Feed on
Posts
Comments

Beta Male Body Language Giveaway

Apr 19th, 2012 by

I was at a party and nearby two guys who seemed to have just met that night (introduced through a mutual friend, probably) were talking to each other. One was taller than the other, and dressed more stylishly. Both of them, near as I can judge these things, were about equally good-looking and the same age.

Stop.

Now, if you had framed the scene right there, and this is all the information I had to go on, (or YOU, the reader, had to go on), you/I would assume the taller, sleeker dressed man was more alpha and did better with the ladies. But this was not all the information available to me. I couldn’t hear their conversation, but I could observe their body language.

The taller man fidgeted a lot. He bounced on the balls of his feet, constantly adjusted his weight from one foot to the other, shoved his hands in and out of his pockets, moved his shoulders around, bobbed his head, craned his neck, nodded frequently, twisted his torso, tapped his toes, lifted his heels, put his fingers up to his mouth, incessantly stirred his drink and generally acted like he had an overabundance of nervous energy that needed burning off.

The other man, the shorter one, barely moved at all. He occasionally smiled and lifted his drink to his mouth, but besides those minimal motions his body remained mostly still. Earthbound. When he talked, the other guy leaned into him to listen; he himself never moved in closer to be sure he was heard, even though the venue was fairly loud.

Now I had the telltale glimpse of each man’s soul, the body language that revealed the extent of their self-possession. Snapshots of men, unlike snapshots of women, tell us little about men’s true value, for a man’s looks and height are but two components of the complete man. You need context, physical expression and interaction to sufficiently judge a man’s alphaness. And fidgeting subcommunicates one thing: betaness.

The taller man’s height and more stylish clothes were inadequate compensation for his beta fidgeting. If he appeared beta to me, you can bet that women, with their finer grained radar resolution for men’s social status and dominance, would near instantly perceive him to be the lower ranked, less attractive beta of the two men.

Get your alpha body language down, because those critical first few minutes (seconds?) you have to make an impression on a woman depend primarily on how powerfully you carry yourself, and nothing influences a woman’s perception faster or more viscerally than your radiating nonverbal vibe.

I was not at all surprised to find that at the end of the night the shorter man was surrounded by women while the taller man sipped a cocktail alone. At least the fidgeter can console himself with this study which shows that fidgeting will help keep you lean.

Posted in Beta, Game, Guy Rules | 156 Comments »

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

Apr 18th, 2012 by

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Psy Ops, Ugly Truths | 253 Comments »

Shacking Up Vs Tying The Knot

Apr 17th, 2012 by

What advantage accrues a man who decides to cohabit instead of marry? Well, for one (and it’s a BIG one), women tend to let themselves go once they’ve extracted marital vows from their men. Here’s a referenced study which shows that once a woman gets what she wants from a man, she doesn’t (subconsciously) care anymore about pleasing him. (Study title is hilariously droll: “Entry into romantic partnership is associated with obesity”.)

Several studies examining longitudinal changes in romantic relationship status report a differential sex effect of entry into marriage, with greater weight gain in women (9,10,30). Women may be differentially impacted by transitions in romantic relationship status; for example, through increased social obligations encouraging consumption of regular meals (31,32) and larger portion sizes (33), resulting in increased energy intake (30). Further, entry into cohabitation or marriage is associated with decreased physical activity (34) and a decline in desire to maintain weight for the purpose of attracting a mate (6). In contrast, obese women may be less likely to marry (35). Our longitudinal findings suggest that both men and women who enter marriage are more likely to become obese, consistent with findings from another large, racially diverse sample of young adults (36). Moreover, we found that individuals who lived with romantic partners for a longer duration had higher likelihood of incident obesity suggesting that shared household environmental factors may contribute to changes in obesity.

Cohabitation may not be good for society in the long run (we’ll see how Scandinavia turns out), but in the here and now it is very good for the individual man, and most people think in the latter terms. As a friendly reminder, a wife bloating up and disfiguring her womanly profile is as repulsive to a husband as he would be to his wife if he lost his job and confidence and skulked around the house with his chin buried in his chest, begging for morsels of sexual release.

Again, we come back to incentives, latent or blatant, and their influence on human behavior. Men have “hand” within cohabiting relationships, while women have hand within marriage. Women are on their best behavior — read: their least bitchiest and gluttonous — when they are cohabiting with men who can leave them at a moment’s notice with little cost to the men. A woman in such a precarious circumstance feels inchoate pressure to maximize her sexual appeal, both physical and temperamental.

Conversely, wives who are not kept in desirous thrall to their husbands — read: hubby became a mincing betaboy or lost his social or economic status, or the spark simply vanished from the passage of time and mundane familiarity — gradually slip into their worst behavior, which includes getting fat and ugly, as the science and conventional wisdom demonstrates. Now, women who do this in pre-marital relationships can easily be dumped; but within marriage, not so much, at least not without SEVERE cost to the disillusioned husband. Women know this, on a very deeply primitive apebrain level, even if they don’t discuss it or acknowledge it outright. Which leads to…

Maxim #204: Modern marriage is a waiver of liability that relieves wives of the responsibility to remain attractive to their husbands.

Corollary to Maxim #204: The modern marriage waiver of liability does not extend to husbands, who must remain optimally attractive to their wives so long as the marriage is intact and the cost of failing in this responsibility is excessive.

Let’s be clear about this, so you don’t get the wrong impression reading these issues in the stark, remorseless light in which I prefer to present them. Social, sexual and romantic incentives and disincentives don’t operate in a coldly calculating way — it’s not like a wife punches numbers into a mental spreadsheet or draws up wistful pros and cons lists before willfully deciding that an extra tub of Ben & Jerry’s won’t matter since her husband can’t divorce without losing a lot of money and the house and kids. The differential power structures of various relationship models aren’t grasped by the bit players in anything more than a gut feeling.

No, these still-human behavioral reactions work on the level of the id. Without really thinking about it, the existence of an incentive to behave a certain way subtly and slowly influences a person to act in accordance with their self-interest. What that self-interest is varies by context and circumstance. A single woman seeking love will avoid overeating and take a lot of yoga classes so that her tight bod will catch the eyes of, hopefully, some high value alpha males.

A married woman who has achieved her objective of locking a man into long term commitment backed by the strength of the state will feel imperceptible undertones or impulses that guide her along paths which take her away from staying sexually desirable and toward fulfilling her other hedonic needs. It doesn’t help her attraction for her husband that the threat of state sanction effectively neuters him by rendering his choice to remain married to her one of coercion rather than mutual delight.

Game is a useful ameliorative to these natural human instincts, (and I know how much asserting that gets under the skin of anti-gamers). But I’ve seen it in action; a husband who uses game (or charisma, if it helps your digestion) on his wife will mold her incentive structure so that selflessly pleasing him takes precedence over selfish solipsism. This will happen because, as I’ve said previously, up-front, near, tangible incentives trump downstream, far, less tangible disincentives. A sexy husband woos a wife better than a powerful state and natural inclination woos her away from him.

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Love, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 115 Comments »

The Pay Gap Is A Lie

Apr 17th, 2012 by

The Bitches of Beastwick are at it again, this time trotting out that gimp and repeatedly debunked — it’s been shot in the head a thousand times by now — hobbyhorse about a supposed pay gap between men and women.

Femcunts, listen up: the pay gap is a lie. Reporting on it favorably and credulously as if it wasn’t already proven a lie makes you liars. Filthy, clam-baked liars.

Once you control for hours worked, time away from career for family, and occupational choice (service sector and people person jobs that women innately prefer and FREELY CHOOSE generally pay less than male-oriented STEM and finance jobs), the pay gap DISAPPEARS.

So why, given that these facts have been out there for years, do feminists like President Obama continue sticking their fingers in their ears and lying through their teeth? Eh, you may as well ask why a warthog is ugly. It comes naturally.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Misandry, Pretty Lies, Ugly Truths | 98 Comments »

Ugly Women Are More Likely To Be Careerist Feminists

Apr 15th, 2012 by

Chalk up another scientific confirmation of Heartiste theory: ugly women who can’t attract a desirable man switch strategies from finding a provider male to collecting the resources themselves, (and then rationalizing their life choice using the rubric of feminism).

A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, ‘women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby’.

And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.

Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.

They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career. […]

After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.

In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children. […]

The final experiment tested the researchers’ suspicion that less attractive women would be more interested in careers because they might find it difficult to secure a partner.

The 87 young women were given mocked-up newspaper articles describing the sex ratio in nearby university campuses and were asked about their views on family and career.

They were also asked how attractive they believed themselves to be to men.

Those women who saw themselves as being less desirable than average were highly likely to be career-orientated.

Here’s a picture of Hilary Rosen, the über feminist who said stay-at-home mother Ann Romney never worked a day in her life:

Hot babes usually put marriage before career, and tend to have happier love and family lives. This is why ugly feminists with multiple degrees insult stay-at-home moms so vociferously; ugly women feel, on a deep visceral level, that their ugliness is the real reason why they don’t have the things that better looking women have, so they pretend they never really wanted those things or that the women who want those things are somehow lesser women, inexperienced, provincial puppets of an imagined patriarchy who don’t understand the joys of climbing the corporate ladder. These feminists are, of course, engaged in a heated, scorched id campaign of lying to themselves.

This all ties back to the growing dystopia of single momhood and men dropping out of sexual market contention. When women work or collect government largesse, their economic independence renders men in their income bracket less desirable as mates, because women are naturally hypergamous and prefer the company of higher status, more powerful men. A vicious negative feedback loop ensues, wherein men deem that efforts to make a pittance are no longer effective at securing women’s sexual interest, and women with fewer mate options pursue careers as a substitute for the loss of acceptably higher status beta provider males. Throw in obesity disfiguring large swaths of young womanhood, the divorce industrial complex creating perverse incentives for women in loveless marriages, and a skewed sex ratio with too many men living into their prime reproductive years, and you’ve got a recipe for total societal breakdown, unprecedented antagonism between the sexes, and a playing field ripe for men to plunder using the charismatic arts known as game.

In a future post I will explain why intelligent men need to learn game and start marrying and having kids with dumber but hotter chicks in order to save Western civilization. Not joking.

Posted in Culture, Girls, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 250 Comments »

Women, Divorce And Misleading Statistics

Apr 15th, 2012 by

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

In related news, Jason Malloy’s data at The Inductivist on divorce initiation and reasons given is illuminating:

Assuming that those who assign blame are the ones that initiated the divorce, and had a “good” reason:

Wive initiate 70% of divorce and blame the husband 40% of the time. (60% of female initiated divorce is unprovoked)

Husbands initiate 30% of divorce and blame the wife 21% of the time.

(79% of male initiated divorce is unprovoked)

23% of divorces are males “trading-up”
28% of divorces are males “screwing-up”
——-
51% of divorces due to men

42% of divorces are females “trading-up”
7% of divorces are females “screwing-up”
——-
49% of divorces due to women

So women are much more likely to “trade-up,” but men are much more likely to “screw-up”. And the two cancel each other out. Both men and women are seemingly responsible for about half of divorces.

This should put to rest the feminist and white knight lapdog lie that men are primarily responsible for marital failure because they aren’t “manning up”, or are behaving irresponsibly. (Paging Charles Murray…) Women really do initiate at least half the cases of divorce because their husbands have turned unattractively beta, or because they have crossed paths with a more desirable alpha male and indulged their instincts.

Indeed, if we restrict our focus to the under-acknowledged role of female hypergamy in sexual marketplace functioning, then it should be obvious that a major cause of divorce in this country — women trading up — has gone almost entirely unreported and unremarked upon by the discourse gatekeepers, aka Lords of Lies.

Furthermore, and most shockingly to feminist and manboobed sensibility, a strong argument can be made that in the moral calculus defining parameters of blame for marital dissolution, “trading up” is a much worse impetus for divorcing than is “screwing up”. After all, a woman who is compelled to trade up is turning her back completely on her marriage and the vows she made to her husband. In contrast, a man who screws up by, say, partaking of a one night stand or drinking too much, has not necessarily turned his back completely on his marriage, though his screw up may convince his wife that the union is not worth sustaining.

I think, given the nature of the data and the differing biological predispositions among men and women to weigh the gravity of sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity unequally, that it is fair to say women are the prime drivers of the divorce industrial complex, and that this fact, for reasons that go to the heart of the equalist utopia project and feminist prerogative, is actively ignored and suppressed by the commentariat and legal system.

But not anymore. Heh heh heh.

For more on this subject and a debate over the precision of Malloy’s data, check out this post and comment thread.

Update

wfprice makes a good point about the way feminists use standard of living statistics misleadingly:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

A good rule of thumb is to just start with the working assumption that anything which falls out of a feminist’s craggy mouth is a lie.

The reaction of certain quarters to men’s rights has been fascinating to me from an observer’s perspective. The obstinately blind who think men’s rights advocates are whiners really need to get a grip on the fact that the family court system is arrayed against men’s interests. It is grossly unfair to men in its favoritism toward women. Some systemic injustices really are injustices, and not just figments of some broken person’s imagination or examples of confirmation bias.

As I have explained before, there is a very good evolutionary reason why this state of affairs has emerged and persists with little push back from women *or* men: in the unrestricted playgroud of nature, men are disposable. (And women are perishable. Hi, PA!) One man can do the reproductive job of 1,000 men, if necessary. Our hindbrains have evolved over millennia to reflect this biological reality, and it manifests in the ease with which we send young men to war but recoil at the prospect of doing the same to young women, in the compulsion to blame marital breakups on men no matter the facts and to excuse women’s misdeeds, in the quickness with which men’s natural sexual urges are demonized and demagogued while women’s natural sexual urges are lauded as steps toward empowerment and self-actualization, in the permissible bias in family courts against men and for women, in the relative lack of concern for jailed and destitute deadbeat dads compared to the outpouring of sympathies for struggling single moms and divorced women, and in the full weight of societal opprobrium levied against male caddishness in contrast to the revulsion and willful ignorance expressed for confronting female sexual nature, hypergamy and all, honestly and openly.

I could go on with examples of this sex-based disparity in empathy for pages.

Since these are hindbrain reactions, I don’t expect logic or concepts of fairness to appeal to anyone except the victims. Best you can do is what I have done: get all the love and sex and intimacy without the legal Dame-ocles sword swinging over your head. The best feminist is a disarmed feminist.

Posted in Beta, Inner Beauty, Marriage Is For Chumps, Ugly Truths | 148 Comments »

Science Proves Race Is Not A Social Construct

Apr 13th, 2012 by

I’ve never understood how this leftie assertion “race is a social construct” got off the ground — I mean, I have two eyes, I can see what people look like — but for whatever reason all sorts of brainwashed numbskulls cling to the meme like a life raft. How do you argue effectively against people who so brazenly defy common sense and observable reality? At some sufficiently degenerate mental nadir it becomes impossible to engage such a person rationally. You just mock them and hope they shrink away in shame.

Mockery’s great, I love it, use it a lot in my daily life. But once in a while it’s pleasing to throw an icy cold splash of scientific debunking on false beliefs. If the perpetrator of the false belief is not insane, actual science proving the contrary might give him pause about spreading his lies. But better than that, and more probable, it will win over weak-minded conformists and status whores who are gullible to the liar’s feelgood, twisted logic, thus ostracizing him from normal people.

On that premise, here’s a loaded study — loaded with implications — about a new DNA test that can ID a person’s race.

Frudakis’ test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person’s origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error. […]

But the real [reason it isn’t popular with police]? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can’t countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don’t understand how it works.

“Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it’s not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test,” says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association.

Aaaaaaaaand…. meme CEDED motherfucker. You can’t find DNA markers of social constructs, but you sure can of biological reality. The fear here, naturally considering the PC crushing potential unlocked by such technology, is exactly what Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological ASSociation *cough* dissembling shitsacks *cough* suggests: that the tech will be able to find genetic markers that correspond with certain behaviors and attributes. And at that point, the whole house of equalist cards carefully built up over the last, oh, 150 years, comes tumbling down.

The fear exists because those professing it know, deep in their squirrelly little hearts, that the propaganda they cherish and espouse is wrong, has always been wrong, and soon everyone will know of its wrongness. I think what they really fear is blowback. Or perhaps hopelessness. Or sinecures. Or all of that, plus the loss of a status cudgel to wield against their close cousin lessers.

Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: “Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup.” Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.” He adds, “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”

I bet a lot of members of the current ruling regime are thinking the same thing. Which is why they shouldn’t be in power, any longer.

ps hi Cheap Chalupas!

Posted in Culture, Ridiculousness, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 140 Comments »

The Numbers Game Fallacy

Apr 13th, 2012 by

Trolls often ask “isn’t pickup just a numbers game”? I say trolls, because it’s rare you’ll hear this question from an honest person sincerely seeking answers. The question is farcical once you dig into it a bit, and anti-gamers like to use it in an attempt to discredit game/evolutionary biology/sex differences/female hypergamy…. pick any one or all. (Funnily enough, you’ll hardly ever hear women using it, probably because women don’t like to think of themselves as numbers.)

The “numbers game” fallacy is similar to the “hours game” fallacy. Think of a great musician. He has to put in a lot of hours of practice to get great at his craft. Once greatness is achieved, a person asserting an “hours game” argument would contend that the musician’s continued greatness depends on all the hours he puts into playing. But that is not the case. A great musician, once trained, can play five minutes a week and still be great compared to the non-musician or hobbyist musician.

So it is with game and pickup. Logically and unavoidably, most neophytes will make more approaches in order to put their game theory to practice in the field. That is how you get good. Simply reading about game and approaching one woman per year won’t cut it. But once a number of up-front approaches have been made — once the steepest part of the learning curve has been crested — and the aspiring seducer has improved his game acumen, then he can reduce his number of approaches while still enjoying a very good sex and love life because his odds of any one approach resulting in a fuck close have measurably increased over his previous, game-less baseline.

And from personal experience, this is exactly what happened to me. When I first tried game, I kept my approach numbers at the same level i had before game. Once I started tasting improved success using game, I increased my approach number because 1. I was excited to see how much I could accomplish using game, and 2. I had to approach more women to try out all the new things I was learning.

Naturally, my close rate increased with my increased approach rate, owing mostly to my game skills but also partly to the larger pool of women I was hitting on. (In contrast, had I increased my pool of prospects while using NO GAME, my close rate would not have increased by nearly as much.) Then, after a few years of this fucking around for fun and sexual profit, I decided that I was interested in longer term relations with women, so I gradually pared back my number of approaches to about the same level I had before learning game. And a funny thing happened. I was having more success with the fewer, and hotter!, women I was approaching than I would have had without game. I had a skillset called game and it increased my positive interactions with women across the board. In other words, my RATE of rejection was lower, and my rate of success higher.

That’s the way doubters need to view the numbers game fallacy: numbers matter, but game matters more. The two work in concert until enough competency is achieved that numbers are no longer needed.

For those who refuse to part ways with the numbers game fallacy, I direct your attention to the headstrong but socially clueless geeky beta male. I think most of us have encountered this type of guy in our lives. He’s aggressively nerdy, unafraid to approach women in his awkward fashion, and never learns from his mistakes. He has no discernible game besides fearlessness and a lack of shame. He’s a little “off”. He’s our test case for measuring game against numbers. He’s got the numbers, but he has no game, and the results aren’t pretty: one ugly rejection after another. But he soldiers on.

You can approach thousands of women, but if you have no game, if you persist in engaging women with your socially clumsy schtick and never trying to improve yourself, all that you’ll get is a huge notch count of rejections — a botch count. Sure, you might “get lucky” once in a blue moon using nothing but numbers game. But why wait for that when real game — real cultivated charisma — can increase your lay odds to a level, at the least, where you go from 1 lay in 1,000 approaches to 1 lay in 100 approaches? And with hotter babes on top of it? That’s an order of magnitude better success with women over just maxing out your number of pickup attempts.

Not to mention, a numbers game mentality will do nothing for you once you’re already in a relationship with a woman you love. Having no game at that stage is risking a lot; a lot more than a measly five minute approach in a bar. And it’s not like you can numbers game your girlfriend over and over until she falls back in love with you.

Anyhow, I hope this clears the air on this fallacy. I doubt it will convince the trolls, but then they were never really open to being convinced.

Posted in Game, The Pleasure Principle | 81 Comments »

Women’s Unrealistic Online Standards Are Like Ice Cream

Apr 12th, 2012 by

A reader claims to note a trend in online personals:

[T]his is a trend I’ve noticed online, women who are QUITE comfortable with dating someone a handful of years younger but do NOT want anyone more than a few years older than they. What accounts for this trend? I mean, you could meet a 28 year old fat dude, or a 40 year old paleo-hardened guy who looks young. Why pre-emptively discount age like that? Most women I’ve met prefer someone same age or older.

I don’t know how widespread women’s aping of men’s standards in online ads is, because I don’t do online dating (at least not recently). However, from what I’ve read about the subject, most women’s preferences in online ads is for men older than they are; which makes sense, since age is a status marker for men in a way it isn’t for women. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a small but growing contingent of cougars explicitly seeking younger men in what amounts to a mirror image of the universal trend for men to seek younger women, I believe I have an explanation.

First, keep in mind that it doesn’t matter what women demand in online ads, because outrageous standards that are far removed from reality are quickly weeded out of contention, leaving such delusional women sad and alone in real life. A lot of loser women who do the online thing subconsciously know they aren’t going to get laid by the man of their dreams, so they throw all reason and sobriety to the wind and just go hog wild laundry listing their fantasy criteria. For these women (admittedly greater in number now than every before in Western history), it’s more about ego catharsis than about actually meeting a man. ASCII therapy with a public audience of like-minded Medusas one-upping each other to the top of the entitlement heap.

Happily punching in a feverish list of ridiculous expectations in an online ad is the emotional equivalent of plopping in front of the TV (all shows cater to women except ‘Mythbusters’ and sports) and wolfing down a tub of ice cream. Feels SOOOOO good, even if it’s SOOOO bad for her health, looks and love life. Kinda makes a tidy little metaphor for civilizational decline.

Second, the few cougars who aren’t ugly, ragged or grossly obese but who left their prime years far behind in a haze of drunken binges and cock hopping, will sometimes recognize, on a primal level, that their odds of getting a good (read: high value, sort of charmingly dickish) man of the type they pined for at age 20 to commit to them in a loving long-term relationship are very low, and that their efforts are best spent putting out for horny younger men who will at least offer a short term thrill in the sack. This phenomenon — of older woman transforming into clitorally turgid quasi-men — is not common, certainly not nearly as common as the media would have you believe. But they do exist, and you can be pretty sure that most of them could cut glass with their jaws and suffocate small dogs with their jungly, frosted pube patches. Do note, as well, that as women age their testosterone levels rise in step with their lowered expectations, making the prospect of loveless one night stands more palatable to their still feminine egos.

Let’s just say that these horncat cougars are not exactly the sorts of women older men with options want at all, and they aren’t the sorts of women younger men with no options want for more than a few no muss no fuss bangs in which to drain their aching teen balls. Because younger men, just like older men, prefer the exquisite intimacies of young women. Cougars probably know this on some deep supraegotistical level, so they respond to their constrained sexual market choices by pretending to prefer the company of younger men when in reality all they’re trying to do is avoid the soul crushing loneliness that would inevitably result if they adhered to the standards of their real desires and had to face the brutal and merciless cruelty of the sexual market head on.

Women never really lose the ability to extrapolate a one night stand into some fantastical dramatic relationship story arc, so a cougar having a couple of perfunctory fucks with an indiscriminately horny college student in a dating slump can sometimes mean the difference for her between having the will to live for another day and resigning herself to gardening and obesity. It’s not an avenue most older single women are willing to take, but for a few desperate specimens with male-like sex drives and bodies that haven’t yet gone completely to shit, it beats suddenly and unceremoniously being dumped into the invisible fringes of forgotten wastelands. At least for a few more years.

Posted in Escape, Girls, Hitting The Wall, Pretty Lies, Ridiculousness | 72 Comments »

The Feminism Shit Test

Apr 12th, 2012 by

A reader poses an interesting scenario: what do you say if a girl asks you about feminism? If you live in a big, blue urban enclave, it’s pretty good odds you’ll run into a chick — probably a lawyer or other man-jawed freak of nature — who hits you up with the feminism shit test.

Naturally, the typical beta male, not knowing what the fuck to do in most situations with women except kowtow in abject supplication in hopes he’ll be patted on the head like a neutered shih tzu, would frantically insist his fem-cred is legit. At best, he might “yeah, but” his way through it until eventually caving that he’s on board the grrlpower train.

But we can do better than that! In fact, not just better, but SEXIER. You see, these sorts of politically and culturally loaded questions that girls ask are not just tests for proof of in-group certification, they are also plum-ripe opportunities to demonstrate superior value by parrying her noxiously probing questions in a socially adept manner that simultaneously arouses her and spares your dignity as a man.

Examples

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?
YOU: it’s for old hags and ugly girls.

This was the answer suggested by the reader. It certainly spares no quarter, but is it alpha in the pussy-moistening sense? I think it’s too confrontational. More likely to start an argument or elicit a haughty exit than encourage flirty banter.

Here are some less confrontational but still edgy replies:

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?

YOU:
– great for my sex life!
– child’s play.
– it’s like religion. makes people feel good.
– great! girls buy me drinks now.
– dunno. never ate one.
– fucking LOVE it. premarital sex for the win!
– you mean lesbianism?
– i don’t.
– [for the girls who appreciate dark humor]: it’s cool. my aborted sister was a feminist.
– love it. i’d be married if it wasn’t for feminism.
– it’s bursting with fruit flavor.
– you’ll have to ask my grandma.
– it’s cute!

GIRL: what do you think of feminists?

YOU:
– they’re sexy underneath.
– beautiful on the inside.
– so smart! guys love that about girls. yup, being totally serious here.
– they ask weird questions.
– love chicks who rock the pit hair. shows they’re secure in their masculinity.
– so cute!
– best divorcees in the world.
– love em. most of them are secretly giggling little schoolgirls once you get to know them.
– i’d tell you but then you’d have to buy me a drink.

GIRL: are you a feminist?

YOU:
– i wish, but i was born with a penis.
– that’s what my doctor says.
– when it’s convenient.
– for you, any time sweet cheeks.
– are you flirting with me?
– i’m not wearing any underwear, so, yeah.

Of course, if you really ARE a micropeened self-loathing bitch tittied simulacra of a man one brightly whistled show tune away from double rainbowed gaiety, you could go the Hugo Schwyzer route and proudly declare your feminist bona fides, t-shirt and all, while exploiting your teacher-student status differential to nail 19 year old hypergamous pussy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But for most betas who don’t have a captive classroom audience of eager beavers jockeying for insider influence at an A in ‘Deconstructing Rape Culture 101′, holding sincere feminist beliefs and being unafraid (ha!) to broadcast those beliefs will not help you get laid. If anything, girls will be turned off by your cloying self-abnegation. Even feminist girls. ESPECIALLY feminist girls.

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Game | 131 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion