Low Energy Younger Women

A lot of older men in the comments of this blog complain that they find the frivolity, shit testing and emotional demands of younger women too frustrating to tolerate, so they nix entire groups of women from their target designation list. As one who has dated plenty of crazy whimsical women and enjoyed their company, I can’t wholly commiserate with these men who avoid younger women, but I can understand the reason for their gripes. Compared to women over 30, younger women are a pain in the ass. But they’re also fun and exciting and girlishly feminine and lovesick and sweetly naive and horny and curious and submissive and romantic. And they have perfectly unwrinkled tight asses. There’s your primary trade-off: PITA for PUTA.

However, there is a way around this conundrum. You could date low energy younger women. There is a sizable minority of early to mid-20s women who aren’t high maintenance drama queens. You’ll have to screen for them, but they are out there. They don’t dance on bars or shamelessly flirt, because they find those activities mentally taxing. They won’t constantly shit test because their minds require more peaceful repose than the party girls. They don’t make demands to be entertained because they don’t get easily bored with life. They don’t get antsy sitting still or enduring more than five minutes without male attention because they’re comfortable residing in their own world. They’re certainly cute enough to do all those things, but they don’t because it doesn’t suit their temperament.

The Man Who Was… writes:

I’ve said it before, both the best and the worst younger women like to date older men. On the one hand are the golddiggers and the girls who will indiscriminatly fuck anyone who makes them horny at that moment. On the other hand there are the girls who honestly appreciate your maturity.

But let’s face it the younger a woman is the flakier and more drama laden she is likely to be.

No argument there. Flakiness is very age-dependent. Teens and early 20s girls are the flakiest, then it falls off through the 20s, has a second, but smaller, peak again late 20s up to just past 30, and finally nosedives into and beyond the 30s when no man who isn’t a complete loser will put up with dating a 30+ woman who still flakes. (Sane women intuitively know this, too, which is why older women are so agreeable when you first meet them.)

Flakiness is just another term for having a wealth of options. Or, in the case of the 30 year old single careerist, having a mental breakdown. A woman of 21 simply has more options in the dating market than her older self at 31, and vastly more options than her 41 year old self. Finally, at around 50 years old for most women, their options dwindle to whatever man will have them. Which is close to zero. Paging Naomi Wolf…

So a flake is really just a hindbrain burp from a hot young woman who is beset with male admiration. She flakes because she is uncertain about choosing from amongst many potential suitors. It’s the beautiful agony of nearly limitless choice within a limited time frame.

Here’s another good thing about dating low energy younger women: they age slower than their attention whore counterparts. This must be related to a telomere sparing metabolic thing. Corollary: If you want to know how well your girlfriend will hold up should you decide to marry her, ask her when she hit puberty. In my observation, late bloomers are also late wilters.

The downside to dating low energy younger women? Your game will inevitably… ahem… soften. You need those dramatic hamster chicks to keep your game in tip top shape.

“I am a wiltin’ flowaahhh.”
– Naomi Wolf in her terrifying nightmares

Read Full Post »

Why GSS Sex Questions Should Be Taken With A Flat Of Salt

The problem with sex surveys has been the same since the first white-coated experimenter got it in his head to ask women about their sex lives —

women lie about sex.

Not only do women lie about sex, but their vaginas and brains aren’t even on the same page when it comes to what they find sexually stimulating. Their own vaginas seem to be lying to them.

A study from a few years ago examined this problem and found that women lie worse than men on sex surveys, and lie about a whole host of behaviors that they are afraid might label them a slut:

Women are more likely than men to lie about their sex lives as a study reveals they routinely claim to have slept with fewer partners than they have.

The report points to discrepancies in the results of sex surveys since the Sixties which have indicated heterosexual men exaggerate the number of their partners, with British men claiming an average of 13 over their lifetime.

Yet women in the UK claim an average of nine – leading to the unlikely conclusion that the majority of Britain’s menfolk are having sex with foreign women. Similar studies elsewhere suggest that this is statistically impossible.

Until now, scientists had thought that both sexes were lying – with men inflating the number of partners and women understating them.

But the study reveals women’s embellishments include adding years to the age they claim to have lost their virginity and lying about masturbation and use of pornography. The survey in the Journal of Sex Research quizzed 96 men and 105 women. Some were told their answers were anonymous, some were told a researcher was watching and the rest were told they were being monitored by lie detector.

“Women are so sensitive about being labelled ‘whores’ that they are very reluctant to be honest about their sexual behaviour, even in supposedly anonymous surveys,” said Terri Fisher, who headed the study at Ohio State University in the US.

Women lie to cover up their sluttiness? Who woulda thunk it!

A lot of bloggers like to use GSS (General Social Survey) data to track changes in society’s sexual behavior. Many of these bloggers have found in this data evidence that American women are becoming less slutty in the past ten or twenty years. This does not jibe with my personal experience, so I knew something was amiss. I mused that perhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

But studies like the above point out a real problem with sex survey data like that found in the GSS — women just aren’t going to tell you the truth about their sex lives under most normal circumstances, even when anonymity is guaranteed. And that may be the real reason why the GSS gurus are finding chimeras of chasteness that don’t really exist — the data are corrupt.

The only way you are going to get an accurate reading of what kind of sex lives women lead is to secretly videotape the numbers, and types, of men she bangs with her pussy or ass, blows, or pleases with an old-fashioned, because women will conveniently rationalize anything other than penis in vagina as “not really sex”.

Now that’s science I can get behind.

Read Full Post »

Women Are More Comfortable Sharing A Lover

A religious American woman engaged to a Frenchman writes about her experience with him when he broke off their engagement. An old high school flame had come back into his life and, as he explained to his American fiancée, he couldn’t decide if he loved the old flame.

(Don’t old flames just have a sixth sense for knowing when their window of opportunity is about to close? goddamned eerie.)

The author decides to “stay” with him; that is, she does not harangue him with an ultimatum or break up with him in a fury of righteous indignation. She instead offers to give him the space he needs to decide with whom his love is strongest and whether to come back to her at an unspecified future date should he want to do that. She calls this a relationship limbo born out of love for him. They continue emailing and calling over the next several months (the author is vague about any chance that they met for quasi-makeup sex during the limbo interim), and the story ends with no resolution. He still has not chosen between the two women, and the author still loves him. In her words:

If the man I love does come back, it will not be because I have threatened or manipulated him. His return will not be mere capitulation to the all-or-nothing terms I have set. It will come from a place of deep self-knowledge that he has found in his own time. And if I take him back, it will be because of similarly deep self-knowledge, made possible by this very difficult thing I have chosen to do: live with limbo, and take responsibility for my own happiness.

I admire this. She is wise enough to know that ultimatums are the worst possible foundation for a marriage. She also senses, although I doubt she could comprehend the true reasons why, that men are capable of loving more than one woman simultaneously. This is an emotional feat most women cannot grasp, because it is not in a woman’s nature to love more than one man at a time. It takes a selfless woman with a grounded ego and big heart to be able to temporarily silence the hamster and admit to herself that, although she could never do it, perhaps her man really does love two women at once.

Maxim #200: Men acquire lovers; women share lovers.

But she is unwise in one respect: he may return, but not in love. There is no guarantee that he doesn’t return to his American lover simply because his options dried up. Perhaps years later the old high school flame gains weight and our intrepid alpha male* Frenchman loses his love for her, which impels him to seek the comfort and sexual satisfaction of his former lover once again. In other words, she may serve as nothing more than his safety snatch. Yet, for many women, playing safety snatch to an alpha male is preferable to playing top choice to a beta male. So we come round again to my admiration for her purity: she loves an alpha male, and she will surrender her ego to be with him, no matter the cost. I don’t fault her at all for her decision.

*How do you know he is an alpha male?, some of you are probably asking. We know because he has two women in love with him, and at least one of them has agreed to become a de facto member of his nascent harem. Or: it’s self-evident, Sherlock.

The implications of her decision, amplified a million-fold across the corners of the globe, should give betas pause. Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man.

Of course, most modern women do wind up settling for beta males (usually at the tail end of their prime attractiveness years), not least because social taboos and restrictions prevent the large-scale formation in the West of openly recognized harems (to date; see: gay marriage slippery slope). Many women, unbeknownst to their conscious minds, find a loophole to this societal shaming mechanism by doing what the Salon author did: they drop out of the dating market to wistfully pine for an unavailable alpha male while he enjoys the pussy fruit of multiple women. Women who aren’t into the whole wistful pining thing prefer the alternatives of riding the cock carousel or cheating on beta boyfriends while keeping it on the DL.

The Salon author, Sharon Hewitt, very much resembles the protagonist from Story of O. She gives everything, including pride, in the service of love for a high value man. And she would have it no other way, though her actions violate just about every sacrosanct feminist principle of what it supposedly means to be an “empowered” woman. O, like this author, has discovered that the ultimate assertion of female empowerment resides in surrendering completely, despite all odds stacked against her and peer pressure to do otherwise, to love. Love, even, and maybe especially, for a man who would tell her he loves another, or would, like René, offer her body to strangers for sexual plundering.

That, my friends, is the unearthly pull of the alpha male.

So, a toast to Miss Hewitt, for reminding betas how badly the cards are stacked against them. You remain true to a man who has abandoned his wedding promise to you to spend time with another women. More than true, you remain in love with him. In doing so, you have removed yourself from the dating market, and ensured that one man enjoys the pleasure of two women while another man goes without the pleasure of any woman.

Read Full Post »

What Betas Can Learn From Women’s Rape Fantasies

In this post, it was revealed that a lot of women, the majority in fact, have erotic, and *sincere*, rape fantasies. Despite the claim made by feminists that fantasy is wholly different and disconnected from reality — an empty assertion easily explained by feminists’ need to handwave away any disturbing look into the female psyche — the more truthful explanation is that fantasy is a reflection of reality and hints at some deep, immutable desire. If feminists are correct that fantasy is different from reality, we would hear of women fantasizing about tender lovemaking with cubicle-dwelling beta herbs. But that is not the case.

The scientific evidence presents soul-shaking implications: many women harbor a secret desire to experience rape under the right conditions. What those specific conditions are will vary from woman to woman, (typically, an alpha male is involved), but the fundamental act of rape itself — nonconsensual and forceful — appears to be a turn-on for the majority of women. As the study showed, in their rape fantasies women were really refusing the man sex. It was not a token no. That was the basis for the fantasy. The pleasure comes from being overwhelmed by a man who pushes his way past her nonconsensuality. I know, it’s hard to believe, but there it is.

Women don’t like to admit to this little factoid about the inner workings of their ids, because they worry that the dissemination of such knowledge would hinder the prime directive to extract as much princessifying pedestalization from awed men as they can manage. Just as relevant: most women aren’t even consciously aware, nor do they spend much time thinking about, what exactly it is that motivates their sexual desire. They prefer, instead, to swaddle themselves in a cloak of pretty lies, for the best deceptions begin with self-deception.

Rape fantasies provide a shocking look into the craggiest crevices of women’s brains and what they truly desire when it’s just them and their private thoughts. What does this mean for the average well-meaning beta male, (who let it be known comprises the majority of male-dom)? Well, for one, perhaps a lot more betas would do better with women if they were more assertive about physically pushing for sex.

Before the IQ-compromised cunt-brigade and their thimble-phallused uptight white knighters storm in to shriek like menstruating banshees, it should be obvious to any person reading in good faith that being more assertive about physically pushing for sex does not mean rape. It is possible to push for sex, physically or otherwise, without crossing any non-consensual lines. Anyone who’s lived a day in his or her life knows that seductive escalation of the kind that women love will often blur the distinction between formal consent (sign here, here and here to proceed further down my panty line) and wary surrender (no, no, noooo…. yeeeeees).

Rape fantasies tell us that women want to surrender sexually to a man of tenacious and powerful will. Women crave the feeling of “being taken”, and no cautious beta asking politely if he may peer down her blouse or apologizing when she coyly reprimands him for sliding his hand under her bra during a make-out is going to hit that “being taken” button.

There are two ways to fuck up the fuck close: you can seem too eager, or you can seem too tentative. Most men, despite what women’s studies dyke professors tell you, fall into the latter category. They don’t push for sex early enough, or forcefully enough. Any token resistance by the girl is immediately capitulated to, and any move to up the ante is a humiliating exercise in trepidation and apologia.

In sum, the problem betas have is that they TAKE WOMEN’S SYMBOLIC RESISTANCE AT FACE VALUE.

Of course that is going to be a tingle killer.

Instead, betas need to do more of these:

– going for the kiss unannounced.

– issuing bedroom commands.

– never waiting for obvious signals.

– always escalating (but remember: two steps forward, one step back) to more nudity, more touching, and more erotic touching.

– not taking the first “no” for an answer. (Wait until the fifth or sixth “no”, and only then if the “no” is uttered with an unmistakeable tone of genuine recalcitrance.)

– moving seemlessly from bar to bedroom.

– never apologizing for miscues or misreadings of her acquiescence.

– initiating sex in unlikely places.

– getting comfortable with spanking, hair pulling and gentle neck choking.

– reappraising their date evaluation process so that a fingerbang rather than a peck on the cheek becomes the marker of a successful first date ending with a girl who didn’t want to go all the way right away.

– putting it in without the condom. (As Roosh has correctly noted, most women nowadays are more than willing to raw dog a new man after two dates. Likely this has to do with the emerging scientific evidence that absorbed semen boosts a girl’s mood.)

***

This is just a partial list. There are many more overly-cautious missteps that gelded betas commit which sabotage the trajectory of their stillborn seductions.

Now some of you may be asking, “Hey, what about that line Mystery advocated using? The one that goes ‘Would you like to kiss me?’, and if she says no you are supposed to reply ‘I didn’t say you *could*… you just had that look on your face.’ Isn’t that in contradiction to what you wrote above?”

It’s a clever little routine, and will probably work in most situations, but I have found through experience that it’s totally unnecessary. If you are winning a girl over with your game, you can silently go for the kiss without any warm-up or witty fanfare. I have rarely had a girl refuse a bold, unspoken kiss move.

Some others may then ask “What if she turns and gives me the cheek?”

Hey, it’s been known to happen, usually to guys who sloppily telegraphed their horniness, and thus their lower value. If you get her cheek, simply IGNORE IT. Proceed as if nothing happened, and reengage for the kiss later in the date. Under no circumstance should you acknowledge her cheek turn. Do not ironically mutter “Aww, shucks”, or make light of it with a flippant “That was awkward”, or crudely laugh it off with a “So that’s how it’s gonna be?”. Just move on like you hadn’t even tried to kiss her.

Any acknowledgement by you of her coyness, whether she delivers it in cheek turn form or some other false modesty-amplifying manifestation, will be received by her id central command as evidence that she is higher value than you. That is a side effect of female coyness, besides its primary function as a signal of purity.

Maxim #99: Female coyness is a purity signaler as well as an ego-boosting mechanism designed to reaffirm a woman’s sexual market value at the expense of lowering the man’s sexual market value.

Corollary to Maxim #99: Female coyness serves a secondary benefit as an anti-game strategy to make a high value man seem more attainable to a lower value woman, or to offer low value women plausible deniability for failing to attract the interest of high value men.

Letting her know that her coyness affected you is a major surrender of dating hand. Once a girl has successfully thwarted a kiss or sex attempt, and more importantly gotten recognition of her thwarting from you, she has hand. She starts to think that you are not worth her company, or she silently muses that she can do better, because you want it more than she does.

You do not want a girl to have hand if sex within this century is your goal. One of the golden rules of seduction is that half of the battle of bedding hot girls (hot is the operative word here) is lowering their value, and, yes, their self-esteem, below yours.

Maxim #100: The urgency and strength of a woman’s desire for a man is directly proportional to the degree to which he is perceived higher in value than her.

If you absolutely must say something after getting a cheek turn, there is one line you can say to a girl which works well:

“Aw, how cute. It’s like we’re twelve-years-old again.”

The beauty of this line is in the subtext: you are insinuating she is not sophisticated enough to handle her out-of-control emotions around you. Also, by using the word “we’re” instead of “you’re”, you avoid sounding accusatory. Girls like it when you pretend to non-judgementalism.

Read Full Post »

Science Confirms Another Game Concept: Older Women Need Less Game

Quite a while back there was a post at this Den of Delicious Sadism blog which explained how game changes depending on the age bracket of the woman you are trying to pick up. A few choice quotes from that post:

The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking. Some consequences result from this.

NEG HARDER. The 23-27 year old will require harder negging than any other age group of women, even the hotter 18 year olds. She needs her ego punctured before her pussy will open for you. […]

The [31-34 year olds] are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” adventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.

Game required: Strong body language, masculine dominance, sharp suits and shoes, easy on the negs and palm reading, emphasis on the comfort stage, lots of travel stories, disqualify yourself from sex on the first date, vulnerability game, avoidance of the beta provider zone. […]

The [36-38 year olds] are at peace with their spinsterhood and their failure in the dating market. A woman in this age bracket will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.

That post got a lot of feedback from commenters and emailers who saw in it a deep and profound truth reflected in their own life experiences. Haters, naturally, were livid with pent-up frustration that the mirror would be so impudently turned in their direction, but they at least could retire to their twin-sized beds and cans of cat food tumbling out of the pantry, soothed with the knowledge that no scientific study as yet had proved the bold claims made in that post. They felt they could glide through another day safely ensconced in their comforting lies.

N o t  a n y m o r e.

Reader quetal left a link to a very revealing study in the comments which, like other studies before it, confirms much of what is written here at the Chateau:

Tailor Your Approach to Your Audience: Data collected by Virtual Dating Assistants revealed that while women of all ages respond well to humor, women in their early 30s and above responded well to longer, more thoughtful emails that expressed genuine interest. Women in their 20s rejected these more serious emails, preferring even some slight cockiness – or what some dating coaches call the “Cocky & Funny” approach. In fact, one particular email that is long (over 150 words), expresses interest, draws commonalities (it’s always customized), demonstrates humor as well as a sense of ambition and adventure received a 9.7% response rate from women in their 20s, a 20.5% response rate from 30-somethings, and a 50.3% [response rate] from women 40 and above. This email, according to Scott, was sent to over a thousand women of different ages, so it’s pretty clear, based on these numbers alone, that a one-size-fits-all approach to online dating is a bad one.

Pwned.

You’ll notice that the study’s results square perfectly with the Chateau’s post quoted at the top. Older women on the downslope of their sexual desirability need less game and more signals of commitment to get them in bed than younger women in their sexual primes. Or, to put it more succinctly, younger, hotter, tighter women love assholes while older, uglier, looser women gravitate to beta providers.

The reason for this age difference in women’s reactions to game is clear: Older women have less sexual marketability and are thus more likely to be pumped and dumped by a high value man. Ensuring that the man sticks around is priority number one, so older women look for signs of herbly romantic interest of the kind that you might see a humanities department professor wallow in while stroking his weak-chin-hiding white beard. One of these signs is the long-winded thoughtful email with perfect punctuation. Younger women, in contrast, are playing with pocket aces, and can afford to indulge their animal desires for the aloof, alpha jerk of their dreams.

Now, as a man, which age group of women are you more interested in? Yeah, that’s what I thought. So… turn on your jerk light. Let it shine wherever you go. Let it make a jerky glow. For all the chicks to see.

This blog frequently gets lady commenters proclaiming to the high heavens that they would never date an asshole. After a leetle prying, it is usually revealed that these howling anti-game termagants are north of the Matron-Vixen line. And that they aren’t, how shall we say?, attractive representatives of their gender.

Of course older women don’t go for assholes as much as they used to when they were younger and hotter — their rapidly closing window of options means they can’t afford the risk of satisfying their carnal need for aloof jerks who are likely to leave them as soon as a younger prospect shows up. Younger women have these worries, too, but given their many years ahead of serviceability they don’t feel them as acutely, which explains why you often see the hottest chicks on the arms of the biggest assholes.

So if you want to bang broads teetering on the edge of witherdom with kids and marriage and college funds dancing in their dreams, go easy on the cocky and funny and the negs. The older woman’s ego has taken enough of a bruising from the encroachment of reality; your negs will only push her into self-flagellating withdrawal or indignant lashing out. She needs to know she still has the kind of looks that can turn heads, so your cloying flattery will work wonders on her.

On the other hand, if you want to date hot girls in their 20s and, for a lucky few of them, early 30s, you have to give ’em a bit of the ol’ ultrabadness. It’s the moral thing to do, if women’s pleasure is your business.

Executive Summary: Young women are harder lays. They require game and a cocky attitude. Older women are easier lays. They require flowers, compliments and cuddles. Don’t take dating advice from women. This goes double for women over 30.

Read Full Post »

Spin Spin, Hamster!

I know this guy who cleans up with women, compared to the typical man. I’ve seen him in action and girls get that twinkle in their eyes within five minutes talking with him. He’s shown me pics of lovers in states of half dress on his bed. Here’s the catch: the guy is short. Not a little under average; he’s a short man who would lose line of sight in a crowd of women.

I listen to this guy carefully because he’s living proof that game can overcome severe sexual market handicaps. He’s decent looking, but not enough to compensate for his diminutive height. He dresses well — sort of a cross between Euro cafe and biker chic — and exudes confidence in the field. (Whether he has this confidence at home is open to question, but regardless he knows to turn it on when it’s go time.)

Based on the obvious and superficial qualities — the ones we can see at a glance — you would expect him to do a little bit better than the average short man, which is still not very good. You wouldn’t expect him to get the numbers of cute chicks he does. His secret is something readers of this blog should understand by now: his game is airtight. Solid gold. He looks girls piercingly in the eye when he picks them up, he doesn’t care if they’re sitting or standing, his body language projects dominance despite his height, and he negs better than any player I know. (As a short man, he has to get out front with the negs, or he’ll get blown out too quickly.) He is borderline asshole with just the merest hint of vulnerability, which is exactly how the women like it. He is charming and suave — traits he says he learned over the years hanging out with alpha men who do well with women. If his shortness bothers him, he doesn’t show it. He has never put himself down or whined about the unfairness of it all, as long as I’ve known him.

He says after his experience with game, he decided to switch careers into sales, and has cleaned up professionally, too. I asked him once how he got started with game.

“Online dating.”

“You’re kidding. You don’t seem like the online dating sort.”

“At first, it was a disaster. I didn’t fib about my height. I didn’t want chicks meeting me for dates thinking I was six inches taller. My game wasn’t polished then, so I didn’t have the confidence in my skills that I could turn a bad date around.”

“So you put your real height in your profile?”

“Yup. Pics, too. Result: No bites. Girls have tons of qualifications for what they want in men, and height is near the top.”

“So you gave up on online dating?”

“Nope. I rearranged my profile to emphasize my pickiness. Right out of the gate I was disqualifying girls hard. I’ve gotta say that I was never a bigger asshole than online.”

“So it started working.”

“Not as much as I wanted, but that wasn’t the point. I knew as long as girls could quickly screen men online for failing their cliched checklists they would screen me out with a click. The beauty of it though was that I was beginning to get interest from girls who *specifically* wrote that they wanted taller men in their profiles. I banged a few of them and this was after they said they wouldn’t normally date men shorter than themselves, but I was ‘different’.”

“Once you took it to the field, it must have gotten a lot tougher, what with the competition and all.”

“The field was easier! The same game I ran online worked ten times better when I could walk up to a chick and talk to her face to face. Most men don’t even bother approaching. You approach, and you’ve leapfrogged 90% of your competition. All those qualifications that girls list in their online profiles just disappear when they’re talking to a smooth bastard. Forget that stuff girls say they want in men. 6 foot, high paying career, jock, Ivy educated, blah blah blah… it’s all bullshit they hang onto because it’s easy to quantify in their heads and makes sense to their parents. They don’t know what they want. They just react to men who turn them on, but there’s no way you can get them to describe what it is about those men that makes them stand out. Ask a girl what she likes in men, and she’ll rattle off some stupid list she read in Cosmo, and then she’ll go home to her bartender boyfriend while her phone is lighting up with calls from all those nice guys with good jobs who are politely asking to take her out on expensive dates.”

***

A woman’s 463 bullet point checklist is suddenly rendered null and void when she is in the company of a man with game/charisma. The qualifications she lists in her OkCupid profile or wherever are meant to be read as “hamster can change policy without prior notice.” If you have good game, you will chuckle to yourself over the many women whose qualifications you did not meet, but who slept with you anyway. The hamster can rationalize away everything from money to education to, yes, even shortness when it is being seduced by a captivating predator.

Maxim #463: Do not underestimate the rapidity with which a woman will jettison her conventional mate criteria when exposed to the attentions of a charismatic man.

Read Full Post »

The Four Types Of Female Reactions To High Value Men

When you are a socially adept charmer drawing attention to yourself by being alive and interesting, you will notice that girls around you react to your presence in one of four different ways. These four ways of reaction are so common that they are likely universal in nature; that is, they are reflections of core human psychology. If you run game — i.e. if you act charismatically — with any regularity, you will cause girls in your vicinity to alter their behavior. They do this unconsciously as their undistracted state is interrupted by your presence, and you can predict with some accuracy how receptive each type of girl will be to your game.

Type I: Acknowledgers

This type of girl will raise an eyebrow, smile, crane her neck with curiosity, nod, or mutter a curt hello when a high value man is within her orbit of perception, and she is within his. She doesn’t want to seem too interested, but she is so intrigued that she can’t help but acknowledge in however fleeting or subtle a manner the man who has punctured her daily dullness. She wants to feel like she is a part of his world and that she is as perceptive as the other women at recognizing his value, so she acknowledges him to affirm her in-crowd cred. But her acknowledgement is brief and off-hand, so that she may retain the fiction that her value is higher than his until proven otherwise. Sometimes, she acknowledges simply because she feels peer pressure to do so. Acknowledgers are rarely seen alone, because they have a strong need to “fit in”. If they are alone, they tend to acknowledge less and withdraw more into an introverted shell. Acknowledgers are natural followers.

Game receptiveness: High. Acknowledgers are uncomfortable with their growing sexual attraction because it is so strong and makes them feel vulnerable. They will follow your lead wherever you take them. They are ripe, low-hanging fruit for the picking, heavy with the juice of wanton womanhood.

Type II: Engagers

Engagers are girls who will jump into an alpha male’s world with gusto, tap dancing and singing the whole way. They are attention whores at heart who will latch onto the social savvy express train of similarly extroverted men. When they see a man having fun, being impossibly cool, or holding court with other women, they find excuses to introduce themselves to him, or they position themselves within proximity of his senses so that the transition from their world to his is not awkward. Engagers smile a lot and are rarely at a loss for words. They like to give high fives. Their bodies talk as much as their mouths do. Engagers are no less sociable when alone.

Game receptiveness: Low to high. Engagers are often cockteases, but of those that aren’t, same night lays are possible. You will need to disqualify Engagers hard. They like to chase.

Type III: Pretenders

A girl who has noticed an alpha male but acts to conceal her curiosity is a Pretender. Usually, these types of girls have a prideful but sometimes fragile ego, and an inclination to abhor attention whores and social competitors. They are loathe to express their interest in a man before has has done the same. You will recognize Pretenders by their furtive glances and quick look-aways when you catch their eyes. Pretenders love to shit test once engaged, and to act all high and mighty in the belief that no person is as interesting as themselves. They are as conceited as Engagers, but without the Engagers’ natural curiosity and love of experiencing new things. Pretenders want to meet alpha males, but want the plausible deniability that studied indifference brings.

Game receptiveness: Medium. Pretenders are interested, but they are going to make you work for their attention. They succumb most easily to perceptive men who call them out on their pretending, and who butter them up with lines such as “I have an intuition about you…”. They are excellent comfort stage candidates. Pretenders are expert at deploying proximity alerts.

Type IV: Hostiles

Hostiles are the type of girls who will studiously avoid acknowledging high value men or women. They are the put-upon quasi-goths and the bristly lawyercunts of the woman underworld. Hostiles are identified by their abrasive and distant personalities, and while an inordinate number of them are ugly or fat, quite a few are drop dead gorgeous hotties whose standards are so high they go out of their way to act unapproachable so that no man gets the idea in head to breach her perimeter defense. Hostiles have swollen egos they protect at all costs and cannot tolerate someone else, even an alpha male, captivating spectators. She takes this as a personal affront. Mind you, she isn’t an attention whore; she just doesn’t like it when her bubble of superiority is pricked by an intriguing man. Hostiles hate to feel vulnerable, and thus encase themselves in an adamantine shell of disregard when they feel the slightest tingle of attraction in a man’s presence. You can identify hostiles by the sternness of their expressions, the stiffness of their backs, and the stridency of their walking, as well as their transparent and clumsy attempts at ignoring you by staring at a wall twenty yards away, or at a UFO in the sky.

Game receptiveness: Low, to sky high. Most men will find hostiles not worth the effort to game. They are so cold up-front that many will be intimidated by the approach. But hostiles fall hard to aloof asshole game. A jerk who can remember what she says about her job is like manna from heaven to the hostile.

***

You’ll observe the four types above (HEAP: Hostiles, Engagers, Acknowledgers, Pretenders) in many situations in life. For instance, I was sitting outdoors on a stoop with friends (mixed group) which faced a busy sidewalk bustling with pedestrians. We were drinking red wine and listening to Motown. We all looked a little too precious, and that was enough peacocking to draw attention to ourselves. The same types of girls you see in clubs, bars, supermarkets, at the beach and at art classes could be seen walking down the sidewalk reacting to us enjoying our leisure on that stoop. This applies to the men who walked by our little gathering, too. Some would acknowledge us with a nod or a smile and a slight slowing in their step, a little bit embarrassed with themselves. Others would engage us by stopping and making a comment. (One girl shouted “Oh, so lovely!”) Others, the Pretenders, would glance over then quickly avert their eyes lest they be seen affirming our high social value. Finally, there were the Hostiles — these were mostly men, but some women as well, who would briskly walk by without a break in their stride or a turn in our direction. Looking closely, we could see some of them grimacing.

If you are a close observer of human nature, you will see these four types of behavior manifest in people at work and home and everywhere else you go. HEAP is probably a representation of people as they move along the introversion-extroversion scale, intersected with the sexual/social status scale. An introverted, ugly girl will usually be a Hostile while an extroverted pretty girl will be an Engager. Exceptions exist, but as a general guideline to how women will react to your peacocking and your social stardom, the HEAP system is fairly reliable.

Read Full Post »