Feed on
Posts
Comments

Science Validates Another Game Concept

May 6th, 2011 by

A study says that men and women say ‘I love you’ for different reasons.

Women, being from Venus, have a reputation for being the first to spring “I love you” in romantic relationships.

But men actually are more likely to utter those three loaded little words first, and men admit thinking about confessing love six weeks earlier than their female partners, according to an article to be published in the June issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

That doesn’t mean men are bigger saps. Taking an “evolutionary-economics” perspective, the article concludes that gender differences in the timing and function of saying “I love you” are related to whether a couple has had sex.

“Men may be more impulsive in the way they express love, but what love means to men and what love means to women may be very different,” said co-author Josh Ackerman, assistant professor of marketing at MIT Sloan School of Management.

In a series of surveys, researchers found that two-thirds of couples report that the man was first in confessing love. Men also reported being significantly happier than women to hear “I love you” one month into the relationship if they had not yet had sex, while women felt happier than men when they heard “I love you” after the onset of sex in the relationship.

The researchers theorized that a pre-sex love confession may signal interest in advancing the relationship to include sexual activity – which is what men want, evolutionarily speaking, so as not to lose an opportunity to spread their genes. They want to “buy low,” as the article put it. Women, who have more to lose if they get pregnant, prefer a post-sex confession as a signal of long-term commitment. They prefer to “sell high.”

Furthering the point, the men happiest to get a pre-sex love confession were those interested in a short-term fling, while both men and women seeking a long-term relationship were happier hearing “I love you” post-sex.

Despite birth control and egalitarian values in modern society, these primitive patterns persist in the subconscious, Ackerman said.

The researchers hope exposing the biological underpinnings of these behaviors can help people understand the hidden meanings and motivations behind professions of love, which are ripe for misinterpretation.

So what is this study telling us as it relates to game? You have to read between the lines a little, but basically it’s saying that expressions of love are intimately tied up with men’s and women’s sexual market value. Women who wait to say ‘I love you’ until after the man has said it are subcommunicating their higher value. (A high value woman juggles interest from many men, and can make a man wait for sex much longer than he is comfortable until she is satisfied his commitment to her is genuine.) In contrast, men who rush to say ‘I love you’ subcommunicate their urgency to extract sex, and thus their lower value. (A high value man is never urgent for sex because he is getting all the sex he needs from other women in his informal harem.)

This study dovetails with the very first, and probably most important, Poon Commandment:

I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first

Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.

As a man, the ideal time to say ‘I love you’ (assuming you mean it) is after your lover has confessed it to you, preferably a few weeks to months after her initial confession. Doing so will create the perception in her mind that you are higher value than her, and as anyone who doesn’t live under a rock or reside in the halls of academia knows by now women most desire men who are higher status than themselves.

Chicks dig power, men dig beauty.

One of the fundamental principles upon which many game concepts rest is the ease with which women can be seduced if you flip the script and make a concerted effort to refrain from playing the conventional courtship role of your gender. For men, this means *not* being the sex-hungry, needy beta who blurts out ‘I love you’ after two dates in hopes it will accelerate the progress to sex. By waiting to say ‘I love you’ only until after she has said it, you demonstrate high value. Her hamster registers this dynamic as: “He must have a lot of options with women if he’s taking so long to find out for himself if he loves me. I LOVE men with options!”

This is what her hamster squeaks when the man says he loves her after two weeks: “Aw how sweet… yuck.”

I can tell you from experience that the girls who were most into me — “into me” is measured as a function of the girl’s emotional distress when I waited more than two hours to return her phone call — were the ones who said they loved me first, and who had to wait a few months more before I replied in kind.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Love | Comments Off

Testosterone And Motivation

May 4th, 2011 by

The point of yesterday’s post wasn’t to argue whether muscles help with picking up girls (they do, but not as much as most guys think), but to remind everyone that testosterone directly affects how motivated you feel to approach girls.

Low T = low motivation to meet women, and thus fewer opportunities for sex with a variety of prey.

High T = high motivation to meet women, and thus more approaches, which leads to improved game, and finally better sex with hotter chicks.

Have you ever had an injury that put you out of the gym — or away from any exercise — for months? Men who have experienced this, speak up now. Your testosterone drops. You feel lethargic. You don’t mind staying in when you should go out to talk to girls. Then when your fortunes return, you feel a surge of manly power that carries you back into the field.

I thought the message was pretty clear, but commenters love to sidetrack themselves.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Rules of Manhood, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

Whipped

May 4th, 2011 by

*Update below*

I couldn’t help overhearing every snippet of their conversation as the night wore on.

Him: I’m gonna have a glass of wine.

Her: No, you aren’t. You’ve had enough.

Him: *heavy sigh* *chin into chest*

***

Him: Can you look up the weather for tomorrow?

Her: No, I’m doing something right now, can’t you see?

***

Him: We’re going to Thailand next month.

Her: No, *I’m* going to Thailand. He’s just meeting me there later.

***

Him: I’ve gotta check the travel itinerary.

Her: In a minute. Just relax, I’ll get to it.

***

Disgusted, I turned to my companion.

“How long have they been together?”

“Five years!”

Five years of putting up with that impudence from a woman. I’d sooner join a monastery.

The dude in question was an average looking guy with a decent personality. Just an everyday normal beta male absorbing body blows of insolence from his girlfriend in a public setting, his hound dog face betraying a weary resignation.

Question directed to the studio audience. What particular fact which I left out of this post explains why this relationship has lasted five years?

Hint: A hot chick would quickly dump a beta of that magnitude.

UPDATE

Frank Xavier was the first commenter to get the right answer:

She’s put on lots of weight since they started going out.

She wasn’t exactly svelte when he met her, but she blimped out as the relationship progressed. The residual attraction he used to feel for her has created inertia, keeping him glued in place. He is a beta filled with the fear of the unknown, so it is difficult for him to leave relationships. But what about her? Most women would either cheat on or dump a sniveling lackey in short order… unless the woman was fat.

Fat women subconsciously know — though they will never admit it — that they have fewer options in the dating market than they would have if they were thin. She hates having to boss him around, and harbors contempt for him, but she knows she will be single a long time if she were to leave him. The sexual market is merciless in its judgment.

Result: He puts up with her fatness, and she puts up with his betaness.

If options = instability, then lack of options = stability.

And you’d be surprised just how many relationships, marriages included, fall into this soul-sucking pattern. When you see an ugly couple together, physically and/or psychologically ugly, don’t try to soften the revulsion you feel by chanting to yourself that they’re happy. They’re not. They’ve just given up, and in their surrender there is a numbing relief that accompanies the resignation.

Comfortably numb, is how I’d describe the typical beta male/unattractive female relationship.

Those commenters who said that some women like weak betas they can dominate are wrong. You can see it in the faces of both man and woman when the dominance/submission polarity is reversed: he will look beaten down, like a tired old hound dog, and she will look tense and irritable, like a woman cursed with perpetual PMS.

What women like and what women settle for are rarely, for the majority of women, the same thing. Women don’t want to be the dominant ones in relationships, but against their deepest desires they will assume the role if the man refuses to step up. As commenter Rollo wrote:

In any relationship, by order of degrees, there will always be a dominant and a submissive partner. For what ever reason (probably a belief in egalitarian gender equality) he chose the submissive partner role and abdicated to the authority of a dominant partner who didn’t have his best interests as her concern. She grows to resent him and now his life is over.

If you find yourself in a slave-like state, more likely than not a woman’s realized you’ve failed a great many of her past shit tests and will be reluctant to give up any semblance of power she thinks she has at this point. When a woman comes to recognize that her BF/husband can’t or wont provide her with the security she needs for herself and her children she will assume the role of the primary herself. Power abhors a vacuum and she will readily step into the role of the traditional security provider if a man is unwilling or incapable of doing so.

Confirmation of Rollo’s analysis is that the guy in question is a flaming left winger. He probably is knee-deep in the mental sludge of gender equalism.

Commenters who thought they might be married made good guesses. Many otherwise strong and proud men are reduced to groveling errand boys by the omnipresent threat of divorce theft.

Many commenters seemed to think the answer lay in the couple’s ethnicity or religion. I’m not sure why that would make a difference when we are examining fundamental and universal principles of sex relations, but since it titillates so many of you I’ll reveal that it was gentile-jewish couple. Which was which I’ll leave to you to figure out.

UPDATE 2

Some readers want to know how to respond to an insolent girlfriend dominating you in a public setting. The answer is… wait for it…

amused mastery!

For instance:

You: I’m gonna have a glass of wine.

Her: No, you aren’t. You’ve had enough.

You: [hold the glass with pinky out and drink it slowly in front of her. make slurping noises while doing this] Aaaaaahhhh!

That’s how you handle that. Don’t get angry or spiteful or nasty. That will backfire on you when there are people around. Plus, when a girlfriend has been dominating you for years, it’s going to take a lot more careful strategic thinking to break her in. You don’t tame a wild horse by yelling at it after it’s thrown you off, and the same goes for taming women.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta | Comments Off

The Testosterone Guide

May 3rd, 2011 by

Testosterone is the life blood of game. If you have low testosterone, your game will wither like parched fescue under a blazing August sun. High testosterone, and your game shines like a supernova. The formula is simple:

More testosterone = more approaches.

And more approaches means improved game and sex with more desirable women.

Your goal as a man, then, is to keep your testosterone level as naturally high as possible.* This post will show you some ways to do that.

I. Lift heavy weights using compound exercises like the squat, deadlift, and bench press

The science is out and the verdict is in: Steady and consistent weightlifting raises baseline testosterone.

One study of nine elite weight lifter over a two year period showed significant increases in testosterone, leutenizing hormone and the ratio of testosterone to SHBG. [2]  The authors concluded that “the present results suggest that prolonged intensive strength training in elite athletes may influence the pituitary and possibly hypothalamic levels, leading to increased serum levels of testosterone”.

There’s a short term boost in T right after a lifting session, and there’s a long term boost in basal T after years of lifting. You should incorporate weightlifting into your life like you do brushing your teeth. Don’t lift every day, though. Overtraining can lower your testosterone.

II. Eat cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts

These vegetables have a phytochemical called indole-3-carbinol which is known to lower estrogen and increase testosterone in men. (It appears to not increase testosterone in women.)

III. Whey protein

You should be drinking a glass of this every day with whole milk.

IV. Don’t sit so much

Sitting for long periods of time may lower your testosterone (and does a bunch of other bad stuff to your body). Elevate your work station and begin standing while working through the day. While I couldn’t find a study that directly references the effect that sitting has on testosterone, the studies about sitting that are available conclude that there are so many deleterious effects on the body from prolonged sitting that it is natural to presume healthy testosterone levels would be negatively affected as well.

V. Go to bed at a reasonable hour

Testosterone plummets when you get fewer than 6 hours of sleep, or you go to sleep late at night, disrupting your circadian rhythm. Get 6-8 hours of sleep each night. Fewer than six hours or more than eight hours is associated with increased mortality. You may want to take melatonin pills to help you fall asleep.

VI. Cut back on the beer

Multiple studies have found that binge drinking cuts T levels. Beer is particularly bad on your testosterone levels.

8-Prenylnaringenin (8-PN) in hops is such a potent phytoestrogen that it has been reproted to reduce menopausal hot flashes! [1] This study points out that some women who pick hops by hand have menstrual disturbances (from the estrogens) and used it to reduce the skin temperative in rats, i.e. anti-hot-flash.  Furthermore, other researchers expressed concern about the unrestricted concern about the unrestricted use of hops in herbal preparations for women because of 8-PN’s “very high estrogen activity”. [2]

This might explain the famed beer gut on heavy beer drinkers; all that estrogen production is working to deposit fat in their middles, [Ahnold voice] like zee girly vimmin mit child!

VII. Eat nuts

Selenium from nuts is good for testosterone production.

VIII. Take fish oil and vitamin D supplements

Omega 3s and vitamin D raise testosterone levels.

IX. Take an NAC supplement (N-acetyl-cysteine)

Up goes your T!, in combo with selenium, at least.

X. Stop running marathons

Extreme endurance exercise lowers testosterone:

The results of the retrospective comparative studies examining isolated, single blood samples suggest lower testosterone levels in chronically endurance-trained males. The subjects in these studies have typically been distance runners who had been involved with the physical training aspects of their sport for 1 to 15 years. In these studies, testosterone levels of the endurance-trained men were found to be 60-85% of the levels of matched, untrained men.

Now you know why SWPL marathon runners look like pasty nancyboys.

***

Testosterone is the enemy of dullness. It is the enemy of marriage and kids. It is the enemy of government, of society, of behaving like a good little poodlecog in the machine. It is the enemy of stasis and soul death.

Testosterone is the fuel of vitality. Of life. When you act to keep it high, you are giving a giant middle finger to all those who would like you to sit down, shut up and follow orders like an obedient bootlicker. There’s a reason betas look so soft — it’s no coincidence that they are likely suffering from low testosterone.

*Steroids is the best way to artificially raise your testosterone, but that subject requires a separate post to explore fully. I’m not an anti-drug crusader. I have no problem with men who want to use steroids to get jacked, or to reverse the decline in testosterone with age. In fact, I believe certain classes of steroids — like deca-durabolin — should be made legal for non-medical consumption. Steroids are like any other drug: smart people can use them without abusing them, to great personal benefit. Stupid people tend to consume drugs immoderately, giving the whole enterprise a bad name.

Your brain on high testosterone:

Your brain on low testosterone:

Any questions?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Rules of Manhood, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

A Nation Of Einsteins

May 2nd, 2011 by

A libertarian open-borders economist asserts:

Smart people may excel in all activities, but as the law of comparative advantage reveals (see here and here) everyone’s better off if people with high IQs outsource their less challenging tasks to others.  In a society of Einsteins, Einsteins take out the garbage, scrub floors, and wash dishes.

A nation of Einsteins would invent labor-saving devices for these mind-numbing tasks. And a nation of Einsteins wouldn’t make as much of a mess to begin with. How conveniently these libertarian economists forget the concept of externalities.

Stupid people do a lot to me. Have you paid taxes lately?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Goodbye America, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

To Thine Own Shrine Be True

May 2nd, 2011 by

Why was Osama Bin Laden’s body buried at sea before third parties could confirm its authenticity through DNA tests? Based on the experience of the last ten twenty thirty years, do you autonomically believe anything the government tells you these days? It would have been a simple matter to hold onto the body for the media to confirm it was Bin Laden.

A commenter over at Steve Sailer’s says it best:

I find it weird that they [claimed] Bin Laden ‘wasn’t a real Muslim’, but then rush to bury him within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic law.

File under: PC makes you stoopid. Of course, Osama was a real Muslim. He was following the Koran to the letter when he declared his jihad against the infidels. But PC has infected the minds of everyone in the West, top to bottom.

The circumstances over this capture open a bigger can of worms than they close. It’s looking like Pakistan’s intelligence agency and military knew Osama was alive and were actively hiding him from US forces while their government fleeced the American taxpayer to the tune of billions. Shifty Muslims, feminism, PC, diversity, open borders, bailouts, subprime mortgages… maybe Americans should come pre-equipped with the word SUCKER tattooed on their foreheads?

I hope the Navy SEALs pissed on Bin Laden’s corpse before they tossed him overboard.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Current Events, Goodbye America, Pretty Lies | Comments Off

Engagement Ring Quandary

May 2nd, 2011 by

A reader asks:

I know you don’t advocate marriage or spending money on an engagement ring.  However, if I decide to buy a ring, what is the better practice –  A) Buy the ring on my own, with no consulting the girl, her friends or her family.  B) Bring her along in advance to try on rings.  C) Ask her what she likes.  D) Ask her friends or family what she likes.
 
I’m thinking option A.  Asking for her input appears needy, and it could be a collossal shit test capitulation to dutifully produce a ring to her exact specifications.  Bringing her along seems even worse because it will put more expensive rings in her field of vision, and who knows what subtle emasculating digs the salesperson will get in.  Talking with her friends and family would almost surely get back to her, so in the end it may be just as bad as asking her directly.
 
There is some dignity in the attitude of “we’re getting engaged on my terms, I’m picking the ring, and she doesn’t need to tell me what she wants or know what I spend.”  It shows confidence, and if she likes the ring she will appreciate it more than if I just follow her instructions.  If she doesn’t like it she won’t tell me (at least as long as she stays attracted to me) and the mindset of her loins will still be better than if I had asked her what she wants.  Maybe she’ll bitch to her friends that she’s the one to wear the ring and she should have had input, but the effect on her hindbrain is what I care about.  Involving her makes me seem afraid that she won’t love me if I pick wrong.  Doing it on my own seems like the way of a confident man.  Am I correct in this thinking?

Answer: E. Don’t do it!

Ok, seriously, if you insist on going this route, the answer is…

E. Give her a (cost-free) heirloom ring.

Or if that isn’t an option…

Answer: A. Buy it on your own with no input from her or anyone else.

The reasons you gave are all valid. There is also something gauche and dispiriting about taking the recipient of your gift along for the gift-buying process. It is indeed emasculating… or, to pull a term from the feminist cuntionary, *objectifying*… to offer yourself up as a wide open wallet from which she may withdraw liberally to spend on herself. This is the foundation upon which you want to rest a modern, companionate marriage of love? Fuk dat noize.

No woman with any character at all is going to tell you the ring sucks (which, in womanese, translates as, “this ring is too small and inexpensive”). If she frowns and complains when you give her the ring…

RUN. And don’t look back.

You’ve just gotten all the evidence you need that she is not worth your monogamous commitment.

You shouldn’t be spending much on rings anyhow. After all, it is men, as the naturally promiscuous and freedom-loving sex, who give up more when they get married. By rights, the tradition should be that women propose to men with overpriced rocks as barter, as they are the ones winning out by getting betrothed.

You might also think about fooling her with a cubic zirconia. Why? One, CZ is hard to detect without equipment. The average normal chick won’t know the difference. Two, if she does go out of her way to disprove its authenticity, you will know it’s true love if she decides to stay with you.

The collapse of the diamond market can’t come soon enough. American men have had a bill of goods foisted on them by the diamond cartels and Cosmo.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Inner Beauty, Marriage Is For Chumps, Rules of Manhood | Comments Off

Why The Royal Marriage Is Doomed

May 1st, 2011 by

Hand holding involves a dominant and a submissive hand position. The dominant hand is the one over the top of the other hand, with the palm facing backward.

Women prefer the submissive postures in relationships. It is their subconscious preference, as it is men’s preference to assume the role of the dominant partner. Try it sometime with your girlfriend. Hold her hand in the reverse, where your palm faces forward like in the pic above. You will find your unconscious revolting against the act, a silent scream crying out from the cellar of your mind, begging for relief from the jarring oscillation to its rhythmic pulse.

William has subverted this natural predilection and holds Kate’s hand in the submissive posture. I predict she will cheat on him before her 38th birthday.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God | Comments Off

Genetics And IQ, Parents Matter

May 1st, 2011 by

There is an excellent new paper by Dr. Alex Fornito, et.al., and here is the punchline:

How well our brain functions is largely based on our family’s genetic makeup, according to a University of Melbourne led study.

The study published in the international publication The Journal of Neuroscience provides the first evidence of a genetic effect on how ‘cost-efficient’ our brain network wiring is, shedding light on some of the brain’s make up.

Lead author Dr. Alex Fornito from the Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre at the University of Melbourne said the findings have important implications for understanding why some people are better able to perform certain tasks than others and the genetic basis of mental illnesses and some neurological diseases.

“The brain tries to maximize its bang-for-buck by striking a balance between making more connections to promote efficient communication and minimising the “cost” or amount of wiring required to make these connections. Our findings indicate that this balance, called ‘cost-efficiency’, has a strong genetic basis.”

“Ultimately, this research may help us uncover which specific genes are important in explaining differences in cognitive abilities, risk for mental illness and neurological diseases such as schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease, leading to new gene-based therapies for these disorders.”

“We found that people differed greatly in terms of how cost-efficient the functioning of their brain networks were, and that over half of these differences could be explained by genes,” said Dr. Fornito.

Across the entire brain, more than half (60%) of the differences between people could be explained by genes. Some of the strongest effects were observed for regions of the prefrontal cortex which play a vital role in planning, strategic thinking, decision-making and memory.

Here is one popular summary of the results.  I interpret the finding to suggest some mix of a) genetics is more important than we think (when we think we are measuring the importance of IQ), and b) there are some smart people, smarter than we often think they are, and they pick and choose their mates.

For the pointer I thank my clear-eyed powers of observation.

***

Maybe the Cheap Chalupas guy should read and post about these types of studies. He likes to posture as a well-read man, after all. Or would that be too emotionally painful?

Economists and liberatarians work to make economic theory fit human nature as they see it. What they fear most is that human nature will not bend to fit economic theory. And so they ignore human nature. Or whitewash it. Or demonize it. And they look sillier and sillier by the year…

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Why GSS Sex Questions Should Be Taken With A Flat Of Salt

Apr 29th, 2011 by

The problem with sex surveys has been the same since the first white-coated experimenter got it in his head to ask women about their sex lives –

women lie about sex.

Not only do women lie about sex, but their vaginas and brains aren’t even on the same page when it comes to what they find sexually stimulating. Their own vaginas seem to be lying to them.

A study from a few years ago examined this problem and found that women lie worse than men on sex surveys, and lie about a whole host of behaviors that they are afraid might label them a slut:

Women are more likely than men to lie about their sex lives as a study reveals they routinely claim to have slept with fewer partners than they have.

The report points to discrepancies in the results of sex surveys since the Sixties which have indicated heterosexual men exaggerate the number of their partners, with British men claiming an average of 13 over their lifetime.

Yet women in the UK claim an average of nine – leading to the unlikely conclusion that the majority of Britain’s menfolk are having sex with foreign women. Similar studies elsewhere suggest that this is statistically impossible.

Until now, scientists had thought that both sexes were lying – with men inflating the number of partners and women understating them.

But the study reveals women’s embellishments include adding years to the age they claim to have lost their virginity and lying about masturbation and use of pornography. The survey in the Journal of Sex Research quizzed 96 men and 105 women. Some were told their answers were anonymous, some were told a researcher was watching and the rest were told they were being monitored by lie detector.

“Women are so sensitive about being labelled ‘whores’ that they are very reluctant to be honest about their sexual behaviour, even in supposedly anonymous surveys,” said Terri Fisher, who headed the study at Ohio State University in the US.

Women lie to cover up their sluttiness? Who woulda thunk it!

A lot of bloggers like to use GSS (General Social Survey) data to track changes in society’s sexual behavior. Many of these bloggers have found in this data evidence that American women are becoming less slutty in the past ten or twenty years. This does not jibe with my personal experience, so I knew something was amiss. I mused that perhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

But studies like the above point out a real problem with sex survey data like that found in the GSS — women just aren’t going to tell you the truth about their sex lives under most normal circumstances, even when anonymity is guaranteed. And that may be the real reason why the GSS gurus are finding chimeras of chasteness that don’t really exist — the data are corrupt.

The only way you are going to get an accurate reading of what kind of sex lives women lead is to secretly videotape the numbers, and types, of men she bangs with her pussy or ass, blows, or pleases with an old-fashioned, because women will conveniently rationalize anything other than penis in vagina as “not really sex”.

Now that’s science I can get behind.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, The Id Monster | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »