Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Do women have an underdeveloped sense of justice? Is the adherence to principles primarily the domain of men?

Anecdotal evidence would suggest both the above propositions are true. Certainly, Chateau field marshals have previously turned their awesome powers of observation to the task of illuminating the wide gulf between the sexes in how they understand and apply the notion of fairness. For instance, in this Chateau post from long ago it was noted that women’s sense of justice flows from a refined but wholly self-interested pragmatism.

Women as a whole are more coldly calculating than men, and the worst of them can challenge the top 1% of sociopathic alpha males for deceitfulness and cavalier betrayal. It is the prerogative of women that practical concerns, and how to achieve them, dominate their thinking and catalyze their emotions. They are the ones stuck with nine month pregnancies. Morality was codified by men; amorality perfected by women. And no one is more versed in justifying and rationalizing their own shitty behavior than a woman.

And in this Chateau post, it was boldy stated that women’s morality is geared toward the welfare of the social collective regardless of first principles, and that the beliefs of the most popular in status and numbers often become the beliefs of women who, as is the whim of their historically vulnerable sex, fear exclusion from the group more than anything else, except carrying the seed of a beta male.

[W]omen by nature are followers, and where the pack goes, so go they. Women self-govern by a simple (simplistic) motto: “It’s all in the numbers.” Once a tipping popularity point is reached, women will abandon their old principles for the new principles with a speed that will prove the shallowness and expediency with which they hold their beliefs.

But to date, little science has been done to examine the evidence for the Chateau and common man wisdom that men and women hold different moral values. Until recently.

The scientific literature is accumulating that points to fundamental sex differences in morality.

• Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

This is evidence that group cohesion informs women’s morality more than it does men’s morality. If someone is distressed in the group, it will be more empathetic women who tend to that person’s gripes. This is a good thing when the group is the nuclear family; you want a wife and mother who will defend your family, right or wrong. It’s a bad thing when the group — such as the society in which women live — is exploited by bad people who can convincingly project a victim mentality and, thus, hijack women’s empathy compulsions.

• When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

Women are less principled than men. A woman’s sense of fairness and moral disgust can be manipulated by emotional pleas. This is why you often see women defending hardcore killers when they are bombarded with sob stories about those killers’ sad upbringings. The upside is that women’s gravitation to the travails of victims can insulate true victims from egregious applications of principled but misguided retribution.

• When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

Again, more evidence that women’s morality rests on feelings rather than on abstract devotion to principles. This is why you will often see women (and this includes nuns) sympathizing with death row scum of the earth. Their empathy modules have trouble distinguishing between real victims (the dead at the hands of killers) and sentimental victims (the condemned about to die).

• Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

Women are unprincipled pragmatists. They must be, because, evolutionarily speaking, they have been the more vulnerable, weaker sex. As evolutionary psychology would predict, women simply can’t afford high-minded adherence to principles the way men can.

• Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Female generosity with strangers is likely an evolved trait that furthers group cohesion, or prevents the outbreak of intra-, or inter-, group violence. Male selfishness with random strangers likely evolved because men’s mating value rests to a greater degree on their acquisition of resources. (So if women complain about men being selfish, well, they should remember who it is exactly that motivates men to horde their winnings.)

• Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

Another example of female predilection to see to the collective good in order to strengthen group cohesion.

• Women tend to be more egalitarian then men, and men are more likely to be either completely selfless or selfish (James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund).

I should hope it’s pretty well known by now that women have been voting for more liberal policies and candidates than men since suffrage. In other words, women will discard principles when voting in favor of the expedience of spreading around harmonious tranquility with other people’s money.

• Women are more likely than men to think it is okay to imprison a person on trumped up charges in order to stop violent rioting in the streets (Fiery Cushman and Liane Young). But women are also less likely to endorse diverting a runaway trolley down an alternate track where it will kill one person instead of five (John Mikhail).

AKA: Where the desire for group cohesion bumps up against overcharged empathy.

• Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

“Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

• Women are less likely than men to be politically conservative (Karen Kaufman; Terri Givens), though the reverse pattern was true in the 1950s (Felicia Pratto).

I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now.

This range of findings resists an easy summary, but, on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good. This is broadly consistent with Gilligan’s suggestion that women are more likely than men to base moral decisions on a care orientation, whereas men gravitate more towards principles.

Once again, the science confirms horribly evil and politically incorrect Chateau observations. I don’t post these studies because I like to have my balls gently caressed by reams of scientific papers proving the rightness of my worldview. Though that is a nice side effect, my primary purpose in highlighting these scientific explorations is the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters. Their pain fills me with good cheer!

What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).

Read Full Post »

The Difference Between A Cheating Alpha And A Cheating Beta

When a beta cheats on a woman, NOTHING HE DOES WILL APPEASE HER.

When an alpha cheats on a woman, ALL IS FORGIVEN.

I’ve observed it many times. And you have, too. The good betaboy who slips up once and has an affair. The girlfriend or wife finds out (because, naturally, handwringing betas can’t live with a guilty conscience) and, if he’s lucky, he’s in the doghouse for months of celibate grindage. If he’s not so lucky, she uses his slip-up as a pretext to dump him so that she can shack up with the dude she’s been cheating with for years. Behold the beta who clumsily meddles with the forces of alpha: you’ve never seen such undignified contortionist remorse so ineffectually sway a woman to leniency.

But an alpha male who cheats, even repeatedly? If he’s really on top of his game, his jilted girlfriend will cry her eyes out in an orgy of self-blame wondering why she doesn’t please him, then bake him a cake. If she’s made of stronger stuff, she might chastise him for ten minutes, weep bitterly for an hour into her pillows, then bang his brains out in a monumental after-fight sesh.

To those whom much is given, little is expected. To those whom much is expected, little is given.

Read Full Post »

Proof Found For Rationalization Hamster?

A new study shows that people will rationalize their shitty situations if they think that they’re stuck with them. (See also: sour grapes.)

People who feel like they’re stuck with a rule or restriction are more likely to be content with it than people who think that the rule isn’t definite. The authors of a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, say this conclusion may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

Psychological studies have found two contradictory results about how people respond to rules. Some research has found that, when there are new restrictions, you rationalize them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea. But other research has found that people react negatively against new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.

Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo thought the difference might be absoluteness — how much the restriction is set in stone. “If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,” she says. “I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight” Laurin wrote the new paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.

So does this prove the existence of the infamous female rationalization hamster? Well, almost. The study was gender-inspecific, so what it tells us is that people in general will rationalize their powerlessness so as to assuage their tender egos in the face of unchangeable circumstances. We will have to continue to rely on experimental reports from the field and incisive observations into the womanly condition from Chateau proprietors for evidence of a particularly mighty breed of female-specific hamster. There is strong anecdotal data that such a female-particular breed exists; it is now up to scientists with the balls to snicker at feminist shrieking to bravely test the hypothesis.

When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. So if you want to see the hamster spin wildly, make sure the little bugger has no hope of escape from his wheeled hellmatrix. He’ll spin, spin until he loses all touch with reality.

I think we’ve seen plenty of examples of self-gratifying spinning in the comments on this blog, not to mention just about anywhere in the informational universe where feminists congregate to kvetch. And the spinning is not just limited to feminists. Most losers in the mating game have experienced the crush of 5 Gs in their hamster wheels. I find these kinds of people fall into two camps: the pity whores (woe is me, i’m a loser, there’s nothing i can do about it, so stop trying to help people like me, you’re only leading us astray with your advice), and the delusion zombies (i’m not a loser, i have everything i need in life, single cougarhood, five cats and a niceguy beta orbiter are exactly what i’ve always wanted).

To bring this study closer to the mission statement of this blog, what does it imply about love?

And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”

Bulls-eye. An elegant confirmation of push-pull game theory. Drawing a woman in, then pushing her away by, for example, disqualifying yourself or her, will switch the courtship dynamic around so that she is in the role of the chaser, instead of the typical female role of the chased. A woman who isn’t sure you really like her because your actions are calculated to deliver an ambiguous message, is more likely to press the seduction forward than she would with either a fulsomely unambiguous man or a completely uninterested man.

If you flirt with a woman, raise her buying temperature, but then show no interest at all in her for the remainder of the night, she will rationalize her rejection by telling herself she never really wanted you.

There are many real-world examples of women rationalizing their rejection or low sexual market value. Below, I list some of the more common ones.

“I’m not interested in guys who like anorexic women.” 
“Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.” 
“Men are intimidated by my intelligence/career/education.” 
“Men don’t like opinionated women.” 
“Women reach their sexual peak at 35!” 
“I get all the love I need from my child.” 
“I was looking for a one night stand, too.” 
“No man is good enough for me and my child.” 
“Men are afraid of commitment.” 
“Now that I’m older I choose my men more carefully.” 
“Men refuse to grow up and settle down.” 
“Men who date younger girls can’t handle women their age.” 
“I’ve grown into my beauty.” 
“Real men appreciate my curves.” 
“A confident man loves a woman with experience.” 
“I’m not dating because I need me-time.” 
“He stopped calling because he got scared.” 

And, of course, the all-time favorite rationalization of the castaway driftwood of womankind:

“There are no good men left.” 

Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.

Read Full Post »

A Girl’s Dilemma: The Appreciating Asset Boyfriend

A foreign girl [country of residence redacted to protect privacy], cute but not so pretty that she would elicit crippling approach anxiety from the average beta, writes the following:

Hi,

I’m writing to ask for advice – I’m sure you get this a lot, but I will be truly grateful for any form of response. I’ll be as succinct as I can.

I’m [early 20s], [non-American], and a very happy girlfriend of an alpha. I met him [a number of] years ago and it was pretty much love at first sight, he was not like all other men who seem like children compared to him. I’ve been chasing him for two years but he was always involved or interested in other girls. We were always good friends but even after I told him I loved him he said he didn’t see me that way, even though we had slept together a couple times.

But now we are together and I’ve never been happier. When I think about other men I’ve slept with I feel disgust and I didn’t like it (I thought I was one of those girls who just couldn’t enjoy sex) [ed: a lot of female “libido problems” would disappear if such women started fucking alphas. this is something the feminist and therapist lobbies will never tell you] and I somehow always ended up in charge. When my boyfriend is dominant, I feel like I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be.

He was always smart and very intelligent but lacked motivation. But since we started dating, he seems very focused on studying (we are in the same [graduate level] course), getting better [occupational field] qualifications (he’s even enrolled me for the same [credentials] he’s pursuing) and finding a high paying job. I can’t say I object, but I feel like I should be doing the same for him.

I gave up smoking to pay for gym equipment and membership (although he said he’ll pay for both, since it’s a gift to himself) and started putting more work into studying, but I feel like it’s not enough. He jokes that he loves me the way I am unless I gain weight, which I would never do. I try to engage in his hobbies (he occasionally likes [male-oriented hobby], which incidentally I do too). But is there anything else I can do to keep him pleased with me? Do you know if some gym classes (like yoga or pilates) are better for making girls more attractive quicker?

I attach a picture. I know my nose is quite big and my chin is too manly [ed: her nose is big, but her chin and jawline are not too manly], but I cannot afford plastic surgery and my boyfriend says I’m still too young to even think about it.

Anything you write will be very helpful, I really don’t want and can’t afford to lose him and go back to either being alone or dating boys or macho idiots.

I write to you because my friends are not objective – your writing is harsh, but usually right to the point without the sugarcoating. And, well, my girlfriends have no experience with men like my boyfriend.

Thank you in advance, I really hope you will find the time to help a girl become a better woman.

Best wishes,

[Anon]

Before I, or the more helpful commenters, can give you the answers you need, it’s important to understand the dynamics of your relationship with your alpha boyfriend. Having no personal experience with you or the way you and your boyfriend behave together, all we can go on is what you wrote in your email, and your attached photo. For instance, I have to assume your boyfriend really is the alpha you claim he is. And I have to assume you are as happy with him as you say you are. Without those assumptions, I can’t offer any advice that isn’t tainted in its premises, and therefore useless. Your honesty, then, is assumed for purposes of discussion.

Right off the bat, I will make a prediction that your relationship with him won’t last. I know it shakes you to the core to hear this, but your history with him leads me to this conclusion. I wish I could tell you otherwise, and I hope I’m wrong because you write like a sweet girl. And, no, my prediction has nothing to do with your looks (though if he is an alpha male with numerous options in the dating market, I should warn you that, despite your cuteness and slimness, your looks are probably not competitive enough with the sorts of girls he could conceivably attract).

The warning sign for impending relationship fracture is the two years you spent “chasing him” while he was banging other girls. This is the action of a man who is not wholly enamored of your feminine charms. It may seem a contradiction to you because you read this blog and know that it counsels men to reconstruct the seduction process so that the girl does the chasing, (and we can see how well it worked on you), but there are differences between game and genuine apathy. This boyfriend of yours likely falls in the latter category.

Now I’m going to tackle your other admission against interest: your boyfriend’s focused pursuit to raise his status since he began formally (i.e., exclusively) dating you.

When men get into comfortable relationships, what normally happens is a slackening of the masculine drive to excel. There is even scientific evidence for this; after marriage, men in a variety of occupations — science, math, business — experience a reduction in their productive output. The most parsimonious explanation for this phenomenon is that once a man has landed a woman and codified it with a marriage contract or a commitment to date exclusively, the fire in his belly slowly burns out because he no longer feels a compulsion to impress potential mates.

But in your relationship, your boyfriend has done the opposite; he has stepped up his striving for personal achievement and, consequently, higher male status. Should he succeed, he will be more attractive to more women with better looks. This is bad news for you, because… say it with me…

OPTIONS = INSTABILITY.

There are two main reasons why a man would suddenly become motivated to excellence after he starts dating a girl (and before they have had any children together).

Reason #1: He has shot out of his league.

That is, he is equal or lower value than the girl, and this subconscious recognition fills him with anxiety. He can’t believe he is dating such a prize female, so he works extra hard to keep her around.

Reason #2: He has settled.

Sometimes a man decides to settle for a girl who is less attractive than the kinds of girls he could get if he put a little effort into it. Men normally do this because they lack confidence, game, or energy to pursue higher quality prospects, or they have settled because the girl is a low maintenance rebound from a previously painful breakup. What then happens is that these men feel trapped in their less-than-ideal relationships, and become motivated to improve themselves so that they can leave the relationship without enduring too much celibate downtime between the comforts of the ex’s pussy and any future pussy. It’s the “monkey swinging from branch to branch” theory of relationship management.

My conclusion — and I really do hate bringing you this news, but I suspect it’s something you knew all along or you wouldn’t have written this blog in desperation seeking advice — is that your boyfriend falls into category #2, based on the information you have divulged about your history with him.

Your dilemma showcases the inherent tension in all male-female couplings: a woman’s sexual market value will nearly ALWAYS depreciate after her early 20s, while a man’s sexual market value can conceivably appreciate for DECADES more. This tension underlies the mechanics of almost every jot and tittle of our feelings when desire overcomes us. It is the poison pill slipped into the chalice of delight.

Since I fear your relationship with your boyfriend is doomed, I suggest you enjoy the remaining time you have with him to the fullest, but keep an eye out for replacement suitors. Don’t dismiss men out of hand because you “have a boyfriend”; think about practicing your dormant flirting skills, even if you don’t intend any interaction to lead anywhere.

If… IF… I am wrong about the dynamics of your relationship (and this possibility does exist), and your boyfriend does truly love you and want to be with you and only you for a long time, there are a few things you can do to reinforce his attraction for you.

1. Get a nose job. You’re not too young for rhinoplasty. I don’t know why your boyfriend is telling you that, unless it’s to make you feel better. You can easily boost your attractiveness rating by a half to a full point with a smaller nose.
2. Don’t ever gain weight. You’re doing well on that score.
3. Since you’re already slim, you can improve your body by toning it up. This means weightlifting. Hit the gym and do squats, presses, and triceps exercises. Don’t worry about “becoming too muscly”. That’s just an excuse fat and lazy girls use to avoid the weights. No woman becomes too big from weightlifting unless she takes steroids or works out seven days a week and eats like a pig.
4. All the girls I see going and coming from a local strength yoga class have the most beautifully righteous asses I have bore witness to on any women. I suggest you join a strength yoga class. The cause and effect may be backwards, but it’s worth the membership if there’s a chance you will achieve an ass like that.
5. Stop supplicating to your boyfriend. A lesson in basic human psychology is in order. The more you act like a sycophant — abiding his every trivial wish, excessively lavishing love and unearned praise on him, pretending to enjoy all his hobbies — the more he will begin to believe you are unworthy of his commitment, particularly since you do not bring incredible beauty to the table. You need an inner game correction. Make (small) demands of him, temper your flattery, have your own hobbies. Play a little hard-to-get. Be coy, not slavish. Be sexy, not slutty. Be feminine, not desperate. You may even want to flirt with other men and try to make your boyfriend jealous. Don’t overdo this, though. If he’s as alpha as you say he is, he’ll have no trouble upping the jealousy ante with his own flirtations.

Men who have good game will play hot-cold-hot-cold with women because it builds attraction. Men with experience know that playing a male version of hard-to-get is catnip to women’s sexual psyches. Women are especially vulnerable to this sort of seductive manipulation, because it is essentially a co-opting of their own devious courtship tactics.

Women naturally tease, feint and misdirect because it is in their nature to do so; such behavior helps screen the unflappable alpha males from the bewildered betas. Men do not naturally tease because all their screening is done within seconds of seeing a girl; her beauty, or lack of it, is comprehended instantly.

But once a woman falls in love, as you have done, she surrenders all possession of the faculties which served her well during the courtship dance. A woman in love is a woman stripped of all her armor; she is exposed. You are exposed. Your emotional nakedness prances around every word you write like a frantic sprite.

It is possible for a woman to keep a beta male slavishly devoted to her by pushing him away and pulling him back with enticements of sexual or emotional gratification. Ironically, the very success of such manipulation renders the beta male more unattractive, resulting in a self-defeating loop for the woman. You should not worry that pulling away from your boyfriend will make him unattractive, but you should worry that too much manipulation will drive him away. While male manipulation of this sort is highly effective on all women, the equivalent female manipulation is much less effective on the most desirable men, the alpha males. An alpha male will simply exercise his many options to secure replacement women should his current lover become too burdensome or wrapped up in gamesmanship.

However, the avoidance of sycophancy is not the same as cunning gamesmanship. I suggest you take a step away from your alpha boyfriend and give him mental room to appreciate your worth. Right now, from all appearances, you are suffocating him. Your actions are working against your interest. Check yourself.

*cracks knuckles, leans back with hands behind head* Where else will you find this valuable advice for free? You can thank me by emailing nudie pics of yourself. Please do not Americanize your facial expressions.

Read Full Post »

Is It Better To Insinuate You’ve Dated Strippers Or Lawyers?

Pickup artists practice something called “DHV (demonstrating higher value) spikes”, which means slyly inserting into a conversation with a girl a mention of your time sharing the company of a hot woman in the past (or present). The girl listening to this will subconsciously register you as having high value yourself, and her ‘female preselection’ algorithm will be triggered. (It is a well-known and commonly observed phenomenon that women are more attracted to men whom other women are attracted to. This is because male mate value is more complicated and difficult to assess than female mate value, so women use shortcuts to determine the worth of men; one of those shortcuts women use is to judge a man by how many other women have already found him worthy of love.)

DHVs of course can involve other kinds of status-enhancing subjects, but the reference to other women is typically the most common, and most effective.

Now obviously DHVing is best done through actions (e.g., walking into a club with two girls on your arms) rather than through words, but if you have nothing else readily available, telling a story imbued with DHV spikes is a legitimate game tactic, and one that will succeed if you do it right. But most men fuck it up, because it is so VERY EASY to tell a DHV story that sounds like try-hard bragging rather than incidental self-promotion. The key to successful DHV storytelling lies in the delivery — a story too grandiose or incongruent, or a DHV spike too clumsily invoked, will ping her BS meter, especially if she’s a smart urban yuppie chick. DHVs must sound almost like accidental blurts that get in the way of your story goals. The object of the game is like advertising; you want to subliminally embed your value in her brain, and you don’t do that by screaming how great your product is from the rooftop.

On that note, what is the best way to verbally demonstrate your prowess with women without sounding like an approval-seeking beta? Two commenters provide their experiences.

(r)evoluzione writes:

I’ve found that telling women that I date dancers is a big DHV. Often there’s some confusion around what being a ‘dancer’ is. And often a lot of overlap in dance styles.

Case in point: One girl I’ve been seeing recently is a modern dancer as well as a burlesque dancer. Burlesque dancers are about 2″ of fabric away from being strippers–they wear pasties over their nipples. They often have a lot more sultry sexuality built into their acts as well. Whereas strippers can be sexy, but are often just trashy.

Another girl, same deal–modern, burlesque, in addition to having a past history as a stripper. In general, I’ve noticed very positive reactions when casually mentioning this dating history when the subject comes up. Though those girls who see themselves as ‘good girls,’ will often get simultaneously aroused and fearful. Also, a quick mention is all it takes, mention it then change the subject, don’t belabor the point. Let that hamster run!

Matador writes:

Mystery was consistently referring to dating strippers when he wanted to display preselection and high value.
I never used the routine because I’m a little bit dubious. The current feminist propaganda made cases of chronic projection very widespread. As repeatedly said in this venerable chateau, women are attracted to confident, successful men, so they assume that men want (and should be attracted to) the same qualities in women.
So why then miss that opportunity and keep referring to trashy strippers instead of lawyers (i know, i know…), doctors or CEOs?

I tend to do just that and It works fine. The key of course (especially with low achieving chicks) is not to make it sound like a big deal. And feign during comfort building that you’re interested in something more meaningful and profound.

Maybe, I’m KJing here but making shit up about dating strippers would be a good strategy to game lawyers, doctors and CEOs.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mystery is indirectly assuming that women are projecting to strippers the alpha male qualities that they crave (desired by many, only one is chosen)… even though strippers are viewed by men as filthy cumdumpsters.

Gosh, there is some serious reeducation work that needs to be done. Keep preaching, brother.

It’s a good question: Is it better to advertise your preselection by referring to your time with strippers, dancers and models (the kinds of women who are the classic archetypes of the hot n’ sexy good-to-go chicks willing to please a man) or by referring to your time spent with educated, socially accomplished girls like lawyers, doctors and grad students?

To answer the question we need to recall what it is that women truly find arousing in men, and this requires a return to fundamentals in sex differences. I’ll focus on Matador’s objection to DHV stripper stories as evidence of male psychological projection. Does a DHV reference to a stripper indicate that a man is projecting his own desire for female looks and sexual receptivity onto the desires of the woman he is trying to impress?

Well, no, not very much at any rate. Projection is a real human cognitive bias, but it has limits in its applicability. A man projecting his sexual desire onto women would fuss over his OWN looks, because he assumes that women are as entranced by male looks as men are by women’s looks. There is NO projection in a man telling a story that references good-looking women because his sexual desire is not being projected back onto HIMSELF.

For example, women project their desire for high status men by sometimes assuming men are turned on by high status, educated women, when the truth couldn’t be more different, but when push comes to shove, women still BEHAVE as if they know, on some deep primitive level, that men are aroused by looks before all else. This is why we see even educated (aka brainwashed) women continuing the age-old practices of wearing makeup and dressing provocatively and desperately trying to reverse the tick of the clock. They can assert in Jizzabel columns all they want that “real men” prefer educated plain janes to hot bimbos, but their actions belie their words.

The reason stripper DHVs work on nearly all women to a greater or lesser degree is because, contrary to the erroneous belief that women wouldn’t be impressed by what men are impressed by, a stripper is REAL WORLD evidence that the man who dated her has preselection value, i.e. reproductive fitness. Strippers are perceived, (whether the perception is valid is irrelevant), as hot girls who are out of reach of the average man. A man who has fucked a stripper must therefore bring something very special to the table; namely, his irresistibility.

Would a lawyercunt be turned off by a man who admits to having dated strippers? Class issues do occasionally intrude. An upper class lawyerchick might think a man who dates strippers embodies class distinctions too great to bridge. The allure of a man who can get a bitchy hot stripper might be outweighed by her devaluing of the same man as someone who mingles with the wrong crowd.

I think this objection is overblown, but it is real.

One school of thought says that you want to DHV using the kinds of women and/or subject matter that presupposes familiarity with your target’s social milieu and personal life experiences. So if you are picking up a stripper, it helps to let her know (through allusion) that you have experience dating strippers. If you are hitting on a lawyer, the same theory applies. Let her know you have dated other lawyers. Women like to feel that the men they date are on or above (but not too far above) their level.

Another school of thought claims just the opposite: that you want to DHV a stripper with stories about dating lawyers, and vice versa. This thinking rests on Matador’s hypothesis that projecting what women like or respect back onto them is better game than hitting their preselection buttons for men who attract the attentions of hot women. A stripper will deem a lawyerchick to be well above her in social status (if not necessarily looks status) and will therefore be inclined to view a man who has dated lawyers more favorably than a man who has dated socially lower classes of women. Conversely, a lawyerchick will be more sexually attuned to a man who has claimed prowess with conventionally hot girls like strippers than with stick-in-the-mud lesbian-faced lawyers like the kind she probably sees every day at the firm.

So, do you DHV with strippers or lawyers? My glib answer: neither. Or both. You don’t need to choose. You can cover both bases. I’ll give an example of what I’m talking about with a DHV spike within stories I have told many times in my life to smart and sassy SWPL chicks.

TheStudULuv: [Preceding convo eliminated for brevity] Everyone in this town dates a degree. I swear, you talk to guys around here and they think the number of letters after their name makes them interesting people.

Girl: God I know. I can’t tell you how many boring MBAs I’ve met. Philosophy grads are kinda interesting though.

TheStudULuv: True. That’s because they’re crazy. Maybe it’s all relative. I broke my rule to not date lawyers with my last girlfriend, and I’m glad I did, because she was a welcome relief after the stripper.

Girl: [pauses to digest the news] That’s quite a contrast.

TheStudULuv: [Frowning and looking down at my drink] Sometimes the stereotypes are true. I shoulda listened to my mother.

I changed the subject quickly after that. The seed of intrigue had been planted. There is no need to hammer home a DHV. Just sit back and let it do its work.

But that’s not the best DHV spike at your disposal. No, I’ve discovered something even more powerful than devious insinuations involving strippers and lawyers — the YOUNGER WOMAN. If you seduce women in the mid-20s to mid-30s age range, a subtle implication of having enjoyed the company of younger women will send their hamsters into an epileptic seizure. Framing it similar to the convo above, like it’s something you are almost ashamed of, is all the plausible happenstance you need.

YOU: Dating younger women is not all it’s assumed to be. They get a little too possessive for my taste.

I’ve used this line verbatim on girls when the conversational direction allowed it, and it has never backfired in an obvious way. While it’s hard to judge the effectiveness of DHV spikes (because most of their power works on the girl’s subconscious thought processes, which remain hidden from you until they are revealed in her body language or IOIs), I have observed the nearly imperceptible widening of eyes that occurs when girls hear this from me. It is AWESOMELY powerful catnip to late 20s career women. Some girls will even ask just how young my ex was, because they are beginning to presume my unattainability and want reassurances that they aren’t too old for me.

As the commenters above mentioned, DHV spikes like these should be delivered as if they were afterthoughts. It helps to act a little bit embarrassed about your DHV as well. These are all master class techniques that neutralize the chance your target will interpret your DHV as a painfully value-lowering brag, and proficiency with them will only come from practice and continual feedback.

Read Full Post »

Feminist Gets Pumped And Dumped By PUA

A masochistic reader (you’d have to be in love with your own pain to read any of the yeasty discharges fouling up Jizzabel) sent along this turgid confessional from a feminist who got banged out by a player four hours after they met for a first date drink. Her account of the date leaves the distinct impression that she was played by a guy who knows game very well. Let’s examine the techniques he employed to snare his prey.

I went on a date a month ago with a boy I met on an online dating site. “Met” meaning he’d sent me a few witty messages and his pictures were decent enough to warrant an IRL pass.

No long-winded phone calls making his interest in her obvious. Just a few witty (translated from the femspeak: terse/cocky/funny/asshole-ish) emails which implied his non-neediness and her interchangeability. So far, he’s off to a good start.

He was a strong conversationalist. We talked politics and he impressed me with a nuanced understanding of the debt ceiling debate. He knew about the Arab Spring.

How does the old saw go? Treat a lady like a broad and a broad like a lady. Mr. PUA knew he was dealing with the typical urban feminist slut who would swoon over a man who flattered her intelligence. So sprinkle in a few ledes he read in the NYBetaTimes about the Arab Spirng and , voila!, instant charma.

We discussed the unexpected but peculiarly gratifying direction our late 20s had taken both of us.

Again, translated from the femspeak: She was glad he assuaged her ego with comforting euphemisms about being an unmarried childless woman in her late 20s.

He made me laugh.

“He made me tingle.”

One drink turned into two,

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker!

two neighborhood bars into three,

This is the standard game tactic known as “bouncing”, or “time distortion”. By taking a girl to a number of places on a single night, you leave her with the impression that she’s known you longer than she has. It’s very effective at building comfort, as we will see.

and when he kissed me in the street, I was elated.

When a PUA gets a street kiss, that’s a green light to go for a same night lay. Women don’t make out in public places unless they are really into the thought of sex with you.

He wanted to see me again, he said. I agreed, the enthusiasm audible in my voice.

Audible enthusiasm is also a SNL green light. Also, note how he doesn’t set up a day and time to meet again. He just says he wants to see her again. Make your intentions known, but make them known vaguely, without promise, so that they could plausibly be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by women. Chicks dig ambiguity even more than they dig ambivalence.

As he walked me to the train, he asked me if I would come over for a nightcap. Just one. He offered to pay for a cab to take me home afterwards, as I had to work early.

Always escalate, until you have hit her limit. Push, push, push. It’s what women — even, maybe especially, feminists — secretly crave from men, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. There’s no worse feeling than having a pussy in the hand, only to see it disappear because you pulled back at the last moment out of some quaint deference to dating etiquette or mangina virtue. Or fear.

I — like many women I know — harbor a quiet but persistent internal voice that cries, “If you like him, don’t go!” The voice that says men don’t respect women who sleep with them too quickly. The voice that says despite the fact that you’re turned on, you’re a grown-ass adult and goddamn it you want to, as the female you should be the one to decline, to demur, to hold off for another night.

I’d never understood the reasoning behind that voice.

Silly feminist. The reasoning is simple, if you would free your mind of its stifling propaganda shackles. Men really do devalue women who put out too quickly. Sexual evolution has granted men the insight to recognize that slutty women are likely to continue being just as slutty after committing to them, and that is bad news for men who want to know their children are really theirs, and who want to avoid the divorce raping that inevitably follows when a wife pursues the feral eat, pray, love self-actualization life trajectory. Those pesky little feelings that swarm around your cortical ham, if you would stop drowning them out with femcunt agitprop, are early warning signals to behave in a more stereotypically feminine manner lest you harm your reproductive fitness.

I suspected I was internalizing cultural judgments about “easy” women.

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

The traditional refrain, “don’t buy the cow if you can get the milk for free,” which implies women should withhold sex to ensnare a partner, insulted me.

What’s a horny slut with daddy issues to do? Listen, lady, either embrace your sluttiness and stop kvetching to the cunty choir, or keep your legs closed. You can’t have your cock and keep it, too.

Years of dissecting dating mishaps with my friends taught me that if you want a relationship or even just the potential of one, it’s best to wait.

Betting is now open on how many cocks she has satisfied. We’ll start with 30.

In my mind, the waiting period was for no other reason but to increase the odds of a relationship. It was like dating lore passed on between friends. We don’t know why it works but it does.

It’s amazing that women have to relearn this common sense in their late 20s, after a decade or more of cock carouseling. Was there a wholesale abdication of parenting in the last two generations? A massively successful brainwashing campaign? Rhetorical.

Nevertheless, it’s best if women don’t start making men wait, because I was getting used to the easy peasy sex. Feminism has been very, very good indeed for men who want to play the field, and have the skills to do so. A return to patriarchal norms would really cramp my style.

But the way my date kissed me up against the brick wall outside the subway stop was enough to convince me my internal voice was an antiquated Debbie downer, squawking nonsense irrelevant for the modern woman.

Pushing a woman up against the wall to kiss her and grope her unleashes powerful, primitive, quasi-rape-y forces of submission within her. It’s one of my go-to moves.

I went to his house. We headed straight to the bedroom. Sex — intense, unexpected, rough and satisfying. Afterwards, as promised, he called me a cab.

By 3 a.m. I was home. And utterly freaked out.

I think it would bother women to know that men NEVER feel the urge to freak out after a one night stand. Not even the weepy beta males. Nope, slipping into sleep with a huge grin plastered on our faces is closer to what happens.

I hashed this over with multiple friends during the next few days. One suggested I just forget about the guy and be happy I’d had good sex.

The group Samantha.

Another brought up respect — if he wanted a real relationship with me, he would have proceeded with more respect for my body.

The group fatty.

I received a single lackluster text from him a few days later.

And that kid went ha haaaw! Who couldn’t see this coming? Apparently, her.

She should be thankful she got to experience a night of pleasure from a man who knows how much women crave being gamed. But women being what they are, (bless their overstimulated hearts), the fleeting waves of pleasure quickly gave way to self-absorption and tedious reinterpretation. The rationalizations that follow are some of the best frenetic hamster spinnings you will read in a long time.

Still distraught over the experience, I told [my mom] the bare-bones version of the story: I slept with someone four hours after meeting them and now I felt shitty and I couldn’t identify why.

I wanted to know what she — a world-experienced, non-judgmental woman — thought about sleeping with someone you’re interested in dating so soon? What she said was the best argument I have ever heard for waiting to have sex.

When you first meet someone, she said, you don’t actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them. […]

The mirage is sexy. But herein lies the danger. The potential for a schism to exist between the mirage and reality is huge. The probability of being disappointed is gigantic. That disappointment is compounded when intimacy is involved. You sleep with a stranger. You feel like you know them. But you likely don’t at all.

This may not be an epiphany for other people. But it was for me. After that night, I felt shitty not because I’d been “slutty,” whatever that means, but because I felt foolish.

I slept with an idea of a man. I slept with how that man made me feel. But that man didn’t exist, except in my mind. When I realized this, I felt… blah blah blah

Zzzz… zzz… *snort*… zz… huh, wha… oh, hai there. Must’ve dozed off. Wow, yeah, totally see what you’re saying. Totes. I bet you’ve learned a valuable lesson from all these experiences.

I’m still going out with guys and getting tipsy

Well, you know what I (sometimes) say… be true to yourself! Whatever that means.

Read Full Post »

Ex-Stripper Describes Her “Girl Game”

I’ve noticed a trend in the MSM. Men invent something controversial, get little mainstream press, women follow up with their watered-down version, get tons of mainstream press. In this case, an aging ex-stripper has landed on the front page of the New York Post where she discusses girl game: the female version of getting “what you want” from men, which in femspeak means getting love, money, attention and resources with, presumably, the ultimate goal being marriage. (Although you have to wonder about the kind of man who would be willing to pony up big bucks for a useless rock and ceremony to geld himself by marrying a road-worn and tossed away wet ex-stripper single mom with enough cock notches on her vagina wall to make it look like a gynecological cave painting.)

I don’t much write about girl game — aka The Rules — because it is, for the most part, ineffective relative to the thermonuclear game that girls already have at their disposal; namely, their youth and beauty. An ugly girl can run all the “girl game” she wants; it won’t make a lick of difference to her prospects. Conversely, a hot girl will often get what she wants without any girl game. In fact, girl game can actually hurt her chances with the alpha males she loves because those are the kinds of guys least affected, and most turned-off, by girl game machinations. Only in the middle where the average over-25 plain janes congregate can girl game help at the farthest margins, and then only by helping them snag betas who are more likely to fall for it.

With that in mind, let’s examine this whore’s recipe for dating bliss. First, here’s a look at her:

Not bad, not good. She has the tell-tale post-op tranny face that bespeaks a lifetime of pumping and getting dumped. That lifestyle tends to masculinize women. I wouldn’t pay her for a lap dance, but I would bang her for free. Once. With a kevlar condom.

So what does this broad “Diane Passage” have to say about girl game?

1. Show your confidence at all times — especially when you feel it the least. No one will ever know if this is true, but if you believe it, others will, too. A friend of mine who was a dancer at a club once gave me the advice to always enter a room “proud as a peacock” — stand up straight and move confidently. She worked in Las Vegas, where it’s highly competitive for any type of dancer or entertainer. She was a pretty girl, but average in comparison to other women. But wherever she walked — whether it was a club, casino or a grocery store — all eyes were on her.

Classic case of female projection. Women love confidence in men, so they think men must love the same in women. Nope. Confidence in women is neutral to their dating market value at best, and actively off-putting at worst. Most likely, this “confident”, “stands tall” Las Vegas girl she talks about has a big rack, and guys were staring at her jutting tits that she was thrusting outward.

Very shy girls who are pretty will arouse a deep, instinctive authoritarian desire in men to protect and sexually serve. Women don’t need to be loudmouths or assertive if they are cute. It helps, in fact, if they are a little effacing and deferential. A woman with *clinically* low self-esteem, (as distinct from nearly all women who are told they have low self-esteem but in actuality are full of themselves), can temper a man’s lust by slouching, mumbling and denigrating herself. Why? Because men will think she’s not interested.

2. I can create my own outcome and accomplish any goal. I like to set goals for anything — serious or ridiculous. I started doing this when I worked at the club; I’d set weekly income goals to help me stay focused and not get onto a downward spiral (which is typical for exotic dancers). Along the way I set fun goals — attending certain concerts, parties, etc. My most ridiculous goal? Hooking up with a certain male porn star. A friend of mine offered to buy the star for me for one night, but I declined. It’ll be far more satisfying to accomplish my goal on my own. Whether your goals are serious, fun or both — never think you can’t have it all!

New age, feelgood pablum. Worse than useless. This will encourage ugly, old and fat girls to avoid putting in the necessary work to make themselves more attractive to men. Newsflash, ladies: No, you can’t have it all. You can have what your best assets will bring you by maximizing their impact and minimizing the impact of your worst liabilities. Some liabilities, of course, are not mitigable. PS: Getting a male porn star to fuck you is not an accomplishment. Getting him to love you and commit to you is.

3. Slow and steady wins the race. While goals are important, you shouldn’t set unrealistic time limits to achieve them. People do crazy things under deadlines. An acquaintance of mine stalked a man because she was obsessed with getting married before the age of 35. Last year, she fell head over heels on one of her first dates. On Facebook, she saw he was looking forward to a sushi dinner at his favorite restaurant. My friend knew where to find him, because he’d mentioned the same restaurant on their date! So early in the evening, she planted herself at a table with a good view of the place. He showed up . . . with another date. This woman is seemingly sane otherwise. If she dropped the marriage deadline and just had fun dating, I bet she’d end up meeting her goal — without stalking!

This advice isn’t half bad as a way to avoid the worst mistakes women make. Women can quickly kill a sexy, fun vibe and drive an alpha man away by revealing their desperation on a first date. Or even during the first year of dating. (Beta men will stick around and suffer her desperation because they, too, are desperate.) As women don’t want to feel like sex objects, men don’t want to feel like commitment objects.

4. Every girl should know the basics of fishing and dog training. Several years ago, my son [ed: bastard spawn soon to be huffing paint under an overpass] took an interest in fishing. I had to learn, too, so I could help him with it. Little did I know that my basic fishing knowledge would end up serving me well in the world of romance! When dating, I like to try a fun and sporty approach. As the person who’s fishing, I’m able to lead my “fish,” so I have the advantage of getting what I want. My bait: smile, hair, makeup, clothing, stilettos and either legs or cleavage (never both at the same time). [ed: no, because that would be slutty. it’s not like he’ll think you’re a skank when he hears about your stripper past and bastard sprog] My hook: a flirty, mysterious demeanor. When I “reel” a man in, that means I’m getting to know him. He always has the option to free himself from my “hook.” And I always have the option to throw him back into the dating sea. If I decide to keep my “fish,” then I switch to boundary-setting mode. I’ve trained a dog, raised a son and have been married twice to men who wanted nothing more than to make me happy [ed: if she’s been married twice and is currently an unmarried single mom, then they weren’t very interested in making her happy. nor was she interested in making them happy. and single women should take advice from her?]. I know how not to let a male dominate me. The one consistent thing for all types of men: consistent enforcement of boundaries and giving rewards when they deserve them.

It sounds like she ripped this nominal idea straight from the Chateau archives. Anyhow, what she is saying here is nothing new. She’s just repackaging the time-tested advice to women to look as good as possible to capture a man’s interest by trying to make it sound edgier with the comparison to dog training and fishing. And enforcement of boundaries? What does that even mean? Her boundaries have obviously been rodgered to complete permeability.

5. My wallet does not exist. It might sound like an outdated cliché, but if you’re a woman, you should never reach into your wallet while you’re in the presence of a man. Even if you’ve been married for years. Not only must a man pay for the main components of a date (dinner, etc.), but they must also take care of taxi fare, coat check and bathroom attendant tips. The woman who believes in this mantra is not a gold-digger or obligated to “return the favor.” The few times I’ve gone “dutch” on dates, it usually results in the man feeling emasculated because of it — or it means the guy has some sort of money hang-up. Can an emasculated guy or someone with issues give you what you want? Not for me!

How sweet. An old-fashioned stripper single mom. The worst of every world. Now here’s some real talk for the single women reading: the only men you’ll get by playing the role of whore golddigger are betas with few other options and rich men with harems and zero game, wit or charm. Don’t bet on the latter unless you’re smoking hot.

6. My presence is a gift. Know your value — and not in dollar amounts. Relationships are work — and work has value. Do the rewards of your relationship satisfy you? What do you want from your partner? I broke up with a guy (who my friends and I nicknamed “The Whiny Baby”) because he was too high-maintenance, emotionally. This wouldn’t have been a problem if he could have just provided a bit of emotional support in return. [ed: translation: he treated her like the worthless aging stripper single mom she is] I told him that, and he briefly turned into a decent boyfriend until becoming a whiny baby. I decided my time was too valuable and he had to go.

This reads like he dumped her and she’s rationalizing it as her decision. Allow me to clarify. Your presence is only a gift if you’re pleasing to look at. It is less of a gift if you think you look as good at 35 as you did at 25, and you are saddled with kid baggage from another man. (This is starting to sound like a broken record. But it needs to be said, over and over, apparently.)

7. Allow your man to believe he is in charge. Men like to play the dominant role in relationships, so why not encourage the fantasy? This summer, I was with a man who was sensitive about women using him for his money. He watched me like a hawk, so my usual tactics were no good. But he was open to spending extravagantly at charity events, fine restaurants and so on. So I invited him to my friends’ events and establishments — where he was free to spend money — and I remained quiet and pretty, as he required me to be.

She’s contradicting herself. Above she says she does not allow men to dominate her. Here, she says she encourages men to dominate her. Oh, but of course she couches it in terms of “letting him feel like” he is dominating her. Hair-splitting. He’s either making the decisions, giving her orders and demanding she look pretty and remain quiet, or he’s not. Leave it to a single mom stripper to vomit whatever ill-conceived toddler babbling happens to scoot across her gyrating frontal lobe.

Not that there isn’t some substance to the advice to placate a man’s desire to dominate. A woman who constantly battles a man for dominance is an unloved woman. Men don’t respond on a visceral level to those kinds of women. And it works the other direction, too: men who renege on their duty to dominate are often pushed around and unloved by the women in their lives.

8. As a woman, it’s my right to act bitchy on occasion. When a man first approaches me, I’m icy cold and dismissive. The weak men leave. The ones who are up for a challenge stick around and show their charm and wit, and may land a date. Refer to mantra No. 4 (dog training) — along with boundaries, give rewards when due — leading to mantra No. 6 (value). A woman’s time, smile and interest are valuable and can be rewarded to the man who deserves her attention. Being icy or lukewarm at first also maintains an element of mystery. In addition, refer to mantra No. 5 (woman never pays). A man does not deserve a woman’s phone number without buying her and her friend(s) a drink, not to mention paying their entire bar tab.

Any man who buys a girl *and* her yakking yenta friends drinks, and pays their entire bar tab, just to get her precious, gold-plated number, is, by definition, an emasculated, hopeless beta who has the masturbation stamina of ten men. I doubt very much this skank ho would respect, let alone desire, such a man.

Mostly, what she writes here in point #8 is a rewording of the conventional wisdom that a woman who puts out too easily will harm her chance to get men to commit to her. (Leave aside her admonition to be bitchy. That’s not advice. It’s just a recognition that hot chicks will shit test men to discern their alphaness.) There is some truth in the CW. Beta and alpha men alike subconsciously downgrade loose women from potential girlfriend material to funtime sluts. But a woman has to carefully walk that tightrope; too much coyness, playing hard-to-get and bitchiness, and the alpha males of her dreams will quickly find sweeter and moister pastures. Too little, and they will relegate her to fuckbuddy status. And herein lies the main problem with “girl game”:

Girl game is effective at manipulating exactly the kinds of men women desire the least.

Horny, desperate betas — not sexually satisfied alphas — are the ones who will allow themselves to be toyed with by scheming girls. If those are the men you want, ladies, you can’t go wrong listening to the dating advice of a washed-up wednesday night stripper single mom.

Luckily for us men, game — real game — is just what the best looking girls crave.

Read Full Post »