The Nonprofit Tweeconomy

What kind of economy do women prop up, and propagate? A reader forwards an unintentionally funny, and portentous, chart.

Women in their 20s, 30s, and beyond flock to nonprofits for work. There are three reasons for this:

1. Women are psychologically much different than men and have a sex-based preference for work in the “helping” and “schoolmarm” industries. If a woman gets to tell you what to do, and also gets to enjoy a sanctimonious glow from the thought that she’s bettering the world, she is a happy clam.

2. Nonprofits are post-scarcity economy work that appeals to people who want to “self-actualize”, the preponderance of these people being women. Profit maximizing and corporate ladder climbing are icky to women, unless that greed and self-aggrandizement occurs in the context of a do-goodism NGO.

3. Nonprofit work requires little to no UGH MATH CLASS IS HARD education or skills. Women have both less mathematical acumen than men (on the whole), and less desire to do work which involves the rigors of logic and maths.

A job that lets a white woman write jargony word salad all day, get paid for it, AND status whore about uplifting Africa’s women and children (men? what men?)? Hole-y twat tingles, sign her up!

Most nonprofits are a waste of human capital. 99% of them do nothing for their causes, or actively harm their clients and the donors duped into believing the equalist PR. The growth of nonprofits — and the rush of women into their ranks — is a hallmark of a pre-implosion empire.

You may think, “Aren’t nonprofits a luxury, and therefore proof that the society which can accommodate them is a wealthy and self-confident society able to afford a grandiose (and futile) amount of charitable giving?”

Yes, but no. Nonprofits are a luxury, but luxuries often foretell coming hardships. Pride cometh before the fall, and so do nonprofits. A tired, self-doubting, enervated culture will, contrary conventional liberal wisdom, often turn en masse to helping outsiders because, one, it has lost the will to enrich itself materially and spiritually and two, turning one’s energies outward can serve as a psychological balm for personal failings. Nonprofit work functions as a kind of palimpsest, underneath the veneer of which we spy scribblings of social unrest.

UPDATE

Reader YIH adds his .01 cents.

Here’s what that $1 you give to ”help the starving children of Africa” (or other
charity) does:
.80 – Fundraising: The phone banks and all those ads (What? You didn’t know those were paid for? LOL)
.10 – Administration: The lawyer (on staff, comes in handy), Accountant (gotta document what comes in and what goes out don’cha know) and the guy (or gal) in the suit behind the desk.
.09 – The costs to transport the ‘aid’ and the ‘aid workers’ plus all needed supplies as well as round-the-clock armed security for them. Not to mention the spokesperson and the cameraman – those ads don’t make themselves y’know!
,01 – That’s how much ‘Starvin’ Marvin’ gets – plus those nice t-shirts telling them that the Seahawks just won their second Super Bowl.

Liberals just have to learn to accept that inequality is a part of the human condition — perhaps a necessary and beneficial part — and…

Read Full Post »

Realtalk About The Sexes, 1920s Edition

It seems hard to believe, immersed as we are currently in a miasma of equalist lies, that there were ever times in America’s rapidly receding past when people shared a generally realistic appraisal of the sexes. But there were. And America’s fruited plains were once populated with Realtalkers. A reader forwards a link to Realtalk, 1920s-style. The subject is “Petting Parties”, which were all the rage during that time.

Soon the lovey-dovey wingdings were popping up all across the country. Southerners sometimes called them necking parties. They were called mushing parties in the West; fussing parties in the Midwest and spooning everywhere, the United Press noted later in 1921. Eventually some flappers began referring to party-petting as snugglepupping.

It’s almost weird to read about a time when America was so culturally unified, and this despite massive waves of Eastern European immigration happening then.

A game-aware nugget of Realtalk is tucked into the story:

“Girls like to be called snuggle-puppies,” one school administrator told the reporter. “They grant the boys liberties. Encourage them to take them and if the young chaps do not, they are called ‘sissies’, ‘poor boobs’ or ‘flat tire.’ ”

Heartiste Poon Commandment XIII: Better to err on the side of too much boldness rather than too little.

The beta male orbiter was known to women long before our time. He was that “sissy” — an apt description — who couldn’t bustamove when it most counted. That 1920s beta male stumbled and fumbled and waited patiently for unmistakeable signals from the girl until she grew bored with him and alighted for a better man who knew how to travel the landscape of her hindbrain.

Related: Fat women were never attractive to men. The “perfect woman”, according to an 1890s leaflet, was slender and feminine, not a hint of fupa or manjaw on her. America the Beautiful, where have ye gone?

Read Full Post »

Women And Handbags

Steve Sailer contemplates the riddle of women and their whoring for handbag status. It’s a worthy topic, because handbags appear to confer no sexual market advantage to women, and yet women spend inordinate time and money acquiring the latest trendy makeup container. “Hey, sexy mama, I noticed your Birkin handbag, and it is turning me on!”… said no straight man ever.

“But, CH…” you ask, “if, as you claim, the sexual market is the one market to rule them all, how do you explain women and handbags?”

Easy there, brosephus. I think the best explanation is the one Steve gave: Women use handbags as a signal they can carry with them everywhere to advertise the alpha male-ness of their husbands/lovers, and the women’s ability to secure commitment from their alpha men. Since most people will presume the burn money for the handbag came from a soulmate wealthy male donor, the pricey handbag serves as a relatively inoffensive proxy for a woman’s own SMV.

Why the connection between alpha males and HSMV women? Because we subconsciously know in our ape-shaped brains that the more attractive a woman, the better able she will be to land herself a high status man who, himself, will have the options open to him to capture the interest of beautiful women.

Why doesn’t the kept woman just flaunt her pretty face and sexy body to send the same signal more directly? Because in the world of alpha males with sexual market options and the women who circle them like hawks, that is a little too threatening to other HSMV women in her social milieu. She risks total social ostracism from other women if she sluts it up beyond the acceptable norm for her group.

I have another theory about women and handbags that parsimoniously bridges their behavior to the primary demands of the sexual market: Handbags are a sort of runaway sexual selection module gone haywire, similar to brawn on men, a secondary sexual display in men that is still attractive to Western women despite the environmental conditions having radically changed so that male muscularity is no longer needed for survival. But some men take it too far, bulking up in the gym well beyond the point of usefulness, and most women don’t have any special preference for men with bloated roid muscles.

The handbag, under the female inverse of this theory, is just an extension of a sexy, hip-hugging cocktail dress and beautifying makeup. The former do increase a woman’s sexual appeal to men, and women, knowing this on a deep limbic level, have evolved to maximize their efforts at improving their appearance. This evolution for female self-beautification has “spun out of orbit”, resulting in the modern predilection for collecting and showcasing feminine accessories like handbags, despite male indifference to them.

***

Philomathean adds some heft to the sexual market primacy theory of female handbag collection,

Handbagism is a signal of aggression females employ to communicate the accumulation of tangible and intangible resources.

This is a good point. Women can be aggressive with one another, but their particular brand of aggression doesn’t make headlines or rouse moral umbrage because it isn’t delivered through fists and projectile weapons. “Handbagism” is aggressive signaling to other women who could be potential poachers of husbands and boyfriends. An expensive handbag is one way a woman intimidates her competition from entering the arena. It says, “Hey, my man is fully committed to me, and deeply in love with me, as you can see by all the stuff he lavishes me with, so you’d be wasting your time trying to seduce him away from me.”

Remember, sexual infidelity is a man’s worst fear, while love and resource infidelity are a woman’s worst fear.

Read Full Post »

The Thirst: A Closer Analysis

The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.

The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.

Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.

Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed

1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.

Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.

Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.

2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.

What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.

So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)

So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.

Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.

3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.

When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?

Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.

4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.

If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?

As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”

Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.

When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.

5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.

The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.

(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)

This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.

Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.

6. Women lie.

Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.

***

This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.

The part of The Thirst that is true:

Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.

The parts of The Thirst that are false:

Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.

Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.

It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.

The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.

tl;dr

“He’s just not *that* into you.”

Read Full Post »

Why You Shouldn’t Wait For Eye Contact From Women Before Approaching

YaReally makes an important point about female eye contact, and why it’s a mistake for men to wait for flirty eye contact from women before approaching them with promises of lovey lovey long time. Reprinted in full.

******

Get comfy, this is a long one but stick it out and you’ll read some shit and make some connections that I haven’t seen anyone else really write about before:

For the record I get zero eye-contact from ANY women.

My buddies (esp the ones who are non-white or short, like not traditionally good looking) don’t believe me because they’ve seen me in-field macking girls and they’ve seen me build my value up in a venue to the point where girls WILL throw me eye-contact. But if I’m just walking through a crowd at the mall or down the street or around a grocery store I get NO girls tossing me eye-contact. Hot, ugly, groups, solo, doesn’t matter, I’m essentially invisible by default. It’s not that we look at each other in the eyes and she glances away too fast for me to do anything. It’s not that I look at her eyes a second after she looks away from mine. It’s not that she checks me out on my way up to the checkout counter and then looks away when she thinks I’ll notice. It’s literally they’ll look completely off to the side of me, down, above me, etc. and actively avoid meeting eye to eye.

On the flip side I have a non-white buddy who’s daygame advice to me is always stuff about “man just hold eye-contact and they melt” and it took him a while to understand that somehow a non-white guy gets more eye-contact than a white guy. Logically, I should be the one getting EC and he should be getting ignored. We’re in a city that’s primarily white too, so it makes even more sense that we should be seeing the opposite results. Logically the girls should be checking out the guy who more closely matches their mental image of who they should be with.

I attribute it to being peacocked by default. A non-white dude in a white city is peacocked by default. It’s an unusual sight to see, especially since he walks with confidence so it’s like “huh? What’s that?” and instinctively they look at him. Because they can’t instantly label him in their mind since he doesn’t fit their mold of what they expect to see, they have to observe him to classify him. The same way if a clown runs through the room most people’s heads would turn to look at it just out of reflex. I have a short buddy (5’2″) who gets a lot of looks when he walks into a room too, because again he’s peacocked by default.

These looks aren’t necessarily attraction, they’re primarily curiousity or just a reflex, BUT they DO allow the guy an opportunity to lock eye-contact confidently and not look away and start gaming from that foothold. My short buddy uses the attention to engage people and build social proof quickly.

Whereas I have an extremely generic look. If you had to describe a generic average looking white guy, that description would be me lol Average height, weight, looks, clothes, you name it. I don’t even peacock, no wrist-bands or necklaces or wild shirts or anything.

And the fact that I look like all the other generic white guys ends up working AGAINST me…because how many cool attractive money dudes has she met? They’re rare in general as it is. But there are a TON of lame chodey beta AFC white dudes all around her, from her social circles, to her orbiters, to her classmates, to her friend-zoned childhood best friend with a crush, to every lame-ass dude at the bar who’s ever hit on her. All the guys who seemed cool at first but then turned out to be lame after a couple dates etc.

And engaging these guys can be annoying because they’re lame/boring, they get clingy and needy, the sex is bad, she ends up having to avoid their calls for weeks while they throw emo tantrums or cry about why she doesn’t like them etc. etc. On top of that, who are the primary assholes she experiences, like not the attractive assholes but the ones who legitimately do shitty things to her and her friends? Probably white dudes. Who’s her ex-boyfriend who was a loser? Probably some white dude. Who are the guys on the bus and street who give her weak-ass catcalls and if she accidentally makes eye-contact with some loser on the bus he takes it as a sign he has a chance and sits down beside her with his bad breath and awkward weirdness and she has to engage him the entire bus-ride etc (this is why when you watch a hot girl get on a bus she’ll often be looking down at the floor, not around the room, because she doesn’t want to accidentally make eye-contact with some loser and she’s in an environment where the people are probably losers cause they can’t afford cars lol).

So we have like hundreds or thousands of reference experiences of white guys being lame-ass chodes or assholes, losers, etc. and maybe a couple experiences with legitimately money white dudes who, even long-term, stay high-value.

So if we’re both walking down the street toward each other, is it safer for her to assume I’m one of the few awesome dudes she’s met, or that I’m one of the VAST number of “I don’t want to engage with this guy” guys she’s met and avoid eye-contact? Especially if I look exactly like all the other generic white dudes?

And on the flip side has she ever MET and hung out with, like, a non-white dude or a 5’2″ guy in a primarily white city? No, probably not. She may have an idea of some stereotypes from TV/movies, but that’s about it. So she doesn’t KNOW what my buddies will be like and their body language and vibe doesn’t match the stereotypes she expected so she has to check them out to try to confirm the stereotypes to classify them. They may literally be her first reference experience of seeing one in person. Look at Mystery, you see THAT weird shit walking past you and how can you NOT look out of sheer curiousity at “wtf am I even looking at is this real life??” And if you’re a girl in a bar you want to shit-test that instinctively out of curiousity…but passing shit-tests builds attraction so you’ve just walked into the spider-web he laid out.

I get a similar issue with bouncers, my non-white or peacocked buddies have a WAY easier time getting bouncers to recognize and remember them because I look like every other dude. They’ve thrown out 3 guys that look just like me that night and there are 20 of me in the lineup when they glance over the line and they’re purposely trying NOT to engage us because we’ll be doing some stupid shit like begging to get in or trying to bribe them awkwardly or complaining about the wait etc. so I just blend in with the rest of them whereas the bouncer will pick my non-white buddy out of the lineup all “hey man what are you doing in line lol”. I have to actively get face-time and a few solid interactions with them for them to pick me out of a crowd or remember me.

So there are benefits to looking unusual, even looking a way that would normally be deemed unattractive, IF you can learn to harness the attention it gets you. I tried to explain to my non-white buddy that if he went to his home country where EVERY guy looked exactly like him and 90% of them were losers, he’d experience the same effect and get why girls don’t check me out.

I have minimal to no value until I actively approach a girl and express my personality. [ed: emphasis added] It’s not that I’m unattractive in general because once I approach I can skyrocket in value pretty much immediately and being my charming self and they love me, but before I approach I am just invisible furniture lol That would affect my confidence if I didn’t understand how game/attraction/psychology work, like you get new a new shirt and a haircut or you’ve lost a few pounds at the gym and feel good and walk around and no girls notice you, and then it’s all big sad feels…but because I know that as soon as I engage them and express my personality they’ll view me as a 10, I go from a non-entity they didn’t even realize was in the room to “where did you come from??” puzzlement at how they didn’t notice such an attractive guy was nearby, it’s like I materialized out of thin air to them…and so I don’t care about not getting easy Approach Invites like eye-contact.

Now I could tweak this. If I could grow to be 6’4″, or if I got super Hulk jacked, or if I wore crazy peacocky clothes, or if I pulled up in a BMW, or if I was having a loud conversation with a buddy where I’m expressing my personality, or if I had a girl on my arm, etc. If I do that stuff I’ll get more AIs and eye-contact. Hell the whole PUA community was based around “try to stand out” before you even approach. But a lot of that stuff can be a lot of work for little reward because even with those AIs I’ll still have to approach her since the girls who will approach me will generally be overconfident 5-7s at best…a 9 isn’t likely to drop her shit to come over and say hi to a guy the same way Bill Gates isn’t going to flip his shit and dance down the street over finding a $10,000 bill on the ground because her entire nightlife social circle is often jacked rich good-looking dudes…plus she needs a guy who’s confident enough to approach her. A lot of the really good looking guys you see at the bar who don’t have game and like the guy who just climbed Mt Everest etc. stare at the 9s all night but end up going home with the aggressive/easy 5-7s. [ed: stone cold truth right there.]

Ultimately looks etc. will get you more easy invites but they don’t really matter because you still have to do the hard work if you want the really hot girls. That’s why we say “looks don’t matter”. A lot of these guys working on their looks and money are trying to get jacked and rich enough that 9s will come over and approach them. They’re trying to get Bill Gates to chase a $10,000. That $10,000 is great, but like, he has billions, he’s not going to fish that bill out of a sewer like the average person would. So they’re trying to get around having to cold approach because cold approach is scaaaaaaary! Then they get frustrated because ya they get laid by 5-7s with the occasional 8 and super rare 9 but it’s inconsistent as fuck and they don’t really get to choose. They’re trying to run passive game and hoping that table of 9s is going to come over and ask to suck their dick.

So my logic is that if I want the legit hot girls that have tons of options and turn heads, I have to approach them and express my personality to get them whether I’m jacked and rich or not. Since I have to approach them whether I’m jacked and rich, then logically it makes more sense to focus my energy on tightening my cold approach skills and get better at efficiently expressing my personality and building emotional engagement with them instead of lifting weights and working overtime.

And, plot-twist: BECAUSE I look so average, when I cold approach that peacocked 9 in a nightclub who’s used to only tall rich good-looking guys being confident enough to interact with her, this exact principle I’ve been talking about suddenly works in my favor because now I’M the peacocked one. A guy with seemingly nothing going for him approaching her confidently with game is so unusual that she’s curious. She won’t check me out from across the room by default (tho she might if I DHV a bunch in front of her), but she won’t be able to immediately categorize me when I approach because it’s so unexpected and she’ll shit-test the FUCK out of me (but what does passing shit-tests do?) but if I can run solid game on her and handle her AMOG orbiters, then I’m like some kind of celebrity level value to her because I go against all the stereotypes of what she’d expect from an average looking guy.

But by default I am invisible. Just posting this ’cause it’s something I haven’t seen people address before. On the net we all want to hype up that we’re badasses who strut into the room and all the girls’ heads turn and that that’s the gauge of your game but getting eye-contact doesn’t actually mean shit in the long-run…it comes down to game. I can build higher value by getting in her face and expressing my personality than the jacked rich guy can with his passive “hope she approaches me” game. And if he has to get in her face and express his personality too, then I have more practice at that and a tighter skillset because I was working on that all those years that he was working at the gym and office. I have more experience handling rich good-looking AMOGs than he has experience handling average looking dudes with game and all it takes to get attraction is to be 1% cooler than him to the girl lol

I’ve had really good-looking wings with various skill levels, but like good-looking to where if I don’t do anything the girl will actively ignore me or brush off what I say and turn back to focus on him and I’m literally standing there looking at the back of the head of two girls while they stare up at my buddy like he’s amazing lol And that pissed me off for a while. But because it pissed me off I started getting up in the girls’ faces when it happened. And lo and behold I found that if I pro-actively get up in their grill and express myself, they’ll focus on me instead of him and on my on nights, my BUDDY was the one looking at the back of their heads while they were completely engaged/attracted to ME instead of him…the first few times that happened blew my fuckin MIND. Couldn’t believe what I was seeing, and neither could he lol

But all that was going on is that game has taught me to very efficiently express my personality and engage/captivate girls on an emotional rollercoaster quickly that hooks them and builds my value fast to where I’m higher-value than the good-looking guy who was like “so uhhh do you like coming here? that’s cool…” because he just came from the office where he worked an 80hr week and the gym where he silently worked out with his headphones on and got drunk off pre-drinking instead of heading out early and doing warm-up sets to get social and unstifled.

Now a good-looking rich guy who’s ALSO got game can have problems too, like getting put into a Provider role where the girl wants to date him instead of fuck him right away and he starts having to lie about what he does for a living and pick the girl up in an average car instead of his BMW etc. There was a thread on Rollo’s blog and one on TRP I saw recently where guys were talking about having to hide their success and make up fake jobs and shit. So if you end up having to hide that shit when you get it…then why are you reading this in the office at 11pm on a Friday night???? Go out and sarge, dumbass lol

The reality is that a good-looking rich guy who’s also got amazing game is about as rare as Michael Jordan also being better than Tiger Woods at golf and better than Bobby Fischer at chess and better than Gordan Ramsey at cooking and better than Jimi Hendrix at playing the guitar…it’s theoretically POSSIBLE, if he starts from babyhood and dedicates his life non-stop to all of those things 24/7…but realistically it’s unlikely, because there are only so many hours in the day. If you’re spending 2 hours a day at the gym to get super jacked and working 100hr work-weeks to get rich, that’s all time that you could have spent approaching girls and getting out of your comfort zone in social circles to tighten up your game so you’re not likely to have game as tight as someone like Tyler who’s spending all that time sarging. It’s just logic. The boogeyman myth of the rich good-looking badass guy who also has game is as likely as that All-Star athlete/genius/musician…and hell, even if that guy existed, you think he’s going to be down at your local pub? He’s going to be in exclusive clubs in LA and Vegas partying with Dicaprio lol Your competition is a bunch of average to above-average guys with anything from anti-game to weak-game to above-average game. If you put in the field-time and study you can dwarf them in terms of skill in a few years of hard work.

******

Give me ten minutes to talk away my ugly face, and I can bed the Queen of France. – Voltaire

Anyone who insists you need initial eye contact from a woman if you want a chance with her is lying. Simple as that. Yes, flirty eye contact can smooth your approach, but it isn’t required.

You want the choicest ladies? You’ve gotta bust a move. Women are, on the whole, the chosen sex, so they are constitutionally averse to tossing out eye contact invitations to random men. Attractive women expect to be boldly approached by worthy men — it’s in their DNA — so why are you waiting for a ceremonial invitation to join their world? That just sucks all the fun out of it, for you and for them.

Read Full Post »

The Puzzle Of Female Eye Flirting

One thing you’ll notice, and to which many men in similar circumstances will attest, is the puzzling decrease in eye flirting from mediocre women after you’ve experienced a personal improvement in your sexual market value stock.

It goes like this: You learn game, or acquire higher social status, or lose a lot of weight and carve out a masculine physique, and then begin to exude a presence, and carry yourself with a winner’s airs. You walk with your back straight, head held high, eyes flickering with percolating aggression and grin electrified with mischievous intent. You expect more women than ever before will be unable to avoid flirtatious eye contact with you.

But a strange thing happens. You are ignored by that undifferentiated mass of HB4s-6s passing you by on the sidewalk. Some of them even faintly scowl at you. What’s going on?, you wonder.

Just when you lose count of all the middling plain janes refusing your sexy smoky smolder, and you perch at the precipice of self-doubt, you also notice, happily, an increase in the number of hot babes — HB8s, 9s, and those rare O’Keeffeian flowers, 10s — stepping in to fill your ocular dance card. And, you can’t help but mentally acknowledge, a flirty eye glance from one HB9 can erase an angry brow and studied evasive glare from one hundred NB5s. (NB = Not Babe)

I’ll tell you what’s going on. Those NB mediocrities who once thought you were safely within their romantic wheelhouse back when the beta oozed from you like a jelly donut, now raise up shields of ego-protection when your alpha aura accosts their blandness. The plain girl’s refusal to allow her eyes to drift into your vicinity is nothing more than a defense mechanism to spare her self-conception the indignity of your assumed romantic rejection. You are too good for her, she knows it, and this prompts a subconscious sour grapes retaliatory countermeasure from her.

You’ll know this is what’s happening to you, (rather than that you are a variable in the simple arithmetic of female indifference to omega male white noise), if you concurrently experience an upsurge in eyeball attention from much hotter babes than have normally noticed you. The newly minted alpha male enjoys complementary rewards of his SMV stature: The sudden interest of better-looking women and the convenient removal of interest from homelier women whose posture of silent, spiteful preemptive rejection helpfully self-culls them from your briefest consideration.

Read Full Post »

More Common Types Of Beta Bait

“Beta bait” — and insidious and often unwitting conversational detour taken by women as a means of smoking out beta males or the manifestation of creeping beta maleness in a formerly alpha male — comes in many forms. CH discussed the three most common types of beta bait a learned man of the field is likely to encounter:

1. Incongruent sex talk.

2. Fishing for flattery.

3. The ‘Bad Boyfriend’ Ploy.

These three are the big ones, but there are other common types of beta bait. Readers PA and mendozatorres described a couple of beta bait tactics that catch inexperienced, sexually undernourished men off guard.

An example of beta bait / cougar batting beta [male] mice around for her amusement, which I see on FB:

– Formerly hot cougar posts a non-sequitur
– Beta mouse posts “?” or worse yet, a request for clarification.
– Cougar ignores beta’s question.

Yes, this type of beta bait falls under the category “Non sequitur lure”. Beware the woman bearing gifts of random musings to the world of men; she wants to see how fast and how eagerly you’ll legitimize her empty brain farts. Don’t even tickle that stinky lure with a curt “?”. Let it float downstream, away from you to a stagnant pool of hungry omegas whose rabid nibbling will ultimately make the crafty cougar feel worse than she did before she whored for attention.

If you receive a non sequitur from a woman, the best reply is a. ignore it and introduce your preferred topic of discussion, or b. make fun of it. “Non sequitur lures” are dangerous to naive men but can be quite skillfully and productively turned against their owner by a man with knowledge of the crimson arts. Since NSLs are usually so open-ended, the possiblities for gaming them into a personal DHV are endless.

The classic one is the sad face and nothing else. Beta bait!

While technically this is also an NSL, it deserves its own classification: The Sad Face Sympathy Emoti-Con.

When a girl shoots a “:(” over the wires, apropos of nothing and solicited by no one, she expects four kinds of responses from men:

– Some will ignore her. (A small minority of sexually sated men if she’s attractive.)
– Some will ask what’s wrong. (A large majority of beta males if she’s attractive.)
– Some will buck her up. (More horrible beta male anti-game.)
– Some will fuck with her and send a “8===D~~” in return. (A small minority of alpha males who know the rules of the game.)

You want to leave this esteemed Chateau as that last kind of man, the one all the ladies love.

Read Full Post »