Alpha Assessment: The Unexpected Alpha

This reader is very proud of his text game,

I just had a text exchange I am so proud of that I couldn’t help but share it with you. Feel free to post it if you’d like, but please don’t use my name. Thanks.

Girl: Level of disappointment from a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the break up of the beatles and and 1 being the break up of the spice girls

Girl: …of me possibly rescheduling our rendezvous to next week

Me: Is this a trick question? I loved the spice girls

Girl: Nevermind.  Ill see you Thursday

How alpha is this reader’s text reply? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being STEVE MOTHERFUCKIN MCQUEEN alpha, and 1 being Hugo Schwyzer situational alpha which fails the second he walks out of a roomful of deranged feminist coeds, I would rate his reply an 8.

An 8 means the reply is more than serviceable; it actually boosts his alpha cred a little. But what prevents the reply from reaching the exalted heights of 10dom is the springboard from which it was launched. You see, a truly alpha text message is one that careens out of nowhere, takes a girl by surprise, and instantly moistens her cortical ham for further romantic interaction. But this reader’s reply came on the heel of a very turgid message from the girl; a message so long-winded and carefully constructed that a third party reading it would come to the easy conclusion that she already harbored strong feelings for this reader.

Evidence shows the reader was operating from a position of prior alphatude, a fact which docks a couple points from the alpha score of his text reply. It was a fine reply sir, but like virtue free of the temptation of vice, alphaness is easy when it isn’t being tested by female aloofness.

Read Full Post »

The Shit Test Was Known To Men In 1910

Dovetailing from yesterday’s post, further enlightening excerpts from that most awesome 1910 game guide titled “Modern Woman and How to Manage Her“:

There are two universal theories concerning women: 1. That she is gentle and 2. That she is cruel. How have these conflicting views arisen? Why do men when in grief or difficulties so often seek the sympathy and the advice of women? Why on the other hand do men declare that women are capable of incredible cruelty? Let us attempt to explain this enigma. In those countries where marriage by capture still survives we shall find instructive evidence of that form of the antagonism of the sexes which is inseparable from the great business of love-making. In New Zealand not long ago a Maori wooer, with the consent of the girl’s parents, employed force in winning his bride. He seized the maiden and bore her away, struggling, biting, kicking. Maori girls are almost as physically strong as men and it was often a wrestling match of fairly equal combatants. We read that it was sometimes the work of hours before the captor could carry the resisting maiden a hundred yards. Thus love begins among the Maoris as among other and more advanced races with actual cruelty, strife and pain.

A Bedouin virgin makes a show of resistance to her lover by pelting him with stones which often wound the suitor. When he grapples with her she bites and uses her fists and nails even though she loves him and desires to be captured. The European woman does not as a rule display such forms of physical violence but the elements of anger, fear, and the desire to inflict pain enter more or less into most courtships. [ed: emphasis mine.]

In Spain, until the middle of the nineteenth century, women took pleasure in watching a lover flog himself until the blood flowed, and the elaborate system of courtship still observed in that country which insists that the suitor should wait for hours, day after day, beneath the maiden’s window till she deigns to smile upon him is a survival of the ancient custom of self torture as a means of winning a woman’s favour.

There are cases recorded of women who find exquisite satisfaction in the infliction of both mental and physical pain upon their lovers. Such manifestations are related to the passion of love and have a very important biological significance.

From this source springs the female instinct of teasing which is noticeable even among little girls in their play with boys. Every man can recall boyish experiences of this kind. From fourteen up to sweet seventeen and sometimes after that age girls frequently tease, snub and vex the youths of their acquaintance with much zest. The shyest boys [ed: betas] are most exposed to these lacerating snubs. No man dare be as rude as a woman. Her sex protects her from the retaliation of a retort discourteous. This love of tormenting the opposite sex reaches its height in many young girls when a young man is deeply in love with them, and the romantic and ardent types of youths are the chief sufferers from this form of feminine bullying.

I have heard a beautiful woman of this order describe with gusto the manner in which she first encouraged her lovers and then having brought them to her feet rejected them with polite disdain. The spectacle of a man grovelling for her consent caused acute pleasure.

The emotion that underlies this impulse to tease men and to excite their anger is a phase of sex antagonism, but it is very intimately associated with sexual feeling. The contempt, the coldness, and the cruelty are unconsciously directed by the woman towards an end, and they are frequently the expression of an amative nature. In its milder forms, unkindness to a lover is a very common trait among women. It is often employed to stimulate ardour and to test a man’s devotion. Women who in love first blow hot and then cold by turn are obeying a primitive instinct which has played an important part in the relationship of the sexes.

What the author, Gallichan, is describing here is known to modern seducers as the shit test.  Plus, what is also being described is possibly the first layman’s observations on what would come to be known as the Borderline Personality Disorder woman, (cf., Penelope Trunk), and the Attention Whore.

What Gallichan understands is what PUAs understand — when a woman shit tests you, i.e. when she teases and taunts you, she is in fact romantically aroused by you and her cruelty is a test of your mettle as a man. Will you remain “devoted” — aka unflustered by her theatrics — or will you wilt like a shy beta boy shrunk to hunched shame by her sharp barbs?

Read the last quoted line again. Push-pull PUA game is, like most game techniques, an arrogation by men of traditional female game. When you use a woman’s natural seductions against her, such as her instinct to “first blow hot and then cold”, you inflame her to passions the equal degree to which her beauty inflames men. Few men know to do this; fewer still execute the game skillfully. So if you can do it, you set yourself above every other man she knows, and above herself. Which is where she likes her man.

Read Full Post »

Tight Game From 1910

Full-Fledged Fiasco passed along this link to an example of the kind of game that men had access to way back in 1910:

~ Modern Woman and How to Manage Her, by Walter M. Gallichan, 1910

Beautifully put. The Gilded Age stands in stark contrast to the Gelded Age in which we are currently mired. And mirin.

Game has always been with us. Contrary to the flimsy strawmen of game denialists who delude themselves into thinking game is some sort of modern nerd fest with no analogue in esteemed cultural history, the facts bear out just how romantically savvy and game-aware were men of the past, should those men have chosen to enlighten themselves beyond their mothers’ saccharine teachings. One hundred years ago, people knew what women were about; only recently it seems we have had to relearn the age-old lessons. Blame it on the Flim-flam Effect.

Of course, this knowledge of the crimson arts was likely not known by the term “game” in 1910. Perhaps it went by some other name, like “reality”, or “charisma”, or “the Gods of the Copybook Headings”. The term that is used to describe ancient human rhythms is irrelevant; what matters are the insights. And in 1910, at least some had amazing insight into the feminine soul. Look at the ways this passage closely aligns with modern game teachings.

“the impulse to nag must be regarded as common and normal in women”

Modern game theorists accept as a foundational premise that sex differences in behavior are real, and immutable, and that ignoring these differences will have profound consequences for one’s success in the sexual market.

“it is only when the nagging is incessant and excessive that it degenerates into a morbid vice”

Relationship game. Women get progressively nastier to the men in their lives if those men allow them to run roughshod. This is known as the creeping betatization of domestication. (Nice ring to it.) A woman’s happiness and contentment in a relationship are directly proportional to the willing refusal of her man to put up with her shit.

“the best way to manage a nagging woman is to agree with her that you are a perfect brute and wretch”

Agree and amplify. Core game technique.

“and then to laugh at her”

Amused mastery. Core game concept.

“if that fails, fly from her presence”

NEXT.

What in that antediluvian, 90% white America paragraph is substantially different from anything taught today by avowed pick-up artists? Answer: Nothing. The only major difference between the “game” of yesteryear and the game of today is the scientific strength and experimental feedback that modern seduction proponents draw from relatively recent developments like evolutionary psychology and instantly transmitted field reports.. If you were to talk to a savvy man from 1910 about evolutionary psychology, he would look at you like you were from Mars. But if you were to ask him how he handles his woman, a wealth of knowledge would be yours for the taking.

It’s time for American men to return to their roots. Their deep roots. Only from the roots will the tree of knowledge of good and evil regrow its lost might.

Read Full Post »

The Self-Deprecation Nuclear Shit Test

Women have many shit tests and penumbras of shit tests in their hamster arsenal, but none packs a more explosive punch than the self-deprecation shit test, which is like the Tsar Bomba of shit tests. The shock wave from this big baby is enough to send an inexperienced man reeling backwards into stunned silence. Or, worse, obsequious reassurance.

A reader passes along his recent encounter with the Hamsta Bomba of shit tests,

The other day I was hitting on an asian girl (FOB, but culturally American) who is studying English in North America.  I had met her by chance the previous day at a festival and gotten a make out after the festival.

I was escalating and she gave me what I think was a “nuclear shit test” and I didn’t know how to respond.

She said: “I’m surprised you want to bang me so bad – I’m not even that hot.  There are way better looking girls you should be going after.”  Indeed, she is not that hot.  A solid 6 but no more.  She was implying that because I was hitting on her, I must not be able to get with the hotter girls, so I’m a loser.

I demurred, and said that “I liked her smile.”  But I did not have a witty rejoinder to her shit test.

What should I have said?

(For the record, I regularly hook up with 8s, but I was going after this 6 because I was in town for a couple days only and wanted an easy lay.  I ended up getting a BJ from her).

This question of how to deactivate the fission cascade on the self-deprecation nuclear shit test has been answered before at the Chateau. And the conclusion from that post is that your best options are to either

a. ignore her and change the subject, or

b. reframe so that she gets put into the defensive crouch.

The reframe that is most popular among the coituscenti is the classic “Have you always been this vain?” This is the black hole to the nuclear shit test, sucking the atomic life and energy right out of her beta boob bait.

Another good reply: “Oh god, you’re not that kind of girl who’s always comparing herself to other girls, are you?!”

Defensive crouches are where gina tingles are born.

The absolute worst reply you could give — and one which is the equivalent of chomping down on stinky chum and getting hooked into the boat — is to reassure her that she’s pretty. Your logical male mind thinks this is the answer she wants, but if you say it you’ll soon discover the air escaping from any sexual tension that had been building. Women interpret male reassurance as male desperation to keep the momentum moving toward sex. This is why disarming shit tests is such a valuable game skill to have; by refusing to play into her “oh no, another boring beta male” expectations, you, as a man, decrease the likelihood that she’ll concoct a reason to short-circuit the seduction process.

Read Full Post »

AMOG Tit Grab

A reader passes along a quickie anecdote that you don’t hear everyday:

I would like your take on this situation that arose with my GF. Been together about a month.

Went to a pub, I brought a friend, its kind of her turf so she runs into coworkers and friends there a lot. Two dudes she used to work with come in, she hugs them. She is pretty bad for introducing me to people…often she says hello to a group, I wait a minute then introduce myself. She follows up by saying I’m her BF, etc, but she leaves it to me to break the ice.

Once again no intro, this time I didn’t care much to say hi, so me and my friend went for a drink. At last call, her and I are chatting, I see another friend and go say hi, she sees these two coworkers again. I come up to do the introduction, and one of the dudes grabs her tit when she moves in for a hug. She shoves his hand away but laughs and hugs him. I’m literally over this dudes shoulder, she knows I saw it.

What’s the alpha play here? (I walked away, she chased after me asking why i was running away…fully aware of the reason)

1. One month is not long enough to call any girl your “girlfriend”. Not even if you’re banging her six ways to Sunday. Already I sense your mentality is beta, for only a beta male would count his chicks before they’ve latched.

2. It’s a very bad tell when your “GF” doesn’t introduce you to people she knows. She either doesn’t want them to know the full extent of your relationship with her, or she’s not sufficiently attached to you and easily forgets you exist. Third option: She’s a sperg with naturally bad social skills. But that’s a low probability option.

3. The AMOG dude obviously felt comfortable enough to grab her tit without fearing retribution, from either her or you. Therefore, he either knows, through her, that she’s not that into you, or he’s actually fucking her on the downlow. Her reaction — or rather, her barely concealed joy — strongly hints at the latter.

4. The alpha play is to never talk to her again. Seriously. She’s a lost cause, even if she didn’t technically “cheat”. Yet.

5. But if you just want to keep the sex going for as long as possible, give it two weeks, then re-engage. Treat her like absolute dirt. I figure this strategy will net you three more months of hungry blowjobs.

Read Full Post »

Beta Male Move Of The Day

The Beta Male Move of the Day highlights a classic beta male “tell” that women subconsciously register and which then powers down any nascent attraction that they may feel toward the man betraying himself by his beta behavior. BMMOTDs (or, colloquially, “Beta Movements”), can be egregious or subtle; the end result, however, is always the same: more distance between you and the pussy.

Personal Real Life Detail Revealed:

I was in a pricey bar catering to young-ish professionals when I noticed the following Beta Movement.

End Personal Real Life Detail Transmission

That’s all you need to know to grasp the game lesson herein.

The Beta Movement is chicken pecking. Pecking of the head, or whole body pecking, it doesn’t matter; watching a man do this is akin to watching a reserve tank labeled “Alpha Male Attractiveness Fuel” superimposed on his body slowly draining to the flashing red “E”. It’s a neediness gesture that primally offends both women (resulting in lost attraction) and other men (resulting in lost respect). Naturally, no one is going to conspicuously make a look of disgust if you peck while listening to him or her. The more likely response is a slow backing out of the conversation and sideways glances for more powerfully interesting company. Human social interaction is not s series of nuclear bombs going off, but a vast network of sensation-seeking psychological tendrils alternately reaching outward and inward and elsewhere for a foothold on which to attach.

Many men peck. It’s probably a hard-wired instinct that evolved to signal goodwill and concord, and thus facilitate in-group social lubrication. But the fact that many men do it is only evidence that many men are betas. Alphas wouldn’t be alpha if they were numerically superior. (Such a phenomenon, were it to occur, would be very short-lived anyhow as bull-headed jousting for distinction would lead to attrition.) Try to focus on your body and head as you listen to someone of notable social worth (this could be a high ranking man or a hot woman). Self-awareness is vital; if you feel your head bobbing at the neck when you want to express agreement or consilience, make a sound effort to stop doing it. Same goes if you feel your body swaying rhythmically in a similar fashion.

If you find yourself in fulsome agreement with your company, resist the urge to nonverbally and obsequiously express it. Practice maintaining not just unswerving eye contact, but also head and body stillness, when listening to an alpha male or alpha female in conversation. You should be closer to an obelisk, not a chicken. Chicks dig the obelisk.

Read Full Post »

The Myth Of Effortful Game

Zombie Shane demurs,

Honestly, I don’t know that these “mindgame” chicks are worth the effort.

Unless maybe you’ve gone full-blown nihilist and you’re determined to tap EVERY SINGLE god-damned piece of ass which crosses your path – bar none.

But, again, in all honestly, I can think of a bazillion things I’d rather do than waste any calories pursuing a “mindgame” chick.

Life is just too damned short.

…to blow prospects because of bad game.

Chicks play mind games. This is what they do. It’s a part… of their bioengineered faaaantasy. Women employ these mind games to sort worthy alphas from feeble betas. They can’t help it any more than you can help staring at a firm ass and pert tits. So your choices are either get with the cosmic program and learn how to make reality work for you instead of against you, or drop out and become a sourpuss.

The very crux of your complaint is wrong. There really isn’t any effort expended in picking up chicks once you get the hang of it. It’s pretty much all upside to watch a girl’s face brighten with newfound desire because you successfully pulled her limbic strings. How long until you’ve got a smooth seducer’s rhythm going? Figure anywhere from three months to two years, depending on your innate suite of attractiveness traits.

The reason game sounds like a lot of effort has to do with the nature of describing subtle human interactions in print form. In the real world, these moves occur in millisecond bursts, and hardly take any energy at all. When you have internalized how to behave and speak with women, you spend no more energy seducing them than you would brushing your teeth. And it feels like even less energy expended, because you’re having fun.

But the human mind is complex and explaining its psychology and its interplay with other human minds in ways that can be easily digested by a lot of readers necessarily requires effort, which makes the act being described seem like effort. The typical 500-word post on this or that game technique distills to a few seconds worth of action in the field.

If you really want to contrast energy expenditures between different styles of courtship, you’ll find that game-adherents come out far ahead in the metabolic savings sweepstakes. For example, compare the familiar and oft-touted (by know-nothings) traditional beta male with the oft-ridiculed game-utilizing ladykiller.

Beta male:
Mentally struggles to approach one girl, Spends five hours talking to her before summoning courage to ask her out. Becomes exhausted trying not to say stupid shit, and trying to memorize every word girl says. Goes on seven dates and spends hundreds on drinks and meals and travel before getting her to his bedroom. Gets a make-out and goes on five more dates before getting a handjob. Sex comes three months in, but only after intimations of marriage worthiness.

Ladykiller:
Approaches are mentally simple because he does them all the time. Spends twenty minutes to one hour talking with a girl before getting a make-out. Speaks one third as much as the girl speaks. Goes on two dates and spends $20 on drinks. Picks her up for third date, has sex with her instead, then goes on date. Three months of orifice clobbering and he still hasn’t agreed to exclusivity. Marriage is but a distant abstraction.

Moral of the post: If game feels like “wasting calories” to you, then perhaps you’re in the wrong line of work.

Read Full Post »