Spot The Lesser Beta Male

Watch this segment on a gayly gay talk show. The mighty, gray-haired warrior male interviews two “””men””” and a woman living together in a polyandrous arrangement. (It’s silly to bless this perversion with the honorific of a relationship.)

Both of these men are betas. Maybe you could even call them functioning greater omegas. Why not just call them omega males? Because omega males are typically incapable of getting sex from any woman who doesn’t resemble a dirigible or an extra from the Star Wars cantina scene. At least these two males are, presumably, having some kind of sex with this rather fetching woman of desirable waist-hip ratio and slender BMI.

But one of these males is definitely the bottom bitch in this losers’ triangle. He is the one used for purposes of satisfying the woman’s emotional whoring needs, and for puttering around the adult playpen cleaning up the scattered sex-stained undergarments that the other male leaves on the floor after doing his job as the house cockubine.

He is the lesser beta, and his mission in life is asexual supportiveness, LJBF intimacy, trips to the pharmacist to get the morning after pill when male #1 forgets to pull out, and reflections in the cuckold corner hunched over his effortful pud, wet-eyed and trembly, as the other two housemates pound it out for his emasculatory benefit. Once in a blue moon she services him with a dreary handjob so that he doesn’t stray too far from his duty as harem pit crew.

Can you spot which of the two males is the lesser beta? Take a moment.

.

.

.

.

.

Watch closely from 0:38-0:42.

Catch that?

A woman’s real feelings — her true unadulterated distilled purified desire — will rarely escape from her lips in the form of words. It will, instead, shoot from her fingertips, or emanate from her pelvis, or infuse the air around her thighs, or pierce the nicety veil from her hardening eyes. A woman’s words deliver the message of her brain. A woman’s body delivers the message of her vagina.

Near the ends her hamster reveals, “It didn’t mean I had to end this relationship with male #2. I could get my needs met with someone else.”

What a glorious hamster. So strong, so fit. This rodent must never stop running, because the three-way polyandrous arrangement is bottled lightning. Even weepy, scalzied lesser beta males have their id-shaped breaking points, and a woman who is getting both her sexy stud and provider dud needs met in one complete, if bifurcated, package requires an elite, special forces hamster that can spin up at a moment’s notice. Translating the above from its original hamsterese, we learn what the woman is really feeling:

“It didn’t mean I had to face the prospect of losing my kitchen bitch right when I was about to have a love child with another man. I could get my pussy ravaged by a slightly less repulsive man while still getting all the household help and emotional indulgence from a beautiful male feminist a mentally unbalanced woman like myself needed.”

It should not surprise the reader with which of the two males she decided to have her über bastard.

The starkness of the perfectly delineated two male-one female polyandrous circus is a powerful metaphor for the much larger and more accessible reality of the looser, serial soft polyandry that characterizes the dating market of late stage cultures in decline. There may not be many women willing to abide dating two men concurrently, let alone living with them in the same love shack, no matter how sufficiently those men placate the female dueling desires for sexiness and provider assurance and are willing to surrender their balls to the chopping block, but there are certainly plenty of women happy to date an alpha male and use a beta male on the down low for his gift of anhedonic attention. The male orbiter beta brigade plus the alpha male lover is a close approximation of polyandry in the wild.

Read Full Post »

The Revealed Preferences Of Drunk Girls

Sometimes the most obvious facts of female nature and human social dynamics elude open discussion for an unusually long time. A reader writes to make a point that qualifies as one of those obvious facts:

Number one sign you’ll have a problem with a girl.

I crossed the rubicon a few years back when I felt I could expect some measure of success with eligible women. It felt great, but I always looked back and tried to identify mistakes so I could do better the next time. That said, even when the same thing happens over and over again, you might not see a trend until your sample size gets so big that the obvious hits you in the head with a brick.

I have a great piece of advice for any man, regarding his casual fling, girlfriend, or wife…she must like you as much, if not more, when she’s drunk than she does when she’s sober.

Some of that is obvious (taking her to a bar and then she goes home with another guy) but others are subtle (such as not getting texts or calls answered between 10pm and 1am on the weekend). Drinking loosens inhibitions and our drunk behavior is more consistent with our true feelings than our sober behavior.

As a matter of fact, you might want to meet all of your girls when they’re drunk, since a drunk girl liking you (which is emotional and more likely to be alpha) is a stronger signal than a sober girl liking you (which is logical and more likely to be beta).

When you get your girl drunk, you’re not doing it because it will make sex easier, you’re doing it because it might make sex harder. It’s a shit test. And if getting her drunk makes sex harder, you’re fucked.

Alcohol is truth serum, and a drunk girl will reveal her true desires faster and more boldly than a sober girl who has mental checkpoints, border guards and lockdown procedures in place to dupe provider beta males about the nature of women’s sexuality that is unleashed in limbic lands just beyond his ken.

In my experience, the reader is correct; drunkenness permits the woman’s id full expression. It skips joyously, drinking deep the fresh air, swinging its unchained fists wildly, exuberant and unstoppable. It would be a mistake to think her drunken id is less discriminating than her sober id. It isn’t. The drunken female id is more discriminating — but less deceptive and obfuscating — than her sober id. When she is sober, her forebrain exerts some sensible control over her animal lusts.

And this applies to relationship dynamics as much as pick-up scenarios at bars. Anyone who’s been in a normal (i.e., non-Mormon) relationship with a woman for more than a couple months has seen her drunk or at least tipsy. When she’s in this liquor-lubed confessional state, you can catch a glimpse of her raw sexuality, stripped of game-playing, calculating coyness and psychological feints with her long-term advantage in mind. What do you see? Does she jump into your arms, mashing her appletini-breath into your face, groping feverishly at your crotch and begging for exquisite deliverance on your godhead?

Or does she act cold and distant through the fog of her inebriation, snipe at you for imaginary infractions, and loudly reminisce about a long-forgotten (you thought) ex-boyfriend? Worse, does she late night text mystery “friends” as she’s pushing your inquisitive hornypaws away from her thigh?

Drunkenness is an emotion-based honesty signal that bypasses logic circuits. Drunkenness reveals women’s desire for alpha males. Sobriety reveals women’s ability to conceal their desire for alpha males. If your drunk girlfriend seems more eager for sex, chances are good your relationship is healthy. She loves you in the way that can’t be faked. If your drunk girlfriend is an insufferable ice queen, chances are good your relationship is heading for the rocks. She subconsciously despises you in the way a bored housewife despises her unsexy husband one week every month.

Why is is better to be viscerally loved than affectionately duped? Because the man who is viscerally desired always has the option to inspire tender long-term focused affection from his lover. The provider beta who is affectionately duped has no option, other than game, to inspire visceral desire in his lover. It’s much easier to guide a woman from alpha male-inspired lust to beta-male inspired serenity than it is to guide her from the opposite direction.

Contra feminist assertions that drunk women are more easily taken advantage of, it’s actually the case that drunk women are easier targets for alpha males, but harder targets for beta males, who, lettuce be cereal, comprise 60% of the male population who aren’t alpha or omega males. As per usual, feminists and their manboob human chastity belts lump in alpha males with beta and omega males and incorrectly assume that the poosy paradise that alpha males enjoy is enjoyed by all men.

So if you can take a drunk girl home and bang her, hold your head proudly high, because you have just been certified a Sexy Alpha Male™ in the only way that matters.

Read Full Post »

Alpha Male Membership Has Its Privileges

From a Craigslist W4M posting (since expired):

Gansevoort bathroom in January – w4m – 24 (West Village)

I was your cocktail waitress 3 weeks ago at the rooftop. You were there on a Wednesday night with your friends(?) or clients from work. You said you worked for GS, but you might have just said whatever. I mean, what does a dumb bitch like me know, right? You flirted with me and asked me what I did other than work here and I told you I’m in acting school. You were really hot in that asshole lacrosse kinda way with your blonde hair and broad shoulders, maybe 29, 30. You followed me to the bathroom and grabbed my tits and hair pushed down. I got on my knees and sucked your cock. I didn’t know what else to do. Then you blew a load on my face and stuck a $100 bill on it. You walked out without saying anything, when I straightened up and came out your table already settled. And left me a nice tip. I wish you left me a card but you probably didn’t want me to know your real name or where you really worked.

I’d just leave it at that, and apply it to my acting, but the trouble is that I really liked it. You made me feel like a fucking cheap chinky whore. I wanna do it again but you don’t need to tip me. Get in touch, please. We don’t have to date. I just really liked pleasing you.

I wonder if the General Social Survey captures this kind of data?

Read Full Post »

Woman Admits To “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux” Dating Strategy

Some gross feminist careerist reptile who works for Facebook (dying media company if the decline in young recruits is any indication) has a long interview in Salon explaining her insipid views on the disparity between the sexes in upper echelon representation and the oft-debunked (but obviously not often enough) “gender pay gap”. I urge you to skim it quickly, because it’s largely the usual unverifiable, proof by assertion femcunt claptrap. However, there is one response she gives which bracingly reveals how a lot of modern American women, unawares or not, strategize their dating lives.

Look, I’m not pretending I can give advice to every single person or every single couple for every situation; I’m making the point that we are not going to get to equality in the workforce before we get to equality in the home. [ed: could you imagine being hitched to this repulsive ballbuster?] Not going to happen. You know, I give advice to young women. I say “pick a partner.” If that partner is female you are in good shape because you are likely to split up things very evenly; the data’s very strong that same-sex couples split responsibilities much more evenly. [ed: the data is also strong that dyke couples have high rates of domestic violence] If you are a female and your partner is likely to be male, this is something to really pay attention to. I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers.

“I don’t wanna sound like a feminist slut or nothin… but I kinda wanna fuck the sexy jerks and make the niceguys wait to put a ring on it.”

I hope every beta male in the world is reading this post right now, because this bitch just opened up and exposed the mouth to hell that burns at the heart of every woman’s naked id. Not all women are so aggressively calculating, but most feel the subsonic thump of compulsion to autonomically follow the alpha fux, beta bux dating strategy. It’s your job as a man with functioning testicles to stop women from using you in this manner. Paradoxically, most women will love you harder for stopping them from indulging their worst instincts.

Reader Days of Broken Arrows writes:

Few quotes reveal what’s so dysfunctional about modern dating than this — and that includes her desultory use of the word “boys” in lieu of men.

Exactly right. While the cad/dad dichotomy of choice in women is as ancient as the tree of life, the social constraints on satisfying the dichotomy have never been looser than now. Post-modern, post-industrial, pre-singularity West — whatever you want to call it — is enabling women to not only pursue an ultimately self-defeating dualistic cad/dad strategy that will leave the lot of them feeling spiteful and unloved, but it’s encouraging them to extol the strategy as an empowering way to interact with men. It’s as if women have forgotten that men respond to sexual market cues as well, and won’t just casually accept disadvantageous dating roles that leave them supine to women’s machinations.

I’ve noticed that as Western women have become masculinized and set adrift from their main purpose as nurturers and child bearers to ricochet down a rocky crevasse of careerism, multi-decade pump and dump victimization and pre-wall beta male settling, their desire, their need, to belittle men has increased. This need is likely born of frustration. And so we see them tossing around terms like “boys” and “guys” to avoid addressing their potential lovers and providers as “men”. Similarly, as Western men have become feminized and neutered of their ability to project dominance, their need to glorify women and accord their every trivial accomplishment or wayward musing a hero’s benediction has increased. The behaviors of the sexes are in the process of meiosis and reformulation, a classic switcheroo, and this is a harbinger of the end days of a cultural empire.

What the vapid feminist entity above confesses, perhaps unwittingly, is that chicks truly deeply honestly dig jerks. They dig jerks so much that they have to be counseled not to seek marriage with them, and to seek instead marriage to boring men who don’t viscerally excite them. For you see, it’s a myth that women don’t want the jerks for long term romances. They do. The problem is that the jerks don’t want to be tied down, especially not to unfeminine battle-axes who think their vaginas are gold-plated and their reality-denying stridency is evidence of their sexual worth.

A few very beautiful women — not the Salon interviewee — can successfully pursue an “alpha fux, alpha bux” dating strategy. This is the equivalent of hitting the jackpot as a woman. And in point of fact, beautiful women have fewer sex partners than their more modest-looking sisters. The reason is simple: when you have the goods, you are less likely to give them away for free. Beautiful women can capture — and keep — alpha male attention without resorting to leg-spreading enticement. Homelier women must spread… or accept loneliness.

But most women are not that beautiful. For the majority, an “alpha fux, beta bux” strategy will net them, if they are in reasonably good shape, a decade of fantasy-fueling sex and miserable relationships, culminating in marriage (and a bank-busting wedding extravaganza) to a doughy herbling who must know deep in his bones that he is paying dearly for damaged product which better men than he used for free back when it was fresh off the shelves. He must also know that his rode-worn beloved who is about to execute the final stage of her indentured beta male servant plan considers him a second-rate alternative to the lovers of her past. If women don’t think this galls the betas who must accede to these liberated, feminist-friendly conditions, they are in for a rude awakening when they discover how quickly the hubby herblings give up on life and on pleasing their cackling sow wives.

An “alpha fux, beta bux” dating strategy may sound, on paper, very pleasing to women, but pursuit of it is almost guaranteed to lead to frustration and bitterness for most women in the modern mating market. One, the natural order of things can withstand only so much subversion before the spirit breaks. An aging woman with an extensive sexual history will come to resent her unexciting diaper-changing bore of a husband with whom she settled, and he will resent her rapidly imploding sexual attractiveness, acidic demeanor and daily tacit reminders of his low status.

Two, men are not wind-up toys ready to do the bidding of manipulative women; those jerkboy fux and betaboy bux may refuse to play along. The sexual market is the collision of competing reproductive goals, and in that plunderdome of all against all, where the only guiding principle is self-interest, the jerkboys may not bother showing up for a date and the betaboys may decide the jerkboys are getting the better end of the deal, and adjust their behavior accordingly, perhaps in the arms of a mistress or porn. Or game.

A woman who plays this strategy to the hilt is taking a big risk that she will be left a destitute single mom or, at best, an unhappy and unloveable EatPrayLove commodity, an appendage to the dehumanizing globalist corporate borg, desirable to no one but the most desperate loser men or conniving schemers. And, looking around, this is what we see happening all over America. The crosstabbed and powerpointed nth wave modern feminist woman will realize, at the end of her long, exhilarating but empty journey, that her happiness as a woman was never amenable to her best-laid blueprints for the efficiently maximized love life.

Read Full Post »

From Vikings To Vaginas

What happened to the Nordics? Once a virile, conquering race of people who struck fear in the hearts of enemies, they have been reduced to a feminist utopia of sniveling beta males who are encouraged to pee sitting down and aggro women who’d rather go clubbing with earthy foreign invaders.

How could a race of man fall so low, so fast?

In the quest for an answer to this great mystery of mass manboobization, a commenter over at Parapundit serves this up:

I suspect the Scandinavians with the strongest temperaments left long ago as Vikings, same as that the bravest Englishmen left for the colonies.

The only ones who are left are the descendants of the guys who stayed home to weave with the womenfolk.

Or pule about “white privilege”.

Yes, I think there is something to this hypothesis. The alpha males of North and West Europe either moved away or died off in endless wars and pillages, and now their homelands are repositories of soft-tittied beta males.

There’s no denying that beta male skewed societies are nice places to live. Scandinavia enjoys high standards of living, low crime (until recently), a plethora of comfort-maximizing gadgets, good-looking women, and generally non-dictatorial government (until recently). As poolside (or hot springs-side) countries go, the Norselands are right up there with the most pampering of them.

So, beta male countries > alpha male countries.

But here’s the catch. Too many betas and no alphas makes Jakob a plush target.

Pure speculation, but it has bite… a nation needs its alpha males to keep the manboobery impulses of its softer, kinder, gentler beta males in check. Otherwise, some other nation’s alpha males will fill the vacuum left by the real or cultural disappearance of the native alphas, waltzing in to do the job because the native betas decided open borders to a whole world of vengeful, antagonistic losers is smart policy.

Exhibit A: Multiculturalism. Who pushes this shit? The descendants of Viking berserkers? No. Just look at the advocates of masochistic, self-annihilating ideologies and you will see a blubberers’ row of pudgy, chipmunk-cheeked herblings, snarky hunchbacks, watery eyed dweebs, space cadet neohippies, formless male feminists and, on the other side of the gender bender ledger, manjawed clitdicks, bullheaded warboars, jet-fueled rationalization hamsters, mustachioed grievance whores and shameless status seekers.

The beta male’s greatest strengths — his cooperativeness, friendliness, credulity, magnanimity, trust and openness — are also his nation’s undoing when allowed to express unopposed. He needs the wariness, leadership, skepticism, protectiveness, fighting spirit and stone cold instinct for survival of his brother alphas to prevent him from imploding into a blob of depraved navel-gazing, hoisting his red rump for any and all who’d love nothing more than to sharpen their knives in his flesh and lube their cocks in his forgiving bottom. Exhibit B.

A nation of tops is Zimbabwe. A nation of bottoms is raped into the history books. The West would be wise to reverse course for the middle ground.

Finishing off on a positive note, the system may be self-correcting. Ironically, feminism is likely selecting for the sexual success of more aggressive, high testosterone alphas. The removal of societal constraints on female sexuality allows for the flourishing of women’s hypergamous impulses, and women, adorable hypocrites that they are, can’t help but defy their open claims to the contrary to prefer sensitive betas, and instead swoonly spread for the love of anti-feminist men strong in mind and body.

The self-correction is not guaranteed, and for this glaring reason: widely available, cheap contraceptives and abortifacients. A turn to alpha male sexual success does not necessarily mean a turn to alpha male procreative success, as it would have in the past. It could be that the West is currently experiencing the worst of all worlds: feminism-abetted unfettered female sexuality coupled with hamster tingling for irresponsible cads and migrant males.

Is this post speculative? Yes. Did you feel a shiver of omen in these words? I bet you did. Stay tuned.

Read Full Post »

The Mind Of The Manboob: Hugo Schwyzer Redux

Hugs is back in the news, and I can’t resist his mewling charms. So sue me.

Two articles of note. First, a Jezebel twisted paean to May-December romances penned by The Matriarchy’s First Lapdog himself.

Age Is Never Just a Number: How Girls Got Older Men/Younger Women Right

Though “One Man’s Trash” has been the most-discussed installment of this season (and perhaps of the entire show), much of the commentary has focused on the mind-blowingly insipid suggestion that a woman who looks like Lena Dunham doesn’t “deserve” a man who looks like Patrick Wilson. The focus on the imagined attractiveness disparity between the two actors misses an equally meaningful plot line: the appeal and the challenge of age-disparate relationships. […]

Tellingly, Hannah asks Joshua how old he is before she even knows his name: that Joshua is so much older seems to be an inextricable part of his appeal. The doctor’s affluence and handsomeness and stability are obvious, but Hannah seems more drawn by the age gap than anything else. Joshua, meanwhile, is fascinated, if a little bewildered by her boldness. Though a few male writers found the hook-up totally implausible, the mutual attraction is both believable and instantly familiar.

So Hugs is saying here that it’s totally normal for Lena Dunham’s homely character to be attracted to a high status man 15 years her senior. Ok, for a Hugo Schwyzer mental burp, this shows a reasonable grasp of the reality of sex differences in mate preference. But….

The storyline works because we live in a world where 42 year-old men are taught to find 24 year-old women more appealing than their own female peers.

Ah, that’s the old feminist water carrier we’ve come to know and loathe. Hugs, you are such a darling rimjobber. Do you even believe the runny shit you expectorate, or is it all a dog and fatty show for the benefit of your paying feminist overcunts? To ask the question is to mock you.

Like feminists, Hugo shares a propensity for boldly contradicting himself within the span of two sentences. In the confines of Hug’s hugbox, it’s normal for women to be attracted to older men, but “””society””” has to teach older men to be attracted to younger women. Women’s desires = natural, normal. Men’s desires = unnatural, societally conditioned.

It could never be the case for a felching manboob like Hugs who has sold his soul to the succubus that older men’s attraction for younger women is natural. Or that maybe… just maybe… the innate desires of both men and women, however divergent, are natural and normal and biologically hard-wired.

Yes, hard-wired, Hugo. From birth. Issuing from the hindbrain. Immune to cultural reeducation programs. Cemented in primeval neurons shaped in the crucible of evolution by millions of years of natural and sexual selection.

If it’s mentally taxing for you to grapple with the idea of innate, immutable sexual desire, think back, Hugo, to the time of your blossoming youth, when you first laid eyes on that young man with the broad shoulders, glistening chest, and conspicuous bulge in his Ocean Pacific shorts. Much to your surprise, embarrassment and volcanic shame which would sculpt the trajectory of your life, a boy boner sprouted from the downy thicket of your pubescent pride. You wept, beautifully.

Do you remember that time, Hugs? Yes, yes, of course you do. And you remember, as well, that it was no social conditioning or nebulous cultural influence or amorphous patriarchy that provoked those wild and lustful urges in you. Those urges, you will recall, rose unbidden from the depths of your being, like a thermonuclear blast through your sinew, to explode into the world and forevermore make mockery of the drivel you spew to this day.

Commenter anonymous writes:

…is [Hugo] real or some kind of sockpuppet. Surely no actual man believes that men are merely “taught” or conditioned into being attracted to 20+ yr old women?

He is as real as the beneficiaries of his delusional ego-assuaging largesse want him to be. No, I don’t think Hugo actually believes that men are taught to desire younger women over older women. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The West is filling up with simulacra of actual men who have swallowed the rancid feminist jizzbombs by the bucketload, and are begging for more. A willing mouthpiece like Hugo finds purchase today amongst a cacophony of loudmouthed losers who would have stayed ensconced in their hermit holes fifty years ago, brooding it out to themselves instead of polluting the internet airwaves. The Rise of the Hugo is a story of the Fall of the West.

To demand logic, reason, good faith, common sense, or accountability from the Hugo Hordes is a fool’s errand. There is apparently no contradiction or inconsistency or hypocrisy or lie too craven for the house eunuch to call into service if it wins him a contemptuous pat on his gelatinous bottom from the circle of shrikes. Hugs, is the sacrifice of your dignity worth the accolades from a bunch of psychologically and physically defective losers? Please tell me you are at least tapping some of the better feminist ass your humiliating masochistic spectacle ought by rights to procure you.

***

Article of note #2 was not penned by Hugo, but it was about him. After a quick read, I’m not all that interested in commenting on the substance of the article (it’s stupid, as is the case of most Atlantic articles lately), but I am perplexed why the Atlantic writer — a Mrs. Raphael Magarik — would write a term paper on Hugo Schwyzer’s internet persona and his psychological motivations without consulting the authoritative reference guide on the matter.

Come on, Raph, how about throwing a link bone to your betters?

Never mind. I can see when I’m not wanted. *sniff*

PS Hey, Hugo! Are gay men taught by society to desire other men?

Gotcha!

PPS Even when Hugo stumbles on a truth, he wraps it in foul-smelling lies. Here are two quotes from that Jizzebel article which demonstrate Hugo’s inability to speak truthfully.

Ask 20-something women on OK Cupid or other dating sites how many they receive from men 15 and 20 years older; ask women in their 40s how many guys their own age seem primarily interested in pursuing much younger romantic partners. The “cougar discourse” doesn’t change the reality that most heterosexual relationships with a substantial age gap still feature an older man and younger woman pairing.

Check out this slippery eel known as the male feminist. “[T]he ‘cougar discourse’ doesn’t change the reality…” Well, no duh it doesn’t change the reality! The cougar discourse affirms the reality that men of all ages prefer younger women. Hugo, is the “cougar discourse” saying something to the opposite of that reality, or are you just an oily snake dissembling for the sake of your fat cunt readership?

As she so often does, Hannah reverses the stereotype by being the sexual aggressor —

What Hugo omits here is the more reasonable interpretation that Hannah’s (Lena Dunham’s character, a hard 4) sexual aggression is not a deliberate ploy to flip stereotypes on their heads, but the necessary forfeiture of a dumpy, unattractive woman required to capture the sexual attention of an alpha male who’d sooner pursue a much hotter woman were one conveniently available. Hannah has to literally throw herself at this dude to get him to dump a fuck in her. She has to make it EASY for him. Making it easy is the only way marginal women who aren’t warpigs manage to get laid with attractive men. And then not so much; the strategy fails as often as it works, because men exercise discrimination in choosing mates, although on average men are less discriminating than women when sex is the goal. (Men are more discriminating than women when relationship commitment is the goal, and that’s why frumps like Hannah rarely get high status men to commit to them, which is the true measure of a woman’s romantic worth.)

Even if Dunham didn’t intend this interpretation, this is what actually occurs in the real world. Hugo could note that; but that would mean he had a spine.

and Joshua’s intensely grateful reaction suggests not just surprise at her boldness but also, perhaps a kind of relief that a woman in her mid-20s finds him still desirable.

The relief is for the zero effort he knows he’ll have to put in.

Forget the dick-wringing from male writers

You rang, fucker?

about how a hottie like Wilson would never go for a young woman who looks like Dunham.

Define “go for”. In real life, handsome doctors do not go for tubalards like Hannah, no matter the age. They go for slender babes. The tubalard may occasionally get serviced by a very tired or depressed Joshua who just got off the bender of a bad divorce, but he won’t be dating her or sending her flowers, or even seeing her in public. And your strawman notwithstanding to the contrary, what Hannah does or doesn’t deserve has got nothing to do with it. It’s horny turtles all the way down.

Not only does that woefully underrate the sex appeal of the Girls‘ star,

You’ve gotta be kidding me. Oh man, you are such a lickspittle. Tell me, would you say your wife is more, or less, attractive than Lena Dunham? Try not to squirm answering this.

it also obscures the reality that having a younger woman walk into your house and make the first move is a classic middle-aged man’s fantasy.

Only if she looks like Megan Fox. Try to keep it real, for once in your life, Hugs.

Read Full Post »

The “IKEA Effect” Supports The Game Concept Of Compliance

We’ll just begin this post with a preen.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Ah, that’s better.

Wait. Did you hear that? Someone out there thinks this preen invalidates the science that is about to follow. What a strange duck that person is.

Pick-up artists have a term called compliance, which is a game tactic designed to raise a man’s value relative to the woman’s value, and to gauge a woman’s interest level. The concept is simple: You make a request of a girl, and if she complies you know that she is attracted to you. Furthermore, the very act of complying with your request will cause her to feel more attracted to you.

Compliance techniques can be physical or verbal. The verbal forms are known as “hoops”, as in “jump through your hoops”. For instance, raising your hand and gesturing for a girl to grab it and twirl is a physical compliance test. Asking her to watch your drink as you take a bathroom break, or to participate in a mind game of your choosing, are verbal hoops.

Compliance is a powerful seduction technique, for two reasons: One, it is grounded in an accurate appraisal of human, and particularly female, psychology and, two, it is so rarely used by men (and so frequently deployed by women) that the man who co-opts it for himself is immediately more alluring to women.

While there appears to be no scientific study directly measuring the effect of female compliance on a man’s desirability, there has been an analogous study examining how labor compliance affects people’s feelings of love for the objects of their labor. It’s called the “IKEA Effect”, and the study concluded:

In a series of studies in which consumers assembled IKEA boxes, folded origami, and built sets of Legos, we demonstrate and investigate the boundary conditions for what we term the “IKEA effect” – the increase in valuation of self-made products. Participants saw their amateurish creations – of both utilitarian and hedonic products – as similar in value to the creations of experts, and expected others to share their opinions. […]

Adding to previous literature on effort justification, we also show that successful completion is an essential component for the link between labor and liking to emerge; participants who built and then unbuilt their creations, or were not permitted to finish those creations, did not show an increase in willingness-to-pay. In addition, our experiments addressed several possible alternative IKEA Effect explanations for the increased valuation that people hold for their own creations. We show that successful assembly of products leads to value over and above the value that arises from merely being endowed with a product, or merely handling that product; in addition, by using simple IKEA boxes and Lego sets that did not permit customization, we demonstrated that the IKEA effect does not arise solely as a result of participants’ idiosyncratic tailoring of their creations to their preferences.

What psychological mechanisms underlie the increase in valuation when participants self-assemble their products? In the introduction, we suggested that the increase in liking that occurs due to effort (Aronson and Mills 1959) coupled with the positive feelings of effectance that accompany successful completion of tasks (Dittmar 1992; Furby 1991) is an important driver of the increase in willingness to pay that we observe. Of course, effectance itself has multiple psychological components: actual control over outcomes and mere perceived control over outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Given that our participants are in “control” by building their own products yet assembling them according to preset instructions (i.e., “not in control”), further exploration of perceived and actual control is likely to lend insight into the IKEA effect. In addition, there are likely additional underlying mechanisms that vary by the type of product being assembled. For instance, the assembly of more hedonic products often results in the opportunity to display one’s creation to others (Franke et al. 2010). Indeed, many of our participants who built Legos and origami in Experiments 1B and 2 mentioned a desire to show them to their friends, suggesting that the increase in willingness-to-pay for hedonic products may arise in part due to the social utility offered by assembling these products. We suggest, however, that social utility is likely to play a more minor role in increased liking for self-assembled utilitarian products like the storage boxes used in Experiments 1A and 3, given that the social IKEA Effect utility gained from displaying products decreases as product complexity decreases (Thompson and Norton, in press). It is also possible that the enjoyment of the assembly task itself is a contributor to the IKEA effect – building Lego frogs is more fun than building storage boxes – such that task enjoyment is another contributor to valuation that varies by product type. Future research is needed to unpack what are likely to be multiple drivers of the IKEA effect.

We note that we used generally small ticket items, and the question of whether the IKEA effect occurs for more expensive items is important both practically and theoretically. While future research should empirically examine the magnitude of overvaluation as a function of price, we suggest that, even for very costly items, people may continue to see the products of their labor as more valuable than others do. For instance, people may see the improvements they have made to their homes – such as the brick walkways they laid by hand – as increasing the value of the house far more than buyers, who see only a shoddily-built walkway. Indeed, to the extent that labor one puts into one’s home reflects one’s own idiosyncratic tastes, such as kitchen tiling behind the sink that quotes bible verses, labor might actually lead to lower valuation by buyers, who see only bible verses that must be expunged – even as that labor leads the owner to raise the selling price.

This is a boffo study with wide-ranging implications for numerous human social dynamics, including the seduction of women. Parsing the academese, what the study says is this:

The more work (labor) you put into a project, the more you will value the outcome of that project, even if objectively the value of your output is not high.

This relates to game. The charismatic tactic of inducing female compliance is essentially the coaxing of women to perform labor on your behalf, and for your benefit. When a woman labors for you, (“Carrie, hold my scarf”), she has invested in you, and her love for her “project” (you) grows commensurate with her degree of labor aka investment. It sounds counterintuitive (Typical Blue Piller: “Why would a woman love a man more if he’s being demanding and she’s being accommodating?”), but that is the nature of male-female mating dances: the reproductive goals of men and women are at odds, so romantic interactions tend to resolve into counterintuitive, even paradoxical, strategies.

And how often have we all seen this strange predilection of female nature play out in real life? Watch any natural/jerk/douchebag/player and you’ll see his lovers bending over backward to please him. And when you ask a girl why she loves the jerk who squeezes blood from her stone, she defends him to the high heavens, much like an IKEA consumer will defend his rickety, self-assembled Nordbox to any who question its actual worth.

This is one reason why artists do so well with women. Though he may not be consciously aware of the biomachinations that fuel his seductive charms, the artist’s “demand” of a woman to “get his work” or “grasp his message” is basically a challenge to her self-valuation, and a challenge that requires of her some mental (or physical) labor to reaffirm. Fashion photographers, the straight ones at least, absolutely clean up with hotties because they put their exquisite models in a constant, elevated state of laborious challenge — do this, move here, drop your chin, look this way, stop looking that way — which heightens their feelings of arousal and love for the photographer. It is akin to the feelings evoked by the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome.

Making demands of women feels very unnatural to beta males because those men have little experience with women beyond that which is acquired by flaunting their ability to provide, sympathy mewl on cue, and show up on time. To beta males, the notion of arousing a woman to dizzying sexual cravings through the conduit of compliance testing is incomprehensible. The beta male invests in women; he knows no other way. The alpha male lures women to invest in him. He knows there is another way.

Read Full Post »