The Unpalatable Truth About Giving Women Gifts

On a number of blogs and websites covering the story of Steve Jobs’ death, there was much consternation among the commentariat about a small anecdote from his personal life retold in his new biography. Supposedly, Jobs was on a date with Joan Baez and he refrained from buying her an expensive dress that she swooned over when she saw it in the store window. Instead, he opened his billionaire’s wallet with his alligator arms and bought himself a few shirts.

Alpha.

Naturally, the dweebs that typically infest comments sections took this as evidence that Jobs is an asshole (true) and a beta who doesn’t know how to win a lady’s heart (false). The manginiac whining crescendoed in a giant betaboy wail that real men buy women stuff if they want to impress them. You could call these panty piddlers part of the lost beta generation. They have no clue.

It is much more likely that Jobs’ refusal to buy Baez that dress made him seem *more* alpha, and hence more desirable, to her. Buying women stuff — particularly buying them stuff before you have sexed them numerous times — is a surefire way to fast track yourself into the beta provider zone where women lose all arousal and make you wait three months for sex.

For the slow learners: Women do not get viscerally turned on by men who buy them things. They get avaricious when they think they have a gullible mark in their grasp. Buying women stuff to win their approval is a great way to ensure you date only heartless golddiggers.

Buying shit for women is best done AFTER you have established your alpha male bona fides. At that point, long after a relationship has evolved and she is fully enslaved by her love for you, the largesse you shower upon her won’t cannibalize your alpha allure. When the time comes that she needs small reminders of your beta resource investment to feel secure and safe with you, your gifts will carry more import.

Reader “Jack” passes along a story from his life that illustrates the points made above:

Yesterday was the birthday of one of the women I’m dating. I didn’t send her anything. I didn’t even throw out a “Happy Birthday” email during the day while I was at work. I even waited a few minutes after showing up for her birthday party (late I might add), before finally saying something.

Better still was to find out that she got flowers at work from her bosses. Every person she worked with would walk in and ask “are those from [Jack]?”. Despite all of that, or rather because of all that, I subsequently ended up with the hottest sex yet that I’ve had with her.

A year ago, I’d have either sent her flowers and various other gifts during the day, or would have been apologizing like mad for forgetting.  Granted, I’d have also only had one girlfriend, who wasn’t nearly as hot as the multiple ones I have going now.  I’m definitely glad that Glenn Reynolds or Dr. Helen linked to your site earlier this year, or I’d have never learned all the things I was doing wrong all of these years.  Thank you.

Ugly, ugly truth. But, being true, it’s best not to ignore its lessons.

Seducing Women Is A Children’s Game

Here’s a little secret: some of the “routines” that pickup artists use to attract women are actually reformulations of children’s games. The games that you used to do as a child to annoy your little brother or sister, or the pig-tailed girl on the playground, are those same games that spark an attraction in adult women. Why? Because children’s games are essentially LONG FORM NEGS.

Following are examples of children’s games that you should play with women you intend to bang.

The Repeating Game

This is a classic. You repeat everything she says or does back to her. The quicker you copy her, the funnier it is. When you are repeating her words almost at the same moment as she says them (this requires a bit of prescience and luck) the hilarity will cause her BJ lips to flutter with giggles.

Almost no woman can resist the fun of the repeating game. You’ll know she’s really into it when she tries to pull a reverse psychology repeat by starting a sentence with “I”, as in “I’m a big doofus”, in which case you will have to repeat “I’m a big doofus” back to her. Just be careful not to overdo it. Wait for her to get seriously annoyed (her tone will give it away), then do it once more.

Tag

As the both of you are walking to a new venue, hit her on the shoulder or ass and yell “Tag, you’re it!”, then run away. If she chases you, she’s DTF. If she doesn’t, walk back with a look of disappointment and accuse her of lameness. Or use her non-participation as an excuse to escape, and keep running.

Stop Touching Me

Put her hand on yourself, then reprimand her by saying “Stop touching me” while pushing her hand off. Do this a few times, each time increasing the fake annoyance in your voice. “Seriously, stop touching me!” “Stop touching me or I’ll tell mom.” “Stop touching me pervy mcpervster!” “Wow, you just can’t get enough of this man goodness, can you?”

Simon Says

Girl: Will you buy me a drink?

You: You didn’t say ‘simon says’.

Girl: Simon says, buy me a drink.

You: No.

Sidewalk Cracks

This game is really fun when you are walking her back to your place for the F close. Announce “Don’t step on the cracks or you’ll break your mother’s back” and start hopping from one sidewalk square to another. If she joins you in the silliness, she’s DTF. The ridiculous fun factor goes up to 11 if you are walking with her on a cobblestone street.

Thumb Wrestling

Self-explanatory. Any situation will work. “We have to thumb wrestle for it.” You can trick her with the ‘snake in the grass’. This is where you cheat by using your index finger to pin down her thumb. If she punches you after losing, she’s DTF.

Some of you may be wondering when to play these games with women. Well, pretty much whenever you sense an opportunity. They can be played during the attraction stage as a way to tease a girl and disqualify yourself. Or you can play them while sitting with her on a couch and getting comfortable. They’re great mood lifters and routine breakers in LTRs. A woman would have to have a heart of stone not to get into the spirit of a fun, goofy game.

Children’s games work because children know how to tease. The art of teasing is lost as the years pile up and adult responsibilities deaden the soul. Teasing is extremely attractive to women because it signals you aren’t automatically impressed by them. Women love to feel like they have to earn the attraction of a man they are talking to, just as a man has to earn a woman’s attraction.

Another benefit of playing children’s games with women: they are probably the simplest way to demonstrate amused mastery.

Comment Of The Week: The Motivations Of Anti-Gamers

Nick S explains the psychology of anti-gamers:

In my experience of MRA circles, there seem to be two types who dislike Game. There are the social conservative, often religious, types who are still to some extent emotionally attached to the idea of women being less carnal and more moral, and who dislike more than anything the fact that Gamers/PUAs are holding up the dirty linen of women’s less than admirable sexual nature for all to see. These are closely related to father’s rights supporters. They tend to have a beta-first mentality that men who do the right thing and contribute to society are more deserving of being given a break ahead of the players and alphas.

Then there are the nerdy beta types who are so socially inept that they tend not to get laid much, who resent the alpha males who get a lot of pussy, and would prefer to pretend that their lack of success in the sexual marketplace is part of some principled decision to not compromise their values and integrity for the sake of getting some. Feelings of moral superiority are too often the psychological refuge of the failure.

I am not 100% pro-Game. I am generally pro-Game, but with some reservations on a few things. I am not opposed to have a critical discussion of Game. But many of those who oppose Game are so irrationally contrary and hostile to the whole thing that it is obvious they have their noses out of joint about something and are incapable of being even remotely objective.

This meshes with my impression as well. The socon types usually have good intentions, but road, hell, and all that. Many of them resent the free spirited players who get to have all the fun while they grind away in indentured betatude. Others are trapped in an anachronistic mind warp and prefer the comforting lies they were told about women’s Mother Mary purity. Not all socons are anti-game. One would think that those of them with sons might be more amenable to game, having the opportunity to impart to them the wisdom of the ancients and give their sons the gift of true, lifelong happiness. Then there are the former socons who have either suffered, or witnessed a friend suffer, a divorce raping at the hands of a woman come into the game fold and see the light.

The second group — the sperg herd — occupy male ranks from beta all the way down to the untouchable dregs. As Nick S said, some of them feign principled objection to game to ameliorate the pain they feel from being losers in the mating market who can’t say “hi” to a woman without loading their footy pajamas. But some spergs hate game because they imagine the player as iconic representation of the bullies who used to (still do?) hang them from locker hooks by their underwear. To them, it’s better for their egos to rationalize game as useless and manipulative (they’ll never see the contradiction in that), rather than own up to their failure and try to improve. Paging tokyojesusthimbledick.

There is a third group who have reservations about game — call them human nature realists — who have a pretty good grasp of social dynamics, history and the lessons of fallen man and woman, but may not be particularly religious or family-oriented themselves. These types are few in number but strengthened by a worldview that is as close as one can get to reality given innumerable informational input variables and active propaganda campaigns waged against them. They generally accept the effectiveness of game, but they worry that widespread adoption will be antagonistic to civilizational health. Their concern is for the society at the expense of the individual.

The only group to engage seriously is the third group. The first two groups are lost to reasonable discussion. Socons ride like white knights on gimp hobbyhorses, and SMV rejects troll away their powerlessness. At their best, they serve as amusing cat toys.

Second Stupidest Anti-Game Meme On The Internet

“Game is just learning how to supplicate to women and be a slave to women’s desires.”

If enjoying the exquisite pleasure of a beautiful woman’s sex and love is supplication and enslavement, then I don’t want to be emancipated.

Certain quarters of the MRA movement have a lot in common with feminists. I wonder if they are aware of the similarities?

Newsflash! Feminists Are Ugly

For proof, grope your way through the slide show at this NewYorkBetaMagazine link. *shudder*

This pictorial revelation should come as no surprise to guests of the Chateau. Ugly, ambitious women who feel entitled to ambitious men instead have to flatter themselves with the attention of desperate beta and omega males. Their romantic and sexual frustrations lead them to lash out at illusory boogymen like the patriarchy.

Then there is the fact that a not inconsiderable number of these feminists are bulldyke lesbians. It must suck to have a man’s mind trapped in a gross, quasi-woman’s body, so it’s easy to understand why they take their misery out on real biological men.

Proof Found For Rationalization Hamster?

A new study shows that people will rationalize their shitty situations if they think that they’re stuck with them. (See also: sour grapes.)

People who feel like they’re stuck with a rule or restriction are more likely to be content with it than people who think that the rule isn’t definite. The authors of a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, say this conclusion may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

Psychological studies have found two contradictory results about how people respond to rules. Some research has found that, when there are new restrictions, you rationalize them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea. But other research has found that people react negatively against new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.

Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo thought the difference might be absoluteness — how much the restriction is set in stone. “If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,” she says. “I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight” Laurin wrote the new paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.

So does this prove the existence of the infamous female rationalization hamster? Well, almost. The study was gender-inspecific, so what it tells us is that people in general will rationalize their powerlessness so as to assuage their tender egos in the face of unchangeable circumstances. We will have to continue to rely on experimental reports from the field and incisive observations into the womanly condition from Chateau proprietors for evidence of a particularly mighty breed of female-specific hamster. There is strong anecdotal data that such a female-particular breed exists; it is now up to scientists with the balls to snicker at feminist shrieking to bravely test the hypothesis.

When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. So if you want to see the hamster spin wildly, make sure the little bugger has no hope of escape from his wheeled hellmatrix. He’ll spin, spin until he loses all touch with reality.

I think we’ve seen plenty of examples of self-gratifying spinning in the comments on this blog, not to mention just about anywhere in the informational universe where feminists congregate to kvetch. And the spinning is not just limited to feminists. Most losers in the mating game have experienced the crush of 5 Gs in their hamster wheels. I find these kinds of people fall into two camps: the pity whores (woe is me, i’m a loser, there’s nothing i can do about it, so stop trying to help people like me, you’re only leading us astray with your advice), and the delusion zombies (i’m not a loser, i have everything i need in life, single cougarhood, five cats and a niceguy beta orbiter are exactly what i’ve always wanted).

To bring this study closer to the mission statement of this blog, what does it imply about love?

And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”

Bulls-eye. An elegant confirmation of push-pull game theory. Drawing a woman in, then pushing her away by, for example, disqualifying yourself or her, will switch the courtship dynamic around so that she is in the role of the chaser, instead of the typical female role of the chased. A woman who isn’t sure you really like her because your actions are calculated to deliver an ambiguous message, is more likely to press the seduction forward than she would with either a fulsomely unambiguous man or a completely uninterested man.

If you flirt with a woman, raise her buying temperature, but then show no interest at all in her for the remainder of the night, she will rationalize her rejection by telling herself she never really wanted you.

There are many real-world examples of women rationalizing their rejection or low sexual market value. Below, I list some of the more common ones.

“I’m not interested in guys who like anorexic women.” 
“Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.” 
“Men are intimidated by my intelligence/career/education.” 
“Men don’t like opinionated women.” 
“Women reach their sexual peak at 35!” 
“I get all the love I need from my child.” 
“I was looking for a one night stand, too.” 
“No man is good enough for me and my child.” 
“Men are afraid of commitment.” 
“Now that I’m older I choose my men more carefully.” 
“Men refuse to grow up and settle down.” 
“Men who date younger girls can’t handle women their age.” 
“I’ve grown into my beauty.” 
“Real men appreciate my curves.” 
“A confident man loves a woman with experience.” 
“I’m not dating because I need me-time.” 
“He stopped calling because he got scared.” 

And, of course, the all-time favorite rationalization of the castaway driftwood of womankind:

“There are no good men left.” 

Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.

Stupidest Anti-Game Meme On The Internet

“The alpha male isn’t the one who can get the most hot women, it’s the one who leaves behind the most children. By that measure, childless gamers are beta.”

This is so silly it hardly deserves a rebuttal, but I’m in the mood to ruin some femicunt’s or whiny promise keeper’s lunch.

Alpha males who use game to attract women are doing those things which favor passing on their DNA in the state of nature, but they are thwarting the final step in the reproductive process with modern contraceptives. The use of the condom or Pill to prevent pregnancy does not render the successful alpha male womanizer any less alpha; a legal ban on all contraceptives would quickly restore his primacy in the snot-nosed litter market.