Feeds:
Posts
Comments

COTW winner is “anonymous”, reminding the studio audience ’tis nobler to suffer the fists and kicks of outraged white knights, than to sit trapped in a sea of man-hating humiliation sessions:

Sexual Harassment Prevention used to consist of the girls brother kicking your ass. Between that or a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation – Ill take the ass kicking

I dream one day the world’s HR broads have to sit through a 45 minute powerpoint presentation on false rape accusations. Their squirming would be, in a word, delicious!

***

shartiste is our COTW runner-up,

Its nice how “don’t marry the bad boys” is framed as the girl’s choice. They’re “bad boys” because they won’t marry you.

Right-o. Sheryl Sandberg is blowing smoke up everyone’s skirt. Women pursuing the “apha fux beta bux” strategy don’t refuse to marry the badboys; the badboys refuse to marry the women. Even arid studies confirm this observed reality.

***

Arbiter wins the CH consolation COTW (keep trying, commentbrah!):

This is what the puritan tradcons don’t understand, with their constant “Game is putting women on a pedestal”, “Game is meaningless sex and adultery”, “Game is faking and lying”. No. Game is about making it possible for a man to choose, instead of waiting to be chosen.

Pithy. Even if a man isn’t choosing his dating market options 100% of the time, a small improvement in the amount of control he has over who he dates can mean the difference between settling in legally-bound misery with a fat cow or cohabitating with a cutie outside the reach of the law. In the sexual market, the slimmest margins matter.

Ah, dat jerkboy charisma. Chicks dig it. If you’ve been a regular guest of the Chateau, you’ll know why chicks dig jerks, and you’ll know why cultivating your inner jerkboy is a pillar of Game teachings.

For a long time, CH was out there, a retreat in the deep wood willing to preach the Rude Word to any lost and yearning soul stumbling along the stony path leading to the ancient oak doors. Few knew of our secretive hideaway, fewer still could grasp the revolutionary nature of our message.

But our mischievous proselytizing has finally breached the sound barrier of the mainstream information gatekeepers (and from the reaction to their first line of defense crumbling, they don’t like it). As one reader who forwarded the following article wrote,

The substance of this article will present no surprises.  The tone of the author, apologetic and disturbed by the findings, will also present no surprises.

Not at all. The Atlantic is the latest Hivemind organ to hate itself for falling in love with Le Chateau.

Why It Pays to Be a Jerk

New research confirms what they say about nice guys.

The suspense is killing me! I hope it lasts.

At the University of Amsterdam, researchers have found that semi-obnoxious behavior not only can make a person seem more powerful, but can make them more powerful, period. The same goes for overconfidence. Act like you’re the smartest person [ed: or sexiest man] in the room, a series of striking studies demonstrates, and you’ll up your chances of running the show.

The Atlantic agrees with CH that overconfidence is the heart of game.

People will even pay to be treated shabbily: snobbish, condescending salespeople at luxury retailers extract more money from shoppers than their more agreeable counterparts do.

Seduction is the art of selling yourself to women. And just as it is in the realm of business sales, snobbish, entitled jerkboys are the most successful at selling their promise of pleasures to women.

“We believe we want people who are modest, authentic, and all the things we rate positively” to be our leaders, says Jeffrey Pfeffer, a business professor at Stanford. “But we find it’s all the things we rate negatively”—like immodesty—“that are the best predictors of higher salaries or getting chosen for a leadership position.”

Humans aren’t a rational species; they’re a rationalizing species.

“What happens if you put a python and a chicken in a cage together?,” Pfeffer asked him. The former student looked lost. “Does the python ask what kind of chicken it is? No. The python eats the chicken.”

“You’re like a big bear with claws and with fangs…and she’s just like this little bunny, who’s just kinda cowering in the corner.”

But, careful… all jerk and no softie makes Jack a d-bag.

In Grant’s framework, the mentor in this story would be classified as a “taker,” which brings us to a major complexity in his findings. Givers dominate not only the top of the success ladder but the bottom, too, precisely because they risk exploitation by takers.

All well and good. You can’t expect to lord it over all the people all the time without attention given to your reception. However… if you HAD to choose between being a niceguy and a 24/7 asshole…

ALWAYS CHOOSE ASSHOLE. To wit:

Consider the following two scenes. In the first, a man takes a seat at an outdoor café in Amsterdam, carefully examines the menu before returning it to its holder, and lights a cigarette. When the waiter arrives to take his order, he looks up and nods hello. “May I have a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee, please?” he asks. “Thank you.”

In the second, the same man takes the same seat at the same outdoor café in Amsterdam. He puts his feet up on an adjoining seat, taps his cigarette ashes onto the ground, and doesn’t bother putting the menu back into its holder. “Uh, bring me a vegetarian sandwich and a sweet coffee,” he grunts, staring past the waiter into space. He crushes the cigarette under his shoe.

Dutch researchers staged and filmed each scene as part of a 2011 study designed to examine “norm violations.” Research stretching back to at least 1972 had shown that power corrupts, or at least disinhibits. High-powered people are more likely to take an extra cookie from a common plate, chew with their mouths open, spread crumbs, stereotype, patronize, interrupt, ignore the feelings of others, invade their personal space, and claim credit for their contributions. “But we also thought it could be the other way around,” Gerben van Kleef, the study’s lead author, told me. He wanted to know whether breaking rules could help people ascend to power in the first place.

Yes, he found. The norm-violating version of the man in the video was, in the eyes of viewers, more likely to wield power than his politer self. And in a series of follow-up studies involving different pairs of videos, participants, responding to prompts, made statements such as “I would like this person as my boss” and “I would give this person a promotion.”

“I would open my legs for this jerk.”

Ok, if being a jerkboy is so personally rewarding, the inevitable question follows,

Instead of asking why some people bully or violate norms, researchers are asking: Why doesn’t everyone? […]

“That’s a complexity of humans,” Faris says: it was not until after the human-chimpanzee split that Homo sapiens developed a newer, uniquely human path to power. Scholars call it “prestige.”

There are different kinds of ways to project power (and consequently arouse women). “Prestige” is better-known to students of Game as Demonstrating Higher Value.

The Atlantic even goes so far to wonder if the Game axiom “Fake it till you create it” is a real thing:

I did wonder, though: Could the apprentice actors [tasked with acting irrationally confident], given enough time, come to inhabit their roles more fully? Anderson noted that self-delusion among his study’s participants could have been the product of earlier behaviors. “Maybe they faked it until they made it and that became them.” We are what we repeatedly do, as Aristotle observed.

Ripped from the Chateau headlines.

In fact, it’s easy to see how an initial advantage derived from a lack of self-awareness, or from a deliberate attempt to fake competence, or from a variety of other, similar heelish behaviors could become permanent. Once a hierarchy emerges, the literature shows, people tend to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why those in charge should be in charge.

“Once a woman falls hard for a charming jerkboy, she tends to construct after-the-fact rationalizations about why the jerk she loves should be her soulmate.”

Likewise, the experience of power leads people to exhibit yet more power-signaling behaviors (displaying aggressive body language, taking extra cookies from the common plate).

Success with women breeds more success with women.

It is possible, of course, to reframe Anderson’s conclusions so that, for instance, initiative is itself a competence, in which case groups would be selecting their leaders more rationally than he supposes. But is a loudmouth the same thing as a leader?

aka the “bustamove” theory of Game.

So what is that special sauce that jerkboys have which flavors a woman’s life? Or anyone’s life?

When I thought about whether I had friends or associates who fit Aaron James’s definition of an asshole, I could come up with two. I couldn’t pinpoint why I spent time with them, other than the fact that life seemed larger, grander—like the world was a little more at your feet—when they were around.

“I want more LIFE, fucker!”

Then I thought of the water skis.

Some friends had rented a powerboat. We had already taken it out on the water when someone remarked, above the engine noise, that it was too bad we didn’t have any water skis. That would have been fun.

Within a few minutes, an acquaintance I will call Jordan had the boat pulled up to a dock where a boy of maybe 8 or 9 was alone. Do you have any water skis?

The boy seemed unprepared for the question. Not really, he said. There might be some in storage, but only his parents would know. Well, would you be a champ and run back to the house and ask them? The boy did not look like he wanted to. But he did.

The rest of us in the boat shared the boy’s astonishment (Who asks that sort of question?), his reluctance to turn a nominally polite encounter into a disagreeable one, and perhaps the same paralysis: no one said anything to stop the exchange. But that’s the thing. Spend time with the Jordans of the world and you’re apt to get things you are not entitled to—the choice table at the overbooked restaurant, the courtside tickets you’d never ask for yourself—without ever having to be the bad guy. The transgression was Jordan’s. The spoils were the group’s.

The transgression is the jerkboy’s. The romantic spoils are the women’s.

Isolating the effects of taker behavior on group welfare is exactly what van Kleef, the Dutch social psychologist, and fellow researchers set out to do in their coffee-pot study of 2012.

At first blush, the study seems simple. Two people are told a cover story about a task they’re going to perform. One of them—a male confederate used in each pair throughout the study—steals coffee from a pot on a researcher’s desk. What effect does his stealing have on the other person’s willingness to put him in charge?

The answer: It depends. If he simply steals one cup of coffee for himself, his power affordance shrinks slightly. If, on the other hand, he steals the pot and pours cups for himself and the other person, his power affordance spikes sharply. People want this man as their leader.

Women want to join a jerk’s world because they want to be taken on a mutually satisfying adventure.

I related this to Adam Grant. “What about the person who gets resources for the group without stealing coffee?” he asked. “That’s a comparison I would like to see.”

It was a comparison, actually, that van Kleef had run. When the man did just that—poured coffee for the other person without stealing it—his ratings collapsed. Massively. He became less suited for leadership, in the eyes of others, than any other version of himself.

If you’re nothing but a niceguy, people will come to despise you because you will be giving away your generosity as if it was worthless.

[C]ould rudeness cause other people to open their wallets too?

The answer was a qualified yes. When it came to “aspirational” brands like Gucci, Burberry, and Louis Vuitton, participants were willing to pay more in a scenario in which they felt rejected. But the qualifications were major. A customer had to feel a longing for the brand, and if the salesperson did not look the image the brand was trying to project, condescension backfired. For mass-market retailers like the Gap, American Eagle, and H&M, rejection backfired regardless.

This qualification exists in the field of pickup too. Acting like an egotistic jerk while hitting on fatties projects an incongruence. Hotties will scorn you, and the fatties will feel even more “devalidated” than they did before you leveled your very special attention on them. Interestingly, this aspect of jerkitude verifies the game technique of peacocking. If you stand out in a little way from the crowd of betas, your jerky charisma will be better received because you’ll be projecting a “brand image” of a man who breaks norms.

Luxury retail is a very specific realm. But the study also points toward a bigger and more general qualification of the advantage to being a jerk: should something go wrong, jerks don’t have a reserve of goodwill to fall back on.

This is why you’ve gotta mix up your jerkballs with some slow pitches, especially if you want a long-term relationship with a girl. A jerkboy can keep a woman spinning in a dizzying drama orbit for a long time, but eventually, should a major fault line erupt, she’ll come back down to earth, and if you haven’t provided at least a little padding for her landing the crash could be spectacular.

([Being a jerk] is also marginally more likely to fail you, several studies suggest, if you’re a woman.)

Contrary popular but embittered feminist belief, men don’t dig bitches (unless they’re smoking hot).

Yet in at least three situations, a touch of jerkiness can be helpful. […] The third—not fully explored here, but worth mentioning—is when the group’s survival is in question, speed is essential, and a paralyzing existential doubt is in the air.

Jerkitude is really helpful to your game right at that precarious decision-making point of your first meeting with a girl. When she’s wondering if you’re an interesting man she’d like to get to know is when being a jerk will nudge her in the direction of wanting more of you.

But can you become the jerk women love? There’s an anecdote in the article about an entrepreneur whose life changed after he joined the Marine Corp. His time in the Marines made him more aggressive. He learned how “to go from 15 to 95 real quick”. He did this so often that his personality permanently changed to a new, jerky valence, and it carried over later into business success.

Learning to become a jerk is just like learning Game,

Without that kind of modulation—without getting a little outside our comfort zone, at least some of the time—we’re all probably less likely to reach our goals, whether we’re prickly or pleasant by disposition.

You have to get outside your comfort zone. Not a lot. Just a little push against your comfy boundaries is enough to mold you into a better man.

He believes that the most effective people are “disagreeable givers”—that is, people willing to use thorny behavior to further the well-being and success of others.

No man is a jerk store unto himself. Speaking of “disagreeable givers”, that appellation fits a lot of natural players I’ve known. They are rude and shocking and arrogant, but are also sometimes surprisingly generous, and the recipients of the jerks’ generosity value it so much more than they would from a niceguy because they are preconditioned to assume the jerk had to sacrifice a lot more “character capital” to be generous with them. It’s like getting a pat on the back from the CEO versus getting slavish praise from the mailroom grunt.

Smile at the customer. Take the initiative. Tweak a few rules. Steal cookies for your colleagues. Don’t puncture the impression that you know what you’re doing. Let the other person fill the silence. Get comfortable with discomfort. Don’t privilege your own feelings. Ask who you’re really protecting. Be tough and humane. Challenge ideas, not the people who hold them. Don’t be a slave to type.

Game 101.

And above all, don’t affix nasty, scatological labels to people.

I dunno about this one. I’ve found that girls love my occasional streaks of sadistic cruelty. Ever play the “marry fuck kill” game with a girl you’ve just met?

It’s a jerk move.

And…

wait for it…

chicks dig it!

(this post was very meta-jerk.)

Summertime Gine

Reader Waffles tastes the rainbow,

In honor of great scenes of game in the movies I have to give a special shout out to the official start of the summer of game, Memorial Day Weekend. Summer offers the promise of endless possibilities and is a game reset button. I am sure many in the Chateau can speak to the experience of arguably the most exciting arena of game, the coed summer shore house. In the car with the windows down, music up, that giddy flash of anxiety that hits the moment you smell the salty air, it’s too late now. Here it comes.

Evocative. Who didn’t get a tingle up their legs reading this and envisioning that romantic rush of summersun fun?

I offer a game tip, Waffles. When you meet a girl at the shore this weekend, and you will, at an opportune moment tell her this story exactly as you wrote it here. Not necessarily with her as the subject of your story; instead, told as a bodywide feeling that carries you aloft. Then sit back and slip your sunglasses on, because her sparkling eyes will blind you like the glittering midday surf. If your car is a convertible, bonus storytelling points.

Possibly the most iconic charismatic alpha male jerkboy in pre-post-America movie history is the character “Bender”, played by Judd Nelson in the (all-white) cult classic The Breakfast Club.

On that topic, a reader writes,

I’ve watched this movie twice this month. You really have to appreciate Bender’s alphatude.

I think it would be fun to hear your take on him. To my surprise I’ve searched around the Manosphere and found zilch. You would think he would be the poster (man) for the Manosphere, at least Alpha of the Month!

Could it be that CH overlooked Bender as Exhibit Asshole of the jerk with the alpha attitude that is diggeth by yon maidens? I searched the archives and, scandaleux!, an ode to Bender is nowhere found. Pry your eyes, time to rectify.

Bender is the classic übercool, sarcastic, brooding, lone wolf neg machine who supercharges the sex fantasies of girls from good backgrounds. He has so many great scenes of game in TBC that it’s hard to pick a favorite, but this one — a quickie in a closet where Bender responds to Claire’s pregnant ASD inquiry about his feelings towards her earlier trick of putting lipstick on herself using only her cleavage — is (IMfactualO) the perfect distillation of charismatic jerkboy game in as few words as humanly possible.

Claire: Were you really disgusted about what I did with my lipstick?

Watch out! This is a scrumptious niblet of beta bait that Clarie tosses overboard to see if Bender goes all goopy on her. Most betas would promptly qualify themselves, along the lines of “no i was just kidding with you. how could i be disgusted by anything you do?”

Bender: Truth?

Bender knows what to do with beta bait. Tug on the line, get the girl excited that maybe you’ve bitten down on the hook, but attach an old shoe instead and watch her face light up when she reels it back onto the boat, happy that her feminine wile was so expertly subdued.

Claire: Truth.

Bender: *nodding as if saying ‘yes’* No. *follows up with award-winning smirk*

Unpredictability and playfulness are the alpha player’s coin of the womb. She expected a straight answer, he responded with a flirtatious contradiction in verbal and physical acknowledgment. In other words, he broke the courtship rules. And she loves him for doing that.

Bender’s alpha attitude is a fusion reactor of gina tingles. His kind is so rare and so in-demand by women that he’s practically his own gender, a subspecies of betamale flaccidus. Why aren’t there more of him, then? Maybe his subspecies is reproductively self-correcting, flourishing only when his numbers in the broader population are low.

The CH series, Great Scenes of Game in the Movies (GSGM), is a useful learning tool for men seeking to become the charming player who sets female hearts fluttering. Movies are fantasy, but fantasy reflects real life desire, otherwise no one would be interested in watching. Art must contain a kernel of truth to have any true effect on viewers.

Browse the archived GSGM entries
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
and the one that started it all, here.

PS a girly commenter (swkstudent) to the above Youtube video snippet, shocked and dismayed by what she saw, felt an incredible urge to volunteer this ego-fluffing platitude:

no she likes him because she knows deep down he’s not an asshole and he was honest with her

It still amazes me the lengths to which delicate flowers will go to avoid the bleeding obvious when the bleeding obvious isn’t kind to their comatose belief systems.

swkstudent, you can’t later rationalize your love for a jerk by insisting that deep down he’s not an asshole unless you first know he’s an asshole. Otherwise, Brian, the niceguy in TBC who’s clearly not an asshole and who’s honest with everyone, would be sailing the seas of Claire’s beaver brine. And yet he’s not. Fancy that.

The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.

The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.

Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.

Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed

1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.

Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.

Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.

2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.

What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.

So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)

So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.

Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.

3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.

When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?

Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.

4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.

If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?

As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”

Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.

When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.

5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.

The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.

(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)

This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.

Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.

6. Women lie.

Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.

***

This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.

The part of The Thirst that is true:

Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.

The parts of The Thirst that are false:

Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.

Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.

It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.

The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.

tl;dr

“He’s just not *that* into you.”

Besides a wispy thatch of blonde pubes cresting a slow wave of inflamed pink, this might be the most beautiful thing I’ve seen all week.

Early this morning, an anonymous person or persons put up posters around Columbia University—in the 116th Street subway station, outside of Tom’s Restaurant, on stoplights and construction walls—emblazoned with the image of student Emma Sulkowicz and her now-iconic mattress. Since September 2014, Sulkowicz has been dragging the mattress around campus as a protest against the school’s handling of her rape allegations against another student. (That student, Paul Nungesser, has since sued the university.) This morning’s posters accuse Sulkowicz of making it all up, dismissing her as “Pretty Little Liar” with the caption “Emma Sulkowitz” [sic] and “RapeHoax.”

A new Twitter account, @FakeRape, has been tweeting pictures of the posters for the last five hours. Another poster, picturing Lena Dunham sticking her tongue out, is clearly part of the series, emblazoned “Big Fat Liar,” with the same #RapeHoax hashtag.

A graduating army of Chateau Heartiste shock troops likes the feel of their heavy scrota, and the joy of placing their stones on the chins of malicious feminist cuntrags. For this reason, the Columbia University anonymous Realtalker™ earns this edition of Shiv of the Week.

Shame, mortify, and ostracize feminists until they slither away to their dank bedrooms in solidarity with their bruised egos, or they self-deliver in the gloom of their despair. Cantankerous and cancerous feminist attention whores fear nothing more than total social expulsion. When the tide finally turns, and it will, even their closest sistren will betray them for the mercy of the cool mean girls.

YaReally makes an important point about female eye contact, and why it’s a mistake for men to wait for flirty eye contact from women before approaching them with promises of lovey lovey long time. Reprinted in full.

******

Get comfy, this is a long one but stick it out and you’ll read some shit and make some connections that I haven’t seen anyone else really write about before:

For the record I get zero eye-contact from ANY women.

My buddies (esp the ones who are non-white or short, like not traditionally good looking) don’t believe me because they’ve seen me in-field macking girls and they’ve seen me build my value up in a venue to the point where girls WILL throw me eye-contact. But if I’m just walking through a crowd at the mall or down the street or around a grocery store I get NO girls tossing me eye-contact. Hot, ugly, groups, solo, doesn’t matter, I’m essentially invisible by default. It’s not that we look at each other in the eyes and she glances away too fast for me to do anything. It’s not that I look at her eyes a second after she looks away from mine. It’s not that she checks me out on my way up to the checkout counter and then looks away when she thinks I’ll notice. It’s literally they’ll look completely off to the side of me, down, above me, etc. and actively avoid meeting eye to eye.

On the flip side I have a non-white buddy who’s daygame advice to me is always stuff about “man just hold eye-contact and they melt” and it took him a while to understand that somehow a non-white guy gets more eye-contact than a white guy. Logically, I should be the one getting EC and he should be getting ignored. We’re in a city that’s primarily white too, so it makes even more sense that we should be seeing the opposite results. Logically the girls should be checking out the guy who more closely matches their mental image of who they should be with.

I attribute it to being peacocked by default. A non-white dude in a white city is peacocked by default. It’s an unusual sight to see, especially since he walks with confidence so it’s like “huh? What’s that?” and instinctively they look at him. Because they can’t instantly label him in their mind since he doesn’t fit their mold of what they expect to see, they have to observe him to classify him. The same way if a clown runs through the room most people’s heads would turn to look at it just out of reflex. I have a short buddy (5’2″) who gets a lot of looks when he walks into a room too, because again he’s peacocked by default.

These looks aren’t necessarily attraction, they’re primarily curiousity or just a reflex, BUT they DO allow the guy an opportunity to lock eye-contact confidently and not look away and start gaming from that foothold. My short buddy uses the attention to engage people and build social proof quickly.

Whereas I have an extremely generic look. If you had to describe a generic average looking white guy, that description would be me lol Average height, weight, looks, clothes, you name it. I don’t even peacock, no wrist-bands or necklaces or wild shirts or anything.

And the fact that I look like all the other generic white guys ends up working AGAINST me…because how many cool attractive money dudes has she met? They’re rare in general as it is. But there are a TON of lame chodey beta AFC white dudes all around her, from her social circles, to her orbiters, to her classmates, to her friend-zoned childhood best friend with a crush, to every lame-ass dude at the bar who’s ever hit on her. All the guys who seemed cool at first but then turned out to be lame after a couple dates etc.

And engaging these guys can be annoying because they’re lame/boring, they get clingy and needy, the sex is bad, she ends up having to avoid their calls for weeks while they throw emo tantrums or cry about why she doesn’t like them etc. etc. On top of that, who are the primary assholes she experiences, like not the attractive assholes but the ones who legitimately do shitty things to her and her friends? Probably white dudes. Who’s her ex-boyfriend who was a loser? Probably some white dude. Who are the guys on the bus and street who give her weak-ass catcalls and if she accidentally makes eye-contact with some loser on the bus he takes it as a sign he has a chance and sits down beside her with his bad breath and awkward weirdness and she has to engage him the entire bus-ride etc (this is why when you watch a hot girl get on a bus she’ll often be looking down at the floor, not around the room, because she doesn’t want to accidentally make eye-contact with some loser and she’s in an environment where the people are probably losers cause they can’t afford cars lol).

So we have like hundreds or thousands of reference experiences of white guys being lame-ass chodes or assholes, losers, etc. and maybe a couple experiences with legitimately money white dudes who, even long-term, stay high-value.

So if we’re both walking down the street toward each other, is it safer for her to assume I’m one of the few awesome dudes she’s met, or that I’m one of the VAST number of “I don’t want to engage with this guy” guys she’s met and avoid eye-contact? Especially if I look exactly like all the other generic white dudes?

And on the flip side has she ever MET and hung out with, like, a non-white dude or a 5’2″ guy in a primarily white city? No, probably not. She may have an idea of some stereotypes from TV/movies, but that’s about it. So she doesn’t KNOW what my buddies will be like and their body language and vibe doesn’t match the stereotypes she expected so she has to check them out to try to confirm the stereotypes to classify them. They may literally be her first reference experience of seeing one in person. Look at Mystery, you see THAT weird shit walking past you and how can you NOT look out of sheer curiousity at “wtf am I even looking at is this real life??” And if you’re a girl in a bar you want to shit-test that instinctively out of curiousity…but passing shit-tests builds attraction so you’ve just walked into the spider-web he laid out.

I get a similar issue with bouncers, my non-white or peacocked buddies have a WAY easier time getting bouncers to recognize and remember them because I look like every other dude. They’ve thrown out 3 guys that look just like me that night and there are 20 of me in the lineup when they glance over the line and they’re purposely trying NOT to engage us because we’ll be doing some stupid shit like begging to get in or trying to bribe them awkwardly or complaining about the wait etc. so I just blend in with the rest of them whereas the bouncer will pick my non-white buddy out of the lineup all “hey man what are you doing in line lol”. I have to actively get face-time and a few solid interactions with them for them to pick me out of a crowd or remember me.

So there are benefits to looking unusual, even looking a way that would normally be deemed unattractive, IF you can learn to harness the attention it gets you. I tried to explain to my non-white buddy that if he went to his home country where EVERY guy looked exactly like him and 90% of them were losers, he’d experience the same effect and get why girls don’t check me out.

I have minimal to no value until I actively approach a girl and express my personality. [ed: emphasis added] It’s not that I’m unattractive in general because once I approach I can skyrocket in value pretty much immediately and being my charming self and they love me, but before I approach I am just invisible furniture lol That would affect my confidence if I didn’t understand how game/attraction/psychology work, like you get new a new shirt and a haircut or you’ve lost a few pounds at the gym and feel good and walk around and no girls notice you, and then it’s all big sad feels…but because I know that as soon as I engage them and express my personality they’ll view me as a 10, I go from a non-entity they didn’t even realize was in the room to “where did you come from??” puzzlement at how they didn’t notice such an attractive guy was nearby, it’s like I materialized out of thin air to them…and so I don’t care about not getting easy Approach Invites like eye-contact.

Now I could tweak this. If I could grow to be 6’4″, or if I got super Hulk jacked, or if I wore crazy peacocky clothes, or if I pulled up in a BMW, or if I was having a loud conversation with a buddy where I’m expressing my personality, or if I had a girl on my arm, etc. If I do that stuff I’ll get more AIs and eye-contact. Hell the whole PUA community was based around “try to stand out” before you even approach. But a lot of that stuff can be a lot of work for little reward because even with those AIs I’ll still have to approach her since the girls who will approach me will generally be overconfident 5-7s at best…a 9 isn’t likely to drop her shit to come over and say hi to a guy the same way Bill Gates isn’t going to flip his shit and dance down the street over finding a $10,000 bill on the ground because her entire nightlife social circle is often jacked rich good-looking dudes…plus she needs a guy who’s confident enough to approach her. A lot of the really good looking guys you see at the bar who don’t have game and like the guy who just climbed Mt Everest etc. stare at the 9s all night but end up going home with the aggressive/easy 5-7s. [ed: stone cold truth right there.]

Ultimately looks etc. will get you more easy invites but they don’t really matter because you still have to do the hard work if you want the really hot girls. That’s why we say “looks don’t matter”. A lot of these guys working on their looks and money are trying to get jacked and rich enough that 9s will come over and approach them. They’re trying to get Bill Gates to chase a $10,000. That $10,000 is great, but like, he has billions, he’s not going to fish that bill out of a sewer like the average person would. So they’re trying to get around having to cold approach because cold approach is scaaaaaaary! Then they get frustrated because ya they get laid by 5-7s with the occasional 8 and super rare 9 but it’s inconsistent as fuck and they don’t really get to choose. They’re trying to run passive game and hoping that table of 9s is going to come over and ask to suck their dick.

So my logic is that if I want the legit hot girls that have tons of options and turn heads, I have to approach them and express my personality to get them whether I’m jacked and rich or not. Since I have to approach them whether I’m jacked and rich, then logically it makes more sense to focus my energy on tightening my cold approach skills and get better at efficiently expressing my personality and building emotional engagement with them instead of lifting weights and working overtime.

And, plot-twist: BECAUSE I look so average, when I cold approach that peacocked 9 in a nightclub who’s used to only tall rich good-looking guys being confident enough to interact with her, this exact principle I’ve been talking about suddenly works in my favor because now I’M the peacocked one. A guy with seemingly nothing going for him approaching her confidently with game is so unusual that she’s curious. She won’t check me out from across the room by default (tho she might if I DHV a bunch in front of her), but she won’t be able to immediately categorize me when I approach because it’s so unexpected and she’ll shit-test the FUCK out of me (but what does passing shit-tests do?) but if I can run solid game on her and handle her AMOG orbiters, then I’m like some kind of celebrity level value to her because I go against all the stereotypes of what she’d expect from an average looking guy.

But by default I am invisible. Just posting this ’cause it’s something I haven’t seen people address before. On the net we all want to hype up that we’re badasses who strut into the room and all the girls’ heads turn and that that’s the gauge of your game but getting eye-contact doesn’t actually mean shit in the long-run…it comes down to game. I can build higher value by getting in her face and expressing my personality than the jacked rich guy can with his passive “hope she approaches me” game. And if he has to get in her face and express his personality too, then I have more practice at that and a tighter skillset because I was working on that all those years that he was working at the gym and office. I have more experience handling rich good-looking AMOGs than he has experience handling average looking dudes with game and all it takes to get attraction is to be 1% cooler than him to the girl lol

I’ve had really good-looking wings with various skill levels, but like good-looking to where if I don’t do anything the girl will actively ignore me or brush off what I say and turn back to focus on him and I’m literally standing there looking at the back of the head of two girls while they stare up at my buddy like he’s amazing lol And that pissed me off for a while. But because it pissed me off I started getting up in the girls’ faces when it happened. And lo and behold I found that if I pro-actively get up in their grill and express myself, they’ll focus on me instead of him and on my on nights, my BUDDY was the one looking at the back of their heads while they were completely engaged/attracted to ME instead of him…the first few times that happened blew my fuckin MIND. Couldn’t believe what I was seeing, and neither could he lol

But all that was going on is that game has taught me to very efficiently express my personality and engage/captivate girls on an emotional rollercoaster quickly that hooks them and builds my value fast to where I’m higher-value than the good-looking guy who was like “so uhhh do you like coming here? that’s cool…” because he just came from the office where he worked an 80hr week and the gym where he silently worked out with his headphones on and got drunk off pre-drinking instead of heading out early and doing warm-up sets to get social and unstifled.

Now a good-looking rich guy who’s ALSO got game can have problems too, like getting put into a Provider role where the girl wants to date him instead of fuck him right away and he starts having to lie about what he does for a living and pick the girl up in an average car instead of his BMW etc. There was a thread on Rollo’s blog and one on TRP I saw recently where guys were talking about having to hide their success and make up fake jobs and shit. So if you end up having to hide that shit when you get it…then why are you reading this in the office at 11pm on a Friday night???? Go out and sarge, dumbass lol

The reality is that a good-looking rich guy who’s also got amazing game is about as rare as Michael Jordan also being better than Tiger Woods at golf and better than Bobby Fischer at chess and better than Gordan Ramsey at cooking and better than Jimi Hendrix at playing the guitar…it’s theoretically POSSIBLE, if he starts from babyhood and dedicates his life non-stop to all of those things 24/7…but realistically it’s unlikely, because there are only so many hours in the day. If you’re spending 2 hours a day at the gym to get super jacked and working 100hr work-weeks to get rich, that’s all time that you could have spent approaching girls and getting out of your comfort zone in social circles to tighten up your game so you’re not likely to have game as tight as someone like Tyler who’s spending all that time sarging. It’s just logic. The boogeyman myth of the rich good-looking badass guy who also has game is as likely as that All-Star athlete/genius/musician…and hell, even if that guy existed, you think he’s going to be down at your local pub? He’s going to be in exclusive clubs in LA and Vegas partying with Dicaprio lol Your competition is a bunch of average to above-average guys with anything from anti-game to weak-game to above-average game. If you put in the field-time and study you can dwarf them in terms of skill in a few years of hard work.

******

Give me ten minutes to talk away my ugly face, and I can bed the Queen of France. – Voltaire

Anyone who insists you need initial eye contact from a woman if you want a chance with her is lying. Simple as that. Yes, flirty eye contact can smooth your approach, but it isn’t required.

You want the choicest ladies? You’ve gotta bust a move. Women are, on the whole, the chosen sex, so they are constitutionally averse to tossing out eye contact invitations to random men. Attractive women expect to be boldly approached by worthy men — it’s in their DNA — so why are you waiting for a ceremonial invitation to join their world? That just sucks all the fun out of it, for you and for them.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: