A frequent question in the sphere is how to help young women spot a player. The answer is he will be that perfect boyfriend she has been searching for. Laura Fraser at Marie Claire describes the experience (H/T Vox & Han Solo):
I met [him] in line for a film screening while visiting Manhattan from San Francisco. I was convinced I’d found my ideal man: intellectual, witty, artistic, and hot. We spent a passionate week together, and when I left town, I thought I was leaving behind a new long-distance boyfriend—one who, it turned out, didn’t like to call or e-mail…ever. I thought our fling was the start of a relationship; he thought it was a fling, period.
This wasn’t a fluke:
Disappointing, but it fit my usual pattern. I would fall for a brilliant guy with an irresistible smile who never quite fell for me but who possessed all the qualities I liked in a man: a sense of humor, certified smarts, smoldering looks. Each time, these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep me in their narcissistic orbit. Whether or not they’d ever call was just part of the thrill, always keeping me on edge. Outwardly, I told myself I was having fun and it was just a matter of time before someone wanted to settle down; inside, I started to worry that I wasn’t lovable or exciting enough.
There are a number of reasons this is the case. The first is that these are the men who know how to open the bra, and opening the bra means being the kind of man a feral woman will fall in love with. Such men are in limited supply to begin with, but this brings us to the second reason the man a feral woman falls in love with is almost guaranteed to be a player; men who can open the bra and want to settle down are not only rare, those who fit this description have almost certainly already settled down.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game…
This is an unpopular truth, because the ability to open the bra is our new test for moral righteousness. There must be some mistake, since everyone knows players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women. But there is no mistake. So long as a woman is playing the uncommitted sex game, she is going to find herself seeking the best players of that game. The mistake is in pretending she wasn’t playing the uncommitted sex game in the first place, not in failing to identify a man who will play it better than she does.
Question, Dalrock:
Who’s asking about helping young women spot players?
Most likely the mothers of young women.
Or men that are white knighting or on a holy crusade because the players are what’s wrong with civilization not the wimminz . . .
Yes. Mostly parents of young women. I’ve seen the question come up in several different threads.
@ RPSMF
I think Dalrock is being somewhat tongue in cheek with that. Only parents in the Christian manosphere would ask that question, and they rarely do. Why? Because it is easy to spot the player, as Dalrock points out. The truth is that most young women want players, only they want the “cad with a heart of gold.” You know, the one who plows through women like a John Deere, but will recognize that she is special and so not toss her aside. They live for fantasy.
Or I could be wrong…
“So long as a woman is playing the uncommitted sex game, she is going to find herself seeking the best players of that game. The mistake is in pretending she wasn’t playing the uncommitted sex game in the first place, not in failing to identify a man who will play it better than she does.”
Yup. Any woman who deals honestly with herself knows that sleeping with a man is no guarantee for a committed relationship. That sort of thing only happens in chick flicks and emotional porn novels.
“The truth is that most young women want players, only they want the “cad with a heart of gold.” You know, the one who plows through women like a John Deere, but will recognize that she is special and so not toss her aside. They live for fantasy.”
Welcome to the modern woman’s romance novel.
@donalgraeme, Most young women truly do not know that they want the cad with a heart of gold. The only thing they really know is what they DON’T want: the No True Niceguy who only “acts” nice, instead of “being” nice down deep where nobody can tell.
All sex outside of marriage should be viewed as playing the uncommitted sex game. But there is no reason why a non-religious woman would understand that in our modern day. Why would they? It worked for my generation – very few women of my age didn’t sleep with their husbands before marrying them. Sex in a “relationship” led to marriage for us , so I suspect women now have no idea why it isn’t working for them.
Yeah, I’ve never seen this question asked in the sphere. I have heard it outside the sphere though.
“ There must be some mistake, since everyone knows players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women. But there is no mistake.”
The lulz prize here for citing to Zippy for the proposition that players are “obviously unattractive to women”. Zippy calls players “low value dirtbags and sexual garbage collectors”. So players MUST be unattractive, right? RIGHT?
But if they’re so unattractive, how is it that the skills they exhibit make them successful with women?
Although it occurs to me that there is a legitimate question here, at least for Christians.
Even girls who are committed to pre-marital chastity and are serious about marriage should learn to discern between players who will actively seek to seduce them and other men who will be on the same page in terms of them not trying to entice one another into sin. There is a difference there. Players talk about how to get around a woman’s anti-slut defenses and last minute resistance; Christian parents should be talking to their daughters about never even being in a situation where that could happen. But a player will actively be looking for ways to draw her into a situation like that, and a non-player will be looking for ways to make sure they don’t get into a situation like that.
There is a reasonable case to be made for talking about how a girl can discern a man’s character and intentions, you know. I don’t expect to find such a discussion at Marie Claire, though.
No, I think you’ve pretty well nailed it.
“Any woman who deals honestly with herself knows that sleeping with a man is no guarantee for a committed relationship.”
Yep. Deep down, women know they won’t get a relationship from casual sex. I disagree with those who think women get caught up in the emotion and swoon, and have sex thinking this guy is her Prince Charming. It’s all about the sex. Always was, Always is, always will be.
@ras al ghul: both the players and the (slutty) wimminz are the problem. To suggest that only the wimminz is the problem is to overcorrect the error of the white knight. It takes two to tango
@donal
“You know, the one who plows through women like a John Deere, but will recognize that she is special”
You know, the one who plows through women like a John Deere, but will recognize that she is THE speshul snowflake he will keep in his freezer and love her and hug her–oh wait. Naah, it’s all about bragging to her slut-friends that she slept with a new hot guy and that makes her a speshul snowflake. When it comes to women, it’s all about her status in the feminine herd. The same social dynamic occurs when married women get together in the kitchen and figure out who’s married to the highest-status guy.
@ jf12
Allow me to offer an alternative take:
Women know they want a “cad with a heart of gold”, but they don’t understand they want a “cad with a heart of gold.”
@ deti
Zippy is correct in his description of players. However, he is incorrect in his assertion that women don’t find them attractive; most women do. To a quality woman, they would, however, be undesirable, and so that would override any attractive qualities they possess. The problem is that most women are not quality women these days; “garbage” is the standard, the norm.
Perfectly said.
I was considering writing a post on the subject SSM once I finish today’s post. Since you are a parent (of several daughters, no less), perhaps your blog would be the better place to have that discussion though. Would you rather be the host to that kind of discussion?
“The mistake is in pretending she wasn’t playing the uncommitted sex game in the first place, not in failing to identify a man who will play it better than she does.”
Or, in the words of the old saw, you can’t con an honest (wo) man.
After a woman gets played enough, she looks for a nice guy. And by nice guy she means, somebody who has way less game than me, who will give me everything I want. That is until she starts throbbing for alpha f#cks again.
No, that sort of thing happens in 80+% of all marriages, since that is the number of women who have slept with their husbands before marrying them. Women do parlay sex into marriage all the time. What they don’t quite grasp is that there is no guarantee of this working. But it does work pretty often, unfortunately.
Donal, I think it’s a good idea for us to consider that. Would you be interested in collaborating on such a post?
It is about Female Rationalization. They “were conned” retroactively. They were “repulsed” retroactively. Women accept the game because gives them the most access to Alpha ##### if only for the short term.
It is important for parents to understand the game. Keep hearing “but I raised her right…..” and she wont even look at the good boys, chases the bad boys just like the heathen daughters, why Oh Lord did this happen to me.”
@SSM
True, but there is another distinction we should include for practical clarity. The woman who has sex with her husband before marriage is sinning, but very few women are setting out for a husband and then merely jumping the gun prior to the ceremony. What is happening much more often is the woman sets out for a boyfriend, has sex with him, and then either finds another boyfriend she likes better or pressures her boyfriend into a proposal (or at least tries to). The difference between looking for a boyfriend and looking for a husband changes her original search criteria toward players. In the beginning of the sexual revolution this didn’t seem to be a problem because marriages were still happening quite young and there was still inertia towards picking “dad” boyfriends over “cad” boyfriends. But as the decades have passed the median age of marriage has moved out to late twenties, and any previous inertia is pretty much gone.
“ Women do parlay sex into marriage all the time. What they don’t quite grasp is that there is no guarantee of this working. But it does work pretty often, unfortunately.”
Heh. If your definition of “work” and “working” is that she can con a beta chump into marrying her with a BJ or three and getting her freak on with him, then marrying him and either remaining in a grindingly unhappy marriage or frivorcing him, then yeah, her sexing a guy “works.
But is she sleeping with the players and cads thinking she’s shpeshul and will get him to pledge his undying love? Puh-leeeeze.
The player is the man to whom the nice guy says “Unhand her, you beast!” and the woman defends the player.
@deti, to the extent that most men would find most sluts attractive enough for just sex if that’s what they were into, the same can be said for basically any kind of woman. Most men find MOST women attractive enough for just sex; most men find most nuns attractive enough for just sex; most men find most moms attractive enough for just sex, etc etc etc. The sluttiness of a slut is not an additional sexual attractiveness to a man, merely a signal that he will have fewer hoops with her. And especially for men raised right like we were, morally anyway, the sluttiness is downright repulsive, a kind of skin-crawling genital-wart-inducing miasma. For an immoral man, the lack of hoops may outweigh the infectiousness, because in sexual economic terms a slut is a sort of fire sale prostitute.
In contrast, there is the “bad boy” phenom. There is NO male counterpart to women writing love letters to Charles Manson. There is NO male counterpoint to female groupies of Rockbanddrummer. Despite (or because) women keep saying there are all kinds of men to whom they are sexually attracted, we know different. In reality there are relatively few men that women find attractive enough for just sex, and almost all those men are players. The playerness of a player IS an additional sexual attractiveness to a woman, and is rewarded by her by giving him fewer hoops if any. Players, in a shorthand sense, induce sluttiness. Thus, whatever slight repulsiveness of his miasma, it has to work against his additional sexual attractiveness as well as everything else.
Yup. Any woman who deals honestly with herself knows that sleeping with a man is no guarantee for a committed relationship. That sort of thing only happens in chick flicks and emotional porn novels.
I think so, but the reason why they do it is akin to a hi/lo bet: in the unlikely event that it actually happens, she wins the jackpot. For younger women, this is an almost irresistible gamble, even if a low probability one — precisely because if she wins, she gets the grand prize of the LTR with the man all women are attracted to, and immediately shoots to the top of the female hierarchy.
@ SSM
Yes I would. Send me an e-mail when you get a chance.
No, that sort of thing happens in 80+% of all marriages, since that is the number of women who have slept with their husbands before marrying them. Women do parlay sex into marriage all the time. What they don’t quite grasp is that there is no guarantee of this working. But it does work pretty often, unfortunately.
Yes, but generally the ability to do so correlates with how assortative the two people are in terms of both SMV and MMV. Where there’s a nice gap there, the likelihood of parleying it into a marriage is lower, and the likelihood she’s seen as just an easy lay for the time being is higher. It becomes more of a hi/lo bet when there is a larger SMV gap.
So in other words, yes women will mostly marry men they slept with before marriage. But since they are sleeping with all the men they date, the percentage of men whom they sleep with and whom will end up marrying them is still low. Likely for women with significant Ns by 30, what this means is that the guy at the end of the list is more assortative SMV/MMV wise with respect to such woman than the guys who bedded her when she was younger.
This is an excellent point. It’s not foolproof, but I think we should tell young women that looking for a man to date or a boyfriend will predispose them to look for the wrong sort of men.
jf12,
What about a “hover hands” guy?
How can that be a make version? Because he lacks even minor boldness.
If the male equiv of “slut” is coward, wouldn’t it fit?
NovaSeeker,
That is another interesting piece of the puzzle, the woman wanting to jump to the top of the female hierarchy by getting the top men.
I talked a bit about that in my post on raunch queens being some of today’s alpha mares and using their sexuality to tap into the market to buy such a product (music–probably mostly female fans, porn–male fans, what have you).
http://www.justfourguys.com/feminists-and-raunch-queens-are-the-dominant-alpha-mares/
This makes the few that are successful very wealthy and famous and gets them into the social circles where they can meet, bang and even marry top athletes and entertainers or other top men. The hypergamous girls or young women who buy Miley’s music want to feel the sexual empowerment of being able to seduce the top man for a day or week. Some only vicariously engage in such emotions when listening to the music; others live out those things with local higher-value males. The rich and famous women parlay their sluttiness (think Kim Kardashian in her leaked sex tape and serially dating and sexing many top males, or Rihanna dressing slutty in her videos and singing about hookups and hypergamy) into fame, money and access to the top males so that they can be more than just the one-night-slut but can actually get them to commit.
But you add another layer with wanting to get the top men so that they can rise to the top of the female herd. Interesting food for thought and I agree that many women will consciously want to do so and view things that way while, perhaps, others simply get carried away in the lust and the desire and aren’t necessarily trying to consciously ascend the female hierarchy but are subconsciously seeking that.
Of course, the problem is that young women have no wisdom, and the people who should be instructing them are giving them misinformation. They don’t know they should be looking for a husband and not a boyfriend. They don’t know how to determine who is a man they are attracted to but who isn’t a tingle-machine player. That’s a hard distinction to make, by the way, in this culture.
Also, here were my thoughts on Miley and her slutty performance:
http://www.justfourguys.com/miley-cyrus-raunch-queens-deeper-truth/
Never mind.
What repulses us about the Manson groupies is their lack of self-awareness as they offer their commodity to the most undesirable (in terms of inner-sexual hierarchy).
So, “hover hands” doesn’t match.
Perhaps you’re right.
You know, I’m confused. On the one hand, deti, it angers you when women choose dads over cads because the requisite tingles may not be there, but you also scorn women who chase tingles. We have a bit of a conundrum here – how does she find a man she is attracted to without going after men who make her tingle? That’s very confusing, especially if a girl has no one to guide her and doesn’t know how to discern a man’s character. I couldn’t do that – discern a man’s character very well- as a young woman. I had two basic criteria: 1. Would I want to sleep with him? and 2. Might he be the sort of man who wants to get married at some point? I had no real way of knowing better. Most young women now understand this even less.
SSM & Dalrock,
There is a 3rd distinction we should include for even more clarity.
Quite often, women are having sex with the men who (sometimes) later become their husbands as a way for them to determine (or not) if he is good in bed. Women who have an N larger than say…. oh…. 1…. now these women have something to compare possible future hubby to. They now have a point of reference to compare penis to penis (and sexual performance to sexual performance.)
Sex is very important to married women. It is extremely important if her N was larger than 1 because that means she will be able to compare. And she’ll be able to rate (in her mind) which man was better in bed. She is going to want to marry a man who is at least good in bed.
If her N is considerably larger (say 10 or even 30) now she can rate the quality of sex on a bad, not good, average, good, very good, mind numbingly great rating system. Obviously she is not going to marry the man who is bad or not good in bed. She probably won’t marry the man who is even average. Been there, done that (literally.) So….
That’s a good point on the raunch queens, Han.
I also agree that this is often a subconscious motive for normal women — that is, snagging the superhot stud for an LTR isn’t consciously an instrumental act to secure higher herd status in most women (likely it is in some, but not most), but is a welcome side-effect to the more common desire to have the hypergamous urge completely satisfied in one man.
“you also scorn women who chase tingles.”
No. I scorn women who chase tingles and are dishonest about it.
I scorn women who chase tingles and piss on my leg by telling me that’s not what they’re doing.
I scorn women who chase tingles and call it “but I did it for commitment” or call it “I was looking for love in all the wrong places”.
May I refer (once again) back to one Jenny Erkison…
AlphaWidow® Poster Child and proof that women seem inexorably drawn to exactly the wrong guy.
Obviously she is not going to marry the man who is bad or not good in bed. She probably won’t marry the man who is even average.
I agree that women who have a lot of sexual experience will tend to compare and contrast penis length and girth, ability to stimulate orgasms during intercourse (rather than requiring other stimulation to generate them) and so on. However, I think plenty of women with a lot of sexual experience do end up marrying men who are average or below, in their experience, in bed, because that’s all that will marry them. This results from a confusion of SMV and MMV — her SMV (rating for a sexual encounter only) is higher than her MMV in most cases other than for relatively few women, and as she ages, both are going down, so her ability to snag men who have larger penises and provide better intercourse orgasms is also slipping through her fingers — so she settles. This isn’t uncommon, I think.
We have a bit of a conundrum here – how does she find a man she is attracted to without going after men who make her tingle?
Well, the fundamental problem is that there aren’t enough attractive men, in terms of tingle generation. It can be debated whether this has always been the case, or is something new, but in any case, it *is* the case now. Demand outpaces supply.
That’s the major factor in divorce. A woman says “I can do better,” because (oftentimes) they have done better, but in the past. The twist to that logic is that they aren’t the same person as they were in the past (for women, declining SMV). They don’t seem to be tying expectations to their real situation.
Han’s comment here is also relevant to this discussion: http://www.justfourguys.com/this-woman-embodies-nearly-every-cliche-in-the-sphere/#comment-11401
Nova,
That’s possible Nova. But still, she’s going to want to KNOW before she marries him. She wants access to that information before saying “I do.” She knows good sex from bad sex (knows if he performs so well and has sufficent stamina that she can get on top or if all the guy can do is missionary, doggie, if he wil perform cunninglingus, etc) she wants to know that. She will know that if the N is greater than 1. And she can compare.
IBB —
Yes, I agree, a woman with sexual experience is going to want a test drive to see what he is packing and how well he uses it — no disagreement there.
@SSM ‘scuse me for living but I want to answer “how does she find a man she is attracted to without going after men who make her tingle?” This is the basis of Dalrock’s sympathetic approach to this issue (and he is very sympathetic believe it or not). If we were sympathetic, we as men must recognize it is extremely difficult for a woman who is not very attracted to very many men to try to muster some sufficient degree of attraction to a good man that she believes she ought to feel attracted to. To a good woman it ought to be heartrending. It’s the WHOLE reason Dalrock promotes Game in marriage: to make it easier for the woman to feel attraction.
Re Novaseeker “Well, the fundamental problem is that there aren’t enough attractive men, in terms of tingle generation. It can be debated whether this has always been the case, or is something new, but in any case, it *is* the case now. Demand outpaces supply.” Yes, this is the problem.
Well, they’re basing their choices relative to their own perceived SMV (from self-delusion, from the self-esteem industry, etc), not their actual SMV. Almost like the SMV/MMV version of “illusory superiority” or the Dunning–Kruger effect.
It also angers me when women choose dads over cads when the tingle isn’t there, because the women who do this slept with cads until she decided to change lanes and go for a dad for whatever reason (The Wall, kicked off the carousel, wants to get married, can’t extract commitment from a player, etc.). Then she settles for the dad and makes his life a living hell because he doesn’t tingle her; which she knew ahead of time, but settled for him anyway; thus ruining everyone’s lives in the process.
No, the truth is most young women are players.
FTFY
Only parents in the Christian manosphere would ask that question, and they rarely do. Why?
Also because most fathers are white knights and won’t stand up to their daughters or are continuing to raise them in a feminist paradigm.
spotting a player is easy….considering 90% of women aren’t attracted to their mates, look for the guy who animates her or makes her smile. body language is all you need, and I guarantee he knows how to decode it….learn, adapt, or cry 😦
donalgraeme:
Neither of these is a position I have taken:
1) Women are not attracted to players. (In fact I’ve said the opposite, and I’ve also expressed a theory that explains part of the reason why).
2) Players are easy to spot. (In fact I agreed with Dalrock that many women will kid themselves into thinking that the “creepy guy” is the player.)
@NovaSeeker
Part of my comment you linked to is this:
“It doesn’t help pre-bang, but if you want to see what a man really thinks of you, fuck him and then see how he treats you in the moments, hours, days and weeks after. If he is really into you then he will not want to get away, may engage in romantic cuddling and spooning as you fall asleep, will be very happy to see you in the morning and want to get together often. If he only sees you as a FB or ONS he will likely want to flee.”
But for young women that don’t want to have sex before marriage or commitment, then this obviously isn’t an option.
How to determine the player from the sincere guy? I think it’s quite easy. Look at how the guys that were just “playing” Laura didn’t call much, didn’t express much appreciation or excitement to be around her. Contrast that with how Peter treated her. Big difference. He was excited to be with her, treated her well. It really is that simple. The guys that want an LTR with a woman will wait longer for sex, will want to spend lots of time together, will send texts or call. Basically, he won’t make it hard.
What has happened though is that with delayed marriage and the unleashed casual-sex hypergamy that’s resulted, young women get used to the attention of guys 1-2 (or even more) points higher than them and that’s where all the hamsterbation comes from, trying to find the higher-value needle-in-the-hay-stack man that will actually want to commit to her. So young women don’t care about the difference between a man that’s a player and guy who’s not so much–that’s so easy to tell because in her league guys will want to commit often. What she’s really looking for is how to find a higher-value man who won’t be a player towards her.
Of course, the definition of player is dependent on the difference in value between the man and the woman. A man who might be a player to women 2 points lower than himself probably won’t be a player (or as much of one) to women that are his equals and that he’d actually like to keep around for much longer or forever.
@Anchorman, I AM a hover hands guy and proud of it. All my life it was pounded into me that “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” And I believe it proudly. And especially the next word too, i.e. “nevertheless”. I’m a nevertheless kind of guy, pinning all my hopes and dreams on it.
When I held my to-be first wife’s hand briefly on our third date, my first ever such contact with any non-relative woman, it was A Very Big Deal to us both, and didn’t tell anyone else. We felt telling it would be approximately equivalent to requesting a shotgun marriage. Outside the two women I married, until recently I almost never touched any other woman in any way. I would accept hugs but not hug back. I have never initiated a handshake with any woman, never.
In the past year especially, I have gotten considerably looser, specifically in very light kino on designated women, only touching safe zones, shoulders, arms, and a few times hands. It has been revelatory, which has so far outweighed the problematic aspects.
@Dalrock
Great Post!…….I like this one!
I am a player.Always have been…..and always will be! The trick to being a Player is not to “Pump & Dump” them.It is to keep them around as a “booty call”.I am not into one night stands.I know which women to hit on(call it a sixth sense).Over 35,single,no kids…etc.The women I meet and keep as “booty calls” don’t even like Players….but,hooking up with a Player is better than not hooking up at all?…Correct? These women are a dime a dozen.I see them everyday! Once I start banging them(after they have not had sex in a year or two)….it is a piece of cake! I just let them know that they are GREAT in bed and that I want to keep seeing them….but,…”don’t try and make a boyfriend out of me”…..and they go for it!….It is great!
Well, they’re basing their choices relative to their own perceived SMV (from self-delusion, from the self-esteem industry, etc), not their actual SMV. Almost like the SMV/MMV version of “illusory superiority” or the Dunning–Kruger effect.
At some point, yes. But I also think that, in general, there are relatively few men who generate tingles, period. Whether that has always been the case is subject to debate, I think — but it’s the case now. It’s exacerbated by exaggeration of one’s own SMV, for sure, but even without that the issue would still remain, in my opinion. Women’s sexual attraction is just extremely selective in ways that it is very hard for men to understand or “grok”, I think.
@ Zippy
I was mistaken about your stance with regards to point 1. Apologies for that. However, I don’t believe I stated that point 2 was your position. I did assert it might have been Dalrock’s position though.
Han —
What she’s really looking for is how to find a higher-value man who won’t be a player towards her.
Of course, the definition of player is dependent on the difference in value between the man and the woman. A man who might be a player to women 2 points lower than himself probably won’t be a player (or as much of one) to women that are his equals and that he’d actually like to keep around for much longer or forever.
Right — it has to do with the gap in value.
The question is: are women really all that attracted to their assortative “value peers”, innately, or is this primarily due to attraction warping due to the free SMP unleashing casual sex hypergamy options that were previously unavailable. A part of the answer, I think, depends on whether you think that the ancien regime was really a beta subsidy that “hid” the actual attraction of women because men were artificially boosted up by keeping women down and having a lot of rules (meaning that the current system more accurately reflects actual attraction patterns), or whether the current system, which is novel in the history of civilization, is warped for human beings, and therefore is creating warped attraction patterns. I tend to lean toward the former, but it’s not a clear cut question I think.
Let me restate the beginning of that last comment — probably better to phrase the issue as “are women really unattracted to their assortative value peers innately or is this phenomenon primarily due to the free market SMP unleashing casual sex options that have, in turn, warped attraction for women in this large demographic (i.e., middling women).”
@IBB
“”If her N is considerably larger (say 10 or even 30) now she can rate the quality of sex on a bad, not good, average, good, very good, mind numbingly great rating system.””
So true my friend!….That is why when I am with a woman that I know has been with over 10 men(which I consider a low N count)….I go to town!….I make sure that the night is all about her….and everything is about about her pleasure….nothing else matters except her pleasure! Does it work?…..Yes it does!….and they cannot wait to see me again.Also,the beauty about women like this is….they can suck a golf ball through 50ft of garden hose!
Novaseeker,
I think that there was a bit of both going on historically. I honestly believe that a woman does feel some amount of attraction for a provider-protector man when she’s in need of provision and protection. IOW, women’s attraction cues are somewhat environmentally dependent. So 2000 years ago when the average person was poorer than today and much poorer than rich countries, those traits would be more attractive. Even if you argue that they didn’t cause tingles (which I think they did), they would still be mentally desirable.
On top of having more intrinsic attraction due to needing men more back then, society did hold back some women somewhat and gave men a more honored place. This also helped to satisfy women’s hypergamy (and I think women are distributed on a hypergamy spectrum, from none to lots).
Today, both factors have been reversed. The need for a man is greatly diminished (though don’t confuse that with society not needing men, plural) and society has favored women and pushed down men. Without needing a man the woman’s attraction triggers adapt to be more picky (hypergamy unleashed, though a good portion of women are either not that hypergamous or control it still, marry and stay married) and the feminist push to empower women and disempower men only amplifies that further. And as I have speculated in my hierarchy of the herd post, the powers that be want it that way:
http://www.justfourguys.com/hierarchy-of-the-herd/
Thoughts?
This comes from an acceptance state of mind. I only say this as in many boards bitterness seems to be the default and that is not the intended tone.
I have had the same exact experience as the Marie Claire piece from the male side, except for one small detail, maintaining interest. Being early forties I am involved with females 20’s and 30’s, usually on the older side of their decades. You know the ones looking to settle down after riding the carousel admitted or not. Back when I was an aspiring beta with the same skill set that “opens the bra,” yuck what horrible state we have descended to, leading to a stronger relationship and closing the deal caused them to lose interest.
What I think is going on is that they purposely subconsciously do not want an Alpha taking a committed role in their life. Background, I am a nice Alpha and had the stability in droves to have a life with someone, spelled out here only for reference purposes. They really consciously want a beta for the husband because their frame of the Alpha as they had him’s must be preserved. It is no longer sexy to have that sexy guy want her. Sounds like hamster double talk as intended. She is attracted to the Alpha according to the precepts of game theory. The minute that you are reaching for her the meme is broken in her subconscious. This is probably the source of much non, pre and post marital beta bitterness. A lot of betas that I know have all of the Alpha characteristics and are stable. The minute that they feel the wrath for being even manosphere approved decent towards a female their minds cannot process it. They are reciprocating a female that is not being attracted under the same character guidelines as they are. Every female that I have “gamed” will clarify this for you. They want to zone out during the process. It is a type of whirlwind romance to them. Swept off their feet and consequently consequence free to experience attraction and physical pleasure. I had a female that I was serious about who was in this mode ask me, “Are you a player?” Game theory says to do something evasive. I told her no. Guess where the relationship went even though nothing that I did changed from the previous months. If I had said yes as I do now, it would have perpetuated. Betas, sorry guys just for clarity, who perpetuate a relationship like this feel a sort of pain since the desire for more connection is in their hearts but not hers. She and the writer of the Marie Claire piece are only manifesting a defense mechanism to protect their egos.
She will marry a beta as she can use him and may love him for it. The fantasy and experiences will live on in her mind because of this choice. She can also cheat as it is not that real for her. Doing something against her husband’s commitment is not wrong as she maintains the frame of Alpha experiences not being real.
I don’t like the dialectic argument that a female has to be a virgin or low “n” to be quality or high “n” equals slut not for lack of accuracy but for how it damages understanding and seductively is an easy answer. The real problem is that we as a society have raised (very long discussion of many decades, too long, will not write) females who do not see real people in front of their eyes, just players on their stage. Should they be surprised when we behave that way.
Han —
Probably true. If that’s the case, however, then it means that it can’t be rectified on a societal scale without recreating the need for men as well as getting rid of the female favoring. While the latter is at least somewhat conceivable politically and socially if the time horizon is stretched sufficiently, the former seems completely unlikely barring the kind of doom-porn collapse that some seem to yearn for. I think it is, however, true that attraction cues for women are more influenced by environment and can be socially constructed to a much higher degree than is the case for men’s attraction cues (hence the frustration may women have at not being able to socially engineer men’s attraction cues despite decades of feminism).
I agree with your speculation in that post in terms of the “why this happened”. Putting things back, however, is a stretch.
“it can’t be rectified on a societal scale without recreating the need for men”
If men are to be no longer needed to open jars, maybe they can still be needed to run Game. Imagine a woman trying to be amusedly masterful and witty and push-pulling, instead of a man. Ha ha!
Yes. This has been a huge change in just a generation or two, and most people still aren’t really aware of it. Parents and grandparents think, “Well, we weren’t virgins on our wedding night either, so we can’t judge too harshly.” But they, for the most part, were having sex with someone they planned to marry — or at least were willing to marry if it became necessary. That’s why the term for it was “pre-marital sex”: it was coming before marriage. Sinful, certainly, but a completely different thing from what we have today. Most sex in non-married relationships today isn’t pre-marital at all, because no marriage is planned or even being considered. People aren’t just slipping during the engagement; they’re making sex a standard part of every man/woman relationship that lasts more than a couple dates (or a couple hours).
To the original question, that has obvious implications for spotting a player. If a girl at least held out a couple months, or until there was a courtship involving the parents and some talk about marriage, the players would long since have moved on to greener pastures.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Within some vague limits, a woman will have sex as often as she chooses with the kind of men she chooses. I’m partly with Deti here; I don’t think carousel riders are after the sex itself as much as the emotional closeness that they expect it to provide; but I agree with him that they usually aren’t trying to use sex to snag a husband. A man yes, but not a husband. If they wanted husbands, they’d have them. They want something from the men they’re having sex with, but it’s not marriage — not until they hit the Wall.
“it can’t be rectified on a societal scale without recreating the need for men”
A world war might cause this need to resurface. Then again, the recent world wars seem to have the effect of culling masculinity. That seems to be why internationalist (with one exception) socialism rose so strongly in Western Europe after the devastation of the male populating during WW1. Ideas so absurd like disarmament and appeasement blossomed. I’m not sure how the need for men on a societal scale can make its resurgence without economic collapse. Most women and white knights are just too short-term of thinkers for a slow demise to have much of an effect I think. But I might just be a pessimist.
@Novaseeker
I think that baring a societal collapse that the acute need for a man won’t reappear. However, I do think that if society stopped trying to denigrate men and elevate women that a lot of progress could be made. Even with women having the ability to provide for themselves and go it alone, I think that if society encouraged relationships and children and so forth more and at a younger age that the female herd would respond enough so that the hypergamy would be reined in somewhat and we’d get more good marriages. Meanwhile, the true jet-setting career women would still be free to do that and not have to get married.
I guess my point is that there are many feminist excesses that could be reversed so that there were a closer thing to equality in society and so that women would actually be respected for their choices, which would often be for less career and more family and relationships, instead of shaming them for not being loyal feminist soldiers if they, heaven forbid, want bfs, marriage and kids.
Perhaps getting the pendulum to stop right in the middle would be like trying to balance a sword on its tip and a true “fairness” is impossible but it doesn’t seem so implausible. We simply have to gather enough people of influence to more fair notions and a greater knowledge of the truth about men and women to put pressure on the current stallions and alpha mares that lead the herd. (Easier said than done.)
But, sometimes leaders are shortsighted and selfish and need actual pressure (economic or the sword point poking them in the gut) to change.
It will be fascinating to see what happens, in the feminist west, in the man-heavy-ratio China and India and elsewhere.
Marissa,
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
We simply have to gather enough people of influence to more fair notions and a greater knowledge of the truth about men and women to put pressure on the current stallions and alpha mares that lead the herd. (Easier said than done.)
Well, it has to benefit them — it has to pencil for them. That’s the big obstacle, I think.
Re: man-heavy China. We already gave them our debt; do you think they would take our wives too?
I’m not sure how the need for men on a societal scale can make its resurgence without economic collapse.
I don’t think it will. And I don’t think a total collapse is likely, or even if it is, desirable in any way. We shouldn’t let the tail wag the dog here, I think.
As Han says, possibly reducing feminist female favoritism and the undue emphasis on one acceptable life path for all women would help change things somewhat. I’m personally skeptical of that, because I don’t think it moves the ball that much, on the one hand, without the “hard need” being there (i.e., I think that was the bigger player in the past arrangements), and I also don’t think that the power players who are invested in the current arrangements and benefit from it have any incentive to change it. And I don’t think a revolution of any sort about any of this is anything but extremely unlikely.
That sounds pessimistic, but that’s only speaking to the broadscale. On the personal scale a lot can and should be done to cope with the emergent system. And that can lead to a reasonably well adjusted and well managed life in many cases, albeit it takes a lot of effort to get there. But, I don’t think broader, societal solutions are likely — at least not in the medium-term. In the long-term, of course, things become very hard to predict due to unforseen events and technologies and so on.
No one needs to use his imagination in that regard. When women attempt this, we see it as bitchiness, and they attempt it all the time.
No doubt they would love to have some of them. The next time a woman asks, where have all the good men gone, jokingly answer, “China.”
@HanSolo
Even short of stopping the elevation of women over men, we would benefit greatly from stopping the all out status war against good men. Good men don’t often come with bad boy type tingles, but they do come with status, which women also want. That other woman want a man for the status he can provide can ultimately spark tingles.
The distinction I’m making is even if we kept affirmative action in place, we could stop the moral feeding frenzy on the kind of men who marry and are there for their children. Father’s Day could no longer be a day pastors set aside to cut husbands and fathers off at the knees in front of their wives and children. Instead of movies like Fireproof and Courageous, Christians could make (and go to) movies showing husbands and fathers in a positive light. This would be huge, but for now at least it is all but unimaginable.
I have yet to meet one of these uber players, sure I know plenty of men who get layed a lot but none of them are the archetypal players talked about. If anything I’ve found that they were often upset and surprised when they found out their latest ‘conquest’ was in a long term relationship.
Even the notorious super players Roosh and Krauser come across as sad sacks who have devoted their entire existence to get meager crumbs, spending months on end for a magical lay.
Heck, all the infamous PUAs (Mystery, Strauss, Angelo etc.) all ended up married at some point.
Compare this to women who do what Roosh and Krauser do without any effort whatsoever.
The sphere seems to think these women are looking for long term relationships with alphas but the truth is all they want is a ‘fling’, their pretensions to being ‘used’ or ‘abused’ is simply a slut defense mechanism or anger at not ending a fling on their own terms.
Hyperagamy may describe trading up but from experience any woman below 27 is simply looking for a fling.
@Boxer “they attempt it all the time” That they do, and what’s worse is they get mad when they succeed. I never understood it until just now. It wasn’t exactly that the women were trying to dip my pigtails in ink, but their constant bitchiness may indeed have resulted from them running male game at me instead of female game in an attempt to preempt the (nonexistent) male game from me. This would immediately explain why male game works so much better on new women.
Dalrock,
Patricia Heaton admitted that she would have refused to do another sitcom where her husband was portrayed as a bumbling numbf-ck the way Ray Romano was in Everyone Loves Raymond. She insisted on a strong father figure for her husband in her next sitcom. Thus we have The Middle with a Patriarical father in Mike Heck/Neil Flynn.
It should come as no surprise how highly rated that show is. People want to see a strong father figure (for once!)
Dalrock,
Just thought of a great father movie (sort of), Taken. Here we have a divorced dad (Liam Neeson) who we are to assume that his wife (Fammke Jenson) frivorced his ass for her fictional upgrade Eat-Pray-Love marriage to a multi-millionaire. But that’s okay, that doesn’t take anything away from his ability to be a father to his daughter. She still worships her dad. The divorce really just diminishes Fammke Jenson. Anyway, dad’s virginal daughter needs rescuing and dad risks life and limb (even taking on the corrupt French Central Intelligence Agency) to rescue her from the clutches of a women’s slavery ring and a sheik. Brilliant. Made me proud to be a dad.
With regards to women using sex “for marriage” I believe that he who indicated it was a “hi-low” gamble has the best understanding of it. I think there is a certain amount of talking past each other going on wen this is discussed.
Allow me to assert what I BELIEVE are fundamental, mostly unstated premises in this discussion, which lead to the talking past.
I believe when SSM (and others) suggest women DO use sex for commitment (and do so with ANY success) they are considering women who entice men the sphere would characterize as beta providers into marriage, usually after stepping off the carousel. There are women who do so calculatingly, to entrap whatever man will have them. In fact, I understood this to be one of the sphere’s major complaints – women “settling” or “baiting” men they are not attracted to for resources. The women who chose to use sex to lock-in a provider are the S/MMP equivalent of a guy “slumming it” with a fat, ugly chick to get laid. It’s a level of uncommon desperation that most won’t stoop to, but it is a valid tactic which is employed with reasonable success.
On the flip side, I think when the men here (Deti especially, but perhaps others) argue that women DON’T use sex for commitment, but instead for emotional validation, excitement, etc. they are considering the woman who “just happens” to sleep with an alpha stud (and another, and another). And I think this is also true – these women aren’t LOOKING for commitment (but may use that as an ex post facto excuse), but it would sure be nice if they got it. A good comparison is harder to make here than for the previous scenario, but maaaay be likened to a male “white knight” who gets an emotional thrill out of defending a woman and getting the adulation of the herd, and it would be NICE if that parlayed into sexual access, but female praise is it’s own reward.
If I have understood each side’s argument correctly, and, more importantly, outlined the underlying assumptions properly, then both are right, but about vastly different scenarios.
That Fammke – hot in Lola Rennt.
@IBB
It took me a moment to realize you are right. Taken (the original) was good. At first I was thinking of the sequel, Taken 2, which fell into the endless courtship fantasy genre. Sickening.
re: talking past each other. As far as I know the redpill women commenters uniformly have found their alpha, not a beta provider, and uniformly say they weren’t necessarily looking for just sex or for commitment but it “just happened”. Both when on the carousel AND when getting off. I think deti is successfully arguing that there is no “just happens” about it.
@Novaseeker
Assortative mating does indeed come into play.
That said, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_plasticity has some explanatory power.
—
@HanSolo
Results indicate that when a mating pool includes people at the low end of social status and physical attractiveness, mate choice criteria are sex-differentiated: Men, more than women, chose mates based on physical attractiveness, whereas women, more than men, chose mates based on social status. In addition, individuals who more greatly valued social status or physical attractiveness on paper valued these traits more in their actual choices. In particular, mate choices were sex-differentiated when considering long-term relationships but not short-term ones, where both sexes shunned partners with low physical attractiveness. The findings validate a large body of mate preferences research and an evolutionary perspective on mating, and they have implications for research using speed-dating and other interactive contexts.
Li, Norman P., et al. “Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection.” Journal of personality and social psychology 105.5 (2013): 757.
Also, preferences for masculinity are based on the surrounding environment, for example:
DeBruine, Lisa M., et al. “The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1692 (2010): 2405-2410.
Snyder, Jeffrey K., et al. “Trade-offs in a dangerous world: women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates.” Evolution and Human Behavior 32.2 (2011): 127-137.
—
@Marissa
Someone Just Said Something About The Japan-China Conflict That Scared The Crap Out Of Everyone
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-japan-conflict-could-lead-to-war-2014-1
A war would indeed help men. The Black Death saw a huge re-balancing in favour of labourers due many of them being wiped out (wages, etc). It’s considered the starting point for the creation of the middle class.
The reason France fell in under two weeks during WWII: pacifism following WWI.
Decisions, decisions. To be, or not to be. To pretend to pretend, with her thinking she knows she is cooperating in a first-level pretense, to run a little more game tonight, or not.
dashing chefs
Dalrock……They are dashing chefs, not the kind in the hunting lodge, the kind i was referring to.
Feelin’ it up in there now?
Spotting a player, as a young woman, is easy: treat him like a virtuous young man. He’ll get bored and leave, or he won’t.
re: talking past each other. As far as I know the redpill women commenters uniformly have found their alpha, not a beta provider, and uniformly say they weren’t necessarily looking for just sex or for commitment but it “just happened”. Both when on the carousel AND when getting off. I think deti is successfully arguing that there is no “just happens” about it.
I don’t think anyone has sincerely argued (here in the ‘sphere, that is) that there is truth to the “just happened” – thus my use of “scare quotes.” My apologies for being unclear in this. You are right that there is no “just happened” when it comes to casual sex. What I had meant to discuss was whether or not women actually use sex as a strategy for getting commitment. My conclusion was (and still is) that they do not use sex to get commitment in the vast majority of cases (although they would usually like to get it, if it was forthcoming). However, there are cases of women who, realizing they are out of options DO use sex to secure commitment from any man available and able to provide resources.
I might also add that among the women pursuing sex for it’s own sake with emotionally-validating alphas not only would generally like commitment if it was on offer, but, in fact, assume it is until painfully disabused of the notion, as the woman in the article in the OP.
@MarcusD
Interesting links and quotes on erotic plasticity and how the environment and the difference in mating goal affects things.. Thanks for sharing.
@Dalrock
I think that giving status to good men would be a step in the right direction instead of the feminist rant about patriarchal privilege being wielded by all men (including the good ones).
@Han
Happy to.
I read in one of the bible commentaries where in exodus the seducer of the virgin will have to pay her father the bride price for virgins and marry her never allowed to cheat or separate from her the rest of his life. Hence this acts as a disincentive for players.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/07/the-momshift-having-children-can-actually-boost-your-career-toronto-author-reva-seth-says/
The truth is that most young women want players, only they want the “cad with a heart of gold.”
One soup sandwich coming up, with a side order of fried ice.
Taken is absolutely a fatherhood movie with fantastic vicarious experiences for the father of daughters. It was a cool evening a few years back when my older daughter , then 20 or 21, watched it with us at home and asked me what i would do if she was taken.
also
Instead of movies like Fireproof and Courageous, Christians could make (and go to) movies showing husbands and fathers in a positive light. This would be huge, but for now at least it is all but unimaginable.
FoTF has a new one coming out, called ” Irreplaceable” .It is a documentary sytyle movie where a guy travels the world looking at how the family is in various cultures, he even looks to history. That could be a great basis. But I fear they have screwed it up because in the trailer it mentions, several times, how many dads are not at home, and no reference to the primary cause of that.
I cannot find enough info online though to take it apart and write about it. I’m guessing it’s anti gay marriage primarily, and then dumps on men/dads. One big reason I am extra suspicious is the site has sales of , of course, a bible study course for use in churches and small groups. They would NEVER upset women in those studies.
The extremely large number of un-married young moms in the modern Philippines (inclusive of ALL socio-economic levels) shows that even quite deep poverty is not enough to re-focus young womens’ hindbrain away from attaining Alpha Sperm into their fertile uterii. And note that child-support laws ARE on the books there, but are basically un-enforced.
War would only help the men who live without being maimed…I guess you gotta break a few eggs.
War is very helpful for the top men (who generally are not the front line being killed), because it eliminates many lower men (i.e., cannon fodder), which frees up the women who may have married such men for sex with the remaining, often top, men. This has been a sexual strategy of men in power since time immemorial, really.
Jenny “Train Wreck” Erikson pens another literary masterpiece:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/167953/single_moms_first_date_since.
I will say it again, the synchronicity between Dalrock’s topic-du-jour and Jenny’s mental diarrhea is just too close to be a coincidence. I’m told she’s planning a week-long investigative piece on K-Kard’s derriere.
No link yet to Laura Fraser, the writer of the Marie Claire article:
http://www.laurafraser.com/bio/
Looks like she’s 50+ (graduated college in 1982) but using a photo of her early 40’s. Very average looking woman, IMHO she was never hot but liked to chase guys who were hot, back in the day.
Also because most fathers are white knights and won’t stand up to their daughters or are continuing to raise them in a feminist paradigm.
Close, but no cigar just yet.
Also because most fathers are white knights and won’t stand up to their wives, who enable and encourage yougogrrrrl in their daughters and who continue allowing the wives to raise the daughters as hypergamous sluts, they continue to tolerate a feminist paradigm because they live in fear of frivorce or false DV accusations.
There. FIFY.
.
@ Novaseeker
Ain’t that the truth. Poor Uriah.
And soon thereafter, a quasi-academic review of “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” linking the narrative to the foundational American pragmatism of John Dewey.
Dear Dalrock, et. al.:
I’ve been waiting for a more erudite playa to point this out, but I have yet to see it discussed, so I suppose it falls to me. I’m going to be rather blunt here, so sensitive souls ought to read no further.
They aren’t pretending. They actually believe they are playing for keeps, until the moment they aren’t. I know this because I’m a very skillful liar, so far that I consider myself a better liar than most women. As a part of the discipline, I take pride in my ability to spot a lie.
A great many of the women I have met and ended up sleeping with in the past were able to honestly say they were “not looking for no strings sex” until we had no strings sex, generally about two hours into our first encounter.
Right after the post-coitus cleanup, these same women would look at me with a completely straight face, and say something along the lines of: “I never fuck on the first date!”
In the early days of my youth I translated this to be a lame attempt to boost my ego or make me feel “special”. Sorta like what they all say in the middle: “O Boxer! You’re so huge!” (Having been in my share of locker rooms, I recognize this as an attempt at theatre, as I am endowed with a perfectly fine but on the small side of mediocre sized schwantz. I have eyes, no homo.)
Chicks run their mouths a lot, and they like to play things up as though they’re more significant than they actually are. I don’t take them too seriously; but, I got interested in the uniformity of all these different women, who seemed to say the same things. I eventually developed a sorta Marxist ideological theory of women and their sexual consciousness. Today I believe that “I never fuck on a first date” is a strange sorta mantra which serves to symbolically erase the fact that, yes, they all do fuck on the first date; they just convince themselves otherwise, and the recitation of those fateful words are a sort of ritual to wipe out what just happened, in real time, as an actual historical event.
Women are able to lie so proficiently because they lie to themselves *and believe it*. I’m pretty certain that if I took one of these chicks I banged to a polygraph, she’d pass when she denied ever doing what we did, and what we both have done dozens (if not hundreds) of times since with others.
They are so good at this, that it is impossible to tell the difference between the female playa who really *is* holding out for marriage, and the slut who believes she is, until she isn’t. I’ve written about that before. It’s actually surprising to find the wife material girl who is throwing me IOIs like a monster, and then run up against the brick wall of “no, I like you, but I am looking for someone to start a family with, so we aren’t going to do anything more than kiss on the cheek”.
Most of the women playing the uncommitted sex game don’t admit that they’re playing it, even to themselves, and even while they are in the middle of the actual act of intercourse. That’s what makes it so bizarre from the male perspective.
Regards, Boxer
The players I’ve met were without exception liars (“I told them want they wanted to hear”) and all of them targeted girls less attractive than they were (“If she dumps me first why should I care?”) and curiously enough, they were all cowards and all insecure. They were also good-looking and had quite a lot of charm.
this is off subject.
ive been on girlsaskguys and having been dropping red pills like its going out of style. lets see how long it takes until im banned lol
@oblivion: looks like a fun site. expect me 😉
@Bob, I’ll help. I’ll be the woman. Tell me how good I do.
“He can’t be a player, then, since although he has a lot of charm, he’s too good looking so he can’t be a liar or a coward because its creeps who are the true liears and cowards. Plus, I’m not less attractive, so that definitely rules out him being a player.”
I realize Bob is attempting (poorly) to troll for flames, but he is on to something here.
Most of us who play the game come from homes where we saw our fathers absolutely devastated, if we knew them at all. Not all the playas I know were children of divorce, but we all saw our dads treated poorly regardless.
We might not be cowards in the traditional sense (most of us have been in lame-o bar fights a time or two) but it is, generally, fear that drives us to get our needs met without commitment.
Ask Jenny Erikson after a year and a half from now… no offense to her, but I’m sure she’ll know with how the dating/mating “sexual marketplace” is today.
@Donal
That was who I thought of immediately as well, was Uriah.
@Fee
Also because most fathers are white knights and won’t stand up to their wives, who enable and encourage yougogrrrrl in their daughters and who continue allowing the wives to raise the daughters as hypergamous sluts, they continue to tolerate a feminist paradigm because they live in fear of frivorce or false DV accusations.
Spot on.
I’m thinking about doing a post entitled, “If I Had a Daughter.” Because my number one goal would be to not raise a hypergamous entitled slut.
The biggest problem with that goal is that hypergamy is as consciousless as the little general.
@jf12 “If we were sympathetic, we as men must recognize it is extremely difficult for a woman who is not very attracted to very many men to try to muster some sufficient degree of attraction to a good man that she believes she ought to feel attracted to. To a good woman it ought to be heartrending. It’s the WHOLE reason Dalrock promotes Game in marriage: to make it easier for the woman to feel attraction.”
I have never heard or read anything like this before tonight. But it takes a huge weight off my shoulders. Thank you.
Hmmm, a new study out this week:
http://iai.asm.org/content/early/2014/01/08/IAI.01244-13.full.pdf+html?ijkey=7awGk/8ujlbAk&keytype=ref&siteid=asmjournals
Rank, Roger G., and Laxmi Yeruva. ““Hidden in plain sight:” Chlamydial gastrointestinal infection and its relevance to “persistence” in human genital infections.” Infection and immunity (2014): IAI-01244.
—
Another nail in the coffin of “Man up and marry those sl*ts.”
So yes, now it’s possible to call it a pseudo-virus.
@Marcus, sounds like it is also yet another reason people should abstain from anal intercourse…hidden chlamydia in the gut.
Oral intercourse can lead to it, too (and apparently regular intercourse).
(See the last page of http://iai.asm.org/content/early/2014/01/08/IAI.01244-13.full.pdf)
The upshot is that 0-1 lifetime partner(s) is the way to go.
“Oral intercourse can lead to it, too (and apparently regular intercourse).”
I don’t get that from the last page. What I see is that the antibiotic is effective in the reproductive tracts, but not in the large intestine. So, if a woman is infectious in her reproductive tract (pre-antibiotic treatment) then if a man performs cunnilingus, he can subsequently get the chlamydia bacteria in his gut. The question is, and this is where I need to read the report further, can the bacteria move from the gut to the genital tract via internal means (versus a woman wiping back to front.)
Sorry to get so graphic but I have a degree in the medical field and there really is no subtle way for me to discuss this.
Naturally, or rather not so naturally since I’m not a natural, ok then deliberately on my part, when it hit it hit her like a ton of bricks. All of a sudden, after about three minutes, maybe two and a half, she stopped pretending, and I could have gotten her to do anything, in public, except, evidently, leave me alone. Game game is the game I’ve been running on now 13 for 13 women of all ages in the past year or so. A few others have been various shades of sort of for real, but I will not close physically, so I’m counting coup when I have to turn them down.
No, stop worrying it wasn’t the 16 yr old, this time, it’s a teacher at one of the schools. She was a last minute replacement school rep for the 2014 robotics team, and I’ve only known her in person for about six weeks. Sort of cute in an average cute way, 33, no kids no marriage, short coarse stringy brunette hair, narrow frame, frail shaky voice (her least appealing part). After the busyness of the first couple of weeks of the build season, in which she wasn’t actually doing anything, not hanging with the real mentors (older male engineers), just semi-supervising some of the students, I got to talking with her about methods she used to control the students’ public displays of affection, and then rather slowly built up in her mind that it was her idea that it might be a good idea, both to gross them out and to give them something else to talk about rather than generating their own new drama, to kinda sort pretend we started to have some kind of thing going, in front of them.
Naturally, I mean deliberately, I made sure to be the first to insist we couldn’t ACTUALLY be doing anything. In fact it would be a good thing for potentially physically involved children to see adults flirting strictly platonically, setting moral examples so to speak. But we conspired in secret, see, and kinda HAD to practice pretending while in private, see, which it WOULD be pretend when it was in front of everybody, but then, the best way to make sure the pretense was effective was to make it seem less pretend, see, so we needed a little practice in not pretending. Up until tonight they had seen us progress from light banter to physical proximity interactions to some personal history revelations, and we were at the point where we, last time, had started to do a lot of eye-seeking and eye-communication when apart.
Tonight I sat right next to her, sometimes hips and elbows touching, just friendly banter, but copying posture. If she leaned forward, I leaned forward. If I crossed my right leg, she crossed hers. That part was planned. And although it wasn’t in the “script” she kept looking up at me, I mean my face, although I kept looking away. The several girls in the “audience” were mesmerized, I could tell, but the boys didn’t notice. She was getting all nervous, and I leaned over to whisper in her ear to give her confidence. She tilted her ear towrds my lips. She may have believed I was going to whisper nothing real, but I spoke the complete truth, murmur not whisper, that she was doing a wonderful job of acting attracted and she looked really nice tonight and that I was glad we were so good together. But, I told her murmuring, I noticed she had a big strand (really a sort of bundle) of loose hair kind of going crazy across the top of her hair.
She reached up to feel it and turned to face me, close enough for kissing, and she was breathing shallow. “I feel like I am going crazy,” she whispered. She turned away and fiddled with her hair momentarily, then got up and walked to the door, then came straight back and sat down with her back to me. She blew out hard, up at her hair. “So ..” she began, in a normal voice, i.e. frail and shaky, and stopped. She really, really wanted me to touch her. But I wouldn’t.
Re: wiping. It’s just a question of quantity. External tickling and sweating will also widely spread detectable inclusion-forming units sufficient for infection.
@jf12 From further reading, it appears that it is women who are most likely to “auto-inoculate” because of the proximity of the genitals to the anus. That tells me that re-infection is occurring via external means as you have described. Not a pseudo-virus but rather similar to E. coli.
The legend for the figure (Figure 2) is on page 32. The “autoinfection” arrow is bidirectional. The “regular intercourse” comment is from a friend who sent it to me (a doctor). (Though, they were referring to women, rather than men.)
I have little training in the medical field, so I’ll defer to those with the proper training (which is to say, “correct me if I’m wrong”).
I should clarify that I wasn’t referring to the actual term “pseudo-virus” (which I’ve just been apprised of). I was attempting to describe the virus-like persistence of the infection.
Marcus, yeah I read page 32. The only bidirectional arrow is that indicating normal sexual intercourse. Although it is likely that a woman with a pharyngeal infection could then spread the bacteria to a man via fellatio. And women can test positive for a pharyngeal infection and yet have no physical symptoms.
But it doesn’t appear that a man can spread the bacteria to a woman via oral or regular intercourse if it is only present in his large intestine. He could, however, spread it to a man if he is the “receiver” during anal intercourse. The intestinal infection can only spread via the anus–whether through intercourse or through the external means described by jf12 (wiping, touching).
“But if they’re so unattractive, how is it that the skills they exhibit make them successful with women?” – Geez Deti, you make me laugh!
Krauser, 1000 women advanced upon in 2013, 27 successful lays. WOW almost 3%. Game is successful on a small subset of woman, generally defined as sluts. Krauser would have had as much success, maybe even more if he had just asked point blank, “hey baby, wanna fuck?”
Marcus, oh, I see that you were referring to the blue arrows for auto-inoculation in women. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about the poor hygiene of a woman–that is how it is spread. Which is why it is like E.coli. Once in the gut, E.coli remains there, and it does serve a purpose there, but if it ends up in the urethra, for example, it can cause a nasty bacterial infection.
The “autoinfection” arrow is bidirectional, no?
That all makes sense.
“As far as I know the redpill women commenters uniformly have found their alpha, not a beta provider, and uniformly say they weren’t necessarily looking for just sex or for commitment but it “just happened”. Both when on the carousel AND when getting off. I think deti is successfully arguing that there is no “just happens” about it.”
Not in my case. It was always a deliberate search for an emotional cure. But I have always been brutally honest with myself about my many psychological and physical hang-ups. And when I realized that I wanted marriage, I was quite deliberate in my choice of a mate. No “just happened” here.
Yes, the paper does list auto-inoculation as the process (line 450), but I’m trying to be careful not to use alternate (though seemingly correct?) terms (and in light of lines 525-526).
http://www.mentalhealthy.co.uk/news/337-woman-wins-right-to-masturbate-at-work.html
From the article:
It is hard to know what to say to this story, but we do wonder if the judge would have been so accommodating had it been a man with this disorder?
ANY women, and I do mean, ANY, who falls for this game of non-committed sex and players deserves everything she gets and is not worthy to be a wife, full stop, end of, stop the presses already!
I think alot of people fail to realize that game works best with a girl who 1to2 pts higher than you. woman say that they dont like players, but players have alot of girls around them. its a form of social proofing. once the herd see’s that other women are attracted to the man, they become attracted to him also. once man has a few plates spinning, a girl can tell that her shit tests dont matter to him and he becomes even more attractive to her. after awhile its a self fullfilling prophecy, man has sucess with women and is very confident, aloof, and in control. when a womans around him, she acts like a cat doing lines of catnip because he is so high value.(notice that a mans value is placed by the herd) IF SHE IS THE ONE WOMAN WHO TAMES HIM AFTER THE OTHER WOMEN HAVE FAILED, SHE WINS THE SUPERBOWL OF DATING. She thens becomes THE ALPHA FEMALE.
caps were for emphesis, not yelling
@Bob Wallace
So, if someone screws someone else’s fiancé, is that guy necessarily a player? Cuz I did and I didn’t lie to the chick other than to say that I screwed other friends of mine (I hadn’t; was new off the lot). She knew exactly what was going on and signed onto it with gusto. So, I question whether players uniformly lie to women. I doubt that married women who sign up for the cheaters dating sites are necessarily lied to either.
@Bob
Oh, and she was definitely more attractive than me–blonde, curvy, large tits, within normal height/weight, well-proportioned, 5’6″, pretty face, age 20 (BH9); I was somewhat handsome, but scrawny, 5’7″, age 18, quiet, very intelligent. A black swan to your women are less attractive than players hypothesis.
I think when we argue about whether women do or don’t want this or that, we sometimes forget that it’s quite possible for a woman to think (feel) two contradictory things at once. She may want and not want commitment from a man, or want it right up until the point where he offers it, then hate the idea, then want it again when he withdraws it. She can want to be a chaste, virtuous good girl and at the same time want to bend over for a really hot stranger in the parking lot. And she has a hamster capable of making these things seem consistent, as long as no one regularly corrects her.
So when she climbs on a guy she started chatting with a couple weeks ago and just met two hours ago, does she want a relationship? Who knows. Depends on when you ask her. In the moment, she’s not “thinking” about that or anything else at all, she’s just reacting. But if you asked her a day before, it would depend on her mood, who’s asking, how it’s asked, etc. I’ve known women to say one day they don’t want to have kids, and then another day admit they have names picked out for the first two. We probably shouldn’t try to figure out what they “want” or “think” in the sense that men use those terms.
.. sounds like it is also yet another reason people should abstain from anal intercourse…hidden chlamydia in the gut.
Oral intercourse can lead to it, too (and apparently regular intercourse)
Oh my, in that case the entire German nation is doomed, from what I’ve seen of their home movies posted on the web.
MarcusD, it’s OK, she’s an accountant. Phew. For a nasty minute there I was wondering if she might work in one of Gregg’s celebrated pie shops.
Boxer – same here. Grew up in the age of Aquarius, LOL! Had one in particular, who stated that she had just finished a LTR, and WAS NOT INTERESTED in a boyfriend. Took her home, did my stuff, and got the “that’s the first time I have ever orgasmed!” You’re welcome.
I took her literally, and for the next 3 weeks had my room mate answer all phone calls. Kinda think PUA’S like Roosh, don’t ever have to worry about these woman becoming “alpha widows” as they just want something moist to dump their junk into and put another notch on their belt.
@Cail Corishev
It comes down to sexual discordance, ovulation, hormones, socio-sexual orientation, socialization, and so forth. There are more factors that come into play with women than with men.
We probably shouldn’t try to figure out what [women] “want” or “think” in the sense that men use those terms.
Yes. The ultimate fool’s exercise. You’d think men would have learned this after 20,000 years of sociological evolution to the point where it goes without saying, let alone thinking about.
@oblivion “game works best with a girl who 1to2 pts higher than you” Yes, in the same sense that a minor league pitcher’s best A-game fastballs are designed so that they would be the best thing to work on major league hitters. Game is indeed what works best for a man in his attempts to get with a girl who is 1 to 2 pts higher. But it would also work great on girls that are lower, even though you don’t need your A-game.
Re: Cail’s “We probably shouldn’t try to figure out what [women] “want” or “think” in the sense that men use those terms.” Just take the ‘ol black box approach, eh?
I partly agree, and partly should agree more. My prior (pre-game) relationship methods, in which my wants and thinks were constantly thwarted, undoubtedly suffered from me trying to understand women’s expressed wants and thinks too rationally.
@MarcusD “I would have to masturbate up to forty seven-times a day. That’s when I asked for help” I tend to ask for help prior for masturbation. tmi, sorry
@DeNihilist says: Krauser, 1000 women advanced upon in 2013, 27 successful lays. WOW almost 3%. Game is successful on a small subset of woman, generally defined as sluts. Krauser would have had as much success, maybe even more if he had just asked point blank, “hey baby, wanna fuck?”
Your criticism misses a number of points.
Krauser would have had as much success, maybe even more if he had just asked point blank, “hey baby, wanna fuck?”
Or maybe his success would have been zero. You don’t know one way or the other. If a guy like the one pictured here walked up to 1000 woman and said “wanna fuck?” do you honestly think he would have gotten even one yes?
One basic game concept is that you should make yourself attractive. Lose weight, get in shape, get a haircut, wear decent looking clothes. You may think that’s just common sense (and it is), but not everyone gets common sense. Imagine the guy in the picture above if he lost the extra weight, started exercising regularly, trimmed his hair and started dressing better. He’d go from a 0 to at least a 5 (he’d also be practicing GAME). If he did that, and then walked up to 1000 women and said “wanna fuck,” he probably would have some success (but then he would have put some game concepts int practice).
27/1000. You don’t know what his success rate would have been without game. If it otherwise would have been 9/1000, then tripling is success rate would have been a good result.
1000 approaches. This is also basic game: approach a lot of women; don’t waste time if a woman isn’t interested; next her and more on to another woman if she isn’t interested. I’m sure many of the 1000 approaches amounted to little more than a hello and her giving a disinterested look.
Compare that to the advice usually given to young men: if she isn’t interest keep trying, because she’ll eventually see how great you are.
So let’s assume the 27 is entirely due to the number of approaches. Apply that to the typical guy (as described in the above paragraph) who keeps trying long after the girl has shown she’s not interested. He may only make 100 approaches a year, meaning his number is only 2.7. A worse case scenario is the beta orbiter, who gets oneitis for a girl or the shy guy who only approaches a handful (say 10) girls per year. His success rate is 0.27% (1/4 of a girl per year, or one success every 4 years). That’s the kind of guy that goes years without even having a date, much less having sex.
@Marcus
“The upshot is that 0-1 lifetime partner(s) is the way to go.”
No, the number of partners is irrelevant. What matters is that you and all your partners (and all their partners, etc.) have been chaste before you had sex with your partners. Do I need to provide examples? What if your one partner wasn’t chaste? To be really sure, make sure that you have been chaste and marry a virgin. Only works for guys unless a polygraph test is involved.
Tangentially-related: I suspect that more infertility problems related to STDs will be discovered in the future. Maybe some STD viruses will be found that kill/damage eggs.
@ 8To12
“Or maybe his success would have been zero.”
I was one for one with a nine by just asking (kino was holding hands and no sexualization of the convo). And I may have been in her friend zone, Idk. We were in the same circle of friends. I was at least two points below her in SMV. After that, I became a Christian and didn’t make any more approaches, so maybe I was just lucky. Probably not, since I get hit on a fair amount (flirting, ioi’s, one woman bumped her groin against mine hard, one did an obvious signal, one wrapped her arms around me to type on my keyboard at work, one suggested we go out). As a married autist, I am rule-oriented and don’t sexualize conversations with women or do kino, so hits on me are due simply to my frame and maybe looks (lol, not anymore being old and balding, tho I’ve been told that I look young for my age). Because follows sometimes tend to pull my wedding ring off, I don’t wear it when dancing. My ring fits somewhat loosely. So, women that I dance with tend to assume that I’m single until I tell them otherwise.
Maybe I’m a black swan? I don’t think so. Simple approaches likely work if a young woman is fertile and you get her alone.
Hipster Racist:
Exactly right that many young women are players. When a marriage minded man uses Game to make himself attractive to sluts it is analogous to a woman trying to play “spot the player” and get commitment from a high value “alpha”. In both cases the modern SMP plays into their blind spot: the woman ends up pumped and dumped, and the man ends up married to a post-carousel slut who has to be “gamed” to avoid frivorce. When you go bowfishing for Carp you most likely aren’t going to land a trout.
You’ve got your terms mixed up. Female playas are the women who are gaming men into marriage by submissively attracting and keeping the alpha male. These are not sluts, but their antithesis.
It’s easy for women to get fucked and chucked, the same way its easy for a beta male to land in a marriage to an abusive fattie, once he establishes himself. Sluts are beta females, in other words.
The woman who tames a man, and harnesses him for his productive power over the course of a lifetime: that’s the playa, on the female side of things.
Best, Boxer
jf12 writes…
Careful bro. You’re married, right? Either way: You’re playing a dangerous game. 😉
It is relevant, especially in practice (you do mention polygraph tests). In theory, yes, if there’s no risk, there’s no risk. But if one woman is capable of lying about virginity, then undoubtedly the chances increase for a greater number of women.
I meant “0-1 lifetime partner(s)” as being a goal for everyone. I should have been more explicit. (A virgin marries a virgin, as you say – basically, the way Christians are supposed to live.)
According to a paper I read, STDs are the #1 preventable cause of infertility in men and in women.
@theasdgamer says: Maybe I’m a black swan? I don’t think so. Simple approaches likely work if a young woman is fertile and you get her alone.
Did you look like this guy? What simple approach could he use to score one on one with a 9?
The exception doesn’t disprove the rule. Someone winning the lottery doesn’t disprove the fact that spending your entire paycheck on lottery tickets is a bad investment.
While pondering today’s debate a concept that Dalrock introduced previously comes to mind: slut and whore and the audience for each.
Is there a difference between Alpha males? There might be. I was thinking of blogging about it. When a man’s success says Alpha is there a subtype? I have never had a ONS, nor desire one. Not being judgmental here, it is not for me. I know PUA’s and although we share notes and have some perspective and techniques in common, we want different things. I call what I do and the lifestyle being a player as a distinction like a flavor of ice-cream. Do I go for whores while my friends go for sluts? Thinking of the language that we have used over the years; we must have accidentally arrived at this conclusion. My terms have usually been fling, dalliance, companion, lover, LTR, f**k buddy; you get the idea. My friends joke about what I like and enjoy their sluts. We have debated whether there is overlap between sluts and whores. There is agreement that some sluts evolve into whores. It is either a function of age or meeting a player who LTR’s them. I think that the pleasures and privileges associated with being a player’s item convert them. My experience has been that once they make this leap they go to a serial relationship model. This type of relationship feels different to them and is a form of commitment, consequently they might like to continue it. From our observations age is the determining factor as to whether they move back and forth between whore and slut, older have a reduced frequency. Those that start off as whores tend to be pseudo conservatives with a strong justification subroutine in their hamster wheel and often remain serial daters for a long time and usually never do ONS’s after LTR’s.
Yes, there are post-marital sluts and other exceptions to the rule. The former were sluts before the marriage, usually from high school or earlier, and beta’ed down early with an exit plan and lots of extracurricular activities during. It is as much of a skill set and play of access as it is for men. They seem to be able to jump into the lifestyle effortlessly to us. We think this as we might see their LTR or marriage and assume that they are starting fresh. Get on a bicycle after 25 years, or be a drug abuser who goes back to the habit after a longterm sober. The latter can be parachuted into a different state and find money and drugs. This latter metaphor is more accurate that you might realize.
Whores who start as brides or had a marriage in between whoredom are the ones who try to get players to settle down or really don’t want that subconsciously and massage their hamster with projection. What I notice is that many of this type were really gold-diggers at a level, sometimes even kept by a man while in college or early career. Yes, there are some romantics among them, but from personal experience both of these feel and sound the same. They get very bitter as they get older. It is very important to lock in someone such as an older player tired of the game. Many whores in their late forties go for men in their late fifties or older who are divorced or old players. As an aside they remain quite desirable into their midlife and romance is a big part of their way. I wonder if they are actually one type. Maybe young marriage is the same as being kept. I notice that their first marriage and/or usually their first LTR is to an older player, ten years plus, sometimes previously married and on many occasions done with children to the point of permanence. Knowing a clinical psychologist player has been very useful. One subtype that I am sure of is the female player. She does appear in this grouping. She is not the gold digger, but has a physical want and desire. They make great lovers and once they fall for you, they want to keep you. Russian women seem to fall into the gold-digger/whore category. Many of them were kept as described above at a young fertile age. This is one reason why I was always suspect of them when they were considered the wives to get during the 90’s. When whores divorce you you are more screwed as they feel what they have invested in the relationship and the system plays on this. Even if they do not feel this they can display a good show of feeling this. It is a mixture of fantasy romance and developed contempt for the man who committed to them. All of those who desire Eastern European wives as the solution to your problems consider yourselves warned. Thirty to forty years ago they were known as Italian women. Want to see the ultimate whipped beta, this is where you look. Eastern European women ring a lot of the same bells for me.
A lot of aspiring beta’s evolve into what I did, the player, as it is closely related to and builds on our skill set. The archetypal clues that we give might convince a female that we were interested in commitment and she, if a natural whore or slut to whore convert, might feel this as a let down. These feelings are regardless of what they will ultimately do since they know at another level what we really are. They are lying to themselves as well described by other commenters.
Are different types of feral females gravitating towards different subtypes of commitment averse males? If true, our analysis must take this into consideration. This is not a player blog, and I will not insult the owner. He does a great job saying what needs to be said, my thanks. However, maybe there is a missing piece that is less abhorrent than the usual alternative to traditional marriage. There could be a life plan for males and females as we age. Yes, many of us found ourselves in the PUA/Player lifestyle for reasons mostly beyond our control. Me, it was risk aversion and bad experiences and the decision still makes sense. For my younger counterparts it is opportunity and observation and crisis management. Whatever yours is so be it, but own it.
Interestingly, this blog’s owner has speculated on the future meme for females as they age and other blogs have discussed the feral female’s future both humorously and seriously. What about us men? What do we do as we age? You can’t cough up the red pill but can tune out the message and your own thoughts long enough to heal. For some of us the world will not change soon enough for the clock to be reset. We are all getting older. The next generation will ride social trends some of which are cyclical, some linear. Are having these debates productive, part of the disease or a disease? Would we be better leaving aside what we cannot change and focusing on something positive that we can participate in. I do, you can, you need to while using the player life or some other meme to be sane. Some, like Dalrock, have what we will not, praise. We all know that you cannot unsee something.
The reason that I say the above is that I am older than many here and experienced something that might be worthwhile. Bitterness is like taking poison and hoping that the other person dies. I am not a Christian so my perspective on forgiveness is a little different. You need to forgive not to do something nice but to free yourself. You can start over at any age. Yes, it will be different and there will be things that you can’t revisit or have. This was as true when you were eighteen as it is now. Understand the role that you played, your fault or not. Will a female ever be safe who has climbed her own ladder? These hypotheticals will never help us. The fixing is when we let this wash over us like rain as we cleanse our souls of the anger, hate and bitterness. There is nothing wrong with blogging, commenting or analysis and it should be a guidepost for the future. When you can sense the sadness and bitterness you wonder what we are leaving. From personal experience I know that when in the analysis phase you can get hung up and not transition to wisdom. Do something. Pray, build, write something different, start a new career at forty two like you are twenty, exercise, whatever. Just do it free. If it matters, females and males of all ages are beginning to ask me for a way out. Something has started; why not be a part of it? It is called our lives.
Yeah, I’ve dated these women for years, met some at church but mostly on the Christian dating sites. I could meet a new one every weekend If I wanted to but since I’m not a player what would I want with these women? Playing with is all they’re good for and I won’t do that. I doubt I’ve ever been described as “smoldering” but I’ve been called good looking, I’m 6’3″, fit, full head of hair and I can ply a strong game if sufficiently motivated but I’m not going to compromise my eternal soul with meaningless sexual sin, like my Christian dates have already done, and I’m certainly not going to marry a reformed slut. Rarely have I dated a Christian, never married woman who could claim to be a virgin, even when I was dating 17 year olds. Admittedly I failed too eventually, Christian dates, her hands in my pants etc, unsolicited. I found out the ‘hard’ way that an experienced Christian woman can use sex to take control of a man. What was that the bible warned me about? “flee the harlot”? But except for 3 that would be all the Christian women I’ve dated in 20 years.
Now they’re 30 something, single, never married, no kids and slept with more men than they’re quite willing to clarify. After passing around the best years of their lives they want me to marry them and provide a comfortable lifestyle with children. I’m going to pay a premium for something she passed around like free samples at the Sam’s Wholesale Club? Why would I want to be the last man in that line?
Wanted; Single sincere Christian woman under 40, never married, no kids, doesn’t want kids, has decent BMI, low N-count, willing to sign a pre-nup and interested in a leisurely lifestyle of love, companionship and travel. (yes, I realize it’s a fantasy)
@8to12
My wife says I’m an 8 in looks (at least when I was thin and had hair), which is probably accurate, since dad was a 10 and mom a 6. How common is it for an 18 yo guy with 8 looks to get laid by a 20 yo BH9 by just asking in private? I got such feeble shit-tests after asking–she really wanted it to happen and her actions later showed that she was very into me. How many guys with decent looks have even tried the direct approach?
I married a 10 new off the lot. I didn’t sexualize the convo. We only kissed before I proposed. Maybe I won the lottery twice. Probably not.
The ugly guy is a red herring. Maybe game can help ugly guys, but do guys with 7+ looks even need game? All guys need the art of manliness, but maybe not all the convo drama. The Birthday Cat and ellipses are so cheesy.
Embracing Reality – I have a daughter that would qualify, but she had cancer at 24 (seven years ago) and although she was cured and declared cancer-free, she is afraid to get into a relationship. Sorry!
Re: “I’m not going to compromise my eternal soul with meaningless sexual sin” although meaningful sexual sin might be worth it. j/k
@Boxer “You’re playing a dangerous game.” Yes. The positive spin on me practicing some platonic game is threefold. First is improving my abundance mentality in order to help me help my wife be a better woman without me resorting to dread game. Second is improving my ability to withstand tempting offers upon improving other aspects of me, including physical attractiveness and dominance (separate from game) towards women, which was already problematic twice before deciding to start gaming up and will be increasingly, as I suspect. Third is me helping women get the game I now know they want without them having to resort to bad men. Of the three, the third is the most interesting and the most dangerous, and in encompasses, in my mind, my learning and sharing with other good men so they can learn too.
@theasdgamer,
I’m unsure whether to take you seriously.
You’re an 8. You had a 9 essentially throwing herself at you.You married a 10. You did it all by being yourself and letting them come to you, and you don’t understand why other men haven’t figured it out like you have.
Tweell is your screen name related to this invention from Michelin? I would be surprised how small the world is if that is the case, though you do have two “L”s at the end.
The Tweel is a very good concept. I am tangentially involved in that, not its invention but for some materials used in it.
She says:
these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep me in their narcissistic orbit.
but what she means is
these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep themselves in my narcissistic orbit.
I mean, anyone can fall for a con once. If you fall for the same con again and again, and never learn, then the problem is you.
8to12 – “One basic game concept is that you should make yourself attractive. Lose weight, get in shape, get a haircut, wear decent looking clothes. You may think that’s just common sense (and it is), but not everyone gets common sense. Imagine the guy in the picture above if he lost the extra weight, started exercising regularly, trimmed his hair and started dressing better. He’d go from a 0 to at least a 5 (he’d also be practicing GAME). If he did that, and then walked up to 1000 women and said “wanna fuck,” he probably would have some success (but then he would have put some game concepts int practice).”
Sorry, this is not game, this is as you said common sense and has been a gambit for hundreds if not thousands of years. What I find so crazy in the manosphere relating to game, is that so many people think that it is the latest greatest invention on how to pick up woman. NOT! Most of what goes for rules in game has been around forever, it has just been repackaged, and now, like everything in our society for the last 10-15 years is taken into the “dark realm”.
Roissy had a recent post where he is claiming that being a psychopath is the “end game”, really?
I get that there a lot of guys out there who are pussy’s and can’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground. But for all of the brouhaha about game, I wonder if very many of you guys actually know how Google works. Most of the dudes who push the game BS are like all snake oil salesmen, in it for the money. Christ even Atol has reduced his blog posting to 1 in every 1.5 months or so, so that he has more toime to spend on his monetizing aspect of “married game”.
Maybe I am just too old, and have seen too many of these scams in my life time.
As for your comment on approaches, this is the one original thing that I will give to game. If the woman isn’t easily led to bed, next her, cuz the next one just may be the slut you are looking for, for the night.
Boxer, Boxer, Boxer….don’t you understand? Women (including our so called red pill sistas) use sex to secure committment from the top dawgs all the time. Just ask them.
Whether he’s the first, the 50th, the 500th, or the 1063rd it’s ALWAYS 100% successful dammit!
Does a man above 7 need game?
Probably.
A good-looking man with the personality of a dweeb or a wimp is a total turn-off to a lot of women….and I know quite a lot of +7 women, including my sister who would probably qualify as a 10. A good-looking face can quickly seem effeminate if a man is completely inept with women.
The name is from The Martian Odyssey, not the airless tire. The extra l is because I didn’t feel right just using the name as it was.
DeNihilist says:
February 8, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Most of what goes for rules in game has been around forever, it has just been repackaged, and now, like everything in our society for the last 10-15 years is taken into the “dark realm”.
How would it even be possible for ‘Game’ to be anything but old knowledge? Human behavior, psychology, and the way that women conduct themselves is not a stunningly new phenomena so why would the knowledge of that be a new revelation? It can be found in the Bible, in the writings the Romans left behind and elsewhere. That doesn’t make it any less relevant nor does it alter the fact that most men are being lied to about the nature of women, and about how they should be behaving if they want to succeed with women.
There is nothing wrong with calling the combination of those truths ‘Game’ and presenting them as a package to some bewildered guy who is wondering WTF is going on in his life and why everything he has been told to do with women turns to crap.
Thought for the night. A playa is definitively rated/ranked by how many plates he is currently spinning and how many alpha widows he has left behind. And, roughly, the betaness of a beta is how much of an orbiter he is. But the number of beta orbiters a woman has or had is not a measure or her girl game. What does it measure? Something similar to how many prostitutes a non-player has payed?
How would a man act in a society like that in biblical times where men essentially obtained wives through arrangements between families or even purchased one from her father? In such a society where a man’s substantial legal rights and authority over a wife and children were simply a given men would not be ass kissing, nice guy chumps. The kind of needy, groveling, timid behavior we see from the average blue pill husband would have been laughable even a 100 years ago. I expect much of what we call ‘game’ today would have simply been natural behavior among many men before pre-chivalrous, pre-feminist culture. If a wife was very nearly a man’s property he would be inclined to be a bit demanding, cocky, even narcissistic. If she was creating problems in the relationship he might just be aloof for awhile, denying her his attention.
Once I unlearned the current cultural brainwashing garbage using ‘game’ came naturally to me, It was almost as if my instincts took over. I could felt it. Suddenly my posture, my walk, and especially eye contact with women I found attractive changed. I could feel it, turn it on, turn it off, It’s all in there if you let it work. I’m sure other men on here have felt it as well and feel, see the reaction in some women around you. The right posture, body language and eye contact alone can garner reactions from women you otherwise never got. Masculine, ever so slightly sexualized advertising, subtle. Then women notice you. A woman in the market might suddenly look you up and down, doesn’t mind if you catch her. She might hold eye contact, sometimes for quite a long time waiting to see if you break and look away, don’t! With a straight face and strong eyes, make a slightly snarky comment, a bit rude for a stranger, then immediately drop her a sly smile. If you’re in church you may already be the most interesting Christian man she’s ever met in her life. All your simple minded competitors just tell her how beautiful she is every single time they see her, while lying prostrate before her, and never figure out why she doesn’t care to hear them say it again.
The commodification of human beings is not something that would be healthy. That’s what we have today, you know. We live in a supermarket/shopping mall society, where everything is for sale. A good father would not want to “sell” one of his children, unless he were blinded by a lot of transfigured images (as people are today — child support is part of this).
There is something to be said for the old order, described in the Bible, where families stayed more coherent across time. Fathers took an active role, in those older days, in legitimizing the choices of a child’s mate. They were recognized as having a stake in this, because families were more than just a couple of people banging each other. The family includes the father even after the marriage (he would live close, or at least in the same town) and the generations of the family would stay linked through time.
The man’s rights and authority over his children were also retained, in those old structures. This would be a bit difficult as a young man, who has to deal with his father and father-in-law, but it would also have its advantages. A man would not be expected to immediately be thrown into a position of absolute authority, but would have the opportunity to learn the skills of leadership, and ease into the process gradually. It would also check the wife’s ability to undermine the husband, as he would be able to call upon her father to back his play if there was a conflict.
In any event, there’s a lot to be said for a generational structure, as opposed to the nuclear family structure which is currently falling to pieces now, on a mass scale.
Boxer
Re: “Sorta like what they all say in the middle: “O Boxer! You’re so huge!” Yes I think AWALT. It has to do with their feelings, remember. They aren’t communicating that they want you to think they think you are always huge; they are communicating that they want you to feel they feel you are huge at the moment. Kinda like the difference between the Spanish verbs ser and estar, although applied to their feelings (due to their solipsism your actual hugeness doesn’t matter compared to their feelings). Yes I too have always (sometimes) gotten the “you’re so huge” and “you’re so strong” stuff, but at the time(s) I erroneously thought they (all both) were lying to try to make me feel better or something. It had not yet occurred to me that women could be so sincere about their untruths. One of the great redpill revelations.
CAF strikes back:
How much time dating teenagers should spend together (Uggh.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858393
Why do guys say such hurtful things? (Train wreck.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858288
If love is a choice, then should attraction play any part in marriage? (Soaring like the Hindenburg)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858350
Divorce and Remarriage Questions (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858404
Does anyone else get increasingly protective about their chastity/virginity? (Not that bad… yet.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858420
” That doesn’t make it any less relevant nor does it alter the fact that most men are being lied to about the nature of women, and about how they should be behaving if they want to succeed with women.”
Let me fix that for you
“That doesn’t make it any less relevant nor does it alter the fact that most men are being lied to about the nature of women, and about how they should be behaving if they want to succeed with sluts.” There that’s better!
CAF strikes back:
How much time dating teenagers should spend together (Uggh.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858393
Why do guys say such hurtful things? (Train wreck.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858288
If love is a choice, then should attraction play any part in marriage? (Soaring like the Hindenburg)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858350
Divorce and Remarriage Questions (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858404
Does anyone else get increasingly protective about their chastity/virginity? (Not that bad… yet.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858420
The re-done Coke ad, for other minority groups:
@DeNihilist says: Sorry, this is not game, this is as you said common sense and has been a gambit for hundreds if not thousands of years. What I find so crazy in the manosphere relating to game, is that so many people think that it is the latest greatest invention on how to pick up woman. NOT! Most of what goes for rules in game has been around forever, it has just been repackaged, and now, like everything in our society for the last 10-15 years is taken into the “dark realm”.
So you think writing style guides like the ones below are a waste of time?
The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition
The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage
The Associated Press Stylebook
The only thing these books do is codify “common sense” knowledge into a system. Why would anyone need that? Everyone should have simply absorbed the rules by osmosis growing up. After all, everyone should know all the rules of writing perfectly by the time they are an adult. Why would any adult need a manual explaining the rules of something as simple as writing?
Because obvious to some is oblivious to others.
Writing style guides were created for people who, despite having the rules of WRITING AND GRAMMAR in front of them their entire life, were oblivious to them.
Game guides were created for people who, despite having the rules of SOCIAL INTERACTIONS in front of them their entire life, were oblivious to them.
And yes, it is an apples to apples analogy. Both type of guides are written for people who don’t get the common sense rules staring them in the face. Who need to be taken by the hand and walked slowly–step by step, obvious point by obvious point–so they understand how the system works.
Two things keep coming to mind as I read this thread. No, three. The first one is, I think I really hate you guys.
And now I can’t remember the other two.
I’m only partly kidding. The stuff some of you guys are crowing about is the kind of thing mothers used to warn their daughters about. I guess the question might be, why don’t they now?
My mom wasn’t very helpful to me in the area of men. I had a weight problem growing up, and I expected to be rejected, I guess. When I lost the weight, the guys immediately noticed, and it scared me. I honestly didn’t know how to handle it, even though I thought it was what I’d always wanted. My mom seemed embarrassed by my lack of skill, and offered me no assistance at all. She was herself a “surprise baby” in the depression era, the only girl in a family of several attractive, perhaps even caddish, I dunno, much older brothers, and her father died when she was 12 or 13. I think she kind of raised herself after that point. One of my sisters thought my mom changed in her attitude toward all of us as soon as we turned 13, and attributed it to her age at her father’s death. I always thought I caught the worst of her animus, though. I ended up thinking that this area was one which a girl was just supposed to “know” what to do; and since I didn’t, that was proof of all that was wrong with me. I genuinely wanted to be a “good Christian girl” who wanted to find a “good Christian man,” and, since I was fairly pretty once I lost the weight, it probably wouldn’t have been hard to make that happen if I’d had the least idea how to go about it and wasn’t so darn self-conscious. Enter the influence of feminism as time went on, and the rest, as they say, is history. (Really boring history, actually. I did ultimately find that good man, but not before both of us were damaged.)
Heh. Poor me.
Anyway, maybe my actual point will come back to me eventually. Carry on.
Re: actual point. This one? “It probably wouldn’t have been hard to make that happen if I’d had the least idea [that the men I was biologically attracted to were all players, every single one].”
Just trying to help.
I have to get ready for my hour and a half 2nd grade Sunday School class. I’ve only got 16 this year instead of 30 since the girl that was helping me was deemed good enough to teach her own class. She has most of the girls, except the unruly ones, and the boy that doesn’t talk except to women. Of my 12 boys and 4 girls, about half are church kids, and half are bus kids, and about half of the 16 have no father.
Re: should sexual attraction play any part in marriage? Why of course not! EVERYONE knows that sexual attraction is for OUTSIDE marriage.
jf12: I expected that.
Actually, it had something to do with the notion of “next.” It reminded me of Mary Kay Ash’s sales techniques (yeah, been there, done that, and wasn’t any good at that, either) — that success was all about the “no’s”. You were supposed to keep track of how many nos you got before you got a “yes,” and use that rate to guide how many sales calls you would make each day. I couldn’t handle the nos, so I quit. Plus the whole thing kind of left me with an icky feeling. Which is probably why I was no good at it (and also why I don’t use Mary Kay products anymore). Anyway, that was my point; that your techniques are just old fashioned, icky, foot-in-the-door sales techniques, and while they might pressure a few people to make the sale who otherwise would not have, what you’re mostly looking for is the person already *willing* to make the big sale, who need only be asked. A percentages game. Nothing new there at all.
The other point was about fathers. The idea that a girl should not trust every suitor that comes along, and if you think he might be “the one,” you need to bring him around for Daddy’s approval. And that an honest guy will ask her father’s permission. Nobody takes that seriously anymore.
“Nobody takes that seriously anymore.”
This is not the place to get approval for what brought you here it a place to discuss ways to keep our children from here. The men here are family men that are smart enough to see through the lies of the blue pill. (“I hate you guys”)
Good Christian men are nearly impossible to find because they are invisible. Also good Christian man today is a churchian dupe relying on the feminine imperative definition of good man and not on the attraction triggers women naturally have.
It was a disrespectful way to express myself, greyghost, and I apologize. I actually meant it to be funny. I’m not honestly sure exactly what brings (or keeps) me here, or if this is a good place for someone like me to hang out, and I will take your assessment (that I’m here for some kind of approval) seriously. If that’s what it’s about, I’ll leave.
lady N
Your comment here is the very reason Churchian men need to be Christian men with “game”
@jf12 “If we were sympathetic, we as men must recognize it is extremely difficult for a woman who is not very attracted to very many men to try to muster some sufficient degree of attraction to a good man that she believes she ought to feel attracted to. To a good woman it ought to be heartrending. It’s the WHOLE reason Dalrock promotes Game in marriage: to make it easier for the woman to feel attraction.”
I have never heard or read anything like this before tonight. But it takes a huge weight off my shoulders. Thank you.
The question is not about how to spot a player. They are all she can see. How can she learn to see a non player? Hint to the churchians, make yourself visible.
@8to12
“You’re an 8. You had a 9 essentially throwing herself at you.You married a 10. You did it all by being yourself and letting them come to you, and you don’t understand why other men haven’t figured it out like you have.”
I was an 8 in looks. Maybe I have some natural game instincts. I’ve never been afraid to approach women. Regarding the 9–she saw me threaten a much larger guy who had been following us as I walked her to the bus stop and scare him off. I also expressed my difficulty in getting the words out when I asked her to make love and maybe she responded to my vulnerability and courage. I’m also somewhat narcisstic. Maybe she found that attractive.
Here’s the essential details: I relocated her twice. First we walked to a corner of the restaurant. That still felt too public, so I suggested going somewhere more private and she suggested her room, so we walked to her room holding hands, where I asked her to make love and she agreed to the following week.
Regarding my wife–We developed a lot of rapport since her group was often inviting me to parties she was at. I talked with her a lot and asked her many questions about her country. I danced with her and her friends. She had a lot of comfort about me since she instigated the first doubledate for her roommate. My wife and her friends provided food at the parties. This all happened decades ago before the manosphere or blogging about game.
@LadyN
Sure, wimps are unattractive. Maybe just showing some spine nowadays is enough to make a guy stand out. I’m not sure what the average young guy’s confidence level is. Maybe I’ll go to some clubs and see if I can observe some.
How do women respond to men’s approaches? (I can really only use my experience to consider this.) I sometimes initially get negative vibes from women I’m considering approaching and it doesn’t faze me. (This is in the context of dancing.) I’ll ask them for a dance later and usually they’ll accept. Sometimes I ignore the negative vibe and ask and they accept anyway. With certain dances where I am fairly skilled, women typically almost always accept my invitation to dance (some will only dance with their husband or boyfriends and they are the only ones who refuse; oh, maybe if they are worn out or leaving). Some will be very thirsty and put down their water anyway in order to dance with me.
One thing that occurs to me is that some dance partners and I connect better than others and they are more eager to dance with me. I’m not sure about why there’s a good connection. Sometimes with very good dancers there’s a lack of connection because of a lack of confidence on my part due to past history with the dance partner when I was a raw beginner. Sometimes it’s the follower not reading my lead properly. Sometimes my lead isn’t strong enough for that follower and I don’t adjust.
Donna Sposata diMaria
On the surface you want approval but deep down that is not what you are looking for. Nobody that reads and comments here does so the same way they would on facebook or some other popular today place.
I read your first comment. It was interesting because and I have a 13 year old daughter. So I’m at the guidance into the relationship stage. 13 year olds are more aware than mother’s think so there is much room for conversations. It would be interesting to know what conversations would have helped you. Or more importantly what conversations would have advances you to a starting place that the pain and suffering of bad experience got for you. An example would be the young beautiful woman 15 to 27 screwing her way to empowerment and about 30 when her physical appearance starts to reduce that and when 40 hits and it is completely over. Some women never learn some realize the value of the beta chump to late. Many were actually married to the guy and divorced him. What would have been nice to know at 15 to avoid that and feel the tingle? You could bring very much to the conversation.
The other point was about fathers. The idea that a girl should not trust every suitor that comes along, and if you think he might be “the one,” you need to bring him around for Daddy’s approval. And that an honest guy will ask her father’s permission. Nobody takes that seriously anymore.
That last sentence, obviously, being a big part of the reason for the predicament we’re in.
I spent decades trying to square the difference between what I was told about women and their actual behavior I kept observing. Game said I was not seeing the flukes but the normal. It also told me not to take rejections personally.
Errata:
The OP links to my blog with the words “There must be some mistake, since everyone knows players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women.”
But I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women.
@galloper6
“I spent decades trying to square the difference between what I was told about women and their actual behavior I kept observing.”
Me too. I guess that I didn’t let what I had been told get in the way of approaching women. I treated my wife at the time we met as a virtuous woman and that was the correct approach for her. I treated my fling as a partner for fun and that worked with her.
“It also told me not to take rejections personally.”
I don’t see how you can take them any other way. A rejection can be a stimulus to work on some aspect of yourself. One oughtn’t let a rejection stop all activity including the pursuit of women if single. Don’t give any single rejection too much weight. Avoid oneitis when making approaches. Consider every rejection to bring you one step closer to your goal.
Great post, Dalrock. The only way for a woman to protect herself against a player is to wait until marriage. God’s rules often amount to very simple maxim’s, but listening to Him saves us from so many problems.
@Zippy
You’ve made a number of somewhat self contradicting assertions about players. In the post I link you claim that Game doesn’t work (and therefore women don’t find men using Game attractive), and that in better times we identified players as the losers they really are. In a follow on post you explained that since women find players attractive, this must mean their normal tendency to only find good men attractive has been corrupted by men who are (as a whole) convincing women that men they would otherwise not find attractive are actually attractive. But as the woman I quote in the OP explains, it was precisely the bad boy’s badness which attracted her, not social pressure from good men telling her to reject men like themselves. His aloofness was a distinct part of his charm, compared to her nice-guy-already-frivorced-once new beta boyfriend.
Pingback: Send in the clown | Zippy Catholic
Re: greyghost “How can she learn to see a non player? Hint to the churchians, make yourself visible.” Yes. Game is the behavioral equivalent of cologne. It almost doesn’t matter if it’s Axe or L’Homme, provided it’s something you try and the laydees seem to enjoy.
Note to the smelly monks with long dirty toenails: your antiGame is working well.
Re: “your techniques are just old fashioned, icky, foot-in-the-door sales techniques, and while they might pressure a few people to make the sale who otherwise would not have, what you’re mostly looking for is the person already *willing* to make the big sale, who need only be asked. A percentages game. Nothing new there at all.”
Consider the virtuous woman as a sort of harried housewife with “No Soliciting! This means YOU!” on her door. All of the scrupulous Fuller brush salesmen never even knock. One who knocks, and grins and doffs his cap when she answers, has to have drained his scrupulosity somewhere, maybe in the hedge by the sidewalk. He has to be able to say, and mean “I’m not here to sell, I’m here to inform! I’m a teacher, really.”
Re: Mary Kay. One of the selling points of selling things is that “If you follow our suggestions, our products will sell themelves!” It occurs to me that one kind of game criticism (from some men) is that they tried to sell, almost a few times, and even though they kinda sorta followed some of the suggestions, the products didn’t really sell themselves, and the one sale they did make made them even more nervous than the two that they didn’t make, and besides one out of three is almost as bad odds as never making any sales at all.
“I spent decades trying to square the difference between what I was told about women and their actual behavior I kept observing. Game said I was not seeing the flukes but the normal. It also told me not to take rejections personally.”
Galloper and asd, stop looking in my head, willya?
I thought I was going mad, or had the psychic equivalent of a “Kick Me” Post-it note on my back, and was on the point of chucking it all (association with women). I was Dudley Do-Right, or maybe one of Rollo’s vile “Promise-Keepers”, up to and beyond the call of duty, due to chaotic upbringing. And the more I did what was overtly required, the worse, the nastier it got. Mind-freezing, psycho, pointless, crazy stuff, from people who believed (and announced loudly at every opportunity) that they were the epitome of intelligent and urbane. Again and again. But one fine night a few years back I started Googling “women are insane”.
And whaddya know, turns out I was right. It’s all been gravy from there on in. I’ve also determined to get back in touch with the 1970’s side of myself, back when it all started, let all the “social advances” since then slide, and see how that goes. I suppose that makes me a bona fide reactionary. Thanks, chaps.
Dalrock:
I guess that justifies you attributing to me anything you want to attribute to me.
Tam you are welcome. My problems started in the 70s as well.
By not taking rejections personally, I mean that I see now that it was my APPROACH that was being rejected. My approach is something I CAN change.
One way to spot a player is a woman is very attracted to him for no reason she can name.
@Tam
Dude, sexualization and closing has always worked with non-virtuous women and the old-fashioned way still worked with virtuous women when I courted my virtuous wife-to-be. The only real difference between now and my courtship days is that now virtuous young women are hard to find.
I enjoyed the 9 for five days, then I had several months of emotional pain after I pair-bonded with her. Not fun. I also felt cheap since she didn’t want to be seen publicly with me because she was engaged. Also not fun. There was a yucky thing that happened to us that I will spare you all from hearing about that wasn’t fun. So, while I can’t say that I regret the experience, it soured me on short term sex.
Then I became a Christian and premarital sex was out the window for me and my autistic rule-following kicked in (and my college gf discovered that she couldn’t seduce me, lol). Autistic men are also gatekeepers of sex, especially if religious and/or married. That’s up to ten percent of the men!
@all
Off-topic, but curious: I’ve noticed that, coming off the dance floor, my partners are always touching me, maybe looking for comfort, maybe comforting, Idk. Back, arm, shoulders, whatever. It’s very brief. I’m not too touchy-feely (maybe an ASD thing), maybe I need to change that up a bit. My smile is warm and that’s how I convey warmth. Maybe I need to increase the warmth in order to increase the comfort, Idk. Maybe I’ll ask a woman dance friend that I know.
As an autist, I’m always seeking help from neurotypicals to understand what’s going on socially. To autists, neurotypicals seem to be social idiot-savants. We autists have to analyze, question, think social things through, etc., so any help you all can give us will be much appreciated. It’s estimated that we are about ten percent of the population. Some of us (like me) generally appear to be neurotypical in social situations–just quiet.
You all might find my experience as an autist on the dance floor interesting. I perceive that some women are attractive, but they don’t turn me on, probably because of my rules-following tendency. However, I am still subject to possible emotional entanglement and I have to keep an active watch on my emotions. There can be romantic attraction distinct from sexual attraction, at least for me. The woman might be minimally sexually attractive (basically not disgusting) and I could still develop a strong romantic attraction to her primarily based on platonic friendship (she might be sweet, warm, fun, engaging, etc.). Of course, I fight romantic attraction, being married, but studying it is interesting.
Ok, so I’m stimming now (going on at length about an obsession), but I really do have questions and hope some of you all can help me out.
Actually Dal, it is Krauser who has amply shown that even a high-alfa-internalized-game-player-dominant-manosphere-leader using game has no better luck with woman, then a empty-guitar-case-carrying-dude who scored over a 30% phone number close, while Krauser states a 25% phone number close. Actually, carrying an empty guitar case is better then game aint it?
@Tam
@galloper
Thanks, you guys just helped me fit another piece of the social puzzle. Tam was saying “thanks.” Yw, Tam.
“Off-topic, but curious: I’ve noticed that, coming off the dance floor, my partners are always touching me, maybe looking for comfort, maybe comforting, Idk. Back, arm, shoulders, whatever. It’s very brief. I’m not too touchy-feely (maybe an ASD thing), maybe I need to change that up a bit. My smile is warm and that’s how I convey warmth. Maybe I need to increase the warmth in order to increase the comfort, Idk. Maybe I’ll ask a woman dance friend that I know.”
I doubt they would be touchy like that if you hadn’t just been dancing together. Something about dancing with a man, so long as he didn’t spend the entire time trying to hump my leg, makes me feel affection towards him. It isn’t necessarily a sexual thing.
TFH – The fact still stands, he approached 1000 women and only converted 27 of these woman into lays. If I was looking for a system that would guarantee that my lay count would go up significantly, this alone would be a huge warning sign. This guy is supposed to be one the best there is as of today – REALLY???
The guy with the empty guitar case had a higher phone number count, just by carrying an empty guitar case, no game experience at all. If my boys were into being male sluts and asked my advice as to how to get their lay count up, I would buy them an empty guitar case. Game statistically does not raise your chance of getting laid within the general population of the other sex. That is what the actual experience finds. The game “model” though, like a climate model, predicts otherwise, but when compared to reality, both models fail.
I deal in reality, not hope of future rewards or game models.
“Game statistically does not raise your chance of getting laid within the general population of the other sex. That is what the actual experience finds. The game “model” though, like a climate model, predicts otherwise, but when compared to reality, both models fail.”
Is that because women can sense that it is not authentic? Or maybe the one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work all that well?
I can tell you that if my husband did a lot of the things men here call “Game,” I don’t think I would like him very much. But then again, I am one of those odd females that was never really attracted to the “bad boy” types anyway.
TFH – I have respect for Krauser. He was completely truthful, and put game into reality by moving it from the “shooting fish in a barrel” bar scene, to moving it to day game. i.e. approaching sober woman, who are not likely looking for a good time and using game techniques on them.
But the reality is, if my business had a 6% gross profit and only a 2.7% net profit, I would not be in business very long. These numbers are stunningly low. Game, when used on women who are not looking to get laid, i.e. most women most of the time, does not work beyond chance. Statistically you have as good a chance as Krauser to get laid just with pure chance! This is the take away from the Krauser et al. 2013 study.
But don’t worry, Krauser has his book out now, and for 100 bucks you can get the hardbound edition. Somehow I think that his business side of game will be seeing better then 6% gross profit.
Lady N, as the Krauser et al. 2013 study shows, most women are like you, but most men on these sights will never admit it.
I don’t know what kind of “game” you all are using but 1000 women to get 27 strokes of ass. I am not hardly a player and have been out of circulation for 15 plus years. When I was out on the hunt (we called it running hoes) I never spoke to more that 2 to 3 women when out. I’m also not a one night stand kind of guy and if my sex count was high it was from wearing out the same woman.(Partner count is actually rather low) Every girlfriend I had screwed the night I met them except for my wife. (I just made out with her cab of the truck in the parking lot of the club, I chose not to have sex with her even though I was massaging the soaking wet pussy though those panties she was wearing. I didn’t want to be driving her home the next day.) I just don’t see the point of putting all of the effort into getting sex from women. I never really dated maybe 5 times my entire life. It was usually a hook up and a regular call back from there. Pulling ass is work and I hated it. It was always a job to me to go out and meet women. When you are on your game you know you are going to have sex within 30 seconds of first meeting a woman and it is actually the best time. Asking out and approaching 100’s of women is not good efficient game. I don’t think I will ever approach 100 over my whole lifetime. The drama of 100 bitches, Damn that is crazy.
LadyN
Physical and emotional affection is much more enjoyable than sex. A woman that is only good for sex is no more useful than jacking off and will easily be dumped or not called back for more. A woman that is pleasant to be around is wifed real quick.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/09/popes-global-survey-reveals-more-catholics-support-abortion-divorce-than-previously-thought/
—
That explains a few things. I’ll bet that it’ll be the same for American respondents.
Is it possible for you to tell us who that individual is? You’ve mentioned him a few times, and I’m curious.
This seems like a deliberate attempt to mislead.
“Physical and emotional affection is much more enjoyable than sex.”
As far as I could tell, many men equate sex with physical and emotional affection, which is why they get so torn up when their wives will not have sex with them. Affection cannot replace good old fashioned intercourse…and frequent intercourse will often cause a man to be more affectionate with his wife.
But I understand what you are saying about what a man looks for in a wife as opposed to “jack off material.”
Denihilist to properly judge Game you should compair the numbers to non Game numbers. You also have to factor in market value of the”scores”. Most non gamers NEVER get a high smv woman, 8,9,10. If a Gamer gets only one # 8 a month and #9 per year he has surpased Average Beta Chump by orders of magnitude.
More from C.A.F. (Catholics Against the Faith):
23 Year Marriage In Jeopardy (Did she express the reason she’s so unhappy she wants to leave? – Guess the answer)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858524
Is it wise to begin dating without knowing whether one is called to marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858584
My husband left me and I feel lost (notice the difference in responses between this and the first thread in this list)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858572
Struggling with spouses unemployment
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858540
Catholics Trapped by Feminism (Gruesome train wreck)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
More from C.A.F. (Catholics Against the Faith):
23 Year Marriage In Jeopardy (Did she express the reason she’s so unhappy she wants to leave? – Guess the answer)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858524
Is it wise to begin dating without knowing whether one is called to marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858584
My husband left me and I feel lost (notice the difference in responses between this and the first thread in this list)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858572
Struggling with spouses unemployment
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858540
Catholics Trapped by Feminism (Gruesome train wreck)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
@ladyN
Thank you for your comment about affectionate touches after dancing. How would you feel if a man you just danced with gave you a quick sideways hug in return when leaving the dance floor?
“Is that because women can sense that it is not authentic?”
I think that women that it works on can’t sense inauthenticity. They believe that the player has demonstrated high value to them. They then enjoy the playful engagement, sexualization, risk, etc. Remember that players also attempt to increase comfort, which helps to mask their objective. Maybe the women can’t sense inauthenticity because they have a buzz on from alcohol.
“Or maybe the one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work all that well?”
I think maybe it’s scary that it tends to work very well on many women. They likely dress provocatively and drink excessively. They want to be seen as sexy and fun and want to attract men.
“I can tell you that if my husband did a lot of the things men here call “Game,” I don’t think I would like him very much.”
Virtuous women are likely not manipulated very well by some aspects of Game. Also, if a woman is in a relationship with an alpha, she probably doesn’t mind being manipulated (and likely isn’t virtuous). Virtuous women typically are allergic to alphas and marry betas. Women can be angry at their men and be very turned on to them at the same time, so you might not like him but might still want to bed him at the same time. If you had consumed alcohol, you might not even be angry with him. Something for you to think about: Is your attraction to your husband more sexual or romantic?
You bring up an interesting question: Why does Game work? From my experience, some women aren’t even aware of being sexually attracted to particular men. So, maybe they are unaware of being worked up until their desire is already quite high. Maybe alcohol dulls their senses as well.
Sometimes I’m not aware that a woman is attracted to me even when I’ve been chatting with her for an extended period. I recently experienced a platonic attraction where the woman I had been chatting with saw it as romantic. She was a lot of fun to be around and very warm and I was charmed. Crossed signals. P I think I was in “nice guy” mode. So, maybe a nice guy can generate romantic attraction but not sexual attraction.
Building a stable of stallions, was she?
She came, then came her comeuppance. As craig sorta said, you can’t cheat an honest (wo)man.
And again TFH ignore the reality. To get those 60 dates, he ran through a thousand woman. Not very efficient is it? As for LTR, game as stipulated by its’ proponents has nothing to do with that. Game is about using a set of techniques to induce the woman to bang you. If you want to talk about ways to strengthen your LTR, then you are not talking about game. Everyone here mostly agrees that most men today do not know how to be masculine in a positive way (roissy is now saying the psychopath game is the end game, and you want to listen to him to help you build a LTR?). So what to do to help these individuals become positively masculine? Well my first suggestion would be not to use a system that is in fact completely opposite from what you want.
By the way, you gonna drop a hun on his new book?
Marcus – http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/guys-holding-guitar-makes-you-more-attractive
“Specifically, researchers took an incredibly gutsy 20-year-old actor and had him introduce himself to 300 young women between about 18 and 22, say “I think you’re really pretty,” and ask for each of their numbers. One-third of the time he was carrying a guitar case, one-third of the time a sports bag, and one-third of the time nothing. About 31 percent of the women gave him their number when he had the guitar, compared to nine percent when he had the gym bag and 14 percent when he was carrying nothing.”
Have been doing that gallop, the empty guitar case carrying guy has more success then the numero uno gamer of 2013. And I was waiting for when someone would point out that you get “higher quality” women when using game. LMFAROTFP! on that one.
Ghost, this is what is blowing my mind, these guys think that scoring 2.7% of the time is awesome! Has the world of pussy hunting degenerated this much since the seventies and eighties, that if you can score 1 out of every 50 attempts it is gold? If so, kinda makes me glad I was born in the fifties.
Also TFH, I like to have fun, so yes, I have given the Krauser debacle a more scientific term – Krauser et al. 2013. Relax and have some fun, you just may get laid more that way.
“I don’t know what kind of “game” you all are using…”
The word -game- may soon be undefinable, probably already is. I expect that the only reason the word even need exist is the vacuum in normal male behavior created by -feminism- another undefinable word. Since much of game as offered up by the PUA community starts by simply teaching boys and grown men to stop acting like needy little bitches, separating basic -manhood- from game might sort out some of the confusion. For example a man exuding niceness in approaching women, be they strangers or acquaintances, by gushing with compliments, praise, or generosity comes across as weak, approval seeking, desperate and most of all manipulative. “You look really pretty today!” as he goes out of his way to hold a door wide open… Comes across to women as repulsive. You might as well say “I know very little about you but I want to eventually have sex with you and hope to manipulate you into bed or even marriage by being sickeningly nice to you to the point I become a doormat”. This does not and cannot trigger attraction in anyone, how could it? And why do men behave this way anyway? -Chivalry- another undefinable word has been beat into the heads of men as the way to attract women by women (and some men) who don’t have the first clue how to be men that attract women.
So one aspect of game could be called picking up women for casual sex but another is learning how to stop making women hate the very site of you by acting like a needy little bitch. Maybe Christian men should start with something like self-resspect-game or stop-groveling-like a maggot-game. Women aren’t gods, there’s no reason be overly nice to an attractive woman who for all you know may be a genuinely horrible person.
Why pay for a book when you can observe the reality of human interaction for free.
DH keeps trying to talk down to us when he gives no reason why we should look up to him. He should troll elsewhere and leave.
Why pay for a book when you can observe the reality of human interaction for free.
+1
@DeNihilist
Thanks for the link to the study.
—
Your comment was mostly okay, but you just had to tack on something inane and pointless.
DeNihilist
One of the things you need to keep in mind is the context of the women you are approaching. I only talked to women that were out to get “picked up” ( I was in a night club) The experiments you are talking about are of a guy out in public approaching every women he sees that is physically attractive. Not every woman is ready to be picked up. Infact it is rare for a woman to not be in some kind of relationship.
In that context and with the goal of only running 8-9 and 10’s The lesson was to condition men into being fearless with approach and unaffected by rejection. I think the study was more of a training drill for young men to develop self confidence and to get past fear of rejection. The first lesson a man learns from game is to be fearless. The 80 percentile beta male is fearful in his actions because he has empathy and concern about how other people feel. Women are too stupid to find that sexy (80%) so that man has to condition that from his behavior. It never goes away it is who he is. The other 20% of men are the thugs, players, cads, etc. or weirdos nobody wants I think the term is Omegas that don’t have that as a problem. And do the ladies (80%) want to fuck those guys. (minus the omegas of course) They will destroy the constitution and rule of law and western civilization in general for that dick.
Before you go off talking all of that trash think about the big picture of where you are speaking from. The key to storing civilization is controlling female sexuality by directing it towards your most dependable ,trust worthy and reliable men. Far better to make those men sexy now than to have those bluepill chumps sexy by default due to some collapse of civilization which is what we are seeing slowly happen now.
“How would you feel if a man you just danced with gave you a quick sideways hug in return when leaving the dance floor?”
It would be too much for me.
“Maybe the women can’t sense inauthenticity because they have a buzz on from alcohol.”
Probably so.
“Women can be angry at their men and be very turned on to them at the same time, so you might not like him but might still want to bed him at the same time.”
Ugh. Not me.
“Is your attraction to your husband more sexual or romantic?”
It varies. Seriously. If he is being a dick, I’d rather sleep on the couch.
“Virtuous women typically are allergic to alphas and marry betas.”
I don’t mind alpha males. I get along fine with them. It is the a**holes I don’t like (the ones you find out later liked to punch their girlfriends in the face, for example. I can smell those ones a mile away.)
“So, maybe a nice guy can generate romantic attraction but not sexual attraction.”
Yes. But big hands and a nice body can generate the sexual attraction. What will ruin it is if “nice guy” turns out to be a wimp/coward/doormat/easily manipulated/too sensitive.
I like kind, considerate men. What ruins attraction is if the man has poor future time orientation or low impulse control. Nothing says turn-off like a man with DUIs, bad credit, and a video game addiction…even if he is extremely kind and considerate and good-looking to boot. Oh, and if he talks too much. Something about talking a lot seems effeminate to me.
Girls just want to play the game because it is thrilling and flattering.
Women who are truly interested in settling down one day look for trustworthy, reliable, dependable, chaste men (who are losers in such type of game), no matter how (much or little) seductive and attractive he could be.
Women are eliminated in those tournaments and they start losing those games far before the finals…at some age nearly 30 or over, when most male players start winning.
“I can tell you that if my husband did a lot of the things men here call “Game,” I don’t think I would like him very much.”
Virtuous women are likely not manipulated very well by some aspects of Game. Also, if a woman is in a relationship with an alpha, she probably doesn’t mind being manipulated (and likely isn’t virtuous). Virtuous women typically are allergic to alphas and marry betas.
Most women no matter how virtuous, are not all that moved by a man who lacks faith and confidence.
I’m still not quite sure if “game” has been defined to my satisfaction. And also for what it’s worth, there are plenty of things characterized as “game” that were just a part of my husband’s natural bent when I met him 20 years ago and still are, and other things characterized as “game” that he wouldn’t resort to in 1000 years.
For one thing, he doesn’t calculate whether or not his actions are going to make me tingle or not before he acts. He is and always was highly principled. A lot of how he was before his principles were redefined by his faith conversion certainly made him look on the surface, like a “bad boy” when he isn’t. He just wasn’t fearful or desperate. Since when is that a bad thing to be attracted to?
Was I virtuous when we met? No, I was not. No use pretending otherwise, because it would be a lie. I certainly viewed myself as a virtuous girl before I met him, but when the heat got turned up (using both interpretations of the term), I didn’t make the cut.
That said, I’ve learned a lot, grown a lot in my faith, and am diligently pursuing more and more discipline and trnasformation in my life. And I can still melt a little bit when my husband does those things he does that ooze confidence, masculinity, and a willingness to stand firm in the face of whatever emotions I may be expressing and do what he thinks is best.
There is a safety in knowing that my man isn’t cowed based on my feelings. But THAT? It’s not game. And reacting to it doesn’t mean a wife is not virtuous.
“Girls just want to play the game because it is thrilling and flattering.” Of course. And yet some here want to believe that only 2.7% o fwomen like to tbe thrilled and flattered.
@Elspeth. No, oozing True Manliness is not itself game per se. But for the 80% of men who were oozeless and have had difficulties getting any woman to do anything their whole lives, the practice of Game lets them have the abundance mentality (which is that they could get another girl with game, if they exerted themselves) which results in their masculinity oozing, not vice versa. Having success with women is what breeds confidence, not vice versa.
theasd..
“How would you feel if a man you just danced with gave you a quick sideways hug in return when leaving the dance floor?”
It would be too much for me. Less touching (by the man) is more. 🙂
“Maybe the women can’t sense inauthenticity because they have a buzz on from alcohol.”
Probably. And I am weird–when I was single, if I was drinking a man was much less likely to get lucky with me. Alcohol turns down my libido. I may flirt, but it isn’t going anywhere.
“Virtuous women typically are allergic to alphas and marry betas.”
Probably true. I like alpha men. (I like most men for that matter.). I do not, however, like a**holes. Although many people equate the two, I can smell the difference a mile away.
“Women can be angry at their men and be very turned on to them at the same time, so you might not like him but might still want to bed him at the same time.”
Ugh. No, not me. If he is being a dick, I would rather sleep on the couch.
“Is your attraction to your husband more sexual or romantic?”
That depends on a lot of things: his appearance, my hormones, his behavior, etc.
“So, maybe a nice guy can generate romantic attraction but not sexual attraction.”
At first, I thought, yes. But then I realized that being nice cannot make up for things that turn a woman off. If a woman is turned off (as opposed to being in the “neutral position”), no amount of niceness is going to make her feel romance. I prefer for men to be kind and considerate. Big hands and a hard body can generate sexual attraction. But what will kill it immediately is the discovery that the man is a coward, lazy, or an addict.
TFH, in numbers that the likes of me can understand
“He did 1000 approaches, of which most were under 10 seconds. Those 1000 approaches led to 250 numbers, and those 250 numbers to 60 first dates.”
in the Approaches Handicap, a field of a thousand, he got 4/1 on, and on running those winners in the Numbers Challenge Cup, again came out at slightly less than 4/1 on?
Pretty acceptable in my book considering the fun had, and the substantial winnings, one fresh shag a week, and four on his birthday and Christmas.
At the risk of being appalingly rude, it’s worth observing that Krauser is not a hot young pro actor (who likely has innate manipulation/deception/charm skills to profit in that occupation in the first place, as well as not being hideous, which always helps).
AFAICS he’s a gawky working-class ( =US middle-class, don’t ask, it’s complicated, see G.B.S., Conan Doyle etc.) geek-type (Am I right in recalling he used to be, or is yet, one of those ‘IT Crowd’ sorts that haunt the server rooms of the world?). And has an ineradicable light tenor voice and geordie/mackem/smoggy-type accent, which rules out the respect/attraction of nearly all British women, who are towering hypergamous snobs, the lower you go, the more ridiculous it gets. Scousers get better treatment. Who the hell wants to screw Ant and Dec?
Verdict; chance of getting any kind of non-paid-for sex, ever? About once in ten years. So, DeNihilist, what is he doing wrong for his own purposes?
ROI of 0.1 by just “being himself” (divorced tech nerd), or applying his geek’s formula to get 60 p.a.?
And the guitar-case guy was also “Gaming”, in case you hadn’t realized. But he’s a professional, with years of experience and presumably some genetic advantages WRT appearance, vocal “presence”, &c. that K. lacks. So he “wins”. Because he’s more “attractive”.
But Krauser is also winning. Before Game, he definitely wasn’t. Plenty to go round, there’s a million girls on the girl-tree, fill yer boots lads!
And don’t get me started on Brit females! Krauser is more than eloquent on that tragedy. It’s not sour grapes, I wish it was. It took me decades to realize how out of whack with even the rest of Europe they are, once it became possible to travel there with more than fifty quid in your jeans. It perturbed me at first as to why the K-man was persecuting what appeared to be gormless tourist girls and exchange students in the safest, toniest streets of the Capital. Seemed like cheating, almost! Why isn’t he trying it on with one of our lumbering, crop-headed, feral, bulldog-faced and corn-beef-legged native growlers outside a kebab-shop in Wythenshawe, eh? Then we’ll see how good his bloody “technique” is!
OFC he’s right, I realized eventually; (a) why the hell would you want to, unless you just fancied a (surly) evening of unimpeded dull chat and watching endless femsludge ont’telly (or lethally heavy drinking/smoking/fighting, for the outdoorsy types), and (b) all Brit women regard themselves as far, far above a maggot like that, who (gasp!) works for a living. Every day! Eeewwww! Run, girls, a creepy rapist!! Make sure the CCTV catches him.
Give ’em thieves, addicts, ponces, landlords, City boys, and celebrities , it’s the life they’d choose for themselves, if it weren’t for the dam’ Patriarchy keeping them out of their birthright top spots in Gangster Club.
But I still think that’s a right ****’s hat he has.
roflmao ^^^ I love British humor.
Wah! Missed a stage at the races. OK that’s 60 runners entered in the Dating Hurdles, of which 27 came home (fnar), and golden ratio of 9/20, nearly half. Which, considering the likely exponential amount of time and effort expended in each successive race, is a return not to be sniffed at. So one score per fortnight and two extra on his anniversary. Better than many
misogynist rape dungeonsmarriages.@N, “I’m an alternative comedian. That means I’m not funny!” Gottit?
Dead serious, but if you didn’t laugh about it you’d start screaming ..
The funniest humor is that which is based in reality. 😉
Keep in mind, the answer to a young woman’s question on “How to spot a player” is “Any man to whom you feel attracted to whom you know you shouldn’t be”.
sigh. The traditional answer is “Any man to whom you feel attracted to whom you know you shouldn’t be”. We now know, of course, that women do not know their shoulds from their shouldnts when it comes to attraction.
OMG i misspelt appallingly take me out to the shed.
>> Patricia Heaton admitted that she would have refused to do another sitcom
Actresses don’t chose their roles any more than they choose when they will get proposed-to. Men are the gatekeepers of commitment and financiers (“co-Executive Producer” or the like in the credits) are the gatekeepers of casting.
PS: The casting-couch is far from dead…. just better hidden.
Alfred Hitchcock, who made movies with his wife as co-everything, never paid (not once!) any actress more than SAG Union Scale. He also said: “Actresses are cattle”.
If your goal is getting numbers or getting laid, a 2.7% return is better than 0.
I’m not good at math, but the last time I checked, 27 is more than 0.
And a man who can talk to a woman and get her phone number has more skill than one who cannot talk to a woman and cannot get her to so much as look at him; much less get her phone number so he can call/text her later.
@Karl
Casting is the single most woman-heavy profession in entertainment, both in movies and tv. Something like 90% of members of the Casting Society Of America are women. Yes, one could argue they sometimes tend to be merely the public face of the money men, but in most cases they do their job seriously. Money men are concerned about money and most typically do not concern themselves with micromanagement. This much I know: the majority of parts are chosen by entirely women, for a largely woman audience.
Re: ” he doesn’t calculate whether or not his actions are going to make me tingle or not before he acts.” you say this as though you aren’t vested in believing it. If he’s good at calculating, you wouldn’t be able to tell.
Probably off topic a little, but there is an article on another site about a girl being afraid of leading on a single outcast boy. Left unsaid was the large number of non-outcast supersmart boys who have male friends but no girlfriends, but are used by girls anyway. Yay, girls.
Greyghost makes a valid point when he talked about less approaches. They guy who made 1000 approaches wasted alot of time. Unless I get “yummy eyes” from a woman, most of the time I won’t approach. It turns your success rate from 2.7 percent to about 80 percent. Bonecrusher did a great post on yummy eyes.
you say this as though you aren’t vested in believing it. If he’s good at calculating, you wouldn’t be able to tell.
21 years is a long time to keep up an act. I should nominate him for an Oscar. For real.
@Elpeth, I continue to fail to believe you want others to believe that you think your own man’s
1. Ignorance.
2. Obliviousness.
3. Thoughtlessness.
4. Inconsiderateness.
5. Not-caring-about-your-reaction-to-anything.
6. Not even bothering to aim his farts in your general direction
is such a great turnon.
Seen a few of these trotted out in this thread. From The Unbearable Triteness of Hating:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/the-unbearable-triteness-of-hating/
No, jf12.
None of that is true, what you said above. My husband is not inconsiderate, thoughtless, etc. What an interesting interpretation of what I have said. It speaks to how sick and twisted our view of love and marriage has become.
The difference between reality and what you have expressed in quite stark. When my husband expresses his devotion to me, it’s genuine, not a subversive attempt to get me to be something or get me to do something to gratify his desires.
So when he takes me out to dinner of buys me a gift or compliments me, it’s because he wants to show his love, not because he was trying to buy access to my “services” for the night. Knowing he can have that regardless of his performance makes his expressions of love more real, and I can tell you that I have never wondered that thing I have heard countless other women wonder: “Is he just doing this because he wants sex?”
Also, he can be honest, brutally so, and know that there will e no price to pay for it later. I can be just as honest, by the way because his ego isn’t so fragile that he has to prove anything and he knows he has my respect. How, please tell is this in any way inferior to whatever it is you are thinking marriage is supposed to be?
When we make major decision, my input is respected, but he’s not going to make what he thinks is the wrong decision in order to spare my feelings.
In other words, there is no quid pro quo happening here. The love is just that; love. No games and pretenses.
Yeah, I can see how “inferior” this is to whatever it is you think might be better.
A good outline of where Game came from and where it’s going now:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/19/the-evolution-of-game/
Anyone who believes that Game is limited to a PUA running techniques on bar skanks is selling you an ideology. Most men of this persuasion have a very incomplete understanding of the evolution of Game, but their disingenuousness stems from the discomfort of seeing Game actually work. They don’t want it to work, women shouldn’t respond positively to it, but they do, and even the good church girls giggle and titter for it. It’s a cold bucket of reality being splashed in his face that contradicts what he’d always been taught about women.
@Elspeth, it is good to know you appreciate recognizing when your man does things to please you. And you are more, or less, turned on when you recognize that?
@Rollo. Where does King Kong game fit?
I have the same thought. As Dalrock pointed out, the player will be that perfect boyfriend she has been searching for. Therefore turning young women away from the boyfriend search will help them avoid the near occasion of players, to paraphrase the Church’s advice to sinners.
Parents, in my opinion, are wise to teach their young ‘uns (of either sex) to discern their life’s vocation. And teach them that if their vocation is the married life then they should be looking for a spouse, not a date. Dating is not an end in itself, this is why boyfriend- or girlfriend-lust is a hazard. It is a waste of time and energy; a huge wrong turn into the land of the lost at worst, with a painful struggle to get back to the Way.
The search for a spouse is one of life’s great adventures, if pursued it is an important chapter in our lifetime quest for God. What can having a boyfriend be compared to that?
I have for some time now had a theory (which I have previously hesitated to broadcast), which is that it is simply that much more difficult for American men (perhaps because they are good Christians – largely unknown over here – except in The Salvation Army and other even more obscure Calvinistic Sects) to get anywhere with American women.
Tam the Bam quite correctly says (I as I know I have previously pointed out elsewhere) that it is a lot easier to persuade an impoverished Lithuanian fresh off the boat and wandering down Oxford Street to come back to your place – they are over here for rumpy-pumpy after all – than it is to try the same on some Corporate Cubicle bitch in Liverpool Street or Lothbury – never mind a Sloane Ranger on the King’s Road.
Those East European girls cannot tell that you may not be out of the top-drawer, and worse Krauser has, as Tam says, a somewhat high-pitched Geordie accent, or something like it – it shouts stupid and probably violent, to anyone born south of the Watford gap. Accent (not money) is everything over her – and even that Consultant Surgeon (I used to know) a Grammar School boy from the Wirral, never really – even though he espoused conservative politics – quite fitted in. Same as that Welsh slut I romanced (as best I could) – never really fitted in with the other women looking for THE ONE – who all went on to marry Insurance Brokers and the like – but not her – went back ip North. Not that I begrudge Krauser his fun, but sometimes a pleasant smile – rather than heavy negging – is all that is needed.
Greyghost – exactly. What I was trying to point out was that game may work very effectively on a small sub set of woman, in my day they were labelled sluts. But Krauser showed that away from that subset, in the general population, game is as effective as chance. And the bit about high quality woman is just a switch and bait.
Yes Deti, 27 is better then zero, but my contention is that game is sold as a way of upping your notch count dramatically. It may do that in the bar scene where there are more women looking for that uncommitted sex, and are ready to go. But to sell it to men as a way to up your count on any population of women, because you “have the secret key” that will unlock their inhibitions is plainly false.
And to sell it as a system that will tame woman into being compliant partners (Stepford wives?), when game (as you say Deti, words have meaning) is a hypothesis based on supposed bio-mechanical and psychological inputs that will allow men to have unlimited sex, and nothing more then that, is also plainly false.
By the way, you gonna buy Krauser’s book?
I categorically state, that I have no reservations with men trying to bed as many woman as they can, or try to find a way to have a great long term relationship, But I will not put a system that as of this time, has been shown to be patently false, on a pedestal.
Thanks Tam, good rebuttal.
How Single Motherhood Hurts Kids
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/how-single-motherhood-hurts-kids/
Hey MarcusD, do you recall a series of investigative reports from a few years ago about motives for teen pregnancy in urban areas (Philly etc)?. I remember a woman reporter’s emphasis on the girls’ desires for a clutch object they could love that needed them. And, according to the girls, there was no particular desire for any provider or welfare or anything; they wanted babies so that they could tend to them, provide them with mothering, without anyone else controlling things. If true, that means they were probably actively cad-seeking (so he wouldn’t interfere) and dad-avoiding (since they didn’t want his input).
DeNihilist
What I was trying to point out was that game may work very effectively on a small sub set of woman, in my day they were labelled sluts.
You are wrong, and NAWALT is not a logical argument.
But Krauser showed that away from that subset, in the general population, game is as effective as chance.
You are wrong, again. You are possibly ignorant, or possibly in denial of the reality of women. Either way, you are still wrong.
And you have not answered TFH’s question, I note. That is interesting.
IMO there are several groups who have an objection, often an unconscious or visceral one, to the notion of the applied psychology known as Game. Naturals, women, and pedestalizing men come to mind, in the general case. Naturals don’t want men to learn to be like them, because it devalues them. Women want men who “just get it”, not men who learned a “bag of tricks”. Men who pedestalize women, who believe all the neo-Victorian garbage that tradcons and feminists have forcefed boys and men for a couple of generations, those men simply cannot handle the truth about women, their motives and what lives in the “back of their head”.
Yeah, I know, NAWALT, and NANALT. Maybe NAPALT, too, but not in my experience.
Those who deny reality will get bitten by it, one way or another…
“my contention is that game is sold as a way of upping your notch count dramatically.”
You can contend that all you want, but you would be incorrect. Game is not sold as “upping your notch count” except by PUAs who are in it specifically to make money, and most of them are recognized as simply wrong. Roissy doesn’t say that, nor does Roosh, nor Krauser, nor the NexxtLevel UP guys, nor the Return of Kings guys.
“And you didn’t answer my question – are you any out of AlekNovy, YBM, or Eric? Because you are repeating the same memorized points, that have been debunked….”
No
Tam, don’t know enough about setting odds, so can’t rebut your post.
I look at things from a business ROI. As I stated earlier, if my business had a 2.7% net profit, I would no longer be in business.
@jf12
First one that comes up is: http://files.soc.aegean.gr/sociology/Kitrinou/arthra-se-diafores-thematikes-enotites/i-egklimatikotita-ton-neon/sdarticle24.pdf
TFH – never been to or plan to go to a seminar, nor buy a book. Waste of hard earned cash.
I am not obsessed with Krauser. I thank him for doing the field work. But if this was a scientific study, which it is not, you cannot ignore the number 1000. That is the attempts. If I was trying to prove, say that when I mix red and yellow together I get blue. I ran this experiment a thousand times and only 27 times I got blue, I would have to conclude that mixing red and yellow does not statistically make blue more often then pure chance. Even if 25% of the time I got an off blue. Or 6% of the time the colour was close enough that by adding just a bit more yellow, it actually turned the puddle of paint blue 47% of the time out of the 6%.
My Peer reviewers would discount all of that, because my claim was that if I mixed these 2 colours together a thousand times, I should get blue more often then if by chance.
Again as I said to Deti a while back, we process information through our own filters that have grown around us from the life we have led. In my way of viewing game, it has not been proven to do what it claims. I can be wrong, but right now, the evidence that I have seen, the experiences with women that I have had, lead me to the conclusion that game is just the latest fad and like all fads, soon enough, only the die hard adherents will still be talking about it, while others will have moved on in life to other interests.
CAF is hilarious sometimes: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
Tam , Love your posts. If I even get another trip to the UK we must share some brews at your pub.
Your discription of the local birds sounds very much what I am seeing with the younger generations here.
Feeriker: Close, but no cigar just yet.
Also because most fathers are white knights and won’t stand up to their wives, who enable and encourage yougogrrrrl in their daughters and who continue allowing the wives to raise the daughters as hypergamous sluts, they continue to tolerate a feminist paradigm because they live in fear of frivorce or false DV accusations.
There. FIFY.
Good point, feeriker, thanks for the correction/improvement.
“Greyghost makes a valid point when he talked about less approaches. They guy who made 1000 approaches wasted alot of time.”
PUA’s or whatever purveyors of game seeking casual sex call themselves this week, at what point are you just wasting your time? As a believer I’m biblically restricted from using game as a means of obtaining sex outside of marriage (fornication) but if I wasn’t I’m still not sure I’d bother with very many unrewarded cold approaches. Even ‘Mystery’ says it takes him 7 hours on a successful approach to get sex and most of his approaches are not successful. He’s getting paid to peddle his “venusian arts” even if he doesn’t get sex. What are you getting out of your expensive hobby?
I’m not recommending anyone visit escorts (whores) but if you’re spending 5-10 hours dating women over 3 dates and $50 a date before you get wet, well, you’re already visiting whores and overpaying. If you haven’t heard, young, sexually attractive escorts can be had for $150 a throw. And thats round-the-world with a girl that’s good at what she does and won’t be wasting her time or yours. You can see her pictures on the internet. If you’re near a major city there’s probably hundreds or even thousands like her a few miles from you right now. Hell, she may be the girl you’re currently gaming. There’s no point in pretending “I never pay for it” because math doesn’t lie. Time equals money and you’re already burning both for it. Again, I’m not recommending it but at some point, unless your time is worthless, you’re just kidding yourself, Playa’..
I see game as; Understanding women, understanding we have been lied to. And learning how to change behavior to respond to this knowledge. It is NOT about adding up a high N count. But to get even ONE LTR you need some success. The Nice Church Guy persona they told us to use repells women in real life.
“Game only works with a subset of women” True. Only 95%. My guess 95% verses 5%. That is one Ruby for every 19 skanks. Ruby wants Ward Cleaver, the 19 want Johnny Strabler.
I would haved loved an LTR with Ruby. But she is seldom if ever on the market.
@DeNehilist
I think that it’s too soon to say that Game doesn’t work, whatever “Game” is. I’d say that Game is 1) the art of making oneself attractive to the opposite sex (including both charm and external factors) and 2) the art of getting sex from someone (could be your wife). Based on my definition of “Game,” I don’t see how it will ever be a fad. I also think that ideas about Game could easily be commercialized and benefit people in virtuous ways.
I agree with you that women who sleep with alphas are sluts and that NAWALT. I look to two women whom I know well to support my NAWALT claim. My wife has never given a hint of any signs of going outside our marriage–never has nights out with the girls, no facebook presence, doesn’t text on her cell, and stays at home except when going out with me. She doesn’t even have a gynecologist and she wants me present when she sees her family med doctor. Either I or the kids drive her where she needs to go. My wife doesn’t have any ex-boyfriends in the States and only had one in her home country. My eldest daughter was home-schooled and is quite virtuous in most respects and is a very conservative Protestant, always dresses conservatively, and speaks of virtuous things frequently, so I think that I’m justified in claiming that I know two women who aren’t sluts.
As I’ve written on my blog, I think that the EvoPsychoBabble used to explain the rampant sluttiness in the culture misses the mark. I think that sluttiness is driven by evil influences in the culture which has created a herd of sluts whose morality opposes and maligns chastity. There is still an older, smaller herd of women who support chastity, though there are also some younger women who also belong to that herd. GirlsBeingGirls also belongs to that herd, I think.
Maybe you heard the story, a man asked his secretary half-jokingly.
Boss “would you sleep with me for one million dollars?”
Sexretary “well, um, yes I would”
Boss “Hmmm, would you sleep with me for $50”
Sexretary “UHH, hell no! What do you think I am?”
Boss “Ohh, honey we’ve already established what you are, now we’re just negotiating price.”
@Marcus, yes! That was part of the series. The keyword I’m looking for, in the articles, is love, specifically about the girls explaining they want babies to love on them.
Elspeth:
“My husband is not inconsiderate, thoughtless, etc. What an interesting interpretation of what I have said. It speaks to how sick and twisted our view of love and marriage has become.”
Yes. It’s a testament to just how rare your marriage is. That’s something you’re still wrapping your head around, E. There aren’t nearly enough SAMs to go around to the women who want them.
Most men are simply unable to do what SAM does; are unable to inspire that kind of love and affection and submission in ANY woman. Most men are hopelessly unattractive because our society has specifically trained them to be that way.
I don’t understand why the numbers seem bad to some people. When you break them down, it seems like a decent return on the time invested.
1000 approaches produced 60 dates. That’s slightly less than 17 approaches to secure 1 date.
Approaching 17 people cold in a crowed environment (like a mall) can be done quickly. Even if you allocate 10 minutes to each approach (which I think is too much, but we need a number for analysis), he’s still spending less than 3 hours (170 minutes in total) of time to secure each date.
170 * 60 = 10200 (yearly approach time in minutes)
10200 / 52 (weeks in year) = 196.15 minutes (3.27 hours)
3.27 hours per week securing dates. Something that could easily be done as a block on a Saturday afternoon. What he secured for his 3.27 hours of work each week was about 1 date per week and sex with a new woman every other week.
When you break it down into weekly numbers, the time spent isn’t that enormous. So, the question becomes: is 3 1/4 hours of work each week worth the prize?
Disappointing that nobody seems to be able to clearly provide a checklist for positive ID of a “player”. Doubly so that SunshineMary, who wants such men killed at some future date, can’t yet provide the men of “her tribe” with reliable target identification.
The word “love” doesn’t seem to show up there.
8to12 – Krauser’s numbers remind me of a man I knew back in the late 80’s who was in sales. Cold calls were a routine part of his day, and came with the territory. It was just “part of the job” to him, and he never took a rejection personally. The sort of day-Game that Krauser is describing is a form of sales, so DeNihilist’s objections are simply the bleats of someone who doesn’t want to go into sales. Oh, dear, what to do? What to do?
Meh. Don’t like direct, cold-call sales? Then don’t go into sales. Problem solved, right?
It is interesting that many, if not most, of those disturbed by Game have no alternative suggestion (beyond the obvious “Just Be Yourself”, of course), and yet yammer on and on about how Game doesn’t work. Or it only works on “sluts” (which have not been defined, either – maybe Dalrock should post “How To Spot A Slut” next? Eh, maybe not..) Well, ok, d00d, if it doesn’t work, then soon enough everyone will agree with you…and what’s all the ranting about? There’s a clear mental disconnect. I am confident that $cientology is a load of fertilizer. Do I spend serious amounts of time rushing about denouncing it? Nah. Waste of my day. Better things to do. Why don’t Game skeptics have better things to do than rant about how Game is all bogus, over and over again, disrupting constructive conversations, I wonder? Maybe some issues, hmmm?
Women who fear an Age of the PUA, with Monsters from the Id striding across the landscape despoiling herds of doe-eyed virgins without remorse, hesitation or any restriction have a different fear issue. Not to mention other issues…
So this thread is coming to the deceased equine stage, yet?
Cootie Game. How to spot a cootie game player (pretending this is relevant).
This Sunday afternoon at the robotics team I was hanging around the girls (1st mistake) making two sets of bumpers (red and blue) for the competition robot. I was the only guy in the warm room (2nd mistake) aside from an oblivious dude with earbuds doing a phone game. As per usual I had already waded crotch deep into the girls’ discussions (3rd mistake), but with the distinction nowadays of discussing things as a guy instead of as a girl, and specifically as a Real Boy, them having seen me as a guy who can get girls (I can’t tell if it’s a mistake, or not.).
I had met one of the 11th grade girls, who just joined this year, when she was in 7th and 8th grade Lego leagues. Now she is a big girl, not fat, to my eyes broader-shouldered and more muscular than me (I am as a grasshopper …), into sports like field hockey and soccer, two big legs and two big pigtails, and on the sweaty side and that’s all I’ll say about that. She was sitting on the floor in front of my chair with her big legs spread wide cheerleader-split style, not tailor-fashion, assiduously doing some blue cloth handiwork on a board in place of a lap.
She is brash and animated anyway, and together we are flint and steel (in a good way). In the course of my teasing her and negging her that afternoon she paid me the best verbal compliment I’ve gotten so far this year (calendar and fiscal). I had accused her of being atypically ditzy and whiny, and wondered aloud several times if she was coming down with something. We got to talking about stuff “going around” and how each of us knew a friend-of-a-friend who had died from the new flu this year. I remarked with some special knowledge that it was hitting the young and healthy especially hard, and I warned her that since she was the youngest healthiest woman I knew, that was a sure sign she was probably going to die if she didn’t take care of herself. In fact she should probably drop what she was doing and rush home and climb into bed, just to be on the safe side. But since I was old and sick then I had no worries about catching anything.
She did get ditzier and whinier, then, and irritatedly corrected me “You’re young! You’re very healthy! You should worry! Maybe YOU should climb into bed!” and then she grabbed my hand to hold to her cheek to see if she were really sick. I let it linger as if uncertain, then moved it to her forehead to doublecheck. “Nope, you’re not hot,” I adjudged coolly, making some of the other girls snicker, and then her cheeks did flush. “You wish!” she huffed, “Now you’ve got what I’ve got.” I managed “Girl, if you’ve got anything then I sure don’t want it!”
I had a head start on her, since she had to get up off the floor. She chased me down the hall, me hop-skip-running with my bad leg (otherwise I rock side to side like a pirate with a peg leg, or worse run swaying like a woman with wide hips), and I just managed to barricade myself in the bathroom. “I’m gonna rub all over you!” she bellowed angrily outside the men’s room door.
Probably an expression not heard by many other men this weekend.
Everybody stop and take a look at this woman’s picture, that should clarify things.
If you can’t find one take my word: she is a cow. No way she deserves a 6’4 beta or a latin stud. She’s batting WAY outside her league as do most women in the SMP.
When women participate in the SMP they often punch above their weight but they cannot translate that to a real relationship. This woman would turn up her nose at a man comparable to her in looks.
Yet another “why won’t the top 10% commit to me even though I’m ugly”.
Oh he’s a player…THAT’S GOT TO BE IT.
The truth is that many men like easy sex with sub optimal women, doesn’t mean they want to be attached at the hip for eternity.
DeN:“Thanks Tam, good rebuttal.”
Of what, by whom? Me of thee? Ye of me? Or either or neither of us of Krausenstein’s Monster?
I am now even more confused than usual (not helped by a radio piece about early onset demetia I just streamed on catch-up. It’s like when one watches nat. hist. progs. about insects, there is a compulsion to scratch, furiously).
Step 1: I applaud Krauser’s fannying about with comely young aliens on the streets of That London. It works better than what ever else he’d been doing to get his end away. Good luck to him.
Game, it works. Works for him, works for me. 27 solid beddings of indeterminate duration with non-mad/non-bestial women, vs. a thousand ham-shanks in the freezing cold behind the Cisco stacks? No contest. Not bad for a Derrem or Nthumberl’n lad with all the natural sex-appeal of a presbyterian gravedigger.
Step 2; If you’d been obliged to get peeled and sweaty with the bulk (and I mean that most sincerely, folks) of Brit women, you’d completely understand why. The spread is much wider (again, most sincerely) than for adjacent populations for some reason. A HB10 native Brit or Irish girl is almost supernaturally beautiful, scary, ethereal, in a way that foreigners just don’t seem to manage, (I’m phenotypically biased of course) but there are not that many. And unlike them it’s a permanent condition, they don’t suddenly deliquesce into heavy-hipped, monobrowed and mustachioed peasant mujers or shrivelled spherical babushkas at the age of 30, like the continentals.
And there are quite a few Susan Boyles making a grim counterweight (most sinc … etc.).
The only book I need is Rollo’s. I bought a few and gave my oldest lad a copy for Xmas with express instructions to let his STEM nerd mates “borrow” it, as I have replacements. He said it looked “pretty interesting” (he’s on his 3rd “relationship”, one before that a classic BPD-or-thereabouts horrorstory). Other kid gets his when he leaves the maternal residence (this year I hope). Dynamite/children etc., especially if mama (fanatically inquisitive) ‘found’ it. She’d die of pop-eyed rage, and I don’t want her harassing him more than she does already (behind my back).
Haven’t read all the comments, so forgive the possible redundancy. But, this:
“Disappointing, but it fit my usual pattern. I would fall for a brilliant guy with an irresistible smile who never quite fell for me but who possessed all the qualities I liked in a man: a sense of humor, certified smarts, smoldering looks. Each time, these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep me in their narcissistic orbit. Whether or not they’d ever call was just part of the thrill, always keeping me on edge. Outwardly, I told myself I was having fun and it was just a matter of time before someone wanted to settle down; inside, I started to worry that I wasn’t lovable or exciting enough.”
Is what my training calls “Borderline Personality Disorder attracted to Narcissistic Personality Disorder”
They go together like flies and s**t.
Say what you want about Nick, but the body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has ever produced on seduction.
Everyone has a Game in some respect. We don’t live in a vacuum, our ideas about seduction (in whatever form) is influenced and / or learned externally. The validity of what that Game entails may be more or less effective, but at some point a man is going to adapt to a methodology of seduction as per his conditions and environment warrant.
Even the most rank, blue pill Beta still clings to an ideology, a belief and set of resulting behaviors he ‘thinks’ will best enable him to become intimate with a woman. For the most part his game is the result of what a feminine-primary acculturation has taught him “should” get him the girl. The same applies to blue pill Christian game; a big issue
For all the complaints of worry about the Game community turning men into scripted ‘social robots’, it’s actually the Beta who adopts a far more embedded script and is less likely to variate from it. They didn’t learn that ‘script’ from a PUA, they learned their game, their behaviors and mindset from the Feminine Imperative.
“your techniques are just old fashioned, icky, foot-in-the-door sales techniques, and while they “your techniques are just old fashioned, icky, foot-in-the-door sales techniques, and while they might pressure a few people to make the sale who otherwise would not have, what you’re mostly looking for is the person already *willing* to make the big sale, who need only be asked. A percentages game. Nothing new there at all.”
Way back when, at the dawn of first wave feminism I attended an all-male engineering college. In my junior year I learned a bitter truth about women from two classmates. One of two roommates on the floor above me in the dorm was a friend. He was a major hound when it came to women. He got laid a lot, in an all-male school, at a time when societal values were a lot more traditional than they are now, and prior to sex positive third/fourth wave feminism and female careerism. In those days a lot of college women were openly working on their MRS degree. Anyway, he told me all you had to do was go into any dance venue/disco (it was the dawn of disco) and simply ask women for no strings attached sex. I didn’t believe him; so he demonstrated the technique to me as a means of hypothesis testing. He bet that he would walk out the door with a woman within the first ten he approached. He got slapped twice and walked out with number 9. He later explained that the first immutable rule for this was that you had to approach at random and have no standards.
Now this guy was over 6’, blue eyed, and very athletic, so I questioned his outcome as biased. He sat me down with his roommate. They were in a competition they called the toilet bowl. If you had sex with a woman on the first night you met it was a home run. If it took a second meeting it was a triple, and so on. They became so competitive with each other that they only wanted homeruns. They never bothered with a woman after the first night (regardless if they scored or not) since they could no longer get a homerun off of her. The roommate declared that he often used the same random NSA sex question technique and got about the same results. Here is the kicker; he was short, stocky, dark, and not that good looking. Yet, he got the same results.
None of what is sold as Game is new or striking. This does not mean that Game does not have valuable lessons to teach the AFC of today. I had internalized most of the lessons of Game prior to the birth of Game by learning them the hard and painful way. I am all for trying to teach the nature of women to young men without watching them get ground up first. However, thinking that Game is some magical formula that is new is just hooey.
Getting meaningless casual sex is just a numbers game and always has been. The more approaches you make the more you will get laid. However, I never was much interested in meaningless casual sex, so that lesson did me little good. Other lessons of Game that are more applicable to maintaining attraction (LTR Game) are more valuable to me. Once again I learned them in the relationship trenches rather in some book or weekend boot camp. It is unfortunate but true, and especially so these days, that the more you know women the less regard you have for them, and the less regard you have for them the more they are attracted to you. Women and men work exactly opposite; which I guess should be intuitively obvious. Letting a man know that she is attracted to him makes the man more attracted to her. Letting a woman know he is attracted to her makes her less attracted to him. All women are crazy. Game in a nutshell.
That today Laura Fraser “(l)ooks like she’s 50+” was already noticed by thegreatshebang early on in these comments. Her stud spree probably happened 20 to 30 years ago. Got a pic of her back then?
“It is unfortunate but true, and especially so these days, that the more you know women the less regard you have for them, and the less regard you have for them the more they are attracted to you. Women and men work exactly opposite [in this]; which I guess should be intuitively obvious [if the universe were kinder to us]. Letting a man know that she is attracted to him makes the man more attracted to her. Letting a woman know he is attracted to her makes her less attracted to him.”
A nice symplectification of the issue.
Au contraire, sunshinemary covered this quite well early on in the comments.
Shorter Version: Does she try to tempt you into near occasions of sin, especially sexual sin, on most occasions when you meet in person, over the phone, or in text conversations? If yes, she’s a player.
It’s really a very short checklist. And reversible, so females can apply it to men. For parents, the key is bringing up your child with a well-formed conscience from early on. Waiting until the child is a teen then trying to cram the lessons is a lesson plan for fail.
All of which reminds me of a guy I used to know – not tall, nor stunningly handsome or fit, who told me that one day a woman that he had not previously seen came in to the pub. Bowled over by her looks (or whatever it was that had attracted him) he went up to her and told her (and with sincerity) that he wanted to have sex with her right away. She agreed and so they went back to his place (a fifteen minute walk up-hill).
I asked him what happened. He explained that they had sex and it was terrible.
The latest from CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11691329&postcount=110
From http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
…and it also reminds me of another acquaintance who keeps telling me (that unlike you Opus) I am not handsome or tall (5’7″ he says) who one day had two girls back at his apartment for some innocent reason. One decided to take a bath (or whatever) so he said to the other – who he had only just met – and somewhat tongue in cheek, ‘shall we have sex now’ to which to his amazement she replied ‘Do you think we have time?’
MarcusD–
I read the first two pages of that CAF thread. Almost no one responded favorably to the idea in the original blog post. Depressing.
Yep Micha, and the good news is .. she hasn’t changed a bit!
And age 43 she was a “grotto goddess” (what is that? Like a level boss or something?).
Delusional is merely a minor planet she passed on her way to the asteroid belt of CrayCray.
@MarcusD, this is what I was think of “Promises I Can Keep”
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/dp/0520241134
but there is a research article somewhere too.
Laura Fraser graduated from Wesleyan University in 1982. So assuming she graduated at 22 that means she was born in 1960 and around 53/54. Dalrocks previous post “Why men are withdrawing from courtship” Expresses why men are not willing to invest as much in Ms Fraser at 50+ as they did when she was 22.
@Tam the Bam, she looks earnestly impudent, but harbored the delusion she was UNLIKE all the other girls who liked to get drunk and do “chicken fight” / “shoulder war” limbo contests, since UNLIKE all the other girls who disappeared earlier with their guys, she always still had energy to spare provided the guy was good looking enough.
jf12
Now she is a big girl, not fat, to my eyes broader-shouldered and more muscular than me (I am as a grasshopper …), into sports like field hockey and soccer, two big legs and two big pigtails, and on the sweaty side and that’s all I’ll say about that.
Paging Robert Crumb. Paging R. Crumb. Cleanup on Aisle 16…
@AR, she prefers salty snacks, not sweets.
@Scott
Yep, that place is just frustrating to deal with. I sent a note to 57thDimension as encouragement.
Micha Elyi quotes SunShineMary, then paraphrases:
Shorter Version: Does she try to tempt you into near occasions of sin, especially sexual sin, on most occasions when you meet in person, over the phone, or in text conversations? If yes, she’s a player.
It’s a start, but it isn’t checklisty enough. Come back when you have something SunShine can write on a 3×5 card and hand to the men of her tribe to tape on to a rifle stock, in order that they can seek out and murder PUA’s with effectiveness.
And by the way, your description just happens to describe all women at some point in their lives. The properly instructed know what to do about it – I’m thinking of a co-worker who was engaged for 3 months prior to marriage, because he didn’t want to wait any longer – and others do not. So sorry if this tips over a pedestal in your mind.
>> Money men are concerned about money
Investing in a cinema production is so financially risky that one needs an external, non-financial reason to do so. Guys who have a half-a-million laying around to give to your project, want the kind of return that they cannot receive by putting the dough into Dupont bonds, ya know?
CSA members are clerks and quasi-para-legals.
100% of NFL cheerleaders are women – that doesn’t mean that the routines are choreographed to impress your grandmother.
Re: “Guys who have a half-a-million laying around to give to your project, want the kind of return that they cannot receive by putting the dough into Dupont bonds, ya know?” and because their show’s audience is going to be 62% female, and females will be making 92% of the consumer decisions that the commercials are hawking, then a female casting agent with her finger on the pulse of “what women want” gets them a better return than what his little man wants.
@Mikediver: “Women and men work exactly opposite; which I guess should be intuitively obvious. Letting a man know that she is attracted to him makes the man more attracted to her. Letting a woman know he is attracted to her makes her less attracted to him. All women are crazy. Game in a nutshell.”
There is truth in this statement. But for me, this is where it misses the mark. (I won’t argue with the “women are crazy” line, but I hope you’ll take me seriously nonetheless.)
It isn’t exactly true that letting a woman know you are attracted to her will automatically turn her off. It’s if, in so doing, you act … submissive, or weak in any way. I know for me, it makes my skin crawl. And I think that really *is* game in a nutshell.
Let me give a brief example. I was walking beside a man I was interested in, on a cool, moonlit evening, at the end of what seemed a very promising first date. I wanted him to hold my hand, but my hand was in my pocket. I consciously decided to use my hand for emphasis as we were talking (so smooth! 🙂 ) and then left it oh-so-casually available, in the hope he’d take the hint. Apparently he did, but instead of just reaching out and taking my hand he … asked. He *asked!!!*
I’m telling you, it ruined the moment, and ultimately doomed any hope of a relationship. Now, instead of excitedly looking for signs that he was interested in me, I was suspiciously looking for signs that he was too weak for me.
I know, that was really, really stupid on my part. He was a genuinely good man, and should have been an excellent match for me. But it was mostly subconscious, and I didn’t understand my reaction, nor see it as irrational, which it most surely was. I suppose I could’ve just let him take my hand and maybe even demur with a smile, “You really didn’t need to ask,” but it was too late, and I didn’t understand stuff like this. I think you guys might call it a “fitness test” (heh, or words to that effect), and unfortunately, he failed.
This is where I think an understanding of certain game concepts can really be helpful to Christians. I really was *not* a slutty girl just waiting for an opportunity to act on it (guitar case man would’ve gotten nowhere with me); I was much, much more innocent, and deliberately protective of that, than any of the women you guys describe. If I knew that increased interest on my part might lead me to do something as dumb as a fitness test, I might have recognized what was going on, shaken off that feeling, and decided to wait and see what his actions really meant, rather than automatically overreact and move on.
@Donna Sposata diMaria
This wasn’t a fitness test on your part, because you weren’t signaling one thing while the right answer was to do something else. You wanted him to hold your hand and made this easier for him. He screwed it up by doing what he had been repeatedly told, to always ask before touching a woman in any way. Some might argue that the cultural message to men not to hold hands without explicitly asking first was the fitness test, though.
A more direct example of a failed fitness test would be a woman excitedly grabbing a man’s hand at a party and leading him into another room, at which point she suddenly loses interest in him and goes off to do something different.
“If I knew that increased interest on my part might lead me to do something as dumb as a fitness test, I might have recognized what was going on, shaken off that feeling, and decided to wait and see what his actions really meant, rather than automatically overreact and move on.” good for you. Have you ceased fitness testing your significant other?
Yep Micha, and the good news is .. she hasn’t changed a bit!
FYI, that was from 1997, when she was 36 years old. According to her first book, about dieting, she was an ex-bulimic. Bulimics are almost always overweight.
@Scott
Also, you missed this “gem”:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11691329&postcount=110
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
Donna,
I have never (first) asked (for permission) before “copping a feel” of any woman I’ve ever been seeing, socially. Never once. I just did it. And I never had a slap of my hand, never once. I am constantly touching my wife. Never once has she said it made her uncomfortable. (I want her to always know, I have the hots for her. This is how I do it.)
Men are so used to having everything being out of bounds, that it is customary to ask first. That is prototypical beta male behavior. But I can see why that may ruin the mood. A alpha man just does. And if it pisses her off, she can swap the hand away and saw “watch it!” In which case, a man can instantly dump her (that is what I would have done.) She is not “my friend.” She is a woman and if she was romantically involved with me I was touching her (and not just holding hands.)
“She is a woman and if she was romantically involved with me I was touching her (and not just holding hands.)”
Then you would’ve scared me off, if you’d ever have even approached me in the first place. But I may not have been what you were looking for, so that’s ok.
I’m thinking of the guys here who think they’re “too nice” and therefore “invisible.” I really don’t think they would have been invisible to me. But I might have terribly misunderstood them, to both of our detriment. I think they are right to look here for help. It’s also helping me to make sense of my past, and may even help me treat my own husband with more love and respect.
Heh. Or not. (Dalrock, I’ve never done anything even remotely like what you describe! What a weirdly flaky thing to do! Maybe I should hold out for an example a little closer to home. 🙂 ) But so far, it seems so.
Donna Sposata diMaria
That was a beautiful comment. You nailed the whole purpose of game for Christians. I think Dalrock’s reply was off. I could see the emotions you were feeling at the time and it was a shit test whether you knew it or not. What makes game effective is those little test that are subconscious are passed by a thug or player that has no concern for asking permission to touch you. Imagine the man you were with was a PUA he would have got the pussy no doubt. The nice guy that actually gives a damn about you gets left behind.
And you were absolutely right about Christian men need to learn about female psychology (game) I knew you had something to offer here Thank you.
When I think of game that is what I’m talking about, Cold approaching 8,9 and 10’s is not my thing.
Peter Shawn Taylor: The rising divorce rate in Iran is good news for women — and the West
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/10/peter-shawn-taylor-the-rising-divorce-rate-in-iran-is-good-news-for-women-and-the-west/
—-
Someone bought the idea that divorce is inherently abusive…
TFH,
You asked Oblivion for a link to Bonecrusher’s “yummy eyes” info. His name is BoneCracker, spelled Bonecrker. I think he’s an orthopedic surgeon or something. His collected posts are here:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/search/label/Bonecrker
See posts 41, 90 and especially 132 for his “yummy eyes” theory. There may be more about it in his other posts, I don’t know.
@tbf here u go, its bonecrusher http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/10/bonecrker-41-finding-small-pool-of.html
@tbf this was the one I was thinking about http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2004/03/bonecrcker-90-there-is-no-point-in.html
@tbf the one post i was looking for i cant find. bonecrusher says to go to any mall looking nice and be sure to make eye contact with nearly all the women you see. young,old,fat, pretty all of them etc. And what u will find is that certain women will give u yummy eyes. It will come from woman that you couldnt even believe would give them to you. once u you can pick out the women that give u yummy eyes, your success picking up a woman will be greatly increased. this means u wont have to make the 1000 approaches for 27 notches. u simply have to be around and pick out the yummy eyes that you like. it has saved me alot of hassle.
“He screwed it up by doing what he had been repeatedly told, to always ask before touching a woman in any way. Some might argue that the cultural message to men not to hold hands without explicitly asking first was the fitness test, though. “
I’d like to get as far as asking permission (never have done yet, but never forced the issue neither. I have been sex-mugged by ganged-up girls once or twice when I was a lot younger and prettier though, the insatiable harlots LOL. Did not liek >:¬[ ).
My problem is that I seem to inadvertently scare/dismay people I’ve focussed on with nought but the kindest intention. Call it a glasgow thing, call it blue eyes and stupidity. Always have done, and I wish it was other. I inadvertently produce The Fear, in normal men, better than me.
Sounds like the kind of mentally-defective Youtube bragging of a 12 year old? No. I wish. If I clap eyes on a fellow, for the most trivial of reasons (oh, hullo mate, your car’s parked on a double yellow, djyawanna I should slip the Warden a Betty ’til U can get there and sort it??) , they kick right off and suddenly it’s all about me. WTF? Is it ‘cos I are scottish or summink? Wadisay? Is it bcos I am a StareCat?
I feel like Herr Fronkenshteen‘z Monster. And that’s just My Ain Folk. My Burmese/Han/Kikuyu/Amhara/Ghurka/Parsee acquaintances assure me that I am completely normal. Apart from the fact that I scare the dung-scattering bejasus out of them, merely by looking mildly intrigued. I’ve taken refuge in the assumption that this is because I probably appear insane. By their lights. The poor creatures.
No, you’re right, it’s the eyes. Damn you, anatolian HERC2 or whatever.
And it’s undeniable, I am a red man. Always have been.
So what do I do? Wear Raybans indoors, like the Big O? Full-orbit tinted contacts? (pink would be nice. Or tar-black all over). It’s all very well, trying to do the PUA thang, not so much fun if every single one of these delightful herbivores skitters off, screeching widdling blue murder on eye contact. And I’ll leave my razors, swords, axes and knives in the car. Promise. Those are just part of mi culchar, innit, strictly for the guys. I was brought up on that shit since before my balls dropped, it’s like an ingrowing toenail, can’t get rid. Just in case. Always be recording, certes, but definitely always be carrying. Bus fare to the crematorium is not cheap, for your kids.
Tam ye Bam
Call it a glasgow thing, call it blue eyes and stupidity.
Maybe it’s yer smile. I’ve heard about that there Glasgow smile…
Pardon, but more Red Pill knowledge entering mainstream:
“Why Do Women Go Out With Deadbeat Losers?” by Financial Samurai, May 2011
http://www.financialsamurai.com/why-do-women-go-out-with-deadbeat-losers/
Team Woman member admits it:
“Why women can’t resist bad boys,” by Caroline Kent, The Telegraph, 9 Oct 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357878/Why-women-cant-resist-bad-boys.html
Lately on PJ Media… citing Pajamaboy as today’s sorry state of affairs:
“The Late Great Manly Man,” by Richard Fernandez, PJ Media, 8 Feb 2014
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/02/08/the-manly-man/
MarcusD
Peter Shawn Taylor: The rising divorce rate in Iran is good news for women — and the West
Pfft. Potzer babble. What matters is Iran’s TFR of 1.86 and declining. Among other things, it means they can’t hold up their end of another all-out war, like they had with Iraq in the 1980’s.
But it also means they’ll be grey before they are rich…
http://www.indexmundi.com/iran/total_fertility_rate.html
As a one of those meek nice guys that transformed myself into a carefree player it has been interesting to view women from both angles, what I have come to realize is most single women are extremely primal in nature. That is why they are so predictable and fall for skillful players over and over, unfortunately once a man has raised himself up to this level by using his intelligence it becomes nearly impossible to be attracted long term to such dumb sluts. All the smart good people get hitched to a well suited match early and stay married, all the poor quality women either just keep playing with the players or get divorced. Even if one of the many women I go through was a keeper it is hopeless now as I am addicted to the excitement of having multiple women seeking my attention.
Difficult to say if I would have made a good partner before the game corrupted my soul.
My opinion also is that a self trained player is a different beast than the natural player.
“That today Laura Fraser “(l)ooks like she’s 50+” was already noticed by thegreatshebang early on in these comments. Her stud spree probably happened 20 to 30 years ago. Got a pic of her back then?”
Bone structure says a lot, short and dumpy.
Saw the younger picture someone posted and I would be embarrassed to be seen with her. It’s not that she has lines, her face is off. Someone says she was “average”, well average is generally not a turn on.
She was never in contention for that type of man, no alpha can’t do better than that.
The biggest problem women have in dating is knowing (and accepting) who is on their level, especially when it concerns aesthetics.
Most women turn up their noses at their male aesthetic counterpart because they spend their whole carousel riding career with men way above them.
They can’t stomach lowering their standards to the guys who look like them because they are spoiled by handsome guys who use them like urinals.
Many of the women out there with active sex lives would be spending nights alone in their mom’s basement if they were a man. They would be shot down and mocked again and again by the cute girls so they’d settle with a guy who looked more like them if they ever did at all.
Why the “fat is beautiful” movement? Because women don’t realize that they look just like the fat hairy guy in the speedo. Often other women can’t tell if another woman is ugly.
I had an old girlfriend tell me all women are beautiful because she really thought that. I laughed so hard and she couldn’t believe it when I told her most women were ugly. She’d only been surrounded by men who lied constantly. If I was really honest I would have told her she was not what I wanted either.
This is why most men feel worse about their looks than they should and most women have an inflated self image.
That starts to correct once she tries to settle down because men are more picky about commitment and she gets her first taste of reality.
The sentiment that men are pigs is strong in the 40 something career set, that’s what happens when you spent your dating career being used by men who never took you seriously.
This is why women treat their husband so bad, it’s not about lacking game so much as It’s about settling for the equal that repulses her and pining for the alpha she never deserved.
#tom thank you
@Troy
“My opinion also is that a self trained player is a different beast than the natural player.”
Please explain why you think they are different. And how do you see natural players who also study game and add some modern, learned strategies to their natural game?
My problem is that I seem to inadvertently scare/dismay people I’ve focussed on with nought but the kindest intention.
I’ve learned to keep a mask of studied indifference plastered on my face. Otherwise people think I’m sizing them up for the restraint system in my soundproofed basement.
So long as I don’t look like I’m thinking about something, I look downright amiable, though. Looks like I missed my calling as a debonair serial killer. I blame the highschool guidance counselor.
“John South says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:27 am
The biggest problem women have in dating is knowing (and accepting) who is on their level, especially when it concerns aesthetics.
This is why women treat their husband so bad, it’s not about lacking game so much as It’s about settling for the equal that repulses her and pining for the alpha she never deserved.”
This is the unvarnished truth of inter-gender relationships today. I went half way around the world to marry a woman that does not have this flaw, and she treats me well; much better than any American woman ever did or would. Having married a Filipina I have ended up in a community of similar matches in the US. Almost all of the men are 5s (me to on a good day) and almost all of the women are 5s too (except of course my wife who is at least a 7, I may be biased). This is assortive mating. The difference is that the women are very happy with their matching mates while an American woman would have nothing but contempt for the average guy for whom she had to settle. The self-esteem movement has made American women unsuited to any relationship.
@ Zippy:
“But I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women.”
Well, you have contradicted yourself.
In your first post called “When you give a slut a cookie” you said Game doesn’t work and has a poor effectiveness rate because Krauser reported a 2.7% “lay rate”. So you say players aren’t attractive. Then you contradicted yourself in literally the very next breath, saying, in effect, players ARE attractive because cads and players and PUAs are able to use Game to sleep with women. In the same post you say players aren’t attractive; then you say they ARE attractive.
In the very next post called “Why are men in love with bad boys” you returned to your previous claim that players aren’t attractive because they’re scumbags. Then you contradicted yourself yet again by saying players ARE attractive, but they’re attractive only because unattractive good men look up to them. So players aren’t attractive. But then in the next breath they ARE attractive to women, not because they exhibit traits women find attractive; but because good men tell those women they should like and sleep with those players.
So which is it, Zippy? Are players attractive, or aren’t they? And if players are attractive, then is it because they exhibit traits women like; or is it because low value gammaboys tell women they should like players? (It is patently ridiculous to think that women do ANYTHING simply because some low SMV men tell them they should.)
“theasdgamer says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:27 am
@Troy
“My opinion also is that a self trained player is a different beast than the natural player.”
Please explain why you think they are different. And how do you see natural players who also study game and add some modern, learned strategies to their natural game?”
I am as far from a natural player as one can get. I was an introverted, shy, and skinny youth that took years to understand women. I am not and never wanted to be a player. I think most men may look on the player and his harem with wistful longing, but if given the choice would prefer a stable and happy marriage to one woman. I know that the latter choice is what I would want and what I have pursued. The natural player is one that can look on women for what they really are and see only how they can meet his sexual needs. That is the basis of the natural. Society does everything it can to program men away from being naturals and usually is successful. Now a day’s society has been so successful that there are “no good men” out there for which women can tingle.
The trained, or studied, player is the man that has been shat upon by women and society to the point where he finally looks on all women as scum only fit for satisfying his sexual urges. I have sons, and I have regretfully had to teach them (to the best of my ability) to be players. I did this because in today’s circumstances, unlike those in my youth, they have to be players to survive. Relationships where the man invests fully in a woman are so dangerous that they are just not worthwhile from a risk benefit basis. The benefits are the same but the risks have gone through the roof. With women as they are today, in the west, if a man is not a player he is better off avoiding women altogether. Of my last two sons one is a fairly sociable kind of player that can have flings with young women and get away safe (so far) but the other I advise to just avoid Western women. I am urging both of them to not have any LTR until they have spent a significant amount of time outside the west or at least outside the US.
@Caustiously Pessimistic,
I was 40 when I first went to meet my 39 yr old soon-to-be wife’s parents. I had first talked with them, on the phone, of course, about a week earlier. I didn’t know then that she had never brought any other boy (cough) home to meet her parents. Naturally her mother had been apprised, almost real-time with slight delay, of all of our activities since the first minute of our first date, and every word I had spoken during our few weeks of dating/courting had been sliced and diced (and char-grilled and flambeed) amongst her sisters too. But all her father wanted to do was assure himself I wasn’t a serial killer, as he told his wife. After some handshakes and nice days and maybe iced tea, I can’t remember, we men were shooed out the door to go to the store for some bogus emergency need, like trash bags and sugar and something.
Anyway, we took my little pickup for some male bonding, and I drove safely, with all my presets on gospel stations. He casually glanced through the well-thumbed and slightly grease-stained manual in the glove box (which actually had gloves), and up to date registration and insurance, and he visibly relaxed in the seat. There was no oil change sticker since I did it myself. Coming back out of the store, we put the bags of stuff in the little cargo area behind the front seat. There, besides the little toolbox and first aid kit and fire extinguisher and gallon of water and Indian blanket, were the requisite black bisqueen, duct tape, zip ties, bungee cords, chains, spotlight, hunting knife, and handgun. And a few scattered small fishhooks, must have spilled some time. I paused to clean my glasses.
After we got back in, his first words were “Do you like to fish?” Turns out, a friend of his just got a new place with a newly stocked pond and although they only caught little bream the past week, it would be ripe for the plucking in a couple of months. He had his arm on my shoulder, fatherly, like the son he never had, as we entered the house, where his wife and daughter pretended to have been busy. Later when I got the parents alone for a moment I informed them, not asking per se, that I intended to ask their daughter to marry me. The mom hugged me squealing assent, like I was asking her to marry, and she was glad I hadn’t waited any longer. The dad gripped my hand hard, trying to look me square in the eye, but averting for tears.
Re: “The natural player is one that can look on women for what they really are and see only how they can meet his sexual needs. That is the basis of the natural.” Correct. The natural is the man who CAN see women as sexual objects.
“The trained, or studied, player is the man that has been shat upon by women and society to the point where he finally looks on all women as scum only fit for satisfying his sexual urges.”
Disagree partially. Yes, the trained or studied player is one who was previously unsuccessful; but through his education has learned that women aren’t always scum only fit for satisfying his sexual urges, but they certainly can be.
I think a more useful definition of the trained player is a man who has learned to deal with women as they are, and not as he wishes they were. He understands how attraction works; and how it doesn’t work. He’s learned to wield the power he has in the sexual dance. He’s learned to simply walk away when he’s making no headway or when he’s in a bad situation or relationship. He’s learned to withhold his commitment from all except those most worthy of it.
deti,
Where I think we disagree is in describing a red pill aware man versus a trained/studied player. A player by my definition is only in it for sexual gratification from women for which he cares nothing. A red pill man is as you describe. He has learned to deal with women as they are not as he was lied to how they were by all the authjority figures nad society as a whole. I am a red pill man and married. I am not a trained player. I hate that my sons must be players in the west. I am trying to get them to emigrate with me when I go in a few more years. There are still places where a man can follow his natural nice guy nature and be rewarded with love and respect from a woman. This is no longer possible in the west.
Late to the part, but SSm, you’re being too kind. 80%+ of couples have sex with each other before marriage? I’d put a substantial wager that it’s over 90% – maybe well over 90.
@Lady N
“How would you feel if a man you just danced with gave you a quick sideways hug in return when leaving the dance floor?”
Lady N: It would be too much for me.”
I realized after reading your response that it depends on the relationship between the man and woman. Some women give me no touch, some a brief touch, some give a few touches, some give repeated touches (these are friends and some are married) like they are looking for a return touch of affection like a brief squeeze of their hand. One woman was massaging my hand in front of her husband and I had to pull it away from her, lol. I still don’t get what she was doing–maybe trying to make him jealous, but he’s a friend of mine, too. I didn’t think anything of it one way or another at the time (yeah, typical autist) until I realized that she was doing it in front of her husband.
“Women can be angry at their men and be very turned on to them at the same time, so you might not like him but might still want to bed him at the same time.”
Lady N: “Ugh. Not me.”
You’ve seriously never had rough sex when you’re annoyed or angry?
“So, maybe a nice guy can generate romantic attraction but not sexual attraction.”
Lady N: “Yes. But big hands and a nice body can generate the sexual attraction. What will ruin it is if “nice guy” turns out to be a wimp/coward/doormat/easily manipulated/too sensitive.”
What about someone who’s engaging and playful and sexualizes appropriately? Do hands and body really matter other than for initial attraction?
Lady N: “…negative future time orientation or low impulse control….”
Are you talking about the ability to delay gratification of pleasure for a better future?
Lady N: “Oh, and if he talks too much. Something about talking a lot seems effeminate to me.”
Gotta change out of my fuchia leotards now and call my life partner Markey. 😉 Ok, I’m being solipsistic. So sue me. 😉
I write some, especially when looking for help with social issues, but I don’t talk a lot. Wait, I did tell a few stories to some guys I met in a bar recently. I forgot how much fun that could be or how much fun I could be in a party situation (while dancing, I’m pretty serious). But that’s different than engaging in the immediate give-and-take of convo in person. Anyway, your continued help is much appreciated.
I’ve got a story about me that you might like that illustrates an example of problems that we autists have reading cues that affect romantic relationships.
I met a girl in college and we arranged a date to study together. So we studied together and didn’t talk much. We were facing each other and I noticed that the girl would frequently stop studying and look at me and I didn’t have any idea why. So I went over to ask her. I crouched by her chair and she bent towards me and parted her lips. That’s when I understood what she wanted. Imagine someone so clueless–a pretty girl wants to kiss him and he has no idea! Later, she told me that she thought that I would never kiss her as she laughed at me. (Yeah, women have often laughed at me–my fling, my ex-gf, and my wife.) So, that’s an example of an autist who didn’t understand an important dating cue. I worked around missing the cue by seeking to engage the other person, which was an important lesson for me. (I had had more than a few instances of making out with girls, but never a relationship, so I wasn’t a total zero in the romance dept., but I was definitely operating under a social handicap.)
Aside: The girl also told me that I was the best makeout in her experience. Just what a guy likes to hear! XD Maybe she was sincere; she told her sister as well and her sister told her boyfriend who told me. The study date girl eventually became my gf. One funny thing about her–even though she broke up with me, she continued to still be attracted to me. She broke up because she knew that I wasn’t going to be her beta provider, but she had the hots for me anyway. But that’s another story.
One of the cool things I learned from this blog — that my people have largely forgotten — is the concept of the “natural marriage”.
Mormons have the idea that the ritual is everything. Christian theology has always seemed to hold that the ritual is the outward manifestation of something that exists by the nature of the individuals.
The “marriage” is the sexual act itself, in the old school idea. The celebration legitimates the union for society, but is only a trapping on the actual marriage itself. In this context, there is no such thing as a “premarital” union, if the individuals involved are serious about their monogamous pairing.
Sunshine Mary,
I am not going to post on your blog as that blog is (IMHO) for the ladies, but to answer your question: yes it is possible to continue the relationship if they stop sleeping together. It is extremely unlikely (like maybe 5% chance) but possible. However, this is a shit-test (even if it is the Christian thing to do) and if he submits to her his value in her eyes will go down (even if it is only subconciously.) He will be reverting from alpha down to beta and that is bad for their future together. I think she will find it almost impssible to submit to him in marriage.
No matter what, it does not end well for Calla.
@Mikediver
@jf12
“Society does everything it can to program men away from being naturals and usually is successful.”
I disagree. I remember locker room when a teenager where guys would talk about girls treating them as sex objects. And I see lots of that sort of sex programming in movies aimed at teenagers. I think that boys are imprinted as teens to see girls as sex objects. At the same time, there are contrary social messages telling boys to pedestalize girls. There’s a lot of confusion and controversy in how girls are viewed.
When I had a relationship with my first gf, I learned that both sex-object and pedestalization messages were crap. I saw my gf as a person and she surely was no saint. I had no illusions about her at all. Seeing things from the redpill perspective has further clarified things for me.
So, this thread got shut down: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554
And the thoughtcriminal got banned. Thankfully I made contact before he was banned – I was able to get this from him:
Well now…
When I said self trained players are a different beast from natural players it was my opinion that natural players are the counterpart of the slutty woman that’s primal in nature since they never had to develop actual intelligence. A trained player is one that uses intelligence to learn how a woman’s primal attraction drive works, has resources and motivation to look good by working out dressing well etc. It is no mysterious art, game is easy to learn if your reasonably intelligent and motivated. Amusingly the natural players tend to let themselves go so a fit nice guy with knowledge how to work over a primal woman can clean up in the later middle age years.
A beta with game will marry a woman. a natural will marry a woman (if he does) and screw her friends on the side.
@MarcusD:
Save that Image somewhere. It seems utterly fitting.
@LG
Already done. I think I’ll make it the banner image on my blog.
Saved here, too. A good confirmation of what I’ve already known, vis-a-vis the lack of explanation of why Mary Daly, the mouthpiece of demons, has been accepted so well in those circles, especially from the avowed “anti-feminists”.
Hahahaha! When they banned me it said something like “sig spam” (I had put a link to this site in my signature file, but I didn’t ask anyone for money and certainly didn’t make unsolicited contact with anyone). I guess I didn’t try hard enough to get the “antifeminist” merit badge from Catholic Answers.
Hat’s off to that guy 🙂
Mikediver says:
February 11, 2014 at 11:45 am
Note that Nice Guys are very hot in rural Mexico where I live. They have an excess supply of macho guys so nice guys are very much in demand.
What I find particularly interesting is that the account hasn’t been obviously banned, that is, there’s no “Banned” label (as is typical). Instead, there’s only a cryptic message (on sending a PM) suggesting they “aren’t able to receive messages at this time” and the fact that the CSS hover effect for their name is red (meaning they are banned).
I have a suspicion he ticked off a few too many people (moderator “discretion” is allowed).
That Catholic Forum reminds me of a board I remember as Christian Message Board. The apparent i.q. level was very low. Is wanking a sin? Is it a sin to lust after my wife? Is it a sin if I note a sexy woman at work?
There was a woman on there, a single mom, whose boy had serious problems. To me it was obvious if he went to live with his dad, all “his” problems would go away.
I suggested EFT. EFT is based on oriental accupuncuture without needles, by tapping the same places. EFT works. In the 90’s, EFT practitioners went into Vet mental hospitals, and sent home men who had been in there for PTSD since the Viet Nam war, within a week in some cases. It also works on short-term stress. Once on a trip to Mexico City from my village, I forgot my Dramamine, and was forced to use EFT. Not only didn’t I get car sick in the bus on that trip, but not on any other trip since. I also used it during major dental surgery, with equal success. EFT works for many things, most of the time.
The moderators clearly knew nothing at all about EFT. I dunno’, maybe they glanced over Wikipedia? They deleted my posting and announced it was New Age. So, accupuncture is new? Hee, hee.
[sarcasm] But it does make sense. God wants you to be all messed up and miserable. Only Satan wants you to be mentally and emotionally healthy and happy, right? [/sarcasm]
Frankly, though I do not deliberately mean to offend either Catholics or those on CMB, they are a pack of losers who have no grasp of the Bible. On the Catholic page listed, it’s “all about meeee.” Some of those Bible rules aren’t for personal gain, but to have healthy families and societies. The female and White Knight responses were all about what women want, not what is good for them or for the family.
Once our society goes down the tubes, all that nonsense will be gone; gone; gone. It will be back to basic survival.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/woman-detained-by-tsa-goes-public/
This is a news item about a woman who claims TSA gave her a hard time because they saw her with a Jewish newspaper. Phyllis Chesler.
Chesler is an important name to MRA’s who know their MRA history. In the 80’s, she wrote a book, MOTHERS WITHOUT CUSTODY. Her totally insane premise was that women, not men, faced discrimination in custody hearings. As MarkyMark says, you can’t make up this sort of thing.
She ‘studied’ a number of mothers who lost custody to men. As I remember it several decades later, she claimed men who won custody were usually abusive, but the women who lost custody were not.
And, amazingly back in the appendix, details on the individual women showed that most of them were abusive or inadequate parents.
So, why did she claim they weren’t? Well, like a lot of bogus studies in those days, it was written for lazy judges and social workers to try to stop all male custody. So, in the body of the book say one thing, no matter how brazenly false it is. The judges will remember that, not the truth buried in the appendix.
And, Heaven help any man who dared to call her a liar in plain English!
That is an example of how feminism convinced virtually all men and women to do the things to men that are standard today in marriage and divorce. While men fought and bickered just as they do today.
Free Northerner posted this link in the lighting round: http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165776/how_purity_culture_pressured_me
Jenny Erikson, folks:
(I don’t recall it being posted here.)
Amusing: http://www.theonion.com/articles/conservative-acquaintance-annoyingly-not-racist,35236/
So about those fitness tests.
Isn’t it possible that they’re just a twisted version of something actually … useful?
After all, Christianity is hard, and hardly anyone, even among those who identify as Christians, really tries to practice the lifestyle it demands. (Stinkin’ “purity culture” messing people up!) A Christian woman really *does* need a man who can lead, protect and defend her and her family against whatever the culture throws at it. That’s a ridiculously tall order, after all.
My personal standards were off, due to my own particular brand of brokenness back in the day, but ought not a committed Christian young lady have standards against which a young Christian man’s behavior be judged? Really, really *tough* standards?
Yeah, in a perfect world, I guess. But as far as I can see, Christianity has never operated within a perfect world.
Maybe I’m only just starting to see the problem you guys have been dealing with all along, so be patient with me here. But I wonder if the answer is in getting back to what Christianity really demands, relying on the grace of God and a sly-as-wolves awareness of what we’re really up against … and a willingness to go it alone, if that’s what’s required of me by my circumstances. No compromise.
But I *know* there are women out there who have not been completely spoiled by the confusion of the age, and to the degree that they have been, can be helped to see the light. There aren’t a lot of them, but they really do exist. Is it possible that they are also “invisible”? Clue: They’ve got to seem a little weird, compared to everyone else.
Somebody mentioned homeschoolers. Just sayin.
I see that many of you still believe in marriage. I began discouraging my daughters away from the myths of marriage about two years ago when they were 7 and 8 years old. As my oldest is approaching the 7th grade, I will likely begin explaining other topics such as players as well as other topics. All of this prep work might not make any difference since their own natural desires to be married coupled with societal pressures may make them think that they’ll be on the lucky side of the 50/50 statistic of marriage (as all people saying their vows believe). To make it worse, I’m still married to their mother which propagates in their minds the illusion of happiness, but of course, it’s just an illusion (I speak for both myself and my wife who wear the happy mask on a daily basis). My goal for them is to see the entire map of the game laid out before them rather than to have to discover areas by trial and error, confusion and heartbreak, marriage and divorce, and a longing regret for dreams shattered. I also sympathize for the mythical future son-in-laws who themselves had no idea what they were getting themselves into when my daughters wake up in their mid thirties and realize what a mistake marriage was and put these guys through the grinder.
@Donna,
Check this out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/09/sex-addiction-divorce_n_4748133.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
This is reality.
A wife is not expected to invest anything into a marriage that she doesn’t want to. If she stops feeling it, she is entitled to quit. It doesn’t matter if there are children. It doesn’t matter if she’s the one that’s changed. It doesn’t matter if therapists and friends think that she is in the wrong. Any expression of frustration on the part of the husband facing this is enough to paint him as an abusive monster of a neanderthal that has no concept of love, respect, tenderness, or compromise. Men that don’t even know him will assume that he is a knucklehead brute that is not near as sophisticated as they are when it comes to women. If he objects, he is a whiner that needs to man up and learn to appreciate all the ways that women naturally civilize men.
Which means that ultimately… marriage is of no significance when it comes to a woman’s loyalty, commitment, or anything else. A chump exchanges vows thinking that he is going to lock a good thing down. That it’s going to last forever. But he is defrauded, because the culture demands that he be a player and that he knows how to sweep his wife off her feet know matter how life changes or how the relationship evolves under the wears and cares of life. Anything less than that is to treat her as a sex object and a glorified prostitute. Nobody cares how much she is liable to be rewarded for low grade infidelity. After all, she has to protect her children from the toxic atmosphere that surrounds her relationship with her husband!
When the love dies and the guy finds out it’s completely on him to figure it out… well… for the average guy, this is a stake through the heart. And there is no exit from this. He may not have a clue what’s happening, but if the slightest hint of emotion or frustration creeps into his voice… he should prepare for the accusation of abuse to be leveled at him… by the very person that he assumed would be on his side through thick and thin.
Church is organized to provide theological support for whatever she’s feeling. State is at the ready to hold a gun to his head and make sure she is not dependent on him for anything.
Are home school kids liable to be different? No. The definition of marriage is so radically different, it doesn’t matter if you marry an awkward social misfit or not. Not even home school dad can teach his daughters that they are responsible for anything or that a marriage commitment would require sacrifice, compromise, and commitment on their part as well and not just on his. If he even says anything, he is liable to be put in the doghouse himself and cast out of polite company.
Home school girls are just as much a part of these trends as anyone else.
Donna:
Sure, fitness testing is a woman’s roundabout way of making sure a man can stand up to and face down challenges. If he can, then she knows she can trust him. The problem arises when fitness testing becomes a constant thing; or is done to assess a husband’s fitness against another man’s fitness; or when it’s done simply to harass and harangue the husband.
Of course it doesn’t help when a man doesn’t know how to pass fitness tests, either.
When married, testing isn’t for fitness, it’s to tear down already established headship.
I believe that counseling the majority of (necessarily) beta men men to wait in hope of a rare unicorn, these days, is the opposite of giving them hope. “There aren’t a lot of them, but they really do exist.” Yes, and they are holding out for an even better man than the other girls are holding out for. This is the apex fallacy with an additional spike on top, like the Empire State building with a communications antenna.
SomeGuy:
That article you linked to is a good example and writing by a woman who follows a common pattern, and it tells her side of the “I’m not sexually attracted to him” story.
1. Marries man she feels some attraction for.
2. Over time, she settles into the relationship.
3. She loses attraction for him for one reason or another.
4. He, on the other hand, is still attracted and wants to have sex pretty much as they always have – between 2 and 5 times a week.
5. She rationalizes her loss or lack of attraction by saying that she just wants to be touched, just wants to be loved. She still loves him (or loves the provision he gives her); she just doesn’t want to have sex with him. “I wish all touch didn’t lead to sex.” “Every time he touches me he wants to sex me.”
6. He gets increasingly frustrated. He turns to porn or extramarital affairs. She is secretly glad because she wants an exit from the marriage.
7. He finally does something, straw breaking the camel’s back; she divorces.
This is a quite common pattern, really. The usual symptoms are decreasing sex frequency and complaints that he “wants to have sex all the time” or “can’t you just touch me without always wanting to f*ck me?”
Anonymous age 71,
I always appreciate your insights. There are other places where a nice guy is still appreciated. All involve the word rural in the description and none contain US.
Donna,
Men marry to arrive at permanency and stability upon which to build a family. To what end is this shit testing put within the context of marriage? You should have completed all testing before you went into production. After the decision is (irrevocably) made there is no point in further testing. Especially there is no point in destructive testing. In the same manner we need to teach women that, yes, marriage is the end of courtship. The purpose of all that courtship effort was to arrive at a bonded married pair. After marriage the focus moves to the family not the happiness of the woman involved. The expectation of continuous and endless courtship is the doom of marriage. Of course I feel that marriage in the west is already dead, so please ignore my comments above.
>> This is a quite common pattern, really. The usual symptoms are decreasing sex frequency and complaints that he “wants to have sex all the time” or “can’t you just touch me without always wanting to f*ck me?”
It sounds so perfectly rational… but for the guy it’s a no win scenario. What’s he going to do?
He’s being put on notice that her desire for him is at an end. Consequently, the legitimacy of the relationship has “run its course.” He’s failed too many fitness tests and she now needs moral cover for her exit strategy. And counselors and religious leaders can only bark at him that this is all a result of poor communication.
Re: “He’s failed too many fitness tests” as men we all know (don’t we?) that the sole purpose of shit testing within marriage is to dampen the husband’s ardor.
@Some Guy
“What’s he going to do?” [when his wife cuts off sex]
“Next!” [or he can just wack off all the time like the beta schlub he is]
If you’re worried about God hating divorce, consider whether He hates “divorce” in Marriage 2.0 or only in 1.0. Is there really such a thing as permanent bonding in Marriage 2.0?
@Mikediver
“In the same manner we need to teach women that, yes, marriage is the end of courtship.”
Do you equate courtship with the mating dance? Even pair-bonded animals do a mating dance before they mate. Call it Game or whatever, people do a mating dance. Instigation, play, escalation, play, etc. If the woman doesn’t want to dance when she’s pair-bonded, she has a problem.
>> “Next!” [or he can just wack off all the time like the beta schlub he is]
You say “beta schlib.” I say, “principled man that actually believes that he gave his word to be faithful to her until his death or hers and that will answer to God on judgement day for how he handled the wrongs that were dealt to him.”
Of course, if you think religion is for chumps I can’t really blame you given how the church is handling these points at the moment. But there is no concept of “next” under the the dictates of Christ’s own words. A married couple is bound until death regardless of whether the wife acts like it or not.
@Some Guy. Plenty of wiggle room for nexting. If she is in mortal sin by refusing to do as ordered to by the Bible and her husband, and if she be NOT pleased to dwell with him, …
King of Dread is achievable, in a way that King of Nice remains forever out of reach.
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
“Nexting” your wife while she yet lives is adultery. There are no exceptions in the text. You can separate if she cheats on you, but you may not remarry.
Multiple wives are allowed, albeit not advisable especially for leaders. But specifically, a wife refusing to be wifely has already departed.
1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
@Some Guy
“A married couple is bound until death” No such thing as marriage anymore, at least in the West. God hates divorce in Marriage 1.0, but Marriage 2.0 isn’t marriage in any sense that the Bible speaks of it. If your vows assume Marriage 1.0, but the legal system enforces 2.0, you have a fraud defense. In any case, the wife’s sexual immorality (denying sex) is a biblical exit. If you’re a beta schlub and don’t want to “divorce,” I direct you to the masterbetorium. Next!
@all
Danger and Play has an interesting idea about getting the woman to use the possessive pronoun “your” in relation to her body and person. He advocates getting her to say, “This is your body; this is your p___y; I am your woman [or wife].” This is something that grooms should get their brides to say on their wedding night and repeat daily for a month and periodically after that.
You make light of a serious matter.
@Some Guy
Indeed
““Nexting” your wife while she yet lives is adultery.”
Not always under Marriage 1.0, and certainly not under Marriage 2.0. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, _except for immorality_, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
I think that it’s uncontroversial in the manosphere that denying sex is immoral. If you choose to ignore the scripture that I posted and remain a beta schlub, that is your right. And, yes, there have been convos about whether “except for immorality” was added, but I have found no evidence of any such thing in the literature. There are no footnotes in Aland’s greek text that reference “except for immorality,” so all manuscripts support it; there are NO variants. Conclusion: it wasn’t added later.
Asdgamer:
I think you’re right in that Marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0 are different in character and are also different in how society treats them. But the answer is not to call the wronged husband the “beta schlub” when his wife takes advantage of how marriage’s character and societal treatment have changed. The answer is to give the husband all the tools and leeway he needs to impress on the wife the importance of her vows; and to impose consequences of ever-increasing severity for breaking or neglecting them.
A husband is entitled to sex from his wife. Yep, you read that right – ENTITLED. He’s entitled to sex, and she has to give it to him. If she doesn’t want to do that, then he’s entitled to impose consequences upon her for that, up to and including permanent separation and legal divorce.
He’s also entitled to her submission. He doesn’t have to earn it; he’s the head of the home by virtue of her selecting him to be her husband. The fact that her choice didn’t work out perfectly or that there were problems or that she’s got some buyers’ remorse doesn’t matter. She chose him; she’s got to submit to him. Again, if she doesn’t want to do that or is in open rebellion, he’s entitled to impose consequences for that rebellion in an effort to quash it; up to and including permanent separation and legal divorce.
Leave aside the moral implications and whether it frees up someone to remarry. The issue is the man must have the tools with moral, legal and societal force and “teeth” to back them up; so as to incentivize her alignment with the promises SHE made to HIM.
Pingback: The game alternative | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Re: teeth to incentivize. This is needed for Dread. Wives are supposed to FEAR (phobos) their husbands, and evidently in the same way that wives are supposed to make husbands’ job of loving easier by submitting, I guess husbands should try to make their wive’s job of submitting easier by making them dread. Clearly there is some Goldilocks balance of Dread that is between Uncertainty and Terror.
@jf12
This is dangerous territory for a husband at best. It can be loving to help someone understand the ramifications of sinful choices they are either making or are tempted to make. But a husband running “dread game” as it is commonly defined isn’t consistent with a Christian husband’s role.
Re: “This is dangerous territory” Here be dragons. I know.
@deti
“But the answer is not to call the wronged husband the “beta schlub” when his wife takes advantage of how marriage’s character and societal treatment have changed. The answer is to give the husband all the tools and leeway he needs to impress on the wife the importance of her vows; and to impose consequences of ever-increasing severity for breaking or neglecting them. ”
I’m only calling the wronged husband a schlub if he _doesn’t_ use the tools that he has to combat a wife’s rebellion. And Marriage 2.0 doesn’t give too many tools. Dread worked well for me once (I told my wife that I was getting a gf and was out at night a lot), but it leaves fallout (lack of trust, stress caused by friction with other family members, etc.). And you have to keep using it. Dread sucks as a long term strategy.
As another tool, I suppose that you can tell your wife that you’re having emotional affairs with other women; the Bible doesn’t condemn emotional affairs–just physical adultery. (I’ve certainly made some new women friends and have become open with them about stuff. Not really a problem for me, but my wife will still feel threatened if she finds out. I’m autistic and am very much rule-bound like most autists.)
About submission: it seems to mean “willing obedience” (as opposed to “grudging obedience”). Submission and obedience of wives are linked in 1 Peter 3:5-6. Hupotasso, which is often translated “submit” can mean “obey.”
My tone may sometimes be light but my substance may nevertheless be weighty.
@dalrock
“But a husband running “dread game” as it is commonly defined isn’t consistent with a Christian husband’s role.”
If the alternative is divorce, perhaps it falls in the category “Hail Mary Tough Love.”
Donna Sposata diMaria says:
February 12, 2014 at 7:18 am
Donna, yes, many of us, even the most hostile and negative to AW, admit there are a few good women. But, as MarkyMark says, the problem is they don’t do enough to help us tell them apart from the usual garbage. Thus, it is better to avoid the risk altogether.
And, of course, most really good women marry young and stay married. So, as a result the few good women are simply not available.
Re: emotional affairs. Proverbs 4:23, and others, can be used to build a strong case against emotional affairs. I can’t imagine being in love with someone without wanting it to get physical.
One of the main New Testament verses against emotional affairs is, maybe bizarrely,
1 Cor 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Note that this is how a married man is EXPECTED to behave: focused on pleasing his wife. But it’s presented in the negative! Or at best, the time he spends pleasing her would have been time better spent doing better things. So consider how much more negative is it for him to be pleasing some other woman.
@jf12
“Re: emotional affairs. Proverbs 4:23, and others, can be used to build a strong case against emotional affairs.”
Nahh, that verse just says to know yourself–keep an eye on your thoughts and emotions. I do this routinely.
“I can’t imagine being in love with someone without wanting it to get physical.” Not sure what you mean by “in love.” If “pair-bonded via oxytocin flooding,” then that addiction can be broken by separating. If “filled with dopamine,” then separation also works.
A strong platonic friendship with a woman can slide into romantic involvement as long as she isn’t hideous, true. That is actually easy to deal with, at least for me, by an act of will. And for those of us with high inhibitions/self-control, it’s easy for us to imagine strong feelings for a woman without wanting it to get physical. I was madly in love with my college gf and we didn’t do the dirty–all because of me.
Donna
So about those fitness tests.
Isn’t it possible that they’re just a twisted version of something actually … useful?
One view is that fitness testing is not necessarily a conscious behavior by a woman, but rather an unconscious one. A process by which the “back of her head” is engaged in determining if her man is up to the “saber toothed tiger at the cave mouth” challenge – if he can’t display enough masculine force to stand up to her then he is likely to fail to deal with an external threat. Because it is not necessarily a conscious process, it is something that requires training to control. I’ll leave the issue of “fitness test or rebellion” alone for now.
So in a sense fitness testing appears to be a documented feature of women. It can’t be excised, so it must be managed, preferably by the woman herself to at least some degree.
In the modern world women are all too often not taught to control themselves much at all, and men are all too often taught to defer to and cater to whims of women. So fitness testing is not controlled by a woman, and a man who has been taught not to confront women over behavior is in no position to deal with them. This is the path to a great deal of unhappiness and trouble.
Kudos to Anonymous Age 71 for pointing out the odious, misandrous Phyllis Chesler. She’s attempted to re-invent herself as some sort of “defender of women against Islam”, thereby convincing some people who should know better that she actually cares at all about the rights of human beings. She does not. She cares only about those women who are useful for her own plans.
Chesler can be described as an anti-man jihadi…
If we’re talking about Dread meaning open flirting with other women, soliciting attention from other women in the presence of the wife, gaslighting her, and extramarital sexual conduct; then yes, Dread is problematic for a Christian man.
But I think modified Dread is simply imposition of a consequence for a wife’s improper behavior, and should be reserved to respond to the worst conduct. These are probably OK dread techniques: leaving the house and being circumspect about your whereabouts and conduct; refusing to talk for a time (i.e. “silent treatment”); tightening control over her access to the marital assets, and forcing her to choose between the continuation of its marriage and its end. In other words, the husband makes it clear that if her rebellion continues, it will result in ever-increasing consequences, up to and including divorce.
Re: modified Dread. I agree. But Uncertainty is seeming to be ineffective, even though Terror is off limits.
Uncertainty has to be mixed with credible threat. Some light flirting in front of her is likely all that’s needed, assuming she sees other women responding with IOIs. A little goes a long way, so don’t think you have to be making out in front of her or anything.
AR
I’m with you on the fitness test thing Anon reader. In donnas case it looked completely subconscious and normal. Including the emotions that came from the “failure” at the time.
A Christian lady can control herself through deliberate and conscious that. An uncivilized whore will see this as patriarchy and oppression. She says she was broken at the time and the guy was asking permission her emotional state and the fellas attempt at being nice says failure all over it and even that was subconscious and from emotions outside of reasoned logic. No matter how good or how kind, educated, wealthy or what ever women base good man bad man on tingle. It is impossible for a woman to spot a player.
I wouldn’t worry about being Christian in todays world run that dread. If I succeed maybe my son can have a real marriage to an actual wife. Either that or teach him to be a player and bag the hell out of Lion’s daughters. Maybe I’ll do both so he has options. I’ll go to hell for my son, no problem that’s my boy.
TFH says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Seek help. I mean this with 100% sincerity.
There’s something here I’m trying to put my finger on, and I’m not quite there. It has to do with something greyghost said: “The nice guy who gives a damn about you gets left behind.”
I can’t explain my reaction to that line, but something about it took my breath away.
See, it isn’t that I didn’t want to know he was interested in me. I really, really *did.* It’s just that I had set up some kind of crazy rule for how he was supposed to show that, and neither one of us knew what that rule was, until he broke it.
I wonder if a wise older woman, or a sensible friend, could have turned things around for me at some point? Staying with that hand-holding episode, for a moment. What if, in describing that scenario to such a friend, she had said, “I don’t understand your reaction. If he was a jerk and tried to bulldoze you, would you have liked it better? He was just trying to be respectful to you, can’t you see that? So what if it ruined the moment, you silly girl! What kind of weird perfection are you looking for here? He can’t read your mind! This isn’t some kind of game, honey. You say you want a husband, yet the nice guy who actually gives a damn about you gets left behind. You want to know why you’re still single? There’s your reason, right there.”
But women don’t tend to talk to each other like that.
Re; “women don’t tend to talk to each other like that”. You’re right. Women tend to say “Trust your gut. Clearly he was a serial killer, down deep where nobody can tell. Your gut is always right; look at all the great stuff it produces!”
@Donna,
No, women are usually more like: “He did what? He does not deserve you, girl… you need to dump his sorry ass and move on to someone who will show you some respect,”
Hard left women will be like: “Are you in an abusive relationship? Do you feel bad when you don’t do things that you know he wants you to do? Did you give your consent when you had sex that time two months ago? He sounds more like creepy McRapist all the time. You should leave him in order to protect the children from him.”
Religious women will be like: “Is he loving you like Christ loves the church? Christ wouldn’t do what he’s doing, no way. This is serious business. If you go along with this anymore, then you are disobeying God. You have to take a serious stand with him before he’ll repent. I know it’s not natural for you, but you need to confront him about these issues and let him know where he stands before God.”
This is not how they treat el tougho in the wife beater with the hot five o’clock shadow. It’s how they treat guys like frumpy-nerdy Leif Erikson who just had his divorce drunk blogged by the mother of his children.
Pingback: Avoiding, spotting, and resisting players: advice for young women. | Sunshine Mary
SSM’s post contains a good concise step by step How To list on picking up women. It’s kind of like it takes one to know one.
theasdgamer says:
February 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm
” I was madly in love with my college gf and we didn’t do the dirty–all because of me.”
You never had relations of any kind with this woman, let alone ever marrying her.
Why did you consider her your GF? People hug and eat meals with other people without any titles being bestowed.
@jf12- SSM’s post contains a good concise step by step How To list on picking up women.
I see what you did there.
@Luke
“You never had relations of any kind with this woman, let alone ever marrying her.
Why did you consider her your GF?”
Oh, we necked daily for a total of about 300 hours or so over 9 months, mostly in her dorm hallway. And she tried to seduce me just before breaking up with me, but failed spectacularly.
“Girlfriend” is sort of a fluid title that probably didn’t exist before the 20th century. It doesn’t imply sex. It just denotes exclusivity and protected emotional territory.
When a couple of 11-year old kids describe each other as “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”, I assume it’s a sort of serious innocence… training wheels for marriage, in other words. I don’t assume they’re having “relations of any kind”. Eating meals and holding hands in that context is perfectly commensurate with the definition. In a healthier era, the 11-year olds would probably have started banging around 16 or 17, and their families would have married them off at that point.
Best, Boxer
Donna
Living in the feminine imperative will cause you to rely on the tingle as your moral compass. It is touted as being liberated and true to yourself. PUA and players heaven. The emotions and how you felt are normal and natural and a complete mystery to women including themselves.
It is also a mystery to most men. A man just being a masculine man will pass most fitness test from the female subconscious without even knowing it. A man following churchianity and the feminine imperative is doomed. Throw in laws of misandry and the good man has no chance of the tingle. Everybody is miserable. What then happens the tingle can only come from defective men. This is where the all men are dogs and the I’m damaged by past relationship stuff comes from. People that are actually good for you don’t deliver the tingle. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/boring-loyal-dudes/ Funny thing about women, what causes the tingle is highly influenced by factors not entirely based on feral emotions.
The best gift a preacher can give a woman is a christian man with game. Some one good for you that understands the tingle. Much better than the PUA and player fucking away your youth and fertility tingling all of the way.
Pingback: Advice to Young Women: Avoiding, Spotting and Resisting Players | Donal Graeme
MMSL similarly advises against direct Dread game, and suggests instead Reality game, in which the better beta betters himself so much that women are involuntarily tossing their panties at him while he is out in public with his wife. Apparently Reality Land is the same as Fantasy Land for some people.
@jf12
lol, is there a treatment for aging? Sure, we can work on our convo, our body, our mind, and our income. Tossing panties? That requires flirting. I get free stuff from women cashiers sometimes. Does that count as panty tossing? Inquiring minds wanna know!
@theasdgamer, there is a way to stop aging but I think it defeats the purpose.
I can’t believe Athol Kay actually expects a normal man, one of the majority of men who has never been able to gin up real interest from women ever in his life, to EVER believe that mere self-improvement will passively yield a lot of attention from women. It’s too ridiculous. What such a man can believe, though, is that through hard work then he can ACTIVELY get attention from women ie through flirting, as you said.
@jf12
“I can’t believe Athol Kay actually expects a normal man, one of the majority of men who has never been able to gin up real interest from women ever in his life”
I’m not sure what’s normal or what you mean by “real interest.” Number of dates? Sex? Petting? I know my experience but I don’t know what other men have experienced. Is the goal SNL or LTR? And what if you are married? Surely that factors into expectations. Do you start counting hugs or just women hitting on you? How do you rate the Ioi’s? (Some are unmistakable requests for sex, but what about the ones that show weaker interest?) Do you count it if women ask you for hugs?
Does Athol encourage men to work on making their conversation interesting?
Maybe we can get Athol to clarify a bit. Maybe he can create a script that shows an example of what he expects to happen.
@theasdgamer, by a normal man I mean one of the majority of men, who had to work really hard to get all both of his pre-marital girlfriends into bed for a short time before they dumped him, and has been married to a woman who didn’t seem repulsed by him during the honeymoon period but because of obvious repulsion she unilaterally dialed back the sex to a handful of times per month years and years and years ago. And he has never received a single initiating IOI from other women, especially since getting married. I define real interest from women as him getting some unsolicited offers, period.
The concept of passive game is of great concern to monogamous gamers, obviously, and one of the great reasons is made clear by AK: to give the man plausible deniability. “It wasn’t my fault! It followed me home despite my trying to shoo it away!”
@jf12
I don’t think that I fit the profile of the majority of guys or of PUAs either. Do most guys pet a lot of women same day/night?
No work required for my fling or college gf. College gf dumped me cuz she was hunting for beta bux, but was still into me years later. The Fling may have been into me post-fling, too, but she was hunting for beta bux.
I’ve finally realized that I generate a lot of comfort in women. Not sure why. Even when I was young and lacked confidence, women seemed to be attracted to me. Now I’m not sure why they were attracted to me. I had some looks back then and attributed it to that, but that might be inaccurate.
I experienced a sex strike like normal guys (which I broke using Dread and the missus is happier)!
As to IOI’s, I’ve gotten several of those over the years: One woman suggested that we go out dancing; she knew I was married; no question of her intent there. Another time, when I was sitting at my desk, another woman wrapped her arms around me and began typing on my keyboard. That’s pretty strong IOI. She kept after me for years. Another woman told me that her husband would be out of town the following weekend. And another woman walked up to me and bumped her groin against mine. One woman made extremely obvious “eye motions” indicating interest; sex was on the table. Another woman flirted with me a couple of times; she was having trouble in a LTR. Two of them were trolls, but four were attractive (5,5,6,7). There may have been others that I don’t remember or whose IOIs were so subtle that I ignored them. I don’t know how my experience compares with that of the average guy.
I’m having a hard time identifying with anyone else, but I’m trying to understand. Is “normal” experience age-dependent?
Well apparently ALL men are men that Christian girls should avoid:
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/19757-10-men-christian-women-should-never-marry
Unironcally written by yet another Christian White Knight.
Maybe Dalrock could write similar piece about the 10 types of women Christian men should avoid?
Re: ” Do most guys pet a lot of women same day/night?” I think not. Unless I’m wrong, which, you know, I’m not.
🙂 Let’s say, 10-20 women in four years or so. For me, this was back in the day when ASD was pretty strong. Today, ASD is pretty weak, so we’d expect stronger closings.
I suspect that I’m just a very picky natural. I’m studying my impact on women now and trying to figure out what’s going on. I think that I somehow build comfort and naturally do Jerkboy Charisma and break rapport without conscious decision. I was experimenting with push-pull with my wife and it’s very effective; she even knew I was trying to game her and it still worked (she probably wanted it to work, lol). She’s a little curious about Game now.
Re: “she even knew I was trying to game her and it still worked” I think it works even better. Women love to conspire.
@Rollo
The article was generally pretty good…except for one little spot; one little fly that truly spoils the ointment. The author writes:
Here’s what 1 Peter 3:7 actually says:
Peter is speaking to one with authority who is yet also under authority, and to remember that; not equals, but both subordinates.
But this little fly is all that it takes to ruin a marriage.
@jf12
“Women love to conspire.”
I’ll reply to this in a roundabout way.
I figured out why women have liked me–I tease them a lot. I’ve just figured out that women love emotional, conversational, and relational wrestling. It’s why they like drama. Of course, I also created comfort with “nice guy” conversation. (Being a clown is humorous like teasing, but lacks the wrestling aspect, which is why it isn’t particularly attractive.) Other women who overheard the conversation also felt the comfort that I generated, so the “nice guy” perception multiplied. Being considered a nice guy didn’t hurt my appeal. I could start teasing another woman who had friend-zoned me and she would eventually reevaluate and upgrade my SMV. Being friend-zoned has never stopped me.
My sexualization was via hand-holding and kissing, etc. Didn’t use convo much for that; if I thought about it, I could, but it’s just not part of my natural frame.
Nowadays I still tease women but don’t escalate with hand-holding, etc. so there’s no problem with moral issues; it’s just part of being interesting. Women hate being pedestalized and treated as asexual beings. As a married guy, I get a pass on treating women like sisters, but not on pedestalization. Wrestling is still required.
Your wish has been granted, Rollo. The author of the article you linked to has a new post up today:
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/19821-8-women-christian-men-should-never-marry
Do not fuck around when you are ovulating?
healt24: Who’s a hunk depends on the time of the month
Mary,
That was a great list. I pretty much agree with all of it.
The only problem is for the marriage minded Christian man, if he follows that list the way he should (and steer clear of those 8 kinds of women) he will probably never be able to marry! I’ve known a lot ladies in my life and pretty much all of them (all the ones who I have known) have at least one or two of those eight traits in them.
@Kari, Haselton is a great woman. But the fact is, (pre-menopausal) women in LTR are only actually horny a small percentage of the time. Whether we call it a few days a month or a few more days doesn’t matter because they are both small fractions. Hence, in EVERY LTR, regardless of whether he’s hunky or not, if the sex only depended on her whims and her choices and never his, then they’d have sex exactly as often as older (post-menopausal) couples and lesbians aka hardly ever. Hence, the clearly best possible world FOR WOMEN is to choose a high libido non-dominant man to whom she chooses to submit even when she doesn’t feel like it.
IBB, It appears that the Church leader caste believe that only the elite should marry and reproduce. Their mating strategies only seem to work for alphas/ beauties.
This may not be a conscious decision.
They ASSUME the ordinary believe will be happy with lonely godliness while Big Preacher and Exbiker hunky youth leader get hawt church princess. Yes, people can really rationalize godly sacrafice by others as long as “they got theirs”.
In the 70s a zealot with a beauty on his arm told me about the “Wounderful Spiritual Relationship” I could have with the group’s fat woman. I did not take it well.
galloper,
I don’t know about church leaders believing this so much as half of this is already happening (and has been for quite some time.)
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392834107&sr=1-1&keywords=coming+apart
At this point, largely it is only the elite that are marrying. People who aren’t elite are reproducing, but not inside of marriage.
What happened? What did you tell the zealot about this fat girl he wanted you to marry? How old were you when this happened? Fill in the details.
College age.
I was too shocked to say anything. Now I realized I should have suggested a reverse to his plan. “If you are SOOOOOOO spiritual then , Give me Bella and you go home with Bertha”. He would not have liked it. Now I realize how zeal can blind anyone to instrospection, keep you from seeing how others see what you are doing. He really did not know what an ASSinine thing he was suggesting. I am not angry at him now , but I am angry at the “I gotz miine” attitude in churches. He was not a leader although I suspect he thought getting a church princess with the cult gleam in her eyes made him an elite Christian. I dont remember seeing him after that. It has been so long I cant remember the names.
I believe this scenario happens alot in church circles.
galloper,
Off the record, all the time. Off the record, there is never-ending “man up and marry that fat slut” attitude not from the young men to other bachelor men necessarily, but from the elder (and married/widowed) men and women of the church. They think they are doing right. They think they are helping all parties involved. In the end, their thinking is really just warped chivalry combined with shame, not Christianity.
For the record (from the pulpit and in the church school/Bible study) that has never-ever happened in a church. It can’t happen. There is no such thing as a “marry that fat slut” school in any Christian church. And why not? Because there would be no young single bachelor men, in it. The Pastor/Elder/zealot-alpha would be “man-up shaming” to no one.
This crap happens in the hallways of the church. It happens in one-on-one conversations. When it happened to me (over and over) I would just say “I’m not interested in her.” And that would be it. I would never hear man-up-shame from that person about another person again…
Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters
I’m surprised that there are decent women who need help with spotting players. If they don’t have honorable intentions, they’ll give up immediately if you don’t sleep with them. Even for a non-Christian woman, waiting 6 months, in an exclusive monogamous relationship before sleeping with any man should do the trick.
Good luck getting a modern woman to wait six months. Their IFF (hawt or not radar) works in under 60 seconds. If it read HAWT It can then take six months for her to figure out a known serial kills is a jerk.
And inevitably a thread for married Christian men to share their stories and tips on picking up and sexually using strange women. You may not (?) have intended this way, but this is what it has turned out to be.
Christian man is as Christian man does. Your blog makes is so abundantly clear that it will serve as a good example for all wanting to learn what Christianity is, for better and for worse (though mostly better).
“And inevitably a thread for married Christian men to share their stories and tips on picking up and sexually using strange women.”
Where did any Christian man do that?
“The truth is that most young women want players, only they want the “cad with a heart of gold.” You know, the one who plows through women like a John Deere, but will recognize that she is special and so not toss her aside.”
I saw the first two episodes of the New Zealand drama series Top Of The Lake. Two was quite enough, I’m not recommending it but Jane Campion (who co wrote it) got something absolutely spot on… this is no mere dystopia it is very definitely a sexual dystopia and in that it is the most prescient. There is a particularly odious character called Matt Mitcham, he definitely does not have a heart of gold but I guarantee a lot of women found themselves attracted to this character; and quite a few have had their real life equivalent.
Is it not the case that sin basically has two different forms… the one, such as Adam and Eve’s i.e disobedience, weakness, succumbing to temptation. The other, that of Lucifer – pride, resentment… wilful rebellion.
I think there is a lot of truth in the SMP graph, there is a fundamental inequality between the sexes that occurs when people are most prone to wishful thinking, when the hormones are most active etc. I think of Elizabeth Bennett, in Pride And Prejudice, pleading with her father (the patriarchy) to reign the frivolous excesses of her sister Lydia. Of course he fails in his duty and Lydia narrowly avoids a fate worse than than unhappy wife.
Surely most young women have a kind of internal battle between their inner Elizabeth (though a much less substantial version) and their inner Lydia (though a much more wilful, cynical, vulgar version). They absolutely hate this struggle, it represents everything that is unfair and repressive about civilisation. Hooking up with someone like Matt Mitcham is a pure act of vandalism and rebellion.