Predicting A Girl’s Infidelity

A reader emails:

As a rule, when the supply of eligible men goes down, female sluttiness goes up. If a girl will only date guys [who are] soccer players 6-4 or taller, then she’ll get desperate around these men moreso than a girl without this “limiting factor”. If a girl comes across 1 eligible guy a month, vs 10 eligible guys a day, then that 1 eligible guy has massive hand, and will score even if he has negative game.

The short-term dating limiting factors could be, but not limited to:

1. age
2. looks
3. race / hair color / eye color
4. height / build
5. income / class
6. musical talent
7. cultural tastes / fashion
8. social proof / notch count
9. game / humor / confidence

I know girls that sleep around, often sober, but only with guys within narrow parameters. They often exclude known cads and alpha males in the group to focus on a narrower, but not necessarily superior, sub-set of alpha males.

I propose finding short-term relationships among women that date within narrow parameters and long-term relationships with women that date all over the map.

That’s counter-intuitive.

If you qualify based on a limiting factor it seems like the logical basis for a long term relationship, but she’ll go just as ga-ga over another guy that meets this same limiting factor. If you are lucky she’ll come across this guy when your game is tight, and not on a beta downswing.

A girl that’s less discriminating is less likely to come across a man that sweeps her off her feet, and you into divorce court.

What this reader is hinting about is known as The Template, (or, in more poetic language, the Ideal Lover). Every person, man and woman, has a template etched into their brains from birth that, upon the pubertal blossoming, guides them like an invisible genital towards certain types of people who most closely match their ideal. The Template is a force to be reckoned with, because it derives its power from deeply embedded genetic imprinting passed down from generations of ancestors following their own similar templates.

Master seducers beware: once a girl has laid eyes on her ideal man she will swat away the importunings from objectively superior suitors like so many buzzing flies. Not even Jedi game has the force to distract a girl from pursuing with single-minded focus the man of her Template dreams. The good news is that The Template is very rarely fulfilled; out of 1,000 men a woman might meet over many years perhaps one or two of them will press all her buttons. So as a practical matter, The Template is no barricade to free and easy sex for a fly by night womanizer.

The reader makes a good point about the supply of men being limited not just by the numerical sex ratio but also by the self-imposed mate choice limitations of women. A romantically idealistic woman fully under the sway of her Template is a woman with dating hand, because very few men will be able to satisfy her prerequisites for love. Luckily, most women are not so beholden to the prudish pull of their Templates. Usually, women age out of slavish devotion to their templates as reality slowly but inexorably pounds into their heads that their Template in Shining Armor is more real as a fantasy than as an actual man. For examples of girls still enslaved by the dictates of their Templates, stroll through any high school corridor.

This is not to say women (and men) give up on their Templates entirely. We have all experienced that heart-quickening epiphany when the woman of our Templates dances into our vision, and for a moment our self-regard and worries vanish like tears in rain as our brains rev furiously and every nerve in our bodies readies for a shot at conquest. But we shelve the Template most days, figuring that the constant heeding of its call is often a flimsy pretext for rationalizing solitude.

Back to the reader’s premise: sluts sleep around, but only with a select few men who meet their Templates, i.e. within narrow mate criteria parameters. The premise has a kernel of truth, but is incomplete, unless we expand those narrow parameters to include most alpha males. While I have argued before that sluts are not less discriminating than chaste women, they aren’t exactly starry-eyed romantics staring pensively out their bedroom windows at the late summer moon, smug with the knowledge that their virtue remains untrammeled until a superlative cock shows up to rescue her lust from its prison of self-denial. A slut is still a slut, whether she accrues her cock notches with a subset of high status men or with randomly chosen men who just happened to be in the right place at the right time and didn’t fuck it up by saying the wrong thing.

One should remember that the alpha male, by dint of his universal attractiveness, strikes deep limbic notes in women regardless of the proximity of his characteristics to a woman’s Template. There are enough of these interchangeable alpha males on the prowl that a dedicated slut could notch quite a few cocks despite the very narrow parameters she sets for herself.

So what do we make of the reader’s bold contention that “groupie sluts” are worse long-term prospects than “inclusive sluts” because of the potential that a stray man meeting the former’s Template would quickly and easily tempt her to infidelity? Should men who are seeking LTRs drop any women from consideration who express a fascination with, say, pasty-faced activist anarcho-libertarians? Should a man who meets a woman’s template worry that he could be replaced by another, similarly templated man? Live by the template, die by the template?

No. Although I admire the reader’s logical chain of thought leading to his contrarian conclusion, in reality inclusive sluts are no less a risk factor than groupie sluts. A girl who comes across ten eligible men per day may not swoon as uncontrollably as a girl who sees an eligible man once per day, but the fidelity assurance from the lack of swooning is offset by the increase in permissible suitors.

To put it another way, would you rather compete with one (from your woman’s point of view) rare, exceptional man or with ten less rare, do-able men? Statistically, I doubt the groupie slut is any less faithful than the inclusive slut.

Then there is the matter of correlations. A jaded woman with lax standards who has a history of spreading for all taxonomy of penii is going to be a cheating risk no matter how swoon-proof she is. Her atrophied Template is no guarantee of fidelity, but it is a guarantee of a weary, utilitarian outlook on life from whom getting genuine love would be like squeezing blood from a stone. A woman like that simply has fewer hurdles to jump before being comfortable enough to relinquish her hole for plundering.

Conversely, a woman who has only slept with indie band bass players wearing guyliner is no flight risk at all if you happen to possess the emo phenotype yourself. If you don’t, you still have rarity of number on your side. Keep her away from hipster nightclubs and you significantly reduce competition pressure. And you must have done something right to bed her if you didn’t meet her stringent Template. That alone should infuse you with unstoppable confidence. Some of the strongest relationships I’ve known were unintuitive pairings between Template centered women and men who didn’t match their Templates. That is because those men brought something new, and exciting, to the table, which emboldened their women to wriggle free of the straitjacket of their templates.

Read Full Post »

The Perfect Christmas Gifts For Your Girlfriend(s)

Let’s face it, gift giving is a chore for most men. After the lustful glow of a relationship has worn off (2 weeks), men find little joy shopping for acceptable gifts, purchasing them, and giving them to their girlfriends. This is because men know that, in reality, gift giving is the danegeld we pay to women to put off for a few months any soul-searching emotional meltdowns. Fact: Men could do without the obligations, crass consumerism and bogus bonhomie of the holidays entirely as long as the heavy drinking and eating weren’t scotched.

In this spirit, here is a guide for getting your girl the optimal (and by “optimal”, I mean “most likely to secure you an eggnog-slicked blowjob) gift this joyous Christmas season. (This guide applies as well to you lonely revelers of also-ran holidays like Hanukkah and Eid. Kwanzaa is too silly for consideration.)

The quality and type of optimal gift to give will depend on the momentousness of the holiday or occasion being celebrated and the seriousness of the relationship you have with the girl at the time of the holiday. Generally speaking, birthdays and anniversaries require more romantic, thoughtful gifts, while Christmas and its spin-offs are a time to indulge your inner child on gifts that are fun and show some of your personality. In short, romantic gifts showcase your attentiveness to what she wants, while fun gifts showcase your creativity and aspects of your personality. Christmas is usually more fun to shop for gifts because of this reason; expectations are mercifully constrained, and you can chill out free from the pressure of finding that perfect engraved bracelet which says “I love you when I’m plundering your body”.

To help the gift-buying process along, think of the optimal gift not as a gift to her, but a gift to you — the gift of ensuring that she will put out for another three months, hassle-free.

The Chateau Gift-Buying Guide

If she is a mistress:

Something perishable, like a dinner or bouquet of flowers. You don’t want evidence of your infidelity lingering on either you or her.

Upside: Keeps her expectations low. If you give her expensive stuff she’ll assume you’re thinking of leaving your wife to be with her.

Downside: A mistress always has you by the balls, unless you have managed the trick of persuading your wife to the spiritual benefits of polygyny. Go cheap on the gifts and she may show up at your front door at 2Am with a bag of candy.

If she is a Christmas Eve one night stand:

A six-pack of Michelob Light.

If she is three-week old fresh pussy:

Be careful! Many a man has learnt* a painful financial lesson when his loins were in charge of his credit card. Best bet: don’t buy the potential slut anything. At three weeks, she could still be fucking her ex, or flirting with the bartender she thinks she has a shot with. If you must buy something, make it goofy and cheap, like a collection of Silly Bandz. A goofy cheap gift says all the right things to a girl who is still feeling you out for your alpha cred. She will know you aren’t emotionally invested in her, and this will kickstart her hamster to raise your value and spin a storyline that has her chasing you, instead of the other way around.

*Last night I bangt a girl.

If she is a fling (you’ve been dating for fewer than three months, and plan to keep it that way):

For birthdays, tickets to a show for a band both you and her like. Use her as a pawn to flirt with hipster chicks at the show.

For Christmas, a scarf and a bottle of Chivas. Drink until she’s hot and/or interesting.

If she is in the three to four month limbo between a fling and a girlfriend (and you’re not sure if she’s the one):

For birthdays, tickets to a show for a band she likes but you don’t necessarily like. Use the flirting hipster chicks as pawns to raise her sexing temp.

For Christmas, a stuffed animal with a homemade card (illegibly written) tucked into its arm. Feeling extra generous? Wrap the scarf you bought for her around the stuffed animal’s neck.

If she is your girlfriend, i.e. #1 crush:

For birthdays or anniversaries, bracelet or necklace (stay away from rings; the association is too strong) if you are a beta. A puppy if you are a greater beta. A hot cocktail dress with accompanying lingerie if you are an alpha. A homemade mix tape if you are a super alpha. Play her a song you wrote on your guitar if you are an emo alpha. Airline tix to Kiev, if you want to give her a gift that you’ll both enjoy.

For Christmas, ditch the conventional trinkets of romantic servitude in favor of fun and funny. Buy her a print of that awesome Kramer painting. Frame some of your best photos to hang on her wall (this serves the insidious dual purpose of continually reminding her of you should you two break up). Get her a collection of movies you know she likes. Or Wii foreplay games. Buy her some wicked “Eyes Wide Shut” masks for her bookshelf (or bedroom play). One caveat: Never buy a girl shoes. You won’t get it right, and she’ll resent you for robbing her of a chance to go shoe shopping.

Gift giving for girlfriends is a minefield. If you play the long game, you don’t want to make a habit of giving expensive or hard-to-acquire gifts, because that will raise her expectations and thus make her intolerable to live with two years down the road. Multiply her insufferable entitlement complex by ten should you make the mistake of marrying her. Remember that a girl will evaluate not just your worth, but her own worth as well based on the priciness or thoughtfulness of the gifts you give her.

Maxim #87: The more expensive or thoughtful the gift you give a girl, the greater the risk that she will subconsciously begin to think she is too good for you.

Corollary to Maxim #87: If you are dating out of your league, or you are dating a young hot babe in her prime, you should do the exact opposite of what everyone will tell you to do — *don’t* buy her expensive gifts. Be particularly wary of advice from women. No woman in the world is capable of thinking clearly or impartially on the matter of “acceptable” levels of male provisioning. Even old, fat hausfrau hogs will expect mountains of jewels in offerings from men.

Set the alpha tempo early by dispensing your gifts infrequently and unpredictably. Avoid buying big ticket items like jewelry or superlatively romantic emblems like large bouquets of roses if she still has high dating market value. (One rose is cool, though.) Grateful men give expensive gifts, but grateful men don’t excite women. Be an ungrateful man. Be a Skittles man this holiday season.

A girl who has options simply will not appreciate expensive gifts like a girl who is desperate for your love. In fact, expensive, ego-stroking gifts can shut off the tingle spigot and spur a girl to reevaluate her options on the open market. The way to nip this female neural compulsion in the bud is to frequently pull up short in your indicators of affection for her. An example of an excellent HIOA (humbling indicator of affection) is a pair of tube socks stuffed with Hershey kisses.

If she’s your aging wife in a country with divorce laws that favor the husband:

Nothing.

If she’s your aging wife in the USA:

Refinance the mortgage to buy her the moon.

If she is girl #3 in your harem:

Nothing. If you can swing an open harem without consequence, profligate gift-giving will only undermine your hard work. Instead, treat your girls to what they always get — the gift of your jackhammer. (Exception: when building a harem, it sometimes helps to play one girl off another by selectively giving them gifts of varying quality.)

If you’re trying to dump her:

A toaster oven. Or kitty litter if you’re a cheap bastard.

Read Full Post »

Cocktease Asks “What Am I Doing Wrong?”

I have this friend, a girl, who is a total attention whore. Fittingly, she would glow with pride at being called that. As a cute, young single girl without brat baggage and of slender proportions and flirtatious disposition, she usually has some beta or two wrapped around her finger at any given time. You could accurately describe her as an eternal ingenue. She is always complaining about meeting men, yet she hardly goes a day without a “date”, i.e. some man willing to do her a favor for the reward of a three minute makeout. But no sex. Never sex! Oh no, there is hardly a man good enough for THAT prize. One time, a bread pudding excuse of a man who had been on three dry dates with her over the course of six months drove an hour and a half from out of town to drive her to an appointment she had only a few blocks from where she lived. She didn’t want to spend the money on a cab. Naturally, when she called him she framed it as a “chance for me and you to get together and hang”. And just as naturally, he bit down on that stinky bait. I bet he furiously masturbated on the drive over with thoughts of what he fantasized would happen.

Yes, there really are girls like this, and yes there really are… ahem… “men” who fall for the shit girls like this pull.

If it isn’t obvious by now, this girl is the succubus that strikes fear, loathing and lust in the hearts of betas everywhere. She is your worst nightmare; the epitome of every self-entitled pedestaled princess bitch we talk about here at this exclusive Chateau. When Satan made the mold for the quintessential cockteasing attention whore, she poured out.

And yet I like her. She’s a lot of fun to be around. I dig her style. Since I’m not interested in her as a potential lover, her games have no effect on me. Her manipulations of men who chase after her is something I can observe from a third party distance, with raised eyebrow and gleeful smirk. She knows this, and of course it drives her to distraction around me. I may be the only man in her life, besides her long term ex-boyfriend, who calls her bluff and swats aside her shit tests. Thus, I have earned her trust and confidence.

While my instinctual sympathies lie with her smitten suckers suitors, I don’t blame her for playing them like puppets. If I were in her shoes, I would take advantage of those needy losers, too. I don’t care how cute a girl is, if she asks you to do some outrageous favor for her — like driving an hour and a half to chauffeur her to an appointment just because she asked — for no sex in return, you are a chump.

A mark.

A dupe.

A fool.

A beta.

In this day and age, it is amazing there are so many men who think that supplication is the magic key to her secret garden. The Chateau has been in business for over three years, and yet the tidal wave of betas who fail at the most elementary concepts of female sexual psychology continues rolling on, crushing hopes and dreams and blue balls like so many beachfront tiki bars.

So one day, Queen of the Cockteases asks me a question. She was hanging on my arm, partly drunk.

“I keep pushing men away. I find them, and go out with them, and then they disappear! Seriously, real question. What am I doing wrong?”

“I haven’t noticed any men disappearing. Didn’t some dude just buy you tickets to a play and invite you to his shore house?”

“Oh, that. Yeah, but that’s not something. I mean the guys I like.”

“Poor bastard.”

“Are you going to help me? I want so bad to be your friend. We can be good friends if you just try with me.”

“You’re a basketcase after a few Shirley Temples.” For a moment, I thought about going hardcore on her ego and edifying her with the lessons gleaned from evo psych and game, but I was tired and not in the mood to talk much. Plus, I doubted it would register. I kept it light instead. “Stop going up to men. Let them come to you.”

“Why? If I like a guy I want to meet him.”

“Yeah, that’s great, but guys like to chase. If you approach them first, they will downgrade you. We give more value to girls who play a little coy.”

“And if he doesn’t approach me?”

“Suck it up. You can’t have every man in the world. Look, most likely you are approaching the top guys, the ones you think are the best. A guy like that has options. All he sees is a chick who has just showed she really likes him, which means sex is only a few drinks away. But you’re a major cocktease, so when they realize that it isn’t happening, they bolt.”

“Hey, I’m not that kind of girl.”

“We all know that. But they don’t. If a guy comes up to you first, he’s more likely to stick around putting up with your bullshit. But then you have the problem of wanting guys to chase you, but only respecting guys who don’t. That’s why you go up to them first and flirt like crazy. If the guy approaches you, you think he’s not worthy.”

“What’s that supposed to mean?”

“It means you only get horny for guys you have to chase. You’re the classic example of a girl who wants what she can’t have.”

“That’s not true. I don’t waste my time with guys who don’t like me.”

“I can tell you really need an asshole in your life.”

Communication on the subject was done by that point. On certain matters, a woman’s brain simply can’t process in any internally logical way the implications of the discussion. Her biosocial female imperative is one of those matters. Try it some time. Explain to a girl why she behaves the way she does with men and watch as her eyes glaze over with incomprehension or she lashes out in fury at you for rattling the peace of her inner hamster sanctum. You can get girls to nod in agreement with you, as long as you don’t make them the subject of your elucidation. Girls have a habit of perceiving conversations about abstractions personally, and won’t abide finger pointing in their direction. The solution is to explain human social dynamics in terms that will spare her ego.

A cocktease is an older term for an attention whore. They are one and the same psychologically; only the details of execution differ. The cocktease’s ideal man would be someone she approaches first, but who doesn’t flirt back. He just stands there being amused by her antics, making her work harder and harder for his attention, until his value is outsized in her mind. One step forward, two steps back, is his motto for dealing with cockteases. And then when the time is ripe, he pushes hard for the close, leaving her little head space to rationalize yet another coquettish escape.

Unfortunately, the Western world is full of chauffeuring betas pumping princess egos the land over. For men in the know, like you and me and hopefully the rest of the readers of this site, this means the girls we meet have been pre-primed to act like selfish, self-loving brats. These special snowflakes and their boot-licking beta enablers both are our insufferable foes. Chastise the one and you must chastise the other. Nothing of worth operates in a vacuum.

Read Full Post »

The Times Of Year You Should Watch Your Woman Carefully

Via numerous sources, an “infographic” datanaut has put together a graph based on Facebook relationship status updates that shows the peak times of year for breakups to happen.

As you can see, breakups occur most often in the weeks before Spring Break and Christmas. (Breakups remain high during Spring Break; in contrast, they plummet on Christmas Day itself. Maybe if Christmas was marked by the sight of thousands of scantily clad babes, it would compete with Spring Break for the dump olympics.) Obviously, this graph is skewed toward the relationship dynamics of college students, what with Facebook being primarily the domain of that demographic and college-aged exhibitionists the least likely to exercise discretion about their personal lives.

There is a smaller uptick in breakups just prior to Valentine’s Day (don’t wanna spend the money on this bitch I don’t even much like), April Fool’s Day (I love you… haha! April Fool’s! we’re through!), and the beginning of summer (gotta make room for my summer romance!).

The linked article says that Mondays are the most popular days for breaking up, but I think that is a misread of the data. Most Facebook dorks update their status announcements the day after a big personal change in life, so it’s likely more accurate to say breaking up happens frequently on weekends. Which would make sense, because if you’re sick and tired of a lover, the grating prolonged presence of that person on a wide-open weekend would serve to wonderfully focus your mind on getting the hell out of Dodge.

The data gives seducers valuable info in which to tailor their game for maximum harem retention. First, we know both from anecdote and extrapolating from divorce data that women initiate 60-80% of all relationship breakups. The evo psych reasons for this are that women think more long term than do men, and are thus less likely than men to coast in a marginally-acceptable relationship for the sexual benefits. Women also have a more stringent list of criteria they demand from their lovers, and failing to meet bullet points 457-463 can cause her to reassess your value.

Not only that, but when men aren’t doing the breaking up (and why would they? pussy attached to an unlikeable personality is still pussy, and pussy you aren’t planning to marry still feels as good), women in their infinite passive-aggressiveness are manipulating men into breaking up with them.

Second, women on the verge of breaking up can often be brought back from the brink by a renewed application of core game principles. If you can predict with decent accuracy which days of the year she is thinking about breaking up, you can take preventive countermeasures. If you are a womanizer with a harem (i.e., multiple long-term relationships), it pays to know not just how to reignite her love, but when her love is most likely to dissipate. Timing your efforts creates efficiencies that help you better manage multiple girlfriends.

Women mostly break up because the betas they are with have ceased activating their tingle machine, but let’s not forget that a not insignificant minority of women initiate breakups because their alpha lovers have stopped lavishing them with affection and other signs of commitment. If you are in the latter category, your job is easy, should you choose to accept it. Pay her a few compliments and give her a massage once in a while, and she’ll be back in the fold.

However, if you are like most de-balled men in long germ relationships, you are being dumped because she has grown weary of your betafication. Familiarity doesn’t necessarily breed contempt, but familiarity with betas sure as hell does. For you, betaboy, the goal is to turn up the aloof asshole in late November, mid-February and early June. Other times of the year, particularly the autumnal hunkering down, you can take her for granted.

In sum, herby betas need to be extra vigilant after Thanksgiving. Turn off your cell, refuse to answer texts right away, stop nuzzling in her bosom like a hungry cat, and call her from places where girls are squealing in the background. Once Christmas is over, you can return to being your watery-eyed, limp-noodled self.

Read Full Post »

The Forager/Farmer Thesis Is Wrong

Robin Hanson has been beating the drum on his liberaltarian wet dream known as the forager/farmer thesis in a series of posts. Basically, “liberal” values and lifestyle are a reflection of humanity’s ancient forager (hunter-gatherer) ways, while “conservative”, or traditional, values and lifestyle are emergent properties of our relatively more recent 10,000 year old farmer (agricultural) heritage. Modern foragers in the form of cafe-loitering SWPLs sipping dragonwell tea and reading Dan Savage columns are essentially freeriding on the industrial and moral substrates that were created by rules-following and hierarchical farmer ancestors. Thanks to their comfy livings and safe environments, elite cosmopolitan liberals in Western societies are returning to the values and lifestyles of their distant forager forebears, while modern traditionalists hew to more rigid codes of conduct and warn them (in so many words) that all foraging and no farming makes Jack a weak boy. (You can see where this is heading.)

If you buy Hanson’s thesis, this neatly explains blue state vs red state, Obama vs Bush, open borders nuts vs immigration realists, and Apple vs Windows.

Hanson relies for much of his speculative evidence on the Sex At Dawn book, which I promiscuously manhandled here. But there’s too much wrong with the claims made by that book to sufficiently lend support to the Forager vs Farmer (i.e., liberal vs conservative) thesis of clashing values and lifestyles.

For instance, Hanson and Ryan elide the force of jealousy in shaping human sexual dynamics. If we were built for polyamory as Ryan claims, or free love promiscuity as Hanson says, then jealousy would not have evolved to the extent it did (among Euro-descended people at least) to become a powerfully ingrained emotional hindbrain response to infidelity or suspicions of cheating. Both men and women experience jealousy, though men seem to react more violently when in its throes, (as would be predicted by a “farmer” reading of sociosexuality, since men stand more to lose by a cheating lover).

In addition, just about every polyamorous, free love utopia/forager commune that has been tried in historical record has utterly failed, some of them spectacularly. (It’s no coincidence that most dedicated polyamorists are androgynous, middle-aged frumps.)

Hanson and Ryan claim foragers are/were nonviolent compared to farmers. But from everything I’ve read on the matter, that is wrong as well: modern hunter-gatherers have impressive levels of tribal violence, mostly of the raiding and randomly savage variety. Farmers are also capable of violence, but when they do it the violence is coordinated and planned; the random individual violence that typifies forager society isn’t a steady state feature of farmer existence. I’m not going to dig around for relevant links, so I’ll throw it open to the commenters to do the dirty work.

Finally, a big point of Hanson’s repackaged thesis is that “rich and safe” modern foragers — implicitly the intellectual and social liberal elites of Western society — pursue and advocate a promiscuous lifestyle. Except the data show that isn’t necessarily true. Higher IQ men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity and are less likely to cheat than lower IQ men.

There are too many holes in this tidy farmer/forager outlook to take it as anything more than United States of Canada porn for self-satisfied cosmopolitan lefties to jack their head hamsters off to. And I say this as someone who lives to the fullest the modern, promiscuous forager lifestyle. I know its personal appeal, and its immolating potential for the wider society.

Read Full Post »

Are PUAs Douchebags And Hucksters?

Kidstrangelove sent in a link to a video of self-proclaimed top PUA gurus attempting to demonstrate their craft by picking up a hot talk show host. He wanted to know if I agreed that the PUAs embarrassed themselves. I saw the video (which has now been made private) and do agree that the PUAs do not come off looking very suave. If this is all I knew of them, and I was in the market to learn game, I would not give my money to them for instruction.

But to be fair to the parade of men who threw their worst best game at a female talk show host who was anticipating their moves and relishing the thought of humiliating them on live TV, they were playing against a stacked deck. Few men, no matter how smooth they are with women in real life, will come off looking good under those circumstances.

So I cut them a break for their woeful performances. But this does lead one to wonder why high profile PUAs would risk certain embarrassment and discredit to their business model by hawking their skills on a talk show where all the rules are in the female host’s favor and the whole thing is a set-up to entrap the PUA into making a fool of himself. I doubt even Mystery — a man who has certainly banged more hot babes than 99% of the men in the world can claim to have banged — would do well in such a distorted scenario.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the desire for fame exceeds common sense. Maybe these guys think “Hey, I have a low chance of avoiding humiliation by doing this, but the TV exposure will certainly redound to more clients for my workshops and more chicks on my schlong.” They might be right; who knows, I don’t see their financial or bedroom balance sheets.

“Bro-town”

Kidstrangelove then linked to this post by a guy named Rob Judge (reputedly one of NYC’s best players), who eviscerates (semi-justifiably, in my view) a lot of the silliness that passes for PUAdom.

The Pickup Artist is no longer someone who walks among us. The term, once a secret endearment to men on the Internet, has become a label of satire and shame. To aspire to be a PUA—or the ever-lofty mPUA—is now, ironically, the most rAFC you could do. Because The Pickup Artist is dead… […]

Let me ask you this, Pickup Artist: If you weren’t allowed to tell anyone you got that girl’s number, would it still be cool? Would you still take her number and run like a thief in the night? Or would you shift your focus from getting #-closes to actually trying to get girls.

In fact, that brings up an important point: Why ARE you doing this? Why are you studying pickup material, involved in the community, and reading this blog? Is it to meet awesome women? Or is it to get the awesome approval of guys?

See, almost every guy will scream at me, “It’s to meet awesome women!” But what do those same guys scream when they do meet awesome women…”LAY REPORT BRO!!!” These same guys who claim they’re out to meet women are the first ones on the Brag Express with a one-way ticket to Bro-town whenever they do anything that resembles meeting an awesome woman.

Lay reports can serve as a useful learning tool for newbies, as long as they are written in the spirit of knowledge sharing and analytic insight. But too often, they degenerate into bragging matches, and that’s where the douchery rears its ugly head. Back in the day, on sites like Fastseduction.com, lay reports were gold mines of insider knowledge about the workings of the female mind; today, more of them resemble the chest-thumpings of frat boys and nerds speaking through Casanova avatars.

As those who know me very well know, I ring the death knell of The Pickup Artist because I want to see guys actually meet and attract awesome women. And The Pickup Artist will not help you do that. In fact, the first thing any guys who wants to meet and attract awesome women has to do is sift through his intentions. He must remove any inkling of “Bro-town” from his approach. I challenge you not to tell a soul about your “infield accomplishments” for a full month and see how much better you are at attracting quality women.

OK, so this guy Rob Judge is marketing himself by positioning his business model as the antidote to widely assumed PUA hucksterism and douchiness. Nothing wrong with that, but it does suggest his slam of the PUA community should be taken with a grain of salt.

The useful advice here is that you should live your womanizing life as if the opinions of men didn’t matter to you. In real life, I rarely broadcast my pickups. Truth is, I can’t be bothered. The allure of recounting in vivid detail last night’s seduction with a bunch of male friends lost its appeal after legal drinking age. Sure, if I take a call from a really good friend the next day, I’ll tell him about the chick I scored. That will never change. But most of the time, my pickups, my flings, my one night stands, and even my long term hookups, remain shrouded in shadowy mystery from the eyes of acquaintances. Often, very good friends won’t meet my girlfriends until a month after I have been dating them. My friends don’t seem bothered by this; in fact, they admire it, because it shows I’m serious about the effort I put into romancing women.

This attitude imparts my lifestyle with a bit of gravitas and, more practically speaking, allows me a measure of control over my relationships (and my ex-relationships) that would be harder to attain were the whole world to know every detail of my licentious misdeeds. And it does matter for pickup success; when it’s just me versus the women of the world, and not me and my bros versus the women of the world, I can better focus on the task at hand. Women will know, too, if your motives are tainted with anything but achieving the heights of pleasure with them.

Read Full Post »

Attention Whore Hyperactivity Disorder

Roosh’s post about the future of game brought to mind a trend in female behavior regarding girls and their self-perceived value shooting through the roof thanks to relentless male attention from social network sites and online dating.

Thought experiment: imagine two girls with an objective beauty rank of 6. Which girl will have a higher opinion of her attractiveness to men?

a. A rural girl without internet access who does not have an online presence and has only received flirtatious attention from a handful of men who live in her town?

b. A thoroughly modernized and plugged-in girl with a Facebook account that she posts photos to every day which gather comments from twenty different men, a Twitter account with a hundred male followers who read her every passing inane thought, and a Match.com online profile that receives emails from hundreds of horny men on a weekly basis?

You can see where this is going. It would be a miracle if girl (b) didn’t delude herself that she was a 7, or maybe even an 8, and behave accordingly. Conversely, there is a good chance girl (a) perceives herself having lower value than she does, because of the paucity of male feedback.

It’s long been a contention of this blog that a girl’s attractiveness level is objectively self-evident; that is, that girls intuitively know what their ranking is without men to offer feedback. They have mirrors after all. But because the female mind is a mushily pliable organ, and because so much of the female prefrontal cortex is immersed in the job of spinning self-delusions (spin hamster spin!), it stands to reason that a modern, technological context — within which instafame and the amplified sexual barter that flow from it are only a click away — could conceivably sever the holy link between mirror and female self-assessment.

There is evidence that this is happening today in the West on a scale unknown in all of history. Thanks to Facebook and all the online dating sites, women are the recipients of more male flattery and solicitude (however insincere or inept) than they know what to do with, and this is as true for the hotties as it is for the middling plain janes. (The ugly girls continue to find no relief in the celebritizing factory of the internet; their parched romantic ostracism remains intractable.) The result of this massive, all-encompassing meddling with the gluttonous female ego will be a dark pink world of entitled, demanding princesses holding unrealistic standards and bullet point checklists a mile long.

A woman come of age in this world is a ravenous beast who has had a tube of sunshine shoved up her asshole and an IV of Megan Fox attitude pumping her full of unicorn rainbow buttercup gas.

What sane man would want to deal with that?

Enter game. How do you handle a woman who thinks she is God’s gift to men?

You knock her bloated opinion of herself down a few notches.

And how do you do this?

You qualify her. You make demands of her. You extract compliance from her. You tease her. You neg her. You deny her expectations until her lust is so overpowering you may as well have paralyzed her with your supersecret magnum look.

In other words, you flip the seduction script so that she is chasing you.

Old-fashioned men who speak in stentorian tones about a man’s duty to god, family, country and his obligation to resist the pull of degenerate hedonism cannot fathom this steely-eyed view of seduction and women and why it is more necessary now than ever. It is all Greek to them. “Too late to start the training…”

The fame laboratory that is the internet has produced a generation of women high on themselves. Has there ever been a time when the neg — also formally known as the backhanded compliment — was more suited for the social milieu in which it operates than now? Obesity is to blame for game, yes, but now we can add another variable to the cause of the rise of game: online dating and social network sites. Want a recipe for maximizing marginally attractive women’s egos and fueling their self-delusions about their sexual worth? Combine an ever-fattening female population with the attention whoring of online social networking, mix liberally with desperately horny men latching onto any semi-slender chick, and you’ve got a dating scene that mercilessly cuts betaboys off at the knees and rewards the biggest jerks who are expert at pinpricking those inflated ego balloons.

If present trends are future projections, this crisis of the expanding female ego + waistline is only going to get worse. It is easy to foresee a toxic dating environment where the majority of girls — marbled throughout with chubsters — become unapproachable, ballbusting bitches who retreat to the reassuring confines of the online dating sites, Facebook, blogs and news magazines when their egos suffer a minor setback in the field.

*Field -noun
1. the world formerly known as real life; a world characterized by living, breathing humans aware of subtle changes in tone and facial expression.
2. a world notably free of duckbill poses.

Here is a prediction: the more women organize their lives around Facebook and online dating, the harder it will be to game them in real life. And the uglier that women get in body and soul, the more they will turn to the internet for their flattery fix. It’s a vicious feedback loop. You see, real life has some big disadvantages. One, it’s not as good at hiding physical flaws. Two, it’s an uncontrolled environment.

On Facebook, chicks can manage their human interactions with the precision of a German machinist. Every picture, every word, every like or dislike, the timing of replies and the length of ASCII conversations — all are under the user’s complete control in the virtual world. The uncertainties of fleshly communication, with its judging eyes scanning bodies top to bottom and its unexpected quips that shatter expectation, are rendered obsolete. In the electronic social networking world, the woman and her prerogatives are preeminent.

There is one countermeasure that can keep this growing monster in check: face to face interaction. Only when the 4s, 5s and 6s confront the vicious reality of men ignoring them in clubs and at parties for the hotter, skinnier babes, will we see their egos fall back to earth (and concurrently, their personalities improve). This is a call to arms. Men need to walk away from Facebook and online dating sites and force these chicks back into the harsh Klieg lights of the primal mating field where the frontlines of cold, pitiless judgement are everywhere. It is as much a man’s destiny to humble women as it is to build civilizations.

Want to intrigue a girlfriend until her love for you is all-consuming? Stay off Facebook. Refuse to abide her Craven New World.

A brutally long, hard economic contraction might restabilize the dating market. How ironic, given that our current troubles are largely the result of handing women the vote.

Read Full Post »