Feed on
Posts
Comments

Interview With Daygamer Nick Krauser

May 21st, 2012 by

Regular readers who follow my (admittedly, attenuated) take on the PUA scene know that I consider Krauser to be one of the few bona fide pickup artists out there. It’s why I have his blog linked on the right under “Game”.

Krauser adheres to an “indirect-direct” daytime approach style that suits my personality well, so I’m perhaps a bit partial in my praise. Daygamers who use different approach techniques shouldn’t feel put off; remember, the core concepts behind most of the game styles are essentially the same, with the exceptions being the distinctions inherent in day vs night game, club vs everywhere else game, and native vs foreign game. Even those exceptions, as stark as their differences may seem to newbies, share a lot of critical game principles. Female hypergamy — the cosmic force that underpins much of the game technology geared to leveraging it in a man’s favor — is a universal phenomenon, after all. So if I praise one PUA school of thought you can consider it tangential praise of other PUA schools of thought.

This is not to say there don’t exist shysters out there whose sole intent is to make a buck off the woes of desperate losers in love. But Krauser (and a few others) strike me as the real deal, so I don’t have a problem promoting them. In that vein, here’s a trailer to an interview of Krauser by a group called London Real.

The full one-hour interview is here.

Also, as I’ve said before whenever I feature a PUA or a game instructor, if any reader has real life experience learning from or hanging out with these guys, whether those experiences are good or bad, feel free to discuss it in the comments, or email me for a possible future post. Don’t bother trolling. I have expert-level skills at sniffing out trolls and petty haters.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Videos | Comments Off

Fast-Tracking Familiarity

May 21st, 2012 by

Something that gets lost in discussions about seducing women is the speed aspect of the endeavor. Pickup used to be called speed seduction for a reason: it was a human social technology specifically designed to maximize the arousal of women and minimize the time and resource investment needed to bed them.

(For those smart alecks who say “Just be Brad Pitt and you won’t have to do anything to pick up women!”, kindly remind yourselves that famous men usually had to spend many years devoted to their craft before they hit the fame jackpot.)

I knew a guy who was a natural with women — i.e., he had imbued game concepts from an early enough age that the alpha way to act around women came second-nature to him, and his interactions glimmered with unrehearsed élan. Anyhow, something I noticed he often did with women was playfully fuck around with their names. (He never offered his name until he first learned a girl’s name.)

For example, if the girl told him her name was Ann, he would riff a stream of dorky permutations on her name in a deadpan manner.

“annster” “wham bam thank you ann” “ANNdle with care” “this ann is your ann, this ann is my ann”

You need a minimal degree of creativity to pull this off, but the result usually gets the girl smiling. More importantly, it signaled to girls that 1. he didn’t give a shit what they thought about his humor and 2. he was the sort of guy a girl could be instantly friendly toward without feeling awkward.

And really, a big component of successful seductions is the ability to quickly make a girl feel comfortable in your presence — to fast-track familiarity. And the way to do this is to put a girl at ease that you won’t make the mistake of deep-sixing a conversation with social clumsiness borne of low confidence and inexperience spending time with women.

Other FTF tactics he would use included the “Marry, Fuck, Kill” and “If you had to choose…” games, which he would launch into without any proper segue at all.

(“If you had to choose…” is my favorite because it’s awesome at getting girls to reveal their values. “If you had to choose between waking up next to Jonah Hill or waking up next to Charlize Theron, which would you choose?”)

I once asked him half-seriously his secret to picking up women. He said, “I cut them off.” By that, he meant he would cut off their conversation to inject whatever stupid shit happened to pop into his head (and which, coincidentally, would move the discussion in a more fruitful sexual direction). “But isn’t that rude?” “Nah, not to girls. Guys would think it was rude, but guys aren’t girls.”

Words to live by.

Seduction is the art and science (the artence) of shifting a girl’s perception of you from faceless beta null entity to damn-this-dark-triad-jerk-would-fit-nicely-between-my-legs. The words you choose and the demeanor you adopt go a long way to helping, or hindering, your pickup efficiency.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Women Are Equally As Shallow As Men

May 18th, 2012 by

SFG remarks:

Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.

Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.

This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.

Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.

In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.

Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Inner Beauty, Misandry, Pretty Lies, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science

May 18th, 2012 by

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.’”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Biomechanics is God, Dating, Feminist Idiocy, Game, Girls, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

How Much Do Your Smarts Matter To Women?

May 17th, 2012 by

This question comes up regularly at Le Chateau. You’ve got two schools of thought. The first insists that smarts, like any other positive attribute, can only raise a man’s dating market value because women are hypergamous and appreciate a smarter man than themselves. The other school says that women are put off by men who are too much smarter than themselves, and that experience shows women fall for lunkhead jerks all the time, perhaps because these types of men are less introspective and more unthinkingly assertive about hitting on women.

The science I’ve read on this subject has been all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that having some smarts is a net plus to a man’s desirability.

Where do I come down on this perennial issue? I stick by the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog. A better-than-average IQ is beneficial, but the benefits to picking up women begin to dissipate past a certain degree of brainpower, because very high IQ seems to be associated with a lack of social savviness and other off-putting personality quirks. If you know a lot of Ivy grads in the sciences and maths (a group of smarties if there ever were) then you can’t help but notice how awkward they can be in social settings with women who are more likely to represent the meaty part of the IQ bell curve.

Anyhow, both schools of thought have a point. Chicks are more viscerally turned on by raw male power and alpha attitude than they are by male smarts, but because chicks are wired to seek men who are higher status than themselves on as many metrics as possible (except looks; no pretty girl likes to be upstaged by her man in the looks department) they will generally be turned off by men who are dumber than they are.

This isn’t just theoretical musing. I say this from a position of real world observation. I’ll use a short anecdote as example: I was once hanging out with some girls in my group of friends when one of them got hit on by a very good-looking guy. She had previously noticed him and was tittering about him with her girlfriends when he approached, so she was already emotionally lubed to accept his entreaty.

Having a ringside seat to this blossoming courtship, I happily eavesdropped on the proceedings from a half-concealed vantage among the crowd. It didn’t take long for the whole thing to implode in entertaining failure. The flash point was when she used a two-dollar word and he replied in a way that proved he didn’t know what the word meant. Lemme tell ya, you never saw a woman’s flirty face turn sour so fast.

Afterwards, she confided that his apparent dumbness made him seem so much less good-looking to her.

So maybe this is the best way to view male smarts from the perspective of pickup success: all else equal, it’s better to be smarter than the girl you are hitting on than dumber than her. Sounds obvious, but I think this simple point gets missed. Girls may not be immediately turned on by men who are smarter than them, but you can bet girls are immediately turned off by men who prove themselves dumber than them. Men’s smarts then, act as a threshold test of fuckability for girls; too much won’t necessarily help or hurt you, but too little (relative to the girl) will definitely hurt.

The above is not a maxim, because I find that it applies primarily to overeducated girls in the cities. Less educated and less intelligent girls, who, it should be reminded, occupy the bulk of womanhood, are neither as impressed by male smarts nor as turned off by male stupidity as are their smarter sisters. Mostly this is because the mediocre mamacitas are not going to be throwing around two-dollar words that test the verbal acumen of the men they meet. Secondarily, dumber girls don’t have the cortical horsepower to quickly ascertain male dumbness the way smarter girls do; therefore, other sexy male traits, like dominance, loom larger in the dumb girl’s head.

But no matter how smart you are, if you aren’t using your smarts to light up a woman’s limbic lust center, you may as well drop your pretense to genius and try to speak to her on her level; no man ever incited tingles in a girl by solving quadratic equations or philosophizing deeply about deep stuff. After all, the reason women are drawn to male smarts is not smarts per se, but the promise of resources and power that typically accrue to the smart man. It’s proxies all the way down.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King | Comments Off

Hot Women Are Harder To Fool

May 16th, 2012 by

Put away your illusions about smart, ugly girls and dizzy, hot blondes. If you want to know which type of girl will be better at cutting through your cadtastic bullshit, it’s the hot babes for the sixth sense win.

Women in contrast, often have low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR); i.e., narrow waists and broad hips that approximate an hour-glass configuration. Women with low WHR’s are rated as more attractive, healthier, and more fertile. They also tend to have more attractive voices, lose their virginity sooner, and have more sex partners. WHR has also been linked with general cognitive performance. In the present study we expand upon previous research examining the role of WHR in cognition. We hypothesized that more feminine body types, as indexed by a low WHR, would be associated with cognitive measures of the female “brain type,” such as mental state attribution and empathy because both may depend upon the activational effects of estrogens at puberty. We found that women with low WHRs excel at identifying emotional states of other people and show a cognitive style that favors empathizing over systemizing. […]

It is interesting to note that our findings suggest lower WHR females, who are more likely to be targeted for dishonest courtship, may be better at identifying disingenuous claims of commitment.

Executive summary: You can string along an ugly chick a lot longer than you can a hot chick. But then, why would you want to?

Sex differences are the result of eons of social interactions between men and women with differing reproductive goals. Gene variants have evolved to equip men and women with the armaments they need to successfully navigate the mating market. Men have evolved penetrative bunker busters; women have evolved deeper bunkers. It’s an arms race with no end in sight, and no purpose; its existence is its own reward.

These sex-based gene variants aren’t uniform; “girly” genes are found less numerously in masculine women, and “manly” genes are found less frequently in feminine men. There is a general psychosocial sex dichotomy that is blurred at the edges, where the girly and manly gene clusters are not as clearly delineated. Thus you find, as this study concludes, that manjawed freaks like feminists are more likely than neotenous beauties are to fall for a player’s empty promises. Maybe that’s why feminists are so adamant about inserting the state into sexual affairs: they need a smarter surrogate to protect them from their own naivete.

It makes perfect sense that hot chicks would be better at sniffing out pump and dumpers from buy and holders, because they have inherited traits from their ancestral sisters that protect them from the kinds of men who are very good at seducing women at the lowest price point possible; men who, it stands to reason, would want to seduce only the hottest women, and a splendid variety of hot women, at that.

This study should also give pause to those game haters who believe players only target ugly chicks. If that were the case, the ugly girls would have evolved defensive mechanisms against the plunderings of players. But the fugs remain naive and easily manipulable, because, analogous to beta males and their rose-colored views of beautiful women, they rarely get the chance to experience the worst, or the best, sides of desirable men.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

Alpha Assessment: The Name Game

May 15th, 2012 by

Reader Aureo wants to know if this conversation he had with a girl he likes has cleared or obstructed the path to sex with her.

I want to bang this girl [ed: don’t we all!], but she just got a boyfriend so the antislut shields are up. Yet I know she likes me, so it’s only a matter of good logistics.

I once forgot her name and called her something else, and since then, every time we see each other, we make up a different (and normally dramatic) name, and laugh.

This is a conversation we just had, in which she subtly shoved me off:

Me: Danielle Marie Delacroix! (fake names we say)
Her: Mr. Alexander von Luparius the Third!
Me: *long weird name*
Her: Yeah, but you can call me Diane (her real name) ^^
Me: I don’t like that name that much ^^
H: ¬¬ i suppose we must do something about it, they dont call me “hard fists” for anything!
M: Ill beat you up like no one has!
H: haha I was just telling you mi nickname, as a curious fact.. haha
M: ok ok, I thought you were threatening me, still our issue remains.
H: we can talk it, we can spare some lives, some broken bones and stuff.
M: not to mention a few destroyed building and a public riot. Anyway, how do you like to be called?
H: haha elementary my dear Watson: Diane, and you? how do you like to be called?
M: so I lived deceived ALL this time?
H: yeah, all this time, but yes, sorry cowboy
M: It’ll be time to make up names for another person, then.
H: do you remember how all this came up?
M: yeah, I called you Valerie or something.
H: yes
M: so?
H: so nothing
M: so nothing what

then the conversation died.
how did I do?

You didn’t specify, but I’ll assume this was a face-to-face, three dimensional conversation you had with the girl, rather than email or text. So we’ll proceed from that premise.

First, I like the fake name game. That’s a great way to reframe a social faux pas like forgetting a girl’s name, and it incorporates a pared-down form of role-playing which is catnip to girls.

Second, your flirtation skills are very good. You know how to keep a convo rolling with light, witty banter. But all light all witty banter soon makes Jack an unsexy, entertainment monkey. Flirty talk is like starring in a sitcom: you gotta shoot for going out on top, otherwise all anyone will remember about you is your crappy last couple of seasons where you spent your episodes trying too hard to recapture your old glory.

Do you know where you blew it? Right after she asked “how do you like to be called?”, and you replied by continuing along the playful path you were already skipping happily down. Her personal question about your name (a major IOI from a girl, don’t forget) was your cue to get real with her for a minute. Girls love flirting, but they love it even more when a man knows how and when to segue from innocuous flirting to charged sexual energy. Had you dropped the jokes and your smile, replaced them with a steady gaze and serious expression, you would have stood a better chance at moving your conversation onto more fertile ground.

A lot of guys make your mistake; they get excited when they see the positive reaction and laughs that their playfulness elicits in a girl, and they do as men do — if some playfulness is good, then more must be better! But girls don’t think like men. Girls love unpredictability, they love being kept on their toes, and so they love a man who can turn on a dime from cocky to sexual tension.

Always keep the end goal in mind when you are flirting with a girl. Your end goal is not the elicitation of fleeting laughs or light forearm touches. It is penis in vagina. PRIMORDIAL PENIS IN COSMIC VAGINA. Never forget that. Temper your pride and your excitement at managing to keep a girl interested in a conversation with you; that giddy excitement will obscure the path to your ultimate goal by diverting you from the sequence of moves you must make, as the man, to seduce a woman into bed.

The next time you are playfully engaging a girl you want to screw, I want you to ask yourself “Is my penis in this girl’s vagina? No? Then there is more work to be done. More need to lead. No rest for the turgid.” Flirt on, flirt off, young Danielson.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Game | Comments Off

Reader Mailbag: Options = Instability

May 11th, 2012 by

Reader Ramon asks:

So I’m chatting with my current stripper of the quarter and I ask her, “why do chicks dig jerks?”. Her take: “they grow out of it”.

Background On this girl – 28, divorcee, cock carousel until 24, fun but with interesting phobias. I’d call her a 6-7.

What’s your take on her comment?

I actually do think that girls “grow out” of digging jerks. Unfortunately for the niceguys of the world, that growth doesn’t occur until the late 20s for the typical woman, and later than that for very pretty (highly estrogenic) or very delusional (also highly estrogenic) women. So while women may grow out of digging jerks, men don’t “grow into” digging cougars. The niceguy, as always, is left with second-best (or one-thousandth worst).

Also, it’s important to define what we mean by “grow out of”. The definition is fluid depending on the options available to the woman who is claiming to be over jerks. A 28 year old, rode hard and tossed away wet, neurotic divorcée stripper — a chick who has likely opened her wormhole to a fleet of interstellar assholes — is going to have been so psychologically drill-pressed by her history of disappointments trying to nail down jerks for long term commitment that she may very well begin to gravitate to the sensitive ministrations of relatively doting men.

But then it won’t take more than a few weeks with a niceguy to remind her how much she viscerally desires the wrong kind of man.

So, what I’m getting at is this: a woman who has “grown out of” dating jerks is a woman who is too old, too crazy or grown too fat to appeal to the unruly jerks who truly excite her. Her limited options dictate her claimed preferences. Which is another way of saying she’s settling for niceguys. That’s an explanation of the thinking process of your aging stripper. Now, this is not the whole story; I suspect that age-related decreasing estrogen levels, coupled with a subconscious reappraisal of SMV caused by failure to either capture the attention of sexy jerks or to keep them around for very long, WILL objectively alter a woman’s dating preferences to some degree. Women do have two competing mating algorithms clashing for dominance within their psyches: the desire for fun sexytime and the desire for comforting providertime. When she is young and at her desirable prime, her sexytime id holds more of her cortical territory. When she is older and beginning to fade into sexual obsolescence, her providertime id battles back and claims victories, hoisting its banner of sour grapes.

tp;dc (too precise, didn’t comprehend): The hottest chicks dig the biggest jerks. Less attractive chicks dig jerks too, but can’t get them, so they pretend they don’t like them. Older women will be easier for niceguys to pick up. A minority of cute, young chicks genuinely adore niceguys, but there are too few of them to go around to satisfy the innumerable niceguy demand for them.

PS Beware the stripper who says she’s over assholes. You will be tempted to throw her a compliment or a cuddle, thinking she has illuminated the way to her poosay. You will be rebuffed. Your working assumption should be that any chick who claims to be over jerks is not over them at all, and has probably dated more jerks than girls who admit they like jerks.

***

Anon pleads (probably too late):

Prom season is approaching. Any related game advice for the younger crowd? I know high school isn’t representative of the “real” dating/hookup scene, but there are similarities. Any tips?

Smile mischievously, and pin the corsage directly over her boob. Not kidding. Worked for me. If corsages are out, have two flutes and a bottle of champagne waiting for her in your car (or the limo, if the driver is down with underage drinking). Dance with another girl, and make sure your date sees it. Smoke outside, come back in reeking of it. Keep a flask of bourbon and a condom in your jacket pocket, and be sure the outline of the condom shows through. And, as always, remember that this is the time of life when girls’ asses will never be tighter; take post-coital pictures for a masturbation photo album when you are elderly! God, I love good, old-fashioned American traditions.

***

Rhett wonders:

I was wondering if a girl says she loves you way too early , would this be considered beta bait? I haven’t spent much time with this chick, i banged her the first night i met her and twice since discounting sex iv only spent about ten hours with her.

Not necessarily. Read her face when she says it. You should be able to tell the difference between a sincere expulsion of loving tribute to your alphaness and an insincere shit test. However, do note that EVEN IF her “I love you” is sincere, it could still serve as a subconscious shit test for her, in that if you answer “I love you too” right back, you could unknowingly give her way too much hand so soon in your new relationship. Since you’ve only spent ten hours with her, I suggest a cocky reply is in order. Make a finger gun and wink at her while saying “Right back atcha.” Gauge her response. Does she giggle? You nailed it. Does she seem on the verge of tears? Wrap her up in a hug and tell her you love spending time with her, and you can’t wait to see where it leads.

***

B. writes:

Have you seen the new HBO show ‘Girls’?  Writtten by a young woman who is also the star, the series starts with a young woman’s life bottoming out:

1. Parents cut off her income
2. Loses her internship at a publishing house
3. Boyfriend loves her too much

I’m serious.  To describe the nightmare situation for a young woman today, she shows a girl whose boyfriend never stops being nice to her.  And her friend even makes fun of her for it.

Thanks for making my life better,
B.

No, I haven’t seen it, but I may have to, since it’s been the talk of the town lately, and besides, there have been claims that the chick writer(s?) has cribbed a lot of ideas off of Le Chateau Heartiste. Hence, the supposed realism of the show. I’ll save an analysis for a future post.

***

Customer Service writes about a game tactic which involves pretending to be your ex-girlfriend to make prospects jealous and, hence, horny for your deviant love:

I moved back in with my parents and I started lying about my living situation because too many vaginas sealed up.

I started telling girls that I lived with my ex girlfriend and couldn’t move out because she was still in love with me.  Ergo sex at the girls’ places.  Bingo. Proceed.

However, I need a way to keep my leads warm so I tried this exchange on two cold girls [where I] pretend my ex gf finds my phone.

… out of the blue, after regular texting game …

me:  ”hey, how do we know each other”

… silence or no response …

me: 2 mins later, “where did we meet”

… by this point the girls start to clue in that it’s not me on the other end and they’ll reply with something short ….

me:  ”this is Tim’s ex girlfriend, i want you to know that I am still in love with him, stay away from him, he doesn’t love you”

… the one girl I used this line on responded by saying OK…

me: (to both girls) “did you sleep with him?”

… I didn’t bang these girls, one responded with a smiley face and the other cold lead said, “he’s your ex now, so relax”,  NOT ONE GIRL DENIED SEX.

What do you think of this game tactic?  I haven’t decided how to follow up with this scenario.

Wow. All’s I gotta say is, this is gold, Jerry! That is, it’s gold for finding out how manipulative and devious girls can be when their jealousy is incited by a bit of the ol’ ultrapreselection. I assume, since you didn’t mention it, that you hadn’t slept with these two girls you were texting while impersonating your ex-gf; therefore, the fact that neither one denied make-believe sex with you says two things about the female id:

1. they love the idea of being the “other woman”, and

2. they are DTF.

Chicks come born with a preinstalled harem mentality which can be triggered the moment they realize they are in the company of a man who keeps the company of multiple women. The typical woman is psychologically equipped to transition into concubinage with an alpha male if her buttons are pushed in the right order. Your “impersonating ex-gf” game tactic appears to have done that. It’s a total mindfuck, and for that, I award you:

Le Chateau Heartiste VIP (Very Important Player) entry to the Scarlet Room. (Bring cat-o’-nine tails.)

But how about your game tactic as a means of getting closer to sex with your prey? It’s gets a little trickier here, because you’ll have to be careful about slipping up and tipping your hand. But you’ve got valuable inside info on your two prospects; the image of having sex with you has been self-planted in their heads, and you come to them a proven commodity: the man whose ex-gf is so crazy jealous in love with him she stalks his phone for interlopers. To put it bluntly, you come pre-DHVed.

I suggest the next time you want to meet either of them, ignore what went down when you were stealing the identity of your fake ex-gf and proceed as if everything is normal. Wait for them to bring it up. When they do, say something like “Yeah, my ex is nuts. Thinks we’re still gonna get back together. Gotta put a lock on my phone.”

PS I wouldn’t say you can’t move out because your ex is still in love with you. That doesn’t sound plausible. Explain instead that you and your ex split the rent and it makes sense financially for you to live together for a little while longer, until you’re sure she has her life in order and can afford her own place. This fake explanation has the added benefit of hitting that “protector of loved ones” button that all girls possess.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

The Silent Virginity

May 10th, 2012 by

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

– Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

– Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

– Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

– Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

– The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

– Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Pretty Lies, Sluts, The Big City Life, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

The Flaw In The Alpha Male Procreator Theory

May 9th, 2012 by

Traditionalists, anti-gamers and the usual assortment of sour grapers who want to believe men who are successful at bedding women aren’t winners in the social status or self-indulgence sweepstakes, often resort to the argument that having kids makes a man alpha. This “It’s not the number of bangs, it’s the creating of womb issues” theory is very comforting to a certain mindset.

Helpful reminder: before the age of aquarius contraception, a beta male achieving one bang in his lifetime had a decent shot at impregnating a woman. There aren’t many men, or women, who would argue that managing to have sex once in his life qualifies a man for alphatude, regardless whether the act results in a baby or a blank.

The alpha male of yore — before effective condoms and the pill were widely available — may have been distinguishable by his large brood, but today that signal no longer applies. Today’s alpha male can, and does, easily thwart his genetic programming to make lots of minialphas through the use of such anti-fertilization show-stoppers.

Therefore, the best signal now for how alpha a man is remains what was outlined in this post. The definition contained therein may offend your socratic sensibilities, but great truths often distill as tautologies.

Interestingly, men of the lower classes, because they are prone to forego or misuse contraceptives as befits their constricted time horizons, can more readily be categorized as beta or alpha based on how many children they sire with roaming single moms. In the upper classes, the opposite reality endures; the alpha male is often the one who puts off having children so that he may enjoy his youth chasing skirt, contraceptively freed from the consequences that would otherwise gestate should he direct his amore toward dumber, poorer women who don’t possess the conscientiousness or common sense to swallow a pill on a regular basis.

This is, really, the great advantage that boffing smart chicks offers to men: worry-free sex. Sparkling conversation is just icing on the cake.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Beta, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »