Where pretty lies perish.
Nov 7th, 2011 by CH
“Game is just learning how to supplicate to women and be a slave to women’s desires.”
If enjoying the exquisite pleasure of a beautiful woman’s sex and love is supplication and enslavement, then I don’t want to be emancipated.
Certain quarters of the MRA movement have a lot in common with feminists. I wonder if they are aware of the similarities?
[crypto-donation-box]
Nov 4th, 2011 by CH
“The alpha male isn’t the one who can get the most hot women, it’s the one who leaves behind the most children. By that measure, childless gamers are beta.”
This is so silly it hardly deserves a rebuttal, but I’m in the mood to ruin some femicunt’s or whiny promise keeper’s lunch.
Alpha males who use game to attract women are doing those things which favor passing on their DNA in the state of nature, but they are thwarting the final step in the reproductive process with modern contraceptives. The use of the condom or Pill to prevent pregnancy does not render the successful alpha male womanizer any less alpha; a legal ban on all contraceptives would quickly restore his primacy in the snot-nosed litter market.
[crypto-donation-box]
Nov 4th, 2011 by CH
A new study shows that people will rationalize their shitty situations if they think that they’re stuck with them. (See also: sour grapes.)
People who feel like they’re stuck with a rule or restriction are more likely to be content with it than people who think that the rule isn’t definite. The authors of a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, say this conclusion may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Psychological studies have found two contradictory results about how people respond to rules. Some research has found that, when there are new restrictions, you rationalize them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea. But other research has found that people react negatively against new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.
Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo thought the difference might be absoluteness — how much the restriction is set in stone. “If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,” she says. “I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight” Laurin wrote the new paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.
So does this prove the existence of the infamous female rationalization hamster? Well, almost. The study was gender-inspecific, so what it tells us is that people in general will rationalize their powerlessness so as to assuage their tender egos in the face of unchangeable circumstances. We will have to continue to rely on experimental reports from the field and incisive observations into the womanly condition from Chateau proprietors for evidence of a particularly mighty breed of female-specific hamster. There is strong anecdotal data that such a female-particular breed exists; it is now up to scientists with the balls to snicker at feminist shrieking to bravely test the hypothesis.
When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. So if you want to see the hamster spin wildly, make sure the little bugger has no hope of escape from his wheeled hellmatrix. He’ll spin, spin until he loses all touch with reality.
I think we’ve seen plenty of examples of self-gratifying spinning in the comments on this blog, not to mention just about anywhere in the informational universe where feminists congregate to kvetch. And the spinning is not just limited to feminists. Most losers in the mating game have experienced the crush of 5 Gs in their hamster wheels. I find these kinds of people fall into two camps: the pity whores (woe is me, i’m a loser, there’s nothing i can do about it, so stop trying to help people like me, you’re only leading us astray with your advice), and the delusion zombies (i’m not a loser, i have everything i need in life, single cougarhood, five cats and a niceguy beta orbiter are exactly what i’ve always wanted).
To bring this study closer to the mission statement of this blog, what does it imply about love?
And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”
Bulls-eye. An elegant confirmation of push-pull game theory. Drawing a woman in, then pushing her away by, for example, disqualifying yourself or her, will switch the courtship dynamic around so that she is in the role of the chaser, instead of the typical female role of the chased. A woman who isn’t sure you really like her because your actions are calculated to deliver an ambiguous message, is more likely to press the seduction forward than she would with either a fulsomely unambiguous man or a completely uninterested man.
If you flirt with a woman, raise her buying temperature, but then show no interest at all in her for the remainder of the night, she will rationalize her rejection by telling herself she never really wanted you.
There are many real-world examples of women rationalizing their rejection or low sexual market value. Below, I list some of the more common ones.
“I’m not interested in guys who like anorexic women.”
“Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.”
“Men are intimidated by my intelligence/career/education.”
“Men don’t like opinionated women.”
“Women reach their sexual peak at 35!”
“I get all the love I need from my child.”
“I was looking for a one night stand, too.”
“No man is good enough for me and my child.”
“Men are afraid of commitment.”
“Now that I’m older I choose my men more carefully.”
“Men refuse to grow up and settle down.”
“Men who date younger girls can’t handle women their age.”
“I’ve grown into my beauty.”
“Real men appreciate my curves.”
“A confident man loves a woman with experience.”
“I’m not dating because I need me-time.”
“He stopped calling because he got scared.”
And, of course, the all-time favorite rationalization of the castaway driftwood of womankind:
“There are no good men left.”
Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.
[crypto-donation-box]
Nov 2nd, 2011 by CH
A foreign girl [country of residence redacted to protect privacy], cute but not so pretty that she would elicit crippling approach anxiety from the average beta, writes the following:
Hi,
I’m writing to ask for advice – I’m sure you get this a lot, but I will be truly grateful for any form of response. I’ll be as succinct as I can.
I’m [early 20s], [non-American], and a very happy girlfriend of an alpha. I met him [a number of] years ago and it was pretty much love at first sight, he was not like all other men who seem like children compared to him. I’ve been chasing him for two years but he was always involved or interested in other girls. We were always good friends but even after I told him I loved him he said he didn’t see me that way, even though we had slept together a couple times.
But now we are together and I’ve never been happier. When I think about other men I’ve slept with I feel disgust and I didn’t like it (I thought I was one of those girls who just couldn’t enjoy sex) [ed: a lot of female “libido problems” would disappear if such women started fucking alphas. this is something the feminist and therapist lobbies will never tell you] and I somehow always ended up in charge. When my boyfriend is dominant, I feel like I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be.
He was always smart and very intelligent but lacked motivation. But since we started dating, he seems very focused on studying (we are in the same [graduate level] course), getting better [occupational field] qualifications (he’s even enrolled me for the same [credentials] he’s pursuing) and finding a high paying job. I can’t say I object, but I feel like I should be doing the same for him.
I gave up smoking to pay for gym equipment and membership (although he said he’ll pay for both, since it’s a gift to himself) and started putting more work into studying, but I feel like it’s not enough. He jokes that he loves me the way I am unless I gain weight, which I would never do. I try to engage in his hobbies (he occasionally likes [male-oriented hobby], which incidentally I do too). But is there anything else I can do to keep him pleased with me? Do you know if some gym classes (like yoga or pilates) are better for making girls more attractive quicker?
I attach a picture. I know my nose is quite big and my chin is too manly [ed: her nose is big, but her chin and jawline are not too manly], but I cannot afford plastic surgery and my boyfriend says I’m still too young to even think about it.
Anything you write will be very helpful, I really don’t want and can’t afford to lose him and go back to either being alone or dating boys or macho idiots.
I write to you because my friends are not objective – your writing is harsh, but usually right to the point without the sugarcoating. And, well, my girlfriends have no experience with men like my boyfriend.
Thank you in advance, I really hope you will find the time to help a girl become a better woman.
Best wishes,
[Anon]
Before I, or the more helpful commenters, can give you the answers you need, it’s important to understand the dynamics of your relationship with your alpha boyfriend. Having no personal experience with you or the way you and your boyfriend behave together, all we can go on is what you wrote in your email, and your attached photo. For instance, I have to assume your boyfriend really is the alpha you claim he is. And I have to assume you are as happy with him as you say you are. Without those assumptions, I can’t offer any advice that isn’t tainted in its premises, and therefore useless. Your honesty, then, is assumed for purposes of discussion.
Right off the bat, I will make a prediction that your relationship with him won’t last. I know it shakes you to the core to hear this, but your history with him leads me to this conclusion. I wish I could tell you otherwise, and I hope I’m wrong because you write like a sweet girl. And, no, my prediction has nothing to do with your looks (though if he is an alpha male with numerous options in the dating market, I should warn you that, despite your cuteness and slimness, your looks are probably not competitive enough with the sorts of girls he could conceivably attract).
The warning sign for impending relationship fracture is the two years you spent “chasing him” while he was banging other girls. This is the action of a man who is not wholly enamored of your feminine charms. It may seem a contradiction to you because you read this blog and know that it counsels men to reconstruct the seduction process so that the girl does the chasing, (and we can see how well it worked on you), but there are differences between game and genuine apathy. This boyfriend of yours likely falls in the latter category.
Now I’m going to tackle your other admission against interest: your boyfriend’s focused pursuit to raise his status since he began formally (i.e., exclusively) dating you.
When men get into comfortable relationships, what normally happens is a slackening of the masculine drive to excel. There is even scientific evidence for this; after marriage, men in a variety of occupations — science, math, business — experience a reduction in their productive output. The most parsimonious explanation for this phenomenon is that once a man has landed a woman and codified it with a marriage contract or a commitment to date exclusively, the fire in his belly slowly burns out because he no longer feels a compulsion to impress potential mates.
But in your relationship, your boyfriend has done the opposite; he has stepped up his striving for personal achievement and, consequently, higher male status. Should he succeed, he will be more attractive to more women with better looks. This is bad news for you, because… say it with me…
OPTIONS = INSTABILITY.
There are two main reasons why a man would suddenly become motivated to excellence after he starts dating a girl (and before they have had any children together).
Reason #1: He has shot out of his league.
That is, he is equal or lower value than the girl, and this subconscious recognition fills him with anxiety. He can’t believe he is dating such a prize female, so he works extra hard to keep her around.
Reason #2: He has settled.
Sometimes a man decides to settle for a girl who is less attractive than the kinds of girls he could get if he put a little effort into it. Men normally do this because they lack confidence, game, or energy to pursue higher quality prospects, or they have settled because the girl is a low maintenance rebound from a previously painful breakup. What then happens is that these men feel trapped in their less-than-ideal relationships, and become motivated to improve themselves so that they can leave the relationship without enduring too much celibate downtime between the comforts of the ex’s pussy and any future pussy. It’s the “monkey swinging from branch to branch” theory of relationship management.
My conclusion — and I really do hate bringing you this news, but I suspect it’s something you knew all along or you wouldn’t have written this blog in desperation seeking advice — is that your boyfriend falls into category #2, based on the information you have divulged about your history with him.
Your dilemma showcases the inherent tension in all male-female couplings: a woman’s sexual market value will nearly ALWAYS depreciate after her early 20s, while a man’s sexual market value can conceivably appreciate for DECADES more. This tension underlies the mechanics of almost every jot and tittle of our feelings when desire overcomes us. It is the poison pill slipped into the chalice of delight.
Since I fear your relationship with your boyfriend is doomed, I suggest you enjoy the remaining time you have with him to the fullest, but keep an eye out for replacement suitors. Don’t dismiss men out of hand because you “have a boyfriend”; think about practicing your dormant flirting skills, even if you don’t intend any interaction to lead anywhere.
If… IF… I am wrong about the dynamics of your relationship (and this possibility does exist), and your boyfriend does truly love you and want to be with you and only you for a long time, there are a few things you can do to reinforce his attraction for you.
Men who have good game will play hot-cold-hot-cold with women because it builds attraction. Men with experience know that playing a male version of hard-to-get is catnip to women’s sexual psyches. Women are especially vulnerable to this sort of seductive manipulation, because it is essentially a co-opting of their own devious courtship tactics.
Women naturally tease, feint and misdirect because it is in their nature to do so; such behavior helps screen the unflappable alpha males from the bewildered betas. Men do not naturally tease because all their screening is done within seconds of seeing a girl; her beauty, or lack of it, is comprehended instantly.
But once a woman falls in love, as you have done, she surrenders all possession of the faculties which served her well during the courtship dance. A woman in love is a woman stripped of all her armor; she is exposed. You are exposed. Your emotional nakedness prances around every word you write like a frantic sprite.
It is possible for a woman to keep a beta male slavishly devoted to her by pushing him away and pulling him back with enticements of sexual or emotional gratification. Ironically, the very success of such manipulation renders the beta male more unattractive, resulting in a self-defeating loop for the woman. You should not worry that pulling away from your boyfriend will make him unattractive, but you should worry that too much manipulation will drive him away. While male manipulation of this sort is highly effective on all women, the equivalent female manipulation is much less effective on the most desirable men, the alpha males. An alpha male will simply exercise his many options to secure replacement women should his current lover become too burdensome or wrapped up in gamesmanship.
However, the avoidance of sycophancy is not the same as cunning gamesmanship. I suggest you take a step away from your alpha boyfriend and give him mental room to appreciate your worth. Right now, from all appearances, you are suffocating him. Your actions are working against your interest. Check yourself.
*cracks knuckles, leans back with hands behind head* Where else will you find this valuable advice for free? You can thank me by emailing nudie pics of yourself. Please do not Americanize your facial expressions.
[crypto-donation-box]
Nov 1st, 2011 by CH
I arrived at a Halloween party with a mixed group. We stood and talked and laughed, enjoyed compliments from drunk strangers on our costumes, and ogled competing costumes, particularly the skimpy ones. A man dressed as a 1980s glam rocker strode over to our group, standing tall and confident. He asked a question, pointedly addressing one of the girls with us, and then cracked a joke. She giggled. Ten minutes later, after he had successfully immersed himself in the flow of our conversation, the girl who giggled held up a camera in the direction of her girl friend while yelling at him over the noise of the music to join her for a photo together.
Add then, like Peter disowning Jesus, she was denied three times. And it was his cock crowing.
But first, a bit of background. The girl at the heart of this chronicle of game is not a playette. Not a slut. Not an ingenue. Not an attention whore. She is extroverted, but in a good way, soaking up the company of friends and having a knack for making people feel good about themselves. She listens as well as she talks. She hardly ever curses. She doesn’t have a reputation for sleeping around. She’s been single for a year, but that’s because her last breakup was difficult and now she tests the dating pool with one toe. She is cute, not hot. An inarguable 7. She is a professional in a female-oriented field. She’s a good girl, and more than that, a good person.
Not the kind of girl you’d think would fall for a common game tactic? Think again.
The first of her photo requests was basically ignored by glam rocker guy. He looked up at her after she asked, smiled warmly, then swiveled his head to glance around the room, returning to our group to make a comment to another one of us. She implored a second time, her voice rising in pitch. He didn’t even look at her this time, instead keeping his attention focused on one of her friends. The third time she asked him, furiously waggling her camera at arm’s length in front of her girl friend, she was practically screaming to be heard over the crowd, her face reddening and the tumult in her voice signaling desperation. This final request was answered when he performed a stone cold backturn on her. Not with any hint of disgust, mind you. It was all done so nonchalantly and indifferently that she could be forgiven for thinking he just hadn’t seen or heard her hysterics.
His third disavowal so cratered her self-assurance and social control that her mouth closed abruptly, stricken silence overcame her, and she stared at his back with wide eyes for an interminable few seconds while he watched the crowd swarm by. The whole episode was caught on videotape… the video recorder of my mind, that is.
He finally disappeared through the maze of costumed partiers. Camera girl looked dejected. It would have been hard to judge how much he had affected her were it not for the couple of times she asked where he had gone off to. But the proof came when her face lit right up when he later rejoined our group, and she feverishly interjected to monopolize conversation time with him. Regrettably for him, he learned that she was not a good-to-go girl, and to her everlasting despair she found him at the close of the night canoodling with a slutty blonde. I’ve no doubt that if he had asked for her number, she would have thrown it at him.
There is something to be said for blithely ignoring a girl to flip the script and get her chasing you. Of course, ignoring a girl before you have made any sort of impression is not going to impact her consciousness in any way. You’ll just be one among a horde of mediocrities breathing the air around her. Glam rock guy first made his impression, hooking her interest, then answered the call of her compliance test with a masterful backturn. A mighty backturn so impersonal and unmistakeable that she could not drive him out of her mind for the bulk of the night.
When a woman begins setting up compliance tests — aka hoops — for you to jump through, know that you are making progress seducing her.
When you refrain from jumping through her hoops, know that you have ratcheted up her arousal.
When you give her the backturn after her repeated attempts to coerce compliance from you, know that you have seduced her mind. You’ve created a disturbance in the force. A rift to a parallel universe has opened. Now she will feel an urge to seduce you.
It’s yours to lose after that.
[crypto-donation-box]
Oct 28th, 2011 by CH
Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, correctly identifies and laments the declining fortunes of men…
The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.
…but then reverts to blind, deaf and dumb traditionalist form by laying the blame for men’s ailments at the feet of… I know the suspense is killing you!… men.
If you don’t believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I’ve heard too many young women asking, “Where are the decent single men?” There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind. […]
Man’s response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men? […]
Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.
Oh, those precious, pedestalized princesses, incorruptible vessels of Mother Mary love, doing what’s right and suffering the slings and arrows of men’s failings in reward. What’s a haloed lady to do when her heart is open to the love of a good man and all she gets is a parade of losers in her bed? The burdens of her gilded womb she will bear in martyrdom.
The bubble boy boundaries of the conservative imagination are never more evident than in its grappling with the sociosexual differences between men and women and the workings of the dating market. An appalling lack of understanding, of even a tangential blow with the truth about female nature, suggests that traditionalists and their offspring — Promise Keepers, Iron Johns, (some) MRAs, evangelists, etc. — have an allergic reaction to plumbing the depths of the human sexual soul, a revulsion likely concocted in a cauldron of sheltered life experiences and morbid fear of their own temptations.
Someone, anyone, has to pull the wool from their eyes, because their ignorance compounds a problem they rightly see as anathema to civilized prosperity. Their haste to lay the fault at the feet of men and to wholly absolve women of any responsibility gives the id monster free reign to lay waste to their utopian ideal. This is because it is the shackling or the unleashing of the female id, not the male id, that ultimately controls the destiny of a society.
So, a sincere plea to Bennett and his ilk: Get your heads out of the sand. You can start by repeating the following to yourself every morning in the mirror:
What’s wrong with men? Nothing that isn’t also wrong with women.
Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.
Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage.
Men don’t play the field because they “avoid responsibility”. Men play the field because they can; because women, in their zeal to delay marriage until their careers have been established, to hop a parade of alpha cock during their roaring twenties, and to reward the players over the providers with their prime sexual access, have opened the field to men.
Men don’t “treat women as toys”. Men get the sex while the getting’s good because women allow — nay, PREFER — themselves to be toyed with by the kinds of men who are good at it.
In other words, Mr. Bennett, women GET EXACTLY THE KINDS OF MEN they deserve. Even more dispiriting to your conception of the universe, women get the men they WANT.
Women are the gatekeepers and the hadron collider tubes of sexuality. This has never changed, and likely never will as long as our biology remains rooted in the material world. The shape and direction of man is primarily an effect, not a cause, of the pathway laid out by women. The ancients you revere knew this, which is why they found it perfectly natural to restrict female power where they could.
For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction.
Nice sentiment. But guidance and advice are worse than useless when they lead astray. Your advice should be customized to the reality you live in, not the comforting unreality you wish were real.
Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children,
Stone cold experience.
and what do we teach them?
To accept the darkness.
We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.
The lunacy of thinking the culture is ultimately well-intentioned and all it needs is a proper scolding is the mindset of the fool, or a pity whore. What good is a “clear and achievable notion of manhood” if such a notion is unvalued by women? How achievable is this notion in a culture dictated by a cognoelite that has no use for it?
The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement.
If conservatives are serious about restoring a traditional concept of manhood to the modern man, I have a few suggestions for them.
1. Industriousness will only be a worthwhile pursuit for men if they can extract some real status out of it to satisfy their guiding compulsion to attract women. This means removing women from the workplace, where female career growth acts indirectly to undermine male provider and leadership status, and directly through the feminization of the workplace.
2. Marriage will only be a worthwhile goal for men when divorce laws are gutted and reinvented to stop massively favoring women at the expense of men. No-fault divorce should be abolished. Child support changed so that men and women have automatic equal share of custody if the man wants it. Alimony abolished so that we never again see a callous situation where the ex-husband is writing checks to an ex-wife who initiated divorce and is now banging a new lover. Women who initiate divorce for any reason other than provable physical abuse should be kicked out of the house and made to get by living in an apartment.
3. Religion is dead in the water. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has been bitten, and no one who matters in the developed nations can take it seriously again until they and their shrinking descendants have been purged from the human pool. But if you want a fighting chance to return religion to some honorable place in society, and to have men return to the fold, the constant, sanctimonious drumbeat of chiding men to behave must stop, and be replaced with sermons that take into account the fallen nature of women. Remember, women WANT to be led. They won’t abandon the church if their natures are examined candidly and honestly, and without fear.
Now naturally, few conservatives will take up this call to arms. Have you heard any of them discussing the possibility of rearranging contractual marriage, the workplace, and religion to make it easier for men to ascend to a gloried position in society? Have you heard any discuss the natural disposition women have toward men of higher status, and that catering to this disposition will result in healthier relationships? I haven’t. That’s because most conservatives are pussies. “From a pussy, ye shall stay a pussy” would be an accurate conservative credo.
Since none of the above recommendations will ever see the light of day, let alone become the law of the land, the Chateau counsel to forge a new creation by learning game remains unchallenged in its effectiveness and its nobility. The map men navigate has changed; their status and their honor now issue from a wickedly precise understanding of women’s sexual natures, an acceptance of the new culture that pervades, and a fearlessness in exploiting what was bequeathed them to personal advantage.
The answers conservatives do have are laughable. Bill Bennett gives his:
We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, “Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married.” It’s time for men to man up.
Yes, men, man up. That’s the ticket. When she cuckolds you, man up. When she rejects your gentlemanly kindness for an aloof badboy, man up. When she unceremoniously files for divorce because she got bored of your beta personality after she went off the pill, man up. When she takes the house, car, dog and half to fund her live-in boyfriend’s porn habit, man up. When she writes love letters to terrorists and serial killers on death row because her honorable hubby doesn’t amuse her anymore, man up. When she boffs the first douchebag DJ who comes along but makes a courteous accountant wait three months for sex, man up. When she devours pulp romance novels and vacuous feminized trash that desensitizes her to the value of real life men she can reasonably hope to attract, man up. When she gets aroused by a backhanded compliment but remains unmoved by a sincere compliment, man up. When she cries to HR about what she thinks was an inappropriate flirtation, man up. When she “forgets” to take the Pill and puts you on the hook for the 18 year enslavement, man up. When she gets multiple degrees that price her out of the mating market, man up. When she gets legal protections and favors that aren’t given to men, man up. When her every misdeed and misbehavior and poor choice is excused, man the fuck up.
Wow. What man wouldn’t want to sign up for this program?
Men will man up when women man down. The one must follow the other. The polarity cannot be reversed.
[crypto-donation-box]
Oct 27th, 2011 by CH
Pickup artists practice something called “DHV (demonstrating higher value) spikes”, which means slyly inserting into a conversation with a girl a mention of your time sharing the company of a hot woman in the past (or present). The girl listening to this will subconsciously register you as having high value yourself, and her ‘female preselection’ algorithm will be triggered. (It is a well-known and commonly observed phenomenon that women are more attracted to men whom other women are attracted to. This is because male mate value is more complicated and difficult to assess than female mate value, so women use shortcuts to determine the worth of men; one of those shortcuts women use is to judge a man by how many other women have already found him worthy of love.)
DHVs of course can involve other kinds of status-enhancing subjects, but the reference to other women is typically the most common, and most effective.
Now obviously DHVing is best done through actions (e.g., walking into a club with two girls on your arms) rather than through words, but if you have nothing else readily available, telling a story imbued with DHV spikes is a legitimate game tactic, and one that will succeed if you do it right. But most men fuck it up, because it is so VERY EASY to tell a DHV story that sounds like try-hard bragging rather than incidental self-promotion. The key to successful DHV storytelling lies in the delivery — a story too grandiose or incongruent, or a DHV spike too clumsily invoked, will ping her BS meter, especially if she’s a smart urban yuppie chick. DHVs must sound almost like accidental blurts that get in the way of your story goals. The object of the game is like advertising; you want to subliminally embed your value in her brain, and you don’t do that by screaming how great your product is from the rooftop.
On that note, what is the best way to verbally demonstrate your prowess with women without sounding like an approval-seeking beta? Two commenters provide their experiences.
(r)evoluzione writes:
I’ve found that telling women that I date dancers is a big DHV. Often there’s some confusion around what being a ‘dancer’ is. And often a lot of overlap in dance styles.
Case in point: One girl I’ve been seeing recently is a modern dancer as well as a burlesque dancer. Burlesque dancers are about 2″ of fabric away from being strippers–they wear pasties over their nipples. They often have a lot more sultry sexuality built into their acts as well. Whereas strippers can be sexy, but are often just trashy.
Another girl, same deal–modern, burlesque, in addition to having a past history as a stripper. In general, I’ve noticed very positive reactions when casually mentioning this dating history when the subject comes up. Though those girls who see themselves as ‘good girls,’ will often get simultaneously aroused and fearful. Also, a quick mention is all it takes, mention it then change the subject, don’t belabor the point. Let that hamster run!
Matador writes:
Mystery was consistently referring to dating strippers when he wanted to display preselection and high value.
I never used the routine because I’m a little bit dubious. The current feminist propaganda made cases of chronic projection very widespread. As repeatedly said in this venerable chateau, women are attracted to confident, successful men, so they assume that men want (and should be attracted to) the same qualities in women.
So why then miss that opportunity and keep referring to trashy strippers instead of lawyers (i know, i know…), doctors or CEOs?I tend to do just that and It works fine. The key of course (especially with low achieving chicks) is not to make it sound like a big deal. And feign during comfort building that you’re interested in something more meaningful and profound.
Maybe, I’m KJing here but making shit up about dating strippers would be a good strategy to game lawyers, doctors and CEOs.
Or maybe, just maybe, Mystery is indirectly assuming that women are projecting to strippers the alpha male qualities that they crave (desired by many, only one is chosen)… even though strippers are viewed by men as filthy cumdumpsters.
Gosh, there is some serious reeducation work that needs to be done. Keep preaching, brother.
It’s a good question: Is it better to advertise your preselection by referring to your time with strippers, dancers and models (the kinds of women who are the classic archetypes of the hot n’ sexy good-to-go chicks willing to please a man) or by referring to your time spent with educated, socially accomplished girls like lawyers, doctors and grad students?
To answer the question we need to recall what it is that women truly find arousing in men, and this requires a return to fundamentals in sex differences. I’ll focus on Matador’s objection to DHV stripper stories as evidence of male psychological projection. Does a DHV reference to a stripper indicate that a man is projecting his own desire for female looks and sexual receptivity onto the desires of the woman he is trying to impress?
Well, no, not very much at any rate. Projection is a real human cognitive bias, but it has limits in its applicability. A man projecting his sexual desire onto women would fuss over his OWN looks, because he assumes that women are as entranced by male looks as men are by women’s looks. There is NO projection in a man telling a story that references good-looking women because his sexual desire is not being projected back onto HIMSELF.
For example, women project their desire for high status men by sometimes assuming men are turned on by high status, educated women, when the truth couldn’t be more different, but when push comes to shove, women still BEHAVE as if they know, on some deep primitive level, that men are aroused by looks before all else. This is why we see even educated (aka brainwashed) women continuing the age-old practices of wearing makeup and dressing provocatively and desperately trying to reverse the tick of the clock. They can assert in Jizzabel columns all they want that “real men” prefer educated plain janes to hot bimbos, but their actions belie their words.
The reason stripper DHVs work on nearly all women to a greater or lesser degree is because, contrary to the erroneous belief that women wouldn’t be impressed by what men are impressed by, a stripper is REAL WORLD evidence that the man who dated her has preselection value, i.e. reproductive fitness. Strippers are perceived, (whether the perception is valid is irrelevant), as hot girls who are out of reach of the average man. A man who has fucked a stripper must therefore bring something very special to the table; namely, his irresistibility.
Would a lawyercunt be turned off by a man who admits to having dated strippers? Class issues do occasionally intrude. An upper class lawyerchick might think a man who dates strippers embodies class distinctions too great to bridge. The allure of a man who can get a bitchy hot stripper might be outweighed by her devaluing of the same man as someone who mingles with the wrong crowd.
I think this objection is overblown, but it is real.
One school of thought says that you want to DHV using the kinds of women and/or subject matter that presupposes familiarity with your target’s social milieu and personal life experiences. So if you are picking up a stripper, it helps to let her know (through allusion) that you have experience dating strippers. If you are hitting on a lawyer, the same theory applies. Let her know you have dated other lawyers. Women like to feel that the men they date are on or above (but not too far above) their level.
Another school of thought claims just the opposite: that you want to DHV a stripper with stories about dating lawyers, and vice versa. This thinking rests on Matador’s hypothesis that projecting what women like or respect back onto them is better game than hitting their preselection buttons for men who attract the attentions of hot women. A stripper will deem a lawyerchick to be well above her in social status (if not necessarily looks status) and will therefore be inclined to view a man who has dated lawyers more favorably than a man who has dated socially lower classes of women. Conversely, a lawyerchick will be more sexually attuned to a man who has claimed prowess with conventionally hot girls like strippers than with stick-in-the-mud lesbian-faced lawyers like the kind she probably sees every day at the firm.
So, do you DHV with strippers or lawyers? My glib answer: neither. Or both. You don’t need to choose. You can cover both bases. I’ll give an example of what I’m talking about with a DHV spike within stories I have told many times in my life to smart and sassy SWPL chicks.
TheStudULuv: [Preceding convo eliminated for brevity] Everyone in this town dates a degree. I swear, you talk to guys around here and they think the number of letters after their name makes them interesting people.
Girl: God I know. I can’t tell you how many boring MBAs I’ve met. Philosophy grads are kinda interesting though.
TheStudULuv: True. That’s because they’re crazy. Maybe it’s all relative. I broke my rule to not date lawyers with my last girlfriend, and I’m glad I did, because she was a welcome relief after the stripper.
Girl: [pauses to digest the news] That’s quite a contrast.
TheStudULuv: [Frowning and looking down at my drink] Sometimes the stereotypes are true. I shoulda listened to my mother.
I changed the subject quickly after that. The seed of intrigue had been planted. There is no need to hammer home a DHV. Just sit back and let it do its work.
But that’s not the best DHV spike at your disposal. No, I’ve discovered something even more powerful than devious insinuations involving strippers and lawyers — the YOUNGER WOMAN. If you seduce women in the mid-20s to mid-30s age range, a subtle implication of having enjoyed the company of younger women will send their hamsters into an epileptic seizure. Framing it similar to the convo above, like it’s something you are almost ashamed of, is all the plausible happenstance you need.
YOU: Dating younger women is not all it’s assumed to be. They get a little too possessive for my taste.
I’ve used this line verbatim on girls when the conversational direction allowed it, and it has never backfired in an obvious way. While it’s hard to judge the effectiveness of DHV spikes (because most of their power works on the girl’s subconscious thought processes, which remain hidden from you until they are revealed in her body language or IOIs), I have observed the nearly imperceptible widening of eyes that occurs when girls hear this from me. It is AWESOMELY powerful catnip to late 20s career women. Some girls will even ask just how young my ex was, because they are beginning to presume my unattainability and want reassurances that they aren’t too old for me.
As the commenters above mentioned, DHV spikes like these should be delivered as if they were afterthoughts. It helps to act a little bit embarrassed about your DHV as well. These are all master class techniques that neutralize the chance your target will interpret your DHV as a painfully value-lowering brag, and proficiency with them will only come from practice and continual feedback.
[crypto-donation-box]
Oct 26th, 2011 by CH
Polygyny advantages alpha males and beta females.
Monogamy advantages beta males and alpha females.
Guess which system advantages civilization?
Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms — benefits the individual? The managerial globalists? The cognoelite? The lumpenproles? Figure out how each group benefits and you’ll know which system is ascendent, and which is actively and passively undermined.
[crypto-donation-box]
Oct 25th, 2011 by CH
A masochistic reader (you’d have to be in love with your own pain to read any of the yeasty discharges fouling up Jizzabel) sent along this turgid confessional from a feminist who got banged out by a player four hours after they met for a first date drink. Her account of the date leaves the distinct impression that she was played by a guy who knows game very well. Let’s examine the techniques he employed to snare his prey.
I went on a date a month ago with a boy I met on an online dating site. “Met” meaning he’d sent me a few witty messages and his pictures were decent enough to warrant an IRL pass.
No long-winded phone calls making his interest in her obvious. Just a few witty (translated from the femspeak: terse/cocky/funny/asshole-ish) emails which implied his non-neediness and her interchangeability. So far, he’s off to a good start.
He was a strong conversationalist. We talked politics and he impressed me with a nuanced understanding of the debt ceiling debate. He knew about the Arab Spring.
How does the old saw go? Treat a lady like a broad and a broad like a lady. Mr. PUA knew he was dealing with the typical urban feminist slut who would swoon over a man who flattered her intelligence. So sprinkle in a few ledes he read in the NYBetaTimes about the Arab Spirng and , voila!, instant charma.
We discussed the unexpected but peculiarly gratifying direction our late 20s had taken both of us.
Again, translated from the femspeak: She was glad he assuaged her ego with comforting euphemisms about being an unmarried childless woman in her late 20s.
He made me laugh.
“He made me tingle.”
One drink turned into two,
Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker!
two neighborhood bars into three,
This is the standard game tactic known as “bouncing”, or “time distortion”. By taking a girl to a number of places on a single night, you leave her with the impression that she’s known you longer than she has. It’s very effective at building comfort, as we will see.
and when he kissed me in the street, I was elated.
When a PUA gets a street kiss, that’s a green light to go for a same night lay. Women don’t make out in public places unless they are really into the thought of sex with you.
He wanted to see me again, he said. I agreed, the enthusiasm audible in my voice.
Audible enthusiasm is also a SNL green light. Also, note how he doesn’t set up a day and time to meet again. He just says he wants to see her again. Make your intentions known, but make them known vaguely, without promise, so that they could plausibly be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by women. Chicks dig ambiguity even more than they dig ambivalence.
As he walked me to the train, he asked me if I would come over for a nightcap. Just one. He offered to pay for a cab to take me home afterwards, as I had to work early.
Always escalate, until you have hit her limit. Push, push, push. It’s what women — even, maybe especially, feminists — secretly crave from men, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. There’s no worse feeling than having a pussy in the hand, only to see it disappear because you pulled back at the last moment out of some quaint deference to dating etiquette or mangina virtue. Or fear.
I — like many women I know — harbor a quiet but persistent internal voice that cries, “If you like him, don’t go!” The voice that says men don’t respect women who sleep with them too quickly. The voice that says despite the fact that you’re turned on, you’re a grown-ass adult and goddamn it you want to, as the female you should be the one to decline, to demur, to hold off for another night.
I’d never understood the reasoning behind that voice.
Silly feminist. The reasoning is simple, if you would free your mind of its stifling propaganda shackles. Men really do devalue women who put out too quickly. Sexual evolution has granted men the insight to recognize that slutty women are likely to continue being just as slutty after committing to them, and that is bad news for men who want to know their children are really theirs, and who want to avoid the divorce raping that inevitably follows when a wife pursues the feral eat, pray, love self-actualization life trajectory. Those pesky little feelings that swarm around your cortical ham, if you would stop drowning them out with femcunt agitprop, are early warning signals to behave in a more stereotypically feminine manner lest you harm your reproductive fitness.
I suspected I was internalizing cultural judgments about “easy” women.
Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.
The traditional refrain, “don’t buy the cow if you can get the milk for free,” which implies women should withhold sex to ensnare a partner, insulted me.
What’s a horny slut with daddy issues to do? Listen, lady, either embrace your sluttiness and stop kvetching to the cunty choir, or keep your legs closed. You can’t have your cock and keep it, too.
Years of dissecting dating mishaps with my friends taught me that if you want a relationship or even just the potential of one, it’s best to wait.
Betting is now open on how many cocks she has satisfied. We’ll start with 30.
In my mind, the waiting period was for no other reason but to increase the odds of a relationship. It was like dating lore passed on between friends. We don’t know why it works but it does.
It’s amazing that women have to relearn this common sense in their late 20s, after a decade or more of cock carouseling. Was there a wholesale abdication of parenting in the last two generations? A massively successful brainwashing campaign? Rhetorical.
Nevertheless, it’s best if women don’t start making men wait, because I was getting used to the easy peasy sex. Feminism has been very, very good indeed for men who want to play the field, and have the skills to do so. A return to patriarchal norms would really cramp my style.
But the way my date kissed me up against the brick wall outside the subway stop was enough to convince me my internal voice was an antiquated Debbie downer, squawking nonsense irrelevant for the modern woman.
Pushing a woman up against the wall to kiss her and grope her unleashes powerful, primitive, quasi-rape-y forces of submission within her. It’s one of my go-to moves.
I went to his house. We headed straight to the bedroom. Sex — intense, unexpected, rough and satisfying. Afterwards, as promised, he called me a cab.
By 3 a.m. I was home. And utterly freaked out.
I think it would bother women to know that men NEVER feel the urge to freak out after a one night stand. Not even the weepy beta males. Nope, slipping into sleep with a huge grin plastered on our faces is closer to what happens.
I hashed this over with multiple friends during the next few days. One suggested I just forget about the guy and be happy I’d had good sex.
The group Samantha.
Another brought up respect — if he wanted a real relationship with me, he would have proceeded with more respect for my body.
The group fatty.
I received a single lackluster text from him a few days later.
And that kid went ha haaaw! Who couldn’t see this coming? Apparently, her.
She should be thankful she got to experience a night of pleasure from a man who knows how much women crave being gamed. But women being what they are, (bless their overstimulated hearts), the fleeting waves of pleasure quickly gave way to self-absorption and tedious reinterpretation. The rationalizations that follow are some of the best frenetic hamster spinnings you will read in a long time.
Still distraught over the experience, I told [my mom] the bare-bones version of the story: I slept with someone four hours after meeting them and now I felt shitty and I couldn’t identify why.
I wanted to know what she — a world-experienced, non-judgmental woman — thought about sleeping with someone you’re interested in dating so soon? What she said was the best argument I have ever heard for waiting to have sex.
When you first meet someone, she said, you don’t actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them. […]
The mirage is sexy. But herein lies the danger. The potential for a schism to exist between the mirage and reality is huge. The probability of being disappointed is gigantic. That disappointment is compounded when intimacy is involved. You sleep with a stranger. You feel like you know them. But you likely don’t at all.
This may not be an epiphany for other people. But it was for me. After that night, I felt shitty not because I’d been “slutty,” whatever that means, but because I felt foolish.
I slept with an idea of a man. I slept with how that man made me feel. But that man didn’t exist, except in my mind. When I realized this, I felt… blah blah blah
Zzzz… zzz… *snort*… zz… huh, wha… oh, hai there. Must’ve dozed off. Wow, yeah, totally see what you’re saying. Totes. I bet you’ve learned a valuable lesson from all these experiences.
I’m still going out with guys and getting tipsy
Well, you know what I (sometimes) say… be true to yourself! Whatever that means.
[crypto-donation-box]
Oct 24th, 2011 by CH
“Hey, CH. CH!”
Wheeling around and flipping my sunglasses onto the top of my head, I studied the location from where the voice originated. A cute, bob-haired girl stood with a herbster (combination hipster + herb) off to one side. She was smiling. I recognized her, after a moment of assessment. She was a former fling.
“How are you?”
Caught by surprise, I had nothing witty, engaging, or charming to say. I looked her over, ballet sandals to nympho hairstyle, and all I could muster by way of brain activity was a memory of watching her smoke in bed after I had ejaculated inside her.
“I’m good.” Bereft of follow-up, I stood quietly and self-assuredly, staring her right in the eyes, as three bloated seconds ticked by.
Finally she broke the impasse. “This is Jerry.”
I nodded at Jerry, who seemed to be a boyfriend of some sort, but his body language telegraphed eunuch house guard rather than intimate. I found it strange that the first substantive words of her conversation after “hi” were an introduction to some man I never met and couldn’t have cared less about.
“Well, nice to see you. Bye,” she chirped, and teetered off like a child being called home just as a pink flush was revealing itself on her cheeks.
There are moments with ex-flings when you know sparks are inevitable. But these sparks are enfeebled by shared history and time apart, or distasteful circumstances. In that moment, I had nothing to say. Nothing worthwhile at any rate. One can’t be on top of their game all the time. When gamelock happens, your best course of action is to refrain from saying much of anything. Silent game is all you need, then, and it beats bad game. A few exceedingly sparse words, a nod, a slow hand gesture or a couple of seconds of manufactured anticipation, and you leave a girl wanting to know more about what you’ve been up to than she ever did when you were a blabbermouth.
It’ll sound rude to an outside observer. But to her, it’s the most pleasant intrigue she can hope for.
[crypto-donation-box]
