Feed on
Posts
Comments

HIIIIII!!

Feb 23rd, 2010 by

I was sitting at one of my favorite social venues when a disturbance behind me erupted. A woman had just arrived and greeted her mixed group of friends with an exaggeratedly pronounced “Hiiii!!!” All the women already sitting at the table, and the couple of men who were with them, replied nearly in unison with an even louder and prolonged “Hiiiiii!!!”. The “Hiiii!!” was annoying beyond belief; a sing-song-y, off-key yenta battle cry. It’s hard to describe the sound of a spoken word, but imagine a musical “Hi” divided into two notes with the accent (upbeat) on the first note (Hii-) followed languorously by a longer downbeat on the second whole note (-iiiiiiii), spoken in adagio and fortissimo. Would a girl saying “Hi” like this sound phony? Yes!

It’s pretty common knowledge that DC stands at the top in per capita phoniness. There is a higher density of phoniness per square mile here than even in vaunted phony cities like New York. The whole reason of DC’s existence is to persuade other people to throw money, perks, or props your way, so a finely developed skill in the art of phoniness is a requirement before stepping in the ring. But this latest incarnation of phoniness is breathtaking even to a jaded cynic like myself. And these were not teen girls. They were grown-ass women with non-profit jobs and rich daddies to pay their exhorbitant rents.

To all the girls reading this post who greet each other and their gay best boyfriends this way, I ask: Are you *really* that happy to see your friends whom you just saw last week? Or is phoniness the new black? Maybe you think the phony Hi and the accompanying fake phony smile are supposed to be feminine, but I assure you, it is not. Fingernails on a chalkboard? Yes. Feminine? No. I’ll go out on a limb here and hypothesize that girls who are fakers when greeting people are also fakers in bed.

Here’s what I think is going on. The thuper duper edge community gay culture and the girly follower female culture have fused and become as one — a vortex of caricatured, trannyfied pseudofemininity spewing nebulae of jutting manjaws, wildly faggy gesticulations, and conversations that sound downright operatic. It is a vortex of suckage that any straight man would find baffling, which come to think of it, may be the point. But I can definitely tell you what it is *not*. It’s not attractive. This illustrates another great dividing line between the sexes – our respective reactions to phoniness. In general, men loathe phonies. Women cherish the company of phonies, and embrace the phony scene with gusto. Without phonies in their lives, women would have nothing to be catty about behind closed doors.

There is a powerful feeback loop in effect when girls and gays join forces. Where does this great culture meld between city girls and city gays end?

Half the moves in men’s figure skating look like reach arounds.

Posted in Girls, Ridiculousness, The Big City Life | 135 Comments »

Reader Mailbag

Feb 22nd, 2010 by

For whatever reason, I’ve been getting more emails than ever from men thanking me for the blog and the improvements my writing has made to their love lives. I need an assistant to handle the boatloads of reader emails I’ve been getting lately. Any cute girls who like to wear schoolgirl skirts without underwear up for the, uh… position? Pupu? You seem the naughty type.

Email #1:

Most benevolent schlongmeister:

I have a quandary. I have shared my cliffs notes (consisting of links to your essays, or me getting them drunk and hollering at them) on the crimson arts with some of my nerdly friends, in hopes of making them more studly. These guys have had a lot of success; one guy went from “depressed middle aged schlub who got dumped by his fishwife, and who pines for his nerdy looking lady friends,” to “skewering 20 year old hotties by the half dozen” in a matter of a few weeks. Another was a long single fella; good looking dude, talented, keeps fit, went from “passive guy who never gets a date” to “boinks all the girls he desires.” There are other examples; I feel a benevolent fatherly glow, watching these good fellows grow from boy to man in this important area of their life.

My quandary: many of them seem unable to keep a woman. I think the seduction boards talk about this, they talk about accomplished seducers who have “something missing,” and never seem to have a girlfriend. They say stuff like the guys are so focused on the seduction process they can’t actually relate to the ladies, and so they can’t keep their girlfriends. I think that’s total girlie horse shit; “relating to women” is something fags do when they go shoe shopping with them. No, my extensive research (I asked the chicks who dumped them) indicates these dudes didn’t fuck their lady friends properly. That’s what is missing. Probably, they were taught some feminist bullshit about focusing on the clitoris like some kind of guppy fish,  or else they just lack the animal drive to fuck ‘em like an enraged gorilla. Whatever it is, I’m kind of at a loss on explaining this. I figure if I say, “learn to squat 400lbs, then fuck them like a rapist,”  they’ll just give up; either that or they’ll do something lame and serial killer-like.

You’re much better at breaking crap like this down, so maybe you can do an article on the subject some time. I figure 90% of “relationship game” consists of fucking them so hard, their stupid hamster wheel never has a chance to spin up on you. The other 10% consists of acting like you can fuck them hard enough to make their hips crack the rest of the time; aka “being da man.” Personally, I make it a policy to not hang around with women I’m schtupping unless I’m actually screwing them: I got too much crap to do to rot in front of a TV or go on “hikes” or whatever most people do to kill time, because they have nothing better to do. This is probably part of it too; lame sex + TV = getting dumped. Hot rutting + elusive man of mystery who makes the time fun = stalkers.

sincerely,

-[reader requested anonymity]

First, a general observation regarding this reader’s email. A sneering accusation often heard from the arid, anti-seduction crowd is that the self-professed pickup gurus are never seen with a girlfriend, or otherwise have trouble keeping a girl for longer than a few weeks. Pay it no heed. It is the feeble bleat of the envious and the insecure. While I don’t have a data sheet of rock hard, throbbing numbers to arouse the nerd brigade in attendance, from casual impressions I don’t see the smattering of men who are public game advocates having any more or less success than the average beta bear finding and maintaining relationships. Neil Strauss has had long term girlfriends. I think he’s in an LTR now. Lance Mason, the founder of Pickup 101 is, or was, last I heard, in an LTR. Stephane Hemon, possibly the wackiest of the game teachers who profits from his knowledge, is married (to one woman). Some of the local men I know who follow and use game principles in their lives are informally hitched. Even Mystery, narcissist extraordinaire and player supreme, has had long term commitments, though undoubtedly of the more dramatic sort that would give hives to men who weary quickly of women’s mental masturbatory games.

That aside, let’s assume for the moment that the impression that pickup artists have trouble keeping girlfriends is accurate. Two reasons would account for this. One, many men who come into the game have had a lifelong history of trouble with the ladies. When they are finally handed the skeleton key to the gated secret garden, their enthusiasm for “skewering 20 year old hotties” will often trip up their good sense in the area of managing long term relationships. It is a tightrope, balancing the skills that get the girl with the skills that keep the girl, and most men will favor the former at the expense of the latter owing to the established scientific fact that for men, variety is its own reward.

Two, when someone gives you the power to attract and seduce multitudes of women, would you immediately put your newfound power to use seducing just one woman, and then calling it a day? Let’s just say that all those girlfriend-less pickup artists are crying all the way to their well-used, rumpled bedsheets. Or, to put it another way, if the choice is between an endless string of unstable, short term flings and no women at all, which do you think most men would choose?

Ok, now to the reader’s email. There is some truth to the observation that freshly minted players have trouble connecting with women on the level that would be required to sustain an LTR. Part (not all) of the mindset that is needed for pickup is antagonistic to the mindset needed for successfully navigating an LTR. When a man is hopped up on the thrill of meeting new women, he often loses sight of the little things that a girlfriend would want from him to strengthen their emotional bond. And so we see weird things happening to PUAs, such as Mystery losing his cool and his Russian girlfriend to a slaphappy roommate, and students of pickup workshops complaining a month later that the girls they banged aren’t interested in LTRs. What is happening to these men is a blunting of the psychological acumen needed to fulfill a girlfriend’s desires by heavy use of those alternate psychological ploys that serve masterfully as seduction tools. Listening with love to a woman is one of those key skills that seems to take a backseat to the wicked art of seduction.

But like the emailer, I too, find that an overwrought emphasis on “relating to women” is counterproductive for men, and also a little faggy. A lot of forlorn betas and sackless wonders will read “relating to women” as a ewe-like war cry to show more emotion, be more sensitive, and find more commonality with women on women’s terms. Let’s be clear: Couples shoe shopping is not going to fix your LTR. Men and women will never find commonality, and nor should they, because men and women by the hand of the double helical godking are designed from the origin point to exist in two separate spheres of perception. From a man’s correct point of view, women are not meant to be “related to”; they are meant to be seduced, fucked, cared for, laughed with, and loved a little or a lot. Don’t go looking for self actualization in a relationship.

The emailer says that the women he spoke to suggested it was a lack of proper rogering that turned them off from consdering their lovers as long term potential. I find this plausible, barring the usual caveats to take whatever women say with a silo of salt. A good bit of advice I could give to men who might suspect this is the problem is to focus less on tender lovemaking and more on raw, Discovery Channel savannah-style humping. Don’t worry about giving her an orgasm. If you bang with abandon, sweaty and unprepossessed, like a majestic lion king who just fatally bit the necks of twelve lion cubs and assumed by force the position of alpha male of the pride, with all the perks therein, it won’t much matter if she has an orgasm. For women, just as much stimulation is gotten from the feeling of being pumped like the submissive animal creature she is as from the actual crest and resolution of a physiological orgasm. If the thought of dominating your woman in bed shrivels your scrote, may I suggest a long and sexless marriage to a hag shrike who writes a feminist blog?

Email #2:

Chicks don’t dig jerks. They dig men who _can_ be jerks.

What’s jerkiness except taking without reciprocating, doing and saying what you want, and generally enjoying yourself without concern for the cost to others? We all want to be jerks. In fact, the easiest thing in the world is to be a jerk. But only some people can get away with being jerks, and most have to work hard to avoid jerkery. That is, only some people can take what they want without fearing the anger of other men. Perhaps fewer still can take what they want without fearing the anger of women.

The upshot for your readership is that women don’t have some special attraction to jerky actions per se. Instead, they are attracted to powerful men who have no reason to temper their preferred state of jackassery. Maybe fake it until you make it applies here, but I’m guessing most men can only push the limits of their asshole potential rather than break out of them entirely.

All the best,

C

The above was written by a woman going by the handle “Candy Fox”. If that’s her real name, I salute the gumption she’ll need to handle the challenges that lie ahead of her in the quest to marry up in social class.

The first line stuck out: “Chicks don’t dig jerks. They dig men who _can_ be jerks.” This is semantics. The men who *can* be jerks are often the men who *are* jerks. Why? Because they can be. It’s similar to an assertion I recall longtime commenter and sprightly feminine ingenue Alias Clio made, which went something along the lines of “Women don’t fall for the asshole behavior. We fall in love *despite* the asshole behavior.”

From most men’s perspectives, it’s inconsequential whether women fall for the jerk despite his assholery, or because of his assholery. The bottom line is that here, there, and everywhere, women (and particularly women of the highest sexual market value) are falling in love with, and having raunchy sex with, a rogues gallery of assholes, dicks, jerks, cads, boors, and even serial killers. So you’ll excuse the less fortunate in love men for not much caring about the rationalizations that women employ to assuage their guilt over falling for men Mom would not approve of, (but would secretly cream for).

The contention itself is false, anyhow. A simple thought experiment should suffice to show why this is so. If women were truly falling for jerks *despite* their jerkiness, then it stands to reason that the men women fall for would be randomly distributed from amongst the male population, as the positive traits that are presumably attracting these women would be found equally in jerks and non-jerks. But this is not what we see. (Note that marriage rates and marital choices are not indicative of what women truly desire in a sexual partner, especially when those women are forced into a corner by delayed singledom and aging cougarification to settle into a lame marriage with a peabody puffboy out of expedience.) Instead what we see is a notable sexual preference by women for men who aren’t particularly nice.

If women wanted nice, the beta store is fully stocked with saintly men. Candy Fox contends that women want nice, but they want it in a package that is capable of threatening jerk-like actions. But how is a woman to know a man is capable of jerkiness if he doesn’t demonstrate it? Answer: she can’t know without demonstration. And when is that demonstration of jerkiness most pertinent to a woman’s subconscious need to gather mate value information about a man? Answer: right at the beginning when she is deciding whether to have sex with him.

So we can easily conclude from my little thought experiment that women indeed do fall for jerks *because* of their jerkiness. Alias Clio would say that jerks have concomitant desireable traits that are actually responsible for her feelings of sexual arousal. She might say that a jerk’s jerkiness is not desireable, but his charm and cockiness are. Leaving aside for purposes of argument the telling observation that charm and cockiness are more often found in jerks than in niceguys (hello… ladieeees ), it is the height of hamster rationalization to presume there is no connection between a jerk’s charming attractiveness and his jerkiness. It is as if women wish to argue that loveable, sexy jerks are really two separate men in the same body, a Dr. Jerkyl Mr. Sly bipolarity that has infected the known human universe like a vampiric plague.

It’s a cop-out. An ego escape clause. A semantical nimbleness of tongue. The jerk makes his jerky presence known almost from the instant you meet him. It’s exhibited not just in his actions, but in his irresistible aloofness. No, one of the things women love about a jerk is… his jerkiness. And that is why, ladies, you will get more of what you love.

Posted in Reader Mailbag | 115 Comments »

Giving Up On A Relationship

Feb 18th, 2010 by

“Issues”. That’s a twinkletoes word, isn’t it? “We have issues, dear.” “I think we need to discuss some issues.” Almost as bad as “closure”. What makes “issues” ambiguously slippery is the fact that the issues that matter to men diverge so wildly from the issues that matter to women. Women normally leave relationships because of issues having to do with nebulous smoke and mirrors concepts like “compatibility” and “fulfilling her needs”. As all of you must know (since you read my blog) these excuses by women are merely handwaving bromides to conceal the crass tingle generator under the skirt that is actually responsible for her decision-making. Nonetheless, the relationship “issues” that matter to women are indeed a bit more complicated than those that motivate men to either stay with or leave a lover. A woman’s 463 bullet point checklist is a real phenomenon and dwarfs most men’s checklists for acceptable partners. If you don’t like tofu AND you fart in bed AND you voted for Ron Paul, she just might spend sleepless nights agonizing over whether you are The One. (My advice: Ignore 99% of a woman’s “needs”. Attempting to fulfill more than 1% of a woman’s needs will brand you with a big fat “B” for beta.)

Men are fairly clear and even simple in their (usually) unstated reasons for feeling the need to flee a relationship. Essentially, two uber variables are responsible for how men feel about their lovers. One, how hot is she? And two, how novel is her pussy? That’s pretty much all there is. Sure, minor details like compatibility and shared values will have some influence over how warmly men feel about their partners, but these factors pale in comparison to the hotness and freshness of the pussy in question. For example, a man who just met a babe ranked 9 is going to want to fuck her nonstop and dream of slaving away to give her the world. On the other hand, a man who has been with the same 5 ranked woman for years will be able to go weeks, if not months, free of any desire to fuck her as his thoughts are preoccupied with visions of skirt-hiking the bounty of babes he sees on his morning commute every day.

These two important variables influencing men’s feeling of commitment to a lover can be represented in the following handy graphs.

As we can see from the above, most men couldn’t be bothered to bang 5s and below more than once per day. But anything over a 6 and a man’s sexual urge shoots through the roof. 8s, 9s, and 10s are really nature’s natural viagra. A 90 year old who hasn’t sported wood in twenty years will suddenly spring to life if Zooey Deschanel sits naked on his lap.

In this graph we see that the novelty of the pussy has a big impact on how often the man wants to do the woman. Pussy that he’s woken up next to for ten years is unlikely to stir his loins at all, while brand new pussy will remind him why it’s great to be alive. An ugly truth of life is that men, unlike women, simply get off on sexual variety for its own sake. Don’t take it personally, ladies. We’re not cads. We’re just formed that way.

This post should serve as a valuable guide for women wanting to figure out just how deeply loyal their boyfriends or husbands actually feel towards them. A man’s strength of commitment can be measured surprisingly accurately by these two variables.

(Note that I’m referring to a man’s “strength” of commitment, not his “lack of options preventing disloyalty”. These are two different concepts. A man with lots of options on the dating market — i.e. an alpha — will only feel strongly loyal — and hence, unlikely to cheat or withhold resources — to a girlfriend who is hot and piping fresh. This strong emotion-directed loyalty is a separate beast from social- and peer-influenced loyalty, and is the type of loyalty that burns brightest but is also quickest to fade. Betas also lose their sense of strong emotional loyalty, but unlike the alphas their lack of options means they are pretty much stuck with the same old same old, mouthing platitudes on anniversaries and birthdays to keep the mutli-horned ball-smashing divorce demon from breaching a portal to his world.)

So, ladies, if you want to know how commited he is to you, a simple test (and one that requires being bracingly honest with yourself) is to tally how many times per day on average he desires you intimately. Is he constantly groping you? Good news! He hardly notices other women. Has it been a week since he last fucked you? Better start combing through his cellphone texts.

When I start feeling like I could go a day without fucking my girlfriend, that’s when I seriously mull the option to reenter the dating market with purpose. I start flirting with other women and running game again like I was single and horny. And I notice more clearly when other women are flirting with me. This may seem like I’m placing some hard-to-please demands on my women, but the woman who can keep me sexually entertained for years will know she is a worthy lover indeed.

Posted in Hope and Change, Relationships, The Id Monster | 236 Comments »

What Is A Beta Male?

Feb 17th, 2010 by

I catch flak from some readers complaining that there is no way to draw a valid distinction between alpha and beta males. I don’t know what planet these readers live on (planet Delusional Tard?), but instead of pointing them to my dating market value test for men, I’ll just let a video speak for me. If this doesn’t help clear their muddled thinking, nothing will. Behold: Baba Beta!

“My teeth are a 10!” Howard Stern in his prime was comedy gold.

Posted in Beta, Funny/Lolblogs | 115 Comments »

Valentine’s Day Mascara

Feb 16th, 2010 by

Valentine’s Day is probably the one day of the year which presents special difficulties to the harem king attempting to juggle his multiple lovers. Birthdays and anniversaries are scattered and Christmas absences can be excused by claiming to spend time with family. But Valentine’s Day is that one day of the year that every girl in the known universe expects to be spending with the man who is laying intimately with her. So what does the Man With Multiple Lovers do on this most romantic of days?

I can tell you what the harem king doesn’t do: Tell the truth. There is some literature in the seduction community dealing with harem management (or “multiple long term relationships”) for truly advanced players, but what is counseled is something along the lines of 1. be honest, 2. reframe, and 3. be exceptionally high status. For most men, satisfying condition nmber 3 is unlikely, which is the most important variable in being able to successfully and *openly* manage multiple lovers. There is a reason that seduction community advice for handling MLTRs is so sparse and half-baked — it’s damned hard to do. The fact is that most successful players — alphas and greater betas alike — will lie out of expedience to enable the gravy train of multiple concurrent pussy to keep rolling. Honest and open MLTRs of the sort extolled by pickup instructors who are scared of being labeled misogynists are very rare. I estimate less than 0.5% of men can pull it off for longer than a few months. Eventually, one or more of the girls will tire of the arrangement and opt out, and it will usually be the highest quality [read: age 18- 25, BMI 17 – 23] concubine in his harem, because she is the one with the most options on the open sexual market.

As for reframing, yes, if your game is exceptional and your aloofness unshakeable, you can execute a smooth reframe with all your women and avoid lying to them about sleeping around. But I mean your game has to be tighter than an Asian chick’s virgin anus. And don’t expect it to last much beyond the four month mark. If you think kickass reframing will net you three hot, faithful, simultaneous long term girlfriends who dote on you for years, you need to come down to earth. Your game is not that good. Even pinnacle alpha males have trouble with this. You think Angelina Jolie would tolerate for long a second lover in Brad’s bed? Sure, she likely looks the other way at his dalliances (in much the same way Elin Woods ignored the evidence of Tiger’s blatant cheating for years until the dam burst), but Brad upholds his end of the bargain by LYING about those dalliances, either forthrightly or by omission. I’m assuming Brad is cheating, because the odds of a man of his status not cheating on a rapidly trannie-mogrifying wife like Jolie are infinitesimally low.

An alternative to psy-ops pimp-style harem management for successfully operating an open and honest MLTR is to relinquish your male prerogative as sole pussy possessor. If you state up front to your girls that your desire to bed a variety of women means it’s only natural you don’t place the same expectations of fidelity on them, you can amp up your aloofness game to maximum overload and actually pull off the coveted Open and Honest MLTR. Upside: You never have to worry about covering your tracks. (Roosh recently wrote a good post about track covering). Downside: You may be swimming in polluted vaj. The downside risk to this alternative is so anathema to the majority of men, that even if they have mentally rationalized their way to embracing the wonders of the open, polyamorous relationship, they will likely find it nearly impossible to control their emotions should they suspect one of their favored mistresses is fucking another man on the side. The god of biomechanics, the one true god, is not to be trifled with. This also explains why the denizens of professed polyamorous arrangements are usually ugly, fat, middle-aged hippies with greasy hair. When the grotesqueries you are banging are practically worthless in the sexual market, you don’t much care if they screw around. You aren’t losing much.

I don’t mean to be a complete downer on the concept of the open MLTR. There is a chance, not insignificant, that following the precepts of the open relationship by establishing early on with your women a very loose code of conduct could redound in your favor. Women aren’t linear in thought or action, so telling them they have the option to fuck on the side since that is what you will be doing does not mean that your women are actually going to follow through and fuck on the side. It could just as well result in them wondering in awe at your alphaness that you don’t care if your concubines “cheat” on you. This is aloofness game taken to the nth degree, and can often send the rationalization hamsters spinning so furiously that your multiple girlfriends won’t have the mental energy to expend seeking out additional male partners. They will instead spend their spare time analyzing the smallest details of your words and actions. Remember, too, that it is not in the nature of women to sleep with more than one man at a time, so the open relationship is often open in name only. What normally happens to open relationships is the primary (most attractive) girl bolts after a few months while the lesser girls squabble for sole rights to your time.

Which brings us back to Valentine’s Day. How does the man with multiple lovers deal with V-Day? Well, as I’ve amply demonstrated above, he doesn’t tell the truth. That would be sexual suicide for most men. He prefers not to blatantly lie either, not because of his tender concern for upholding a moral order in the universe, but because as a practical matter it’s hard to keep up with lies. And the inveterate player never lets his eye too far off the practical matters, even for men such as myself with a strong streak of romanticism. No, what he does instead is EVADE. And evasion is best accomplished through planning and foresight.

Let’s say you are currently banging three girls, rated 8, 7 and 5. You’ve been with the 8 for six months, the 7 for four months, and the 5 two months. (The 5 is your guaranteed booty call when you MUST BUST RIGHT NOW.) Obviously, the 8 is going to receive the bulk of your loving attention, and you will be most upset if she were the one to leave you. So you set up the official Valentine’s Day date with the 8. Plan to do the usual stuff with her — nice restaurant, flowers, charming flattery, wild sex. Two weeks before V-Day you call the 7 and tell her to make sure she keeps the weekend before Valentine’s Day free, because you are going to take her out and show her a good time. Then you call the 5 and tell her to be free a couple of days after V-Day. Why do you do this? By preemptively arranging dates with your lesser girls around Valentine’s Day, you buy yourself plausible exemption from having to spend time with them on V-Day itself. They will be so happy that you’re taking them out they won’t be too bothered by the fact that it’s not on Valentine’s Day. If they ask why you aren’t taking them out on V-Day (most girls won’t ask, as it would be an admission of their doubts about their worthiness to you), tell them you spend Valentine’s Day with your family. Or just say you’ll be out of town, so you wanted to see them before you leave. If the spirit moves you, have some flowers delivered to them on V-Day, which they will receive with warm smiles while you are blasting a glorious load in the face of your number one lover.

Posted in Escape, Game, Girls, Pretty Lies, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement, The Good Life | 125 Comments »

Is College A Poon Nirvana?

Feb 11th, 2010 by

Readers have sent me this New York Beta Times article about the skewed sex ratio on college campuses. It turns out there is widespread discrimination against men in favor of admitting women to higher institutions of learning. If I were a knee-jerk liberal, this would be my go-to explanation. Better yet, if I were a culturally cocooned fruitcup leftie elitist of the sort who would write for the NYBTimes, I might explain the dearth of male participation in higher learning this way:

Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said. In this way, some colleges mirror retirement communities, where women often find that the reward for outliving their husbands is competing with other widows for the attentions of the few surviving bachelors.

Get that? Women are victimized by men for outperforming them in college admissions. I feel manipulated by this media spin. Somebody call tha police!

The article itself is interesting not for its trenchant analysis, but for the money quotes by some of the coeds [reminder: sexual prime, age: 18 – 21, BMI: 17 – 23].

Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent [of men on campus], there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

I think Ms. Dallas fucked up her math. Or she is really picky. I presume she meant to say 50% of that 40% of men, but confused half of 40 (citing 20%) for half of 40% as a percentage. In fact, she seems to be all over the place confusing percentages with absolute numbers. You can’t expect much from an advertising major. On the other hand, if she really did mean that only 20% of the men on campus would interest her, then the imbalanced sex ratio seems to be doing nothing to curb the natural inborn phenomenon of Hottie Hypergamy. (Non-hottie hypergamy usually resolves itself in buckets of ice cream or soul-crushing strings of one night stands. Do note that a woman’s right to choose ice cream takes precedence over her right to choose a beta.)

The very next sentence by the article’s author is this:

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”

Hm. Not sure how Alex Williams segued so effortlessly from Jayne Dallas confessing that despite the imbalanced sex ratio she still only finds 20% of the men attractive to “this puts guys in a position to play the field”. Correction Mr. (or Ms.?) Williams: This puts ALPHA MALES in a position to play the field. Betas continue chafing themselves to relief.

Thanks to simple laws of supply and demand, it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine’s Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box.

“I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding,” said Kelly Lynch, a junior at North Carolina, recalling a recent experience.

This article is useless without a proper analysis of the types of men on campus who are getting blatantly propositioned by women. But the NYBTimes won’t touch that with a ten foot schlong, because it might mean peeking behind the frilly lace at what exactly drives female mating choice. Let me start off the discussion by suggesting that the “10% of guys” who are the recipients of bumpandgrindage are pretty much the same 10% of guys on college campuses without an imbalanced sex ratio. Oh sure, maybe a few extra dudes luck out from a favorable sex ratio, but by and large female hypergamy is as rock solid unalterable as is male attraction to slender hourglass figures and youthful beauty. Which is why you’ll see a bigger increase in the number of voluntarily single women choosing to sit out the dating game when the odds are against them than you would see an increase in the number of hotties slumming it with betas who would normally repulse them. This is not to say the sex ratio has no impact. It does. Just not as much as most would believe. The sex ratio’s biggest impact is how it changes courtship behavior (more women dressing sluttily; more men acting like cads), but courtship behavior is not the same as fucking. The endgame is still “Who is she fucking?”, and by my take, a favorable sex ratio for men doesn’t much change the calculus of women seeking the 10-20% top dogs for fucking. As I’ve written before:

Roissy Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

Thanks to the sex ratio, a lot of these college chicks choose to share the cock of a worthy insperminator rather than settle for a beta, no matter how numerically scarce beta penii happens to be. They don’t much like sharing, but they like receiving the tepid seed of a milquetoast puffboy even less.

Naturally, all systems have a breaking point. I would bet that when the sex ratio becomes radically skewed — let’s say 80% women 20% men — you would start to see some strange female behavior. Cats laying down with dogs, women laying down with betas. It’s probably happened before in human prehistory. One evo theory suggests the reason for Euro women’s exemplary beauty stems from a time in the distant past when large numbers of eligible paleobachelors were killed off hunting big prey, leaving the remaining men to choose from among the hordes of lonely women. These men likely chose the hottest babes to pass on their genes, ushering forth the big-eyed neotenous era we have today. As with all good things in life, beauty, too, was born in a crucible of boiling blood. Thanks, God!

Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”

Wait a sec. Six women for every four men and yet there remain men who can’t get laid? How could this be? *scratching head, looking skyward and sticking tongue out a little* Nope, I just can’t figure out why there are male students sitting around lonely and single. For those men attending college who think a favorable sex ratio will spare you the need to learn game, I hope you can see the folly of that thinking. At best, a good sex ratio simply means more betas getting taunted by slutty women flashing scads of skin to catch the attention of the few alphas in the room.

“It causes girls to overanalyze everything — text messages, sideways glances, conversations,” said Margaret Cheatham Williams, a junior at North Carolina. “Girls will sit there with their friends for 15 minutes trying to figure out what punctuation to use in a text message.”

Girls have always overanalyzed the laconic conversations of alpha males. The sex ratio doesn’t change that. All it does is make their overanalyzing of the same men tinged with frantic desperation. Sorry betas, your conversations don’t get overanalyzed by women. They get disappeared; sucked into a void of whitenoise. You know, kinda like how you don’t remember a single word a fat chick said to you.

I haven’t written much about sex ratios because I don’t find it to be all that pertinent to a man’s daily life and his odds with women. I’ve noted that on a microcosmic scale a very bad sex ratio can mean a shitty night at the bar fending off armies of Bob Evans, and perhaps on a macro scale a skewed sex ratio will affect a host of social indicators. But for the day to day gaming of chicks, sex ratio isn’t going to have much impact one way or the other, unless it is severe and prolonged. If I had to guess, I’d say a sex ratio that favors men — as we have on a lot of college campuses these days — would mean the following:

  • Women acting sluttier.
  • Fat women ostracized more than ever.
  • Betas taunted by a flesh machine churning out display product they cannot buy.
  • Alphas living like harem kings.
  • Alphas in general acting more caddish. More drinking, fighting, fornicating, and video gaming.
  • Betas in general withdrawing more from social life to seek the sympathetic embrace of their computers or like-minded losers in love.
  • Dating replaced by fucking (“hooking up” in the current nomenclature).
  • Blowjobs and anal sex increasingly accepted as virginity-sparing sex substitutes.
  • Later marriages.
  • And finally, a tired rationalization hamster punching in overtime. The female mind has never been so besotted with challenges to her anti-slut barricade!

Bottom line: If you are an alpha male, this is a great time to be a student at State U. If you are a beta male, life sucks as usual. If you are an alpha female, things just got tougher. If you are a beta female, you have a glorious career in HR and a schnerdling husband to look forward to in between bed-pounding nights and tearful morning-afters with the sexily oblivious men who would forever haunt your memories and your heart.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Sluts, The Good Life | 487 Comments »

It’s A Trap!

Feb 9th, 2010 by

Reader PA posed the following game-related scenario:

Here is a shit test I have no idea how to answer: when a woman makes a self-deprecating remark about her own looks. This happened to me twice in very recent past, and I just smiled and said nothing, but there probably is a better response.

Those weren’t young hotties you need to nuclear-neg, nor ugly women you kind of feel sorry for. Both were very attractive (for their age), older than me.

Not trying to game them or anything, just wanting to keep good relations (work, extended social life) and gina-tingle is how you keep good relations with women. Got a good response?

Ah, the classic passive-aggressive self-deprecation shit test. Be careful, men, this is an advanced form of female game that is subtle enough to trip up even the most battle-worn players. Answer this one wrong and you might be staring down the barrel of a pouty face for weeks to come.

Broadly speaking, there are five more or less effective ways to answer the self-deprecation shit test (SDST):

  1. Validate her. “No, you don’t have crows’ feet. You have great skin. You’re gorgeous.”
  2. Playfully invalidate her. “Oh yeah, your crows’ feet are HUGE. Like, you have the grand canyon of crows’ feet. A murder of crows has set up shop on your face, pooping and pecking all over you!”
  3. Tangentially agree. “Oh, well, life can be tough.”
  4. Ignore her. See: PA’s response. Abruptly changing the subject works too.
  5. Reframe. “Have you always been this vain?”

The five responses above all have their pros and cons, but some are more pro than con. The validation tactic of number one should be avoided with any woman you have been dating/banging/betrothed to for less than six months. Validation is the easy peasy lemon squeezy cop-out for uncreative betas with fear in their hearts. Remember that the primary purpose of the female shit test is to suss out beta fear of loss. A woman wants to know that if she pushes too far, you would be willing to dump her in 30 seconds no looking back, with or without the heat coming around the corner. Sure, she may not want to be dumped, but she tingles when the threat of a dumping is real. So if you validate a woman her poofy head hamster will rationalize that you are merely placating her to avoid losing out on her golden pussy (or her social approval). This is seriously the way women think. I know, it’s crazy, but you work with what’s put before you. The only scenario in which I would counsel validation as an effective response to the SDST is when the man has established his alpha bonafides with the woman, and they have been together for longer than six months. It is not unusual for a longtime wife, let’s say, to begin harboring doubts about her continued attractiveness to her husband, especially if said husband has recently gotten a promotion and a new fresh-faced secretary to go along with it. In such cases, the SDST is a genuine cry for confidence-boosting flattery. Give it to her, and then followup with a playful buttsmack and a cocky “And let’s keep your ass that way”.

Option two, the playful invalidation, is perfect for women in their prime. The most sexually valuable women (age: 15 – 25, BMI 17 – 23) will toss out SDSTs for one reason only — to test your alpha mettle. They crave the non-standard response, and will light up if you exaggeratedly agree with them. A couple of caveats: One, don’t try this if you haven’t yet mastered the art of spite-free teasing. I’ve seen too many hard-up men look to teasing banter as the holy grail of game, only to fumble during the execution as their years of bitterness bubble to the surface, polluting their body language and subtext with the stink of beta. Two, don’t playfully invalidate a girl who is as bad as, or worse than, her self-deprecating remarks. If a fat chick says “I’m too fat”, then a teasing “Oh yeah, you’re HUGE like well-fed walrus” will crush her soul, no matter how obvious your eyeroll. Unless your intention is to crush her soul. Not that I would condone such a thing. *angel halo*

Option three, tangential agreement, is the courtier’s sophisticated form of withering contempt. Sometimes the deepest cuts are made with the blade sheathed. Just a glint of the ivory handle will deliver the message. If you want to hurt a woman playing these SDST games, this is the way to go. I wouldn’t advise option three if you are trying to get in her pants, unless you suspect she is a masochistic chick who craves the loving ministrations of a straight up asshole. See: Any DC lawyer chick.

Option four, ignoring her, is a safe bet when you are stuck for words or caught off guard. It won’t wow her, but more importantly it won’t make you sound beta. For most men, that would be an accomplishment. Remember, too, that abruptly changing the subject is a perfectly reasonable ploy to shake off the rattle of an SDST. Abrupt subject changes may strike the male ear as inherently illogical and nefarious, but the female ear hears the world differently. An abrupt subject change is just an excuse for more YAY DRAMA. In fact, it is the prerogative of the alpha male to change subjects. Who else is gonna do it?

Option five, the reframe, is, as most of you have guessed, my personal favorite. Not only does it expertly shake off an SDST bomb, but it puts her on the defensive and let’s her know you don’t approve of such typical female game-playing. A woman on the defensive, cowering before a stronger and more willful man, is a woman crouched in tingle mode, ready to give birth to a womb-shaking orgasm. Which brings me to…

Maxim #83: Awareness of a woman’s games is a precision-guided weapon in a man’s arsenal of seduction. Slyly revealing your knowledge of a woman’s obstructive game tactics is like catnip to her pussy.

Maxim #83 is so effective simply because the great majority of men are ignorant of women’s game-playing. Insinuating to a woman playing such games that you know the score will help you stand out from the crowd of sauseeege. Having the balls to call out a woman on her games instead of lamenting about it to buddies during the post-pickup debriefing will earn you the admiration of feminists and normal, healthy women alike.

Posted in Game, Girls | 149 Comments »

Fat Craps Give Michelle Obama Flak For Telling Uncomfortable Truth

Feb 5th, 2010 by

Why is Michelle Obama catching flak for saying that she’s careful about what she feeds her kids?

“We went to our pediatrician all the time,” Obama said. “I thought my kids were perfect — they are and always will be — but he [the doctor] warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance.”

“I didn’t see the changes. And that’s also part of the problem, or part of the challenge. It’s often hard to see changes in your own kids when you’re living with them day in and day out,” she added. “But we often simply don’t realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else’s kid — and I was in that position.”

Obama said the doctor suggested she first look at her daughters’ body mass index (BMI). The minor changes she subsequently made in their daily habits, Obama said, made all the difference.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. What could possibly offend about a mother making sure her kids don’t pig out on bad food and bloat up into something hideous? Heh. Never underestimate the lengths to which fat shits will waddle away from the truth with their porky sausage fingers stuck in their ears.

Some charge that Obama’s comments may be perceived as a focus on weight and dieting, which sends the wrong message to the public. The first lady should be discussing behavioral change, not weight loss, said Laura Collins Lyster-Mensh, an eating disorder activist and executive director of Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Disorder (F.E.A.S.T.).

“We’ve confused health and weight in a way that’s very confusing for children and very confusing for parents,” Lyster-Mensh said. “When we speak publicly about putting our children on a diet, we start to get into weight stigma and confusing the message to families.”

Hey lardulous, weight stigma is a GOOD THING. In fact, many stigmas are good things when they encourage people to feel bad about their wretched conditions and do something to improve themselves. For instance, right now I’m stigmatizing you as a fat, smelly lesbian. Luckily, you can do something about the first two problems.

The focus on obesity, Lyster-Mensh said, turns this into an issue of appearances, which does not bode well for children, especially girls.

Point one: Appearance matters. It is not a social construct that can be willed or legislated away. Cruel human judgment of others based on appearance is an eternal reality of living in this dimension. You may not like it, but reality is never gonna bend to accommodate your tender feelings, so either get with the program and shape up or sink into a silo of snickers bars ticking down the useless remaining years of your fat, foreshortened life. Point two: Never take seriously a woman with a hyphenated multiplicity of surnames.

“There is simply no reason to be pushing children into weight reduction diets and that’s the message parents out there get,” Lyster-Mensh said. “Dieting is a gateway drug to eating disorders for those with a biological predisposition to eating disorders.”

It’s an impressive feat to pack so much self delusion into one quote, but this banshee has managed it. She sounds like the type of nutjob who thinks porn is a gateway drug to serial killing. One thing we do know for sure, though — crashing the buffet table is a gateway drug to ugly cottage cheesy thighs and neck rolls. If you’re going to do gateway drugs, at least stick with the drugs that not only make you feel good, but look good as well.

The president then spoke about what he and the first lady did to balance their daughters’ diet, and the impact “was so significant that the next time we visited our pediatrician he was amazed.”

Even then, critics panned the president for commenting on the weight of Sasha, who is now 8 years old.

A lot of the little Latino kids that live in DC are roly poly beachballs. I’ve seen toddlers who looked like they swallowed a keg. Starch bombs! Early intervention is always best.

Some say parents talking about their daughters’ weight can have a harmful impact on young girls.

What’s more harmful to young girls — a) telling them to watch what they eat so they don’t get fat, or b) sitting idly by as they do get fat? Of the two groups of girls (A and B) which group is more likely to marry well, have healthy children, and generally be happier about their lot in life?

“One of the things I’ve noticed is that a lot of girls develop an eating disorder because they don’t want criticism from their parents,” said Jeanne Sager, a reporter who blogs on parenting Web site babble.com, and who, herself, suffered from an eating disorder.

Congratulations, lawyers, you’ve been supplanted! “Reporters” are the new filth of the universe. Their rancid wrongheaded ideology has so warped their thinking that the institution of journalism is now neck deep in the choking pigshit of postmodern platitudes and perpetual lies.

“As a public figure, I think Mrs. Obama wanted people to be able to relate to her experiences and I’m sure she was unaware… that some of those messages could be taken in an unhealthy way,” Lyster-Mensh said. “I am not a critic of the Obamas’ approach to healthy behavior with their kids. I am concerned about weight-based language because it’s demonstrably, scientifically not helpful.”

“Weight-based language”. It just gets better and better. If you scold your kid for getting an F in algebra, is that “merit-based language”? What about breaking and entering? “Law-based language”? Pissing in your face? “Manners-based language”? Looks to me like Michelle Obama is being a good mother, and that’s what really chafes your dingelberried hippo hide.

Now, Michelle, hon, babe. You need to apply your good sense to your own super supple backside. That purple SOTU dress was not flattering. Double wide? 100% true.

Posted in Current Events, Hungry Hungry Hippos | 160 Comments »

Plausible Deniability

Feb 4th, 2010 by

Most horny women will never come right out and ask for sex from their lovers. You will not often hear “Let’s fuck NOW!” or “Do you want to bang?” from your girlfriend, or from many women you are dating throughout your lifetime. A few raunchy broads of questionable virtue will take the initiative dominatrix-style, and you will be pleased by their efforts, but all in all most normal men prefer the coyness of women who relinquish themselves to sex instead of demand it. Truth is, ladies, we find it adorable.

A woman’s need to feel physically desired is stronger than her need for food and shelter on the Vajlovian hierarchy of values. Thus, women tend to avoid outright asking for sex, even when explosively horny, because it sidesteps entirely their prime directive to passively arouse the male to action. But oh how their tingles itch for relief! And so women have devised a complicated system of sexual hints and innuendo that would make a French aristocrat blush with envy. I continue coming across numerous examples of just such scandalous whisperings from the women I meet in my life.

  • The Human Meow. This is where a woman will make cute animal noises, similar to bird chirps or meows, to indicate her desire for sex. They will often sound like “Mmm? MmmMMMmmm?” with upturned eyebrows, as if waiting for you to clue in. Naturally, all systems women use to communicate their wish for sex must adhere to the first rule to maintain plausible deniability. So if you call a woman out on her human meows she will deny with the sort of ingenious excuses that so seamlessly blend reality and fantasy. To wit: “If you want sex baby, you could just say so instead of meowing like a hungry cat.” Her: “I was asking if you’d like to make us some green tea!”
  • The Telepathic Sex Stare. Half-lidded, lips imperceptibly parted, you wonder if she’s doing an end run around your consciousness and making a direct connection with your hindbrain. Women rarely win staring contests, except when they want sex. Or when they’re accusing you of cheating.
  • The Symbolic Suggestion. When a woman suggests “Let’s have the red wine instead of beer” or “Let’s move to the bedroom, it’s sunnier in there” or “Let’s light the candles to save electricity”, it means “Let’s have sex”. “Let’s flush the toilet after a leaving behind a giant deuce” does NOT mean “Let’s have sex”. Learned that the hard way.
  • The Unprompted Shoe Removal. Here’s an important tip, gentlemen. When you have brought a girl back to your place or you have gone to hers, pay close attention to how soon she removes her shoes. If she takes hers off quickly upon settling in, you have good chance for intimacy.
  • The “Wow, I could use a backrub” Bonk Over The Head. This one is obvious. When she starts rubbing her neck and complaining about her hard day at work, it is NOT your cue to give her an extended backrub that hurts your hands. It IS, however, your cue to give her a two second shoulder grasp, followed immediately by a cupping of her tits from behind. Note: Longtime married men should take into consideration that the wife would really prefer the backrub to sex. Sorry, hubbies. Shoulda listened to me.
  • The Aunt Jemima Channeling. Pancakes are no fun without Aunt Jemima’s. “Do you know what would really go great with this new king-sized bed we just bought?” Don’t wait for an answer. She’s not giving it.
  • The Snake Hiss. When you come up behind her to scratch her head or briefly rub her shoulder, she’ll inhale an exaggerated hissing sound of pleasure — SSSSSSssssssss — that means she wants more. A lot more.
  • The Campbell’s Soup Song. Give your woman a kiss. After the kiss, if she’s still leaning forward with half-closed eyes and saying something like “Mm mm mm, that was good” you can translate that as “Mm mm mm, I need a deep sea drilling.”
  • And finally, one of my personal favorites: The “I’m Horny” State of the Union Address. When a girl is superhorny and she just doesn’t have the patience for subtler means of communicating her arousal, she will sometimes stare blankly into space and announce, unceremoniously and without untoward inflection to no one in particular, “I’m horny”. She will say this with a hint of exasperation even, but she will never say it to you directly, even if you are standing one foot in front of her. In that case, she will turn her head 90 degrees to the left and declare her horniness to an invisible audience of psychotherapists. Under no circumstance should you respond “You are?” This will kill her horniness faster than a weeping beta with a microchub. Don’t grab her right away either. Wait a minute to grant her a plenury indulgence from her brazen suggestiveness, and then pounce. Skip foreplay. You’ll discover upon first grasp an angry swollen river of passion already swallowing your kayak whole.

Posted in Girls, Ridiculousness | 92 Comments »

Is John Mayer Reading My Blog?

Feb 3rd, 2010 by

On January 21st, I wrote the following in this post:

Tiger Woods may not be a model citizen, but neither does he have an emotional or psychological problem. […] If Woods has a problem, it’s that he got married. Big mistake, chief.

On January 28th, John Mayer said the following in an interview with the UK paper The Independent:

“Tiger Woods’ problems come from him being married. The end,” Mayer said to the U.K.’s The Independent newspaper. “If Tiger Woods was single and he texted a girl and said ‘I wanna wear your ass like a hat’, why would that ever hit the news?”

There’s no date when the actual interview took place, but I bet John Mayer is a CH reader. Welcome aboard John. Good to see you heeding my advice and staying far away from marriage. I admit I laughed a little when you squeezed out the last drops of Jennifer Aniston’s precious years, and then played Lucy moving the football with the engagement ring. Stay single.

Posted in Vanity | 55 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion