Are PUAs Douchebags And Hucksters?

Kidstrangelove sent in a link to a video of self-proclaimed top PUA gurus attempting to demonstrate their craft by picking up a hot talk show host. He wanted to know if I agreed that the PUAs embarrassed themselves. I saw the video (which has now been made private) and do agree that the PUAs do not come off looking very suave. If this is all I knew of them, and I was in the market to learn game, I would not give my money to them for instruction.

But to be fair to the parade of men who threw their worst best game at a female talk show host who was anticipating their moves and relishing the thought of humiliating them on live TV, they were playing against a stacked deck. Few men, no matter how smooth they are with women in real life, will come off looking good under those circumstances.

So I cut them a break for their woeful performances. But this does lead one to wonder why high profile PUAs would risk certain embarrassment and discredit to their business model by hawking their skills on a talk show where all the rules are in the female host’s favor and the whole thing is a set-up to entrap the PUA into making a fool of himself. I doubt even Mystery — a man who has certainly banged more hot babes than 99% of the men in the world can claim to have banged — would do well in such a distorted scenario.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the desire for fame exceeds common sense. Maybe these guys think “Hey, I have a low chance of avoiding humiliation by doing this, but the TV exposure will certainly redound to more clients for my workshops and more chicks on my schlong.” They might be right; who knows, I don’t see their financial or bedroom balance sheets.

“Bro-town”

Kidstrangelove then linked to this post by a guy named Rob Judge (reputedly one of NYC’s best players), who eviscerates (semi-justifiably, in my view) a lot of the silliness that passes for PUAdom.

The Pickup Artist is no longer someone who walks among us. The term, once a secret endearment to men on the Internet, has become a label of satire and shame. To aspire to be a PUA—or the ever-lofty mPUA—is now, ironically, the most rAFC you could do. Because The Pickup Artist is dead… […]

Let me ask you this, Pickup Artist: If you weren’t allowed to tell anyone you got that girl’s number, would it still be cool? Would you still take her number and run like a thief in the night? Or would you shift your focus from getting #-closes to actually trying to get girls.

In fact, that brings up an important point: Why ARE you doing this? Why are you studying pickup material, involved in the community, and reading this blog? Is it to meet awesome women? Or is it to get the awesome approval of guys?

See, almost every guy will scream at me, “It’s to meet awesome women!” But what do those same guys scream when they do meet awesome women…”LAY REPORT BRO!!!” These same guys who claim they’re out to meet women are the first ones on the Brag Express with a one-way ticket to Bro-town whenever they do anything that resembles meeting an awesome woman.

Lay reports can serve as a useful learning tool for newbies, as long as they are written in the spirit of knowledge sharing and analytic insight. But too often, they degenerate into bragging matches, and that’s where the douchery rears its ugly head. Back in the day, on sites like Fastseduction.com, lay reports were gold mines of insider knowledge about the workings of the female mind; today, more of them resemble the chest-thumpings of frat boys and nerds speaking through Casanova avatars.

As those who know me very well know, I ring the death knell of The Pickup Artist because I want to see guys actually meet and attract awesome women. And The Pickup Artist will not help you do that. In fact, the first thing any guys who wants to meet and attract awesome women has to do is sift through his intentions. He must remove any inkling of “Bro-town” from his approach. I challenge you not to tell a soul about your “infield accomplishments” for a full month and see how much better you are at attracting quality women.

OK, so this guy Rob Judge is marketing himself by positioning his business model as the antidote to widely assumed PUA hucksterism and douchiness. Nothing wrong with that, but it does suggest his slam of the PUA community should be taken with a grain of salt.

The useful advice here is that you should live your womanizing life as if the opinions of men didn’t matter to you. In real life, I rarely broadcast my pickups. Truth is, I can’t be bothered. The allure of recounting in vivid detail last night’s seduction with a bunch of male friends lost its appeal after legal drinking age. Sure, if I take a call from a really good friend the next day, I’ll tell him about the chick I scored. That will never change. But most of the time, my pickups, my flings, my one night stands, and even my long term hookups, remain shrouded in shadowy mystery from the eyes of acquaintances. Often, very good friends won’t meet my girlfriends until a month after I have been dating them. My friends don’t seem bothered by this; in fact, they admire it, because it shows I’m serious about the effort I put into romancing women.

This attitude imparts my lifestyle with a bit of gravitas and, more practically speaking, allows me a measure of control over my relationships (and my ex-relationships) that would be harder to attain were the whole world to know every detail of my licentious misdeeds. And it does matter for pickup success; when it’s just me versus the women of the world, and not me and my bros versus the women of the world, I can better focus on the task at hand. Women will know, too, if your motives are tainted with anything but achieving the heights of pleasure with them.

Anal Sex The New Technicality

(This post is dedicated to Geert Wilders in his fight against the forces of powerful leftist intellectuals intent on punishing him for the sin of speaking his mind on a subject that gives the leftie witch hunters the hives — namely, the capitulation of Europe to Islam. May he be victorious in his battle against these traitors not only to the West, but to their own classical liberal principles.)

Anal sex among women is up, way up. And not just anal sex; oral intimacy is up too.

Here’s the big story. In 1992, 16 percent of women aged 18-24 said they’d tried anal sex. Now 20 percent of women aged 18-19 say they’ve done it, and by ages 20-24, the number is 40 percent. In 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33. In 2002, it was 35. Now it’s 46.

According to various bloggers around the web who routinely cite data from the General Social Survey (GSS) purporting to show that women are actually getting less slutty since the 1980s, this new data throws a monkey wrench into those prematurely ejaculated conclusions. If women are getting less slutty, how is it anal and oral sex are increasing among all age groups?

Well, it depends on how you define “slut”. I have previously contended that the GSS sex data cannot be fully trusted because 1) women (and to a lesser extent, men) have a deeply ingrained inclination to lie about matters concerning the most ego-wrapped delicate questions of sexual practice, and 2) women in particular are prone to dismissing acts of anal, oral and hand sex as instances of actual “sex”. Try to put yourself in the fuck-me pumps of a 22 year old virgin who is answering anonymous survey questions about her sex life.

How many men have you had sex with in the past five years?

GIRL: [thinking to herself] Well, there was Tommy, but he only did me in the ass, so that doesn’t count. Then there was Trent, but I only gave him blowjobs. I told him that I wanted to save myself for marriage. Then the asshole left me! And there was Brian, but except for a few BJs and a tug job behind the 7-11, I never gave it up to him. And…. let’s see, who else… oh yeah, Joe, Chris, some guy who called himself the Dude, Adam, Hoight, Anfernee… mostly anal, some mouth love. But I didn’t give my virginity to any of them. Yay me! So… I didn’t have sex with any men.

You can see where this is going.

In other words, the female rationalization hamster is shitting bite-sized pellets all over the GSS results. And now we have data publicized in the Journal of Sexual Medicine providing evidence for my “Hamster Skewed Sociosexuality Discrepancy” theory, in the form of rising anal and oral sex rates among previously reported less sexually-active women. Something’s not adding up among the numbers, and that something is women’s inability to correctly diagnose their own levels of sluttiness. Anal sex is the new technicality that lets women avoid the slut label while allowing them to experience the exquisite proxy pleasure of procreative sex.

To wit, as a man, are you going to give a “get out of the whorehouse free” card to a woman who is a vaginal virgin but has had a platoon of peckers up her bunghole? No, of course not.

Not only are more chicks trying anal sex, but the data show that more of them are sticking with the taboo pleasure.

The last time I looked at the anal sex data, I figured that most women who reported having done it meant they’d tried it just once. I was wrong. If you push these women beyond the “have you ever” question, the numbers stay surprisingly high, and they’re getting higher. In 1992, the percentage of women in their 20s and 30s who said they’d had anal sex in the past year was around 10 percent. Now that number has doubled to more than 20 percent, and one-third of these women say they’ve done it in the last month. Among all women surveyed, the number who reported anal sex in their most recent sexual encounter was 3 percent to 4 percent.

Most women love anal sex once they’ve tried it. I’m convinced there is a physiological connection between the anus/rectum area and the orgasmic zones of the pussy that accounts for the thrills women receive from ass love. There is also the dominance aspect of anal sex that is undoubtedly highly arousing to women; after all, what position is more degrading than bent over taking it up the poop chute? Degrading = tingles? No. Degrading = seismic snatch waves.

One of my fondest foreplay moments was when a (married) Russian chick (from Vladivostok, if that means anything to you Russophiles) stripped naked, turned around, and looking inquisitively over her shoulder, asked in the most pleasingly feminine voice, slightly accented: “Would you like to do me in the ass?” Naturally, I obliged. She squealed like a piglet that found a fresh mudhole… for me to plug up.

That’s a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they’re probably understating the truth.

You don’t say? Trying to get a straight answer from women about their sexual history is like getting cultured yuppies to admit the real reason why they moved to the suburbs once their kids were ready for public schooling.

So what’s with all the buggery? Is it brutality? Coercion? A porn-inspired male fantasy at women’s expense?

It’s none of those things and all of those things. Chicks dig the submissive posture. The pleasure of submitting, exemplified most conspicuously by presenting for rough anal intrusion, induces orgasms in women.

Apparently not. Check out the orgasm data. Among women who had vaginal sex in their last encounter, the percentage who said they reached orgasm was 65. Among those who received oral sex, it was 81. But among those who had anal sex, it was 94. Anal sex outscored cunnilingus. […]

What could explain this? Taboo thrill? Clitoral migration? Some new kind of vegetable oil?

Here’s my guess. Look carefully at Table 4, Pages 355-6. Only 6 percent of women who had anal sex in their last encounter did so in isolation. Eighty-six percent also had vaginal sex. Seventy-two percent also received oral sex. Thirty-one percent also had partnered masturbation. And the more sex acts a woman engaged in during the encounter, the more likely she was to report orgasm. These other activities are what gave the women their orgasms. The anal sex just came along for the ride.

So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn’t. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners’ wishes. It wasn’t the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex.

I’m not sure about Saletan’s reading of the orgasm data. What percent of women had vaginal, oral or hand sex in isolation in their last encounter? Those numbers might be equally low. If it was true that a variety and increasing number of sex acts contributed to women’s reaching orgasm, then we would see women’s claims of reaching orgasm more evenly dispersed between the various sex acts. A woman who had anal, oral, hand and vaginal sex in one session would be just as likely to reach orgasm during any one of those acts. Instead, anal sex comes out on top, brown and stinky. The answer to why women reach orgasm with anal sex more often than other sexual practices is simpler than the reason given by Saletan — most chicks, and men too, don’t like the idea of sticking shit-covered cocks anywhere else than the butt. A2M porn fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, the female ass is generally the last place men and women like to go after a long lovemaking session violating her less toxic orifices. Given that, it’s no surprise that later-to-orgasm chicks climax more often during the last sexual act than during the earlier acts. Furthermore, anal sex is in and of itself very pleasurable for women. It could also be that women simply have an easier time cumming with a dick shoved up their butt.

If anal sex is a trailing indicator of women’s sexual satisfaction, then by all means, let’s toast the new findings. Here’s to you, ladies. Bottoms up.

I remember reading an astounding sex survey figure in a book about human sexuality. I can’t recall the name of the book; I think it was something like “What Men Want, What Women Want”. It was published in the mid 90s. The author had data showing that the college football team quarterback at the University of Oklahoma had had 2,000 sexual partners over his four year college career.

I don’t know what made me think of that.

The Alpha Male Body Language That Attracts Women

The scientific evidence confirming the tenets of game continues rolling in like a tsunami, washing away shrieking feminists and clucking betaboys like so much worthless debris. (Here is the original paper.)

Practicing Certain Poses Creates a Sense of Power

New research indicates that holding a pose that opens up a person’s body and takes up space will alter hormone levels and make the person feel more powerful and more willing to take risks.

Gee, now where have we heard this before?

“These poses actually make you more powerful,” said study researcher Amy C.J. Cuddy, a social psychologist at the Harvard Business School.

Fake it till you make it? Not the whole story. I’ve long contended that game is its own status. That is, that the poses, behavior, words and attitude that game teaches is power in itself, and thus attractive to women. This study proves my contention. When you run game, you are becoming more powerful.

The opposite also proved true: Constrictive postures lowered a person’s sense of power and willingness to take risks.

To gather the balls to hit on women, you need to assume a posture that infuses you with ballsiness. Uncross your arms, lower your drink, open your legs, thrust out your chest, lift your chin a bit and make your crotch the locus of your chi.

In the study, researchers randomly assigned 42 participants, 26 of them women, to assume and hold a pair of either low- or high-power poses. The high-power posers spent one minute sitting in a chair in front of a desk, with feet resting on it and hands clasped behind the head, and, in the other pose, they stood, leaning forward over a table, with arms out and hands resting on the table. In both poses, the participants took up space, an expression of power not unique to the human world. For example, peacocks fan their tails to attract a mate and chimpanzees bulge their chests to assert their hierarchical rank, the researchers noted.

“These power poses are deeply intertwined with the evolutionary selection of what is ‘alpha,’” wrote the researchers in the September issue of the journal Psychological Science.

More and more, my definition of what is the alpha male is being proved correct.

The low-power group sat for one minute with their hands clasped on their thighs, legs together, and also stood for one minute with arms folded and legs crossed.

Low-power = beta. There may be a point, though, at which a man is so incredibly alpha that he can afford to display some beta poses without paying a cost in lowered attractiveness to women. Sort of like the handicap principle.

Those who held the high-power poses saw their testosterone increase, while their levels of a stress hormone, cortisol, decreased.

Chicks can smell testosterone. It’s why they moisten their panties for the male victor in a fight. Testosterone and cortisol are the two hormones to watch. The ideal level for attracting women is high T and low C. Few men can achieve that mix.

The high-power posers were more likely to risk their $2 for the chance to double it: Eighty-six percent took the gamble, compared with 60 percent of the low-power posers.

Chicks dig risk takers. Expendability is a DHV.

This study is part of a field of psychological research called embodiment. The basic idea is that the mind/body relationship is not a one-way street, with the mind giving orders for the body to carry out. Rather, the body also influences the mind. Other studies have indicated, for example, that holding an expression, like a smile, can alter one’s mood, as can a hunched posture.

People who claim that game is trickery designed to fool women into thinking the man is alpha, are wrong. Game will actually alter your perception of yourself and create a positive power feedback loop. Game even alters hormone levels.

Schubert has studied the bodily feedback produced by fist-clenching. After making and holding a fist, men reported feeling more powerful. Female subjects, by contrast, had less hope for control after making a fist.

I often find myself balling up my hands into a fist when I’m thinking about something that makes me angry.

The researchers attributed the results to the idea that men associate their own physical force with power, while women associate it with powerlessness…

Women derive their power from their sexiness, and their ability to engage in verbal subterfuge. Physical force offers them no advantage.

The study also showed that practicing these power poses before going out translates into feeling more powerful hours afterward. So, stand tall, silverback, and pillage the pussy that is rightfully yours.

The United States Of Autoimmunity

The immune system of the United States of America has been sabotaged. It now fails to recognize its own cells within the body politic. The West has been conditioned like Pavlov’s creepier zombie dog to cannibalize itself when a PC platitude bell is rung.

So says godless capitalist (gc), in the comments section of perhaps the most rollicking and perspicacious post and comment thread on the internet in the past four years.

[…] The only way to maintain a holy lie is by persecuting the truth tellers. Such persecutors are not interested in the long term fate of Western Civilization, but only in short term stability. They are like people who “protect” a dying patient from the bitter medicine that will cause momentary discomfort but lasting remission.

The priest class which controls the media and which coordinated the attack on Watson and Summers is not making a hard decision to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. After all, they have promoted ideologies and policies like no-fault divorce and forced busing that have caused untold misery for millions. They care not about the plight of the vast majority of inhabitants of the country; they care about the stability of their sinecures. […]

But here’s the thing. You’ve seen hundreds or thousands of hours of footage of events in which rightist ideas of one stripe or another are causing harm to minorities. The Holocaust, My Lai, Bull Connor, the Japanese internment, Operation Wetback, Columbus, Guantanamo, etc. Literally trillions of dollars in capital investment has resulted in a reflexive, emotional association of rightist action by whites with mass murder in your mind. I know it has because I have the same association. How could you not, when you have been strapped into a chair with the Holocaust beamed into your eyes for the K-12 years and beyond?

But bear with me for a second and imagine what would happen if the polarities had been reversed, if the footage on TV was of the people manning the White Sea Labor Camps, of the Killing Fields and the laogai, of South African crime and Saudi Arabian fanaticism, of Mexican illiteracy and pre-Columbian savagery.

In short, imagine if the Blank Slate Asymmetry were inverted — if the footage were intended to spur the immune system of Western Civilization to action (and overaction) rather than to disable it. No doubt such a world would be blinkered and biased in many aspects…but it would in major respects be closer to reality.

It’s a vertiginous thing to even contemplate, because it makes you realize the extent of the unreality you’ve internalized. For example, everyone has been told — over and over and over again — that blacks are victims rather than victimizers when the reality is the complete opposite. The realization that the media has been lying to you comes too late, only when you or your loved ones have become the victims…only when your friend is lying dead on the ground and there is no TV camera to put falsehood before your lying eyes. […]

The whole point is that h-bd is the one determining aspect which is not publicly discussed. Of course marginal tax rates affect tax receipts. But so does IQ. Of course bilingual policy affects immigrant assimilation. But so does IQ. Of course the educational curriculum affects achievement. But so does IQ.

Yet IQ is the factor that cannot be publicly mooted, let alone debated. And as for the reason that it cannot be debated — that reason is even more doubleplusungood.

Anyway, by now it’s a moot point. These taboos are not going to change anytime soon. Civilizations *do* die. The West had a 500 year run in which it was characterized by being the most willing to jettison holy lies in favor of truth. That willingness to embrace truth, regardless of where it may lead, lead to world beating power and unmatched material wealth. And eventually, it lead to contentment, relaxation, and subsequent immunocompromisation.

In addition to the admission of millions of illiterate migrant workers, the West has now admitted groups that are in some respects symbiotes, but that have now well and truly sabotaged its immune system and its nervous system. Not just the Ashkenazim, but the South and East Asians as well — my people. If the numbers were manageable that would be one thing; the symbiotes might eventually be integrated into the host. But the numbers are not manageable. Everyone is now in the ethnic activism game, intent on suppressing the immune response and preventing frank discussion of truth.

“Ask not what you can do for your country, ask how the country can benefit your ethnic group”. Look at Racialicious or some of the posters on Sepia Mutiny for examples of this attitude; Racialicious in particular is written by a modern-day Torquemada.

Bottom line — like a man with a sabotaged immune system, the West can no longer make self/nonself distinctions:

At the heart of the immune system is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Virtually every body cell carries distinctive molecules that identify it as self.

And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West’s internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.

Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism — or directing its efforts against its own cells.

But sawing off heads is a bit of a chore. Parasites are not accustomed to exerting themselves if they can coerce a stand-in. My favourite character in Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn’t need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control. How she does it is a mystery; she probably employs a chemical, for ant nervous systems-are generally highly attuned to them. If her weapon is indeed chemical, then it is as insidious a drug as any known to science. For think what it accomplishes. It floods the brain of the worker ant, grabs the reins of her muscles, woos her from deeply ingrained duties and turns her against her own mother. For ants, matricide is an act of special genetic madness and formidable indeed must be the drug that drives them to it. In the world of the extended phenotype, ask not how an animal’s behaviour benefits its genes; ask instead whose genes it is benefiting.

Witness the reaction to Katrina: the fact that whites had to defend themselves against black looters somehow became an indictment of white racism. The obvious facts on the ground, the facts sensed by those lowly epithelial cells, were simply inverted by a compromised nervous system.

By selective signal amplification or damping one can make overlaps appear to be equalities. The signals exist — they need not be made up out of whole cloth. One need only turn up the volume on (say) poor migrant workers stranded in the desert and turn down the volume on (say) anchor babies to achieve the desired effect without obvious fingerprints.

…anyway, I’ve gone on long enough. The West’s time in the limelight is fast coming to an end; the West will be known for fractious infighting in the years to come, with the taboo looming above like a solar eclipse, with “decent people” tasked with blotting out truth for as far as the eye can see. Hate speech legislation will come to the US. Sensitivity demands it.

And as America continues its descent into Mexico Norte, I will mourn the civilization that produced Bach and Beethoven and Shockley and Watson. […]

I like this guy’s style.

Those of us who aren’t lying phoneyfucks and traitors mourn the passing of America. The gated community crowd, ever so vigilant to signal the proper moral pose to their SWPL and elite overlords, will carry on self-satisfied and haughty, as the cytokine storm consumes the body around them…

…until there is nothing left from which to feast.

Brushing Off Common Shit Tests From Girls

Reexamining my successful pickups, it becomes clear that 80% of early verbal game is simply knowing when a girl is tossing you shit tests and how to handle them like an attractive man. Almost all good-looking women worth banging will, at one point or another, shit test you. It is coded in their DNA. The easiest and quickest way to make yourself more desirable to a woman is to pass her tests like a champ; in other words, to exploit her alpha male filtering mechanism.

Many men write asking for advice about women’s shit tests. Judging by email quantity, it’s a big stumbling block for a lot of would-be womanizers.There have been posts at the Chateau before about passing commonly encountered shit tests, so in the spirit of giving the people what they want, here is another installment in a continuing series. Thanks go to reader Legion for contributing his selection of devious female screening ploys. Edification and analysis follows. Comments from me are bracketed in italics.

Before beginning, one thing I’d like to note is that a big mistake I see a lot of men making — besides an inability to recognize a shit test when it is leveled at them — is sounding spiteful in response. The critical distinction to make when volleying a shit test is to avoid confusing sneering umbrage for cocky indifference. The line is surprisingly thin between the two attitudes. You definitely want to focus on tailoring your replies and your tone of voice to sound like the latter. A good rule of thumb: if your reply to a shit test would sound like it is coming from a man who cares that his feelings were bruised, don’t say it. Another key point — barring infrequent exceptions, your shit test replies should be succinct. Brevity is the glow of clits.

Here are some common shit tests that I’ve encountered over the years – including ones from guys trying to punk you in front of girls – and most of the answers (in bold) are my own; a few are culled from the PUA literature.

The shit tests that blindside you are the ones that really mess you up, like a punch you don’t see coming. This does extreme violence to how you’re perceived. Vaginas snap shut and dessicate abruptly.

I think mastering shit tests is KEY to success. A man with “savoir faire” is magnetic. Girls secretly spurt their panties when an alpha male is challenged in public by other men or women; she excitedly wonders how will he react. I’ve seen this before, many times: you never forget that look of hyper-aroused delight (or crushing sadness) in your girl’s face if you dominate other men (or get owned).

I think game should be expanded to cover how men interact with other men. [Editor: Agreed. However, since the majority of shit testing is done by girls, the focus shall remain on male-female interaction. Most men won’t attempt to punk you in front of a girl you are gaming. There are only so many heavy ballsacks in circulation.]

Anyway, I’d like to hear your take on these; the list is pretty basic so far. It’s not that the answers are particularly clever; it’s just that they work, and you know in the back of your mind you’re armed.

Shit tests

“Do I know you?” / “Why are you talking to me?”

Oh, I forgot there was a no-talking policy here between strangers.

[Editor: I’d drop the “between strangers” part. Otherwise, very good. Alternate replies: “You wish.” / “Your mom said you were lonely.”]

***

“I have a boyfriend”

That’s nice, well done. [keep plowing, then eject if no IOIs]

[Other good IHAB replies are here.]

***

*She asks you to do something such as get something for her, do her a favour, carry something, buy her a drink, etc*

I think you have me confused with every other guy you’ve met.

[Excellent. Alternate reply: “Does this always work for you?”]

***

“Why don’t you give me a straight answer”

It’s more fun for me not to.

[Serviceable. Catchier wording: “Where’s the fun in that?” Alternate reply: “I didn’t know this was a job interview.”]

***

“Is that your best line?”

Yeah I’ve been practising it all day.

or

Yeah, now it’s your turn.

[I wouldn’t call attention to her framing of the situation. Reframe. Say “Is that your best hair color?”]

***

“Weirdo”

Square.

or

I’m glad you like it.

[“Weirdo” is a tough one. This is more of the female version of a straight up insult rather than a shit test. A lot depends on the tone in which she says it. I’d almost be tempted to backturn on a girl flinging this at me. Alternate replies: “Smelly cooties girl.” “Dork.” “I’m blown away by your scintillating conversation.”]

***

“Kiddo” (from a sassy ho trying to take you down a peg)

Have you watched Kill Bill a little too often?

[I don’t think I’ve ever heard “kiddo” from a girl. I’d probably just ignore it.]

***

“Aw, that’s sweet”

Don’t get used to it.

[Alternates: “I’m one badass motherfucking romantic.” “Yo, check yourself.”]

***

“Your clothes are gay/look stupid”

You fuckin love it.

[Alternate: “Try not to swoon.”]

***

“Are you gay?”

No but my boyfriend is.

[Good answer. Alternate: “Yes, I’m very happy right now.”]

***

From guys: “You look like shit/ you’re fat/ugly/skinny/short/whatever.”

That’s not what your mother said last night.

[Alternates: “Stay classy, champ.” “Are you for real? I thought douchebags like you were only on TV.” “Is this a come-on? Sorry, I don’t swing that way.”]

***

“You look like a player”

Thank you.

[Be careful of overqualifying yourself when she asks you this. Good answer if she is seriously concerned: “I used to be, but those days are behind me.” Good answer if she’s clearly busting your balls: “World’s biggest. One billion served.”]

***

“Sweetheart”

Sugar tits.

[Alternate: “Don’t get clingy.”]

***

“You’re a nerd/geek” (when you say something remotely intelligent or beyond a grunt)

That’s what dumbasses call smart people.

[Whoa, too spiteful. Trading insults is not gonna get you closer to a lay. Alternate: “Absolutely. I’m too sexy for my pocket protector.”]

***

“Did you miss me?”

I know you missed me.

[Alternate: “Oh my god, I spent months building a shrine to you and dreaming of your return.”]

***

“Asshole”

That’s mr asshole to you.

[Alternate: “I do what I can.”]

***

“I can’t believe you said that”

*Don’t reply; just smirk and nod*

[Ignoring her shit test is acceptable in this situation. Many shit tests aren’t meant to be answered; they are merely meant to provoke an apologetic response from betas.]

***

A skinny twat (male): “Is that shirt a size too small?” (if you’re jacked. This insult is leveled at any jacked guy who wears a t-shirt, whether small or not)

It’s all I could find in your mother’s closet.

[Alternate: “Couldn’t help noticing, could you?”]

***

“I like your clothes.”

Cool. I can take them off later to give you a closer look.

[Flattery can be as much of a shit test as peevishness. Betas will eat up flattery; alphas will ignore or playfully turn it around on the girl. Alternate reply: “Flattery will get you everywhere.”]

***

“I don’t like you”

Sure you don’t.

[Again, how to respond to this shit test depends on tone. Did she say it coarsely, or with a peekaboo smile? If the former: “My heart will go on.” If the latter: (with much theatricality) “How can I go on living?!”]

***

“Smartass”

It’s better than being a dumbass 😉

[Alternate: “I try.”]

***

“Loser”

If in jest (“looo-ser”): Shut up ho 😉

If serious: Oh, the L-bomb. You must be really upset.

or

That’s what you are, but what am I?

[Remember, the “loser” bomb is potentially the worst thing a girl can call a man. The female equivalent is “ugly”. Much rests on her tone when she said it. “I know you are but what am I” is a good reply to her if she has said it in jest; otherwise, I’d ditch her without a moment’s thought.]

***

(From a male, or a warpig) “Why aren’t you drinking, are you a bitch or something?”

Your mother promised me buttsex if I quit the drink.

or

I’m on acid.

[Alternate, if from a man: “Why, are you looking for a date rape?” If from a warpig: “I need to see clearly, if you know what I mean.”]

***

“Why don’t you have a girlfriend?”

I haven’t found one who’s rich enough.

[Solid answer. Alternate: “Just lucky, I guess.”]

***

“Do you have a girlfriend?”

No, I have 8 of them.

[Alternate: “It’s complicated.”]

***

*Grabbing or pawing at you* (especially by a guy, trying to exert dominance)

Hey, no touching, admire from a distance.

[Alternate: “You can look, but no touching.”]

***

Now for ones I’m not too sure about. If you have any suggestions, let’s hear em.

*She completely ignores you, or tells you to fuck off*

(just leave, unfazed, and open another set)

Still, this is embarassing, and hard to smoothly walk away from.

[Walking away like she doesn’t exist is your best option. Alternate responses: “You’ve got the wrong idea. I’m interested in your friend/the girl sitting next to you.” “My hour’s not up yet. A deal’s a deal.”]

***

“Are you trying to be funny?”

You need to lighten up [eject].

[Alternate: “Are you trying to be sexy?”]

***

Angry, cunty tone: “Who do you think you are?”

[“Fuck you, that’s who I am.” Or, on a lighter note: “I’m your wettest dream.”]

***

“What’s your name again? I’ve forgotten?” (Guys use this a lot)

[“I.P. Daily.” “Hugh Jorgan.” “Seymour Butts.”]

***

“You’re a bum.”

[“The bum you love.”]

***

“Who did your hair?”

[Your boyfriend.]

***

*You legitimately fuck up and blush hard* (e.g. walking to my young female professor’s class one day I (loudly) declared to my friend I was going to skip next week’s class, and the professor could “lick my sack” if she’s unhappy about that. She was walking right behind us and clearly heard.)

[“Well, there goes that D-.”]

***

Douchey guy: “Shut up, faggot. Haha, just kidding! We’re all friends!” (trying to exert dominance – an insult followed by a “just kidding” to shield himself.)

[“No we’re not. You didn’t get the memo?” Or: “That’s right, faggot! Faggot friends forever!”]

***

“Have you read The Game? / Do you know who David Deangelo/Mystery is?”

(i.e. trying to expose you as a fakester or manipulator)

[“A friend told me about it. It’s pretty interesting stuff.” Or: “No need. I wrote the book on seducing women.”]

***

“I’m out of your league, honey”

[“The league of hot chicks?” Or: “Don’t sell yourself short.”]

Here are some other shit tests you may confront in your journey to pussyland, and ways to reply to them.

“I wasn’t talking to you.”

“Good thing. I can’t take much more boredom.”

“Are you a moron?”

“Sorry, I’m not your type.”

From a commenter: “400 guys emailed me on match…. why should I date you?”

“You’re right. Better stick to dating desperate men.” Or: “I cook a mean fried beer pocket.”

“We are two totally different people.”

“I know. I’m cool, and you’re… [nod your head and raise your eyebrows confidentially]”

“Hey, you said the same thing to that other girl!”

“Nice job, stalker.”

“Do you always come on to girls like this?”

“Only the ones who deserve it.”

“Why are you out alone?”

“So I don’t have to listen to my friends whine about me taking all the girls.”

“Oh, you’re one of *those* guys.”

“Your ex-boyfriend?”

“Don’t get the wrong idea.”

“You’re a tranny?” Or: “Please, I’m not that type of guy. You’ve gotta wine and dine me.”

“Do you like my new dress/shoes/jeans?”

“It’s nice for handsewn.”

“What’s your deal?”

“I hit on special needs girls.” (Ok, not really recommended, but damned funny in the right scenario.)

“Is this the best you can do?”

“Right now? Yes.” Or: “I’m not inspired enough yet.”

Who’s The Unlucky Guy?

I don’t know what’s more omega: getting married to this loudmouthed dirigible, or wanking it alone as a celibate dropout.

As long as she doesn’t feel like a “plus size girl”, it’s all good. Poor hamster has to carry such a burden. Look at his wee legs shake.

Marriage Down, Dystopia Up

The number of people age 25-34 who have never married has surpassed the number who are married for the first time in a century. The Chateau prophesied multiverse rupture continues imploding right on schedule.

Among all people over age 18, the number of married couples fell 5 percentage points from 2000 to 2009, a mere nine year span. (The importation of “family values” peasants by the millions from Mexico likely contributes to this trend. ¡No, no podemos!)

Among the total population 18 and older, the share of men and women who were married fell from 57 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2009 — again, the lowest percentage since the government began collecting data more than 100 years ago. The share of adult women who were married fell below half, to 49.9 percent.

Naturally, the New York Beta Times frames the Census data as evidence that the recession is discouraging people who really, truly do want to get married from doing so. But the chart they include puts the lie to their spin.

Marriage has been in decline since 2000, well before the current economic unpleasantness. A bad job market is simply accelerating an already established trend.

The real reason for the continuing abandonment of marriage?

Two factors contribute to the decline in marriage among adults ages 25 to 34, said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University: less marriage and more cohabitation, which has become far more socially acceptable, even with children.

Less marriage — duh. Don’t hold back, Mr. Cherlin. What’s really on your mind?

Cohabitation. Sure. Why buy the cow, etc.

Dismantling of societal shaming mechanisms. Yes, true. Shame is a powerful motivator, particularly of women’s behavior, as women are herd animals whose greatest fear is deviating from the norms.

But there are other, deeper reasons why marriage is being treated like the plague by men who are finally wising up.

But Mr. Greiner says the talk of economics may be cloaking the primary issue. “It’s more a fear of intimacy and fear of marriage,” he said.

This therapyspeak needs a truthifying translation:

“It’s more a fear of divorce theft, fat wives, screaming brats and gradual sexual impoverishment.”

There, FTFY.

(Yes, one study has shown married people have more sex than singles, but that study has to be put in a context that matters — it needs to compare married people to single alphas, not just to any old single. The celibate betas and omegas drag down the average. No doubt a proper comparison would show that single men who are good with women get a lot more sex — and higher quality sex — than married men who have been married for longer than three years.)

According to the federal data, the share of young adults who have never married climbed from 35 percent at the start of the decade to 46 percent in 2009.

The indicators are starting to pile up that America is without doubt an empire in steep decline.

There have long been large racial differences in marriage rates, with blacks far less likely to marry than whites, but that difference has been shrinking as cohabiting becomes more popular with whites, Dr. Cherlin said.

Class imitation inversion. It used to be the lower classes strived to be more like the upper classes. Now, the reverse is happening.

And many young adults, he said, are postponing marriage rather than forgoing it altogether.

When it doesn’t much matter anymore. Men aren’t the only ones running from marriage. While women want to be married more than men do, they are being encouraged to postpone nuptials by men’s intransigence as well as by their own temptation to play the field far longer than their predecessors did in the past. The Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (now with a Fifth! Status jockeying!) explain these choices very well.

Mr. McElroy in Atlanta said he would definitely start thinking about a wedding once he gets a new job and the economy picks up.

“Not very romantic, is it?” he said with a laugh.

Modern Western marriage has its foundation in companionate love, and yet it has morphed into an institution without a shred of romance. There’s a lesson there.

Marriage version 2010 is like a speeding bullet. It isn’t courage, or duty, or manly obligation to stand in its path and take one for the good of society.

It’s stupidity.

(Some may wonder how dedicated hedonists like those who lounge idly on the Chateau piazza could note the connection between a healthy marriage institution and a country’s well-being. As has been noted here many times, what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society. Materialism and scientism have elevated individuation. Those of us without the shackles of a higher calling or ethical compunction extract the last ounce of advantage from this transcendental individualism, while the organism as a whole slowly unravels sinew by sinew.)