Feed on
Posts
Comments

Reader Ramon asks:

So I’m chatting with my current stripper of the quarter and I ask her, “why do chicks dig jerks?”. Her take: “they grow out of it”.

Background On this girl – 28, divorcee, cock carousel until 24, fun but with interesting phobias. I’d call her a 6-7.

What’s your take on her comment?

I actually do think that girls “grow out” of digging jerks. Unfortunately for the niceguys of the world, that growth doesn’t occur until the late 20s for the typical woman, and later than that for very pretty (highly estrogenic) or very delusional (also highly estrogenic) women. So while women may grow out of digging jerks, men don’t “grow into” digging cougars. The niceguy, as always, is left with second-best (or one-thousandth worst).

Also, it’s important to define what we mean by “grow out of”. The definition is fluid depending on the options available to the woman who is claiming to be over jerks. A 28 year old, rode hard and tossed away wet, neurotic divorcée stripper — a chick who has likely opened her wormhole to a fleet of interstellar assholes — is going to have been so psychologically drill-pressed by her history of disappointments trying to nail down jerks for long term commitment that she may very well begin to gravitate to the sensitive ministrations of relatively doting men.

But then it won’t take more than a few weeks with a niceguy to remind her how much she viscerally desires the wrong kind of man.

So, what I’m getting at is this: a woman who has “grown out of” dating jerks is a woman who is too old, too crazy or grown too fat to appeal to the unruly jerks who truly excite her. Her limited options dictate her claimed preferences. Which is another way of saying she’s settling for niceguys. That’s an explanation of the thinking process of your aging stripper. Now, this is not the whole story; I suspect that age-related decreasing estrogen levels, coupled with a subconscious reappraisal of SMV caused by failure to either capture the attention of sexy jerks or to keep them around for very long, WILL objectively alter a woman’s dating preferences to some degree. Women do have two competing mating algorithms clashing for dominance within their psyches: the desire for fun sexytime and the desire for comforting providertime. When she is young and at her desirable prime, her sexytime id holds more of her cortical territory. When she is older and beginning to fade into sexual obsolescence, her providertime id battles back and claims victories, hoisting its banner of sour grapes.

tp;dc (too precise, didn’t comprehend): The hottest chicks dig the biggest jerks. Less attractive chicks dig jerks too, but can’t get them, so they pretend they don’t like them. Older women will be easier for niceguys to pick up. A minority of cute, young chicks genuinely adore niceguys, but there are too few of them to go around to satisfy the innumerable niceguy demand for them.

PS Beware the stripper who says she’s over assholes. You will be tempted to throw her a compliment or a cuddle, thinking she has illuminated the way to her poosay. You will be rebuffed. Your working assumption should be that any chick who claims to be over jerks is not over them at all, and has probably dated more jerks than girls who admit they like jerks.

***

Anon pleads (probably too late):

Prom season is approaching. Any related game advice for the younger crowd? I know high school isn’t representative of the “real” dating/hookup scene, but there are similarities. Any tips?

Smile mischievously, and pin the corsage directly over her boob. Not kidding. Worked for me. If corsages are out, have two flutes and a bottle of champagne waiting for her in your car (or the limo, if the driver is down with underage drinking). Dance with another girl, and make sure your date sees it. Smoke outside, come back in reeking of it. Keep a flask of bourbon and a condom in your jacket pocket, and be sure the outline of the condom shows through. And, as always, remember that this is the time of life when girls’ asses will never be tighter; take post-coital pictures for a masturbation photo album when you are elderly! God, I love good, old-fashioned American traditions.

***

Rhett wonders:

I was wondering if a girl says she loves you way too early , would this be considered beta bait? I haven’t spent much time with this chick, i banged her the first night i met her and twice since discounting sex iv only spent about ten hours with her.

Not necessarily. Read her face when she says it. You should be able to tell the difference between a sincere expulsion of loving tribute to your alphaness and an insincere shit test. However, do note that EVEN IF her “I love you” is sincere, it could still serve as a subconscious shit test for her, in that if you answer “I love you too” right back, you could unknowingly give her way too much hand so soon in your new relationship. Since you’ve only spent ten hours with her, I suggest a cocky reply is in order. Make a finger gun and wink at her while saying “Right back atcha.” Gauge her response. Does she giggle? You nailed it. Does she seem on the verge of tears? Wrap her up in a hug and tell her you love spending time with her, and you can’t wait to see where it leads.

***

B. writes:

Have you seen the new HBO show ‘Girls’?  Writtten by a young woman who is also the star, the series starts with a young woman’s life bottoming out:

1. Parents cut off her income
2. Loses her internship at a publishing house
3. Boyfriend loves her too much

I’m serious.  To describe the nightmare situation for a young woman today, she shows a girl whose boyfriend never stops being nice to her.  And her friend even makes fun of her for it.

Thanks for making my life better,
B.

No, I haven’t seen it, but I may have to, since it’s been the talk of the town lately, and besides, there have been claims that the chick writer(s?) has cribbed a lot of ideas off of Le Chateau Heartiste. Hence, the supposed realism of the show. I’ll save an analysis for a future post.

***

Customer Service writes about a game tactic which involves pretending to be your ex-girlfriend to make prospects jealous and, hence, horny for your deviant love:

I moved back in with my parents and I started lying about my living situation because too many vaginas sealed up.

I started telling girls that I lived with my ex girlfriend and couldn’t move out because she was still in love with me.  Ergo sex at the girls’ places.  Bingo. Proceed.

However, I need a way to keep my leads warm so I tried this exchange on two cold girls [where I] pretend my ex gf finds my phone.

… out of the blue, after regular texting game …

me:  ”hey, how do we know each other”

… silence or no response …

me: 2 mins later, “where did we meet”

… by this point the girls start to clue in that it’s not me on the other end and they’ll reply with something short ….

me:  ”this is Tim’s ex girlfriend, i want you to know that I am still in love with him, stay away from him, he doesn’t love you”

… the one girl I used this line on responded by saying OK…

me: (to both girls) “did you sleep with him?”

… I didn’t bang these girls, one responded with a smiley face and the other cold lead said, “he’s your ex now, so relax”,  NOT ONE GIRL DENIED SEX.

What do you think of this game tactic?  I haven’t decided how to follow up with this scenario.

Wow. All’s I gotta say is, this is gold, Jerry! That is, it’s gold for finding out how manipulative and devious girls can be when their jealousy is incited by a bit of the ol’ ultrapreselection. I assume, since you didn’t mention it, that you hadn’t slept with these two girls you were texting while impersonating your ex-gf; therefore, the fact that neither one denied make-believe sex with you says two things about the female id:

1. they love the idea of being the “other woman”, and

2. they are DTF.

Chicks come born with a preinstalled harem mentality which can be triggered the moment they realize they are in the company of a man who keeps the company of multiple women. The typical woman is psychologically equipped to transition into concubinage with an alpha male if her buttons are pushed in the right order. Your “impersonating ex-gf” game tactic appears to have done that. It’s a total mindfuck, and for that, I award you:

Le Chateau Heartiste VIP (Very Important Player) entry to the Scarlet Room. (Bring cat-o’-nine tails.)

But how about your game tactic as a means of getting closer to sex with your prey? It’s gets a little trickier here, because you’ll have to be careful about slipping up and tipping your hand. But you’ve got valuable inside info on your two prospects; the image of having sex with you has been self-planted in their heads, and you come to them a proven commodity: the man whose ex-gf is so crazy jealous in love with him she stalks his phone for interlopers. To put it bluntly, you come pre-DHVed.

I suggest the next time you want to meet either of them, ignore what went down when you were stealing the identity of your fake ex-gf and proceed as if everything is normal. Wait for them to bring it up. When they do, say something like “Yeah, my ex is nuts. Thinks we’re still gonna get back together. Gotta put a lock on my phone.”

PS I wouldn’t say you can’t move out because your ex is still in love with you. That doesn’t sound plausible. Explain instead that you and your ex split the rent and it makes sense financially for you to live together for a little while longer, until you’re sure she has her life in order and can afford her own place. This fake explanation has the added benefit of hitting that “protector of loved ones” button that all girls possess.

The Silent Virginity

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps 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.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Traditionalists, anti-gamers and the usual assortment of sour grapers who want to believe men who are successful at bedding women aren’t winners in the social status or self-indulgence sweepstakes, often resort to the argument that having kids makes a man alpha. This “It’s not the number of bangs, it’s the creating of womb issues” theory is very comforting to a certain mindset.

Helpful reminder: before the age of aquarius contraception, a beta male achieving one bang in his lifetime had a decent shot at impregnating a woman. There aren’t many men, or women, who would argue that managing to have sex once in his life qualifies a man for alphatude, regardless whether the act results in a baby or a blank.

The alpha male of yore — before effective condoms and the pill were widely available — may have been distinguishable by his large brood, but today that signal no longer applies. Today’s alpha male can, and does, easily thwart his genetic programming to make lots of minialphas through the use of such anti-fertilization show-stoppers.

Therefore, the best signal now for how alpha a man is remains what was outlined in this post. The definition contained therein may offend your socratic sensibilities, but great truths often distill as tautologies.

Interestingly, men of the lower classes, because they are prone to forego or misuse contraceptives as befits their constricted time horizons, can more readily be categorized as beta or alpha based on how many children they sire with roaming single moms. In the upper classes, the opposite reality endures; the alpha male is often the one who puts off having children so that he may enjoy his youth chasing skirt, contraceptively freed from the consequences that would otherwise gestate should he direct his amore toward dumber, poorer women who don’t possess the conscientiousness or common sense to swallow a pill on a regular basis.

This is, really, the great advantage that boffing smart chicks offers to men: worry-free sex. Sparkling conversation is just icing on the cake.

How do you respond to a girl you have had sex with who now claims to have a boyfriend and wants to break it off with you? Readers happily offered many excellent suggestions to the fumbled game demonstrated in this post. A few stand-outs follow.

From reader Khall Drogo:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”

Me: “Guilty as charged”

Her: “And we’re not fucking again blablabla”

Me: “ok”

She’d be dripping wet and would beg for my cock until the day I die.

This is my favorite. I love the “guilty as charged” line. Why? Because it simultaneously passes her shit test (by not appearing apologetic or spiteful), and refrains from forcing any renewed sexual rapport that will re-trigger her anti-slut defense. “ok” is a good answer, but I prefer “right”, as it leaves more pellets in the hamster cage for the little critter to feast upon.

***

Flahute:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
Me: “You were irresistible”

Similar to the above, this instills the girl with positive feelings without ingratiation that could risk pushing her away. The trick to giving girls good feelings is to not make it seem like you’re just saying them to get back into their panties. Limiting yourself to three-word replies is a great way to restrict your range of potentially self-incriminating betatude.

***

Holden Caulfield channeling GBFM:

Her: “Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
GBFM: “that’s cuz u likes my lotsa cockas lolzlolzlozlolzzzzz”
Her: “Giggle”.

Haters: Don’t try this at home – The GBFM is a legend.

Maybe you’d have to be GBFM to pull this off, but it’s still better than anything a beta might spit out. Let’s look at what’s right about this reply:

Cocky? Check
Assumes the sale? Check.
Aloof and indifferent syntax? Check. The pussy is… bernankified.

***

Days of Broken Arrows:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times”
(10 hours later) Me: “My dog* died.”

* Substitute a family member, if necessary.

I call this “sympathy game,” and have found it’s the quickest way to de-bitch a potentially raging bitch. It switches off their bitch defenses and makes them Florence Nightingale. You can also substitute illness, as needed, just make it a good one, not the flu.

Sympathy game is a variant of vulnerability game. It’s incredibly effective, but easily abused. Too much sympathy game can kill a tingle dead. Beta males are known for leaning too heavily on sympathy game, and alpha males too little. Like Baby Bear’s porridge, you gotta get it just right.

Sympathy game delivers its biggest payload when the girl doesn’t expect it. Imagine you are a girl who has just (presumably) destroyed a man’s hopes with the IHAB excuse. You expect he will reply with some cloying request to meet again, or some spiteful put-down. Instead, he lobs the “my dog died” grenade right twixt your labia. That’s the kind of unpredictability that girls swoon for in men. It’s important to remember that the nurture instinct, while anhedonic in nature, is almost as strong in women as the hypergamy instinct. You should leverage both to your advantage.

***

chi-town explains the direction the text exchange *should* have taken, rather than the one it did:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Its informative about her need to be defensive but costly information to retrieve. The wrong conversation all together. The attitude should have been :

Her: “we are not doing that again text”
Him: “What?”
Her: “Fucking”
Him: “Oh that. What about it? ”
Her: “you and I are not fucking”.
Him: “Just that or is this a good bye?”
Her: “What do you think is going to happen?”
Him: “Upon reflection, I am certain I was not thinking ahead”

etc….

Sex is not on your mind and neither was she entirely. When it was, it wan’t about the sex….Women are along for the ride…Women are the ones who bring up sex while you change the subject. You don’t care about the outcome etc..

Her:

* why wasn’t the sex on his mind?
* wait, maybe he sees something deeper because he implies something else? But still..

Women have a subconscious mental algorithm which sole purpose is to assume that men are always angling for sex with them. Now, this algorithm serves them well because, in fact, most men *are* angling for sex with them, if the women are attractive. You can use this knee-jerk, sex-supposition female reflex against them to incredible effect: the man who does not follow the script playing out in a woman’s head is automatically more intriguing than 99% of the men she encounters in her life. This means not biting down on her “beta bait” by, for instance, asking for answers why more fucking isn’t forthcoming, or insinuating more fucking is on the table. Doing the opposite — acting like the sex wasn’t foremost on your mind, and she’s making a mountain out of a molehill — will ensure the conversation remains centered around your frame, and steadily pushing against her barricaded ego.

“The defensive couch is where pussy tingles are born. Squirt!”

Incoming! The studies providing evidence for the effectiveness of one game technique after another keep rolling in like a tsunami, washing away throbby-veined feminists and mewling omega virgins in their wake. Glorious times for face-rubbing! The latest in this lie-smashing cavalcade is scientific proof for the game concept of kino escalation.

Why Light Touching Can Double Your Chances of Getting a Date

During a conversation, a light touch can impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection, leading to more successful social interactions and even better teamwork. […]

Over the course of that day, three young and handsome French men [participating in a study] randomly approached 240 young women they spotted walking alone and propositioned each and every one of them. To each, they would utter exactly the same words: “Hello. My name’s Antoine. I just want to say that I think you’re really pretty. I have to go to work this afternoon but I wonder if you would give me your phone number. I’ll phone you later and we can have a drink together someplace.” If the woman refused, they’d say, “Too bad. It’s not my day. Have a nice afternoon.” And then they’d look for another young woman to approach. If the woman handed over her number, they’d tell her the proposition was all in the name of science, at which time, according to the scientists, most of the women laughed. The key to the experiment was this: with half the women they propositioned, the young men added a light one-second touch to the woman’s forearm. The other half received no touch.

The researchers were interested in whether the men would be more successful when they touched the women than when they didn’t. How important is touch as a social cue? Over the course of the day, the young men collected three dozen phone numbers. When they didn’t touch the women, they had a success rate of 10 percent; when they touched them, their success rate was 20 percent. That light one-second touch doubled their popularity. Why were the touched women twice as likely to agree to a date? Were they thinking, This Antoine is a good toucher—it’d probably be fun to knock down a bottle of Bordeaux with him some night at Bar de l’Océan? Probably not. But on the unconscious level, touch seems to impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection.

Raisin-sacked anti-gamers who have never left their basement hovels to try out a single game technique on a non-latex woman like to whine “Where’s the double-blind, controlled, blah blah blah scientific evidence for all these game theories?” Well, here it is, numbskulls. And there are plenty more in the archives of Le Chateau. Read them and feel your testicles descend.

Now, a number close rate increase from 10% to 20% is not huge. But keep in mind that the kino they tested was only a single, light, one-second touch on the forearm. Game theory espouses *escalating* kino, which involves increasing the frequency, duration and boldness (i.e. touching more erogenous zones on a woman) of kino throughout the seduction, gradually drawing the woman deeper into your sticky web of wonder.

Furthermore, game is a compendium of ploys, a symphony of stratagems. Kino is but one small part of the whole seduction process. If each game technique — say, negs, or DHV spikes, or body language — increases your close rate by 10%, then the sum of all game, deftly tallied, will surely increase your close rate by more than 10%.

Even a mere increase from 10% to 20% number close rate is worthy of bringing the Light of Game into your life. I think most betas would be thrilled to double their chances of scoring a random girl’s phone number.

Note the following line from the article. It’s very telling:

In fact, in studies in which the touched person was later debriefed about the experience, typically less than ­one-third of the subjects were even aware that they had been touched.

The master seducer’s game is so tight, that women will not even know they are being gamed. That’s the goal you should shoot for. If women are consciously aware of your game, you’re doing something wrong. Game isn’t a hammer to the head; it’s an electrified sensation that meanders just underneath conscious awareness, burrowing deep into the dark nooks of a woman’s hindbrain.

I don’t post these studies for the benefit of accomplished seducers who read here. They already know this stuff works, because they’re out there using it on women. They don’t need studies to tell them what they can see and hear and feel with their own senses. No, I post them primarily to get under the skin of haters. I can practically see them steam with impotent rage as they read the very thing they have claimed to want to read. I post them secondarily to illuminate fence-sitters who are open-minded to the enterprise of bedding women. But really, my first love is sadistically twisting the shiv in the loser mafia. Squeal like a pig, Gollum!

Power has an effect on the brain almost identical to cocaine.

More than a hundred years after noted historian Baron John Acton coined the phrase ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ scientists claim the saying is biologically true.

The feeling of power has been found to have a similar effect on the brain to cocaine by increasing the levels of testosterone and its by-product 3-androstanediol in both men and women.

This in turn leads to raised levels of dopamine, the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens, which can be very addictive.

We all know women are unable to control their primal attraction for powerful men. A cursory examination of the world around you will aptly demonstrate. It makes sense, if you are a man who loves the company of women, to work to become powerful OR to adopt the mannerisms of the powerful, which can have the same influence on dopamine release as possessing objectively measurable power. The behavior of powerful alpha male baboons has some game lessons for humans.

Power has almost identical effects to cocaine and too much of it can produce too much dopamine leading to more negative effects such as arrogance and impatience.

The claims by Dr Ian Robertson may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph today, he said: ’Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly.

‘This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power.

Women don’t love *power* per se. What they feel instead is a visceral attraction for the ATTITUDE that powerful men exhibit. Attitude and personality are more important to a man’s success with women than his looks, bankroll or material possessions. You can have the latter but still fail with women if you act like a self-doubting beta. But if you have the former you can succeed with women without having the latter. Of course, having all of it is better than having either, but if you had to choose, choose jerkitude.

Arrogance, impatience, outlandishness, entitlement, aggression, sexual voracity and overconfidence — these are the male personality traits that win women over. If you don’t want to toil for 30 years to gain the social or economic power that will imbue you with these sexy characteristics, you can take a short cut and plug into the god machine directly by altering your personality to one that is sexier to women.

“Just be yourself!” is really girl code for “Just be your beta self so I can quickly screen you out!”

Fuck that. Just be your better self. Then sit back and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of screening girls in and out of your rotation.

A reader writes:

How does the elite justify its consistent fucking over of the beta males today?

Glib answer: Because they can.

Glib Lite answer: They’re power tripping.

Have you ever tried to bring a coke fiend down from his exhilarating high? It’s impossible. Nothing will bring those fuckers down until the drug wears off. And coke is so addictive that you are searching for the next bump within seconds after the first one has stopped working. Same with the elite. Their dopamine rush is going full blast. They’ve been snorting lines off whores’ asses since 1965. Best we can hope for now is that they OD and their hearts just give out.

Game is like the cocaine version of power. Same feelings, quicker rush, less work. I know guys who run their best game while doing coke. Cocaine Game. Combine any two of the three and you are unstoppable. Game + societally high status = ladykiller. Game + cocaine = ladyslayer. Societally high status + cocaine = golddigger glue. Game + societally high status + cocaine = Plunderer of Vaginas.

This is all in the Bible somewhere, isn’t it?

In the spirit of deconstructing (heh) feminist and manboob psychology, here’s my stab at doing the same for the underlying psychologies of liberals and conservatives. I’m working under the premise that political ideology is at least partly genetic in origin, which evidence is beginning to suggest may be the case. Whether it’s one gene or thousands of genes that contribute is irrelevant to the larger picture.

Liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as, for instance, a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives are commonsensical guardians, and that manifests as a wariness of untested outsiders and a respect for the tried and true. Neither ideology, if restrained from its worst excesses, is necessarily “bad”; logically, if liberalism or conservatism were really bad and fitness-reducing, they would have been selected out of the human gene pool by now. No, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of low level threats and approximate mental, emotional and psychological equality between men, (such as might be seen in an isolated, small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism (i.e., “foragerism”) is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism (i.e., “farmerism”) is the more “fit” ideology to hold.

Now… did you all notice my reframe in the above definitions? See how easy it really is to throw a snarky leftist back on his heels, in the defensive crouch? Open-minded? How about naive. Adventurous? Careless. Tolerant? Undiscerning. You can do the same with women by reframing their objections. That is a core concept of game.

A reader adds:

Liberals do indeed score a lot higher on the personality trait Openness to Experience. However, conservatives score significantly higher on the personality trait Conscientiousness. Which means conservatives tend to fuck things, including their own lives, up a lot less.

Anyway, if you haven’t you should read up on the work of Jonathan Haidt.  Very worthwhile.

I’m in a generous mood, so I’ll say this about that: a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia. A wholly liberal society, thrilling as it is, will probably go extinct from being overrun by barbarians, or will implode from a lack of attention to the time-tested details that scaffold civilization. Maybe both ideologies are found in humans because a mix of the two maximizes group fitness. /generosity

Liberalism is ascendent right now (spare me the hand waving about Republican electoral wins, who have been forced leftward for generations just to compete), and we can see from that the whole project beginning to unravel under their Open-minded and Novelty Seeking tutelage. Their power has grown beyond their control, and if it can’t be stopped at the voting booth, the boardroom, or the classroom, it WILL be stopped when the less enlightened hordes bring their pandemonium, whether quickly by arms or slowly by alms, crashing down upon the gated communities.

And, man, when that happens, will that be the most satisfying “I told you so” I ever contemptuously dripped like sun-warmed ice cream outta my mouth.

Framing Flirting

Overcoming Bias has a post up about hypocritical flattery. RH might feel a little embarrassed getting a link from this universally beloved and highly influential blog, but his post is very interesting for what it implies about successful methods of flirting that men can use to pick up women. (See what I did there?)

Humans usually have a social norm against flattery. Yes we flatter each other, and often, but we usually flatter indirectly. So just how big of a fig leaf does it take to hide flattery? Consider item #1 from a post on “the seven techniques for ingratiation and influence that are most effective in moving up the corporate ladder without looking like a kiss-ass”:

Frame flattery as likely to make the boss uncomfortable. …one manager whom we interviewed noted that he commonly prefaces flattering remarks with such phrases as “I don’t want to embarrass you but. . . ,” or “I know you won’t want me to say this but. . . ,” or “You’re going to hate me for saying this but.” (more)

Note that this approach makes the praise seem no less glowing, and it offers little reason for observers to less suspect the praise was designed to gain favor. So how could flattery without this addition be unacceptable, yet flattery without this addition be acceptable?

This example suggests that the key social norm is that you should not encourage others to flatter you. While there is a weak norm against praising others to gain their favor, the stronger norm is against your explicitly rewarding others for praising you. So by directly claiming that someone is not encouraging you to praise them, you declare them innocent of violating the key social norm against encouraging flattery from others.

The key to effectively flattering your boss (or any higher status person who could be useful to you) is to clear him of suspicions that he may be encouraging the flattery. Similarly, the key to effectively flirting with a girl is to clear her of suspicions that she may be encouraging your come-on.

Girls know better, of course, that when they pretty up their faces and flaunt their bodies they are encouraging come-ons from men, and hopefully the right kinds of men. But that doesn’t mean they want to be reminded of that grimy little fact about their natures.

Girls are very sensitive to being thought easy or slutty (and with good psychosexual reason). Cloying flirtations that are tacitly sexual run the risk of triggering a girl’s anti-slut defense. There is also the quirk of the female hindbrain that she values, admires and, yes, feels more physical attraction for the man who does not make himself too readily available. Chicks dig chasing aloof alphas. A man’s conspicuously flirtatious proposition is more likely to lower his value than raise it.

Thus, the best flirting is a type of anti-flirting; flirting without directly signaling that you are flirting. Or without signaling that sex is on your mind.

A few examples:

“I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, but you look like someone who’d be cool to talk to.”

“I don’t consider myself in the market, but if I was, I’d say you’re kind of cute.”

“Why is it every time I just want to say something nice to a girl, like that your eyes are… unique, she thinks I want to have sex with her?”

“I hope you don’t think this is a come-on, but you have a certain grace about you.”

“Don’t be too embarrassed that I’m flirting with you right now. They’re just words.”

The idea behind these examples is that you disarm a woman’s inclination to pigeonhole you as a man angling for her sex. Once the outer labia force field is disarmed, a woman’s inner labia defenses are easily pried, and it’s a small matter to later “change your mind” about her.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of flattery flirting. There are better ways to flirt that don’t require the egregious use of compliments or greasy innuendo. But if you do like to go direct with your flirting, then framing your flattery like the examples above will improve the reactions you get from women. Especially very beautiful women who are used to “suffering” direct and insinuated solicitations from men.

The reader from yesterday’s post who wanted to know how to parry a girl he banged who dumped the “I have a boyfriend” excuse on him, has responded with a follow-up.

I replied before I read any of the advice on here. For those who are interested, here is the resulting conversation. I went, uh, a little too raunchy and was too eager. I thought she’d be into it after how she was in bed. Good lessons for the future when it might matter.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt
(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times
(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4
(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

[in the future, I should just stop here and say nothing / right / huh?. But I felt like I was doing good so I ran for it and fumbled the ball]

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation
(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Unfortunately, the reader did not have the benefit of the advice found on this blog when he attempted to re-game this cheating slut (by her own words). If he had, I’m convinced the girl would have acted more positively, and another bang would have been in the cards. Now, I doubt it will ever happen with her.

First, let me remind the reader that it takes at least three vigorous bangs to oxytocinally bond the typical urban slut to his cock and only his cock. And the sluttier the girl, the more bangs will be required before she is entranced by your testicular essence. Only 18 year old virgins and desperate fatties bond sufficiently on the first bang, unless you are a super alpha, in which case the merest eddy of your hot breath on any woman’s neck will be enough to spoil her for all other men.

It seems obvious now that this girl was deep into anti-slut defensive territory, and fearful of her reputation. When the reader assumed her further acquiescent defilement he only pushed her more into her turtle shell. Let’s break this exchange down.

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”
(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt

I think she bit through his reply to the juicy, sour grapes center. And of course, she savored it:

(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad
(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times

Interestingly, she responded with TWO texts in a row, the second of which was her qualifying her desirability to him, a glaring admission of insecurity. This is not the norm from girls who really want nothing more to do with a guy. Typically, one shutdown text, and then radio silence is what you’ll get from girls who feel nothing but indifference. The reader still had a shot at this point.

(60 mins later)Me: youre waxing before 4

She was looking for some signs of emotional connection from him to ease her feelings of sluttiness, but instead she got more x-rated porn. Consequently:

(3 mins)Her: What do you think is going to happen?
(0 mins)Her: Nvm you and I are not fucking

This is what a woman’s dashed hopes look like in SMS. This is a woman’s disappointment in text. She left the door open for him, but he did not properly read her signals, and the result was her pussy lips snapping shut for real. I’m fairly sure now that this girl was down for more bangs if he had played his game right.

(60 mins)Me: i think i’d bend you over
(14 mins)Her: I’m done with this conversation

He’s digging his hole deeper.

(30 mins)Me: is that what you really want?
(19 mins) Her: Yea, its not happening
(20 mins)Me: cool

Aaaaaand…… fin.

I would like to point something out. Notice how her text replies started somewhat lengthy and ended up short and succinct. This is the inevitable progression of a girl who is losing interest. Use this as a general rule of thumb: the longer a girl’s texts, emails or conversations carry on, the more her interest in you is growing. Womanly bloviating = good. Cunty curtness = bad.

The evidence suggests that this girl was, contrary to her IHAB excuse, down to fuck again. Waltzing through the first fuck door is the hardest. It should get easier once you are seducing DTFA girls. She entered the text convo leaving windows open for the reader to sneak in like a ninja. He fumbled at the sill and fell into a holly bush. She left the convo with the windows locked tight.

Suggestions have already been made how this reader should have replied to the IHAB excuse, but that was before we all had the actual follow-up to examine. Now that the reader has gifted us with the real life follow-up, it’s time for the floor to have a go at it. Is your interpretation of this text massacre different than mine? How would you have replied to this girl? Winners with the tightest game announced later in the week.

…and the lords of lies held illimitable dominion over all.

The 21st century Western elite are liars. All of them. This is a judgment I render with absolute certainty. The precise delineation between those who intentionally lie and those who are gulled into false beliefs is arguable, but the result is the same: a thick fog of lies that suffocates intellectual thought and demonizes lovers of truth. Occasionally, a barbed tentacle lashes out from the mist, like the enshrouded alien creatures in the Stephen King movie, and decapitates the brave soul who ventures forth unarmored, in pursuit of discovery. Those watching from behind the barricades have their cowed submission reinforced.

A regime of lies has a life cycle, and it rests on the simple psychological calculus that a strident offense will always overrun a complacent defense. The cementing of the regime proceeds in stages.

Stage 1: A cadre of liars — outsiders and axe-grinders, often — feel kinship with their lies. They believe their own lies. This is how it must start. Much like the master seducer must believe his own irresistibility to win over whole townships of women.

Stage 2: Truth is subverted when trivial nuance is stretched into universal truth.

Stage 3: The motives and character of those who cling bitterly to accepted truths are denigrated.

Stage 4: Common sense is slandered as reflexive primitiveness.

Stage 5: Appeals to emotion, targeted first at women and the morally child-like, then at weaker men, muscle out accessible logic and undefined intuition.

Stage 6: Sophistry with an intellectual veneer is marshaled in service of the foundational lies. Fools are duped.

Stage 7: The ring of lies expands slowly but inexorably outward, encompassing ever-greater whoppers, until a mass suspension of disbelief is achieved.

Stage 8: Fused with the circulatory system of lies great and small, the masses embrace self-delusion and assist in the accommodation of their own viral infection. The alternative would be ego death, which is a pain too great for most.

Stage 9: The liars, having recruited similarly aggrieved acolytes into loose alliances and having sufficiently numbed the populace, ascend to stations where banishment of heretics is possible, and begin the process of purifying their ranks.

Stage 10: Fear marches in lockstep with status whoring, the twin powerhouse Guns of Navarone that keep enemies of the narrative safely penned.

Final stage: Complacency returns to enfeeble the once-aggressors. Weak points erupt along multiple fault lines in the fortress walls. The mentally enslaved shield their eyes from shards of sunlight, and grow restless with questions and illumination. Apathy becomes shame becomes resentment becomes white hot hatred. Vengeance, the second most powerful human emotion after love, strains at its shackles, threatening a blitzkrieg that would consume the regime in hellfire.

Like Smaug, The Lords of Lies rule this epoch smugly atop their pile of riches, wielding unfathomable power. But their plunder is ill-gotten, and easily recaptured. Every tyranny has its soft underbelly, its gem-less fleshy port to the charred beating heart within. Find it, and drive your spear to the hilt. They deserve nothing less.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion