A Devious Reply To “I Have A Boyfriend”

A reader got the “IHAB” line from a girl he previously showered with tender intimacy, and he’s wondering how to respond.

Say you’re texting a girl you’ve recently raw-dogged hard, twice, when in the middle of trying to set up something for later she texts something along the lines of, “That’s good cuz I don’t romance nobody, [sic] for real tho I have a boyfriend, what happened Sunday will never happen again,” (yes she is white, ungh). [ed: we’re doomed]

It’s not that I am really into this particular slore, it’s just that the line sounds so cliche I feel like I need in-pocket responses to it. I don’t have any girl-with-a-guy game.

My gut instinct is to just send “lol” or “cool.” Or “Yeah I know, I’m not going to that bar again,” “I feel ya, I tried to cum in your mouth but I slipped,” or “I hope not, your 5 o’clock pussy shadow hurts, my dick feels like I tried to fuck an angry cat.”

I don’t like any of those replies, although “lol” and “cool” could be used in a pinch as a substitute for something better, and of those two, “lol” is preferred. (“cool” radiates a hint of strained butthurtyness.) And any reply longer than three words is TRY HARD BETAMAX. Unless you’re really witty. (The “not going to that bar again” line isn’t half bad, actually. Still, it’s best to err on the side of terseness.)

I can’t tell whether this girl really has a BF, or if she’s lying and it’s just a garden variety shit test. Regardless, her escapades with you — escapades, mind you, that likely would have gotten her pregnant in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, before the Pill existed! — have probably triggered her anti-slut defense, and she is drawing back into the comforting fold of her blissfully ignorant boyfriend’s real or invisible arms.

The best text reply, in my bombastic opinion, is this:

“right”

Her hamster will frig the fuck out wondering if you were being sincere or sarcastic. Either way, you win. Don’t forget: no punctuation! She doesn’t deserve your attention to syntax. And skip out on the follow-up. This sounds like a case where she will have to find her way back to you.

(There used to be a guy who commented here who would reply to flaky cancellations or IHAB texts from girls with a simple “gay”. I always thought that was a great alpha response. Another masterfully aloof reply that assumes the sale is “gay. next time you’re buying drinks.”)

Read Full Post »

Masculine Game Vs Feminine Game

YaReally wrote in response to this post about cold reading women:

This is super gay. But it works. It’s just really oldschool tech like “can I get a female opinion?” from back when PUA was more “I’m a dancing monkey – please approve of me” versus now where it’s evolved more to “go ahead, try to impress me”.

PUAs would get girls asking “are you gay??” all the time because of stuff like this where you’re sort of absorbing part of girls’ personality an mannerisms into yours. Guys would drop into valley-girl speak (“like omg totally”) and shit.

Thing is, it works. The girls would shriek “omg!!!” and be intrigued. Some guys even played the gay thing up all the way to fucking the girl, just to experiment with it lol

But PUA has evolved a lot since then, now we tend to focus on emphasizing the masculine side of things and making the girl qualify herself to us instead of emphasizing the feminine side of things and trying to fit into the girl’s world.

So instead of wearing a feather boa and going “guys I totally need a girl’s opinion–(touch an elbow) omg you are SO the Samantha of the group aren’t you lol” you just wear normal clothes and go “hey, who are you? You’re cute, come here. (grab around the waist, pull her in) Why are you causing trouble, hmm?”

Best term for describing it that I’ve heard so far is speaking to the girl like “a man to a woman”. The old way, like this Glee routine, is speaking to the girl like “a woman to a woman”.

Again it works, I’m not talking smack about the concept itself. I’ve seen a buddy use “you guys are like the Powerpuff Girls” to consistently blow open sets of chicks like a fucking nuke going off, it’s retarded. BUT, consider how you want your vibe to come off to people in general before you run around using routines like this.

Intriguingly, bisexual men have a higher chance to reproduce than heterosexual men, (and some famous seducers who had world beating notch counts are rumored to be bisexual), which implies that men with a dollop of feminine characteristics — i.e., men who can better simulate female behavior and relate to women in their language — will have more success bedding women than very masculine men.

This concept of masculine game and feminine game presents the potential for a major rift in thinking, resulting in a dichotomy in game technology. Let’s face it, there’s a big difference between acting like a funtime drama queen pushing girls’ buttons until they’re chasing after you, and acting like a steely-eyed James Bond character overwhelming women with dominant gestures and terse mystery.

YaReally is right that both methods work, but the question is if one is better than the other. I have said that the best seducers must know their prey inside and out, and to do that one must adopt the psychology of his exquisite foe. A master panty collector seduces women using their own subconscious tactics and manipulations against them; he flips the script. This script flipping could be called feminine game, because what you do is essentially what women routinely do to men: qualify them, neg them, shit test them, backturn, push-pull, hot cold hot cold, jealousy plotlines, coyness, etc.

Most core game concepts are basically borrowed female courtship ruses that are adjusted to fit the straight male sensibility (i.e., to avoid the “uncanny faggy”). They work, because as innately solipsistic creatures, women love men who reflect their black souls back at them.

Masculine game shares some techniques with feminine game, but it differs in a fundamental way: instead of leading a girl to the chase through delightful subterfuge, you overwhelm her resistance with dominance and an attitude of entitlement. Pictorially, masculine game is an oak tree: solid, immovable, protective, unshakeable. Feminine game is a nimble-tongued artiste: ephemeral, adaptable, entrancing, insufferable.

YaReally says that Masculine Game is iteration #2 of game, which intrigues me, because that presupposes there were deficiencies with Feminine Game (iteration #1) that needed rectifying. I would like to know more about the latest developments in this area.

Personally, I find myself using techniques from both schools of thought, and adopting both attitudes in measure when it suits me, or the moment calls for it. I imagine men who enjoy a life brimming with the carnal company of women are the same way: possessors of the masculine and feminine charms, dispensed when expedient and integrated to whichever context envelops them.

As a very basic guiding principle, it could be said that Feminine Game is both early game and pre-relationship game — the game you use to attract women and the game you incorporate up until the point you start having regular sex with your lover. Conversely, Masculine Game is mid game, as well as relationship game — the game you use to draw a woman in during the comfort and seduction stage, and the game you incorporate into a serious relationship, when your lover needs to see stronger signs of your commitment, loyalty and strength.

Read Full Post »

Another Experimentally Confirmed Game Concept: Influencing Perception

This video of a prankster who pretended to be a generic famous dude has been making the rounds on pickup oriented blogs. And with good reason. It demonstrates how preselection and manipulated perception — two core game concepts — are effective at attracting women (and attracting them for dates, which you can see proved at the end of the video when our intrepid fake celebrity calls a girl and she throws herself at him.)

Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.

Fame, as noted in the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog, is the most powerful male attractiveness trait known to mankind. Fame trumps looks, wealth and game in its ability to draw in and captivate women from all social and racial strata. Preselection is a scientifically validated game concept — studies have shown that female geese will prefer the male goose surrounded by cardboard cut-outs of other female geese over the solitary males — which rests on the theory that women are attracted to men who are themselves attractive to other women, because such men have already been “preselected” by competitor women and are thus proven commodities.

(Preselection works for men, but not women, because men can size up a woman’s sexual market value with an instant look, while women need much more information to adequately assess a man’s SMV.)

When you put preselection and fame together, you get an explosion of pussy juice, like a dam bursting to release years of pent-up tributary tingles. “Thomas Elliot” was able to induce raw, animal desire in women simply by having himself filmed in the company of admirers and ACTING like someone famous and beloved by the ladies. This could be a new game tactic for men who wish to experiment with the cutting edge in seduction technology: have your wingman film you at the bars signing fake autographs.

***

Related to this post’s subject, here is a study which confirms the game concept of fluid perception.

UCLA anthropologists asked hundreds of Americans to guess the size and muscularity of four men based solely on photographs of their hands holding a range of easily recognizable objects, including handguns.

The research, which publishes today in the scholarly journal PLoS ONE, confirms what scrawny thugs have long known: Brandishing a weapon makes a man appear bigger and stronger than he would otherwise.

“There’s nothing about the knowledge that gun powder makes lead bullets fly through the air at damage-causing speeds that should make you think that a gun-bearer is bigger or stronger, yet you do,” said Daniel Fessler, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of anthropology at UCLA.

Researchers say the findings suggest an unconscious mental mechanism that gauges a potential adversary and then translates the magnitude of that threat into the same dimensions used by animals to size up their adversaries: size and strength.

Some of you are probably asking, “What does this have to do with game?” Ah, a lot, my friends. This experiment proves that human perception of certain characteristics can be influenced by specific, unrelated cues or behaviors. In this case, holding a gun influenced viewers to perceive the holder as physically bigger than he would normally be perceived. A gun (aka game) shifted the perceptions (attraction) of people (women) to view the subject as more physically imposing (desirable) than they would normally view the subject, even though the gun (game) did not add any physical size (objective conventional status) to the subject (PUA).

If brandishing a gun can alter perceptions so that you seem bigger to people than you really are, then it’s no stretch to conclude that adopting alpha male body language, qualifying girls, dressing stylishly and acting charmingly aloof can alter the perceptions of women to think you are more desirable than you would otherwise seem as just another beta face in the crowd.

The concept of perception fluidity is crucial to game theory, for much of seduction is the psychology of massaging women’s perceptions via manipulation of your identity, behavior and image to project the aura of alpha maleness which is so alluring to the warier sex.

Read Full Post »

Beta Male Body Language Giveaway

I was at a party and nearby two guys who seemed to have just met that night (introduced through a mutual friend, probably) were talking to each other. One was taller than the other, and dressed more stylishly. Both of them, near as I can judge these things, were about equally good-looking and the same age.

Stop.

Now, if you had framed the scene right there, and this is all the information I had to go on, (or YOU, the reader, had to go on), you/I would assume the taller, sleeker dressed man was more alpha and did better with the ladies. But this was not all the information available to me. I couldn’t hear their conversation, but I could observe their body language.

The taller man fidgeted a lot. He bounced on the balls of his feet, constantly adjusted his weight from one foot to the other, shoved his hands in and out of his pockets, moved his shoulders around, bobbed his head, craned his neck, nodded frequently, twisted his torso, tapped his toes, lifted his heels, put his fingers up to his mouth, incessantly stirred his drink and generally acted like he had an overabundance of nervous energy that needed burning off.

The other man, the shorter one, barely moved at all. He occasionally smiled and lifted his drink to his mouth, but besides those minimal motions his body remained mostly still. Earthbound. When he talked, the other guy leaned into him to listen; he himself never moved in closer to be sure he was heard, even though the venue was fairly loud.

Now I had the telltale glimpse of each man’s soul, the body language that revealed the extent of their self-possession. Snapshots of men, unlike snapshots of women, tell us little about men’s true value, for a man’s looks and height are but two components of the complete man. You need context, physical expression and interaction to sufficiently judge a man’s alphaness. And fidgeting subcommunicates one thing: betaness.

The taller man’s height and more stylish clothes were inadequate compensation for his beta fidgeting. If he appeared beta to me, you can bet that women, with their finer grained radar resolution for men’s social status and dominance, would near instantly perceive him to be the lower ranked, less attractive beta of the two men.

Get your alpha body language down, because those critical first few minutes (seconds?) you have to make an impression on a woman depend primarily on how powerfully you carry yourself, and nothing influences a woman’s perception faster or more viscerally than your radiating nonverbal vibe.

I was not at all surprised to find that at the end of the night the shorter man was surrounded by women while the taller man sipped a cocktail alone. At least the fidgeter can console himself with this study which shows that fidgeting will help keep you lean.

Read Full Post »

The Numbers Game Fallacy

Trolls often ask “isn’t pickup just a numbers game”? I say trolls, because it’s rare you’ll hear this question from an honest person sincerely seeking answers. The question is farcical once you dig into it a bit, and anti-gamers like to use it in an attempt to discredit game/evolutionary biology/sex differences/female hypergamy…. pick any one or all. (Funnily enough, you’ll hardly ever hear women using it, probably because women don’t like to think of themselves as numbers.)

The “numbers game” fallacy is similar to the “hours game” fallacy. Think of a great musician. He has to put in a lot of hours of practice to get great at his craft. Once greatness is achieved, a person asserting an “hours game” argument would contend that the musician’s continued greatness depends on all the hours he puts into playing. But that is not the case. A great musician, once trained, can play five minutes a week and still be great compared to the non-musician or hobbyist musician.

So it is with game and pickup. Logically and unavoidably, most neophytes will make more approaches in order to put their game theory to practice in the field. That is how you get good. Simply reading about game and approaching one woman per year won’t cut it. But once a number of up-front approaches have been made — once the steepest part of the learning curve has been crested — and the aspiring seducer has improved his game acumen, then he can reduce his number of approaches while still enjoying a very good sex and love life because his odds of any one approach resulting in a fuck close have measurably increased over his previous, game-less baseline.

And from personal experience, this is exactly what happened to me. When I first tried game, I kept my approach numbers at the same level i had before game. Once I started tasting improved success using game, I increased my approach number because 1. I was excited to see how much I could accomplish using game, and 2. I had to approach more women to try out all the new things I was learning.

Naturally, my close rate increased with my increased approach rate, owing mostly to my game skills but also partly to the larger pool of women I was hitting on. (In contrast, had I increased my pool of prospects while using NO GAME, my close rate would not have increased by nearly as much.) Then, after a few years of this fucking around for fun and sexual profit, I decided that I was interested in longer term relations with women, so I gradually pared back my number of approaches to about the same level I had before learning game. And a funny thing happened. I was having more success with the fewer, and hotter!, women I was approaching than I would have had without game. I had a skillset called game and it increased my positive interactions with women across the board. In other words, my RATE of rejection was lower, and my rate of success higher.

That’s the way doubters need to view the numbers game fallacy: numbers matter, but game matters more. The two work in concert until enough competency is achieved that numbers are no longer needed.

For those who refuse to part ways with the numbers game fallacy, I direct your attention to the headstrong but socially clueless geeky beta male. I think most of us have encountered this type of guy in our lives. He’s aggressively nerdy, unafraid to approach women in his awkward fashion, and never learns from his mistakes. He has no discernible game besides fearlessness and a lack of shame. He’s a little “off”. He’s our test case for measuring game against numbers. He’s got the numbers, but he has no game, and the results aren’t pretty: one ugly rejection after another. But he soldiers on.

You can approach thousands of women, but if you have no game, if you persist in engaging women with your socially clumsy schtick and never trying to improve yourself, all that you’ll get is a huge notch count of rejections — a botch count. Sure, you might “get lucky” once in a blue moon using nothing but numbers game. But why wait for that when real game — real cultivated charisma — can increase your lay odds to a level, at the least, where you go from 1 lay in 1,000 approaches to 1 lay in 100 approaches? And with hotter babes on top of it? That’s an order of magnitude better success with women over just maxing out your number of pickup attempts.

Not to mention, a numbers game mentality will do nothing for you once you’re already in a relationship with a woman you love. Having no game at that stage is risking a lot; a lot more than a measly five minute approach in a bar. And it’s not like you can numbers game your girlfriend over and over until she falls back in love with you.

Anyhow, I hope this clears the air on this fallacy. I doubt it will convince the trolls, but then they were never really open to being convinced.

Read Full Post »

The Feminism Shit Test

A reader poses an interesting scenario: what do you say if a girl asks you about feminism? If you live in a big, blue urban enclave, it’s pretty good odds you’ll run into a chick — probably a lawyer or other man-jawed freak of nature — who hits you up with the feminism shit test.

Naturally, the typical beta male, not knowing what the fuck to do in most situations with women except kowtow in abject supplication in hopes he’ll be patted on the head like a neutered shih tzu, would frantically insist his fem-cred is legit. At best, he might “yeah, but” his way through it until eventually caving that he’s on board the grrlpower train.

But we can do better than that! In fact, not just better, but SEXIER. You see, these sorts of politically and culturally loaded questions that girls ask are not just tests for proof of in-group certification, they are also plum-ripe opportunities to demonstrate superior value by parrying her noxiously probing questions in a socially adept manner that simultaneously arouses her and spares your dignity as a man.

Examples

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?
YOU: it’s for old hags and ugly girls.

This was the answer suggested by the reader. It certainly spares no quarter, but is it alpha in the pussy-moistening sense? I think it’s too confrontational. More likely to start an argument or elicit a haughty exit than encourage flirty banter.

Here are some less confrontational but still edgy replies:

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?

YOU:
– great for my sex life!
– child’s play.
– it’s like religion. makes people feel good.
– great! girls buy me drinks now.
– dunno. never ate one.
– fucking LOVE it. premarital sex for the win!
– you mean lesbianism?
– i don’t.
– [for the girls who appreciate dark humor]: it’s cool. my aborted sister was a feminist.
– love it. i’d be married if it wasn’t for feminism.
– it’s bursting with fruit flavor.
– you’ll have to ask my grandma.
– it’s cute!

GIRL: what do you think of feminists?

YOU:
– they’re sexy underneath.
– beautiful on the inside.
– so smart! guys love that about girls. yup, being totally serious here.
– they ask weird questions.
– love chicks who rock the pit hair. shows they’re secure in their masculinity.
– so cute!
– best divorcees in the world.
– love em. most of them are secretly giggling little schoolgirls once you get to know them.
– i’d tell you but then you’d have to buy me a drink.

GIRL: are you a feminist?

YOU:
– i wish, but i was born with a penis.
– that’s what my doctor says.
– when it’s convenient.
– for you, any time sweet cheeks.
– are you flirting with me?
– i’m not wearing any underwear, so, yeah.

Of course, if you really ARE a micropeened self-loathing bitch tittied simulacra of a man one brightly whistled show tune away from double rainbowed gaiety, you could go the Hugo Schwyzer route and proudly declare your feminist bona fides, t-shirt and all, while exploiting your teacher-student status differential to nail 19 year old hypergamous pussy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But for most betas who don’t have a captive classroom audience of eager beavers jockeying for insider influence at an A in ‘Deconstructing Rape Culture 101’, holding sincere feminist beliefs and being unafraid (ha!) to broadcast those beliefs will not help you get laid. If anything, girls will be turned off by your cloying self-abnegation. Even feminist girls. ESPECIALLY feminist girls.

Read Full Post »

Another Game Concept Validated: Personality Is Adjustable

Many doubters of game, especially those of the determinist variety, like to assert that game, even if it has merit, is largely limited in scope to those men already born with the genes that give them personality characteristics — for instance, extroversion — suited for seducing women. Their thinking goes:

Game requires extroversion and charisma.

Extroversion and charisma are mostly heritable, genetically influenced traits.

ERGO, men without those advantageous pussy-slaying genes cannot learn or benefit from game.

CONCLUSION: only men born with “game genes” can run game successfully.

Coming from this blog, it might sound funny that I’m about to disprove the above logic sequence. After all, a fair amount of posting effort here is spent hammering the feelgood, empty-headed assertions of the “social conditioning”, cultural supremacy crowd and emphasizing the heretofore mostly unacknowledged or under-examined role that genes play in everything about us humans, from the way we look, to our personalities, to our predilection for impulsiveness and crime, to our sexual desire and our intelligence. (This study and this one are two examples of many.)

I do this because for generations the West has labored under the grand poobah of lies, the lie of blank slate ideology. This rancid ideology has brought more pain, death, distress and wasted resources upon its enthralled peoples than any other. The amount of self-delusion, demoralizing snark and frantic propaganda needed to sustain it is breathtaking.

Yet there is no such thing as absolute genetic determinism. Genes are probability, not destiny (credit: Razib). Genes explain a lot — more than most give them credit for — but they aren’t everything. Our genetic heritage has also imbued us with a talent for adaptation in the face of environmental flux and everyday challenges. Stressing the genetic component should not be construed as denying any environmental influence. I stress genes because they are ignored, deliberately or incidentally, by most everyone else, and especially by those who wield the media bullhorns, work in HR departments, grade papers in academia and make policy in legislative dens. My ASCII saber brings balance to the force.

Having acknowledged the power of genes, anti-gamers may wonder where I get off claiming men can learn to be better womanizers. Simple. Personality, moreso than looks or height or intelligence, is amenable to active efforts at change. Given that a man’s personality is at least as relevant as, if not more relevant than, his looks or wealth to attracting women, improving his personality so that he has a sexier, dominant vibe will redound to more sex and better relationships.

And this isn’t just evidence from personal experience, or observation of the experiences of others, speaking. Science is catching up to the field work of millions of aspiring players. Here is a study showing that military service will change a man’s personality.

“Be all you can be,” the Army tells potential recruits. The military promises personal reinvention. But does it deliver? A new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that personality does change a little after military service – German conscripts come out of the military less agreeable than their peers who chose civilian service.

It’s maybe a bit more than a coincidence that pickup teachers call their in-field classes “boot camps”. The military is a tough, strict regimen, and the personality changes measured are not huge. This should chasten betas new to the game that they are going to have to commit a lot of focused effort to pickup if they want to enjoy the pussy bounty that accrues to the smoothest operators. But at least now they know it can be done.

Here’s another study concluding that certain personality changes lead to more happiness, and that such change is possible.

People’s personalities can change considerably over time, say scientists, suggesting that leopards really can change their spots.

Psychologists from The University of Manchester and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) also showed that small positive personality changes may lead to greater increases in happiness than earning more money, marrying, or gaining employment. […]

Lead author Dr Chris Boyce, from the University of Manchester’s School of Psychological Sciences, said: “We found that our personalities can and do change over time – something that was considered improbable until now – and that these personality changes are strongly related to changes in our wellbeing. […]

“Fostering the conditions where personality growth occurs – such as through positive schooling, communities, and parenting [ed: and game!] – may be a more effective way of improving national wellbeing than GDP growth.”

It’ll be difficult, but you can alter your personality from a less sexy one to a sexier one. From a boring one to a charismatic one. That’s really what game is — the active transformation of your personality from mundane to mesmerizing, based on a conceptual foundation derived from evolutionary biology and real world feedback that the male personality attributes which most women find sexually attractive are identifiable, objective and acquirable.

Before you untether yourself from reality with this joyous news, know that your genetic disposition will make game more or less taxing on you to learn and implement. If you are a natural introvert, expect your learning curve to be much steeper than it would be for an inborn extrovert. It really WILL be harder for some guys to learn game, let alone master it, than it will for other guys who were born with a more advantageous suite of personality traits. Life isn’t fair, so you have to be ready to accept that some men will be better at game, and better at it quicker, than you. But you shouldn’t allow this acceptance to sap your willpower, because regardless of the ease with which other men accomplish their goals, you can improve yourself.

For some men, their goals are racking up notch counts into the hundreds or thousands. For other men, their goals are enjoying a few flings on the side. Still others just want a girlfriend or a happier wife. Whatever the goal, the result is inarguable: giving men more choice in women. And that’s a good thing for both.

Read Full Post »