Feed on

Reader Mailbag

For whatever reason, I’ve been getting more emails than ever from men thanking me for the blog and the improvements my writing has made to their love lives. I need an assistant to handle the boatloads of reader emails I’ve been getting lately. Any cute girls who like to wear schoolgirl skirts without underwear up for the, uh… position? Pupu? You seem the naughty type.

Email #1:

Most benevolent schlongmeister:

I have a quandary. I have shared my cliffs notes (consisting of links to your essays, or me getting them drunk and hollering at them) on the crimson arts with some of my nerdly friends, in hopes of making them more studly. These guys have had a lot of success; one guy went from “depressed middle aged schlub who got dumped by his fishwife, and who pines for his nerdy looking lady friends,” to “skewering 20 year old hotties by the half dozen” in a matter of a few weeks. Another was a long single fella; good looking dude, talented, keeps fit, went from “passive guy who never gets a date” to “boinks all the girls he desires.” There are other examples; I feel a benevolent fatherly glow, watching these good fellows grow from boy to man in this important area of their life.

My quandary: many of them seem unable to keep a woman. I think the seduction boards talk about this, they talk about accomplished seducers who have “something missing,” and never seem to have a girlfriend. They say stuff like the guys are so focused on the seduction process they can’t actually relate to the ladies, and so they can’t keep their girlfriends. I think that’s total girlie horse shit; “relating to women” is something fags do when they go shoe shopping with them. No, my extensive research (I asked the chicks who dumped them) indicates these dudes didn’t fuck their lady friends properly. That’s what is missing. Probably, they were taught some feminist bullshit about focusing on the clitoris like some kind of guppy fish,  or else they just lack the animal drive to fuck ‘em like an enraged gorilla. Whatever it is, I’m kind of at a loss on explaining this. I figure if I say, “learn to squat 400lbs, then fuck them like a rapist,”  they’ll just give up; either that or they’ll do something lame and serial killer-like.

You’re much better at breaking crap like this down, so maybe you can do an article on the subject some time. I figure 90% of “relationship game” consists of fucking them so hard, their stupid hamster wheel never has a chance to spin up on you. The other 10% consists of acting like you can fuck them hard enough to make their hips crack the rest of the time; aka “being da man.” Personally, I make it a policy to not hang around with women I’m schtupping unless I’m actually screwing them: I got too much crap to do to rot in front of a TV or go on “hikes” or whatever most people do to kill time, because they have nothing better to do. This is probably part of it too; lame sex + TV = getting dumped. Hot rutting + elusive man of mystery who makes the time fun = stalkers.


-[reader requested anonymity]

First, a general observation regarding this reader’s email. A sneering accusation often heard from the arid, anti-seduction crowd is that the self-professed pickup gurus are never seen with a girlfriend, or otherwise have trouble keeping a girl for longer than a few weeks. Pay it no heed. It is the feeble bleat of the envious and the insecure. While I don’t have a data sheet of rock hard, throbbing numbers to arouse the nerd brigade in attendance, from casual impressions I don’t see the smattering of men who are public game advocates having any more or less success than the average beta bear finding and maintaining relationships. Neil Strauss has had long term girlfriends. I think he’s in an LTR now. Lance Mason, the founder of Pickup 101 is, or was, last I heard, in an LTR. Stephane Hemon, possibly the wackiest of the game teachers who profits from his knowledge, is married (to one woman). Some of the local men I know who follow and use game principles in their lives are informally hitched. Even Mystery, narcissist extraordinaire and player supreme, has had long term commitments, though undoubtedly of the more dramatic sort that would give hives to men who weary quickly of women’s mental masturbatory games.

That aside, let’s assume for the moment that the impression that pickup artists have trouble keeping girlfriends is accurate. Two reasons would account for this. One, many men who come into the game have had a lifelong history of trouble with the ladies. When they are finally handed the skeleton key to the gated secret garden, their enthusiasm for “skewering 20 year old hotties” will often trip up their good sense in the area of managing long term relationships. It is a tightrope, balancing the skills that get the girl with the skills that keep the girl, and most men will favor the former at the expense of the latter owing to the established scientific fact that for men, variety is its own reward.

Two, when someone gives you the power to attract and seduce multitudes of women, would you immediately put your newfound power to use seducing just one woman, and then calling it a day? Let’s just say that all those girlfriend-less pickup artists are crying all the way to their well-used, rumpled bedsheets. Or, to put it another way, if the choice is between an endless string of unstable, short term flings and no women at all, which do you think most men would choose?

Ok, now to the reader’s email. There is some truth to the observation that freshly minted players have trouble connecting with women on the level that would be required to sustain an LTR. Part (not all) of the mindset that is needed for pickup is antagonistic to the mindset needed for successfully navigating an LTR. When a man is hopped up on the thrill of meeting new women, he often loses sight of the little things that a girlfriend would want from him to strengthen their emotional bond. And so we see weird things happening to PUAs, such as Mystery losing his cool and his Russian girlfriend to a slaphappy roommate, and students of pickup workshops complaining a month later that the girls they banged aren’t interested in LTRs. What is happening to these men is a blunting of the psychological acumen needed to fulfill a girlfriend’s desires by heavy use of those alternate psychological ploys that serve masterfully as seduction tools. Listening with love to a woman is one of those key skills that seems to take a backseat to the wicked art of seduction.

But like the emailer, I too, find that an overwrought emphasis on “relating to women” is counterproductive for men, and also a little faggy. A lot of forlorn betas and sackless wonders will read “relating to women” as a ewe-like war cry to show more emotion, be more sensitive, and find more commonality with women on women’s terms. Let’s be clear: Couples shoe shopping is not going to fix your LTR. Men and women will never find commonality, and nor should they, because men and women by the hand of the double helical godking are designed from the origin point to exist in two separate spheres of perception. From a man’s correct point of view, women are not meant to be “related to”; they are meant to be seduced, fucked, cared for, laughed with, and loved a little or a lot. Don’t go looking for self actualization in a relationship.

The emailer says that the women he spoke to suggested it was a lack of proper rogering that turned them off from consdering their lovers as long term potential. I find this plausible, barring the usual caveats to take whatever women say with a silo of salt. A good bit of advice I could give to men who might suspect this is the problem is to focus less on tender lovemaking and more on raw, Discovery Channel savannah-style humping. Don’t worry about giving her an orgasm. If you bang with abandon, sweaty and unprepossessed, like a majestic lion king who just fatally bit the necks of twelve lion cubs and assumed by force the position of alpha male of the pride, with all the perks therein, it won’t much matter if she has an orgasm. For women, just as much stimulation is gotten from the feeling of being pumped like the submissive animal creature she is as from the actual crest and resolution of a physiological orgasm. If the thought of dominating your woman in bed shrivels your scrote, may I suggest a long and sexless marriage to a hag shrike who writes a feminist blog?

Email #2:

Chicks don’t dig jerks. They dig men who _can_ be jerks.

What’s jerkiness except taking without reciprocating, doing and saying what you want, and generally enjoying yourself without concern for the cost to others? We all want to be jerks. In fact, the easiest thing in the world is to be a jerk. But only some people can get away with being jerks, and most have to work hard to avoid jerkery. That is, only some people can take what they want without fearing the anger of other men. Perhaps fewer still can take what they want without fearing the anger of women.

The upshot for your readership is that women don’t have some special attraction to jerky actions per se. Instead, they are attracted to powerful men who have no reason to temper their preferred state of jackassery. Maybe fake it until you make it applies here, but I’m guessing most men can only push the limits of their asshole potential rather than break out of them entirely.

All the best,


The above was written by a woman going by the handle “Candy Fox”. If that’s her real name, I salute the gumption she’ll need to handle the challenges that lie ahead of her in the quest to marry up in social class.

The first line stuck out: “Chicks don’t dig jerks. They dig men who _can_ be jerks.” This is semantics. The men who *can* be jerks are often the men who *are* jerks. Why? Because they can be. It’s similar to an assertion I recall longtime commenter and sprightly feminine ingenue Alias Clio made, which went something along the lines of “Women don’t fall for the asshole behavior. We fall in love *despite* the asshole behavior.”

From most men’s perspectives, it’s inconsequential whether women fall for the jerk despite his assholery, or because of his assholery. The bottom line is that here, there, and everywhere, women (and particularly women of the highest sexual market value) are falling in love with, and having raunchy sex with, a rogues gallery of assholes, dicks, jerks, cads, boors, and even serial killers. So you’ll excuse the less fortunate in love men for not much caring about the rationalizations that women employ to assuage their guilt over falling for men Mom would not approve of, (but would secretly cream for).

The contention itself is false, anyhow. A simple thought experiment should suffice to show why this is so. If women were truly falling for jerks *despite* their jerkiness, then it stands to reason that the men women fall for would be randomly distributed from amongst the male population, as the positive traits that are presumably attracting these women would be found equally in jerks and non-jerks. But this is not what we see. (Note that marriage rates and marital choices are not indicative of what women truly desire in a sexual partner, especially when those women are forced into a corner by delayed singledom and aging cougarification to settle into a lame marriage with a peabody puffboy out of expedience.) Instead what we see is a notable sexual preference by women for men who aren’t particularly nice.

If women wanted nice, the beta store is fully stocked with saintly men. Candy Fox contends that women want nice, but they want it in a package that is capable of threatening jerk-like actions. But how is a woman to know a man is capable of jerkiness if he doesn’t demonstrate it? Answer: she can’t know without demonstration. And when is that demonstration of jerkiness most pertinent to a woman’s subconscious need to gather mate value information about a man? Answer: right at the beginning when she is deciding whether to have sex with him.

So we can easily conclude from my little thought experiment that women indeed do fall for jerks *because* of their jerkiness. Alias Clio would say that jerks have concomitant desireable traits that are actually responsible for her feelings of sexual arousal. She might say that a jerk’s jerkiness is not desireable, but his charm and cockiness are. Leaving aside for purposes of argument the telling observation that charm and cockiness are more often found in jerks than in niceguys (hello… ladieeees ;)), it is the height of hamster rationalization to presume there is no connection between a jerk’s charming attractiveness and his jerkiness. It is as if women wish to argue that loveable, sexy jerks are really two separate men in the same body, a Dr. Jerkyl Mr. Sly bipolarity that has infected the known human universe like a vampiric plague.

It’s a cop-out. An ego escape clause. A semantical nimbleness of tongue. The jerk makes his jerky presence known almost from the instant you meet him. It’s exhibited not just in his actions, but in his irresistible aloofness. No, one of the things women love about a jerk is… his jerkiness. And that is why, ladies, you will get more of what you love.


Comments are closed.