Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Dating’ Category

Dat post title… I’m such a steenker!

White women are kinda, sorta… most definitely raciss n sheeeeiiit. But what about those righteous, morally superior goodwhite women who throw off the burden of white privilege and happily date black men?

Unfortunately for branding purposes, these moral paragons aren’t exactly the classiest or thinnest ladies. From an earlier draft of a paper referencing the same Yahoo Personals internet profile data, researchers discovered (likely much to their chagrin):

Body type, political views, and religion are also related to the exclusion of blacks or Asians. Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ] For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance. Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates. Further, white men who do not state a religion or who state their religion as “other” are far more inclusive of black women as dates than those who describe themselves as not religious. Likewise, white women of “other” religions are more likely to include Asian males as dates.

What a cluster bomb of hatefacts!

Now the only question remaining is whether fat white chicks settle for black men because those are the only men who’ll have them, or that black men try but fail to get sexy white chicks and decide to shoot for the easy prey because even a fat white girl is more feminine than the typical black girl? Same difference, I suppose. My limited knowledge of the mating rituals of matricentric cultures is that it’s a bit of both; fat chicks are stuck choosing between a steel-reinforced dildo and a black man, and black men hone in on fat white chicks because they love can tolerate grotesque booties and they learned from experience that sexy white chicks want nothing to do with them.

These findings are perfectly in line with the CH observation — heck it’s in line with just about everyone’s observations except that no one wants to bring it up at the company picnic — that the white women who date black men are often fat, gross, and classless.

Probably unsurprising to most, the kind of white women willing to dance by the dusky coonlight? Fat liberal white women with sanctimony issues.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that fat liberal white women are just about the most unappealing dating prospects for any white man with options and a working set of nads. So… good riddance.

And wazzup wit da Eskimos? Man they talk a big game about breaking down race barriers, but when the rubber hits the ho, it’s “Blacks?! Are you meshuggina??”.

Let’s end this journey through the human hindbrain on a hopeful note. Dear NOWAGs, if you want a white woman (and who doesn’t?), date a Wiccan. I’m sure you have the psychological tools to stoically endure her kookiness.

It hardly needs clarifying to regular visitors of Le Chateau, but CH has no problem with racial dating preferences. Racism is natural, evolved, and a part of what makes us human. Racism expands the diversity in the world by creating and sustaining group aesthetics that would otherwise get swamped into oblivion by a one-world fuckfest.

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of the fine folk at the Seminary of Christian Sadists, a chart pulled from a research paper on the subject of patterns in racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters:

Where da white wimmin at? Nowhere near you, D’Quattroprius.

CH tackled this topic a while ago, coming to roughly the same conclusions as this more recent paper’s findings. In what are essentially self-report surveys, (Yahoo Personals profiles), white women profess the least desire to date outside their beautiful, privileged white race, and asian-american women the most desire to date outside their race. These, among other… problematic… confessions of the id, must bedevil Hivemind drones tasked with the maintenance and transmission of Equalist agitprop.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, understand the inherent limitations of self-report sex behavior data, even self-reports in real world non-laboratory contexts. As all good players know, what women say and which dick they privately raw dog are two very different animals. This crimson pill maxim applies as well to internet dating profiles. Yes, when women must consciously think about what kind of men they want to date, and they feel emboldened by pseudoanonymity, they’ll reveal glimpses of their limbic darkroom in print. But in the helter-swelter of a charged romantic environment, oftentimes that pro and con, bullet-point checklist women keep stashed in their hamster cage bedding gets tossed in favor of the “man in the moment” who distracts her from the whitenoise of her humdrum existence.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that the data-mined revelation that white women don’t want to date black men, and the countervailing “me own two eyes” observation that more white women are banging black men than one could surmise from the tabulated declarations on internet dating profiles, can both be true.

The dating preference survey data reveal that the rhetoric of those who fear a mudshark planet is overblown. But, equally overblown is the rhetoric of white knight pedestal polishers who insist no white woman would willingly date black men. For a refutation of that premise, I merely have to go outside and take a fifteen minute stroll on a nice day.

PS Yahoo Personals, as far as I know, is a free online dating service. There will be a sample set bias because free sites tend to attract certain types of women (roaring sluts, cheapos, unserious girls just looking for fun on the side, girls desperate for a relationship with a beta provider because they have no money of their own).

Up next: Ok, master of charms, but is it true only the dregs of white womanhood date black men?

Read Full Post »

More major Hivemind organs are beginning to accept, or at least grapple with, some core concepts of Game and how men and women interact in the flesh when they aren’t being prodded to chant equalist talking points. The New York Beta Times and even that den of shrikers, Jizzebel, have in their own way, and likely without knowing it, come round to the Proposition long espoused at Chateau Heartiste that romantic love is a glorious biomechanistic function which can be induced with certain premeditated seduction techniques, and that these techniques are especially effective on women who are the sex with an innate holistic appreciation of potential mate quality.

YaReally did such a bang-up job providing the backdrop to this post that I’ll just repost his comment here:

Jezebel admits that PUA works.

…without realizing it. lol The experiment they describe is just smoothly building comfort/rapport and the exercise ends with 4 min of deep eye-contact which is just running standard laser-eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Z4Nq0OrrM

“Catron calls this accelerated intimacy”

Ya, she’d BETTER call it that…because if she called it PUA or Game, Jezebel would shit a brick lol

It’s cute when normal society finally manages to spark a fire with rocks when they actively refuse to use the lighters PUA has offered for years lol

Posting this mainly to link the actual questions they use ’cause there’s a lot of good comfort/rapport building questions in here to swipe.

For reference, here are the 36 Questions that you should ask a woman, in order of increasing intimacy, with the goal of making her fall in love and desiring sex with you:

******

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share … “

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

******

Many of the above questions designed to create a rapid emotional bond with women will be familiar to long-time guests of CH. In fact, they are the EXACT SAME questions discussed in this six-year-old post.

YaReally continues,

Note that they go from silly/fun/light to deep/personal, just like building comfort/rapport should (really you build rapport and then transition into comfort). The first questions are more rapport based. Also there’s a lot of “us VS them” questions (assuming the two of you are together already and reinforcing that), and future projection (assuming the two of you will be together).

There’s also showing vulnerability but it comes AFTER the rapport stuff. The first Set of questions has no vulnerability but the third set has tons of vulnerability. A lot of this creates an emotional rollercoaster done in order too…like what’s your favorite memory (emotional high), what’s your worst memory (emotional low), and back up again after a few more questions.

Really this is rock solid in terms of the results it should give, though it would be weird to execute it in it’s full design in any way other than as a game/experiment. But you could take a handful of these questions and add them to your cheat sheet of comfort/rapport building questions and drop them into a conversation congruently and to the girl it would fell like, as Jezebel says, “and anyone who has met someone and moved fast knows what this feels like: It’s when you want to know someone so quickly and so thoroughly and so urgently that you wish you could do it via osmosis. You want to give of yourself and be given to, equally.” which in logical man-speak means “PUA fucking works, duh.”

“Which makes it worth noting: The experiment sounds like some kind of trick or shortcut to love, but if both parties are well intentioned and in agreement to try it, who is to say what sort of time it should really take to scale this terrain? We all move at our own speed.”

Will have to quote this the next time some feminist is crying that PUA is an evil trick that doesn’t work. lol

lol indeed. I’d also add a ‘heh’.

Also the description of laser eyes was interesting as it’s something I’ve been focusing on over the last year:

“After completing the questions, Catron and her date do the four minute unnervingly deep stare that ends the experiment, which at first involved a lot of nervous smiling, but then got a little more comfortable. She writes:

I know the eyes are the windows to the soul or whatever, but the real crux of the moment was not just that I was really seeing someone, but that I was seeing someone really seeing me. Once I embraced the terror of this realization and gave it time to subside, I arrived somewhere unexpected.

I felt brave, and in a state of wonder. Part of that wonder was at my own vulnerability and part was the weird kind of wonder you get from saying a word over and over until it loses its meaning and becomes what it actually is: an assemblage of sounds.”

Again it’s gay woman-fluff speak, but translated into something you can apply it describes why slowing down your speaking and leaving long lingering silences while you hold the laser eye-contact Liam describes in that video works…the first few seconds (I find it’s around 10-20 seconds) the girl is off in la-la land and then her brain realizes “oh wait, we’re really looking at each other here…” and her words trail off and your conversation switches more to subcommunications instead of surface level communication.

But casual glances or talking so fast you don’t leave tension in the air etc. won’t pass that point where it’s “nervous smiles” and entering that vulnerable “sense of wonder” stage that holding it and leaving silences creates.

Drive with Ryan Gosling is a good movie to check out for laser eye-contact…him and the chick do a lot of sub-communication shit just staring at each other. It’s exaggerated in that movie, but that’s along the right track.

Biggest key that Drive doesn’t do and this experiment doesn’t add is closing the distance during laser eyes. If you lock eyes and slowly close the distance so you get closer to the girl, it sends butterflies in her stomach into overdrive and you can turn that into attraction/sexual tension.

Gambler demos it here at 33:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unuqF4uklE&t=33m35s

She doesn’t fully crack until he takes that last step and closes the space.

This really deep rapport/comfort stuff is what Mystery Method was built around and it’s the reason that Mystery was getting girls to “fall in love” with him, not just want to fuck him. Old school MM game was more about creating multiple-LTRs where the girl felt like you had a special connection she’s never felt with anyone else before etc. than just getting enough attraction for a one-night stand. There were reports of girls breaking down crying when Mystery/Tyler/etc. wouldn’t take their number, which sounds like bullshit until you’ve run this really deep comfort/rapport game a bunch and seen how earth-shattering it is to girls to experience it (especially hot bar chicks who are used to more shallow interactions with people) and taken it away from them suddenly and seen how they flip out and chase lol

I agree with this observation. Men (aka inexperienced betas) underestimate just how few women, and how infrequently those women, get to experience the attention of a man who really knows how to properly seduce and challenge small-talk emotional blockades. A woman who is a gifted recipient of a man’s seductive expertise can fall in love harder and faster than she ever thought possible.

This is also why people I meet feel like they’ve known me for years when we’ve only just met, because I know how to smoothly build comfort/rapport with strangers.

If you’re finding girls don’t stick around for more than one or two lays, or if you want to get into mLTRs, [ed: multiple long-term relationships, for the iSteve readers] experiment with this stuff. But also be aware that if you want casual relationships, you don’t want to use too much of this or she’ll get too attached and drop the Ultimatum sooner than she would’ve if you hadn’t built so much comfort/rapport.

And seriously, go study Mystery Method. Skip the feather boas and black nails, but study everything else. It’s lengthy and dense but it’s the ultimate foundation of understanding this shit.

Mystery Method, first edition, is a compendium of truths about the sexual marketplace and women’s romantic natures that will never go out of style. As Ya said, don’t be put off by some of the outlandish self-promoting of the original playas (OPs). They hit the field and in so doing hit upon deep abiding realities about women and their call-and-response behavior to particular courtship tactics.

Read this post carefully and think about the implications of the message contained in it. ‘Yes, you can inspire a woman to feel love for you by following this flowchart of pretested questions and nonverbal communication, just as the game aficionados have asserted for years’ is not the kind of lesson that will warm the tender hearts of rom-com saturated women or trad-con saturated men. A thousand bromides about the mystery of love and “just being yourself” will need to be jettisoned, to make way for a better understanding of the human universe.

To ask so much of them is practically an exercise in cruelty. You can tell this by the enraged and uncomprehending reaction they have when their polite beliefs confront stone cold reality.

Read Full Post »

Commenter dirkdiggly unzips in front of a mirror and ‘miringly unfurls this meaty tale of modern romance:

What fun it would be to make a “romcom” depicting a fiery romantic relationship as it actually plays out for the garden-variety CH apprentice…

Boy meets girl at a gathering of mutual friends.
Girl is objectively prettier than the guy, and clearly bored with her life and asteroid belts of hopeful orbiters, also present at the gathering.
Guy behaves outlandishly, or displays bold talent that sets him apart -no fucks given.
Guy negs girl, finishes her drink while she goes to the bathroom to gossip.
Numbers are exchanged. Guy writes hers on a napkin -loses napkin.
She calls after a few days of expectant waiting and overthink.
Guy “forgets” her name, but tells her that he remembers her hairstyle because it’s so common these days.
Girl asks guy on a date.
Sparks fly, fluids are exchanged.
Guy loudly poops immediately post-coitus, bathroom door open. Girl is fascinated.
Guy doesn’t call for a week. Smoke pours from girl’s ears due to hamster wheel tread stripping and transmission fire.
Guy texts “sup”. Girl swoons.
Casual sex ensues for six months. Guy avoids meeting her family.
Guy moves across country. Girl uproots entire life, quits job at Forever21, follows.
Girl arrives to find guy with new girlfriend…”babe I thought we had an understanding”
Credits roll to sounds of wailing/sobbing.

I’m drafting a script now, wonder which studio will jump on this “feel-good hit of the summer” first?

I’ll be setting up an indiegogo for those who feel compelled to donate.

This romantic scenario is far more common than the ones you see in typical rom-coms. But it would bomb at the box office, because women wouldn’t like it. Women don’t like depictions of love and romance that are too honest about the nature of their own sexuality. See, for example, Blue Valentine. Concealed ovulation should be your first clue that women are born masters at the art of self-deception.

Read Full Post »

If you read Peter Frost (and others like him), you’ll be familiar with the theory that white pathological humanitarianism — i.e., white ethnomasochism (as commonly practiced by today’s SJWs) — is a psychological disposition of Northwest Europeans that evolved in the not-too-distant past under the twin environmental pressures of manorialism and non-kin marriage. Radical outbreeding essentially selected for people who were very trusting of outsiders. This high level of trust allowed Western Civilization as we know it to find purchase and flourish.

But, as Frost et al have hypothesized, a powerful altruistic impulse combined with an almost gullible trust in strangers has, over time, become corrupted in the people who possess these normally positive traits. The congenial indulgence granted to non-kin locals that worked so well in a largely racially homogeneous geographic region has turned inward and reconfigured into a self-flagellating penance for imagined sins against the world’s steaming masses. The Columbus Knights of the European Empire have turned to the dark side.

The fate of white Westerners whose blood runs with humanitarian fervor is sealed: Decline, and eventual overrun by less altruistic foreigners. This isn’t idle conjecture. Besides the obvious signs of cultural decay, there is theoretical evidence that ethnocentric groups will eventually out-compete and supplant humanitarian groups. White liberals are the four horses’ asses heralding their own extinction.

What I’m about to say will sound strange, and highly speculative. It is. Bear with me. Chicks who dig jerks may be the saviors of white NW European culture. While the mechanism is unclear at the moment, it is possible that the pathological altruism of whites — a once-healthy altruism pathologized by a changed environment — is such a sickly suicidal urge that, through some subtle feedback signal, it affects white women’s mate choice algorithm, increasing their desire for rule-breaking badboys with a low tolerance for kumbaya bullshit.

As a commenter at Frost’s remarked,

Thus, it makes me wonder whether we are seeing a display [pathological humanitarianism] that has simply become too costly – much like an over-long peacock tail. It may have been selected for in the past and conferred a mating benefit, but now it is simply dead weight and hard to shed.

It just remains to be seen whether the group has enough variability in the personality traits to adapt and survive – selecting for new traits that are beneficial for survival in the current culture. Perhaps that is why WASP women now appear more eager to mate with “bad boys” than “nice guys”? Maybe less inclusive personality characteristics are beginning to be selected for already…

When a race and its culture are pushed to the brink, its women will begin to favor men who, in myriad ways, offer the chance of resistance against their annihilation. If women are choosing jerks and rascals, it may be that on a level beyond their conscious appreciation they are helping to birth an army of selfish pricks capable of saving them from themselves.

Read Full Post »

The Boyfriend Zone

Reader H.H. is bedeviled by the Boyfriend Zone.

Dear Chateau! you’ve helped me a lot so…

What to do when girls always put me in the “potential boyfriend” category? I’m a sociable guy who usually has no problems talking to strangers, getting people to smile or laugh, etc. I travel, have a cool job, hit the gym every once in a while and know my way around both in a sports bar and in an art gallery.

However, I tend to always be approached or at the very least orbited by 7s and 8s looking for a relationship*. ”I’d like to leave home with you, but I need to know that you’re interested in the long term” or ”I’d like to kiss you now, but I have to find out first whether you’re married”. (I could take them home and fuck them, but I hate to lie.)

I’m more interested in short crazy, one nighters with no strings attached. What’s this? I’ve been afraid that I’m giving out too many nice guy vibes, could that be it? Is there an element of danger missing? Are the sluts not interested? What am I fucking up?

*Of course the next step is to upgrade from 7-8s to 8-9s, but i’m not sure if that problem is connected with this…

When a woman tries to put you in the Boyfriend Zone, it usually means you’re giving off a heavy player vibe. She fears you’ll make her another bedpost notch, but she desires you, so to reconcile the good feeling with the bad feeling, she presses for reassurances that you won’t use and lose her. This is classic anti-slut defense (ASD) posturing.

This is a perfectly natural female response, and you have two ways to tackle it. One, you can tone down your charming jerk vibe in favor of more beta-ish cues of reliability and emotional investment. In game parlance, you’d back off of the teasing and flirting and stress comfort-building and qualification (i.e., “Do you like the idea of traveling with one person you really love?”). You’ll also want to flash hints of vulnerability. “I’ve had my heart broken enough times to know I’m no player.” With these girls, that effervescent connection is king. “I’m just a guy looking for the same thing you are.”

Two, you can screen for girls who want short, crazy flings or one night stands. This means you amp your jerk smirk to 11 and escalate sexually (and logistically). The idea is that you avoid any confusion that you’re potential boyfriend material. Mixed messages are probably what’s confusing girls about your intentions. Normally, this is a good thing, unless you don’t like to mislead girls, which you said you don’t. An unambiguous dispatch of your cad intentions communicated through your behavior filters for girls who want the same thing. You’ll scare away LTR-focused girls, while attracting sluts, unhappily married women, ovulating women, thrill-seekers, rebounds, urban gogrrls on anonymous adventures, highly sexual women, and smart women.

Occasionally, a woman will put you in the Boyfriend Zone because your behavior in some way has pinged her boyfriend radar, and she’s excited about the prospect of dating a man who’s on her wavelength. Her excitement can be so great, she seeks validation for the LTR promise that hangs heavy in the air between you two. This validation seeking can take the form of probing questions about your “commitment to commitment”, because for these women romantic escalation is as intoxicating as sexual escalation. Many players have no compunction about leading these types of women on (and it’s quite easy to be good at it), so if that’s not something you’d do then you’ll have to stick to strategy #2 and actively select for low impulse control girls.

I have some disheartening news. If you’re constitutionally against the idea of leading women on*, you’ll have a harder time finding many 8s or 9s interested in no-strings-attached sex. Contrary popular mythology, most funfunfun girls who’ll agree to what amounts to slutting it up are the wastoids, the desperate, and, if your game is good, the borderline cuties in the 5-7 range. While SCIENCE! is hard to come by, my impression is that blue city 7s rack up more sex partners than 9s. Which makes sense; all women want the alpha male’s sex and the alpha male’s commitment. But only the best women — read: the hottest — have reasonable expectations of achieving both goals. Less hot girls will sometimes resort to giving away their sex for a shot of alpha male money shots and a slim hope of rousing his long game lovingkindness in the post-coital glow (it rarely happens).

This isn’t to say that you can’t find a boner fried hottie who tingles for the flingle. They’re around; they’re just better at concealing, even to themselves, any latent desire for a sexual romp. If you want to be both honest and noncommittal with a beauty, you’ll have a road ahead of you. If you can handle soft-shoeing your NSA message without having a moral crisis, then blazing a trail of microtears through HSMV women will be easier. Hotties are gonna need to see some feints away from pure sexual objectification. Of course, you’ll still want to make them work for your love.

“I’m dating around until I find that one woman I click with.”

PS *”Leading women on” is just another term for nonjudgmentalism. Men who don’t lead women on are, by necessity, more judgmental of the women they meet. Because in fact there is no such thing as true nonjudgmentalism; we’re all judging something about someone else at any given time. Hiding your judgmentalism is good for business if your business is persuading women to giveitaway.

PPS When a girl says ”I’d like to leave home with you, but I need to know that you’re interested in the long term”, the best reply is one that assuages her fears and avoids supplication. That means, don’t jump on her beta bait with forceful vows of fidelity.

BAD:

“Oh, I’m definitely interested in the long term with you. I’ve always wanted a girlfriend.”

GOOD:

“Like you, I want the same things. But I can only answer that once I get to know you and spend time with you.”

Your long term interest is presumed but not guaranteed.

Maxim #45: If a girl isn’t working for your love, she’s making you work for hers. Better to be a love owner than a love laborer.

Read Full Post »

Pulled from a sexxxy players’ forum, here’s some advice for older (or younger) men who want to know how to handle large age differences, particularly as the issue applies to online dating, where inclusion of age in the profile is required.

I lie on my dating profile and put it 7 years younger.

When I get asked my age in person I tell the truth.

Then they say “but your profile says xx”

“Oh, yeah that’s because when I had my real age on there all these old chicks were messaging me as if I want that”.

Then I make a comical shudder.

Hasn’t failed me yet.

Almost poetry. Why does this work? One, he’s assumed the sale. “Why *wouldn’t* younger women want to be with me?” Girls love that. Two, he’s implied his high mate value. “I have options, and age-appropriate women aren’t one of them.” Three, he’s demonstrated that reckless, careless asshole attitude that drives women crazy with desire. “Yeah, I faked the funk. What of it?” Four, he’s implicitly qualified and complimented her. “I’m with you, which means you made the cut.”

This technique can be used for real world interactions as well. The effectiveness will depend to an extent on how invested in you she has become. If you later reveal your real age with an insouciant disregard for her potential outrage, her ability and willingness to forgive and forget will be directly proportional to the love, or lust, she feels for you. You can do this with a lot of conventionally perceived mate value negatives that may deep-six a courtship before it has had a chance to get off the ground. Strategically omit any facts about yourself that you suspect deviate from her “Mr. Right checklist” until a later time when her 463 bullet point checklist has surrendered to her one bullet point vagina tingle.

One other thing… as one of the forum members wrote, a redirecting, strategically deployed compliment can go a long way to defusing female indignation over your naughtiness.

When/if she finds out, just smirk, “did you really think I was 25?”.

Then be impressed at her ability to find out your real age. Chics love thinking they were clever and can’t be fooled.

This is Sun Tzu seduction: Using a woman’s fondness for flattery against her. Just be sure it doesn’t come across like a last-ditch hail mary. Delivery matters. Pleasantly amused surprise is what you should shoot for.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: