A common dramatic license in fictional thrillers is the sudden exit of the main character, usually a powerful man, from a scene of heightening intimacy with a woman. He gives no reason why he has to leave, but the viewer knows, or it is implied, that he leaves to rendezvous with his mysterious employer or otherwise shady characters to do business. This disappearing act, naturally, leaves the woman in a state of frustrated, and aroused, curiosity.
This trope taps ancient female longings for a heroic man with a sense of duty who must travel to faraway lands to fight an enemy, pursue a passion, or reach an enlightenment. A man who can tear himself away from a woman, from her trite domestic concerns, to “do what compels him”, becomes an exotic archetype to the woman. His desirability is stamped in the psyche of every woman from an early time in human evolution, when leaders of men gathered hunting parties and left the women and babes behind.
The modern seducer can capture the allure of the disappearing act for himself. Imagine you’re on a date with a woman who, you intuit, has one foot in and one foot out. She’s beautiful, and she’s unfailingly inscrutable. You try an arsenal of game tactics, but nothing sticks. To bag this trophy baby you’ll need a bigger tingle bomb. That’s when you reach for your phone, briefly scan the screen, make a phony excuse — “I have to meet with someone important” — and be gone. Don’t loiter to parry her questions. If she presses, tell her you’ll call her tomorrow, and that you’re sorry you can’t divulge more, and you understand her frustration. Your exit must be fluid and definitive.
Beautiful women expect men to lavish them with attention, and to extend as long as possible the time spent with such women. They are right to expect this effortful courtship, since most men rarely break from the script. Therefore, the man who executes Disappearing Act Game immediately catapults himself into the frantic consciousness that characterizes a sexually fixated woman.
A few clarifications. Disappearing Act Game is dynamite, to be used sparingly, and only on those women with whom the seduction process has tediously stalled. If you’re at a woman’s place, and she’s smiling and tipping back a glass of wine, it would be stupid to suddenly leave when the probability of crack fracking is high. Too, it would be self-defeating to walk out on a date when she’s dropping nonverbal hints of her rising attraction. In pickup lingo, Disappearing Act Game is a nuclear version of the game tactic known as the takeaway; you’re leaving her not just for a few seconds, or even a few hours, but for a whole day, and under enticingly obscure circumstances.
I’ve used Disappearing Act Game ten or fifteen times in my life, if you want a handle on the proper frequency of deployment. It’s best used on very beautiful women who routinely date high status men, and with whom you’d seriously consider a long-term romance. Timing is important; disappearing after the first hello isn’t going to accrue much to your value. Maximum hamster impact is achieved after she’s gotten somewhat comfortable in your company, and a groundwork of intimacy has been built. She has to be a little bit invested in you to feel the loss of your quick exit.
You, for your part, must have a deep reserve of self-control to initiate the Leaving Protocol. Most men reading this post now don’t have it; you will think about leaving on a whim, you may even have at the ready an erotically charged excuse to leave, but her pretty face will keep you stuck in her orbit. To disappear with conviction, you have to be firmly committed to seeing your exit through the back door. Her eyes will look up at you, suddenly liquid with confusion and spiked interest, and it will test the last ounce of your will to sever your precious, if illusory, spatial bond to her. Stay the course. The only bond that matters in a woman’s heart is the one you caulk in her cock vault.
A final tip: What really helps gird your will to disappear like a phantom is having another girl in your dating rotation. Two in the kitty isn’t just a cad’s mission statement; it’s psychological leverage.
A very homely, urbanely decayed spinster has taken photographs of herself posed with male and child mannequins, presumably as some sort of statement on the present condition of her bifurcated ego.
If you thought 21st Century American women have plumbed the depths of crazy, you’d be wrong. There’s totes crazy left in those desiccated wombs and cock-ravaged holes where their feminine hearts used to reside. Expect to see a plague of crazy visited upon the women of the West, as the modern diversity industrial complex and no-holds-barred sexual market drives the wedge deeper between their mothering and materialistic desires. We have only begun to bear witness to a total meltdown of the American woman’s psyche.
My advice to American men: If you didn’t get lucky and find yourself a sane, feminine American woman before this late-stage twisted empire in rapid decay corrupted her, head overseas. You’ve got to know when to hold an American woman, and know when to fold her. And right now, she’s coming up 2-7 off-suit.
Changing things up deep into a LTR can be tricky, but it works. I’m sitting here with a homemade cake, a card, and a DVD my wife bought me “for the husband I’m so lucky to have,” and she got precisely dick from me in the way of emotion. I gave her a speech about, “Instead of going through the motions of pretending I give a fuck, why don’t I let you spend $150 of your own money on whatever you want. How’s that for a deal?” She accepted, and undoubtedly spent some of the $150 on me to buy the card and the DVD.
I used to make kissing noises and say “I love you” at least 500 times a day. Now I’m looking at having to fuck my wife as a pure cash transaction as the man whore I am. Dump a fuck into Shamu every Sunday night, keep my wood shop and all the rest of my stuff. I hate it, but it’s a practical compromise.
I wonder how many marriages devolve into unhappy semi-extortionate waiting rooms for death? A lot of those striver class SWPLs who marry matte-faced multiple-degreed chubsters to maximize the odds they’ll shit out high IQ wunderkinds capable of competing in the glorious future of globocorpdiversity don’t look all that happy to me. They look more… resigned. Maybe relieved is the optimistic take, but none dare call it passion. Or love.
No need for second place. Tough to follow up this comment.
Generally it’s ill advised to seek parenting advise from a non-parent, but you have convinced me of so many truths that I am asking. I am asking you for parenting advise. Not of the “how to get baby to sleep thru the night” kind or “how to accomplish potty training,” but rather, what do I do with this child? Do I hand him a skateboard and tell him to enjoy the decline? Do I start an educational savings plan and hope that the 1950′s comes back? How and when do I begin his “game” education? Is it a mistake to bring children into this world? I figure people had children during declines before, and ultimately the world will abide.
My husband and I are both white. We are not religious. He is an engineer and we met at university. I would describe him as a classic beta provider. I stumbled on your website several years ago before we were engaged, and I subtly gave my husband a “red-pill” education, to the point where his “game” is at a point where he is reasonably attractive. I have also upped my “game” so to speak, and I’m no 10 but I’m enough for this guy and he gets all his lunches packed for him and never has to do laundry or sweep the floor. I also felt like if something happened to me, my husband would never be able to meet another woman, but now I feel confident that he has enough game that he wouldn’t be eternally celibate if I died and I am comforted by this. I also feel that the game I taught him will help him in his professional life.
Discovering your website turned my world upside-down. In addition, my son’s formerly conservative, suburbanite, rather dull grandparents are now radical anarchist activists. Needless to say, within the past 5 years or so, I have questioned everything I thought I knew. Your last DIVCON post prompted me to write you.
Considering my situation, do you have any parenting advise for me?
Re-read that CH-bolded part. Doesn’t that confessional blip get right to the heart of marriage and its lurking discontents? If a woman knows you can get other women (should the need arise), she is happier. Game can strengthen marriages.
If field experience in the dating trenches and genetic analyses are any indication, the world is changing faster now than it ever has before. The human landscape is shifting under our feet. New parents are right to be concerned how to raise their children, especially their little boys for whom the armaments of the leftoid cultural propaganda and policy machines have taken aim.
My advice will be long and bitter.
1. Boys don’t need to hear about decline. What they need to hear about are enemies to fight.
2. You must raise your boy with an eye on his future prize: love and loyalty from beautiful women. This means cultivating in him an appreciation of sex differences and a focus on exploiting his native talents. Admiration from men will follow.
3. His father will be tempted to correct his weaknesses. This is misplaced help. Dad should direct his energy to maximizing his son’s strengths.
4. Give your son room to grow into a man. Let him take risks and flirt with danger.
5. Your son will learn how to successfully deal with women by observing his father deal with his mother. The best thing Dad can do for his son is game his Mom.
6. When your son is a teenager, introduce him to weightlifting and men’s fashion.
7. Your son will not want to “share his feelings” with you or Dad. If you want to know what’s on his mind, tell a story lesson from your life. He will subconsciously ingest your story and relate it to his own problems.
8. Do whatever you can to assure your son attends majority (80%+) white schools. Your son’s life of learning is not a safari.
9. Mock feminism and equalism at the dinner table. By age 8, your son should be ready for irritating truths. By age 15, for the ugliest truths.
10. Your son isn’t a programmable entity or a projection of your need for usefulness. Don’t schedule his life by Google calendar. If you’re shuttling him to events or clubs more than twice a week, cut back. He needs those days where he explores on his own and returns home caked in dirt.
11. Encourage his boyness. Buy him construction sets, toy guns, model planes, sports equipment, natural science books, and, when he’s older, the CH bestseller.
12. Never humiliate his father in front of him. You may find it satisfying, but you’re doing your boy a disservice.
13. Teach him to throw a punch, and take a punch. If Dad can’t do it, find a male relative who can.
14. Buy him an electric guitar for his eighth birthday. He may not have musical ability, but it’s worth finding out.
15. Teach him to hunt, not just animals, but also humans. This is the darkest of my advice, but it’s invaluable. He should know what it feels like to be aggressive, to initiate conflict. Not necessarily physical conflict; verbal conflict mastery is more useful. His confidence as a man-to-be will grow along with his facility at managing social interactions, joshing with other boys, and teasing rivals.
16. Avoid criticism in favor of demonstration. When he makes a mistake, the urge to criticize will be strong. Better to channel that emotion into helpful suggestions. Preserve your boy’s honor and he’ll reward you with redoubled efforts to please you.
17. Keep a close eye on your son’s school curriculum. Don’t be afraid to confront school administrators and teachers if they start stuffing absurd shitlibbery into his impressionable mind.
18. If you are atheist or agnostic, swallow your pride and ensconce him in a religious tradition. The presence of a powerful overseer, true or not, will help ground him and gird his will. This is a tough call, though, because most Western religions have become utterly corrupted by malign anti-white influences. Nevertheless, if there’s one pretty lie that you should abide for a short while to facilitate his healthy emotional development and a sense of protective community, this is it.
19. If you have the means, travel with him to Europe to experience the great traditions and accomplishments of his ancestors. Cheaper version: the public library.
20. No social media. No iPads. No iPhones. Boys don’t become great men with their eyes glued to a screen like a plugged in Matrix pod. They become great men with their eyes up and searching the horizon.
***
Email #2
A reader wants to know how his text game ranks,
Hey, I just wanted to see if you had time to critique my text game with this girl I’ve known for 6 years. She likes me but I don’t pursue friends. I talk to her all the time and use her to test out some theories that I read up on here and elsewhere.
Up until recently I didn’t even know text game was a thing. I didn’t use the 1/3 rule, there were times where I replied instantly after it took her a few minutes to respond, and I also replied with more words than she did but I think it turned out well.
The reader is blue, the girl white.
The reader broke a couple of texting rules, but it didn’t hurt him because he has the right attitude (cocky teasing) and he initiated the conversation. If you initiate with a girl, you will, by the nature of the tacit disequilibrium in relative value, have to expend more effort in moving the girl toward a flirty rapport.
This girl is sassy, so the risk here is that this type of edgy parrying isn’t going to move her closer to sexual interest. She likes it, but there has to be a push so she feels like the drug is being taken away from her. The reader might try texting back that he’ll catch up with her tomorrow “with juicy details if things go right tonight”. When she inquires, don’t respond. The exquisite pang of incipient jealousy must be allowed to slow boil her hamster through the night.
***
Email #3
A pressing matter,
Hey, Heartiste, why do chicks “lol” so much in txt convos? It’s almost perfunctory with them; they can’t possibly laugh that much. What are they trying to say? Do they even know?
It’s social lubrication. Girls use nonverbal and verbal tics like “lol” to create and amplify bonding. It’s like how you might laugh a little extra hard at your boss’s jokes. When a girl does this excessively, a good neg you can use is “hey you laugh a lot”, as if you’re making some sort of astounding, but value-neutral, discovery. Simple, but oh so effective.
***
Email #4
A reader speaks for millions,
I write to the great Chateau with a burning question that has plagued me for months.
When are you going to compile the best writings of CH into a game bible? If you published a book it would easily be the greatest thing to come out of the manosphere. It would rival Rollo’s book (see that tight neg, you’ve taught me well).
Even if you don’t have the time make a book could you at least compile a best of? This is easily my favorite blog. Quality writing and raw, biting truths. Anyway, enough dickriding. I eagerly await your response.
Sincerely
A young reader.
Your flattery game is tight, young padawan. But the Chateau staff of life is vainglorious, and can accommodate that mistress factory known colloquially as Russia riding it to completion.
***
Email #5
Wherefore amused mastery?
Long Story Short (hopefully)!
Dating 8 yrs. Own a condo together for 1.5 years.
Just read your “I Love You Too” article. The beta schmuck comment at the end about saying “luvya” at the end of each call really resonated with me. I knew I was beta with my girl but this really sunk to how bad it really is. I’ve been doing some reading cause I feel like she just isn’t in to me like before, and I’d love that to change.
I have zero game, if I like a girl: beta mode! at least that’s all I knew when I was single. Although luckily enough for me due to the fact (when we met at 16) she was one year older and I assumed out of my league. I thought I didn’t have a chance. So no loser beta attempts at getting her (wish I knew this before lol). Apparently I’m cocky funny as a normal human, she always recounts when we first met how much of a dick I was, I used to give her the hardest time, cause it was fun. Then I asked her out and beta schmuckery ensued for the last 8 years. Although a couple of questionable acts on my part have basically made me more beta to try and make up for hurting her and calming her jealousy down. So I find it quite hard to be funny or whatever when she get’s in a jealous spell, I’m usually apologetic etc. In general though how can this be pulled back around.
I think also a good thing to cover is guys in LTR for a LOOONG time, like me 8 years, that discover proper game etc, how can we change the dynamic, it’s not an easy thing to mentally get around. Changing how we act etc.
Thanks for all the great articles it’s really interesting reads and helpful.
How many times have we the assembled heard this sap story before? The congenital beta who’s as cool as a cucumber with girls when the pressure’s off, but becomes a try-hard troubadour as soon as the prospect of s-s-s-sexual intimacy or, worse, relationship finality, looms. It’s a script that men appear bedeviled to play until someone smacks them straight.
There will be exceptions to this, but as a guiding life principle, you’ll go more right than wrong following it. When your girlfriend gets jealous, don’t appease. Do that and you may as well count the days till she blitzkriegs your balls. Instead, playfully acknowledge her jealousy in a way that implicitly alleviates her worst fears. For instance, “Keep it coming, Your jealousy is giving me a chub. *make stupid exaggerated expression of joy so she knows you’re mocking her* You like me! I’m fuckin tickled pink.”
The thing to understand about very long-term relationship game is that your worst enemy is familiarity fatigue. The both of you will fall into predictable routines, because humans are path of least resistance maximizers. If you want the LTR bad enough, you’ll have to do things that shake up the ordinary that she’s become accustomed to. That could mean a lot of things (CH favors fast getaways), or it could mean having children (CH again favors fast getaways), as long as whatever you do isn’t something she could see coming. Also, peer into the CH archives for “relationship game”. Lots of pertinent stuff by men who have been down the road you’re on.
***
Email #6
Just how universal is game?, asks a reader.
Hi Heartiste,
do you think game is completely universal, or is it somewhat race-dependent? Is the optimal alphaness different if you want to maximise your chances to bang a white/black/asian girl?
Personally I guess it is race dependent, and is nicely symmetrical to the r-K human spectrum:
black->max alpha asshole game
white->more subtle alpha, intermediate
asian->beta may do it, it’s more important to play your provider card…
It’s a false dichotomy to presume game must be either universalist or particularist. There are general game principles that are universal (e.g., confidence, teasing, charm, and power are attractive to all women) and there are game tactics that will differ depending on the race of the woman, the race of the man, or the cultural context within which each resides (e.g., the effective ratio of beta provider game to alpha ambivalence game).
No doubt the races of women differ in some respects regarding their receptivity to American style game, but these differences can be accommodated without chucking the entire game framework. Your spectrum is a good start, but I’d warn against overplaying the amount of stone cold alpha that black women love or the amount of courtly beta provider game that asian women love. I’ll give you two quick stories from my life to illustrate what I mean.
One black girl I dated certainly loved my disappearing act and my cocksureness. But when she saw me out once with a blonde on a lunch date, her crestfallen face told me everything I needed to know about her feelings. The ultimate “aloof alpha” card had been played, and it drove her into a depressed tailspin, where some simple gestures of beta commitment on my part would have brought her back into my arms, if I had desired that.
One other time I was set up on a date with a tall, elegant asian woman by a friend. We went carousing downtown together, but the sexual energy never seemed to spark. A few days later, my friend accosted me and asked me what happened. I said that I tried, but she just wasn’t giving any signals that she wanted more. I chalked it up to her asianness and her need to take it especially slow. He replied, “She wanted it, but you weren’t pushing for it. She said you never made a move.” I considered that, and realized I may have poisoned my own game by making assumptions based on her race about the level of alphatude she would welcome.
The lesson should be clear, but this isn’t meant as a contradiction of the existence of racial differences in female attraction triggers. Yes, if you date black (more precisely, *culturally* American black) women, you’ll need more up-front, loud, borderline obnoxious, socially dominating game. If you date asian women, you’ll want a lower intensity game, one which requires perhaps a few more intimations of your relationship-mindedness and romanticism.
Then there are the complications that arise from unspoken friction created by interracial game. An asian man will have to compensate for his assumed betatude by being more alpha with white and black women than would white or black men with those women. A black man will have to tone it down with white and asian women, and “act white” to allay (mostly justifiable) fears that he’s too aggressive or socially low value.
You might say the sweet spot is to be a white man, and on that point I won’t argue.
This Valentino’s Day, let us give tribute to the great white, and quasi-white, master romancers of European history. They have taken the rhythms of the mating jungle and elevated it to symphonies of seduction.
Does this post title sound like a paradox? It is to virgin ears which have yet to hear the Rude Word of CH. But once again ♥science♥ waltzes onto the Chateau ballroom floor to plant a giant wet kiss on the stubbled cheek of your e’er ‘umble host and announce with stentorian resolve that “Aloof Indifference Game” is real and it works.
Erin Whitchurch and her colleagues conducted a study on 47 female undergraduates to find out. Each woman was told that several male students had viewed her Facebook profile and rated how much he’d like to get to know her.
One group was told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them the highest ratings (“liked-most” condition). Another group of women were told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them average ratings (“liked-average” condition. Finally, another group of women (“the uncertain condition”) were told that it is unknown how much the guy likes her. The women then viewed four fictitious Facebook profiles of attractive male college students.
After they viewed the profiles, they reported their mood and rated multiple aspects of their attraction to the male students (e.g., “someone I would hook up with“). The participants then rated their mood again, and also reported the extent to which thoughts about the men had “popped into their head” during the prior 15 minutes.
They found evidence for the reciprocity principle: women liked the men more when they were led to believe that the men liked them a lot compared to when they thought the men liked them an average amount.
Women in the uncertaincondition, however, were most attracted to the men. Women also reported thinking about the men the most in the uncertain condition, and there was tentative evidence that the effect of uncertainty on attraction was explained by the frequency of their thoughts. In other words, it wasn’t the uncertainty per se that was attractive but the thoughts it induced.
Interestingly, women in the liked-best condition were in a more positive mood than women in the liked-average condition, but women in the uncertain condition were no different in mood than women in the liked-best condition. Women felt just as positive under uncertainty as they did knowing for sure the guy liked her!
When women think of assholes they don’t want to date, they’re thinking of caring assholes. The kind of men who are clingy, mate guarding buffoons. The assholes who are loved by women are the men whose jerkitude is implied through emotional distance, cocksureness, outcome independence, and inscrutability. The man who cares least earns the most love (and sex) from women. The gradient of this Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is steep at the beginning of a relationship (courtship, dating) and levels off as the relationship deepens, to a point where the man’s SMV is noticeably higher than his lover’s and she is practically begging for romantic beta signs of his continued love and commitment.
The Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is also dependent on the comparative sexual worth of the partners. A beautiful woman with a lot of options will be more attracted to romantically ambivalent men. In contrast, an ugly woman with few options will need and feel grateful for conspicuous signals of sexual and romantic interest from men.
As a man with game, you should always default to the Uncaring Male-Loving Female dynamic. If you overshoot, you have room to rein your indifference and bedaub the woman with tiny jewels of romantic intent; if you overshoot in the other direction — i.e., you lavish too much beta wooing on a woman — there’s no chance to come back from that category error.
Interestingly, psychologists are coming around to the CH theoretical (and field-tested) framework that the frequency and amplitude of “care least” courtship and dating rituals are increasing. Women, at least those in the highly sexually charged ruthouses of our major anonymizing cities, are responding more to aloof men, and are themselves mechanistically cranking the reverse gears of their pair-bonding algorithms. There are a host of reasons for this state of arid affairs, but one major factor has to be something like this: Women have become as men, and the flipped sexual polarity is warping every incentive structure of the dating market.
We’re tits-deep in the era of men and women competing like cheap date gladiators for the honor of most invulnerable animatronic ego maximizer.
One thing for certain: In this environment women are unhappy, society loses, and men with game win. Because if it’ll be about nothing but banging with piston-like efficiency and avoiding romantic entanglements, men will clean up the arena with the battered husks of women’s egos.
The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.
Researchers have found that teenagers who had a highly functioning NPTN gene performed better in intelligence tests.
It is thought the NPTN gene indirectly affects how the brain cells communicate and may control the formation of the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain, also known as ‘grey matter.’ […]
Teens with an underperforming NPTN gene did less well in intelligence tests. […]
They found that, on average, teenagers carrying a particular gene variant had a thinner cortex in the left cerebral hemisphere, particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes, and performed less well on tests for intellectual ability.
The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots. Soon, very soon, they will have nowhere to hide nor any shadowed mental crevice left to dissemble. They will be faced with a stark choice: Capitulate, or self-deliver on the altar of their monstrous, deformed egos.
I foresee an end to the current Leftoid Regime playing out as one of two scenarios: Whole-hearted (and back-rationalized) embrace of eugenics and anti-dysgenic policies, or further retreat into smaller and smaller technologically and economically gated safe spaces where their hedonism can carry them gently to the eternal darkness, as a fetid tide of decivilization rises.
Will it be Gattaca or Attica? Is there a third way, less tyrannical but still wise and sensible? More importantly, is it too late to make these choices?
Addendum:
In Houellebecq’s novel The Elementary Particles, the protagonist, Michel, discovers a molecular process that launches the age of genetic engineering. Michel is loveless and sad, a numberless victim of a ruthless modern sexual market, and in the end… [SPOILER]… he walks into the ocean and disappears. He lived his personal Gattaca, and it was no savior to him. Was his death a warning of what he unleashed, or a fitting tribute to the end of humanity as we know it?
At yet another internet portal leading to a giant flapping angry vagina, a bitchy woman reveals, unintentionally, hilariously, a list of 22 excellent negs, teases, challenges, and disqualifications that would work very well as pick-up tactics. She begins,
Don’t say any of these phrases to a girl. In fact, don’t even think them around girls. If you do, be prepared for the wrath.
What follows is not so much “the wrath” as a bandwidth-eating mess of GIFs which she uses as a crutch to compensate for her total absence of a sense of humor. Like other bishes of her kind, you can properly assume that when a blogger bish gets all wound up with no where logical to go, she’s recently been dumped by an aloof alpha lover and is trying to assuage her butthurt ego by pretending it was his lack of betaboy politesse that really caused the breakup. This is never more apparent than when the limbically bruised bish logs online to vent her spleen about a laundry list of supposed horribly inconsiderate alpha male habits that… coincidentally!… every man she’s ever banged and prayed would become her long term boyfriend exhibited in her company.
Here’s her list, minus her vapid snark. You tell me if you don’t think these are the sorts of lines that natural womanizers employ with impunity.
1.”You look really tired.”
Tingles are born in the defensive crouch.
2. “Don’t take this the wrong way, but…”
This is a great opener, especially if paired with a long pregnant pause, followed by some silly construct, like “Don’t take this the wrong way, but……….. paper or plastic?”
3. “You remind me of my mom.”
Fantastic neg. Is this a bad thing, or a good thing? It’s not like you think ill of your own mother.
4. “Are you on your period?”
This is a version of “nuke the hamster from orbit” game. “Are you on your period?…. Because I heard that girls who drink gin and tonics are flowing like the Nile.”
5. “Are you wearing that?”
This line provides a good conversation thread break to what you think would look good on her.
6. “You might be able to fit into this.”
Spin, hamster, spin.
7. “Your sister is so hot!”
Neg. Is she chopped liver by comparison, or does hotness run in her family?
8. “You have a really pretty face.”
This is what the bish wrote: Just my face? What, you made it past my neck and decided that the rest of me was hideous? And that, gentlemen, is exactly what a tight neg is supposed to accomplish.
Chicks dig a judgmental man. Why? Because it means he can afford to be judgmental.
10. “You’re still hungry?”
#FatShamingForever. Nip that Jabba wannabe in the bud.
11. “Why are you freaking out?”
This tactic is less effective within the firm shell of a relationship than it is when unloaded during the dating period. All I can say is that if you have a girlfriend who freaks out a lot, you’re better off telling her to stop than asking her why she won’t stop.
12. “Didn’t you wear that last week?”
Related: Classic PUA neg: “Great dress. It must be popular. I saw two girls wearing it last week.”
13. “You ask a lot of questions.”
This line is very effective when delivered on a first or second date. It immediately imbues you with an air of mystery while insinuating that the girl is so into you she can’t help but be curious.
14. “I don’t know if I trust your cooking.”
Great challenge that can lead to a funny conversation.
15. “It’s not you; it’s me.”
If a man says this nowadays, he’s obviously being ironic. Or a mischievous asshole. Translation: He doesn’t care what you think of the line.
16. “Is that your real hair?”
Neg. Chicks will claim it’s offensive, but their muff moistening belies their words.
17. “Don’t be mad; I was just kidding!”
This is actually the one line on the list that men should avoid saying. Not because it’ll make the girl mad, but because it’s supplicating and unattractive.
18. “Are you sick?”
If a girl gets this line a lot, she may want to see a doctor.
19. “You’re crazy.”
Challenging a girl to prove she’s not crazy is liable to make her even crazier… thinking about you.
20. “You have a lot of feelings.”
Love the ambiguity.
21. “Calm down.”
Sean Connery knows how to calm a woman down.
22. “How much do you weigh?”
“Excuse me?”
“I’m curious. You have the body for a bobsledder.”
“What does that mean?!”
“Hey, bobsledders are HOT. Do you have a problem with bobsledders? My beloved grandmother was a bobsledder, and she was CHOICE back in her day.”
***
Programming note: It’s a good time to reflect how fantastically obnoxious American women have become. Ladies, if you’re reading, a helpful tip: You have to work to please men as men work to please women. Somewhere along the way, a fat lot of you forgot that simple truth, thinking that the world, and the world’s men, owe you something for nothing. Worse, owe you for acting like roaring cunts. Rest assured, reality will set you right in short order.
The post title is a quote of Tyler Cowen, aka Cheap Chalupas aka Bargain Beans, from a Walled Street Journal review of his book “Average is Over” (h/t to Plucky Gents, Inc.),
To sum up, Mr. Cowen believes that America is dividing itself in two. At the top will be 10% to 15% of high achievers, the “Tiger Mother” kids if you like, whose self-motivation and mastery of technology will allow them to roar away into the future. Then there will be everyone else, slouching into an underfunded future of lower economic expectations, shantytowns and an endless diet of beans. I’m not kidding about the beans.
Poor Americans, writes Mr. Cowen, will have to “reshape their tastes” and live more like Mexicans. “Don’t scoff at the beans,” he says. “With an income above the national average, I receive more pleasure from the beans, which I cook with freshly ground cumin and rehydrated, pureed chilies. Good tacos and quesadillas and tamales are cheap too, and that is one reason why they are eaten so frequently in low-income countries.”
Cowen likes to eat his nation’s heritage with a sprinkling of freshly ground cumin and a side of refried beans. You can’t make this shit up. If it were any other psychologically healthy person, I would say this quote is a deliberate self-parody to subvert the deracinating Elsa Island narrative. But Cowen is borderline sperg, so you can assume his sincerity.
Commenter Porter responds,
More pleasure from the beans than what? Wearing a gimp suit? Having a sigmoidoscopy? And do the epicurean delights of bean consumption occur with or despite a higher than the national average income?
Does this Maria Antoinette actually believe his imported oompa loompas will forever docilely dine on discarded legumes while he devours caviar, truffles, and quail eggs? More importantly, does he have any subsidiary labor units…what pre-beaners called “children?” What are his hopes for their future? A warm grate in the winter? A cozy 300sqft favela? A hale old age of 35? Perhaps he assumes his higher than the national average income will purchase for them the best electrified concertina money can buy. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t give a damn. After all, The Economy is a jealous master.
An above national average amount of open borders nutjobbery is abetted by low ruling class fertility. When you don’t have kids, you don’t care much for entrusting a prosperous and livable nation to its posterity. You mostly care about cheap iPhones and status whore feels with your ideologically inbred SWPL courtesans. Your coin of the realm is phony morals instead of fecund maidens.
On a related TCCC post about Switzerland’s recent pro-national integrity vote to curb immigration, commenter The Anti-Gnostic writes,
how much immigration is possible without a backlash?
Lots, when you have an entire Cathedral that mandates equal treatment and endlessly reminds everyone how horrible and stupid they are for not allowing high-rise apartments on every square foot of available space.
Also, of course this is all framed in terms of “backlash.” In the Cathedral’s calculation, corporations exist but nations do not, and people are interchangeable cogs.
The more important question is how much immigration is possible before the traits which made the host society desirable to begin with are lost? I think that percentage is probably quite low, particularly for K-selected societies importing r-selected societies. My hunch, and it’s just a hunch, around 5%/yr immigrants assimilate. Around 10%/yr they gravitate to certain areas and leverage their presence. The natives start withdrawing. Above 10%/yr, the immigrants want their own country. Sure, they may speak the language and adopt some superficial norms, but at that point it’s not about assimilation but transformation.
The natives, lacking anywhere to withdraw, start shutting down.
Taking a cue from The Anti-Gnostic, a good metric for predicting at what levels Diversity + Proximity will explode into War by whichever means is a tiered alert system based on percentage of country that is foreign or otherwise ethnically or racially very different from the people who created and sustain the nation and its culture. CH suggests a reformatted DEFCON warning system, called DIVCON, for Diversity Overload Condition.
DIVCON 5: Five percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation probable with minimal fiscal outlay or native sacrifice.
DIVCON 4: Ten percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation possible with substantial fiscal outlay. Social cohesion index (SCI) shows first signs of stress. Foreign immigrants begin to self-segregate into politically potent neighborhoods that serve as conduits for overseas relatives and the continuance of their homeland cultures.
DIVCON 3: Twenty percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation improbable without enormous fiscal outlay and native sacrifice. SCI records explosion of cultural and racial fault lines running through regions and communities. Foreign immigrants and non-native minorities control entire neighborhoods and some cities. Multilingualism is codified into law. Native and racial flight from these non-native outposts of political and cultural control accelerates.
DIVCON 2: Thirty percent of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Assimilation impossible despite massive debt-propped outlays and propagandized humiliation of natives to abjure their culture and identity. SCI passes threshold from greater social cohesion to greater social strife. States begin to switch political allegiances as demographic change sweeps out native majority status. Native/racial flight peaks in intensity, limited only by economically constrained immobility. Self-segregation reverses historical integrationist policies. Regional power bases coalesce as federal power simultaneously strengthens and fractures. Anti-native propaganda loses its influence to inform native sensibilities and self-identity.
DIVCON 1: Forty percent or more of population is genetically and culturally distant from natives. Nation begins irrevocable transformation into resembling the countries from which the non-native populations originate. Political compromise impossible. Jury system breaks down along ethnic and racial boundaries. Wealth inequality reaches historical maximums. SCI red lines. Social discord and native ennui/withdrawal from civic processes undermine legitimacy of state apparatuses. “Anarcho-tyranny” — underclass and overclass lawlessness combined with police state intimidation of native middle class — is implemented to tamp down rising hostilities. Major cities and some states are abandoned by natives to non-native control. Redistribution to politically powerful non-natives impoverishes the natives. Anti-native propaganda assaults every cultural institution, becomes bolder and more transparently aggressive. Natives begin active and unapologetic campaigns against ruling class propaganda. Racial and cultural tensions provoke excessive and violent government response. Free speech surrendered as a founding principle. Mass surveillance and kangaroo courts operate with impunity.
At DIVCON 1, political and armed rebellion become distinct possibilities. Secession movements grow in number and intensify rapidly. Tax evasion increases. Tax havens multiply. Political parties realign. Military volunteerism bottoms out. Third parties experience surge in popularity. Tribal nepotism and corruption in every facet of life erodes trust, bankrupts communities, endangers citizens, and reduces standard of living and other measures of personal happiness. Mental illness and symptoms of psychological distress increase. Private militias, high- and low-tech security systems and fortress communities sever the last strands of national unity. Break-up is inevitable barring repatriation of immigrants, anti-dysgenic fertility policies, and social and economic protection of native middle classes.
America currently sits its rehydrated, pureed ass at DIVCON 2. And as any good economics PhD will tell you, this is good news. So bend over and take it like you like it. Those PhD models of human nature can’t be wrong.
An interesting study, with findings that won’t surprise regular CH readers,
This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses [ed: KINO!]. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain.
To put it in LAYman’s terms: Women seduce men with their bodies, men seduce women with their nimble tongues (aka game).
Women require plausible deniability in matters of the tingle. Ambiguity is, to women, the essence of seduction. Hints and innuendo, “does he or doesn’t he?” mental calisthenics, and dramatic reversals and forward movements all contribute to heightening a woman’s sexual arousal.
Men need none of this. A pretty woman could present her naked body for the taking, and the man will take it, no (sincere) questions asked. Men abide the nuanced female view of seduction because women hold the key to sex; men who don’t abide women’s unspoken romantic predilections tend to go home alone. To bed a woman, a man must find a way to oscillate on her tingle frequency, and then to amplify that frequency. This tingle amplification needn’t be permanent; short bursts of wavelength alignment are often enough to do the job, because most men hardly come close to hurdling that low bar.
The best male seducers are those who relish the inherently feminine nature of seduction. These are men who not only understand the rules of the game, they are overjoyed to apply them, and in so doing come to master them.
So women use coy facial expressions and sexy displays of their bodies to entrance men, while men use words and subtle touch to entrance women. In other words, each sex PLAYS BY THE RULES OF THE OTHER SEX. Women give men what men want (visually stimulating sexiness and lip-licking promise) and men give women what women want (a torrent of seductive, pregnant words anchored with erotic, escalating touches).
Somewhere, right now, a weirdo omega hater is shrieking about GAMEBOYZ DANCING TO WOMEN’S TUNE. It shrieks alone tonight.
A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.
This news so shocked the NYBTimes readership that the high IQ assembled emptied their bowels en masse and vaulted the article to #1 most-emailed. In a den of liars, a simple truth is meme-king. Quoting the CH bastion of enlightenment,
When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.
Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology. May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its divine directive.
You may now take a moment to ponder what terrible, horrible, no good, very bad truths the high priests of leftoidism will scare themselves into noticing next. Down the hall, second door on the right… what’s that you’ve found? Biological race differences? Good God, man! Brace yourself against something sturdy! Third floor, door at the end of the hall… women love badboys? Lawdy it’s another breathtaking nugget of common sense! You’ve just loaded your diaper. There there, dear.
Let them have their circus act. Whatever they need to keep those UES cocktail party invites flowing, and their naughty thoughts checked before their self-admiration is wrecked. It’s all fun and games unless $$$trillions$$$ are wasted on turning their self-medicating lies into public policy. Woops.
Comment Of The Week: Romancing The Load
Feb 15th, 2014 by CH
Troubadour resigns himself to winning COTW,
I wonder how many marriages devolve into unhappy semi-extortionate waiting rooms for death? A lot of those striver class SWPLs who marry matte-faced multiple-degreed chubsters to maximize the odds they’ll shit out high IQ wunderkinds capable of competing in the glorious future of globocorpdiversity don’t look all that happy to me. They look more… resigned. Maybe relieved is the optimistic take, but none dare call it passion. Or love.
No need for second place. Tough to follow up this comment.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners, Marriage Is For Chumps | Comments Off