Feed on
Posts
Comments

Beta Males Settle For Fat Chicks

Aug 13th, 2012 by

Beta males are more anxious, fidgety, alert and quicker to react to local disturbances than are alpha males. We know this from observing it in the field, and now from various scientific studies examining the phenomenon. The short of it is, if you’re an alpha male, you don’t need as wide a margin of safety as beta males do, for you are less likely than they are to get cold-cocked, challenged or to lose a fight or dominance contest should one erupt. This lower need for safety precautions allows the alpha male to relax in his environment and to assume open, welcoming postures that are alluring to women. It follows that beta males, by practicing and adopting the cool, aloof mannerisms of the alpha male, can attract more and better women. Body language improvement is a fundamental tenet of game, and it works so effectively at heating up interest from women that some men might be tempted to call it magic.

Beta males, then, are in a constant state of heightened anxiety; also known as being stressed out. The world is a dangerous place, especially for beta males. If you feel stressed out all the time, like you’re losing control of your life or your surroundings, odds are good you are a beta male.

Now science comes along, trotting in like a merry prankster, to prove, albeit for those with a keen eye for reading between the lines, that beta males — i.e., stressed males — are more likely than relaxed, confident, self-satisfied alpha males to settle for the losers of womanhood.

Increased stress in men is associated with a preference for heavier women, according to research published Aug. 8 in the open access journal PLOS ONE.

The researchers, led by Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London, compared how stressed versus non-stressed men responded to pictures of female bodies varying from emaciated to obese.

They found that the stressed group gave significantly higher ratings to the normal weight and overweight figures than the non-stressed group did, and that the stressed group generally had a broader range of figures they found attractive than the non-stressed group did.

These results, the authors write, are consistent with the idea that people idealize mature morphological traits like heavier body size when they experience an environmental threat such as stress.

The researchers go on to speculate that stressed men gravitate (heh) to fat chicks because those women are perceived as being better able to survive periodic famines, and to have higher social status that allows them to afford more food.

Tidy speculation that toes the feminist line, but I’ll tell you the powerhouse knockout punch this study really delivers:

Stressed men are beta males with limited mating market options who learn to increase their chances of getting laid by widening their field of view (double-wide heh) to include fatter chicks who themselves have limited options and are thus easier to bed.

Why are stressed men gimped in the sexual market? Women don’t want to be around anxious, stressed men. Women prefer the company of relaxed, self-assured men; these men are signaling that they have the resources, and the ability to get more resources should the need arise, that women value in potential mates. Thin, beautiful women have the highest value, and the most options, of all women, so they are the ones most likely to adhere to very tough standards and to act on their preference for large and in-charge alpha males.

Are beta males *constitutionally* more attracted to fat chicks when they’re stressed? Probably not. What men find attractive in women — which doesn’t deviate much from the universal preference for a 17-23 BMI and a 0.7 waist-hip ratio — is pretty much set by conception, and then later by that first thermonuclear blast of hindbrain hormones that floods our systems at puberty. Recall back to that time you got a surprise “what the hell is this?” boner from staring at the teenage red-headed girl’s tight tush and narrow waist. Was that boner preprogrammed by cultural cues to rise on command? Or did it just happen on its own, intrinsic to your being, immune to external suasion, summoned from the depths of your primordial subconscious to lurch your body into spasms of delight?

Stressed out betas don’t prefer fat chicks to thinner chicks; (as the study showed but the researchers… ahem… chose to paper over in their conclusion, stressed betas actually gave the same high scores as relaxed alphas gave to the thin chicks. The difference is that alpha males did not over-inflate (triple bank shot heh) the attractiveness of the fatter chicks). What stressed beta males prefer is the inclusion of a larger (fourth heh?) pool of lower value women rightly perceived by these betas as being easier for them to get than hotter, thinner chicks.

Once you remove the stressor from the lives of these beta males, they go right back to preferring slender babes. You could say that a happy man is a man who hates the sight of fat chicks. I’m sure fat chicks will be pleased to learn that they can clean up with unhappy, neurotic men.

So that is the brutal truth this study confirms for those of us who have lived a day in our lives and witnessed happening over and over among real human beings instead of the opposite that is claimed to happen by internet shut-ins and cocooned, deluded feminists:

Maxim # 23: Limited options = looser standards.

When life is going well for a man, he demands the best for himself. The best will always be slim, pretty, young women. When life is shitting on a man, he reaches out to fellow losers with whom he can share his lonely love. The losers will always be fat, ugly, and/or older women. His ego then does the job of convincing his higher order brain functions that the fat chick he’s plowing kinda has a cute face in the right light: total darkness.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Biomechanics is God, Girls, Hungry Hungry Hippos, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

“What Does It Matter To You?”

Aug 10th, 2012 by

“What does it matter to you?” is a common refrain of indignation you’ll often hear from equalists and their phylum. It’s part of the remedial school of philosophical thought that says if a personal action is not directly hurting anyone else, then no moral opprobrium can apply to it. So typically if you get into a debate with a feminist or manboob, it will go like this:

You: Feminist action or behavior [X] is stupid, counterproductive, and rife with externalities.

Equalist felching champ: It’s not hurting anyone, so what does it matter to you?

For a prime example of the genre, here’s a comment by aneroidocean (so pretentious) complaining about the post on mannish female Olympians:

So what is a woman [to do] that wasn’t blessed with wider hips and narrower shoulders? Die quietly?

Gotta love the reductio ad absurdum. A classic leftie feint. You could parry by employing simple logic — “pointing out the fact of masculinized female athletes is not the same as arguing for the prohibition of women in sports” — or you could rightfully conclude that simple logic would zoom right over the heads of such emotional crybabies and choose the mockery route instead:

“No, they should die screaming in agony forced to listen to your pussy whining.”

What does it matter if she competes in the Olympics?

Wuss, there it is. “What does it matter to you?!??????? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! A feeling has been hurt!”

The issue being raised was never about how much it personally mattered to me, or affected my own life. That’s the problem with you unthinking liberals — you always want to reframe an argument you find distasteful, or you find yourself on the losing end of, into a personal matter, a position from which it’s easier for you to morally strut and preen and preach fire and brimstone from your tawdry little masturbatoriums.

The morality, or lack thereof, of manned-up women competing in the Olympics is not the point of the Olympic female athlete post. No one’s rights are abridged if some manly swole she-beast hoists 400 lbs above her head, nor is any moral law du jour violated. The point here is to remind the losers and equalists and assorted anti-realists that there is nothing inherently empowering about female sports participation unless one defines empowerment as “becoming more man-like”. It is also to address, honestly and truthfully, the obvious fact that a lot of female athletes are just quasi-men, in appearance, musculature and temperament. Therefore, the encouragement of women by the media industrial complex into elite sports mostly rests on a foundation of denying women their feminine essence. A nation that wasn’t fucked in the head with an overload of kumbaya horseshit would not shy away from this bald truth of the reality of sex differences, and would realign its cultural incentives so that a proper balance was restored, reflecting innate biological reality, until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men. At the very least, the feminist propagandizing of female sports empowerment has to end, and hand-wringing over “equal representation” needs to become a shameful relic from this ugly, god-willing bygone era.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Feminist Idiocy | Comments Off

Let A Woman Yap A Little

Aug 10th, 2012 by

Listening is a key ingredient of tight game. Sounds simple, but the simplicity of it is belied by the millions of men who can’t stay focused on the actual words coming out of a girl’s mouth. Who can blame them? A heaving rack can distract any man with a functioning libido, (slouching SWPLs’ Herculean listening abilities thus explained), and, let’s face it, most women don’t have much interesting to say when they’re talking about themselves, which, as this study shows, is most of the time.

Talking about ourselves—whether in a personal conversation or through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter—triggers the same sensation of pleasure in the brain as food or money, researchers reported Monday.

About 40% of everyday speech is devoted to telling others about what we feel or think. Now, through five brain imaging and behavioral experiments, Harvard University neuroscientists have uncovered the reason: It feels so rewarding, at the level of brain cells and synapses, that we can’t help sharing our thoughts.

Yep, chicks like to talk about themselves. Men do to, but I’ll bet good money that women are worse offenders. (This study apparently didn’t control for sex.) Anyhow, the fact remains that when women are talking about themselves to you, they are getting the same pleasurable high they would get from eating a pint of ice cream or buying a new pair of shoes. Explains a lot.

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to listen so effectively, or to simulate the behavior of listening effectively, that the girl you are seducing feels comfortable enough revealing herself to you that she can’t stop yapping and inducing those natural dopamine highs which will then get anchored to you. It’s just a hop skip and pump away from sex at that point.

Randall Parker asks:

Okay, she feels great talking about herself. But does it make sense to just let her? Or can one be more clever with the use of this insight? Ideas:

– ask her about herself in ways that drive her thinking in directions you want her thinking to go.
– reward desired behavior with questions about herself.
– other?

During the comfort stage of a seduction, the woman wants to feel a “connection” with the man. The easiest way to build this connection, (or to construct a convincing simulacrum of a connection), is to let her talk and nod your head every so often, peppered with the occasional “uh huh” and “right”, and repeating random words she spoke back to her. Women have an amazing capacity for exaggerating these tiny symbolic gestures of male attentiveness into something romantically significant, so it would be a sin for you, the aspiring womanizer, to look this gift ho in the mouth.

But as RP suggests, allowing a woman to yap in perpetuity will, after a certain threshold of one-sided conversation has been crossed, take you further from closing the deal. You risk becoming a betaboy cipher for all her worries and anxieties, your ear serving as the metaphorical vagina into which she can squirt her emotional discharge. If all you know how to do is listen, you’ll soon be relegated to eunuch status.

Old school PUAs like to say that you should get a woman to talk about herself, because that is how you elicit the values she holds dear, which you can then feed back to her to build a stronger romantic bond and lead the convo to more fruitful, i.e. sexual, explorations. So do try and make an effort to latch onto one or two of her confessional drug-hazed limbic burps; you’ll need that info later in the night.

Cutting a girl off when you deem her to have yapped too much is not hard. Just lay your hand on her forearm and tell her the both of you need to walk to a new sofa/room/bar/park to continue your conversation where it’s quieter. Physical obtrusion is the fastest route to disorienting an excessively yapping girl and resetting the pace of the pickup. There are a lot of upsides to a talkative girl; most importantly, they provide ample ammo opportunities for you to segue the chit chat to more intimate topics. Plus, talkative girls tend to be less judgmental of men, and less prone to resorting to shit tests, because they’re too busy feeling good talking about themselves.

The major downside, of course, is that you will get bored out of your skull.

Anecdote: I overhead a couple on a date where the women did 99% of the talking. The guy just sat there, nodding occasionally, and stirring his drink with a neutral expression on his face. She must have had an ego the size of Jupiter to think that her incessant gabbing would in any way be interesting to anyone. But guess which of those two had hand on that date? Who do you think was in the position of power, and who was scrambling for the other’s approval?

If you have gotten a girl to talk about herself a lot, consider it a good sign; she wants you to think well of her.

PS To answer Randall’s question, I would say to memorize the line “Wow, that’s really interesting. You know, it makes me think of…” After she has said something illuminating or potently self-incriminating, you drop that line and lead her into a story that progresses the pickup. Rewarding any compliments she gives you, or intimacy moves she makes, with a question or two about herself is also a good tactic, but keep in mind that rewards should be intermittently given for good behavior, and punishments always given for bad behavior. This intermittent reward/instant punishment dynamic is the sort of unpredictability coupled with hard-nosed principled dignity that women can’t help but love in men.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

Another Hot Russian Babe

Aug 9th, 2012 by

Further proof that Russia and nearby provinces run a surplus of slender, beautiful women.

It must be something in the wuuuudka.

This post is not an exercise in glibness. The evidence — men’s penises — strongly suggests that Rus women are, objectively and proportionate to their native populations, the most beautiful women in the world. The Dnieper-Dniester region is, anthropologically, the Fertile Crescent. The pussybasket of the world. The cradle of cuteness. And I say this partly from personal experience.

The question that needs answering is not, then, where are the world’s hottest babes, but WHY do the world’s hottest babes bubble out of the DNA froth like sexy sirens emerging from the hillocks of this particular vast agricultural plain?

My preferred theory is increased male options. The great wars decimated the ranks of the Eastern Front’s men, so much so that the men remaining alive had their pick of the poon. And when men have mating options — whether through the gain of power and charisma or through the luck of living during a time of favorable sex ratio skew — they almost always choose young, slender, pretty women. The Rus men chose wisely.

But a reader has informed me that überbrain Greg Cochrane recently undermined this theory when he computationally concluded that not enough time has passed since the great wars for the miracle of organic eugenics to work its magic and push the Rus women toward elevated heights of beauty. I remain, respectfully, unconvinced.

Whatever is happening over there, we will discover the cause of this beauty bounty, and spread its blessings to all the world’s men till there is a hot chick in every pot, and a babe in every backyard.

In the meantime…

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Foreign Girls, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

Realtalker Of The Month

Aug 9th, 2012 by

A Turkish newspaper columnist with brass balls wrote an article about the unattractive manliness of female athletes.

A Turkish newspaper columnist has been heavily criticised after writing an article which said the Olympic Games is destroying the female figure.

The piece – called Womanhood is dying at the Olympics’ – was written by Yuksel Aytug and was published in the daily newspaper Sabah and on the paper’s website.

However, it soon spread around the world by saying the Games was distorting women’s bodies and that extra points should be given to female athletes based on how feminine they looked.

According to Hurriyet Daily News, he said: ‘Broad-shouldered, flat-chested women with small hips; [they are] totally indistinguishable from men.

‘Their breasts – the symbol of womanhood, motherhood – flattened into stubs as they were seen as mere hindrances to speed.’

Get this man a VIP pass to the Chateau! He speaks the truth no nancyboy or femcunt would ever dare admit, even to themselves. Who with the eyes to see hasn’t noticed the narrow hips, the grotesque six-pack abs (never a good look on women), the chest “stubs”, the linebacker shoulders, and the manjaws of an inordinate number of the female Olympians? (Synchronized swimmers are a welcome exception to the rule. Of course, proficiency in synchronized swimming doesn’t require a chiseled male-like physique.)

:mrgreen:

A disturbing number of the women athletes have what amounts to ripped, pubescent boys’ bodies. If you cover the faces and crotches of some of them, you could easily mistake them for lean men. But I bet they fuck like champions!

[Aytug] was accused of sexism and reducing the identity of women purely to appearance.

Weren’t the Jizzebelers recently objectifying Ryan Lochte’s appearance? Anyhow, the point is superfluous. Feminists are simply unable to come to grips with the fact that double standards in how the sexes relate to and perceive each other exist, are grounded in immutable biology, and won’t disappear just because a few fat sluts organized a pride parade.

In his column, he also said the Olympic Games forced woman to look more like men so they could become successful.

Aytug is right. It’s NECESSARILY true that women must conform more to the male physique ideal in order to compete successfully in sports, and particularly elite sports, because women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally like men’s bodies are designed to do. Women’s bodies are — and I know this will get under the skin of the right sort of losers — shaped by the relentless laws of nature to fulfill TWO PRIME DIRECTIVES:

Visually please men.

And bear children.

Everything else women do is commentary.

If you are a woman who wants to long jump, or throw a discus, or box, or run the 100 meter race, you will perform better the FURTHER your body gets from the archetypal female physique and the closer it gets to the archetypal male physique. Hips and boobs and upper body weakness undermine all that Olympian kickassery.

This is why unscrupulous countries (which includes just about all the Western and Communist or formerly Communist ones) pump so much money and, when they can get away with it, steroids into their female athletic programs and athletes. They know that they can get more medal bang for their buck by masculinizing their female athletes and pushing them, however unintentionally, to assume male physical forms, (or by recruiting women with inborn male-like physiques), because there are a lot fewer women who are 1) interested in high-level competitive sports and 2) willing to sacrifice their femininity for a rigorous masculinizing regiment.

Someday a real rain will come and wash away this mountain of gender-bending lies. And when it happens, the world’s femininely-renewed women will sway their child-bearing hips and heave their bounteous breasts as their charmingly soft limbs and delicate hands are raised heavenward in thankfulness for being relieved of the pressure to look and act like men.

PS Isn’t it ironic, then, how the feminist-defined pursuit of sex “””equality””” is essentially tantamount to making women more man-like? You’d almost think feminists believe the male form and male psyche are superior to the female form and psyche. Maybe that’s because most dedicated feminists are ugly, masculine robodykes.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Girls, Globalization, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

You Don’t Need To Be Witty To Have Game

Aug 9th, 2012 by

Reader “disap” clarifies something which I’ve been meaning to explain but haven’t gotten around to doing so:

Once again people are so concerned with the perfect witty comeback. Not everyone can run game like a Californication script.

“We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”

When in doubt, go laconic. Why do you dance to her qualification tune if you really have frame?

Easy responses : “LOL”
: “Totally.”

Or don’t take the shit test so seriously that “you’ve been challenged” and need to respond. This is the wrong mindset. She is just but another girl in the harem, don’t take her so seriously. Agree and Amplify, fallback number two.

Easy responses: “Kids these days, no respect for their elders.”
: “Pfft, I beat your mom at bingo at the senior center last week.”

Unless you got Hank Moody skills, falling back on Laconic/Agree and Amplify are the safest options. In other words, don’t swing for a triple when a simple single will do.

disap is LOL totally correct. Wit, while beneficial to picking up women, is not necessary. Wit, in fact, is a less vital attribute to possess than simply having an uncaring, outcome independent alpha male frame. Sometimes wit, when relied on to excess, can even get in the way of attracting women.

A lot of you beta readers wring your nutsacks whining about your lack of innate wit and how you struggle to find the right words for the pickup occasion. I don’t doubt your perceived inadequacies. Rapier-like wit, like height, has a significant genetic component; though, again like height, what is naturally there can be honed and improved upon by practice (nutrition) and knowledge accumulation (avoidance of environmental insults that stunt height potential) by observing witty men in action.

However, the good news is that, like disap wrote, a laconic, terse, devil-may-care frame will trump a string of try-hard witty ripostes almost every time. ALPHA FRAME, aka the ATTITUDE, is the foundational substructure that scaffolds the social savviness and personality peacocking that drapes over it like a virile raiment. Or, to put it in clearer terms, if you are all wit and no frame, you are an entertainment monkey who arouses women’s brains but leaves their pussies dry. In contrast, if you are all frame and no wit, you are a sexy beast women can’t help but find alluring, even as they gripe about your curt assholery to their friends.

Now, it should go without saying (though this blog does attract its share of stupids and ego-invested contrarians who need it said over and over) that it’s better to have frame AND wit, rather than frame alone. Hank Moody wit is a killer weapon to have in the field, even more potent than having top 10% looks. But, if you had to choose, frame is the better of the two. So banish from your thoughts doubts that your lack of wit consigns you to involuntary celibacy. I’ve witnessed too many overconfident lunkheads without a clever word to say but teeming with the right attitude effortlessly swoop babes to believe otherwise.

Maxim #55: Less talking is always sexier than more talking. If you struggle to find something witty to say to a girl, stop trying. Flailing for the “right” words is approval-seeking beta behavior that women can sniff from across a room.

Corollary to Maxim #55: A grunt or aloof gesture trumps a try-hard, strained, verbose comeback.

When this subject comes up in real life, I like to tell my guy friends to recall those times they were challenged or annoyed by their sisters or some female friends they didn’t find attractive. I ask them to remember how they felt, how they acted, and what they said. Invariably, they all say they remember being cool as cucumbers, dismissive, and even rude. They were careless with their words and cared even less what their sisters or unattractive female friends thought of them. They remember feeling like one might feel if a mosquito was buzzing around one’s head; they just wanted to shoo it away, or tell it to go find the nearest bug zapper. They certainly did not try to impress them with Shakespearean wit.

“Good,” I say. “Now that’s the way you should act when you talk to ATTRACTIVE girls.”

I hope the lesson isn’t lost on them.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

The Nuclear Neg

Aug 8th, 2012 by

“Anonymous” {WARNING: Possible Troll Alert} recounts a self-described nuclear neg he dropped on a girl:

Nuclear Neg made one week ago on an 18 year old has worked.

She had texted “We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”.

I had texted back “Excuse me but, In two years, no guy under 30 will want you and by age 25, no alpha male under 40 will want you”.

She responded “WTF?!! In two years every man on Earth will still want me”

and then we text argued back and forth as I fed her some standard (and short) evo psych lessons which, when read or heard by an inteligent young woman, tend to tame the hamster well.

We ended the first text exchange with her admitting that she’d be no longer attractive to alpha males at age 25 but “that’s a long way off” and I was saying that her expiry date would be more like 22.

Cold silence between us ensued. I held frame and simply dated someone else.

Our mutual friends were aware of a cold war between us for the past week.

But we made peace today, first via text.

Me: It’s wrong to think I was trying to insult you by stating the truth about how the men of your generation will abandon you for the girls of the next generation

(I was still holding frame here – no apologies)

Her: Yeah, but it’s insulting even now that you want to rub that in

(she’s admitted that evo psych speaks the truth)

Me: All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that. But you made me believe that I was ugly and you didn’t enjoy that.

Her: You didn’t understand at all. I think you’re cute. I don’t just want sex with you. I enjoy the hugging and kissing too.

This complete submission floored me. It’s everything that feminists would say could never happen. They’d say I made the above exchange up. I didn’t.

Now I may have initially overreacted. The text that set me off only really said that she couldn’t imagine us publicly being a couple and me meeting her mother. But that’s what she’s saying now after I passed the shiite test.

I’m sure PUA experts will find I was quite rough around the edges in that exchange and I maybe wasted a week (in which I dated someone else, no man should ever waste time itself with any woman).

But whether it was necessary or not, the fact remains that I dropped more than one nuclear bomb on a girl who openly believed every man wanted to sleep with her, and the end result so far seems to be that she likes me better than ever.

For those readers thinking there’s a valuable game lesson to be gleaned from the above exchange, you’re right! Allow me to demonstrate what would happen 99% of the time if you followed a script similar to “anonymous”‘s.

You: {Dropping evolutionary psychology knowledge like a boss}

Her: {Blank stare. Trots off to meet a more fun guy}

Fin.

Using evo-psych to burst female delusion and ego bubbles, however logical or truthful or precise your scientific shiv, is a nuclear neg that will bomb you right out of contention. You are as likely to be perceived by a woman as spiteful and vengeful as you are to be perceived insightful and jerkishly aloof.

This internet castle in the woods revels in putting human egos on the breaking wheel and examining the viscera with a microscope, but don’t make the mistake of confusing the cruel dissection for the crimson arts. The former is the why, the latter is the how.

Women do not swoon for logic or reason. Nor are they easily persuaded by appeals to self-reflection. What women LOVE LOVE LOVE is to be seduced, and seduction is the art of dressing profound truth in pleasing lies. Pull back the curtain on the truth, and the reaction of most women will be to leave the scene of the thoughtcrime to find fluffier locales to frolic.

“Anonymous”‘s game does contain some useful grist. First, he may not be lying about how it went down, and her receptivity. My objection to his gom jabbar game is that, broadly applied, most men will experience negative blowback going his route. Unless your frame is immovable granite and your delivery enticingly entitled, and the girl you are hitting on is deemed sufficiently open-minded (or weird), a didactic exposition on male-female sexual psychology and evo-psych principles is liable to leave women cold.

General rule of thumb: Avoid using words like “alpha male” or “expiry date” in a serious manner when seducing women.

Second, the part of his game that I believe was most effective happened with this line:

“All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that.”

This is just a classic target disqualification line. No need to resort to evo-psych. He avoided the spite trap by first admitting (vulnerability game) that he did enjoy fooling around with her, and only after that admission did he disqualify her with the “you’re not the type to have sex with” line. A simple expectation-crushing push in her direction, and you’ve sparked her curiosity and inverted the male chaser-female chasee roles.

If gom jabbar game is your thing, I can tell you that it is possible to pick up women by verbalizing the intricacies of the seduction process, step-by-step fashion, as it is happening. But this is advanced game that shouldn’t be attempted by any but the most experienced and smoothly self-confident womanizers. Lesser seducers will be tempted to become too self-conscious and self-aware and thus ruin the illusion.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

Why Women’s Sports Get Less Primetime Coverage

Aug 7th, 2012 by

The sports in which women compete that aren’t silly and that are actually fun to watch suffer from the problem of going head-to-head with a much better viewing alternative: namely, the men’s versions of those sports. Because, let’s just cut to the chase, at the elite level of sports (and, really, at all levels of sport except pee-wee), men are, on average, simply faster and stronger than women. Why the hell would anyone of sound mind want to watch a gimped version of his favorite sport when a more electrifying version already exists? This elementary logic escapes the feminist hivemind.

Furthermore, many of the sports in which women compete and men don’t, and which are tailored to women’s particular strengths, are unwatchable by dint of being retarded. See: synchronized swimming. There are only a handful of female-oriented “””sports””” that women compete in at a pro or semi-pro level which garner fairly large, if transient, audiences on par with the audiences that men’s sports regularly achieve. Figure skating is one example (and that mostly because women like the fact it is set to music and colorful, bedazzled costumes are worn).

Really, the only reason men choose to watch women’s sports at all is for prurient reasons, such as the exciting but rare glimpse of a wardrobe malfunction, or the slo-mo replay of pertly bottomed volleyball players diving into the sand. Otherwise, men will pass up women’s sports as long as a men’s sport is on another channel. The dirty little secret is that, among the subset of women who legitimately like watching sports, most of them will also prefer to watch the male versions of their favorite events.

I’m not anti-female athletics. Women should compete in sports, especially femininity-sharpening individual sports rather than competition-emphasizing team sports, primarily to sculpt their figures into beautiful, sexy visages that will help attract the attention of alpha males. Stay focused, ladies.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Feminist Idiocy, Ridiculousness, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Scientific Proof That Women Love Drama

Aug 7th, 2012 by

YET ANOTHER ♥♥♥♥♥♥ scientific study confirms gender stereotypes and validates core game concepts.

Research finds women feel happy when their husband or partner is upset.

The detailed study found that wives or girlfriends were pleased when their partner showed emotion because they believed it demonstrated a healthy relationship.

The survey, carried out by Harvard Medical School, also found that when men realised their wife was angry, the women reported being happier, although the men were not.

It revealed women most likely enjoyed spotting when their partner was dissatisfied because it showed his strong “engagement” or “investment” in their time together.

In short, women love to instigate relationship drama, and to wallow in drama, because it reignites the romantic spark. A stoic, self-satisfied, dutiful, honorable, provider beta male is BORING to women because he doesn’t show enough tingle-generating emotion or “connection” that makes women swoon. This explains why guys like Chris Brown can repeatedly nail hot strumpets like Rihanna.

Rightly or wrongly, women interpret men’s lower emotion and drama baseline as evidence of their withdrawing love and, potentially, withdrawn resources. Those female readers who say this is just evidence that people in general appreciate signs of commitment miss the appropriate sex comparison: it’s only women who feel happier when drama reassures them that they are loved. Men do not need drama to feel loved. Men need access to your pussies to feel loved. In fact, men feel worse when a relationship is going through a dramatic stage.

Many game principles and tactics — e.g., freeze-outs, backturns, negs, push-pull, dread inducement — operate under the premise that women crave drama and are particularly attracted to the men who can provide it. A woman’s need for drama as a sign of relationship health and empathic understanding can be co-opted and redeployed by players to increase women’s sexual desire for them. This study and the accompanying lessons are a great example of how the modern science of seduction and its applied game theory succeeds by harnessing women’s innate, natural, biological sexual and romantic predispositions for the benefit of satisfying men’s desires.

And, ultimately, for the benefit of women’s desires as well.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Ideology Of Powerlessness

Aug 6th, 2012 by

In a post over at GLPiggy about “The Soapboxroom” and Aaron Sorkin’s deliberate distortion of gun control statistics, a thought occurs about the mentality of the type of people whose natural reflex is to default to excusing thugs and disarming potential victims.

This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue. People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women. Stockholm Syndrome is an extreme manifestation of the powerlessness ideology.

Those pointing to statistics purporting to demonstrate the downsides of power — in this case, the power inherent in owning a gun and its implication in accidental shootings — miss the point: the downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness. Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?

Anyone who wants more control and power over the trajectory and outcome of his life needs to avoid powerlessness peddlers like the plague.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, The Id Monster | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »