well, the point is to get some rapport going with your girl, and really rapport of a sexual/romantic nature. she’s either going to accept or reject that “rapport option” you’re extending to her based on whether she is attracted to you and how you communicate/socialize.
deleting responses and ignoring a girl’s responses does not seem like behavior associated with rapport-building. it seems like behavior associated with fear and an unwillingness to feel rejected.
if you are deleting the girl’s response, it sounds like you are nervous about her response – whether it will happen, what it will be, if she will reject you.
here is a flash report: girls are going to reject you. the less you are ok with that reality, the more you are going to do weird shit like delete girls responses to your texts out of fear of rejection, which only introduces even more social awkwardness into your interactions with women. the more confidence you have in the quality of your game, the less you will care about reactions to the interactions you initiate.
Too many newbs mistake outcome independence for passivity. If you’ve engaged a girl, and she’s reciprocating, it’s game time. Move the seduction forward. Don’t make a habit of buttressing your inner game by deleting girls’ texts so you don’t have an emotional reaction to whatever you imagine they’ll say.
(A milder and more advantageous form of this kind of inner game trick is to turn off your phone for a day, so you call girls a day later. But this is for initial responses. If you have a girl on the chat line and she’s replying in a timely manner, keep it up. Don’t look a gift hoohah in the muff.)
Ultimately, the alpha attitude of outcome independence rests on a foundation of behavioral indifference to rejection. Rejection inoculation, you could say. If you worry excessively about being rejected by a girl, you’ll always struggle to unlock any alpha male potential within you. Of course, no man likes to be rejected by a girl he desires, not even naturals, but the idea is not the elimination of distaste for rejection. Rather, the aim is to accept rejection as the collateral damage of pickup, a necessary burden, and to stop beating yourself up over it.
Think of rejection like a sudden downpour, or a deus ex machina. It happens, you let it pass, you carry on. You don’t pretend to like it, but neither do you bellyache and take disproportionate, self-defeating measures to avoid it. It’s a fleeting nuisance that has no bearing on your attitude or your ambitions. Each rejection then becomes a victim of your cavalier dismissal, which, when compounded, strengthens your immunity to emotional disturbances caused by future rejections. And a funny thing happens when you start to think this way… you experience less rejection.
***
Runner-up COTW winner is Lord Byron, patron saint of Le Chateau, from his Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage:
There is the moral of all human tales;
‘Tis but the same rehearsal of the past,
First Freedom, and then Glory — when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption — barbarism at last.
Leave it to an unapologetic master cad to tell it like it is.
We are loose nuts rattling in a doomsday machine. We can see the abort button, we can even reach it, but our hands stay by our sides. And all we can do is lament our paralysis.
My mouth is agape. With names like “Bullrun” and “Manassas” for these programs, NSA is now (inadvertently) telling us they consider themselves to be battling a civil war… with the citizens of the United States.
***
It’s almost like the United States has a secret “royal family”, to use the term loosely, and they are becoming more and more uneasy at the prospect of a peasant uprising.
It sure would explain this massive surveillance we now see before us. This can’t possibly be to fight terrorists as we know them to be. This seems to me to be something all the more sinister, something dangerous to everyone on Earth.
Some would call this the result of mass scale managerialism run amok. I’d use a less innocuous-sounding term: Tyranny.
I don’t understand how the married guy is “happily married” if he drinks so much and sounds so desperate. If I had been his wife I would have divorced him not for cheating, but for being such a desperate clingy beta (for a 36-year-old who treats him like s#it nonetheless). I wouldn’t mind too much my husband having an affair if he acts like a grown-up, but the sight of my husband losing his head like a (drunk) teenager would be unbearable.
It’s helpful to remind oneself that the male mind is as, if not more, unfathomable to women as the female mind is to men, and this is particularly so when we speak of the primeval parts of the brain responsible for regulating romantic feeling. Rosalie is Exhibit A. She can’t understand how a man can be both happily married and desperate to bang an office hottie. But men are perfetly capable of compartmentalizing sex and love, something women can’t do or can only do with strenuous mental exertions that defy their natural psychological predisposition.
FACT: Most men can simultaneously love their wives and lust for their mistresses.
FACT: More men than women are capable of LOVING two or more romantic partners concurrently.
FACT: A man can sustain and reconcile a happy marriage and a romantic fling for decades without feeling an urge to give up on either one.
Women have trouble doing any of the above three axioms with the same ease of execution and peace of mind that men naturally possess. There are exceptions, but this is the way to bet.
Rosalie, therefore, is befuddled. And Rosalie should not be chastised (gently mocked, yes) for her befuddlement, because it is the nature of her sex to project her own desires and compulsions onto the motivations of men. It is a rare woman indeed with the self-awareness to understand men’s romantic desires and to predict men’s actions based on that understanding. It is the rarer woman still who will forgive men for following their desires in the same reckless manner that women unabashedly follow theirs.
Rosalie’s confessional blurt reveals something else of the character of women. It isn’t the cheating per se that offends her; it’s the man’s clinginess and betatude with which the hope of cheating is pursued that gets under her skin. This is in line with the CH contention that, deep beneath the reservoir of polite social expectation that wraps cortically around the id monster, women aren’t so scandalized by a cheating lover as they are emotionally traumatized by a cheating lover who cheats with sub-par fare and does so with the mien of a mewling betaboy in a rush of love. (That post, btw, garnered a response from a more optimistic man than I.)
Rosalie is woman. The sex act of the cheater is not the crisis of heart for her. The betrayal of *love* is what sets her off. Like most women, what she truly fears is infidelity of the heart, not infidelity of the groin. This is why it’s so jarring to her to hear about, or visualize, an older husband falling gaga in love with a younger woman, and reverting to a primordial beta prototype in the process.
Sweet Rosalie, if only there were more women like you who spoke truth to id, and understood that alpha husbands sometimes need sexual and romantic outlets, and that this male desire needn’t mean the end of their marriages. Are you French, by any chance?
A lot of readers write here asking for game advice and offering screen shots of their texts and chats with women for critical judgment by the Eye of Mordant. For example, see this latest chat screen from a man trying to get a date with a petite looker. (The man talks first.)
While Heartiste is happy to oblige any and all pilgrims to the Chateau, these readers could perform an at-home test that would save them some time and frustration waiting for an answer. A simple trick to determine the tightness of your chat game is to role reverse the participants. Commenter Christian explains,
If you reverse the responses in the online chat example, which I did inadvertently when I first read it, its tight game.
HER: Just promise you wont dress like a 12 year old boy on the first date, deal?
HIM: What makes you think there will be a first date?
HER: Well i’m not convinced yet blah blah blah…
HIM: That’s fair. let me know how that goes out for you.
But now that I know the roles were actually reversed, its beyond salvageable. Next.
Comparing the first chat and its bizarro world inverse, there’s little doubt that the second one is more likely to achieve a carnal coda, both because the girl will be more aroused and the man will have more power leading the interaction to a date. In the role reversal chat, it’s the man who’s subcommunicating aloofness, challenge, and an authentic attitude of outcome independence.
Ask yourself, who’s sitting in the driver’s seat? In the first chat, the girl is in control. Role reverse it and the man becomes the driver of the courtship. If your game sucks, try role reversing everything you do, except in real life and not just as a post-rejection self-assessment exercise. Think Opposite George. Report back to us with the results, Or do the opposite, and don’t.
Letters of inquiry to the Chateau mailroom have begun spilling into the arched hallway, so today’s post is an effort to relieve the backup.
Email #1
Jaap writes,
Just a suggestion: maybe it would be nice to write something more about text gaming but not about contents… There’s a lot more to it:
– when to respond
– reaction time…
– being online but not responding while she is apping (making her jealous)…
– cutting of conversation suddenly saying: sorry..got to go..
– being unavailable…
etc etc…. There’s a lot of interesting strategies..
I’m sure the archives are loaded with the info you want, but to recap text game basics:
– Make it a habit to wait longer to reply to the girl than the time she takes to reply to you. Generally, this rule becomes more flexible the longer you’re seeing the girl. Don’t feel bad about texting the next day, either.
– Reaction time… see above. The faster you react, the more invested you appear. Ever see a silverback gorilla in the wild? They move like sloths. It takes a lot to get them going.
– Online cold shouldering can be useful as a pre-lubing game tactic. I wouldn’t advise total silence; that could be misconstrued as butthurtness. Drop concatenated chats every so often, like “?”, “yerp”, “heyo” or “lol” so it appears less like you’re studiously ignoring her and more like you’re busy with others and can’t spare the effort to flesh out a fuller convo with her.
– Cut-offs are effective. If you’re around alpha males, you’ll notice they excel in the art of the curt escape. Leave the excessively polite, long-winded goodbyes to the women and the betas.
– What’s there to say? It helps your cause to be occasionally unavailable. Make up a reason if you don’t have one. The object is to enhance your mate value through signals of unattainability and social validation.
Email #2
fakeemail writes with concern in his voice,
My gf just got laid off. I hid my glee. This is to my advantage right? The more desperate and empty the chick, the better I look. Is this accurate? Do you want a gf or wife who works or who stays at home?
One unsavory rule of biomechanics is that women become more loving and clingy in direct proportion to their powerlessness. This is because they are both more reliant on their man in such conditions, and because the working man looks more dominant and alpha in comparison.
It may not be good for the shared bottom line, but an out-of-work girlfriend is a down-to-fuck lover. But this love potion #9 has an expiration date; chronic idleness will leave her with too much time to craft plans. Unhappiness and resentment and daydreaming will compete with her love if she’s childless and a Type A who has to be on the go go go. So hide your glee, profess facetious support, and enjoy the deluge of blowjobs until you notice an uptick in bitchiness, at which time you help polish her resume or you knock her up. Or, you return to living separately and indulge doctor feelgood house calls.
Part 2,
What do you do when your gf finds out that you’re a “racist”?
I outed myself by expressing displeasure with black people (contextual situation) and she wasn’t having it. Should I lie and say I’m not a “racist” or just fuck-it and N-word her up?
Is she black? That could be some hot, raunchy hate sex. Slip in a “massa” and a “chocolate wench” and report back to us with the Penthouse Forum deets.
Otherwise, all you have to remember is the NO APOLOGY rule. Did you mean every word you said? Then own it. An apology is basically a self-betrayal, and no woman, however “anti-racist”, respects that.
Email #3
Finguy praises,
Just wanted to thank you about this site with all these great advises. I live in Finland and it seems that girls here function similar way than in US. I had lots of relationship issues(me acting too beta) but after reading Chateau and MMSL in one year my relationship has turned from terrible to great. I just stopped trying to please her and acting more selfish(+ confronting her always if she got too annoying). Now i feel im in charge here and girl is also happier. Women just want men to lead, thou they will never admit that… Keep up doing good work!
From Beta to Alpha, in 4 Easy Steps:
1. Stop appeasing.
2. Be more selfish.
3. Call her out.
4. Be in charge.
You won’t see this message of hope on a Hallmark card or jammed in a Lifetime TV show. You need to go elsewhere.
Email #4
A married man wants to reward his fidelity with an office mistress,
I’m 48 and very happily married. I look younger than I am, I’m fit, and I dress well. I started a new job close to a year ago. Right away, a 36 year old female co-worker I work with every day started giving little indicators of interest in me. For example, she showed up in the eating area of the office pretty much every time I would go there for a snack or coffee. She knew I was there because we sit nearby and she can see me get up. So we chatted a lot, but I had no game, and she was definitely merely ambivalent about me, while my interest in her just kept, uh, growing. I proposed various lunches, and she accepted only one of them. Lunch was OK, but a bit awkward. I’ve had no physical contact with her except “accidental” touches, which I have both given and received. I have a higher status than her at work, and I expect her initial attraction to me was just basic hypergamy.
My wife now knows her from office events, and the two of them got along well in their brief interactions, strangely. My wife was hotter at the same age, and I still find my wife very attractive because she keeps herself in great shape. I told my wife that I’m really into this woman, which you would think is a beta move, but after an initial “I’ll kill you both” comment, my wife actually seemed to like me more and our sex rate increased. Inadvertent dread game I suppose, but I was pleasantly surprised.
Eventually I was alone with this woman when we were both rather drunk walking out of a bar after an evening’s outing with co-workers. On that walk, I just couldn’t restrain myself and started blathering about how I was obsessed with her and didn’t know what to do, and that I had even told my wife about all this.
The devil’s tears!
Major beta move, and it made things much worse with my co-worker. I could feel her contempt for me at work every day after that, and of course instead of deliberately “happening” to meet me in the snack area, she would deliberately avoid being wherever I was.
Then I discovered your site, and realized that what she wants is not a man who is obsessed with her, but a man with self-control who could take or leave her because he has other options. So I stopped paying attention to her entirely, even turning my back on her in group situations. Bingo. I could sense a sudden insecurity in her where before there was just contempt. The indicators of interest came back, including hair twirling when talking to me now. She invited me to a party she was throwing at a bar recently, and I went to it, which was probably a mistake. I got very drunk at the party, another mistake I know, but I exhibited definite alpha behavior there, going behind the bar to steal drinks, patting her on the head in a condescending way, and even stealing her own drink from in front of her and drinking it.
The devil’s testosterone!
I got no reaction at all to this behavior though, and she actually left the party briefly and went for a walk around the block with the new guy in the office, who was pestering her for a walk. When she sent out the party invitation, she said that anyone too drunk to get home could sleep at her place, but when I said I needed a place to sleep, she said there wasn’t room. A definite rejection.
Yes, I’m a douche because I have a loving and good-looking wife already, but I’d give my right hand and a sizable donation to CH if I could get a 10-minute makeout session with this woman. I’ve tried to just suppress my desire for her, but I fail because I see her finely sculpted ass every day at work. Advice?
Additional info: this woman is single, having broken up with her long-time boyfriend a few months after I started working with her. So she was flirting with me before she broke up with him.
Also, she does not report to me. So there are no HR issues, though it’s generally a bad idea to be involved with a woman at work.
You’re working at a distinct disadvantage. One, you confessed in a blubbery beta moment of weakness your horny level. Two, you’re married. Now granted there are a lot of women who are turned on by married men and actively chase them for illicit affairs, but some, perhaps by dint of having previously traveled the ho road to hell, don’t want anything to do with taken men, and will dial down their desire if they discover a man is beholden.
So what does she have? She has your validation. She has your attention. Where’s the challenge that married men are supposed to effuse naturally? You surrendered it at Assomattox. (I mean, offering to sleep at her place? If that isn’t desperation, what is?)
Your addendum is informative. She was on the rocks with a BF, and a married man (you) is the perfect foil to boost her flagging ego. To catch the eye of a married man is a thrill for women. She led you on, and you, by your own account, happily slipped the leash over your neck.
Too much pull, that’s your problem. You needed to push her away more. To qualify her. To bust on her for chasing married men. To ASSUME THE SALE. I don’t know if it’s salvageable; the well of her womb may be too poisoned for fresh water to flow again for you. Try teasing her to stop dressing like a grandma the next time you see her at the office kitchen, it’s ruining company morale. Do it with a smile, because there’s too much history that could redound against any incipient positive perception she might have of your emotional state or motivation. A strong asshole vibe coupled with a gradual unavailability is your only hope.
Email #5
This reader needs help with an OkCupid chat,
Was curious of your response advice in the OkCupid thread I have pasted below (let me know if you did not receive).
Me: 31, 5’10, relatively good looking but certainly no Brad Pitt
Her: 24, 5’1, femme fatale type, ridiculous petite body, easily a 9, claims to be bisexual and a stripper.
We’re gonna need a bigger asshole.
I messaged first, referencing a line in her profile that “at times I dress like a twelve year old boy; at others I dress like a movie star,” obviously assuming the sale and going with a qualification frame from there. She seems to be having none of it.
Here are the responses I was thinking of sending a few days from now, aimed at conveying aloofness and outcome-independence.
1. No response. Just walk away.
2. ”K!”
3. ”Sounds good!”
4. ”Gay.”
5. ”That response makes no sense, but whatever!”
Anything better you can devise would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Here is a screenie of the reader’s chat:
As I suspected, you oversold yourself. You assume the sale; you don’t bludgeon her with your product. Newbs to game often come across ham-fisted, because they learn a new tactic and then beat it to death.
After she wrote “what makes you think there will be a first date?”, you had an opportunity to terse it up and redirect the chat to something more fruitful. For instance:
“telepathy. it’s all the rage.”
or
“my huge ego”
or
“this magic 8 ball I just bought”
You get the idea. The time was ripe for humor, not more heavy insistence on your date-ability.
Anyhow, it doesn’t seem like you had any attraction at all, so when you dropped the presumed date bomb, she just gawked at it, getting irritated. So her last reply is not surprising:
“that’s fair. let me know how that goes for you”
A cunty response, but not unusual from ingenues who claim to be strippers and bi. They have radars exquisitely attuned to even the slightest odor of try-hard, and you pinged it.
If I got a send-off like that, I would be too turned off to bother with her anymore. Walk away. But if you want to keep gaming her, a decent reply would be:
“If you insist.”
And then no matter how she replies, don’t respond for another couple of days.
Report back to the CH Council on Furrow Relations with the latest.
Replying to a Steve Sailer review of the movie Her as a mischievous chain-yank of the exquisite sensibilities of white people who majored in humanities, commenter stari_momak pithily spits,
You notice how [as] America has gotten darker, white people have gotten fairer (or paler)?
One consequence of the CH axiom Diversity + Proximity = War is, ironically, a racial self-segregation that belies the media message drumbeat propagandizing the opposite. Her is very much a SWPL (Stuff White People Like) utopia: clean urban spaces, softening pastels, car-less mass transit, bicycle lanes, love affairs with an advanced Siri AI who sounds like the whitest white girl who ever whited, a noticeable lack of bling or vibrancy.
It’s almost as if the crushing weight of diversity (especially in LA) has freed upper middle class whites to wall themselves off in cultural compounds of their own making. Sure, they have to guss up their motives with doublespeak, but their actions — their revealed preference in economese — is strictly for a society of the whites, by the whites, for the whites.
It’s no longer affordable for liberal whites to walk their talk. The days of mingling with a token or two, or adopting some affect of the underclass, and patting oneself on the back are rapidly coming to a close. Diversity has expanded its reach to dangerous levels, threatening a core reactor meltdown. Its ominous, suffocating presence reminds leftoids on a daily basis the reality of a world that is being reshaped into what they have claimed is progress. In their personal lives, where chucks hit the ground, they recoil at this progress, and retreat to insulated social bubbles that align more closely with predilections formed by their genetic heritage.
Like the vast expanse of outer space, as America on the whole becomes less white, the pinpoints of whiteness glow more brightly.
When did the pussification of America’s men begin? Speculating on this sort of thing is always fun, but it serves a larger purpose: If we can identify the origin of the Ascended Testes Era, we can theoretically reverse it.
One reader believes he has an answer,
I was just thinking back to my early 20s, when I found myself married to the dumpy chick I knocked up. [ed: pre-game, natch] I did what was expected of me at the time, which meant marriage, and it meant Lamaze classes, and La Leche League, and all this girlie baby nurturing liberal SWPL crap I’m sure pajama boy would totally embrace in his plaid onesie.
There was only one other father in the Lamaze classes. All the pretty girls were there with a friend or a neighbor or a mother, and the only two fathers there were with dumpy average looking chicks. The other guy was such a wuss he kept passing out during the videos, and his wife had to revive him repeatedly. (They eventually had like six kids, and are still together as far as I know.)
Yeah, beta males may have slightly more kids on average than do alpha males, but would you want to be a beta? (Procreation Pusher: “wouldn’t you like to be a beta too… be a beta, doooon’t be a playa…) No, I think I’ll skip out on the incomparable joy of loading up the belly of a frump.
I’ve been reflecting on the whole Lamaze thing, and how hot girls don’t have babies with guys who would go through that kind of crap in the first place. Can you see Mystery in Lamaze classes? I can’t.
Where was Tywin Lannister when his kids were being born? The same place my father was, and my grandfather, and every man back for thousands of years. Smoking cigarettes and letting the women handle woman’s work.
I blame Lamaze for the pussification of America. It all starts with dads going “hee hee hee hooooooo” with their dumpy wives. It really does.
Besides, blood, shit, and gore belong on the battlefield, not in the vagina you’re fucking. No man should ever have to see that. History had this right.
Lamaze was invented by a French fop in the 1940s, and gained cultural traction in the US a decade later. In the annals of herstory, I’m sure a few alpha males were hornswoggled into attending a Lamaze class (which they undoubtedly instantly regretted), but those men who agreed to attend without a fight or, worse, who happily jumped at the opportunity, are truly the most beta of betas.
No man worth his two taters will enjoy any aspect of the Lamaze spectacle. I bet a man’s T level drops 300% as soon as he steps foot in a Lamaze classroom. And given that betas are already short a couple liters of T, they can’t afford to have their precious reserves siphoned off by the sight of distended bellies, pork roll camel toes, and red-faced plumpers method acting the passing of a gargantuan turd.
So, yeah, there is obviously some selection bias going on with regard to the types of men who can be found empathy birthing in a Lamaze class. More telling is what this reader noticed about the hotness of the pregnant women who weren’t with their men. What he observed was a female selection bias that complemented and reinforced the male selection bias: Hot babes have more choice in men, and they invariably choose high value alpha males who are the least likely to sit through an insufferable Lavaje class. These alphas could be captains of industry with no time for Lamaze silliness, or they could be dominant personalities who won the test of wills contest. Either way, it shows that hot women — women who have, after all, an incredible array of sexual market options — will choose insensitive sociopaths before new age sensitive empaths.
Lamaze was probably not a cause of the emasculation of American men, but it was a harbinger. All those betas lining up to hee hee ho with their women were castrates in a coal mine. A mere fifty years later, we have Youtube videos of bronies coming out with their stuffed animal lovers.
DAN IN ATL passes along wise words from a long-gone species of man: The keen observer of reality.
In his classic study “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville included this gem:
“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things–their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”
The twisted roots of American feminism trace back to the motherland: Europe. To find the malevolent pool of black goo that belched the feminism-equalism battleaxes-of-evil, you need to journey to the ancestral lands of your forebears. For most Americans prior the 1965 White Dissolution Immigration Act, that means the lands of Napoleon, Richard III, and Kaiser Wilhelm.
Weak men and disorderly women. de Tocqueville saw clear what many of us living in the grip of his realized dystopia cannot or will not. Time enough has passed; the weakness spreads and the binds of men and women fray. We had warnings. Why didn’t we heed them? Because, perhaps, free will is illusory. We crash in the machinery of these ageless, infinitely looping social cycles, rattling like loose nuts, dimly grasping the exhausted end we’re hurtling toward, but unable to do anything about it save rust within the decay. Our hopes and aspirations, it appears, exist in precarious balance with an ineradicable death wish.
I was daygaming at the mall a while ago, got this girls number and took some photos with her and me in the photo for social proof. She opened me on facebook we talked for a bit, I tried to get her out but she found excuses and never went out with me.
Today I was fucking around on Facebook and she opens me saying, “like my photo of me getting kissed?”, its a photo of her sitting at her computer while some random dude kisses her on the cheek.
I didn’t reply (seems like an attention whore to me — I don’t like enabling attention whores).
Was this the correct move, or should I have said something non-commital like, “cool”? The silence could be interpreted like butthurtedness?
All indicators are that she’s a) taken or b) totally uninterested in anything but getting her ego stroked by a chasing beta. I don’t think you have a deep mystery on your hands here. The correct move was moving on.
However, it sounds like you wanted an exploit that would ignite the possibility of slipping the PIV. If so, there are many effective ways you could have replied to her taunt. Examples:
her: “like my photo of me getting kissed?”
you: “you’re real close with your dad/brother/cousin, aren’t you?”
you: “more tongue next time”
you: “presentation: 7, execution: 2″
you: “goddam, dude is slobbering on you like a hungry dog” [boyfriend destroyer subroutine]
The point with these replies is that it’s paramount to communicate an aloof, outcome independent, devil-may-care, toes-a-tappin’ alpha male attitude. Amused mastery, in PUA parlance. The best way to do this is through an amalgam of cavalier humor and edgy teasing.
This method is probably the only really results-replicable, reliable, game-savvy response to an attention whore dropping beta bait into the Facebook tank and fishing for nibbles or whole chomps from desperate orbiters. She’s already put you on the defensive; therefore most replies, like “cool”, will carry a whiff of butthurt.
Radio silence of course is your next best option, but that doesn’t leave much room for burying the beef hatchet in that ratchet. Silence is a very passive opt out of an attention whore feeding frenzy. It isn’t butthurt — men tend to overestimate women’s ability to read spite into silence — but it isn’t a proactive game tactic, either. At best, it leaves her wondering what you really think and leaves you free to spend your valuable time on other less emotionally needy women.
Just follow the patented CH Maxim of Seductive Interaction:
Maxim 5: Charisma before silence, silence before self-incrimination.
A writer, Andrew Smiler, for the e-zine ‘The Good Men Project’ has unintentionally parodied the mission statement of that blog with such zeal that one expects their next post to advocate mass castration. Titled “A Guy’s Guide to The Gender-Minimized 1st Date“, Smiler offers suggestions to men for how to date without being a man. You think I’m joking. I’m not. The intro paragraph is auspicious:
It’s not possible to have a completely gender neutral date. Gender, our cultural and personal notions of how people should act based on their biological sex, influences too many aspects of our behavior to be completely neutralized. In the dating context, gender roles provide an outline of how things “should” work. But in a day and age where equality is the expectation, why stick to a rigid outline based on your genitalia?
Weighing the efficacy of mocking the puffboy’s pretensions or spelling out in tiresome detail where his premises are wrong, I am stuck deciding between low effort fun or high effort usefulness. *flips a coin* The latter it is.
1. Gender is not a synonym for sex. Only appeasing nancyboys throw around the word gender like candy, ostensibly to ingratiate their feminist overlords.
2. There’s no such thing as a sex neutral date. The point of dates is to bring together the two sexes and determine if there is enough shared attraction, based upon sex-particular needs, for a romantic entanglement. The sexes’ differing reproductive goals, especially the woman’s, require a relatively lengthy courtship period to override natural trepidation.
3. Cultural and personal notions don’t influence people to act “based on their biological sex”, (is there any other type of sex?). Rather, the innate biological foundation of sex differences influences cultural and personal expressions of dating behavior.
4. The moral presumption that sex differences should be neutralized is a feature of the warped mind of losers who compete poorly in the organic sexual market.
5. “Gender roles” don’t provide an outline of how things “should” work; instead, sex roles emerge naturally and unbidden from primal biological impulses that are activated and sustained in the most intractably evolved parts of the brain like the limbic system.
6. “Equality” is only an expectation in the stifling prison complexes of liberal arts universities and on the broadsheets of leftoid propagandists. Among normal people, concerns for equality are about the last thing on anyone’s mind during a date.
7. The genitalia produce no dating protocol outline, rigid or otherwise. The brain is primarily responsible for the phenomenon of sex differences in courtship behavior. A man or a woman don’t follow rigid outlines only after they locate and identify their genital package. (For Smiler, this could take hours.) They follow sex-specific behavior patterns because their brains are wired differently, and this wiring began at the moment of conception, and before that at the moment the human race was conceived.
Now you see why low effort glibness when dealing with these fruits is so tempting.
I’m trying to write this guide to apply across all genders, masculine, feminine, trans*, etc.
There are two sexes. Anything else is an escapee from nature’s discard pile.
If I’ve missed or something is very wrong, I have faith someone will let me know in the comments.
Good sire, I think yee’ve forgotten the thimblepeeners. Inclusiveness is job one, chop chop!
The butch asks some version of “I’d like to take you out to dinner, a movie, coffee, etc.,” does all the logistical work to make that date happen, initiates physical/sexual contact, and is responsible for starting conversation the next day if “he” wants the relationship to continue.
“He” is in nuance quotes because I suspect this pastry impersonating a man has relinquished the butch role to his morbidly obese feminist dates to take the lead jamming antique walking sticks up his rectum.
Hetrerosexual American guys assume they’ll pay for the first date, regardless of whether they endorse traditional or egalitarian gender roles.
More precisely, beta males assume they’ll pay for wallet-busting dates. Savvier men know the smart play, if a free date isn’t an option, is to pop for a cheap drink and tease the girl about buying the next ten rounds.
This role means the femme becomes the “sexual gatekeeper” because “she” is the one who accepts or rejects the butch’s sexual advances.
These “roles” you speak of are intractable properties of evolved human sexual psychology. They aren’t tasteful dresses you slip on in the privacy of your masturbatorium before an enthusiastic audience of Realdolls and brony onesies.
Very little of this requires sexually dimorphic genitalia.
Technically, this is true. You could lop off a man’s junk and he’ll still have a male mind, with the suite of behaviors that entails. I’m sure pudding bowl here has a wealth of experience in the matter.
Talking to someone, kissing and groping, and asking to see someone again (or not), requires a heart, a brain, a mouth, and the ability to communicate.
Well fuckin knock me over with a feather! Here I thought disembodied telepathy was all the rage.
Your genitalia—and your partner’s genitalia—are only relevant if you prefer some types of genitalia over others.
Trying to parse this, getting nowhere. I think he means a vagina is optional on a date. Her vagina, not his.
To minimize the impact of gender roles,
you’ll need to think about this now so you know what you want to do before you start doing it.
Hmm, sounds like… game!
Before you can do something new, you’ll need to get past the messages that have been beaten into your head by American culture.
“Cultural conditioning.” Define this “cultural conditioning” without resorting to circular shamanistic chanting. Use of any mathematical formulae in your presentation of evidence for cultural conditioning discernibly influencing sex specific mating behavior earns you bonus points. Stamping your wee feet doesn’t count as evidence.
Male feminists so funny thinking they can wave away biological reality by uttering two words ad nauseum. Which antediluvian “messages” have been beaten into American men’s heads the past sixty years? The gay marriage message? The black doctor message? The fat is beautiful message? The Lena Dunham is hot message? The white privilege message? The you go grrl message? If I didn’t know any better I’d say the cultural messages percolating throughout the entirety of the media and academia complexes extols a qausi-androgyny and sex role reversal. Funny, too, how *this* cultural conditioning has been so effortlessly rebuffed by all those men and women who continue to adhere to outmoded sex norms.
One part of this is learning to adopt the other role, at least at times.
“I’m wearing panties. The lace tickles my scrotum!”
Given how many times most guys hear some version of “don’t act like a girl,” that may not be the easiest way to approach it.
Maybe men are advised to not act like a girl because it’s a turn-off to women? Just a thought.
Instead, think about being asked out as someone paying you a complement and offering to buy you dinner in exchange for the chance to get to know you better.
If men wait around to be asked out by women they are gonna be pulling their puds alone for a long time. I suppose to get around this minor obstacle, you could taser women until they agree to your enlightened terms of engagement.
If a woman asks a man out or puts the sexual moves on him, it doesn’t mean she’s a slut (and it never did), it just means that she was ready for those things to happen before he was.
Leftoid reductionist thinking. Women don’t usually make the first move because it leaves them feeling less attractive, and it robs them of the need to gauge a man’s ardor and his drive. A man, of course, will take a pussy freebie if it’s thrown his way, but he won’t prize a woman as much as if she had retained her womanly prerogative to play coy and coax his initiative. These are fundamental principles of human value assessment that exist because the reproductive goals of men and women are different, and that transcend lazy, vapid platitudes about “being ready” first.
If a guy doesn’t initiate, it doesn’t mean he’s a wimp.
A leading indicator of gutless lapdog faggotry is a penchant for using the word “guy” in place of “man”, yet maintaining the use of “woman”. As some readers might have perspicaciously noticed, CH combats this puling media trend by using the terms “man” and “girl” with bracing regularity. The upturned prolapsed rump of the anklebiterrati must be balanced by the forces of righteous phallocentrism.
He might be shy. Or maybe he doesn’t trust his ability to read your nonverbal messages and has adopted a “better safe than sorry” approach.
No nuts, no glory.
In any dating scenario, you’ll need to decide if and how much sexual contact you want to have with this person at this time. Remember,guys are allowed to refuse,
This is how eunuchs like Andrew Smiler rationalize their never ending procession of sexless dates.
even if you’ve never heard one admit doing so.
The universal cheat code of the SMV reality denier. Something about the sexual market that bothers you because it highlights your inability to compete? Just claim the opposite happens all the time, but no one admits to it. It’s super secret and stuff.
If you’re not sure, you can always say something like “I’m not ready to [fill in the blank] yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?”
A man who says “I’m not ready to get a blowjob yet. Can we go back to what we were doing?” as the girl is unzipping his pants has to think seriously about his sexual orientation.
Some of this is inevitably influenced by those gender scripts we’ve all learned
Present a hard copy of this gender script for examination.
If you want to get out of gender-land quickly, share some of your “gender atypical” interests.
“I masturbate into doll houses.”
Or, if you’re really bold, talk about the fact that you don’t really (or only partially) buy into gender stereotypes. Heck, you could even send the link for this article.
Along with a restraining order form she can fill out at her convenience.
Interestingly, there is a subgenre of game that implicitly mocks the new age sensitive gumbo that is especially effective on overt feminists. By adopting a pose of antipathy to “traditional” sex stereotypes that will be taken as intellectual flattery by the feminist, the sneaky player can breach her perimeter defenses and then seal the deal later by acting like an unreconstructed cad. The feminist will have to square contradicting paeans to her worldview with behavior that speaks directly to her libido. The enticement to “understand this wild man” will be insuppressible.
When you ask someone on a date, it means you make all the plans. Start by selecting an activity (e.g., dinner, bowling, movie) and asking your partner if they’re ok with that choice.
Never ask a girl if she’s ok with your date suggestion. Make a plan, and leave it to her to nix it if it’s something she really doesn’t want to do. If she demurs, make a counter offer, and if she nixes that one, sarcastically admire her spontaneity and adventurism.
I firmly believe that whoever does the asking is also responsible for paying.
How conveeenient, since it’s men who will have to do the asking if they want to get anywhere with women who aren’t desperate, purple-haired fatties.
When I’ve initiated a date, the bill comes, and my date has asked to split the cost, I’ll usually just say “why don’t you pay next time?” But if it’s going poorly and I don’t want there to be a next time, I will accept that offer to split the cost.
If the date is going really poorly and the girl turns out to be a first class cunt, slip out the back Jack, and leave her with the bill.
If I’ve asked someone out, I never ask them to pay for half, even if it’s going poorly. I asked, so I pay.
This is why if you’re going on a date with the expectation you’ll be paying, just go for drinks. May as well liquor the girl up on your dime and make a dent in her inhibitions.
You’ll need to get ready before the first date. That means getting dressed in a way that shows who you are and may—or may not—mean emphasizing the parts of your body that are sexually desirable.
I’m trying to think of a scenario where emphasizing the parts of one’s body that are sexually repulsive is the winning move. I suppose men can get away with the tactic as part of a game of signaling overconfidence by self-handicapping, and making light of it. Women should not pursue this strategy under any guise.
Given that our standards of attractiveness are closely connected to gender, this is one place where you probably want to get all gendered up.
How conveeenient, part 2.
Then again, “getting all gendered up” might be confusing if you’re mostly not following the standard gender script.
I could carve a straighter man out of Andrew McRawGlutes Sullivan.
Beyond this, there’s no formula. You can maintain one roll (leading or following)
You *can*, but it would be personally advantageous, if you’re a man and not a castrate, to lead rather than to follow, because the overwhelming majority of women prefer men in the former role to the latter role. So yeah, switch sex roles around all you like; just don’t expect to avoid the consequences.
Although it can be awkward, I recommend having at least a little conversation about gender roles—especially as they apply to dating and sex—during the first date.
Do NOT talk about “gender roles” on a first date in anything but a humorous, self-aware tone. I can’t think of a faster way to deep six a date than droning about society’s pressure on women to conform to cross-legged sitting positions. If you’re gonna game a hardcore feminist by pretending to be sympatico with her dumb beliefs, at least choose topics that are tangentially related to sex, so that the idea of sex with you gets lodged in her brain.
If you 1) have a disagreement about one of these topics and 2) it’s a topic that you both feel strongly about, it may be a sign that you’re not supposed to be with the person. Personally, I’d rather know sooner than later. If the two of you are able to find common ground and resolve that difference, that’s also good to know.
Older men with abysmally low testosterone levels become more interested in finding “common ground” with women at the expense of getting laid. Then they upsell it as enlightened thinking when all it really reflects is an inability to get aroused by the wrinkly cougars they’re stuck waltzing to arid dinner dates.
If you’ve been leading the whole time, then momentum says it’s your job to follow up.
How does momentum say this? Citation number counts toward your final score.
If you enjoyed the first date, tell the other person;
Because no woman worth pursuing ever liked a little bit of ambiguity in a man.
From here, it’s back to flirting and you’ll need to make a decision if you’re going to initiate the second date or wait for your partner to do it.
Never have so many words said so little with such dullness.
The key here is that you don’t need to stick to a set of gender-based rules that are older than you are.
These rules are ancient for a reason, you dumb fuck. You shitlapper. You Facebook mom.
You and your partner can structure your romantic and sexual life—who is responsible for what and when—any way you like.
You can live in your home any way you like.
You can take care of your body any way you like.
You can shit in public parks any way you like.
But that doesn’t mean women want to live in pig sties, bang soft manboobs, or date men who crap into water fountains.
Actions have consequences. Repeat until your misfit rage against reality consumes you.
Apparently, to the desiccated male specimens at The Good Men Project, a good man is a gelded man. This Andrew Smiler and his ilk are the mirror image of the fatty feminists who assert with no real world evidence besides apocryphal anecdote that fat women are just as desirable to men, and women should stop worrying so much about staying slender. The gelded man asserts an equally pernicious and debilitating reality warp about the appeal of asexual psychological neuters that would, if taken to heart, contribute to the total repository of ugliness and unhappiness in the world, both by men suffering romantic rejection and by women suffering the disappearance of alluring men.
One wonders what motivates these modern manlets. Are they sincere, or are they fly by night viral marketers for page views? Are many of them in the midst of sexual identity crises that collaterally drive them to public forums in outsized numbers to broadcast their self-hate? Is there really some kind of a gender-bending parasite, or a chemical, that has seeped into the rivulets of Western society and shriveled the nut sacks of millions of men?
Whatever they are, whatever their origin, CH will stand as a bulwark against the anhedonic emasculati’s dangerous nonsense. The Shiv of CH will disembowel their id viscera and display the mess on the operating table for the world to ridicule as mercilessly and joyously as we turn out the vitals of the freak feminists and malign equalists.
Comment Of The Week: Your Rejection Only Makes Me Stronger
Jan 19th, 2014 by CH
darkhorse steals the COTW,
Too many newbs mistake outcome independence for passivity. If you’ve engaged a girl, and she’s reciprocating, it’s game time. Move the seduction forward. Don’t make a habit of buttressing your inner game by deleting girls’ texts so you don’t have an emotional reaction to whatever you imagine they’ll say.
(A milder and more advantageous form of this kind of inner game trick is to turn off your phone for a day, so you call girls a day later. But this is for initial responses. If you have a girl on the chat line and she’s replying in a timely manner, keep it up. Don’t look a gift hoohah in the muff.)
Ultimately, the alpha attitude of outcome independence rests on a foundation of behavioral indifference to rejection. Rejection inoculation, you could say. If you worry excessively about being rejected by a girl, you’ll always struggle to unlock any alpha male potential within you. Of course, no man likes to be rejected by a girl he desires, not even naturals, but the idea is not the elimination of distaste for rejection. Rather, the aim is to accept rejection as the collateral damage of pickup, a necessary burden, and to stop beating yourself up over it.
Think of rejection like a sudden downpour, or a deus ex machina. It happens, you let it pass, you carry on. You don’t pretend to like it, but neither do you bellyache and take disproportionate, self-defeating measures to avoid it. It’s a fleeting nuisance that has no bearing on your attitude or your ambitions. Each rejection then becomes a victim of your cavalier dismissal, which, when compounded, strengthens your immunity to emotional disturbances caused by future rejections. And a funny thing happens when you start to think this way… you experience less rejection.
***
Runner-up COTW winner is Lord Byron, patron saint of Le Chateau, from his Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage:
Leave it to an unapologetic master cad to tell it like it is.
We are loose nuts rattling in a doomsday machine. We can see the abort button, we can even reach it, but our hands stay by our sides. And all we can do is lament our paralysis.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off