Alpha Game

The broken attractor

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Tue, 29 May 2012 09:12:00 +0000

Dogsquat uses pattern recognition to figure out his problem with women:

If I talk to two different women about normal stuff for five minutes – different times, different venues, with both women being equally attractive – I’ll come away being really attracted to one of them.

Here’s what I know:

The woman who I’m really attracted to has problems. She’s got a coke habit, sexual abuse issues, an eating disorder – something like that. The women and I won’t talk about that stuff, but my subconscious has picked up on certain patterns and mannerisms. Those subtle cues have rung the fire-bell hanging on the wall where my own personal White Knight hangs out. That bastard starts polishing up his rusty armor and looking around for his sword. He’s gonna go rescue this chick from herself, and he starts conspiring with my limbic system to make me attracted to her.

See? The gal with problems acts a certain, subtle way. Subconsciously, she’s broadcasting her pain/problems out into the world. Because of certain experiences I’ve had/the way I was raised, my antennae are very sensitive to certain signals. Because of those signals, I feel certain things – attraction, the need to rescue, the need to “be there”, etc.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The man is a paramedic. He's literally wired to rescue people, which is admirable in general but definitely sub-optimal for personal relationships. He is one of the many men who are simply unsuitable to choose their own mates and would benefit from receiving strong guidance from their trusted friends and family members.

It's very important to figure out your historical pattern with women because failing to learn from history will condemn you to repeating it. And learn to place great significance in the non-verbal reactions of your friends to meeting new women. Even if they're not inclined to tell you to your face that you're making the same mistake again, they'll usually let you know in subtler ways.

Bloody peasants

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Sun, 27 May 2012 22:57:00 +0000

I note Gmac's discussion of "the Beer Shield":

The Beer Shield is a college-born social tactic that young men pick up in dive bars and house parties. It is a fallback technique akin to a security blanket that should be shamed out of men. Keeping a beer close to your chest is a sign of insecurity. It’s no different from playing with your phone in a bar. It tells the other people around you, “Hey everyone! I’m awkward and have no idea what I’m supposed to be doing with myself right now!” It signals desperation and confusion to the opposite sex. More importantly, it’s counterproductive to an approach mentality.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is a much more serious and underlying problem on display here. By holding a beer, by drinking beer, by even being credibly identified as a beer drinker, a man is signifying that he is an illiterate peasant, of solid, but hearty stock, the sort of man thick-waisted farm girls with red faces and ankles the size and shape of overstuffed German sausages expect to meet out behind the haystacks. Civilized men who attract beautiful women drink wine, preferably red wine, although prosecco and lambrusco are acceptable alternatives in the summer heat or on Friday night with pizza.

Women see wine drinkers as intrinsically more wealthy, handsome, and sophisticated, because they are. What cultures drink wine? The French and Italian. What cultures drink beer? The German and the English. Now ask yourself this question: towards which cultures are women more powerfully drawn? Here is a hint: neither are known for winning wars or eating sauerkraut.

The amusing thing is that the wine/beer delta is such a powerful social signifier that even if you are at a bar with a group of men and you are the only one to ask for a glass of cabernet, syrah, or pinot noir instead of a "heinie" or a "bud" - notice how even the names of the hops-related beverages are declasse - some modern version of an agricultural helot is bound to make a comment on the order of "well, la di dah". This only shows that he is cognizant of your social superiority, as well as the likelihood that you are, unlike him, wearing clean underwear.

Beer looks and smells like urine, that's why they have to chill it to zero degrees Kelvin in order to make it halfway palatable. Wine looks like blood and smells like the velvety nectar of the gods. And let's face it, women have not bought 18 bazillion masturbation fantasies about men who drink piss. As we all know, women prefer bad boys, and what does a supervillain drink in his hidden mountain lair? An ice cold Coors Light or a 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild? A frosty Miller Genuine Draft or a 2006 Brunello di Montalcino? To ask the question is to answer it.

But don't accept my word as law, (although in this case it would clearly be the height of reason and good sense), go forth and live the science! The next time you're out in mixed company and the men are all calling for their infantile "beerz" in order to nervously suck on what are quite clearly pacifier substitutes, remain calm and order "something red" instead. Don't play wine snob and make yourself look like an ass, if you're asked, just tell the service that whatever happens to be open will suit you nicely. If you have to choose because you find yourself at some savage, godforsaken place where the proprietor doesn't already have two or three nice bottles going, choose the merlot over the cabernet; the less expensive merlots are always more drinkable than the cheap cabs.

Don't be surprised if people look at you strangely. Men will wonder if you've come into an inheritance. Women will find themselves contemplating when you became so stylish. Attractive women whose names you do not know will attempt to press their lips against you. And in time, you, too, will learn to develop a healthy aristocratic contempt for the beer-swilling masses. My point, in case it has escaped your hops-addled mind, is that if you're utilizing the beer shield, the shield is arguably the least of your self-inflicted handicaps.

This post comes courtesy of Badger, who isn't a bad sort even if he does live in a hut and drink peasant brew.

Science plays catch-up

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Fri, 25 May 2012 11:11:00 +0000

We needed a "scientific" study for this?

Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women. They don’t settle for them, they strongly prefer them. Essentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”

First, I note that the description isn't of "manwhores", but rather, players. Susan is among those women who like to use the term as a would-be perjorative substitute in a futile attempt to convince young women that men they find attractive are not attractive, which is fine, but it's a completely inappropriate term because a manwhore is a homosexual prostitute, not a man who is sexually successful with women and is not compensated in any monetary form for the services he provides. One could make a much better case for women who provide sex after dinner dates as "womanwhores", but let's face it, that just sounds both ridiculous and redundant. Second, the concept was already covered in all the necessary detail a long time ago on Friends

JOEY: How're you doing?

RACHEL: I'm ok.

JOEY: Ooh, that bad, huh? Look, I can sense when women are depressed and vulnerable. It's one of my gifts.

However obvious, it was interesting in that it supported my contention that female intelligence is not an attraction factor for men, not even intelligent men. This is a myth that women cling to almost as strongly as men cling to the myth of male loyalty and devotion being an attraction factor for women. It's amazing, but men and women alike seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing what makes the opposite sex attractive from what makes an individual member of the opposite sex a wise choice as a mate. The two concepts aren't only different, they're barely even tangentially related and in some cases can be outright contradictory.

Old girls are easy

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Thu, 24 May 2012 16:07:00 +0000

Once more, we see Game in general, and Roissy in particular, supported by the evidence:

Women over 30 are more likely to have sex on a first date than their younger counterparts, according to a new study. A third of participants (34 per cent) from the age bracket admitted that they would get intimate on a first date compared to just 12 per cent of 24 to 27-year-olds.

While this will no doubt be spun as Strong and Independent Women Knowing What They Want, it is simply basic supply and demand. Older women can't be as picky because they can't afford to be as picky. Since the demand for them is naturally lower, they can't maintain the same "price" they previously commanded. The converse, of course, is male commitment, as the more in demand a man is, the higher his "price" for commitment. I do find it interesting that a mere three years is enough to drive up the female willingness to put out immediately by a factor of nearly three. This is a strong indication that the first attractiveness wall is somewhere right around the age of 27. Which, interesting enough, corresponds nicely with the first sports performance wall for men.

This has some interesting biological implications, as it might be informative to map the female price line against the male performance line and the female fertility line.

UPDATE - As predicted, the hamsters are spinning madly away. Here is one female commenter: "they feel sexually more confident and better able to trust their own judgement. They also care a lot less about being judged by someone with double standards."

Sure they do, Rosie. Sure they do. Because when one contemplates stoic emotional equanimity, a promiscuous 30-something single woman is the very first thing that springs to mind.

Crazy Fuel

noreply@blogger.com (RM) — Tue, 22 May 2012 03:22:00 +0000

Thus Spake Omega:
There is something deeply pleasant about hitting rocks with a bat. The swing, the force, the crack, the rock spinning fast enough to hum, it all makes for a very satisfying, very boyish past-time. For whatever reason, carrying a bat around always made me feel a bit more powerful. I think that I instinctively knew that as fun as hitting things was, the bat was a weapon and if I needed to I could defend myself with it. Men are hard wired to be attracted to weapons. It does not matter if the weapon is a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, an M1911 (.45 of course), or a high quality stick, we love weapons. Somehow, we know that we are meant to take up arms in defense of our families, lives, and homes. We are meant to be aggressive. Yet for some, as a boy grows up, that drive, that fascination with violence, for various reasons, is excised like a cancer. For others it is never trained and becomes uncontrollable and destructive. Either way, a boy who does not know how to channel and use his aggression is not a man. Of the two fates, mine was the former.

Due to a deep depression that settled on me in my mid teens, I never learned how to use my aggression. I definitely had it, and frequently used it in school and on my cousins, but as I moved into my teens a growing sense of fear and anxiety began to push back on it. It always got me into trouble, and despite my father's insistence that I use it to defend myself, I received no training on when and how much. There were other far more severe factors that I will not mention here (suffice it to say if I had had male training it may have saved me from losing my mind), and all of it combined drove me deeper into depression. By the time I hit my twenties I was crazy. The aggression had turned inwards with no outlet. I felt helpless and I began to consider suicide. Eventually after years of depression I sought help.

So, as I approach the end of my twenties, it is no small thing when I say that I have not been depressed at all this year. There have been some bad days, but even those are better than my best days were during depression. Best of all I only occasionally think about testing the integrity of my skull with a high velocity lead slug (.45 of course). However, this is not my personal therapy journal, but a post about game, so let me explain why I am no longer depressed, and what changed.

I have spent a lot of time (and a shit-load of money) in therapy. While I do not recommend it for most people, for the genuinely crazy it may do some good. Paying someone to care is not a bad way to go if nothing else has worked. But despite learning to control my emotions, the one thing that turned everything around was aggression. If you are a guy you will have it in abundance. While there is merit in learning to calm yourself, you must learn to channel your aggression. It has to go somewhere. If you do not it will cause problems. I had a triple whammy: I could not control it, which terrified me; the terror fueled a need to bottle it up; and so I channeled it inwards (which turned to visions of sugar plums dancing in my head: .45 of course). After years of trying to understand what was going on in the course of a few week I had an epiphany and I began to channel it outwards. It was relief like nothing I had ever felt.

After the initial awkward steps, once as I got used to the idea, I found that, to stay sane, I had to have an outlet. I had to have a place to channel the aggression; I had to have a target. I was unfamiliar enough with this new need that the most obvious outlet did not occur to me. Aggression though is a fairly simple impulse and martial arts quickly came to mind as the clearest choice. I joined a local Muay Thai gym and working out there is very calming. Punching things rivals hypnosis in its therapeutic value (way cheaper too). When I go there I pour myself into the exercise. I have to. I take all the anger, fear, frustration, sex drive, and depression, and I grind it up and use it as fuel, and unexpectedly it turns into a sort of exhausted, jagged joy. I limp home feeling better than I have ever felt in my life. Aggression is medicine for men. Learning to channel it is a necessary daily practice.

The benefits are many and varied. As long as I do not let the aggression build up, it improves my focus, determination, and willpower. I can approach girls fearlessly. Before, approach anxiety felt like walking through tar, now it feels like a light breeze pushing me back. I went on a date recently and just for kicks, I decided I was not interested, walked away, and did not look back. This was a major turning point. I have always been afraid of breaking the rules, regardless of the rules' source, and I decided that I was not going to be afraid of it anymore, so I walked away. I had no reason, or justification, I simply refused to be afraid of losing. Now I talk to random strangers on the street, almost more than people I know. My game has a long way to go, but feeling no fear while conversing with an 8 and her 8.5 sister seems to me to be a good sign. My voice is louder. Tomorrow I will have my second date with a girl I approached on the street. She is a 7 and seems to be into me. Things are really looking up.

Learning controlled aggression has changed everything for me. I feel as though I am carrying a bat at all times. I can use it to nudge people and get their attention. I can swing it to warn people away. And, my favorite, I can take it to side of someone's head, should they deserve it. Knowing that I can hit back has been extremely therapeutic. Who would have thought that acting like a man would be the cure for not feeling like a man?

The sex appeal of IQ

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Fri, 18 May 2012 17:48:00 +0000

Roissy considers it:

You’ve got two schools of thought. The first insists that smarts, like any other positive attribute, can only raise a man’s dating market value because women are hypergamous and appreciate a smarter man than themselves. The other school says that women are put off by men who are too much smarter than themselves, and that experience shows women fall for lunkhead jerks all the time, perhaps because these types of men are less introspective and more unthinkingly assertive about hitting on women.

The science I’ve read on this subject has been all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that having some smarts is a net plus to a man’s desirability.

Where do I come down on this perennial issue? I stick by the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog. A better-than-average IQ is beneficial, but the benefits to picking up women begin to dissipate past a certain degree of brainpower, because very high IQ seems to be associated with a lack of social savviness and other off-putting personality quirks.

I agree with Roissy to a point. My perspective is that intelligence is a major plus in two circumstances. First, it is a huge DHV when dealing with women who place value on intelligence. These tend to be educated women in the 1 SD+ category; it's easy to spot them because they will mention a) their academic credentials, or b) how smart they are, within the first five minutes of meeting someone new. There is nothing that turns them on faster than being corrected or seeing a man intellectually humiliate someone. Second, it can be a very useful tool for both social and sexual dominance.

That being said, one should never confuse the tool for the consequence of its use and that is the problem that most smart guys face. Most smart men think that displaying their intelligence, usually in some hopelessly dorky manner, will make them more attractive to women. This is not the case. Whereas women are attracted to muscles and strong bodies for their own sake, and not merely because they can indicate social and sexual dominance, the first group aside, they are not attracted to intelligence for its own sake, only when it is used to dominate others.

For example, if the science geek takes an arrogant attitude and openly disrespects less intelligent men as barely evolved chimpanzees, women will be attracted to him. Of course, he has to be able to back it up and few science geeks can. That's why men who are balanced, who honor the Greek ideal of developing mind, body, and soul, will tend to clean up with women, because there are few things that women find more attractive than a man who can dominate them and others both physically and mentally. However, mental dominance isn't as readily apparent as physical dominance, which is why this takes us back to the "chicks dig jerks" theme. A smart asshole doesn't hesitate to exert his mental dominance, whereas the average smart nice guy will do everything in his power to refrain from demonstrating it in any way. Needless to say, women will be attracted to the former, not the latter. Think of the "apples" scene in Good Will Hunting. That is a clear demonstration of mental dominance driving attraction; it may not be as much of a turn-on as a physical beat-down, but make no mistake, it's a beat-down and it's going to turn on most woman who witness it, especially if they happen to have any brains of their own.

It's not that women are any more interested in football games and motorcycles than physics and philosophy, it's just that they usually can't understand the latter.

Reversing the social thermostat

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:41:00 +0000

One of the things that separates men from women, and ALPHA from BETA, is the ability to control one's emotions and reactions. Roissy memorably linked the ALPHA ideal to a rock that lets the ocean waves crash over it with complete indifference; when the waters calm, the rock is still there, exactly as it was before.

Since supplicants and subordinates are always hypersensitive to the feelings of their superiors, a lack of sensitivity is always interpreted as dominance by men and women alike. In practical terms, this means a lack of reaction to what other people are saying. The more emotionally intense the stimulus, the more important it is to remain calm and impassive. Now, some people come by this naturally. For whatever reason, in a highly charged situation like an emergency or a competitive sporting event, I tend to feel almost as if I go out of my body and I remain much more calm than I would if the situation was an everyday one. Because that has tended to work out well for me, I try to simulate the feeling when it doesn't come naturally.

The way this can be achieved is simply by delaying your instinctive reaction. When your boss yells at you or your girlfriend accuses you of something, don't say anything, don't even allow your face to change expression. Just meet their eyes, breath slowly, and blink deliberately. Then ask them to repeat themselves. Nine times out of ten, they will immediately lower their voice and address you in a calmer, more civilized manner. This is an instinctively submissive response to dominant behavior. If they're completely out of emotional control, though, they will start shrieking and become much more difficult to understand, in which case, you continue to remain calm, explain that you can't understand what they're trying to tell you, and ask them to repeat themselves again in a more civilized manner. Sometimes they will, although they will often storm out instead. The useful thing about the latter is that you can then return to what you were doing before, since you haven't even acknowledged their demand or complaint, let alone agreed to do anything about it.

Granted, it may take a degree of natural narcissism to easily resist the male urge to respond in the face of a perceived problem. But the urge can be resisted, even by the most instinctively submissive Gamma. Remember the wise words of Calvin Coolidge: "Never go out to meet trouble. If you will just sit still, nine cases out of ten someone will intercept it before it reaches you."

But dominant self-control isn't only useful in conflict situations, it's also usefully applicable to situations where a woman is attempting to get a rise out of you, either through sexual provocation or a shit test. Do exactly the same thing. Don't react, breathe, blink, ask for her to repeat herself. You'll find that you can make a woman who is striking a provocative pose to blush and stammer simply by not reacting and calmly asking her to repeat herself once or twice. Of course, because you've gone from played to player, and because women are naturally attracted to both social and sexual dominance, this will tend to create attraction even where none initially existed.

Keep in mind that the point is not to be a robot. You can smile if you like, although this is best reserved for the sexual situations and can cause problems in the conflict situations. You can - in fact, you should - speak in normal tones. And you should react normally in non-hostile situations; acting like you're partially autistic isn't going to get you anywhere. The idea is simply that the hotter it gets outside, the icier you become inside.

Dogsquat's new blog

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:46:00 +0000

On the taking of the Red Pill:

You sit there reading some dude’s blog, eyes picking over bullet points and flowcharts and PowerPoints. What the fuck is the matter with people who think like this? None of it sits right with you. In the comments, some douchebag with a low, sloping forehead tosses out a tip/brags to other douchebags. You’re skeptical. No woman is that dumb. Maybe he was at a supprt group for people who used to eat paint chips. Sigh. You scroll through some of his other comments Now you’re disgusted. That dude lacks a shred of decency. He’s got no respect for anyone. Pathological. You’re offended on behalf of women everywhere. Fuck this. Might as well get some sleep.

But some small part of you wonders…

You try out that douchebag’s bullshit one day, on a whim…and something happened! She didn’t drop to her knees and blow you, but you’ve never made a woman smile and bite her lip like that. Shock! The Earth shifts under your feet. Blurry mysteries snap into crisp focus. You hunt down that old post and scroll through the comments until you find the comment. You stare at the username. You imagine that person’s life. You feel slightly apologetic. You’re appreciative. That anonymous person has given you a great gift.

That’s it, the Event Horizon. Ground Zero. It’s never the same afterwords.

This promises to be a pretty good blog, as he's been one of the better commenters at Susan's place and other blogs. Now, I never took the Red Pill because, for the most part, I was the douchebag from whom my male friends and acquaintances gradually came to their awakenings, to the extent that they have done so. Of course, I had my own role models, most notoriously a pair of brothers who owned a night club and a bar downtown, and whose arrogance and total disrespect for the female sex really had to be seen to be believed. It was like beholding a major work of art seeing either of them in operation. Needless to say, they were more successful and more popular with women than anyone else in town, including the rock stars and the professional athletes. I saw the younger brother, in particular, effortlessly pick up women that neither Prince nor Mike Modano, both notorious womanizers in their own rights, could score.

Now, few who read this blog need to be convinced of the core truth of the matter, but that still leaves 99 percent of the men and 99.9 percent of the women in the dark. So, it will be a long time indeed until the Game blogs become unnecessary, especially because every spring, the high schools of America are graduating young men steeped in 12 years of female propaganda.

Alpha Mail: dealing with the other guy

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:52:00 +0000

DS asks about dealing with the competition:

I was trying to find an older post, but none of my search phrases netted what I was looking for. I was recently out with a girl and she mentioned "this guy she's dating," and none of the things were very positive. I remember a post that talked about how to handle situations like that, if I should talk bad about the guy or encourage a break up. I couldn't remember what the course of attack should be, so I tried to remain neutral. Any tips on where that post might be found, or maybe just a brief refresher?

No clue about the post, but my recommendation, assuming that her involvement with the other guy isn't a dealbreaker at this stage, is to simply ignore his existence and make it clear that you have zero interest in discussing him or anyone else interested in her. This is where Deltas and Gammas tend to make their mistake and either a) leap at the chance to sing, dance, and look like the Potentially Better Boyfriend, or b) leap into the Friend Zone by providing a shoulder upon which she can cry. If she brings the other guy up again after the first time, simply raise your eyebrows and say something like "I had no idea you were still hitting that... interesting."

That should produce some hurried denials or justifications, which will provide DS with good information concerning whether he should be bothering with her at all. It sounds to me as if she's been relegated to a horse in the other guy's stable or otherwise demoted, which is why she's simultaneously bad-mouthing him and continuing to see him. DS has to realize that he may be of lower rank than the other guy, which means he has to up her perception of his rank or she's going to prefer part-time other guy to full-time him.

If she tries to bring him up a third time, DS should simply cut contact with her. No warning, no explanation, no drama, and when she comes around looking for attention, he should tell her that he's got better options than wasting time on a flake hung up on someone else. Remember, women are attracted to male action. Cutting off contact with her may be the message she needs to drop the guy. And if not, at least he won't be wasting any more time on her.

Observations in the wild

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Sun, 06 May 2012 16:41:00 +0000

Spacebunny and I were out at dinner last night, a few tables over from one where four couples were sitting. They were just a little bit obnoxious; Spacebunny admonished me for raising my glass in a sardonic manner when one gentleman was toasting something so loudly that it seemed as if he expected everyone in the restaurant to be involved. The interesting thing was that the guy who was toasting was shorter and balder than his friends, slightly overweight, wearing glasses, and was probably the least attractive man at the table. He was also the most outgoing and extroverted by far, as when the table full of young women on a bachelorette party were raising their glasses to the bride-to-be, he rather loudly called out to them and then got his entire table to join them in saluting the young woman.

The four women at the table were a mixed bag, only one was even remotely attractive. She wasn't what I'd call pretty, but she was tall, slender, and stylish, and stood out from her three friends who were short and conventionally round hausfraus. We had no idea which woman was with which man, but needless to say, it didn't surprise me in the slightest when, as the four men were going outside for cigarettes, the loud, balding guy with glasses leaned over and kissed his wife, the tall woman, before joining his three friends.

The lesson? As Roissy has pointed out, women may not necessarily like men who are asses, but they are attracted to them. As is the case in many other aspects of life, who dares wins.

Stay away from the ex-girlfriend

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Wed, 02 May 2012 16:26:00 +0000

This is, granted, an extreme example. But it's an illustration of why it is always a terrible idea to remain in contact with one's ex-girlfriends and ex-wives when one isn't required to do so.

Anna Mackowiak, 34, is facing jail after taking her revenge on 45-year-old Marek Olszewski when he turned up at her surgery with toothache just days after breaking up with her. She gave him a heavy dose of anaesthetic and plucked his teeth out. She then wrapped his head and jaw in a bandage to stop him opening his mouth and said there had been complications and he would need to see a specialist.

The woman is clearly both a quasi-psychopath and a criminal, but the ex-boyfriend was a complete idiot to have gone to his ex-girlfriend when he needed a dentist. This is a classic Gamma move, failing to understand that men and women are different and assuming that a woman will behave like he himself would in a similar situation.

The alpha addendum

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:50:00 +0000

DP sends news of what is apparently an unspoken coda added to some women's marriage vows:

I recently married and should be bathed in newlywed bliss, but a rock star in a famous alternative band wants me to have an affair with him. I’m shocked and thrilled, to say the least. My conscience says, “Are you insane? You love your husband and chose him for a reason. Don’t jeopardize that!” But I’m also hearing “You only live once, and thousands of women wish they had this guy’s attention.”

This sums up female hypergamy in a nutshell. She's just gotten married, but simply because a man whom she only imagines thousands of women want has expressed sexual interest in her, she's genuinely considering attempting to trade up. The thing that is truly twisted about hypergamy is that she probably doesn't even have that much genuine interest in the rock star, she's more interested in being able to tell everyone that a rock star in a famous alternative band wants to have sex with her.

Of course, here is the ideal solution. She tells her husband the guy is sniffing around, they arrange for her to be alone with him for a few minutes, then she texts her husband, who comes in, "discovers" them, and kicks the guy's ass. She gets what she actually wants, the rock star gets what he deserves, and the husband scores some serious dominance points for beating down a sexual alpha. In reality, the husband should probably consider dumping her as soon as he finds out about this - and he probably will since it's clearly not the sort of thing about which she is likely to keep her mouth shut - since if she's this inclined to stray so soon after the wedding, it's only a matter of time before she does.

Dogs are easy

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:04:00 +0000

Wives rather less so. Or so it would seem, given Cesar Millan's divorce. JB sends in a guest post:

Men are dogs, women are cats: a $400k lesson for Cesar Millan

Mexican delta (with strong alpha energy, as South American men tend to exhibit in LTRs) marries hot young thing in the old country. Moves to America. Finds success, becomes a fame-powered alpha. However, deeply invests in a basically beta (in Vox's sense) philosophy of social interaction.

Wife gets long in tooth and claw, a combination of America's noxious feminist fumes, middle age, and the carte blanche of US divorce laws. Husband makes rational concessions, moderates alphaness, and eventually goes all the way - adopting a "calm submissive" attitude towards his wife, who becomes the dominant partner. Peace within the pack is restored.

Pysch. Women are cats, not dogs.

As soon as I saw the video of Cesar Millan interacting at home with his wife, explaining his philosophy of calm submission, and read her bug-eyed, tense, fake-happy body language, I knew. It was over. Maybe she would stay with him for the gravy ride, maybe she would dump him and take him for everything; but the vag was now drier than the Sahel. Poor Cesar.

Well, things have taken the course of least resistance, and now Cesar gets to pay $400k plus $23k monthly for his obtuseness.

Shoulda bought a cat.

Christianity 1, Pop Pseudo-science 0. Calm submission is for women, not men. Men want submitted wives. Women don't. They want leaders, whether they consciously realize it or not.

Alpha Mail: cultivating assertiveness

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:25:00 +0000

DD asks about how he can become more assertive:

How do you go about cultivating assertiveness with women? I attract a woman, date her a few times and at some point it always comes down to either I make some sort of move (kiss her etc) or it's done. I always feel like I need to ask permission to do so...you know how that ends. I DESPISE this and want to fix it... I just have no idea how.

Let me explain by means of an analogy here. You're in a similar position to the guy who asks how to do a flip off the diving board who is afraid to jump off it. The problem is that no amount of coaching in proper diving technique is going to conquer the fear. The only way to conquer the fear is to be brave, which means doing what frightens you in the full knowledge that you're afraid. Until you have jumped off the board so many times that you become accustomed to it, your fear will prevent you from being able to pull off the flip.

Assertiveness comes naturally to some men, but not to most. So, it's usually a learned behavior, which is good news because it means that you can learn it. The first thing to do is to recognize your fear. When you start to tighten up and your heart begins to beat faster, that's a sign that you've triggered your fear. That's good, that's what you want. That's the point at which you have to simply jump off the board, trusting that the water will be there and that it won't hurt too much.

The great thing is that regardless of how it turns out, good or bad, it's almost never going to be anywhere nearly as bad as you feared. The monster in our imagination is almost always bigger than the real thing. So, test yourself. Each time you start tightening up and the fear begins to swell, do exactly the opposite of what will relieve the pressure. Every time you do this and successfully fight through the fear and act, you will reduce the amount of fear that will appear the next time. It will never disappear entirely, but it will become manageable and easily overcome.

And on a more specific note, never ask permission of a woman who doesn't have a material claim on you. She hasn't merited that right nor can you legitimately lay that responsibility on her. With women, it is almost always more effective to ask forgiveness than permission. And most of the time, since men are supposed to be the pursuers, she's waiting for you to make your move anyhow.

Some women never learn

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:16:00 +0000

Keep this woman's story in mind if you're a delta or gamma considering a relationship with a woman who is finally ready to step off the carousel and settle down:

I'm childless at 42 and haunted by the baby I aborted at 18.... The best way to answer the question: ‘Should I have been a teen mother,’ is by asking myself how I would advise a young girl in a similar situation. If my beautiful, bright 17-year-old god-daughter, who longs to work for an economic think-tank, came to me, as I went to Helen all those years ago, and asked what she should do, I would advise her to have an abortion.

This also illustrates why so many women are completely unable to mentor other women. She's haunted by her murderous actions and her childlessness, so naturally, she would tell her god-daughter - and there is no way she "longs" to work at an economic think-tank - to do exactly the same thing that has caused her so much misery. As we see in the Game blogs, men try very hard to prevent young men from making the same mistakes they made in their youth. Women, on the other hand, often urge young women to repeat them as some sort of bizarre rite of passage.

This suggests that many of the women who are finally ready to settle down haven't actually learned anything, they just aren't able to stay in the game anymore.

The training of a Delta

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:39:00 +0000

Deti provides an accurate summary of the propaganda to which most of the men of my generation were subjected by every authority figure, male and female alike:

Here’s how I (and a lot of men coming of age in the 1980s) were told how to “find, attract and keep commitment-minded women” by pastors, parents, teachers, Scout leaders, and persons in authority over us (men and women):

“Be nice. Be yourself. If you cannot find or keep a commitment minded woman, it is because you are not being nice enough. If girls are breaking up with you or you can’t get past one date, you are not being nice enough. You have to be nicer.

“When you go on a date, it is your DUTY to pay for EVERYTHING. You are to do what she wants. You are to ask her what she wants and then do that. You are not to do anything that she does not want to do. You are to ask her for permission before doing anything.

“With sex — DON’T. Keep your d**k in your pants. If you want to kiss her, you must ask her first. If you want to hold her hand, you must ask first. You must never, never, NEVER escalate to anything physical unless you ask first. You are not to take anything sexually. You must ask for it.”

“Sex is a Beautiful Experience for a woman. You must never do anything to ruin it for her. You must make sure she orgasms and if she is not it is YOUR FAULT. Women do not like rough, vigorous sex. They like slow, romantic sex with candles and soft music. You must always have sex the way SHE wants to have it.

“Women are always looking for husbands. You are being evaluated all the time for your suitability as a husband. You must show that you are husband material. The way you do that is through immediate investment and commitment. You must go all in immediately on a woman you like.

“You must tell her everything about yourself — your likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, plans and desires. You must not hesitate to show your emotions, that you are in touch with and understand your emotions, and that you will come to her for emotional support when you need it. Women love that. You must reveal, be an open book so you have no secrets from her. In this way she will know that it is safe for her to show her emotions, and that you have shown the requisite level of commitment to her and her alone.

“Do all this, and the women will be beating down your door to date, marry and have sex with you. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.”

Now, I was fortunate in that authority held no credibility for me ever since my first day of kindergarten, when my teacher complimented me on my "triceratops" name tag. The problem was that it was an allosaurus, and while I could have forgiven her mistaking it for a tyrannosaurus rex, as it was, it was abundantly clear that there was no chance she had anything to teach me. I'm not saying the relentless propaganda didn't have its effect on me, but then, being nice was always somewhat of a struggle anyhow. So, for me, there wasn't so much any taking of the red pill, but rather, seeing my friends gradually come around to my terrible, awful, very bad perspective on intersexual relations.

The question is, will we do better by our sons?

Why credentials are unattractive

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:27:00 +0000

It's not the only reason, but even the most skeptical woman should be able to wrap her overeducated mind around the concept:

Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 in student loans to help finance her business-management degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a good investment will delay her career, her marriage and decision to have children. Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time. They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. "I'm just looking for some way to manage my finances."

In other words, the possession of education credentials is increasingly likely to come hand-in-hand with debt, older marriage, and a reduced likelihood of having children. Since men primarily value youth, beauty, and fertility in a mate, and because people seldom advertise the extent to which they are in debt, it shouldn't be too hard to understand why a woman waving around her degree(s) is not merely a turn-off, but a material strike against her. Of course, there is an easy solution for a woman with a degree to neutralize this red flag, and that is by always being careful to point out her lack of student loans whenever her education is discussed.

Young men are noticing

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:12:00 +0000

I've written before about how women tend to treat those to whom they are close much worse than they treat complete strangers. This, of course, is one reason why female friendships seldom tend to last as long as male friendships do. I've never quite understood myself why women will make the effort to get all dolled up for the office or a girl's night out, only to swap it all for a bare face and the usual sweatpants when they get home in order to ensconce themselves in front of the television more comfortably. Of course, it could be worse. At least she's not out running around in lingerie or a bikini, right?

So is it just attention-mongering? Female competition? Taking the sure thing for granted? It's clearly not "dirty ovulating whore syndrome" as some male pessimists would have it, not when they're getting back at a reasonable hour instead of coming home in the early hours smelling of some other man's aftershave.

I should mention that I got this image from Rollo's blog, but I'm taking it in a different direction than he did with his discussion of how enthusiastic marital sex appears to have recently become a porn niche.

What I'm interested is the way in which the combination of changes in the sexual marketplace and increased exposure to the risks and realities of marriage through the medium appear to be significantly changing young men's objective's concerning marriage. Consider this recent article from the New York Times:

In 1997, about 35 percent of young men and 29 percent of young women said that having a successful marriage was “one of the most important things” in their lives. Today, for some reason, the shares have reversed. These attitudinal changes have occurred alongside a delay in age of first marriage, which is now at a record high.

Fewer than a third of young men, 29 percent, now believe that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in life. I suspect this is because they see it as being akin to deciding that "riding a unicorn" is your primary objective in life; one is doomed to disappointment in pursuing the nonexistent. The fact that "66 percent of women 18 to 34 years old said that being successful in a high-paying career or profession was “one of the most important things” or “very important” in their lives" compared to 37 percent who now put a similar priority on marriage may also be a factor in the declining interest in marriage among young men. But it's particularly interesting to see that young women's belief in the desirability of a successful marriage has increased, and I wonder what could be behind that in light of how women are still the driving force in ending most marriages today.

Busted

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:52:00 +0000

Those of you who suspected the earlier post was a simple case of gender-flipping were absolutely correct. I wrote it to illustrate the point that women who lead with their credentials and academic accomplishments are the female equivalent of male douchebags who lead with their cars and material possessions. Below is the actual comment, which was made at Susan's place:

I am a 42 divorced female nerd (my ex went all EatPrayLove on me: am I the only woman that has experienced that? Mid-life crisis is poison). Not only I am a eminent scientist who’s been to the top universities in the world (Cambridge, MIT, Harvard) but I am above average attractive. I never dated until I went to college, in school nerdy boys would not approach me thinking they couldn’t get me, alpha men were intimidated by my intelligence, to top it all I was very shy, so I was in a catch-22 situation. Until I met my husband at 20. He was (is) of a complimentary intelligence to mine: arty, emotional, very talented painter… He knocked my socks off, we married, had two children and I was happy. Never looked anywhere else, until 2 years ago when he did the ‘I am not happy, love but not in love’ thing and went off with a hairdresser leaving me heart broken with two very young little girls to look after.

It has taken me this long to get up and start ‘looking’. I have found that it is like going back to school again. Men my generation are still intimidated by me (!). My male friends tell me to act dumb but even if I do, they look me up in LinkedIn, Google or PubMed and they stop calling. As I said I am quite attractive and this results in many orbiters but nothing sets.

The amusing thing about this, to the extent that divorce can be amusing, is that her husband ran off with a hairdresser and yet she still hasn't figured out that her intellect and her education are not attractive to men. It would appear that female solipsism trumps female intelligence, at least in this particular case.

Of course, it's also possible that it's just someone trolling HUS, given the grammatical errors and improperly used words.

The curse of cohabitation

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:37:00 +0000

Contra common assumptions, premarital cohabitation increases the subsequent chances of marital failure:

In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce.

But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

My thinking is that cohabitation presents an intrinsically false model for marriage because it represents the reverse of the structural power relationship within modern marriage. In a cohabitating relationship, the man usually holds the structural upper hand and the woman's behavior is relatively submissive because she knows he can end it at any time without any significant cost to himself.

Once the marriage takes place, the power balance shifts heavily towards the women thanks to the current divorce laws and her behavior tends to change significantly whether she realizes it or not. Even if she is a genuinely committed wife who is totally unwilling to abuse, or even take advantage of, her legally superior position, she is much less likely to be operating with a mindset of pleasing her husband in order to persuade him to continue the relationship because she no longer needs to be concerned about the possibility of the relationship being easily ended without substantial cost.

This is why couples who cohabitate successfully cannot reasonably assume that the comfortable living arrangements they have made will survive the structural shock to the relationship that takes place after marriage. In fact, the more comfortably the couple cohabitates pre-marriage, the more likely it is that they will have serious problems once the legal aspects of that relationship change with the wedding.

One can certainly make a reasonable case for cohabitation as a substitute for marriage, but the evidence suggests that it is unwise to consider cohabitation a precursor to it.

Hypergamouse 009

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:02:00 +0000

Consider the alternative

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:11:00 +0000

Here is the background information:

I am a 42 divorced man. (My ex-wife went all EatPrayLove on me.) Not only I am an eminent businessman who’s been an executive at the top corporations in the world (Apple, Facebook, Google) but I am above average attractive. I never dated until I went to college, in school girls I approached didn't think they were good enough for me, cheerleaders were intimidated by my athletic prowess, to top it all I was very shy, so I was in a catch-22 situation.

It has taken me this long to get up and start ‘looking’. I have found that it is like going back to school again. Women are still intimidated by me(!). As I said I am quite attractive and this results in many indicators of interest, but still no women will go out with me.

Now for the question. Is this writer's problem:

a) Women are intimidated by his success.
b) Women are intimidated by his good looks.
c) Women don't believe they are good enough for him.
d) Women think this guy is self-deluded and ridiculous.

The career neg

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:23:00 +0000

In light of the recent study explicating how careers are little more than fallback plans for women who fear they aren't attractive enough to marry a man of sufficient socio-sexual rank capable of supporting them, the obvious Game utility of the concept practically suggests itself:

The researchers carried out several experiments to come up with their startling argument. They first looked at the number of eligible men in an area, which they called the 'operational sex ratio'. After collecting data from across the U.S., they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose. In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children....

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

In fact, there are several practical uses to which this information can be put.

1. Working woman neg. The fact that she's a self-identified career girl tells you that she's probably got appearance anxieties that can be profitably played upon. Example: "Wow, you're really quite attractive for a lawyer." (Seriously, your television lies to you. I went to a law school party once at which every woman in the class was there. There was not one single woman I would describe as even remotely attractive there. My investment banking friend and I couldn't believe how uniformly ugly the women were.)

2. Counteracting social pressure on high school and college-age girls. Example: "You're attractive enough to find a husband and have a family, but if you don't think so, college/grad school is probably a great fallback plan."

3. Convincing your wife to stay home rather than seek outside employment. Example: "I suppose I probably am the hotter half. I'll stay home and take care of the kids while you go out and make the money."

Alpha Mail: potential isn't reality

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:23:00 +0000

RA is having trouble understanding how hierarchies work:

How do you determine those values? That is what makes it far from simple. The number of people you lead doesn't determine how many you could lead. I don't lead anyone now, but I often become a source for information where I am and tend to take charge of things (normally successfully) when work and such is getting done.

I don't want a people management role though, so what exactly am I? I can lead but feel no pull to lead. I just know I will tend to do so, all things being equal. My sex partner count is low, since I intentionally only focused on my wife. How are you going to judge that for someone who is not seeking another notch on his belt, now or in the past?

This isn't that hard. If you don't lead anyone now, if there is not a pattern of people looking to you for leadership throughout the course of your life, you are not a leader and you are not socially dominant. Dominance is actual, it is not potential. It comes out whether one wants it to or not, in everything from sex to sports.

Look at great athletes like Lebron James, KG, Chris Webber, and Karl Malone. None of them were athletically dominant players despite being incredible athletes and great players. Not only did they not demand the ball when the game was on the line, they actively avoided it. When crunch time came, unlike Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Kobe, they disappeared. And dominance isn't even about consciously demanding the ball; I once had a soccer coach complain that my style of striker play was too dominant for his liking because I tended to make slashing runs through the defense in such a manner that the obvious play for the midfielder was to pass me the ball for a high-percentage shot. This was anathema to his Barca-like philosophy of holding onto the ball for 10 minutes, then perhaps considering the possibility of taking a shot if the opportunity was deemed to be sufficiently beautiful. He correctly described me as a dominant player, not because I was the best striker, (I was not), but because the way I played forced my teammates to play my way.

Getting things done isn't leadership. Competence isn't leadership. In fact, if you're the take-charge, competent guy who gets things done, you're almost surely a delta; that behavior could be described as one of the primary delta markers.

If your partner count is low, then you are not sexually dominant. Period. By definition. It is totally irrelevant that you think you could have been someone, you could have been a contender, you could have had all those babes who crossed your path in the past. Sexual hierarchy has nothing to do with morality; maximized sexual rank is one of the things men naturally sacrifice when they make a commitment to a woman before God. And all the talk of "opportunities" is just that; any man of sufficient experience will know perfectly well the multitude of ways that seemingly sure things go awry. She starts crying for no reason, her boyfriend comes home, you pass out, the police pull you over when you're following her to her place, she gets into a car accident when driving to your place, her ugly sister shows up with her... there are a thousand and one things that can interrupt the process between that initial indicator of interest and the deal closing.

While it's to RA's credit that he's "not seeking another notch on his belt", the way you judge it is quite simple. If it doesn't exist, it isn't counted. Now, there is more to life than being socially dominant. There are more important things in life than being sexually dominant. But one's potential for dominance should never be confused for one's actual socio-sexual rank; recall that the entire point of Game is to allow men to improve their rank and obviously they could not do so if they did not possess some inherent potential for improvement. Not everyone has Alpha potential, but far more men have Alpha potential than ever reach Alpha rank in the hierarchy.

RA asks "what am I?" Given what he says about his introversion, his work competence, and his tendency towards overanalysis, I would guess that he's most likely a high gamma. IT and other technical people are usually gammas and seldom rise above delta.

Delta is not failure

noreply@blogger.com (Vox) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:21:00 +0000

I suppose it's inevitable, but one of the things that I find irritating is the way that men who learn about Game in general, and the socio-sexual hierarchy in particular, immediately going about attempting to rationalize a way that they can assign the highest perceived value to themselves. First everyone's an alpha. Then everyone's a sigma. I have no doubt if some new Game blogger concocted a brilliant new system in which Oompa Loompa was the top category, we'd be seeing all sorts of men fall all over themselves to describe themselves as Oompa Loompas.

Now, this doesn't bother me because I'm determined to put myself forward as a special snowflake and nobody else gets to be a sigma. Sigma, as I've pointed out before, is a less dominant and lower form of ALPHA. So, I'm doing precisely the opposite of what the Oompa Loompas are doing. The reason it bothers me is because it is self-sabotaging behavior every bit as counterproductive as going out and asking your girlfriend's mother how you should treat your girlfriend.

If you're in the position of S, an introvert who hates social interactions and wants to know how to approach women, thinking yourself a sigma is arguably the very worst thing you can do because it allows you to pretend that your failed strategy is the correct one. The sigma can afford to stay in and blow off the world because the hot girl will show up at his door, unannounced and uninvited. You can't and therefore because that's not your socio-sexual rank, you need to comport yourself differently and adopt different tactics.

Men who are socially or sexually dominant, (or better yet, both), can regularly get away with things that deltas can't ever imagine doing. For example, when one of my best friends made junior partner at his law firm, the firm threw him a cocktail party to celebrate. My band was playing downtown later that night and I didn't want to cart around a change of clothes, so I showed up in the ripped jeans and t-shirt I was planning on wearing on stage. In addition to being the only man there not in a suit and tie, I was sporting the only mohawk. My friend introduced me to everyone, most of whom were perfectly pleasant, but when the attractive secretary half-rolled her eyes at my appearance, I took the opportunity to tell her, as we were shaking hands, that I wasn't wearing any underwear.

I said it loud enough for everyone in the vicinity to hear it too. Everyone except her howled with laughter, including my friend's father, who was a top executive at one of Minnesota's Fortune 500 companies. Those who understand game won't be surprised to hear that the next time I showed up at the law firm a few weeks later, still very much underdressed, she was as deferential as if I was a corporate executive wearing an expensive Italian suit. She got the message from their reaction: the normal rules don't apply to this guy.

Does this mean you should start going commando, dressing inappropriately, and ignoring the rules of social etiquette? Not at all. What worked well at one particular time for one specific individual in a certain group of people probably won't work if any of those variables are different. What it means is that you have to know yourself and know how you are comfortable behaving before you can start to stretch yourself and expand your behavioral patterns.

Game is very effective. But you can't expect to use it and successfully imitate the behavioral patterns of higher ranking men if you place most of your effort into rationally justify your existing ones. Delta is not failure. Even omega is not failure. They are starting points.