Now you can’t do anything without her, and she you. In the beginning, this is a necessary process to build the level of trust and bonding that distinguishes the LTR from any run of the mill fling. But it morphs into a hermetic pair-bond cocoon, a soft escapable prison that shields from the outside world more than it protects. Increasingly consanguineous, the LTR alienates friends and slackens ambitions.
Scary stuff. Science has something to say about the deleterious effects of marriage on the female body, as well:
•Women in their teens and early 20s who continued to date but didn’t cohabitate gained an average of 15 pounds over five years; their male counterparts added about 24 pounds.
•Newly married women in that age group packed on 24 pounds in five years; newly married men gained 30 pounds.
That degree of gain wasn’t seen in couples who were living together but not married. Women gained 3 pounds more than their single peers — 18 pounds — and men gained 24 pounds.
When you see photos of the groom stuffing the bride’s mouth full of wedding cake as she licks down every last ounce of sloppy creamed filling, you may as well be watching the groom disposing of his sex and love life down her maw. But as we all know, men get very, very stupid about marrying the first semi-decent pussy who comes along.
For better or for worse, in sickness and in health – there’s a long line of research that associates marriage with reducing unhealthy habits such as smoking, and promoting better health habits such as regular checkups. However, new research is emerging that suggests married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other’s unhealthy habits as well. […]
Corinne Reczek, a UC assistant professor of sociology, reports three distinct findings into how unhealthy habits were promoted through these long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of one partner, through health habit synchronicity and through the notion of personal responsibility.
Reczek reports that gay, lesbian and straight couples all described the “bad influence” theme, while in straight partnerships, men were nearly always viewed as the “bad influence.” [ed: there go women again, abdicating all reason and accountability.]
[…] “Third, respondents utilized a discourse of personal responsibility to describe how even when they observe their partner partaking in an unhealthy habit, they do not attempt to change the habit, indicating that they were complicit in sustaining their partner’s unhealthy habits. The final theme was described primarily by straight men and women,” says Reczek.
So if your partner has unhealthy habits, (smoking, drinking to excess, overeating, underexercising, staying up late to watch Modern Family recordings or Jon Stewart smugly sing to the SWPL choir), you will likely pick up those bad habits. And thus we see how the fat acceptance movement gets its steam — osmotic inevitability. (In related news, according to the Red Cross, there are more obese than there are hungry in the world. We’ve entered the era of globulization.)
Of particular interest in the above study is the evidence that women, and presumably their lapdog betabitchboys, placed the blame for being a bad influence squarely on the men’s shoulders. It’s obvious to those in the know that this blame-shifting is complete bullshit, since (just to pick an easily discernible example at random) there are innumerable couples where the woman has gotten fat while the man stayed slim. Nothing will kill a man’s desire to please his woman in every way faster than the disfigurement of her body caused by bloating up from bellying up to the buffet.
Is there an enterprise in existence where women will blame themselves for something bad they did? To ask the question is to laugh at female absurdity. The rationalization hamster is a cosmic force on par with dark matter; you can’t see the little bugger, but goddamn is he everywhere, redirecting galactic phenomena at will.
Also interesting is the last line quoted above from the study. Partners are complicit in sustaining their SO’s bad habits because they don’t call them out on it. I think we can figure out who is most responsible for this dereliction of duty: sackless beta males who are afraid of the divorce raping and/or sex withholding they will assuredly receive if they displease their queen sovereigns by timidly mentioning in squeaky-voiced passing their increasing girth. Women, for their part, don’t attempt to change their partners’ bad habits for a different reason: they don’t have a clue how to articulate what is wrong with their beta boyfriends and hubbies.
This post, and others like it, is a helpful reminder to the “marriage is best” crowd that marriage — and, similarly, LTRs — hold special dangers for the man who allows himself to become ensnared. An LTR is a beautiful thing with the right woman and undertaken with the right alpha attitude, but it isn’t a panacea for all psychological, emotional or sexual needs, and it isn’t without its own problems that men who serially date don’t experience. When you commit to a woman with the intent of remaining monogamous, you acquire new obstacles to navigate and problems to avoid. Failure to recognize those LTR-inherent deficiencies and counteract them will lead to exile in betaville, where begging for blowjobs once per year and praying you don’t get reamed in court if she gets bored become part of the wonderful fabric of life.
As with everything you venture to explore, do it with your eyes open. Otherwise, you may as well hand your decision-making process over to a committee of cog-molding industrialists and ball-chopping feminists.
I’ve noticed a trend in the MSM. Men invent something controversial, get little mainstream press, women follow up with their watered-down version, get tons of mainstream press. In this case, an aging ex-stripper has landed on the front page of the New York Post where she discusses girl game: the female version of getting “what you want” from men, which in femspeak means getting love, money, attention and resources with, presumably, the ultimate goal being marriage. (Although you have to wonder about the kind of man who would be willing to pony up big bucks for a useless rock and ceremony to geld himself by marrying a road-worn and tossed away wet ex-stripper single mom with enough cock notches on her vagina wall to make it look like a gynecological cave painting.)
I don’t much write about girl game — aka The Rules — because it is, for the most part, ineffective relative to the thermonuclear game that girls already have at their disposal; namely, their youth and beauty. An ugly girl can run all the “girl game” she wants; it won’t make a lick of difference to her prospects. Conversely, a hot girl will often get what she wants without any girl game. In fact, girl game can actually hurt her chances with the alpha males she loves because those are the kinds of guys least affected, and most turned-off, by girl game machinations. Only in the middle where the average over-25 plain janes congregate can girl game help at the farthest margins, and then only by helping them snag betas who are more likely to fall for it.
With that in mind, let’s examine this whore’s recipe for dating bliss. First, here’s a look at her:
Not bad, not good. She has the tell-tale post-op tranny face that bespeaks a lifetime of pumping and getting dumped. That lifestyle tends to masculinize women. I wouldn’t pay her for a lap dance, but I would bang her for free. Once. With a kevlar condom.
So what does this broad “Diane Passage” have to say about girl game?
1. Show your confidence at all times — especially when you feel it the least. No one will ever know if this is true, but if you believe it, others will, too. A friend of mine who was a dancer at a club once gave me the advice to always enter a room “proud as a peacock” — stand up straight and move confidently. She worked in Las Vegas, where it’s highly competitive for any type of dancer or entertainer. She was a pretty girl, but average in comparison to other women. But wherever she walked — whether it was a club, casino or a grocery store — all eyes were on her.
Classic case of female projection. Women love confidence in men, so they think men must love the same in women. Nope. Confidence in women is neutral to their dating market value at best, and actively off-putting at worst. Most likely, this “confident”, “stands tall” Las Vegas girl she talks about has a big rack, and guys were staring at her jutting tits that she was thrusting outward.
Very shy girls who are pretty will arouse a deep, instinctive authoritarian desire in men to protect and sexually serve. Women don’t need to be loudmouths or assertive if they are cute. It helps, in fact, if they are a little effacing and deferential. A woman with *clinically* low self-esteem, (as distinct from nearly all women who are told they have low self-esteem but in actuality are full of themselves), can temper a man’s lust by slouching, mumbling and denigrating herself. Why? Because men will think she’s not interested.
2. I can create my own outcome and accomplish any goal. I like to set goals for anything — serious or ridiculous. I started doing this when I worked at the club; I’d set weekly income goals to help me stay focused and not get onto a downward spiral (which is typical for exotic dancers). Along the way I set fun goals — attending certain concerts, parties, etc. My most ridiculous goal? Hooking up with a certain male porn star. A friend of mine offered to buy the star for me for one night, but I declined. It’ll be far more satisfying to accomplish my goal on my own. Whether your goals are serious, fun or both — never think you can’t have it all!
New age, feelgood pablum. Worse than useless. This will encourage ugly, old and fat girls to avoid putting in the necessary work to make themselves more attractive to men. Newsflash, ladies: No, you can’t have it all. You can have what your best assets will bring you by maximizing their impact and minimizing the impact of your worst liabilities. Some liabilities, of course, are not mitigable. PS: Getting a male porn star to fuck you is not an accomplishment. Getting him to love you and commit to you is.
3. Slow and steady wins the race. While goals are important, you shouldn’t set unrealistic time limits to achieve them. People do crazy things under deadlines. An acquaintance of mine stalked a man because she was obsessed with getting married before the age of 35. Last year, she fell head over heels on one of her first dates. On Facebook, she saw he was looking forward to a sushi dinner at his favorite restaurant. My friend knew where to find him, because he’d mentioned the same restaurant on their date! So early in the evening, she planted herself at a table with a good view of the place. He showed up . . . with another date. This woman is seemingly sane otherwise. If she dropped the marriage deadline and just had fun dating, I bet she’d end up meeting her goal — without stalking!
This advice isn’t half bad as a way to avoid the worst mistakes women make. Women can quickly kill a sexy, fun vibe and drive an alpha man away by revealing their desperation on a first date. Or even during the first year of dating. (Beta men will stick around and suffer her desperation because they, too, are desperate.) As women don’t want to feel like sex objects, men don’t want to feel like commitment objects.
4. Every girl should know the basics of fishing and dog training. Several years ago, my son [ed: bastard spawn soon to be huffing paint under an overpass] took an interest in fishing. I had to learn, too, so I could help him with it. Little did I know that my basic fishing knowledge would end up serving me well in the world of romance! When dating, I like to try a fun and sporty approach. As the person who’s fishing, I’m able to lead my “fish,” so I have the advantage of getting what I want. My bait: smile, hair, makeup, clothing, stilettos and either legs or cleavage (never both at the same time). [ed: no, because that would be slutty. it’s not like he’ll think you’re a skank when he hears about your stripper past and bastard sprog] My hook: a flirty, mysterious demeanor. When I “reel” a man in, that means I’m getting to know him. He always has the option to free himself from my “hook.” And I always have the option to throw him back into the dating sea. If I decide to keep my “fish,” then I switch to boundary-setting mode. I’ve trained a dog, raised a son and have been married twice to men who wanted nothing more than to make me happy [ed: if she’s been married twice and is currently an unmarried single mom, then they weren’t very interested in making her happy. nor was she interested in making them happy. and single women should take advice from her?]. I know how not to let a male dominate me. The one consistent thing for all types of men: consistent enforcement of boundaries and giving rewards when they deserve them.
It sounds like she ripped this nominal idea straight from the Chateau archives. Anyhow, what she is saying here is nothing new. She’s just repackaging the time-tested advice to women to look as good as possible to capture a man’s interest by trying to make it sound edgier with the comparison to dog training and fishing. And enforcement of boundaries? What does that even mean? Her boundaries have obviously been rodgered to complete permeability.
5. My wallet does not exist. It might sound like an outdated cliché, but if you’re a woman, you should never reach into your wallet while you’re in the presence of a man. Even if you’ve been married for years. Not only must a man pay for the main components of a date (dinner, etc.), but they must also take care of taxi fare, coat check and bathroom attendant tips. The woman who believes in this mantra is not a gold-digger or obligated to “return the favor.” The few times I’ve gone “dutch” on dates, it usually results in the man feeling emasculated because of it — or it means the guy has some sort of money hang-up. Can an emasculated guy or someone with issues give you what you want? Not for me!
How sweet. An old-fashioned stripper single mom. The worst of every world. Now here’s some real talk for the single women reading: the only men you’ll get by playing the role of whore golddigger are betas with few other options and rich men with harems and zero game, wit or charm. Don’t bet on the latter unless you’re smoking hot.
6. My presence is a gift. Know your value — and not in dollar amounts. Relationships are work — and work has value. Do the rewards of your relationship satisfy you? What do you want from your partner? I broke up with a guy (who my friends and I nicknamed “The Whiny Baby”) because he was too high-maintenance, emotionally. This wouldn’t have been a problem if he could have just provided a bit of emotional support in return. [ed: translation: he treated her like the worthless aging stripper single mom she is] I told him that, and he briefly turned into a decent boyfriend until becoming a whiny baby. I decided my time was too valuable and he had to go.
This reads like he dumped her and she’s rationalizing it as her decision. Allow me to clarify. Your presence is only a gift if you’re pleasing to look at. It is less of a gift if you think you look as good at 35 as you did at 25, and you are saddled with kid baggage from another man. (This is starting to sound like a broken record. But it needs to be said, over and over, apparently.)
7. Allow your man to believe he is in charge. Men like to play the dominant role in relationships, so why not encourage the fantasy? This summer, I was with a man who was sensitive about women using him for his money. He watched me like a hawk, so my usual tactics were no good. But he was open to spending extravagantly at charity events, fine restaurants and so on. So I invited him to my friends’ events and establishments — where he was free to spend money — and I remained quiet and pretty, as he required me to be.
She’s contradicting herself. Above she says she does not allow men to dominate her. Here, she says she encourages men to dominate her. Oh, but of course she couches it in terms of “letting him feel like” he is dominating her. Hair-splitting. He’s either making the decisions, giving her orders and demanding she look pretty and remain quiet, or he’s not. Leave it to a single mom stripper to vomit whatever ill-conceived toddler babbling happens to scoot across her gyrating frontal lobe.
Not that there isn’t some substance to the advice to placate a man’s desire to dominate. A woman who constantly battles a man for dominance is an unloved woman. Men don’t respond on a visceral level to those kinds of women. And it works the other direction, too: men who renege on their duty to dominate are often pushed around and unloved by the women in their lives.
8. As a woman, it’s my right to act bitchy on occasion. When a man first approaches me, I’m icy cold and dismissive. The weak men leave. The ones who are up for a challenge stick around and show their charm and wit, and may land a date. Refer to mantra No. 4 (dog training) — along with boundaries, give rewards when due — leading to mantra No. 6 (value). A woman’s time, smile and interest are valuable and can be rewarded to the man who deserves her attention. Being icy or lukewarm at first also maintains an element of mystery. In addition, refer to mantra No. 5 (woman never pays). A man does not deserve a woman’s phone number without buying her and her friend(s) a drink, not to mention paying their entire bar tab.
Any man who buys a girl *and* her yakking yenta friends drinks, and pays their entire bar tab, just to get her precious, gold-plated number, is, by definition, an emasculated, hopeless beta who has the masturbation stamina of ten men. I doubt very much this skank ho would respect, let alone desire, such a man.
Mostly, what she writes here in point #8 is a rewording of the conventional wisdom that a woman who puts out too easily will harm her chance to get men to commit to her. (Leave aside her admonition to be bitchy. That’s not advice. It’s just a recognition that hot chicks will shit test men to discern their alphaness.) There is some truth in the CW. Beta and alpha men alike subconsciously downgrade loose women from potential girlfriend material to funtime sluts. But a woman has to carefully walk that tightrope; too much coyness, playing hard-to-get and bitchiness, and the alpha males of her dreams will quickly find sweeter and moister pastures. Too little, and they will relegate her to fuckbuddy status. And herein lies the main problem with “girl game”:
Girl game is effective at manipulating exactly the kinds of men women desire the least.
Horny, desperate betas — not sexually satisfied alphas — are the ones who will allow themselves to be toyed with by scheming girls. If those are the men you want, ladies, you can’t go wrong listening to the dating advice of a washed-up wednesday night stripper single mom.
Luckily for us men, game — real game — is just what the best looking girls crave.
King A and I have disagreed before, but I have to tip my hat to a well-executed comment.
When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.
The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.
We forget just how primal the female need for submission is because we are surrounded by women who have been ruthlessly denatured since birth. Even so, the impulse cannot be completely eradicated by artificial, totalitarian means any more than the Soviets could eradicate dissent forever.
Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. — Horace
How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.
Man fucks wo-man.
Every cultural institution that does not proceed from this truth is a lie. Our sex is the most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of all. Even our language reflects this inescapable reality through gender. It is impossible to imagine the human apart from la différence.
Vive la différence, you tinkering, vivisecting, social engineers! You life’s losers, you resenters, you poisoners of the punch bowl! You philosophesses with weak-chinned daddies! What kind of world is this! You have insisted our sisters become everything but what their entire being is geared for, because you once personally dreamt of possessing a cock.
We will fuck our way back to inequality. It will be a while, and it won’t be pretty.
Just remember this, you sisters awakening out of your dogmatic slumber, slowly scrubbing out the last greasy traces of penis envy: you are demigoddesses.
You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures. You really don’t want to be us, the cheaper of the two sexual commodities by a factor of billions to one (lifetime gamete production).
You are hothouse flowers. You are our most precious of all objects, we protect you with everything we have, to the very last, with our very bodies if we must. We kill and we die for you. We launch a thousand ships because your beauty makes us weep. You and the kids get the lifeboat, we drown like men. You are the mothers of our children, the vessels of our immortality. It’s not a bad place to be. We need some small, official recompense for sacrificing all that we are to keep you there. Is it really so important you get to vote for county commissioner in next month’s primary?
Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there. Let’s work to get you back there. But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples so that the women after you might once again be allowed to act like women.
The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.
In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers. We have given her the keys to the house, the office and the ivory tower, and like a child she has wrecked them all, daring discipline. Her guiding hand has abandoned her. Game is one of those guiding hands, and plays a part in returning balance to the force.
As for putting women on a pedestal… well, they were never meant to be there. It was a mistake putting them there in the first place. It has led us down the road to where we are today, much like the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust.
In response to my request for information about the Pill and how it influences female mate choice, Chase Amante writes:
Hey brother,
Just browsing your blog and saw this. I’ve done some research on this before; have a very recent blog post up on it now, referencing a trio of studies on attraction and the pill (including one just published by the Royal Society on the 12th).
So now we have our answer. Basically, what all these studies boil down to is the following: Women on the Pill are put in an artificial state of non-ovulation, which influences their mate choice selection criteria so that they prefer soft, herbly beta provider males throughout their entire monthly cycle and into perpetuity. In other words, women are being brainwashed by the Pill.
The studies are filled with data that support the obvious conclusions we can draw from the central thesis.
– When women in LTRs or marriages go off the pill they will suddenly find their beta boyfriends, whom they met while under the influence of the Pill, very unattractive, for reasons which they cannot articulate except in the loosest female terms like “we grew apart”, or “I just don’t feel it anymore”, or “he stopped being attentive to me”. Surprise divorcerape follows. Corollary: Men whose GFs or wives go off the Pill need to be EXTRA WARY of possible infidelity.
– Women who don’t take the Pill will be more receptive to same night lays with high value men (that is, men who display “social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness”) during the ovulatory week of their cycle. Game will help you identify these women and quickly lead them to sex.
– Committed women on the Pill will be less likely to cheat on their boyfriends.
– Committed women not on the Pill will be more likely to cheat during their fertility windows.
– Women not on the Pill will go out more to social venues when they are ovulating, driven by a mysterious vajlust to meet men.
– Women not on the Pill will flirt more with men during ovulation. Boyfriends of these women will jealously mate guard until the ovulatory threat has passed.
– Women on the Pill will be less receptive to cocky/asshole alpha game, if they are in committed relationships. But they may be more receptive to beta provider vulnerability game.
– Women in relationships with betas or lower value men will be more dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill. Women in relationships with alphas or higher status men will be less likely to be dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill.
– Average looking women not on the Pill will get a chance to experience the thrill of a jealous boyfriend when they are ovulating. Hot women will be with alphas who never get jealous. Ugly women will continue to be ignored.
– Women on the Pill will be more (sexually) appreciative of a beta’s resource investment. Women not on the Pill will be turned off by betas attempting to buy their love.
– A woman on the Pill will likely have longer relationships with the men she dates. This is probably because she will wind up dating betas who like to cuddle and look at baby pictures with her. A woman not on the Pill will have shorter relationships because she will date alpha cads who can’t be tied down for very long.
– Perhaps most interestingly, and a corollary to the above, a woman on the Pill when she met her partner, who then goes off the Pill, will be MORE likely to initiate a separation/divorce should one happen, even when the chance of a separation is lower for her than it is for a woman who met her partner while not on the Pill. What this means for men is that women on the Pill who then go off it while in an LTR won’t agitate for a break-up; instead, they’ll cuckold the poor beta bastards, resorting to dumping them only when they can’t take their supplication anymore. Women NOT on the Pill will simply choose to leave the relationship to hop aboard the cock carousel for another spin. So in one sense, at least, women who don’t take the Pill are more moral than women on the Pill, as the former would choose to end an asexual relationship or marriage over keeping it alive on a resuscitator and cuckolding on the sly.
So what does all this mean for men? How will it change the application of game?
– If you’re a niceguy beta with zero game, your best shot at sex is finding a girl on the Pill during the nonfertile phase of her monthly cycle who is single and owns at least two cats and two fat friends who constantly remind her by their presence how awful it is to be alone.
– The worst prospect for a niceguy beta is an ovulating hot chick not on the Pill who is just out of a relationship with man who became too beta for her. You may as well tuck your junk between your legs, because that is how seriously she will entertain your courtship attempt.
– As C. Amante mentioned in his post, hot ovulating chicks who are natural (sans Pill) will make pilgrimages to clubs, bars and Las Vegas to meet new men as if they were sex Meccas, and they will do so with or without a cluck of hens in tow. A hot chick alone in a bar on a weeknight is virtually guaranteed to be ovulating and hungry for cock. You want to target these spots for increased odds of quick, easy sex.
– It is impossible to efficiently sort out natural girls from Pill girls during the daytime, so day gamers will have to judge which girls are ovulating and horny according to other criteria. Subconsciously recognized odors may help. So will watching her body language for signs that betray unobstructed ovulation, such as hair twirling, leg crossing and uncrossing, heel dangling, and self-caressing.
– As Amante also noted, a chick who is really flirting with you during the day time is a virtual lock to be ovulating and off the Pill.
– If you think a girl is not on the Pill and is ovulating, you want to physically escalate sooner rather than later. Such a girl will become bored with a man who doesn’t make an early move on her.
– A girl on the Pill will be a breeze to talk with if you are a game-less beta, because she won’t bother with any of that messy flirting, teasing or shit testing that so vexes betas. Her non-ovulatory state ensures that she will be a pleasant chat partner who likes talking about puppies and food, and who thinks penises are icky.
– A girl who is not on the Pill and is ovulating will want sex fast, and she will want it hot, so she will shit test you hard in hopes of quickly uncovering whether you are an alpha worth fucking or a beta worth rejecting. If you talk about puppies with her, she will laugh in your face.
Maxim #20: The meaner a girl is with you, the likelier she wants to fuck you.
Corollary to maxim #20: The nicer a girl is with you, the likelier she thinks you’d make a great eunuch friend.
Things are really going to get interesting once there’s an oral contraceptive for men. Or is that, too, part of the masterplan to emasculate the Western male?
Readers have lately been requesting information on how to handle AMOGs (“Alpha Male Other Guy”, or “Alpha Male of the Group”, as it is known in the acronymic community). They want to know how to effectively neutralize direct male competition. A worthy subject, because everywhere else in the animal kingdom, males square off to win the rights to glorious pussy access.
But humans are more sophisticated than animals. Human males rarely compete *directly* for women, although we certainly do compete indirectly, from the barroom to the boardroom. Game mostly focuses on indirect male competition — i.e., wooing women with your superior seduction skills and bypassing any direct mano-a-mano confrontation — but there will be those times when you’ll have a high noon showdown with a very aggressive, brazen male interloper itching to horn in on your action.
The reason I don’t write much about AMOGs is a simple one — the SWPL-fied regions of the country (and this includes almost all big blue cities outside of the ghettoes) are not breeding grounds for confrontational men, especially outside of the office. While there are plenty of alphas rolling up with their Silicon Valley posse and think tank crew, these aren’t the kinds of men who relish an opportunity to get in your face and show off in front of a girl. So unless your stomping grounds are roadhouses situated off muddy roads in the deep south, you can go months at a time hitting on girls without having to deal with an AMOG in the traditional sense of the word.
Bouncers have situational confidence/value. They’re low on society’s status pole but king of the hill in the club. Does a girl’s brain realize “I’m in a shit-hole bar?” No lol Her brain just sees “other men supplicate to him, other girls want to fuck him, and his frame dominates everyone else’s”, so she’s attracted. These are the same traits game teaches you to demonstrate.
If you think she has to talk to the bouncer to be attracted, or that she likes the quarterback because of his sports skill or muscles, or that when a celebrity walks into the club all the girls snub every other guy because the celebrity is rich or a good actor or handsome, you’re still looking at surface-level shit and you don’t understand how the bouncer, quarterback and celebrity are demonstrating attractive traits or how their jobs/fame influence their display of those traits.
PUAs have already broken down how to directly compete with, tool, and take girls from these guys. We call it AMOG tactics:
The Chateau’s version of game is very toned down and socially friendly, which is ultimately a healthier outlook than seeing other guys as competition, but understanding the above two oldschool PUA posts allows you to take girls from the metaphorical quarterback.
But most guys don’t have a strong enough frame or enough balls to successfully use this stuff, which is good because most of them would get their asses kicked trying it lol.
The posts Yareally linked to may be old school, but they’re still as relevant as ever. It’s my opinion that Tyler Durden (the guy behind RSD Nation) wrote the definitive guides to handling AMOGs and destroying boyfriends. There are a lot of gems in those posts, and I suggest you read them over. For example:
The easy way to handle any alpha is to be polite to him, but act disinterested by his rap/accomplishments using tonality/body language (without coming off as patronizing/sarcastic) while simultaneously being charming to others around you. This will drop his perceived value and cause him to qualify himself to try and raise it back up. He can’t fight you or do shit like that, and he can’t move to insults, because you’ve been polite and in doing so he would be making himself look VERY BAD. The only tactic vs this is to walk away. If you reward him just enough to encourage further qualifying but not enough to make him feel validated again he will fall into line as beta in relation to you. […]
AMOG: How do you guys know eachother?
PUA: Her? I fucked her.
(Girl will go “aaaaaaaaah… hahahahah, I did NOT!!! But she’ll hit you and be giggling and start crawling all over you…). […]
AMOG: (showing signs that he wants to fight)
PUA: hahah, dude, are you like trying to pick a fight with me? hahahha.. ok ok hold up hold up.. wait a sec, we’ll do even better.. first… we’ll have an armwrestling competition.. then second.. we’ll do one armed pushups.. and last….. POSE-DOWN!!
(then you start flexing and go “ladies?”, and they start saying how you’re so strong, and the AMOG looks like a tool.. you’re tooling him, by making him seem like he’s trying too hard to impress the girls by showing them superiority). […]
AMOG: blah blah..
PUA: Dude, are you pissed that you’re rolling with all guys? […]
Once you get the guy to qualify himself to you in any way (like he tries to make friends), rather than being nice, IMMEDIATELY cut him out of the circle. Just cut him out. You’ll notice trying to SHUT YOUR GAME DOWN by bombarding you with logical questions. They’ll start pummeling you with logical stuff, so that you have to answer him the girls fall out of state. For me I found the solution was just to say “hey man, don’t get all scientific on me.. we’re here to have fun..” and then immediately start gaming the girls again. btw, if I’m out with any of my GFs at a club, and another guy hits on them, I use the same tactics on AMOGS to stop them.
These are pretty hardcore tactics, and they WILL work very well on the average man; i.e. your typical urban hipster, frat boy or poseur. But you would be tempting a physical or psychological beatdown if you tried these anti-AMOG tactics on one of the three following archetypes of men:
The big bruiser with the hair trigger impulse control. This guy will take anything you say as an insult, and he has the size and sloping forehead to put a serious hurt on.
The drunk. Alcohol releases all inhibitions, including those locked up in the fists. At least with the drunk you can easily avoid his wild swings.
The egotistic player-savant. The guy who is smart enough to know when he is being played, and smarter still to turn the tables on you. Beware this guy, for although he is a rare breed, he can tool you in front of a girl.
Those three exceptions aside, it behooves you to learn some common anti-AMOG tactics. If you chase skirt in any major city on a semi-regular basis, you will encounter an AMOG situation at least a few times per year.
I had a buddy who would dismiss AMOGs with this go-to line:
“Oh, I didn’t know she was your girlfriend. You two make a good match.”
It was particularly effective on guys who would enter his conversation uninvited and compliment the girl he was talking to. Never underestimate the sheer numbers of men who think that complimenting girls is a surefire way to get the girls interested. The beauty of my buddy’s line is that the girl would almost always disqualify herself to the interloper. “Oh, he’s not my boyfriend!” Then the AMOG would be left standing there having to come up with a witty, ego-salvaging rejoinder. Luckily, most men — most people — are mediocre intellects and don’t have the mental acuity to think fast on their feet.
Whoever says flaking doesn’t work on women has no experience giving it a go. Do you think the modern woman has so much self respect that she will balk to give a flaky man a second chance? Ha. It is to laugh. She will not only entertain the thought, she’ll eagerly anticipate the excitement such a feckless man will infuse into her dull, rudderless life.
A girl of about 27.5 years of age and glittering auburn hair tromped off a SWPL bus, (which route taken drives carefully within the confines of SWPLland, like some zoo safari jeep rumbling on paved roads behind electrified fence holding at bay a lone, bored cheetah licking his nuts a half mile away. The thrill!) I happened to be walking by with a load of bruised vegetables from the corner farmer’s market when the usual urge, normally stifled by officehive feigned sterility, propelled me to approach and gauge her buying temperature.
“Hi.”
She snaps her head in my direction. “Hi.”
Good start so far.
“How was your ride on the Disney bus?”
Quizzically: “What?”
“The Disney bus. That’s what everyone calls it. Feels like a fun Disney ride through a magical neighborhood.”
“Wow, that’s the weirdest thing anyone’s said to me today.”
“Just today?”
“Ok, maybe this year.”
“That’s more like it.”
A pause to digest. “For your information, the ride was not so great. There was a couple arguing next to me.”
Score! Any girl who would run with this patently absurd discussion topic was the kind of girl straitjacketed by little moral or sexual restraint. “Oh, that’s too bad. Next time ask for your money back.”
We talked for ten more minutes, as it serendipitously turned out she lived two neighborhoods over. (Demarcations subject to revision without prior notice.) In a land grab of impudent proportions, I cut us short with a quick rejoinder to give me her number so we could talk another time. She keeled backward a bit, regrouped, then smiled as she read them off to me. I do not test girls’ numbers by calling or texting them on the spot; it betrays insecurity.
I didn’t call her until four months later (no need to explain the banal reasoning for my flakiness). Unsurprisingly, I got her voicemail. I spoke:
“Hi. It’s [Name redacted, or IgnatiusJReilly if you prefer]. It’s been a while since we met. Call me.”
No benefit would accrue to me by leaving a lengthy, or even not so lengthy, explanation why I waited four months to contact her. What kind of man offers excuses to a woman he has yet to sexiate? Excuses which are really camouflaged apologies — verbal blurts, as we all know, which are a defining characteristic of the beta mindset. A long-winded backstory would only present to her a platter-full of extraneous, lurid detail for her to quickly dismiss my terse entreaty as she basks in the glow of having gained hand.
A wise man feeds the hamster just enough pellet to make it hungry for more. Too little, and it remains unperturbed from its hamster ennui. Too much, and it lumbers away to sleep off a sated stupor.
As expected, she did not return my call right away. No, she waited twenty minutes.
“Wow, I’m surprised you called. You’re lucky I remember you, or I wouldn’t have called back. You were that guy from that day at [X], who said something ridiculous about [Y]?”
“Yes. And of course, I wouldn’t have called if I didn’t remember that either.”
“Four months is a long time to wait. Is that part of your game plan?”
Despite your inclination to do the opposite, it’s best to fess up the truth when you are conceding an obvious transgression on your part. The trick is to present just a hint of the truth; enough to quell her BS radar, but not so much to give her ammo to legalistically argue points of contention until her pussy has dried up like a slug under a mineralstorm of Morton’s.
“For personal reasons I won’t get into, I couldn’t call you at the time. I’ll leave it at that.”
“Guess I’ll have to accept that. So now you want to see me.”
“I hope it’s not too obvious.”
“It is. But I’ll take you up on it.”
Over drinks later, she said it was bold — even ballsy — of me to call her after four months of blowing her off. I said it required no balls at all, only desire. I told her she seemed the type to throw away the rulebook. She was pleased with this assessment.
There is a maxim somewhere in the archives. Seduction is the art of co-opting a woman’s tools of the trade, and using them against her, for a woman loves nothing more than a man who “gets it”, and what man gets it more than a man who understands that women need exactly what they dish out? Men would be well-advised to turn the tables on their quarry and flake on them every once in a while. It’s the stuff of legendary romance.
I got mad at my girlfriend of a year earlier today for something she did, and after I was cooled off I talked to her about it and everything’s good now, but at one point she said “this is why you’re scary sometimes…these rash reactions and the leaping to conclusions…” and I’m not sure if that’s to be taken as a good thing or a bad thing? Could you give your opinion on this?
A good thing. Unpredictability and volatility are male attractiveness traits, in measured doses. (Too much of either and she’ll begin to devalue you as someone who has no state control.) Losing your cool — as long as you do it infrequently — will keep a woman on her toes and her hamster at full throttle, which translates to long-lasting desire for your attention and love. And rumblestick.
Over at Mangan’s blog in a post about how the U.S. State Department (a den of transnationalist vipers) is betraying oppressed (yes, genuinely oppressed) Christians living in the Middle East, the commenter WLW writes (and links to Peter Frost, another good blog):
[Re:] how we are stabbing not only our own people but people of our own faith.
Peter Frost on his blog “Evo and Proud” writes this:
“South Korea has entered what may be called ‘late’ or ‘mature’ capitalism. The business community has emancipated itself from the nation state and is now willing to enrich itself at the expense of its host society, notably by outsourcing employment to lower-wage countries and by “insourcing” lower-wage labor. To this end, its political spokesmen borrow leftwing discourse to create an artificial Left-Right consensus.”
What he records about what is happening in South Korea, is what is happening in this country. Nationalism is evil. They have the Koreans abolishing themselves? What a wicked title but true. And he points out that it was America that did it. America is the seat of World Revolution. It is now the seat of Marxism.
South Korea needs to sever their “special relationship” with the U.S., before it’s too late. Unfortunately, it seems the mind virus — the most powerful mind virus ever created in human history — that has so wholly consumed the body politic of America is rapidly metastasizing in South Korea.
America, exporting:
obesity
feminism
multicult
ethnomasochism
wage gutting insourcing/outsourcing
parasitic oligarchism and
self-abnegating national suicide
since circa 1965 (date of the passage of the law which was the beginning of the end of the historic United States).
If karma exists (and no, it doesn’t, but let’s play hypothetical), then there will soon come a day when these traitorous puppetmasters will hang, twisting on the gallows under a bright midday sun. And the men will spit on their bodies, and the women will rejoice, and the children will squeal with glee.
Now, personally, I feel a great sadness having to declare the nation of my birth a messenger of evil. The last thing I want to do is give foreign enemies of the U.S. an excuse to kill fellow Americans who have no connection with the filthy in-house elites driving policy and discourse. If a real revolution is to come, I don’t want it to come at the hands of Hin Jao or Ibn Muhammed. I want it to come from within, by the people who are truly aggrieved and have a stake in seeing a return to greatness of the country they once loved, and the country which deserved their love.
If you thought WWII was the last time American mettle was tested, well, you might be surprised what the next decade or two offers. A wind rustles through the falling leaves, whispers of omen…
If you follow the conventional wisdom closely, (or just leave your apartment once in a while), you’ll come under the impression that a good sense of style is more beneficial to women than it is to men. Women are the ones who lacquer themselves in lotions potions liners and rouges, spend exhorbitant amounts of green on fashionable attire, and coif their hair to perfection down to the last flyaway strand.
Men, in contrast, are the ones who throw on a pair of jeans and an ill-fitting button-down.
Now, the CW makes some sense, at least in the big picture. Women, being the sex whose primary attractiveness derives from their looks, would want to focus on maximizing the display of those looks. Men, whose primary attractiveness derives from status and attitude, don’t get as much SMV bang for the buck from ken dolling themselves up. But I’m here to tell you that for some men, particularly ugly men, style can play a huge role in boosting their perceived attractiveness.
Maxim #77: The role of style in diverting attention from male ugliness is severely underplayed by most ugly men.
I was at a party and noticed down at the other end of a long hall a small congregation of girls swirling around one man. I stepped closer to check out the scene, and if any of the girls were ones I knew. I didn’t know anyone, but I did notice the guy, and he was one ugly-ass mofo. Bug eyes, big ears, blotchy skin, beak nose, and horrible teeth, some of which were snaggletooths jutting out at angles like broken glass.
Now I’ve been around long enough that the sight of an ugly man holding court with one or more hot babes is nothing surprising to me. I know a man’s can-bang attitude can compensate for poor facial structure genes. But I also know it can only compensate so much. There has to be something else that distracts girls from the ugliness. And in his case, it was his flashy style.
He was decked out in what looked like Italian shoes, a fitted metallic gray suit, red socks, vest, blood red tie with some sort of iridescent pattern, and big tortoise shell designer sunglasses. He sported a very minor fauxhawk, and was well-tanned. He was a skinny white guy, average height. He smiled like he knew he was the go-to guy at that party. I could have sworn he had a gold cap on one of his miserable teeth.
No homo here, but I have to tell you, the combined sight of the girls swarming around him like he was a maypole (manpole?) plus his impeccable dress played with my powers of observation. The ugliness that assaulted me at first began to dissipate, and suddenly I was looking at a guy who left me with little doubt he knew how to seduce women. Now imagine that perception-warping power quadrupled when used against women, who are after all the sex with the more easily manipulable acumen.
Great style — the kind of style that says you are confident enough to outshine other men and that you have exquisite taste for the finer things in life — is ugliness-reducing. If you are an ugly man, you WILL become less ugly to women if you dress like you’re a leading man. Coupled with game and a totally un-self-conscious attitude, girls will not even notice they are falling for a troll.
NOTE: Does not work for women. Ugly women can maybe… MAYBE… add a quarter point to their rank with good style, but unfortunately for them men are so piercingly attuned to women’s facial features and body that not even the best tailored fashion can alter the trajectory of their target designators. Ugly men have options that ugly women do not.
If you are an average-looking man, the right style will help, but you won’t see as much of a benefit from it as the ugly man. There are diminishing returns to dressing to excess. If you are a good-looking man, you are almost better off *downscaling* your style, so that you don’t intimidate girls into thinking you’re unattainable. Very good-looking men with game who also dress with flash should focus on 9s and 10s, because those will be the only types of girls who won’t give such a man undue grief for making them feel like he is out of their league.
I later learned the ugly guy worked for Prada, and he was wearing one of their suits. I also learned something which only one other person knew at that party: he was bi. Those girls smitten by his style and charm were in for disappointment, unless they like to share.
It’s not often we get a photo with two super alphas — representing different male factions — squaring off in friendly admiration rather than combative distrust. But here we have it with Putin and the leader of a Russian motorcycle gang whose name is too long for me to bother spelling out, swapping war stories.
“Comrade leader, I incapacitated five Chechyans last week utilizing nothing but a half-full bottle of wuuudka and a babushka’s hairpin. You would have loved to been there.”
“Alexander, my old friend, we have shared many a ride across the Siberian tundra, have we not? Then you know there is no need for me to tell you that the great shame is the wuuudka you spilled on behalf of the Motherland. Could you not have done the same with some of that Polska shit?”
“Haha, da da, good point, my dear friend!”
“Maybe next time I show you what makes great bear of Russian brother — a polonium tipped umbrella and a 20 year old gymnast!”
Strictly speaking, and in broad terms, Putin is undoubtedly the bigger alpha here. Putin ostensibly runs a country; Alexander the Biker runs a bike gang.
But alpha is often context dependent. Should he so choose, Putin has the fame and power and mystique to clean up with the ladies pretty much wherever he goes, but there are probably some biker bars where Alex is king of the hill and the girls will encircle him as aggressively or moreso than they will Putin. In the cramped quarters of a bar or street gathering, away from the media and cameras, these two men will be judged on more immediate male attractiveness criteria than their ability to pull off power moves in the Politburo.
With that in mind, this moment in time caught in a photo offers a rare glimpse of two fairly equal alphas in a pose-off. Putin, the shorter one, has a clear physical disadvantage in size that deflates some of his alpha allure. But Putin’s solid alpha body language — his ramrod posture, devious grin and straightforward gaze that avoids a betafying crane of the neck upward at the taller Alex — neutralizes his lesser stature.
Meanwhile, Alex’s posture and BL are just as alpha, and his face, too, is etched with a self-satisfied smirk. Interestingly, if you look closely at his eyes, it seems as if Alex is attempting a higher status coup over Putin — or is he offering a small gesture of respect to him? — by refraining from bending his head downward to look at Putin. Only his eyes travel downward to the direction of Putin’s eyes. The impression Alex gives is one of haughtiness.
The other bikers are focused on their leader, although that could just be because he is the one talking at the moment the picture was snapped. It could also be that these men, having been through more crazy shit with Alex, know the depth of his alphaness. Putin’s alphaness they know only from digesting media reports, and from his automatic status as a world leader.
It is that intimacy with Alex’s character that earns their deeper loyalty and admiration. There’s a lesson there.
Comment Of The Week: The Natural State Of Woman Is Submission
Oct 20th, 2011 by CH
King A and I have disagreed before, but I have to tip my hat to a well-executed comment.
The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.
In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers. We have given her the keys to the house, the office and the ivory tower, and like a child she has wrecked them all, daring discipline. Her guiding hand has abandoned her. Game is one of those guiding hands, and plays a part in returning balance to the force.
As for putting women on a pedestal… well, they were never meant to be there. It was a mistake putting them there in the first place. It has led us down the road to where we are today, much like the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off