Archive for the ‘Maxims’ Category

“John Smith” writes about a broken engagement that didn’t work out as he had hoped,

I met this girl 18 months ago on a party and we really hit it off. I mean she was funny, beautiful and what not and I was the total stud… BUT she was engaged… and in a long distance relationship. Now I know that these don’t last (and in the end it didn’t) so I decided to stick around and see how things evolve.

I stated my intentions in the beginning (not that lame not to) and she knew from the very beginning what I wanted from her (to fuck her brains out) and she was ok with that- in a nutshell she told me “I would fuck you too but I’m engaged you know. I’m waiting for my fiance to move here and to start living together. However you’re a cool and funny guy so I want us to be friends. Don’t expect anything from me as long as I’m engaged”.

Long story short we kept seeing each other (like once a week). I have to mention as well there were two big fights between us with like a 2-3 months pause in our relations (yeah it was a strange relationship) about some stupid shit but we made up again and kept seeing each other. Her fiance was sick with their long distance relationship so he broke with her 2 months ago.

Now here comes the conclusion: her fiance broke off with her and I made my move. I told her that I want her and that she’s an amazing woman (I really mean that… more or less) [ed: I’m sure you do, but does that help you bang her?] and we started seeing each other more often. HOWEVER I sensed that something wasn’t right… There was some distance… something between us (in a negative way) and she wouldn’t let me close (you know what I mean). So I confronted her and asked her what the fuck is going on? And she told me that “yes she wanted to fuck me back then” and “yes she tought I was a cool and sexy motherfucker” but now “after so much time together” she sees me only as a friend. She couldn’t feel any atraction to me and that’s it- there couldn’t be anything between us! (no comment here). The thing is she keeps giving me signs that she wants the D (or at least I see things that way, but people around us as well tell me that when they observe us they think she likes me). That’s why I kept seeing her.

But one night after she rejected my offer to go see a movie or something like that which envolved going out only with me and beeing more intimate (again) I got pissed off and told her that this can’t go on like this (on the phone). I told her basically that I want her as a woman not as a friend and I always wanted her that way and basically I’m not interested in this bullshit pretend friendship and that we can’t be “just” friends. She was upset of course because I’m a good friend and a cool and funny guy who takes care of her, but I was sick with that crap and that was it. (It really pissed me off that thing about “too much time has passed THE FIRE ISN’T THERE ANYMORE”- she gave the speech again I swear I imploded internally when I heard this bullshit again).

So basically I told her that things can’t go one like this- we could still see each other and what not but I won’t be as envolved with her as before because there is not motivation for me anymore. So what’s your take on this whole thing? It’s not like I’m desperate- there are plenty of fish in the sea. It’s just that she’s smoking hot😀 I’m curious about your opinion.

I hope you’ve enjoyed your years-long stay in the friendzone, because that’s exactly where you’ve been this whole time.

A few facts about the friendzone:

1. It doesn’t matter what she says now
2. It doesn’t matter what she said in the past
3. It doesn’t matter what your friends or her friends say
4. It doesn’t matter how strongly you feel about her
5. It doesn’t matter how much of a stud you think you are

All that matters is the receptivity of her pussy to your dick. Anything less than her full frontal assault on your crotch is meaningless white noise, more distracting than illuminating.

When a girl says that the “fire isn’t there anymore”, you can bet that the fire was never there. She was using you as a temporary cock prop to feed her need for self-esteem. With her fiancé away, you filled in nicely as the asexual lump who could give her the flattery her distaff soul craved.

Once the fiancé broke it off (and that should have been a huge red flag that she was still in love with him, because girls rarely fall out of love with men who initiate the leaving protocol), the nature of your platonic relationship with her changed. You were no longer a harmless side show. Now you were a dude with a raging boner who was dribbling acidic pre-cum of spite and bitterness and desperation all over her soft cardigan. And you cemented that impression by “making your move” and coming on very sexually as soon as you thought the coast was clear. Finally, you buried any remote chance at sex by indulging in a symphony of butthurt with your little speech about not being able to “go on like this anymore”.

Big mistake. If you had any shot with this girl, you needed to do the opposite of what you did. After the engagement ended, she was expecting you to accelerate into your natural beta chaser mode. Instead, had you slowed down and pushed away and put some emotional and physical distance between the two of you, the shock and strangeness of your behavior would have stoked her curiosity. She’s known all along you wanted her — you told her! — so you needed to sow some serious doubt about your intentions and her ability to read your intentions. You needed to preemptively eject, and return later when she had hamstered up after a few weeks of circular self-analysis questioning her desirability to you.

The main lesson here is to never put yourself in these emasculating social positions that feed your powerlessness. Stop being friends with women you want to bang.

Maxim #3: Bang first, befriend later.

Follow that maxim, and so many troubles that afflict the lonely beta male evaporate.


This provincial reader needs game advice that doesn’t require frequent flyer miles,

Please address what a man should do if he’s not well-travelled.

Girls usually react negatively when they find out I’ve not travelled extrensively.  Should I have a few go-to lies about travel experiences?

A dearth of travel experience is one of the easiest deficiencies to fix. So easy, it’s a wonder more men don’t bother putting in the minimal work to remake their worldliness. All you need to do is Wiki some basic knowledge about a few key European cities — Paris, London, Madrid, Prague, Rome, Venice, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Kiev (for a challenge) — memorize it, and regurgitate it with a little personal spin added for authenticity. Travel tidbits you should have mentally available to season a conversation to taste include a couple of famous landmarks, a local restaurant name and cuisine, the name of a popular mode of local transport, the name of a nightclub, the language spoken, and a favorite local food or drink. These are the basics. If your memory and your love of tall tales are inexhaustible, you can add smaller details like the style of dance, the local fashion sense, the attitude toward foreigners, and a couple of funny stories that involve you and some irate or smitten native (depending on the mood you’re trying to evoke in your listener).

The Wiki option is far cheaper in money and time spent than the alternative. There are other sources besides Wiki, of course. Reading up on travel hot spots and studying the travel guides for local flavor should be as much a part of your game as learning negs and qualifications.

One go-to travel lie I’ve used in the past (when I was a stripling who had yet to cut a swathe across the globopolitan landscape of ladies) is a story about riding a scooter through the cypress-lined olive groves of Tuscany and getting lost on my way to visit a pen pal who lived in a nearby town. Searchig vainly for road signs I could interpret, I stopped at the side of a road in a cloud of dust to watch a fetching Italian girl read a book under a shade tree. I motioned for her to come to me, and she approached. I asked if she spoke English. She didn’t, so we spent twenty minutes communicating by drawing our thoughts in the dirt with sticks.

At the time I told this story to an entranced American girl, it wasn’t true. It became true, more or less and give or take some honeyed details, later in life. But why wait for love until later in life? Make love when you can, because it is good. And you don’t want to be one of those men who regrets the pussy he never slammed.


“Dentata” (troll alert) writes,

Walking down street with a fling, we pass a guy and his girl, he says hi, my fling says hi. A few seconds later, rolling her eyes and smiling a bit, “I haatte that guy. I work with him, he’s such a twit”.

When I chick signals her dislike for a guy, it’s usually an indicator of inchoate tingles right?

Context, my quasi-trollish friend. Context. If she’s telling you that she hates a certain guy, it could just be a womanish ruse at rapport greased with the viscera of a surrogate chump. Her “hatred” is irrelevant in this scenario. She may despise her coworker or merely chafe at his annoying nerdliness or his choice of footwear. The point isn’t him, it’s you. Her giddy utterance is Krazy Glue to bond your “fling” more tightly and change its molecular structure to the polymer L-T-R.

In general, it’s a good rule of thumb that when a girl explicitly declares her “hate” for this or that man, it means something sexually sinister is lurking beneath her superego surface. Women as a sex (feminists excluded) are not disposed to air their hatred of other men so cavalierly. Be especially wary if a woman expresses “hatred” for a particular man more than once or twice. Female hatred is as often repressed sexual desire as it is authentic malevolence.


A reader wants to know if his good friend (hmm) executed good game,

My good friend ran into an interesting situation with a girl he picked up off street-game. According to him, he didn’t overgame in the initial interaction but he is known to be a bit gamey so take that with grain of salt. He number closes and sets up a date.

The following all happened today:

Him: “T, NYC from a local’s eyes — Meet me at 50th n 5th @ 7th — wink if u hear meh!!”

Her: “Are you peacocking? And will you kino me? Maybe neg me, too. Because that’s what you usually do right?”

So at this point he reaches out to me and asks me how to respond. I consult some of my buddies that I game with and these were some of the choices:

Option A) “Wow I see you read the game. I think I’m supposed to keep plowing and tell you to shut up and meet me at 7!” (That was my choice, read it from a YaReally comment that was similar awhile back)


Option B) “I’m doing all of those things right now simultaneously n one sentence, and looking good doing them too”


Option C) “Someone read The Game”


Option D) “I’ve got my top hat and magic tricks ready”


Option E) “Put on your sexiest underwear, since you know what to expect”

Ultimately my buddy went with option A…

Him: “Wow I see you read the game. I think I’m supposed to keep plowing and tell you to shut up and meet me at 7!”

Him: “Text me if ur late!”

Her: “You can’t communicate with girls without memorizing scripts can you”

Again, my buddy consulted me and we came up with two choices from here:

Option A) “Oh I was actually doing this thing called ‘asking a cute girl out ona date’but if u want I’ll bring my top hat too”


Option B) “Damn, you caught me> I’ve been typing in the Don Corleone lines from the Godfather. Maybe I should have picked a different movie.”


Ultimately my buddy went with Option A….

And then he got this:

Her: “I am sorry but this ‘date’ is not going to happen”


So yeah, he hasn’t responded to that as of this time and not sure what’s the best move. I’m sure the best move could have been early on. Maybe he was overgaming in the initial interaction or agreeing and amplifying wasn’t the way to go.

Or this girl wasn’t even worth his time and my buddy is better off for it. Ammmmmiright? (Guys?)

The way I saw it, he had 3 choices when she called out game in her first reply

1) Disregard and keep plowing 2) Agree and amplify 3) Bend to her frame

As I type this, I realize that ellipsis game may have been the best route.

“, “gay”, “ssshh” all would have worked instead of the lengthy responses your friend sent. But my favorite is the recently unearthed “emoji game“. A graphic of a cat sitting next to a birthday cake strikes me as the ideal mix of no-fuck-given alpha ‘tude and teasing, flirty vibe for a girl who thinks she’s gotten one over on you.

In all my years of womanizing, I’ve never come across a woman who spitefully referenced potential game tactics I may use on her as diligently and interrogatively as this girl did. This means one of three possibilities: 1. your friend is not calibrated properly and comes on too hard as an oily player, 2. this girl is a thermonuclear feminist cunt who lives for those rare moments she can pretend she’s “calling out” a player and striking a blow for the sisterhood, or 3. she’s a slut who’s been burned in the past by a succession of players and has refined antennae that will pick up the faintest player perturbations.

Your friend understood the concept of “agree & amplify”, but he lost ground in the execution. One, his replies did sound somewhat canned. I think some of those lines have been around for a decade. In NYC, there’s a chance that more than a trivial number of girls have actually heard the same lines from other men on the make. This doesn’t invalidate the idea of A&A, but it does confirm the wisdom of knowing your mark.

Two, in the application of A&A, he violated a core CH Poon Commandment V: the golden ratio. The CH principles take precedence over the particular game tactics that animate those principles. This means that a game tactic will fail if it veers too far from its founding principle. In this case, your friend sent verbose texts that sub-communicated his lower value and his chaser role, especially set side by side with the relatively terse replies the girl sent him.

Agree and amplify is a fantastic game technique, but like all techniques its delivery should be stylistically massaged to suit the degree of defensiveness of your female target. As an example of what I’m talking about, let’s revisit that first reply she sent to your friend.

Her: “Are you peacocking? And will you kino me? Maybe neg me, too. Because that’s what you usually do right?”

You: “Peacocking sounds like a perverted sex move. Slow it down Samantha.”

See what I’ve done here? I internally identified my target as a loser “sex and the city” NYC bitch with something to prove, so I pull out a harsh reply that would stall her offensive charge. I avoid any “game” talk because that is not really breaking out of her frame; I figure that mentioning game, even re-contextualized, will risk emboldening her attack. Then I not so subtly imply her attitude is sex-drenched and that is the real cause of her defensiveness. This should relax her as the burden is now on her to prove I’m a player instead of a fantasy figure from her overactive imagination.

I smell the telltale stink of the troll in this letter, but I let it go for educational purposes. Most of you men throwing yourselves into the field will not meet women like this one, so don’t worry about it. I’ve met, if my calculations are correct, approximately four women total who made some sort of direct, needling reference to game tactics. All four’s objections were quickly overcome.

However, the world is a big place, and there are bitches out there who will play this kind of “gotcha” game with men, so it helps to have a few retaliatory weapons of mass seduction at your disposal.

PS Drop the “wink if u hear meh!!” crap. It’s girly.

PPS Of the options you gave us, (A) was actually the worst of the bunch. I would have gone with (D) from the first round and neither from the second round. Speaking of which,

Her: “You can’t communicate with girls without memorizing scripts can you”

You: “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse.”

Cheekiness is next to tingliness.

Read Full Post »

A reader emailed a run-of-the-mill question about the effectiveness of his text game, seeking advice from Chateau paragons of carnality. He’ll get his question answered, but there’s a bigger theme to this post.

I’m trying to extract the most fun out of this conversation with a girl. Comments? I’m building my skills. Met her on college campus and she gave me her number on the spot. Do post it if you wish, but keep my name off the post please.

Friday: Me: Hi. I see you around sometimes. Saturday at noon buy me lunch at _____; we’ll forget the world and relax in a limited time.  20-30 minutes; more if the world will wait.

The bloated prose of overgaming. Why did you text “I see you around sometimes” after she had given you her number? It sounds disjointed. Good rule to follow: there’s never a scenario when “I see you around sometimes” doesn’t sound stalker-ish. The rest of your text is comical in its romantic abandon. I know you’re trying to be ironic and funny, but does she know that? Your intense come-on, however disingenuous, reveals the limitations of text conversations.

Her: Hey sorry if this sounds rude but I’ don’t really feel comfortable texting with you and definitely not comfortable meeting up with you. I don’t know you. And also I don’t know what your intentions are and I have a boyfriend. And we don’t feel comfortable. Sorry.

The lead may have been warm, but after your initial text it went ice cold.

Sunday. me: I laughed.

Did you laugh to yourself, or did you text her a status update on your chortling?

(another text) me: Silly your defense mechanisms activated. congrats your gfs are proud. I’m not interested in dating you or telling the world I’m talking with you. Assumed I wanted more? good girl you freaked out so hard. now I want shaved ice at ______(different place).

So hideously try-hard. Of course she assumed you wanted more. You’re reaching out to her, right? Implausible deniability is the branding of the butthurt beta who chewed off a bigger mouthful of chick sass than he could handle. If it’s obvious to everyone here reading this then it was obvious to her that you were stung by her rejection and backtracked clumsily into a transparently empty denial of intent.

I forgot to mention the girl is light-skinned Asian, about 5’5″ or 5’4″… a six or seven among the asian pop. (pretty big at my school), a four among the other white girls. I’m white. 5’6″.

Mostly irrelevant. Asians girls need more emotional investment than do white girls, but this minor racial difference wouldn’t have mattered in your case. You nuked yourself from orbit.

You came for comments on your game and suggestions for improvement, and you’ll get that, but there’s a bigger problem you need to solve: your mental state.

Better reply:

Her: Hey sorry if this sounds rude but I’ don’t really feel comfortable texting with you and definitely not comfortable meeting up with you. Sorry sorry sorry blah blah sorry sorry no tingles sorry sorry sorry you’re creepy sorry sorry sorry sorry.

You: so marriage and kids are out, then?

If you want to leave the impression that you don’t take a girl’s dodges seriously, you should approach with an attitude of amused detachment. Like she’s nothing in the scheme of your life. Which she is. If you think a girl you just met is more than nothing, your behavior will reflect your inner beta psychology. And lame, needy and tactless is no way to go through life, son.

No matter how many text suggestions you read at this blog, you will continue making the same mistakes, because your ATTITUDE is WEAK. You feel aggrieved, you feel urgency, and you feel scarcity constraining your dating market options. As long as you feel those things, you’ll never quite grasp the art of flirtatious badinage. You might parrot a killer line here or there, but that line will be book-ended by pages of betaness.

So instead of giving you a clam to eat, we’ll teach you how to fish clams for yourself. There’s really only one thing you need to know: have the right attitude, and the details of seduction, with just a little prompting, will fall into place. What’s that attitude? It’s best summed up in a thought experiment:

A girl communicates with you. It’s on! You get nervous. Don’t want to blow it. Don’t be beta don’t be beta don’t be beta. You strain to retrieve some smart response that establishes your alpha boner fides.

Instead of struggling for that perfect quip, access your deeper psyche and mold your emotional state. What would you say to her if you received her message while swaddled in the smooth flesh of three gorgeous nymphets going down on your knob?

There’s your answer.

Now let’s revisit your hopeless interaction, but this time in the form of a super alpha male luxuriating in the caresses of three darling dainties.

You: what’s up. drinks fri?

Her: Hey sorry if this sounds rude but I’ don’t really feel comfortable texting with you and definitely not comfortable meeting up with you. I don’t know you. And also I don’t know what your intentions are and I have a boyfriend. And we don’t feel comfortable. Sorry.

You: sweet.

That’s the aloof attitude to have if you want success dating the modern single woman. She doesn’t love lovesick Romeo. She loves lovestuffed Romeo whose sexy attitude is a product of getting wrung dry by a cortege of concubines.

Maxim #14: Whenever you’re at a loss for what to say to a girl you like, imagine you’re a man in bed with three beautiful women. Then say what that man would say.

Read Full Post »

Think about the ecumenical change in society that, intuitively, must be happening with the widespread use of various hindbrain altering drugs, like the Pill and antidepressants. This is a change in biochemistry unparalleled in human evolutionary history. It’d be a miracle of serendipity if there weren’t blowback.

A reader surmises,

Great site. Good advice. But …

There is something to be said for all the anti-depressants/mood stabilizers/whatevers that women are taking these days. And I mean, a LOT of women on are on these psych drugs. You’re asking me so what, right? Well …

A lot of a man’s behavior toward women rests on the presumption (truth) that women are insecure and may get depressed at times, and when they do, they choose a man that has been solid for them. They either choose one, confide in the one they “love” or return to one. BUT, with these drugs, I think a lot of their negative feelings are prevented, making them less vulnerable.

It’s something I’ve noticed among professional women. Sure, maybe my game isn’t what it was, but I think it’s worth addressing. Women’s drugs are changing the game a little bit.

An interesting hypothesis we have here, and one that may go a ways to explaining why there is a growing impression among American men that their women are becoming manlier, sluttier, present-time oriented, and all-around less provocatively charming.

Here’s a lovefact sure to torque a feminist’s fat hamster into a tailspin:

Maxim #27: Beyond beauty, a woman’s attractiveness to men is partly a function of her feminine vulnerability, or her ability to mimic feminine vulnerability.

Corollary to Maxim #27: Men are turned off by overconfident, assertive, proudly self-sufficient women.

Yep, despite the delusional claptrap that feminists want the world to believe, men don’t swoon for women who act like men. Non-manboobed men with hanging testicles don’t, at any rate. Invulnerability is not sexy on women.

Men, at least K-selected men from the frigid Northlands where the cold winds blow and nothing grows for six months, are hard-wired with a protection instinct. We want to guard the carriers of our kingly posterity.

Evolution, therefore, has ensured that men respond viscerally to beautiful, weak women needing protection. A woman in need rallies a man’s ready seed.

Enter antidepressants. Suddenly women all over the sub-veneer tribal landscape are feeling invincible, unstoppable, and perfectly capable on their own. “No means no, creeper!” The manly protective (beta) instinct which warms the hearts of biochemically natural women leaves SSRI drugged-up simulacra of women feeling indifferent, even antagonistic, to the same signals of stoically masculine benefaction.

Multiply this effect a hundredfold in the homeland of the SWPL: The big blue whitening cities of the coasts, where every vibrantly atomized lawyercunt and her bovine cockblock are hopped up on happy happy happy pills. No joke, I’d bet 80% of Obama Country college-grad white chicks are dazed and confused with the help of Big Father Pharma. That percentage jumps to 99% when you expand the age range to include spinsters with two or more cats aka alpha male substitutes.

All successful game requires, in lesser or greater dose, the deployment, consciously or otherwise, of psychological tactics which raise the man’s relative status, lower the woman’s relative status, or both. This is a fact of the nature of the sexes, and it exists because the lifeblood of lust is fed to men and women by different veins. What excites a woman — the challenging company of a higher value, dominant man — is different than what excites a man — the company of a coy, vulnerable, pretty woman. You can rail to the ends of the earth about this fallen state of humanity, but you will never change it, not as long as there are two sexes evolved with differing reproductive goals.

It makes sense, then, that drugs which create a disturbance in the sexual polarity force would also have a downstream effect on courtship, both the traditional and the modern game styles of mate acquisition. A less vulnerable-feeling woman is a woman less receptive to beta provider game, and — this is getting deep into CH theory of modern dating dynamics territory — more receptive to sexy alpha bounder game.

An artificially happy and confident woman is, in short, a no-game-having beta male’s worst nightmare.

(A few of you wags might say that SSRIs are helping turn the US from a Euro mating market to an African mating market, where sky high self-esteem absent any supporting evidence is the norm.)

As a visionary acolyte of Le Chateau, you want to know how to make this new social reality work for you. (Some of you want to change it back to where it was before it turned wicked, but that is a concern for wise old men with rerouted energies.) A good start is dread game, which is the seducer’s answer to invulnerable women.

Some other proto-men, like the scalzied followers of male feminists, take the opposite tack, and submit themselves completely to the whim of Tsarina Bombas, in hopes, apparently, that their utter prostration would excite in women the pity fuck compulsion before it triggers their active repulsion reflex.

A specific skill of modern seduction, as channeled through game, will therefore need to be (sadly from a certain perspective) the ability to evoke, in pinprick psychological jabs, sadness, fear, worry and self-doubt in the Happy Harlots of Late Hour America. If you lack this skill, you’ll find more cynical men stealing your lamb meat off your white linened table.

Or, you could just wait out the coming collapse in your Galtian gulch, and watch the feckless loverboys starve in the streets live-streamed, as the newly vulnerable women rediscover the value of your warm hearth. But by that time, you’ll have stuccoed the entirety of your masturbatorium.

The antidepressant ruination of American women is a theory worth investigating, particularly in light of observational evidence in favor. Perhaps enterprising readers will unearth studies which connect the dots. Or perhaps they’ll just say “what the fuck”, and give the Supergirls a double dose of ego-smashing sexytime.

Read Full Post »

Anonymous (choose a handle you lazy bum) lists the stringent copulation criteria that would need to be met for a woman (or her hamster) to admit that the sex she was having “counts”.

Unless a girl has:

1. vaginal intercourse

2. with a guy

3. multiple times

4. over multiple days

a. that are not in a row

b. but are not separated by more than a month from each other

5. in her region of residence in her home country,

6. not during spring break or another vacation

7. while sober from alcohol and drugs, including legal prescriptions

“it doesn’t count”.

General Social Survey data experts are baffled that the face-to-face questioning the GSS utilizes yields inaccurate results about women’s sexual habits.

Maxim #101: The sluttier the girl, the more noticeably pregnant she’ll need to be before she admits to having had sex that “counts”.

Corollary to Maxim #101: Even then…. “Oh, it’s the way the shirt fits.”

Read Full Post »

Men have a lot to say about fatherhood and imparting the values and knowledge that will assist sons (and daughters) in navigating a rapidly decaying culture.

Reader AAB writes:

The problem with fathers not teaching their sons about masculinity is that those sons grow up to become emasculated men, then fathers. A few generations down the line, your entire male population has been raised entirely by women (whilst the emasculated fathers were at work), and you end up like Japan, full of Hikkomori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori), Grass Eaters, and Incest (http://seedofjapheth.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/japanese-incest/).

In a similar vein, anon writes:

The problem is that game has radically changed in the last 50 years. Your father’s info is obsolete in the bloody pulp that cultural marxism has left of our culture. Modern young women are LOL pathological narcissists who are nearly impossible to talk to without inducing a headache (not the case 50 years ago), so Pa isn’t going to provide the knowledge to work with them. This site is a “how to” for MODERN women with their pathologies.

To quote a british 13 year old in a sexting article yesterday “When you grew up you asked a girl to kiss, today you ask them for sex.”

John O’Sullivan, a former National Review editor, has a First Law which states that:

Any institution not explicitly conservative will become liberal with the passage of time.

Sounds about right. I think the same formulation can apply to fathers and sons and the active sexual market.

Heartiste Maxim #70: Any son not explicitly taught about the ways of women by an experienced father will become more beta under the influence of his mother.

Corollary to Maxim #70: A society of ascendent female academic, workforce, political and family influence necessarily emasculates its sons and masculinizes its daughters.

The urge to pedestalize women seems to be innate in many men, and the absence of strong fatherly guidance away from such sappy, self-defeating thinking is a luxury only a few dark triad demonic spawns of single moms can tolerate without suffering total emotional castration. A father who neglects his duty to teach his son all he knows of women — the good the bad and the hypergamous — or who teaches him the wrong lessons, or who leaves the teaching of such valuable lessons to the mother, is a tragic participant in the slow but steady betatization of his son. Don’t be that father.

Read Full Post »

What if the seduction is sincere?

Maxim #1: Game is learned charisma, streamlined seduction. Game is as sincere as its practitioner’s intent.

Game is the honest presentation of an idea, a thought, a suggestion in a way that makes it likely to be believed by the object of desire. If game is manipulation, or cheating, then so is all art, for which the object of desire is the viewer’s or listener’s engagement with its message. Do you really believe art is cheating?

Read Full Post »

Players and unaffiliated men who labor to pass on the Good Word of Game usually admonish neophytes that borderline uncomfortable numbers of approaches need to be made in order to become proficient at pickup. You’ve got to get out there and talk to more women than you would normally do in the course of a nondescript day.

This message is a good one. You won’t get good at the crimson arts until you’ve put in some real world practice interacting with lots of different women. The exact number is irrelevant; whether it takes you ten or one thousand approaches to improve doesn’t change the undeniable reality that very few men have the ability to go from video gaming malaise to WunderJuan on their first approach.

You could say that the approach mentality, at least during the learning curve stage, is a core principle of game.

There’s one other core game principle that I don’t see mentioned very much, if at all, in the pickup literature. In my view, it’s just as important a principle as approaching girls enough times to trespass beyond your comfort zone. That principle is the “find and foment her flaws” theory.

The idea is simple. Every woman you meet, from friend to love prospect to the barest acquaintance, and every woman who crosses your field of visual inspection, will be subject to your exceedingly judgmental eye. You will search, find and declare to yourself her flaw or flaws. If propriety and privacy allows it, you will verbalize her flaw so that it may become cemented in your wavering cortex and banish all doubt of the flaw’s authenticity. It is a well-kown fact among the big-toothed motivational speaker circuit that saying aloud slogans of self-encouragement or life goals helps the chanter sculpt corporeal heft to his dreams.

So, for example, you see a woman in the mall riding an escalator. Her sundress flounces insouciantly from above you. An incipient boner stirs. But this time, instead of allowing your beta twerpitude the run of your skullcase and straining to catch imagined glimpses of panty, you silence the dork force and, with proud stentorian innerauthority, jot a solid mental note of her larger-than-ideal thighs. Safe distance permitting, you might even rumble in a dampened voice to yourself, “Hm, thunder thighs. Too much speckle.”

You will enact this devious scheme for every attractive and not-so-attractive woman who has the misfortune of falling prey to your daggered gaze. Only the obvious sexual market losers of femaledom — the grossly obese, the crassly ugly, the desiccated old — will be exempt, for their flaws are so prominently obscene they need no reminding nor rooting.

What is the purpose of Principle #2? To balance gender sheets?

Certainly, you could argue with strong evidence that women are particularly unforgiving of men’s flaws, in the private if not in the public, being as how they are slaves to a much more powerful hypergamous force that excels at weeding out stellar-lite suitors with extreme prejudice. A little harsh judgment from you is just giving women a taste of the moldy bread they daily give to men.

But, no, that’s not the purpose, as vengefully titillating as that seems. The purpose is purely practical. The finding and fomenting of women’s flaws conditions the beta male mind to accept the attainability of women, and to discard the reflexive sanctification of women. No master seducer who ever lived believed even one woman was unattainable by him, nor that any woman was a flawless vessel of purity. The seducer loves women, but his love is vast enough to revel in women’s flaws. And that is why he wins.

The beta male who conditions himself thus, by his efforts to discover the flaws in women kept hidden to him by the shadow of his turgid lust cast around his vision, will slowly feel the power and the strength of the Attitude, that indomitable voice that rises like the Great Scrotum from the pubic patch and delivers with valedictorian presumption the message that no woman is out of reach or free of exploitable insecurities, the exploiting of which by a savvy man she herself would be ashamed to admit thrills her to the clitbone.

Returning to escalator girl, here are some more examples of flawmobbing.

– skewed eyes
– narrow hips
– rumpled blouse
– misshapen boobs
– nip/tuck victim
– manhands
– roo pouch
– clown feet
– incipient hump
– jug ears
– wasted calves
– bow-legged
– flabby arms
– pigeon-toed
– broad shouldered
– excessive peach fuzz
– asymmetric nostrils

I can already hear the gripers. “But I just saw the hottest chick ever and she looked PERFECT! I couldn’t find anything wrong with her.”

There is always something wrong with a girl, no matter how beautiful. You may have to dig a little deeper, but you’ll find her thermal exhaust port with a practiced keen eye. Note that any of the above can easily apply to the hottest girl you have ever seen. That’s the beauty of the flawfinding mission: it unearths the normally overlooked blemishes scattered among a girl’s mien that her general beauty tends to obscure to men. If you socialize with a girl and gain insight into her personality, you have even more data from which to devise withering, silent judgments.

Once you have gotten reliable at noticing and promoting women’s flaws, their beauty will no longer hold such paralyzing power over you. Conditioned to emphasize a woman’s worst and attenuate her best, you will become a cad machine, irresistible to the fairer sex who will react shaken from their stupor by your dispassionate demeanor and feel the threat of your pervasive critical eye with senses aflame.

Maxim #30: Ignore a woman’s flaws at your peril. They are the key to reconfiguring your perception, and thus her attainability.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: