Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The Most Beta Song Ever

“Calling You”, Blue October.

Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

Theres something that i cant quite explain
i’m so in love with you
you’ll never take that away

and if i said a hundred times before
expect a thousand more
you never take that away

well expect me to be
calling you to see
if you’re ok when i’m not around
asking if you love me
i love the way you make it sound
calling you to see
do i try too hard to make you smile
to make a smile

well i will keep calling you to see
if you’re sleepin are you dreamin and
if you’re dreamin are you dreamin of me
i cant believe
you actually picked…me

Truly puke-inducing. A non-rockstar taking the message of this song to heart would ensure himself years of involuntary celibacy. Shame, too, because it’s a catchy tune. And therein lies its nefarious power. The music lulls you into a false sense of comfortable masculinity while the lyrics fill your head with a message that would shrivel the testicles of a bull moose.

Runner-Up Beta Song:

“She’s So High”, Tal Bachman

Any nominees for most alpha song of all time? And no cheesy tunes like “Born in the USA” or anything by a 1980s hair band singing about banging chicks on car hoods or riding the road alone. Although I would accept “Hot for Teacher” as a legit contender. I got my pencil! Not sure if the early 90s grunge era qualifies. Nirvana and Pearl Jam sound superficially alpha but their messages are borderline limp-wrist. They were the emo prototypes, after all. Music in the 2000s took a decided turn for the beta, which should tell us something about the quality of “men” now populating America. Arcade Fire and MGMT make great music, but let’s face it, they’re kind of faggy. Muse might be the closest thing to an alpha band we have at the moment. (I consider rap and hip hop to be cartoon versions of alpha, which is not as bad as being beta, but not up to amused mastery levels. Rap is like the bellowing douchebag at a bar who assertively but sloppily hits on a girl, gets rejected, and then calls her a bitch.)

It’s looking more and more like the last of the great alpha songs ended sometime in the late 70s. This perfectly mirrors the general decline of America. Discuss amongst yourselves.

This comment from Quant reminded me of a girl I used to date:

And it doesn’t matter how bad she wants to save the planet, it would better for my image of her if she flushes after doing number 1 instead of “letting it mellow.”

Too funny. The girl I dated would say the same exact thing to me.

Me: [getting up in the morning to pee and seeing yellow water in the bowl] Gross. Yo, babe, you forgot to flush.

Her: I didn’t forget. If it’s yellow let it mellow.

Me: Why?

Her: It’s good for the environment.

Me: I didn’t know we were in a prolonged drought. Is toilet water in short supply?

Her: You shouldn’t waste water.

Me: My god the urine smells so bad it’s singeing my nose hairs.

Her: All right, give it a rest.

Me: What if I have to take a dump? Your urine water is gonna splash back up on my baby smooth ass cheeks. Is that supposed to turn me on?

Although the above conversation sounded fun and teasing, I never could see my ex the same way again after that traumatic morning I first saw her yellow pee water. Something triggered in the primitive sex part of my brain and she instantly lost 0.5 sexual market value points. The end was sealed by an unflushed toilet.

YelloMello Girl was also a 5-year vegetarian (shocker!). No meat or fish whatsoever. Her diet consisted of pasta, bread, beans, sprouts, quinoa, cereal, carrots and trail mix. For a vegetarian, I rarely saw her eat truly outstanding (and paleo-approved) vegetables like broccoli and kale. Although she had a nice figure from running and biking all the goddamned time, her un-made-up skin was sometimes blotchy. When the sun glinted off her cheeks, I could tell that her diet was going to result in premature wrinkling for her.

Dating a vegetarian girl is no fun. (This is primarily a female phenomenon. Heterosexual vegetarian men are so rare in the state of nature that few women have experience dealing with one.) A simple formula for those who need a demographic breakdown of vegetarians: Vegetarianism = single female SWPL.

One of the sublime pleasures in life is a medium rare filet mignon with a glass of pinot noir. Grazer girls rob you of enjoying this pleasure to the fullest. Sure, vegetarians will insist that they don’t judge you for your carnivorous barbarity, but you can easily observe her judging you in all the little mannerisms and passive-aggressive quirks she throws your way.

For some reason, grazers are highly offended by the smell of bacon. If you happen to cook bacon for yourself when she’s staying over, grazer girl will snark at you for “stinking up the place”. She will scrunch her face up with exaggerated disgust, and ask you to “please hurry up and eat that, it’s turning my stomach.” So much for nonjudgmentalism.

I have a theory that the reason grazers react so violently to bacon aroma is because it smells SO GOOD it might tempt them to betray the Gaianist religion for which they have sacrificed so many years in penitential devotion. Bacon is the gateway meat to apostasy.

Now that Western Christianity is a dead letter religion among the suckup SWPL set, something needs to replace the evolution-sized hole left in their heads from the excision of the traditional organized religions. That worshipful, in-group yearning is replaced by a new religion: the religion of “sustainable living.” Gaia is their God. Lettuce their Eucharist. Global warming their Nicene Creed. Canvas tote bags their cross. Marathons their forty days and forty nights in the desert. Recycling their tithe. Pet adoption agencies their soup kitchens and charity organizations. It’s a fucking joke, and it’s on them. They think they are above the religious impulse, when in fact they are as much a base animal as those plebes who earn their sneers; they’ve simply substituted a different flavor of the religious crack that gets them high.

Most vegetarian chicks aren’t going to blatantly try to convert you. They know better. And they also know, on a subconscious level, that you as a man would be less attractive if you joined her in pasture grazing. So they smirk and sneer and judge but they won’t ever really push their insipid lifestyle on you. Nevertheless, their lifestyle is an imposition on yours. Want to cook at home? If she’s cooking, you’re going to be crabby eating her twigs and leaves. If you’re cooking, prepare to brush up on vegetarian recipes. Home cooking is always a one-way street with grazers. Even the simple act of sharing platters at a restaurant becomes fraught with romance-killing difficulty. And don’t forget the hidden seething envy and affront that grazers feel as they have to watch you eat succulent meats in front of them.

And however tolerant of meat-eaters that grazers claim to be, their sanctimony can’t help but assert itself. After all, what’s the point of being a dedicated vegetarian if you can’t lord your moral rectitude over the unenlightened? It’s a human compulsion to grasp for status points by assuming a higher plane of moral reasoning. YelloMello girl, like most veggie chicks, would act unduly offended if I mistakenly ordered take-out stir fry that included chicken.

“You KNOW I don’t eat meat!”

“Just pick it out.”

“Why don’t you respect my wishes?”

The phony indignation is especially grating. It’s as if they want you to notice their hallowed commitment to their bean sprouts religion. Why suffer for an arbitrary religion if others can’t see and appreciate your suffering? After a point, it became something of a running gag to me. When she asked for a snack, I would hand her beef jerky, and say “Oops, thought it was a celery stalk.” Or I’d buy pigs’ feet and leave them in her fridge, telling her I ran out of room in my own fridge.

Ever watch the chicks at Trader Hoe’s browsing the veggie section with a basket full of plant foods? Look closely, and you can practically see the righteous self-satisfaction smeared like spackle across their faces. Behold her proudly line up her beans and hummus containers on the check-out stand, carefully arranging each product so that the entire line can bear witness to her revelation.

I despise her. Then I proudly line up my salmon, whole milk, broccoli, red peppers and almond butter and feel a glow of superiority as I watch the ghetto black mom behind me with her crate of juice boxes, chips and candy.

The id monster doesn’t play favorites.

The Inductivist has a number of posts about studies examining, indirectly, the widely-observed but heretofore unquantified phenomenon of chicks digging jerks. In this post, he reports that the average family size of jail inmates is higher than the general population:

Mean number of children

One lifetime arrest 3.00
Two 2.95
Five 2.86
Ten 3.38

More serious criminals have just as many kids as minor ones, and as many as non-criminals. The correlation between number of offspring and number of arrests is .04–basically non-existent.  Evidently, criminals are sufficiently alpha to have as many kids as anyone else, in spite of their low social status and time behind bars.

Girls find a way to sniff out ex-cons — or even current cons — and get impregnated by them. They just can’t get enough of their hellraising seed.

Here is a second post on the same study, broken down by race.

Family size does not decrease with more arrests for either race. The correlation between number of offspring and number of arrests is -.02 for whites and .02 for blacks; in other words, there is no relationship. According to the MIDUS Study of non-criminal men aged 45 or over, the mean number of children is 2.62.  Criminals have just as many, if not more, kids. (I’ll look for prison inmate data–jail inmates have a lower average level of criminality.)

You would think that men spending many of their prime reproductive years behind bars would hinder their ability to pump out sprog, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Male prisoners have loads of female groupies willing to have raw dog sex with them.

A commenter to that study writes:

I have no science to back this up, but I can tell you this from experience… inmates in jails and prisons have more kids than the system will ever know. Your numbers are skewed because of children not reported. I knew of one young man that was 22 years old that had 4 children and another 3 women pregnant with his babies. I would wager that the number is much higher for felons than the general population by a large margin. look at the number of women and children on state aid. Where do you think the fathers are… or have been?

Isn’t it funny how a woman will remain faithful to a lowlife behind fucking bars so that she can bear his, and only his, children, but will step out on a loyal provider beta hubby who plays by the rules? Knee-slappingly funny, I say.

Another commenter writes:

What if a single arrest is just enough to make you into an “alpha” in the eyes of a significant number of females but not enough to subject you to the racially-biased sterilization effects of jail?

One arrest seems to be the sweet spot for capitalizing on your instant alpha attractiveness to women without having to sacrifice too much personal freedom, or without experiencing de facto sterilization by decades away from pussy. This study validates the relevance of question #18 in the Dating Market Value Test for Men.

It should go without saying (unfortunately this blog gets its share of dense readers, so little goes unsaid or implied lest the short bus crowd starts screeching like constipated tards) that not every woman pops a clit boner for criminals. Perhaps not even a majority of women. But enough of them do that we can make accurate generalizations about the contours of sexual desire that all women possess.

In comparison to men, desirable women are far and away more likely to feel sexual and emotional attraction for opposite sex criminals, thugs, killers and assorted bad apples. If we map this desire on a bell curve, we would see at the far right tail the women who send letters to death row inmates and sometimes even fuck them and bear their children. In the middle would be the mass (and I do mean mass) of typical women who tingle for criminals but would not go out of their way to seduce one unless a consequence-free opportunity were present. At the left side of this jerk-loving bell curve would be the women who swear up and down that criminal men have no appeal to them. These latter women are usually lesbians or older, married broads who have lost touch with the intense libidos that motivated their younger selves.

If we superimpose a male bitch-loving bell curve onto a female jerk-loving bell curve what we would see is that the female curve is far to the right of the male curve, and the male curve would be bunched up into its left side. That is, there are significantly more women who love jerks than there are men who love bitches. This is as a Darwinian reading of human sociosexuality would predict. Male criminals have advertised their fitness as strong survival gene machines, while female bitches haven’t advertised much except what a pain in the ass they would be after sex.

If you have to wonder why chicks dig jerks and guys don’t similarly dig bitches, you need to recall the fundamental premise of the sexual market:

Men love youth and beauty. Women love charisma and power.

Beauty is not contingent upon a women’s bitchiness or criminal propensity. (In fact, female thuggishness is usually a leading indicator of ugliness.) In contrast, charisma and will-to-power are correlative with male criminal propensity.

In future posts, I will look at the appeal that death row inmates have for women. (Death row females — the few that there are — don’t have the same appeal for men. Shocking, I know.)

Two women, to be precise. In a new book called “Stop Calling Him Honey… And Start Having Sex”, the two female authors dispense relationship advice that could have been lifted straight from the Chateau files. (Maybe they have?) For instance, they write that pet names are a surefire way to kill the sexual tension in a relationship.

Pet names — “honey,” “darling,” “super-snuggly-puggly,” whatever — need to be expunged from a couple’s vocabulary.

Calling your spouse your “pookie” or “huggums” flips a switch in the subconscious, and suddenly your husband or wife is no longer that hot, sensual creature you once lusted after.

“It turns people into an asexual, cuddly teddy-bear toy that you want to spoon with and watch funny movies with and drink hot chocolate with,” says Davis, “but it doesn’t make you want toshag them!

“When you first meet someone, you’re hot for them,” she adds. “You’re not going to be calling up, going, ‘Hi, Pookie Wookie, what do you want to do later?’ No, you’re going to be calling up and going ‘Hey, Richard, so what do you want to do?’

While researching their book, Davis and Arana say they found an interesting pattern: the worse the pet names used by a couple, the worse their sex lives were.

In turn, the couples that didn’t use them tended to have healthier sex lives.

Mostly agreed. Goofy, cutesy pet names or perfunctory rote designations like “honey” that are meant to serve as expedient shorthand for validating relationship stability are sexual tension killers. It’s better to give her a sexy, slightly demeaning nickname like, oh, “slut”, and for her to call you by your manly real name. The only acceptable nicknames that she may call you are “stud”, “daddy” or “Prince of Penises”.

The Chateau has written before about giving nicknames — as opposed to pet names — to lovers:

Nicknames are great. They establish the proper paternalistic male – frivolous female dynamic that is the foundation of all successful and happy romantic relationships. Plus, they objectify women, and almost all women, contrary to the shrieks of dusty muffed feminists everywhere, harbor a secret desire to be objectified by condescending men. Imagine a cock slapping a chick’s face… forever. (plz to make animated gif.)

So you should always give women nicknames, preferably more than one to suit whatever happens to be the occasion.

Some of my personal favorites:

Lovechop.

Little Miss Muffin.

Showgirl.

Sugar Walls.

Miss Minx.

Princess Peach Pit.

Puss n Boobs.

Tits Ahoy.

Twinkletits.

Jujube.

Cock Envelope.

Queef Latifah.

Ho.

Good rule of thumb: the hotter the chick, the sluttier the nickname. It’s imperative that you sexualize a hot girlfriend soon after beginning to date her. Hot chicks have huge egos and crave a man who will bring them down to earth. This bringing down to earth process involves basically treating her like a convenient wet hole.

I’d steer clear of granting mushy or sexual nicknames to girls on first dates. That’s a fast track to disqualifying yourself as a needy pervert. Those are best saved for later on. Early game chicknames should be more teasing, less sexual. Like calling her Red Carpet when she shows up overdressed to an event, or Grace Kelly when she trips on the sidewalk.

You’ll notice that, for the most part, the Chateau-recommended nicknames are sexual, and somewhat degrading, in nature. And that they are strictly a one-way nomenclature. So the next time your chick calls you “honey”, don’t insta-reply with your own “honey”. Instead, gently remind her to call you by your blood and soil name. Swing a halberd overhead for good measure.

Continuing with the subject of this post, the two broads also say:

Still, the authors say, pet names — and their insidious cousin “baby talk” — are merely symptoms of a greater problem: the “roommate syndrome.”

On its surface, the roommate syndrome might sound like a decent partnership: Spouses do everything together and share all the same friends, interests and beliefs.

“We all have this romantic idea, the whole Cinderella thing,” says Davis. “‘Oh, I’m going to meet my Prince Charming and we are going to talk about everything together and be together all the time. We’re never going to argue. We’re going to do absolutely everything in front of one another. We’re just going to be so close.'”

A bad arrangement, she says.

“A couple years down the road, you’ve done everything together, you doing everything together, you’ve agreed with everything and frankly you look at the other person and you think, ‘Now what? I’m kind of bored because basically I’m talking to myself. I’m with myself, I’m with the other half of myself.'”

And that’s when the physical part of the relationship leaves town.

Baby talk is OK, as long as it is the woman feeling a compulsion to speak that way when in the private company of her man. Any man using baby talk with his woman should lop — or rather, daintily snip — his balls off and mail them to a scientific lab to be studied under an electron microscope for possible application in nanotechnology.

The fact is, women regress to a vulnerable child-like state when all their sexual buttons are being pressed by a man they love. Baby talk is a natural extension of this WIL regression to a submissive childhood mentality. It can get a little annoying for a man to hear this type of talk too much, so women would be wise to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

Where the authors are correct is in pinpointing the roommate syndrome as a leading cause of bed death. The hottest, most sexually satisfying relationships are never with lovers who are your carbon copy. A good lover isn’t so different that you can’t stand each other and hate their hobbies, but neither is he or she so similar that you can predict their every dull move. Since we know that hypergamous, non-harem mentality women get bored more quickly with relationships (66-80%+ of divorces initiated by women, and most LTRs ended by women), it stands to reason that if you want a long-lived marriage or LTR you should aim for girls who:

a. close and lock the fucking bathroom door when they take a dump, and

b. don’t share your hobbies.

You should also be worried if you haven’t had an argument with your GF or wife in the past year.

You might want to reconsider moving in together, as well. Or, if you do so, to at least have a separate study where you can occasionally get out of her sight, and vice versa.

Moving along, the authors write:

“Sex is the glue that brings us together,” says Arana. “Whenever we heard a couple say, ‘We spend all of our time together, and we never argue.’ Those were the couples we found in our research that, yeah, they never argued and they spent all their time together, but they weren’t having sex either.”

Those are the relationships, Arana adds, that are the most vulnerable.

They’re right. Have an argument, save your sex life. Generations of credential-waving, platitude-spouting fembot marriage counselors and therapists have had their lives’ work reduced to less value than the paper their worthless degrees are printed on by avatars of real world experience such as yer ‘umble narrators of this blog.

Here is some more shockingly useful advice from these two women:

Close the bathroom door.

No using the potty in front of your spouse, ever.

“You want to check yourself,” says Davis. “Would I have [used the bathroom] in front of my partner at the beginning of the relationship? No way! No way would you have done that.”

No man wants to hear the toilet water kerplunk when his beloved’s stool escapes her anus. This is true for women as well… that is, women don’t even want to hear their own stool kerplunk. Women are a bit more forgiving than men are about hearing their lover’s kerplunks, because a gruff, gross animalistic man is a turn-on for women, in measured doses.

Argue more.

This is not fighting, but holding your ground, keeping your own opinions and engaging in some playful arguments.

“It’s just about keeping an opinion, and even flirting a bit with banter, Katharine Hepburnish kind of banter,” says Arana. “A lot of couples don’t do it. They are so afraid of a difference of opinion.”

Nah, arguing is fighting. No need to prettify it. They’re right on the whole, though. A beta male’s biggest shortcoming is his fear of offending his woman. Hey betas, newsflash: women WANT you to offend them. Not all the time, of course. But enough times that she is helpfully reminded of the alpha male she wants to believe you are. Sexual tension can be ramped up to incredible heights by edgy, borderline insulting banter.

Have your own friends, interests and life.

“We don’t mean go off and have a separate life or not communicate with your partner, but you need to constantly keep growing as an individual,” says Arana. “Why not take an evening class if it’s something you’re interested in?

“You have to keep growing as an individual and then bring that back to the relationship.”

See: Poon Commandment III. The Chateau is well ahead of you, ladies.

Build a few walls.

Keep things close to the vest a bit. Don’t share everything that goes through your mind, especially sexual desires.

“You have to maintain a little bit of mystery,” says Davis.

Mystery, unpredictability, dread. All these male traits and behaviors — learned or organic — conspire to make a woman tingle so hard for you that she can’t think straight. It’s a superdose, superinjection of dopaminx right into her limbic clitoris.

In short, don’t become her best friend. Become her best lover.

If you’re wondering… yes, they are mutually exclusive.

***

I’ve noticed a trend lately of books and articles written by women that are plagiarizing borrowing from the themes espoused daily on this blog. Smart women — realistic women, and probably women who have been burned by stupidly banal relationship advice one too many times — are coming around to the everlasting fountain of wisdom and truth that is the Chateau. They don’t say it with quite the same.. verve… that we do here, but their message is beginning to converge with the Chateau’s message.

To that I say, welcome ladies! Your left eyes are better.

Preselection comes in many flavors. The most direct way to spoof your attractiveness to women is to be seen in the company of beautiful women. Of course, if you can do that, you’re not really spoofing anything, unless the women are friends you are using as pawns to pick up other women.

Another form of preselection involves embedding references to women in your life in stories you tell about yourself. This is the classic DHV — demonstration of higher value — that is well-known in the game community.

A third way to hit those primitive preselection buttons all women have buried in their limbic systems is to allude to competitor women who are attracted to you, but to do so in such a way that you give yourself cover from the perception that you are bragging. This can be done by framing the preselection reference in a negative light.

Letting women know, either directly or indirectly, that you have female stalkers is a huge DHV. This is particularly true if the girl you are picking up sees evidence of your stalkers. Now you might think that women would be suspicious of, or at least uncertain about, a man who has stalkers. They might wonder how badly he breaks hearts that he would accrue desperate, clingy stalkers.

Turn off your logical male brain for a minute and marvel at the reality that is the unflappable female head hamster. In truth, stalkers are a massive status boost for any man, unless the stalker is morbidly obese or old. A man who has acquired stalkers who fell so deeply in love with him or were so smitten by his charms that they lost all self-control and threw dignity to the wind in a futile pursuit to be back in his life, is a man who has otherworldly powers of attraction over women.

Casually remark to a new woman about your stalkers and she will subconsciously perceive you in a sexier light. You do this by furrowing your brow, frowning, and heavily sighing about the poor girl with emotional issues who can’t leave you alone. Double pickup points if you mention you have had to get a restraining order.

Why should stalkers be a DHV? One big reason: Most stalkers are men. Stalking is predominantly a male digression. So when a woman defies her evolutionary programming to behave as the more valuable sex and instead becomes a stalker, you know the man with whom she can’t extricate herself is one charming motherfucker. And other women know this, too. A man with stalkers is a proven hot commodity.

A man who is successful with women will find it difficult to glide through life without any stalker exes or infatuations. If you run any game at all you won’t be able to go five years without at least one or two girls aggressively making fools of themselves to be with you or to spite you for breaking their hearts.

Sid comments:

Here is decent Facebook game:

There was a very attractive girl, a verbatim 9, who had self-shot herself. She was smiling with even white teeth, managing to angle the shot just right so that you could see her sitting with shorts, her legs revealed.

Five people liked it.

White Beta Male with his name written in katakana: Radiant.

Beta Male twice her age: Your always so beautiful!!

Grrlfriend: so pretty~!

Chick with a mirror shot: Man I wanna pierce my nose soooo bad! I like the hoop on you 🙂

AzN Beta: Bang’n

Duckfaced Douchebag: holy sheeet

Me: I like your left eye better.

She immediately responded to me, and to me alone: “Hahaha!”

And this is why Facebook is such a pussy-less wasteland for the typical beta male. Unless you have game — like Sid here — and can set yourself apart from the mediocre masses, you can expect your shit-lapping suckuppery to disappear into a vortex rift of female egotism.

Succeeding with hot women means tearing down their egos a notch or two, not building them up! Recall, the major roadblock to successfully seducing good-looking, emotionally normal chicks in their primes is not their low self-esteem; just the opposite — it’s their HIGH self-esteem. All these toadies tripping over themselves to “like” girls’ Facebook photos and lavish chicks with compliments are living in an alternate universe where doing the opposite of sexy and charismatic blesses them with a harem of young, sexually voracious lovers. Instead, all they are doing is feeding a beast already full from feasting on the flattery of thousands of lickspittles.

I suspect a lot of these pathetic betas just get off on being able to freely toss out an obsequious compliment to a girl on Facebook because in the online world there is no risk that she’ll immediately scrunch up her face with disgust or tell him to “take a picture, it’ll last longer.” Perhaps they get a momentary thrill at play-acting this juvenile and emotionally stunted form of arid, sexless seduction.

It’s true! Science says so.

“Pickup” lines based on humor tend to fall flat-but they do get the speakers rated as relatively funny and sociable, and aren’t disfavored by women seeking brief liaisons, a new study suggests.

Corwin Senko and Viviana Fyffe of the State University of New York-New Paltz conducted the research to assess why women respond differently to different types of “pickup” lines and to help answer that question so common from young women: why do men use dumb pickup lines?

The pair studied the effects of “flippant” lines such as “can I get a picture of you so I can show Santa what I want for Christmas?” Women rated men who used such opening gambits, as opposed to other types, as relatively high on humorousness and sociability, but low on trustworthiness and intelligence.

“Women rate the latter qualities more essential than the former ones in a long-term mate,” the researchers wrote. Humor might not ordinarily signal low intelligence, they added, but the type of canned humor usually found in pickup lines could.

So if you want a same night lay with a horny, ovulating stripper, hit her up with the corniest pickup line you can muster. She’ll swoon. If you want to maximize your success with women at all phases of their cycles, your best bet is a pickup line that is honed to demonstrate humor *and* smarts. That isn’t easy to do, which is why most men fall back on goofiness, which seems to be a default male state. Paradoxically, acting goofy may help men maintain some semblance of dignity and composure when talking to an attractive girl.

Two types of non-“flippant” pickup lines were also used in the survey for comparison. One type was the “direct” line, such as “I saw you across the room and knew I had to meet you. What’s your name?” The other was the “innocuous” sort that conceals romantic intent, thus making rejection more bearable. An example: “You look really familiar. Have we taken a class together?”

The survey results saw the “flippant” lines scorned by women who were asked to imagine themselves seeking a long-term mate. But for women asked to think of themselves seeking a short-term mate, the type of pickup line didn’t matter, the researchers found: instead, the man’s perceived attractiveness was the key factor in the woman’s receptivity.

“Direct” pickup lines gave the best results on average, but the outcome differences between them and the “innocuous” lines weren’t statistically significant, Senko and Fyffe reported.

Direct game has its advocates, but this study suggests that the Lance Mason-esque “movie moment” type of direct opening is not much better at picking up women than standard, indirect openers.

By the way, a lot of these sociological studies suffer from the experimental flaw known as “don’t expect a straight answer from women” bias. This study asked women to imagine themselves seeking either a long-or short-term mate before making their decisions. Since when has asking women about their feelings ever gotten anyone honest feedback? These studies would be more convincing if instead of asking women about their sexual attraction mechanisms, they went IN THE FIELD to actually observe women reacting to different types of pickup lines.

A lot of scientists could learn a thing or two about the experimental method from PUAs.

%d bloggers like this: