What Do You Do If A Girl Calls Your Disqualification Bluff?

Disqualifications — false or genuine — are a powerful pickup tool. Pulling the rug out from under a girl who autonomically believes you desire her is a lickety-split way to raise your status vis a vis her status, and thus delight her hypergamous reflex. The fact is, women are constantly in a disqualification state of mind: she glides through the masses of maledom programmed to disqualify as many suitors as possible, and to settle upon the one man who is the best of all the men she can attract with her looks and youth.

Knowing this, the appropriation by the pickup artist of the female prerogative to disqualify is a classic example of flipping the seduction script and deviously moving the woman into the chaser role, where she is more likely to perceive you as higher status and sexually desirable. Psych 101 and various books on influencing friends and clients touches upon this stuff, but of course the estimable textbooks don’t follow the logic down the crimson road of poon hunting.

There are four primary types of disqualification. Briefly, I will describe them here, before tackling the subject of this post’s title.

1. Preemptive self-disqualification

Introduced by Mystery, this is a statement you make to a girl that lets her know, in so many words, that you aren’t a serious prospect. You do this by disqualifying yourself. Examples: “I’m gay”, “I’m in a relationship”, “I’m not interested in dating at this point in my life”, “I have the AIDS”, “I poop myself during scary scenes in movies”, “I’m a male feminist”.

This type of DQ (disqualification — I don’t feel like typing the whole word out because my pinky finger isn’t working, fuck you acronym haters) is called “preemptive” because it short circuits a girl’s hypergamous instinct by robbing her of the opportunity to disqualify you first. It essentially reverses the chaser-chased dynamic, and upturns millions of years of evolutionarily molded female expectation. All of this works on the subconscious level. In the heat and fury of a real live social interaction, these game tactics fly under a girl’s conscious radar, barely perceived by anyone but her omnipresent war room hamster and the hotline the fevered critter has to the gina general at the front.

The preemptive self-DQ is intended to act as a bitch shield runaround: a girl is less likely to blow you out if you make her think you’re not available to her in the first place.

2. Target disqualification

Self-explanatory, this is a tactic whereby the man disqualifies the girl from being a serious mating prospect. Owing to the greater chance that Target DQ can be perceived by the woman as sour grapes, this is a more aggressive, and thus riskier, form of DQ, its risk weighed against a potentially more rewarding payoff. Examples: “You seem like you’d make a great friend”, “You’re not really my type”, “You’re a good girl, I’m nothing but trouble… we would never work”, “I’m glad you’re off the market” [just assume she’s off the market], “Phew, so nice to talk to a girl who isn’t trying to flirt with me”, “Since your vagina is cemented shut by a rare disease, I can talk to you like you’re one of the guys”, “You’re the first lesbian I’ve met in this town”.

The Target DQ is less about lowering a woman’s bitch shield than it is about instigating a woman to qualify herself to you. It’s a more proactive DQ compared to the PSDQ above, serving as it does as an immediate status differential cue to the woman that she has to do something to correct the imbalance to the natural order of things. This “something” usually involves convincing you, the incorrigible player, that she is hot and sexy and goodtogo. PSDQs are female disqualification — aka rejection — avoiders or neutralizers, while TDQs are meant to coax women into self-qualifying.

3. Handicap Principle self-disqualification

This is a sub-genre of vulnerability game, and promoted by Charisma Arts (A Wayne Elise aka Juggler production). Basically, you bring up some faux embarrassing thing about yourself — some minor personality flaw that you blow up into significance — and reveal it to the girl. The theory behind the Handicap Principle is that women perceive men who are comfortable “handicapping” themselves — either through bright plumage (peacocking) or through admission of beta characteristics — as alpha males, because who else but an alpha male would be strong and powerful enough to shoulder a weak beta flaw without suffering any hit to his overall status?

Be careful with the Handicap Principle. First, it’s a theory, an elegant one to be sure, but one that remains, as far as I know, largely unproven by evolutionary biologists. The degree to which HP might apply to humans is unknown. At some great enough level of flaw possession, the Handicap Principle must surely break down, and we see evidence for this in the many stories of alpha males who became beta in relationships and then lost their women’s love. Personally, I think the Handicap Principle is easily confused with the theory of sexual selection, but that is a topic for a future post.

Nonetheless, it is true that women coo for the alpha male who unloads a perfectly timed admission of (cute) self-abnegation. Examples: “Oh man, I’m so bad at figuring out if women are flirting with me or not”, “I don’t dance, I’ve got two left feet”, “Ever since an unfortunate childhood trauma, I’ve had a fear of puppies”, “Black people scare me”.

The trick is to admit your “flaws” with utmost confidence and unconcern. Don’t say them as if you’re waiting to judge her reaction. They should be spoken off-the-cuff, almost as if you’re unaware that there is a girl standing there listening to you. NEVER admit to a real beta flaw that would repulse most women; i.e. “I go limp when a woman makes more money than I do”.

4. Beta bait disqualification

Another Juggler specialty, the idea behind the BBDQ is to disqualify yourself as a sucker for women’s flirtations. This is a minor school of DQ that you probably won’t use or need very often, but when you do use it, its power is undeniable. Women will very frequently try to “tease out” beta males by complimenting men and judging them on their reactions. Does the man express a little too much appreciation for her compliment? BETA. Does he seize upon her compliment as a springboard to ask her out? BETA. Does he say “Wow, no girl has ever said something so kind to me before!”? BETA.

But if a woman compliments you, and your reaction is to ignore it, downplay it, or even disagree with her (without veering into self-deprecation territory), she will think ALPHA. Examples: “Thanks, but this actually isn’t my favorite shirt”, “You like these shoes? You’re easy to please”, “Yes, that bulge is my penis. Now you’ve made me self-conscious”.

The BBDQ is both a self-disqualification and a target disqualification. You deny the woman’s positive assessment of you, while simultaneously denying her power over your emotions. It is a very subtle art form that, when mastered, is chick crack to women’s status discernment modules. A successful BBDQ is only superficially a signal of modesty; underneath the calculated modesty is a heat-seeking missile aimed straight at a woman’s id heart that explodes in a fireball of lust for your total lack of interest in winning her approval.

***

DQs are one of the most difficult game techniques for noobs to grasp. They are tangentially related to negs, and like the neg, they are often abused and misused by beginners. Their power is also their danger; because they work so well, men new to the game have a tendency to throw them out at awkward moments, and with too much expectant fervor. They then come across as creeps and try-hards, and wind up providing fodder to bitches to later log into the social media borg to mock the hapless betas who tried to run game on them.

(Leave it to a woman to mock a man for trying. You don’t hear too many men mocking fat chicks who make a real effort to lose weight by going to the gym and eating right. But then, in some respects, men simply have more compassion and empathy than do women for the opposite sex. But I ingest.)

The keys to getting your DQ money’s worth are timing, context and delivery. Too soon –> weird. Too late –> spiteful. Too unrelated — > try-hard. Too forced –> creepy. Too self-deprecating –> beta. Too nasty –> sour grapes.

But even when you have timing, context and delivery down pat, you will sometimes get your DQ called out by a woman.

You: “I’m not looking for anyone right now.”

Girl: “Good, because neither am I.”

***

You: “You’re a good girl, I’m trouble… we would never work out.”

Girl: “Yeah, I guess I am a good girl.”

***

You: “I’ve got a weird fear of puppies. Goes back to a childhood incident.”

Girl: “That’s fucked up.”

***

You: “Thanks, but this isn’t my favorite shirt.”

Girl: “Yeah, now that I look at it closely, it’s not a very good shirt.”

Don’t worry. These kinds of reactions, as plausible as they are in writing, and as much as cunts will cackle that they will respond like this to players whenever one of them tries to hit on their skanky carcasses, are blessedly rare. Most girls will be too high on their torqued emotions to call out a player’s DQ bluff so directly. The hamster is simply not that rational; hence, why he’s called the rationalization hamster, devoted to creating rationale out of nothing at all.

But DQ bluff-calling does happen, and more often to newbs than to experienced PUAs. When a newb gets his DQ bluff called, the result can be hilarity (not to mention the newb’s demanding his money back from some overpriced pickup seminar he attended). A great illustration of a newb’s DQ bluff being called out was provided by Juggler in this post.

ASPIRING NOOB: “I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

GIRL: “No thanks.”

“Aww. You’re playing hard to get. That’s so cute.”

“Whatever.”

“I hear an accent. Where are you from?”

“Nowhere.”

“Ha. Nowhere. That’s funny. Can I buy you a drink?”

“Yes. I’ll take a piña colada but don’t even think about dropping a roofie in there. I’m not going to hook up with you.”

“Whoever said anything about hooking up? You’re more of the kinda girl I see as a friend.”

“Good.”

“Good. So what’s your name?”

If a girl isn’t already invested in the conversation with you, a DQ is less likely to have the intended effect. If you walk up to a girl cold and start spouting off about how you just want to be friends with her and you aren’t available for dating, what kind of reaction do you think you’ll get? Do you imagine girls will start qualifying themselves to you on the spot? No, you have to first reel her in and dangle the promise of your interest before unloading the soul-sucking DQ.

Many PUAs, like Tyler Durden, recommend a preemptive approach to DQing; that is, you train yourself to sense when girls are about to disqualify you, and disqualify them before they get a chance. Often, this occurs during the late comfort stage of the seduction, when the girl is beginning to feel pangs of guilt about the release of her inner slut which looms on the horizon. Other PUAs, like Mystery, advocate active DQs early in the attraction phase, as a direct method for building attraction. Still others say to avoid them entirely, as the risk of delving into “sour grapism” territory is too great to assume.

I will say this about DQs:

They are supposed to sound spontaneous. The best DQs are unexpected and off-the-cuff. If it sounds like a line, it will backfire. If it sounds like you thought about it beforehand, it will backfire. Body language and facial expression are important conveyors of indifference and spontaneity.

Never DQ from a position of weakness. If you are working overtime to keep a girl’s attention, a DQ will only lower your value even more. Remember, DQs are FALSE disqualifications. When you DQ as a last resort to keep a girl around, it is no longer false; it is a real disqualification.

If a girl calls out your DQ, my best advice is to ignore it and change the subject, OR readily agree with her in return. A pinpoint DQ destroyer, while rare, is not to be trifled with. You want to avoid at all costs the impression of being flustered or annoyed or dispirited by her agreement with your DQ. Just roll with it, as if you’re glad she agreed with you, and reassess if she’s worth your continued effort to bed.

The upside to a failed DQ is that, later, if the girl is into you and starts to return your interest, you can remind her of the claim she made earlier about not wanting this to go anywhere. A pullback at a moment when the girl MOST WANTS TO PULL INTO YOU is like sticking TNT up her hamster’s anus. You are beginning down the road of building your own slave harem.

Preemptive DQs — the type of DQ that occurs before you have built adequate interest in the girl (think Mystery Method-style) — can work great IF you don’t linger on them waiting for a reaction. You drop the DQ, ignore whatever reply she gives in return, and plow. The goal is subconscious infiltration, leading to script flipping.

Mystery-style preemptive DQs work best on hot girls. Since hot girls are the most likely to assume every man wants them (justifiably), a quick correction to the contrary can temporarily scramble their status differential discernment algorithms.

Be careful about DQing 6s and 7s. You can easily blow a girl out of the water and render yourself unattainable to them.

If you’re going to agree with a girl’s DQ nuke, don’t make a production out of it. For example:

WRONG WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Yeah, yeah, friends. That’s what I want to.” [pained expression belies your words]

RIGHT WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Cool. So… you see that guy over there? I think he wants you. That’s the way to do it. Stare hard.”

In Juggler’s example above, when the NOOB says “If you’re lucky I might invite you”, he’s expecting the girl to reply something along the lines of “Wow, you must think you’re special”, a shit test to which the NOOB thinks he is well-trained to parry. But instead, she deflates him totally with the cold “No thanks”. The NOOB is now left flailing, hurling more DQs at her in hopes one will stick.

The best defense against the deflating DQ nuke is to simply avoid putting yourself in the position where such nukes are likely to happen. If you pace yourself, the likelihood of triggering a DQ nuke goes way down. Should one happen to you, one that is particularly disheartening, you may consider bailing.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Ok. See ya.”

A good player knows when to cut his losses.

However, if you see an opening and want to continue working on her, AGREE AND REDIRECT.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Yeah, come to think of it, it’s probably better you don’t come. My ex might start a fight with you.”

OR

You: “Well, I suppose now I can make room for my Mom to come with me.”

OR

You: [fake look of indignation] “Invite… REVOKED.”

OR

You: “Great, now who am I gonna set up my friend with?”

OR

You: “Damn, I guess I’ll have to buy my own drinks.”

This has been an introductory course in DQs and sidestepping DQ nukes. The subject material is advanced, so I encourage the commenters to flesh it out for the 1 billion readers who are hanging on your every word.

Read Full Post »

Wayne Elise, Pacing, And Conversational Context

Wayne Elise, aka Juggler, is a fairly well-known and well-regarded pickup artist. He’s been in the business for a while, and his game guides, while occasionally derivative, are grounded in the basic reality of male-female psychosocial sex differences and thus useful to aspiring womanizers. He emphasizes the “warmth & connection” part of seduction, but tends to engage in a little too much PUA strawman bashing (probably in order to attract a wider audience). I, for one, am getting tired of reading “evolved” pickup artists caricature the neg with the same ignorant glee that feminists do.

Quibbles aside, he has some good insights, and this post at his blog exemplifies that. I’ll examine it here because his analogy of seduction to letting out a “rope of personal history” is very good, and a lesson that a lot of newbs would be wise to take into account.

Imagine a stranger next to you. They reach out and take the end of your rope from you. They begin reeling it into their arms. So long as you allow it, the rope passes from the floor around your feet, through your hands and collects in the arms of this other person.

This is the beginning of someone getting to know you. The details they learn about you in the first few minutes may be give-aways such as your taste in high-fidelity stereo speakers and the fact that your mouth goes crooked when you smile. But soon they could be exposed to a slice of your dead-kitten sense of humor. Then later it could be your feeling toward relationships. Eventually it could be your sexual preferences. And on and on.

Through this process of information transfer, you stop feeling like a stranger to the other person. You begin to feel like a friend or potential lover.

This is an artsy reinterpretation of the comfort stage of Mystery’s Attraction => Comfort => Seduction three-stage process. Women feel attraction for the aloof alpha, but they also feel more bonded — and hence more open to sexual surrender — to men with whom they have mutually shared personal information. The details of a life are the building blocks of a woman’s romantic imagination.

Now, of course, you can boldly lie about your details if you’d like, but unless you are a clinical sociopath you’ll find it easier to remain internally consistent and externally congruent if you don’t deviate too far from your real life history. This goes double if you plan to stick with a girl for longer than three months.

A reader may reasonably ask, “How do you reconcile women’s love for aloof alphas with their love for ‘getting to know each other’?”

The answer is in the conversational tension, as Elise says.

People won’t appreciate learning about your life-details if you just give them up. That would make you sort of a life-detail slut. […]

People appreciate hearing the amazing things you have to say more if they desire them first. Don’t push. Instead, counterintuitively, you should resist.

Returning to our metaphor. You want to keep your conversational partner in a state of wanting more – pulling on your rope, sort of speak. While, at the same time, YOU want to be in a state of resistance – keeping the length of rope between the two of you taunt. This tension gives you control over the transfer of your life-details.

What Elise is describing here are the classic pickup techniques known as “assuming the sale”, (i.e., this chick wants to know me better, so I’m gonna hold out until she’s throwing money at me to buy my product), and “pacing” (i.e., cat string theory; cats respond more enthusiastically to string that is being pulled away from them). There is a broader category heading that all of this could be put under: Overconfidence.

People may not consciously be aware of pacing but they respond to it.

Pacing that’s too fast deflates the tension out of an interaction. Imagine throwing all your rope into someone’s arms. There’s no more for them to want or seek.

But pacing that’s too slow makes people feel bored and as if the interaction isn’t going anywhere.

Knowing the balance only comes with real-world practice. Generally, the balance will be the same for most women you meet because women, like men, share generalizable psychological properties with their sex.

Elise offers an example of good conversational pacing (and also some good shit test passing):

PUA: “That was a famous tennis player,” he adds. “He – got – mad – at – people. Probably before your time. I was just trying to guess your age.”

PREY: “How old do you think?”

“I’m afraid I can’t answer that question.”

“Why can’t you answer that question?”

“Because if I do then all the tension will leave the conversation. As it stands, you want to know my guess and if I give that up I’ll lose your interest.”

“I promise you won’t lose my interest.”

“Fine. But first, let’s sit down and make ourselves a bit more comfortable, if that’s alright. Then I’ll tell you all about yourself. I’ve been told I have an intuitive nature.”

They sit down on the couch nearby.

“Where are your friends? Perhaps they should join us.”

“Don’t worry about them. I’m a big girl. I can take care of myself.”

“I bet you can. Okay, I think you’re twenty eight.”

She hits him in the shoulder.

“Okay. Twenty six?”

“You’re really bad at this.”

“I know. My credentials might have been over-stated.”

“How about you? How old are you?”

“Older than you. Let’s just put it this way. I’m your real father. I remember your mom. She was hot back in the 80′s.”

“She still’s hot.”

“I’m sure she is. People of any age can be sexy. [ed: female ego bait. the purpose of these pretty lie pebbles is to lull the woman into a state of reception to the man’s sexy taboo-breaking.] But personally I end up dating girls who are uh…”

“What?”

“Younger, mostly.”

“Why do you do that?”

“Well, there’s a long answer to that question and a short answer.”

“What’s the short answer?”

“They’re hotter.”

“Okay, what’s the long answer.”

“I can’t really tell you. I’d have to show you.”

This is a textbook exhibition of flirting aka pacing. Women love this sort of “pulling teeth” kind of conversation because it signals to their hindbrains that the man engaging in it is not seeking their approval. And a man who is not interested in a woman’s approval is regarded by her evolved alpha male-detection cortical system as a man who likely gets plenty of female attention, and thus possesses the genes that would give her potential sons with him the same advantageous mating market genes.

Elise also illustrates bad conversational pacing with this example:

GAME NOOB: “I ride a fixie. Want to see my fixie porn?”

GIRL: “I have no idea what you’re talking about. Look. I didn’t ask to know anything about you. Perhaps you can hold some thoughts back.”

“I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

“No thanks.”

“Aww. You’re playing hard to get. That’s so cute.”

“Whatever.”

“I hear an accent. Where are you from?”

“Nowhere.”

“Ha. Nowhere. That’s funny. Can I buy you a drink?”

“Yes. I’ll take a piña colada but don’t even think about dropping a roofie in there. I’m not going to hook up with you.”

“Whoever said anything about hooking up? You’re more of the kinda girl I see as a friend.”

“Good.”

“Good. So what’s your name?”

Elise takes some gratuitous shots here at well-worn PUA disqualification lines (“You’re more of the kinda girl that I see as a friend”), but his overall point is that bad pacing — that is, giving away the store — can render otherwise effective PUA lines like “That’s so cute” embarrassingly try-hard and pathetically transparent.

The difference between a sour grapes disqualification and a cool-as-fuck disqualification is timing. When you’re chasing — when you’re on the losing end of a pickup attempt — your DQs will be perceived by her as spiteful sour grapes. When you’re being chased — when you have pickup hand — she will perceive your DQs as challenges and redouble her efforts to win your grudging approval.

Which, I believe, really gets at the core of why game-haters and feminists and traditionalist pedestalizers have found it easy to lampoon certain aspects of game philosophy. Yes, the neg is very easy to make fun of when you put it in the mouth of a generic, socially awkward noob, like Elise has done above, who practically assaults a woman with approval-seeking behavior and regurgitated PUA lines delivered with pressing urgency at the wrong times. But put the neg in the mouth of an accomplished seducer who understands the value of teasing women with crumbs of information, and of pulling back at just the right moments, and suddenly that same neg is explosive pussy dynamite.

All great philosophies and theories of the mind throughout history have had their old guard detractors who latched onto digestible concepts that offered possibilities of being distilled into simplistic caricatures and thus made meaningless outside of their philosophical and practical context. To this day, the neg continues to be mistakenly thought of as a brazen insult by the prestige press and their manboobed and feminist lackeys, and there seems to be no let-up to their determination to remain unschooled hicks in matters of seduction.

Read Full Post »

Results From An Online Dating Experiment

A reader telegraphed the Chateau a link to a very interesting experiment that an intrepid blogger ran on OKCupid. He created ten fake profiles, five men and five women of increasing physical attractiveness, and measured the response rate he received over a four-month period. The results should be little surprise to regular guests of this mysterious sanctum sanctorum, but are worth examining in detail for the clarity they provide to men who are considering making online dating the fulcrum of their mate selection strategy.

The experiment: How many unsolicited messages do men get compared to women? And what difference does their physical attractiveness make to each man and woman’s success? [ed: all ten dummy accounts had the same written profile. you can read about his experimental set-up at his blog, which i recommend. we’ll focus on his results here.]

Here are the photos he used, ugliest to hottest, left to right:

The results after 24 hours showed that the two hottest women were instantly barraged with suitors, while the men, even the good-looking ones, struggled to get a nibble.

• Each woman received at least one message, but the two best looking women received 581% more messages than the other three combined.

• Only one man received any messages.

For the second-hottest chick, 1 in 3 men who viewed her profile sent her a message. For the second-hottest man, 1 in 10 women who viewed his profile sent him a message. (Strangely, the putative hottest man got no messages.) Conclusion: Looks matter a lot more for women’s mating success. Or: looks matter a lot less for men’s mating success (relative to all the other criteria they must meet to satisfy women’s 463 bullet-point checklist).

What about the results after 7 days?

As we can see, the two hottest girls are cleaning up in the attention whore sweepstakes. The two hottest men get a few bites, but because they are men and have no personal concept of the sheer volume of sexual attention that hot women experience during their brief window of prime fertility, they think they are Kings of Maine.

Handsome Joe: “Hey, Emma, I got eight messages this week! I’m in demand!”

Exquisite Emma: “Oh, uh, hee hee… that’s great Joe!”

Handsome Joe: “How many did you get?”

Exquisite Emma: “128.”

Handsome Joe: 😯

Even more depressing for those above average-looking men who think they can bank on their decent looks to score pussy, the ugliest girl (that cow all the way over on the left) got one more message than the three men, from left to right, got in total. The plain jane got almost as many messages as the two hottest men combined.

• Three of the men had no messages, despite their profiles being viewed about 25 times between them.

• The women’s messages outnumbered the men’s 17 to 1 (mostly thanks to the two best looking women).

Behold female hypergamy and male potency.

Finally, the results after four months:

Holy mackerel! Check your female privilege. The next time you hear a feminist whine about the patriarchy, show her this graph and tell her where the real power resides.

A couple things to note. The ugliest man got nothing after four months of desperation. The three men with looks ranging from ugly to above-average received a grand total of three messages over four months. If you are the average man, don’t plan on letting your generic beta profile and photo do your work for you. Hell, even if you are a good-looking man, you won’t have many messages to work with after four months. Conclusion: Men, you NEED game in order to excel in the thunderbone that is online dating. Otherwise, you’ll have better odds picking up women just talking to any of them that you meet walking down the street.

Worse, the ugliest woman got nearly as many messages as the best-looking man! (Or second-best-looking man, depending on your judgment of the rank order of male photos.) The second-ugliest woman — a piddling 3 or 4 by most men’s standards — received as many messages as the two hottest men received.

• The two most attractive women probably would have received several thousand more if their inboxes hadn’t have reached maximum capacity.

• It took 2 months, 13 days for the most popular woman’s inbox to fill up. At the current rate it would take the most popular man 2.3 years to fill up his.

This is why men, unlike women in their primes, cannot wait around for lovers to fall in their laps. They have to bust a move. This also explains why men, in general, have a firmer grip on the reality of the sexual market than do women: when you’re a hot babe, you can afford ignorance and platitudes because the tidal wave of messages will come regardless. But a man who wallows in pretty lies will soon find himself banished to Pudpullia, where boners go to chafe.

The blogger who performed the experiment also analyzed the content of the messages that the OKCupid customers were leaving the fake profiles.

My impression, after reading several hundred in the women’s inboxes, is that most men compliment the attractive women a lot, they make reference to something in the woman’s profile (you would not believe how many times men mentioned the party tricks and ‘Arrow’ the cheetah from the generic profile I wrote), or they ask a general question about travel or something equally boring.

They are rarely, if ever, imaginative…

Game will never become overexposed. Boring beta chumps who are truly nice outnumber charming aloof jerks who are truly cocky by about 1 million to 1. This is good news for the player with game who plays the online charade: online, you can decimate, because your competition is so weak and so ludicrously market saturated.

So what is the experimenter’s recommendation for men? His recipe for success will sound familiar to practitioners of the art of seduction.

• Demonstrate creativity, intelligence and a great sense of humour
• Be totally different to anything she may have received before
• Be obviously unique and not a cut-and-paste job
• Show that I’ve read her profile and absorbed facts about her
• Not be needy!

Unpredictability, ignoring her beauty (negs), non-neediness, listening ability, and wit. All core game concepts.

Note, too, that the guy running that blog sounds like a well-meaning liberal who probably thinks feminism is a-ok, so the fact that he’s coming to these conclusions about the sexes and the steps men need to take to attract women — steps which fly in the face of feminist and beta male bromides — suggests that his self-enlightenment is genuine, and not an affectation.

He includes in his post the “perfect message” that he sent to a cute chick, which you should go there to read. It’s a bit long and try-hard for my taste, but he mostly abides the standard game rules and does a good job avoiding horrible anti-game. Notice that at the end of his message he ASSUMED THE SALE. She replied positively.

He ends with thoughts about the obstacles that men and women face in the hyperconcentrated online meat market.

The fact that the first stage of online dating is so heavily stacked in women’s favour doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any easier for them, compared to men, to reach the end goal of pure love or perfect sex. They may have the pick of the bunch to begin with, especially if they happen to be really attractive, but they can still only date one man at a time—they must still filter the largely undifferentiated onslaught of male attention into yes and no piles. Then the yes pile has to be sorted through in much the same way as anyone else does it—by talking, bonding, finding common interests, realising there’s been a big mistake, or a wonderful discovery.

An overabundance of sexual attention is a problem most men would like to have. So I don’t buy his feminist-glazed assertion that women have it just as tough as men. First, he’s simply wrong to think women can only date one man at a time. Women, especially the hot ones, can and do date multiple men concurrently. Usually, they do this before they have committed to any one man with the broken seal of their vaginas, but before then women have no ethical or psychological roadblocks stopping them from dating three or five or ten men per week. In fact, I’ve known cute chicks who BRAGGED about how many men were treating them to nights out on the town.

It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time. Men, in contrast, will happily screw many babes concurrently if they could get away with it. Most men can’t, so they pretend they have morals to explain their heavenly monogamy.

Second, the online sorting process is not as hard for women as this guy is making it out to be. Women have finely honed beta male filter mechanisms that can quickly and efficiently sort the bores from the bosses. Sorting through 500 email messages becomes a lot less daunting when you can immediately delete the 495 of them that start with “You’re very pretty…” or “Hi, my name is…” or “Do you like living in…?”.

Granted, women have to put more time into their message sorting chores than men do (who base their judgments almost completely on a quick millisecond glance at a photo), but most women would secretly agree that the ego boost of an overflowing email inbox is worth the extra time picking through all the losers. For proof of this, just listen to any aging cougar who laments the loss of her youth when unwanted attention from men was a hassle. Being sexually invisible (like most men) is a change in life status most women don’t accommodate very well.

Beyond the scope of sorting, meeting and dating, there is a good point to be made that the difficulty level for women navigating the sexual market begins to rise and even surpass the difficulty level for men once relationships are within reach. Men can glide more easily in and out of failed dating adventures, and even failed LTRs, for they have more time on their side than do women. Plus, they have no risk of a disabling nine month burden. A couple years here and there with different women doesn’t much affect the overall dating outlook for men. Women, otoh, risk a lot more with the time and energy they invest in each man they date. An LTR that fails after two years can be fatal to a woman’s dating window of opportunity.

Two final notes.

1. It’s easy to be misled by this data from online dating sites that ugly women are just as in-demand as handsome men. No. First, the men contacting the ugly women are likely the dregs of malehood. Second, a low-effort copypaste email to an ugly chick is worth it from a loser man’s perspective if it results in a quick, sloppy lay. The trick for these ugly women, which they find is much harder to manage, is getting these losers to stick around and commit to them for more than the one-off perfunctory fuck. In other words, you can’t accurately judge a woman’s sexual market value by how much sex has, or how easily she can have sex, with losers.

Third, female choosiness means that the rate of online female messaging is not as indicative of men’s SMV as online male messaging is indicative of women’s SMV. An online profile is simply NOT ENOUGH for a woman to judge a man’s sexiness and compatibility. She needs to smell him, be touched by him, watch him move, listen to him speak, and furtively eye the way his crotch bulges. But an online profile IS ENOUGH for a man to judge a woman’s sexiness and, yes, sometimes even compatibility, because men seek to build connections primarily as a function of their visually-based lust, unlike women who seek to find reasons to dismiss budding connections as a function of their critical hypergamous impulses.

2. Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This is not to say that women don’t care about looks; only that women compartmentalize looks along with other, less physically tangible male characteristics that they are subconsciously attracted to in men. Less facially gifted men with game should be heartened by these online results: they show that a tight email message that exhibits the qualities of the preselected alpha male can draw the interest of cute girls who might otherwise dismiss these men based solely on their photos.

In short, women have a tool. Men have a toolbox. If a woman’s tool, however powerful it is, is broken, she’s shit out of luck. If a man’s wrench is broken, he reaches in and grabs the pliers.

Don’t wait for a woman to slip her tool in your toolbox. If you do that, you are looking at long dry spells. Reach in, grab your tools, and hot wire her circuitry.

Read Full Post »

Kevin Smith Game

Reader James has a game-related question:

Hey Heartiste I’ve got a question. What do you make of this:

On a couple of occasions I had college age girls strike up conversation with me by telling me I looked like someone they knew. In a third occasion I just recalled while writing this, another college girl struck up a conversation with me while waiting in line at the grocery store by claiming I looked like Kevin Smith of Silent Bob fame (in all three scenarios I was overweight and in all likelihood sporting a homeless person style beard since I was too lazy to shave. I’m also pretty tall, a bit over 6′, but physically that was likely my only positive trait.) whom she was a huge fan of. In one of the bus cases, the girl was telling her fat friend she needed a boyfriend because she was stressed and wanted to “blow off some steam”, and she must know I heard the conversation since they were only a meter or two away from me. Grocery store chick was standard issue swpl, 6-7 by most men’s standards I would estimate. Blow some steam girl was pretty hot, probably an 8. Second bus girl looked similar to grocery store girl, only she had short hair (huge turn-off) so I can’t give her more than a 5.

I figure they were all lame pick-up attempts, but who the fuck tries to pick up a guy who looks like a hobo? so I’m gonna ask some of the experts for a second opinion.

Fame is such a powerful aphrodisiac for women that even the flimsiest simulacrum of it can redound beneficially to a man. Yes, if you look like a famous dude, no matter how physically repulsive that famous dude is in real life, you can score pussy off of your gift. Sometimes this works despite the girl knowing you’re a lookalike.

Kevin Smith may look like a hobo, but he’s famous, and chicks will spread for all sorts of famous men, no matter how dirty, ugly or smelly they are. (The same is not true for men, as demonstrated by the professed romantic travails of ugly Hollywood actresses who don’t get anywhere near the lustful attentions that ugly Hollywood actors get.)

You’ve never seen a woman’s rationalization hamster spin its wheel so fast than when the roided-up rodent is giving a presentation to the Figurehead Ego in the corner cortex trying to convince him that the vehicular meat unit ensconcing both of them needs this ugly, unhygienic, drug-addicted famous guy’s seed pronto.

Figurehead Ego: He’s only interested in a one night stand.

Hamster: We can win him over. And it’ll feel better than that five year grind we had with Bob from accounting.

Figurehead Ego: We’re just a groupie to him, like all the others.

Hamster: We’re not like all the others. Look at how he smiles at us.

Figurehead Ego: He’s going to forget us before the morning is over.

Hamster: We can beat the morning odds with a well-timed home-cooked breakfast. We’ll be unforgettable.

Figurehead Ego: Did you read in the tabloids how he had a different girl on his arm last week?

Hamster: You can’t believe everything the tabloids say.

Figurehead: And how he was in a group orgy with Victoria’s Secret supermodels on his birthday?

Hamster: Mere rumors. Anyhow, those girls are sluts.

Figurehead: And how he got married in a private ceremony last month?

Hamster: He doesn’t love her.

Figurehead Ego: And how he cheated on his wife?

Hamster: Open relationship. Don’t you just love honest men?

Figurehead Ego: And he punched a homeless guy in the nose?

Hamster: He was probably asking for it. Those bums can get pushy.

Figurehead: Ok, but what about his drug addictions?

Hamster: He’s a tortured soul.

Figurehead Ego: His run-ins with the law?

Hamster: His passion sometimes gets the better of him.

Figurehead Ego: The facial contusions he gave to his ex-girlfriend?

Hamster: Oh god.

Figurehead Ego: What?

Hamster: I just tingled.

Figurehead Ego: Yeah, I could feel that seismic shift all the way up here. What about the shit smell emanating from the seat of his pants?

Hamster: I don’t smell anything. But if I do smell something wafting delightfully under my nose, it must be his musky cologne. More men should be so confident to wear such unapologetically masculine scents.

Figurehead Ego: And the flies buzzing around his head? It looks like he hasn’t bathed in a month.

Hamster: He’s in touch with nature.

Figurehead Ego: And the yellow stains in the pits of his t-shirt?

Hamster: He doesn’t care what people think of him. So sexy!

Figurehead Ego: He just farted in front of you.

Hamster: Authenticity.

Figurehead Ego: And I suppose you’re Ok with the log he left in the toilet.

Hamster: It looks like Jesus.

Figurehead Ego: Or that he’s a D-lister who hasn’t had a profitable hit in ten years.

Hamster: He’s FAMOUS. Didn’t you see the TMZ photo of him pissing on the front steps of that rape crisis center?

Figurehead Ego: Or that he’s going absolutely nowhere in life.

Hamster: But I love him.

Figurehead Ego: And his dick is rumored to be small…

Hamster: It’s all I need.

Figurehead Ego: …and he’ll come in two seconds.

Hamster: I’ll come in one second.

Figurehead: And you can forget about post-coital cuddling.

Hamster: Not when he sees what a catch I am. He’ll hold me forever and ever and never let go.

Figurehead Ego: You tired yet?

Hamster: NOPE.

Figurehead Ego: Look, let me put this to you straight. He’s going to use you as a convenient hole to get his rocks off. He will demand ass privileges (something, need I remind you, you haven’t given to any man before, even your ex-husband) and you will get nothing you want in return. He will, if the drugs don’t first kill his erection, face fuck you until you’re gagging and tasting hot tears. He will then kick you out of his hotel room, with perhaps an autographed pillow mint as a consolation prize. He’s not going to call you back. He’s not going to take your calls. He will pretend he never knew you when people ask. He doesn’t love you, he never will love you, and he will never marry you, buy you a house, or (knowingly) have children with you. In fact, it’s very likely he will despise you approximately fifteen seconds after he has unceremoniously deposited his demon seed in your ululating vagina. Afterwards, men you actually have a decent shot at winning commitment from will hear of your slutty reputation and avoid you like the plague. There is nothing in the world you can do to alter this guaranteed outcome. Second thoughts?

Hamster: Aren’t these garden flowers pretty?

Figurehead Ego: I give up.

Hamster: OMG, he’s pointing at me. And now he’s pointing at his crotch. *SWOON*

***

So here’s my suggestion to you, reader, the next time a girl mistakes you for Kevin Smith. Run with it. What’s that, you say? You’re ethical? Tough shit. Go home and play with your Epictetus.

Read Full Post »

OkCupid Corruption & Online Dating Tactic

I’ve always wondered how much database integrity online dating websites maintain. It would be very easy for an insider with a grudge or a boner to do the metaphorical equivalent of downvoting any one particular user’s profile. Now a reader writes to fuel my suspicions:

An ex of mine, who is/was merely an active OkCupid user, once gloated to me that she was given administrator access, ability, and privilege at the site, simply for being a cool femme type. Of course our side doesn’t get gifted with such love.

Her suggestion was that, if I ever got back on after we broke up and started scoring poon again, she could look in on me and invent ways to harass me.

Worthwhile intel for the Chateau. Wonder how pervasive that sort of thing is.

I can believe this. Imagine the hard-up nerdlings that code and administer dating sites. One of their cute babe customers gets in contact with the denizens of the IT deep. Falling over themselves with glee at having secured the (faked) attention of a non-fat whale for once in their lives, and recognizing the awesome power they wield within their manboobed, pinched milieu, they’d probably bend over backwards faster than a prepubescent Chinese gymnast to shower her with Gifts of the Honorary Vagi, which would include supersecret access to all sorts of supposedly well-guarded user data. Never underestimate the rapidity with which an undersexed nerd will give away the farm and betray his principles for a cute girl with a flirty vibe.

So, is it pervasive? Who knows. Is it probable? Yeah.

Online dating is really a shit show for (non-gaming) men. Besides the back room subterfuge and the cosmically awful ratio of men to women, you also have to deal with blowback effects from profiles that stay up after you’ve met and banged a girl. Why would a man feel like putting time and effort into a girl he’s banged when he sees her continuing to log into her profile? Online dating may streamline meeting girls feeding girls attention, but it also undermines investing in them. It’s the perfect vehicle to distribute the products of the 21st century mating market.

While online dating websites are not my go-to sexonomy, there are ways to sufficiently exploit their information asymmetries and competitor contrast opportunities to get laid fairly regularly off of them. Reader “A. Veidt” offers an example:

I’m a skeptic of “online dating” (even the term is a contradiction: dates do not happen outside of tactile range), mostly because I think chicks lie in their close-cropped five-year-old profile pictures. But I also go where the pussy is, and increasingly, it’s possible to find some decent women on free sites like OKCupid. And anyway, sometimes I’m bored at work.

The key to getting a decent return on investment is to invest as little as humanly possible in any one girl until you’ve got a phone number and a firm commitment for a time to meet up (in your neighborhood, somewhere quiet and cheap). Girls on these sites get ridiculous numbers of messages, and I’m convinced that’s why many otherwise sort-of-attractive women (who surely don’t need okcupid to get men) sign up: they love the one-way, no-commitment flow of attention. Log in once a week, read your adoring fanboy mail, and log off without answering any of it. What could be better? It’s like having a Dial-a-Beta.

As a consequence, messaging girls with the standard shit is a waste of time. “Hey, you like Perks of Being a Wallflower? Me too!” Give me a break. They’ve heard it all before: every piece of information in their profile has been used by some sad sack to try and open them. So, instead, I wrote a stock opener that I use on literally everyone. It saves time. Log in for five minutes a day, paste this to five chicks you think are interesting, and move on with your life. Plus, it’s unusual, so it might knock an attention-seeker off her pedestal and get her to (even though she hadn’t planned on it) actually write back. Here it is:

SUBJ: the bet

“so, obviously you’re aesthetically interesting, but a buddy of mine was looking over my shoulder just now and claimed that – without a doubt – your profile was written by a guy; he says any profile with so little information makes him suspicious.  [EDITOR’S NOTE: change the part after the semicolon as needed. it doesn’t matter what it actually says. don’t make it complimentary, and don’t get specific. if it’s a confusing non sequitur, so much the better. run, hamster, run.]

he claimed that there were a million dead giveaways. I came to your defense, of course, but it got a little out of hand and now we’ve got a $20 bet going as to whether or not you’re really a girl. so, just between you and me, am I about to lose $20?”

It seems retarded to me, but it keeps working. I think girls love the unusual nature of the accusation and relish the chance to prove themselves; they like the framing of a guy who’s hanging out with his friends and not sitting around lonely at home; and, of course, it’s a neg. That’s why it’s important not to compliment her except in the most oblique and ambiguous way (“aesthetically interesting”—you may have to tone this down for the stupider chicks. sometimes I use “interesting looking.” don’t say pretty.)

I sent that message verbatim to a girl today and got the following response back within hours:

“Without a doubt, more than anything I know, I am 100% female. My profile was written by me, sincere and honest.

Meaning, if this bet is real, your friend lost $20 and you should take me out for a drink with your winnings.

:)”

I have gotten this response back close to verbatim many times. “I’m a girl! Tee hee! Use your winnings to take me out!” After this, game as normal; get her phone number, meet up within a couple of days, and treat her like any other chick. (Which means, don’t actually start serving up drinks from your fictitious winnings, of course. You would, but you lost that $20 back to your buddy—it’s sort of an interesting story actually . . .)

(Two pics of the girl, who’s 23, are attached; I’d ask that you not use them on the site, but I figured you need some way to judge personally whether this just works on fatties and uglos.) [ed: the chick is a cute, slender blonde.]

Anyway, I don’t want to see the world oversaturated with this opener, but there are so many retards on OKCupid that I don’t think it’ll be a problem. Girls join the site every day and leave just as regularly; there’s always fresh blood. Plus, after biting Style’s material for years, I figure I should give back when I stumble upon something that works.

Any Chateau readers out there have similar low-investment, high-yield material for sorting through the bullshit on online sites?

The floor is open. I believe there are online game techniques in the archives of this blog as well. FYI, I’ve used the “are you really a girl?” line once on a girl I was picking up through a dating website. It wasn’t calculated game so much as a glib throwaway joke at her expense, but she did respond with glitter and confetti popping out of her vagina. Chicks love having to prove themselves to men. When they are in the defensive crouch answering your challenge, your perceived value experiences a passive rise. That’s because girls will appraise men to whom they have qualified themselves as necessarily being worthy of their sycophancy.

Read Full Post »

Sext Game

Ready to analyze some text game for make benefit of your glorious alpha training? This sample of the genre is a little different, though. It’s sexting game, a subcategory of generic text game. Commenter walawala writes:

Here is a transcript of text game I was running on a Taiwanese girl I met on a flight to hin where she lives. My game was tight and I number closed. She dropped the I have a bf. I ignored. Then I began text game ahead of an upcoming trip back to her city…

I’ll pick it up where it’s relevant

Her: You’re such a player

Me: You bet. and what is it abt players u like so much?

Her: I don’t conclude that I like players, do I?

Me: Player? No way. I’m the coach. Players come to me for advice

Her: The I’m not a player…it’s you that come to me

Her: No offense…….

Me: Guilty as charged

Her: Ha ha

Me: I may need to spank you if yuou dun behave

Her: Now you are sexually harrassing me, uncle

Me: hmmm, interesting where ur mind is…

Me: What is it about spanking u that u find sexual?

Her: Any physical contacts that I find uncomfortable

Me: My spanking woud make u feel…

Her: Feel what?

Me: Do you like the sound of it?

Her: Now I’m pondering if you are the SM type…and pondering where ur mind is

Me: Many girls like a dominant man who knows to to lead…how about you?

Her: And spare your efforts on gett me hooked. Go find other Asian girls…exclusing me to satisfy your masculine needs

Me: WHo said I was interested in hooking you? Big ego

Her: Don’t know,,,just my bold assumption

Me: …

Her: Assumption comes before conclusion right?

Me: I find most girls like a dominat guy

Her: hmmmm maybe

Me: That’s why their favorite position is doggie style. Maybe ur different

Her: …..hmmm maybe i can try it with my boyfriend…thank you for your advice

Ends

Next morning she texts me:

Her: Found a new term for you….”sexpat”

Me: I prefer ‘sexpert’

She babbled on a bit more and I stopped. I’m set to come back to her city in a few weeks and will contact her.

She’s clearly a drama queen and loves the attention. Despite claiming to have a boyfriend she is lapping up my text game….

Text game for self-centred girls is cat nip….

My first reaction to reading this was… lots of smoke, but where’s the fire? Or, concept was good, but execution lagged. It struck me as a pastiche of good text game techniques stitched together haphazardly.

She doesn’t sound like she’s biting. Her flirting, if it can be called that, is cold and accusatory. She clearly bristled at the insinuation, intended or not, that Asian girls are naturally submissive. Now maybe Asian girls demonstrate their growing interest differently than white girls do, (a distinct possibility, as I have written before that very broad, but shallow, racial differences in receptiveness to game may exist), in which case my constructive criticism of this text exchange would be off-base. I’d like to know what happened between walawala and this girl since this text convo took place. What were the text convos like in the following days/weeks? Did he unlock difficulty level bang?

We’ll break down my initial impression, line by line.

Her: You’re such a player

Me: You bet. and what is it abt players u like so much?

He’s avoiding defensiveness, assuming the sale and eliciting her values. Three core game concepts. The question is whether it was too early in the interaction to do this. You can spook a girl with loaded sexualized questions if you ask them before her interest has been piqued.

Her: I don’t conclude that I like players, do I?

Me: Player? No way. I’m the coach. Players come to me for advice

Maybe this reply is good, but the fact remains he’s playing into her frame. She’s been leading this conversation so far. Plus, he’s backpedaled here, even if it was done in a cocky way. The DHV is too obvious.

Her: The I’m not a player…it’s you that come to me

Her: No offense…….

Me: Guilty as charged

The ‘guilty as charged’ line worked here, but in this exchange it falls flat. I want you pickup experts in the studio audience to explain why. The difference in context is your first clue.

Me: I may need to spank you if yuou dun behave

Her: Now you are sexually harrassing me, uncle

Sexual innuendo in text can backfire if attraction hasn’t been built, or rapport is weak. Sometimes a girl will shut down. Often, when she’s open to playful flirting, you can get caught in an endless loop of innuendo that eventually crumbles under its own weight. In this instance, she seems up for flirting, so no harm no foul.

Me: hmmm, interesting where ur mind is…

A good line. Puts her in chaser mode.

Me: What is it about spanking u that u find sexual?

But the reframe is subverted by returning to this arid sexual well. I think it would have been better to play a little more hard-to-get, than to continue pressing her for info about her sexual proclivities. Particularly since this is over text and, as far as I know, very little physical contact has happened yet.

Her: Any physical contacts that I find uncomfortable

This is not a playful response. Now he has a clue that continuing to pursue this dirty talk avenue will be less than fruitful.

Her: Now I’m pondering if you are the SM type…and pondering where ur mind is

Woops. There goes that initial great reframe by walawala. It’s just been turned around again. She is very good (read: very Asian) at retaining control of courtship hand.

Me: Many girls like a dominant man who knows to to lead…how about you?

Girls do like dominant men. But they don’t like being told aloud that they like dominant men. I’ve never really found it all that useful to remind girls of the inner workings of their hamsters in the course of a pickup attempt. Still, sociosexual themes can act as a good springboard for getting girls to open up about their values.

Her: And spare your efforts on gett me hooked. Go find other Asian girls…exclusing me to satisfy your masculine needs

Here’s that part where her ‘yellow fever’ alert just triggered. She’s pigeonholing walawala, and I don’t see him effectively countering it.

Me: WHo said I was interested in hooking you? Big ego

The problem with this second reframe attempt is that it flies in the face of textual evidence suggesting the contrary. Thus, the impression is one of defensiveness rather than amused correction.

Her: Assumption comes before conclusion right?

The fact that she’s asking a question, however obtuse, is proof that she’s still invested in this convo and wants to see where it leads.

Me: I find most girls like a dominat guy

Beating a dead horse.

Her: hmmmm maybe

She just got bored.

Me: That’s why their favorite position is doggie style. Maybe ur different

Her: …..hmmm maybe i can try it with my boyfriend…thank you for your advice

This is the second IHAB she unloaded on walawala. Not a good sign. The sexual tone he took, in my opinion, was premature, and probably contributed to shutting her down, which is evident in her terse “thank you for your advice” send-off. Talking about doggie style over text with a girl you number closed on a plane a while back (how long ago?) is precipitously close to entering cloying, horny beta territory.

The next morning, the text exchange resumes:

Her: Found a new term for you….”sexpat”

This is good news. She reinitiated contact, so that means she’s been thinking about him all night. The substance of her text is irrelevant.

Me: I prefer ‘sexpert’

Meh. Again with the self-boosting sexual innuendo. Too much sex talk, especially the boastful variety, can make a man just as dull as the beta who drones on about work and weather, especially if she’s gotten used to it and now finds it predictable. Better quickie reply: “i’m still dancing thru ur thoughts… that’s cute.”

***

Overall, I give this text pickup attempt a B-. Walawala is a valued contributor to the Chateau, and he has offered up some good stuff over the months. This one, however, misses the mark. First, it’s too long. Text exchanges that go on and on eventually shift the balance of power in the woman’s favor. That is the nature of verbal foreplay that must abide certain technological constraints. Women are vessels of words, men are warriors of action. This may not be as relevant today, as it looks like everyone and his grandma texts all the time, but it’s still something to keep in mind.

Second, the lean on loaded sexual allusions was overwrought, and possibly premature (barring additional information about context). That kind of flirty sexy vibe works better face-to-face, where wry expressions can alleviate or accentuate the tension. Over text, it risks being perceived as overly persistent, or even creepy.

I don’t mean to sound harsh. Walawala has still done better than most betas would do in the same circumstance. Any shortcomings evident in this text exchange are more pro-game problems than anti-game issues. I concede that my judgment could be unfair, but I don’t have enough prior context to conclude otherwise. Perhaps I’m reading her replies in the worst light, and she was way more into it than it seems here on this blog. My assumption is that this pickup attempt is far from a given, but walawala is free to elaborate.

Read Full Post »

Your Training To Delight Women

Players and unaffiliated men who labor to pass on the Good Word of Game usually admonish neophytes that borderline uncomfortable numbers of approaches need to be made in order to become proficient at pickup. You’ve got to get out there and talk to more women than you would normally do in the course of a nondescript day.

This message is a good one. You won’t get good at the crimson arts until you’ve put in some real world practice interacting with lots of different women. The exact number is irrelevant; whether it takes you ten or one thousand approaches to improve doesn’t change the undeniable reality that very few men have the ability to go from video gaming malaise to WunderJuan on their first approach.

You could say that the approach mentality, at least during the learning curve stage, is a core principle of game.

There’s one other core game principle that I don’t see mentioned very much, if at all, in the pickup literature. In my view, it’s just as important a principle as approaching girls enough times to trespass beyond your comfort zone. That principle is the “find and foment her flaws” theory.

The idea is simple. Every woman you meet, from friend to love prospect to the barest acquaintance, and every woman who crosses your field of visual inspection, will be subject to your exceedingly judgmental eye. You will search, find and declare to yourself her flaw or flaws. If propriety and privacy allows it, you will verbalize her flaw so that it may become cemented in your wavering cortex and banish all doubt of the flaw’s authenticity. It is a well-kown fact among the big-toothed motivational speaker circuit that saying aloud slogans of self-encouragement or life goals helps the chanter sculpt corporeal heft to his dreams.

So, for example, you see a woman in the mall riding an escalator. Her sundress flounces insouciantly from above you. An incipient boner stirs. But this time, instead of allowing your beta twerpitude the run of your skullcase and straining to catch imagined glimpses of panty, you silence the dork force and, with proud stentorian innerauthority, jot a solid mental note of her larger-than-ideal thighs. Safe distance permitting, you might even rumble in a dampened voice to yourself, “Hm, thunder thighs. Too much speckle.”

You will enact this devious scheme for every attractive and not-so-attractive woman who has the misfortune of falling prey to your daggered gaze. Only the obvious sexual market losers of femaledom — the grossly obese, the crassly ugly, the desiccated old — will be exempt, for their flaws are so prominently obscene they need no reminding nor rooting.

What is the purpose of Principle #2? To balance gender sheets?

Certainly, you could argue with strong evidence that women are particularly unforgiving of men’s flaws, in the private if not in the public, being as how they are slaves to a much more powerful hypergamous force that excels at weeding out stellar-lite suitors with extreme prejudice. A little harsh judgment from you is just giving women a taste of the moldy bread they daily give to men.

But, no, that’s not the purpose, as vengefully titillating as that seems. The purpose is purely practical. The finding and fomenting of women’s flaws conditions the beta male mind to accept the attainability of women, and to discard the reflexive sanctification of women. No master seducer who ever lived believed even one woman was unattainable by him, nor that any woman was a flawless vessel of purity. The seducer loves women, but his love is vast enough to revel in women’s flaws. And that is why he wins.

The beta male who conditions himself thus, by his efforts to discover the flaws in women kept hidden to him by the shadow of his turgid lust cast around his vision, will slowly feel the power and the strength of the Attitude, that indomitable voice that rises like the Great Scrotum from the pubic patch and delivers with valedictorian presumption the message that no woman is out of reach or free of exploitable insecurities, the exploiting of which by a savvy man she herself would be ashamed to admit thrills her to the clitbone.

Returning to escalator girl, here are some more examples of flawmobbing.

– skewed eyes
– narrow hips
– rumpled blouse
– misshapen boobs
– nip/tuck victim
– manhands
– roo pouch
– clown feet
– incipient hump
– jug ears
– wasted calves
– bow-legged
– flabby arms
– pigeon-toed
– broad shouldered
– excessive peach fuzz
– asymmetric nostrils
– ETC

I can already hear the gripers. “But I just saw the hottest chick ever and she looked PERFECT! I couldn’t find anything wrong with her.”

There is always something wrong with a girl, no matter how beautiful. You may have to dig a little deeper, but you’ll find her thermal exhaust port with a practiced keen eye. Note that any of the above can easily apply to the hottest girl you have ever seen. That’s the beauty of the flawfinding mission: it unearths the normally overlooked blemishes scattered among a girl’s mien that her general beauty tends to obscure to men. If you socialize with a girl and gain insight into her personality, you have even more data from which to devise withering, silent judgments.

Once you have gotten reliable at noticing and promoting women’s flaws, their beauty will no longer hold such paralyzing power over you. Conditioned to emphasize a woman’s worst and attenuate her best, you will become a cad machine, irresistible to the fairer sex who will react shaken from their stupor by your dispassionate demeanor and feel the threat of your pervasive critical eye with senses aflame.

Maxim #30: Ignore a woman’s flaws at your peril. They are the key to reconfiguring your perception, and thus her attainability.

Read Full Post »