Feed on
Posts
Comments

Women Are More Comfortable Sharing A Lover

Apr 25th, 2011 by

A religious American woman engaged to a Frenchman writes about her experience with him when he broke off their engagement. An old high school flame had come back into his life and, as he explained to his American fiancée, he couldn’t decide if he loved the old flame.

(Don’t old flames just have a sixth sense for knowing when their window of opportunity is about to close? goddamned eerie.)

The author decides to “stay” with him; that is, she does not harangue him with an ultimatum or break up with him in a fury of righteous indignation. She instead offers to give him the space he needs to decide with whom his love is strongest and whether to come back to her at an unspecified future date should he want to do that. She calls this a relationship limbo born out of love for him. They continue emailing and calling over the next several months (the author is vague about any chance that they met for quasi-makeup sex during the limbo interim), and the story ends with no resolution. He still has not chosen between the two women, and the author still loves him. In her words:

If the man I love does come back, it will not be because I have threatened or manipulated him. His return will not be mere capitulation to the all-or-nothing terms I have set. It will come from a place of deep self-knowledge that he has found in his own time. And if I take him back, it will be because of similarly deep self-knowledge, made possible by this very difficult thing I have chosen to do: live with limbo, and take responsibility for my own happiness.

I admire this. She is wise enough to know that ultimatums are the worst possible foundation for a marriage. She also senses, although I doubt she could comprehend the true reasons why, that men are capable of loving more than one woman simultaneously. This is an emotional feat most women cannot grasp, because it is not in a woman’s nature to love more than one man at a time. It takes a selfless woman with a grounded ego and big heart to be able to temporarily silence the hamster and admit to herself that, although she could never do it, perhaps her man really does love two women at once.

Maxim #200: Men acquire lovers; women share lovers.

But she is unwise in one respect: he may return, but not in love. There is no guarantee that he doesn’t return to his American lover simply because his options dried up. Perhaps years later the old high school flame gains weight and our intrepid alpha male* Frenchman loses his love for her, which impels him to seek the comfort and sexual satisfaction of his former lover once again. In other words, she may serve as nothing more than his safety snatch. Yet, for many women, playing safety snatch to an alpha male is preferable to playing top choice to a beta male. So we come round again to my admiration for her purity: she loves an alpha male, and she will surrender her ego to be with him, no matter the cost. I don’t fault her at all for her decision.

*How do you know he is an alpha male?, some of you are probably asking. We know because he has two women in love with him, and at least one of them has agreed to become a de facto member of his nascent harem. Or: it’s self-evident, Sherlock.

The implications of her decision, amplified a million-fold across the corners of the globe, should give betas pause. Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man.

Of course, most modern women do wind up settling for beta males (usually at the tail end of their prime attractiveness years), not least because social taboos and restrictions prevent the large-scale formation in the West of openly recognized harems (to date; see: gay marriage slippery slope). Many women, unbeknownst to their conscious minds, find a loophole to this societal shaming mechanism by doing what the Salon author did: they drop out of the dating market to wistfully pine for an unavailable alpha male while he enjoys the pussy fruit of multiple women. Women who aren’t into the whole wistful pining thing prefer the alternatives of riding the cock carousel or cheating on beta boyfriends while keeping it on the DL.

The Salon author, Sharon Hewitt, very much resembles the protagonist from Story of O. She gives everything, including pride, in the service of love for a high value man. And she would have it no other way, though her actions violate just about every sacrosanct feminist principle of what it supposedly means to be an “empowered” woman. O, like this author, has discovered that the ultimate assertion of female empowerment resides in surrendering completely, despite all odds stacked against her and peer pressure to do otherwise, to love. Love, even, and maybe especially, for a man who would tell her he loves another, or would, like René, offer her body to strangers for sexual plundering.

That, my friends, is the unearthly pull of the alpha male.

So, a toast to Miss Hewitt, for reminding betas how badly the cards are stacked against them. You remain true to a man who has abandoned his wedding promise to you to spend time with another women. More than true, you remain in love with him. In doing so, you have removed yourself from the dating market, and ensured that one man enjoys the pleasure of two women while another man goes without the pleasure of any woman.

Posted in Girls, Inner Beauty, Love, Ugly Truths | 226 Comments »

How Not To Spend A Ton Of Money On Your Girlfriend Or Wife

Apr 24th, 2011 by

Remember some trivial detail about her and recall it many months later, to her pleasant surprise.

“The craziest field trip ever was that picnic last summer at Hyde Park. Poor Terry broke his hand playing frisbee.”

“Yeah, I remember you wore a cute blue and yellow ribbon in your hair that day.”

*shiny, glowy face* “That’s right! You remember that ribbon! Wow.”

Her girl friends, in unison: “Aaaw.”

Congratulations, you just saved thousands of dollars on expensive dinners, clothes, housewares and jewelry, all for the price of a strategically recalled, flattering detail about her appearance.

***

After a certain time has passed in a relationship, a girl wants to feel a powerful emotional bond with her lover. You have established your dominant alpha bona fides, now she wants to see signs of your commitment to her. Most men take the easy route and demonstrate commitment through acts of providership. You, however, read this blog and now know that for the low, low price of zero dollars you can stimulate a rush of emotional bonding by dedicating a little mental energy to remembering something small but personally significant about her, and reminding her of it months later. Multiply the bonding experience by two if you drop your total recall with her friends present.

Emotionally distant men who generally don’t like women for anything more than sex and what they can do for their status at cocktail parties tend to buy off their women’s need for signs of emotional bonding with trinkets and baubles. These are the kinds of women who cheat on alpha husbands with smooth-talking poolboys. You can avert living this one dimensional love life by meeting women you actually like to do stuff with. You will find it easier to remember things about them which you can recall for maximum impact at a later date.

Men who like sharing time and activities with their women, and vice versa, don’t need to drop beaucoup bucks on them to keep them happy. They know the secret to happy relationships is a healthy mix of dominance, teasing, good fucking and shared experiences. One tiny, remembered detail about her — a blue and yellow ribbon from a picnic last summer — is the equivalent in love points of a 10 karat diamond set in white gold.

Many cynical readers of the Chateau often snark that the advice given to men to screen girls during the attraction stage for attributes besides their looks is nothing but a facade of discernment designed to get them into bed sooner rather than later. Partly correct. But their cynicism blinds them to the longer term view. There are real, practical reasons for screening girls for lifestyle compatibility. If she likes to do the same things you like to do, you won’t struggle to keep her entertained; you’ll be entertaining yourself every time you’re with her. Win-win.

Just don’t overdo your commonalities. Imagine your life occupies two worlds: your shared world with her, and your own secret world. She needs both to feel irrepressible lust.

Posted in Relationships | 75 Comments »

Comment Of The Week

Apr 22nd, 2011 by

From lock n’ load:

It’s amazing how much blubba bitch’s SMV increases when she just LOSES SOME GODDAMN WEIGHT.

I remember a woman who lost 45 lbs because she lost her job and had to eat oranges from a tree in her backyard to survive. Before, when she was chubby, I did not want any part of her. When she reappeared minus the weight, her attractiveness hextupled. I did not care about her financial troubles, I genuinely found myself interested.

There ya go, folks. A funny story that illustrates the huge differences between the sexes. If you’re a fat woman who has lost your job and are forced to eat nothing but oranges from a backyard tree to survive, resulting in weight loss down to a slender profile, you will become more attractive to men, including financially sound men who could whisk you away from your misery.

Fatness: it matters to your life outcomes, ladies.

Posted in Comment Winners | 39 Comments »

Proximity + Diversity = War

Apr 22nd, 2011 by

Just another day in Diversityland.

I think I’ll make this a regular series, simply because I love shoving it in the faces of the equalist tards and cheap chalupas revolutionaries who have intellectualized their status whoring and moral preening by carefully constructing a mountain of lies over the past fifty years.

Moral of the story: Ignore human nature at your peril. No amount of snark in the world will shield you from that reality.

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Goodbye America, The Id Monster | 651 Comments »

Concept Is Not Execution: The Smart Man’s Handicap With Game

Apr 22nd, 2011 by

Many of the commenters here have a good grasp of game concepts. Some of you give excellent answers to game tests that the Chateau occasionally throws your way, showing a fluency with the fundamental psychological techniques that lead to better relations with women. However, understanding the concepts is not the same as properly executing them in the field. You can read all the game manuals you want, but if you don’t get out there and apply the tactics until you start to feel comfortable using them and, more importantly, until you start to *sound normal* using them, you are like the professor who’s respected in the classroom but mistaken for a bumbling homeless man in the real world.

A glaring example of this disconnect between concept and execution are the turgid, wordy replies that more than a few commenters offer as suggestions for passing particular shit tests and the like. Superficially, they comprehend the principles at play, but something gets lost in the translation. Just ask yourself when you write your comment whether any actual alpha male talks like that in the real world. Most of the time, the answer you will have to concede to yourself is… no.

This is why I strongly counsel readers to adopt a natural as a mentor. Books and manuals are one thing, but seeing it done in live action by someone who knows his stuff will rapidly boost your progress as a ladykiller. Personally, I’ve learned about 30% of what I know from books, forums and videos, and 70% from personal experience and from hanging out with men who were good with women. Note: these friends weren’t teachers; I was just a very observant lad growing up.

Wordiness and stilted language seems to be a big stumbling block for a lot of smart, presumably borderline nerdy, men who comment here. You write your examples of conversational snippets as if you were reading from an electronics manual or, worse, a clip from a James Bond movie left on the cutting room floor. I suspect this is the reason a lot of intelligent noobs to the game get shot down in the beginning — women are a little bit weirded out by the staccato rhythms and debate team formality of their speech. These guys aren’t losing points on the technicals; they’re losing points on style.

So, a word of advice: succinctness is the soul of cool.

Get out of your head, stop trying to formulate your sentences with the perfectionist’s eye toward proper grammar and logic, and start learning to get comfortable speaking with slangy informality. For examples of good game lines delivered with the right mix of attitude, concept and style, see any comment by el chief or el guapo. (If I left any of you out, don’t be offended. I’m too lazy to recall all of the outstanding commenters.)

Posted in Game, Guy Rules | 120 Comments »

Before And After: The Hilarity Of Self-Deception

Apr 20th, 2011 by

Nothing better illustrates the destruction that fatness visits upon a woman’s attractiveness than before and after pics of her weight gain. A website has posted a bunch of these types of before and after shots and the results are stunning… stunningly depressing. Every single one of the girls went from highly bangable sexy tarts to asexual lumps of disfiguring blubber. (Note: A couple of the comparisons from that website are obvious photoshops.) Want to watch your boner deflate in fast forward? Check these:

A crying shame. For girls who are gaining weight, the uglification of their looks can sometimes take months or even years to register in their consciousness, because the change is relatively slow and thus more easily psychologically accommodated by their hamsters which are loathe to contemplate the true nature of the horrors they have committed against themselves. But when you put the thin and fat pics side by side the comparison is so stark there is no running from the cruel truth: these girls have destroyed their sexiness. They have become monsters. And the widespread (heh) existence of these monsters distorts the sexual market so badly that game becomes the only answer to successfully navigating it.

Female obesity is not just bad for women; it’s bad for men, too, who have to wade through tons of sunbathing walruses before finding the lean babe on the beach, competing furiously for access to her overpriced vagina. (Fat men are no great shakes either, but due to the nature of sex differences in attraction, fat men don’t suffer the same penalty in the dating market that fat women do.)

But that is not the primary message of this post. Check out this comment left by a putative girl named “janeway” at that website:

Yes, let’s see what junk food does to guys! Eating is not why these women got bigger. NOT eating and destroying their health and subsequently their metabolism in order to attain impossible standards is why they got bigger. And in most cases, hotter.

Is there a better example of self-contradictory nonsense than what is spouted in this comment? And it’s not the only one like it; that board is filled with similar comments extolling the virtues of fatness while chastising those who put up pictures of fat girls. “Janeway” is by no means an exceptional specimen of human inanity; the world is filled with women — and men whose testicles haven’t descended — who think just like her. Lies and ego-salving bromides come as easily to them as eating another piece of pie.

Let’s break down Janeway’s comment line by line, smirking sadistically as we do it.

“Yes, let’s see what junk food does to guys!”

This bold challenge implies that Janeway thinks fatness is repulsive. Premise established. Janeway knows that it would hurt the image of guys who bloated up from eating junk food, otherwise she wouldn’t have taunted the authors of the original post; a taunt, it should be noted, which was ended rather confidently with an exclamation point.

“Eating is not why these women got bigger.”

Janeway can string some words together, so we know she’s not clinically retarded. Therefore, she must know that eating a lot of bad food is how people get fat. Yet, her ego is so invested in denying this obvious reality when it’s women’s fatness that is the subject of scrutiny, that she has found refuge in blurting a blatant lie so ridiculous that it’s clear the lie was meant for her own psychological well-being than for any audience to consider on the merits.

“NOT eating and destroying their health and subsequently their metabolism in order to attain impossible standards is why they got bigger.”

Janeway apparently has convinced herself that people get fat from breathing air while trying to reach “impossible” standards that millions of people around the world manage to reach. Also note that Janeway admits the women got bigger.

“And in most cases, hotter.”

Ah, the coda to this excruciatingly insightful comment. Janeway believes, or rather, pretends to believe, that fatter means hotter. And yet she has admitted, directly or tacitly, in the previous three sentences that –

1. Eating a lot of junk food will make guys fatter and uglier.

2. The women did indeed get bigger.

3. The women got bigger because they destroyed their health and metabolism trying to reach impossible standards via a non-eating mechanism that eludes less open-minded scientists.

4. The impossible standards are desirable, otherwise women would not try to attain them.

5. And yet, given all the above premises, fat women are hotter than thin women.

Well, Janeway, if bigger is hotter, why are you so hopping mad to defend these fat chicks from judgment? Their hotness should be self-evident, no? Do you get mad when pictures of slender supermodels are posted on the web? No, of course you don’t. That is because you, Janeway, are filled to brimming with lies you tell yourself to forget the muffin top you sport that causes your belly shirts to constantly roll up so insouciantly.

Janeway = 100% dumbass. And 95% fat.

Janeway is just a prototype, a pawn for the purposes of this post. You could see this same infantile sewer logic expressed by just about any female commenter on any blog discussing fatness, sexual market value and universal, immutable beauty standards. It goes like this:

***

A is not fat and ugly.

Fat and ugly is actually beautiful.

I bet B is fat and ugly!

A got fat and ugly trying to be thin and beautiful.

No man likes anorexics.

***

And this same bizarro formula applies to other low sexual market value women and their nonsensical defenders. To wit:

Single momhood is not bad for my dating life.

The reason I’m not dating is because I’m careful about having men meet my bastard children.

Men don’t care that I have kids.

Men run when I tell them that I have kids because they are intimidated by confident single moms.

No, really, I’m OK with loveless one night stands.

***

I’m not a has-been cougar.

Men love sexually experienced older women.

I bet you can’t get anyone but has-been cougars!

Men who date younger women are intimidated by confident older women.

It’s good that I don’t have to play games anymore.

***

I’m not a slut.

Sluttiness is empowering.

Only low self-esteem sluts would fall for game.

All women are sluts by society’s impossible standards.

Girls don’t like judgmental men.

***

Self-deception: a renewable resource that actually increases the more you use it.

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Pretty Lies, The Id Monster, Tool Time | 314 Comments »

Reader Mailbag: Fast Times Edition

Apr 19th, 2011 by

Email #1 is from a high school student who calls himself Inexperienced Gamer:

I found your blog a few months back and I loved it.  If any site has given me good advice, this is it.

I saw your ‘first experience with game‘ post a few weeks ago and it kind of struck a chord with me.  There’s this girl I went to school with a very long time ago, after which I left the school.  Now we’re in high school again, and she’s definitely raised her market value.

It’s clear that she’s into me, but I’m not in any of her classes (no chance, I’m AP) and any cross-curricular activities.  My question is, how can I approach (in a setting like this that isn’t, say, a nightclub or bar) without coming off as too forward?

First, I love it that Chateau-popularized concepts like “sexual market value” are infiltrating the high school halls. We’ve come a long way from passing notes and innocently day-dreaming about kissing the cute girl who sits in the front row.

Second, what is this “too forward” crap? You’ve gotta bust a move to get the girl. They aren’t just going to float into your lap. Man, I can remember my earliest years as a stripling seducer when I let a few juicy high school chicks go because I frittered away time thinking about how to arrange the perfect rendezvous with heavenly lights and trumpeting angels heralding my approach instead of walking up and talking.

AP classes tells me you are at the stage where you pride yourself on being smarter than most of your fellow students. You’re probably a little nerdy. Cold approaching fills you with apprehension. Amiright? Well, you’ll have to get over that. If you don’t share classes or activities, you’ve got options to meet her between classes or at the local hangout spot after school. Do you skate or anything like that? Do stuff outdoors where there’s a good chance she’ll stroll by with her friends. From there, it’s just a matter of accusing her of being a skateboard groupie. Find out what groups she’s in and arrange it so that you’re somewhere in the vicinity. It helps if she sees you chatting with other girls.

Your options are limitless. Don’t overthink it. Most important thing is to JUST SAY SOMETHING. Nod in her direction and say “Hey, come here.” There is a 99.9% chance she’ll come. Whatever you do, don’t fall back on the crutch of texting to hint at your feelings. That’s weak sauce.

***

Email #2:

Big time fan of the truths exposed on this website, I’m currently facing an interesting challenge and could use the advice of a super-alpha in negotiating new territory.

This may seem superfluous, but I feel a quick synopsis of back story will help. I began with natural alpha qualities, but devolved to full on beta-dom after my parents had an ugly divorce and my highschool girlfriend dumped me (for being too beta). I exiled myself across the country for two years, and was contemplating ending it all when all old friend contacted me out of the blue to tell me about Roosh’s book Bang. I realized all of my problems resulted from being a Beta and having extremely poor inner game. I returned home and began living with my estranged alpha father (think Charlie Sheen light) and began revamping my personality while returning to my old practices of tearing through women and not caring of what other think of me.

Recently I found a woman who is different, and with the increasing levels of disclosure I feel as though more and more of the old beta is coming out inadvertently regardless of how conscious I am of it. While I commonly make her go get me a beer after sex, respond to requests to put the seat down with “fuck off”, and the only PDA I show is the occasional hug or hard slap on the ass I feel like I’m slipping. Outside of behaviors like these combined with approaching more women on nights off and being extremely aloof what can one do to continue as a true alpha? How exactly does one balance the beta and the alpha when in a relationship?

I appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.

A good woman will test a man’s alpha resolve. Intense romantic feelings will play havoc with your game if you don’t know how to manage your emotions. (Most younger guys don’t.) If you remind yourself of this, you’ll get better at catching yourself when you slip into beta behavior.

Some of your actions seem a little over the top, however. Almost like caricatures of alpha behavior. Telling a girl to “fuck off” when she asks you to put down the toilet seat is unnecessarily harsh, unless I’m misreading the tone in which you say it. Remember: amused mastery is the zen-like state you should aim for. Better to tease her when the toilet seat issue comes up with something like “Would you like a frilly toilet seat cover to go with that request, your highness?”

But you may be dating a hardcore asshole lover, in which case a regularly scheduled “fuck off” is entirely appropriate and useful. On the other hand, you may be trolling all of us with your email. For the moment, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Once a relationship is solidified (usually after three months) you can afford some beta slippage. Girls do need to see signs of tenderness and commitment from men they are dating, after all. This is especially true if she’s acting like she’s in an exclusive relationship with you. So stop worrying and just don’t do anything egregious, like drop on bended knee.

***

Email #3:

what’s the best reply to this shit test
“you just wanna get me drunk so you can take advantage of me.”

I replied with “yeah, i heard you’re easy”

Not a good reply. That’s a good way to trigger her anti-slut defenses. Better:

“My advantage… or yours?”

***

Email #4 is from “Joe”:

I was born a beta. Several months ago, I discovered ‘game’ and your blog – since then I’ve made a conscious effort to become alpha. (I’m definitely not the finished article yet, but I’ll get there.)

If you wouldn’t mind helping a brother out, I’d really appreciate your advice on something. Here’s the backstory…

Sarah (HB8) and I have been friends for 18 months (we attend the same university in [redacted]). After seeing me apply what you teach on your blog, she started to like me. When she told me she liked me, I pretended I wasn’t sure about dating her (acting aloof)… then, a few days later, I arranged a date. This was back in November.

During the Christmas break (4 weeks), we only saw each other once… it was New Years and she couldn’t keep her hands off me. However, when I next saw her she acted very cold, and we broke-up shortly after.

Anyway, we hooked-up again in February and have been seeing each other ever since.

Now the Easter holidays have started and I won’t see her for another 3 weeks. In order to keep her sexually interested (unlike last time),what would your advice be with regarding to texting and calling her over the holidays?

Looking back, I acted too beta over the Christmas holidays, which is party why she was cold towards me. (For every two texts she sent me, I was sending three. And just thinking about some of the cheesey stuff I texted her makes me cringe inside!)

If it helps you, attached to this email is 3 weeks worth of text messages between me and Sarah. (I know there’s room for improvement. Reading through, it’s clear I still need to beat the shit out of the beta in me. But, hopefully, there’s enough alpha to show I’m learning from you and your blog.)

If you want to use some of my texts on the blog, you can – just edit the wording so the texts convey the same message without being a word-for-word replica.

You can be brutally honest in your feedback.

Thanks for any advice you can offer me,

– Joe.

P.S. She’s a 20-year-old virgin. We’ve done ‘everything but’ and last time we hooked-up, she was ready for sex… very stupidly, I had no condoms in my jacket. When we start fully sleeping together (hopefully next time I see her), she’ll probably fall in love with me and I want to give her the gift of being the best, most-alpha boyfriend she ever has.

Sudden cold shoulders are caused by one of four things, in descending order of likelihood:

1. She met someone else.

2. She thinks you’ve become beta.

3. You made her feel slutty, and the time apart exacerbated the awkwardness.

4. She’s weirdly religious.

In your case, you mention that you acted beta over the Christmas holidays, so let’s assume that was the case. You’re back together and she’s going away for another three weeks. You want to know how to prevent a repeat of the break-up drama that happened after the New Years make-out.

I suspect you are correct about your betaness, because I read through the text exchanges you had with this chick, and it’s clear to me you made yourself too available to her. Your texts are too long-winded, filled with too many Xs and Os, and too many emoticons. You nearly always end the text exchange instead of letting a little mystery linger by allowing her to have the last text.

This is a girl who’s already broken up with you once, and you two have only been dating since February. Plus, (and most relevantly), YOU HAVEN’T BANGED HER YET. Therefore, it’s too soon to litter her inbox with winks and kissy-kissy XXs at the end of every text you send her. It smacks of clinginess. Give her room to miss you, to think about you. I wouldn’t even bother texting her more than a couple of times over the holidays. Let her fret a bit about what you may be doing with your free time away from her. When you do text her, keep it much shorter than you’ve been doing. Don’t be curt, but don’t be effusive either. A short, snappy joke, or a sly sexual reference is all you need. When she responds, try to refrain from replying, unless you must.

She may be a genuinely nice girl who loves you in all your glorious betatude, but that’s not the way to bet. Check yourself, governor.

Posted in Reader Mailbag | 156 Comments »

What Betas Can Learn From Women’s Rape Fantasies

Apr 18th, 2011 by

In this post, it was revealed that a lot of women, the majority in fact, have erotic, and *sincere*, rape fantasies. Despite the claim made by feminists that fantasy is wholly different and disconnected from reality — an empty assertion easily explained by feminists’ need to handwave away any disturbing look into the female psyche – the more truthful explanation is that fantasy is a reflection of reality and hints at some deep, immutable desire. If feminists are correct that fantasy is different from reality, we would hear of women fantasizing about tender lovemaking with cubicle-dwelling beta herbs. But that is not the case.

The scientific evidence presents soul-shaking implications: many women harbor a secret desire to experience rape under the right conditions. What those specific conditions are will vary from woman to woman, (typically, an alpha male is involved), but the fundamental act of rape itself — nonconsensual and forceful — appears to be a turn-on for the majority of women. As the study showed, in their rape fantasies women were really refusing the man sex. It was not a token no. That was the basis for the fantasy. The pleasure comes from being overwhelmed by a man who pushes his way past her nonconsensuality. I know, it’s hard to believe, but there it is.

Women don’t like to admit to this little factoid about the inner workings of their ids, because they worry that the dissemination of such knowledge would hinder the prime directive to extract as much princessifying pedestalization from awed men as they can manage. Just as relevant: most women aren’t even consciously aware, nor do they spend much time thinking about, what exactly it is that motivates their sexual desire. They prefer, instead, to swaddle themselves in a cloak of pretty lies, for the best deceptions begin with self-deception.

Rape fantasies provide a shocking look into the craggiest crevices of women’s brains and what they truly desire when it’s just them and their private thoughts. What does this mean for the average well-meaning beta male, (who let it be known comprises the majority of male-dom)? Well, for one, perhaps a lot more betas would do better with women if they were more assertive about physically pushing for sex.

Before the IQ-compromised cunt-brigade and their thimble-phallused uptight white knighters storm in to shriek like menstruating banshees, it should be obvious to any person reading in good faith that being more assertive about physically pushing for sex does not mean rape. It is possible to push for sex, physically or otherwise, without crossing any non-consensual lines. Anyone who’s lived a day in his or her life knows that seductive escalation of the kind that women love will often blur the distinction between formal consent (sign here, here and here to proceed further down my panty line) and wary surrender (no, no, noooo…. yeeeeees).

Rape fantasies tell us that women want to surrender sexually to a man of tenacious and powerful will. Women crave the feeling of “being taken”, and no cautious beta asking politely if he may peer down her blouse or apologizing when she coyly reprimands him for sliding his hand under her bra during a make-out is going to hit that “being taken” button.

There are two ways to fuck up the fuck close: you can seem too eager, or you can seem too tentative. Most men, despite what women’s studies dyke professors tell you, fall into the latter category. They don’t push for sex early enough, or forcefully enough. Any token resistance by the girl is immediately capitulated to, and any move to up the ante is a humiliating exercise in trepidation and apologia.

In sum, the problem betas have is that they TAKE WOMEN’S SYMBOLIC RESISTANCE AT FACE VALUE.

Of course that is going to be a tingle killer.

Instead, betas need to do more of these:

– going for the kiss unannounced.

– issuing bedroom commands.

– never waiting for obvious signals.

– always escalating (but remember: two steps forward, one step back) to more nudity, more touching, and more erotic touching.

– not taking the first “no” for an answer. (Wait until the fifth or sixth “no”, and only then if the “no” is uttered with an unmistakeable tone of genuine recalcitrance.)

– moving seemlessly from bar to bedroom.

– never apologizing for miscues or misreadings of her acquiescence.

– initiating sex in unlikely places.

– getting comfortable with spanking, hair pulling and gentle neck choking.

– reappraising their date evaluation process so that a fingerbang rather than a peck on the cheek becomes the marker of a successful first date ending with a girl who didn’t want to go all the way right away.

– putting it in without the condom. (As Roosh has correctly noted, most women nowadays are more than willing to raw dog a new man after two dates. Likely this has to do with the emerging scientific evidence that absorbed semen boosts a girl’s mood.)

***

This is just a partial list. There are many more overly-cautious missteps that gelded betas commit which sabotage the trajectory of their stillborn seductions.

Now some of you may be asking, “Hey, what about that line Mystery advocated using? The one that goes ‘Would you like to kiss me?’, and if she says no you are supposed to reply ‘I didn’t say you *could*… you just had that look on your face.’ Isn’t that in contradiction to what you wrote above?”

It’s a clever little routine, and will probably work in most situations, but I have found through experience that it’s totally unnecessary. If you are winning a girl over with your game, you can silently go for the kiss without any warm-up or witty fanfare. I have rarely had a girl refuse a bold, unspoken kiss move.

Some others may then ask “What if she turns and gives me the cheek?”

Hey, it’s been known to happen, usually to guys who sloppily telegraphed their horniness, and thus their lower value. If you get her cheek, simply IGNORE IT. Proceed as if nothing happened, and reengage for the kiss later in the date. Under no circumstance should you acknowledge her cheek turn. Do not ironically mutter “Aww, shucks”, or make light of it with a flippant “That was awkward”, or crudely laugh it off with a “So that’s how it’s gonna be?”. Just move on like you hadn’t even tried to kiss her.

Any acknowledgement by you of her coyness, whether she delivers it in cheek turn form or some other false modesty-amplifying manifestation, will be received by her id central command as evidence that she is higher value than you. That is a side effect of female coyness, besides its primary function as a signal of purity.

Maxim #99: Female coyness is a purity signaler as well as an ego-boosting mechanism designed to reaffirm a woman’s sexual market value at the expense of lowering the man’s sexual market value.

Corollary to Maxim #99: Female coyness serves a secondary benefit as an anti-game strategy to make a high value man seem more attainable to a lower value woman, or to offer low value women plausible deniability for failing to attract the interest of high value men.

Letting her know that her coyness affected you is a major surrender of dating hand. Once a girl has successfully thwarted a kiss or sex attempt, and more importantly gotten recognition of her thwarting from you, she has hand. She starts to think that you are not worth her company, or she silently muses that she can do better, because you want it more than she does.

You do not want a girl to have hand if sex within this century is your goal. One of the golden rules of seduction is that half of the battle of bedding hot girls (hot is the operative word here) is lowering their value, and, yes, their self-esteem, below yours.

Maxim #100: The urgency and strength of a woman’s desire for a man is directly proportional to the degree to which he is perceived higher in value than her.

If you absolutely must say something after getting a cheek turn, there is one line you can say to a girl which works well:

“Aw, how cute. It’s like we’re twelve-years-old again.”

The beauty of this line is in the subtext: you are insinuating she is not sophisticated enough to handle her out-of-control emotions around you. Also, by using the word “we’re” instead of “you’re”, you avoid sounding accusatory. Girls like it when you pretend to non-judgementalism.

Posted in Game, Girls, Psy Ops, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 164 Comments »

A Bedroom Finishing Move

Apr 14th, 2011 by

A lot of game material focuses on early game (attraction) and mid-game (trust), but comparatively little attention is paid to end-game (seduction). This is the phase of game where the girl has nearly convinced herself to sleep with you but needs you to pass one or two last-ditch, critical alpha tests before she can will herself to sex. It is at this stage that many men fuck up royally, activating her anti-slut defense because they sped up within sight of the finish line and pushed too hard, or they disappointed her by resting on their laurels like an asexual lump and pushed too little.

Blowing it during end-game is the worst, because you have invested the most at that point. You’ve taken her on a date or two, you’ve held long conversations with her, and you’ve plotted and strategized — imagine the frustration to have her within ejaculating distance of your bed only to see sex vanish with a poof as she grabs her purse and tells you what a nice time she had.

There are tactics for overcoming last minute resistance — take-aways, freeze-outs, preemptive coyness, preselection bachelor pad props — and all of them are good, but one very powerful bedroom finishing move often goes underappreciated:

Choreographed sexual leading.

Reader Dirk gave a good example of sexual leading:

My policy that chicks have to be naked to get into my bedroom has all sorts of benefits. Psychologically, it’s a take-away to tell a girl she can’t go in the bedroom, and I’ve had amateurs over for the first time immediately strip and go inside, which immediately led to sex. Even if they’ve been there before, it keeps the focus in the bedroom on sex. It’s also a dominance thing, since they are usually totally naked before I even have my shirt off, and often I am still fully clothed when they are already totally naked. To [pique] their interest, I keep the door slightly ajar, lights off, but with lava lamp on. I’ll also go in and out a couple of times to adjust the music and sometimes porn, since I run both off the computer in my bedroom, but I close the door after myself when I go in and out so the chick can’t follow me in to the bedroom while still dressed. If she does, its a good time to announce my policy. My policy announcement usually just starts, “you can’t go in there”. If she doesn’t responded with a “why not?” after a few seconds, I will then explain that “women aren’t allowed in there with clothes.” Of course, that line is a DHV. I live in a 1 BR apartment, so there’s not a lot of real estate to explore, so they almost always get curious about seeing the BR.

Last year, I had one chick over for the first time and I told her to strip outside my apartment building. She then walked 3 flights of stairs naked, walking past several of my neighbors’ doorways. She loved it so much, she insisted on walking back out to the car naked in broad daylight.

This is gold. Does requiring a chick to disrobe before entering your bedroom make any logical sense? Of course not. But since when do chicks caught up in the excitement of a possible seduction care about logic? Seduction is, first and foremost, about emotion. Your words are just a silky thin facade to cloak the subtext of sexual anticipation. She hears you say “You have to be naked to go in my bedroom” and she doesn’t say to herself “Why? Is he running an experiment that requires a fibre-free environment?”; instead, she *feels* to herself “Wow, that’s kind of hot. I’m getting wet.”

Dirk’s ruse is all about sexual overtones and displaying higher value through tacit preselection and leading the interaction. Women want to be led by men, and never is this more apparent, and more true, than two steps from your bedroom. Women particularly love when men tell them what to do sexually. It hits all the female buttons that crave submission to a dominant man. She will love you for making her a follower, and resent you for allowing her to lead.

Ordering a girl to change positions — note, I said *ordering*, not politely asking — is one of the hottest things you can do for a woman in bed. Have you ever noticed how a woman’s vocalizations will change and grow louder when you tell her to turn over and raise her ass to meet you? Doggy style is so sexually arousing for women because it is the most SUBMISSIVE sexual posture she can put herself in. She is completely vulnerable in that position. No intimacy, no eye contact, no visual cues — just her ass and your hand grabbing her hair as you thrust.

Dirk’s bedroom directions remind me of the dynamic at play between photographer and subject. There is a reason why women famously love photographers, filmmakers and other similar artists — women can’t get enough of being directed to do certain actions by men, particularly when those actions have a sexual flavor.

A couple had stopped on the boardwalk to ask me and my date to take their picture with their camera. I grabbed the camera and had them stand in a spot that I felt would result in a better shot. As they stood there goofily smiling, I told the woman to move this way and to drop her hand. She complied. I then motioned for both of them to take off their caps. Again, compliance. Still dissatisfied, I asked the women to tilt her head a bit toward him. She got flustered so I stepped closer and slowly brought my hand up near to her face and gestured the direction I wanted her to move. She smiled and her cheeks blushed a rosy hue.

After the shot, she thanked me profusely, saying it was good that they found a professional to take their picture. She let her eyes linger on me a split second longer than was appropriate for a brief meeting with a random stranger. I’ve seen that look before: it’s the look of a woman who is pleasantly surprised at the feelings evoked by the moment just passed.

Good end-game: Order, direct, challenge. Tantalize a girl with sexy role play. Make your move sooner rather than later, but always make it on your terms, never hers. She has to know you are a sexual beast with passion that could dwarf hers, but a beast who nevertheless won’t hesitate to roam for more available prey should the current quarry prove intractable.

Posted in Game, The Pleasure Principle | 112 Comments »

Science Confirms Another Game Concept: Older Women Need Less Game

Apr 13th, 2011 by

Quite a while back there was a post at this Den of Delicious Sadism blog which explained how game changes depending on the age bracket of the woman you are trying to pick up. A few choice quotes from that post:

The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking. Some consequences result from this.

NEG HARDER. The 23-27 year old will require harder negging than any other age group of women, even the hotter 18 year olds. She needs her ego punctured before her pussy will open for you. […]

The [31-34 year olds] are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” adventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.

Game required: Strong body language, masculine dominance, sharp suits and shoes, easy on the negs and palm reading, emphasis on the comfort stage, lots of travel stories, disqualify yourself from sex on the first date, vulnerability game, avoidance of the beta provider zone. […]

The [36-38 year olds] are at peace with their spinsterhood and their failure in the dating market. A woman in this age bracket will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.

That post got a lot of feedback from commenters and emailers who saw in it a deep and profound truth reflected in their own life experiences. Haters, naturally, were livid with pent-up frustration that the mirror would be so impudently turned in their direction, but they at least could retire to their twin-sized beds and cans of cat food tumbling out of the pantry, soothed with the knowledge that no scientific study as yet had proved the bold claims made in that post. They felt they could glide through another day safely ensconced in their comforting lies.

N o t  a n y m o r e.

Reader quetal left a link to a very revealing study in the comments which, like other studies before it, confirms much of what is written here at the Chateau:

Tailor Your Approach to Your Audience: Data collected by Virtual Dating Assistants revealed that while women of all ages respond well to humor, women in their early 30s and above responded well to longer, more thoughtful emails that expressed genuine interest. Women in their 20s rejected these more serious emails, preferring even some slight cockiness – or what some dating coaches call the “Cocky & Funny” approach. In fact, one particular email that is long (over 150 words), expresses interest, draws commonalities (it’s always customized), demonstrates humor as well as a sense of ambition and adventure received a 9.7% response rate from women in their 20s, a 20.5% response rate from 30-somethings, and a 50.3% [response rate] from women 40 and above. This email, according to Scott, was sent to over a thousand women of different ages, so it’s pretty clear, based on these numbers alone, that a one-size-fits-all approach to online dating is a bad one.

Pwned.

You’ll notice that the study’s results square perfectly with the Chateau’s post quoted at the top. Older women on the downslope of their sexual desirability need less game and more signals of commitment to get them in bed than younger women in their sexual primes. Or, to put it more succinctly, younger, hotter, tighter women love assholes while older, uglier, looser women gravitate to beta providers.

The reason for this age difference in women’s reactions to game is clear: Older women have less sexual marketability and are thus more likely to be pumped and dumped by a high value man. Ensuring that the man sticks around is priority number one, so older women look for signs of herbly romantic interest of the kind that you might see a humanities department professor wallow in while stroking his weak-chin-hiding white beard. One of these signs is the long-winded thoughtful email with perfect punctuation. Younger women, in contrast, are playing with pocket aces, and can afford to indulge their animal desires for the aloof, alpha jerk of their dreams.

Now, as a man, which age group of women are you more interested in? Yeah, that’s what I thought. So… turn on your jerk light. Let it shine wherever you go. Let it make a jerky glow. For all the chicks to see.

This blog frequently gets lady commenters proclaiming to the high heavens that they would never date an asshole. After a leetle prying, it is usually revealed that these howling anti-game termagants are north of the Matron-Vixen line. And that they aren’t, how shall we say?, attractive representatives of their gender.

Of course older women don’t go for assholes as much as they used to when they were younger and hotter — their rapidly closing window of options means they can’t afford the risk of satisfying their carnal need for aloof jerks who are likely to leave them as soon as a younger prospect shows up. Younger women have these worries, too, but given their many years ahead of serviceability they don’t feel them as acutely, which explains why you often see the hottest chicks on the arms of the biggest assholes.

So if you want to bang broads teetering on the edge of witherdom with kids and marriage and college funds dancing in their dreams, go easy on the cocky and funny and the negs. The older woman’s ego has taken enough of a bruising from the encroachment of reality; your negs will only push her into self-flagellating withdrawal or indignant lashing out. She needs to know she still has the kind of looks that can turn heads, so your cloying flattery will work wonders on her.

On the other hand, if you want to date hot girls in their 20s and, for a lucky few of them, early 30s, you have to give ‘em a bit of the ol’ ultrabadness. It’s the moral thing to do, if women’s pleasure is your business.

Executive Summary: Young women are harder lays. They require game and a cocky attitude. Older women are easier lays. They require flowers, compliments and cuddles. Don’t take dating advice from women. This goes double for women over 30.

Posted in Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Hitting The Wall, Ugly Truths | 158 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion