Feed on
Posts
Comments

Do Masculine Women Prefer Even More Masculine Men?

Apr 22nd, 2013 by

In this post, we discussed a study which showed that women with longer legs appear more attractive to men. (and men with relatively shorter legs and longer torsos are more attractive to women).

A reader speculates about what that sex difference could mean for men seeking to efficiently scour the mating market for effortless bangs.

Just as a strong jaw is masculine, short legs in a woman is also masculine (http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio).

You can easily see in those pictures short legs are masculine and long legs are feminine, and this true for both sexes. This is probably comparable to facial width and finger digit ratio as a “nurture neutral” indication of masculinity.

Women with longer legs prefer alpha males too, but apparently have greater beta male tolerance. If you look at supermodels, and other women with extremely long legs, you’ll see most don’t automatically swoon for bad boys, although they have access to them. A lot of them have photographer, artist and otherwise effeminate boyfriends. However, you rarely see a short stripper type with anything less than a standard bad boy.

I guess I’m saying a heterosexual masculine woman will have a stronger preference for masculine men, or that she has masculine men in her ancestry. The question then becomes, do her masculine genetics increase her attraction to alpha males?

Examples:
Cameron Russell (supermodel) with her boyfriend Andrew Elliott (photographer)
http://www.twylah.com/CameronCRussell/topics/andrew
http://www.fashionfreude.com/2012/11/06/victorias-secret-show-2012/vs/

Bibi Jones (porn star, stripper, etc) with Rob Gronkowski
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/19/rob-gronkowski-porn-star/70000681/1
http://wickedimproper.com/2011/11/now-wait-just-a-god-damn-minute/

As you can see from the full-length photos, Cameron is 50% legs to body whereas Bibi is 40% or less.

This reader is touching on something real. While studies are sparse (nonexistent?), it does appear to be the case that, anecdotally and observationally, masculine women tend to go for very masculine men. (Recall that “masculine” does not necessarily mean “alpha“, as we can see by the fact that many effeminate artist types do quite well with cute women.)

So the rule generally expressed is as follows:
Given the axiom that most women prefer men more phenotypically and behaviorally masculine than themselves:

a. Masculine women will prefer very masculine men and avoid feminine men, and

b. Feminine women will prefer men of average to slightly higher than average masculinity and tolerate feminine men.

As a rule, this makes some sense. Sexual polarity is the cosmic force that breathes life into all other psychodynamic human motivations. When the sexual polarity is weak, or reversed (i.e., wimpy, soft men with hard-charging, hard-edged women), any nascent attraction is incapable of being sustained, and any relationship that results from such unions will have more obstacles to overcome and higher risk of infidelities than relationships that are sufficiently polarized by conventional male and female attributes.

Therefore, women will want to choose masculine men to retain that all-important polarity, but the degree of male masculinity required to reach a suitable level of polarity will vary based upon the woman’s own inherent masculinity.

This rule of what I will call “Shifted Female Masculinity Preference” — that is, the idea that the preference of women for masculine men is shifted to greater masculinity in men relative to the women’s own masculine attributes and psychological traits — has plenty of exceptions, and so I would not set my watch to it, nor should you, the efficient pursuer of women, rely on it exclusively to streamline your seduction operations. It’s a loose rule you can use to winnow a lot of prospects to a manageable number.

For instance, if you are a brooding emo WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIFT, you should focus your attention on long-legged women, but never dismiss short-legged women outright. Mesomorphs and “act first, think later” types should tune their radars for short-legged chicks with a twinkle of mischief in their eyes.

Another potential flaw in the rule (besides its lack of robust predictive power) rests in its premise: Are shorter legs and longer torsos really indicative of greater masculinity in women? Manjaws certainly are, but lots of short-legged women have very feminine faces. One way to resolve this issue is to determine if manjaws and short legs correlate in women.

If the rule is accurate and indicative of broad sexual market mating outcomes, we can expect to see greater masculinity in the children of short-legged women, and greater femininity in the children of long-legged women. And, inferring from Satoshi Kanazawa’s (unproven) theory that feminine couples produce more daughters, the former will bear more sons (and perhaps shorter sons) and the latter more (and perhaps taller) daughters.

One other thing we can infer is that less masculine men who date feminine women will compensate for their lower aggression and muscularity by being more psychologically dominant. And in fact one does find that the artist lovers of model chicks tend to be masters in the art of emotional manipulation. The more physically masculine men rely on their presence to assert dominance, but are often weak in the arena of subtle mental persuasion, and have a habit of ostentatiously mate guarding their women, leaving them susceptible to female machinations. This is why more masculine men get used as cat’s-paws by their girlfriends while more feminine — in both body and mind — men are tougher to manipulate. This imperviousness in some men to female manipulation is attractive to many women, and helps create an impression of dominance that fuels the necessary sexual polarity.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls | No Comments »

Photo Of The Century Shoot-Out

Apr 19th, 2013 by

It’s still early in the 21st Century, but already we have two photos which so deliciously capture the zany zeitgeist and cultural erosion of America that it makes sense to vote now on which one will win Photo of the Century.

First up is a pic (or, rather, a TV screen capture) of a Mercedes SUV. This is the car that was carjacked by the two Boston Marathon Muslim bombers, brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, (two dudes, it should be noted, who are about as culturally and genetically far from NW European whites as Levantine Semites are), as they were fleeing from police. On the SUV’s bumper is a “COEXIST” sticker.

The irony, it is SO GOOD, my cocky alpha smirk has gone suborbital. If you’ve been living safely away from white liberals, and never saw a “COEXIST” bumper sticker, here it is:

As you can see, the bumper sticker is kumbaya, bombs-across-America horse shit. Typical upper class leftoid self-soothing, status whoring propaganda that bears no semblance to reality, but does make the leftoid feel pretty goshdarned tickled with himself. As a YOU GOT KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT juxtaposition that belies the leftoid’s moralizing, the photo of the carjacked SUV is the equivalent of an early years Tyson uppercut. How do you think the Mercedes-driving liberal feels now that he’s been coexisted into a hijacking with a sterling member of the coexistence shock troops? Chastened? Rethinking his priors? Nah. He’s winding up to crack down even harder with his self-annihilating, self-flagellating, redneck bogeyman Whip of White Man Penance. He hopes the searing pain will blind him to the ugly, encroaching truth. And perhaps also keep him in good graces with his cocktail circuit buddies.

***

The next photo is representative of late-stage, declining America as much as the first, but its subversive message targets a different part of the culture’s underbelly (heh).

There’s nothing like a snapshot of a fat bride, her fat friends, and her beta groom collapsing under their own weight into the murky depths of America’s retreat from greatness. The symbolism here is sublime. Grossly obese, still hanging onto the customs of old traditions that are quickly being discarded, and sinking nonetheless to a suffocating doom. People who fret about the state of marriage talk a big talk about men “manning up”, but an honest observer of the scene would have to ask exactly why any man would want to hitch himself to a human RV? The marriage rate is decreasing and age of first marriage is rising, and yet no one bothers to wonder if the growing (heh) crisis of female obesity has anything to do with it.

The voting booth: Photo of the Century Shoot-Out”Coexist” SUV carjacked by Muslim bombersFat wedding party falling into the drink.

ps we’ll be back to game posts soon. this was just too juicy to pass up.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Funny/Lolblogs, Globalization, Goodbye America, The Id Monster | No Comments »

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

Apr 19th, 2013 by

The Boston Marathon Muslim bombers (see what I did there?) were identified and corralled relatively quickly. The reason for the quickness is this: Outbreeding.

To put it more conventionally, a cultural-cum-genetic predisposition toward love-based monogamous marriage that strengthens outbreeding and restricts inbreeding is what helped authorities identify and track the bomber suspects.

By limiting inbreeding, a phenomenon which usually occurs via cousin marriage, the circle of trust is widened. When police ask for tips, this built-in higher level of trust is effectively an enlarged witness pool, ready to jump in with assistance.

Clannish societies, like Chechnya, are more inbred societies. People there look out for family first, the general public good a distant second. Had the Chechen Muslim brothers (see what I did there again?) committed their murderous act in Chechnya, where clan blood is thick and civic-mindedness is thin, it is likely that they would be on the run for a long time, because family members, 2nd, 3rd, or 10th removed, would be all omertá and the cops, such as they are, would get nothing but cold leads.

America has, until lately, been an outbred society (but still mostly inbred as a continental race). White Americans are mutts of mixed Northwest European ancestry. The circle of trust is generally huge in Anglo nations, and that’s why cops can do their jobs there. Family is still important, but there’s a greater degree of cooperativeness and fellow-feeling than would be found in places like, say, Iraq.

That of course, is all ending now. Diversity and the resentful enclaves spawned in its wake are destroying fellow-feeling. Clannish people are setting up shop in the most American of towns. Cognitive and cultural stratification as described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart is further contributing to the shrinking circle of trust.

Soon now, very soon, the day is coming when future Tsarnaev brothers will get to enjoy a life on the lam in America for many, many years, protected by inner circle insiders who don’t give a shit about the fate of America as a cohesive nation.

PS One curse of outbreeding: Pathological altruism. The kumbaya genes spread out of control until wishful thinking, instead of reality-based thinking, push the stricken population into self-destructiveness.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Current Events | No Comments »

Women Will Qualify You, So You Must Resist Their Efforts

Apr 19th, 2013 by

Take a look at this image capture of a search engine auto-fill:

80% of the questions asked by men are selfless in nature. They are questions about how to please a woman and make her happy. 70% of the questions asked by women are selfish in nature. They are questions about how to get noticed by men, and how to manipulate men’s affections.

These are the male and female ids auto-exposed. Female solipsism is powerful and is an inextricable part of their nature as sexual beings. Women are hard-wired from the womb to turn their focus inward, because their eggs are biologically more valuable than sperm. Men are hard-wired to turn their focus outward, because that is how they acquire status and how they win the love of constitutionally diffident women.

As a man who understands the raw, vital power of game, it behooves you to accept female solipsism for the unalterable fact it is, and to avoid its traps and leverage it for your own ends. Women, selfish at heart, will be driven to QUALIFY men for adherence to women’s personal preferences. Selfish people want to know what others can do for them.

Selfless people want to know how they can please others and win their favor. That’s a crucial difference between women and men. And this difference stems from the essential sex difference.

Many beta males will take the lesson to mean they should bend over even farther to appease women’s selfishness. But that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. Abiding a woman’s natural selfishness will only create more selfishness. That’s a beast you don’t want to feed.

The correct response to women’s selfishness and concomitant compulsion to qualify men is to sidestep their efforts to derive your mate value and turn the tables on them, effectively using women’s own psychological inclination against themselves. Instead of relinquishing to her judgment, YOU become the manipulator of romantic yearning and the keeper of mate standards.

Women love this, because this is what alpha males with options do. A man who is in some sense LIKE A WOMAN — a man who judges prospective mates and qualifies them according to his whim — is a man who signals to women that he has loads of options in the sexual market. And as we all know, women can’t resist the allure of the preselected man.

So instead of wondering “how do I make a girl feel special”, start thinking “how can I make this girl miss me”. It’s a subtle shift in thought that will accrue enormously satisfying rewards. Because the sexual spoils go to the selfish pricks.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, The Id Monster | No Comments »

Slam Shibboleth

Apr 18th, 2013 by

A dumpling faced feminist-slash-slam poetess made a video about the horrible, terrible, no good culture of beauty that oppresses women and keeps them from realizing their dreams of being ugly rocket scientists that men love so much. Watch it here.

It has 1.7 million views and 17,000 likes. The platitude pushers will not want for addicts any time soon.

Did you know CH was once a slam poetry hero? Yes, it’s true. The spirit of syncopated sulky syllable slamming once moved yer ‘umble host to heights of grandiose on-stage spasming. Chicks loved it. Hipster doofuses wished they could capture a rhythmic beat of Heartiste magic, so that they may slay their own snapperdragons.

Good news! Recently unearthed from the underworld slam poetry archives is rare video footage of one of CH’s charmed apprentices performing a satire of the droopy-eyed feminist’s battle cry to wage war against mascara and the cruel judgment of looks-ism. To fully appreciate the (he)artistry, watch the above video before watching the following. (Give the video a few minutes to buffer.)

Not Pretty

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Funny/Lolblogs | No Comments »

White On White War

Apr 17th, 2013 by

Some leftoid SWPL freak is bitching about “white male privilege” and the unequaaaaal treatment disturbingly white American society supposedly accords white bombers and Muslim bombers. Never mind the fact that his premise — that white terrorists are quickly labeled “lone wolves” while arab muslim terrorists are “existential threats” — is a pile of horse shit. After each shooting spree with a white assailant (the number of which are proportional, it should be noted, to the percent of whites in the total population), the Cathedral spins into a frenzy happily deliberating for months about the existential threat of right-wing/anti-government/white supremacist extremist groups. In contrast, muslim terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, get shoved down the memory hole or dismissed as one-offs. Worse, they’re used as props by Army brass to agitate for more diversity.

The point of this particular self-annihilating white leftoid’s screed is to forewarn against any notions — lest you be thinking impure thoughts, bigot! — of closing off the border to muslim immigrants. The Equalists and ruling class Status Whores will stop at nothing to swamp flyover white country with battalions of uruk-hai; anything less would be too civilized for their exquisite gated community sensibility. The leftoid creeps don’t care that blocking all muslim immigration indefinitely until or if such time that the religion of peace is pacified by its own internal progress will reduce the threat of terror bombings on American soil. They give no quarter to the logic that keeping out people who comprise a disproportionate number of America haters with a penchant for visionary jihad and strip clubs will lower the risk of future terror attacks at home.

All they care about is more non-whites and non-Christians in America. The more of them, the cheaper the labor for their esteemed oligarchs, and the more neutered the political and social power of the hated Wrong Kind of White class.

This is the “””nation””” we live in now, for worse or worser.

Hilariously, the Salon leftoid quotes noted anti-white quasi-white man Tim Wise:

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise.

Ah yes, Tim Wise would know quite a bit about “white privilege”, wouldn’t he? Timmy boy, how’s it going in that 97% white neighborhood where you’ve sequestered yourself? There sure seem to be a lot of perks that come with preaching about unearned perks.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Goodbye America, Status Is King, The Id Monster | No Comments »

Alpha Assessment: False Frame Edition

Apr 16th, 2013 by

A reader writes about a girl playing hard to get after she had already been gotten.

i was fucking this 27 year old who’d just gotten out of a relationship for a while (i’m 24) and i texted her out of the blue and took her to a concert after not seeing her for two months. despite lots of kino etc at the show and her telling me “you’re dangerous” she told me she wouldn’t sleep with me tonight. we went to a bar afterward and i told her calmly i was very angry at her for coming out with me with no interest in coming home with me, and that i’d never call her again. she broke down crying. i must admit i took some pleasure in it.

i did some things well (holding my ground, flirting with the bartender and other girls at the bar, maintaining excellent body posture, excusing myself for the bathroom when she started talking about another guy, saying things like “i will permit you to sleep with me”) but probably betrayed my own lack of options by being too affectionate and continuing to care, show kino etc. she showed mixed signals – kept asking me questions about my actual type, continued to say she wouldn’t sleep with me but admitted she’d lied earlier when she said she was seeing someone, said she’d sleep with me if i put roofies in her drink (weird, but a sign she was thinking about it, i presume).

the problem is at this point in my life, basically all of this is unintuitive, so i am prone to making mistakes, or knowing how i want to respond to something in a conversation and struggling for the actual words. i am also probably too mean/bitter , i have not mastered how to “get to agreement” etc without sounding too appeasing/beta.

Can you figure out where the reader lost his mojo with this girl? Leave your answers in the comments. The post will be updated later in the day. Commenters with the winning replies will receive a stuffed ferret in rage mode.

Similar to a false flag operation, the false frame is meant to deceive a person into believing that the speaker desires a different outcome, or holds a different belief, than what is actually desired or believed. A  typical example of the false frame is a woman alerting her date that she is not planning to sleep with him that night. While she may not in fact be consciously engaged in pushing the date toward sex, the frame she sets is false in the sense that its purpose is to entrap a man to accept its stated premise, despite the misleading nature of the premise obfuscating her true feelings.

(If you deny that these are her true feelings, you ignore the near universal evidence that women who speak of sex, in whatever positive or negative connotation, have sex on their minds.)

Denying or otherwise sidestepping a false frame would almost certainly yield an outcome at odds with the deceiver’s frame. False frames are close cousins of shit tests, differing mainly in their target designation (false frames are usually self-referential while shit tests are accusatory) and their style (false frames entrap while shit tests goad).

Here’s a hint to the answer to this edition of alpha assessment: It’s better to suffer a few beta procedural missteps while adhering to an alpha attitude than it is to flawlessly execute with alpha behavioral precision a beta attitude.

UPDATE

The answer to this riddle, of course, is when he told her he was angry with her for not putting out.

My friends, that is called Powering Up the Anti-Slut Defense Shields to maximum deflection.

You do not ever reason with a woman logically. When she says she won’t sleep with you, the last thing you should do is argue with her as if she is violating some legal contract. You either

a. ignore her ASD or

b. playfully redirect it to more fruitful emotions.

This reader’s scenario is a great example of the incongruence between maintaining a physical and vocal alpha frame while still operating under a mentality of beta scarcity. You can sit and stand and intone like James Bond, but if you chastise a girl for not agreeing to your sexual timetable, you may as well hang a sign over your head that reads “Desperate, Undersexed and Needing Quick Relief.”

You’ve gotta get that inner game down before the rest of the little things really click into place like one smoothly running pick-up machine.

Many commenters offered much better suggestions, most of which fell under the rubric of “agree and amplify”. Krauser has a great rebuttal to this kind of female false frame that is similar to agree and amplify, but takes a more seductive turn which opens opportunities to keep the conversational channel focused on impending intimacy.

My favorite reply is “That’s Ok, I didn’t want to get you pregnant”, which is really perfect for this exact situation.

Winners will receive the following stuffed ferret in rage mode.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha | No Comments »

One Reason Why Feminists Are So Ugly

Apr 15th, 2013 by

Besides being objectively ugly, that is.

A study found that angry female faces look less feminine.

Rockville, MD – “Why is it that men can be bastards and women must wear pearls and smile?” wrote author Lynn Hecht Schafran. The answer, according to an article in the Journal of Vision, may lie in our interpretation of facial expressions.

In two studies, researchers asked subjects to identify the sex of a series of faces. In the first study, androgynous faces with lowered eyebrows and tight lips (angry expressions) were more likely to be identified as male, and faces with smiles and raised eyebrows (expressions of happiness and fear) were often labeled feminine.

The second study used male and female faces wearing expressions of happiness, anger, sadness, fear or a neutral expression. Overall, subjects were able to identify male faces more quickly than female faces, and female faces that expressed anger took the longest to identify.

When was the last time you saw a happy feminist? Never. Anger and feminism are so inextricable that the phrase “angry feminist” has  become redundant.

Biological defectives are drawn to feminism because the diseased ideology allows them to undermine their ancient foe: Normality. (In times past when people were refreshingly judgmental, normality was also called “truth and beauty.”)

So there is a selection effect for physically ugly feminists, but they make their ugliness worse by walking around with a chip on their shoulders and a scowl perpetually hitched to their manjaws. Angry women are so off-putting to our ingrained aesthetic expectations, that it takes a long time for people to recognize sputtering, vein-bulging femborgs as female.

Men prefer feminine women, as women prefer masculine men. This is the cosmic law of sexual polarity that by its mere immutable existence will always make mockery of the various stripes of gender equalists and their self-serving beliefs. Some emotions, like anger, are perceived by uncontrollable subconscious mental algorithms as more male, and hence can be said to be “sexist” emotions.

“This difference in how the emotions and social traits of the two sexes are perceived could have significant implications for social interactions in a number of settings. Our research demonstrates that equivalent levels of anger are perceived as more intense when shown by men rather than women, and happiness as more intense when shown by women rather than men. It also suggests that it is less likely for men to be perceived as warm and caring and for women to be perceived as dominant.”

When women are angry, they appear more masculine, and therefore less attractive to men. Perhaps the solution to this disparate emotional impact is for angry feminists to battle the “culture of sexist emotions” by demanding equal gesticulation. The “glass feeling” must be broken so boardrooms and bedrooms can make way for histrionically happy men and spittle-flecked enraged women, coming together at last as true equals, totally and equally repulsed by each other. Ah, nirvana!

The game lesson here should be obvious: If you are a man, stop smiling like a Special Olympics winner. Show a little anger once in a while. Look like a brooding bad-ass instead of a gleeful gaywad. Girls will find you more masculine, and men will take you more seriously.

Biology is not a trifle easily subverted with sophistry. Underlying our reflexive perceptions that seem superficial without deeper understanding lies a foundation of incorruptible truth. In this case, that truth points at a terribly discomfiting fact for our moralizing misfits: angry women appear less feminine because they possess more of a male temperament, and possibly even a male hormonal profile, all of which signals to men that the angry bitch is a low fertility prospect not worth pursuing.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | No Comments »

Nauseating Beta Male ODA

Apr 12th, 2013 by

Sitting near me, facing away, was a frumpily dressed woman. To her side stood her boyfriend (or husband, couldn’t see the hands for ring verification), who was carrying two backpacks in one arm and had his other arm resting on his woman’s shoulders. He leaned over and kissed the top of her head.

A minute later, he did it again. Less than a minute after that, his lips once again anointed the top of her head. Then the head pecks came like a rain, one drop kiss after another.  peck… peck… peck  A wave of nausea overcame me as his peckings reached a crescendo and he began to resemble a chicken plucking seeds from her hair. Finally, I couldna take it no more, and had to evacuate the scene of herbage.

Why do some men do this? Is it for the benefit of their girlfriends? She seemed to be tolerating him well enough, but such egregiously obsequious displays of affection (ODA) have got to be a turn-off for women. In public, it’s worse; a woman can better endure her betaboy’s chimp-like grooming rituals in the privacy of home, where she does not experience the double revulsion that would be the case in public where it’s easy to suspect he’s slobbering all over her to advertise to the world how lucky he is to have her. Or to ward off better men from stealing his hard-won concubine.

If it’s meant as a warning to other men to keep their distance… believe me, dude, it won’t work on any man seriously considering a run for your “prize”. All it would take is one moment alone with your beloved and an innocent offer of a napkin to help “clean up the saliva” from the top of her head, and it’s off to the races.

There’s an alpha way and a beta way to do PDA. Firm ass, boob or crotch grabs, neck sniffs, erotic ear whisperings or hiney slaps are examples of alpha males staking their territory. Head peckings are beta. Why don’t you just pick lint off her exquisite princess robes while you’re at it?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Guy Rules | No Comments »

How To Treat A Beautiful Woman Like A Plain Woman

Apr 12th, 2013 by

This post could just as relevantly be titled “When Beta Males Miraculously Get It Right.”

Before we get to the “how”, we should answer the “why” of treating a beautiful woman like a plain woman. Recall Poon Commandment X:

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

:lol:

Beautiful women LOVE LOVE LOVE to be treated by men as if they are plain-looking women. Beautiful women love this treatment because it serves as evidence that the man who treats them this way is an alpha male who has such an easy time getting laid with other beautiful women that he doesn’t feel any need to impress them. He can “just be himself”.

A beautiful woman writes off a man seeking her approval almost as quickly as a man writes off an ugly woman flirting with him.

Now that you know the “why”, here’s the “how”:

As stated above, never compliment beautiful women on their looks, and never think of them in terms of their looks. But these are small tricks of brain, fore and hind, that pale in comparison to the effectiveness of treating beautiful women PLAYFULLY, like they’re bratty little girls with cooties.

Next time you’re out, try to find some beta males with their homely girlfriends. You won’t have to search for long. Observe them in the wild for a bit, and you’ll notice something. More than a handful of those beta males act charmingly ALPHA with their plain janes. For some mysterious, magical reason, these betas are able to relax like an alpha boss, and tease their bland girlfriends until the girls are giggling and smiling.

These betas, in other words, are contextually alpha. Does that mean they’re alpha males? No. For that, they’d need to be as carefree and reckless and cocky with cute girls as they are with their homely halves. As it stands, the betas are merely accidental alphas.

But this is where you can learn something from a cool beans beta. Watch how he acts with the fugs, and act that way with the babes. It’s a naturally aloof attitude coupled with playful behavior. The aloof attitude has been discussed at CH many times, so here we’ll focus on those playful tactics that win girls over, (and incidentally raise your sexual market value vis-á-vis hers, nourishing her vagina to full bloom).

Playfulness Tactics

– the “stop hitting yourself” game
– surprise kicking her in the butt as you walk side by side
– making over-the-top phony facial expressions indicating rapt attention or wide-eyed curiosity
– cutting in front of her in lines
– jumping in a puddle to get her wet
– asking if she’d like another ten ice cream bars
– composing a ridiculously inane poem for her, and delivering it with stentorian gravitas
– putting her hand on your arm, and then accusing her of raping you
– grabbing her purse and hanging it from a branch high in a tree
– going in for the kiss with BBQ sauce all over your face
– taking it the extra step and smearing her face
– the “say everything she says” game (gets annoying delightfully fast)
– making fun of her insatiable horniness (this is projecting women’s own teasing preferences back onto them)
– the “stay on your side” game
– putting something in her hair (try to do it without her noticing until later)
– “there’s something on your shirt” ruse
– indian burns
– making a loud noise every time she tries to say something (“what? speak up I can’t hear you!”)
– mishearing everything she says (“you want me to dump on a whore?”, “NO I WANT YOU TO RUN TO THE STORE!”)
– unctuous flattery (“that’s brilliant! you’re a genius. I am SO awestruck and humbled right now. wow just wow.”)
– pretending to be impressed by her (“I just can’t believe… you… me… here like this… I think I’m going to faint, can I have your autograph? I think I just soiled myself. HOLY MOTHER OF PEARL this is the greatest day of my life!!!”)
– pretending to push her into traffic, the ocean, a pool, a port-a-johnny
– the escalating “what?” game
– staring contests
– staring contests with funny faces
– a game of tag (if she doesn’t immediately run after you, act as if she’s going to tag you at an opportune moment and dart out of the way every time she gets near)

If you find this hard to do with hot girls, that’s because you’re imbuing their beauty with too much importance. You think a hot girl is more likely than a plain girl to dismiss your childish antics, and this thinking causes you to walk on eggshells when in their company. But the opposite is true. Hot girls love to be teased and taunted and patronized. They love it because they rarely get it.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules | No Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »