Feed on
Posts
Comments

Direct Game Essentials

Jan 25th, 2012 by

A reader wants to know if high octane direct game will get a guy laid consistently.

I stumbled onto this post during my normal stroll through the pick up artist forums.

He claims to basically be completely direct with his game. I’ve never heard of people being THAT direct. Telling a girl she’s sexy like that, seems a bit awkward and douchey.

I’m mailing you because I’m curious what do you think? Could being so direct get great results?

I won’t get into a long-winded discussion of the eternal question of direct vs. indirect game here. I’ll save that for future posts. But I will tell you that there are a handful of prerequisites — essentials — that you should abide if you want to see any sort of repeatable success with direct game.

1. Don’t be shitfaced.

Yes, the guy in the field report linked by the reader was intoxicated, and he managed a groping make-out and a number close. But most men, most of the time, are going to get blown out if they approach chicks sloppy drunk while sputtering how “sexxxxxyyy” they are. It’s simply too easy for a girl to brush off a man’s direct come-on if he’s reeking of liquor and slurring his words. Exception: if she’s equally drunk. (Not to say a little liquid courage won’t help. Just don’t drink past the point of self-awareness.)

2. Don’t target the obnoxious attention whores.

These kinds of girls are *expecting* direct solicitations, just so they can relish the shoot down. Counterintuitively, it’s often the more reserved, conservatively dressed girls who are showing a little more skin than they usually do who will crumble like feta cheese under the onslaught of a sexual direct approach. It is a myth that only skanks are DTF. Good girls will jump into the sack just as fast with the right guy spitting the right game.

3. Look for signs of ovulation in your targets.

You should pay more attention to body language than to what she’s saying. Ovulating girls are the ripest picks for one night stands, and you’ll notice by how flushed she is when talking to you, how many times she crosses her legs or shifts her weight from one foot to the other, and how often she licks her lips or tugs at her hair whether her egg has embarked on its journey. Science has shown that ovulating girls tend to show more cleavage and thigh, so keep an eye out for miniskirts and low cut tops.

4. Start direct, then switch to indirect, then back to direct.

Read the linked field report. You’ll notice the guy opens with “You’re sexy as fuck” (which, btw, is NOT an invitation to fuck a la the apocalypse opener), then downshifts to nonsexual rapport and teases her about her dancing skill, and then upshifts to a direct sexual solicitation when body contact between the two of them is at its maximum. This direct-indirect-direct system sustains the direct sexual approach by introducing the variables of male unpredictability and outcome independence, two things which all girls love in men.

5. It’s obvious, but bears repeating: overconfidence is king in direct game.

Any hint — I mean ANY CRUMB of a hint — that your sexually aggressive come-on is a farce, or was pursued with less than full sincerity, and she will blow you out. You have to be doubtless in your desirability, fearless in your attack, and dauntless in your commitment to victory. She smells the faintest whiff of self-doubt, hesitancy or smarmy backpedaling, and you will be pissily rejected.

6. Avoid romantic flattery.

“You’re sexy as fuck” sounds like a cocky compliment from a guy who just wants to jackhammer your pussy. “I have to say you’re really beautiful” sounds like a sycophantic plea from a beta who already dreams about long walks on the beach with you. Which guy do you think a girl is more likely to want to fuck one hour after meeting? You can pull off the latter with alpha body language, but you’re better served maximizing congruency between what you say and how much command you say it with.

7. Be prepared to lead, every second.

A guy who leads a girl everywhere and all the time prevents her from rethinking her desire to sleep with him. A body in motion tends to stay sexually available unless acted upon by a fat cockblock. Never ask. Tell her what you two are doing, and don’t wait for a decision-making caucus to develop. Bar, dance floor, another bar, another bar, alleyway, doorstep. No rest for the horny.

8. Don’t overgame.

Direct game pares down the seduction process to its bare bones. If you start flying off on tangents like “the cube” or storytelling, the raw sexual energy of the direct pickup will dissipate. A girl relinquishing herself to a sexually aggressive man expects it to feel like a power has taken hold over her conscious faculties and she has no defense to his wiles. This is an accelerated zone of seduction where the normal rules get truncated.

***

The relevant question to everyone reading here is, of course: Will I have more success on a more consistent basis with direct game, or with indirect game?

Unfortunately, I can’t answer this reasonable question with conviction one way or the other. My own personal style is indirect, though I have dabbled with direct game, to mixed results. Most of the seduction community practices indirect game, so if popularity is a measure of a game strategy’s effectiveness, then you’d have to give the nod to indirect game. (Direct gamers would counter that indirect is popular with most men because it takes more balls to pull off direct game. They have a point.)

There are other variables that need addressing before we can settle this matter one way or the other.

– Are very good-looking or muscular men better off running direct or indirect game? The answer to this is not obvious.

– What about significantly older men or uglier men or shorter men? Indirect game may limit the number of blowouts experienced by these men. Conversely, direct game may offer them a channel in which to rapidly demonstrate their overconfidence, thus bypassing the reflexive blowout. Again, the answer is not obvious.

– Are there contexts in which direct and indirect game have inherent advantages? My experience is that girls respond better to indirect during the day and direct at night in clubs, but I don’t have a wealth of direct day game data to test this hypothesis.

– Do some kinds of girls respond better to direct? Indirect? Unsurprisingly, a man I once knew who specializes in cougars (it’s not a difficult specialization) says that older women melt for his direct game. Ovulating coke whores with low digit ratios probably swoon for direct game, as well.

Finally, this dichotomy of direct versus indirect may have outlived its usefulness. Thinking on my pickups, it occurs to me that many of them were mash-ups of direct and indirect game. I use the best of both. Then there’s the definitional issue: direct game comes in many forms. “You’re sexy as fuck” is certainly direct, but it’s not an invitation to fuck. There’s plausible deniability of intention in that exclamation. “I want to take you home and fuck you”… now, that’s a direct come-on which leaves no room for hamster-fueling misinterpretation.

And this gets to the heart of the direct-indirect debate: namely, INTENTION. Direct game is the art of communicating your intention to fuck, sooner and stronger rather than later and weaker. Indirect game is the art of transparently concealing your intention to fuck in a cloak of plausible, yet tissue-thin, deniability. Either way, with direct or indirect, a girl whose social IQ is above room temperature and below genius-level autism is going to know you are talking to her because you eventually want to ravage her naked body. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to determine who among the pretty constellation of hot babes wants their seduction straight up smashmouth style, and who among them wants to experience the sublime thrill of fraught flirtation.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Guy Rules | Comments Off

Someone Saved A Life Tonight

Jan 24th, 2012 by

From a reader:

Wasn’t going to go out tonight, but decided a few beers were in order after watching Gingrich bullshit his way thru another debate.

Long story short…in the beer garden, overheard a tall skinny herb explaining his desire to kill himself over a woman.

Long story short, after disciplining him over giving two shits about what a woman thinks of him, took his phone, bookmarked the Chateau, and told him if he reads the articles and comments, his life will be changed in 6 months.

Peace. And thanks for all you do.

I bet the Chateau has saved more lives, literally and figuratively, than all the feminist blogs on the internet combined. A remarkable feat when you consider the exuberant hate with which this blog dispenses its very special lessons.

Prince of sex, king of love, suicide prevention hotline: Chateau Heartiste.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Self-aggrandizement, Vanity | Comments Off

Cold Reading Is A Potent Seduction Tactic

Jan 24th, 2012 by

Read the following conversation between a young woman and a doctor:

Young woman: Men are all alike.

Doctor: In what way?

Young woman: They’re always bugging us about something or other.

Doctor: Can you think of a specific example?

Young woman: Well, my boyfriend made me come here.

Doctor: Your boyfriend made you come here?

Young woman: He says I’m depressed much of the time.

Doctor: I am sorry to hear you are depressed.

Young woman: It’s true. I am unhappy.

Doctor: Do you think coming here will help you not to be unhappy?

Young woman: I need some help, that much seems certain.

Doctor: What would it mean to you if you got some help?

Young woman: Perhaps I could learn to get along with my mother.

Doctor: Tell me more about your family.

Young woman: My mother takes care of me.

Doctor: Who else in your family takes care of you?

Young woman: My father.

Doctor: Your father?

Young woman: You are like my father in some ways.

Doctor: What resemblance do you see?

Young woman: You are not very aggressive, but I think you don’t want me to notice that.

Doctor: What makes you think I am not very aggressive?

Young woman: You don’t argue with me.

Doctor: Why do you think I don’t argue with you?

Young woman: You are afraid of me.

Doctor: Does it please you to believe I am afraid of you?

Young woman: My father is afraid of everybody.

Doctor: What else comes to mind when you think of your father?

Young woman: Bullies.

Does that have anything to do with the fact that your boyfriend made you come here?

Do you see how the woman is being drawn deeper into the conversation, offering up more personal information about herself and becoming more invested in what the doctor is saying? Notice, too, how little the doctor actually says. His replies are open-ended questions and restatements of her thoughts and feelings, often in the form of a question.

The young woman in this conversation, in other words, is being gradually seduced by the doctor’s cold reading skill.

How does this doctor so effortlessly peer into another person’s soul and build an intimate connection? Who is this doctor with such profound seduction skills?

The “doctor” is a computer program.

Dr. Joseph Weizenbaum, of M.I.T., developed a computer program that would enable a human to apparently carry on a conversation with a computer. One version of his program is called “Doctor” The program is designed to “talk” like a Rogerian psychotherapist. Such a therapist is relatively easy to imitate because the basis of Rogers’ technique is simply to feed the patient’s statements back to him in a paraphrased form. The human, playing the role of the patient, types in questions and answers on a teletype machine. The computer, under control of the program, types replies and questions on the same teletype paper. […]

Doctor is a quite primitive program as natural-language programs go. It employs a lot of tricks and stock phrases. It has no mechanisms for actually understanding sentences.  Instead it seeks out keywords that are typed and does some simple syntactical transformations. For example, if the program sees a sentence of the form “Do you X!” it automatically prints out the response “What makes you think I X’” When Doctor cannot match the syntax of a given sentence it can cover up in two ways. It can say something noncommittal, such as “Please go on”  or  “What does that suggest to you?” Or it can recall an earlier match and refer back to it, as for example, “How does this relate to your depression?” where depression was an earlier topic of conversation.

In essence Doctor is a primitive cold reader. It uses stock phrases to cover up when it cannot deal with a given question or input. And it uses the patient’s own input to feed back information and create the illusion that it understands and even sympathizes with the patient. This illusion is so powerful that patients, even when told they are dealing with a relatively simple-minded program, become emotionally involved in the interaction. Many refuse to believe that they are dealing with a program and insist that a sympathetic human must be at the control at the other end of the teletype.

The above was quoted from an excellent paper on the seductive potency of cold reading, a subject about which the Chateau has written extensively as being a useful tool for bedding women, and which has been a staple manipulation technique described in PUA literature. (I really have to wonder how the anti-game haters can read stuff like this and continue to nurse their denialist delusions. Scratch that, I don’t wonder. The answer is simple: they have little experience seducing women or, for that matter, selling anything, including themselves, to anyone.)

The section in the paper subtitled “The Rules of the Game” is particularly good, and offers some ground rules for improving your cold reading skill.

Cold reading, like its sister skill non-evaluative listening (also demonstrated above), is a powerful rapport-building conversational combo. It is especially effective when used on women, who, being the naturally intuitive sex, tend to formulate phantom connections from nebulous, fact-free associations, like the kind that is the stock in trade of “reading” gimmicks such as palmistry and astrology.

You do not need these gimmicks to successfully cold read a woman, but in hothouse courtship environments like bars and parties they serve as expedient springboards. If girly gimmicks aren’t your thing, you can substitute with a cold reading “stock spiel”:

You can achieve a surprisingly high degree of success as a character reader even if you merely use a stock spiel which you give to every client [ed: aka sexy babe]. [S]everal laboratory studies have had excellent success with the following stock spiel (Snyder and Shenkel 1975):

“Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary and resented. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do nor accept others’ opinions without satisfactory proof. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.

“Your sexual adjustment has presented some problems for you. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.”

Naturally, you shouldn’t think you have to quote this verbatim. Suit to taste. The key is to get the general gist of it and verbalize it in a way that is appropriate for the context which you share with the woman, and which is congruent with your vibe. Interestingly, the best cold reads are 75% positive and 25% negative.

We found that the best recipe for creating acceptable stock spiels was to include about 75 percent desirable items, but ones which were seen as specific, and about 25 percent undesirable items, but ones which were seen as general. The undesirable items had the apparent effect of making the spiel plausible.

This is very similar in function to vulnerability game, which works by making your projected alphaness seem more plausible to women.

So now that we know cold reading works to build an intimate connection with a woman by making her feel like you know her better than anyone else, the next question is “why does it work”? From the same paper:

But why does it work?  And why does it work so well?  It does not help to say that people are gullible or suggestible. Nor can we dismiss it by implying that some individuals are just not sufficiently discriminating or lack sufficient intelligence to see through it. Indeed one can argue that it requires a certain degree of intelligence on the part of a client for the reading to work well.

This is why my observation that smart, educated girls fall for game harder than dumb girls rings true among those who routinely pick up women. “Only bar skanks fall for game” haters wept.

Once the client is actively engaged in trying to make sense of the series of sometimes contradictory statements issuing from the reader, he becomes a creative problem-solver trying to find coherence and meaning in the total set of statements. The task is not unlike that of trying to make sense of a work of art, a poem, or, for that matter, a sentence. The work of art, the poem, or the sentence serve as a blueprint or plan from which we can construct a meaningful experience by bringing to bear our own past experiences and memories.

In other words the reading succeeds just because it calls upon the normal processes of comprehension that we ordinarily bring to bear in making sense out of any form of communication. The raw information in a communication is rarely, if ever, sufficient in itself for comprehension. A shared context and background is assumed. Much has to be filled in by inference. The good reader, like anyone who manipulates our perceptions, is merely exploiting the normal processes by which we make sense out of the disorderly array of inputs that constantly bombard us.

Like all game tactics, or any self-improvement pursuit, cold reading is a skill that requires practice. Your first efforts will likely meet with incredulous stares or annoyance, but as you get better you’ll begin to see the change in women’s reactions from doubtful and irritated to intrigued and… yep, you bet… horny.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Psy Ops | Comments Off

Long-Term Cohabitation Is Just As Good As Marriage

Jan 23rd, 2012 by

Many conservative, religious, anti-game and traditionalist types like to claim that this blog underplays the advantages offered to men by marriage. They redundantly quote studies purporting to show that married men live longer, healthier lives than single men. We here at Le Chateau have balked at such assertions, helpfully reminding our traditionalist, neoBiblical brethren that the same benefits found in marriage can be had living in long-term, loving relationships.

The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone under marital contract with freely living with someone who loves you. Sex, love and affectionate companionship don’t feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that a man’s health would improve and his lifespan increase because he signed on the marital dotted line. Something else is at work here, and that something else is long-term shared love, with or without the imprimatur of a marriage license.

Of course, haters miss the nuance and continue their rampage against the dissolute lifestyle of the “player”, which they mistakenly believe this blog advocates. (In point of fact, this blog advocates learning game and the way of the alpha so that men have the freedom and the options to pursue whichever type of relationship with women they want, whether that be marriage and its attendant risks or frisky one night stands and their attendant, albeit lesser, risks.) “PUAs are wrong! Marriage is good for men!” they wail, refusing to even tackle the debate points to the contrary that crop up on this blog.

The Chateau warned the trads and supposed “realist” thinkers (this post at Audacious Epigone is a good example of the kind of statistical legerdemain I’m talking about) that the studies claiming health, sexual and psychological benefits accruing to men from marriage were comparing the wrong variables. The comparison should not be between married men and single men, but between married men and ALPHA men in unmarried relationships. Single, quasi-celibate betas and omegas bring down the averages for single men as a whole, and make married men look fucking great in comparison.

The claims about marriage benefits disappear once you alter the variables to reflect a fairer comparison:

1. Unmarried men in long-term relationships receive just as many health and happiness benefits as married men. The crucial variable is not the marriage certificate; it’s the love.

2. Unmarried, cohabiting men enjoy the pleasure of thinner lovers than the fat wives enjoyed by married men. Strike one against the notion that men enjoy better sex within the confines of marriage, even if they are getting more of it than single betas. All indicators are that, once married and backed by the long arm of the law, women pretty much let themselves go to pot.

3. Unmarried players are just as desired by women for marriage as beta providers, (but unmarried players just don’t tend to commit to women as readily.) So marriage tells us little about the quality, or alphaness, of the men who willingly take up the shackles.

4. There is no evidence I’m aware of that married men have more frequent sex with their indentured sperm receptacles aka wives than unmarried men *in relationships* have with their girlfriends. That’s the key distinction. My bet, if such data could be extracted, is that unmarried men with girlfriends, and particularly those who cohabit, have more sex than married men. I throw the challenge out to the GSS nerds to unleash the data.

5. Finally, why do pro-marriage anti-gamers always assume that maximizing sex frequency is the desired goal for men? Quality matters. One hundred sex sessions with a seacow will be less satisfying for most men than one session with a knockout. Go ahead, ask any man about his fondest sex memories. That one night with the bombshell will immediately leap to the front of his mind, crowding out the three years of sex with his dumpy wife. Not to mention, many men will gladly trade lots of one pussy for less of many pussies. Variety is the spice of life.

But wait, stop the presses! Look what we have here. Yet ANOTHER study confirming the Heartiste worldview.

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. […]

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. […]

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

I think we can at last put to rest the myth that marriage is some kind of uniquely beneficial arrangement for men.* As this blog has been saying for years, you can get all the benefits of marriage in a loving long-term, unmarried relationship, including cohabitation, without the unbelievably shitty risks.** And now science proves it. Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.

*Note: Claiming that a particular romantic arrangement is good for individual men is not the same as claiming it is good for society. While cohabitation offers many advantages to single men, it is probably better for a heterogeneous collective and its mutant posterity that society organize itself around the institution of marriage and the two-parent family. That means making marriage more enticing, not less, for the typical shoe-gazing beta stuck in diversityland.

**As more men come to understand the tangible and intangible benefits that cohabitation offers, and embrace the lifestyle, expect to see hordes of feminists and pilgrim johns try to regulate it so that it begins to resemble in burden the same crumbling wreck of marriage that men are abandoning in droves. There’s no way those interests are gonna let a cash cow in the form of transfer payments from men to women just disintegrate overnight. And make no mistake, or be deluded by the sloppy romanticism with which beta males imbue the institution: marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. There are no two ways about it. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs, while women get sustained material and emotional provisioning that more closely aligns with their innate monogamous proclivity. All the sacrifice from legalized commitment, in other words, is born by the man. Cohabitation is an escape clause that no feminist or tradcon, if they give it some thought, can allow to persist unimpeded.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Love, Marriage Is For Chumps, Pretty Lies | Comments Off

How To Destroy The Education Racket

Jan 22nd, 2012 by

Pop quiz: What’s the one major consumer expense that has been rising at a faster rate than healthcare?

Take a look at this chart:

Academia. What a scam.

In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in the first and most famous of the disparate impact theory cases, that the use of broad-based aptitude tests in hiring practices was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Around 1978, college tuition costs began to skyrocket, and haven’t let up since.

Coincidence? I think not.

The answer to busting the hyperinflationary tuition cost curve is to overturn the Griggs ruling. Employers, deprived of the opportunity to directly screen job applicants, have turned to the next available proxy tool of judgment: college degrees. Naturally, this initially caused the value of a college degree to rise, a stampede of mediocrities rushed into the hallowed halls, and then the college degree was gutted of its worth as employers began to realize how many useless grads academia was churning out. In the fallout, the game was ratcheted up a rung, tuition costs blew up because academia now had monopoly power over employer screening (think of academia as an entrenched and enriched middleman), and the master’s degree has become worth what the bachelor’s was in the past. And the bachelor’s degree? Well, say hello to communications and women’s studies majors.

Faculty and university admin, of course, hate the thought of Griggs being overturned, and disparate impact cases in general going the way of the dodo. Who could blame them? They know that “disparate impact” is code for “butters my bread”.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

False Rape Culture

Jan 20th, 2012 by

A male reader sounds the alarm:

Recently I’ve been seeing “wanted” papers taped to trees and poles in the neighborhood in the city I live in. There’s a face shot of a black guy and it says underneath “WANTED: For domestic abuse of women”. I think there’s a number to call if you spot the guy. You can tell by the quality of the printout that it’s a civilian, not the police, that is hanging these up. This is scary stuff, if you ask me. What if the guy is innocent? He’s just had his name smeared all over town.

A couple months ago, I saw a similar wanted poster stapled to a kiosk. Photo of a guy who, truth be told, no one would mistake for a choir boy, and an accusation that the guy was a rapist and abuser. It was a low quality print that looked like it was hastily arranged and distributed by an angry ex-girlfriend. Judging by the look of him, I would not be surprised he was guilty of whatever sins against angelic womanhood his ex accused him of. But that’s not the point.

What if this vigilante feminist trend becomes widespread and adopted by aggrieved exes who just want to lash out with a great vengeance and libel the men who dumped them? I could easily see a leafletting campaign of slander by rancid feminists who love assholes but hate getting dumped by them becoming popular. This has the potential to be a growth industry fueled by embittered, man-hating cunts.

Feminists like to talk a big talk about “rape culture”, but the reality is that what the US and other countries of the West are seeing unfolding and growing in social acceptance is the opposite: the false rape culture. Social shaming mechanisms against false rape or abuse accusations, including accusations of abuse stripped of context (Hi, Penelope Cunk!), coupled with social acceptance of these kinds of feminism-inspired witch hunts (or, more precisely, warlock hunts), is leading us down a cultural path where libel, slander and malicious defamation of men become part of the wonderful and vibrant tapestry of society.

In reality, what’s to stop a bitterbitch from making wanted posters of some jerk she still loves who cheated on her? What about a feminist who took an innocent flirtatious gesture the wrong way? Or a girl who enjoyed a few weeks of fun with a player but was disappointed he didn’t want to be exclusive? Are men going to start seeing their mug shots all over town?

This development is so pernicious and ripe for ABUSE that the only way to battle it is to stiffen the penalties for slander, libel and false rape or abuse allegations. The law needs to be updated to reflect the new, anonymous, information-loaded world we occupy. My proposal: any woman who gets caught making a false rape or abuse accusation gets exactly as much time in jail as a man indicted for the alleged rape or sexual abuse would get.

That should nip it in the nip.

But if the law won’t cooperate, there’s another option: mutually assured destruction. A thicket of “WANTED: FOR SLUTTY FUN”, “BEWARE: GOLDDIGGER” and “WARNING: CHEATING HO” posters should turn up the heat enough that it’ll make girls think twice about playing the female game of social ostracism in public venues.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Girls, Misandry | Comments Off

What Makes A Good Wingman?

Jan 19th, 2012 by

A good wingman will lie for you. (Via Randall Parker)

U of A researcher says good wingmen will fib for a friend

A University of Alberta researcher says that […] people are generally willing to help a friend protect or enhance his reputation or help him otherwise save face in a social situation.

Along with colleagues from the University of Calgary and UBC, Jennifer Argo, an Alberta School of Business professor, explored the circumstances under which people would be willing to tell a lie to manage another person’s social image. The study found that the wingman is primed to step in with strategic identity support.

“Strategic identity support” = third party DHV.

“This is an instance when you don’t have the opportunity to make yourself look good, so somebody else does it for you,” says Argo. “But you’re better off to hang out with your friends (in these situations) because your friends will look out for you.”

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that this describes male friends more than it does female friends.

A friend in need? The fib’s the deed

Argo studied the likelihood of people helping out a friend who – to his chagrin – paid more for a car than did another person for the same vehicle. Regardless of the size of the price discrepancy, she says, friends are willing to come to the rescue. She notes that in the case of a large discrepancy, even strangers may be willing to help a person save face as a random act of kindness.

“People put themselves in the shoes of the other person and say ‘I would want someone to lie on my behalf so I wouldn’t look bad,’” she says.

Argo notes that the key here is for the person needing help to be physically present during the conversation between the friend and the third party. Otherwise, she notes, the only time they might be willing to fib on behalf of the absent friend is in the case of a large price discrepancy.

Analogously, your in-field wingman is more likely to go to bat for you if you are in his vicinity. So don’t leave for another floor of the bar or drift into a conversation across the room when he’s working your set. On the other hand, wingman lies work best if you seem out of earshot. Given that, the best positioning is going to be with your back to your wingman and your target, and striking up a convo with a nearby group. This will add credibility to whatever accolades your wingman is telling your target.

“It comes down to what kind of relationship you have with the person in need. I think it is truly defined by the level of your friendship,” Argo says. “If it’s the best friend, I think most people would lie, even at the risk of possibly being found out.”

This is why I would never put much faith in “wingman services”; i.e., those internet forums that try to pair you up with fellow pickup travelers. If you want the best out of your wingman, he needs to be a good friend.

Good intentions & the wingman’s lament

She says the wingman theory could apply to almost any situation in which there is a discrepancy that could negatively impact the social perception or impression of the friend, such as when a friend has bought a knock-off surreptitiously.

Or when he’s being cockblocked by a territorial elephant seal.

She says the application works equally when applied to business settings, in which a friend may embellish a recommendation to help a pal get a job. It may also apply at a party, where embroidering the truth could get a pal a first date with a potential partner.

“Yeah, he probably doesn’t want anyone to know this, but my buddy spent some time in the clink. That’s what he gets for helping a girl who was being mugged.”

“Based on the findings, it would seem reasonable to expect that people who understand their friends should be willing to step in as a wingman in a number of different contexts if their friends are in need,” Argo says.

I feel the need
the need for plead.

However, Argo muses on the potential implications of telling a little white lie for a friend, something her study did not explore. She says even though the favourably-positioned falsehood has no cost to the receiver, it may potentially place the friendly fibber’s integrity in question with the person for whom the fib was originally told, especially if the lie was unsolicited. She says this would be an intriguing follow-up to this study.

“It does say something about that person, too. Because (as my friend), if you’re lying, and I know it, it might make me question or cause me to doubt how much you lie to me and others,” she says.

This is why you’ve gotta work out beforehand what kind of lies, if any, you want your wingman to tell chicks. The last thing you want is him thinking that a story about you pooping your pants after getting tased by the cops is a DHV. Some guys need their hands held like this.

It has to be common knowledge among seasoned seducers (I would hope) that a friend or other third party touting your alpha virtues to a chick will sway her opinion, and influence her attraction, much more effectively than self-promotion. Humans are predisposed to believe the ad copy of third parties more than the braggadocio or insinuations of primary parties. Friends and wingmen might be biased, but nothing is as biased as our own egos.

Here is a short list of excellent fibs that a wingman should consider for use in prepping your target.

“He tells me he needs help finding that special someone, but the guy has been with more women than I can count. He doesn’t need any help.”

“My buddy? Oh yeah, we call him Heartbreaker Hank.”

“His ex was the CRAZIEST stalker I ever knew. She showed up one night with a poem and a box of chocolates, right when we were in the middle of a band rehearsal.”

“Watch out for this guy. He’s trouble.” (a classic drive-by wingman line)

“You’re not a stripper are you? He’s had enough of dating strippers.”

“Yeah, he’s my buddy and all, but I gotta be honest… he makes the worst decisions in women. Actresses and dancers wear pretty thin after a while. Too many neuroses.”

“He’s probably too nice for a girl like you. He’s actually afraid he’ll hurt a girl in bed. I keep telling him that girls think it’s the good kind of hurt. What a heart.”

“I hope you like naked skydiving. He’s managed to convince every girl he’s dated to jump out of a plane naked.”

“I met him in the holding cell. Stand up guy.” (can double as a DHV for gays)

“Fuck, after all this time I dunno what he does. Import-export, he says. He won’t let anyone look inside his car trunk.”

“He thinks being a former NHL pro is some kind of accomplishment. Please.”

“How did we meet? He needed a really good lawyer. I came through.”

“Careful. Don’t let him charm you. You’ve been warned.”

“He’s half black. Bet ya never would’ve guessed.”

“He’s gonna kill me for saying this, but… you know when politicians need the numbers of high class escorts? He’s their hookup.”

***

Besides the ability to fib effortlessly and believably, wingmen should also possess the following characteristics:

1. Acting skills. You want your wingman to act like he’s your acquaintance, rather than your close friend. His lies will be better received if the girl thinks they are coming from someone with little motive to pump your stock.

2. Be not much taller than you. Tallness is dominating, and can distract girls from his calculated boosterism. You don’t want a wingman who will always steal the spotlight.

3. Be not much uglier or socially awkward than you. Conversely, it will reflect just as badly on you if your friends come across like losers. The best wingmen are plausible wingmen who don’t blow up conversations with nerdgasms.

4. Have extensive knowledge of your social strengths and weaknesses. A good wingman instinctively knows when you are comfortable joining a conversation, and when you need bailing from a faltering set. He will also have a knack for steering a conversation in more fruitful directions when he notices you struggling, like when you have stunk the joint up with a lame joke.

5. Be unafraid to constructively criticize. The good thing about being a man is that your male friends won’t hesitate to give you shit for something stupid you’re doing. Course correction is thus much faster for men than it is for women.

5. Most importantly, your wingman will have tight game. The best — I mean the very best — wingmen are former betas who put in the effort to learn game and who already have girlfriends or a rotation of lovers. Naturals have a tendency to either selfishly dominate sets or sabotage friends by letting their alpha instincts run wild. Single wingmen sometimes nurse unfulfilled horniness that will impel them to steal your target if they find their schtick is working on her. Wingmen with fully drained balls, tight game, and a strong sense of loyalty and selflessness are the Holy Nail of wingman pickup assistance.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules, Psy Ops | Comments Off

Overconfidence Is The Heart Of Game

Jan 18th, 2012 by

Read this study abstract closely. It’s important in a SCIENCE ♥s GAME kind of way.

Confidence is an essential ingredient of success in a wide range of domains ranging from job performance and mental health to sports, business and combat. Some authors have suggested that not just confidence but overconfidence—believing you are better than you are in reality—is advantageous because it serves to increase ambition, morale, resolve, persistence or the credibility of bluffing, generating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which exaggerated confidence actually increases the probability of success. However, overconfidence also leads to faulty assessments, unrealistic expectations and hazardous decisions, so it remains a puzzle how such a false belief could evolve or remain stable in a population of competing strategies that include accurate, unbiased beliefs. Here we present an evolutionary model showing that, counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of competition. In contrast, unbiased strategies are only stable under limited conditions. The fact that overconfident populations are evolutionarily stable in a wide range of environments may help to explain why overconfidence remains prevalent today, even if it contributes to hubris, market bubbles, financial collapses, policy failures, disasters and costly wars.

And, might I add, pump and dumps!

What does the above study conclusion remind you of? Anything coming to mind? Oh, yes…

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

Poon Commandment Eleven. The good hosts at Chateau Heartiste were ahead of the curve yet again. Is there no game concept science won’t eventually come around to confirming? Excuse me while I give myself over to deep, utter, profound self-love. Mhhmm… *smack* *kiss*… mmhhhmmmhmmm… oh yeah big guy….

Confidence… no, OVERconfidence, the belief that you are better than you actually are… is the heart and soul of game. This is where the rubber meets the hoes. Without a glowing inner satisfaction born of overconfidence, all the game tactics in the world will fall flat. Riddled with self-doubt and trepidation is no way to execute a flawless neg or disqualification. Perhaps this explains why so many unconfident betas struggle during the learning curve phase of game, and turn their backs on it entirely when instant success isn’t forthcoming — their game is betrayed by their second class mentality.

Overconfidence is the fulcrum upon which rests every other facet of game. Overconfidence is the origin source of outcome independence. Overconfidence is Skittles Man. Overconfidence is the skeleton key that opens women’s… hearts.

Overconfidence IS alpha. If I had to describe in one word the attitude which most starkly delineates betas from alphas, it would be overconfidence. The alpha, no matter his actual status as measured by the Committee to Uphold Social Norms and Acceptable Hierarchies, confronts the world with faith in his superiority and social elevation. The beta second guesses himself at every turn. And women can SMELL this difference in attitude. They are drawn to it despite themselves, thanks to eons of evolutionary pressures molding their hindbrains.

Now you may argue, in my opinion rightly, that unjustified self-regard by large numbers of people is bad for civilization. That the reflexive doubt, the unbiased proclivity to self-assessment and the humbleness of the beta are the bulk ingredients which give structure to prosperous societies. But this is not the issue before us. The issue we discuss is women, loving women, and inspiring love from women. And by that standard, unjustified male self-regard, so long as the rewards are worth the cost (and in modern society, where women shower the alphas with their pussies during their prime teens and 20s, the rewards are substantial), is the winning mating strategy. You can easily confirm this for yourself by stepping out of the house and observing women in action with your eyes wide open. And now you can read about the reality you see with your eyes in the pages of esteemed scientific journals.

(Interestingly, the study shows that in societies in which the rewards accruing to overconfident people are not greater than the costs, the unbiased, self-doubting beta strategy prevails reproductively — where reproductive fitness thwarted at the goal line is a proxy for attractiveness in a world awash in widely available contraceptives. You could therefore hypothesize that structuring society so that women are not free to ride the cock carousel during their primes would propagate social levers that encourage humility in its men. Conversely, overconfident arrogance among men becomes like a plague in societies where shaming mechanisms to rein in female sexual predilection are dismantled. Again, it all comes back to the female sex drive being the wilder of the two sexes, and thus the more necessary to corral to the benefit of society’s well-being.)

(Naturally, as more overconfident men are sexually selected by women, the daughters of these couplings wind up with the overconfidence genes, which may account for the ridiculous sight of fat chicks and cougars in America with 463-bullet point checklists.)

So what does this mean for you, the reader? There’s good news. Confidence can be learned. It can be internalized, regardless of externally objective measures. And where there’s confidence, overconfidence lurks not far behind. But that is an unnecessary distinction; learned confidence IS THE SAME THING AS overconfidence. By definition, if you are deliberately and pointedly taking on the attitude and mannerisms of a confident man, you are often doing so without external justification, and your confidence could fairly be described as overconfidence. The exception would be if you are an objectively high status beta who lacks the self-awareness or the demeanor to translate his socially-approved status into confident swagger.

In the end, it doesn’t matter, for it is primarily the overconfident attitude that women find attractive, not the baubles which festoon or the credentials which socially legitimize the attitude.

The archives of the Chateau are filled with techniques for raising your confidence levels. Peruse freely. It’s all there, from body language adjustments to dress to posture to voice tone to expressions to adopting an attractive alpha male thinking mode. Even saying positive, ego-stroking thoughts out loud can subconsciously strengthen your confident resolve. Ya know, some might call these tactics… game.

On the subject of nomenclature, overconfidence goes by another name… inner game.

Ultimately, it’s success with women that will bring you to the pinnacle of overconfidence, flush with pussy-parting attitude. The confidence born of repeated beddings of cute chicks is the kind that goes to the bone, and suffuses every sinew. That’s why you’ll notice that the men with the most naturally unshakeable confidence around women are the ones who have been getting their way with women since they can remember, and their jobs or social circles or finances have little to no bearing on the concreteness of their confidence. Their overconfidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, building upon itself with each successive seduction.

This insight doesn’t help the noobs, but only if we measure success by the noobs’ standards. “Get me sex now” is the wrong standard, and unfortunately is the standard most heavily marketed to by shysters. Instead, as a newcomer to the game of seduction, you should be rejoicing in every positive interaction you have with women, no matter how trivial. Every hi fuels your confidence until you are prying smiles from girls. Every smile emboldens you until they are touching you. Every touch emboldens you until they are giving you their numbers. Every number emboldens you until they are kissing you. Every kiss emboldens you until you are banging them. Every bang emboldens you until you feel free to love them.

Finally, you are so emboldened that you no longer come to women for reinforcement. They come to you.

***

Here’s a related study (via Randall Parker):

The study revealed two key discoveries to why powerful people cheat. First, there is a strong association between power and confidence and that the amount of confidence a person has is the strongest link between power and unfaithfulness. Second, the researchers found that among powerful people gender made no difference in past digressions or the participants’ desires to cheat.

This is a tantalizing clue that, contra Henry Kissinger’s famous aphorism, it is not the power per se that women are sexually drawn to, but the confident demeanor that powerful men exhibit. As explained in the “Defining the Alpha Male” post, the best judge of a man’s alphaness is the quality, number and attraction intensity of the women who would sleep with him were he so inclined to take up the offers. Tautological, maybe. But tautologies are often the inevitable distillations of great truths. There are some objectively powerful men, who for one reason or another, do not exude the unstoppable confidence that is the usual offshoot of their stations. A strict definition of alphaness relying on power alone is therefore incomplete. It must be accompanied by a confident attitude. And where real power is missing, overconfidence can step in to fill the (vaginal) void.

Randall notes:

The researcher is (or at least pretends to be) a foolish blank slater who thinks gender differences are going to disappear. But he (she?) still makes the useful observation that power begets confidence which  begets the bedding of others. Okay, so if one can find other ways to feel confident more beddings will take place…

I’m not surprised that the small pool of powerful women studied by the researchers cheat almost as much as the powerful men. Women who have the gumption and killer instinct to reach the top of corporate hierarchies are masculinized by nature, so they are more like men than their own sex, in both libido and aggressive personality. Check out female VPs sometimes. Narrow hips, tallness, thin lips and wee (unaugmented) tits as far as the eye can see.

I therefore wouldn’t assume much about the cheating likelihood of women in general from a study into the unfaithfulness of very powerful women. For instance, I would suspect that the men in the study cheated with younger, hotter babes, while the women cheated with similarly situated beta schlubs as their husbands. Keep in mind, it is much harder for a man to cheat than a woman, since any sufficiently desperate loser will dump a fuck in a rapidly spoiling woman who makes herself easily available.

To those women who ask, “Well then, does this mean ugly and old women can attract high value men by acting overconfident?”

No. Overconfident fugs are still fugs. Overconfident cougars are still cougars. There is no equality of the sexes in this respect.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

“I have a police record. What do I tell girls?”

Jan 17th, 2012 by

A reader who has funnily enough remained anonymous demands to know at gunpoint:

I’ll cut right to the chase. I have a police record. Not for anything too bad, but bad enough. I was younger and stupider. Should I bother telling girls about this? I figure they’ll find out anyhow by searching my name online.

Good news! Police records are practically neon signs flashing ALPHA MALE over your head. A little taste of the ol’ ultracriminality — just a wee bit, mind you, guv’nor — is crotchnip to maximally fertile women from all socioeconomic stratum. The bleatings of the femcunt and limpwrist brigades to the contrary notwithstanding, bad boys are attractive to emotionally stable girls, and *especially* to emotionally stable, professional yuppie chicks who are surrounded on a daily basis by mincing beta herbs with balls crafted from tofu. Aggro urban lawyercunts are particularly vulnerable to the charms of the convict contingent.

Now a few caveats are in order, lest you mistake women’s love for jerks and malcontents to be without preconditions.

– A certain subclass of criminal activity is kryptonite to kooch tingles. Pedophilia, sexual assault, solicitation, public masturbation and/or exposure, and restraining orders are the kinds of omegaboy stigmata that signal “loser” rather than “sexy badboy”. If you have these marks on your record, consider an identity transplant.

– DUIs are another one of those character blotches that scream “loser”. Maybe at one time getting arrested for driving drunk was the mark of the rebel badboy, but today, owing to the crime’s association with illegal aliens and skid row left behinds, most women are liable to think a DUI conviction just means you are stupid, and not stupid in the good, recklessly adventurous, way.

– Hardcore criminality — e.g., murder, druglordship — are attractive to hot chicks in the lower classes, but tend to scare away your average SWPLly upper class girls. (And by “scare away”, I mean “scare away, but goddamnit, despite my moral revulsion why do I tingle so hard when he’s standing before me?”) The way to attract a higher class girl if you are burdened with one of these major convictions (and you have somehow managed to avoid extended prison time) is to remember the classic game adage: CONTRAST IS KING. A chick who knows, or is about to know of, your criminal record, will find you unbearably intriguing if you present yourself well-dressed and articulate, sprinkled with a dash of emotional accessibility announced by a tactically furrowed brow and brooding sideways gaze.

My advice to you is to refrain from bringing up the subject of your police record, unless context allows, in which case you may refer to the tactically furrowed brow maneuver mentioned above. Blurting it out offhand is going to come across weird and legitimately scary. If a girl likes you enough to search out background info on you, she will more than likely experience a torque in her attraction for you when she stumbles across your dark secret. “OMG, he seemed so nice and funny! I can’t believe he stole a car! Wow, this guy is bad news. I think I will text him right now to tell him how bad he is. Yes, I really can’t wait any longer to text him about my disapproving feelings for him.”

On the next date, when she brings it up (and there’s a chance she won’t, figuring the delicious drama will last longer if she waits for you to bring it up first), you may execute the brow furrow and sideways gaze and then mutter into the empty space of middle distance, “Those were tough times. I can’t… I can’t talk about this.” Then, if the girl is a real hottie, like a 9 or a 10, ratchet up the flirty tension by making a slow move for the door as you say these lines, as if you’d rather leave her than dredge up your past. Like the cops from that long time ago, she will chase you down instead of letting you go.

Final note: if you are truly worried that your police record will cost you lays and love, you should consider the misinformation move. Just toss out a nickname you go by so that she can’t find your record online. If, at some distant future date, you and her are still together, you may reveal the full extent of your badassness. It will be like love is blossoming all over again for her. She will remember the moment as possibly the greatest gift a man has ever given her.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Game, Guy Rules | Comments Off

Things That Make You Go Hmmm

Jan 13th, 2012 by

Barack Obama, June 4, 2008 (via Mangan’s):

Now let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

. . .

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.

Barack Obama, January 6, 2012:

Illegal immigrants closely related to U.S. citizens would no longer have to leave the country to try to obtain legal status under a proposed change in immigration policy announced Friday by President Barack Obama’s administration.

The change, which would greatly reduce the amount of time U.S. citizens are separated from undocumented family members seeking legal status, is the latest attempt by the Obama administration to use its authority to implement some immigration reforms without congressional approval.

It makes one wonder. Are the American elite ignorant of their hypocrisy and double standards, or is it that they just don’t give a shit?

PS I have no quarrel with the premise of the quote in the top half of this post.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Goodbye America, Pretty Lies, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »