Heartiste’s First Law Of Fatherhood

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 Your father’s info is obsolete in the bloody pulp that cultural marxism has left of our culture.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 »

Why Don’t Fathers Teach Their Sons Well?

How many of the men reading this have fathers who give (or gave) them realtalk about women? How many had heart to hearts with Pops about what women really desire in men? Reader Zombie Shane writes:

I have a theory about “The Natural”.

It’s kinda the White Peoples’ version of Amy Chua and the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

And here’s the theory: I think that some Dads CHEAT and teach their sons all the secrets at a very young age.

Kinda like what Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel used to do with that fat obnoxious kid on The Man Show.

Can you imagine how much more poontang you would have scored in the early years if your Dad had taught you the forbidden secrets?

But instead your Dad forces you to be self-taught and to learn all the lessons for yourself.

Yeah, long-term, it’s a much better character-building exercise to absorb all the “hard knocks”, and to learn from experience, but wow, can you imagine if you had had the “White-Peoples-Amy-Chua-Dad” in, say, Middle School?

Being an 8th-Grader and hitting on all that fine-assed perky young just-barely-pubescent poontang?

Shit damn, man, shit damn.

Actually, on second thought [thinking about all that jailbait tail], maybe I should thank my Dad for keeping me out of prison [or at least out of Reform School] at that age…

The fact that you had a dad around to raise you is a leading indicator he is a beta male who himself didn’t know the secrets to women. That’s my theory for why more fathers don’t teach their sons the truth about women: they don’t know it themselves!

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a beta male for a father. If you like civilization you can thank beta male fathers.

Another theory that perhaps explains why so many fathers neglect their duty to impart the lessons of love to their sons is that they feel embarrassed talking about these topics. Even the most cold-blooded womanizers would squirm a little when the time came for them to teach what they’ve learned to their sons. And it’s easy to understand why: when you know women inside and out, you can’t help but be aware of their unsavory natures. Any talk with your son is going to necessarily implicate his mother.

Finally, there are some fathers who are so alpha that they actually view their sons as competition. To them, revealing the secret of snatch is like fraternizing with the enemy. These aging Lotharios wistfully long for the days when pubescent poose clung to them like dryer lint. In some dark recess of their minds, they harbor an envy for their sons which motivates them to conceal their knowledge.

Ultimately, though, I think the best explanations for the dearth of fatherly wisdom regarding female nature is that there are too few fathers experienced in the ways of women to know what to teach, and there are too many fathers protective of their children’s mothers who fear the risk that dangerous knowledge would tarnish by association the esteem with which the children hold their mothers (and sisters).

There is also the theory — and I throw this out here for completeness — that fathers are somehow genetically or psychologically predisposed to encourage their sons to attain resources and status to win the attentions of high value women, and that this mitigates against them teaching their sons the dark arts of seduction which would enable them to short circuit the laborious process that is the conventional method for attracting women.

As regards the origin of Naturals, the greatest influence on them is likely to have been their peers rather than their fathers. Or, if they have been influenced by their fathers, to have been influenced *despite* their fathers’ reticence to share their wisdom. I suspect Naturals benefit from three advantages, in varying degrees of imprint, that most men don’t have:

1. Fathers and friends who teach them the effective (note: I did not say morally righteous) alpha attitude through their own behavior with women.

2. Favorable genetic traits in whatever ratio, which may include sociopathy, narcissism, lack of empathy, mesomorphy, good looks, high sociosexuality, intelligence, artistry, humor.

3. Fortuitous successful early encounters with girls that set the budding Naturals on a path of alluring self-assurance.

So… if your father was an unapologetic cheater, you see vaginas in every Rorschach test, and you got your first knob job at the ripe age of seven, chances are good you are a Natural with women. Chances are also good you would not be able to teach other men what you know, because you only know it intuitively.

Read Full Post »

The Natural’s Dilemma

The Natural — the man who has a seemingly otherworldly ability to entrance women. The Natural — not the CEO, nor the jet fighter, nor the doctor — is the man most men secretly admire and wish they had some of his mysterious mojo.

But in reality he does not possess any magical abilities out of reach of ordinary men. The Natural is similar to the self-taught pickup artist, with the critical distinction being that the former assimilated the lessons of love earlier in life. His masterstrokes paint the canvas of women effortlessly because he has been in training since he first noticed that girls and boys are different. If you break down the game of Naturals, you’ll learn that their maneuvers and tactics and strategies, far from being indefinable essences that only a very few lucky can lay claim to, are in fact identical to the blueprints of learned game.

Neither is the Natural necessarily good-looking. Many Naturals, perhaps most of them, are nondescript in the looks department. But because there is good reason to think a lot of them have inherited the Dark Triad suite of personality traits, they are skilled at presenting themselves in a way that projects their sex appeal, or invents it whole cloth, if need be.

No, what the Natural has that mere mortals don’t is this: UNSTOPPABLE CONFIDENCE. They had the ALPHA ATTITUDE at a young enough age that it became ingrained to such an extent they rarely yield to the temptation to doubt their appeal to women.

But the Externally Validated Natural who has spent a lifetime leaning on his looks/social connections/fame to get laid has a dilemma. As a reader puts it:

I’ve said it many times before, the most pathetic thing in the world is a natural who has lost his mojo.

The very blessing that makes The Natural an early adopter ladykiller is the curse that hobbles him later in life when challenges arise that introduce cracks to his impenetrable edifice of entitlement. You see, the Externally Validated Natural has not bothered to learn the crimson arts. He has not mastered the state control that is necessary when inevitable dry spells occur, or when glances from women are fewer and farther between, or when uppity women with visions of mcmansion upgrades dancing in their heads give him shit he is not accustomed to receiving. He has never studied how to remain aloof and indifferent in the face of female fickleness because he has rarely experienced what life is like as a beta male who must battle to be loved, rather than watching love fall in his lap like autumn leaves.

The Natural who understands on a more than superficial level the nature of women, and who has a working familiarity with game concepts, is a force ten charmer. Most Naturals don’t; they do the right things without knowing how or why they do them. When success eludes them and the expected warmth from women is missing, they are left with nothing, no storehouse of knowledge or pride of past successes achieved through self-aware hard work, to pull them up from a dangerous downward spiral into the betatude they never quite understood either.

Read Full Post »

The Female Snarl And The Male Smirk

The female snarl has become a topic of conversation, which is not surprising because American women in general are becoming less feminine and more churlish. When in the past women would gently demur the solicitations of beta and omega males, today they prefer the unrefined art of snarling like a hyena over a fresh kill, the kill being their overworked vaginas. Meanwhile, alpha males witness them snarling ungenerously and think, “Marriage material? Nope. Pump and dump material? Yes!”

don’t bother me. i’m pooping a purple saguaro.

The author of the linked article posits that the frequency with which women snarl correlates to their age and the sexual market threat level of the targets of their disapproval.

A woman arguably snarls between five to twenty times a day. The frequency is directly related to maturity. The more immature, the more the snarl appears. High school, consistently snarling. College, frequently. Twenties, sporadically. Thirties, only when they see a younger woman. There have probably been a couple snarls while reading this.

Ha haa. I’d add that the snarl is increasing among all female age groups, though younger women do use it more profligately, and with good reason: there are more beta males lasciviously eyeing their goods for penile plunder. What’s a hot babe to do? She has to fend them off by the hundreds, and a fat cockblock won’t be there for her every time. So the snarl is unfurled like a banner of bitchiness.

Why do women overuse the snarl to such potent effect? Simple: they don’t get called out on it by their designated targets. Most beta males wilt like flowers in the high noon summer heat when they get blasted with the snarl shockwave. “Oh, sweet fancy moses, excuse me for so presumptuously intruding upon your oxygen supply. I shall slink away now and hope my penis has reemerged from under my pubic bone when I return hope to fap the night away.”

The thing is, the female snarl is exceedingly easy to call out without resorting to butthurt confrontation.

“Nice face.”

“Are you pooping?”

“Sniffing for grubs?”

“You look like my hamster! Wait, don’t stop doing that. It’s great!”

“Finally got a whiff of my sex panther cologne, eh?”

Or, you could answer the female snarl with the male equivalent:

i’m sorry, are you supposed to mean something to me?

Ah, the alpha male smirk. As penetrative of women’s self-entitled bitch shields as their snarl is of beta males’ self-confidence. The perfectly timed smirk is the best comeback plus more. It instantly patronizes, condescends and belittles, without so much as revealing an iota of spite or care that might be used by a woman to anchor another bitchy barrage.

A fantastically egregious bitch — let’s say, a chubster wearing too much makeup and muffin top who thinks every man wants her and deserves her worst shit tests — requires a bit more… encouragement… to reform her ill-suited attitude. In such circumstances, the smirk won’t pack the necessary wallop. You’ll need something edgier.

Read Full Post »

Economic Game Theory Support For Male Relationship Coyness

A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.

Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.

The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we’re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.

In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn’t and he’s looking for commitment or he’s not. Therefore, he’s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.

Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There’s no apparent upside to guy D.

That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man’s dating outlook?

• guy A: he’s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
• guy B: he is incapable of commitment
• guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
• guy D: he’s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I’m not in his league)

Guy B is an interesting case, but I don’t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he’s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can’t get it from guy B. That said, he’s better than desperate guy A.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It’s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don’t chase game.

• guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don’t chase game
• guy D: indirect only; don’t chase game only

If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you’ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don’t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.

You can also simulate a “seek no commitment” outlook by treating the woman poorly.

An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.

You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.

If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.

And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.

If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.

If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women’s senses and so fulfilling to women’s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.

Best case scenario for men who can’t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it’s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being “too nice”.

So far, so good. But… I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman’s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to “chase” an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don’t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.

I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.

Read Full Post »

Being The Right Kind Of Asshole

Occasionally, an oh-so-sincere skeptical reader will insist that being the jerk women love doesn’t work, because he/she/it saw some guy calling a girl a bitch once, and that guy didn’t get laid.

The height of counter-argument prowess!

As this blogasmic beacon of bounteous love has written before, there is a critical distinction between being a “caring asshole” that signals to women you are desperate for their vaginas, and being an aloof “uncaring asshole” that signals to women you could do without their vaginas, which ironically makes their vaginas feel strong love.

(I will leave aside for another post examination of putative examples to the contrary, such as those supreme assholes like Chris Brown and Mexican drug lords who, full of care, beat their women to pulps yet still enjoy the undying love of their attractive targets of affliction.)

If you are having trouble dissecting the meaning of being an uncaring asshole, think upon the personality quirks that define a man who has inherited (or honed) the suite of Dark Triad traits. He is closest to the manifestation of the ideal uncaring asshole.

Reader Ripp writes:

“The Dark Triad are the component parts of the one overarching attitude that most defines and forges the successful womanizer: overconfidence.”

Agreed, academically. To qualify overconfidence:

The art of exhibiting these qualities is commonly misrepresented by being a deliberate asshole; a ‘caring asshole’. Irrational overconfidence, or ‘cockyness’, doesn’t hit the mark.

Calculated arrogance, effectively demonstrated pre-selection, a refined non-reactive attitude to shit testing and a mysterious self-serving aloofness comprises the “attitude” described above.

Uncalibrated “overconfidence” is try hard. Yielding true overconfidence at the correct moments hits the mark:

“Listen. I don’t know you…and you need to understand. I’m one charming mother fucker.”

This reader has a point. If you have to shout your overconfidence from the rooftops, you have shown the exact opposite: a lack of self-confidence.

But most Dark Triad Dudes are irrationally overconfident, if by irrational we mean that there is very little objective evidence that would buttress a case for their degree of self-regard. The reason they do well with women is because women don’t subconsciously care as much for objective measures verifying a man’s overconfidence as they care for the overconfident attitude itself. And, remember, when we’re talking about sparking vaginal tingles, it’s a woman’s subconscious you want to massage, not her conscious awareness. The subconscious is orders of magnitude more powerful than the conscious, in which the latter pretty much acts as a highly advanced rationalization machine permitting expression of the desires of the subconscious.

Again… it’s the ALPHA ATTITUDE chicks dig. You have the attitude, and you can pretty much roll with any undersized or overstuffed portfolio of objective accomplishments. If you don’t have the attitude, you will be dismayed to find that your curriculum vitae is not helping you get laid as much as the numbers you crunched told you it would help.

Naturally, it’s better to have both aligned — you’ll find it easier to maintain congruence if your objective status matches your signaling status — but if you had to choose one, choose signaling status. It’s way simpler to achieve, and more fun to apply!

I’ll give you a quick glimpse at a minute in the life of a caring asshole, so that you can better appreciate why he fails with women while his equal but different douchehead cousin cleans up with the ladies.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares too much: “Well, fuck you, nobody asked for it.”

Girl: “You just did.”

Asshole who cares too much: “I was kidding. I would never go out with a bitch like you.”

There’s no denying this guy is an asshole, and there’s no denying he would be a miserable failure with women (although, it has to be said, he’d still do better than the typical mincing betabot). So where did his assholery go wrong? For that, we need to contrast him with his uncaring asshole bro.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “My heart will go on.”

Girl: “Well, you did seem like you wanted it.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “That was before I got distracted by your sister.”

In every technical aspect, and according to every feminist by-law, this guy would qualify as an asshole. And, yet, there’s just something about him….

wait… phew… I channeled some woman’s hamster there for a minute. Strange experience.

The second guy knows about charm and delivery, and executes with purpose. That purpose being, to reflect, “Goddamn, I am a sexy beast. A stylish sniper of love. Excuse me whilst I make 1080p love to myself.”

He is as far from your typical niceguy as he is from your hothead asshole above who calls women bitches at the drop of a hat. But an asshole he is, and the right kind of asshole, the kind that women, the world over, will always and forevermore fall head over haunches for despite their squid-inking claims to the contrary.

Read Full Post »

Using Women’s Beta Blacklisting Words Against Them

Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion.

Interestingly, this reflexive psychological burp of women can be retrofitted by the cunning womanizer as a tool to disarm women’s natural defenses against putting out too easily, or feeling regret for having put out too easily.

Reader walawala recounts a text exchange which demonstrates this inverse psychology tactic:

just had a text exchange with a girl I just banged last night by maintaining frame…

Me: cab driver just spit a loogie into a roll of toilet paper

Her: thanks for sharing

Me: keep change lah

Her: I just googled you and found a story you were quoted in

Me: u cyber stalker

There was a danger here that walawala would get sucked into this girl’s frame when she opened that can of worms about googling him. His response was classic frame control: “u cyber stalker”. (Note alluringly aloof lack of punctuation.) By using one of her natural womanly words of exclusion against her, he effectively put her in the defensive crouch, where she is tempted into qualifying herself to him. Most women, because their modernist Western egos are so rapaciously overinflated, cannot resist this temptation.

A very quick and dirty way to break a girl’s frame, or reinstitute the primacy of your frame, is to accuse her of being a creep or a stalker. Women respond viscerally to these accusations because they are intimately familiar with the power of these slanders to utterly castrate beta males and render them harmless environmental accoutrements. The last thing you want is women categorizing you as a harmless accoutrement. And sometimes, the only way to avoid that is to give them a taste of their own exhilarating medicine.

Read Full Post »