Feed on
Posts
Comments

Friendzoned By A Whore

Jun 13th, 2012 by

A more nauseating example of inept betatude would be hard to find. Reader Will sent a link to this plaintive wail from a forum member (I have no idea what communities these forums are meant to serve) who is perplexed that a whore he visits regularly no longer sees him “that way”.

been seeing the same prostitute for a few months. Lost my virginity to her, only person I’ve ever fucked. She’s semi attractive and not too expensive. Normally do it in a hotel but I can’t afford it and just invite her back to my place. We fuck for the amount of time I paid for. Just as she is about to leave she sees my dvd of an old film called “a matter of life and death”. Says thats her favourite film, asks if she can watch it. We watch a film together, we don’t do anything. She phones up the next day and asks if I want to hang out. When we meet up I ask if I can have sex with her. She tells me no, because she thinks we have gotten too close. asks if we can be friends. Did I get friendzoned by a prostitute? What can i do to fuck her again?

To be LJBFed by a whore is quite an accomplishment. It’s like a restaurant manager turning away a thundering herd of famished NAAFA members. Some people are so disgusted by their clientele they’re willing to take a hit to the bottom line.

Let’s suspend disbelief about the anecdote above for a moment so that we can extract the valuable game lessons contained therein.

1. Girls who see you as long-term boyfriend material will be less likely to put out for you in a timely manner.

2. Girls who have fucked you but begin to have feelings for you will start to withhold sex in hopes that an emotional connection can grow, free from the confusing entanglement of sex. Girls often believe, with some justification, that a “love connection” — aka your efforts to remember trivial details about them — can only emerge in an emotional greenhouse where your needs as a man are left outside in the cold.

3. It’s nearly impossible to turn an overtly paid sexual outlet into an emulated unpaid sexual outlet. This is why you should never tip strippers you intend to bang.

4. Making it a habit to pay for sex will corrupt a man’s ability to relate to women, and his willingness to learn how to seduce them. This is why men who have to pay for sex are rightly classified as loser omegas. The need to turn to whores for sexual relief, plus the distance from women’s particular psychological needs that paying for sex creates, renders the john almost useless as a potential mate without the crutch of cash in advance.

5. When a whore despises you so much she refuses your money, kill yourself. When a whore feels glimmers of real closeness to you that she refuses your money, the last thing you want to do is dispatch with her attempts to relate to you as a non-john by immediately requesting sex when you hang out with her. That’s just autistic, son.

6. Never watch a film with a girl if you don’t plan on touching her during it. A two hour non-sexual vibe will dampen a tingle faster than a ripped fart. In front of her friends.

7. To a whore, a nonsexual beta male friend is way more valuable than a lover or a fuckbuddy, the latter of whom she has an unending stream of applicants to appreciate. You win over a girl like this by making your emotional friendship reward contingent upon her available orifice reward.

8. Whores are riddled with disease. And the ones who aren’t are soulkilled to the point that a relationship with them is basically an excuse to fulfill a cuckold fetish. The only good reason I could see for wanting to be friends with one is the benefit of capitalizing on her social circle, which undoubtedly consists of plenty of non-whore hot chicks.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Funny/Lolblogs, Girls, Tool Time | Comments Off

Beta Males In The Wild

Jun 12th, 2012 by

This is a photo of a first wedding anniversary.

Humans are naturally repulsed by certain objects in the state of nature. Rotting carcasses. Fetid water. Leprosy victims. Feminists. Manboobs. A steaming pile of poop triggers our disgust reflex. This reflex likely evolved to protect us from ingesting poops and then dying from infection during a time when modern medicine was a schizophrenic witch doctor.

Like fresh turds, we are instinctively repulsed by the above photo. It violates our preinstalled norms of sexual polarity. Men, and women too, have evolved limbic systems and higher order cerebrum that are groomed to respond positively to couples where the man looks to be in charge and self-possessed and the woman looks in his thrall and in need of his protection. When we see the opposite — like in this pic — we recoil as if we had just accidentally stepped in a mound of dog shit.

The masculinization of Western women and the feminization of Western men continues apace, with no bottom to the depths to which this depravity will sink. Point by repugnant point, let’s examine the bizarro world inversion illustrated in the photo:

– Lap sitting, male on female. INVERSION
– Smothering neck vise, male on female. INVERSION
– Cross-legged male, open-legged female. INVERSION
– Stupidly grinning male, grimacing female trying hard to hide it. INVERSION
– Wraparound koala bear hug, male on female. INVERSION
– Closed body language and clenched fist, female on male. INVERSION
– Micropenis, male. Acromegalic clit, female. (speculative) INVERSION
– Being OK with having this picture taken and the moment memorialized for all time, male over female objection. INVERSION

The question, as always: What does this have to do with game? Gentlemen, you will have no success with game if you first don’t exorcise the sin of anti-game from your mortal soul. This means not behaving like a woman would behave when she is in the company of an exciting alpha male.

The good news is that recognizing, and discarding, bad anti-game habits is easier than learning pro-game techniques, especially if you are a natural introvert for whom cold approaches and crutch-like helpful scripts give you the hives. You’re 50% of the way there once you’ve stopped acting in ways that make girls feel like they just stepped in dog shit.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Goodbye America, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Omega Male Hall Of Shame: What Women Mean By Creepy

Jun 11th, 2012 by

A reader forwarded this email as an example of what not to say to a girl whom you “admire from afar”.

I’ve attached an email sent to one of my co-workers from a former co-worker who had the reputation of being ‘creepy’ towards most of the women in my office.

Anyway, I thought you’d get a kick out of this tripe.

****

Fw: U light up a room.

Hey – sorry if you catch me starring at you from time to time. I bet that it’s probably uncomfortable. You are very beautiful and continue to evolutionize your look at times so drastically that it;s intriguing. It also reveals the many levels, the rainbow of emotions within you. Most people have a collage of personalities that make them up into an individual, but struggle in finding a good, fun, kind balance between them. You are bless to be able to have such a capacity to be you and enjoy it. You are special. I have been around for a minute now (38 years) and seen and been in many adverse and awesome situations. Through it all I have met many people and few ( a handful)  have I ever felt like expressing what my spirit tells me to remind you of.

Today you look so Q, you can easily be thought off as a 23 year old. No harm intended in my comments young lady – it’s just that you light up a room. I also choose to e-mail you, rather than verbally tell you because I truly do not wish to make you uncomfortable, and if I do [name redacted] –  all you have to do is let me know and I will never comment again.

Anyhoo – you place a smile in my heart and I am just trying to place a smile in your face. There are folks with toxic attitudes around us at times do not get contaminated by them – instead – edify them.

:0)

Chao!

****

That’s one ugly mess. I nominate this yearning missive for inclusion into the Omega/Beta Hall of Shame. It’s a sterling representative of the genre.

A brief analysis of the points in the email at which the writer crossed the creep threshold are in order. Sometimes, it helps to spell these things out for the short bus contingent.

U light up a room.

Poetically flattering a woman you have not had one date with is like getting LOW VALUE MALE tattooed on your forehead. Because that’s how (modern) women are going to perceive your gallant efforts at a love connection.

“Hi, Jenny! You look really pretty.”

“Hi, Low Value Male! I can deduce by your forehead tattoo that your compliment is expected and honorably consistent with your low ranking on the male totem pole.”

“So you’re saying I have a chance?”

“Turn that LMV into an HMV, and we’ll talk!”

Also, there’s a beta and an alpha way to ignore punctuation. If your first word in an email is “U”, you’re starting off on the wrong foot. Generally, aloof alpha punctuation — where periods and capital letters are dropped in favor of mysterious cut-off sentences — is best reserved for text messages. Doing the same in email risks making you look like a remedial class teenager.

Hey – 

If he had begun his email with this, and ended it with this, he would have been on much firmer ground.

sorry if you catch me starring at you from time to time.

If you’re a desperate omega, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to your stalkerish omegatude. (This email is so bad, it better qualifies as the effortlust of an omega male than the tentative mincing of a beta.)

I bet that it’s probably uncomfortable.

A cool, funny chick would write back, “You bet correctly, sir!”

You are very beautiful and continue to evolutionize your look at times so drastically that it;s intriguing.

Great example of a mediocrity straining to sound smoother and smarter than he is. Paging Oswald Bates…

It also reveals the many levels, the rainbow of emotions within you.

You know when girls are down for this “I can appreciate all your levels” bullshit? When they have already been fucked by you at least 150 times. If you’re trying to make an impression on a girl by implying that you’re different than all the other guys who can’t see the real person inside of her, the time to do that is when it actually means something; like when it’s one year into a relationship and she’s still struggling to get you to agree on exclusivity. Also, no man should ever use the word “rainbow”, unless it’s to ridicule another man using the word “rainbow”. In today’s rapidly degenerating culture, the word too easily conjures scenes of bronies mutually fellating each other in a giant ponyjerk. With velvety plush headgear on.

You are bless to be able to have such a capacity to be you and enjoy it.

This is anti-game. He’s basically excused her from the burden of treating him kindly, let alone as a sexual prospect.

You are special.

When you’re in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. This guy’s gunning for China.

I have been around for a minute now (38 years) and seen and been in many adverse and awesome situations.

Worst DHV ever.

Through it all I have met many people and few ( a handful)  have I ever felt like expressing what my spirit tells me to remind you of.

What’s going through the girl’s head when she reads this: “He feels inspired to pour his heart out to me because he gets a chub every time he sees me over the cubicle walls?”

Well, that’s not actually what goes through her head. It’s more like this: “Creep, creep, creeper, creep. Ew.” Which amounts to saying the same thing as above.

No harm intended in my comments young lady – 

If you’re an older man hitting on a younger woman, the LAST thing you want to call her is “young lady”. Epic omega fail. And if you truly intend no harm, the last thing you want to say is that you intend no harm. There’s that rule in advertising that simply mentioning a negative is enough to plant it in a customer’s head and associate it with your product/personhood.

I also choose to e-mail you, rather than verbally tell you because I truly do not wish to make you uncomfortable

A seduction without discomfort is called idle chit chat. All seductions must contain a stirring of discomfort. Otherwise, every lame omega and beta male with sensitivity to spare and teardrops on command will be able to swoop femme fatales with ease.

all you have to do is let me know and I will never comment again.

Attainably attractive girls who have experience dealing with the fumbling come-ons of betas know this isn’t true. The minute a loser says he will “never comment/call/write again”, the girl knows he will do just that. Which is why girls will rarely reply to these sorts of queries; it only encourages the loser. (I once knew of a total omega male in high school who got a rejection message delivered personally from the girl friend of a girl he had a crush on for two years. The sad sack proceeded to pursue the girl for two more years, hoping to get a clarification.)

Anyhoo – 

Nerd alert.

you place a smile in my heart and I am just trying to place a smile in your face.

Let’s run this line through the Alpha Reformulator (a device which alters dorky beta droolings into coolbreeze alpha charmbullets): “my heart was smiling thinking about you until you microwaved that noxious curry lunch. thanks for killing the romance i was about to lay down on your day.”

There are folks with toxic attitudes around us

aka jerks who always take the girls.

at times do not get contaminated by them – instead – edify them.

What happens when a dumbass tries for profound and winds up writing gibberish.

:0)

No emoticons! What’s an emoticon doing in this email when I told you no EMOTICONS EVER!

and, oh dear lord, he added the o-nose. I bet he thinks women fart anime characters.

Chao!

You know what would’ve been funny? And less beta? If he had signed off deliberately misspelling “ciao” as “chow”. Unfortunately, his stupidity is of the unintentional variety.

Well, I hope that expedition through the thickets of the omega male psychological landscape was as painful for you as it was for me. Lessons learned:

1. Guys like this make it easy for guys with game.

2. There are shadowy realms beyond which even my considerable powers of instruction cannot penetrate. Introducing a lost cause like this dude to game will only provoke a defensive reaction and further turtling into his self-perpetuating misery. I think we all know a few guys who fall into that category.

I imagine every female reader who read that email had the word “creep” flash through her head. It’s a catch-all term that women generally use to describe men who exhibit the characteristics, mannerisms, self-negating attitude and social retardation that typically accompany involuntary celibacy and a lack of facility navigating the psychological peculiarities of women. Men need not necessarily be intrinsically low value to get slapped with the creep label; a man who could get lots of attention from women, but who evinces the attitude of the needy creep (much to the chagrin of the women who win an audience with him), is thrown into the same untouchables pile as our forlorn emailer inducted into the Chateau Hall of Beta Shame.

In short, “creeper” = “needy beta”. The slang may change, but the nature stays the same.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Girls, Tool Time | Comments Off

Do Fat Girls Get More Sex?

Jun 8th, 2012 by

A reader whose contributions carry more weight than the offerings from the rabble emailed the following about fat chicks and the amount of sex they do, or do not, get:

[I]t is a consistent finding that fat women tend to have more, not less, sexual partners than thinner women.  Poor impulse control etc. So, that explanation for late female virginity seems totally implausible.

The reader is referring to a speculation I made in this post that higher virginity rates among educated women may be skewed by the ENLARGING population of fat chicks who have a harder time convincing men to rut with them. The study he links to finds evidence that fat girls have more “sexual encounters with men than [do] normal-weight women.”

I find this interesting because it contradicts other studies I have read that concluded the opposite. For instance, here’s one that found obese French women were 30% less likely than thin women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. (Maybe French men have more dignity? Or fat French women more shame? Either way, it proves the French are superior to Americans on at least one moral metric.)

So, are fat chicks getting laid more or less than sexier slender babes? Evolutionary theory regarding the evolved mating preferences of the sexes actually offers plausible explanations for both assertions to be true. On the one hand, we have plenty of evidence that men prefer fucking and dating young, slim, BMI 17-23, 0.7 waste-hip ratio women because these attributes signal that the women are maximally fertile, and thus more likely to pass on a man’s genes. Since men prefer these kinds of women, it stands to reason that fat chicks would attract less sexual interest from men, and experience greater rates of involuntary celibacy.

On the other hand, we can presuppose, using evo-psych theory, that fat women are more likely to put out quickly and to offer more sexual access (read: orifices) to men because that’s the only way they can compete with the better-looking thin women who tend to leverage their beauty by making men demonstrate more signs of investment before being permitted to tap that ass.

Of course, both mating market dynamics could be at work, but one more efficiently than the other. If, say, there are more fat women willing to go all the way right away than there are men unwilling to ever bang a fat chick, the overall trend will be towards fat chicks getting laid more than thin chicks. Plus, throw in the fact that the obese population of American women is nearing 50%, at which point the planet earth begins to wobble out of its orbit, and you could make a strong case that American men have highly constrained choices in the sexual market and are thus forced to choose between masturbation with their height-weight proportionate hands and dumping a shameful fuck in a smegma-ringed porkhole.

Another way a skewed desirable female market could affect the sexual encounter ratio between fat women and thin women is by making thin women so spectacularly high value that they are able to pretty much command the price at which they reward their sex. In practice, this means the few thin chicks will hold out for a long time until they find the alpha male willing to wait and buy and wait for a life-giving gulp from the oasis of their sexiness. In a roomful of slutty fat chicks, the cockteasing hourglass-shaped girl is queen.

Finally, a sexual market that is filled with fatties will tend to lessen the shame that each individual fatty feels about her grossness; c.f. the fatkini “revolution”. When you are one fatty in a sea of hotties, you will know the excruciating feeling of being an outcast and, at best, invisible to men; at worst, cruelly mocked by them. But when you are one fatty amongst many fatties, and the sexy chicks are in the minority, you won’t be an outcast. Your friends and those around you will be just like you. Strength in numbers means you will hold your triple chin high, and your gorilla gut out proudly, giving desperate men who, in a normal functioning market, wouldn’t deign to speak to you for a second, an unreasonable amount of shitty, entitled attitude. You will imagine your blubber is attractive to men because Cleon the methhead got really drunk and horny one night and wooed you with a compliment about your “big, beautiful titties.” You will feel no shame undressing before a man with the lights on.

None of this says anything about the *quality* of the relationships that fat chicks get. As the first study states:

“These are very objective measures,” she said of the current data. “It probably begs for more qualitative studies … to better understand the quality of relationships.”

That’s a nice way of putting it. Fat chicks might be getting a lot of sex, but they are probably not getting a lot of love, if we measure love by signs of male investment and length and intensity of commitment. And for women, happiness and a feeling of success at life is found in love, not sex, the latter of which holds hardly any value for women because it is so easy for them to get, relative to the hoops men have to jump through to get laid.

The question of whether fat chicks get more or less sex than slim chicks remains an open one. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute much in the way of anecdotal support for either hypothesis, because my interactions with fat chicks have been extremely limited. By choice. And isn’t that the crux of the whole debate? In a world of real options — real, attainable choice — 99 out of 100 men are going to choose the slender babe over the shambling she-hog

EVERY

TIME.

That’s how you put a self-professed, proud fatty fucker to the test. Forget what he says. If he is approached for sex by two girls, one fat and one thin, and no one’s watching him, he’ll bang the thin one. Naturally, in real life, he won’t have that choice, because most fatty fuckers are losers who have no chance with slender girls. The exceedingly few men who would choose the fatty over the slim girl are freak outliers that serve to prove the rule rather than discredit it.

What does this all have to do with game? In countries with more fat women, your game will have to be very tight indeed, if you don’t want to be put in a position of choosing between porn and beast mounting.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

The Curse Of The Player

Jun 7th, 2012 by

Beware the blessings of gratification.

The relationship. The long-term relationship. The Holy Grail for some. Purgatory for others. Serene limbo for most.

The relationship — aka marriage, when in its most loathsome permutation — is supposed to be the culmination of romantic transcendence. It moves lovers beyond lust into the realm of silent covalent bond. But this bond, unspoken and understood, can’t form out of any primordial soup; it requires the presence, and the absence, of specific ingredients. The rarity of the founding broth is the reason why poets elevate inviolate love to the sublime. One isn’t liable to effuse about the commonplace or the trite, which can spring like weeds from the craggiest soil.

In every relationship, there is a transition period; that window of time when a man senses he has crossed a boundary from experimental abandon to tribute paid in increments of freedom. A man stands at the Gates of Pudenda and makes his decision for Eros: to step through, committing himself to a revised moral code etched with broad brushstrokes of obligation and the peculiar rewards accrued therein, or to turn back to gallivant another day.

The decision at the moment of transition is not the same for every man. If you haven’t experienced multiple lovers, your transition into an LTR will be easier. You won’t sacrifice much in leaving behind your life of infrequent elation for the rhythmic reassurance of content stability. Players with a lurid, technicolor memory plate filled with many women will find it harder to accede to the straitjacketing of an LTR because of an acute sense of something missing, of what could still be had for the taking, and of withdrawal from the thrill of the hunt. The man who has bedded in his lifetime more than two or three lovers (the average number for the typical beta male) has a feature length film of past and present conquests running in a continuous loop, instantly evoked, as H.H. would say, on the “dark innerside of his eyelids”, in perfect optical replication, to effortlessly remind him of the incomprehensible pleasure of vulvic variety and of all the women waiting in oblivious anticipation for the arrival of his plunderprong.

The memory and the knowledge are the curse of the player. Memory stokes the wanderlust with insistent, torrential recall of scores of curvaceous bodies and rippled vulvae. Though in theory one vagina is no different than the rest, in a man’s mind each furrow is an ecological feature etched into strange planets across the galaxy. Every vagina is a new world to a man, some more exotic than others, and the unbridled enthusiasm he will feel planting his flag on fresh colonizations is no accident of evolution. Contrary to feminized misappraisal, this is not the pretentious joy of shame or escape; it is the sincere joy of pleasure that needs no reason.

The knowledge that the player possesses at his whim the skill to seduce women is the twin sabotage that undermines relationship endurance. A player will see the world of women lit from every angle, exposed to his exploration, if he knows, through experience, through the touch of a thousand fingertips, that he can bed women fairly consistently, and with manageable effort. The psychological emollient of knowing this power is his is enough to burden the heart of a man contemplating even a facsimile of fidelity. Bound to his lover by, in turns, conscience, social opprobrium, and legal sanction, the streams of waiting conquests slipping past like rivulets of glimmering intimacies, taunting his parched loin loosely moored to the ballast of loyalty, is the torture of a lifetime of short-circuited ejaculations.

In contrast, to be the grateful man with no history of sexual plenitude, for whom omnipresent sensual possibilities seem as remote as the twinkling stars in the heavens and thus unlikely to stir his ancient calling, is to be released with the gift of the constrained vision. Where possibility is dead, or unfathomable, so is dangerous yearning. He is now free to step back from the beautiful painting and dryly ponder its geometric contours. When this man falls in love with an accessible work of art, one he can call his own, he has little else to compare its grip on his imagination. He cherishes his chosen muse, blissfully ignorant of the carelessness and glibness with which he would succumb to, and love, the millions of competing muses were they to be more tangible to him than airbrushed magazine cover placeholders.

The curse of the player, then, is ultimately illumination, tactile and cerebral. His own success in love betrays his quest for the ultimate love. He has seen vistas he cannot unsee.

He is not a disbeliever in everlasting monogamous love, quite the contrary; but his eternal search for it has corrupted the destination. Each step of his journey lands like the heavy stamp of slash and burn machinery, decloaking the mystery of the source at the mouth of the tributary. He is as certain to destroy underfoot the elixir of redemption as he is to finally catch it, leached of its nutrients.

Ironically, the man (or woman) best situated to find divine love is the one whose efforts aren’t excessively profitable.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Guy Rules, Love, Relationships, Self-aggrandizement, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Spot The Beta Male Tell

Jun 5th, 2012 by

A “relationship advice” guy who writes for Yahoo/Match/Tyrell Corporation published letters from readers who described the crazy things they did for love. Now, there is an alpha way to do crazy-in-love, and there is a beta way. Read this first letter and see if you can identify the tells that mark the writer of this letter as a beta male.

I went to bat for her engagement ring 
“My girlfriend and I had been together for about three years, and I was sure she was the one I wanted to marry. Problem was, I didn’t exactly have enough money to get her a good engagement ring. So, in order to raise funds, I put my collection of baseball trading cards on eBay. We’re talking a collection that spanned, like, 20 years, thanks to some cards handed down by my dad. I was totally bummed to part with them because they were so important to me, but I really, really loved this girl. I ended up making more than enough money to pay for a ring. Problem was, when I got down on one knee, she told me that she couldn’t see spending the rest of her life with me. I should’ve stuck with Shoeless Joe Jackson.”
— Owen, 26, Chagrin Falls, OH

Chagrin Falls is appropriate. Often, when reading these sad sack stories, one has the nagging feeling that a better grasp of the market value of the players would clarify why this or that venality visited the protagonist. Discerning the sexual market value of a woman online, when no photo is available, is tricky; women will aggressively lead the reader to believe, absent hard visual evidence, that they are desired by most men. The sexual market value of men is a bit easier to root out in written, online mediums because I find that men are a little more careless about revealing their beta cores. Reading between the lines for male and female beta tells is a fun pastime that I heartily recommend.

Back to the letter: you might be tempted to think that getting a girl an engagement ring is pure beta male, but because so many men fall into the diamond industrial complex trap, it’s not quite the tell that it should be. Instead, the big tells are the writer’s baseball card collection, his willingness to trade one of his most valuable possessions for a rock to slip on a girl’s finger (betraying his father’s love in the process), and, worst of all, his bended knee proposal.

Collections of the sort that are particularly unappealing to women are leading indicators of betaness, because a man who is good with women and able to get sex will not have the patience or motivation to amass piles of mostly useless junk that don’t add to his attractiveness to women. Baseball cards are the province of little boys and grown betas.

But it’s a forgivable tell. Alpha males have the systematizing instinct as well, and collections that can be categorized and subcategorized are addictive to all kinds of men. The bigger beta tell was this guy’s willingness to sever a holy bond, via baseball card, with his father to enrich his girlfriend. The man who sells off a bequeathed treasure from his dad to please his woman is an unprincipled cipher of beta provisioning. No woman with the least bit of character would, if known to her, allow her boyfriend to hock his pop’s heirloom for a blood diamond. Most American women don’t have the least bit of character.

Finally, the cringe-worthiest beta male tell was the bended knee beggary. If anything, since men give up more to get married, it’s women who should drop on bended knee thanking their boyfriends for making honest whores out of them. I don’t care how super alpha you are or how much self-handicapping you can endure without penalty, dropping to one knee is exquisitely, insufferably BETA. Ignore my advice to skip the nuptials for loving LTRs, but for the memory of millions of ancestors who harnessed the power of testicular fortitude to usher you into this world, don’t get down on your knees before a woman. You’re just asking to be treated like the dog who waits dutifully at the door with the leash in its mouth.

Three beta male tells, each worse than the last. The coda to this miserable letter should surprise no one, but I bet it surprised the letter writer. No woman wants to share her life with a man she has to look down at to see.

For shits and giggles, here’s another letter that represents the exact opposite of the one above.

I found out the hard way that our love wasn’t going to go the distance
“My boyfriend of a year and four months had to move for his job. It wasn’t dramatically far away, but it was still three states over. I was living in Ohio then, and he had to move to Maryland. We talked on the phone, wrote letters and all that, and I could tell that he was getting increasingly homesick. I decided to surprise him by ducking out of work early one Friday, driving over to see him — it’s about five or six hours by car — and cheering him up. Turns out I didn’t need to, though, because when I showed up at his apartment that night, I found him having dinner with a woman he met at work. At least I didn’t need to worry about staying awake on the long drive home — I was too upset to fall asleep.”
— Jackie, 27, Manhasset, NY

Spot the alpha male tell. Lessee… was it when he got himself a new woman who would be locally available for poundage sessions, so he wouldn’t have to spend months of his valuable life celibately pining for faraway pussy? Could be!

“Manhasset”, indeed.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Love | Comments Off

Game, Kino, Science: Choose Any Three

Jun 4th, 2012 by

If you aren’t touching women early and often during a pickup attempt, you’re handicapping yourself.

Even non-sexual social contact can raise body temperature.

Researchers at the University of St Andrews found that non-sexual social interactions with men caused a noticeable rise in the temperature of a woman’s face, without them even noticing. […]

Lead author Amanda Hahn, explained, “We used a thermal camera to record skin temperature during a standard ‘social interaction’ where we measured participants’ skin colour at ‘non-personal’ (i.e. the arm and palm of the hand) and ‘personal’ (i.e. the face and chest) locations on the body. The thermal response was dramatic when the male experimenter made contact at ‘personal’ locations.”

While it may not be surprising that people have a physiological response to social contact, the size of the reaction was surprising. Hahn commented, “We observed some women whose facial temperature increased by an entire degree (Celsius) during interaction with the male experimenter.

“This thermal change was in response to simple social interaction, without any experimental change to emotion or arousal. Indeed our participants did not report feeling embarrassment or discomfort during the interaction.”

The study, published later this month in Biology Letters, shows that gender alone influenced the reaction of women, who showed no response to interaction with other women.

Sexual arousal and body temperature fluctuations (the literal manifestation of “buying temperature”) are intimately entwined, so much so that neglecting to elicit body temp spikes in women will make the process of seducing them more difficult. If your hands aren’t exploring a woman’s body while talking to her, you are flirting with the disaster of getting friend-zoned.

It’s already been demonstrated that touching a woman lightly on the arm will increase the odds that she will give you her number. Now we have scientific evidence that touching will dramatically raise a woman’s body temperature, especially in the facial region. Note that the women in the study did not respond to the touch of other women; it was only the wandering hands of men who got them flushed in the face. Note also that none of the women claimed to feel discomfort when the men touched them; their body temp rise was unrelated to any feeling that they were being threatened or their personal space was being invaded.

The difference in temperature rise between getting touched on the palm/arm and the chest/face was large, although there was a small rise elicited from simple arm touching. Game theory is very clear on the importance of kino and how it should progress (by “escalation”), so these studies are simply gravy on top of what is already experimentally proven by thousands of men running game in the field. To recap:

– It’s better to touch a girl more than you think is comfortable than to avoid touching too much because you think it would make a girl uncomfortable.

– Always touch sooner rather than later, and more often rather than too infrequently.

– Begin your touching on innocuous parts of a girl’s body, like the forearm and hand, and gradually move to more erogenous zones of her body, like the small of her back, the upper arm, the thigh and even her face. Also gradually increase the duration and pressure of your touching.

– The “slow boiling frog” principle is at work here. If you move too quickly from “safe zone” to erogenous zone, you might spook a girl. But more gradual kino escalation will allow you to touch “danger zones” with impunity.

– Don’t touch extremely charged body areas in public spaces. There’s too much risk of activating a girl’s anti-slut mechanism. Save the petting for private areas.

I’ve often wondered (well, not that often) why, if kino is critical to success with women, so many beta males (who, as a reminder, occupy the bulk of the male population) are so skittish about touching women? Now I have a theory. Lacking the confidence of their caddish convictions, it makes sense to betas to avoid boldness in action with women who are less likely to assume their impertinences. There is a real risk, in other words, of a crippling incongruency should the beta male decide to kino with a fury without the requisite overconfidence to sway the ladies and gird his fortitude.

From the female perspective, instinctively welcoming kino at a deep physiological level — that is, readying herself for sex in the most shamefully unfeminist manner — is actually a sub-subconscious biological shit test that signals to a girl who among the men hitting on her has the alpha goods. If her vestigial vellous hairs rise automatically at the touch of a man’s hand, any man’s hand, and her cheeks glow a rosy hue, then it’s a simple evolutionarily-greased leap of logic to be more open to the entreaties of men cocksure enough to touch her than to the hovering hands of “creepy” beta males. The act of touching — especially if exercised with devil-may-care élan — is sort of a preselection for alpha attitude that women use to screen men into despondent categories of desirable and undesirable.

As always, a jaunt through the female hamster brain is illuminating. We’ll compare what escapes like a hissing balloon out of a termagant feminist’s mouth to what the gentlehamster underneath it all actually thinks.

Asply-coiled feminist: “Unwanted touching ANYWHERE on my body is sexual harassment!!”

♥Hamster♥: “I can’t explain in socially approved turns of phrase why I feel closer to this guy.”

Misfiring pistoned-feminist: “You WILL respect my boundaries!”

♥Hamster♥: “This guy hasn’t touched me once in a half hour of talking to me. So much respect, but so little chemistry.”

Yoko Ono in a chokehold mid-warble feminist: “Check your male privilege at the door!”

♥Hamster♥: “This man is very comfortable touching me. That shows confidence. Which must mean he has a lot of experience with women. Which really turns me on.”

♥♥Hamster’s hamster♥♥: “…thus improving the odds that any son I have with this man will grow up to inherit the same pussy slaying skills, spreading my genes yonder and hither.”

As most of you are beta males, you should take this post to heart and begin training your reflexes away from automatic discomfort at the thought of touching women and toward taking liberties with their personal spaces. You may think you are disrespecting women, but in fact you are respecting their vaginas. Don’t be surprised if, after a few months of violating every known feminist taboo, you wind up not in a diversity seminar, but between the sheets with a very satisfied woman.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game | Comments Off

The Flattery Trap

Jun 1st, 2012 by

To praise, or not to praise? “seeking truth” asks:

The transition from sleeping often with women of assorted beauty and quality, over the past 8 years, to recently establishing a longer-term serious relationship with what I consider quite a valuable women is an interesting dilemma. Clearly there are long-term issues to excessively praising a woman, as constant exposure to praise will naturally lead one to lower the value of praising party, through over-exposure. However, when one is happy it is easy and natural to express the reasons for ones happiness. What is the balance?

What is your take on the long-term potential of a relationship strategy that involves praise for a woman’s strong points – Fun loving, Funny, Quick, Smart, Loving, Affectionate, and Attractive in large helpings of each, with a somewhat raunchy, nasty, perverted objectification of her as a sex object required to submit/please, along with occasional reminders of how successful and easy it has been to create hook-up situations?

For example, saying i love you and the same breath telling her to practice stretching so she can be manipulated for an easier pounding during an upcoming trip.  Does the sexual objectification offset the Betazoid aspects of praise?

I am finding the application of game interesting and looking to better understand its various implementations to sort out a comfortable role for it in relationships.

Here are three key seduction maxims to live by.

Better to err on the side of too much boldness than too little.

Better to err on the side of too much assholery than not enough.

Better to err on the side of too little praise than too much.

Do you know what happens to guys who cravenly praise their girlfriends day in and day out? They get dumped. Or tossed into sexual solitary confinement. Or taken for granted, if they’re lucky.

Do you know what happens to guys who are stingy with their praise? They get more sex than they can handle. They also get some drama, but… would you rather deal with drama or getting dumped?

I hope this lesson has reached home. Man, I have known guys who:

1. never complimented their GFs’ looks

2. never complimented their GFs’ smarts

3. never complimented their GFs’ personalities

but who had their GFs wrapped around their fingers. Even funnier, their GFs complimented *them* all the time, and all they answered in return was a head nod or a “you bet”. Isn’t love grand?

Now this doesn’t mean you have to go ice cold aloof ninja to sustain a loving relationship. As men, when we love a woman, we feel urges to compliment her. It’s a natural by-product of wanting to sex her hot bod with extreme defilement. And, it makes us feel good to throw her a bone of flattery. But betas completely surrender themselves to this urge, and it costs them. Alphas channel this urge, and it pays dividends. The Goldilock’s Principle is definitely in play. Allow me to open a window into a woman’s head, so you can see how your praise is received by her subterranean neuronal rhythms.

Excessive praise ===> “I can do better than him”

No praise ===> “He doesn’t love me”

Just the right kind and amount of praise ===> “I love him”

The first one will corrupt your LTR. The second one will corrode your LTR, but only after a very long time has passed. The third one will feed her hamster juuuuust enough pellets to keep her wondering, guessing, loving, and desiring.

There is a flattery balance to strike that won’t DLV yourself, and here are some guidelines to reaching that balance:

1. Never praise your girlfriend from a position of weakness.

There’s no worse time to lavish your woman with compliments than when she’s giving you the cold shoulder. But, men being men and unable to comprehend the maddening illogic of the female mind, that’s usually the time when they can’t stop praising their girlfriends. She’s snapping at you? Butter her up! She’s withholding sex? Ring up the excessive compliments! She’s being a raging bitch? Tell her how great she is! And then plead forgiveness of your sins!

Lord almighty, is this what the church of white knightery teaches men nowadays? You couldn’t do more harm to your cause had you tucked your junk between your legs, kneeled and begged her to touch your pee pee from behind.

The absolute WORST time to flatter your girl is when she is making your life miserable. Why would you reward bad behavior? Make like the pussy whisperer and train your woman not to crap in your face. Betas have no game except cloying flattery and “””supportiveness”””, so their instinct is to turn to that in times of turmoil and layer it on thick as can be. And you know the gruesome results of that: the woman feels even more repulsed by his presence.

No, when you praise or compliment or act supportive, ALWAYS do it from a position of strength. If you’re wondering when that is, it’s when she’s fawning over you, or begging you to irrigate her furrow as you brush your dick tauntingly across her pink eggplant, or singing your praises to her friends, or just generally acting like a sweet, feminine woman in your company.

2. Never be consistent in how, or how often, you flatter your girlfriend.

Two predictable compliments a day, like a doctor’s order, is going to get tiring real fast. She should never know when you might deign to make her feel loved. And she should never hear the same damn turn of phrase every day either. The best times to praise your girl are when she least expects it, and that is usually when something else is happening and her attention is distracted from “you and her”. I like to toss out a compliment when she’s just dribbled food onto her blouse, or whisper a loving bon mot in her ear as she’s trying on clothes in front of the mirror. Unpredictability is as arousing to women as full firm tits are to men. Which leads to…

Maxim #55: The training of the woman distills to this essence: Punish her bad behavior consistently, reward her good behavior intermittently.

Enjoy your vagina deluge.

3. Flatter her in public.

You know what really flutters a girl’s heart? When you say something nice about her in front of her friends. That’s a relationship boost and a social status boost in one. Nonsexual public praise is the safer bet, but sexual public praise, if done right, can make her heart explode.

4. Praise those things about her that will redound to your benefit.

Sure, it’s easy to lapse into praising a woman’s most obviously enticing features, like her eyes or luscious lips. But she has little control over those advantages she enjoys. But if you praise her attractive behavior… “I love they way you’re so affectionate. It’s really sexy and so rare to find in a woman nowadays”… you encourage more of that positive behavior from her in the future.

Similarly, if you go the physical route, praising your girl’s ass will have the most impact when she just got back from the gym. She’ll want to keep going to the gym to earn more of that praise.

5. Use adjectives.

Chicks dig the adjective. Lots of them. Nice eyes? Meh. Orbs of liquid blue allure? Plow me! Caveat: Lawyercunts tend to balk at adjectives, because they are unfeminine and have incipient clit dicks. Just tell them you’re gonna rape them in two, and watch their love pour forth.

6. Always substitute nonverbal praise for verbal praise when you can.

Pinching her ass and smiling is more effective than telling her she has a great ass.

7. Substitute “we” for “you” in your compliments, when you can.

It’s the difference between putting her on a pedestal, and leaving a spot for her on your pedestal.

8. Romantic contrast is king.

If you always tell your girl “you’re so pretty”, she will expect the same endearment next time. If you always tell your girl “you’re ass is so righteous I’m gonna fill it with my religion”, she will expect the same perversion next time. But if you sweetly woo her “I love the way we kiss” as you’re leaving for work in the morning, and then hoarsely whisper to her “your ass is so hot my dick wants to wear it as a sombrero” when you return in the evening, she’ll have two orgasms, one for her and one for her hamster. Squeak!

9. Rarity is the glow of clits.

If you get a great reaction from your flattery, don’t beat it to death. Stop, drop and change the subject. You’d be amazed how many betas will sabotage their brief moments of glory by returning over and over to the same well. Any sort of praise of a woman ought to be, by natural habit and sincere discernment, a rare and welcomed thing. Most men have the problem of overestimating the right amount of praise. The right amount is much less than men think. If I had to estimate, one week between compliments is a good rough number to shoot for within an established LTR. Whatever number, it should never be more than the number of compliments *she* lavishes on you. Abide the Golden Ratio (see the 16 Commandments at the top of the blog). Note: raunchy talk is technically not praise, so you can raunch it up often without worrying about DLVing yourself, though it’s a good idea to dish that out irregularly, for the same reasons you would be spare in your nonsexual flattery.

10. Finally, praise feminine qualities, not masculine qualities.

Do you want to turn your sweet petunia into a proud feminist with a jagged fault line running straight through her soul? Then why are you complimenting her “ambition”? Men with no clue often think women want to hear what they would like to hear. No. Women want to hear that you acknowledge and love their unique gifts — their femininity, their generosity, their softness, their sexiness. It’s similar to how men get tired of hearing their women praise their “muscles”. Ladies, you really want to strike the gooey center of your man’s heart? Tell him you love how he commands a room. Bam. You’ve just won an extra 30 seconds of lovemaking.

I hope this clears the matter for you. Compliments are garnishes, not the main dish. Nobody wants to eat a full plate of parsley. And remember, disapproving of her flaws is as crucial to LTR management as offering praise of her… talents. More crucial, I’d say, because a missed compliment won’t lower your value like a missed reprimand will.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Inner Beauty, Relationships | Comments Off

Women Want To Be With Men Less Physically Attractive Than They Are

May 31st, 2012 by

A reader quizzically wonders about something I asserted:

I was reading the post about men’s smarts and their value. You made a comment about women not wanting a guy hotter than themselves. I understand what you meant, but wondered how far you could carry that logic.

That is, women do not want a man who is hotter than her because hotter women will hit on him and she has a fear he might step up to a new woman. Having said that, is the implication that the hotter women will go for lesser looking men?

The examples I see are Goldie Hawn, being with Kurt Russel. Russel is an alpha male, as demonstrated by his life, but his boyish looks died years before he got with her.

Another is Demi Moore, in that for years, she was with Bruce Willis…another alpha male, but whose looks were never on the Ashton Kutcher level. Speaking of which, I suspect it was him who made the split…and that she is batshit crazy. But, that also points to the fact that after she hit the wall is when she went for the looks guy over the alpha male.

What are your thoughts?

Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are were the notable exception to the rule — there is a lot of talk about them in the media and amongst wishfully thinking aging cougars because their arrangement is was so rare and, hence, conspicuous. But as the invisible groin of the sexual market worked its self-regulating magic, Kutcher eventually cheated on his older lover with a bevy of much younger cuties, driving Moore insane with self-loathing and fear of her rapidly encroaching sexual obsolescence (which she desperately tweeted to the world in the guise of blurry, half-naked bathroom shots). Who can blame a prowly has-been?

Nevertheless, it is absolutely the case that most women prefer men, at least for long-term relationships, who are not physically better-looking than they are. The matter was discussed in this archived post. The referenced scientific study provided evidence for the curious real-world observation that there are a nontrivial number of couples featuring average looking men with cute chicks hanging off their arms. And the phenomenon of downright ugly men with beautiful women is, based on my steely-eyed observation, a good ten-fold more common than the inverse.

New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.

There are a few reasons for this sex differential in attractiveness criteria, some of which were mentioned in the study. I’ll clarify.

1. Very good-looking men have more opportunity to stray, so less attractive women would not want to risk being with them out of fear of investing themselves only to lose to a hotter interloper.

2. Very good-looking men have higher testosterone than less physically attractive men, and are thus more likely to pursue extrapair fornications. Women instinctively know this, and the less attractive of them avoid dating much better-looking men, influenced by their visceral grasp of the relationship power imbalance.

3. Men place more emphasis on women’s beauty than women place on men’s looks, and this innate predilection manifests as a willingness (and a honed ability) by men to strive harder than women for mating and LTR opportunities with relatively hotter opposite sex prospects.

But the most important reason, I believe, is egoism.

4. Men and women love to enjoy the privileges of their greatest strengths. It brings them happiness. For women, this means that they love the feeling of power that their beauty gives them. A woman who is with a better-looking man has that power robbed from her in subtle and in sometimes transparently humiliating ways; she has to deal with the attentions of female competitors, the attention her lover gives to female competitors, and the unspoken, but not any less felt, degradation of her number one asset. When a woman can’t leverage her beauty because the better-looking man she is with doesn’t value it as much as a less attractive man would value it, she loses a sense of purpose to her life.

It’s a similar dynamic to the stay-at-home dad married to the breadwinner wife. Maybe he thinks he scored by marrying a rich woman who can give him an easy life dusting up around the house, but over time nagging doubts about his masculinity and his wife’s faithfulness — even if she gives him no reason to doubt her fidelity — will eat away at his self-esteem. He will drift into an ennui of purposelessness and dreamscapes of receding chins and pendulous manboobs, because the soul-enriching feeling that comes with being able to leverage the natural male power which resides in providing, leading and dominating will have been stripped from him. Subcutaneous machinery of self-doubt will gradually shred well-intentioned insistent, mutual professions of love.

The reader asks if hot women will go for lesser looking men. The answer is that hot women will go for higher status men: an evasive answer befitting a misguided question. Women won’t actively seek out uglier men, but they will feel imperceptible compulsions to avoid dating men better-looking than themselves, which ultimately means that many women will wind up in the arms of less physically attractive (but perhaps higher status!) men. The study linked above suggests that all women, not just hot women, will gravitate into LTRs with men who are less good-looking compared to themselves. And they will be happier for it.

The study also implies women are more open to an uglier man’s game than men are open to flirting with uglier women. While ugly men won’t turn women’s heads, a bold ugly man can overcome the obstacle of his ugliness with the right attitude and seduction skill set. This is only true because physical ugliness is not the crippling deficit to a man’s dating success that physical ugliness would be to a woman’s dating success. It’s a difference of degree so pronounced that it almost qualifies as a difference of kind.

This doesn’t mean you can be an ugly man and expect hot babes to line up for the ego-boosting thrill of your comparative ugliness. You’ve still got to offer something women value, whether that’s money, charm, talent, game or social status. But it does mean that you can, and should, do better than your ugly looks have conditioned you to believe, particularly if LTRs are your goal.

This is all very good news for those uglier men who think game can’t help them date a point or two higher up the female attractiveness scale.

Maxim #214: Most men can get cuter girls than they think. False psychological projection of their own sexual attraction mechanism onto women blinds them to this reality.

High Fructose Postscript

Some of you have no doubt heard stories about, or experienced for yourself, women who seem to go for nothing but looks when choosing which men to date. You’re not imagining things. A minority of women — I’d estimate 10-15% of the fertile female population — place excess emphasis on men’s looks, almost on a par with the emphasis that men place on women’s looks. These women tend to be more masculinized than the typical woman. They aren’t necessarily unattractive, but they are less feminine than their curvier sisters. They usually have small tits and narrow hips, although their asses can retain their juiciness. They have manly personalities and are argumentative and horny all the time. They cheat without remorse. The sluttiest slut I’ve been with was one of these types who gun for the hottest guys in the room, and couldn’t be trusted as far as I could jackhammer her. (Which, proud to say, was clear across the lengthwise distance of the bed.)

If you meet one of these types, jump for joy. You’ve just gotten a ticket to ride her with minimal investment. They like sex, and they are easy to justify dumping for more loyal, less sexually predatory women. Be mentally prepared to catch her cheating, so when the inevitable parting of ways occurs, it’ll be no skin off your nose.

Interestingly, I have a pretty good hunch that a lot of female readers of sex-related blogs written by men, like Le Chateau, fall into this “looks-centric” masculinized female category. This explains the outsized vocal insistence by this minority of blog-traversing women that male looks are the most important thing in their suite of attractiveness criteria. Some of them are likely lying to score troll points, but some are telling the truth. Nevertheless, keep in mind that these women do not represent the majority of women you will meet in real life, offline. Most cute girls will not consider your average looks a dealbreaker, if you have some decent game or other compensating trait to woo them.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Relationships, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Happy Sexist Is Happy

May 30th, 2012 by

It’s a regular trope of feminists that male sexists are bitter, beta male losers. “Oh, you hate women because you suck with them”, and vice versa. It’s very comforting to feminists — actually, to all women — to believe that only resentful losers they don’t find attractive would harbor sexist thoughts. It’s very discomforting to feminists to entertain the thought that happy-go-lucky men who do well with women would be brazenly sexist.

But the truth, as per usual, falls squarely in the “discomforting to feminists” camp.

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.

So if you are a benevolent sexist — that is, you believe men and women are psychologically different and respond to stimuli in different ways, and that women are the weaker sex deserving of male protection — you are more likely to be a happy person than the man (or woman!) who clings to a bitter feminist ideology that assumes biological and psychological equality between the sexes.

And that’s really got to stick in the craw of any feminist who comes ambling through the Chateau happy hunting grounds. Not only are sexist men happier in life, but women in the company of sexist men are happier as well! Paging sad vegetable lasagna Alex Pareene…

But that’s not all. Sexist men make more money than their manboobed counterparts. And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.

The popularity of speed-seduction techniques, such as those described in The Game (Strauss 2005) and advocated in the cable program The Pickup Artist (Malloy 2007), suggests some women respond positively to men’s assertive mating strategies. Drawing from these sources, assertive strategies were operationalized as involving attempts to isolate women, to compete with other men, and to tease or insult women. The present investigation examined whether hostile and benevolent sexism and sociosexuality, the degree to which individuals require closeness and commitment prior to engaging in sex, were associated with the reported use of assertive strategies by men and the reported positive reception to those strategies by women. It was predicted men and women who were more sexist and had an unrestricted sociosexuality would report using more and being more receptive to assertive strategies. Study 1 (N = 363) surveyed a Midwestern undergraduate college student sample, and regression results indicated that sociosexuality was associated with assertive strategy preference and use, but sexism only predicted a positive reception of assertive strategies by women. Study 2 (N = 850) replicated these results by surveying a larger, national U.S. volunteer sample via the internet. In addition to confirming the results of Study 1, regression results from Study 2 indicated that hostile sexism was predictive of reported assertive strategy use by men, suggesting that outside of the college culture, sexism is more predictive of assertive strategy use.

tl;dr — chicks dig sexist jerks.

None of this should come as a surprise to my alpha male readers (estimated at around 20% of readership). If you’ve spent any time in the company of other alpha males, or if you are an alpha male yourself, you know how sexist in-demand, high value men can be, whether shooting the unmonitored breeze with male friends or challenging the preconceptions of feisty girls. And you know how much women swoon for those sexist pigs.

Some of the best sexist jokes I’ve heard came straight from the mouths of top gun alpha males. Some of the most revolting, too. And you wanna talk about how badly men objectify women? Try listening to a player describe in delicious detail every nook and cranny of the broads he boffs. Bitter beta males bemoaning the unfairness of getting the shaft in divorce court are veritable wymyn’s studies graduates and honorary lesbians in comparison to their distant alpha male cousins.

Now don’t get the wrong idea; alpha males are breathtakingly sexist, but they aren’t spiteful about it, nor do they allow their cynicism to ruin a good time. They love women as women, not as substitute men, and if that imbues them with an air of condescending paternalism, then so be it. Chicks dig that, too.

The trick is to coat your sexism in a lacquer of smooth cockiness. Call it: sexism with a smirk. You never want to logically argue with a feminist, at least not in typical social situations; you want to mock her. Preferably mercilessly. You don’t want to launch into diatribes about the double standard of paying for drinks; you want to tease a girl asking you to buy her a drink if she’d like your debit card as well. You don’t want to make a fuss about holding a door open for a hot chick; but you do want to let it slam in her face if she’s ugly or obese. You don’t want to discuss loaded feminist topics on a first date; but you do want to chide a girl who gives you feminist guff over drinks. She’ll appreciate your refreshing boldness*, or she’ll become indignant. If the latter, you’ll know it’s safe to stiff her with the check. Or just stiff her.

*Most girls will appreciate the sexist’s boldness, because the type of girl who would be stupid enough to bring up feminist topics on a first date is usually the type of girl who, regrettably, dates way too many beta males and is sick of their sycophancy. She is testing the waters for real manliness, which means real sexism… the kind of Draperesque sexism that drives women wild with the opposite of closed-vagina indifference.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Guy Rules, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »