Make Yourself More Attractive To Women By Defying Their Expectations

People are disturbed, even offended, when someone whom they thought they had studiously boxed into a determinable set of characteristics based on past performance defies those expectations, but only women mix the feeling of offense with arousal.

A predictable woman of sufficient beauty is a godsend to men, for her reliable nature provides a linearity upon which men can hitch their future behavior which assures the snatch will flow. All men crave drama-free quality pussy. Many men are stuck with both, because they crave the pussy more than they crave the drama-free lifestyle.

Women are different. They crave the quality cock, but they also crave drama, unpredictability and challenge. An alpha male with no tricks up his sleeve, no matter how attractive in the beginning, will lose his allure if his behavior becomes easy to predict, like a sunset. Men value their romantic expectations because they help them court, mate guard and protect their paternal rights; women suffer a dysfunctional relationship with their romantic expectations because men who meet them both reassure women of resource flow and rob women of a pleasure that is distinct to their sex.

It has been noted on this blog, with righteous justification drawn from real world experience, that laconic, ambiguous text game is an effective seduction tactic. The man who employs it delivers the challenge and the titillation of hidden meaning that women love. But too much “aloof alpha” game makes Jack a dull boy. If you groom her so assiduously with your terse badinage that she comes to expect it from you on a regular basis, your magic hold on her will loosen. There then must be a place in your stash house of seductiveness for a sixth-sense plotting twist.

As the insult stings more when delivered at the end of a civil conversation that lulls your opponent to complacency, similarly does the sudden and unexpected flaring of verbal acumen pleasurably stun the conditioned woman when unloaded after a spate of terse grunts. A brutishly landed “…” or “gay” will intrigue a woman, but a sophisticated elocution that follows will shock her to supine yearning.

The context that makes this mental track switch effective is the timing. In order for a girl’s expectation to be happily defied, it must first be created. And not all expectations deliver the same charismatic punch. Verbal efflorescence is, by its nature, the sullen song of the beta male. Thus, its indulgence during the meet and greet portion of a pickup is likely to turn a woman away who has not yet been satisfactorily primed to accept a man’s distantly unattainable alphaness. But when that same man’s nimble-tongued firepower is discharged later, after a flurry of curt jabs to her ego flanks, an explosive flowering of her furrow rocks her repose.

Reader SoulInvictus bitches on the subject,

There is a flip side to the terse, sophomoric, texting. Most guys already do this due to stupidity, so other than the time delay tactic, which is incredibly effective up to a point, then demonstrating you have a vocabulary that can express desire and inspire lust, can be far more effective in nontard women.

From an exchange today, with a married hotty (and no, this is not an “Am I alpha” submission)-

Me: (cutting out the lead up conversation) I don’t pursue something I want half halfheartedly.

(sidenote: I find it very effective to subliminally use terms of romance in descriptive ways but not directly offered to her. It inspires an, oh he has that side to him too, that caters to the barbie dreamhouse little girl in every.one.of.them. but without supplicating and thus devaluing yourself.)

This is a subcategory of vulnerability game. By revealing your weakness for romantic idealism in the abstract, you allow the woman the luxury of earning your attention.

Kristi: It’s very plausible! Plus I wouldn’t mind a good massage here and there w/ some good dick lol

Liquor is quicker but Kristi is risqué!

Multiple short inquiring texts of hers follow, culminating in a very long detailed elaboration of exactly what I plan to do to her while her husband is at work…

Me: “…knowing that while we’re standing there talking and he’s none the wiser, that your hungry mouth was consuming me like a starving animal a few moments before. That my cum is still dripping down the inside of your thigh and that you still have the taste of me on your lips.” …
“…good girl, …pounding you open like a whore… grasping the back of your neck as I ride you” etc etc

Kristi: God you should write erotica I swear lol
You make me want to be bad.
If you fuck as well as you write we will have no problems whatsoever lol

Multiple nude pics of her flood into my email and plans begin to form for next week. Done.

It can’t be overstated just how starved for this kind of shit married women are. Why do you think they masturbate away to 50 Shades of pathetically weak sadism….
This kind of literate game is antithetical to “ellipses” game (that’s fucking retarded that it now has it’s own sub-genre, really?)

Hey dude, don’t shoot the masher. Anyhow, ellipsis game is not “antithetical” to literate game; it’s accessorizing. How many times do people need to be reacquainted with concept of false mutual exclusivity?

The point, as made above, is that “literate game” works a hell of a lot better once a man has established his aloofly indifferent alpha male bona fides. An ellipsis leading to a surprise verbal money shot is more effective than splashing a chick in an ocean of sloppy lingual ejaculate.

and the like, but has provided me with virgins, reliable phone sex for when needing a quick fix, sex slaves, married women, and everything in between.

While agreed, it works far better on a certain type, I’ve had success with anything from 18 yo virgins to 35 yo housewives. Most men just can’t offer that fantasy world, and after pump and dump experiences as prescribed here or neglectfully aloof husbands wear thin, they eat it up. So thanks guys  The nastier, more demeaning, and dehumanizing the better. When you have seemingly normal, successful, white, married women begging to drink your piss (yes, and more frequent than you’d imagine),

I wonder if this is the same girl that YaReally pooped on?

then it can be a jarring realization about the inherent mental dysfunction that women walk around hiding. If I was going to give it my own retarded sub genre classification, I’d call it Sneaky Fucker Romantic Sociopathic Sadist Game.

Leave the stylish subcategorizing to the experts. In the meantime, your comment does open the floor to a discussion of the powerful game technique henceforth known as “Busting All Over Her Expectations”. The master wombcatcher heightens a woman’s curiosity by sharply, and without ceremonial fanfare, showing sides of himself that she imagined were not part of his repertoire. A casual shift of gears, from a low rumbling “…” to a rubber-burning peel of erotic intent, will knock a woman off-balance and into your saving arms.

Defying a woman’s expectations carries with it the risk of tilting too far into incongruity. If a girl has it set in her mind that you’re a friendly neighborhood beta, a reckless charge of sexualized bravado will wig her out. The dance of expectation defiance must proceed from a uniform foundation of alphaness. Reveal your lust, but only after you’ve proven your self-possession. Reveal your wistful vulnerabilities, but only after you’ve confirmed your badboy cynicism. Reveal your desire for authenticity, but only after you’ve demonstrated your capacity for charming insincerity.

The Modern Corporate Harem

Senior Management: the harem kings.
Management: the first wives.
Accounts Support: the inner circle concubines.
Sales Support: the trafficked East European sex slave.
Support Team: the royal penis washers.
Account Managers: the threesome coordinators.
Business Managers: the young dick sucking upstarts.

There you have it, the modern corporate harem, in all its flowcharted glory. Seven women per one high status man. A more illuminatingly succinct snapshot of the Western sexual market aligned with the globalizing economic market you won’t see. The only surprising thing about it is the lack of any land whales or witches among the female staff. This is Britain; you’d have to spend years scouring the countryside to find and place that many bangable women under one corporate umbrella. So you know a lot of hard work went into developing a staff that looks like a country with all its men and war pigs removed.

The other thing that’s missing from the chart: Beta males, the invisible demographic.

The four kings at the top of the Spermular Solutions organization may or may not be boffing their happily indentured servants (but if you had to bet…), however the exact dimension of their relationships with their underpantslings is irrelevant in the bigger scheme. These women are, no doubt, enthralled by the power of their male masters. They don’t need to be taking their masters’ cocks to experience the same feeling of submissive joy that a real concubine would feel. All those women are de facto harem girls, at the beck and call of their four alpha kings, gossiping and tittering amongst themselves like court mistresses to determine who is the favored girl of the moment.

This social and quasi-sexual dynamic, playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office. In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!

What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.

Naturally, foul feminist cunts and their bubble-headed beta male toadies immediately saw a “glass ceiling” at work in this corporate chart. For them, a workplace that is 90% female is discrimination against women if the top four positions are held by men. All the lesser men who are missing from the bottom 90% ranks are completely forgettable, nebulous specters resembling some human shape and form. Beta males? Who? What? Is that a new social media app?

I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice: When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.

Update

It gets better. As if more confirmation was needed that what we are witnessing is the legitimization of soft concubinage, the fine alpha males at Spermular Solutions held a bikini contest featuring their charges. The winner was the guy holding his mic.

A New Theory Explains Why Chicks Dig Jerks

Researchers developed a computer model to simulate the human evolutionary process, and what they discovered was a possible explanation for why chicks dig “less supportive partners”, aka jerks.

We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.

The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.

Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.

We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.

But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.

As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict.

So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.

This newest theory is interesting because it cuts against the grain of conventional thinking. It’s assumed by the unimaginative masses that the badboy exploits a sexual market niche of fatherless, low self-esteem skanks. The “Forever Seeking Daddy’s Approval” theory of jerkboy attractiveness rests on the premise that women who have been abandoned by their fathers will seek male approval from similarly emotionally distant lovers. A sort of “fuck it forward” karmic philosophy.

But now a computer simulation has spat out a possible new cause of a badboy love phenomenon that no one with any sense denies (even foul feminists can’t deny it). And in this simulation, it’s not the sluts craving daddy’s comforting hug who fall into the jerk’s tatted arms; it’s the daughters of large, intact families who exploit the material generosity of their parents (really, their fathers) by dating jerks who could use some outside support.

Does this new theory square with reality? At the risk of outing myself as a charming jerk, ( 😎 ) few of the women I’ve taken to bed on the first date came from broken families. Most were smart, psychologically balanced, and raised in the bosom of a loving nuclear family. The “first date” qualifier is important, because it’s a simple metric to use in a pinch that distinguishes impulsive, jerk-loving girls from playing-the-long-game cockteases with ice in their pussies.

Naturally, you would be right to protest that those are just anecdotes. But from anecdotes and personal observations, we build theories of the world. Gotta start somewhere. And it’s also true that some of those same night conquests (a notable minority) turned out, upon later inspection, to have a closet full of family strife skeletons.

The “Parent Exploitation” theory is not without its flaws. For one, it does not, as far as I can tell, include male mate choice in its algorithm. This is a huge oversight. Men, by nature of their reproductive expendability, may not exercise as much choice in the mating market as do women, but they exercise some choice. The pockets of exceedingly beautiful women around the world prove that men, when the ecological conditions are favorable, do adhere to standards when choosing long-term mates. This theory has nothing to say about that. For instance, what is the SMV of the women who choose unsupportive partners and fill in the gaps with their parents’ assistance? How does female SMV inform jerkboy choice? How does a daughter’s or a suitor’s SMV influence parents’ willingness to provide support? What about the kinds of men who choose sexytime women over coy princesses, and vice versa?

Then there’s the issue of declining fertility. How well does the model work when there are more one-child families? It’s not a leap to imagine that a one-child dystopia would encourage the parent exploitation strategy by entitled lone daughters, because there are no sisters to compete for daddy’s money. A one-child family unit world might also spur more cad-chasing by daughters who are sole inheritors of the family wealth.

What about a massively scaled-up dating market, like the one we have today, wherein parents have little to no influence over their daughter’s mate choices which are made in the shadow of urban anonymity and severance from any familial or community roots? Does a daughter’s exploitation strategy work as well under those conditions, or is dad so fed-up with his powerlessness that he cuts her off completely? Or, conversely, does dad lavish gifts on his faraway daughter as substitute for his lack of presence in her romantic life?

That’s the problem with these mathematical modelings: too many unspoken-for variables. A model can be useful, especially as a guide to lead to further inquiry, but its shortcomings are also made more evident by its executable.

So I remain agnostic on the ultimate cause of the female craving for cads. My preferred theory — and the one that makes the most sense from an up-close-and-personal vantage — is a combination of the “sexy sons” and the “dominance signaling” hypotheses. Women are attracted to hard-to-get, noncommittal, charismatic jerks because the sons of those jerks will inherit the jerk’s smooth, reproductive fitness maximizing way with women, and the jerk’s dominance with women is a strong cue that, in the future, he will dominate any enemies who might threaten his family or his lover.

PS Have any of you noticed that the hottest daughters have lumpy, chipmunk-cheeked beta male fathers? It’s the Sitcom Dad-Hot Piece of Princess Ass phenomenon. Enticing femininity is almost guaranteed when both mom and dad are feminine. Women who marry very masculine men tend to produce masculine sons (good) and masculine daughters (bad). Reverse the polarity when dad is very feminine. John Scalzi better hope he bears nothing but daughters… for YaReally to poop on!

So maybe the simulation above is best understood as a palimpsest of the fact that most families which have the resources to give to daughters who choose jerk loverboys are headed by beta provider fathers. And that, since most beta provider fathers are more phenotypically feminine, their daughters will be hotter and thus better able to both attract love from discerning jerks and extract resources from distributing fathers. But as society becomes less monogamous at the margins, the ability and willingness of fathers (not to mention the number of these fathers) to play along with this game gradually decreases.

More Ellipsis Game

You can find ellipsis game theory here, and a successful application of the theory here. Another reader has sent in his test run of ellipsis game, and I think you’ll find it quite entertaining.

Solid, thick, tight intro. Expected butthurt response (can work with this). Swole reframe (do you even fuck?). I wanna see how taunting your lols can get. “Prolly not”? Her vagina moved. Now the ass-to-grass squat blast “…”. BOOM. “Get me drunk ans then maybe”. That’s not fat, that’s a powerslut.

Fuckin’ beeyootifool. Brings a tear to me eye. For you sir, I have only one thing to say,

…

The Wickedest Links

1. Is low fertility hereditary? Francis Galton thought so. He analyzed English peerages (excerpted from R. A. Fisher’s The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection) and found that those high ability men who had married heiresses — who are the “sole issue of a marriage” — produced fewer children. Thus, the genes of men in high social classes were mingled with the genes of women with a tendency to sterility. Infertility then “gains social promotion”. Sound familiar? Money quote (from Fisher):

[I]n a barbarous society, in which the heroic qualities do possess an intrinsic tribal advantage, the power to appreciate and the proneness to admire such qualities will be enhanced, so long at least as reproduction is actually greatest in the predominant families. The reader who will candidly compare the current attitude towards rash actions in any long civilized society with that among the peoples under discussion, will scarcely doubt that the hero-worship of barbarous peoples was in fact a mental attitude which, however useless to modern man, played in their lives a very essential part. Changed conditions which have reversed the advantage of the heroic qualities, have also reversed the advantage of being able to recognize and appreciate them. It is obvious that the barbarous element in the tradition of our culture is that which emphasizes and indeed exaggerates, the natural inequality of man, whereas the religious and legal elements emphasize his civil equality. From the fact that the barbarians valued more highly certain qualities of human character, it is a fair inference that they perceived such differences more clearly than do civilized men.

Fisher agress with the CH diagnosis of the postmodern West that the end days of a civilization are characterized by an exaltation of deviancy (equalism) and a debasement of normalcy (sophism). We in the West long ago abandoned our barbarian ethos. In return for this “moral progress”, we have limitless pleasures of the flesh and material comforts. But we also have complacency, self-annihilating moral universalism, and infertility. Perhaps a return to barbarian values is just the medicine to save the West from a long walk in the shadow of the valley of death.

The patented CH solution to dysgenic fertility is to break the stranglehold of assortative mating by IQ that is currently aided and abetted by the helicopter parent ethos, and return to traditional pairings of powerful, high ability men with pretty but less educated and accomplished women. Call it the CH boss-secretary sexual strategy to renew Western vitality. This will increase fertility, increase total happiness, and decrease the degenerate SWPL culture monolith that is at the lead of decivilizing and ethnically cleansing great Western nations.

2. Another impolite stereotype confirmed: Girls with daddy issues are easier to bed. This experiment is interesting because it seems to affirm a causal effect that runs from absent dad -> slutty daughter through the use of a psychological technique known as “priming”.

Researchers found that students primed to think about paternal disappointment were more likely to complete the word stems in a sexualized way (SEX for S_X, NAKED for _AK_D) than those who were conditioned to think about fatherly support.

They also revealed more sexually permissive attitudes on the questionnaire.

Miss DelPriore and her team write that their ‘results provide the first true experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between paternal disengagement and changes in women’s psychology that promote risky sexual behavior.’

Jayman will be interested in this study. Prediction: the coming population explosion of teen daughters of bitter single moms will transform the American dating landscape into a coast-to-coast r-selected plunderland for sociopathic badboys with no scruples. *cracks knuckles*

3. “There will come a time when patients stop asking their doctors to make them thin. It will either be because fatness is rare again, or because it has become entirely accepted.” Fat city. Memo to fatties: you eat too much. Get off your fat asses and stop shoving so much crappy food into your pieholes. That’s the cure for obesity. #FatShamingForever

4. Liberals are more likely to kill a white person than a black person to save 100 people. So it’s not that liberals are more moral than conservatives, it’s that they’re “differently moral”. I suppose if you like living with people you can trust, you’d want to stay the hell away from liberals, who obviously suffer from a mental disease that compels them to aid in the extinguishment of their own tribe. It’s a shame they have the run of the place at the moment. On the upside, their disorder guarantees that their power has an expiration date. Heh.

5. The liberal rationalization of discrimination.

In other words, people don’t seem to have an issue with the idea of using useful data to discriminate amongst groups of people itself, but if that discrimination ended up affecting the “wrong” group, it can be deemed morally problematic. As Tetlock et al (2000) argued, people are viewing certain types of discrimination not as “tricky statistical issues” but rather as moral ones. […]

Accordingly, one manages to create a “better” victim of discrimination; one that is proportionately more in need of assistance and, because of that, more likely to reciprocate any given assistance in the future (all else being equal). Such a line of thought might well explain the aforementioned difference we see in judgments between racial discrimination being unacceptable when it predominately harms blacks, but fine when it predominately harmed whites. So long as the harm isn’t perceived as great enough to generate an appropriate amount of need, we can expect people to be relatively indifferent to it. It just doesn’t create the same social-investment potential in all cases.

This is why leftoids won’t countenance the data — real world and scientific — showing that their religious equalism is a fraudulent belief; once they accept that premise and abandon their old faith, the emotional justification for their discrimination in favor of out-groups evaporates.

6. A reminder what an open borders America, courtesy of Bryan Caplan and Cheap Chalupas, would resemble. Yes, the ghetto underworld is as bad as your most fevered nightmares can concoct.

Comment Of The Week: Look On Your Works, Ye Elders, And Despair

everybodyhatesscott machine gunned,

The millennials turned out exactly how’d you’d expect a generation raised by the most selfish generation in history to turn out.

Cocooning, pathologically selfish, vapid, entitled, attention whoring, phony, emotionally stunted, socially maladjusted androgynes. There is your Millennial Generation. God help America.

***

Runner-up COTW winner is ho (a handle so simple, yet so demanding of your attention), responding to a representative for the Obamacare ad campaign claiming people are hating on the ads because MISOGYNY,

“People tend to get upset when women are portrayed as independent.”

If you need other people’s money to get birth control, YOU ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.

Stupid fucking cunt.

That last line may seem overkill, but no, really, it was necessary. Brazen stupidity in service of transparently selfish ends is not to be tolerated with even the slightest veneer of polite disagreement. Hammer blows to the head only. Preferably clawed side first.

What Is It Like To Date A Woman Way Out Of Your League?

Have you ever banged a woman you thought was impossibly hot, too hot for a mere peasant boy like yourself? Chances are, you haven’t. Most men don’t reach for the ass ring. Fear — and sometimes experience — cultivates an exquisite sense for one’s sexual rank, and an avoidance mentality that preempts rejection by sultry specimens thought to be “out of one’s league”.

But most men are not all men. A few warriors of the whiskered wound have banged out of their league, and lived to tell of the tail. Men with game will occasionally, maybe even often, bang women considered by the general population to be too beautiful for them. Other men will luck into an amazing fling with a superb hottie. Usually, some combination of fortuitous circumstance and seduction skill is the backdrop to a stunning mismatch between a regular guy and a boner fried bombshell.

In before the trick-less trolls and baffled haters hijack the substance of this post to nasalize their belief that men’s sexual value is judged by the same looks metric as women’s sexual value, let it be hammered into their blocklike skulls (again) that women judge a man’s mate worthiness by many measures, not least of which is his social value and his seductive savviness. So when we say that a man is shooting “out of his league”, we don’t necessarily mean the spectacle of a very ugly man with a beautiful woman (though it could mean that). We could also mean a man who compares favorably in the looks department with the woman he is dating, but who falls short in other equally important criteria. A good-looking but socially awkward nerd with a hottie is one such mismatch that strikes a discordant note on observers’ pattern-recognition tuning forks.

With that anti-hater disclaimer out of the way, we can move on to the meat and potatoes. Kai Peter Chang, a self-professed informal dating coach and boffer of beautiful babies, describes his experience dating what he figured (that’s the important qualifier) was a woman way out of his league.

Have you ever had the experience of getting a taste of a life light-years above your social class/station? 

Perhaps it’s being a guest at an extravagant $200,000 wedding thrown by a distant relative you barely know. All you can do is marvel at the gorgeous decor and decadent food you can never afford on your own.

Perhaps it’s a wealthy uncle/friend-of-a-friend who inexplicably allowed you take his $120,000 sports car for a spin around the neighborhood. All you can do is pray you don’t crash the car, or pop the clutch and embarrass yourself.

Perhaps you were summoned to an urgent work meeting that requires your presence thousands of miles away, and your employer authorized you to fly on the company jet (ordinarily reserved for its top executives). All you can do is fantasize about the day you’re powerful/rich enough to use a private jet for all your travel.

TL;DR: it’s like that – but involving the deepest part of sexuality and romance.

[A] number of years ago, I dated someone substantially “out of my league” for almost a year.

Her: a former Miss Hong Kong pageant gal, B-list actress/model/TVB television personality. In her prime, she was courted and pursued by the super-Alpha kings of Hong Kong: A-list movie stars, million-record-selling musicians, property tycoons, CEOs and power brokers at the apex of Hong Kong society.

Me: At the time, a Mergers & Acquisitions Analyst at an investment-banking firm – an easily-replacable cog in a financial behemoth, four years her junior. During that period, I commanded a low five-digit net worth, and no status to speak of. A nobody.

She told me afterward that she gave me her number because she was amused by the fact that I clearly didn’t recognize her; in Hong Kong, the only strangers who approach her are autograph-seekers and those who want to pose with her for a photo and I was utterly oblivious to her stature when I was flirting with her.

Nice neg.

It is also helpful to note that during this time, I was at still in first blush of youth – a few years out of college, filled with brazen and unrealistic cocky ambition of what I can accomplish, arrogant to the point of delusion, and impervious to feedback/advice.

I was also insecure as hell, and in complete denial about it.

With all that backdrop, the question was how did it feel as the “lesser” partner?

It was flattering, thrilling and unnerving all at once.

The more beautiful women you bed, the less unnerving (and thrilling, sadly) it becomes. You start to internalize the belief that you deserve them. This is the asshole’s secret of success.

Dating far above my station gave me a glimpse of the life that exists at a completely different strata of society. Growing up a son of broke-ass immigrant parents and attending public schools my entire life surrounded by others of modest immigrant socioeconomic background, the first thing that stood out was her nearly-unlimited access to favors and accouterments of her elevated station.

When you socialize with people who own spare yachts, faraway luxury properties and infrequently-used personal jets, you can cobble together an impromptu exotic vacation with a few phone calls. It will end up costing you little more than the price of a full tank of jet/yacht fuel and the promise of reciprocity of access to your own toys/properties at some unspecified future date.

I, of course, had nothing to offer in these types of trades – and that knowledge was a source of gnawing insecurity; while I was stupidly confident that I was just a few years/career moves away from joining the company of Hong Kong aristocracy on my own, my immediate financial circumstances were far more modest and I flew Coach to visit her, while she flew First Class or via private jet to rendezvous with me.

If you doubt your worth to a woman, she will feel compelled to agree with you. If you don’t doubt, neither will she.

The clandestine nature of our relationship (officially, she was the spoken-for consort of a powerful Hong Kong property tycoon two decades her senior and her lifestyle was bankrolled by his largesse) added a further element of illicit excitement; it was thrilling to be checking into hotels under fake names, arriving to locations at staggered times to avoid being seen together in public.

The sneaky fucker MO. It’s exciting because you know you’re getting something for free (outstanding pussy), that other men have to pay for in yachts and high society access.

In retrospect, I now understand what she meant when, right before the first time we slept together, she whispered in my ear “Please don’t fall in love with me.”

She was wiser and more pragmatic than I; she knew, better than I did at the time, the ephemeral nature of our doomed fling.

After several months of our relationship – which consisted writing letters to each other (she has a gorgeous, calligraphic handwriting and a wry playful prose that was a delight to read) and time-zone-spanning international phone calls, interspersed with week-long face-to-face rendezvous where we exhausted ourselves in hotel rooms in various locations along the Pacific rim, she tearfully confessed “Do you remember what I said to you that first night? I’m having a hard time following my own advice.”

It was as close as she could get to tell me she loved me, but it was clear that whatever we had would end someday.

Better to have loved a hottie and lost her, than to love a fug and keep her.

No doubt losing a pathway to high grade pussy is a blow to a man’s pleasure center, if not also his ego. But it was more dangerous for her to fall in love, because the nature of woman doesn’t allow for shared love between disparate men who offer her competing comforts beyond the wildest dreams of the average representative of her sex. She risked discovery, and the concomitant loss of feminine prestige and resources from her richer suitors. Truly beautiful women possess a degree of pragmatism that those who have little to lose can barely comprehend. Although if your charm is mesmerizing and your confidence imperturbable her love can bond her so tightly even the baubles of princes won’t steal her from your embrace.