Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Girls’ Category

Vodka! No, just kidding. Sorta.

Approach anxiety is a common problem for men, and now a scientific study has found that it has probably bedeviled men since the dawn of time, leaving them in a temporarily quasi-retarded state when in the company of beautiful women.

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about.

Another game concept confirmed by science (not like it needed to be). Evolutionarily speaking, I can’t think of a clear reason why it’s advantageous to men to become tongue-tied around pretty girls, but the study authors offer a hypothesis.

Although the studies on their own don’t offer any concrete explanations, Nauts and her colleagues think that the reason may have something to do with men being more strongly attuned to potential mating opportunities. Since all of their participants were both heterosexual and young, they might have been thinking about whether the woman might be a potential date. […]

Overall, it seems clear that whenever we face situations where we’re particularly concerned about the impression that we’re making, we may literally have difficulty thinking clearly. In the case of men, thinking about interacting with a woman is enough to make their brains go a bit fuzzy.

Sounds plausible, but it still doesn’t explain why such “male impairment” around women would evolve — or avoid being selected against — in the first place. It’s pretty well obvious from observing naturals in action that the men with the least anxiety and the nimblest tongues have the most success with women.

Nonetheless, we must abide the reality that for a lot of men, hurdling that first obstacle — approach anxiety — is half the battle to becoming a master seducer. All I can tell you is that it gets easier with practice and especially with success, for each bedding instills an unshakeable confidence that exists separate from the confidence won by success in reproductively proxy male endeavors like sports, career and physique. In the end, it simply comes down to willpower. You either will yourself to approach, or you take the easy route of making excuses for not approaching.

A number of readers have asked if there is something men can do to instill a similar state of catatonia in women. A reasonable request, since it’s easier to seduce a woman in thrall to your very presence. Being famous would certainly do the trick, but that’s out of reach for nearly everyone. Having noticeably higher value than the woman you are approaching is another way to “reverse lobotomize” her. For example, if she’s at an art gallery and you are one of the artists holding court with a small group of local aficionados. Or simple preselection — being seen enjoying the company of other girls — can induce a female version of male mate fright.

But commenter YaReally hits the nail on the head:

Confidently cutting the space between the two of you (ie – get in her face) while locking eye contact.

Very few women can form a coherent sentence in that situation.

When she meets a guy who can approach and stare her down without being nervous? Because his sense of entitlement tells him that he shouldn’t be nervous around her? He’s the guy who fucks her.

Steady, unbreakable eye contact and smooth, slow, controlled strides toward her so that she has a moment to savor her anticipation — these are the simplest and quickest ways for a man to rattle a woman with his intoxicating presence. It works because, as real life observation and science both prove, women are viscerally sexually excited by dominant and overconfident men. And nothing projects both those masculine traits better or faster than alpha body language and direct eye contact. Staring a woman down until she lowers her eyes or looks askance will trigger the submissiveness reflex, and that is a place where she secretly yearns to be.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Try holding eye contact as long as possible with random men and women. Assume a relaxed or smiling expression so that you aren’t mistaken for an angry commuter having a bad day. Start by doing it with people passing you on the sidewalk going the opposite direction, so you know an end to the discomfort is not long off. Even in those walk-by sidewalk situations, where a mere few seconds of eye lock is all that’s required of you, you’ll find it difficult to hold a stranger’s eyes for longer than a split second. The difficulty level will go up if your eye partner is a hot girl or a dominant man meeting you pupil a pupil.

After a few days of this, something almost magical happens. You notice that men break eye contact before you do, and look to the ground. Forced to look up at you (most will be shorter than you), women return your gaze hungrily, uneasily, wonderment gripping their facial expressions, and if your vision is sharp enough you can make out a nearly imperceptible parting of their lips. You begin to feel dominant. And that feeling translates into real dominance and an attitudinal shift, for above all the thing that is attractive about alpha males is their attitude.

Read Full Post »

SUWEE protests:

Women don’t seem like they are genuinely attracted to beta males when they aren’t ovulating. At best they are just nonchalant toward them, and only seem to want a long term relationship with them for a chance to cheat with the alpha and have the chump beta raise the kid. Women seem to think like this- “Ugh im not attracted to this stupid beta but ill let him hit it once in a while if he provides for me and my bastard spawn.”

It’s best to think of alpha and beta males, and women’s mismatched desire for each, as residing along a continuum, rather than as discrete variables. When I explain that during the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males, I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating.

To put this in the simplest terms possible, a woman who is hot enough to bang greater alphas will subconsciously gravitate to lesser alphas as her ovaries power down for three weeks. A plain jane who makes herself receptive to greater betas when ovulating will subconsciously begin to warm to the attentions of lesser betas reading her poetry after her hormones stabilize post-ovulation.

So, no, SUWEE, beta males are not going to suddenly see action for three weeks with the women who aren’t ovulating. What they might see is more receptiveness — more openness — to their sloppy, guileless flirtations from those women.

As far as cuckolding goes, my advice, if you’re worried about that threat, is to cheek swab any tiny gift of god under dark of night and send it to a lab for verification. In the meantime, enjoy your two or three tepid bangs during the three weeks you are reasonably safe from the depredations of your sweet girlfriend’s behavioral modification egg assault and any interloper alpha males who might be conveniently available to her. No, you won’t ever get her to scream “choke the living shit out of me and plunge your divine cock into my tight puckered asshole as far as it’ll go until I’m bleeding tears of exquisite pain ps I saved my incredibly lubricated pussy all for you” like Olivia Munn, but at least you get to wrap up your two minute tenderly administered intimacy sessions scraping your beta peen along her dry vagina walls with twenty minute cuddleramas and a bloated chickflix queue.

Just try not to think about the torrid sexual abandon your sweet snoogumwoogums is capable of unleashing in bed, in the kitchen, in a public restroom, with a better man for that one week her womb can actually bear fruit. Those kinds of thoughts are not helpful to affordable family formation.

Read Full Post »

Game blogs typically focus on aloof alpha game (AAG) that creates and exploits value differentials because it is the form of game that is most poorly understood by the masses of beta males and it is the game with the most untapped potential to quickly and powerfully build an attraction and bond with women, particularly the hot younger women who are most highly prized by men. But there is another aspect of game that is often left under-explored by pickup artists yet is almost as vital to fun, healthy, emotionally fulfilling relationships with women.

I speak of beta reassurance game.

There are perfectly understandable reasons why beta reassurance game (BRG: I will be using nerdy acronyms in this post because I don’t feel like typing out the full terms over and over. Get used to it.) is overlooked:

1. In the early, critical stages of seduction, women respond more viscerally to AAG than to BRG. In fact, unleashing BRG too early will hurt your chances with desirable women, who have more than their share of lickspittle betas doting on them.

2. It’s easy to lose a woman’s sexual interest with too little AAG, as opposed to BRG where too much will turn a woman off. Therefore, the pickup artist’s reaction to this reality is to place more emphasis on AAG at the expense of BRG, since there is a higher risk of not doing enough AAG than there is of doing too much BRG. (The converse — too much AAG or too little BRG — can also turn a woman off, but that dynamic is less pronounced and likelier to occur later in a relationship, after sexual access has been secured.)

3. Most men are beta males by nature, so the core concepts of BRG come to them as naturally as breathing. The concepts underlying AAG are understood by fewer men, so the market for learning AAG is bigger.

4. Most men, especially younger men, who want to do better with women are less interested in the demands of long term relationships than they are in sexual satisfaction. AAG is more applicable to getting laid than it is to the formation and maintenance of LTRs (though by no means is it unimportant to the latter!)

Anyhow, that’s a short list of the reasons why AAG dominates most game discussions. Yet, if we were to carefully plot the trajectories of dying relationships and marriages, a not inconsiderable number of them would have failed because the man distanced himself emotionally or provided insufficient reassurances of emotional fidelity to his woman. The upper crust wife who has a torrid affair with the poolboy because her rich hubby is ignoring her is a stereotype for a reason.

Therefore, it is in your interest as a man to learn and master the chivalric arts of beta provisioning game (without actually providing much materially) as religiously as you train yourself in the dark arts of AAG. A woman in love is aroused both by your dimorphic demonic alphatude and by your crazystickygluey emotional closeness and dependability. The trick is the degree to which you emphasize interchangeability and intimacy.

You say this sounds funny coming from a guy like me? Well, you obviously haven’t been reading closely enough.

In general, for most men, AAG should have primacy over BRG at all stages of pair bonding. BRG is the coin of the realm. It is devalued by debt peonage, unshackled female hypergamy and cultural propagandism. AAG is the dusty tome in the attic the keepers of the social order hope you never find. Unless you are a top 20% alpha male, your problem will likely be a risk of smothering women with too much BRG.

So consider this post directed at alpha males with intimacy (aka desire for pussy variety) issues. But beta males have problems in this area as well. Specifically, I’m thinking of the sort of spergy beta who lacks the intuitive grasp of women’s full panoply of needs, and struggles to summon spontaneous romantic gestures that help cement relationship bonds. Then there is the beta who has tasted the sweet success of seducing women into bed, and overshoots, neglecting the value of the long-term soft sell.

Because, keep in mind, there are three weeks out of every month when women don’t ovulate and get horny for alpha male seed. That’s 75% of a woman’s reproductive life (~15 years) when beta males have a shot. Looked at that way, betas running beta provider game have a leg up on alphas running nothing but aloof and indifferent cad game.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but you get the idea. BRG is as legit a form of seduction as AAG.

Yes, women are secretly turned on by men who cheat on them or who intimate that they are cheating on them, but women also like thoughtful romantic gifts, gazing at starlight together, dinners out with other couples and shopping in tandem for scented candles. It is a woman’s greatest curse and an inexperienced man’s greatest aggravation that she should have these two opposing desires within her pulling her apart at the seams. The god of biomechanics is a mischievous prankster fuck.

So, in that spirit, here follows a few off-the-cuff guidelines to refine your BRG.

– Inexpensive gifts that signal you know something about a girlfriend are far better than expensive gifts that signal nothing but how much money you’re willing to spend on her.

– Spontaneous romance beats obligated romance every time.

– Chicks dig little notes. The littler and sweeter, the better. Hide them around the house in spots she’ll eventually find them for maximum effect.

– Be nice to her cat when she’s looking.

– Chivalry is OK if you’re doing it for a long-term GF, and it doesn’t cramp your style. Take the seat in the traffic lane in restaurants. Walk streetside when out with her.

– It’s OK to buy a girl a drink on a first or second date. It’s a small act of capitulation to the dominant social memeplex that saves you unnecessary headaches. NOTE: Do NOT buy a girl you JUST met a drink. Drinks should never be used to bribe a girl’s attention.

– Leaven your cocky pickup game with vulnerability game. An anecdote about some small, inconsequential weakness, optimally drawn from your childhood, will activate her “I’m feeling a deep connection with this guy” swoon reflex. Pay heed to the handicap principle. The best alphas can afford charming admissions of quasi-weakness. Contrast is king.

Cold reading is a critical BRG tactic. Master it.

– Strong beta provider game that doesn’t require much monetary investment or undignified appeasement includes choosing her meal for her at a restaurant, getting her into the VIP line at clubs, tactically mentioning something innocuous you remember about her (“You should like this bar. It’s decorated in your favorite color.”), holding hands (your hand on top!), planning dates with real activities that are more than just excuses to get her inebriated and sexually defenseless, and remarking that she’s “winning you over” when she does something awkward or clumsy.

– All BRG rests on a foundation of alpha self-possession. There should never be even a hint of desperation or last-minute-strategizing in BRG. It should flow as smoothly and unpretentiously as AAG.

– Spend a lot of time with her. This is really the heart and soul of BRG. More time with her means less time potentially chasing other women.

Final thought: the amount of BRG you drop should be directly proportional to the interest you have in a girl as girlfriend material. If she’s a one night stand, you hardly need more than an hour or two sitting close to her on a sofa and practicing non-evaluative listening. If she’s a wifey prospect, you’d better get good at remembering her birthday and the time, temperature and cast of moonlight on the night when you first kissed.

Read Full Post »

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

The importance of the above maxim can’t be overstated. The way to a woman’s heart is through her id.

There’s a male analogue as well.

Maxim #102: For most men, five minutes of a younger, hotter woman beats five years of older, uglier women.

Younger women are, barring a few conspicuous exceptions, better looking, better smelling and better feeling than older women. Career goals not achieved to the contrary notwithstanding, younger women are alpha females. The man who has tasted the succulent flesh of an 18 year old cutie will never again look at, or feel toward, older women with the same excitement, urgency or romanticism. He has been corrupted. His memories, lucid, almost palpable, of intimacies with younger women, will dominate. Five minutes in bed with a young babe will linger longer in his cortical penis extension than five years with an assortment of older women.

James Hooker has doomed himself. But it’s a doom that most men would welcome with open arms, if they could. His relationship — loving, tender, sexual — with an 18 year old babe means, should he find himself single again, that few women his age will satisfy him the way his current younger lover does. An older woman Hooker’s age who wants to extract commitment from him, or even a simulacra of lovingkindness, is going to have her work cut out for her. A man’s memory of an 18-year-old is a more powerful competitor to her than the attentions of real live women her own age.

Men like Hooker, men who have experience bedding younger women, and whose libidos are rocket fueled by powerful memories of young woman love, if they are single, go blankly into that dating field of cougars and cynical spinsters, depressed over the substandard offerings, forever seeking to recapture the intensely pleasurable magic of their time with their lithe lolitas. Their sheer disgust at the socially approved alternatives, and their unbreakable confidence at having inspired the love of much younger women, will help propel them back into the arms of charming coeds. They are men on a mission, and they won’t be stopped, not even by marriage.

Men like this live by one rule: if the cunnilingus feels like a chore, she’s too old.

As a one night stand with an alpha male can skew a woman’s expectations for life, so can a fling with an 18-year-old hottie skew a man’s expectations for life. But there is a critical difference in the sexes regarding expectation levels. It requires little effort for an average-looking woman to spread her legs and permit an alpha male to dump a fuck in her; for men are, on the whole, the less discriminating sex, and will rarely pass up easy lays with normal-sized women when they are offered. A woman’s ego, inflated from birth, will mistakenly regard the alpha’s fly-by-night attentions as validation of her relationship worthiness to men of his caliber. She will, in time, learn a bitter lesson.

In contrast, it requires yeoman effort, whether through the accumulation of wealth and status or through charm and dominance, for an average-looking older man to persuade an 18-year-old babe to relinquish her sex to him. This effort and resulting success is evidence that he has what it takes to consistently attract younger women and have relationships with them. When in the company of younger women, his mate value is self-evident. Thus, such a man’s expectations are more in line with reality than are the slutty woman’s expectations whose value is rightly measured not by how much cock she can hoover, but by how many high value men she can convince to stick around and fall in love with her.

Nevertheless, a continent full of average-looking, non-obese women riding the alpha cock carousel for stretches of their lives, and older men openly ignoring women their age to pursue their desire for the company of younger women, means an end to mutually nourishing beta male-slender female relationships and societally stabler older male-older female pairings. This is probably not going to turn out well for a monogamy-based modern civilization like ours, but it seems the rule that civilizations in the final spasms of decay revert to more primal norms of self-actualizing sexual and romantic fulfillment.

As always, I’ll be poolside.

Corollary to Maxim #102: A beautiful, slender older woman will be a better lay than a plain, fatter younger woman.

This corollary has more relevance today than it would have in the past, because enormous numbers of what would normally be very fuckable young babes have put themselves out of contention by getting fat and gross. Thanks to the Western obesity epidemic, there is a glimmer of hope for the yoga-toned 35-year-old who retains the feminine charms of her younger self. Chin up, ladies, and keep praying that your younger rivals gorge themselves on artisanal cupcakes and 150gram sugar-infused coffee drinks!

Read Full Post »

There’s been a spate of studies in recent years pointing to a general trend of declining Western female happiness, and a concomitant rise in male happiness. Self-reported happiness levels tend to go up and down rather haphazardly, but a long-term decline since the feminist devolution seems to be happening. A 2009 study called ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness‘ attempts to answer why women are unhappier today than they were in the halcyon days of the 1950s.

The lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years by many objective measures, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. This decline in relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, demographic groups, and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging—one with higher subjective well-being for men.

[T]trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that happiness has shifted toward men and away from women. This shift holds across industrialized countries regardless of whether the aggregate trend in happiness for both genders is flat, rising, or falling. In all of these cases, we see happiness rebalancing to reflect greater hap- piness for men relative to women.

The suggested reasons the study authors give follows:

First, there may be other important socioeconomic forces that have made women worse off. A number of important macro trends have been documented: decreased social cohesion (Robert D. Putnam 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Jean M. Twenge 2000), and increased household risk (Hacker 2006). While each of these trends have impacted men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond differently to these forces. For example, if women are more risk averse than men, then an increase in risk may lower women’s utility relative to that of men.

Thanks to the patented Heartiste Naughty Boy Translator™, we can decode the above passage for the layman:

“Diversity is making women more neurotic.”

The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set. For example, life satisfaction may have previously meant “satisfaction at home” and has increasingly come to mean some combination of “satisfaction at home” and “satisfaction at work.” This averaging over many domains may lead to falling average satisfaction if it is difficult to achieve the same degree of satisfaction in multiple domains. One piece of evidence along these lines is that the correlation between happiness and marital happiness is lower for women who work compared with those who are stay at home wives, and the correlation has fallen over time for all women in our sample.

HNBT: “Women have too many goddamn expectations.”

Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up. Similarly, women may now compare their lives to a broader group, including men, and find their lives more likely to come up short in this assessment. Or women may simply find the complexity and increased pressure in their modern lives to have come at the cost of happiness.

HNBT: “Contrary to feminist boilerplate, women really don’t want to spend their lives in direct competition with men climbing the corporate ladder and getting pumped and dumped until their wombs crust over like a sun-baked lake bed.”

Hope this hurts the right people!

PS: Mangan’s covered this topic as well.

Read Full Post »

Days of Broken Arrows hits the solar plexus with his glaring insight:

I’ll take this a step further. If a man isn’t around to dominate a woman, a woman will find something else to control her. Her “crazy” schedule which is always overbooked (by her). The demanding boss. Her career in general. Her pets’ needs. An eating disorder. Etc.

If you’ve spent any time around careerist, childless SWPL chicks, you’ll know how they LOVE LOVE LOVE to fill their empty lives with happy hours, wine tasting events, language and cooking classes, animal shelter volunteer work, marathon training, book club administration, birthdays, anniversaries, reunions, get-togethers discussing birthdays, anniversaries and reunions… fuck, they even set aside time to listen to their BFFs gripe about their asshole boyfriends. Their calendars are a pastiche of pastel-colored activity blocks. An unbooked schedule may as well be a black hole in her heart. The urban girl’s worst nightmare is having nothing to do but be alone with her thoughts. The horror! All these ultimately useless time fillers substitute for the presence of a masterful, dominating man who would normally be the unbendable, calming force giving meaning to her life. Unfortunately, the world is teeming with beta males who can’t compete with her true lord and master: the need to bitch about how much stress she’s under.

Left side of the bell curve chicks find their missing lord and master in cheesy poofs and meth and bastard spawn they can enroll in toddler whore pageants.

***

YaReally gets a runner-up nod because his comment made me chuckle.

Submissive girls like to be dominated because they’re submissive. Dominant girls like to be dominated because it’s so rare that a man CAN dominate them.

My natural buddy and I have done some pretty fucked up things to girls both in and out of the bedroom, just to see what we can get away with. It would blow most people’s minds what girls will do when you’re congruent with leading them.

The congruency is the key. Chicks will test to see if you’re full of shit or not. But if you’re congruent with being their master, to your core, the floodgates open. A big part of it is 1) understanding that women are sexual creatures and 2) not judging them for it.

I have literally shit on a girl lol and that’s not the worst thing I’ve done. It’s pretty hard to take the uppity “treat me like a lady and consider my opinion” types seriously after you’ve crossed certain lines lol and they can sense that.

I don’t think this blog will ever reach mainstream respectability as long as I continue posting stuff like this. And that’s a point of pride. Winning!

Read Full Post »

The NYBetaTimes Magazine features a small infographic titled ‘Academy award winning acceptance speeches by shout-outs (since 1971)’:

“Wife” is the number two most-thanked entity, thanked more often than even the director (!). The number of times a “husband” was thanked by a winner trailed in a pitiful sixth place. (If the world was fair, the screenwriters would be in third place, after the Academy and director, instead of last place. Better yet, the fans who cough up $14/ticket would be thanked most effusively.) Apparently, male winners think their wives are more responsible for their success than the writer, director, cast or agent. Well, they gotta go home to the wife.

These results aren’t a surprise. (When was the last time you met a humble or grateful attention whore? And there ain’t no bigger attention whore than an actress.) But it’s fun to speculate why female Academy award winners are so much less likely to thank husbands than male Academy award winners are to thank wives. Some reasons:

1. Although male and female awards are split evenly among the best actor and actress categories, there are plenty of awards given to technical categories that are probably dominated by men. Also, most directors have been men. So there are just more male winners overall to thank wives.

2. Women who win are (significantly?) younger than the male winners, and thus less likely to be married. Youthnbeauty is more important to an actress’s success than an actor’s.

3. Related to the above, a high status male award winner, no matter how ugly, is likelier to find a happy wife than a high status female award winner, who has priced herself out of most of the mating market. Also, ugly female award winners, despite their career status, still suffer from Kathy Bates syndrome, i.e., “why isn’t my success translating into a long-lived happy marriage?”

4. The feminist aka beta male-hating revolution kicked into high gear in 1971, so those early years were front-loaded with married (egads!) female Academy winners going out of their way to avoid thanking their husbands.

5. Women are, innately, less grateful than men. When a woman succeeds, it’s all about “me me me! look at me go!”. When a man succeeds, he feels a certain principled obligation to extend expressions of gratitude.

6. A woman who succeeds in her career can’t afford to thank her husband, because many people will presume the husband pulled strings for her, especially if he himself is powerful. A man, in contrast, can afford to thank his wife, because there is a tacit understanding among listeners that the wife really had nothing to do with his success.

It would be interesting to see this chart for the pre-1971 years, and broken down by award category. I suspect you would find more appreciative women before the SHTF.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: