The Short Man Shit Test

The Private Man has a post about a short male friend who received a particularly crass OkCupid message from a girl:

A friend and colleague is doing the online dating thing with OKCupid. He’s 26, intelligent, and with a diverse range of interests and enthusiasms. All in all, he’s a good guy and certainly boyfriend material. He’s also relatively short at 5’6″ and he accepts his height realistically.

A girl recently sent him this OKCupid message:

“You are perfect except for your height wahhh. We should be friends, I think we would get along really well and have similar tastes/interests.”

What. A. Bitch.

She is the one who sent the message to him and then she rejects him romantically in the first sentence because of a physical characteristic completely beyond his control. Worse, she still wants “friendship” as an option. Here’s the most clueless girl on the planet. It’s clueless (and classless) girls like this who turn men into cold-hearted pickup artists. If she’s pulling a shit test to see if my friend would rise to the occasion, she’s taking bitchery to stratospheric levels. Likely, she’s not even aware of how awful she came across in her message.

As TPM noted, there are not very many men who would send the unsolicited equivalent to a woman on an online dating site.

Most men have enough awareness to not send the following online dating message to a perfect stranger:

“You are perfect except for your weight. We should be friends, I think we would get along really well and have similar tastes/interests.”

Maybe men should start doing this. It would go a ways to correcting women’s poor behavior and aligning their expectations with reality. And that SMV reality has never looked worse for women: chubsters and battle-axes and man impersonators as far as the eye can see.

I suspect the increase in women’s rudeness, (and I don’t doubt it is increasing among American women), is part ego stroking, part masculinization caused by elevated T levels (which itself is caused by careerism, fat-assery and leftoidism (the latter has the opposite effect on men)), and part manifestation of deep-seated insecurity about their mate worth and ability to land a quality man.

Think about it. If you are a marginal woman who has been burned one too many times by a sexy jerk, you will start to construct a hard shell to protect against future relationship disappointments. This shell often appears in the form of aggressive, preemptive posturing; a kind of “I’ll “””reject””” him before he rejects me” mentality. This is how substandard girls rationalize their solitude and give themselves a temporary ego thrill.

The irony of this cunttastic tactic is that it’s most frequently targeted against beta males — just the sorts of niceguys who would least give these beta women any reason to hate men. But women are human, and humans, despite our protestations to the contrary, can’t help but despise the weak and respect the strong. If you give a cunt half an inch, she’ll take a country mile.

It may also simply be the case that the woman in TPM’s story is a spergqueen, and didn’t know any better. But that’s not the way to bet.

Anyhow, I’d like to turn our attention away from calculating to the tenth decimal place the exact degree of this girl’s bitchiness, and toward the idea that there is an opportunity presented here to handle a blatant shit test and flip an attraction switch in the girl. The fact is, no matter how bitchy a girl, there is no deserved comeuppance as delicious as seducing her, fucking her, and then leaving her before the jizz has dried, never to contact her again. Unless you don’t have the stomach for that kind of stone cold vengeance. Not that I would know anything about that.

So you can chew her out and chasten her — and there would be nothing wrong with that, for you would be making the world a better place for future men who might have the misfortune of crossing paths with her — or you can attempt to make vaginade out of caustic cuntery.

As shit tests go, this one provides us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate alpha male composure after a truly obnoxious taunt is hurled our way. This taunt is especially irritating because the girl has couched her attack in soft, passive-aggressive, condescending language; just the sort of vile subterfuge with which women are very skilled. Below, I offer some replies that would effectively neutralize this short man shit test, and gain you hand over the girl should you decide pursuing a fuck close is worth it.

Whatever way you answer this shit test, remember that the most important factor is that you NOT sound bitter. Her bitch antennae will be sensitive to any hint of bitterness or anger or defensiveness, so you have to be careful to avoid leaving any impression like those.

“You are perfect except for your height wahhh. We should be friends, I think we would get along really well and have similar tastes/interests.”

Possible effective replies

“Wow – you’ve got big hair – I might need a ladder to check out all your split ends. What are the odds of my grabbing a handful later tonight?” — This one courtesy of commenter “tj” to the original post. I would categorize this reply as “Ignore, and redirect”. Probably would work better in person with a playful attitude, than in words where it can be misinterpreted as bitter.

“Short height, big dick. Works for me. I’ll bet you’re a crazy cat lady in training.” — Also from tj. I’d drop the “crazy cat lady” line. The first two sentences are enough.

“Hey – thanks for your interest. I can see you haven’t been trained by a man yet. Your message is going to cost you two points. Now – write me a polite letter of introduction and tell me why your hair is worth pulling.” — Again from tj. This would not work face to face. Too many words. Works better in email or chat.

“Sure, we can be friends. But you’ll have to meet my girlfriends first. If they don’t like you, I’ll have to pass.”

“Have you ever fucked in front of your cat?” — You can go all sorts of ways with this reply. For instance, if she objects, say “But I thought we were friends? This is what friends talk about!”

“I get this all the time… too tall for the ladies.”

“Is this how you pick up guys? I’m not smitten yet. Try harder.”

“Perfect height for cunnilingus.”

“Who is this?”

“Whoa, dial back the charm. My knees are knocking.”

“Slow down, party girl. What makes you think we would get along? I hardly know you.”

“You like it in the pooper. I can tell.”

“You’ll have to wine and dine me first.”

“Get away from me you crazy-eyed psycho.”

“Another charm school grad, I see.”

“It’s cute the way you flirt so badly. Nerves?”

“Ahh, child-like naivete. You have much to learn.”

“Who wants to be perfect? Perfect is boring. I like to give women a challenge.”

“You like rape, too? Awesome!” — Use with caution. An emotionally stunted feminist might not catch the sarcasm.

“I would tie you down like a Lilliputian.”

“Great! Let’s start our wonderful friendship watching the sun set. You might have to put me on your shoulders.” — Self-deprecating humor is risky, but works on some girls, especially if you’re careful not to milk it, and you segue quickly into sexual escalation.

“Lovely.” — Chicks dig ambiguity. What’s she going to make of this one word reply?

“I’ve heard better come-ons from insurance salesmen.”

“I’m glad you’re the kind of girl who doesn’t just love me for my bod.”

“You’re like that little girl who tries to give the boy she really likes cooties.”

***

You’ll notice in most of the replies above, I rarely mention shortness or height. A successful reframe means just that: reframing away from a conversational topic which works against your advantage. Many of the replies contain implicit challenges — or qualifying tests — that are designed to put the girl on the defensive, provoking her to explain her actions, motivations, or worth as a human being. Girls like men who challenge them, because in their twisted minds they think this means such men really like them for more than their looks.

None of the replies are set up to make excuses for the man’s height, or to cajole a girl of the short man’s positive attributes. Cajoling = qualifying oneself, and that’s anti-game. Some of you may be tempted to say something along the lines of: “You should try a short man for once. You’d be surprised how good we are in bed. Compensation means we have mad skills.” No good. Instead, it’s better to ASSUME THE SALE. The last reply is a classic example of this dictum.

This House Is Clean (And Sex-Free)

Back in September of 2012, CH highlighted a study which showed that modern couples who share the housework are at far higher risk of divorce than couples where the woman does most of the domestic duties.

Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found.

In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work.

Women have been claiming for God knows how long that they want a man who will do his share of the housework, but when he does, their vaginas dry up like the Sahara. You see, equality of the sexes is a myth. Women don’t *really* want equal husbands. What women want are strong husbands who don’t act like women, which means, in practice, not puttering around the house dusting, mopping, vacuuming, cooking, or doing the laundry.

Right on cue, feminists plugged their ears. The ones who stumbled into this happy hating ground tore at their pendulous breasts. Even the trolls had no room to maneuver a subterfuge.

As good as that post was, there is a new study out which may trump it in delicious equalist-eviscerating goodness. Following in the same vein as the study above, researchers discovered that married men who do more housework have less sex.

Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores — such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping — reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.

“Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage,” said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.

“Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks — such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance — report higher sexual frequency.” […]

“The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity,” Kornrich said.

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

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology. May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its divine directive.

This isn’t a truth borne of social constructs, or of cultural conditionings, or of privileges of privilege. It’s a truth woven into the fabric of our origin atoms, the glue that binds our helical commandments and reaches outward to breathe life into the monolith of our souls.

It is what is.

The “correlation is not causation” crowd will surely attempt a say with this study, but you know what? It won’t matter whether it’s a primarily correlational or causal force which accounts for the reality of this particular intrinsic sex-based dynamic. If you are a man interested in sparking your flailing marriage and reigniting your wife’s dying lust, and you have come here to the Chateau for guidance, I will tell you to put down the vacuum and laundry detergent and take up the power tools and lawn mower. Leave the womanly domestic chores for your woman, and the manly handyman chores for yourself. Do this, and your sex life will improve. I promise. And it won’t matter if it improved because you fixed a correlational or a causal upstream factor of your marital woes. You will have realigned the sexual polarity, and even a hardcore feminist’s vagina can’t resist the allure of that naturally evolved gender construct.

I really love these sorts of shivtastic studies. It’s almost as if Science approached the doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, peered and poked around, and solemnly announced, “This house is clean”.

And if you are a sexy man, it will have been your wife who cleaned it.

PS Two of the authors of the original study are surnamed Sweet and Bumpass. Sweet. Bumpass. Sweet Bumpass. Yes. Sweet Bumpass? Meet Purple Saguaro. Sweet Bumpass and Purple Saguaro? Meet Skittles Man. Sweet Bumpass, Purple Saguaro and Skittles Man? Meet the Rationalization Hamster. And on the eighth day, CH rested.

Predicting How Married And Single People (Think They) Live And Love

Match.com is conducting its third annual survey on singles’ views and lifestyles, but this time they’ve included married people in their survey pool. The survey results will be released in a week. In the meantime, there is a video posted at the Match.com blog which has a sampling of the questions that were asked of respondents, and predictions by staff and randoms. Watch the vid and make your own predictions for how people responded to the survey questions. I’ve included my predictions below (based not on survey data but on personal experience  socializing with both single and married friends and acquaintances, and on my talent for reading between the pretty lies people say in polite company).

CH predictions for how men and women, singles and married people, responded to survey questions

“What’s the number one feature both men and women judge most on the first date?”

Men: Kindness.

Women: Confidence. (Or some similar variant thereof.)

(This question is interesting, because they are asking what people *judge*, not what people *check out*. Men judge women’s bodies and faces the most, but that judgment occurs before the first date, when the man first sees the woman. A first date usually means the man has deemed the woman’s body acceptable, so he is free to judge other things about her. Kindness happens to be that specific female trait that men value because it is a signal that she will be open to sex in the near future.)

“Who goes out more, singles or married people?”

Single men: Singles.

Single women: Married people.

Married men: Married people.

Married women: Singles.

“Who thinks about sex more, singles or married people?”

Single men: Singles.

Single women: Singles.

Married men: Married people.

Married women: Singles.

“What percent of single women would never date someone shorter?”

Men: 75% (average of answers).

Women: 40% (average of answers).

“How many times has the average single been in love?”

Single men: 1.5 times. (average)

Single women: 2.5 times. (average)

“Who does more pre-date “research” on Facebook, single men or women?”

Single men: Women.

Single women: Women.

“Who are singles less likely to friend on Facebook, their boss or an ex?”

Men: Boss.

Women: Boss.

“Who fantasizes more about co-workers, single women or men?”

Men: Single men.

Women: Single women.

“What do married people miss the most about single life?”

Married men: Freedom.

Married women: Excitement.

***

The usual caveat to take self-reporting surveys, especially answers from women, with a flat of salt applies. Remember, what women think and what their vaginas actually compel them to feel are two totally separate things. Nevertheless, it’s interesting in its own right to read how people perceive others conduct their love lives, or even how they perceive themselves in the conduct of their own love lives. Perceptions are the tuneful melodies people hum over the jackhammer rhythms of reality to soften the cacophony.

EBook Review: 60 Years Of Challenge

60 Years of Challenge is the nom de plume of a pick-up artist (or, in more conventional language, a womanizer). He wrote an ebook detailing his game principles and techniques, and CH was given a PDF copy to review. The ebook is a couple years old, and 60 now has new material on his website, (warning: you’ll have to wade through the usual cheesy marketing stuff, but to 60’s credit it’s not as obnoxious or long-winded as most PUA advertisement pages). The older ebook contains the core of his pick-up philosophy and game material, but it may not be purchasable any longer, so readers who want 60’s wisdom will have to buy from the link posted above.

I’ll touch on the themes of 60’s book and highlight where he’s strongest and most differentiates himself from other pick-up teachers, and where I think his material comes up short.

60’s primary contention, and the philosophy that guides his game strategy, is that men should be gunning for the fast lay, not because it’s “cool”, but because it’s easier than taking the slow road. Consequently, most of his approaches are basically direct, but without being sexually overt.

“Hey…I want to meet you”

I deliver this with a seductive but very serious voice. Very humble. The more scared you are the more genuine you should be. Beat fear with love. I put out my hand to introduce myself, she takes it and we start talking. I don’t let go of her hand and she doesn’t pull away. Time stops. I know it’s probably on. Even still I move really close to her quickly. Better to move close now, than wait until later on when it’s more obvious.

He’s a big proponent of steady, unwavering physical escalation, particularly when the moment is open for it. (Escalation is a recurring problem for most betas.)

60 correctly identifies an issue a lot of men have: the tendency to elicit sexual interest but then fall back on lazy, self-congratulatory attitudes before the deal has been closed. He calls this tendency “sexual tension masturbation”.

Sexual tension masturbation (STM) is when you think you have something going with a girl with your eye contact, vibe and all your little visualizations and other fantasy bullshit. Look man sexual tension is great, but if you don’t solidify the connection physically (ie. mutual caressing) it all gets forgotten about. It was all in your head. […]

Don’t use the power of sexual tension as an excuse not to start conversations or make overt physical escalations. You guys know who you are. The ones who say they “only open women with eye contact” (when actually they are scared to open) and “escalate with vibe” (obviously they’re really just scared to show overt interest).

60 agrees with CH that a sexual frame is critical to success with women. (When you visualize women as sexual creatures before anything else, your subtle shift in mannerism around women cues them to reciprocate the favor.)

I’m always aware of my cock. It’s my emotional gage. I’m not hard. Why am I not hard? Ok we can fix that. While she talks I start picturing her blowing me face down on my bed while I palm her ass with one hand. Again, being in a sexual state is important, but if you are only going to pick one crucial moment per night to be in a sexual state, it’s right now! I am now operating from a desire for sex (need 1) vs. affection (need 2). A second ago I was daydreaming about getting coffee and snuggling up with her in bed with a good book. Nothing wrong with that except that women don’t snuggle with guys they don’t have a sexual connection with. I have to get the sex before I can be the guy enjoying coffee in bed.

Core psychological difference between alpha and beta males:
Alphas pursue hot, dirty sex, and accept that relationships could be a consequence of a successful pursuit.
Betas pursue loving, affectionate relationships, and accept that sex could be a part of a successful pursuit.

Men are better looking when they are listening with seductive intensity than when they are talking or smiling stupidly. Plus, listening to a girl yap on and on weave elaborate worlds of fantasy and flourish will put her in a sexually receptive state.

For most guys using their seductive face (lips, sleepy eyes) makes them way better looking than their social face (big smile, open eyes).

You might not consider yourself good looking but few guys making a seductive face will be considerd bad looking by women.

If you’re an ugly guy, all I can say to you is: what choice do you have? Sit at home and fap morosely? You may as well put yourself out there and demonstrate the boldness that women love. Even a 1 out of 100 close rate beats a 0 out of 0 close rate.

60’s approach strategy is to focus on girls who come into or near your zone of influence. That is, don’t hunt high and low for girls to talk to; rather, focus your attention on girls who enter the area you are sitting or standing. This is sound advice for beginners still getting over stage fright and turned off by the contortions involved in executing the “approach machine” mentality. Plus, girls who have veered into your orbit, whether they are consciously aware or not, have signaled some interest, and are thus easier to open. He suggests that men who can’t think of anything to say use the easiest non-verbal opener in the world: the cheers. Few women will resist a raised glass. Other wordless openers include the handshake hold, the light body bump, and the spin.

There is some standard stuff here about not being afraid to blow it. Men paradoxically do worse in the beginning of the night because that’s when they give more of a fuck about meeting and attracting girls. As the night, and the misfires, wear on, that fear gets supplanted by a fuck-it attitude that is more attractive to girls. That fuck-it attitude needs to be your attitude *all the time*. You have to be always on, or, more precisely, always off. So get your rejections out of the way early in the night so you can enjoy the rest of the night in a more relaxed state of mind.

60 also reveals a little trick for tongue-tied men that has worked for me on occasion: Tell girls that you have trouble saying something.

I will tell people that I’m having an anxiety attack and I need to take a little break. I really don’t give a fuck what they think about it. Not surprisingly this has cut down the frequency of my panic attacks dramatically.

The act of airing your anxieties — a form of beta vulnerability game that is charming in small, self-aware (and self-controlled) doses — is catnip to chicks. Telling a girl that you are “having trouble saying something really cool and interesting at the moment, so just sit tight and magic will happen if you’re patient” is guaranteed to put a smile on almost any girl’s face. Note that there is a subtle qualification test for the girl buried in that opener.

1st Time: Assume Failure

The first time I make an overt “it’s on” escalation (O-IOE) like putting out my hand or grabbing her hand I just assume it’s not going to work. I figure she is probably going to pull her hand away quickly or simply not comply. Same thing if I go for a kiss instead. I fully expect her to turn away on the first try.

But I don’t care if she turns her cheek because the point of the first escalation wasn’t for it to succeed. It was only to show her that I am confident and go for what I want. Escalation is attractive. If I create an it’s on moment on the first try I consider it a bonus.

Chicks dig boldness. Escalating is bold. (MGTOWs wept.)

60 goes into a lot of detail about demonstrating to girls that you can handle social tension, or what we hear at CH refer to as grace under pressure. Shit tests are tension tests; the girl wants to know if you’ll fold like a cheap lawn chair. If you do, you are not a worthy alpha male who will protect her and her tribe from marauders. As 60 says, you don’t want to break the tension; you want to ride it out until *she* breaks the tension. Then you have acquired for yourself seduction hand. For example:

Hey, I want to grab a drink with you on Wednesday.

~ I can’t. I have to work late

This is the point where most guys can’t deal with the awkwardness and just assume this means she isn’t interested. As such, they immediately blab out something stupid to break the tension ie. “oh, that sucks”. Instead stay completely silent. Don’t let her off the hook. Give her a few moments to come back with her own idea.

~ I’m free on Thursday night.

~ We can go to my place.

If you always feel the need to break the awkward silence and let her off the hook, you will never give her a chance to think up a solution. […]

This moment of silence also makes it clear that you know exactly what her little game is all about. She is trying to string you along while still keeping your male attention and you’re not going to put up with it. This moment of silence exposes her. Let the truth about her interest level be heard. She’s been busted without having to verbally call her out, which is lame.

I like 60’s seduction style, because it follows a tenet of “less is more” for verbal interaction, while simultaneously pursuing a “more is more” attitude toward physical interaction. It’s the sort of game that will appeal to men who aren’t naturally socially hyperactive and who instead prefer a laid-back, mystery man approach with heavy emphasis on body language cues and nuanced facial expressions.

Reframe Ignoring

You can also reframe it if a woman is ignoring your texts. Yes, you can even reframe silence. Is she ignoring you or is she flirting with you? It’s up to you to decide.

all of a sudden you’re shy? you are such a flirt

It’s the way you interpret her testing and resistance that will dictate your response. It helps to be delusionally confident.

Now where have I heard this before?

Set Stealers

Sometimes one of your friends will come over and indirectly try to hit on the girl you are talking to. Other times random guys will try to steal your set.

He means well but maybe your buddy is very talkative and thinks he is good with women. The key here is to stay quiet and keeping holding eye-contact with your target (the listener) while he is busy doing the talking and entertaining.

Do not look or turn your body towards him. Don’t comment on anything he says. This will just give him more attention and power.

This technique is very powerful because you are communicating with her on the non-verbal level while he is still stuck on the verbal level.

You can even start using eye-coding her like

“isn’t it cute. he is trying so hard”

You guys are secretly tooling him. He will never be able to recover from that.

AMOG management. (AMOG = alpha male of the group, or alpha male other guy). So true. Have you ever noticed how blatantly — to the point of rudeness — naturals will do this? They will turn their backs, literally, on any AMOG, even if he is a friend, if the guy tries to horn in on the action. And, like a jungle cat, the natural’s eyes will never unlock from his prey’s eyes. Do these things, and you can learn to be a natural.

You are Ugly

She thinks I am ugly. Tell me something I don’t know.

I know you were hoping you might be at least decent looking. Dude, you’re ugly.

And the sooner you realize and admit you are ugly the better. The great news is you don’t have to be traditionally “good looking” to attract women.

If you want to be considered “good looking” in woman’s eyes, you have to have the confidence to not care that you are ugly.

Confidence is sexy. And a big part of being confident is realizing you are not good looking, but you don’t give a fuck. Women will definitely pick up on this attitude.

The only way to be confident is to actually have male model looks or admit that you are ugly. So if you aren’t a male model, then you are ugly. Say it. I am ugly. Like most guys you are probably average looking. But you can’t be average looking and still be worrying about looks. That is a formula for disaster.

Let it go man

Even if you are decent looking and have confidence with some women, there will always be even hotter girls who you feel are out of your league based on your looks. You are never going to be better looking than a woman. Let women worry about looking good and smelling nice. Stop playing the looks game. Stop the insanity. You are ugly. You are short, fat, bald, and you smell. And it doesn’t matter.

Most of us can’t attract women with our looks.

What attracts women to you is the “I don’t give a fuck” attitude.

Wise words, and right in line with CH teachings. (And with science!)

But 60, despite his solid advice, doesn’t much like opening girls. He prefers, as do I, using the opener as a screen for girls who are interested, and getting to the seduction part of the pick-up sooner rather than later. Because the quicker you get to actually seducing women, the closer you get to the lays, and the more hot sex you ultimately squeeze out of your short window of opportunity here on earth.

My whole goal for opening is to make it as quick and efficient as possible. That’s why I recommend non-verbal opening. aka as physical opening. I want to ping as many cute girls as I can in the shortest amount of time.

I want to get to the fun part. Seducing. I would rather be having an interesting conversation or just listening while seducing a girl with my eyes than be approaching.

I really enjoy seducing cute women that have at least some interest in me. Even though I hate opening, finding them is my motivation. Because for every nine frumps there is always one really cute and interesting girl that I have a lot of fun hanging out with that night.

Outright, prompt rejection is actually not the worst thing that can happen to you. The worst is the “low interest” girl; she will put in juuuust enough effort to keep you around, but not much more to help move the interaction to a sexual crescendo. At least with the girls who rudely reject you, you can move on right away to better prospects; the cockteasers can keep you invested in a shit stock if you don’t have the experience to know when to sell.

What is a magic number

A magic number is how many women you have to contact before you find one who has interest in you based solely on your presence.

Attractive Presence / 1st Impression

– confident approach
– confident body language & posture
– confident eye contact
– looks: clothes, grooming, body
– smile, vibe, glow

What is your magic number

A guy with no confidence, bad posture and no style and could have a magic number as high as 100. Meaning he would have contact 100 women to get one good lead. This is an extreme example but still even with a few minor tweaks to his presence he could easily reduce that number to 1 in 50.

Why its good to know your magic number

What if you knew with 100% certainty that if you approached ten women you would go home with one of them. I think you would be really excited to start approaching ten women.

60 spends most of his ebook taking about how to transform a lukewarm girl into a boiling cauldron of twat tingles. His belief is that opening is more about screening out completely uninterested girls (the “red light” girls) and game is more about the skill to convert those girls who have shown some minimal interest (minimal interest in girl-code is MUCH more encrypted than would be minimal interest expressed by the typical man) into lovers.

I know why he does this: the initial meet, and any accompanying instant attraction levels, are subject to a degree of randomness that the later comfort and seduction stages are not. Any individual girl could be taken, PMSing, upset, thinking about some other dude, mad at being dragged out by her friends, or simply MHC incompatible, and most efforts to attract her on your part will be pissing into the wind. While there is plenty of game material on how to CREATE attraction, 60 prefers to emphasize the game techniques that come into play once a girl has been screened for a tiny hint of interest (or, more precisely, screened for an absence of unresponsiveness). Strangely, although approach game is more exposed to forces of randomness, everything after the approach and initial meet is exposed to more opportunities to FUCK IT UP royally. A girl who is sticking around for a few minutes to get a feel for your alpha maleness is also going to become a harsher judge of any missteps you make. Game helps men avoid those missteps and guide transiently invested girls into stronger, more sexually charged commitments.

No Tension

I know some guys still think this ambiguity is a good thing. It’s better if she is wondering about your intentions, right? Actually not really. That’s because there is almost NO tension when you start a conversation this way. It’s way too comfortable for her right from the start. Most times after your initial comment and subsequent thread runs its course , the interaction fizzles out. On the other hand using very direct openers (ie. you are absolutely stunning!) can also be hit or miss.

As such, I usually choose the middle ground. For example, my favorite way to start a conversation is ”Hey, you looked interesting. I figured I would come over and introduce myself.” This line is delivered seductively but slightly aloof. Yes I want to meet her but I’m not completly won over yet. This opener obviously creates some tension but it’s not so over the top that it’s awkward. It doesn’t box you in. You can still be a challenge and she still has to qualify. In fact, by adding that she “looked interesting” most women will want to stay consistent with that and try to live up to your initial perception of them. In other words, qualify to you.

Quick Tip

I know it can be hard for some guys to build-up enough confidence to walk over and simply introduce themselves to a woman. And some guys just can’t do it at all. They feel much more comfortable with the comment, question or opinion format. So for them I recommend making their situational comment and then stating their intention.

Example

indirect – situational comment: looks like you are really enjoying that book, is that something I should be reading?

her: actually it’s really funny! I can’t stop laughing.

direct – state intention: well you looked interesting, so I thought I would come over and introduce myself.

I’m an advocate for showing ambiguity, but 60 makes a good point that too much ambiguity will be misread by girls as friendship offers, or worse, as cowardly avoidance of one’s real intentions. 60 is really a student of the indirect-direct opener school. His directness is less sexual than it is plausibly deniable, and he even advises that a direct opener can be used on the heels of an indirect opener if you are the kind of guy who likes to catch women off-guard (or you’re justifiably squeamish about being perceived as too flattering of girls). I believe the indirect-direct opener is Krauser’s method of operation as well.

I’m still not a fan of saying your name before you’ve gotten the girl’s name, (your name should be a reward for her name or, better yet, should remain mysteriously hidden as long as possible), so I would avoid openers that use the phrase “introduce myself”. Substitute with “say ‘hi'” instead.

60 has something to say to those guys (usually trolls) who wonder if practiced aloofness and stating one’s intentions, however ambiguously, are mutually exclusive:

If you think letting women know that you wanted to meet them gives them the upper hand, think again. Remember, contacting women on dating sites doesn’t stop guys from being challenging or qualifying them. Even though she assumes they must be interested. These guys are taking advantage of the built-in excitement that comes when someone (anyone) is interested in you. People like people who like them.

When you stay completely vague about why you came over to talk, women won’t register the interaction as anything to be excited about. She can relax. They stop listening and lose interest. They play with their phones and start looking around. That’s because she really does think you are just “being social” or you were just making a comment. Even if she eventually realizes you probably came over to talk to her, she isn’t going to give you any points for having confidence. She will think you were scared so you made up an excuse. By this point it’s too late anyway. She is too comfortable with you.

I wouldn’t go as far as 60 in his assertion that indirect game will bore women and friendzone yourself; in the right hands, Straussian opinion opener game can work well, as long as one knows when to ratchet the tension. The problem with indirect, “social” game is that there is a risk it will be used as a crutch by men to avoid more intimate escalation.

It is way more important to open a woman within three seconds than to wait until you can think of something clever to say. In fact, it doesn’t really matter what you say.

You can say I love tigers, this is my song or simply hello. Just as long as you say it within three seconds.

The most important thing is that you don’t procrastinate and sike yourself out. And eventually creep her out. You will get more points for having the confidence to approach quickly than you would if you came up with something really good to say, but waited.

Amen, bro. No argument here.

60 thinks that humbleness rather than cockiness is the preferred method of bantering female shit tests.

Hey do you guys think it’s OK for a girl to Twitter about her date while she is still on the date?

They are nice but out of nowhere her friend says: “Is this your excuse to come and and talk to us?”

Now I know some guys would think it’s the perfect time for a cocky comeback. Don’t Break Rapport

Actually you guys looked fun so I wanted to come introduce myself.

Do not let her bait you to break rapport. Do not give her an excuse to reject you. Your confident approach already has her attracted. Women don’t test guys they aren’t attracted to.

I disagree with this last assertion. Women will often test men they aren’t YET attracted to, in order to determine just how attractive a man is. There might be an initial, asexual curiosity by her, but full-blown attraction in women can take a few minutes to really metastasize. Nevertheless, 60’s advice is solid; cockiness can be overplayed, especially if you are already perceived as a confident man.

A general rule is the less attractive she is the more humble you need to be.

This is just a reiteration of the CH maxim that the hotter the chick, the tighter your game will need to be.

Clown Zone

Keep in mind that although a social opener is low risk, the more clownish your opener is the harder it will be to switch to a seductive vibe later.

This is my main beef with the older Tyler Durden style of game. High energy, borderline spastic openers and mass social proofing is anathema to men who either prefer or are naturally more skilled at creating lower energy seductive vibes, aka brooding introverts. A player would have to be exceptionally skilled indeed to ably switch from one state to the other without seeming incongruent.

Anti-Manifesto

It is my belief that it’s not so much as you need to do or say “special” things to CREATE attraction as much as you just need to NOT do the small things that reduce the sexual tension that is already there. And eventually kill it forever.

– talking
– laughing
– reacting
– fidgeting
– bailing her out
– supplicating facial expressions […]

In the end it always seems to come down to who wins the little tension battles:

Eye Contact: who is going to look away first
Introduction: who pulls their hand away first
Silence: who gives in and talks first
Resistance: who tries to diffuse the awkward moment first
Who breaks down and needs to have a talk about “what is going on” first.

Yes, game is as much avoidance of anti-seduction behaviors as it is execution of pro-seduction behaviors. In fact, the former is a prerequisite for the latter; you have to rid yourself of the bad before the good can find purchase.

I’ll quote the following from 60 because it is SO important for newbs to understand:

Escalation & Resistance

Anytime you get verbal or physical resistance there will be even more tension in the air. This is good news. Resistance is great! But if you react to the resistance verbally (ie. trying to diffuse the awkwardness by making a joke) you will kill that tension. The same thing happens if you look sad and become pouty. If you don’t react to her resistance it never becomes real. It’s not official. It’s like it never happened. Being unreactive and keeping composed lets you be very persistent without coming across needy.

What do I hear there? Ah yes, the female rationalization hamster! You need to befriend that hamster and to make it spin for you instead of against you. Non-reactiveness is a surefire social technique for putting that furball to work in your service.

Risk Creepy

As I have discussed before you want to embrace awkwardness and risk creepy. You want her breathing heavy and get her heart beating faster. That’s because these symptoms mimic the signs of her being attracted. This tension is a good thing. You want it to be a bit awkward. You don’t want things to feel too comfortable.

Better to be creepy than invisible.

The Hard Truth

For some guys using fast escalation will be the only way they can ever create attraction with really hot women. The confidence displayed by fast escalation overcomes all of their shortcomings in other areas. You are wasting your time if you are using anything else.

60 emphasizes fast escalation, physical but also to a lesser extent verbal, and with good reason: You really can short-circuit a girl’s latent objections to sex by escalating fast and taking her out of her head. Remember, women WANT and LOVE to submit to a strong man. And escalation is a manifestation of strength.

Guys just want things to end good

So they can have their little story about how they got a hot girls number or flirted with a really attractive woman. It’s an ego thing. They didn’t escalate because they didn’t want things to end bad. But it always ends bad. Every single time.

Follow everything to its conclusion. Every set. Every number. Every prospect. Every time. Unless you get the girl it will always end bad. And at some point it will eventually end bad with her as well. And that’s OK. […]

Make sure it always ends bad.

Raise your hands, all you guys who chatted up a girl, got her smiling, and then bailed on asking for the number or a date because you froze and decided that her smile was good enough for you. Follow through to failure. You will never have success if you’re afraid to court failure.

There’s a big chunk of the middle section of the ebook that deals with tension management, eye contact, inner game, shit tests, seductive listening, qualification, kino (combining “accidental” and deliberate touches), compliance, persistence, anti-slut defenses, isolation, last minute resistance (“Don’t wait for resistance. Resist yourself.”) and rapport (he’s not a huge fan of intentionally breaking rapport to build tension), which I will skip over because most of the readers are already familiar with these topics, and 60’s contribution is not radically different from the information in other pick-up resources. It’s still very good, though, and 60 is a clear, insightful writer whose material would sit well on the top shelf along with other renowned game manuals.

60 Years of Challenge is a great resource if you are looking for information on powerful post-approach, early- and mid-stage game techniques, body and facial language, and non-verbal escalation. Physical, non-verbal escalation plays such a big part of 60’s game philosophy that it’s a wonder the autistic feminist hen cluckers haven’t latched onto his tome as a field manual for instituting rape culture. But the player is right and the feminists are wrong (there’s news): girls love the feeling of “being taken” by a dominant man, and part of that feeling requires of girls that they put forth tokens of resistance.

60 is a little weak in the areas of creating raw attraction and relationship management, but there are plenty of other pick-up resources out there that cover those territories extensively. He stresses that cocky/funny teasing is counterproductive in many cases, which is where he markedly differs from his pick-up peers. He asserts that silence and a seductive stare create more delicious sexual tension than a witty comeback. (It is on this subject where I think his advice becomes too narrow in scope. There is certainly a place for playful teasing.). His theoretical musings on male-female psychosocial differences (or sameness) are superficial (he’s a member of the slut apologist club). Also, some of his advice contradicts itself, but that is a quibble when viewed against the mostly coherent whole, and to be expected when a good part of his ebook is a patchwork of his drive-by internet forum postings.

Disagreements aside, my overall style is sympatico with 60’s, and I suspect 60 and I would get along quite well in the field as wingman partners in grime.

Rating: 3.5 out of 4 engorged labia.

PS Here’s a parting quote from 60, directed at the mewling MGTOWs and huffy tradcons:

The game is not fair

I repeat. This game is not fucking fair. The best guy for her doesn’t win. The most attractive guy doesn’t automatically get to be the one to have sex with her.

The guy she likes best and the guy she ends up having sex with can be two totally different people.

It’s the guy who is persistent that gets the girl. It’s the guy who laughs off her tests and token resistance and keeps escalating that gets the girl. In the end he doesn’t even remember any of the resistance he got.

PPS I like this final thought from 60:

Visualize yourself as having a combination of the following. A seduction triple threat.

• The social skills of Vince Vaughn in Swingers
• The seductive power of George Clooney
• The sexual drive of Tommy Lee on tour with Motley Crue

Pick your own characters or role models

Your goal is to become congruent with these 3 characters and be able to switch smoothly from one to the other without worrying that it’s strange.

You can’t go wrong imbuing yourself with the personality traits of the cocky socializer, the confident seducer, and the carnal sex machine. To be anything less would be… beta.

Stop Amnesty Now

It looks like a bipartisan (read: bi-part the American public’s buttcheeks and ram it home hard) effort by legislators is about to lead to total amnesty for tens of millions of illegal infiltrators (as Israel’s government classifies similar migrants crossing their borders), in exchange for promises — promises! — of stricter border control in the distant future.

Do you ever get the feeling that we live in two Americas? America One, the status whoring playground and experimental lab of the ruling class. America Two, the masses of common sensical, decent people serving as guinea pigs for America One’s pleasure.

So Democrats want new voters and a lock on elections for the next fifty generations. Republicans want cheap chalupas and kickbacks to their corporate sponsors. And the public wants a solvent, livable country again, filled with like-minded people they can trust and count on to be there when the old age SHTF.

Guess who always gets what they want?

Take a stand. Notify your congressional representative, aka Filthy Fuck, of your displeasure with their august body’s program of de facto genocide against the founding and maintaining stock of the once-great American nation.

Not that this will do any good, because the ruling class has no interest in listening to the rabble; in fact, they seem to be of a mind lately to sneer at the rabble and to take joy in sticking it to them good and hard. But at least they’ll be put on notice.

What notice, you ask? Why, the notice of revolution. The notice of secession. The notice that their time, however gaudily invincible it appears right now, will come to an end, and if they were on the wrong side of this simmering intra-white status war they can expect retribution; swift, remorseless, unforgiving, and as gleefully and cruelly administered as the punishment they currently lord over their putative compatriots.

Fat Kills… Marriages Dead

CH, what is best in life?

To mock your enemies, see them driven to hysterics before you, and to hear the mooing of the fatties.

That is good!

You’re damn right that is good. This post will continue a proud tradition.

***

If someone told me, “Hey, did you know fat women married to in-shape men have worse marriages?”, I would reply “Who doesn’t know that? A man married to a fat sow will be unhappy, and if he has options he’ll start looking elsewhere. Common sense.”

Well, unfortunately for those who are inclined to give the masses the benefit of the doubt, the world isn’t filled with sane people who trust their lying eyes or who grasp rudimentary logic. The world, especially the Western world currently 5,000 feet from terminal velocity impact, is filled with delusional dregs, ego-assuaging equalists, fantasy world feminists, and puling porkers. Great fun if you’re a psyche-smashing sadist; not so much fun for normal people living in post-sanity secular societies who inevitably wind up footing the bills for these loudmouthed  losers.

Hot on the heels of, oh… ballpark estimate… one million previous CH posts about the penalties fat chicks suffer in the dating market and the personal health market (and now, the marriage durability market and happiness market), comes a new study which finds that fat wives of healthy-weight husbands have worse marriages.

Using dyadic models, we found that mixed-weight couples, specifically couples including overweight women and healthy weight men, reported greater conflict both generally and on a daily basis, compared to matched-weight couples; however, general conflict was reduced with greater perceived support from the partner. Mixed-weight couples who reported eating together more frequently also reported greater general conflict. These findings suggest that mixed-weight couples may experience more conflict than matched-weight couples, but perceived support from the partner can buffer this conflict. This research suggests that interpersonal dynamics associated with mixed-weight status might be important for romantic partners’ relational and personal health.

The researchers veer a bit into PC territory in their conclusion, so it will require a truly malevolent force to spell out the take-home lessons of this study in flashing neon lights that no one, not even hare-brained hogs, can possibly misinterpret.

Lesson Number One

Men are repulsed by the sight and feel (and smell) of fat chicks. All further lessons flow from this basic premise.

Lesson Number Two

A man with options to do so will choose a slender babe over a fat chick, EVERY TIME. (Rare exceptions prove the rule. Or: Don’t count on miracles, fatties.)

Lesson Number Three

A man married to a woman who has bloated into Hogzilla proportions will become increasingly unhappy, frustrated and resentful, and will express his displeasure with his fat wife in both passive and active ways.

Lesson Number Four

A fat wife is more harmful than is a fat husband to marital health and happiness. Fatness exacts a bigger toll on a woman’s sexual market value (and, therefore, marital market value) than it does on a man’s sexual and marital market value. Men are more visually oriented than women, and a fat man can compensate for his fatness by being attractive in other ways that women love. Fat women cannot compensate for their fatness except by losing weight and slimming down to a sexy, hourglass shape.

Lesson Number Five

Fat wives increase the odds of spousal adultery and marital dissolution. A wife who lets herself go on piles of cakes and cheesy poofs is primarily responsible for any infidelity her husband commits. Harsh, but true.

Lesson Number Six

A husband will be more likely to love, cherish and support his wife if she is thin. Life is conditional. Stop crying, and deal with it.

Lesson Number Seven

The cure for marital unhappiness and a lowering of the high risk of divorce among fat wife-healthy man couples is the fat wife losing weight until she has regained her attractive, slender, feminine shape. Marriage counselors will invariably bleat tired platitudes about “interpersonal dynamics”, “increasing perceived support”, and “unresolved masculinity issues”, and none of their solutions will work except to line their filthy pockets and turn wives against their husbands. They are worse than useless, because they lead women away from the one tried-and-true solution that *will* fix their marriages: losing weight.

Any questions? Or would you stubborn fatties and fatty apologists prefer the whistling lash upon your stuccoed hides a few more hundred thousand times?

I can already hear the trolls and transparently bad-faith skeptics.

“So fat women should marry fat men. Then all will be good!”

All will be good if you don’t mind living like the walking dead.

Mutually fat couples have no reason to rejoice. While thin husbands are more apt to distance themselves from fat wives, emotionally and sexually, fat husbands feel just as much frustration and resentment. Fat dudes are just as disgusted by fat chicks as are thin dudes. The difference is that fat husbands are less able to act out their frustrations without risking divorce rape and subsequent involuntary celibacy. A man who is forced by his lack of options to settle for a low quality woman will quickly acclimate himself to his dour circumstances, or suffer daily blows to his ego no man could withstand for long without the assistance of soothing psychological contrivances. The Acclimated Man (a subspecies of The Manipulated Man) will then become a simulacrum of the fox who cried sour grapes because he couldn’t grab the juicy fruit dangling just out of reach.

“I’m a thin woman reading CH for the rapturous tingles it inspires in my vaginal core, and all my (carefully screened) girl friends are thin, so how bad could this problem be?”

The Walking Fed

See here for an animated map going back to 1985. Gripping (gimping?) stuff.

“Fatness is genetic. Fat chicks can’t do anything about it.”

Bullshit on stilts. See above graph. There’s no way fat crappery can increase that much in a population of hundreds of millions in the span of 25 years by genetic selection alone. The best the “fat gene” crowd can argue is that most humans are wired to put on excess weight in an environment of plentiful sugar-rich, high glycemic index carb food and sedentary lifestyles. That isn’t the same as saying fat people have fat genes rendering them immune to efforts at long-term weight loss. What it means is that fatsos have to stop eating pastries and pasta, and start getting off their double wide asses and moving their limbs more than they do when reaching like an obese infant for a cookie on the kitchen countertop. The worst of them could begin their training by discarding the Walmart scooters for walking.

No fat gene hypothesis is needed to explain the growing army of lardbuckets and the shitty marriages they leave in their battle cruiser wakes. The answer is staring everyone in the face. The reason there are so many fat chicks in the world, and particularly in America, is because THEY CHOOSE THE PLEASURES OF FOOD AND IDLENESS OVER THE PLEASURES OF PLEASING MEN. That’s it, fatties. You choose… poorly. And you *will* pay the consequences. Forever. Or at least until you push away from the table.

“Thin, attractive wives sometimes suffer spousal infidelity and emotional coldness, too. So how can you say fat is the problem?”

This is the mirror image of the MGTOW false dichotomy fallacy (“If you hit on women, you are a beta because you have to put in effort to meet them.”) Feminists often employ this tactical fallacy when confronted by bleedingly obvious facts of human nature that remind them of their low status in the sexual value hierarchy. Just as MGTOWs, handicapped by their shut-in, stunted understanding of the innate differences between men and women, can’t fathom how a man can be both alpha and happy to approach and seduce women he desires, so too do feminists and their ilk betray a studied lack of comprehension about the effects that women’s degree of desirability has on men’s motivations.

A feminist sees a slender girl get cheated on by her asshole boyfriend, and the feminist’s stretch garment, Möbius strip mind promptly infers that being thin and sexy offers no more protection from infidelity than does being fat and gross. The feminist does not explore other, more likely, possibilities, such as the idea that hot babes are more likely to hook up with alpha males who have more temptations to suppress, or that the thin wife who suffered her husband’s infidelity probably would have suffered a lot more of his infidelities, and a lot earlier in the marriage, had she been overweight instead.

“But I read somewhere that fat people live longer than thin people?”

Not so fast. One dubious meta-analysis that contradicts literally thousands of individual studies showing the deleterious effects of fatness on health should not inspire confidence that being fat is A-Ok. However, let’s assume for the purposes of troll patronizing that overweight people really do “””live””” longer than thin people. Suffice to say, such extended longevity would come at a cost. There are the healthcare expenditures to treat all the illnesses that arise from being fat, of course. Then there’s the fact that most people would prefer a quality life as a thin person that ends, at last, rather peacefully in deep sleep, rather than a stricken life as a fatso waddling out an extra year or two on one diabetic foot and aching joints, wheezing and puffing and pants-pissing recklessly because any visible signs of graspable genitalia were lost long ago.

There is furthermore the obvious point that none of this feeble protesting about the supposed lack of health consequences of fatness has anything to do with the topic under discussion, which is that fat women repulse and drive away their husbands. Even if fat women are the healthiest people in the world and will all live to 110, that doesn’t change the fact that they are aesthetically repulsive to nearly all men. Thin people outcompete fat people in the dating market in the ways that matter because people, all kinds of people at all kinds of weights, prefer to gaze upon the lithe contours of slender bodies (for women) or V-shaped fit bodies (for men) rather than the undulating rolls of blubber on fat people. If fat craps don’t want to lose weight for their health, then they should lose weight for the better impression they’ll leave with others, and especially with those of the opposite sex whom they desire as romantic possibilities.

“Shaming fat women won’t work.”

Oh, really?

A leading health academic has called for fat people to be ‘shamed and beat upon socially’ in order to halt the obesity crisis.

In a controversial article, Daniel Callahan, the 82-year-old president emeritus of The Hastings Center a New York think-tank specializing in health policy ethics, calls for increased stigmatization of obese people to try spur weight-loss across America.

The senior research scholar says fat people should be treated like smokers who have become increasingly demonized in recent years and thus ‘nudged’ by negative attitudes of those around them into giving up the unhealthy habit. […]

‘The obvious target would be the large number of people who are unaware that they are overweight,’ he writes in the paper printed in the center’s first periodical volume of the year.

‘They need, to use an old phrase, a shock of recognition. Only a carefully calibrated effort of public social pressure is likely to awaken them to the reality of their condition.

Get this hero a free copy of the forthcoming CH book!

Shaming works. If it worked on smokers and “””racists”””, it will work on fatties. Shaming isn’t the sole solution to the obesity epidemic, but it is a powerful weapon against the marching manatees. Shaming fat women to lose weight will bring increased happiness to the world, and that’s a utilitarian argument men can spring to life for!

The shaming stick coupled with the encouragement carrot is a potent combo. Be genuinely helpful and complimentary to women who are sincerely making efforts to lose weight. Remind her, in nuanced language as necessary, that a reward of feeling better about herself and having a more exciting (read: more pleasurably orgasmic) dating life await her on the other side where thin women take their desirability for granted. But the carrot should always follow the stick, like you might give a dog a treat only after it has done what you commanded of it. Too little shame, and the carrot becomes an excuse to avoid the hard choices, or to delude oneself that no improvement is needed.

Let’s end on a positive, uplifting note of encouragement: Shame on you, fatties! Shame! Shame! Look at yourselves. You’re all a bunch of triple decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwiches wrapped in a casing of subhuman sausage flesh. Blue whales sonically laugh at you. Your smegma hiding stomach folds have spawned a new species of armored crevice mice who nibble on your mouth droppings. Your pets eagerly await the feast that will accompany your untimely sofa-bound death. You are the reason a cottage industry of ass-wiping implements exists. The sight of your dumpy hind quarters can reduce a porn star’s viagra- and yohimbe-fueled hard-on to an inverted micropenis in less than a second. Whole villages of gnomes have been found ‘twixt your enormous buttocks. When you pinch a loaf, sewage treatment plants go code red. Your clitorii can fill hot dog buns. Your manboobs can spray milk from ten yards. You sicken me. You sicken everyone. Admit it, you even sicken yourselves. For shaaaaaaaaaaaame.

PS Since lower class women are fatter than upper class women, (smart ladies know what matters in the big picture), it behooves all men of taste who care about preserving pleasing female forms to engage in noblesse oblige, before the habits of the lessers percolate upward and become the habits of the betters, or what zee French call noblesse obese. There used to be a grand Iron Junk tradition where higher class men would scavenge lower class women for their pretty secretaries and nurses, because upper class women tend also to be battle-axes and egregious status whores. And the lower class women, for their part, loved that system. What cute, economically depressed girl wouldn’t relish an opportunity for love with a charming Gatsbian? But now, these men have nowhere to turn for tender female company; the lower classes have become untouchable, in the strictest sense of the word. So this is why the CH anti-fatass campaign is both pro-man *and* pro-woman… and pro-egalitarian! Making lower class women attractive again will help break down class divisions. Never let it be said the Oracles of the House of Heartiste aren’t generous of heart and willing to share their bounty with the rabble.

Why Ask Why? Shun The Stale Seven Questions

Here’s a little trick for beginners to improve their rapport skills with women: don’t ask them questions. Specifically, don’t ask them the following anticipated questions:

What’s your name?
What do you do?
Where do you live?
Where are you from?
What school did you go to?
Where do you work?
How do you like it here?

When you meet a girl, and she’s a tight-lipped sort who won’t volunteer much to help a conversation gain traction, you will feel a powerful compulsion to ask these kinds of filler questions. When you feel that urge, STOP yourself mentally, keep your trap shut, and spend a second or two thinking up some other kind of question to ask her, if you must ask something. It doesn’t matter what question you substitute in the place of the Stale Seven above, as long as it is different and, therefore, unexpected. You could ask “How would you calculate the hypotenuse of a right triangle if your life depended on it?” and you would get better reactions from girls than asking some boring question she’s heard a thousand times this week (if she’s cute).

If it helps your willpower, imagine the claw grip of CH wielding a blackboard pointer and rapping it briskly against your knuckles when you think impure thoughts about the Stale Seven. Such a visualization will coax an idle grin from you, which will in turn arouse the curiosity of your mark. And once a girl is curious about you, her labia begin to flower like a Desert Lily after an August deluge.

Willing yourself to shun the Stale Seven is more than a game tactic to attract women; it’s on-the-go practice for becoming a better conversationalist, a skill that can apply to any situation involving a second human being. When you force a pattern interrupt on yourself, you sharpen your focus and hone your mind to think differently. To think more seductively. Many men complain they can never “think of anything to say” to women, but a big reason for their comatose tongues rests in the fact that their minds still operate under the guidelines of old, intransigent ways. They haven’t yet actively pushed their brains out of the comfort zone. Other people can push you out of your comfort zone, but so can you alone, through deliberate concentration on sidestepping lazy traps your mind lays for you. That first time you catch yourself midway through the word “Where…” on the way to completing the “Where are you from?” banality, you will feel something akin to a happy mental rush. “Yes!” you will mentally intone, “I stopped myself from muttering a beta male triviality! This means I have the power to mold myself into a more interesting man.”

A little victory, to be sure, but those little victories add up, until one day you’re twirling a girl round and round the dance floor of your mind.

Now that we know how to be less predictable around women, we can move on to step two: being more of a challenge. This step typically encompasses a lot of material, so for now we’ll discuss one particular method that will instantly imbue you with the churlish aura of alphatude that women crave as much as you crave a firm ass and supple breasts.

Ask, “Why?”. Why ask why? Reader dannyfrom504 explains:

Girls don’t need to be interesting. Most guys will validate them based on looks alone.

You want to mess up a cute girls head, ask her WHY when she states an opinion. Most dudes just go along with her to try to build [sic] repoir. Be different and ask her to justify her opinion.

You’ll stand out and bring major tingles.

You ask why because it is the one category of question that most men don’t ask of women. When was the last time you heard a beta male asking a girl why she thought this way, or why she thinks that way, or why she likes to be a heartbreaker, or why she she can’t sit still, or why she has to be the center of attention? When was the last time you *didn’t* see a beta male dutifully nodding his head like a hired lackey to every inanity spilled from a pretty girl’s mouth?

< kenyan > Now let me be clear. < /kenyan > You ask why not out of spite, or disapproval. You ask it sincerely, because it’s delightfully shocking to women to hear it, and it’s a challenge most women can’t resist. You ask because you want to know. Or, more likely, you don’t really want to know, but you fake interest till you make interest. Asking “why?” will immediately and in no uncertain terms set you apart from the horde of indistinguishable men an attractive woman interacts with every day. It’s bold, it’s ballsy, and it’s exciting to women. And excitement = sexytime.

Furthermore, “why?” is a great short-cut for getting women to open up and reveal a bit about themselves. This is known in pick-up parlance as “value eliciting”. Once you key in on a woman’s values, you can feed them back to her as if they were also your own, and construct a feeling of connection that is so important to women as a prelude to any sexual relinquishment.

Some of you dreadfully fearful minimen will ask “What if she replies ‘Why do you care?’“. First, you would be lucky to cross paths with more than 1 out of 50 women who would answer in that bitchy manner. But, for the sake of argument, here’s what you say if that does happen to you: “Charming.” Brevity cues the glow of clits.

You need to know two things about female psychology before you know anything else. Women HATE HATE HATE boring men. And women REALLY HATE HATE HATE supplicating yes-men.

Women are attracted — yes, primally, sexually attracted — to interesting men, and to challenging men.

Don’t be boring. Don’t be a suck-up. If you accomplish those two miracles and wonders, you are halfway to sleeping with the kinds of women you’ve always dreamed of defiling. If you have questioned your ability to borrow and then alchemize the alpha attitude for yourself, know that avoiding classic (and easily avoidable) beta male manbooby traps like asking boring, autonomically retrievable questions, and nodding like a puppet to every throwaway musing a woman utters, is 9/10ths of the effort needed to shed your crusty, beta chrysalis.

So keep those toes a-tapping, gentlemen, because you are not like the rest.