Niceguys Lose… Again

Proud-to-be-an-omega-male linked to two studies and wrote:

[These two studies are] a gift for Heartiste, both of which are just more science supporting what [is] stated countless times on this blog.

The first study, titled “Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype” provides evidence for the widely held observation that niceguys don’t get as much sex as badboys.

Proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that women often say they wish to date kind, sensitive men, but, in reality, still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. We investigated the relationship between men’s agreeableness, physical attractiveness, and their dating success across different relationship contexts. One hundred and ninety-one male college students completed a computerized questionnaire to assess their levels of agreeableness and aspects of their dating history. Twenty college-aged women rated the men’s photographs for attractiveness. Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.

The sexual appeal to women of disagreeableness in men comes up quite often in studies examining the topic of mating preferences, and the results are usually not feelgood pablum to warm the hearts of weepy romantics or righteous white knighters. The executive summary: chicks dig jerks. The god of the golden rule wept.

So you want to get laid? Try being less agreeable, less nice, and less accommodating. I bet your mom won’t teach you that, and I doubly bet you won’t hear that advice from any übercredentialed marriage counselor or couples therapist, shysters the lot of them.

The second study confirms more reality-based (aka anti-feminism) wisdom that niceguys are preferred by women for low-sex long-term relationships, but shunned for hot n’ sexy flings.

Many researchers have attempted to discover what types of men women consider most desirable for relationship partners. This study investigated university women’s (N = 165) perceptions of ”nice guys,” specifically whether women perceived nice guys to be more or less sexually successful than guys who are considered not nice. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used. The qualitative analysis was useful in understanding women’s differing interpretations of the nice guy label. More than one half of the women agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners. However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. As hypothesized, women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners were more likely to choose the nice guy as a dating partner. The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships.

You’ll note a couple of conclusions here. One, more than half of coed women (the hot ones in the age bracket we care about) agreed that niceguys have fewer sexual partners. This is bad news for niceguys, because female preselection is a powerful attractant that men can wield to entice women. If women think you don’t get any, you are more likely to not get any. It’s self-fulfilling.

Two, more than one half of women reported a preference for a niceguy over a badboy as a date. That means a little less than one half of women had no preference or PREFERRED A BADBOY for a date! That is an astounding number, if you think about it. The leverage the niceguys hold over women looking for LTRs is not as great as they like to think, nor is it equivalent in effectiveness to the leverage that badboys hold over women seeking sexytime.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the word “date”, as used by the women in this study, means “sexless date”. Women who placed less importance on sex — i.e., frigid ice queens — were more likely to asexually date a niceguy. So, yeah, niceguys are preferred for sexless dates that result in their wallets being considerably lighter and their dicks drier at the end of the night. If you are a niceguy, this news has GOT to make you feel like a sucker. A dupe. A fool. A chump. To paraphrase the memorable GBFM:

“Why would you pay more for less that guys before you got hotter, tighter, younger for free?”

Good question. Any takers?

The third study is a gift from me. You’ll have to get access to the full study to read some of the juicy tidbits within, which basically support the darker, more cynical CH hypothesis that badboys not only get more sex, but they get more chances to convert that sex into loving LTRs, should they so desire to go that route.

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? by McDaniel, 2005

So this study, the most recent one, tells us that women prefer badboys for short term *and* long term relationships. Man, those niceguys can’t catch a break! The theory is simple: If badboys are rounding the bases to home plate a lot more often and a lot quicker than niceguys, despite women’s opinions that niceguys make for better high commitment dating partners, then badboys are also getting more opportunities to escalate relationships into the long-term category. The fact that a lot of badboys choose not to convert short term flings into LTRs does NOT mean that the opportunity for them to do so is not available.

In other words, you need to get your dick in the pussy door before you can even begin to think about any one chick as a potential girlfriend or wife.

Now maybe the dating scene was different in the past. But we don’t live in the past. We live in the here and now, and that means doing what you need to do to get what you want. Are you adaptable?

None of this is to say that niceguys don’t have their place in the universe. After all, some women at some time must have desired niceguys, or they wouldn’t be around today. In fact, there may have been a fairytale moment in human history when genuine niceguys scored the majority of bangs and impregnated the majority of wombs. But the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (coming soon to theaters near you) shredded that (partially contrived) sexual compact, and the state of nature — aka the forager mentality — has reasserted itself, with consequences none can know, but based on prior results aren’t likely to be good if civilization is your thing.

The evidence in total is becoming clear. If it’s sex with cute, young chicks you want, then being a badboy, or learning to be a simulacra of a badboy, is your best avenue to success. If it’s LTRs you want, even then your best bet is to be a badboy, because fast sex opens doors to long term (and long germ, if you aren’t careful) possibilities.

But clearly women, and particularly women of more northerly latitudes, retain a vestige of love in their hearts for reliable, predictable niceguys as LTR fodder, and this is borne out in many studies; it’s scary to take a chance on a badboy who might leave you to the harsh winters to raise your kids alone. So ideally, as the master seducer you wish to become (or you wouldn’t be reading here), the pose to strike is one of charmingly aloof badboyness coupled with hints of undercurrents of loving, dependable niceguyness. Not too much more than a hint of an undercurrent, though. You don’t want to frighten the kitty; you want to entice the kitty with dangling strings.

With experience, you’ll be able to accurately gauge when you are pushing a woman away instead of drawing her closer. You’ll know when you are being too cocky and aloof, and you’ll adjust accordingly with a sappy story about your deceased labrador or your adorable niece whom you can’t stop doting upon. Similarly, you’ll know when you are being too cloying or treacly, and you’ll step back into laconic alphatude so that she may have the pleasure of resuming her chase of you.

An armored badboy attitude + a vulnerable niceguy underbelly = winning combination to unlock pussy for long term goals.

For short term goals, you don’t need to be much else besides a jerk.

Read Full Post »

Another Game-Validating Scientific Study: Make Decisions, Get Laid

It’s been said before on this blog that women are turned off by men who don’t take charge, and are particularly contemptuous of men who relegate the decision-making process to them. Women, contrary the bleatings of the feminism lobby, are more sexually attracted to men who remove some of the need for female independence.

Well, chalk up another scientific validation of a CH game concept: Women who make more decisions have less sex.

A new study published in the Journal of Sex reports that the more decisions a woman makes on her own, the less likely she is to have sex.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University arrived at these results after they surveyed women from six African countries about how intimate they were with their partners. They focused specifically on the last time these women had sex “as well as who had the final say on decisions ranging from healthcare to household purchases.” For women who answered that they were in control of such decisions, researchers found they had less sex and more time had passed since their last encounter.

The usual caveats about racial population group differences apply, but the general finding is, in my observation, applicable to women from all racial backgrounds. As women take control of more of the major decisions in a relationship (or in their lives in general), their ardor for their male partners (or for men in general) decreases.

Here’s the money quote:

Not only were these women having less sex, but “the findings showed more dominant and assertive women had approximately 100 times less sex.”

To bring this closer to home, dominant and assertive Western white women probably have higher testosterone levels than normal women, so there is a good chance they are sluttier as well. It may therefore be the case that women who make a lot of decisions sleep around more. But does that necessarily translate into more sex for them than for women who are in more gender polarized, satisfying relationships with dominant men? No. Within relationships of a given matchup, it could very well be the case that less assertive (read: feminine) women have more sex with their dominant male lovers than more assertive women have with their indecisive beta male lovers. Assertive, dominant women — you know the type, lawyercunts to a T — when they aren’t lashing the whip upon the flayed backs of their beta provider suckups, are studiously avoiding having sex with them. These types of women get more emotional satisfaction out of nagging and berating and using their betaboys than they do out of fucking them.

(And what do the betaboys get out of these relationships? Well, they get a woman. Sort of.)

I think we’ve all scratched our heads and wondered why a particular domineering woman with a high-flying career had a schlubby, charmless milquetoast for a boyfriend or husband. You may rest easy as order is restored to the universe, because a lot of these odd pairings hide demented secrets of sexual aridity and pathological nagging. And now science has shed light on the phenomenon with evidence confirming conventional and PUA wisdom that dominating women really do have less sex than their sweetly submissive peers.

As the reader who emailed this study wrote:

“Has science EVER gone the other way on Game? [Ed: No.] Has msm EVER failed to spin even the most egregious bullshit about female psychology into a positive for women? [Ed: No.]

The advice for men: take decisions away from your woman, take the punch out of her dominant streaks, and you will be rewarded with 100 times more sex.”

You got it.

I’ll relate a pleasant little story from my own life. As my propensity in moments of self-amusement tends toward the satisfyingly manipulative, I have dabbled in the perverse arts of anti-game just to witness and enjoy the predictable reaction it induces from a girlfriend. So this one time, in band camp, my girl asked me what we should do for the evening, and instead of my usual tack of offering a couple suggestions (but not more!) and announcing with royal decree which one I would prefer and she should also prefer, (absent any severely allergic disagreement on her part), I hemmed and hawed and diplomatically dodged “I don’t know” and “What do *you* want to do?” and basically foisted the decision-making process entirely onto her. Priceless to the point of caricature, the expression on her face spoke a million words. And none of them flirty or sexual.

There are some primal forces of nature that were never meant to be meddled with.

Read Full Post »

What Is Anti-Game?

Feh writes:

Anti-game is trivial:

– get misty-eyed at emotional shit
– bore her with details
– constantly let her re-frame
– buy her drinks [Ed: Outside of a date context.]
– compliment her gratuitously
– talk about your hobbies with oblivious enthusiasm
– never ask her a question
– never look away
– let her see your shit-eating smile
– accede to her manipulative horseshit
– never, ever say “horseshit” in conversation

The list could go on …

It could, and it shall. Here are some more anti-game behaviors and traits, from a pickup and LTR perspective:

Constantly remind her how happy you are to be with her.
Laugh at your own jokes.
Laugh uproariously at her “jokes”.
Feed her need for gossip.
Put up with her shit an order of magnitude more frequently than she puts up with your shit.
Ask yes or no or one-word answer type questions.
Act contrite when she catches you checking out her body.
Stare, look away, stare, look away, stare, look away.
Ask her if she has a condom.
Cuddle her so long that she is the one to first start wriggling free.
Hold in farts around her until your colon bursts. (LTR applicable only.)
Fidget, talk fast, mumble, lean in, babble tiresomely like a girl who has a heavy emotional burden to unload.
Talk incessantly about the state of the relationship.
Whine about how hard life is.
Betray too much enthusiasm when she tells you about something cool she did.
Act impressed with her educational credentials or career success.
Sympathize with her bitching about badboy exes.
Agree to her tacit sex timetable. (A woman is capable of making you wait for months absent any masculine push on your part. Ironically, this very acquiescence to her female sensibility will turn her off to sex with you.)
Get wrathfully jealous every time she checks out a dude or talks about another guy.
Spitefully berate her genuine accomplishments.
Say crap like “I don’t deserve you” with sincerity.
Be a kitchen bitch.
Drop everything you like to do to do everything she likes to do. (Man, I know a lot of guys like this. Sickening.)
Wanly smile when she denigrates you to her friends.
Make videos like this. (Suffice to say, this nauseating beta dweeb did not win his ex back, muscles and looks to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Resort to saying “I suppose you’re right” every time she accuses you of some character defect.
Constantly, and insipidly, ask her if she “likes it this way” during lovemaking.
Forget the art of plain old fucking.
Turn to face her fully as soon as you open a girl. Stay that way while she continues giving you her profile.
Buying girls drinks as a MEANS OF OPENING THEM.
Muck up cold reads until they sound like interrogations.
Show up more than five minutes early for dates. (She doesn’t have to know about this, but it will be written all over your body language.)
Go for the night-ending kiss, get denied, follow up by shouting at her as she’s leaving that you’ll call her. Make it a promise.
Skip on the way home after a “successful” date that did not end in sex.
Apologize for infractions she has not even accused you of.
Support feminism. Make a big show of it.
Ingratiate yourself to her. (Example: “Porn is disgusting. I’d never watch it.”)
Know a little too much about the TV wasteland, articles in the Style section of any major newspaper, or women’s fashion.
Make breakfast for her after the first night together. (She has not yet earned your LTR provisions. Buying her breakfast at the local deli is OK.)
Deprecate yourself for cheap laughs and conversation fuel. (As an example of the handicap principle in action, self-deprecation is acceptable in small — very small — doses.)
Follow her from bar to bar.
Join her plans instead of inviting her to join your plans.
Agree to meet her friends before you have sexed her. (Note: this can be pulled off if you have very high value or tight game, and you are certain sex is an eventual given.)
Wait in the exact same spot for her to return after she has told you she’ll be gone for ten minutes. Talk to no one while waiting.
Pine over, or disparage, your ex on a first date.
Listen to her intently when she talks about her exes.
Always follow her conversational lead. Never veer off the path she lays out, or start your own path.
Touch her hair too soon.
Sit with your legs crossed. (Acceptable only if you are an office executive.)
Sweat profusely from anything other than vigorous exercise, sex or fighting.
Eagerly say yes to every one of her requests. (“No” is a powerful male attractant. The mere utterance of it can electrify vulvae.)
Be hopelessly indecisive.
Fail every shit test in spectacular fashion. (Example: vehemently deny you are the thing she says you are.)
Pick your nose and wipe the booger on her forehead. (Save this for the six month mark, at which point she’ll be too invested to do anything more than feebly complain.)

There are many more anti-game tells, but I’ll stop for now. You should get the gist.

***

Anti-game is the suite of low-value male characteristics that actively repulses girls. It is a constellation of insecure, approval-seeking behavior that is a leading indicator the man behaving in such a way is a loser, and worse, believes he is a loser. Anti-game is distinguishable from no-game by the proactive and accelerated nature of its tendency to trigger disgust in women. A no-game-having beta can sometimes obliviously motor through a pickup if the girl he is hitting on is low value herself, or finds him peculiarly attractive, and thus more likely to forgive his lack of charm. But an anti-game-having beta will actually cause an incipient attraction a girl may have for him to quickly dissipate. Anti-game is the equivalent of a monkey throwing feces in the face of a prospective mate. Or Ahmadinejad bloviating about the 12th iman at the UN.

Anti-game, by the way, is a great method for manipulating a girl to break up with you so you don’t have to do the dirty work.

Read Full Post »

Overgaming, Part 2

A reader asks:

Is it possible to win back an ex after overgaming?  My cocky/funny became cocky.  The only time I was beta was at the three week mark when I tried to ger her back – I cried.  Is there a more long-term strategy to win an ex back?

Have you ever been with a girl who was incredibly sarcastic? Where every word out of her mouth was some sort of cutting riposte, usually of the annoying “exaggerate for effect” kind of sarcasm, her sneer permanently plastered to her face? What did you think of her? You probably thought she was amusing at first, but then, after a full night listening to her bitter ironies, you became irritated by her company. She was obnoxious, and, more importantly, less feminine than when you knew her before she opened her mouth.

Girls feel the same thing when they meet a man who is too cocky. They are attracted at first (who is this guy who dares speak with such insolence!), then, as it becomes clear that cockiness is the only gear he knows, he loses his alpha allure. Finally, the girl will want to get away from him and his arrogant posturing.

Cockiness that isn’t leavened with knowing humor or calculated flashes of vulnerability can quickly burden a man with the perception that he is an arrogant, insecure prick. Or worse, a weak, insecure try-hard. These things are anathema to women’s attraction triggers. A woman is likely to think an overly cocky man to be compensating for some shortcoming. An overly cocky man reveals his flaws just as surely as a supplicating man does; approval seeking is at the heart of all insecure behavior. Whereas the supplicating man’s “tell” is obvious, the cocky man’s tell is discernible through the thick smokescreen of caustic one-liners he belches up around himself.

If you watch the great alpha male characters on TV (Don Draper comes to mind, atm), ask yourself how often they are verbally cocky? The answer is not often. (Nonverbal cockiness, otoh, is a trait that should wear on you like a custom-tailored suit wherever you are.) They will intersperse their cockiness with, in turns, humor, sincerity, wit, genuine anger and laconic bemusement. In general, per screen minute, they speak less than other male characters, but when they do speak their words carry weight. They are not dancing monkeys or butthurt douchebags, which are impressions the perpetually cocky man usually brings upon himself.

This reader has problems with his frame of neediness that go way beyond excessive cockiness. A man who cries to a girl three weeks after a breakup is a man who is far too emotionally invested and clingy to effectively imbue himself with the proper tingle-generating mentality of pussy abundance. No amount of tactical game will help him with his ex. He needs to rebuild from the ground up.

Once he’s mastered the correct frame (or masculine psychological balance, in more explanatory words), he’ll find it effortless, and natural, to tinge his cockiness with humor, to approach women, including his ex, from a place of emotional distance, and to set the stage for a reconciliation should one be possible.

In his case, I do not think one is possible. He needs to extract his ex from his life at once, and begin the journey away from her and toward other women. How will a man know when he’s got the right frame? Here’s a simple test: One hour after a breakup, are you able to go outside, meet a new woman, smile at her and have a conversation with her like a normal cool dude? And after that conversation, do you mentally rewind to yourself “Boy, I wish my ex could’ve seen me with her”, or do you say to yourself “Cool chick. I should have gone for the number close.”

Get the answers to the above right, and you’ll be in the winning headspace.

Read Full Post »

Judging A Girl By The Friends She Keeps

When you start dating a girl, you will get to meet her friends, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. But usually within the first couple of months you will have been introduced to nearly everyone she knows (locally), especially if she really likes you. Pay close attention to the types of friends she has (if she has any), for that will tell you a lot about her long term potential. Screening a girl for LTR worthiness based on the friendships she keeps is a powerful tool men have at their disposal, and one you should not overlook.

The following categories are ranked by LTR worthiness and chance of mental instability.

The Girl with No Friends
LTR worthiness: Short but passionate fling
Chance of mental instability: Sleep with one eye open

A girl with no friends likely has some personality defect that prevents her from forming bonds with people. Other girls regard her as a weirdo, and not without justification. Men think her social isolation means she will be an easy lay. They are right. This kind of girl is starved for human connection with a man who “gets her”. Hit those buttons, and you will enjoy a three month festival of zero-cost fornication. After a while, though, her weirdness will grate, and she will pull stunts that make you scratch your head in confusion. Girls with no friends are often brooding emo types, or cutters, and they may go batshit crazy if you dump them. Have a restraining order ready.

The Girl with No Close Friends, Only Acquaintances
LTR worthiness: Pump and dump
Chance of mental instability: Hope you like drama

The classic attention whore. The girl with nothing but loose acquaintances who flit in and out of her life craves the attention of hundreds, if not thousands, of human beings. She is usually a hot chick with a swollen ego who initially attracts girls into her reality for friendship, but who then drives them away with her insatiable appetite for social domination and ego stroking. She is a known blue ball queen who gets off stringing along beta orbiters in sexless perpetuity. She is simultaneously loved and loathed by her girlfriends, who find her outrageous fun at parties, but insufferable in more intimate settings. She is frequently bad-mouthed behind her back, and she presents one of the few cases where girl friends will sympathize more with her male suitors and boyfriends than they will with her. She is a high infidelity risk, so proceed with caution. Best used as a sperm receptacle, if you can get her to give it up (not an easy task unless you know how to expose her soft underbelly — fear of ostracization.)

The Girl with Only Family for Friends
LTR worthiness: Perennial booty call
Chance of mental instability: Riddled with insecurities

On paper, a girl who only has her family for companionship may strike you as a good LTR prospect. You think: Ah, she’s grounded, earthy, family-oriented, and shuns the nightlife. But you would be wrong. As any man who has married a “family-only” girl will tell you, they are demanding, mule-headed, socially awkward, often obnoxious and full of themselves. Remember, she’s had her family telling her how great she is her whole life, with no unbiased opinion from outside sources checking her ego. She is, in fact, not much different than the girl with no friends, except she has decided that leaning on her family for support and ego gratification is better than being alone. Other girls find her annoying at best, and arrogantly repugnant at worst, and that is why she must retreat to the comfortable confines of family for her social needs.

The no-friends girl at least has the cutesy artist angle to work; the family-only girl has nothing to offer but an unjustified entitlement complex. She is the classic daddy’s slutty princess. The family girl instinctually knows this about herself, and thus will nurse barely-concealed insecurities about her true worth, which she will take out on you, making your life miserable. Double-plus negative: You’ve gotta deal with her parents, brothers and sisters ALL THE TIME. Run away (after you’ve plundered her ass.)

The Girl with Only Guy Friends
LTR worthiness:  Second string girlfriend
Chance of mental instability: High, if you regard manipulation and tomboyishness as psychological disorders

What do you get when you surround a girl with obsequious, supplicating betas who want in her panties, and remove all contact with catty girl friends who might steal the attention of those mewling betas? Yeah, that’s right… a self-centered user. If the girl is cute, you should always cast a jaundiced eye at her if her friends are all men. Odds are very good that most of those men… actually, all of them… want to bang her (and she knows this). But they aren’t. Their job is to mingle in her glorious presence, polishing her pedestal and generally turning her into a girl who expects men to roll out the red carpet for her. She is the classic cocktease. She loves the intimate emotional connection she gets from a close circle of male friends, without having to give up her pussy to any of them or having to deal with competitor females. Now you may be the most alpha alpha male of all times, and she may love you for it, but once a girl has demonstrated by her friendship choices that she is a user, there will come a time, you can count on it, that she will try to use you. It’s best to keep her in your second tier of lovers, where her machinations won’t affect you with nearly as much import.

Caveat: If she’s plain looking and has mostly male friends, the upside of her having a well-developed sympathy for men’s peculiar challenges outweighs the downside of her having her ego stroked and her emotional needs met all the time by her male friends. All the better if most of her male friends are alphas themselves who are in relationships and who don’t spend inordinate time massaging her ego. But then why are you dating a plain-looking girl?

The Girl with Mostly Gay Guy Friends
LTR worthiness: One night stand
Chance of mental instability: She gets her own DSM edition

Same as above, except multiplied one thousand fold. A big unwritten story about the decline of the West is the deleterious impact trendy gay men have had on the egos of single urban Western SWPL women. If you can imagine it, try to picture her as nothing more than a disembodied vaginal hole. It will help keep a healthy emotional distance. A few gay guy friends is perfectly fine. Ten of them, to the exclusion of other groups of friends, is a red flag.

The Girl with Only Girl Friends
LTR potential: High, if you like lavish weddings
Chance of mental instability: Not more than the average girl, which is to say, high

The good news about the girl with only girl friends is that she is normal and feminine. She likes doing girly stuff, and if you are a real man and not a spotted-ass nerd with a jones for a butt-kicking babe who solves math proofs in her downtime, then you will appreciate being the boyfriend of this type of socially calibrated and psychologically balanced girl. There’s nothing wrong with dating a girl who, you know, ACTS LIKE A GIRL. Another plus: she doesn’t require the ministrations of hordes of beta male taintlickers to keep her from downward spiraling into depression.

The bad news should be obvious: she has no concept of what men must endure in either the dating market or the social market in general. Thus, her sympathy for men is nil, and she comes across solipsistic and self-absorbed. But she will happily bend to the will of a strong man, because she does not shun her female nature. She makes a great girlfriend; a wife, though, is an entirely different matter. That same group of supportive single girl friends who loved you as her boyfriend will tirelessly work to undermine your marriage should they themselves remain in the purgatory of singledom.

The Girl with Only Lesbian Friends

*Doesn’t exist in the state of nature.*

The Girl with a Mixed Group of Girl and Guy Friends
LTR potential: Be careful, your player days might be over with her!
Chance of mental instability: She makes most girls seem like candidates for institutionalization

And here we have the ideal girl, if LTRs are your thing. (Note: If same night lays are your thing, she is NOT the ideal girl.) She is open-minded and humble enough to enjoy the company of a variety of friends with strong opinions, she has enough femininity to relish time with girl friends, and she has enough exposure to guy friends that she can sympathize with their concerns. Ideal scenario: her girl and guy friends are all in relationships of their own. This limits the cattiness and the beta orbiter supplication to a manageable level.

A girl who maintains an attractive humility and who respects the wishes and the laments of men is a girl who is emotionally secure enough to not just tolerate, but embrace, the company of both girl friends and guy friends. She loves people for who they are, and not for what they can do for her ego.

The Girl with One or Two Player Friends
LTR potential: bimonthly tests for STDs, OR GF material
Chance of mental instability: She’s not crazy, she’s creative!

If a girl spends a lot of time with either a Samantha-type slut or a Hitch-like player, she’s got hang-ups about her sexuality and her dating market value worth. She wants to live vicariously through their exploits because she herself lives a rather modest life, or she IS like them and enjoys being with people who live and think just as she does. If the former, she might be redeemable with enough LTR game. If the latter, there’s a good chance that eerie suspicion you had that she was getting pounded by another cock last Thursday was true.

Major red flag: Double all her slut points if the time she spends with the player or the slut is over Sunday brunch at a tapas restaurant, getting drunk on mimosas.

***

My hope with this post is to impress upon the male reader the importance of not only screening girls for LTR potential, but of winning over a girl’s friends, man or woman, if you intend to date her beyond the customary three weeks. While it appeals to a certain renegade male mindset to boff a girl and pay no heed to her extraneous social life, it’s always better to have her friends on the inside of the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. Girls, being the lemming sex, rely more heavily than men do on the judgment of their friends’ opinions about their boyfriends. If she is someone you could date for the long haul, best to befriend her social circle eagerly. If nothing else, you have neutralized any future sabotage. More likely, you have made a new group of friends. And if your girlfriend is cool, then the solid bet is that her friends are cool, too.

Read Full Post »

Banging Outside Your Race Won’t Hurt Your Chances With Same-Race Women

Reader “Me” muses:

I’m not so sure that banging a non-white girl hurts your chances at all with quality white women. I would think that being attractive to different races/cultures could only boost your chances.

There will be no studies referenced in this post, because, let’s face it, the watery-eyed milquetoasts who run the labs would never sign off on a study examining the effect on perceptions of male attractiveness by women toward same-race men who are dating, or have dated, outside their race. Instead, I will rely on personal experience to buttress Me’s assumption.

There is no doubt, based on what I have observed, that white women will find you more alluring if you have dated outside your race. This opinion, or feeling, will be shared by flings, girlfriends, and wives. In fact, having a spotted checkered wondrously diverse dating history of occasionally banging 6s and 7s outside your race will make you seem just as, if not more, attractive than if you had dated 8s and 9s strictly within your race. The reason for this rests with that subconscious calculation — the whirring and beeping of the female limbic system — which automatically infers that a man who can bed cute girls of a different race (or, to a lesser degree, a different nationality) must be a mighty force of irresistible masculinity, indeed.

Women, and white women in particular*, being the more racist of the sexes as measured by mating preference, incorrectly presume that the obstacles the typical man faces in his pursuit of pussy are multiplied when the object of his lust is a different race. (The truth of the matter is that the difficulty of bedding the rainbow tapestry of womanhood varies depending on the specific race of the parties and the point on the masculinity/femininity nexus along which both reside.) And so women earnestly believe that a man who can overcome those race-based obstacles must have something going for him.

So too, there is the competition anxiety that a man who has sampled the world’s banquet of bush provokes in supercharged SWPLy women. On the one hand, these lily-white women live and breathe the PC zeitgeist that steers them along the pinched paths of multicult slavishness. But on the other, is the fear and envy of the pulse of raw sexual energy that good white women in their craggiest neural crevices believe that non-white women possess in spades more than they do. The cognitive dissonance drives them simply batty with sexual inferiority complexes. (Maria Shriver must have been going insane with self-reappraisal when she found out Arnold liked the Latina ass.)

I have seen it with my own eyes, and experienced it with my own glorious ego. When I casually mentioned a black lover I once had to a (non-black) girlfriend, her eyes went wide with cautious wonder, and she poked for more information, which I recounted with feigned reluctance, each tidbit of juiciness (yes, her ass defied gravity, no, she wasn’t ghetto) prompting from her expressions of amazement and half-hearted pleas to stop. She was clearly intrigued, and yet also ferociously jealous, that I had stepped across the line in the jungle to savor what was to her the rawest sexual taboo. From then forward, every time we passed a black girl on the street, I would peripherally notice my lover’s eyes darting once to the black girl, and then once back at me to gauge my reaction. This, gentlemen, is how you keep a woman on her toes in a relationship, working perpetually for your favor.

Black girls aren’t the only sore spot to the white woman. Heaven forbid the white man who has had a delicately feminine Asian girlfriend sweeping down the corridors of his past, should his white girlfriend know of it! Nothing inspires white (heh) hot jealousy in a white woman with greater fury than the Asian ex-girlfriend. This innate jealousy will explode into a supernova if you have an Asian mistress. A buddy once made the mistake of (accurately) reminding his put-upon white girlfriend that his Asian ex and she were more alike than she thought. The comparison drove her wild with sputtering indignation, for she had spent the better part of their relationship in feral cattiness denigrating his poor Asian ex whenever the subject came up. A woman does not heap that kind of fulsome hate upon those she feels are no threat to her sexual market value.

But you can bet the bank that my buddy got hand the day his girlfriend saw the pic of his cute Asian ex. His value had jumped, and would stay there barring severe beta regression.

This peculiar female presumption to imagine the best — aka lustiest — about men who date outside their race holds great benefit for the man wishing to leverage it into personal advantage. Letting it be known, in as plausibly extemporaneous a manner as possible, that you have a few black girls, Asian girls and, whoa stop the presses!, Indian girls in your timeline of ass-tapping is like catnip to the white woman’s theater of the hindmind. You can save a lot of money on travel expenses cultivating your international man of mystery pose by cheaply bedding down in your neighborhood with some flava flav every once in a while.

Preselection knows no racial boundaries. If the women you bang are cute and well-kept, the addition of a racial component will intensify a girlfriend’s jealousy instinct, which is the high voltage electricity that fuels the tingle capacitor. The greater variety of good-looking women you have ravished, the stronger will be a current fling’s libidinous intrigue.

The ONLY variable that influences a woman’s preselection algorithm for gauging male attractiveness is the beauty or ugliness of the women a man has banged. This is one of those unpalatable measuring sticks by which women judge your worth as a man — through the eyes of the women you have previously seduced. If those exes are a miss parade of has-beens, fatties and fugs, a girl will downgrade your SMV to a point lower than if you had never dated any women. If your exes are consistently cute, a girl will feel a strange compulsion to adore you.

Class factors little in the female preselection equation. If anything, class can have an inverse effect on a woman’s perception of your sexual value relative to her own. An upper middle-class SWPL chick will be inclined to question her own worth a lot more if she knows you have stepped out with some sexy hot lower class non-white chick. She’s going to wonder if she lacks the necessary spice you need to stay sexually motivated. She’ll think maybe her stiffly geometric WASP hips aren’t soulful enough to keep you glued.

Since women’s sexuality is biologically more valuable than men’s, it’s in your interest as a man to cultivate a tincture of such self-doubt in your lovers. Men who knee-jerk pedestalize women have no idea how difficult they are making the game. To pedestalize a woman is to hoist her above the penthouse in which she already reposes.

A quality white woman will be productively jealous if she knows you have had sex with girls of different races. This reaction of hers may be compounded if your exes are from distinct classes or milieus. But there is a limit to the female interest that your interracial loving will inspire. A history with trashy ghetto queens or snaggle-toothed FOBs is not gonna redound positively on you.

Before I forget, there is one more race-based preselection factor (besides objective beauty) that will shape how a woman perceives your sexual status: If you have dated NOTHING BUT girls of different races, you will be viewed with a jaundiced eye as a man who doesn’t have what it takes to win over women of his own race. Men who date other-race women to the exclusion of women of their own race are generally, and usually correctly, seen as sexual fetishists. A banal fetish for other races reveals more than it intends, and women of your own race are apt to discount you as a low value man whose limited options forced him downmarket.

It’s a simple thing to avoid this negative appraisal: restrict your outside-race dating to 40% or fewer of your sum total of lovers. Just enough to rev the ol’ hamster, but not so much that you forfeit the same-race game entirely. Of course, if you are fed up with SWPL vessels brimming with apparatchik drivel, you could flip the bird to all that and find true joy and happiness in the pleasures of hybrid vigor.

A list of lovers by race, in descending order of arousing jealousy and attraction in white women:

An extremely beautiful Russian woman. (A hot Russian/Ukrainian 10 is the worldwide gold standard.)
Asian woman. (The more petite, the better. You really want to throw that BMI discrepancy into stark relief.)
Indian woman. (So strange and exclusive, and so bothersome to the white girl ego!)
Middle Eastern woman. (White girl thinks belly dancer.)
Non-ghetto, slender black woman. (Jungle love, it’s driving me crazy.)
Non-sausagy Hispanic woman. (Selma Hayek, not Consuela.)
Eskimo woman. (Points for adventurousness.)
Aboriginal woman. (What were you thinking?)

*I imagine the forces at work in the white woman’s mind when contemplating a man’s multi-racial dating history are similar to what transpires in a black, Hispanic or Asian woman’s mind. I think we’ve all heard the stories of black women becoming absolutely incensed when a black man takes up with a white woman.

Read Full Post »

“What are you thinking about?”

It’s impossible to date a girl for any significant length of time and not hear this plaintive inquiry from her. In fact, if she likes you, you will sometimes hear it on a first date. A reader offers a quick escape:

Answer with “thoughts are sacred” and change the subject so it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to be profound. I stole that from a Fellini film. Have used it on a few different types of girls and it works like a charm. I enjoy the blog man.

Not bad. Another good reply (if she’s got enough brains to catch the wit): “My burdensome masculinity.” Or: “A ham sandwich.”

Any move to evade the question, or to answer it in a way she could never have predicted, is the correct move. The key is to understand that in matters of romance, women don’t want to be taken seriously. They want you to, with a wink and a smirk, patronize them like the be-boobed and be-hipped children they are. The worst possible answer to these seemingly innocuous female questions (which, in reality, are actually subtle shit tests) is the candid answer. For example… BAD: “I was just thinking about how much I like you.” You, with your feeble beta brain, thinks she wants to hear that, (because why would she ask?) but she doesn’t. What she wants to hear, or rather what her vagina wants to hear, is “A ham sandwich.”

Now of course there will be times when the sincere response is the right one. A long term girlfriend asks because she is A) worried you’re withdrawing from her, or B) genuinely interested in what’s on your mind. In those cases, you may, but only occasionally!, stroke her inquisitive feelers til she’s purring like a kitten.

I can hear the chorus of betaaches now. “When should we be sincere and when should we be cocky?”

Don’t sweat the small stuff. A good rule of thumb is the 3:1 cocky-to-sincere ratio. A sincere reply should be bookended by at least three cocky ripostes. This can play out over a few minutes of an energetic first meet or over a few languid days, depending on your level of intimacy with the girl. This gives her hamster juuuuuuuust enough pellets to keep him shitting regularly. Too many pellets and the overworked bugger gets the runs, his rationalizations spinning out of control into a turgid drama fest. Too few pellets and he gets constipated, backed up with negative emotion. A regular hamster is a happy hamster. And a horny hamster.

Read Full Post »