Feed on
Posts
Comments

Better Than Again: The Female Secret Code Decoder Dictionary

Apr 27th, 2012 by

A wealth of experience with women will clue a man into the dissonance between a woman’s words and actions, and gradually lead him to discover that the woman’s word is the exact inverse of what she wishes you to presuppose it is: not a verbal descriptive but rather a psychological misdirection to lull the unsuspecting, including herself, to cogitate on the opposite of what is, in fact, true. Resist the temptation to blame a woman for her subterfuge because, in another example of empirics catching up to folk wisdom, science is revealing that not even she is aware what currents ripple through her vagina.

On that prologue, here follows a handy dandy secret girl code decoder crib sheet. Though you have been weaned since toddlerhood, when your flaccid tot dong jutted out at a continual 90 degree angle to your raisins, to believe the last in each series is to be aspired to, the truth is that, if sexnlurv with the sexynlurvly hot babes is what you want, then you are far better off being deemed the opposite by the fairer sex.

douchey >>> nice guy

asshole >>> sweet

jerk >>> cute

bastard >>> good man

pig >>> gentleman

insane >>> dependable

jerk > sexy > hot > cute > sweet > creep > nice guy

creeper > creep > stalker > loser > nice guy

serial killer >>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

mass murderer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

psychopathic hedge fund white collar criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*phew*) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

nice guy > pedophile (finally!)

he makes me cry >>>>>>>>> he’s always there for me

it’s so hard with him >>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, he’s a great guy

freak >>> attentive lover

cheating bastard >>> he treats me like a princess

you don’t see what i see in him >>> he’s the perfect man

wiseass >>> funny >>> clown >>> goofy >>> quirky >>> weird

mysterious >>> a good friend

exciting >>> easy to get along with

i don’t know how much more i can take with him >>> someday we’ll get married

he always forgets our anniversaries >>> he understands my needs

pervert >>> sensitive lover

he screwed my best friend >>> i screwed his best friend

he gets me >>> i get him

fucking asshole arrogant son of a bitch motherfucking cocksucking pike of steaming shit filthy fucking bastard mama’s boy >>> nice guy

selfish lover >>> eats me out

who are you texting? >>> i promise i’m not texting any other guys

god that was such a turn-on >>> i love you

cocky bastard >>> sweet guy

i never know what he’s up to >>> we go everywhere together

lover >>> husband

is that a girl’s voice i hear in the background? >>> thanks for letting me know what time you’ll be home

you’re going to shit in front of me?! >>> i’ll be out in a minute, honey

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Guy Rules, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Comments Of The Week: The Parallel Universe Of Alpha Males

Apr 26th, 2012 by

Libertardian (nice nick!) writes:

That article clearly struck a major nerve and it saddens me to see Aussie women have fallen prey to the madness as well.

One commenter shouts “Karma!” and the reply is: “Karma? For getting an education, having a well-paying job, having some drive, spirit and independence, living life as one sees fit? What a strange mentality to have towards other human beings.”

They just don’t get it.

Women have no idea of the bleak odds most men have been living with for years, or how disaffected it has made them. I’d guess the average beta, by the age of 30, has been rejected or flaked on at least one thousand times. What this teaches him is to keep a lot of irons in the fire and minimize his emotional investment in any of them.

He’s been brainwashed into thinking women are angelic and pure and like nice men, and admittedly that mindset is probably in his nature as well. Civilization, which we had up to a few decades ago, rewards this mindset. The jungle we live in now does not. The result is years of painful cognitive dissonance and, eventually, a pervasive cynicism born of the need for simple emotional self-preservation.

If he’s mature for his age, he probably even prefers the company of older (thirtysomething) women. They’re more mature than the ones his own age who are still partying and drinking and chasing bad boys, after all. But of course that’s a dead end too. The thirtysomething women are busy chasing fortysomething men with money, and when they want to dally with a younger man it’s hardly going to be a beta.

Our beta is in the 80% of men who spends his twenties watching 80% of the women go after the other 20% of the men. The kind of men he sees these women chase after, again and again, has been discussed at length here and hardly needs repeating. Needless to say, this adds greatly to his disillusionment.

He also knows about the 70%+ divorce rate and the fact that 70% of divorces are initiated by women, who need no cause for doing so, and he knows that the result is having half or more of his assets stripped. He may well have seen, at first hand, his father or another older man having his retirement cleaned out. No matter how “in love” you think you are, you’re a moron if you take on these odds. It’s like playing Russian roulette with five chambers loaded.

Someone once said a beta is like a baseball player who’s been kept on the bench for the entire game, until in the bottom of the 9th he’s suddenly called up and told to hit a sacrifice fly. Thing is, by then, he may well have dropped out.

He’s long since learned to treat sex as a bodily function, like eating or shitting, that he can accomplish with the help of some porn. He had to learn that during his decade and a half in the beta wasteland.

He’s learned to channel his passions into something else, like a hobby, or work, or volunteering. Indeed he can do whatever the hell he wants, outside of work, all day every day. Women, meanwhile, take it for granted that men are supposed to do things they don’t enjoy in exchange for the pleasure of female company. Thing is, why is the guy going to volunteer to be told what to do and how to spend his money? Women have treated him like shit for fifteen years while they chased the alpha male bad boy. Modern society has taught women to be entitled to the point of delusion, emotionally volatile and manipulative to the point of being bipolar, and above all to BLAME MEN. So why, after the experiences he’s had already, is he going to want to tune into this channel 24/7?

And the blaming continues when the beta mysteriously opts not to shove his head into the trap. The name-calling and the shaming and the cries to “man up” assail him from all sides. But what does he care? He tried doing just what women said they wanted for fifteen years and his reward was a bowl of piss with a brown submarine cruising in it. Scolding him is like putting out a fire with gasoline.

Sure, some betas learn game and find success with women. Most men seem to take a quantum leap in attractiveness to women just by crossing the age of thirty, having a few bucks, and not being omegas. The point is, the scales have long since fallen from their eyes. They’ve seen the beast and they cannot unsee it.

There’s been some clamor in the manosphere lately about there being a false impression created by “gamers” that the currently operative sexual market is very good to men. This manosphere subspecies claims that in reality women have it better than men, and this can be seen in women’s entitled attitudes and their avoidance of marriage and historically high divorce initiation rates.

The sexual market is a roiling, turbulent beast about which any poking and prodding is best served by sterling precision. We have mentioned this here before, but it bears repeating: the modern dating scene has been, and is, very good to ALPHA MALES. Beta males more than ever are the biggest losers under the post-sexual revolution regime. Contraceptive freedom, social destigmatization and female economic self-sufficiency have joined forces to enable a sexual libertinism that redounds most beneficially to alpha males, and most disadvantageously to beta males.

What about women? Where do they stand in the rushing river of romantic license? For women, it’s been a mixed bag. Unleashed hypergamy brought on by a diminished need for beta providers and a contraceptively nullified fear of pregnancy allows them to pursue charming alpha males to their hearts’ content while delaying marriage or relationship fidelity until they are vaginally or emotionally spent and ready, if needed, for the Great Settle with some grateful beta who has wandered the celibate wilderness a little longer than he’d hoped.

As GBFM colorfully put it, this is the “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks” strategy. Be cognizant, though, that this is not the optimal female strategy, which, logically, would be “Alpha Fucks and Alpha Bucks”. Of course, only the hottest women can realistically achieve this ovarian nirvana.

The downside for women of the feminist-inspired and alpha male-co-opted sexual revolution is that false hopes engendered by a few fantastic nights with an alpha male can lead them to squander their prime beauty years chasing illusory commitment from exciting cads. Freewheeling soft concubinage also spoils a woman’s sexual expectations, rendering the second-best bedroom love of the beta male disappointingly meager.

And then there are the less attractive women, those who are caught up in the hypergamy house of mirrors but can’t find a way out like their prettier sisters. Has the sexual revolution been good to them? As a system conducive to gratifying immediate superficial needs, yes. But for long-term needs of the sort that are particular to women, no. A dearth of economically higher status beta males and/or maritally inclined alpha males has made it tough on women in both the lower and upper SES tiers, whose growing populations respectively of single moms and childless mimosters attests to their difficulties navigating the present dating market. After all, no woman REALLY wants to grow up to be a single mom or mimosa-sipping spinster.

So there you have it. The diagnosis. The sexual/feminist revolution delineated. Women, on the whole, have it better than men, but alpha males have it the best.

Alpha males =======> WINNING
Beta males ==> LOSING
Alpha females (.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)> TREADING WATER
Beta females (.)(.)(.)(.)> PYRRHIC VICTORIES

******

The Raven writes, in regards to the ability to influence human perception:

Professional shooting instructors have known this for a while. I have heard it referred to as “The Henry Bowman Effect”. Nearly every woman I teach to shoot gets gina tingles so blatant that you can practically see the snail trail when I send them downrange to paste their targets. Now, it doesn’t work so well if you’re a neckbearded fatty, but let me give you a sample of an email I got from a 24-year-old nurse I taught some defensive shooting to last summer:

“Now that I’ve gotten my upper torso out of the gigantic pile of bricks that took me out about 1/2 way through the day today, I’m trying to shake the brick dust out of my ears and get a clean thought process going…. aided by some Ambien so excuse me if spelling and grammar doesn’t match my level of intelligence. Maybe and I had too much time up in the truck talking, or I had time to myself to think about things, or I saw you with – but something has absolutely snapped in my brain- and I am in LOVE with you. I don’t get it. You’re not mine. You will never be, and have never been. I can’t help the way I feel. It’s almost like when I was watching you teach today, my brain was saying “he’d make a great father”, and when you were shooting, the brain was saying “He can protect you” and talking about your job stuff lately says “he’s a provider”… and not to mention I think your calves are sexy—– I think my ovaries and screaming at me to reproduce and I think they chose you. I don’t actually WANT children, but you get it. That’s where I’m at. I love you for who you are, and how you’re a friend to me, but then my body wants to jump in and decide that you’d be the perfect sperm for me? It’s a little fucked up but I’m becoming more aware of these weird biohealth things going on with my hormonal 24 year old body. I’m hornier than ever, I cry at Gerber baby commercials, and watching my sister breastfeed makes MY boobs sore. How is this fair?!?!? This is wrong on so many levels. You are happily married. I WANT to be happily married to . I eventually wouldn’t mind children (distant future), but I can’t figure out why today I had to come to terms with the reality that I LOVE you but nothing will ever change (as It should NOT). That kiss was phenomenal, but far too short. All that really did was jab a knife into my already aching heart that I can’t kiss you every time I leave, or when I say hello, or good morning. It makes me sad I’m actually crying right now and this is fucked up..

Even more so, I will get married in the future and unless he’s a complete douche, you guys will be invited to the wedding. I’ll be in my poofy dress and you in a suit and you’ll come up for a dance and we’ll just look at eachother and *sigh* because I’ll be secretly wishing it was you. Do you know how FUCKED UP THAT IS??? I will love my husband, and he will be great- but there is already a man out there that I think would make a good partner for me. That’s not supposed the way it’s supposed to work. I have more thoughts but I cant even type sentences anymore. I’m sorry.

Peace out.”

I saved that email just because it was such a classic example of HBS.

Anyway – the other chick was practically humping my leg too. It’s a hazard that has served me well.

The Raven

I’ve often wondered what would happen to the sexual reciprocity continuum if beta males discovered en masse how boldly and shamelessly women throw themselves at the few alpha males in their midst. Would it rip wide open the fragile sperm-vagine fabric and create a wormhole leading to an alternate dimension where white knighting was a mockable offense and no beta male, anywhere, ever again paid for a date or wrote sappy love poems? Would princess pedestals shatter like the cymbal crash in a symphony, freeing men’s minds of hallucinatory dreamscapes? The female id uncaged is a sight to behold, crueler and more subversive than the reckless thrashing of the unchained male id, and it’s with good reason civilization only flourished once it was patrolled and the pleasure of its vessels redistributed.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Comment Winners, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Masculine Game Vs Feminine Game

Apr 24th, 2012 by

YaReally wrote in response to this post about cold reading women:

This is super gay. But it works. It’s just really oldschool tech like “can I get a female opinion?” from back when PUA was more “I’m a dancing monkey – please approve of me” versus now where it’s evolved more to “go ahead, try to impress me”.

PUAs would get girls asking “are you gay??” all the time because of stuff like this where you’re sort of absorbing part of girls’ personality an mannerisms into yours. Guys would drop into valley-girl speak (“like omg totally”) and shit.

Thing is, it works. The girls would shriek “omg!!!” and be intrigued. Some guys even played the gay thing up all the way to fucking the girl, just to experiment with it lol

But PUA has evolved a lot since then, now we tend to focus on emphasizing the masculine side of things and making the girl qualify herself to us instead of emphasizing the feminine side of things and trying to fit into the girl’s world.

So instead of wearing a feather boa and going “guys I totally need a girl’s opinion–(touch an elbow) omg you are SO the Samantha of the group aren’t you lol” you just wear normal clothes and go “hey, who are you? You’re cute, come here. (grab around the waist, pull her in) Why are you causing trouble, hmm?”

Best term for describing it that I’ve heard so far is speaking to the girl like “a man to a woman”. The old way, like this Glee routine, is speaking to the girl like “a woman to a woman”.

Again it works, I’m not talking smack about the concept itself. I’ve seen a buddy use “you guys are like the Powerpuff Girls” to consistently blow open sets of chicks like a fucking nuke going off, it’s retarded. BUT, consider how you want your vibe to come off to people in general before you run around using routines like this.

Intriguingly, bisexual men have a higher chance to reproduce than heterosexual men, (and some famous seducers who had world beating notch counts are rumored to be bisexual), which implies that men with a dollop of feminine characteristics — i.e., men who can better simulate female behavior and relate to women in their language — will have more success bedding women than very masculine men.

This concept of masculine game and feminine game presents the potential for a major rift in thinking, resulting in a dichotomy in game technology. Let’s face it, there’s a big difference between acting like a funtime drama queen pushing girls’ buttons until they’re chasing after you, and acting like a steely-eyed James Bond character overwhelming women with dominant gestures and terse mystery.

YaReally is right that both methods work, but the question is if one is better than the other. I have said that the best seducers must know their prey inside and out, and to do that one must adopt the psychology of his exquisite foe. A master panty collector seduces women using their own subconscious tactics and manipulations against them; he flips the script. This script flipping could be called feminine game, because what you do is essentially what women routinely do to men: qualify them, neg them, shit test them, backturn, push-pull, hot cold hot cold, jealousy plotlines, coyness, etc.

Most core game concepts are basically borrowed female courtship ruses that are adjusted to fit the straight male sensibility (i.e., to avoid the “uncanny faggy”). They work, because as innately solipsistic creatures, women love men who reflect their black souls back at them.

Masculine game shares some techniques with feminine game, but it differs in a fundamental way: instead of leading a girl to the chase through delightful subterfuge, you overwhelm her resistance with dominance and an attitude of entitlement. Pictorially, masculine game is an oak tree: solid, immovable, protective, unshakeable. Feminine game is a nimble-tongued artiste: ephemeral, adaptable, entrancing, insufferable.

YaReally says that Masculine Game is iteration #2 of game, which intrigues me, because that presupposes there were deficiencies with Feminine Game (iteration #1) that needed rectifying. I would like to know more about the latest developments in this area.

Personally, I find myself using techniques from both schools of thought, and adopting both attitudes in measure when it suits me, or the moment calls for it. I imagine men who enjoy a life brimming with the carnal company of women are the same way: possessors of the masculine and feminine charms, dispensed when expedient and integrated to whichever context envelops them.

As a very basic guiding principle, it could be said that Feminine Game is both early game and pre-relationship game — the game you use to attract women and the game you incorporate up until the point you start having regular sex with your lover. Conversely, Masculine Game is mid game, as well as relationship game — the game you use to draw a woman in during the comfort and seduction stage, and the game you incorporate into a serious relationship, when your lover needs to see stronger signs of your commitment, loyalty and strength.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Do Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look?

Apr 23rd, 2012 by

“Certain people look more leftist than others,” Breivik said in his final day of testimony at his trial for the murder of the 69 victims on Utoya and eight others in a bombing in Oslo. “This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That’s the reason I didn’t fire any shots at him.

“When I looked at him I saw myself.”

This story about Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik claiming he could tell which of his targets looked like leftists got me thinking about something I’ve noticed as well: liberals and conservatives, at least in America, do seem to have a look specific to their ideology, and this look goes beyond just their style of dress. The faces of lefties and righties are, as a very general rule, different looking. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly how they differ; suffice to say, this is an inexact science, and whatever association there is between facial structure and politics is probably a weak one with plenty of overlap, and likely breaks down along race.

Nevertheless, there’s something there to the observation. Pressed to provide detail, I might say that leftist men look softer, have bigger eyes and fuller lips, and weaker jawlines. Righist men look tougher, have narrower, opaque eyes, thinner lips and heavier jawlines. The critical difference is in the eyes; the stand-out feature of lefties are their limpid, watery eyes, always looking on the verge of weeping. Visualize Barney Frank or Al Franken vs Clint Eastwood or Mitt Romney.

If you think this description of leftist men makes them seem more feminine or more intelligent, well… draw your own conclusions.

Here’s a pic of the guy Breivik thought looked like a rightie dude (foreground).

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Current Events | Comments Off

Another Experimentally Confirmed Game Concept: Influencing Perception

Apr 23rd, 2012 by

This video of a prankster who pretended to be a generic famous dude has been making the rounds on pickup oriented blogs. And with good reason. It demonstrates how preselection and manipulated perception — two core game concepts — are effective at attracting women (and attracting them for dates, which you can see proved at the end of the video when our intrepid fake celebrity calls a girl and she throws herself at him.)

Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.

Fame, as noted in the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog, is the most powerful male attractiveness trait known to mankind. Fame trumps looks, wealth and game in its ability to draw in and captivate women from all social and racial strata. Preselection is a scientifically validated game concept — studies have shown that female geese will prefer the male goose surrounded by cardboard cut-outs of other female geese over the solitary males — which rests on the theory that women are attracted to men who are themselves attractive to other women, because such men have already been “preselected” by competitor women and are thus proven commodities.

(Preselection works for men, but not women, because men can size up a woman’s sexual market value with an instant look, while women need much more information to adequately assess a man’s SMV.)

When you put preselection and fame together, you get an explosion of pussy juice, like a dam bursting to release years of pent-up tributary tingles. “Thomas Elliot” was able to induce raw, animal desire in women simply by having himself filmed in the company of admirers and ACTING like someone famous and beloved by the ladies. This could be a new game tactic for men who wish to experiment with the cutting edge in seduction technology: have your wingman film you at the bars signing fake autographs.

***

Related to this post’s subject, here is a study which confirms the game concept of fluid perception.

UCLA anthropologists asked hundreds of Americans to guess the size and muscularity of four men based solely on photographs of their hands holding a range of easily recognizable objects, including handguns.

The research, which publishes today in the scholarly journal PLoS ONE, confirms what scrawny thugs have long known: Brandishing a weapon makes a man appear bigger and stronger than he would otherwise.

“There’s nothing about the knowledge that gun powder makes lead bullets fly through the air at damage-causing speeds that should make you think that a gun-bearer is bigger or stronger, yet you do,” said Daniel Fessler, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of anthropology at UCLA.

Researchers say the findings suggest an unconscious mental mechanism that gauges a potential adversary and then translates the magnitude of that threat into the same dimensions used by animals to size up their adversaries: size and strength.

Some of you are probably asking, “What does this have to do with game?” Ah, a lot, my friends. This experiment proves that human perception of certain characteristics can be influenced by specific, unrelated cues or behaviors. In this case, holding a gun influenced viewers to perceive the holder as physically bigger than he would normally be perceived. A gun (aka game) shifted the perceptions (attraction) of people (women) to view the subject as more physically imposing (desirable) than they would normally view the subject, even though the gun (game) did not add any physical size (objective conventional status) to the subject (PUA).

If brandishing a gun can alter perceptions so that you seem bigger to people than you really are, then it’s no stretch to conclude that adopting alpha male body language, qualifying girls, dressing stylishly and acting charmingly aloof can alter the perceptions of women to think you are more desirable than you would otherwise seem as just another beta face in the crowd.

The concept of perception fluidity is crucial to game theory, for much of seduction is the psychology of massaging women’s perceptions via manipulation of your identity, behavior and image to project the aura of alpha maleness which is so alluring to the warier sex.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Psy Ops | Comments Off

Gotta Love The Washington Uterus

Apr 20th, 2012 by

In a story about the Secret Service agents and the Colombian whore with the fake tits, I was thrown by this jarring editorial commentary that was inserted after a quote attributed to one of the agents:

“I was really checking [Sarah Palin] out, if you know what i mean?” [Secret Service agent] Chaney wrote in the comments section after friends had marveled at the photo. He is married and has an adult son.

I’m not seeing the relevance of his marital or fatherhood status to the story. Is it the “””reporters’””” contention that staring at Sarah Palin’s ass (a fine one, for a middle-aged woman) would be Ok if the agent admitting to it was single and childless?

You’ve really gotta wonder what planet these Columbia J-school grads live on. Planet Stupidity aka Feminism? Yes. You’d have to be delusional, evil or thoroughly brainwashed to think that a man’s sexual desire and attraction for hot bodied women somehow disappears after he gets married and his kid grows up. If women really think that married men stop checking out other attractive women, then I’ve got a bridge to sell them to fatopia, where fat chicks are beloved by men everywhere.

This kind of mass delusion among the elite is what happens when you ensconce them from cradle to grave in a gooey bath of feelgood platitudes, post-rationality sophistry and calculating ignorance. Nuke the beast from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure it’s dead.

A man and a woman contributed to that Washington Uterus article. I could understand a woman writing that line, deep in thrall to her rationalization hamster. Of course, an ounce of journalistic integrity should stay her hamster’s paw, but the world has changed and integrity is now a passé virtue. I doubt one bit many of the media propagandists care about their bias. War has a way of enfeebling the moral conscience.

But if the man wrote it? Such a creature would have to be a vaginaman of cavernous magnitude. Vaginaman, beta orbiter hero of feminists! Villain of clear thought and hurty feelings! He can smite logic with a mighty slap of his flappy labia. Swallow testicles in one foul orgasmic up-suck. Helicopter his engorged bitch tits like two signal flares pointing the way downward to bizarro enlightenment. He enters a slut walk, and exits…

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Misandry, Ridiculousness | Comments Off

The Excel Spreadsheet Guy And His Female Equivalent

Apr 20th, 2012 by

Over at GLPiggy’s, he has a pretty good post up about the feminist haranguing of a guy who revealed he keeps an Excel spreadsheet of his dates.

This is a pattern lately. Yet another anti-male two minute hate posing as female wisdom and prerogative. Are we reaching peak feminism? My tireless efforts have not cut them off at the knees yet, but they do vomit their drivel with a little more impotent urgency nowadays, so perhaps they sense the fanged maw of the underground media breathing down their hunched backs.

Anyhow, lost in all this is a sane recognition that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently, and that the tools each sex uses to get what they want are optimized along these distinct mental paths. Women also use an Excel spreadsheet to categorize and itemize their dating prospects: it’s called nicknames. Women are very good at assigning cutesy little nicks to men they date — “the doctor”, “bad breath guy”, “shiny shoes guy”, “the comedian”, etc — and given that women are naturally better multi-taskers than men, it’s easier for them to keep all this Excel-like data in their heads, to be regurgitated amongst female friends over mimosa brunches.

Men, in contrast, are single-taskers and object-oriented, less innately proficient at storing reams of personal data about women, and less likely to discuss their dating travails with male friends over brunch. The only female characteristic that men seem pretty good at remembering is women’s looks; so if women want men to date more “intuitively”, that is, more like women, then they have to be prepared to accept that male intuition hinges largely on objectifying women by their bodies and facial prettiness. I wonder if women would be pleased if men adopted their dating categorization methods and proudly humored the rabble congregating on the male version of feminist group blogs with all the cutesy nicks they come up with — “big boobed broad”, “leaky pits girl”, “butch haircut”, “wide load”, “pancake ass”.

Finally, it should be noted that way more under-30 women than men even *get an opportunity* to date more than one suitor at a time. Female hypergamy knows no upper bound absent harsh market rebuke, so a woman in her prime will date many men at once, culling the prospects free until one or two are left standing. But men, the majority of them unimpressive betas with no game, are lucky to get a date with one woman at a time, and many men often go months or years getting no dates at all. Under these natural conditions, molded over eons of evolution dividing the sexes into algorithmic psychological opposites, men have had no need to evolve the intuitive, multi-tasking brain for categorizing a large number of female prospects at once. This dating opportunity paucity, combined with the instant visual cues of reproductive health that predominantly guide men’s mating decisions, results in a dearth of talent for storing a lot of personality information about different women.

I think the real reason Excel Spreadsheet Guy has “creeped out” feminists is because he is one of these beta males to break the mold by dating multiple women concurrently. In other words, he’s not accepting his role as beta male quietly. Feminists see the inner world of a man who has managed to crack the girl code that typically allows beta males like himself only one woman at a time, if they’re lucky, and they are shocked… shocked!… that a man of such pedestrian station in life would dare to date like women do — greedily, boundlessly, diffusely, capriciously, like a woman on a shopping spree.

Why would women deem this guy a beta? The spreadsheet is the systematizing giveaway. Alpha males who have years of experience getting what they want from women develop a womanly sixth sense for intuitively categorizing their prey prospects. They don’t need the crutch of the spreadsheet…

(though in point of fact not a few pickup artists have been known to keep Karen Owen’s type journals of their clientele — and, by the way, where was the equivalent feminist creeprage over Owens? after all, what she did is no different, in fact worse, than what Excel Spreadsheet guy did)

…because alpha males 1. are familiar with the female archetypes and 2. understand that charming aloofness is more attractive to women than gallant powers of recall.

So what we have here is a failure to contain the female id. The true crime is not the spreadsheet; it’s the gall of a beta male stepping outside his preassigned role to extract what only the top 20% alpha males are permitted to extract. There’s nothing like a disturbance in the force to get the Darth Vaginas shrieking hysterically.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Dating, Misandry, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Beta Male Body Language Giveaway

Apr 19th, 2012 by

I was at a party and nearby two guys who seemed to have just met that night (introduced through a mutual friend, probably) were talking to each other. One was taller than the other, and dressed more stylishly. Both of them, near as I can judge these things, were about equally good-looking and the same age.

Stop.

Now, if you had framed the scene right there, and this is all the information I had to go on, (or YOU, the reader, had to go on), you/I would assume the taller, sleeker dressed man was more alpha and did better with the ladies. But this was not all the information available to me. I couldn’t hear their conversation, but I could observe their body language.

The taller man fidgeted a lot. He bounced on the balls of his feet, constantly adjusted his weight from one foot to the other, shoved his hands in and out of his pockets, moved his shoulders around, bobbed his head, craned his neck, nodded frequently, twisted his torso, tapped his toes, lifted his heels, put his fingers up to his mouth, incessantly stirred his drink and generally acted like he had an overabundance of nervous energy that needed burning off.

The other man, the shorter one, barely moved at all. He occasionally smiled and lifted his drink to his mouth, but besides those minimal motions his body remained mostly still. Earthbound. When he talked, the other guy leaned into him to listen; he himself never moved in closer to be sure he was heard, even though the venue was fairly loud.

Now I had the telltale glimpse of each man’s soul, the body language that revealed the extent of their self-possession. Snapshots of men, unlike snapshots of women, tell us little about men’s true value, for a man’s looks and height are but two components of the complete man. You need context, physical expression and interaction to sufficiently judge a man’s alphaness. And fidgeting subcommunicates one thing: betaness.

The taller man’s height and more stylish clothes were inadequate compensation for his beta fidgeting. If he appeared beta to me, you can bet that women, with their finer grained radar resolution for men’s social status and dominance, would near instantly perceive him to be the lower ranked, less attractive beta of the two men.

Get your alpha body language down, because those critical first few minutes (seconds?) you have to make an impression on a woman depend primarily on how powerfully you carry yourself, and nothing influences a woman’s perception faster or more viscerally than your radiating nonverbal vibe.

I was not at all surprised to find that at the end of the night the shorter man was surrounded by women while the taller man sipped a cocktail alone. At least the fidgeter can console himself with this study which shows that fidgeting will help keep you lean.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Game, Guy Rules | Comments Off

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

Apr 18th, 2012 by

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Psy Ops, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

Apr 18th, 2012 by

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Psy Ops, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »