Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Good Life’ Category

Readers sometimes ask, “CH, if you were imprisoned in a cage of domesticity, how would you deal with the cramping of your style? What would do when your old lady is a faint echo of her former pumpworthy glory?” I’ve always half-glibly said, “liquor and hookers”. Now a reader happily affirms the essential ingredients of the CH recipe for the good life. We’ll call it CAP:

Careerism, Alcoholism, Promiscuity.

drunicusrex writes,

Careerism plus functioning alcoholism plus promiscuity is perfectly fine in men, so long as they support their families well, and raise strong, intelligent children.

It’s also very possible as a married man to enjoy a few drinks, keep a mistress discreetly, and be a fine father.

Most every wife will peter out eventually, in either looks or libido (often both) and yet a strong, successful guy is supposed to give up sex after two or three kids pop out?
I think not.

Careerism, alcoholism, and eat pray fuck are disastrous in women. That shit ends marriages PDQ, and certainly trashes any maternal or parental instincts. Fuck that. Women who act like men make truly ghastly moms. (And stay at home Dads getting in touch with their metro side are questionable to say the least.)

Traditional sex roles = happiness.

So now wifey is falling asleep in the couch. Earlier from outside the window I saw some college girls heading out for St Pat’s stroll past our yard, towards the bars and shops around the corner.

Our little resort/college town does, in fact, have nearly as many temptations as any big coastal city.
But I have things to do at work tomorrow ….
perhaps I’ll just go out for one or two….

Executive summary: You reverse the sexual polarities at your peril and great risk to your family.

A self-confident culture on the upswing features a lot of men following the CAP formula for happiness. A few drinks, a young pretty mistress, and a diligently pursued passion (which could be a career or a hobby) is the secret sauce that inspirits men and motivates them to continue providing for their dutiful wives and paternally assured kids.

But, a sickly, self-negating culture on the downswing reverses this formula. Men become women and women become men. All sorts of crap flows outward from that toxic strew.

Careerist men: Strong, attractive, admirable.
Careerist women: Unfeminine, bitchy, untrustworthy.

Imbibing men: Fun, charming, sociable.
Imbibing women: Slutty, crass, poor mothers.

Promiscuous men: Happy, contented, appreciative.
Promiscuous women: Deranged, restless, divorce risks.

You’ve been warned.

Read Full Post »

The shapes of female figures have real world consequences, for both men’s capacity to experience pleasure and willingness to commit, and for women’s ability to leverage the sexual market to snag a winner man and fulfill their romantic needs. Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues, it’s difficult to overestimate just how much a good body shape assists women in the promise of a healthy and happy love life.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a lie insofar as it presupposes every female body type is equally attractive. They aren’t. Women don’t have equal sexual or marriageable worth. Some body types are better than others. And one body type is so much better than the others that women who possess it can name their price.

The Anti-Gnostic, ruddy and taut from doing a yeoman’s job disinfecting that cistern of stupidity at Cheap Chalupas whenever the subject turns to mass nonwhite immigration, forwards a handy chart illustrating the four five female body types.

He adds for effect,

Female body types: hourglass, pear, banana, apple.

I’d add a body type of “rotund”, given the historically unprecedented numbers of fertile, obese females.

Never bonked an apple or a rotund. Ever. I’ve had some widely variant sexual partners, but if she doesn’t have inflection points that result in a definite waist, the right subinsular is just not going to be firing. No amount of drugs or desperation on earth could get me over that hump.

The recently added Rotund fifth female body type:

Who said America’s inventive spirit is dead? We’ve invented a whole new female body type!

Of the five, rotund is obviously the most disfiguring, and the ugliest female body type. A woman with this non-shape will suffer MASSIVE constraints on her mate choice options. Compared to less celestial women, she will have the least number of men pursuing her, and those who do will be the lowest value men. Her odds of spending many years enduring painful involuntary solitude are very high. Like her male analogue the socially clumsy nerdo, she will likely spend months, perhaps even years, in parched involuntary sexlessness. And any man she does manage to lure into her sticky, bulbous, pitcher plant vagina will be less interested in a longer-term commitment with her than he would with a woman of more human shape.

The Rotund female body type is so bad in contrast with the others that it practically deserves its own graphic. Correction: It needs its own graphic due to screen size limitations. So we boot Violet Blobbybarge into Jupiterian orbit where she belongs, and rank the remaining four female body types in ascending order of attractiveness.

Apple

Not nearly as atrociously repulsive as the Rotund, the Apple nonetheless squats lumply below the other three body types. Top heaviness works for linebackers, not women.

Pear

The Pear is interesting, because much of her sexual appeal or lack thereof depends on the distribution of her fulcrum fat. If her fat sits grotesquely on her hips like a hoop dress, and her ass juts like a National Geographic native, she will turn off more (white) men than the Apple-shaped girl. If she sports an incipient fupa, even worse. The entire deleterious effect is magnified if her narrow-shouldered upper body sways like a swamp reed atop the mountain of fat below.

But if the Pear’s fat isn’t obtrusive, and it rests gracefully and smoothly on child-birthing hips without too much distortion, the Pear can be quite bangable. Unfortunately, most Pears aren’t this lucky.

Banana

I expect this categorization to elicit the most opposition from the penis gallery. Men like curves, and will assume the Pear has more of those boner-inducing curves than the Banana. But that’s not how it always plays out. Bananas have curves that are proportionate to their overall slender body shape. The waist-hip ratio is what counts, not the absolute hip width.

Bananas are your archetypical athletic girls: Tall, slender and built like sex pistons. Bananas are overrepresented among porn starlets, probably because they have the optimal balance of higher testosterone-induced horniness and thin body shapes that arouse male viewers. If the Banana has a narrow waist to complement her lithe hips, and her torso isn’t overdeveloped, she will turn more men’s eyes than the Pear. However if the Banana is tubular, the Pear with pleasing pelvic padding will win more head-swivel contests.

Keep in mind that men with a keen future time orientation who are also seeking relationships will be better at projecting the Banana and the Pear into the future, whereupon they will see with mental clarity what happens to each type of body after ten or twenty years, and the Pear doesn’t come out looking so good under those conditions. The Banana typically holds up better, while the Pear turns into a Weeble.

Hourglass

And here we arrive, at last, to the goddess. My, but she is a tall drink of tumescence. The vast…. VAST… majority of men prefer hourglass-shaped women. Those perfect Playboy measurements — 34/24/34 and mostly unchanged in their boner-popping power since time immemorial — are so desired by men that women with this body type run laps around their sexual market competition.

The Hourglass lady is desired by the most men, pursued by the most high value men, and when pursued is solicited the most frequently by men with offers of long-term commitment. If she is also pretty of face, she has, for all practical purposes, unlimited sexual market options.

***

There it is. Women would do well to understand and accept the visual acumen with which men make their split-second judgment of women’s bodies. Men are frickin electron microscopes in human form when they’re visually assessing women’s figures. A centimeter here, a millimeter there, can mean the difference for women between suffering the awkward sexual interest of a spazzy beta or the passionate love of a smooth alpha. It can mean the difference between waiting for years for an Alex Pareene to propose in cubic zirconia, or weeks for a God of the Rod to gift wrap a bag of Skittles.

Read Full Post »

A neuroscientist working for Uber (the GPS-based personal taxi service) has compiled and analyzed its in-house data (your secrets are safe with them, they promise) and uncovered some interesting rider patterns in San Franswishco. Of particular interest to players on the make is the data that shows where in a city the girls are going out at night.

We used Rapleaf’s Name to Gender API to assess the likelihood of a rider’s gender given their name, only accepting a match if the probability was >= 95%. So someone with the name of Leslie remains unclassified because there’s only a 94.1% chance the name is from a female, whereas a boy named Sue would be misclassified as female with a 99.2% probability.

Any deviations above this line means that a neighborhood has more women taking rides into it than what we would expect given the number of men that take rides there. Deviations below that line are places where we see more men than we would expect given the number of women (actually, technically, places where we see fewer women than we would predict given the number of men).

What’s the gist?

– There are 35% more women in the Marina and 47% more women in Pac Heights on weekend nights than expected.

– Conversely, there are 23% more men in SoMa, 16% more in the Castro, and 14% more in the Financial District.

So if you’re looking for a guy, head to SoMa on a Friday night. If you’re looking for a lady, check out the Marina or Pac Heights!

This is the kind of information that is invaluable to PUAs. (Or really to any normal red-blooded man who wants to go to where the girls are, and not to where the sausage fests gather.)

I suppose you’d need some way to get your greasy mitts on Uber user data to geolocate the certified fresh sex ratios, unless an enterprising matrix hacker could design an app that pilfers such data for personal use.

Something like this would only work for a short while, as long as supply is limited. Once enough men get a hold of this dame data you have maybe a few hours before the sweaty hordes descend upon your vaghalla. And then the women leave.

And why do the women leave when too many men show up? Aren’t they there to meet men? That is a seeming paradox of female behavior that I will explain for you:

One, women don’t like to be reminded of their beauty ranking among other women. An audience of a few men zeroing in on the hottest three girls is bearable because it can be rationalized as happenstance. But a small army of men all gawking at the same three hotties is dispiriting to the lesser ladies.

Two, women don’t like to be around men stinking of sex-hungry desperation. They prefer the company, tangential or otherwise, of men who act as if they have their choice of the litter. And venues where the sex ratio is favorable to men tends to prime those men with the right proper attitude of choosiness that women love. A venue teeming with try-hard men ten strong to every one halfway-decent woman has the opposite effect on those women: It repulses them.

Three, women start to feel a little insecure when the testosterone reaches critical mass. Most notably, they begin to fear closing time solicitations from sloppy drunks. If the number of sloppy drunks exceeds the number of sober men and fat cockblock friends, it could be a real challenge to leave the place without a scene erupting.

Four, women subconsciously assess a place full of men as the sort of place that doesn’t attract ALPHA men. After all, an alpha male will know where to go, and where he goes is NOT where every other guy goes. Women intuitively grasp this unspoken rule of nightlife, and will compensate by heading to female-friendly venues that are also hot spots for smart (and efficient) alpha males.

Read Full Post »

In the first installment of “Optimizing Your Womanizing”, we discussed the value of targeting a field of play that has a favorable sex ratio.

In this post, we’ll talk about the value of physique to augmenting your game.

A man’s physique is less crucial to his romantic fortunes than a woman’s physique is to her’s. This discrepancy is a natural outcome of the biological differences between the sexes. A woman’s mate value is connected predominately to her window of prime fertility, and by proxy to those physical cues — a pretty face, a slim hourglass figure — that alert men to her capacity to gestate the next generation.

Men’s mate value, in contrast, is determined by a number of factors, physical fitness being but one of them, and not even the most important one (at least for 29 days out of the month). And we see this playing out in the real world; the sight of an unattractive, rich man with a trophy wife, or an out-of-shape, charismatic hipster with a cute girlfriend, is far commoner than the inverse.

Nevertheless, it is better, all else equal, to look physically masculine than not. This series, after all, is about optimizing your womanizing, which means maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses until you have crafted yourself into a complete package Casanova.

Bang for buck, pump for fuck, weightlifting is the king of physique transformation protocols. No other exercise comes close to the improvements that performing the equivalent of dragging a large animal carcass across the veldt will make to your body and your attitude. The Iron Pill even provides anti-aging benefits.

(Endurance exercise has its place, but studies show greater physiological rewards from resistance exercise.)

And, like game, nearly everyone will see improvements from weightlifting. There are few exceptions to this rule.

(Even in those few randomized studies that find nonresponders to resistance training, the number is typically small – on the order of fewer than 20% of total participants, the subjects tilted female, and the time period too short. So, worst case scenario, one out of five men and women won’t get much muscle growth from doing light weight knee raises for three weeks. Good news: 80% of you will see results within only three weeks! Better news, the worst case scenario from this one study is likely not indicative of real world results from resistance training for the great majority of people.)

(Those who want to disingenuously argue that resistance training response is heritable should remember that longevity is heritable as well, but has been dramatically increasing for the past century. Environmental input matters.)

No, not every man will see equal improvements in the gym, nor look like Franco Columbu, but there will be noticeable improvement. And sometimes a little improvement is all it takes to open a man’s world to a wider vista of vagina.

I won’t discuss exercise form here. It’s relevant, but you can find plenty of YouTube clips showing how to do various compound and isolation movements. Sticking to the basics of resistance training, here’s a list of answers to typical beginner questions:

– You will gain just as much size from hypertrophy (i.e., “bodybuilding”) training as you will from strength training. If size and leanness are your goals, you don’t have to do high weight, low repetition sets like powerlifters do. If strength is your goal, then you’ll want to incorporate more high weight, low rep strength building exercises.

(Hypertrophy training also results in strength gains; just not as much as the strength gains from pure strength training. The difference isn’t big.)

***

– The optimal combination of sets and reps and weight is, wait for it, somewhere in between low sets/high reps/low weight and high sets/low reps/high weight. The former, geared to hypertrophy, and the latter, geared to strength gain, both result in approximately the SAME AMOUNT of muscle growth. A 3/10/10RM (3 sets of 10 repetitions each at a weight you can lift for ten consecutive repetitions) routine will give you the same muscle growth as a 10/3/3RM (10 sets of 3 reps each at the maximum weight you can lift for three consecutive repetitions) routine.

Since women can’t really tell the difference between a man’s size and strength, and don’t really care, most men who aren’t competitive lifters but are competitive splitters will prefer the hypertrophy protocol.

Men who care about both size and strength (they’re correlated, but not precise mirrors) will want to devise a lifting plan that includes both high rep/low weight and low rep/high weight. In the long run, muscle response is highest when your body has to adapt to different loading schemes. A mix of hypertrophy-based and strength-based training will create a synergistic muscle response.

Therefore, the ideal lifting routine would be something like 3/8-12/8-12RM: Three sets of eight to twelve reps at a weight that you can lift for eight to twelve consecutive reps. Every third workout, substitute this protocol with a strength-based, higher weight circuit.

Another option, and a popular one, is to simply mix the two systems into one workout session. So you would start your exercise with a lower (60-80% of maximum) weight at higher reps (8-12) for the first two sets, and then finish up at a high (90-100% of maximum) weight at lower reps (1-4) for the third set.

***

– Another advantage of the hypertrophy routine is the time savings. More rest is needed between sets of very high weight, less rest for sets of low or medium weight. At 1/3 the time, you can achieve the same muscle growth as you could from a strength training system.

***

– Injuries happen. To minimize the chance and severity of injuries, favor a hypertrophy routine over a strength-building one. Most injuries occur under the stress of very heavy loads.

***

– Full body, compound exercises – squat and deadlift being the two most representative – are better than isolation exercises (e.g., bicep curls) but not for the reasons gym rats think. Studies find that “big” lifting exercises don’t alter the hormonal profile any differently than do smaller movement exercises. The primary advantage of compound movements is that you can hit a lot more muscle per rep, and you can do heavier weights which, when controlling the number of reps, will generally produce more muscle growth than lighter weights. The ideal is a mix of compound and isolation exercises.

***

– The downward motion of a lift (known as the eccentric phase) is perhaps more critical to muscle growth than the contraction movement. It’s during the “deceleration” part of the lifting movement that muscle damage accrues, and from that damage the body heals itself by building the muscle up. Injury is also more likely during a point in the eccentric motion, so take care to lower your weights (or your body, if you’re doing squats) slowly and deliberately.

***

– The average man will see observable results in as little as six weeks. Six months later, girls will take notice. A year later, he’ll be a new man. Three years later, he’ll intimidate other men. Now, you can train three years for a marathon and get nothing from it but a participation ribbon and noodle arms, or you can lift for three years and at least look like a physically active man.

***

– All you need is 2-4 workout sessions per week, 30-60 minutes each. Hell, you’ll see positive results going just ONCE per week for FIFTEEN MINUTES. In fact, it’s better to err on the side of training too little than training too much.

***

– Steroids work. Most men won’t need them. People who demonize testosterone replacement therapy have a secret fear of masculinity.

***

Here’s a good list of the top strength and health supplements for men. If you only buy three supplements, make them whey protein, creatine, and magnesium citrate.

***

We’ve reached the end of this post. Psst lean closer, I’m gonna tell you a secret…

The times of my life when I slew pussy like the Quim Reaper were times when I slacked off at the gym. At my physically weakest, my pussy pioneer skills never left me. I haven’t seen much of a connection between my muscle strength/size and my harem size. Yeah, sure I get more looks from girls, and more playful arm squeezes, when I’m fitter, but the true test of a man’s seductive prowess is the bang. A man still has to approach and charm a girl to her final surrender. And on that measure, my close rate was independent of my bicep circumference. The weight room did not hold my hand on the way to the bedroom.

So why did I write this post?

Because the evidence that the Law of Iron holds for every man is too great to wave away. The Law of Iron states:

Every man is a better man when he’s stronger rather than weaker.
A strengthened body strengthens the mind.
Looking and feeling stronger imbues a man with that aura of confidence so alluring to women.

Character, Fortitude, Confidence. That’s the Law of Iron.

I don’t know how much better my total to-date notch count would be had my gym time been more consistent and less interrupted by injury or laziness. Maybe much better, happy as that is to contemplate. I do know that, during those gym down times, my boldness and no-fucks-given attitude took me a lot farther with women than my lack of muscle definition pushed me away from women.

That’s the core lesson of the Law of Iron, right there. Boldness. Weightlifting will benefit introverted men the most, which is most of the men who seek game advice, because the confidence and masculine attitude that flows from muscle development will nudge men closer to women and to interacting with women. It isn’t the muscles that will make a man a great slayer of poon, it’s the boldness and cocksureness that follows from lifting and inevitably enshrouds his personality.

PS: Lyle McDonald’s Body Recomposition website is a valuable resource of exercise and diet information.

Read Full Post »

Reader Jeremy suggests a way to get the game blog reader addicts off their asses to bust a move.

CH, I have a suggestion.

It would take the cooperation of other major manosphere sites.

If you want to kick the keyboard jockeys out of their habits. Then have an “Approach Week” where all comments sections on manosphere blogs are DISABLED. Leave everyone the explicit instructions to go forth, and approach.

Good idea. I’m game (heh) if at least five other “manosphere” sites agree to the terms. (Qualifier quotes added because I don’t quite know what constitutes a manosphere site.)

The ground rules

Approaching means making a first move on women. The definition of a first move is a bit fluid. For instance, a girl could glance at you flirtatiously, and you could take that as a cue to walk up and say hi. Or you could go in cold and open inattentive girls.

Vocalizations have to be delivered face-to-face so that your approach can’t be mistaken for the passing mumblings of a street bum. You may grunt or wink or belch if it starts a conversation. Approaching does NOT mean staring at a girl and turning away satisfied that she registered your existence.

Comments will be disabled during the chosen “approach week” to motivate bleary-eyed keyboardists into a pair of pants and out of doors to say something to women. Go forth, and approach, as the Good Lord might say in an era when straight up multiplying will get you slapped with child support payments.

Posting may continue during Approach Week. Either the post title or the top of any post published during Approach Week will include a disclaimer that comments are off to honor the spirit of the Approach. (For example: Comments are disabled during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here.)

Off the top o’ me scruffily precocious head, here are five manosphere sites which write about game and pickup that might be interested in participating: Return of Kings, Rational Male, Danger & Play, Krauser, Alpha Game. I’m certain there are plenty of sites I’m missing, so if you’re one of them and you like this idea let us know in the comments and we’ll hammer this thing out.

If your broadsheet is listed here and you’re not interested, don’t worry about it. It won’t be skin off anyone’s nose.

Approach Week should happen sometime within the next two months, while the sun is high and the girls are barely clothed. Pending any objections, let’s set aside the holiday week of June 29-July 5 as Approach Week.

Post-Approach Week, CH will dedicate a day to you readers when you may share your experiences in the comments of an open post.

PS If something akin to Approach Week has already been done by other game blogs at other times, disregard this post. The remix is never as good as the original.

Read Full Post »

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Read Full Post »

Continuing with our latest CH series exploring the historical records for choice bits of wisdom that would be the equivalent of PUA game and Heartistian theories of the sexual market today, reader Arbiter forwards this excerpt from a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (before it became a women’s rag. Rag. Heh.):

The author explains the “Sissy”:

He is polite and rather anxious to please. He wishes always to do the thing which happens to be the proper thing at any given time. He never would think of initiating anything novel or starting out in a new and unexpected course. He likes very much to be with ladies, and ladies like him – in a way. He is a most useful creature and absolutely harmless, intended by Providence to carry wraps and rugs, to order carriages, to provide theater-tickets, flowers, bon-bons, opera-boxes and four-in-hands, according to his means and the position which he holds. He will call regularly upon a girl and in fact upon all the girls he knows, and he will keep it up for years, and it will never mean anything to him or to them, for he is essentially a tame cat…He is really an indispensable person in our modern life; for it is desirable that young women should have some male creature about them to fetch and carry – one who will do it all for the mere pleasure of the service, and who will never agitate them and disquiet them or make them feel it necessary to be on their guard.

“In a way”. :lol: :lol:

In 1902, (a modern age to the men living back then), men knew what being a beta orbiter meant. Thus we have proof that the sexless friendzone and the female exploitation of servile, supplicating men for “beta bux” have existed for over 100 years, and probably a hell of a lot longer than that.

He then proceeds to describe the qualities that make men respect other men. The explanation is long, but in short he must be honorable, reasonable, courageous and gentle.

The last one does not mean being effeminate, but a refinement in character:

Intellectually it means intuition, sensitiveness to all impressions, and the imaginative element which illumines the dark places of the mind and shows the way to great achievement. Temperamentally it denotes gentleness, and the tenderness which is the perfect complement to strength. It is to men who have this last and finest gift, that other men, since history began, have given not alone their liking but their service, their devotion, and their very lives.

What then is the conclusion? Men like in men these traits: the honor that ennobles; the justice that insures the right; the reasonableness that mellows and makes plain; the courage that proclaims virility; the generous instinct that disdains all meanness; the modesty that makes no boast; the dignity that wins respect; the fineness and the tenderness that know and feel. But when one thinks of it more carefully, may he not sum it up in just a single sentence, and accept it as truth, that all men like a gentleman?

Beta niceguys reading the above passage are undoubtedly saying to themselves, “Reasonableness? Generosity? Modesty? Tenderness? Hey, wait, I have all those qualities! Why don’t men admire me and women invite me to their beds?”

Because, dear beta, you must impress upon people you are those virtuous things by choice, and not by necessity. And the way to prove that is by first demonstrating that you are capable of behaving in the opposite fashion, as suits your needs.

Take a page from the sexy jerk. Watch how he shits with impunity on the polite norms of society, gets the girl and the admiration of his friends, and then pulls a rabbit out of the hat with a sudden and unexpected generous gesture that provokes an explosion of love kibbles raining on his dinner plate.

People, particularly women, overdose on virtue quickly. The scarcity principle applies here. You don’t want to be that dependable guy who’s always there for her; you want to be that inscrutable dark triad jerk whose occasional forays into the Light are greeted with glowing encomiums and flowering furrows.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: