Zeets just texted me:
“Of all the women you’ve been with, have any gone on to have kids? Is there a pattern here?”
Thinking back, I don’t know one ex who went on to have kids. Now I haven’t followed the life trajectories of many of them, so I can’t be sure some haven’t popped out sprogs, but I do know that I’ve never once heard or been informed that a woman I’ve been with later had kids. A couple of women already had kids when I met them (weekend flings), but I’m pretty sure my despoliation of them convinced them not to have any further kids.
Patterns, I see them. Questions arise. Is the incorrigible player psychologically drawn to women with low maternal instincts? Does the womanizer target the barren of womb? Or do INDEPENDENT, MAKE MY OWN WAY women who would like to put off kids until after their second fine arts master’s degree in their late 30s naturally gravitate to cads? Or is it just an east coast urban “in heat” island effect?
Much is made of the dueling sexual strategies employed by men — the cad or dad conundrum — and how the ratio fluctuates depending on the larger cultural context, but what is sometimes overlooked is how the choices of women affect men’s mating strategies. A stong biofeedback loop exists in social environs that feature a lot of anti-kid, low maternal instinct women for men who bring status to the table (fame, looks, game) at the expense of resource provisioning ability. In short, the classic provider beta is being locked out of the competition in our bluest blue states and urban pleasure plazas.
My advice to beta males who can’t or won’t learn game is to head for the red states and rural areas. If you’re irreligious, learn to love the lord and sing a few hosannahs in church for the bounty of cornfed pussy that’s about to come your way. Merry Pussmas!
Posted in Culture, The Pleasure Principle | 87 Comments »
Way back in November I posed the following scenario. What do you do when your girl keeps mentioning the name of another man she’s known since high school and for whom you suspect she nurses some latent sexual attraction?
363 comments suggests this sort of scenario is not that uncommon. Most readers’ responses would fall under the category of “overreaction”. Reacting out of proportion to a woman’s infraction is the quickest way to discredit your alpha cred. A few got it right. Here is a random sampling:
MeMyselfI wrote:
Ignore most of what she’s saying about the other guy. Tuck it away for future use, but don’t worry about it.
Hit on the waitress (assuming she’s reasonably good looking – better if she’s hot) in front of her during that dinner.
Take her home after dinner – no sex that night. Early if possible. Go to another party/event. Maybe text her from that event, if possible. See if she asks what your are doing.
Wait and see how she responds to the above…
In every “Test of your Game” post, I always include a few critical clues to the correct response. In this scenario, I specifically wrote that you had been dating this hypothetical girl for a few months. Now think about it — is it normal behavior for a man who’s been dating a girl for months to blatantly flirt with the waitress over dinner, drop his girl off at home with no sex so he can go to another party without her, and then text her from that party later in the night… all because she mentioned another dude’s name a few too many times during dinner? You don’t think the girl will ask you why you’re dropping her off and refusing to take her to another party? This is classic overreaction. Now this kind of asshole game will work on a girl you’ve just started dating who is playing hard to get with you, but not with a girlfriend.
Grade: D (Barely passing, because your heart is in the right place)
jom wrote:
Say something along the lines of, “Sometimes you have to let people make the stupid mistakes they are determined to make.” You frame him as a fool who needs to learn in order to reach your level.
Generally speaking, subtle psychological ploys like this one trump spazzy overreaction. In the post, I wrote that the girl was “fake complaining” about something the other man did. You know how girls fake complain about men they find sexually alluring? It gives them a reason to keep his name front and center in her mind. Jom’s psychological acrobatics can be an effective counter tactic, although it is not the best option available because his reframe continues with the theme of keeping the other man’s presence alive in the conversation.
Grade: B-
Dan wrote:
Kill her.
Well, at least it’s not beta.
Grade: F+
Thras wrote:
Wait for the next time that she doesn’t account for her movements, accuse her of seeing him. Storm out. Then get into a fight with the guy at the next available opportunity.
I’m pretty sure this reply was meant as a joke.
Grade if joke: B+
Grade if not joke: F
The Book of Dooderonomy wrote:
I’d defend the guy’s actions, so long as they were short of murder.
Her: I can’t believe John did *so and so objectionable action*.
Me: Ha, really? Well, from a guys perspective, it seems he did the right thing. Had I been put in that situation, I’d definitely have done something similar.And I’d keep defending it, but defend it intelligently, yet with a hint of me just doing it to get under her skin. Also, I would note to her that he seems like a “really cool guy” and some of his other good qualities, but do it backhandedly.
This is psyche-out 101, similar to Jom’s reply, except better because it doesn’t risk making you sound resentful as you would if you were to criticize your competition, however adroitly you massage your criticisms. Backhanded compliments of intruder males, like negs to target women, is a sly — some would say slimy — ploy to keep the upper hand. It is usually effective.
Grade: A
Skryblah wrote:
Easy, just smile to yourself when she brings him up, each and every time, and each time she asks why you are smiling, just say that you remembered something funny…be sure to make it look legit, and then sit back as her brain goes hyper confused, she can connect the dots to figure out that you smile every time she mentions him but she will go crazy trying to figure out why on earth you are smiling, basically successfully shifting her focus from the other guy to why the fuck you are smiling. Never underestimate the crazy things women think of when trying to rationalize their guys actions that seem irrational.
I include responses like this one under the category of “What I pretend not to notice won’t affect me”. A generally safe bet as a strategy, but sometimes it *will* affect you. Then what? Nevertheless, if you can’t find an effective way to respond, a good default mode is the shit eating grin followed up by the utterly random conversational thread breaker.
Grade: B+
anony (a woman) wrote:
address it directly, with respectful teasing, that she has a crush on him. the particular words don’t matter.
Teasing a girlfriend about having a crush on another man works well if the other man in question is some faraway totally unobtainable dude like a Hollywood celebrity. Or if the other guy is obviously lower in status than you. But it’s a risky tactic if the other man is someone she’s known for years and could represent serious competition to you.
Grade: C
ASDF wrote:
My first reaction (if I could no longer ignore it) would be to call her out a bit. Saying something like “I’m not interested in talking about your buddy. That’s what your girlfriends are for. I don’t care about his problems.”
The “calling her out” strategy was very popular among the commenters. I say it risks sounding like overreaction. Sometimes a woman’s shit test is so bold it deserves a strong, alpha male “calling out” response, possibly appended with an ultimatum. This was not one of those times.
Grade: C-
The G Manifesto wrote:
You lost me here:
“You’ve been dating a girl for a few months. ”
But to play along, I like MeMyselfI’s moves.
I would get the waitress or girl bartenders number when the girl goes to the bathroom.
Then get a blower in the Lac before dropping her off.
Then roll to the Gentleman’s Club to swoop more girls.
All done suited down of course.
I was about to fail this entry, but then I noticed he would do all this suited down. I revised my grading.
Grade: A+
hcl wrote:
Hmmm, were this a real life scenario I’d believe she fails to meet his high, non-player (stoic = not a player) standards.
If he didn’t bang her then (and they obviously haven’t), he simply isn’t sufficiently interested. She’s an orbiter of his.
The likelihood they’ll ever bang is low, but non-zero.
hcl has done a good job of correctly assessing the dynamics of the shadow relationship. She’s known this other guy for years and yet, according to her, they’ve never dated or (presumably) hooked up? She’s an orbiter of him, not the other way around. Does this fact mean it is more or less dangerous for you? Tough to say. Assuming his interest in her is low and her interest in him is high, all it would take is a small move on his part, if he were so inclined, to tempt her into a tryst. But it’s also important to remind yourself that she’s fucking you, not the other guy. That is the fact that matters most above all other facts.
Grade: A for proper assessment
John wrote:
“Call him up…we can both bang you at the same time. I call mouth.”
If you are dating a superfreaky girl, this might just work. But then you’d have to watch another guy banging her from behind while you’re up front. Would you high five him during the Chinese finger cuffs?
Grade: E for effort
***
What I did:
While she was taking about the dude, I reached over and grabbed a piece of lint off her shoulder. Neg, abrupt conversation thread break, and protector of loved ones, all in one simple gesture.
Nonetheless, because of her not-so-infrequent mentions of his name, she was put on mental notice, and bumped down to tier 2 on the Roissy Fidelity Guarantee Purchase Policy. This means I kept my eye open for other prospects and put up token resistance when tempted.
Posted in Game, Relationships | 64 Comments »
Sitting in Tryst, watching the snow fall and eating a delicious smoked salmon sandwich, I couldn’t help but notice the glow of horniness on girls’ faces. I muse. Does a heavy blanket of snow trigger the provider beta attraction switch in women? After all, in prehistoric times in the northern lands a good snowfall meant wet, cold, and poor foraging prospects (food buried under snow). A technologically proficient and future time oriented beta would have planned for big snow events so that when they arrived he would be the go-to guy with the warm shelter and stored smoked meats. The sexy stud would have been building snow forts until his feet got too cold and he trundled home to the cave to an empty fridge. (My fridge is empty and I’m down to half a roll of TP. You ladies and your messy nether regions are paper hogs. Gaia is displeased.) I wonder if extreme weather inspires women’s lust for resource providing men?
Getting lots of looks as chicks walk by and I wink at them through the window. It must be the confidence I display in the face of uber inclement weather. Or my rugged pea coat.
A girl has tied her labrador up to a post. She sits behind me. The dog is rambunctious and pees on a Lexus SUV parked in front. I turn around and tell her her dog just peed on a Lexus, and that she has it trained well. She laughs. Love? Of course.
Guys, if you live in the snow path go out now and ask passing women if this is good quality snow for snowball making. Tell them you want to make snowballs “that only hurt a little.” That should get the ball rolling.
Posted in Girls, The DC Life | 57 Comments »
As I’ve been saying all along, female beauty is objectively measurable and not a function of the beholder’s eye.
The distance between a woman’s eyes and the distance between her eyes and her mouth are key factors in determining how attractive she is to others, according to new psychology research from the University of California, San Diego and the University of Toronto. [...]
They discovered two “golden ratios,” one for length and one for width. Female faces were judged more attractive when the vertical distance between their eyes and the mouth was approximately 36 percent of the face’s length, and the horizontal distance between their eyes was approximately 46 percent of the face’s width.
“We already know that different facial features make a female face attractive – large eyes, for example, or full lips,” said Lee, a professor at University of Toronto and the director of the Institute of Child Study at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. “Our study conclusively proves that the structure of faces – the relation between our face contour and the eyes, mouth and nose – also contributes to our perception of facial attractiveness.”
Just think how many wars, inventions, poems, novels, symphonies were created because some woman’s facial bone structure developed a few millimeters in a pleasing direction.
***
Ogling voluptuous women will help a man stay healthy.
A rather bizarre study carried out by German researchers suggests that staring at women’s breasts is good for men’s health and increases their life expectancy.
According to Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist and author of the study, gawking at women’s breasts is a healthy practice, almost at par with an intense exercise regime, that prolongs the lifespan of a man by five years.
She added, “Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out.”
I like looking, but fondling is my preferred method of interaction. This probably explains why titty bars have never held my interest for very long. I’ve got to have and to hold the goods.
If 10 minutes of staring at big round tits is equivalent to a 30 minute jog, what does one hour of titty fucking equal? A triathlon?
In addition, she also recommended that men over 40 should gaze at larger breasts daily for 10 minutes.
If you’re an alpha, you are free to gaze for 30 minutes, directly at the boobs and without blinking. Omegas must avert their eyes immediately, and their brief glance must be sidelong and then quickly evaporate under a burn of shame.
***
It’s funny when tired, hoary platitudes crumble. Guess what? You CAN judge a book by its cover.
Observers were able to accurately judge some aspects of a stranger’s personality from looking at photographs, according to a study in the current issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSBP), the official monthly journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Self-esteem, ratings of extraversion and religiosity were correctly judged from physical appearance.
Researchers asked participants to assess the personalities of strangers based first on a photograph posed to the researchers’ specifications and then on a photograph posed the way the subject chose. Those judgments were then compared with how the person and acquaintances rated that individual’s personality. They found that while both poses provided participants with accurate cues about personality, the spontaneous pose showed more insight, including about the subject’s agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, likability, and loneliness.
The study suggested that physical appearance alone can send signals about their true personality.
“As we predicted, physical appearance serves as a channel through which personality is manifested,” write authors Laura P. Naumann, University of California, Berkeley, Simine Vazire, Washington University in St. Louis, Peter J. Rentfrow, University of Cambridge, Samuel D. Gosling,University of Texas at Austin. “By using full-body photographs and examining a broad range of traits, we identified domains of accuracy that have been overlooked, leading to the conclusion that physical appearance may play a more important role in personality judgment than previously thought.”
Living in the city has honed my threat detection system. I can, with a split second scan of a stranger’s face, tell you with better than random accuracy the character of that person. This has aided me when walking back from lovers’ apartments at 2 AM through vibrant neighborhoods.
I don’t think I need to tell you the significance of this study with regards to alpha body language and game.
***
Why 99.9% of history’s accomplishments have been achieved by men:
Researchers using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study brain activation have found that men and women respond differently to positive and negative stimuli, according to a study presented today at the annual meeting of theRadiological Society of North America (RSNA).
“Men may direct more attention to sensory aspects of emotional stimuli and tend to process them in terms of implications for required action, whereas women direct more attention to the feelings engendered by emotional stimuli,” said Andrzej Urbanik, M.D., Ph.D., chair of Radiology at Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow, Poland.
Like a little fifteen year old girl, defending her feelings inside.
How does that old saying go? Men win the argument to win the group. Women win the group to win the argument. Which preference is more likely to lead one away from the truth? I’ve said it before: Suffrage is the poison pill that eventually destroys the body politic of a nation.
PS: There were two obscure pop culture references in this post. Can you find them?
Posted in Biomechanics is God, Vanity | 95 Comments »
Zeets called with a dating quandary.
Zeets: I think this girl I’m dating is a virgin.
Me: Isn’t she 27? I doubt a 27 year old living in DC is a virgin. You may as well tell me you found a real Ewok prancing in Rock Creek Park.
Zeets: No, I’m almost 100% positive she’s never had sex. First, she’s from [southeast European country]. She has that Old World culture still in her. And then there’s the way she reacts when I go to kiss her. She tenses up and kind of brushes my cheek with her retracted lips. She acts like a shy 14 year old who hasn’t been kissed!
Me: Are you sure she’s into you?
Zeets: Yes, that’s definitely not it. She has a great time with me, always laughing and smiling. And at the end of the date she asked when she could see me again. If she was truly uninterested she wouldn’t do any of that. No, this girl just has some issues with sex. I can’t believe it. Frustrating. So cute, too.
Me: These are the ballbreakers. The girls you really find attractive who won’t put out. At least with the marginal looking chicks who play hard to get, you can easily cut your losses after the first date. But the hot ones make you linger, hoping against hope she’ll eventually burst like a dam. I’m not sure what I would do.
Zeets: Even a grandmaster pig like yourself is stumped by this problem!
Me: Yeah, but imagine the feeling of accomplishment if you stick it out and succeed. There’s nothing quite like the look of shock on a virgin’s face when you first shove it in. Feliz Navidad!
***
This conversation got me wondering if there is an optimal method for dealing with older virgins and quasi-virgins (those girls who have had sex before in the distant past but remain seriously repressed about the enterprise). I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to handle virgins is reverse psychology. The older virgin has decades of fantasies and expectations built up in her head regarding sex, so she will feel inevitable disappointment if the reality of her feelings while you are making a move on her stray even the tiniest bit from the feelings she’s nourished in her daydreaming. The way around this conundrum is to shake up her expectations so violently she is left completely at the mercy of her tingle.
Not that I’ve banged a huge number of older virgins in my life, but I can surmise they share a few important personality traits and life histories.
- Older virgins (or quasi-virgins) will be more feminine than the average woman. Generally, the more feminine a woman the better she will be at curbing her animal urges. (See: Alias Clio.) This is why lawyer chicks jump into the sack at the drop of a (alpha) hat.
- There are good odds the older virgin was molested in some creepy way by a man in her life who was close to her. Maybe her dad sneaked up behind her and licked her earlobe and cackled. Yes, this happened to a Russian girl I used to date.
- The older virgin likely has some deep seated issues with her sexuality. Perhaps she’s ashamed of the shape of her labia, or has control issues and the thought of an orgasm fills her with fear. Or, just as likely, she has only been with men who were horrible at sex, and thus has a poor preconception of how sex should feel.
- Some man done did her wrong. The quasi-virgin is especially likely to have been the recipient of an emotionally cataclysmic dumping sometime in her past, and has yet to get over it.
Given all the above, the older virgin will be very wary of any man she dates, no matter how much she is viscerally attracted to him. So how to bust through her wonderwall? Your challenges are great, my son, but the reward is exquisite. Successfully nail — and bring to orgasm — a virgin and you will have recruited a love slave for life.
One other important thing to keep in mind: Regular game won’t work as well on the older virgin. This is because the rationalization instinct that so many normal women possess, and which is called upon to justify sex with men who arouse them with tight game, is either atrophied from disuse or missing entirely in the older virgin. The older virgin won’t be able to as seamlessly rationalize her way into bed with you. You, as a man, will find this incredibly frustrating. Women’s rationalization instinct has been the fulcrum upon which all great seducers have leveraged their talents.
So, with virgins you experience a mixed bag of emotions.
Downside: Blue balls.
Upside: Loyal girlfriend.
If you think ten dates in a row without sex, and the possibility that a ten date investment might never result in sex, is worth enduring for the prize of a loyal girlfriend, then you need a specialized virgin-be-vanished strategy. This strategy is powerful in its simplicity: You play the role of the woman. Role reversal when the threat of sex enters the picture will cross her wires and short circuit her expectations. An example would be when you go in for the kiss and she purses her lips tightly for a dry pucker, you pull back first and say, without sarcasm, “MmmMmm, this is hot. We’d better not go any further, I want it to be different this time.” The idea here is to draw a contrast between your words and your actions. (Contrast is king!) You are verbally expressing pleasure but nonverbally pulling back as if you were the virgin with doubts.
But don’t get carried away with the role reversing. At some point you will need to man up and gradually escalate to bolder moves. The risk of role reversal game is that the virgin will slowly lose respect for you, as her hindbrain begs for you to take action while her forebrain begins associating the negative feelings of delayed sex with your company.
If played properly, role reversal game will break a virgin’s willpower, and the dam will gush forth at the most unexpected of times. Timing and feedback is everything. Don’t expect a shortcut to sex with the older virgin. You will need to put in more time with her than you would with a sexually liberated woman. The great risk is that each new sexless date erodes the fascination she feels for you, and the chance that her initial attraction surrenders to the dictates of her repressed vagina.
Role reversal, escalate, pull back, escalate some more, pull back a little less. Repeat ad phalluseum. This is the virgin-killer template.
Posted in Closing the Deal, Dating, Game, Girls | 116 Comments »
We’re getting near the end of the year when the final beta — the One Beta to rule them all — is voted upon for inclusion into the pussywhipped Hall of Infamy. Last month’s winner, sent in by reader waysa, was the Croatian tennis “pro” (loosely defined) who begged and pleaded not just for sex, but for marriage!, from a has-been single mom cougar. Let’s hope for the Croat’s sake he was angling for the future divorce payday from his wealthy older lady lover.
November 2009 BOTM Candidate #1 was submitted by Mike (“Anonymous” technically got there first, but any submission signed anonymously is excluded from receiving props). A picture tells a thousand words:
The great thing about this picture is that no matter what the reason for this unfortunate man’s prostration, his action sullies him with the mark of the beta. And a really nauseating beta at that. If he lost a bet, he is a beta for playing poor odds that would result in him paying up in such a pathetic manner. If it’s a fetish, then this is proof that some fetishes are the domain of losers. If you must have a fetish, make it something alpha like collaring your woman. Beta fetishes: peeping tom/voyeurism, flashing, bang my wife, wearing women’s skin as suit and tucking junk between legs. Alpha fetishes: BDSM, amateur porn filmmaking, public sex, ceiling mirrors, saying “giggity” when you successfully close the deal.
If he’s doing it as penance for some horrible relationship transgression, he wins alpha points for the transgression but immediately gives them back and then some for agreeing to this form of punishment. If he’s doing it as a clownish joke to get on the internet, well… there are some self-deprecating jokes that you should never do. Good rule of thumb: If the Jackass guys won’t do it, neither should you.
If this photo portrays exactly what is happening — a sackless boyfriend dropping to hands and knees so his tired girlfriend can sit on him and humiliate him in public — then the beta on display here is so strong it defies explanation.
******
November 2009 BOTM Candidate #2 was submitted by Ross W. Have you ever wondered what happens when an inborn beta becomes a little too aggressively creepy in his pursuit of a taken woman? Well now, thanks to Lamebook, you can read a stellar example of just such a specimen.
I’m not going to categorize all the ways this guy Andrew misunderstands the nature of women. Suffice to say, he fails the Jumbotron test. Spectacularly.
By the way, Carla’s reply was better than Lee’s. Brevity is the soul of spit.
******
November 2009 BOTM Candidate #3 was submitted by Patrick. It’s a radio broadcast of a “War of the Roses” prank that features a cuckolded man literally begging his cheating live-in girlfriend to stay with him. Listen to the whole thing but pay particular attention starting at -02:50.
I honestly had a hard time making it through to the end, it was that bad. If I had to distill the beta essence in a few words, it would be “What can I do to make you love me?” Which is what this pathetic cur says. Over and over. Even after being told his mewling is not helping his cause.
The problem with betas is that they believe in the promise of hope instead of the disenchantment of reality. Listen to this guy closely. He finds all this evidence that his GF is cheating — the birth control, the new lingerie, the Facebook emails — and yet he continues nurturing hope that she isn’t doing what he knows deep inside she’s doing, and that she still has the capacity to love him. Hope is the great alpha killer, the destroyer of masculinity, the betrayer of dignity. It serves one purpose only — to trick you away from the path of righteous self interest. Weak people cling to hope. But hope is a faint siren song; as soon as you taste some success you will forget all about hope and wallow in the delights of reality.
Besides serving as cruel amusement for the coliseum, there is another very good reason for publicly shaming these wretched betas: their needy behavior feeds the treachery of women, which in turn poisons the well for every other man making his way in the mating market. By refusing to confront his bitch whore girlfriend in the only way that would earn any respect from her (and respect from women is measured in the oscillation of their tingle wavelength), the man in this radio clip unwittingly contributes to the romantic feelings between his girlfriend and her lover. Freed from the threat of his anger or his ultimatums or even his awareness, she is able to nourish her illicit love affiair with the thrill of secrecy and dangerous rendezvous. As we all know about women, a little mystery and taboo goes a long way to infusing a man with allure. You want your unfaithful girlfriend to really get the most out of her affair? Simple. Just play the fool and let her sneak around like a tramp in the night, her lover’s embrace made all the more compelling by the transgressive narrative. But confront her and leave her, and suddenly her lover is not so intriguing anymore.
There’s a reason women despise men like this guy Conor from the radio clip. When a woman cheats on you she does not want to hear that you still love her. All that tells her is that you have low standards and an even lower expectation that you could do better. It also confirms her suspicion that you love her for no other reason than the sex that she provides. Of course, alpha males also love for those shallow reasons, but they are smart enough to know that love can’t be requested. It must be earned.
******
The voting:
Posted in Beta Of The Year Contest | 263 Comments »
Roissy Maxim #98: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.
Corollary to Maxim #98: Singleness is no guarantee of full sexual market participation.
Expert level commenter Whiskey left a comment about the Tiger Woods affair on a blog I read (at the moment I can’t recall the blog) in which he stated plainly that each woman with whom Woods had a tryst was one less woman available on the dating market to other men. His point was that twelve (in reality, triple that number) Tiger mistresses (or whores, or skanks, or courtesans, whatever you want to call them the concept is clear) means twelve beta men go without a woman at all. Some of the commenters took Whiskey to task, noting, perhaps not illogically, that a woman living as the sex toy of a billionaire golfer is not necessarily off the market. There are six other days in the week, after all. The typical fuckhole might see Woods once a month, which leaves her plenty of time to date other men.
Comforting thoughts, but I’ll throw my experiences with and observations of these kinds of women in the ring and lend support to Whiskey’s point of view. On a ledger sheet, sure, these provisional paramours have lots of downtime to date other men. But a woman’s emotional contours are hardly amenable to the ledger. Unlike men, most women are averse to boffing multiple concurrent partners. It is simply not in the nature of women to be psychologically equipped to handle with grace and steadiness the crass rutting with Cock A one day and Cock B the very next day. Women don’t operate like that. They see a cock they like, they want to be with that cock, and if they succeed all other cocks recede to invisibility, at least until either their preferred cock leaves for good or they grow weary of that cock.
What I am describing is not a slut apologia. The infamous cock carousel that spins like a possessed Stephen King-ian carnival ride in our major urban centers is open for business. But it’s a turgid carousel of consecutive rides, one women normally jump off of before clambering back on to sit on a new, fresh horsey. They aren’t attempting to straddle all the horsies at once.
Now some women of the craving simultaneous schlong variety do exist. But they are extremely rare. Aside from prostitutes (who medicate their perforating souls with the salve of money, drugs, and complete submission to the pimp), only the foulest sluts and most rapacious sociopaths are constitutionally capable of concurrent cock hopping for pleasure and personal gain. Some of these stone cold sluts were likely positioning themselves in Tiger’s target acquisition periphery, and he clumsily obliged like the stiffly off-putting former beta droid he is. But it is also likely that some of his mistresses genuinely fell for the tingly feelings his power and fame gave them, and they forsook all other men to focus solely on Tiger, even if it meant seeing him just once a month.
So Whiskey’s observation has merit. If a man is alpha and unburdened by moral considerations, he will have mistresses and flings and hotel bar hookups. And in turn, those mistresses and flings will drift off the dating market, de facto if not maritally de jure. When an alpha captures a woman’s heart, even if for only a few times a year, her yearning focuses like a laser beam onto him to the exclusion of more available betas in her midst. She will be happier daydreaming of her unavailable lover than talking in real life with second rate suitors.
Roissy Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.
The Tiger Woods bimbo eruption has clarified the seedy underbelly of the sexual market within which we all operate, no matter how many Hallmark platitudes we recite to the contrary to assuage our pestering fears. People get wrapped up in the salacious gossip and revel in the downfall of a celebrity, but behind the jokes and snark of the gawking masses percolates a silent unease. Women spare fleeting thoughts that the men who love them might trade up to a younger hotter model if offers suddenly emerged. Men hide a slow moving but deep river of envy for any alpha male who makes the news by monopolizing enough women to sexually nourish the IT department of a large corporation.
Yes, in 2009 America, there are men who rule over harems. And there are many more men who are eunuchized by this dirty little reality.
Some of the quotes from Tiger’s flings are a case study in female rationalization.
Jamie Jungers (fling #??):
Jamie, 26, who bears a striking resemblance to Elin, recalled: “Tiger and I went back to the room and just started making out.
“It just went from one thing to the next. We ended up having crazy sex for two hours. I remember him picking me up and putting me against the wall. And that’s when it turned into wild sex. It was really good.
“Later I said to him, ‘I don’t know a whole lot about your marriage situation. I know it is very fresh. I know you just got married. I mean, is it going OK?’ He said, ‘Yes, it’s fine, she’s in Sweden with her family’.”
She’s banging a dude who just got married and she asks if his marriage is going OK. No one is that stupid. She asked because by asking she absolves herself of any guilt or accountability for what she is doing. This is how women think. They are submissive, empty vessels to their core.
Jaimee Grubbs (fling #???):
TIGER Woods was rated as “horrible in bed” by one of his lovers, it was revealed yesterday.
The damning verdict came from cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs, who says she had a 31-month fling with the married golf superstar.
One would think 31 months is a long time to fuck a man who is “horrible in bed”, but alphas get a lot of leeway. Or she’s just pissed she was turned in for a flashier upgrade.
The 24-year-old mistress told fellow contestants on US TV reality show Tool Academy she had also “hooked up” with George Clooney.
But while she was full of praise for the movie heartthrob, she mauled Tiger.
Telly pal Krista Grubb, 27, told The Sun: “She was showing all these texts saying they were from Tiger and George.
One she said was from George said, ‘When can I get in there again?’ He signed it G.
“She said she met him while working as a cocktail waitress in Los Angeles and they would meet up in Vegas and he was a lot of fun.
“Jaimee said George was amazing but wasn’t so nice about Tiger. She just kept saying he was horrible in bed.”
Let this be a lesson, men. If you want rave reviews from pump and dumps, live your cad lifestyle without apology. Women not only respect that in a man, they love it.
Posted in Alpha, Current Events, Dating, Marriage Is For Chumps, Maxims, Ugly Truths | 310 Comments »
Here is a photo taken in August 1939.
I found it on this excellent site which showcases very old photographs. The description of the photo reads: “Unemployed lumber worker goes with his wife to the bean harvest. Note Social Security number tattooed on his arm.”
Despite this man’s pauper clothes (there was little peacocking during the Great Depression), his jobless status, his search for employment or food at a bean harvest, and his home made out of canvas, he wears the confident smirk and mischievous gaze of an alpha male. What does he have to be happy about? Oh, his attractive wife. And by 1939 standards she is a real hottie.
Shouldn’t he feel ashamed to be dragging her to a bean harvest? Most modern men couldn’t imagine taking their wives or girlfriends on a bean harvest date. It would be a massive DLV. Not only that, but he’s obviously proud of the Social Security number tattooed on his arm. This is one step above waving your food stamps in the air like a certificate of accomplishment. What could be more beta than tattooing the government’s ownage of you on your arm?
Self-satisfaction will see a man through all sorts of tribulations. Radiating confidence, deserved or irrational, is what is most attractive to women. This man looks confident, and his wife stands by him. She has the mousy, hunched over posture of a woman in love. All else that’s objectively negative about him fades to insignificance in the matter of what stirs her heart. In glaring contrast, today we have the spectacle of wives divorcing their dutiful husbands (70% divorces initiated by women) for the sin of catering to her every whim by being “economic partners, lovers, …co-parents and best friends. [A]lso each other’s co-workers, editors and primary readers.”
I have a new system for learning inner game — I call it bean harvest game. This is where you take a woman on a really shitty date, let’s say to a soup kitchen to pick up your rations for the week, and refuse to act apologetic or ashamed of your anti-signaling station in life. Instead, you carry your unemployment and poor taste with the confidence of a master of the universe. Handicapping yourself this way means you have no crutch to close the deal. Everything desirable about you must flow from your internal state. If this doesn’t sharpen your inner game and hone your ability to reframe, nothing will. Expect to be amazed how many women will still sleep with you after running tight bean harvest game on them.
Addendum: I find this picture oddly sensual. I’ve never wanted to bone a woman from the pre-airbrushing era so badly.
Posted in Alpha, Goodbye America, Love | 148 Comments »
Tonight, you are meeting a woman at a bar. This bar is in DC and it serves the best beer in the city. (It’s not Brickskeller. Those of you who live here will know which bar I’m talking about.)
The woman is someone you’ve been dating for a few months. Expectations have been established. Not firm rules, but slowly congealing guidelines for acceptable behavior. She tells you she will be at this bar tonight with a former co-worker, a man you’ve never met, and she wants you to come out and meet her at the bar. You say “Yeah, I’ll swing by later.” You’re an alpha; everything is always later.
When you arrive at the entrance of the bar you spot your girl across the room, sitting on a barstool between two men. There are no other empty stools near them. They are all laughing and drinking amongst themselves. Your girl is looking good, her bright red lipstick a beacon in the dim bar light. They haven’t noticed you yet. You watch them for a second before proceeding into the room, dispassionately curious about their dynamic. Soon you will walk toward them – the two men flanking your woman whose vagina you have penetrated repeatedly and vigorously – with intentions to introduce yourself. You don’t know which of the men is her former co-worker, or who the other man might be. In fact, you don’t know anything of their synergy, but that you see their smiles and hear their laughter. You begin walking to them.
What do you do?
I want specifics. Don’t patronize this blog’s audience with the obvious. You may think your testicular fortitude unassailable, but few men who read here are so socially awkward that they would believe confronting the men at the bar in a jealous pique is “being alpha”.
Who do you address first? How do you address them? Do you wait for your girl to introduce you or do you thrust your hand in promptly, prodding handshakes? Do you put an arm over your girl’s shoulder? Do you kiss her upon meeting? Or do you keep a few feet of distance between you and her in the interest of avoiding the perception of “boyfriendiness”?
Think details. Go.
PS Some readers have emailed me asking if my “test of your game’” stories are pulled from my own life or made up out of whole cloth. Most of the incidents I describe on this blog are events I have experienced personally. So yes, you are getting real life scenarios to ponder.
Posted in Dating, Game, The DC Life | 253 Comments »
Pages
-
Recent Comments
-
Top Posts
-
Recent Posts
c
Archives
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Uncategorized
-
Twitter Updates
- let the NYTimes be bought by the gov't. it can't be any less objective than it already is. lay those cards on table, pinch. 3 months ago
- if you see a choper circling overhead with spotlight shining, that's your cue to move quickly to a chopperless area. 3 months ago
- betta fish update: still alive. 3 months ago
- spotted a black bear while hiking sugarloaf in md. gentle giant myass. i picked up my pace. 3 months ago
- all my sex dreams end just before completion. robbed! 3 months ago
January 2010 M T W T F S S « Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Meta
