“Back To Europe” Movement

A smattering of far-sighted readers across the blogoglobe have impertinently suggested the possibility that as America the Disparate breaks apart socially, economically and perhaps even geographically, (a near-certain conclusion given present realities), a “Back to Europe” movement will arise in corners of the stressed population as a means of escaping the spiraling dystopia.

The thought of returning to an ancestral homeland is enticing. It’s been the enlivening cri de coeur of at least one major world religion. If you, as I do, subscribe to the notion that humans evolve in step with their environment, and that this co-evolution of culture, ecology and biology plucks deep, primal rhythms in the heart when the three are aligned in accord with their historical partnership, then it’s not a strange proposition that returning to Europe, the authentic homeland of diaspora whites, might speak to many Americans in the same yearning, nostalgic way that returning to visit the neighborhood and the home in which you spent your formative years produces powerful undertows of wistful longing.

This is the stuff of wild fantasy, but if the bottom falls out from under America it’s not at all inconceivable that millions of internally dispossessed Americans will cast an eye to a long-lost brother across the sea, in hopes of beginning anew what was so recklessly and stupidly squandered here. No one should expect a “B2E” movement to happen overnight; but we live in an accelerated age, and big change, say along a timeline of decades rather than centuries, is capable of sneaking up on you.

Obviously, difficulties in a Back to Europe de-colonization scenario present. Outlined below are a few of the biggest hurdles.

– The narcissism of small differences factor. Would the Europeans want us? Europe is already densely populated, much more so than most of the US, and the addition of 50 million Americans won’t alleviate that. Many continental Europeans don’t even much care for Americans, and view them as a distinct white ethnicity, loud, boisterous, ill-kempt, fat (guilty as charged) and uncouth, like the Dutch might view the Greeks. It would take a lot of convincing to get Europeans to agree to allow mass white American immigration, but if their native birth rates remain as low as they are now (Germany is at something like 1.2 TFR) then they may not have a choice but to welcome their wandering cousins back to the fold.

– The Mad Max factor. Would Americans be willing to leave their military and weapons industry unattended? Can you imagine the US nuclear arsenal in the hands of the left side of the bell curve? *shudder* And the good bet is that the left-behinds will be disproportionately left-curvers, as only the smart will have the foresight to know ahead of time to jump a sinking ship. (This last point is debatable.)

– The mutt factor. The founding stock of America is a mix of predominantly German, English, Dutch and Scandinavian ancestry. Irish, Italian and Polish added their bloodlines to the founding stock in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since then, it’s been all downhill, but the essential biological nature of white America is largely unchanged: Most white Americans are some mix of the above European ethnicities. So where does a Euro-mutt American resettle in Europe? Germany? England? Italy? It’s not an easy question, as the theory of mind that evolution informs suggests that a Euro-mutt will feel ancient pulls toward each of his ancestral homelands. You might, for instance, feel equally benevolent toward the stoicism of Swedes and the lustiness of Italians, or equally comfortable in the mountainous Alps as in the steppes of Ukraine.

– The leftoid factor. Contrary to assumption, I think most B2Eers will be of the liberal persuasion. As Haidt has documented, conservatives possess a stronger moral emphasis on loyalty. It’s conservatives who will stick it out in America till the bitter end, loyal to the last. Liberals will cut and run as soon as their pasty, plush asses are threatened by real discomfort. Plus, Europe has always held more appeal to liberals, who nurse the idea that the continent is filled with sophisticates. To the liberal, escape to Europe is like a hipster backpacker’s dream writ large. Of course, liberals will rationalize their escape as being something like “getting away from those degenerate rednecks ruining America”, but by that time most of us will know the real reason, and it won’t be a secret carefully warehoused by a dying MSM anymore.

– The betrayal factor. To return to Europe is to dance on the graves of the Founding Fathers. It’s to say, “Sorry, old chaps, you bequeathed your posterity a great enterprise, and we made a hash of it. All that revolution for nothing.” Many Americans will have a hard time overcoming this emotional obstacle. Not a few Euros will probably rub it in our faces.

– The culture clash factor. 350+ years is enough time for a distinct American culture to flourish. It’s perhaps enough time for a distinct American genome to flourish as well. Plopping Americans into Europe could create a strain that, coupled with the dysgenic Muslim elements of European society, can’t be managed. But this is pure speculation. It’s just as likely that Americans, once safely in the womb of Mother Europe, will revert to their ancestral pre-American norms and imbibe the best of Europe’s culture while jettisoning the worst of America’s.

– The climate factor. Can America’s white Southroners, acclimated to their subtropical heat and humidity, take to the dryness and cold of continental Europe or the chill winds of the Scottish Highlands? If their genes haven’t changed too much, they can. White Northerners should have no trouble settling anywhere in Europe.

All told, the Back to Europe scenario is less likely than a Retreat to Canada or Trek to Australia scenario. Canada is closer and more simpatico (speak the same language) to American sensibilities, while Australians share Americans’ zest for life and genial brusqueness. If climate warming proceeds as predicted, Canada will become exceedingly friendly as a relocation spot (Australia less so). Regrettably, South Africa is a lost cause, and Russians have too much spooky Siberian blood in them to find enough common ground with Americans as next door neighbors.

For the single American man, the choice of relocation destination in Europe will depend on the beauty of the native women. At the risk of opening the floor to furious but unenlightening debate, all of the East European countries would rank high, along with Italy and France, followed by Sweden and Finland. But don’t stress about it. You’re going to Europe; woman-wise you really can’t go wrong since most of the world’s beauties hail from the land of the ice and snow where Cro-Magnons made inspired interspecies love with large-eyed Neanderthals.

Be A “No, Dear” Man

The results from an interesting scientific study which could be fairly interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of the neg shows that men and women cooperate with each other differently, and that this cooperation disparity is based in differing expectations between the sexes. {Greek chorus: *FEMINISTS WEEEEEEEEEPT*}

In summary, women don’t trust beta males well-meaning men who appease them.

While men tend to match their partners’ emotions during mutual cooperation, women may have the opposite response, according to new research.

Cooperation is essential in any successful romantic relationship, but how men and women experience cooperation emotionally may be quite different, according to new research conducted at the University of Arizona.

Feminists are getting ready to weep.

Randall wondered how the act of cooperating, a beneficial relationship process, might impact emotional coordination between partners.

“Cooperation – having the ability to work things out with your partner, while achieving mutually beneficial outcomes – is so important in relationships, and I wondered what kind of emotional connectivity comes from cooperating with your partner?” she said.

What she found in her recent study – published in SAGE’s Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and featured in the journal’s podcast series, Relationship Matters – were surprising gender differences.

She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an “inphase” response to their significant other’s emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive.

On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an “antiphase” pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.

Aaaand… torrent of termagant tears!

Take, for example, the following familiar scenario: A woman emerges from a department store fitting room and asks her husband what he thinks of a potential new shirt. He likes it, he says, hoping his time at the mall is nearing an end. So does the woman head straight to the cash register and make the purchase? Probably not. Chances are, her husband’s enthusiasm won’t be enough; she’ll want to try on a few more shirts first.

Social psychology literature on cooperation tells us that women generally tend to cooperate more, while men often try to avoid conflict. Thus, men might be subconsciously syncing their emotions with their partners’ during cooperation in an effort to avoid conflict or reach a speedy resolution, Randall says.

If that’s the case, it’s possible, although Randall’s study didn’t test for it, that women may pick up on the fact that their partner’s agreeability is not entirely authentic. If she suspects he’s not really as positive as he seems, or that he has an ulterior motive, she may become less positive herself in an attempt to get at his real feelings and reach a more mutually satisfying resolution, Randall suggests.

Read the bolded part again. Here are the grounds for interpreting this study as providing evidence for the effectiveness of the game concept known as the neg. If you agree too readily with a woman — if you appease her and supplicate to her and seek her approval — she’ll feel less happy, even less aroused, in your company. She’ll instead attempt to “dramatize” your mutual interaction by becoming a sourpuss and challenging your agreeableness, which in certain contexts (such as bar pick-ups) materializes as the shit test.

Now we have the insight to know why, perhaps, the neg works on women: Because by deliberately adopting a pose of contrariness, of resistance to accommodation, a man can inspire feelings of connection, curiosity and craving in women. Be the jerk, and you’ll be beloved. Be the placater, and you’ll be perpetually pestered for proof of sincerity.

If you’ve ever had to endure a grilling from your girlfriend or wife for your opinion on something she’s wearing, you’ll know the pain of being a “yes, dear” man. The harder you try to smooth the waters, the more tirelessly she churns open sea turbulence. And so, having been in this exasperating situation a few too many times for my taste and sanity, I had discovered a better way, a way now bolstered by ♥SCIENCE♥:

Be a “no, dear” man.

Tell the light of your life, “No, dear, that dress looks bad on you.” “No, dear, those shows don’t make you look good.” No, dear, this look isn’t working for you.”

[GBFM version: “No, dearlzzlol, that thongzz covers the butthosllezx. Don’t make me do all da work when all da men before me got your butholeszzs for free lzlolzzzlolz”]

Betaboys shriek, “But she’ll hate me for saying that!” FEEBS! Have you not learned a single thing reading this blog? Lemme tell you what really happens. She makes an indignant face, looks shell-shocked for a half second, retreats to the dressing room or closet, and returns with a new item to buy or wear, no further questions asked, yerhonner. The “yes, dear” demon infant has been killed in the crib.

Seduction is the art of flirting, and flirting is an artful term for pushing away and pulling toward. All betas know how to do is pull toward, aka “Please like me! You’re the best! Here’s proof of my love!” game. But this is boring to women, and actively repulses them during their one week ovulatory period. Taking the opposite tack is the blinkered douche, who only knows how to push away. This is exciting for women at first, but the novelty wears off quickly.

The right balance is struck between alternately pulling toward and pushing away. As all great seducers know, and as science is now coming around to confirming, the ideal male lover is the man who understands the value of emotionally desyncing with women. He doesn’t distance himself from a woman; rather, he cleverly directs her arousal by undermining feelings of closeness just at the moment she starts to relax and senses that she can predict his desire and behavior, and then drawing her back in when she fears his loss of interest. By alternately undermining and reengaging like this, he subverts the Male Chaser-Female Chasee expectation, and thus flips the normal sex status differential that is the standard operating procedure of an unobstructed and undirected mating market so that, by his manipulations, he is perceived as the more valuable commodity.

From there, female hypergamy finds root and the labia flower like spring lilies in the noon sun.

Prompt punishment for bad behavior, intermittent reward for good behavior, emotional desyncing and resyncing for creating deep feelings of arousal and connection: These are the tools of the modern Casanova in a global mating village where the old rules to curb the primal chaos of female sexuality have long been discarded and forgotten.

PS Here’s Psychology Today‘s analysis of the same study.

Off The Grid Game

Given the recent leaks about NSA and IRS dossiers on American citizens, it makes sense that some people are choosing to opt out of the social media ego stroke-athon for privacy reasons. But how does the womanizing sophisticate who has waved sayonara to Facebook and the rest handle the inevitable questions and objections when girls ask him about his odd lack of online presence?

Women, lovely lemmings they are, don’t like weirdness. Non-conformists give them the heebie-vajjies, until such time that the non-conformist is validated by the wider social group. So the Man Without a Facebook is likely to elicit suspicion, and maybe even irrational annoyance, from women. This problem will be worse for the off-the-grid man who prefers the company of younger women (the kind of woman least likely to care that Big Daddy State is safely in charge of her personal liberties).

Generally, a man should handle the “Why aren’t you on Facebook?” question the same way he would handle any shit test, by using any of the following three tactics:

1. Agree and amplify
2. Dismiss and ignore
3. Ridicule and reframe

Examples:

“Why aren’t you on Facebook?”

“Because I’m wanted in twenty-three states for crimes against humanity.”

“Better question: Why are you on Facebook telling the world all your secrets?”

“Remember when girls had diaries, and they would freak out if their brother even touched the cover? We’ve come a long way.”

“I was. I got kicked off.”

“WUT” {Jeantel Rachel game}

“What a weird question.”

“Hey, you gotta at least get to know me before you start stalking me.”

“Because it’s boring.”

“Because everyone else is doing it.”

“Because I found that the girls on there are all shallow and self-involved.”

“I am. But I’m in the VIP lounge. Zuckerberg invite only. Not open to the public.”

***

Ok, I think you get the idea. The crucial rule to remember about any type of shit test is that it matters less how successfully you hurdle it than how successfully you avoid smashing into it. So as long as you don’t sound defensive or shaky or placating, you should do fine. If a girl is insistent and presses you for a reason why you skip Facebook, tell her “What’s with the third degree?”. The quicker you can get muleheaded chicks like that to defend themselves, the better off you look.

The Alpha Male Pose

hbdchick passes along a photo of her favorite alpha male pose (and favorite alpha male, Steve MOTHERFUCKIN McQueen). I looked at it and, accepting the risk that the following judgment might imbue perceptions with a certain je ne sais queer, I concur, this pose is superlatively alpha.

Let’s examine in as normal and non-spergy a manner as possible what it is exactly about this pose that declares ALPHA in a deep, masculine, gravelly, yet single malt smooth seductive voice.

– Only half his body is engaged with her. The other half is turned away, as if he’s debating whether to devote his attention to her, or to bolt for the horizon and limitless freedom. Chicks dig men who aren’t fully domesticated committed (or can’t be).

– He’s looking down at her paternalistically. Show of dominance.

– He’s draped his arm over her shoulder, but lightly instead of possessively. Show of dominance + arousing display of non-neediness.

– Tousled bedroom hair. Chicks dig dudes who look like they just shagged an army of fembots. Preselection ftw.

– Is that a wedding band on his finger? I can’t tell, but the fact that it might be is catnip to girls who love the thought of a man who is both desired by women and nuptially attainable. Plus there’s the ugly fact that women LOVE LOVE LOVE stealing taken men.

– Short shorts accentuate the groinal bulge. Believe you me, girls check out the package. And they aren’t very sly about it. Once you’re alerted to the reality of women’s degenerate desires, you start noticing how often their eyes travel to the tip of your genetic spear.

– You don’t see her face. Her focus is totally on him, and her breasts are pressed into his chest. Her pose is almost as crucial to the perception of his super alphaness as is his pose. Again, preselection ftw. But not just any old preselection. LOVE preselection.

– He’s bending one knee. A subtle play on perception that he’s contemplating leaving her and going his own way. Or, that he’s about to set off on high adventure and take her along for the ride of her life. Either unspoken assumption is attractive to women.

– He’s holding onto a wall? refrigerator? as if he wants to go but she’s pulling him back into her orbit by force of her femininity. Plays on the female love of taming a wild, wandering man.

– “I think I’ll just graze your ass with my fingertips instead of hungrily paw at it like a lifelong incel.” A man who has plenty of women in his life demonstrates his sexual satiety with aloof gestures of detached self-control.

– Black and white photos will make any man appear more alpha (hint for you Facebook whores).

– She’s not a fat slob. Obviously, any man who can seduce a thin babe has something on the ball.

– He has a slightly annoyed expression. Chicks love it when men look a little pissed off, like they could fly off the handle at any moment.

– The composition of light and dark and focal length is a factor. Note that blurry, rumpled bedroom(?) scene, shrouded in shadow, in the background. What the female viewer’s mind concocts: Ooh, a den of iniquity! Naughty man. *TINGLE*

– Overall, the pose subcommunicates, “I just anally destroyed this woman, and now I’m kinda bored and want to get the hell outta here and hang with my buds, but goddamn her eyes are pretty.” ALPHA.

So, fellow gentlemen readers, if you want to cop this alpha male pose for yourselves, find a pair of vintage Ocean Pacific shorts, Dippity Do your hair with your fingers, swagger around in public shirtless, grab any nearby refrigerator, and lean away from it into the heaving breasts of a height-weight proportionate lover. Bonus alpha points if there’s a creepy mask symbolizing the peeping tom celibate omega male staring at you with seething envy.

UPDATE

It should also be pointed out that it appears McQueen is standing in the contrapposto pose, which has been proven by science to be attractive to women.

The Inner Workings Of The Cathedral

Ben Shapiro, neocon-ish man of the right who specializes in explaining and reframing the leftoids’ control of the propaganda arm of the Cathedral, (aka the virulently anti-white male Establishment), has a dozen or so videos of interviews with Hollywood leftists where they admit to a leftoid agenda. Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mUVp5qq3SU#t=20s

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5A8VHTyMzg#t=20s

Hollywood and the rest of the media industrial complex are staffed and run by leftoids. Its product is the result of what I would call an emergent conspiracy, or an informal conspiracy. It’s not a formal, deliberate conspiracy in the sense the word is typically used; there’s no secret council meeting of elders in an underground bunker plotting the best way to transmit their degenerate meme virus. Rather, something resembling a conspiracy develops from the collective actions of an industry in which nearly all of its members think alike, as a hivemind.

Now, as Shapiro has revealed, many of these Cathedral clerics are perfectly aware of what they’re doing. But they act individually instead of at the directive of a leftoid overseer. The problem is that they so vastly outnumber opposing viewpoints that the sum of their individual creative decisions are indistinguishable from a single conspiratorial directive. What few opposition members there are find it easier to go along to get along.

What’s the answer to this propaganda juggernaut serving as an agent of mind infection? Some suggest that wealthy anti-leftoids should start their own media conglomerates and go toe-to-toe with the reigning narrative. But as S. Sailer has noted, many would-be rightist benefactors are blowing their wads on college football programs. Sports are fine spectator fun, but they aren’t going to win the hearts and minds of white suburban women like Desperate Housewives does.

The right simply doesn’t have the taste, nor the skill set, for fighting a full-blown culture war like the left does. The right by and large avoids culture war conflicts, while the left relishes them.

But there’s another problem with the clarion call for anti-leftoids to recreate the media landscape in their image, and it goes much deeper than ill-chosen recipients of funds. The root of the problem lies in the differing psychologies of leftoids and non-leftoids.

According to the Five Factor Model of human personality, leftoids score higher in the trait “openness to experience.” The intensity of this trait expression is multiplied by the exaggerated leftoid sensitivity to the moral concepts of harm and fairness, as described by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind.

Someone who loves novelty and bleeds profusely from the heart will naturally gravitate to the creative fields, where he can get his ego boost feeling like he’s making the world a better place for defectives and whiny man-children.

If leftoids and anti-leftoids simply differ in fundamental biological ways, and occupational ratios reflect this difference, then there isn’t much that can be done to thwart the propaganda machine that rides the crest of civilizational decline. The only hope for anti-leftoids — and it’s a small hope — is to identify and cultivate those few like-minded individuals who peculiarly score high in openness to experience and also have a creative energy that propels them beyond the realm of rooting for the home team. In other words, those who wish to sabotage the Cathedral will need to find rightists who love to fight, fuck and flip the bird to the orthodoxy.

Why Do Girls Flake?

Men who’ve lived a day in their lives have experienced it at least once: A girl flaking on them. That last minute cancellation. The sudden suggestion to “meet with friends” instead of one-on-one as originally planned. The call screening. The delayed replies. And the worst flake of them all: The no-show.

But why do girls do it? What’s in it for them?

A reader asks,

When women flake last minute on plans:

Do they understand that making plans and not keeping them is rude but don’t care due to lack or respect?

Or

Do they not even understand that it’s rude because they’ve been catered to since birth?

Or

Do they not think about it at all?

Just trying to get understand the rationale behind flaking…. Anytime I’ve outright asked I end up ruining my chances at sex and not getting a straight answer anyway.

Flaking is best thought of as a physical manifestation of the female psychological (hypergamous, yes) impulse to carefully assess her suitors. It isn’t a logical thought process; it’s entirely emotion-based. When a girl flakes, she may be consciously aware that what she’s doing is bad form, but the trigger for her flaking originates in primal nooks of her brain that evolved to autonomically assist her in identifying and reeling in the highest quality man her looks can get her, while expeditiously and sometimes viciously Heisman-ing beta dreck.

So you don’t fight flaking with logic; you fight it by pushing counteracting emotional hot buttons that subvert the flaking impulse.

Of course, once a woman has flaked, she easily rationalizes her crassness. Telling a girl she’s a bitch for flaking will do nothing but cement her feeling that she was right to flake on you. Subtler tactics are needed.

Do girls flake out of disrespect?

There’s an element of that. A culture which exalts the tinniest farts that escape female buttocks and demonizes the most laudable aspects of manhood certainly contributes to a caustic social soup that encourages disrespect of men.

Do girls lack comprehension of their rudeness?

Not so much, but possible, especially in this age of expressionless social media. When a girl can’t see facial reactions of the betas she disses, unknowing disrespect is easier to accommodate. Smartphones feed shamelessness.

Do girls not think about flaking much at all?

Bingo. Do you think much about why boobs and ass make your penis quiver? No, you just go with where the feeling takes you.

Forget about asking girls for reasons why they flake. Not only will you deep six your shot at sex, but you’ll infect your inner game with a poisonous attitude that hijacks your charming sexiness and replaces it with droning dweebery.

May I suggest instead the next time you feel an urge to dress down a girl for her flakiness, or to inquire earnestly for an explanation that soothes your nerves, you substitute your righteously brimming logorrhea with one word:

“gay”

Compendium Of Female Super Shit Tests

A reader asks,

Dear Heartiste

I wonder if you could do a post specifically on some super powerful shit tests that women use and how you’d handle them.

That could be very enlightening.

Super powerful shit tests that a man will commonly encounter in his dealings with women? Why, yes, I believe we can do that. Herewith is a short list of what I call “Super Shit Tests” that women from all walks of life use with predictable regularity, and what I’ve found to be superb replies for handling them. Are you amazed that women — unique special snowflakes every one of them — would reflexively resort to ancient hindbrain algorithms linguistically fitted to cultural constraints as a method of filtering alpha males from beta males? Don’t be! It’s no more amazing than that men — unique special snowflakes every one of them — would reflexively ogle the same young cuties with large pert breasts and firm buttocks.

“[Man X] always gets his girlfriend [Y]. When was the last time you got me [Y]?”

Don’t get caught in a game of beta-upmanship. Appeasement never works, especially on women, who are the equivalent of the Third Reich in their response to Neville Chamberlain game. Instead, reframe to the point of absurdity.

“I got you some gold bullion for your birthday coming up. You can sit on it and luxuriate like a princess!”

“Are you a player?”

Any man who is halfway charming with women will hear this super shit test at least a few times in his life. There are a multitude of effective replies to this particular SST. Here is one of them:

“Player? Hell no. I’m a PIMP! Hold on, one of my ten thousand concubines is calling me.”

“Give me your number instead.”

Watch out, this is a beta male trap. Most betas would be relieved that any number exchange is taking place. You, aspiring alpha, know better.

“Sorry, I don’t give out my number.” Then ignore, and request her number again later.

“I don’t give out my number.”

The script is the inverse of the above. You’ve asked for her number, and she refused. A girl who says this isn’t sufficiently attracted yet. You need more time flirting with her. A good segue would be:

“I guess we’ll have to rendezvous, the old-fashioned way, like Parisian lovers on the run.”

“I have a boyfriend.”

Probably the most common, and most destructive of beta male hopes, super shit test that women lean on. You can never know with certainty if the boyfriend excuse is sincere or expedient, but you can neutralize it regardless of its veracity. For example, here’s one thermonuclear reply.

“You never listen to me.”

“What?” This reply never fails to elicit a grudging smile. But don’t overuse it. After the third time, say “Look, don’t make impossible demands on me that no normal person could fulfill. You want to be with a man, or with a voice recorder?”

“Do I know you?”

Sharp-mouthed sarcastocunts will occasionally drop SST bombs like this one. The best replies are arrogant and cocky, since that’s the type of man these kinds of girls love the most. Ex:

“You will.”

“How may girls have you been with?”

Any reply but a straight one will do here. Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, but it’s also a winning seduction tactic. Ex:

“Counting Alaska?”

“What are you looking for?”

When things start to heat up, a woman will often pop this dreaded, baiting question. Good reply:

“A delicious ham sandwich.”

“Stop staring at me.”

Really bitchy SSTs can be answered with shiv twists. Ex:

“Don’t flatter yourself.”

“That [X] you’re wearing is ridiculous!”

The key here is to prove that her judgmentalism hasn’t flustered you. Ex:

“Thank you. My mom bought it for me.”

“You’re not my type.”

“Neither are you. See that? We have so much in common!”

“Come hang out with me and my friends.”

She’s testing your skillfulness at evading the friendzone. Worst thing you can do is agree. Better, assume the sale:

“Good. Your friends will make sure you don’t try to grope me. I need to be wined and dined first.”

“Does this work on other girls?”

“Only the cute ones.” (Not a CH original, but probably the best reply to this particular SST that you can use. Remember, gina tingles are born when a woman is in the defensive crouch.)

“When are you gonna settle down?”

“Why? You auditioning for the part?” Assume the sale, part 2.

“If you impress me, you might get a shot at this!” [wiggles hips]

Girls who are a little above average in attractiveness and on the wrong side of 25 often use SSTs like this one to self-administer their shaky egos. She is forcing you into her frame where she’s the chased, and you’re the chaser. Solution? Flip the script.

“Does this work on other guys?”

“What are you doing??”

Sometimes you’ll get this SST from a girl when you’ve gone in for the kiss before she’s ready for it. Or, more precisely, before she’s ready to concede her attraction for you. A reply I like, said with a straight face:

“Crocheting.”

“You’re not the jealous type, are you?”

Attention whores love this SST, and will often deploy it right after you’ve eyed them flirting with another man, (or group of men). One of my favorite replies is to insinuate that the girl wants me to be jealous so she can feel desired.

“For a price, I can be.”

******

That’s enough for now. The Compendium of Female Super Shit Tests is a running series, so there will be future posts with more added. Know that shit tests are typically expressions of interest, but that occasionally they can be revealed indicators of disinterest. And also know that it doesn’t really matter which expression is operative; your strategy is to leapfrog over them so that interest is intensified, or disinterest is reconsidered.