The list of hater logical fallacies is never ending. I’d have to devote three weeks’ worth of posts to debunk them all. Here’s one that’s particularly blockheaded:
< sperg >
“When you spend all that time chasing skirt, you miss out on the genuine feeling of accomplishing something real as a man.”
< /sperg >
If the either-or presupposition was banned from discourse, I predict half of the haters’ oeuvre would disappear overnight.
Fallacy: There’s nothing about pickup that automatically disqualifies a man from pursuing other interests or goals in his life. Richard Feynman helped create the atom bomb (what have you done lately?) while being a notorious womanizer.
Seducing babes feels great. So does getting a big promotion, creating a work of art, being the life of the party, fixing a motorcycle so it’s purring like a kitten, upgrading a kitchen by the sweat of your own brow, and chopping wood for the fireplace. None of these achievements are mutually exclusive. All of them induce the same powerful feelings of manliness.
All of them, too, are signatures of the alpha male.
Yep, the female mind-camera is black-and-white, and has but a single pixel.
There’s a popular culture need to put men’s desires in their place. You can’t be whole if you are too successful with women. You know, you’ll end up alone and old because … um I guess old bitches wouldn’t want to marry you or something when you’re Hugh Hefner old. So, the player has to be empty on the inside. Speaking of which, I don’t think the host watches TV, but on Suits, the idiot lead started dating a girl and just had-had- to get a big secret (as in possibly resulting in disbarment, jail, etc.) off his chest because he couldn’t stand dating someone with a pinge of secrecy. Just shows how far the host’s message has yet to soak through mainstream life. mystery=good, not bad.
Erwin Schrodinger was another great physicist/womanizer.
Indeed, there is no contradiction between achievement and chasing skirts. Whoever says there is probably spends way too much time playing something like Halo, which also takes time away from real achievements. (But a avid Halo player can also be an achiever, of course.)
Hahah! One of the Greatest Players of All Time was Benjamin Franklin. He hardly missed accomplishing something “as a real man”.
He had 70 children. Quite literally the father of our country. (Rimshot.)
Right. This is obviously fucking retarded. Since when is pickup necessarily a full-time job? And I actually tend to genuinely like sex; otherwise I wouldn’t spend time pursuing it.
Bang some whores and get your face printed on money is alpha
Ole’ Benny’s Stamp(ing) Acts must have involved barely legal tender ones.
Citation?
The criticism doesn’t claim pursuits are mutually exclusive. It cautions against the damage of monomania and skewed priorities. It is essentially a warning against gluttony. “Too much of a good thing” applies to pussy just as it applies to a fat chick’s piece of cake. Your implication that one particular good — chasing women — is immune from ever being “too much” is the target of this brand of criticism. The critics poorly express themselves but they are essentially correct.
The pussy pursuit doesn’t preclude others, but, undisciplined and unchecked, it can devolve into a state of mind that does. It’s the difference between social drinking and alcoholism. If booze or pussy is your ultimate raison d’être, it will eventually crowd out the desire for (and the ability to achieve) other goals.
But look, we’re making progress here, you have to admit. I’ll take it. Not a one of your “signatures of the alpha male” includes anything sex-related, which has been our point all along, at least since Steve Sailer’s comment here years ago:
The next and more important stage in the evolution of Game is for smart, logical, hard-headed nerdy guys to move beyond just figuring out how to persuade girls in bars that they are alphas to figuring out how to persuade men in boardrooms that they are alphas.
After all, if important men think you are an alpha male, then you are an alpha male, and you get all the rewards that go along with it, like power, money, prestige, and women who are attracted to men with power, money, and prestige.
In other words, why stop with the conquest of babes in bars when the conquest of the world is waiting?
September 19, 2009
Like the great man says, there is more to alpha than gaming broads. I realize you’ve cornered a niche here and a “hobby” can only expand so far — there are serious disincentives against expanding your wisdom to bigger subjects. But only so much reiteration is possible before the non-monomaniac goes mad. Not to mention that the culture sorely needs intelligent direction up out of the feminist pit they’ve dug for us. If not you, who? If not now, when?
Matt
Ummm, why not you?
For those who enjoy pussy ( and not just
talk about it) biology protects against “monomania”, as there is only limited number of times a man can fuck in a day/week/month.
For non-biological pursuits there is no protection against monomania. So real concern should be any other pursuit ( religion, feminist agenda , in fact every other agenda out there ) which you might be putting effort into.
Wait, so for a kleptomaniac (a type of monomania), there is no shortage of opportunities to steal at all times?
Just because it’s biologically limited, doesn’t mean it’s not possible for it to be monomania.
You could still overdo it pursuing women/sex, such as in sex addiction.
The problem is that Alpha to women is non-Alpha and often repellent to men. Example: Russell Brand. See also Leonardo DiCaprio. The techniques that work on women are irrelevant or cause for a fight among men. Which is why Game is so HARD for many guys.
Celebrities are in a category of their own. Their rules are different than ours. Fame is the greatest aphrodisiac.
Agree. Being a dick to women causes them to react like women. Being a dick to dudes causes all but the fags to rebel. A little bit of cockiness doesn’t hurt, of course, and being too nice to other guys is loser behavior, but you can’t really fake your status with other guys; they’re going to see through your bullshit.
Girls, on the other hand, it turns out, have a much harder time seeing through a guy’s bullshit as long as they seem like assholes.
That’s just flat false. “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” When all you have is “being a dick to women,” every woman looks like she wants you to be a dick.
So you have discovered the utility of jerkiness. That doesn’t preclude the complementary utility of other techniques.
“Being a dick to women” is the chili pepper in the recipe. It gives the dish a healthy zing in controlled measures, but overdoing it can ruin dinner.
Most important of all: what our feminized culture calls “being a dick” is actually normal masculine behavior. I am a supreme dick with my brothers and friends. It bonds, it doesn’t divide. To think otherwise means you have no experience of the locker room. I tease men (Did you get that haircut on a dare?) just as I tease women (Flip-flops? In public? Are you serious?). The difference is, well-adjusted men grew up on a steady diet of being mocked and ridiculed “[f]rom the military school of life – What does not kill [him], makes [him] stronger.” Men take derisive banter with a grain of salt. Women, on the other hand, may be outwardly scandalized by the neg or shabby treatment, but they are inwardly pleased by a taste of that masculine “stronger.”
Humorless feminist shrikes with inverted penises cannot fathom the salutary effect of teasing. No, they noted that the activity seemed to be a talent largely exclusive to the male sex, and so they automatically classified it as “evil.” That’s the feminist revaluation of all values! Whatever men do well — such as war, violence, directness, honesty, comedy (Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: That’s not funny.), hardship, leadership — was labeled evil in itself. Same with the uniquely male brand of teasing. It was relabeled “asshole” and “jerk.” The game community is just reclaiming those terms, much like queer and nigga were reclaimed by groups who exhibited taboo and marginalized behavior.
In other words, being a “blunt asshole” (in the modern idiom) has always been a trait of leaders of men, and men follow men with that quality. In another age it would have been called “resolute” and “decisive.” If you don’t think so, you’ve never met a true leader, and/or you are not a man.
Matt
only reason to get power and prestige is to have access to women, so your argument is: don’t focus on women so much, focus on things that will get you women. And fyi, bars aren’t the only place to met women. But they are a reliably source for dtf women.
incidentally, I don’t see the point of being alpha if you’re not using it to get laid.
Whiskeyspace is right on the money here. Being capriciously demanding to a woman you’re dating may result in her working harder and harder to try and please you, but being capriciously demanding to other male co-workers/subordinates causes your best performers to jump ship at the first chance they get to make the same $$$ without having to deal with the workplace equivalent of “shit tests” and “negs” — as it should.
The other point is that, it’s not just that high career success and Alpha success with girls can cooexist – the fact is that they both stem from high T, plus higher than average IQ and ambition…
Without hyperfocusing on pickup your game will only ever reach a limited level of what it could reach.
That’s fine for most guys, they’ll bang a few 6s and 7s, maybe an 8 here and there and a single 9 and then settle down with a 7 and tell themselves hot girls are all crazy and drama and it’s too much hassle so they’re happy with their 7 who will probably end up a 6 or 5 a few years into the relationship when they put on some pounds and shit.
And that’s cool. Whatever floats your boat.
But if you want to get good, like really good, at this, ESPECIALLY if you’re starting from a really socially-crippled place, you need to focus on it hardcore for a few years. That’s not a couple hours when you’re out with your bros every fri/sat night. That’s 5-7 nights a week, doing 30 or 60 day challenges, doing hours of day game before heading to the bar to do night game etc.
But that’s only if you consistently want the girls that other guys have only spanked their monkey thinking about.
“well actually Yareally my ex GF turned QUITE a few heads! I have dated women that other men drool over so trust me when I say–”
lol there are no 10s in Bumblefuck Idaho or on eHarmony.
In the end no one gives a shit what you do, you’re not important. Are any of the guys who are whining on Internet forums about how guys should focus on being real men and not focus on women going to do anything truly Ben Franklin level significant with their lives? haha fuck no.
Hey which one of those MGTOW guys did something we’ve all heard about in the news and admired? Oh wait, that was none of them lol how’d they get up on that high horse again exactly?
In conclusion: If you like chopping wood, chop wood. If you like chasing pussy, chase pussy.
P.S. it’s Friday. Go out tonight instead of chopping wood. There are girls out there.
“That’s 5-7 nights a week, doing 30 or 60 day challenges”
So fucking true. Like bodybuilding, you need this type of consistency to achieve results (although it’s more 4-5 than 7. 7 nights a week, that’s scary, man).
Keep kicking our asses like that, it’s really helpful. I’m doing the 1 night a week kinda thing, with very few if any approaches during week days, and it’s clearly not enough to achieve mastery, although I have a satisfying sex life and I’m not the clueless greater beta that I used to be anymore.
The only way to become the super smooth talking casanova that we all want to become is through practice.
Fuck all this theory stuff, I’m out.
Without hyperfocusing on pickup your game will only ever reach a limited level of what it could reach.
This is why I’m glad for people like yareally who “hyperfocus[]” on pick-up. I have no reference for the monomania aspect, and apparently that frame is what certain young initiates need if they want to overcome their deficiencies.
But as an ideal, or as the only way to go? No way. Here two schools of thought diverge. If you are the average beta shmo with zero natural game, then yeah, “focus on it hardcore for a few years.” “Thirty or sixty day challenges, doing hours of day game before heading to the bar to do night game” sounds like pointless torture for little reward to me, but then again I was never 450 pounds in need of a crash diet just to make average weight. Blessed with a healthy metabolism, I guess.
It explains why I can’t suffer much of yareally’s lengthy (and smart) workout-regimen posts. Different experiences, different advice. But I can say that, one way or another, the well adjusted man evolves past the need for hypergame just as the proper Marine graduates boot camp. For recruits? Solid guidance. For combat veterans? Annoying and almost insultingly repetitive.
My question is — where do veterans go to compare notes? It’s true: some men don’t need to be condescended to. We know “it’s Friday.” We knew to “go out tonight instead of chopping wood” even before the Disney Mascot of Pick-Up reminded us.
Further (and this may blow your mind), alpha applies to much more than women. It’s not sacrilege to acknowledge as much. In fact, it might be just the incentive to “hyperfocus” through those initiate years. Believe it or not, “getting the girls that other guys have only spanked their monkey thinking about” only works as an incentive until you consistently do get those girls without the effort you seem to believe is necessary across the board at every stage of life. Those men who are not manic eventually require higher mountains to scale. The audience here isn’t exclusively a gaggle of eager post-college quasi-players looking to get rid of the “quasi.” What do you have for the day after tomorrow?
Really — it’s axiomatic to state a goal and then work backwards from it to discern a first step toward that goal. The ultimate purpose of these crash diets in game are never spelled out, other than a general ridicule for those who acknowledge finitude and the possibility of evolving past the basics. What is the benchmark for these recruits? Banging ten tens? A twelve-girl harem? Fifty different women a year? When can we say they’ve graduated? There is always more and better, but the point of this post is to say “to each his own” in terms of pick up, and those of us who have chosen something less than monomania might have done it on purpose.
In the end no one gives a shit what you do, you’re not important. Are any of the guys who are whining on Internet forums about how guys should focus on being real men and not focus on women going to do anything truly Ben Franklin level significant with their lives? haha fuck no.
Perfect encapsulation. Maybe even projection: What significant things has yareally done with his life, and where did he get the idea that significance was unattainable? Not only doesn’t yareally respect men who apply themselves beyond the pussosphere, he finds the very attempt absurd and faggy. All I can say to that is: loser. If you can’t imagine a world of greatness beyond gaming women, forget monomania, you are socially retarded.
“No one gives a shit what you do.” You hear that Brad Pitt, Tom Brady, George Clooney? “You’re not important,” Ernest Hemingway, Edmund Hillary, Werner von Braun. Yareally says you should be day-approaching sixty women a day.
Matt
The Duke of Wellington: conquered a huge chunk of India, outnumbered the whole time he drove the French out of Spain, finished off Napoleon at Waterloo, became the leader of the Conservative Party, became Prime Minister, spent the last 20 years of his life as an elder statesman consulted on all major decisions. And he was a well known lover of the ladies, particularly the beautiful young wives of people in his elite social set, as well as having a series of LTRs. There have been great men in all fields who are casanovas, and others who were happily married and did not cheat, some who were happily married AND pursued women on the side, and some who seem to have been married to their work. Success and great achievement come as a result of innate gifts, drive and ambition and courage and perseverance and also opportunities and luck. Pursuing lots of women can be compatible with that, and has been on many occasions. The record is unambiguously clear on this.
I’d say “when you spend your time doing only what your good at, youll never get anything else”.
Feynman lost his wife young which may have damaged him. Von Neumann had an eye for the ladies, although I am not sure he actually did much. Crick liked women. Einstein too. On the other hand, Watson just wanted one decent looking female. Dirac had just his wife (“Paul, what would you do if I left you?!” “I would say, goodbye Dear.”)
Godel married a dancer, but their marriage was very square.
Science is a demanding profession as regards time, including turning up at the lab at regular times. It is not really conducive to chasing a lot of skirt. Also, very intelligent men tend to be bored by women.
I have a PhD in science. I only ever wanted one woman. I went for quality not quantity.
> I only ever wanted one woman. I went for quality not quantity.
What a crock. There is only one way to pick up a quality female and that’s through practice, practice, and more practice.
If you found scoring easy, it means you aren’t aiming high enough.
I was good looking. Very. I selected the one I wanted. Pretty brunette. Virgin. Good legs. Good tits. Good attitude. Right religion.
She still cooks and sucks my cock.
Feynman was actually in love with a girl who died of TB when they were both young. In fact, he even married her knowing that she was going to die. He did his greatest work – Atom bomb Manhattan Project (although credit should be given to the team leader Robert Openheimmer), and Quantum Field Theory (Nobel Prize in Physics) when he was in love with that girl. He became a womanizer later on in life and although he did really good work after that he is not notable for any of the later work.
The girl was Arline Greenbaum. The team leader was J. Robert Oppenheimer. Other scientists and mathematicians were equally important, such as John von Neumann who worked on the mathematics for calculating shockwaves used to induce an implosion used in a nuclear device.
Also Stanislaw Ulam.
In fact, for a few womanizer / great scientist examples, there are tons of great (noble prize winning, famous) scientists who led a conventional domestic life. (One wife, family, etc.)
If you want examples, John Bardeen (two nobel prizes in Physics), William Shockley (Nobel Prize in Physics – inventor of the transistor) and many others..
Scientific pursuits consume enormous amount of time and dedication and result in frequent disappointments..which needs support of a stable family to succeed. You cant add to that the disappointments and somewhat not so deep satisfaction attained in the carefree lifestyle of a player..
Don’t chase skirts. Become such a super fucking alpha that skirts chase you.
Skirts chased me. Not interested in most skirts. Most skirts no brains, not worth the trouble.
I went out with a girl for more than a year who was always for lack of a better word… “gaming”….
She would always play innocent, smile and beta orbiters would flock to her with presents, offer their numbers etc. But when girls threw themselves at me she would go crazy.
At one point after we broke up she invited a guy she just met to a private party and screening of a film.
She later told me: “I didn’t invite him…he asked if there was anything going on tonight so I gave him the address. He just showed up”…
But she insisted it wasn’t an “invitation…”
She said this with a genuine straight-faced innocence…
And what would you make of this one?
I verily believe that a man’s way with women is in inverse ratio to his prowess among men. The weakling and the saphead have often great ability to charm the fair sex, while the fighting man who can face a thousand real dangers unafraid, sits hiding in the shadows like some frightened child.
However, I guess the quotation may be familiar to at least some of your readers, and even if not, nothing can stop you from googling it, right? =)
It is in fact often true. The qualities that men prize in leaders, straightforwardness, trustworthiness, lack of mystery, one who keeps his word, supports his friends, punishes his enemies, and produces victories and success, are things that women don’t care about or often despise. A man wishes to know if his leader will cast him away, and will not follow one he suspects will. A woman will often fall for just such a man.
I respect this way of thinking, although it is conjecture contrary to my experience. All things considered, it’s not controversial to say that men of unimpeachable stature — rock stars, CEOs, world-class athletes, generals, professors — have little trouble with the ladies; in fact, their only trouble with women is handling the overabundance. Does this mean the charming rogue can’t score by flashing some dark triad on a floozy? Of course not.
But now it becomes a matter of what kind of man one wants to be. How little that all-important question is posed in places like these. If you have already concluded the apex is unattainable, the sociopath option becomes your best bet. Here’s one problem with pushing the sociopath on rising betas: it sucks to be a detached monster who worships evil. It eventually hollows you out and isolates you from all good things. Sociopaths are only attractive (to men as well as women) from the relative stability of normality: look at that stud! He gleefully breaks all the rules! But no beta knows what it’s like to be the bad man behind blue eyes.
If you are promoting this life, at least be honest about the trade-off. Are you even aware of the trade-off?
Moreover, it isn’t just women who are attracted to the dark. Anyone who ever had a bipolar girl knows that (and what man hasn’t? our abusive culture is lousy with them). They are some kind of fun. If only we could extract those good polar moments from the bad! But we can’t take the positive without any blowback — PUA claims notwithstanding — so it becomes a matter of risk assessment.
There’s the rub. Even average men have experience with the highs that accompany deeply damaged women, just as the average woman is attracted to the appearance of dark-triad traits. But who has the experience of the apex alpha, who attracts undamaged women without effort? Exceeding few. It’s just not salable to the general pick-up public that the extreme devotions of an undamaged woman might surpass the temporary fun of a crazed chick, with the added advantage of no baggage. (In fact, that kind of woman is considered by cynics to be as real as a unicorn.) Inspiring those devotions is not easy for even lesser alphas. Is it even worth it to try? is an open question. Let’s treat it as such.
Most important, though, is the recognition of our historical anomaly. It’s not easy to score undamaged women because there is more damage than ever among the distaff populace. It’s worth putting some effort into reversing the tide, because otherwise, the viciousness simply feeds on itself and becomes stronger.
For all the fun nights and discarded women, there is a percentage in the salvage effort: the ability to heal women creates an attraction even more fundamental, more intimate, more stable, more sexual, and more than sexual. I can report that the attraction is eternal and transfiguring to the subject. It blows away the fleeting, fading circus-show of pumping and dumping a freak chick. But why would any eager-beaver beta take my word for it when the carnival barkers promise a short cut?
Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:
They do not understand me: I am not the mouth for these ears. Perhaps I have lived too long in the mountains; I have hearkened too much to the brooks and trees: now I speak to them as to the goatherds. My soul is calm and clear, like the mountains in the morning. But they think I am cold, and a mocker with terrible jests. Now they look at me and laugh: and while they laugh they hate me too. There is ice in their laughter.
Matt
OK we get it. You wifed up a slut and you’re proud of yourself.
Get this: it’s easy to fix damaged women. It’s ridiculously easy to make women fall in love.
Someone who is proud of being a capt’n save-a-ho is no better than a cuckold.
Like I said. Not the mouth for these ears.
“It’s easy to fix damaged women.” You’ve never experienced bipolar disorder, child.
As a matter of fact, I do save hos. Quite incidentally, usually. All it requires is not exploiting their wreckage for five minutes to at least send her on a healthy trajectory. Isn’t leaving a woman better than you found her a boy-scout PUA principle? You wouldn’t know that it’s possible to incidentally improve a girl’s life because you have to jump in and snatch whatever substandard pussy stumbles wounded and bleeding across your rifle scope. Desperate betas in alpha clothing like you can’t afford to discriminate. You might not get another chance at a meal.
The rest of us, who don’t have to scattershot-daygame “30 to 60″ women for one potential close? You can’t relate to us. Both damaged and undamaged girls stream magnetically to my pole. It’s no great achievement to attract a broken doll, and it’s positively pathetic to brag about how easily you broke her further. It takes nothing to give a beggar a dime when you have plenty in your wallet. You low-bred mongrels savage each other over nickels that drop to the pavement. You Jerry Springer Maury Povich audition reject.
I won’t pretend it’s possible for you to be me. But I won’t suffer your type either.
Matt
Once you reach a certain level of maturity, you realize how much effort it can take to chase girls and get laid. If you are dating many women, you might devote a lot of thought to them and what you need to do. Going out and drinking late is a big investment of time.
When you are younger, you just do these things and they come naturally. If you are a nuclear physicist — or whatever profession — spending time chasing girls can affect your professional life. It can tax your health and other relationships, too. (Not saying it’s bad, just that it can affect other things.)
Agreed. Women are simply not worth the trouble. One woman may be, if she makes your life easier and she wants to be with you. But most women are not very clever or interesting, with a few exceptions, and it can be a real strain trying to talk at their level. I noticed, when I was in the marriage market, that most men were interesting to talk to. Even the less intelligent ones seemed to have something to contribute. But most women are dull.
It is not as if they are different where it counts anyway.
Here’s the problem with that.
Exceptional men can and have done exceptional things and bedded lots of women. No denying that.
However, most men are average, and there are so many hours in the day. While the skills learned in game can help in work depending on your job, and making money certainly helps with the ladies, trying to be an uber-player can cut into the time you spend on your job, and vice versa. So there are real tradeoffs most men have to make.
If a guy is happy with one woman, there is nothing wrong with that. I think this post is merely arguing that if a guy is happy with lots of constantly new women, there’s nothing wrong with that either. Jesus Christ our society has inverted values to the point where sluts are OK and cool but a womanizer should be shamed. Good job, dorks.