You Don’t Need To Be Witty To Have Game

Reader “disap” clarifies something which I’ve been meaning to explain but haven’t gotten around to doing so:

Once again people are so concerned with the perfect witty comeback. Not everyone can run game like a Californication script.

“We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”

When in doubt, go laconic. Why do you dance to her qualification tune if you really have frame?

Easy responses : “LOL”
: “Totally.”

Or don’t take the shit test so seriously that “you’ve been challenged” and need to respond. This is the wrong mindset. She is just but another girl in the harem, don’t take her so seriously. Agree and Amplify, fallback number two.

Easy responses: “Kids these days, no respect for their elders.”
: “Pfft, I beat your mom at bingo at the senior center last week.”

Unless you got Hank Moody skills, falling back on Laconic/Agree and Amplify are the safest options. In other words, don’t swing for a triple when a simple single will do.

disap is LOL totally correct. Wit, while beneficial to picking up women, is not necessary. Wit, in fact, is a less vital attribute to possess than simply having an uncaring, outcome independent alpha male frame. Sometimes wit, when relied on to excess, can even get in the way of attracting women.

A lot of you beta readers wring your nutsacks whining about your lack of innate wit and how you struggle to find the right words for the pickup occasion. I don’t doubt your perceived inadequacies. Rapier-like wit, like height, has a significant genetic component; though, again like height, what is naturally there can be honed and improved upon by practice (nutrition) and knowledge accumulation (avoidance of environmental insults that stunt height potential) by observing witty men in action.

However, the good news is that, like disap wrote, a laconic, terse, devil-may-care frame will trump a string of try-hard witty ripostes almost every time. ALPHA FRAME, aka the ATTITUDE, is the foundational substructure that scaffolds the social savviness and personality peacocking that drapes over it like a virile raiment. Or, to put it in clearer terms, if you are all wit and no frame, you are an entertainment monkey who arouses women’s brains but leaves their pussies dry. In contrast, if you are all frame and no wit, you are a sexy beast women can’t help but find alluring, even as they gripe about your curt assholery to their friends.

Now, it should go without saying (though this blog does attract its share of stupids and ego-invested contrarians who need it said over and over) that it’s better to have frame AND wit, rather than frame alone. Hank Moody wit is a killer weapon to have in the field, even more potent than having top 10% looks. But, if you had to choose, frame is the better of the two. So banish from your thoughts doubts that your lack of wit consigns you to involuntary celibacy. I’ve witnessed too many overconfident lunkheads without a clever word to say but teeming with the right attitude effortlessly swoop babes to believe otherwise.

Maxim #55: Less talking is always sexier than more talking. If you struggle to find something witty to say to a girl, stop trying. Flailing for the “right” words is approval-seeking beta behavior that women can sniff from across a room.

Corollary to Maxim #55: A grunt or aloof gesture trumps a try-hard, strained, verbose comeback.

When this subject comes up in real life, I like to tell my guy friends to recall those times they were challenged or annoyed by their sisters or some female friends they didn’t find attractive. I ask them to remember how they felt, how they acted, and what they said. Invariably, they all say they remember being cool as cucumbers, dismissive, and even rude. They were careless with their words and cared even less what their sisters or unattractive female friends thought of them. They remember feeling like one might feel if a mosquito was buzzing around one’s head; they just wanted to shoo it away, or tell it to go find the nearest bug zapper. They certainly did not try to impress them with Shakespearean wit.

“Good,” I say. “Now that’s the way you should act when you talk to ATTRACTIVE girls.”

I hope the lesson isn’t lost on them.

Realtalker Of The Month

A Turkish newspaper columnist with brass balls wrote an article about the unattractive manliness of female athletes.

A Turkish newspaper columnist has been heavily criticised after writing an article which said the Olympic Games is destroying the female figure.

The piece – called Womanhood is dying at the Olympics’ – was written by Yuksel Aytug and was published in the daily newspaper Sabah and on the paper’s website.

However, it soon spread around the world by saying the Games was distorting women’s bodies and that extra points should be given to female athletes based on how feminine they looked.

According to Hurriyet Daily News, he said: ‘Broad-shouldered, flat-chested women with small hips; [they are] totally indistinguishable from men.

‘Their breasts – the symbol of womanhood, motherhood – flattened into stubs as they were seen as mere hindrances to speed.’

Get this man a VIP pass to the Chateau! He speaks the truth no nancyboy or femcunt would ever dare admit, even to themselves. Who with the eyes to see hasn’t noticed the narrow hips, the grotesque six-pack abs (never a good look on women), the chest “stubs”, the linebacker shoulders, and the manjaws of an inordinate number of the female Olympians? (Synchronized swimmers are a welcome exception to the rule. Of course, proficiency in synchronized swimming doesn’t require a chiseled male-like physique.)

A disturbing number of the women athletes have what amounts to ripped, pubescent boys’ bodies. If you cover the faces and crotches of some of them, you could easily mistake them for lean men. But I bet they fuck like champions!

[Aytug] was accused of sexism and reducing the identity of women purely to appearance.

Weren’t the Jizzebelers recently objectifying Ryan Lochte’s appearance? Anyhow, the point is superfluous. Feminists are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that double standards in how the sexes relate to and perceive each other exist, are grounded in immutable biology, and won’t disappear just because a few fat sluts organized a pride parade.

In his column, he also said the Olympic Games forced woman to look more like men so they could become successful.

Aytug is right. It’s NECESSARILY true that women must conform more to the male physique ideal in order to compete successfully in sports, and particularly elite sports, because women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally like men’s bodies are designed to do. Women’s bodies are — and I know this will get under the skin of the right sort of losers — shaped by the relentless laws of nature to fulfill TWO PRIME DIRECTIVES:

Visually please men.

And bear children.

Everything else women do is commentary.

If you are a woman who wants to long jump, or throw a discus, or box, or run the 100 meter race, you will perform better the FURTHER your body gets from the archetypal female physique and the closer it gets to the archetypal male physique. Hips and boobs and upper body weakness undermine all that Olympian kickassery.

This is why unscrupulous countries (which includes just about all the Western and Communist or formerly Communist ones) pump so much money and, when they can get away with it, steroids into their female athletic programs and athletes. They know that they can get more medal bang for their buck by masculinizing their female athletes and pushing them, however unintentionally, to assume male physical forms, (or by recruiting women with inborn male-like physiques), because there are a lot fewer women who are 1) interested in high-level competitive sports and 2) willing to sacrifice their femininity for a rigorous masculinizing regiment.

Someday a real rain will come and wash away this mountain of gender-bending lies. And when it happens, the world’s femininely-renewed women will sway their child-bearing hips and heave their bounteous breasts as their charmingly soft limbs and delicate hands are raised heavenward in thankfulness for being relieved of the pressure to look and act like men.

PS Isn’t it ironic, then, how the feminist-defined pursuit of sex “””equality””” is essentially tantamount to making women more man-like? You’d almost think feminists believe the male form and male psyche are superior to the female form and psyche. Maybe that’s because most dedicated feminists are ugly, masculine robodykes.

Another Hot Russian Babe

Further proof that Russia and nearby provinces run a surplus of slender, beautiful women.

It must be something in the wuuuudka.

This post is not an exercise in glibness. The evidence — men’s penises — strongly suggests that Rus women are, objectively and proportionate to their native populations, the most beautiful women in the world. The Dnieper-Dniester region is, anthropologically, the Fertile Crescent. The pussybasket of the world. The cradle of cuteness. And I say this partly from personal experience.

The question that needs answering is not, then, where are the world’s hottest babes, but WHY do the world’s hottest babes bubble out of the DNA froth like sexy sirens emerging from the hillocks of this particular vast agricultural plain?

My preferred theory is increased male options. The great wars decimated the ranks of the Eastern Front’s men, so much so that the men remaining alive had their pick of the poon. And when men have mating options — whether through the gain of power and charisma or through the luck of living during a time of favorable sex ratio skew — they almost always choose young, slender, pretty women. The Rus men chose wisely.

But a reader has informed me that überbrain Greg Cochrane recently undermined this theory when he computationally concluded that not enough time has passed since the great wars for the miracle of organic eugenics to work its magic and push the Rus women toward elevated heights of beauty. I remain, respectfully, unconvinced.

Whatever is happening over there, we will discover the cause of this beauty bounty, and spread its blessings to all the world’s men till there is a hot chick in every pot, and a babe in every backyard.

In the meantime…

The Nuclear Neg

“Anonymous” {WARNING: Possible Troll Alert} recounts a self-described nuclear neg he dropped on a girl:

Nuclear Neg made one week ago on an 18 year old has worked.

She had texted “We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”.

I had texted back “Excuse me but, In two years, no guy under 30 will want you and by age 25, no alpha male under 40 will want you”.

She responded “WTF?!! In two years every man on Earth will still want me”

and then we text argued back and forth as I fed her some standard (and short) evo psych lessons which, when read or heard by an inteligent young woman, tend to tame the hamster well.

We ended the first text exchange with her admitting that she’d be no longer attractive to alpha males at age 25 but “that’s a long way off” and I was saying that her expiry date would be more like 22.

Cold silence between us ensued. I held frame and simply dated someone else.

Our mutual friends were aware of a cold war between us for the past week.

But we made peace today, first via text.

Me: It’s wrong to think I was trying to insult you by stating the truth about how the men of your generation will abandon you for the girls of the next generation

(I was still holding frame here – no apologies)

Her: Yeah, but it’s insulting even now that you want to rub that in

(she’s admitted that evo psych speaks the truth)

Me: All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that. But you made me believe that I was ugly and you didn’t enjoy that.

Her: You didn’t understand at all. I think you’re cute. I don’t just want sex with you. I enjoy the hugging and kissing too.

This complete submission floored me. It’s everything that feminists would say could never happen. They’d say I made the above exchange up. I didn’t.

Now I may have initially overreacted. The text that set me off only really said that she couldn’t imagine us publicly being a couple and me meeting her mother. But that’s what she’s saying now after I passed the shiite test.

I’m sure PUA experts will find I was quite rough around the edges in that exchange and I maybe wasted a week (in which I dated someone else, no man should ever waste time itself with any woman).

But whether it was necessary or not, the fact remains that I dropped more than one nuclear bomb on a girl who openly believed every man wanted to sleep with her, and the end result so far seems to be that she likes me better than ever.

For those readers thinking there’s a valuable game lesson to be gleaned from the above exchange, you’re right! Allow me to demonstrate what would happen 99% of the time if you followed a script similar to “anonymous”‘s.

You: {Dropping evolutionary psychology knowledge like a boss}

Her: {Blank stare. Trots off to meet a more fun guy}

Fin.

Using evo-psych to burst female delusion and ego bubbles, however logical or truthful or precise your scientific shiv, is a nuclear neg that will bomb you right out of contention. You are as likely to be perceived by a woman as spiteful and vengeful as you are to be perceived insightful and jerkishly aloof.

This internet castle in the woods revels in putting human egos on the breaking wheel and examining the viscera with a microscope, but don’t make the mistake of confusing the cruel dissection for the crimson arts. The former is the why, the latter is the how.

Women do not swoon for logic or reason. Nor are they easily persuaded by appeals to self-reflection. What women LOVE LOVE LOVE is to be seduced, and seduction is the art of dressing profound truth in pleasing lies. Pull back the curtain on the truth, and the reaction of most women will be to leave the scene of the thoughtcrime to find fluffier locales to frolic.

“Anonymous”‘s game does contain some useful grist. First, he may not be lying about how it went down, and her receptivity. My objection to his gom jabbar game is that, broadly applied, most men will experience negative blowback going his route. Unless your frame is immovable granite and your delivery enticingly entitled, and the girl you are hitting on is deemed sufficiently open-minded (or weird), a didactic exposition on male-female sexual psychology and evo-psych principles is liable to leave women cold.

General rule of thumb: Avoid using words like “alpha male” or “expiry date” in a serious manner when seducing women.

Second, the part of his game that I believe was most effective happened with this line:

“All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that.”

This is just a classic target disqualification line. No need to resort to evo-psych. He avoided the spite trap by first admitting (vulnerability game) that he did enjoy fooling around with her, and only after that admission did he disqualify her with the “you’re not the type to have sex with” line. A simple expectation-crushing push in her direction, and you’ve sparked her curiosity and inverted the male chaser-female chasee roles.

If gom jabbar game is your thing, I can tell you that it is possible to pick up women by verbalizing the intricacies of the seduction process, step-by-step fashion, as it is happening. But this is advanced game that shouldn’t be attempted by any but the most experienced and smoothly self-confident womanizers. Lesser seducers will be tempted to become too self-conscious and self-aware and thus ruin the illusion.

Scientific Proof That Women Love Drama

YET ANOTHER ♥♥♥♥♥♥ scientific study confirms gender stereotypes and validates core game concepts.

Research finds women feel happy when their husband or partner is upset.

The detailed study found that wives or girlfriends were pleased when their partner showed emotion because they believed it demonstrated a healthy relationship.

The survey, carried out by Harvard Medical School, also found that when men realised their wife was angry, the women reported being happier, although the men were not.

It revealed women most likely enjoyed spotting when their partner was dissatisfied because it showed his strong “engagement” or “investment” in their time together.

In short, women love to instigate relationship drama, and to wallow in drama, because it reignites the romantic spark. A stoic, self-satisfied, dutiful, honorable, provider beta male is BORING to women because he doesn’t show enough tingle-generating emotion or “connection” that makes women swoon. This explains why guys like Chris Brown can repeatedly nail hot strumpets like Rihanna.

Rightly or wrongly, women interpret men’s lower emotion and drama baseline as evidence of their withdrawing love and, potentially, withdrawn resources. Those female readers who say this is just evidence that people in general appreciate signs of commitment miss the appropriate sex comparison: it’s only women who feel happier when drama reassures them that they are loved. Men do not need drama to feel loved. Men need access to your pussies to feel loved. In fact, men feel worse when a relationship is going through a dramatic stage.

Many game principles and tactics — e.g., freeze-outs, backturns, negs, push-pull, dread inducement — operate under the premise that women crave drama and are particularly attracted to the men who can provide it. A woman’s need for drama as a sign of relationship health and empathic understanding can be co-opted and redeployed by players to increase women’s sexual desire for them. This study and the accompanying lessons are a great example of how the modern science of seduction and its applied game theory succeeds by harnessing women’s innate, natural, biological sexual and romantic predispositions for the benefit of satisfying men’s desires.

And, ultimately, for the benefit of women’s desires as well.

Why Women’s Sports Get Less Primetime Coverage

The sports in which women compete that aren’t silly and that are actually fun to watch suffer from the problem of going head-to-head with a much better viewing alternative: namely, the men’s versions of those sports. Because, let’s just cut to the chase, at the elite level of sports (and, really, at all levels of sport except pee-wee), men are, on average, simply faster and stronger than women. Why the hell would anyone of sound mind want to watch a gimped version of his favorite sport when a more electrifying version already exists? This elementary logic escapes the feminist hivemind.

Furthermore, many of the sports in which women compete and men don’t, and which are tailored to women’s particular strengths, are unwatchable by dint of being retarded. See: synchronized swimming. There are only a handful of female-oriented “””sports””” that women compete in at a pro or semi-pro level which garner fairly large, if transient, audiences on par with the audiences that men’s sports regularly achieve. Figure skating is one example (and that mostly because women like the fact it is set to music and colorful, bedazzled costumes are worn).

Really, the only reason men choose to watch women’s sports at all is for prurient reasons, such as the exciting but rare glimpse of a wardrobe malfunction, or the slo-mo replay of pertly bottomed volleyball players diving into the sand. Otherwise, men will pass up women’s sports as long as a men’s sport is on another channel. The dirty little secret is that, among the subset of women who legitimately like watching sports, most of them will also prefer to watch the male versions of their favorite events.

I’m not anti-female athletics. Women should compete in sports, especially femininity-sharpening individual sports rather than competition-emphasizing team sports, primarily to sculpt their figures into beautiful, sexy visages that will help attract the attention of alpha males. Stay focused, ladies.

The Ideology Of Powerlessness

In a post over at GLPiggy about “The Soapboxroom” and Aaron Sorkin’s deliberate distortion of gun control statistics, a thought occurs about the mentality of the type of people whose natural reflex is to default to excusing thugs and disarming potential victims.

This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue. People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women. Stockholm Syndrome is an extreme manifestation of the powerlessness ideology.

Those pointing to statistics purporting to demonstrate the downsides of power — in this case, the power inherent in owning a gun and its implication in accidental shootings — miss the point: the downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness. Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?

Anyone who wants more control and power over the trajectory and outcome of his life needs to avoid powerlessness peddlers like the plague.