Monthly Cycle Game: A Teaser

CH taunted and teased you ladies with hints of forthcoming posts on Monthly Cycle Game.

[T]here are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.

Here’s a little pleaser teaser to get you started on your road to mastering MCG, the art of adjusting your game to women’s cycles. A reader passed along the following study.

Synopsis ad paraphrase:  That the most fertile women have a 29.5 day cycle, and their menstration tends to be during full moon. While the most infertile women tend to bleed a week after full moon.

File this baby under “wow, just wow”. Do you enjoy the pleasures of exceedingly fertile women with exquisite hourglass figures who look like they could birth a small village? Then you’ll want to ramp up your aloof alpha cockiness when they’re ovulating, which appears to be, according to this study, [correction: two weeks before] full moons. So look up at the night sky, find that love-lit orb shining its arrogant fullest, wait two weeks, and confidently neg that hard 10 knowing she’ll never be more receptive to your jerkboy charms than right at that moment.

In future posts dedicated to the concept of Monthly Cycle Game, CH will examine the ovulatory “tells” that betray maximally fertile women; tells which men with a trained eye will be able to pick up and exploit to their end-of-civilization advantage.

Read Full Post »

Every CH Text Game Tactic Used On One Girl At Once

A reader exploited the collected wisdom of Chateau Heartiste text game techniques and unloaded it all on one unsuspecting girl. Hilarity ensued. (The dude’s replies are in blue. Also, note the time stamps for even more yuks.)

After you’re done stitching up your split sides, take a moment to reflect on the two lessons offered by this romantic tete-a-tete.

1. There is such a thing as overgaming. Too much game, all at once, can make you seem unattainable. Or uninterested. Or clownish. Think of game as the large muscle groups of your body. Those showy guns are impressive, but without all the connective tissue, the skeletal frame, the ligaments and tendons, and the small stabilizer muscles, you aren’t doing much with those guns except blasting one giant cap before blowing out a knee. So you work on building up those “stabilizer” parts of your game, like your congruency, your inner calm, your attitude, your story-telling, your timing, your piecemeal vulnerability, your calculated relenting, your genuine displays of interest, etc…

HOWEVER…

2. Notice that even this funnyman’s blatant disregard of the rule against overgaming doesn’t kill his chances with the woman, who is obviously committed to the conversation and unable to fully extract herself in a face-saving manner. Her replies have all the tells of a woman who is absolutely intrigued by the man who taunts her:

– correcting her own grammar mistakes
– prompt replies to his delayed replies
– her tacit admission that she would like to be invited by him somewhere in the future
– her yearning to know what he means by his cryptic texts (“Movies?”)
– the large discrepancy in text lengths (she must write twenty words for every one of his)
– the inability to stop replying to his texts, even when his texts began veering into absurdity. (a sincerely uninterested woman stops replying after the first or second go-round)

The truth that keeps rearing its ugly face is this: If you, as a man, set yourself apart from the beta male masses, no matter how outrageous your cocky assholery, you will swim in a sea of pussy. At the least, you will have dropped your oars into that sea, while the betas are high and dry, watching you sail off from afar.

End of debate. Ladies, you only have your tingles to blame for the men you escort to your beds.

PS I got an extra belly laugh from this part:

“Sorry I require effort. Not a call girl or 22 years old anymore. Was fun when I was but that’s all done now. … No longer the girl who goes to hang while you DJ then I get drunk then you fuck me after.”

😆 It’s always those post-peak nubility women with slutty pasts who “require effort”. Sorry. If you want “effort”, you have to be worth it. Effort, like respect, must be earned. And a former “alpha fux, beta bux” party girl on the downslope of her beauty career nursing regrets about having given it away for free to DJs when she was younger, hotter, tighter is not a prize that many men with options will put much effort into wooing.

Be happy you got a “8====D”.

Read Full Post »

Are Antidepressants Ruining American Women?

Think about the ecumenical change in society that, intuitively, must be happening with the widespread use of various hindbrain altering drugs, like the Pill and antidepressants. This is a change in biochemistry unparalleled in human evolutionary history. It’d be a miracle of serendipity if there weren’t blowback.

A reader surmises,

Great site. Good advice. But …

There is something to be said for all the anti-depressants/mood stabilizers/whatevers that women are taking these days. And I mean, a LOT of women on are on these psych drugs. You’re asking me so what, right? Well …

A lot of a man’s behavior toward women rests on the presumption (truth) that women are insecure and may get depressed at times, and when they do, they choose a man that has been solid for them. They either choose one, confide in the one they “love” or return to one. BUT, with these drugs, I think a lot of their negative feelings are prevented, making them less vulnerable.

It’s something I’ve noticed among professional women. Sure, maybe my game isn’t what it was, but I think it’s worth addressing. Women’s drugs are changing the game a little bit.

An interesting hypothesis we have here, and one that may go a ways to explaining why there is a growing impression among American men that their women are becoming manlier, sluttier, present-time oriented, and all-around less provocatively charming.

Here’s a lovefact sure to torque a feminist’s fat hamster into a tailspin:

Maxim #27: Beyond beauty, a woman’s attractiveness to men is partly a function of her feminine vulnerability, or her ability to mimic feminine vulnerability.

Corollary to Maxim #27: Men are turned off by overconfident, assertive, proudly self-sufficient women.

Yep, despite the delusional claptrap that feminists want the world to believe, men don’t swoon for women who act like men. Non-manboobed men with hanging testicles don’t, at any rate. Invulnerability is not sexy on women.

Men, at least K-selected men from the frigid Northlands where the cold winds blow and nothing grows for six months, are hard-wired with a protection instinct. We want to guard the carriers of our kingly posterity.

Evolution, therefore, has ensured that men respond viscerally to beautiful, weak women needing protection. A woman in need rallies a man’s ready seed.

Enter antidepressants. Suddenly women all over the sub-veneer tribal landscape are feeling invincible, unstoppable, and perfectly capable on their own. “No means no, creeper!” The manly protective (beta) instinct which warms the hearts of biochemically natural women leaves SSRI drugged-up simulacra of women feeling indifferent, even antagonistic, to the same signals of stoically masculine benefaction.

Multiply this effect a hundredfold in the homeland of the SWPL: The big blue whitening cities of the coasts, where every vibrantly atomized lawyercunt and her bovine cockblock are hopped up on happy happy happy pills. No joke, I’d bet 80% of Obama Country college-grad white chicks are dazed and confused with the help of Big Father Pharma. That percentage jumps to 99% when you expand the age range to include spinsters with two or more cats aka alpha male substitutes.

All successful game requires, in lesser or greater dose, the deployment, consciously or otherwise, of psychological tactics which raise the man’s relative status, lower the woman’s relative status, or both. This is a fact of the nature of the sexes, and it exists because the lifeblood of lust is fed to men and women by different veins. What excites a woman — the challenging company of a higher value, dominant man — is different than what excites a man — the company of a coy, vulnerable, pretty woman. You can rail to the ends of the earth about this fallen state of humanity, but you will never change it, not as long as there are two sexes evolved with differing reproductive goals.

It makes sense, then, that drugs which create a disturbance in the sexual polarity force would also have a downstream effect on courtship, both the traditional and the modern game styles of mate acquisition. A less vulnerable-feeling woman is a woman less receptive to beta provider game, and — this is getting deep into CH theory of modern dating dynamics territory — more receptive to sexy alpha bounder game.

An artificially happy and confident woman is, in short, a no-game-having beta male’s worst nightmare.

(A few of you wags might say that SSRIs are helping turn the US from a Euro mating market to an African mating market, where sky high self-esteem absent any supporting evidence is the norm.)

As a visionary acolyte of Le Chateau, you want to know how to make this new social reality work for you. (Some of you want to change it back to where it was before it turned wicked, but that is a concern for wise old men with rerouted energies.) A good start is dread game, which is the seducer’s answer to invulnerable women.

Some other proto-men, like the scalzied followers of male feminists, take the opposite tack, and submit themselves completely to the whim of Tsarina Bombas, in hopes, apparently, that their utter prostration would excite in women the pity fuck compulsion before it triggers their active repulsion reflex.

A specific skill of modern seduction, as channeled through game, will therefore need to be (sadly from a certain perspective) the ability to evoke, in pinprick psychological jabs, sadness, fear, worry and self-doubt in the Happy Harlots of Late Hour America. If you lack this skill, you’ll find more cynical men stealing your lamb meat off your white linened table.

Or, you could just wait out the coming collapse in your Galtian gulch, and watch the feckless loverboys starve in the streets live-streamed, as the newly vulnerable women rediscover the value of your warm hearth. But by that time, you’ll have stuccoed the entirety of your masturbatorium.

The antidepressant ruination of American women is a theory worth investigating, particularly in light of observational evidence in favor. Perhaps enterprising readers will unearth studies which connect the dots. Or perhaps they’ll just say “what the fuck”, and give the Supergirls a double dose of ego-smashing sexytime.

Read Full Post »

A Man’s Perceived Physical Attractiveness Is Fluid

Men and women are psychologically, temperamentally, physically, and, as ♥SCIENCE♥ is now showing, perceptually different. How men and women perceive the opposite sex’s physical attractiveness varies greatly. What follows is a gem of a study that essentially vindicates the foundational elements of game and lends support to an understanding of the world that accounts for innate psychosexual differences between the sexes.

The abstract:

From an evolutionary perspective, beauty is regarded as an assessment of fitness value. The fitness value of a social partner can be influenced by both physical and nonphysical traits. It follows that the perceived beauty of a social partner can be influenced by nonphysical traits such as liking, respect, familiarity, and contribution to shared goals in addition to physical traits such as youth, waist-to-hip ratio, and bilateral symmetry. We present three studies involving the evaluation of known social partners showing that judgments of physical attractiveness are strongly influenced by nonphysical factors. Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males and there are large individual differences within each sex. In general, research on physical attractiveness based on the evaluation of purely physical traits of strangers might miss some of the most important factors influencing the perception of physical attractiveness among known associates.

Reread for comprehension.

“Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males…”

That’s the sex difference reality that pumps lifeblood through the heart of game. This is game set match for the losing “Only looks matter” psychosexuality reality denialist dorks, aka bedroom hermits.

We’ll unpack some of this badboy because it’s just that good.

A few studies have examined the effect of nonphysical factors on the judgment of physical attractiveness. Early studies that were not inspired by evolution include Gross and Crofton’s (1977) paper ‘‘What Is Good Is Beautiful,’’ written in response to Dion, Berscheid, and Walster’s (1972) landmark paper ‘‘What Is Beautiful Is Good,’’ and Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) demonstration of a ‘‘halo effect’’ in which evaluations of one attribute of a person are generalized to influence evaluations of other attributes (see also Feingold 1992; Felson & Bohrenstedt, 1979; Owens & Ford, 1978). The famous ‘‘closing time effect’’ (Gladue & Delaney, 1990) demonstrates that simple availability can influence the perception of physical attractiveness. More recent studies inspired by evolutionary psychology show that social status (Townsend & Levy, 1990) and prosocial orientation (Jensen-Campbell, West, & Graziano, 1995) enhance perception of physical attractiveness.

The evidence in the bolded part is likely capturing the effectiveness of social status and social savviness to a man’s perceived attractiveness.

Another problem is that most studies on physical attractiveness—including the few that examine nonphysical factors—are based on the evaluation of strangers. Moreover, ac- cording to Langlois et al. (2000, p. 408), ‘‘most of the research we reviewed categorized people into two levels of attractiveness, high or low.’’ Comparing the ends of the dis- tribution exaggerates the consistency with which people rate others as physically attractive based on physical traits. These widespread methods are problematic from an evolutionary perspective. In ancestral social environments, interactions took place in small groups of people whose physical attributes were roughly average and whose nonphysical attributes were intimately known to each other. The psychological mechanisms that evolved to integrate these factors into an overall assessment of physical attractiveness might not be engaged by the artificial conditions of psychological experiments, even those that attempt to examine nonphysical factors.

This will be no news to men who routinely hit the field to meet women. Artificial psych experiments are simply inadequate at picking up those subtle nonphysical cues of social status that women find so enticing in men. That’s why there are so few lab experiments testing the real world efficacy of game; it’s just hard to replicate that feedback intensive environment and those high level psychological interactions in a lab.

We present three studies that were conducted in this spirit. The first added a twist to the method of evaluating photographs by having people evaluate the photographs of known individuals in their high school yearbooks. The second and third studies were conducted on actual groups of interacting individuals. In the second study, evaluation by group members was compared to evaluation by strangers based on photographs. In the third study, group members evaluated each other when the group was initially formed and again after a period of interaction, providing the strongest test of the effect of nonphysical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness.

This part is quoted for informational purposes. The third study looks the most interesting from a game perspective.

To summarize the results of our first study, the perception of physical attractiveness appeared to be highly influenced by knowing the people and their nonphysical traits. It was not familiarity per se that was important in most cases—otherwise familiarity would have been the most important independent variable in the multiple regressions—but what is known and how it is evaluated in terms of liking and respect.

The authors discuss causation and correlation problems, and how they solved them, which you can read at the linked study above. Bottom line: If a girl doesn’t like you or respect you, she will perceive you as uglier than you really are. Likewise, the inverse. This is why girlfriends and wives in happy relationships often feel their men are better looking now than when they first met them.

A description of two team members will make the results of [the second] study more vivid and intuitive. One of the five males was a ‘‘slacker’’ who obviously was not pulling his weight, either literally or figuratively. He was the primary object of negative gossip and social control efforts, such as teasing and inspecting his bedroom window when he failed to show up for practice. He was uniformly rated as physically ugly by team members. Another of the five males was the opposite of the slacker, working so hard that he was discussed as possibly a contender for the U.S. Olympic team. He was uniformly rated as physically attractive by team members. This large difference in perceived physical attractiveness did not exist for raters who knew nothing about the contributions of the two men to the team.

This is direct evidence that when a woman is aware of a man’s high social status, she will find him more facially attractive. But the most conclusive evidence for status-based and tractable male physical attractiveness (and conversely, intractable female physical attractiveness) comes in part three.

[In the third study], initial rating of physical attractiveness accounted for only 9.3% of the variation in final rating of physical attractiveness for females rating females, 19.2% for females rating males, and 62% for males rating females. The remaining independent variables were highly correlated with each other and with the residual variation, as in our other two studies. Liking was the next variable to be entered in all three analyses and none of the other factors explained the residual variation after the addition of liking.

First impressions are way more important to men (as a function of women’s ability to attract men) than they are to women. If a man thinks a woman is hot, he’ll pretty much still think that after he gets to know her, no matter how bad her personality. Women, in contrast, will vary a lot between their first impressions and later impressions once they get to know the man.

Our third study is methodologically the strongest by avoiding the use of photographs and employing before-and-after ratings of physical attractiveness by the same person rather than ratings by a separate stranger. Nevertheless, the results of our third study are fully consistent with our other two studies. Among people who actually know and interact with each other, the perception of physical attractiveness is based largely on traits that cannot be detected from physical appearance alone, either from photographs or from actually observing the person before forming a relationship. The effect of nonphysical factors on the perception of physical attractiveness is strongest for females rating females, females rating males, and males rating males. It is weaker but still highly significant for males rating females.

The weakest effect of nonphysical factors on physical attractiveness is among males rating females, which is evidence validating evolutionary psychology theory that men are more looks-focused and women are more holistic in their appraisals of the appeal of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, men do think women can look a little better if they are also charming and likable, which proves the CH precept that femininity can boost a woman’s SMV by a half point. (Not insignificant when you consider that SMV is measured on a 10 point scale.)

Our studies were designed to address two shortcomings in the literature on physical attractiveness: (1) a relative paucity of studies that examine the effects of both nonphysical and physical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness and (2) a relative paucity of studies that involve people who actually know each other. All three studies demonstrate that nonphysical factors have a very potent effect on the perception of physical attractiveness, which can persist for decades in the case of the middle-aged participants of our yearbook study.

Alert the manboob media! Science ♥proves♥ that GAME WORKS, and continues working right into the later years of life.

Physical traits per se are especially important in sexual relationships because they will be partially inherited by one’s offspring. Thus, it makes sense that males are more influenced by physical features when evaluating females than when evaluating males, although the comparable asymmetry did not exist for females.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
Feminists wept.

Our studies also reveal individual differences within each sex that rival between-sex differences and that merit further study. In particular, individual differences are increasingly being studied in game theoretic terms as alternative social strategies, such as cooperation versus exploitation (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, 1998) or high-investment versus low-investment mating strategies (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In future research it will be interesting to see if people who differ in these respects also differ in the factors that influence their perceptions of physical attractiveness.

Otherwise known as r-selection versus K-selection. Yes, it would be interesting to see which way the sexual culture is blowing. I kind of have an idea.

For example, are women from father-absent homes, who appear to adopt a reproductive strategy based on low male investment (Draper & Harpending, 1982, Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 1999), more influenced by purely physical traits in males than those from father-present homes?

Answer from my purely observational, unscientific point of view: Yes. Or: Game — aka the nonphysical aspects of attraction — works better on smart, emotionally stable chicks from intact families. Now there’s a counter-intuitive that’ll really stick in the craw of anti-game haters!

In conclusion, thinking of beauty as an assessment of fitness value leads to the prediction that nonphysical factors should have a strong effect on the perception of physical attractive- ness. In addition, naturalistic studies are needed to fully understand how physical and nonphysical factors are integrated in the perception of physical attractiveness. If we were to state our results in the form of a beauty tip, it would be, ‘‘If you want to enhance your physical attractiveness, become a valuable social partner.’’

Game, the art and leisure of becoming a valuable social partner.

As you can see from this study’s results, women trick themselves as much as men “trick” women using game. Remember that the next time you hear some feminist or manboob shrieking about how game is manipulative and deceptive. A woman deceives herself just fine without any help from a pick-up artist. Of course, she’ll get the help, because that’s what she wants.

Read Full Post »

The Rules Of Social Savviness: Rule #3

The King, (that’s you, bub), strides to the castle balcony to sonorously address the ear-pricked masses below. Your heavy velvet robe flowing around you, royal bling glittering in the sun, you gaze downward, lift your arms with palms to the sky, and say,

“What do you guys think of my rule?”

Ludicrous, right? A King would never speak to his adoring flock like that. He wouldn’t ask them their opinion; he would state outright what he was planning, and expect nothing less than enthusiastic reception for his nostrums. The King would not query. He would proclaim.

This is the last in a series on the Rules of Social Savviness. Rule #1 is here and Rule #2 here.

The third rule caps what I consider the winning trifecta of social behaviors that are characteristic of the socially savvy alpha male. As illustrated in the above scenario, it strikes us strangely when a high status man asks questions. We expect such a man to declare his intention or his opinion, not wonder aloud if his intention is workable or his opinion worthwhile. This natural human impulse to regard earnest questioners as innately lower status — an impulse that is especially refined in women as a psychological mechanism for determining bangable men in their midst — can be exploited by socially savvy men to their personal benefit.

Rule #3: Don’t ask questions when you can make statements instead.

Before Team Autist shows up to bristle that this rule means a man should never ask questions even if he needs the answer to something he doesn’t know, recall that life is full to brimming with generalizable rules that must suffer the indignity of hard-to-square exceptions. Learn to deal with the dissonance.

Rule #3 is the least firm and most frustrating of the three Rules of Social Savviness for social misfits, even as it is the easiest to follow (with some practiced self-awareness). Think of Rule #3 more as a goal to strive toward rather than an ironclad dictum.

Reader Lorem Ipsum describes Rule #3 very well in a comment on this post,

One of the best things that I ever did to improve my texting was to delete all question marks, as the interrogative mood is indicative of the classic beta frame (even when used as a rhetorical device; your texts should be the written equivalent of the terse statements of a pilot wrestling with the controls of a wounded aircraft). It is at its core a submissive posture; someone else has information (power) and you implore them to share that power with you.

“Is this a trick question? I loved the spice girls”
versus:
“Trick question. I loved the spice girls”

The second is more powerful. The Alpha ALWAYS knows, even when he doesn’t.

Act as if you know, even when you don’t. Chicks dig overconfident men. Overconfidence is the heart of game.

So get in the practice of thinking before speaking. Make that split second adjustment that mentally switches your questions to statements. Avoid the question mark in any texts, chats or emails. If there is room to rephrase a question to a statement, do so. And as your tongue nimbly accommodates this improved, alpha, way of speaking, you will discover a new man emerging from the chrysalis of your beta shell. Fake it till you create it. And make no mistake, you CAN create a better man out of the man that is now you.

The Three Rules of Social Savviness

1. Don’t get defensive
2. Don’t force conversation topics
3. Don’t ask questions when you can make statements instead

Abide these rules, and your social life will improve dramatically. Half of your game will be rendered obsolete because friends charmed by your company will go out of their way to set you up with girls they know. And they’ll make damned sure the girls are cute and feminine, because you wouldn’t want to disappoint the King, would you?

UPDATE

Mangan has linked to an article about “uptalk”, which is the linguistic habit of turning every statement into a question. Quote,

[Uptalk] is the very opposite of confidence or assertiveness.

Yet again we see that the landed gentry of the human sciences have ♥vindicated♥ Chateau Heartiste concepts, providing more ammunition for advocates of game as a legitimate fast-track seduction technique. Game denialists would weep, but their bodily fluids are empty on account of having shed their last post-coital tear of relief into their couch creases.

Read Full Post »

The Rules Of Social Savviness: Rule #2

Social Savviness Rule #1 was: Don’t Get Defensive. Also known as the “If you show your soft underbelly, people will claw at it until your guts are sliding out” rule.

In this post, we will discuss the second of the three Rules of Social Savviness:

Rule #2: Don’t Force Conversation Topics.

Men have a thermal exhaust port. We are too logical. No, seriously. Logic is great for building bridges that won’t collapse and for inventing calculus, but it’s horrible as a mental facility for managing relationships or persuading women to see your point of view.

(Women have a thermal exhaust port, too: Their emotional bonding and subsequent rationalization for their feelings that blinds them to a man’s true motives.)

Logical thinking is how theories are formulated, arguments are devised, and solutions are hard-won. Men, by dint of years of exposure to their own natures, have resilient egos which can withstand blows by opposing forces and regroup for another day of adventure and creative-destruction. Unlike women who retreat to deeper delusions when their egos are struck by reality, men can, to varying degree, take an ego shock in stride and incorporate new evidence that will accrue to their personal advantage.

That male trait which is a gift in non-romantically infused contexts is a handicap when the opposing force is an alien who doesn’t play by the rules of logic. That force is female self-love, from which all absurdities of thought and peculiarities of reason flow.

So what happens when the unstoppable force of male logic meets the immovable object of female self-love? You get what we in the seduction business call a stubborn refusal to let an orphaned conversation thread die out when it isn’t being received well by female company.

We’ve all seen this happen to some hapless over-logical male: The triumphant quasi-announcement of a scintillating conversation topic nursed in a split second judgment that the gathered will be amazed by his wit and wisdom, the forthright glee with which it is presented for studio consumption, the leaking of confident airs from his demeanor as he too slowly realizes no one is reciprocating his energy or spring-boarding off his brilliance, the stuttering follow-up as one or two congregants, usually women, ricochet unpredictably into new topical territory, the prison of silence that muffles him as he surrenders to the reality that the crowd has MOVED ON.

And then, the most awkward moment, the anti-climax he will regret for months if he is young and for an hour or two if he is older and giving less fucks about life’s sadistic pop quizzes. That moment, after the conversation has fully turned and spasms of fresh vigor have been injected by girlicues following their bouncing bubbly balls, when he throws himself, bellyflop style, onto the organic rhythm of the back and forth with a last-ditch effort to impose his previous stream of concreteness. And, naturally, the reddening splash turns to reddening hue as eyes of pity shot with capillaries of contempt answer his logical insistence with an ocular writ of cease and desist.

He is humbled, and his allies in male logic abandon him as the women take the lead to rescue a souring scene. As go the tingles, so go the tumescents.

If you get what you think is a winning conversational theme in your head, be prepared to abandon it at a moment’s notice. Like De Niro* might say about seduction, don’t get attached to a topic you aren’t willing to drop in ten seconds flat, if you feel the female heat around the corner.

(*Running ref gag.)

Let threads die. Don’t attempt to revive threads at a later time. Don’t beat a fun time over the head with your genius insight that the world is fated to endure. Don’t hammer home a message when the crowd has decided it’s time to talk about something else. If you can master the art of artfully dodging your own bull-headed self-loyalty, you can learn to appreciate the percolating jazziness of verbal foreplay. It’s a talent that comes second-nature to women, but which men — especially autist spectrum men — have to work at to achieve the same level of instinctive grasp.

If you feel that headstrong voice egging on your ego to drive home a point, don’t listen to it. Avoid its tempation. Choose strife. Accept that conversations and social pressures will be chaotic, and that from this bubbling froth of flirty banter that is outside of your narrow mental alleyways and that flourishes under both your simultaneous command and acquiescence, real desire can erupt, like a solar flare.

Women measure a man’s mate worth by many more variables than just his shoes or square jaw. They measure his wit, his grace under pressure, his adaptability. Can he steer discursive switchbacks with confidence? Can he quickly disown colloquially limp lows while claiming careening conversational highs as his own? These tells of a man’s alpha nature — and yes, they are the distinguishing hallmarks of the alpha male personality — are subtle enough to be missed by other men with eight-cylinder powered logical minds, but are magnified to outsized relevance by intuitive women with a million years of evolution to guide them toward the vessel of their orgasmically up-sucked überseed.

One trick I have learned that has helped me avoid the error of forcing conversation topics is to relinquish a flowering thought at the moment when the crowd wants to hear more of it. Better to err on the side of leaving a topic stranded close to a high note rather than beating it to death past its expiration note. You are not a stand-up comedian with a captive audience and a mic; you are a man in a group of people all more or less equally competing for air time. Use the floor wisely. Your wit should be a gift, not a chore.

Next post: Rule #3!

Read Full Post »

The Rules Of Social Savviness: Rule #1

This is a three part series that will delve into the fundamental laws of the pooniverse. The pooniverse includes within its sphere of influence any social interaction, whether in pairs or groups, single sex or mixed sex. Why not have the concentric embedding go the other way around? Because the biomechanical prime directive assures that any social interaction will create perturbations in the sexual marketplace that will move players up or down the reproductive fitness scale of worth. To put it bluntly, if you talk like a nerd, you’ll turn off women. If you talk like a charming mofo, women will brighten to your presence. And in the final analysis, everything we do, we do for love. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

The Rules of Social Savviness are foundational to game, and are vital to courtships and to friendships. The closer you adhere to the Rules of Social Savviness, the better every aspect of your social life, from your work relationships to your romances to your family to your friends, will be. The further from these rules you drift, the worse you’ll feel because people won’t want to be around you.

A socially savvy man makes other men laugh and enjoy his company, and this will be noticed by women, who cannot help by dance to their natures and become aroused by the sight and sound of a savvy man holding court like a king whose words are next to God’s. These Rules are therefore universally applicable, and ultimately redound to your success as a seducer.

Rule #1: Don’t get defensive.

Some might call this rule, “Try not to come off like a grammar nazi, or like Bryan Caplan on the verge of thumping his head with his fist after finding out he undercounted the paper clips.”

The object of this rule is simple: If a person (sometimes, yes, a cute girl!) is playing around with you, or even ribbing you with a whiff of malice, don’t take the sperg stand like a defendant swearing his humanness to a jury of his peers. The jury doesn’t care. They just want to be entertained. And logical refutation is not entertaining. Nor is butthurt indignation. Nor overwrought explanation. Nor cringing insecurity. Nor whiny baby boy whininess. Nor crestfallen defeat.

Well, that last one can be entertaining, but only to sadists.

I’ll give you an example of this Rule in action from my own life. I was at a [REDACTED] and did something goofy, the details of which I can’t recall but anyhow don’t matter much to the lesson being conveyed, when a colt-ily cute-ish girl announced with uncorked bravado to the assembled her opinion of my antic:

“Eww, that’s so creepy!”

Now, mind you, she said it with an obvious hint of humor, so the crowd wouldn’t get the idea she was being a bitch or anything. But even lubed with the laxative of facetiousness, this was the sort of blurted grillgrrl judgment that can sweep the leg of a lesser man who lacked experience in the ways of sex-simmered social politesse. Fortuitously, living My life as CH and master of all that He surveys, my reply was deceptively coy and disarming:

{raising eyebrows, curling lips downward, and slowly nodding like De Niro  contemplating the infinite cosmos}:

“You bet! I’m hoping to reach level 99 creeper some day.”

Not the wittiest line I’ve ever uttered, but that’s not the point. You can say anything to defuse a caustic jab and still sound entertaining and likable, as long as you don’t sound defensive. She laughed, crowd chuckled warmly, mission accomplished, at least for that three second window. These three second missions never end.

How would the typical, clocks in his 40 hour work week, stays on the straight and narrow, supports the infrastructure of civilization, beta male react to that same girl rattling his world with a half-cocked accusation of creepiness?

I’ll tell you (because I’ve heard a million beta males stumble their way through similar scenarios). The typical beta would say:

“That’s not creepy.”

Or, “No, I was just trying to…”

Or, “No, I didn’t mean it that way…”

Or, {says nothing, smiles weakly and blushes}

You get the picture. Defensiveness is the calling card of the butthurt beta male. A girl could be drenching her panties thinking about your glowing member, but if you adopt the defensive posture and utter three predictable, ego-bruised inanities in a row, her vagina will retract like a turtle in the midday sun. If that doesn’t shut her down completely, the retreat of a disappointed crowd surely will. Works on male friends, too. Your buddies will buy you more drinks and invite you more places if you’re that cool cat who doesn’t take stuff personally and knows how to badinage like a boss.

Don’t get defensive. Once you have this rule lodged in your head, you’ll be surprised how smoothly fresh grease for conversational grist oils your gray matter gears. It’s a self-therapy ploy to push yourself to think along new vectors, and to glide along stronger, slicker neural paths. Lose the bad habits, and good habits have room to grow.

Next post: Rule #2!

Read Full Post »