sex with your boring wife who fakes her orgasm to make you feel better about your receding hairline”
Try-Hard Level 99: Unlocked.
It’s weird to live in a time when girls brag about not being wife material. To me this (and the weird new pop songs) is a defense mechanism. Girls are giving it up without even a realistic chance of commitment now, and this was their post rationalization they had any power in the situation. In the time society tells them they are supposed to be empowered, most of them are feeling cheap and used.
That’s why women have to keep telling themselves they are expensive and factory fresh. The more reality harshes their mellow, the bigger the toke they have to take off the anti-reality blunt.
She wasn’t anything special, for the record.
Duly noted, and duly unsurprised. (You will hardly ever hear exquisitely beautiful and exceptionally self-possessed women trash talk in this manner. IM THE TOWN HO YOU’LL BE JERKING OFF TO IN TWENTY YEARS is the pained oinking of mediocre m’ladies and bitterbitch spinsters.)
A lot of this is sour grapes. A girl who has a shitty personality and little in the way of looks to compensate will find it psychologically comforting to pretend to herself and others that she never wanted those juicy wedding day grapes hanging just out of her reach. The best thing to do with girls like this is set phasers to “ignore”. The butthurt attention whore fears social isolation more than anything. If you want to twist the cosmic shiv a little before departing her presence, answer her womanly rant with a curt “gay”.
Donning the CH sociological omniscience cap for a moment, the turn by women away from selling themselves as worthy marital properties (and a concomitant turn by men away from selling themselves as dutiful provider betas) is a totally expected emergent sexual market phenomenon when marriage rates are down, age of first marriage is up, fertility is down, the Pill is up, and women can generally get by economically supporting themselves and their bastard spawn through SJW enforcer jobs or government largesse (itself redistributed from the efforts of reviled white beta males).
The devil is in the details. It’s the little things like this — woman crowing about their low MMV — which escape datanauts and statisticians combing through coarse sociological signposts for theories about where we are and where we’re all heading. In time, the little details of societal collapse add up to an epic story of shit, and an ending no one can confuse for fiction.
A California assisted-suicide bill was shelved because of opposition from heavily mestizo districts.
Now personally, I’m in favor of assisted suicide at any age for leftoids in whatever physical condition. But one has to laugh at the irony of Diversity Park™ undocumented citizens bitch-slapping their effete white liberal patrons. You asked for it, now you’ll get it, good and hard.
I’m sure SCROTUS will find a Constitutional right to assisted-suicide in the near future, which is spelled out in the Constitution as clearly as the right to gay marriage, but in the meantime enjoy the cognitive dissonance.
Score: Invading aztecs: 1, white California liberals: 0. Shiv of the Week award goes to La Raza, for giving us all a glimpse of the unified, glorious future of America made stronger and happier by all her Diversity.
A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.
1. More sexualized women.
Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?
In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.
2. Less sexual dimorphism.
It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.
Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.
In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.
4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.
A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.
Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.
5. Hatred of beta provider males.
Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.
6. More aggressive sexual signaling.
A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.
Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.
7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.
A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)
A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:
Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).
8. More women acting out like men.
Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.
Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?
9. More men acting out like women.
This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?
The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.
Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.
But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.
Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.
So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?
Politicians know European-Americans are more diverse in their voting habits, often splitting their votes 50-50 between the two parties (or 40-30-30 between three parties). They also know blacks and mestizos are less ideologically and psychologically diverse, the former going 90+% Democrat and the latter 65-70% Democrat every time.
This is why all European-Americans must cast a wary eye toward legislation or legal rulings that attempt to curtail gerrymandering, the practice of dividing districts along racial lines to create “voting blocs”. Simple math illustrates why anti-gerrymandering disfavors European-Americans.
In a perfectly gerrymandered state, District 9 is 100% black, and District 8 is 100% white. From this partly-artificial (but only partly) political arrangement, we can expect District 9 to reliably vote Democrat nearly 100% of the time, and District 8 to vote GOP 52% of the time and Democrat 48% of the time.
Let’s also assume for the sake of clarity that the populations of both districts are the same.
Now this is what happens when anti-gerrymandering is forced on the districts, and they are redrawn so that, say, 25% of the blacks have moved (representationally) into the white district, and 25% of whites have moved (representationally) into the black district.
Those 25% of blacks continue voting 100% Democrat, while those 25% of whites continue splitting their votes 52-48% GOP-Dem. What is the end result? Well, where before (in the gerrymandered scenario) District 9 enjoyed the benefits of Democrat local governance and District 8 the benefits of Republican local governance, now District 9 still votes Democrat while District 8 has started to vote Democrat more as well.
The 25% of GOP-leaning whites have barely budged the Democrat advantage in District 9, lowering the Dem vote total from 100% to 87%.
[(o.75×1.00DEM) + (0.25×0.48DEM)] = 0.87DEM
But here’s what happens to the slight GOP advantage in all-white District 8 with the population shift to 25% black:
[(0.75×0.48DEM) + (0.25×1.00DEM)] = 0.61DEM
Did you see that? Don’t look away, because it happened quick as lightning. All-European-American District 8 went from voting for Democrats 48% of the time to voting for Democrats 61% of the time after their population was forced to politically accommodate 25% blacks.
End game: Both District 9 and District 8 become, for all practical purposes, Democrat strongholds.
And the Dem grip on those districts only becomes more pronounced as Diversity™ increases and the share of European-Americans, and the districts they control, decreases.
Now some of you are principled sorts and therefore are repulsed by the anti-democratic notion of gerrymandering as a way to “keep the peace” by making Dindugeld payments, and their consequences, more centrally located and removed from European-American scrutiny.
But we don’t live in an American Utopia of 90% European-American demographics (that time passed somewhere around mid-20th Century), when such a principled stance against gerrymandering could work in practice. We live in Diversity World™, and in this world high-falutin’ White Man privileged principles bow deeply to the blood-fueled pragmatism of tribalism. In Diversity World™, we don’t get the luxury of ideologically diverse whites arguing about street widths and weekend park rules; we get instead Everyone Not White driving drunk and shitting in the parks while ganging up on the few remaining Whites to fork over ever larger taxed remittances from their paychecks.
The elite know all this, which is why, next time you hear them lamenting gerrymandering, what they’re really opposing is a place where BadWhites enjoy the blessings of self-determination.
Although the reptile’s conflation of the idea of “supremacy” with “realtalk” is typical for its swamp-dwelling genus, where we observe its natural behavior most clearly is the refusal to confront straightforwardly the details of the claims to truth made by the hated hateful hater “supremacist” groups.
“Frankly, this movement is in such disarray,” said Johnson, the 61-year-old American Freedom Party chairman, who traces his involvement to his support of George Wallace’s 1972 presidential bid. “You cannot expect there to be no retaliation by certain disaffected portions of white society when you have crime after crime by blacks against whites. People are going to rebel, and that’s what this young man did.”
Violent crime across the country has dropped to near-record lows over the past two decades; the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its peak in 1991, according to the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite that, polls repeatedly indicate that Americans perceive crime to be on the increase.
Did you catch The Slithery Reptile’s™ flick of the forked tongue? He allows a brief airing of the hated hateful hater enemy’s legitimate grievance, only to answer it with a slithery evasion that does not address the core of the complaint. The Slithery Reptile™ knows that absolute crime numbers and disproportionate black crime are two separate and distinct phenomena, but he’s hoping you won’t notice his color change as he camouflages himself in the pattern of a faggy talk show snarkmeister and redirects your attention to a fat red herring flopping near at hand.
But we’re on to you, Slithery Reptile™! You may feel free to classify this as hate. I prefer to call it… The Shiv.
U.S. agencies still collect crime data by race. That will end soon, because the data is unfriendly to the Equalist Narrative and is falling into the hands of the Rebel Alliance. For now, a rich trove of anti-antiracism Realtalk is yours for the hatebrowsing at various government websites.
From the 2013 FBI Crime Report:
Although blacks only constitute 12% of the total US population, they murder nearly as many whites as the number of whites murdered by other whites, who are 64% of the total US population.
This website is running a tally of black-on-white and white-on-black murders in the year 2014. The numbers currently stand at 348 BoW murders to 4 WoB murders.
But in fact, white-on-black crime is a statistical rarity. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), an estimated 320,082 whites were victims of black violence in 2010, while 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence. That same year, according to the Census Bureau, the white and black populations in the U.S. were 196,817,552 and 37,685,848, respectively. Whites therefore committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 32 per 100,000, while the black rate was 849 per 100,000. In other words, the “average” black was statistically 26.5 times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white, than vice versa. Moreover, blacks who committed violent crimes chose white victims 47.7% of the time, whereas whites who committed violent crimes targeted black victims only 3.9% of the time.
FBI stats show that blacks are 50 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa.
John Derbyshire combs National Crime Victimization Survey data and does the math, finding that any given black was almost fifteen times more likely to have killed a white in 2013 than any given white was to have killed a black.
Derbyshire also responds to slithery reptilian leftoid critics who claim that the disproportionate black-on-white crime rates are simply a consequence of population ratios and nothing else.
The argument here is that blacks move among whites much more than whites move among blacks. We encounter blacks much less frequently than they encounter us, so of course we commit fewer crimes against them! If we moved among blacks more, we’d commit more crimes against them!
Er, possibly: but wouldn’t they also commit more crimes against us? And are we sure that the whites who avoid moving among blacks (why?) are just as criminally inclined as those who mingle?
Derb goes on to explain the math underlying the disparate black-on-white crime stats. Short story: Tim Wise can’t do math. But he sure can do sophistry, that rascally bloodsucker!
The arid “population ratio” argument against the idea of blacks deliberately targeting whites in racial antagonism crimes strikes me as specious for another reason. How often do upstanding members of the criminal class of blacks encounter whites in real life? Blacks are fairly concentrated in their rural and urban enclaves. (Even middle class suburban blacks tend to live in majority black neighborhoods.) For a benign “population ratio” argument to have any merit, you’d need to have conditions on the ground that greatly increased the actual encounter rate between blacks and whites. The crude population ratio number doesn’t accurately reflect the real world daily encounter rate between the races.
This is damning, because if the black-white encounter rate based on nothing but raw population ratio is much lower in actuality, it means the higher rate of black-on-white violence is even more shockingly disproportionate. It means black criminals are sometimes going out of their way to hunt for white prey, away from their monoracial districts.
Pussy cuckservatives often crouch into the defensive posture when the topic is black crime, reflexively bleating about “blacks killing other blacks, that’s the real problem”, preferring to ignore the low level race war of black-on-white violence. Yes, blacks kill other blacks far more prodigiously than they kill whites, but that skew is mostly a function of target availability and racial disposition toward impulsiveness; the great majority of liberal SWPL whites are smart enough to avoid living in the thick of the urban (and rural) ghettos, and to limit their exposure to black criminal predation. Even within city boundaries that have dense black populations, whites (and hispanics) sequester themselves into city sectors that are psychologically and economically, if not geographically, distant from the core black urban crimeclass.
It’s no secret that criminals prefer soft targets. If you walk a certain way, (i.e., like an alpha male), you can reduce the chance that you’ll be the target of street crime. It is likely the case that black criminals perceive the supple SWPL whites who live within prowling distance of them as soft, juicy targets of opportunity, made more inviting as hated prey objects by the whiteness of their appearance. Once a doughy white is in the black’s crosshairs, the racial hate instinct percolates from the subconscious into consciousness, often driving the attacker to a frenzy of depraved, intertribe violence. This is why it’s wrong to assume only premeditated interracial violence is classifiable as racially motivated hate crime; race hate does not abide exquisitely legalistic timelines. Hatred for racial outsiders can simmer for years or it can explode on sight in the heat of the moment.
Smartly, most whites have the good sense to segregate themselves from blacks, establishing themselves in “dindu buffer zones” that are geographic, technological, or economic in nature. It is what whites do, and especially what GoodWhite liberals do, (whether or not they admit to it), to provide themselves a measure of protection from the wildly disproportionate chaos and feral race hatred of black criminality.
So, yes, there’s a guerrilla race war happening in this country. It just isn’t the one you’ll hear about ad nauseam by our media, corporate, government, and academia Hivemind gatekeepers of information. They prefer you stay ignorant, self-flagellating, powerless, and victimized for the Great Globo-Equalist Cause.
A part of me hates writing posts like this one, as it really kills my chill vibe, but some lies are so dangerous and, worse, so humiliating to good people that I’m roused to action from my poolside lounge. And that is the worst crime of all.
How do you game a girl who has received twenty solicitations for sex and fifty compliments on her beauty all before 11AM? This is the problem that men face in the electronic ego validation age, when Tinder and Facebook and sundry dating websites serve as mediums for the uninterrupted fluffing, however superficial, of the tumescent self-perceptions of every halfway bangable girl with an internet connection or a mobile data plan.
This is no minor obstacle to love and romance. The ego is the enemy of intimacy, and female egos that have been inflated to the bursting point are a neural (and neurotic) bunker between you and a girl’s heart. Evidence of this mass female ego inflation comes directly from men’s testimonials and indirectly from data showing trends in how couples meet.
Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.
The catalyst for this post was a question by reader Culum Struan, regarding a girl affecting a pose of boredom who wasn’t “biting” on his attempts to connect with her.
I never got through to her emotionally. Even my best stories barely got a mild emotional response – these are GOOD stories and I have a lot of practice. It was just flat. What do you do with these girls?
YaReally, responding, suggests putting the girl in the defensive crouch, qualifying herself to Culum.
Stack disqualifiers lol make fun of her basically. If she isn’t interested in your stories about yoursef then turn the tables and put the spotlight on her instead and put her on the defensive because she likes that more than she likes yapping about her own stories. Drop the stories and go for her emotional jugular and get her qualifying herself and thinking you’re a bit of an asshole but then a nice guy but then an asshole etc etc giving her an emotional rollercoaster ride.
Think of it like you’re entertaining a 5yo with a book but they’re not paying attention or don’t seem that into it. Instead of sticking with the book and it might be a great book that most kids love, calibrate to this kid and throw on an exciting movie instead. Or play a game with them. Engage them on a different level.
What Culum describes — girls who seem impregnable to emotional engagement — is a problem that grows in proportion to the amount of ego validation girls are rewarded with online. The more a girl has her ego stroked by a phalanx of online dating desperadoes, the less she’ll feel the urge or the need to devote her full attention to any individual man unlucky enough to take her on a real world date. What results is a growing brotherhood of men finding they share experiences dealing with selfish, classless American women of mediocre appearance who act like the stereotype of haughty swimsuit models. It’s gotten so bad that actual swimsuit models are proving to be more pleasing dates for men with the balls to ask them out.
Since social media ego validation isn’t leaving us anytime soon, a man must learn the skills that will help him master the polluted dating market moonscape. YaReally continues in this vein, linking to a Mystery seminar video and explaining the concept of “conversational stacking” as a technique designed specifically to deal with egotistic, ADHD, mortally validated girls.
Try stacking it to increase her obsession, 3:57 in this vid.
For anyone who’s checked out the Julien PIMP vids I’ve linked about devalidation stacking, this is the multiple threading concept juliens shit is based on. It’s basically this concept but combined with negs/devalidation. Strongest chick-crack I’ve ever seen, makes the girl obsessed with qualifying herself and correcting your impression of her. Planning to do a write up about it in depth sometime. It’s the first legit evolution of classic MM to adopt it to the social media over-validation/over-entitlement era that I’ve seen.
The value of devalidation in the age of ego validated chicks cannot be overstated. To penetrate a girl’s Tinder-spackled ego fortress, you must first show an active disinterest in her world, and one powerful method to accomplish that attitudinal cue is the veering, shallow, self-amusing, multi-threaded conversation style. As Culum says,
So if I understand right – stacking and changing conversational threads (MM style) is good because it shows lower investment on your part plus creates conversational tension the girl will want to resolve. Julien’s devalidation basically puts the girl into a “box” and that creates tension that the girl will want to resolve by climbing out of the box (hence why we make statements about her and not ask questions). But if you combine the two, you multiply the effect of both strategies – is that it?
Recall the formulation “statement-statement-question“. This is the foundation you want to begin your career in active seduction. (Active seduction simply means you, as a man, aim to have choice in the women you date, rather than drearily accept the fate of the majority of beta males who take what they can get, which is usually an overweight hausfrau.)
Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser. Tactics that work include:
– refraining from asking a girl too many questions,
– skipping around topics of conversation (less investment in any one topic signals that you aren’t much interested in her input, and aren’t seeking her approval),
– disqualifying her as a romantic prospect, and
– treating her with amused mastery, as if she’s a precocious nuisance you could take or leave.
Once you have the girl hooked, you can switch gears and start to qualify her as a possible sex interest and drive for deeper rapport by asking her more open-ended leading questions with sexual undertones.
This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.
What economically self-sufficient and Pill-freed women want now is a man who can make them FEEL again, and that means, in essence, giving women back the opportunity to do what they used to do without prompting: Making an effort to please men.
A woman is lost, adrift on a murky ocean of her undifferentiated emotions, when she’s robbed of that special female duty to please men. Game — the art and science of learned charisma — can give back to women that which massive social changes and the sexual revolution have wrested from them. Game can save women’s souls.