Powerful Nonverbal Openers

In this post, we discussed the problem of men forfeiting a big chunk their sexual market currency by repeatedly glancing around a room at every girl, hoping for reciprocal eye play, but ultimately never approaching. The SMV damage comes from two insults: One, girls are turned off by men who retreat to the safe harbor of long distance probing eye contact; two, men will experience a subtle but sure erosion of their self-confidence from abjuring action for passivity. Reader Days of Broken Arrows puts it nicely:

Looking also doesn’t work because action turns women on, not inaction. This is something they don’t teach in school and I don’t see it much in the manosphere either. I keep saying this, but I’ll repeat it. Even though they tell us we’re “equal,” men built everything you now own or work with (or in). Women’s job, biologically speaking, is to give birth. Men’s is to build society. We get turned on by things we notice about them that relate to giving birth (hips, breasts) they get turned on by knowing how we’ll help build the world.

As with any rules, there are exceptions. But my point is that having the balls to walk up to a women like you own the fucking room and deserve her time is half the battle. It’s a metaphor for why she’ll be attracted to you. Men who sit and stare are margin dwellers, not doers.

What kind of man just up and WALKS into a woman’s personal space to meet her when he hasn’t been green-lighted by hours of mutually parried eye contact? Answer: An attractive man. Chicks dig the insouciant, entitled man, despite any protestations to the contrary you may hear from the rape culture crowd.

Now, none of this is to say that pre-approach, long distance “openers” can’t work, or shouldn’t be tried. Not only can they work, but if done correctly, the nonverbal opener from a distance is powerfully alluring to women. For example, reader dannyfrom504 writes,

what’s worked for me (and i’m not a great looking guy) is to make eye contact and to stick my tongue out at her like we were in grade school. if i get a laugh or smile, i approach and ask her name.

Picture the scenario. You spot a cute girl, and look at her for a few tantalizing seconds, waiting for her to look up and return your death stare. Then, she raises her head and meets your eye. But instead of reacting the usual way most men do — quickly averting your shy gaze back down to your book which you aren’t reading — you stick your tongue out at her. For maximum funniness, you do this with a deadpan expression. Caught off-guard by this perfect demonstration of cocky male assurance, she will smile and laugh. How do I know she will smile and laugh? Because it is nearly impossible not to smile and laugh when confronted by such a strange and endearing child-like violation of social norms. You did not act like the millions of betas act, who perch in the corners of her world like potted plants. You acted like a man she is now suddenly interested in meeting. This nonverbal opener has greased the skids for a smooth follow-up approach opener.

Here’s another nonverbal opener from reader Cream:

this [sticking tongue out] is basically what I do except that I wave comically.

When a girl meets your eye, can you imagine waving your arms at her frantically, as if you were trying to flag her down from the side of the road? Or waving happily like you’re a kid who just spotted Santa Claus in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade? No? You say you can only see yourself looking away shyly, and looking back at her ten minutes later, praying she’ll toss you an absolutely unmistakeable signal of interest? That is why you fail.

Now here’s a nonverbal opener I like to do in low-key venues filled with obstacles that make instant, direct verbal approaches more problematic. If a girl meets my gaze, I’ll theatrically rub my chin, tilt my head and furrow my brow as if I’m assessing her for facial imperfections. Then I’ll drop my hand a bit from my chin, raise my eyebrows, squint, and nod slowly while doing that Robert DeNiro half-frown, half-smirk of sudden comprehension, as if I have realized she’s cute enough for further consideration. Sometimes, this charade elicits a blank stare, or even a sourpuss. But most of the time, the girl reacts positively, occasionally bordering on gleeful surprise. And if I have got a girl to smile from across the room, that just makes the approach shortly to follow that much easier to execute.

Does all this sound gay to you? Ok, Stoic Alpha Male Lumberjack, it’s way gay for you. But guess which man she’ll be thinking about the rest of the week? That’s right, the guy who stuck his tongue out at her.

If you aren’t embedding yourself in girls’ minds, you aren’t seducing them at all.

I understand that these sorts of expressive, perhaps histrionic, nonverbal openers require a certain thespian facility with manipulating one’s face and body, and a certain level of comfort with making a spectacle of oneself in potentially crowded arenas, and that many men, especially the shoe-gazing introverts, will find such contortions and stagecraft beyond their ken. If you are the sort who finds the idea of performance art intolerable, then there are other avenues for you to unleash your inner flirt. But for more extroverted or experimental men, the nonverbal “pre-opener” is like the cluster bomb of shock pulsing girls out of their tawdry, affected ennui. And you know what else? It’s fun to do!

Naturally, your acting chops will go to waste if you don’t capitalize on her freshly inspired feelings of warmth and good will toward you. You’ll need to do that follow-up, and you’ll need to have something to say. Reader immoralgables offers a suggestion for a cocky verbal opener that can be congruently squeezed into a whole slew of contexts:

A few weeks ago me and my good friend were sarging in the West Village. Him and I were chatting and plotting our next move when i noticed this one HB8 glancing at me for half a second.

I immediately dropped the convo with my wing and without hesitation went to the Hb8 and told her to stop treating me like a piece of meat and that I have feelings too, etc.

It was the first time I didn’t even think about approaching a hot girl; I just did it because I was opening girls all night so I didn’t care by that point. The reaction I got from her was awesome. She did not expect me to initiate like that and so directly.

I of course fucked up shortly thereafter but for those few minutes I knew exactly what Heartiste is talking about.

There is nothing inherently anti-game or beta about visually scanning a room to check out which girls meet your exacting standards. The problem comes when you abuse the safe effortlessness of the visual scan, and rely on it to the exclusion of more active real world interactions with women to forge an active fantasy world. This is why I suggest you get out of the habit of “checking girls out”, and get into the habit of speaking (or charming) girls up.

Stop Looking At Girls From Across The Room

If you don’t first rid yourself of bad, beta habits, acquisition of positive, alpha habits will be harder to internalize. One thing I see men do all the time is glance up from whatever they are doing to look at cute chicks across the room in hopes of eliciting reciprocal flirty eyeplay. What usually happens next is… nothing.

Girls are not going to suddenly find you irresistibly attractive because your bedroom eyes keep checking them out. They might be flattered or spooked, but rarely aroused. To spark arousal in women, you have to talk to them, with either your mouth or your body. And that means closing the distance fast.

The main problem with multiplying glances is that it tends to become a fallback zone in which to comfortably escape from making the difficult choice of opening a girl and finding out if she’s worth your attention. If you want to go years in between lays, waiting for that one killer glance which will send a girl into your arms, then this “strategy” is for you. But most men prefer their love lives are less insufferably arid.

Refraining from looking around a room multiple times at every girl is a step toward washing the feeble beta from your soul and replacing it with a more powerful alpha frame of mind. You will be tempted, of course, to check out pretty girls. Resist it, and supplant that temptation with another one: to WALK UP to pretty girls and speak to them.

Women Dabbling In False Identities

It seems the domains of vice that were once predominantly the purview of shady men have found purchase among women. A reader writes:

I have encountered a few chicks (very smart ones!) who enjoy using fake identities to make friends with men on the Internet and manipulating the information they provide. (I mean actually lying about themselves, revealing false information rather than simply declining to share true information.)  I’ve gotten good at smoking them out and leading them into inconsistencies. They never admit lying even though they’re caught dead to rights, and they often try to turn the tables by claiming to be offended at the lack of trust I show by doubting them, before running out of lame excuses and disappearing in embarrassment.

Sometimes, though, there is a genuine spark, which is unfortunate because even if under other circumstances a real relationship could happen, I won’t tolerate sock puppets and they won’t admit to behaving badly. What’s the best way to get these girls to fess up rather than run away?

(A “partners in crime” attitude is one possibility, getting her to tell about her other fake identities and helping her make them more effective, but although that appeared to work great for me once, it backfired because it made me take longer to realize she had told me a completely different set of lies, so I’d rather encourage truthfulness.)

What advantages do women accrue from crafting false identities over the internet?

1. Fat chicks can enjoy, for a spell, the attentions of high value men by posing as slender babes. Upside: An hour of ASCII attention beats zero hours of real world attention. Downside: There will be no real-life consummation, unless the fattie is psychotically blind to her revolting condition.

2. Thrill-seeking and attention-whoring chicks enjoy an exhilarating rush from the deception. Sometimes a lie is fun for the sake of it. Duping people is a power trip. As anyone who has dated a lot of sexy sirens will tell you, girls LOVE LOVE LOVE to role play. But, unfortunately for them, most men are not very interested in role playing, (real life for the average man offers enough drama as is). So what’s a girl to do? Well, she’ll take the initiative and fire up a game of one-sided role playing. Upside: More fun than talking about the weather. Downside: She’ll tend to attract lunatics who wear dresses made out of skin.

3. Daddy’s Little Abandoned Princesses Syndrome. D-LAPS girls are drawn to the idea of “starting over” with new identities because it is a psychological balm which helps suppress bitter memories of daddy’s unfathomable sayonara (often prompted by mommy’s equally unfathomable surprize divorce paper filings). These girls make a great lay because they use sex to extirpate their suppressed rage; just don’t expect them to always act in their own best interest.

4. Femme Fatales. Ah, the manipulative woman (but I repeat myself). These are the most dangerous breed of female; they lie less to assuage their egos than to separate the swooning man from his money. Or time. Or sanity. You scoff at the notion that any woman would be able to lie you out of your resources, but it happens all the time. To pick one example of the genre, there are plenty of stories of beta males scammed out of thousands of dollars by hot Russians they met online who were probably computer generated algorithms by some hack face deep in a bottle of wuuudka.

Update

Forgot an obvious group!

5. Married women with ovulatory cheatin’ in their hearts, trying to keep it on the down-low. It’s imperative that you identify these women, because you don’t want to deal with the blowback from banging a married woman with an ex-con hubby just released on parole.

If women are embracing the traditional vices of men in greater numbers than ever before, then I take that as evidence that modern Western culture exerts a masculinizing influence on its women, (whether that is genetic, environmental, or both, I leave as an exercise for the reader). When the sexual and psychological polarity of men and women reverses, you can be sure the end of high civilization is near.

So what to do about this blossoming window into the female id? The reader asks:

“What’s the best way to get these girls to fess up rather than run away?”

His suggestion of a “partner in crime” strategy is fine if you want to get to sex quickly with no long-term consideration. Liars are just like trustworthy people in one respect; both want to be with honest people. Letting a woman know you are as much of a liar as her is not the stuff that beeyootiful romances are made of.

Another option, if you’re really interested in brazenly lying women as girlfriend material (and I would have to ask why you would be?) is the non-judgmental rapport building strategy. This is accomplished not by accosting the woman about her lies, but by sympathizing with her motivation for lying.

“You know, I feel you. I get it. It’s exciting to create a new identity and just run with it, and see what it’s like to live like a different person for a little while, to live like someone you secretly wanted to be ever since you were little.”

This empathy ploy will be more effective at coaxing her to open up about her lies, and from there you can dig at the truth. The key is non-judgmentalism and connection; players like to call this an “our world” routine, which draws the woman closer to you by erecting a false antagonism between you and her together against the rest of the world. In the end, though, women who love creating false identities for the purposes of gratifying themselves at the expense of trusting beta males are best left alone, hopefully never to breed so that their kind can be expeditiously cleansed from the gene pool. Luckily, condoms allow you to get your fuck on with them *and* clear your conscience of any anxiety that you may have sired a bastard sociopath in the act. Just don’t let her throw them away for you.  Keep your eyes on the used rubber, and see the disposal process through from start to finish. (Not kidding about this last part. I could tell you stories.)

Lots Of Feminists Are Getting Banged Out By PUAs

Ronin asks:

Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?

As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.

Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:

1. The Femcunts

These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.

2. The Partisans

These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.

3. The Lemmings

You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.

So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.

There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.

*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.

**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.

Science Proves Game Works

Or that it can work.

Anyways, how did I miss this? Scientists actually reviewed Mystery’s accelerated seduction blueprint, and what they discovered will surely wither further the already diminutive hearts of manboobs, freaks, monsters, feminists, losers, dweebs, omegas, white knights, traditionalists and slithery “academics” pretending to be feminists in order to score hipster chick poon: The concepts underlying game strategies are factually grounded, and game works!

The dating mind: Evolutionary psychology and the emerging science of human courtship

ABSTRACT

In the New York Times bestselling book The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2006), the world was granted its first exclusive introduction to the steadily growing dating coach and pick-up artist community. Many of its most prominent authorities claim to use insights and information gleaned both through first-hand experience as well as empirical research in evolutionary psychology. One of the industry’s most well-respected authorities, the illusionist Erik von Markovik, promotes a three-phase model of human courtship: Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction. The following review argues that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology. Two texts which represent much of this literature are critiqued and their implications discussed.

Jesus H. Christmas, this entire paper reads like it was ripped straight from Chateau Heartiste archives. And what was that muffled sound in the distance? Ah yes, the pffft of aneurysms popping in the heads of game denialists posting hater comments from under their beds.

This review deserves a detailed look, so let’s begin.

For the present analysis, we examined several popular works from the [dating coach and pick-up artist] Community. The Community consists broadly of heterosexual men who market various tactics, techniques, and methods to meet, date, and ultimately seduce women. Both published books and online forums offer opportunities to garner and share this information with a wide audience of people interested in improving their dating and romantic success.

Two main texts were chosen for this analysis. The first text, entitled The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed (Markovik, 2007), is widely regarded as one of the most important works in the Community. The second text, written by Markovik’s protégé and New York Times columnist Neil Strauss, also known on online forums as Style, is entitled Rules of the Game (Strauss, 2009). The two texts were selected mainly for the authors’ prominence and popularity in the Community.

I don’t have a problem with the two texts the review authors chose to analyze. [Disclosure: I never read Rules of the Game, so my opinion is based on what others have told me about it.] You can argue for this or that seduction manual or PUA forum compilation, but if you had to pick only two sources, these two would qualify as legitimate encapsulations of the major pick-up strategies.

The general starting point for much of the Community’s literature, whether explicitly stated or not, often begins with Trivers’ (1972) theory of parental investment.

According to Trivers’ (1972), the sex with higher parental investment (i.e., time and energy spent in gestation and rearing offspring) will be choosier with respect to mate selection. As a consequence, women very rarely accept propositions for casual sex with strangers (Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher, 2005), typically imposing a much more careful and rigorous screening process before consenting to sexual activity (Grammer, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001). On the other hand, human males as the biologically less investing sex, often have little to lose by mating with as many females as possible (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). Indeed, Schmitt et al. (2001) have shown that men desire more lifetime sex partners, seek sexual intercourse sooner, and are frequently more motivated to seek casual sex than are women.

In the absence of a clear understanding of the biological bases of such differences, the courtship process and ensuing relationship dynamics can often appear confusing, frustrating and even debilitating. Such conflicts of interest in men and women’s sexual strategies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), often coined “the war of the sexes”, can be a significant cause of conflict and ultimately failure to find and maintain a lasting long-term relationship. However, as we will argue, this conflict is not inevitable. The knowledge of our evolved sexual strategies gives us significant capability to improve interactions between the sexes by choosing appropriate actions and deactivating others – ultimately reducing conflict between men and women. In this respect, we argue that when properly and ethically understood, the dating and seduction industry, despite its provocative label and origins outside of academia, is founded on solid empirical research as well as first-hand courtship and relationship experience. Ultimately, it is our suggestion that an informed appraisal of this information will ultimately help to lessen conflict and improve dating and relationships between men and women.

Knowledge of female sexual nature and game can improve relationships between men and women? Now a whoosh is heard. The game haters just spontaneously combusted.

Direct conversational openers typically begin with a very bold and straightforward proclamation, directly to one’s prospective romantic interest. For instance, a typical example of this type of opener might be: Hi, I saw you standing there, thought you looked attractive, and wanted to say hello. While apparently awkward or unimpressive to the inexperienced, many Community enthusiasts will swear by the ability of this approach to generate instant attraction in a prospective romantic interest. And indeed, there may in fact be psychological research to legitimate this claim. For instance, research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al. 1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women (as such an approach would clearly seem to demonstrate).

A direct opener will signal social dominance, self confidence, and high status by its mere use. The brazen opener is itself the alpha male signaler. My suggestion when using direct openers is to be sure your body language is sufficiently alpha to be congruent with the words you are saying to the girl. Otherwise, you will quickly get blown out, because incongruence during the opener is usually the death knell for any seduction attempt.

The second type of conversation starter, referred to as an indirect conversational opener, often begins with an off-handed opinion or question, at first merely designed to capture attention. For example, indirect openers often include apparently random queries such as, Excuse me- a friend and I were debating something. Could I have a female opinion on how a man should treat a lady on a first date? (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In stark contrast to a direct opener, the specific content of an indirect opener is often irrelevant; the more important objective is often to smoothly get a conversation started.

The big advantage of indirect openers is that you can generally hit on hotter women than you can with direct openers, because the latter tends to elevate the risk of getting insta-rejected if the girl happens to dislike your look, style, walk or wiry nose hairs, all of which are traits you display before you’ve even opened your mouth. Plus, hotter girls expect to get hit on more, so indirect is better for catching them off-guard, and for settling your nerves. (This rule of thumb breaks down when you get to the 9s and 10s of womanhood, who are so intimidatingly hot to most men that they paradoxically get hit on less frequently than their looks would suggest they do.)

[T]he conversational content at this point generally moves into interesting personality conveying material, such as humor, an exciting personal anecdote, a fun game, or even a simple piece of stage magic, intended to solicit attraction from a prospective romantic interest (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Markovik (2007) describes the advertisement of such qualities as “Demonstrations of Higher Value” (DHVs), which it is claimed, cause an increase in mate value and create attraction, thus providing the person access to more desirable mates. And indeed, psychological research has shown that many of these qualities, when well-presented, can often be quite attractive to the opposite sex.

For example, in a recent sample of UK personal advertisements, women rated charming social skills, wittiness, and a good sense of humor as among the most desirable traits in a prospective date (Pawlowski and Dunbar, 1999; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), which would seem to reinforce the claims made by the community (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009).

“Looks are everything.” – some loser justifying his inaction.

The Community further advocates a peculiar strategy known as “pre-selection” which is claimed to be often useful in crowded social gatherings (Markovik, 2007). Pre- selection is a strategy whereby a man in a public gathering will establish an innocent acquaintanceship with an attractive woman, gaining her trust, comfort, and friendship, only to later use her presence by his side to attract other surrounding women that are actually the intended object of his desire (Markovik, 2007). The phenomenon where females will copy or imitate the preferences of other females for a particular male mate has been documented in a wide variety of species, and is commonly referred to by evolutionary biologists as mate choice copying (Bennett, Lim and Gilbert, 2008; Dugatkin, 1992; Freed-Brown and White, 2009). Moreover, there is now increasing evidence to suggest that such strategies, whether intentionally practiced or consistently understood by those using them, are also found in humans (Eva and Wood, 2006; Hill and Buss, 2008; Place, Todd, Penke and Asendorpf, 2010).

A hot female friend who is willing to be your pivot is worth her weight in fluffy stuffed animals.

The second reputed phase of human courtship, building mutual Comfort and Trust, further seems to have a significant degree of support by various psychological research studies. Firstly, once Attraction has been established, community literature advocates the importance of taking the time to build rapport, comfort and trust before proceeding with seduction (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). Indeed, psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review).

The popular game forums focus more on attraction than on comfort building, and the reason is likely because most men are naturally worse at the former. But in my experience, I see a lot of men dropping the ball during the comfort stage. I can’t count how many times I’ve witnessed some girl smiling broadly when she first meets a guy, and then watch as her smile fades to a grimace the more he talks. (I like to jump in at these opportune moments, because girls are… how shall I say?… more pliable to my charms when left in such a dispiriting state by some other inept man. You could call this strategy, Attraction by Comparison. It’s a productive strategy because most men are inept with women.)

Trust and comfort is often further established through the use of kinesthetic touch, or what the Community often refers to simply as “kino” (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). For instance, from a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.

If you showed me twenty men hitting on twenty women, and all I could see was how many times the men touched the women, knowing nothing else about their interactions I could predict with stunning accuracy which of those men would be getting the lay.

The final reputed phase of human courtship, Seduction, begins once mutual Attraction and Comfort and Trust have been established between two individuals. For instance, women typically require more time and intimacy to develop the same amount of passion as men (Baumeister and Bratslavsky, 1999). Consistent with psychological research, the Community often advocates what is known at the “seven-hour rule”; the idea being that a woman typically needs a minimum of seven cumulative hours of rapport- building in order to develop a strong emotional and intellectual connection (including shared interests, shared values, and a deep inter-subjective understanding) before consenting to sexual activity (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009). In order to accomplish this objective, the community encourages a process of mutual self-disclosure, whereby each gets to know the other person on a very deep and intimate level (Markovik, 2007; Strauss, 2009), reinforcing psychological research on the development of relationships (Collins and Miller, 1994) and compassionate love (Hatfield and Rapson, 1993).

Alpha males are not stone walls. They understand that there will be a give and take in any seduction. They just know that it’s better to give a little less than they take.

In conclusion, it would seem clear that there is in fact a substantive degree of psychological research to support many claims made by the Community. The three reputed phases of courtship, Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction, are supported by a significant and steadily growing literature based in physiological, social and evolutionary psychology research. […]

In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. For example, one particular strategy known as “peacocking,” (in dubious reference to Zahavi’s (1975) handicap principle) involves wearing very ostentatious clothing specifically designed to exploit evolved cues for what women find attractive (Markovik, 2007). Although research has shown that women generally find social status attractive in men (Buss, 1989; Pawlowski and Dunbar, 2001), thus far there is no direct evidence in support of this particular behavior. A similar strategy, known as “negging”, has been claimed to increase a male’s attractiveness by demonstrating he has high standards (Markovik, 2007). For example, a male might exclaim, Wow, those are great fingernails! Are they real? Oh, no? Well, they still look nice. Consistent with this argument, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) have shown that men who appear to have high standards are considered more attractive than males who do not; nevertheless, there is currently no direct evidence that “negging” is universally effective. An important area for future research would be to more closely analyze a broader spectrum of community literature and determine the scientific veracity of unsubstantiated claims.

Hopefully, academic feminists and sniveling manboobs will retreat to their cuntcaves under my assault of brutal mockery and real sociologists can in future conduct studies examining the effectiveness of other, specific game and seduction tactics, such as the aforementioned negs, and even pick-up and relationship techniques CH has introduced and described here, including “agree and amplify” and “instilling dread“.

Maybe, just maybe, they will even have the courage one day to study the peculiar allure assorted assholes, douchebags, psychopaths and jerks exert on attractive women.

[T]here may be important unrecognized ethical implications from using portions of this material. For instance, it has been argued that the initiation of touch or “kino” throughout the courtship process and alleged prioritization of physical over verbal consent may at times problematize interpretations of consent (Denes, 2011). To this end, we do contend that such material has the potential for abuse and urge caution with the use of the Community’s material, especially in the context of short-term relationships where sexual activity may be the sole objective. On the other hand, within the context of helping people to initiate long-term, stable relationships, we argue that informed male behaviors are not so unlike women attempting to manipulate perceived attractiveness through the use of perfume, cosmetics, clothing, liposuction and cosmetic surgery, and thus disrupt normal mate choice by men (Roberts, Miner and Shackelford, 2010). Therefore, if such practices allow men to approach, attract, and connect with women in similar fashion, we wholeheartedly endorse the ethical practice of such materials for establishing meaningful long-term relationships.

I believe it is this blog, this seducer’s stronghold, this digital palace guarding a horde of priceless knowledge that pierces the puzzle of pussy, which was at the forefront of elucidating for the skeptical masses how game could be useful for long-term relationships and marriage. Chateau Heartiste makes it impossible for knee-jerk haters and ignoramuses to caricature the science and art of streamlined seduction and learned charisma as the domain of frat boys spitting corny lines, or oily club hounds sidling up to skanks for a shot at the bathroom BJ.

Not that there’s anything wrong with bathroom BJs, but the caricature has been demolished, and now the haters must face the gut-punch reality that game works, and works well for men from all socioeconomic backgrounds and all romantic circumstance.

One day, perhaps sooner than the haters would dare contemplate in their most fevered nightmares, this formula:

will come to be seen as revolutionary to the human sciences as E=MC² was to the physical sciences.

Men With Options

How many women do men really want to fuck? The answer, if surveys are to be believed, is a bit less than infinity. Scientists are baffled. A reader writes:

I’ve said on your blog that I consider you a bit of an outlier, someone who places much more importance on sex than the average man. I thought I should bring some data to back that up.  The average man seems to only want about 6 lifetime partners. And gay men, who presumably can get as much sex as they want don’t all go hog wild. If we judge by teh gey only about 32% have more than 10 partners, while only about 18% had more than 20.  Perhaps numbers would be higher without AIDS, but blowjobs (raw) and sex with condoms are both pretty safe, even for gays, so I’m not sure how much to count that. However, even with AIDS, 18% is nothing to sneeze at so you’re not that much of an outlier. As for myself, I too sympathize at least somewhat, in theory, with the guys who want to rack up large numbers. But I try not to judge other people’s sexual proclivities by my own.

None of this contradicts the finding that men are considerably more promiscuous by inclination than women. It just means they aren’t outrageously more promiscuous by inclination.

Ah, self-reported data. Of sexual desire. The least trustworthy data there perhaps exists. As I’ve noted before, people are never more apt to lie than when they are being asked about their sexual habits, or about their sexual desires. The hamster is a rationalization machine first and foremost for sugar-coating lust, the most primeval of the primeval emotional juggernauts that silently yet relentlessly infuses and guides our every thought and action.

But that aside, I actually don’t have much beef with what this self-reported survey data says. I’m not at all surprised that men, when asked how many women they would want to sleep with in the next months or years, would choose a number not fantastically higher than that chosen by women. The hamster resides in male brains as well, (though it is a far less sturdy specimen than that found spinning in female brains), and will happily spit out “acceptable” answers that adhere to social expectations for virtuous behavior. Sometimes these acceptable answers are completely unintentional, and reflect less a hypocritical posturing to conform to cultural pressures than an ego-assuaging, knee-jerk bromide to buttress one’s self-conception.

But reality has a way of intruding on happy thoughts. If a researcher had asked me at age 18 how many women I would want to sleep with in the year ahead, I might have offered, with some haughty self-righteousness derived from precious feelings of romantic abandon and insta-pedestalization, one or two as my optimal number. Had that same researcher asked me, ten years later and post red-pill (as the scallawags would say), how many women I had slept with in the previous year, the number would have been considerably higher than the one I suggested was optimal before a pussy potpourri of options opened themselves to me.

To put it more simply, most men are not going to admit, to themselves or others, that they want to fuck hundreds of women. Or, more precisely, they aren’t going to admit that they would be interested in fucking hundreds of women if the option to do so were readily and uncomplicatedly available to them. Men and women both don’t really like to think of themselves as sex fiends.

And this goes as well for gay men, who, though they have less formidable obstacles to hurdle on the path to sexual release than do straight men, are still nonetheless straitjacketed by some unforgivable rules of the sexual marketplace, such as the fact that ugly gay men are not going to have the same number of opportunities for amassing partner counts as that afforded to handsomer gay men; and of those opportunities the less favorably endowed do have, the urge to capitalize will be much enervated.

And therein lies the crux of skepticism I hold about these sorts of “hey, tell me about your sex life and most secret fantasies!” self-reporting surveys: they aren’t telling me what men, or women, would do IN REAL LIFE if they had no restrictions on their buffet of mate choice. They are only telling me what numerically-bounded desires men and women — most of them by nature enduring severe restrictions on their sexual or romantic opportunities — are acclimatized by circumstance and lifelong experience to expect, and thus to valorize, for themselves.

To find out what men would avail themselves of in real life, we have to examine what kinds of partner counts real men with virtually UNLIMITED OPTIONS acquire. For that, we need to find those men who live with few, if any, constraints on their ability to fulfill their desires.

Men with few restrictions on satisfying their carnal cravings are men with options. By restrictions, I mean anything that could act as a force against the full realization of one’s desires. If most women don’t find you desirable, then you are working with limited options, and this is true no matter how much you tell yourself or others that your small sample platter is just the right amount to slake your desire. If women find you desirable, but social expectation or political calculus discourage your follow-through, then you are working with limited options.

For these reasons, some very alpha men who could theoretically clean up with women don’t make the UNLIMITED OPTIONS MAN cut. A married CEO who could conceivably entertain a harem of adoring lovers is limited by his wife, children and close acquaintances to behave according to certain norms that preclude harem-building. The President of the United States, a super alpha by dint of his station alone, would suffer tremendous blowback from the consequences of sleeping with even a tiny fraction of his admiring thong-y throngs.

No, the men of our modern society who are free in the best sense of the word… the men who have limitless options with women… are unmarried rock stars and famous actors. There are others, but these two groups best exemplify the unchained man. What kind of man has the lustful fervor of millions of women directed at him, and who would not suffer much of any consequences in his personal or career life from indulging in his bounty?

Well, George Clooney comes to mind. Here’s a guy whom women love, and who would not jeopardize his career or social status by sleeping with the maximum number of lovers his heart (and groin) can accommodate. And how may women does such a man with nearly unlimited options accumulate over a lifetime?

A lot. And these are just the women the media know about. Or the women Clooney wants the media to know about. The true number is likely in the hundreds, maybe thousands if we count one night stands and short flings.

PUAs also make the list of men enjoying veritable limitless options. The haters will slip into hate overdrive upon hearing this, but skilled womanizers, as many PUAs are, luxuriate in the attentions of many women, and don’t pay a price for satisfying their desire. The successful PUA does not have a wife or family to protect from his predations, nor does he have a political career that would crumble from public airing of his dalliances. He is, in contrast to the mass of mediocrities railing against his lifestyle, a free man able to meet his own needs, in whatever capacity he deems satisfactory.

This is not to say that men don’t desire long-term relationships with women, or to say that men would not be happy banging fewer than one hundred or more women in the course of their lifetimes. It is simply a perspicacious reminder that, as with women, what men may claim about their ideal number of lovers is often less a true measure of their visceral desire than it is a mental palimpsest revealing underneath the restricted range of limited options within which they necessarily resign themselves.

To quote by way of illustration a billion ugly, obese feminists with severely curtailed options in the dating market:

“I don’t NEED a man!”

My take on this matter, sociological stabs at the truth notwithstanding to the contrary, is that most men are inclined to periods of “settling down” monogamously with a woman of outstanding quality, but that most men would also rack up considerable numbers of lovers between and during their monogamous downtimes if there were no consequences to suffer and they had the option to acquire those lovers relatively effortlessly and expediently.

Since most men labor with a limited menu of options, what we see transpiring in the real world are the top 10-20% of free men acting in accord with the rhythms of their primitive compulsions, and a horde of less-free men learning to love their meager choices.

You want to be a man with options.

The option to love recklessly, or love faithfully.

The option to marry, or to sow your oats as an eternal bachelor.

The option to have kids, and to be assured of your paternity.

The option to date monogamously, or to date profligately.

The option to stay, or to leave. On your terms.

The option to give ultimatums, and to ignore ultimatums.

The option to screw around, or to start a family.

The option to do what you want, when you want it, and to do what others want, when you want it.

This year is the Year of Men With Options. There has never been a time more suited to teach men the art of options than right now, when options everywhere for men seem to be shrinking.

This dwelling of ideas will be your guide.

Where Did The Arena Rock Bands Go?

Cheap Chalupas takes a breather from undermining the ethnic cohesion of his country of birth for a glorious experience of authentic face-stuffing to link to a Pitchfork story about the pittances that rock stars get paid today. In the comments, “lords of lies” responds with an interesting take on why there are so few bands today who have any staying power beyond one or two radio-ready songs.

the era of the long-lasting arena rock band with scores of top ten hits is over for four reasons:

1. the low-hanging fruit of novel guitar riffs has been picked clean. it’s just much harder now to compose more than one or two catchy tunes that don’t blatantly rip off songs from the past, autotune to the contrary notwithstanding. how many ways can the twelve-note scale be arranged? depressingly, there may be a limit. plus, the ready availability and replayability of forty year old rock songs means that current artists can’t plagiarize the past without getting called on it. this was perhaps not so much the case for past artists, who could safely crib from older songs that weren’t subject to so much radio or internet replaying.

2. the incentive structure has changed. a dude who pens one decent song can get on stage and score chicks for years, maybe even decades, based on that frantic bestowal of fame. internet play action and advanced marketing offer instant fame to the fly by night, one hit wonder musician. the pussy rewards for male artistry flow faster and stronger today than they did in the past, thanks partly to unshackled female hypergamy and partly to the betatization of the average american male. as a result, the self-perceived need to pump out multiple albums of high quality work has diminished.

3. easy living (c.f. porn, video games, endless plates of food stamps) has taken the edge off the urgency to create a compendium of works of spectacular art that can win over a large and dedicated audience of admirers and payers. men, in a word, are being medicated into comatose feminized stupor by dopaminergic distractions.

4. diversity is our lack of diversity. the advent of the diverse playground known as the internet has created so many ostensible musical niches appealing to everyone’s most personalized tastes that it has, paradoxically, made music *less* diverse, by funneling would-be artists into similar musical paths which maximize the odds their voices will be heard above the din. what point is experimentation and building an oeuvre for the long haul when your potential audience is so prefragmented and fickle? may also explain why music is getting louder today.

i’d add that there exists the possibility as well that people in the west are simply getting less creative in some genetic/physiological sense. perhaps it’s all those BPAs in our plastics and Pills in our water.

It’s a good question why the modern music industry produces so few “stadium rock” bands anymore. Prosperity likely has something to do with it. And the reasons given above are plausible, if not proven. You can make the case that someone like Justin Bieber (update: yesterday’s news) or Kesha is the 2012 equivalent of U2 or Led Zeppelin based on sales numbers and breadth of fame, but the comparison is rendered a mockery under any actual music-based standard. Platinum-selling country music stars and remixers rappers featuring X, Y and Z are about the closest present-day analogues to long-lasting power rock bands of the past.

This is not to say there is not good music being produced today. I like a lot of stuff that’s come out in recent years, mostly from fly by night, non-mainstream eclectic acts. But most of the stuff I like is by a multitude of bands that tend to disappear after one hit album (which usually contains no more than three righteous songs). Even looking at top 40 songs, the bands comprising that radio-ready list have little staying power. fun. has a couple of catchy tunes, but does anyone seriously think they’re going to pump out one stellar album after another, for years on end, like Zeppelin or The Beatles or even Nirvana did?

As for the main complaint that musicians don’t get paid enough from internet radio royalties, I have to agree with this:

cry me a river. hard to get worked up over the financial travails of quasi-rock stars. do people realize what motivates men to form bands and play on stage? they do it all for the nookie. the girls they get couldn’t give a rat’s ass how little they make from pandora plays. this is why there continues to be a steady stream of aspiring young men throwing caution and their bank accounts to the wind in hopes of becoming the next indie flavor of the month.

When the day comes that dudes stop picking up guitars and warbling beta ballads to score poosy is the day that I’ll entertain their griping about illegal downloading.