Chicks Dig Jerks: More Scientific Evidence

The blows of excruciating truth continue raining down on feminists’ block-like skulls. A recent scientific study (via reader “Dor”) confirms a core theme of this blog that chicks really do dig jerks.

The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad [i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism] have typically been considered abnormal, pathological and inherently maladaptive. Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to themselves and others, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power, low neuroticism and extraversion, that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness, such traits may facilitate — especially for men — the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.

So what is this study telling us? What Heartiste concepts are validated?

– Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)

– Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussy.)

– Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.

– The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.

– Being disagreeable (an asshole, that is) is attractive to women.

– Being power-hungry is attractive to women.

– Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.

– In other words, being an aloof, uncaring asshole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.

– Contrary to feminist flailing to gender equalize the attractiveness of assholes by claiming that men prefer bitches, this study conclusively shows that the Dark Triad suite of asshole traits works better for men than it does for women. That is, men don’t dig bitches.

– None of the above would ever be admitted by women, so don’t bother asking them.

Women who can’t help but love men who hit them, like Rihanna, are only the bleeding edge (heh) of a general and primordial inclination by the fairer sex to swoon for emotionally callous, manipulative assholes. You may hate this assessment, but you can’t disagree with it. You’re soaking in its truth.

Those who hate the messenger (yours untruly) for shedding light on this reality often like to ask if I would be OK with some erudite guy telling men to be assholes to get chicks if my hypothetical daughter was to wind up in the arms of such an asshole (like this dude). Of course, I wouldn’t. Amoralistic biology ensures there will be competing and contradictory passions, double standards up the wazoo. What father in his right mind would want his daughter to fall for an asshole? And yet, I am not my hypothetical daughter’s pleasure center. What I would want as a hypothetical father should not stain the quest for truth.

I present the truth, suggest ways to exploit this truth, and allow the readers to ultimately decide which path to take for themselves.

One thing we know for certain: if it’s young, fresh, maximally fertile pussy you want, you can’t go wrong cranking up the assholery.





Comments


  1. What’s been known casually for years, is mow being validated by science. Beautiful.

    Like


  2. Makes me cringe for being a dutiful nice beta for so many years. But still, the path to assholery is a bittersweet revenge, and the results are slowly showing.

    Like


  3. Dominating the social space — is what it’s all about.

    The dark triad underpins a man who is so forceful that the babe just gets swept up in his vibe.

    He permits her to be socially and emotionally lazy.

    By setting the terms of the relationship all that she has to do is submit.

    At a primal level, submission to a male is hardwired into XX genes.

    Like


  4. Who truly cares what women think or want.
    Women are vain, venal and shallow.

    Like


  5. on August 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm Ari Hinkelberger

    There is just really no denying it. Every street I look down, every hall i wander, every corner I duck into, one truth remains constant and steady.

    Chicks dig aloof and emotionally unavailable assholes. It’s like the sun rising in the east, why even debate that it does, it’s a given.

    Every girl i’ve ever screwed over would return my call, every girl i fell for and dumped me; i might as well be dead to them.

    Like


  6. NAWALT!!!!!!!

    [Heartiste: Heh. This needs a forceful but subtle acronymic response. Something like NAMFWE!!!! (not all men fuck women either)]

    Like


  7. What bothers me is that some women sometimes unconsciously realize that they’re attracted to aloof alphas, and bitches start acting like them.
    This is one the dumbest projections. An aloof asshole is attractive, an aloof gameplaying girl is just a bitch, not attractive.

    Like


  8. on August 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm (r)Evoluzione

    Niccolo Machiavelli, referenced above as the eponymous personality trait, was as misunderstood as the denizens of this iconic outpost.

    Machiavelli simply described the conditions in Florence at the time of his observation, and recorded the most effective strategies for maneuvering in that cutthroat political environment. He offered his commentary as to why these observations may be true, and even seemed disgusted at the nature of man that would be so receptive to such disdainful tactics.

    In this way, the host here seems to be a perfect modern incarnation of sir Niccolo, explaining sexual politics instead of general politics, a realm of much more importance to personal happiness, truth be known. This is science, as referenced in the main post.. Science is simply the art of explaining observations, so we must all be scientists in unlocking the secrets of the ‘gina tingle.

    Like


    • Machiavelli has always gotten a bad rap for his book The Prince. Lots of people just can’t handle its non-sugar coated look at how a person can go about acquiring power and try to keep it. The truth is and always will be simply too brutal for many people to accept.

      It’s a shame that his name is so tarnished over that one book that many people don’t know of his other works and his support of Republican forms of government.

      Like


    • Machiavelli tells us:
      “It it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”

      Implying that he and his audience knew game, and took it for granted as an obvious truth..

      Indeed, when I read old books, it is apparent that everyone knew game, and patriarchs were gravely worried about their daughters being gamed by players.

      People started to deny the reality of human nature, political correctness set in, some time between 1830 and 1860. What everyone used to know, was obscured by a vast cloud of lies.

      Since that time history, and present day reality, has been rewritten ever more drastically, and ever more frequently. People think that the 1950s were politically incorrect because present minus six decades is always politically incorrect. In the 1950s, they used to think that 1900 was politically incorrect (though they used different terminology), and in 1870, they used to think that 1820 was politically incorrect.

      JD Unwin, in 1934, wrote how woman’s liberation was destroying society, and the dire consequences that would follow, and lo and behold, they did follow.

      That we now have game, and use the word “political correctness” as ridicule, suggests that a counter revolution may be coming. Trees do not grow to the sky. That which cannot continue, will stop.

      Unwin,

      Like


    • Machiavelli was the first relativist and the first modern. His interest was in founding a new order (cf. his “Discourses on Livy”), and he accomplished this indirectly with an appeal to men in power with advice about the “practical.” He was successful. He placed man at the center of things, setting in motion the eventual displacement of all ancient methods of investigation with reference to the divine, the traditional, and even to the transcendent truth itself. He is the ultimate articulator of “might makes right.” If Nietzsche was the last modern philosopher, Machiavelli was the first. You are correct that he gets a bad rap from people who have never seriously studied him.

      This website is an heir to Machiavelli’s ongoing project more than a novel exemplar of his philosophy. Lost in any deluge of “practical wisdom” are the fundamental assumptions that support that wisdom, assumptions which are dismissed by practical men as irrelevant. But if you don’t know what your foundation is made out of, it doesn’t matter what observations you think you know, your grounding gives way like intricate marble pedestals installed on clay. The host here understands this by constantly trying to ground his observations in the higher things (e.g., Science can’t stop proving me right!), and his post above is yet one more example.

      In other words, by neglecting the deepest roots of his project, the host risks dispensing counterproductive, inconsistent, and even contradictory advice. Things that are true “because I observed it” can be superseded by other observations or even faulty memories. Without the Machiavellian revolution in the history of thought, the modern world would have been impossible. But the side effects are a debilitating relativism and the subsequent need for a Leviathan authority to keep the peace. We aren’t each contributing to a mutual expedition to the truth so much as we are engaged in an eternal pissing contest for the right to define “truth” according to our almighty preferences. That places us directly in the middle of an all-out, relentless spiritual war, or as Hobbes the Machiavellian heir put it, an existence that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

      This is unfortunate because the naked assertions of authority in which this forum traffics is concealed under claims to experience and useful wisdom, regardless of whether they cancel each other out. There is no mutually accepted goal, only louder and louder shouting. The things proclaimed on this site are only coincidentally true, not fundamentally true and able to stand under their own power. We are too busy asserting and reasserting “this is how women are” or “this is how game works” rather than building on the agreed accumulation of wisdom. This failure creates more than just a frustrating, circular, repetitive and futile blog. It creates stagnancy. We are using milkwater when the recipe calls for heavy cream.

      The world of men needs a higher octane to fuel its escape from under the smeggy FUPA flap of feminism.

      Like


  9. This blog has helped to clarify things for me.

    Be what they bang, not what they want.

    Tame the hamster, serve the beaver.

    It’s all good.

    Like


  10. I’m not going to disagree with the conclusion that chicks dig jerks. I think that, at the very least, a significant minority of them do.

    However, the mere fact that men with the dark triad get more women is not necessarily evidence that women are more attracted to men with the dark triad. An equally plausible theory is that these kind of men are just more ruthless in going after what they want than other men and will use means that others won’t. Since they have such an advantage over other men, they will tend to get more and better women. For example, they may simply be more fearless and impervious to rejection than the average man. (And it is a well established fact that psychopaths are much more indifferent to pain than normal people, so they don’t feel fear the way we do.) There are other plausible theories too. A different kind of study would be needed to establish that women are specifically attracted to dark triad traits. Correlation and causation need to be disentangled.

    Like


    • And yet, being an a-hole will get you more pussy than being a nice guy?

      It’s all about the results.

      Like


    • Who cares? Be an asshole >>> get pussy. That’s all we need to know.

      Like


    • It’s reasonable to look at cause/effect. I always thought it’s mainly about looks, and then the top good-looking guys realize they can get away with whatever behavior they want (looks being more causative than assholery).

      But when we see women (on this blog and elsewhere) saying, “he’s a jerk so I don’t feel bad just using him for sex” then that also speaks to assholery being a causative factor in penetration.

      I will conduct further research.

      Like


      • I agree. i look at someone like Brad Pitt. He certainly is good looking but comes off as more traditional high beta to me. Doesn’t seem to be an asshole or cocky. I highly doubt though, being beta that he would have a lack of female sex partners b/c of his looks.

        So its kinda like a trade off. A good looking Beta guy will not have to work *as hard* at being “alpha” than a not so good looking guy who has to really have a lot of game to be successful with women.

        I think its always been this way with men. Its not so much *always* about their looks as it is about their confidence, assertiveness and masculinity.

        Like


      • Yeah and Brad Pitt is a great example right Neecy? You don’t think his looks and demeanor are eclipsed just a little by his FAME? Idiot.

        Like


      • Brad is the best example i can use b/c everyone knows who he is. But i still get a vibe from him that is Beta and low key – comapared to a Bruce Willis (who may not be *as* visually appealing as Brad) but just as successful with women but who comes off as more cocky and assholish.

        Like


      • i thought black chicks favord chris brown

        Like


      • …. who likes to keep the pimp hand strong.

        Like


      • neecy just has her signals wrong, so thats why she has trouble with men. Brad, to be sure, is clearly beta. but, to think bruce willis alpha negates his getting cuckolded by…Ashton Kucher of all people.

        Like


      • “neecy just has her signals wrong,”

        huh? Please elaborate FP?

        Like


      • well, just answer privately -to yourself – if you often get confused in regards to men. mainly – The Important Ones. the ones you really realy want. Then, compare the number of those to (truthfully) how much romantic experience you have. you seem the kind of girl who has lots of emotion and sometimes, that clouds your thinking. nbd

        Like


      • FP I still don’t understand. Are you saying I don’t have enough romantic experience with the kinds of men I like to make any sane judgements? You may possibly be right. I was out of the game for a long time but I still have enough common sense to know what i want.

        Like


      • New avatar.

        Like


      • Good looking men who also have game will always have an easier time – these are probably the “naturals”. But most humans are just average not super good looking without doing things to themselves to push them above the average mark. I do believe that a person who exudes a lot of masculinity and/or femininity will always be deemed attractive and desirable by the opposite sex even if they’re not high up on the aesthetic tree.

        On a more basic level however, the one thing men do have in their favor that women don’t necessarily is “looks” for a man can really be dependent on a number of things that may not necessarily revolve *solely* around facial aesthetics. A masculine looking and acting man who is dressed sharply, smells good, is charming, assertive in a irresistible way can use those things to his advantage if he is not the most physically attractive. All a man has to do to really be appealing to women is learn how to make us tick.

        Not so much the same for women . No amount of learning about what makes men tick will do anything if the woman is physically unattractive to most men. LOL. That is unless she is very feminine. Women are always judged directly literally by their physical *looks* facially and body wise. There is no amount of confidence or personality that can make an unattractive woman compete with a visually attractive woman when it comes to being desirable to most men VISUALLY. I believe even if men tried force themselves to like the nice girl who is ‘ugly’ they would still initially always desire the girl who looks most visually physically appealing. Its not fair but that’s how it is I guess.

        But there is one caveat to that I say does work in a woman’s favor if she is not conventionally the most attractive. I think any woman who is feminine acting and looking even if she is not the most aesthetically appealing will always be seen as attractive. This is something women don’t and haven’t figured out. A woman can be very beautiful, but if she is crass and masculine acting, the more feminine not so hot woman will always be deemed more desirable by most masculine men. So there are ways women who are not the best looking can make themselves desirable – and that is by acting and looking feminine. I think?

        Like


  11. on August 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm Jesus — also your daddy — son of man and God and woman

    Machiavelli discoursed about prudence, and not in the sense we usually use the word today. Prudence is not being cautious, but is being knowledgeable, knowing the circumstances fully and acting on them. Sometimes it means being ruthless. It was a very important philosophical concept in its time, thoroughly discussed in literature. It is very reductionist and revisionist to interpret it without reading all the important sources available from the bygone “Italy”.

    In the right sense, game is Machiavellian as it uses knowledge of circumstances to calculate actions accordingly.

    Also, Machiavelli never said that “ends justify means”. That’s a popular misconception.

    Like


  12. The analogy is apt. The reason that Machiavelli was demonized is identical to the reasons that people like Our Host is demonized; the only difference is that in the case of Machiavelli, his thoughts threatened to level the sociopolitical landscape of late Renaissance Italy. In the case of Heartiste, his thoughts threaten to demolish (as he notes) the pretty deceit that women aware of their market value prefer compliant, attentive schlubs.

    Like


  13. on August 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm Serge Gainsbourg

    I was a master french gamer and I can say for a fact that the Chateau is right on cue. Modern science is overall very american, and so, very puritanical. It can take a while for it to catch up with life and women, whom americans are just barely beginning to understand. Even so, there is a dimension to it that cannot be grasped by science, be aware. Great business though! But get rid of the political bêtise in congress, it is getting dangerous. Au revoir!

    Like


  14. Got to love the old comments at that article. “Nice guys get the girls in the end, they get married!”

    Haha – yea, after that shit has been broken in by a bunch of bad boys. Enjoy sloppy 30ths until she shits some kids out and she “isn’t in the mood” anymore.

    Like


  15. “- None of the above would ever be admitted by women, so don’t bother asking them.”

    I do admit everything you wrote is true … Why do you think women in general wouldn’t admit that?

    Like


    • Because…
      https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/chicks-dig-jerks-the-veil-of-self-deception/

      Keep up with the rythm, do your homework or you will never graduate.

      Like


      • There’s just conclusion that this is in the best interests of genetic propagation. You can say that for anything if you believe in evolution … The question is, why this would be beneficial?

        (Fuck … does it mean that the fact that I’m aware of my interests is reducing my chances to get married/propagate my genes even further?!)

        Like


      • Self deception is crucial because women are better off believing that attraction and love are still possible with a beta provider.
        If women were fully conscious of their true desires, they would fuck around with the alpha cads and refuse to settle down with the beta dads. This would be an evolutionarily dead-end because only betas allow the next generation to survive. Alphas pump & dump. Women could not feed and protect their children a few thousand years ago if they were alone.
        Therefore, women evolved to believe in romance and the mysterious ways of love.
        This blog came to wake us the fuck up. Evolution’s tricks are exposed along with the other pretty lies

        Like


      • I suppose that women’s self deception about their attraction to assholes was necessary. That way, they could still rationalize their need for beta providers as another form of attraction or love.
        If women were aware that only alpha assholes are attractive, they would fuck around with cads and totally reject the beta providers. That would be an evolutionary dead end because betas are necessary to raise the next generation.
        Women evolved to believe in romance, soulmates and the mystery of love. This blog puts an end to evolution’s tricks, along with the other pretty lies. Beta males have been taken for a ride for a long time, lucky are those who open their eyes.
        And yes, the fact that you’re now fully aware, at least intellectually, about your attraction triggers, carries an uncertainty. You will now reject all betas because they’re unsuitable. But how many alphas are out there willing to commit?

        Like


      • But how many alphas are out there willing to commit?

        Some men will tell you that most men want to settle down, eventually. I’m not sure how “most” most is, but it’s plausible that men, like women, like to fuck around for a while and then settle down.

        Which is a good argument for large age differences contributing to a stable relationship. SE Asians all are clear that the woman trades her youth and beauty for a mans wisdom, managerial skills, and provider abilities. Only feminists are against this time honored trade.

        Like


      • Fair enough. But still, how many alphas are out there, the majority of males are betas.
        I’m with King A on this one. Women who are convinced by this blog’s premises should pick betas and transform them into alphas. There are very few natural alphas out there, and most of them (thugs, prisoners, eternal bachelors…) are unsuitable for marriage.

        Like


      • ANON,

        How does a *woman* transform her beta man into an alpha?

        Like


      • Buy him the mystery method, send him to read this blog, talk to him elegantly about his beta flaws without patronizing him, and… once he begins his transformation, don’t ever bring up the subject again.
        Yeah, and don’t tell him that you are the neecy on this blog, he might join your haters’ club…

        Like


      • And then when he becomes that alpha” watch him run off into the night with a younger and hotter woman? Nope. That’s work he’s going to have to do himself. Good WOmen make the mistakes of trying to change and mold men into desirables only to get left in the cold. That is an investment a man needs to make for himself – thus if he leaves (usually he will once his smv increwases to most women) said women would not have lost out on investing with no return.

        Like


      • Life is full of risks, Neecy. But I suggest that the risk in this scenario is lower than the same risks with a natural alpha. Another risk with natural alphas is that, since they don’t understand the information here, they might beta up. It has happened many times.

        Like


      • OMG! *looking out the window for summer el nino rain* Schmoe is not cursing at me, throwing tomatoes and threatening me with an AK 47???! LOL

        Yes Schmoe, there are risks but i think I would be more heartbroken at fixing up my sweet lil beta guy and making him an alpha only to see this man become consumed by his new alphaness and leave. I’d rather lose a real alpha who came that way to one I invested in and loved and saw the good in him, only to later waych him turn bad and leave.

        Like


      • Nor really true.

        Instead, what the deception serves to obscure, is that women in general are much better off in contemporary Afghanistan than in contemporary America. Absolutely without doubt when normalized for material wealth; but for many, in absolute terms as well.

        Like


      • Wow you guys are so extreme. “only alpha assholes are attractive” Do you guys realize how unintelligent you sound? Even if it was scientifically proven that women were more attracted to so-called alphas, it wouldn’t prove that “only alpha assholes are attractive.” Because… well that isn’t true.

        Most of the commenters sound like women with your sensationalism.

        Like


      • “Even if it was scientifically proven that women were more attracted to so-called alphas, it wouldn’t prove that “only alpha assholes are attractive.” Because… well that isn’t true.”

        Do you realize how unintelligent that sounds?

        Like


    • Talking to myself again …

      I don’t agree with this one:

      “- Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.”

      This is very unattractive. I only like assholes who still have some sense of morality. Losers who try to get something (like social status, money) through deceiving others are totally boring and annoying (in a negative way).

      Like


      • You are talking about what you want for a ltr. We are only interested in raw physical attraction.

        Like


      • No, no. Using (What does it mean exactly? I mean, how can you use someone? By deceiving him?) someone is loserish in my opinion.

        Like


      • That is because you are imagining some nerd trying to cheat their friends on Warcraft. Actual scenary is more like this: You and the hot bastard jock you crave for. Jock : “Hey Nerdy boy go get two coffees for me and my chick”. You: ” You are such a mean asshole”. Your Vagina: Soaked wet.

        I find fascinating that women (especially feminists) always assume guys making fun of them on the internet are all videogame playing, living in mom basement nerds, so to insult the guys and to demean them comes naturally and in full force (Cf. women hate hate hate betas). I would bet my savings that if somehow a sexy alpha did the same they will answer: ” hehe shut up you asshole….you girlfriend (you have one right?) is a very patient woman. Which college are you attending? just, you know, to avoid people like you. I wish we could meet and you will see NAWLT” Spin Hamster Spin

        Like


      • It’s not the fact of the insults, but the content that gives away a bitter nerd or at least someone with a history of it.

        Alpha males can’t imagine that there would be a straight woman on Earth who doesn’t want them, so their insults are going to center around personal value. They’re using a lot of “I”.

        Recovering and current betas and omegas attempt to convince the woman that they are worthless because the world thinks they are. They can’t stand alone or gauge someone’s worth according to personal standards. They have none, or they haven’t developed to the point that they are more important than the mob.

        This is why, screwed up as he is, I took Gunslinger’s insults more to heart than the some others’ a couple of years ago. He’s more…real. Though he’s a bit incoherent and racist, at least I didn’t feel like I was in an argument with a hysterical girl who thinks she’s correct because 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed say whatever.

        …not calling others girls, but there are certain insecurities alphas simply don’t have and therefore cannot be exploited. They just roll off or don’t compute. The alpha puts forth his opinion with confidence and lets others worry about the why.

        It is more relevant to me, and I believe other women too, if a guy states his beliefs, especially about me, based on his own observations and experiences, than for someone speaking from some manner of herd or hive to hide behind it…but then turn around and try to play alpha.

        Asshole is alpha. Aggressive tool is beta (of the white knight variety) regardless of the level of hotness of the women they feel they’re defending/capitulating to.

        Like


  16. No argument here, but please point out that it requires showing low amounts of empathy to be successful. there’s starting to be all these guys out ther trying way too hard to iprss you with their rudeness….

    Like


  17. What you actually mean is that these type men can pass shit-tests far easier than normal men. And the thing about shit-tests is that they are so difficult to detect sometimes. And what is the best way to detect and beat a shit-test without being a total bastard ???

    Like


  18. i don’t suppose anyone here watches “true blood” (it’s such a chick show). it’s (one of my) guilty little pleasures, so i’ll just tell you how this scientific finding is being played out on this season of t.b.:

    the most ruthless vampire of them all — who happens to be really hot because he is so ruthless (and ’cause he’s good looking) — has, this season, lost his memory and now he’s mr. über nice guy. and he is soooooooooooo unsexy! and so say all the ladies around the water cooler every monday a.m. (~_^)

    can’t wait ’til the guy gets his memory back….

    Like


  19. Jerks don’t get tested. They are targets for reform and improvement. Hence they are not victims to the tests women foist on men to measure their compatibility.

    Like


  20. LOL YAY GO BRUNHILDE!!!!

    Like


  21. More evidence that the human female gina wetting brain-module is indifferent to the likelihood of the gina-visitor sticking around afterwards to change diapers. It is your genes it wants, if it really wants anything.!
    Maggie McNeill, my favorite ex-madam-turned- blogger, informed us today that if she ever had a client she that she had dominated in BDSM role play she would never afterwards let him fuck her. Ever. It just felt so wrong. She said all whores had the same rule.
    Even for lots of extra money.

    Like


    • The idea that a whore wouldn’t do something for “lots of extra money” is a very stupid idea.

      This particular whiny white bitch may imagine she has a certain fastidiousness, but prossing brings a lot of bad habits along with it, and when money’s tight, they’ll open every hole as wide as the sky for any thing you or your buddies might want to stick in there.

      But yeah, I guess a retired whore can say whatever she wants. She’s out of the game. For now.

      Like


  22. What helps with successful daughter raising is to instill a strong, perhaps even brutally strong, sense of social class superiority. This will make tattooed bar tenders appear a lot less high status in their eyes regardless of how many times they might have been to jail.
    Mick Jagger sent all of his daughters (who knows the true number) to live in strict all girl-schools high up in the Swiss Alps to hang out with Titled European Aristocrats until they were 18. Expensive, no doubt, but as a plan it has thousands of years of reality based tradition supporting it.

    Like


    • Except those expensive boarding schools are a complete joke – worse than most other places due to the massive amount of funding going around. Ask anyone who ever attended one.

      Like


      • Been there, done that! I do agree, boarding school can be a joke, but I did gained a lot of confidence and knowledge about living in such close proximity to others. It was a co-ed school. hehe!

        Like


  23. Heartiste,

    Which do you think elicits more pure sexual attraction and lust — the overt, shameless Jackass or the reformed Bad Boy w/newfound self-discipline?

    Consider popular depictions of women’s Perfect Man/Prince Charming, who is typically a natural Alpha that’s somehow prone to Beta behavior. If The Ideal lacks assholery, then aren’t chicks not necessarily/primarily attracted to Dark Triad behavior per se? Or are those just cases of expensive fitness-advertising via conspicuous consumption (“I’m so good I can even afford to act like a little bitch and still get pussy!”)? On the other hand, though, maybe the cocky and selfish demeanor might really be what’s doing all the socio-biologically-expensive signalling.

    Obviously a prick beats a pussy, but then he arguably loses to the restrained asshole. The guy with innate jerk-tendencies who nevertheless exhibits self-control seems to be what girls first & foremost fantasize about. But there’s also the possibility that even an overall-favorite like Edward Cullen would only get second-dibs on a tween who’s simply looking to fuck.

    Like


  24. @Rum

    Interesting bit about the BDSM stuff.

    Shows just how repulsive weakness is to a women if even a HOOKER who fucks random dudes won’t put out for a guy who has let her dominate him.

    It is an extreme example the sheds light on the mechanics of more common interactions.

    Like


  25. Yesterday, a reporter asked Gov. Rick Perry on campaign if he was “armed”.
    Perry looked him in the eye, paused a second, and said, “Son, that is why it is called “concealed”.
    In your farthest imaginations, try to write that conversation/exchange onto any other candidate for POTUS over the last 100 years..

    Like


    • on August 16, 2011 at 11:32 pm Obstinance Works

      “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.”

      –Rick Perry

      Like


    • on August 18, 2011 at 3:35 am old guy, lower case

      I think he just got my vote.

      Like


  26. on August 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm Obstinance Works

    Prince Harry approves.

    Like


  27. If your daughter is lucky (and kids need luck, so make sure yours get some) she will have a father who is just as ruthesslessly committed to and focused on seeing her win the social/sexual competition into which she finds herself thrown —- as he was in draining his pulsating balls into her moms bright pink pussy just those years ago.
    In a strange way, the mission is the same. And it feels just about as good to accomplish. Especially if she is a solid 9 plus who can finish your sentences for you..

    Like


  28. I prefer the old school Space Invaders icons over the artist nazi swastikas that used to be beside everyone’s names.

    Like


  29. The truth hurts, but learning from it never does.

    Like


  30. One thing we know for certain: if it’s young, fresh, maximally fertile pussy you want, you can’t go wrong cranking up the assholery.

    This post just isn’t correct. This is pseudoscience. Manipulate the control case in any experiment, produce the results you want. It is question-begging wrapped up in the jargon of scientific exactitude.

    It is truer to say: given a bad boy and a nice guy, women will prefer the bad boy. But why imply that this is an accurate reflection of the entire spectrum of male types? Who says it is even an interesting comparison? It’s like saying, given an emaciated woman and a tubby blob in a dress, men will prefer the former. Little about the attractiveness of gawky, anorexic, female specimens can be concluded, except the most basic observation that “thin > fat.” Where do healthy, proportional, and shapely women fit along the continuum of femininity?

    Women prefer men who act like men. The modern beta pandemic of niceness causes sociopathy to stand out as authentically masculine against the great sea of beta beige. If you’re dying of thirst and the only thing to drink is pickle brine, that doesn’t make pickle brine a great cocktail. Where manliness is criminalized, women will be attracted to criminals. Women don’t like extreme criminal features any more than men like tits the size of sombreros. But there are always outliers who take a small truth and assume its extreme manifestation necessarily means extreme wisdom.

    Yes, there is overlap between criminal behavior and alpha tendencies. Busting through the constraints of opinion or convention or even law is evidence a man’s independence. It is that sense of assertion and independence that is attractive to women, not the consequences of that independence. In fact, the consequences of an undisciplined independence can be off-putting to a woman, who, given enough time, will see just how false her instinct can be detecting quality. Men wake up to coyote-ugly fatties the next morning. Women wake up to deadbeat squatters who play in loser garage bands. Both realize their initial magnetic attractiveness was an illusion, and they become disgusted with their foolishness. “What did I ever see in him?” is an honest question: they really don’t know how the relationship came to pass, and their judgment of a man’s worthlessness isn’t always a lie to cover up the truth of their instincts.

    The problem with promoting an overly cartoonish description of what men are/should be is that it prevents the revalorization of alpha behavior as legitimate in a feminist saturated milieu. We make it easier for the feminists to outlaw men being men when we agree with their theory that all but the most pliant eunuchs are antisocial criminals by definition. Which leads to logical absurdities like, all sex is rape. http://tinyurl.com/3r2ueh9

    Here is St. Harvey, who wrote the most important book of the last decade, to explain what is missing in the careless assumption that “manliness = jerkiness,” this time with regard to Schwarzenegger and Strauss-Kahn:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/manliness-and-morality_571624.html

    “Chicks dig jerks” when the choice is a binary one between jerk and beta. Men read these flawed findings and think, “Hey, I know how to play an asshole. I can do that!” It is the slob’s path of least resistance to increasing his beaver pelt collection, but does little to discern the ideal. Narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism are side-effects, not core traits. They can manifest as duty, courage, and honor just as easily. There is absolutely nothing contradictory in a forceful man being magnanimous rather than petty. Where have we heard that before?

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/arrogance-vs-confidence/

    Like


    • on August 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm MeWantHoneyComb

      Best comment made on this website in a long time.

      However, many of these men have a point in the case of American women, particularly those from snooty liberal places, seeing the faux alpha asshole (hoodlums, guidos, preppies, etc) as the epitome of a man. I can see the middle-of-the-road confidence approach working in many places overseas, as well as in the rural South and the Heartland.

      Like


    • on August 19, 2011 at 8:15 am Obstinance Works

      **It is truer to say: given a bad boy and a nice guy, women will prefer the bad boy. But why imply that this is an accurate reflection of the entire spectrum of male types?**

      What other control group is there? Maybe men who can calibrate their assholishness? But that begs the question, does it really need to be calibrated?

      Maybe the lesson would then be control yur bullshit, don’t let it control you.

      Like


  31. Interesting. Well you got to love it when science confirms shit we already knew. But I have some caveats concerning this: it’s a huge oversimplification.

    [Heartiste: You can’t handle the oversimplification.]

    When I think back to the losers and sex-less male “friends” I strung along for all they were worth and never gave it up to, even if they did behave like assholes, I still wouldn’t have had sex with them.

    [How would you know if they never tried?]

    The problem is with those guys, I’ve already assessed that I’m more desirable in the sexual market than they were,

    [The problem with your pat anti-game theory is that you had already pigeonholed those loser betas. So any game that they then turned to would strike you as jarringly out of character, and would instantly raise your bitch shield to Defcon Cunt. But those same men running that asshole game on women who were not intimately familiar with their former beta selves would see success with them.
    And in point of fact, if your loser male orbiters would hold their frames and stay the course, I predict that even you, tripping the bitch fantastic, would eventually start to find them more desirable as sexual men.]

    so my time was compensation enough for their efforts In short, if you’re not a certain type of guy, as in a desirable one, you cannot get away with being an asshole.

    [Incorrect. Any man can get away with anything re: seducing women, if he’s got the sack. The desirablility doesn’t make the asshole; the asshole makes the man desirable.]

    You will just come off as delusional.

    [Projection much?]

    That kind of goes hand in hand with my issue with game, it kind of promotes the idea that all guys can be successful with women by following a set of rules when in theory that might work, but in practice it doesn’t.

    [Funny, but there are millions of men who have the real life evidence that game works in practice. Not to mention the slew of scientific studies comng out examining the topic.]

    All guys simply aren’t cut from the same cloth

    [No shit. Just as all women aren’t cut from the same cloth. But game can help men at any station in the SMV hierarchy to date up higher than they would without game. What about this scrambles your brain so thoroughly?]

    and no amount of assholery or negs will put you on par with the top tier of men that most women will instantly drop their panties that night for just off of looks/height, personality/confidence, and profession/wealth alone.

    [You seem confused, First you claim that game doesn’t work in practice. Then you claim that game won’t put men in the top tier of the competition. So which is it? Does game not work, or does it not work well enough to boost a 1 to a 10? It must be veeeery convenient to divide the world into black and white strawcunts when confronted with unpalatable truths.
    And, btw, what do you think game is but personality/confidence? Do you have any idea what it is your blathering about?]

    The last guy I hooked up with simply had to say “I think you’re hot and I want you.”

    [He probably took one look at you and thought you’d be an easy lay.]

    And I was game!

    [He was right.]

    (Of course i had to pretend to have my slut shield up).

    [Musta been quite a thespian stretch.]

    Being straight forward worked for him because he’s one of those guys who can get away with expressing overt sexual interest in women

    [Or maybe you’re one of those plain jane girls who will slut it up with any guy who isn’t a total dweeb.]

    confidently knowing that it will likely be reciprocated.

    [So if he had unconfidently solicited you, it wouldn’t have been reciprocated? Gee, sounds like he’s… got game!]

    If that’s not a fucking alpha, I don’t know what is.

    [And game is alpha. Now you’re learning.]

    But the majority of men can’t get away with this no matter how many game seminars they attend.

    [I bet with you they can.]

    Like


    • Spoken like a true whore.
      Keep up.

      Like


      • Lol. Do articulate why I’m a “whore.”

        Like


      • Allow me.

        “i had to pretend to have my slut shield up”

        “sexual interest … will likely be reciprocated”

        “When I think back to the losers and sex-less male ‘friends’ I strung along for all they were worth and never gave it up to, even if they did behave like assholes, I still wouldn’t have had sex with them.”

        You are ruled by your undisciplined flesh, even to the point of putting friends in quotes for the purpose of stringing them “along for all they were worth.” You brag about this to establish your cred, but what you’re really doing is exposing your repulsively unmediated priorities. “I think you’re hot and I want you” is the absolute master over your well-worn cunt.

        Not that this distinguishes you from most women everywhere, but your less gutter-vulgar sisters have acquired the decency to temper the needs of their tyrannical slots at least enough to regard the other demonstrably loyal human beings in its orbit as something a little more dignified than “losers.” No one is saying losers don’t deserve the shabby treatment they get for being so loserish, but the quickness with which you dismiss them says volumes about how little you regard the human furniture populating the backdrop of your affairs, wretched sylph that you are.

        That said, your honesty is refreshing, and none of the metastasized putrescence you transport around in your carrion husk of a soul invalidates your observations. You are living, talking, high-gloss proof of the justice of STDs. But truth is truth. “if you’re not a certain type of guy … you cannot get away with being an asshole. You will just come off as delusional…. no amount of assholery or negs will put you on par with the top tier of men….” Could not have been said any better.

        But then you give up the game by following it by something even more delusional than the false hope of your omega orbiters: “…that most women will instantly drop their panties that night for.” You are not representative of “most women.” Most women are not practicing whores. Maybe they share your unlimited hypergamous desires, but they have decidedly sought ways to contain them (or at least not openly boast about them).

        Like


      • More truth out of the mouths of slatterns: “That kind of goes hand in hand with my issue with game, it kind of promotes the idea that all guys can be successful with women by following a set of rules when in theory that might work, but in practice it doesn’t. All guys simply aren’t cut from the same cloth….”

        Setting aside your typically selective, female understanding of game, you are onto something here. Game has to be more than the sum of its parts, or it devolves into mere trickery. It cannot be about practicing method so much as it must be about encouraging essence. A man develops and rearranges his most fundamental understanding of himself by consciously adjusting his behavior.

        Of course, many men don’t have to develop certain traits just as many women can get away with minimal make-up. They are born with the essence just as women are born with physical beauty. The mysteries of how this is achieved in men is not your concern any more than the brands of eye-shadows are of interest to us. What we can both agree on is that born-naturals do not exclusively populate “the top tier.”

        But thanks for the window into your misunderstanding. It’s a reminder how clueless women are about the nature and source of their desires. Men need to be reminded of that truth more often than you’d think, and there’s no better reminder than a demonstration.

        We both know parts of each other’s play book. Being consciously aware of the opposite sex’s manipulation of our instincts puts the game in Game. But a woman drizzling her sexual incontinence all over the place with frank talk is simply whorish and manly. While it can be attractive to us in a primal way if done right, and though it can be fun to exploit an unhinged girl, a woman gains zero respect for so proudly displaying such an attitude, and in truth, it makes us throw up a little in our mouths. Don’t just “pretend” to have a slut shield, slut.

        I realize the double-standard has been decisively rejected to the point that we all champion it without even realizing it, but tattoo this maxim on your sugartits: women cannot get away with blunt and candid sexual talk the way men can. It will lead us to treat you like the trash that you are. And no, slut, being a disposable alpha hanky isn’t as fun as you are trying to make it sound. It’s fucking gross to hear a woman celebrate it.

        Like


      • Shame on you King. This chick opens up about her sexual strategies, validating everything we’ve been saying- and you react by calling her a whore? Seriously, what is this crazed rant trying to accomplish..

        What the fuck man. I usually don’t call people names, but bitter much?

        To diem: I applaud your honesty and the way you articulate it. We need more observations from women with a high SMV. Disregard the fools who can’t handle it.

        Like


      • ….women cannot get away with blunt and candid sexual talk the way men can. It will lead us to treat you like the trash that you are.

        I have to disagree. At least she’s honest and upfront about it, something I think more females need to be in general conversation. Her frank honesty doesn’t make her a slut.

        Anyway, what bothers you so much about it anyway? If that’s your preference fine, but that’s YOU’RE preference.

        Not that this distinguishes you from most women everywhere, but your less gutter-vulgar sisters have acquired the decency to temper the needs of their tyrannical slots at least enough to regard the other demonstrably loyal human beings in its orbit as something a little more dignified than “losers.”

        “Tempering needs”, treating someone with regard, I find it ironic to read those words on this blog to be honest.

        Like


      • @Renee
        “….women cannot get away with blunt and candid sexual talk the way men can. It will lead us to treat you like the trash that you are.

        I have to disagree.”

        Disagree all you want. The straight truth is, men want to think the target of their desire is as pure as the wind-driven snow. The more sexually experienced the woman lets a man know she is, the more he sees her as a quick lay and less as a woman he wants for more than a sperm dump. If he finds out she is too much a slut, he won’t even want to do that. There are men who express to be the exception, but in truth, they would rather have a virgin who somehow knows everything about sex than a well-experienced woman who knows everything about sex.

        Like


      • “We need more observations from women with a high SMV. Disregard the fools who can’t handle it.”

        Her observations are pointless, we know everything about women’s sexual strategies. She’s only a troll with a “look at me” attitude, deserves nothing but her evisceration by King A and H. I’m sure that her gina tingled by such a display of male power.
        And fools can absolutely handle her ramblings, by callously pumping and dumping her slutland sisters.

        Like


      • It’s all in the delivery. Not an issue of honesty, but delivery.

        Like


      • but what you’re really doing is exposing your repulsively unmediated priorities.

        Is it the fact that her natural base instincts are unmediated that troubles you, or that she doesn’t hide them with typical female guile?

        While I agree with you that the feminine charms include the bullshit lies of appearing to be what the man wants the girl to be, I find your puritanism as distasteful as you find her unmediated desires.

        Not all of us have the same sexual strategy, and not all of us want others to have the same sexual strategy. The girl is exactly a girl, minus the bullshit. That’s an improvement, in my book. Now if you want a girl who mediates her desires, and is honest about it – fine. But why must all girls play that game? Let there be some good old fashioned tarts, femme fatals, vixens, and strumpets in this glorious world.

        Like


      • PICTURE, BITCH!! PICTURE!!!!

        Like


      • senseirn

        The straight truth is, men want to think the target of their desire is as pure as the wind-driven snow.

        Ya, but she said she’s only being straight up here, on the internets. She said she knows enough to be wiley in person.

        So what’s wrong with that?

        Like


      • By the way, I do agree with the premise that women need to be cautious in displaying sluttiness. It is socially inept to appear to easy, and can be a turnoff.

        Just today I moved to the other side of the road rather than pass directly beside two girls, because the signals they were broadcasting were too slutty.

        I love me a wild girl, and I don’t mind a history. But it’s socially retarded to not be promiscous in a feminine way. Feminine meaning playing by the rules of seduction, and not being butch about it. Playing her role in the dance properly.

        Like


      • Booooo this man. This is exactly what we want from female comments you idiot- honesty. Some of us can handle the truth.

        Like


    • In short, if you’re not a certain type of guy, as in a desirable one, you cannot get away with being an asshole. You will just come off as delusional.

      I’ve had a girl look up to me in wonder and question:

      “Daddy, you’re not rich. You’re not handsome. Why do I love you Daddy?”

      and from another:

      “Why are you fucking other girls! I’ll give you all the pussy you want – just stop seeing other girls! I can’t believe all these girls are after you anyway, you’re old and ugly and have no money! It doesn’t make any sense!”

      You don’t have to be a certain kind of guy in order to be a certain kind of guy.

      Like


    • “In short, if you’re not a certain type of guy, as in a desirable one, you cannot get away with being an asshole”

      Um, yeah, I can. Simply because I could care less what you think. If not with you, then with the next cunt that walks into the bar.

      Sweets, contrary to popular belief, you are not the only split tail in the ocean.

      “I’ve already assessed that I’m more desirable in the sexual market than they were, so my time was compensation enough for their efforts”

      Get ready to start counting cats.

      Like


    • You are simply wrong. Field tests and countless betas-turned-alpha have borne this out. Look at fucking Mark Zuckerberg. On paper a desirable alpha, but in real life still has the same asian girlfriend he had in college. However, if he learned just a day’s worth of game, he’d have whoever he wants.

      Like


    • She never says Game doesn’t work.

      [Heartiste: That’s exactly what she says. Which marks her out as a troll. All “her” talking points sound like they came straight from an anti-game blog.]

      She’s simply saying that asshole game isn’t enough. You and I both know this is true.

      [Define “enough”.]

      These men trying to befriend her and take her around town, even if they dial up the asshole game every now and again, aren’t really running top tier asshole game anyway.

      [Which is why she has no ground upon which to claim that asshole game doesn’t work. What does she expect? “She” surrounds herself with eunuchs.]

      Women intuit if a man is ‘one-of-those-guys’ through a lot more than how he treats her- that’s all she’s saying.

      [And she is wrong. Women are no longer any mystery. Their “intuition” is simply a primal sexual lust for certain delineated and categorized male behaviors. Behaviors that can, yes indeedy, be mimicked, learned and mastered.]

      And why are you trying to come down on this chick, calling her a slut?

      [Trying?]

      She’s easy for the right man– ALL women are easy for the right man. Isn’t that the point?

      [Not necessarily. Some less than impressive sluts giveitup a lot quicker to an above-average man because they are starved for alpha attention.]

      You’ll let the gaggle of neurotic 0/10 chicks flail around on your comment board unchecked,

      [My love is random.]

      but you come down on the one female who agrees with you.

      [It’s not about agreement or disagreement with the hosts. It’s about wrongheadedness and trollery. Two things she has in spades, and which for some reason you have overlooked.]

      She’s pointing out that she can tell when a guy is faking it- how is this offensive to you?

      [Offensive ain’t got nothing to do with it. Stupid is more accurate. Sure, an inept man with poor game will raise a woman’s hackles, but a man with tight game is not only unassailable, but his “fakery” is sexually arousing to women. What our resident troll won’t admit, or can’t admit, (and we here have our doubts that she’s new to the Chateau scene) is that game is in and of itself attractive to women, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE BEING SEDUCED. Game is an end more than it is a means.]

      Like


      • “Game is an end more than it is a means.”

        Hence the term “Inner Game.”

        Start out doing, end up being.

        Like


    • “Being straight forward worked for him because he’s one of those guys who can get away with expressing overt sexual interest in women”

      Actually all men who can correctly mimic the alpha mindset can get away with it, but you know this. It’s just women hate hate hate betas pretending to be alpha with game because women genuinely have trouble telling the difference between a beta using good game and a real alpha. Which is of course why you futilely try to fool men into thinking game doesn’t work.

      Like


      • It’s just women hate hate hate betas pretending to be alpha with game because women genuinely have trouble telling the difference between a beta using good game and a real alpha.

        I’d replace “hate with “loathe”, but otherwise, spot on.

        Of course, one needs to consider that the “deception” is only inceptual. Doing is becoming. It applies to both natural betas and recovering, betaized alphas.

        Like


      • Ya, these girls who preach that an you can’t fake it till you make it are trying to discourage social class mobility.

        The easiest way to get them to short circuit their own argument is to agree with them. But you agree with a twist. You get them to agree with something that they didn’t realize they were agreeing with. Agree that internalized game is what is effective.

        GZZZTT! Wires crossed. Lips shut up.

        Like


      • Are you natural or recovering? hee!!

        Like


      • Talking to me, what? No dichotomy here. Natural and recovered. Hehe.

        Like


  32. on August 17, 2011 at 12:48 am Rocket Science

    I believe our blog host has always emphasized asshole game. It is easy to do, and works more than not. One of my favorite posts of his was what to do if your girl friend catches you cheating on her. The full asshole defense! What genius.

    Like


  33. H, What about the happy medium guys – the ones who aren’t too assholish and not too nice either – are they successful with these same kinds of women? Where do they fit in?

    at some point if a man is genuinley a good person how difficult it must be for them to be a constant asshole. i’m really curious b/c I don’t think its that easy for all men who want to get laid to simply be an asshole if its not in their nature.

    Like


    • Not everyone has what it takes. And many could be better off optimizing their looks to fit the asshole avatar.
      It’s easier to pull off for a one night stand, but if the guy is truly nice, if all the truths about women’s hypergamy didn’t fuck him up and turn him into a merciless sociopath, I suppose that LTRs cannot work out with chicks who need a 24/7 asshole game.

      Like


      • True. i think for a nicer guy it can be simple to be aloof and assholish for temporary gains. But the long-term ones would be tricky b/c its requiring CONSTANT awareness of how to balance the nice guy in him with the aloofness. But then i guess as you said certain women are not for long terming and they are usually the ones who like the up and down drama of being on a roller coaster with a jerk.

        Like


      • And those chicks are not ltr material anyway.

        Like


      • I’m not sure what you mean by “I suppose that LTRs cannot work out with chicks who need a 24/7 asshole game.”

        Is it because being assholish is tiring difficult work that goes against your nature?

        Like


      • I’m not talking about myself. I’m just assuming that for a genuinely nice guy who happens to know about the efficiency of asshole game, it would be difficult for him to pull it off over a long period of time.
        But I could be wrong. Maybe everyone just needs a spark in order for his inner alpha to take the lead.

        Like


      • That is what I am thinking Anon. That for a guy who is just naturally a decent person, he may be successful in getting laid by turning on the asshole game but for long term he may run into some issues with trying to balance it out. This is why I brought up the “happy medium” guy and how and where if at all he fits into gsme b/c it would seem the happy medium guy would work for long term while the asshole guy would work better for short term temporary sexual hook ups.

        Like


      • Heartiste brought it up on several occasions. LTRs cannot work if aloofness is not complemented by sprinkles of betatude.
        Any guy who seeks a ltr has to find his own balance, and learn to decipher his girl’s emotions to act accordingly.
        But let’s not forget, neecy, that this is a pua blog. The main objective here is not marital bliss. Most of the guys here are bitter reformed betas who don’t give a fuck about the success or failure of a ltr. It’s all about getting pussy and walking unscathed from relationships.

        Like


      • “Most of the guys here are bitter reformed betas who don’t give a fuck about the success or failure of a ltr. It’s all about getting pussy and walking unscathed from relationships.”

        Mmmkay. i guess that answers the question then.

        Like


      • “Most of the guys here are bitter reformed betas who don’t give a fuck about the success or failure of a ltr. It’s all about getting pussy and walking unscathed from relationships”

        Burned twice, shy third time. Never again.

        Like


      • Rick and Anon

        This makes me so sad honestly. I did not realize so many good guys were being treated poorly by women in favor of men who treat them less than stellar. I also didn’t realize women could be so heartless to good men. I was aware of some women’s desire to date losers and jerks but I didn’t think they were women who were getting into relationships with good guys (who they knew they didn’t want) and then hurting them later.

        Like


      • “I did not realize so many good guys were being treated poorly by women in favor of men who treat them less than stellar”

        All of those women that ask, “Where are the good men at”?

        That’s code for, “After I fucked them over or wouldn’t give them the time of day, where’d they go?”.

        Like


      • Rick I am really sad. I didn’t realize so many good guys were being burned out there. I just always wanted to believe that women were “sugar and spice and everything nice” and always wanted the best for themselves. That is what I was “told” and how I was raised. Now I feel kinda stupid, since I am discovering this to not be true. I was cut from a very different unique cloth than most women today so this is really very hard for me to understand how women can be so ruthless in the sexual market.

        I get the whole wanting the bad boy on a raw animalistic level. yes its natural. but i just thought women (unlike men)were able to rise above their raw natural instincts to do the most logical rewarding thing for HERSELF, and her sanity in the long term (i.e. get with the happy medium or nice guy). But I guess not. I’m starting to feel weird and questioning what is wrong with me as a woman b/c I never found those kinds of men worthy of my body – EVER (even if they made me tingly or were sexually appealing).

        And it doesn’t matter how attractive a woman is. The fact we told men this is what we wanted (niceness, compassion and to be treated with respect) and then yet reward the guys who do the opposite is even more heartbreaking b/c pretty soon there will be no more good guys left and women are going to regret this.

        Like


      • I think what happens is many women suppress those instincts because they are tired of getting screwed around, so they hook up with some “nice guy”. But then they find him boring, and that asshole at work who rides a motorcycle and has tattoos sure reminds her of her first love…

        Like


    • Here is how I see it: Only a fool keeps on repeating the same mistakes for eternity. This is the essence of what Einstein says, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity. It doesn’t take a stretch for a nice guy to become an uncaring asshole when his perceptions of women are realigned with reality.

      I have grown up being taught, not really through words but through actions of others and advertising that women somehow are the better people. This is also backed up by the feminist statistics of how men are supposedly rapists and violent and women are none of that. In the media men are now usually portrayed as idiots and women are mostly idolized (most of the funny female stereotypes are gone from modern TV).

      And then I got burned a lot by women. Being strung along in LJBF zone, being lied to and deceived and the last relationsship I also took a good hit financially by moving into a shared apartment – at least I was smart enough to be the only one to sign the lease, I’d be out on the street if not for that and I also dodged a bullet by not getting married or having kids like she wanted to.

      I have so far met no women that live up to the way they see themselves and are portrayed and the more I read and hear here and elsewhere the more I see that women may even be worse on average than men. A man might steal your car, rip your arm off and throw it in a lake or burn your house down, but he at least leaves you intact psychologically.

      So for a nice guy to start being an actual asshole (not acting like one) to women it doesn’t take a lot. You just need to leave your politeness and decency towards women behind. I think a lot of men are just turned by women or just lose their sanity or just give up on them.

      Like


      • Get screwed-over enough by women and “F*ck the bitches!” comes easily enough.

        Like


      • Art,

        I too have been raised to believe that women are (and should be) genuinley good and that we are more evolved than males when it comes to compassion and kindness. i was also raised to believe that all women want a “good man” that treats her right and is kind and respectful to her, and that any man who is disrespectful and not kind should not be given any of my time or attention. I am now wondering if that was just lip service b/c it sounds good? I believe pop culture today along with feminist guidelines brainwashes women to act out of their true nature. I’m still not sure that the way women are acting out today is in our biological nature but rather being socialized through feminism and pop culture to be shrewd and aggressive in the sexual/mating/dating arena?

        I always knew women can be quite cruel to each other, but wasn’t aware this extended to so many of the good guys. I have never had the best relationships with women in general as I found/find many to be quite insecure, catty and fake if they sense any kind of competition or have any issues with themselves. Of course I do have friends that don’t fit this profile, but they are hard to find.

        I am sorry to hear about how you have been strung along and treated by some females. All I can say is rest assured anyone who does someone wrong who was good to them and well meaning will get theirs – two fold. It may not happen immediately, b ut it will happen. Karma never fails to show up when its time.

        I have never really had an amazing man or b/f in my life. Many falsely treated me good b/c I was the nice “comfy” g/f but often found out later that they were cheaters and liars. So I don’t know what its like to have a good man and it burns me up to see so many women who have had good men in their lives and took that for granted.

        Like


      • Well it’s a vicious feedback loop. Treat every woman like she’s special even if she’s not and she feels and acts that way. Like anyone deserves credit for winning in a coin flip situation…

        Like


      • Women used to be raised/trained to think that way because thousands of years of experience has taught most cultures that this is the best way to maintain a civilization.

        It is not their natural instinct and in many (all?) ways is actually contrary to the way they think without a proper upbringing.

        It sounds as if you were raised properly. You are now seeing some of the ugly underbelly for the reasons which is unsettling but don’t let that lead to devalue those teachings. Especially from the socialist/femenist side which will then scream that “it isn’t natural.” Natural is sitting in a tree and eating your food raw (paraphrase from Terry Pratchett.)

        You would be much happier living in civilization.

        Like


      • Agreed, most men aren’t excessively polite toward other men because they realize that will get you labeled as weak and taken advantage of, but these same men become absolute wimps around women and think they have to go out of their way to be kind and decent. The reality is, most women will label even moderate politeness as weakness. What these guys dont know is women prey on weakness 10x more than men.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 3:27 pm drunicusrex romana

        What women dislike intensely is any shoe of weakness, which is the opposite of alpha.
        It’s entirely possible to be confident, strong, self-possessed, successful, and, yes, promiscuous with hot young women, without being an evil, douchebag asshole.
        In fact, it’s quite fun.

        Like


      • Woe betide he
        who showeth his
        shoe of weakness

        Like


      • My take is that even so called core principles of game are actually just lego blocks that you may or may not use in your art, at your discretion.

        You don’t need to be aloof, and you don’t need to be an asshole.

        Another way to look at it is that these are not lego bricks at all. You can alter these core principles to suit your personality. Get out your moto-tool and sculpt at these lego-bricks to individualize them to suit you.

        Asshole game? For you it might look like cocky-funny. For another man it might look like negs. For another it might simply look like ignoring the girls chatter while he stares at his laptop, attending to his work and play.

        Like


      • xsplat, most guys here are indoctrinated betas. This blog provides generally a “wax on-wax off” kind of instructional paradigm, to override the programing. Once the frame internalization phase is completed, the calibration can took the root. The main component is situational awareness (which comes as a result of interactions and experience unless a natural endowment). That enables the tailor made approach to in-duh-vidual specimen.

        True, most chick are dumb, dumb, dumb, and one can get away with a relatively canned approach once the tight game principles were internalized. Funny how quick that gets boring, though. Past that phase, one tends to look for itsy bitsy extras. I’m very choosy sumfabitch, nowadays.

        Like


  34. Excellent post; a necessary refresher and new layer of solid foundation.

    In college when I was all natural game I did the best when in pure alpha assholery/jerk frat guy mode. Getting caught cheating on my 21yr gf with hot 18yr freshmen, making out with a girl at a party then ditching her point blank to talk to a hotter one…and on the contrary when I beta-fied and expressed ‘feelings’ and niceness I went home and jerked off and later came to realize the same chics were over me.

    I do however submit that assholery has to be calibrated to the girl and the situation. A uni-dimensional asshole with no situational awareness or adaptation skills will be exactly that, just an asshole; and will land in the ‘he’s mean and angry” zone. The pua asshole will tactfully hit those attraction spikes while getting the laughter arm punch responses “lol you’re such a dick…” “omg I can’t believe you did/said that” “you’re such a brat” “you’re just like my brother/dad…”

    Never apologize.

    Like


  35. on August 17, 2011 at 1:02 am Rocket Science

    Re: Diem,

    Our blog host has thoughtfully provided indices to rate your dating value.

    Game is a system to:
    1. Increase your dating value a couple of levels.
    2. Get you out in the action and get laid occasionally.

    Men need game because, as they lady said, men have sex with whom they can, women have sex with whom they wish. (Well, she was a very young pretty lady.)

    It is not meant to allow you effortlessly to score babes above your value.

    BTW, those guys you strung out were losers. Why would it feel good stringing out losers? The answer is obvious to readers of the blog.

    Like


  36. on August 17, 2011 at 1:05 am Rocket Science

    Re: Neecy:

    I think any man can learn to be an asshole. Some are naturals, others have to work at it a bit.

    Like


    • Well i do think its easier to be a jerk and asshole than it is to be nice. I guess if its for short term pleasure it will work. but in cases of long term i wonder how a guy can calibrate and adjust so that he can comfortably remain LT and not fall back into being too nice. that is why i say possibly a happy medium guy can also be successful b/c it would require small tweaks in his approach here and there as opposed to major tweaks. But i am not sure how successful the happy medium guys are in gaming – which is my real question.

      Like


      • My god I am sick of you. You are ruining this blog you effin pain in the arse.

        Like


      • Why isn’t something being done about this Neecy Megatroll ?

        Like


      • GOOD MORNING SUNSHINE!!!!

        Like


      • I ALWAYS skip the neecey comments!!They make me head spin…

        Like


      • The more you feed it…

        Like


      • y u spoil the good article.

        Like


      • on August 17, 2011 at 11:03 am Anonymous Jew

        Neecy, I haven’t seen you make one single productive contribution to the comments on this blog. And that’s saying a lot, because you post A LOT.

        Like


      • Well I’m sorry you feel that way. maybe its just best to scroll past when you see I have posted? 🙂

        Like


      • on August 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm Michael Westen

        Neecy,
        For the beta guys it is harder to be an asshole. They believe it will push a girl away. Nor do they know how to be the proper kind of asshole/jerk..if they try they just appear bitter and angry, which doesn’t attract anyone.

        Like


      • Hi Michael,

        I agree. i just feel so bad for so many guys out there who just thought doing the right thing was going to be a win for them. Its heartbreaking.

        Like


      • I agree. i just feel so bad for so many guys out there who just thought doing the right thing was going to be a win for them. Its heartbreaking.

        if you’re sincere, then you can help guys like this in real life – tell them to read this blog.

        Like


      • Well i don’t know that many guys on a personal level and the ones I know at work are either married or dating heavily & seem happy so I’m not sure they need it. I guess I have been living in a bubble…

        Like


      • Nothing wrong with that, I live in a bubble – various ones, in fact, some of which are within each other. And I loathe to leave my favorite ones.

        Like


  37. In the context of an LTR or marriage; no matter how much you are “into” a woman, you must never ever give her 100% of yourself.

    This is where an element of aloofness is usefull and actually pays of dividends in keeping her on her toes and maintaining attraction and a good sex life.

    In the book Mating in Captivity by Esther Perel (well worth a read) she explains how too much emotional intimacy actually harms a couples sex life and kills sex drive.

    Like


    • And I’m far from a bitch.

      [Heartiste: Coulda fooled me.]

      Like


      • If you are whoring around with countless men and yet none have committed to you, you are just another delusional whore who thinks her dating strategy is working despite all evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, each day you age a little more, constantly eroding your ability to screw men over with your looks. If you haven’t landed a top-tier alpha for an LTR then you aren’t worthy of one, you are another one of their cum rags who is convinced she’s special.

        Awesome, now we have a third cunt to pop up and ruin the blog with her banality, wretched whorishness, calculating cuntiness, and complete lack of wisdom.

        This used to be a real nice little men’s club till the know-nothing cunts showed up, just like they do every time any men anywhere get together without them.

        Like


      • Bitch you need to start sucking my dick!

        Like


      • I mean at least the guys who’ve replied me had the mental strength and aptitude to string a few sentences together. You’re just a troll and will be regarded as such.

        Like


      • Or responded to. Whichever.

        Like


  38. The guy referenced above as being “such an asshole (like this dude)” said, “Oh, and I’m in a band. You have to be in a band. Girls love guys in bands.”

    That’s great, if you’re in your 20s. What’s the older-guy version of “being in a band”? (Yes, I know there’s Charlie Watts and all, but I can’t pull that off.)

    Like


  39. on August 17, 2011 at 6:39 am JustSomeOmegaMale

    I doesn’t seem quite as simple as that.
    I’ve tried the asshole routine time and again – all I ever got was insulted, ignored and beaten up. Just being an asshole doesn’t work, I think. You need to first make a woman interested in your with your looks, and assholery will boost that initial attraction.

    Like


    • It is like life generally, sir. If that is you wish, you can be as big an asshole as you can afford to be, given your other value to the people around you.

      Star players on winning teams. Generals with demonstrable ability to properly place and then motivate battle units during war time. Executives who can actually deliver results in the form of consistent above-market returns at lower risk exposures. Politicians who can win elections and translate that into political power for his supporters. These are all examples of people who can get away with being huuuuuge assholes if that is part of their personality. They can get away with it because their DEMONSTRATED VALUE to the people who tolerate their assholery exceeds their pain in the ass factor. In some cases–most cases, probably–it is actually the asshole part of the person that permits the outlier trait to exist in the first place. Is short, it is because they are assholes that they are so very, very useful and valuable. As a result, we tend to filter for and select assholes to fill those roles, because the venn diagram overlap is often obvious. True, not every asshole is valuable, but valuable people are frequently (but not always) complete assholes.

      But the key thing is that the value is more important to us–much more important, in fact–than whether the person is or is not an asshole.

      Same thing with women selecting sexual partners. If she perceives you as bringing significant benefit into her life, then she will tolerate your assholery. And if your asshole behavior is actually WHY you bring significant benefit into her life, she will select for men with asshole traits to begin with. So yeah, women would, in a perfect situation, love to find a high value man who is not also an asshole. (Much like we prefer star players, executives, generals, etc. who are both wildly competent AND decent people.) But in the end, she is looking for high value, and if she has to tolerate asshole to get it, she will.

      I would also note that some women fail to distinguish between asshole traits and high value, and they leave themselves open to being gulled. The same is true of people generally: they think that because the last competent high value person to fill a role was an asshole, it must be that assholes are high value people. That latter error explains why elections and companies so frequently produce incompetent leaders, and why soldiers have so often had to “correct” prior errors in leader selection.

      Like


      • Very astute observations. It explains why our society is in shambles, and our dating market feels like brutal combat. It fully explains game.

        What happened is that a critical mass of people became hip to the fact that you can ACT like an overconfident, aloof, arrogant asshole, most people will believe that you actually possess redeeming qualities to justify such arrogance. These people realized that when you are a shithead, it gets the same results as being actually respectable. The meek, weak sheep of the world just eat it up. Especially women, being the weakest minded of all beings.

        It’s a lot easier to act like a prick than to spend a lifetime developing good qualities, skills, and talents. If the results are the same either way, (because women and omegas are too stupid to tell the difference) why bother being a good person?

        We now have a society full of fake, fronting motherfuckers who don’t have shit to back it up. They long ago gave up on building value and character, and instead focused on fooling people into thinking they were better. It works for them. Thanks ladies.

        Like


      • “These people realized that when you are a shithead, it gets the same results as being actually respectable”

        Reinforced from junior high on. Ever see the star quarterback/running back/wide reciever or bball center get into trouble?

        Like


      • Excellent, excellent observation. It’s kind of like when feminists claim that men are in power when that isn’t true. Not all men are in power, however most people who are in power are men.

        The simple act of merely mimicking a high value person who exhibits asshole traits won’t do you as much good as actually being valuable.

        [Heartiste: Actually, yes it will. And that’s what frightens you. This ground has been tread and retread a million times before you showed up here. Now get off this blog you troll, or search the archives for the education you need.]

        Like


    • “… all I ever got was insulted, ignored and beaten up.”

      Maybe you were (without being aware of it) showing girls your loserish side. It’s written in these ten commandments: “Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men” I couldn’t agree with this more.

      “Just being an asshole doesn’t work, I think.”

      With me, it totally does. But you have to convince yourself that you are an alpha, otherwise it’s really not going to work … You have chosen yourself a name JustSomeOmegaMale – Why?

      “You need to first make a woman interested in your with your looks, and assholery will boost that initial attraction.”

      Looks are not so important, you can be an “ugly” asshole, but it’s true that a good-looking asshole is a very powerful blood-pressure-lowering combination. If you are just good looking (not many men are, unfortunately – girls look much better in my opinion) and young I’d find you attractive, but after a certain age (like 35) you have to compensate it with alphaness, especially if you have no decent job, but that’s just how I feel about it. (But maybe my opinion doesn’t matter – especially if you are, like other guys here, interested only in 10’s aged 11-25. In this case, better listen to them – they know very good what these girls want)

      Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 7:53 am JustSomeOmegaMale

        >But you have to convince yourself that you are an alpha, otherwise it’s really not going to work … You have chosen yourself a name JustSomeOmegaMale – Why?

        Because the whole conviction about being alpha? I had that beaten out of me by real alphas and by over a hundred rejections. I turned 26 recently and the closest people to me are my employers.

        >Looks are not so important, you can be an “ugly” asshole

        You people keep saying that, but I’ve yet to see any proof. From time to time you post guys and claim them to be ugly but in truth those guys are just average. They’re just not super-handsome, and that seems to be ugly nowadays. What the fuck am I supposed to do if I’m really ugly to the point of people pointing at me in the street and laughing? Honestly, I’ve never seen a guy who looks like me or worse with a girlfriend.

        Like


      • If you truly believe its looks, there’s always plastic surgery (painful and risky but skilled surgeons usually get pretty decent results). And the gym, obviously.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 11:04 am JustSomeOmegaMale

        I’ve been going to the gym twice or thrice a week for the past seven years. My body just doesn’t put on muscle and my country’s shit medical system refuses to acknowledge that as a health problem. Incidentally a lack of muscle growth also means that I have nothing to fill out the skin flaps that developed when I lost weight (used to be quite a bit overweight in my teens).

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 8:18 am Obstinance Works

        When you’re ugly and you have confidence, women will wonder even more about you. Just start acting as if you are the best looking man in the world. Act like you’re 10,000 times better than every hot girl you meet, and every handsome stud for that matter. Try to get a kick out the absurdity of it even.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 11:07 am JustSomeOmegaMale

        In my experience, people will not wonder – they will challenge your confidence and some will go out of their way to undermine it. And since I *am* only faking confidence (i.e. I don’t have anything tangible to back it up other than perhaps my fists but I’m about as strong physically as a 12 year old – see above) it’s pretty damn easy for them to do that.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 8:26 am Obstinance Works

        Use this line often: It’s tough to be such a sex symbol.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm old guy, lower case

        Do you have a nice voice?

        Date the blind.

        No, seriously, not making fun of you, blind girls can very, very, very cool.

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 6:51 pm JustSomeOmegaMale

        Haha, no. My voice is high and my skin is oily and covered in bumps, which, I guess, would be a huge turnoff for a blind girl.

        Like


  40. Lately, I’ve noticed through my girlfriends that lot of guys have no clue how to neg or playfully tease. It is becoming an evermore occorance. They’re fkin up by insulting the girls instead of opening up. I hardly neg, i never open up with a neg, I’ll tease and play and throw a neg or two in there…subtly.

    The fact that I don’t neg right out of the gate but playfully tease and act aloof/bored a lot of times already puts me above the girl I’m persuing.

    My girlfriend the other night was walking on this patio, a guy told her “Hey there, you look extremely average tonight”. What kinda shit is that?

    Like


    • You can teach most people how to apply paint to canvas. Most can never make a decent painting on their own, however.

      Like


    • Thats called *being an asshole* or being less agreeable. Being an asshole means straight up being pointlessly mean, not putting endless effort into crafting the perfect neg which conveys the precise micro-shade of meanness you wish to express.

      Thats why being an asshole of course does not work and is not found in the least bit attractive by women.

      Truth is, what women like are men who STAND UP for themselves, and women will tolerate a certain amount of pointless meannes (asshonelness) if it means the guy will stand up for himself – in other words women will find the guy attractive DESPITE his assholeness, not BECAUSE of it, lol.

      Of course the guy who can stand up for himself without being an asshole is the most attractive, and thats why you generally see the hottest women with generally pleasant, agreeable, attractive men who you know would not take shit from anyone, but who are quite pleasant if you are polite to them.

      Like


      • Greg you are so right. I have some very conventionally hot/.attractive co workers/friends (I’m talking Barbie Doll attractive) and pretty much have the pick of the litter. and none of their guys (or the guys they are attracted to)are assholes in the sense of asshole. They do not dig jerky guys. But the guys they go out with are usually very assertive and seem to command respect and attention – but manage doing so without being a complete turn off or outwardly ass. Its as you descirbed – women love men who can stand up for themselves, who are solid etc.

        IF they happen to have some asshole traits, it means that their other masculine qualities outweight those asshole traits. If a man is charming enough, he can possibly at times get away with some assholness but guys who can do this are rare IMO. Most men seem to fall on either extremes. That is why i brought up the happy medium guy – he’s the one that knows how to balance both to make everyone happy.

        Like


    • Game is like church: many attend but few understand.

      Like


  41. Ive scanned through the replies so I apologize if anyone made the point Im about to make, which is such an obvious point that its quite possible many of you have made it already…..so

    Just looked at the paper and NOWHERE does it say guys with these qualities get *more* or *hotter* girls or that girls are more attracted to these guys. All it says is that guys with these qualities are *unsuited* to long-term relationships – duh! – and their particular mating strategy is a shot term one.

    Yep, real strong confirmation of the girls dig jerks theme – now you guys go out there and be a pointless, meaninglessly mean dude and just watch the ladies swoon….good luck.

    Like


    • “All it says is that guys with these qualities are *unsuited* to long-term relationships”

      lol emotionally unavailable exploitative jerks.

      “and their particular mating strategy is a shot term one.”

      can beggars be choosers?

      Like


    • Shhhhh. You are not supposed to go beyond the abstract and interpret it in whatever way best supports your own position.

      Like


  42. Shit, King A destroyed that bitch.

    Like


  43. This is off-topic from this blog post, but another scientific study states:
    “A series of US research projects suggest that when college-age women think about romance, they become less interested in pursuing studies in science and math. ”
    Thoughts on this? http://www.academicagroup.ca/top10/stories/13647

    Like


    • I’m like that. I think about romance all the time and can’t concentrate on anything logical (I can cook, clean and observe myself in the mirror, though)
      Luckily, I have some self-discipline so I haven’t yet fallen into a complete hysteria, but I don’t know what future brings. I want to have it all – career and be a totally submissive wife and mum, unfortunately the day has only 24 hours and there’s no man good enough for me and in a few months (hopefully years) I won’t be good enough for the men I want …

      Like


      • Why don’t you simply provide a picture and we’ll give your a time horizon…

        Like


      • Why on earth would you want a career? Staying home and raising kids is ultimately worth much more (for a woman). Just because you can have a career doesn’t mean you should. The tradeoff to having others raise your kids, etc., two cars two insurance etc. is nowhere near worth it. BTDT.

        Like


    • Whenever the students considered themselves attractive or desirable, the next day they would be disengaged from the class.

      i can believe that. after all, how many hot female scientists/engineers/actuaries/mathematicians have you seen?

      Like


      • Yeah they really dominate those professions.

        Like


      • I know a bunch of smoking hot female engineers (well, largely they are former engineers who are now going into management and they are going to do a good job at it [1]) and two solid 8 actuaries (out of the 4 or so I know, in total).

        Scientists I dont have enough of a sample to judge.

        [1] I understand this is not the party line here, but a girl commanding the attention of a room because of what she does instead of how she looks (although that admittedly helps in the above mentioned cases) is hot. The six figure income does not hurt, either. Plus most girls from that education path are much more straightforward – nerd girls if you want.

        Like


  44. KING A (BTW I always enjoy reading your posts and usually walk away with some jewel of knowledge) you said:

    “Maybe they share your unlimited hypergamous desires, but they have decidedly sought ways to contain them (or at least not openly boast about them).”

    Are you saying some women even in their hypergamous desires contain and avoid situations that will ultimately cause her emotional distress later despite the short term pleasures? Is this what you mean? I’m curious as to what you mean by “contain their desires” and what that consists of – i.e. avoiding these men even though they make her tingly or just simply not admitting openly her desires for such males but still indulging these men secretly.

    Like


    • neecy troll: in a recent thread u argued that “once in a blue moon sex” with an alpha was okay since it was “aaamazing”. That’s unrestrained hypergamy a.k.a. Whoredom.
      That’s why: pix or GTFO!

      Like


      • No I never said that, and i don’t really use terms alpha/beta b/c I don’t really identify men by those lables. What i did say was there are those rare cases when a woman may have an amazing connection with a MAN and its out of this world to the point she can’t resist him and in that case go for it. But this should not be a best practice used frequently, like so many women who sleep around do.

        pix of?

        Like


      • on August 18, 2011 at 8:49 am Obstinance Works

        Anal insertions are always a good start. Cucumbers.

        Like


      • Thanks, Obstinance!

        Like


      • Bullshit!

        Neecy: “Its okay to dip every once in a blue moon for a nice quick hot fling”
        Source: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-reluctant-cockblock/#comment-268197

        Should any woman actually act on your statement, the only cause for this kind of behavior would be hypergamy – and the only result of such behavior would be sluthood/whoredom.

        “to the point that she can’t resist him” is not a justification for casual sex – and if you hold it as such, you are a slut. It is ***this*** behavior of sleeping around by women (aka sluthood) that’s the cause of the beta angst that you decry elsewhere on this blog.

        But your tears are crocodile tears! You dont really care about the suffering of the betas, despite your protestations (twice in this blog post) that you are “sad” about the good guys getting burnt. Your actions belie you – you very likely practice what you preach – in that you have probably had “once in a blue moon sex” with someone that you felt you had an “amazing connection” with. ***That*** is what burns the betas.

        You say above to rick and anon:
        “I did not realize so many good guys were being treated poorly by women in favor of men who treat them less than stellar. ”

        You are among the women who treat good guys poorly – witness your own advice: “there are those rare cases when a woman may have an amazing connection with a MAN and its out of this world to the point she can’t resist him and in that case go for it.”

        What burns the betas is the *fact* (mind you, the *fact*, not the *opinion*) is that there are NO such “rare cases” – its all hypergamy – and it results in (1) sluts and (2) burnt betas. Yes its sad, but c’est la vie.

        Among these parts, sluts have no more value than what’s between their legs. And that’s why Obstinance Works made a constructive suggestion to you about what you could contribute to this thread. Now, pix or GTFO!

        Like


      • And now she’s gonna reply that ugly girls got it worse because they too are ignored by males.
        Let it go, dude, you can’t negotiate with hamsters.
        There’s no alternative but to alpha up, optimize the looks and hit the scene. Female nature is what it is, and will stay that way.

        Like


      • You are right.

        Like


      • And thanks.

        Like


      • OMG What the heck are you talking about! Nothing I said suggests that *i* personally do this. I was having a discussion with CRUMPTRESS about her sleeping with a jerk while she was looking for her prince charming. i warned her that when women consume a certain amount of jerkness in a man for too long they will not have the capacity to deal with a good man when he comes along. So I suggested she not sleep with anyone until she found the right man OR for the women who CANNOT keep their legs closed until they find Mr. Right, that they would bet better off having RARE hot flings with someone they connect with as opposed to sleeping with one jerk who will start consuming her and start making her feel all men are like this.

        And “amazing connection” can mean A LOT of things Samson! for me amazing connection is a man that I connect with on a deeper level than him just being hot or whatever it is these days that make women tingly and jump in the bed with any guy. I am CELIBATE ok. Obviously I don’t sleep around. I have had many times I could have had sex with attractive men and I chose not to b/c I already know the end results and I don’t want to go there.

        But if I do end up sleeping with someone then it will be someone who has a very special effect over me to make me do that. And b/c of my age I have to be prepared that I may not ever really see a LTR or get married but I still have sexual needs and desires and YES I may eventually have to have occasional hook ups with a particular male to fulfill that sexual desire before I get too old and undesirable.

        Yes I have chosen not to have sex. I choose not to b/c I want to have sex with a man who has earned the right to that part of me. ANND yes I don’t think its so bad if a woman has a once in a blue moon hook up with a man whom she has vibed and connected with. I would approve of that before I approve of what most women typically do today and that is sleep around with a lot of men b/c they are hot or make them tingly. I have not had sex for a long time out of choice and I am reaching my boiling point and getting tired of trying to be miss nice girl and getting nothing out of it.

        AND YES I do feel bad for good guys who get burned b/c no one who is trying to do the right thing by someone or who is well intentioned should be treated like crap or strung along.

        [Heartiste: All right Neecy you’re getting into a commenting spree again. Dial it back. Quality, not quantity. Emails have been rolling in about your, uh, commanding presence in the comments, and numerous readers have asked… no, have demanded… that you be banned. Now we here at the Chateau are not THOSE kind of guys, so we tend to take a hands-off approach with annoying commenters. But if the din of complaints gets louder… well, let’s just say you got fair warning.]

        Like


      • Oh-oh… Sounds like neecy’s in trouble.
        For what it’s worth, i think she should stay. She brings sometimes something positive, and she’s not a total bitch…but that’s just me

        [Heartiste: No, she’s not a bitch. She’s actually quite feminine compared to some female commenters here. But she could help her cause by refining her contributions and refraining from biting the stinky bait of every troll.]

        Like


      • Ok Heartiste! 🙂

        Like


      • Honestly Neecy, nothing annoys me more than commenters overreacting and misreading someone’s post if they see ANY semblance of something related to a point/belief/observation that they don’t like, or past personal pain. What happened to being objective?

        And to top it all off, to want to BAN someone based on those things, much less how many times someone comments on a board (especially if they agree with many of the principles). That’s just stupid.

        I really like your posts Neecy. Perhaps Heartiste’s right about scaling back you number of posts (I don’t know the average number of comments a person makes on this blog), but the vitrol and antagonistic behavior you receive sometimes is ridiculous and unwarrented.

        Like


      • “to the point that she can’t resist him” is not a justification for casual sex – and if you hold it as such, you are a slut. It is ***this*** behavior of sleeping around by women (aka sluthood) that’s the cause of the beta angst that you decry elsewhere on this blog.

        And if I were to replace “she” with “he” in the first sentence, let me guess, it would be a justification (key word here: justification).

        But your tears are crocodile tears! You dont really care about the suffering of the betas, despite your protestations (twice in this blog post) that you are “sad” about the good guys getting burnt. Your actions belie you – you very likely practice what you preach – in that you have probably had “once in a blue moon sex” with someone that you felt you had an “amazing connection” with. ***That*** is what burns the betas.

        So it burns betas that ONCE IN A BLUE MOON, a woman chooses an alpha? A woman should be thought of as a traitor to betas because she just happen to have slept with an alpha? I think what really bothers me about this whole thing is how you’re insinuating that women should advoid certain types of men for the benefit of some other millions of men out there in the world. That’s like me wanting men to advoid extremely hot chicks or promiscuous women for my and other women’s benefit. Would it technically be a benefit, yeah maybe, but it doesn’t “burn” or upset me. It’s your life. I won’t be mad at you for it. Does that make sense? I’m not sure if I’m getting my point across clearly.

        I’m not saying that it’s ok for women to sleep with jerks and a-holes, or treating betas with disrespect. But there’s nothing wrong with a woman falling for, as what Neecy puts it, a MAN (however that’s defined). If the “once in a blue moon” was with a beta and it leads to “sluthood” as you put it, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind at all.

        And let it be known that I also don’t like putting men into categories like alphas, betas, and omegas, just like I don’t like putting women into the whole virgin/madonna: whore categories.

        What burns the betas is the *fact* (mind you, the *fact*, not the *opinion*) is that there are NO such “rare cases” – its all hypergamy – and it results in (1) sluts and (2) burnt betas. Yes its sad, but c’est la vie.

        How would you know exactly if you never experienced it personally? Just like it’s possible for a guy to have a connection with a female 10 that’s beyond her looks, it’s possible for a female to have a connection with a alpha male. Yes hypergamy may cause interest, but a connection is something else, something more.

        Like


    • Neecy wrote: Are you saying some women even in their hypergamous desires contain and avoid situations that will ultimately cause her emotional distress later despite the short term pleasures? Is this what you mean? I’m curious as to what you mean by “contain their desires” and what that consists of – i.e. avoiding these men even though they make her tingly or just simply not admitting openly her desires for such males but still indulging these men secretly.

      The Tao of Steve was schooling us about these matters long before “Game” was cool. And although, like every player movie ever, the film pussed-out halfway through (it was directed by a chick who spells her name “Jenniphr,” soooo…), the screenwriter Duncan North grounded his wisdom in the ancients, and for that he has a unique credibility.

      The first maxim in The Tao is “eliminate your desire.”

      Neither “avoiding these men even though they make her tingly” or “still indulging these men secretly” suffices. Eliminate your desire does not mean “conceal” your desire. It means get rid of it. Gone. No tinglies. We think this is impossible (“I CAN’T HELP HOW I FEEEEEL!!!”) because we’ve been told all our lives it is impossible. And the culture has abandoned all pretense of helping us in our struggle for discipline.

      If the best your weak little will can do is “avoid situations” like alcoholics need to avoid bars, then, at least take that minimally prophylactic measure. If you can’t help your sluttiness like the harlot-braggart above, then stop advertising it, and above all end the habit of rationalizing your Cum One Cum All, Open Slot policies.

      Contain your desires, from within if you can, from without if you must. Civilization is based on this containment, in men yes, but in women especially. That is why the virtue of chastity is of crucial social importance in the maintenance of the civil order. Though chastity technically applies to both sexes, civility cannot exist for long in the absence of chaste women. The consequences of men’s promiscuity can be concealed. The consequences of women’s promiscuity is born on their bellies.

      Even in a contraceptive culture, the consequences cannot be hidden. In fact the consequences are somewhat more insidious, since we convince ourselves that there are no consequences to sex beyond pregnancy and therefore deny the immeasurable toll it exacts from the female psyche.

      Sex is explosive. It drives people mad. If it isn’t contained, there cannot be peace. Outside of civil structures, we will still instinctively organize ourselves into tribes and packs with endless rules about sex designed to maintain the peace. Sheer exhaustion and ceaseless competition require a general truce among sexual rivals. The most common and most obvious grounds for that truce: one woman for one man for life.

      We have been playing fast and loose with that rational, ancient arrangement for the last several decades. Hypergamy has breached containment. Contraception masks many of the consequences of this nuclear meltdown but does not neutralize them. We are therefore left with a “marketplace” that resembles a ceaseless, no-rules fight to the death far from the Alpha Pack structure which at least maintained a kind of dictatorial peace, and still farther from the comprehensive social stability of marriage.

      We are children born into the chaos. This site recommends men loot and pillage because they can. It has nothing to say to women except, Spread Em. You are the unfortunate victims of debts your parents incurred, and we are the mafioso come to collect. Nothing personal, sweetie. It’s business.

      Or if you prefer the ur-alpha Jean-Jacques (five illegitimate children when that decidedly wasn’t cool) to explain it, see below.

      Like


    • Cf. Rousseau’s Emile, Book V, “Sophie, or Woman”
      [excerpt, bold added]

      http://www.philosophy-index.com/rousseau/emile/book-v.php

      [God] has endowed man with boundless passions, together with a law to guide them, so that man may be alike free and self-controlled; though swayed by these passions man is endowed with reason by which to control them. Woman is also endowed with boundless passions; God has given her modesty to restrain them. Moreover, he has given to both a present reward for the right use of their powers, In the delight which springs from that right use of them, i.e., the taste for right conduct established as the law of our behavior. To my mind this is far higher than the instinct of the beasts.

      Whether the woman shares the man’s passion or not, whether she is willing or unwilling to satisfy it, she always repulses him and defends herself, though not always with the same vigor, and therefore not always with the same success. If the siege is to be successful, the besieged must permit or direct the attack. How skilfully can she stimulate the efforts of the aggressor. The freest and most delightful of activities does not permit of any real violence; reason and nature are alike against it; nature, in that she has given the weaker party strength enough to resist if she chooses; reason, in that actual violence is not only most brutal in itself, but it defeats its own ends, not only because the man thus declares war against his companion and thus gives her a right to defend her person and her liberty even at the cost of the enemy’s life, but also because the woman alone is the judge of her condition, and a child would have no father if any man might usurp a father’s rights.

      Thus the different constitution of the two sexes leads us to a third conclusion, that the stronger party seems to be master, but is as a matter of fact dependent on the weaker, and that, not by any foolish custom of gallantry, nor yet by the magnanimity of the protector, but by an inexorable law of nature. For nature has endowed woman with a power of stimulating man’s passions in excess of man’s power of satisfying those passions, and has thus made him dependent on her goodwill, and compelled him in his turn to endeavor to please her, so that she may be willing to yield to his superior strength. Is it weakness which yields to force, or is it voluntary self-surrender? This uncertainty constitutes the chief charm of the man’s victory, and the woman is usually cunning enough to leave him in doubt. In this respect the woman’s mind exactly resembles her body; far from being ashamed of her weakness, she is proud of it; her soft muscles offer no resistance, she professes that she cannot lift the lightest weight; she would be ashamed to be strong. And why? Not only to gain an appearance of refinement; she is too clever for that; she is providing herself beforehand with excuses, with the right to be weak if she chooses.

      The consequences of sex are wholly unlike for man and woman. The male is only a male now and again, the female is always a female, or at least all her youth; everything reminds her of her sex; the performance of her functions requires a special constitution. She needs care during pregnancy and freedom from work when her child is born; she must have a quiet, easy life while she nurses her children; their education calls for patience and gentleness, for a zeal and love which nothing can dismay; she forms a bond between father and child, she alone can win the father’s love for his children and convince him that they are indeed his own. What loving care is required to preserve a united family! And there should be no question of virtue in all this, it must be a labor of love, without which the human race would be doomed to extinction.

      The mutual duties of the two sexes are not, and cannot be, equally binding on both. Women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man-made laws; this inequality is not of man’s making, or at any rate it is not the result of mere prejudice, but of reason. She to whom nature has entrusted the care of the children must hold herself responsible for them to their father. No doubt every breach of faith is wrong, and every faithless husband, who robs his wife of the sole reward of the stern duties of her sex, is cruel and unjust; but the faithless wife is worse; she destroys the family and breaks the bonds of nature; when she gives her husband children who are not his own, she is false both to him and them, her crime is not infidelity but treason. To my mind, it is the source of dissension and of crime of every kind. Can any position be more wretched than that of the unhappy father who, when he clasps his child to his breast, is haunted by the suspicion that this is the child of another, the badge of his own dishonor, a thief who is robbing his own children of their inheritance [“The male equivalent of rape”]. Under such circumstances the family is little more than a group of secret enemies, armed against each other by a guilty woman, who compels them to pretend to love one another.

      Thus it is not enough that a wife should be faithful; her husband, along with his friends and neighbors, must believe in her fidelity; she must be modest, devoted, retiring; she should have the witness not only of a good conscience, but of a good reputation. In a word, if a father must love his children, he must be able to respect their mother. For these reasons it is not enough that the woman should be chaste, she must preserve her reputation and her good name. From these principles there arises not only a moral difference between the sexes, but also a fresh motive for duty and propriety, which prescribes to women in particular the most scrupulous attention to their conduct, their manners, their behavior. Vague assertions as to the equality of the sexes and the similarity of their duties are only empty words; they are no answer to my argument.

      Like


  45. It completely rubs me the wrong way that guys have to become this type of asshole in order to attract women, even if it is for a short-term mating strategy.

    And I say “this type” because I believe that a guy can be desirable and not have to be manipulative, uncaring, or the “dark” type of asshole. In other words, I believe some of the characteristics of “asshole” behavior aren’t really asshole-ish at all. Like not sweating the small stuff, being a rule breaker, and being disagreeable.

    Now I guess the extent of being disagreeable is what is measured when deciding if someone is an asshole.

    Like


    • But, hey, check out the new definitions of Alpha and Beta as shown in England’s recent rioting… where we’re headed if we get any softer.

      Alpha = Steal and burn things, riot for more government benefits.

      Beta = Earn your own money, have family business burned to ground by rioters.

      Clearly the rioters aren’t sweating the small stuff, following rules or being very agreeable.

      Stanley Kubrick was only 40 years ahead of his time with A Clockwork Orange…

      Like


  46. More than assholes, though, women love power.

    Check out this 8 minute video with an Asian guy and some random hot girl taking a tour of John Assaraff’s house:

    Ignore his “Secret” talk during the tour. What’s important to listen to is the girl’s voice, from driving up to the house, to meeting John, to getting the tour. The submissive giggles, the longing, the “wow…”s exclaimed over and over again. Her face contorted into permanent awe at the end confirms everything we learn here about women.

    Like


  47. Perhaps a useful question is: can civilization ( which is essentially the result of men who have a genetic stake in the future contributing surplus labor) be maintained if society fully or even substantially embraces such a ‘short-term’ strategy in the dominant culture?

    [Heartiste: short answer: no.

    Gotta run, poolside beckons.]

    Like


    • Hope enjoying the sun won’t lower your SMV 😦

      Like


      • It does. But SPF30+ sun screen helps. As do (some) umbrellas and trees.

        I’ve gotten to the point that I automatically downgrade tanned girls by one to three points on the attractiveness scale – if you are dumb enough to tan in 2011, you probably have deficiencies in other areas, too. Note that its less about the actual skin tone (I am a sucker for very white nordic skin, but I like SE Asian skin tone just as much but any darker than that, no attraction – which is shame, because I know a bunch of otherwise pretty hot Southern Indian girls) but how far it is removed from where it would be without tanning.

        Like


    • “no” sigh. that’s what i thought reading thru the archives.

      My strategy if i were a young woman is to get out of the game before i’d get seriously depressed, go get pregnant with the best donor sperm available (blond, blue, over 6′, 130+ IQ) and let it go at that. If one has any inclination to lesbianism, so much the better, because you could use the help.

      Like


  48. I guess the emotional issue is if “fake” game can work.

    H says yes, fake game is indistinguishable from a confident attractive personality, diem says no, and now you remind us that both people are saying the same thing.

    The way around this disagreement is instead of saying “good game”, to label it “internalized game”.

    Then yes, we’ll find no disagreement.

    Like


    • It’s the difference between natural game and learned game.

      There may even be an advantage to learned game as you better understand and can explain what you’re doing. As far as actual skill level there need be no difference.

      Like


  49. on August 17, 2011 at 2:21 pm brightstormyday

    There are a lot of websites dedicated to recovering from relationships with people with personality disorders, especially narcissists and borderlines, which are usually male and female respectively.

    In general, these people seem to have a lot of control over the weak. Play by their rules, you lose. Don’t play by their rules, and you still lose, but you can’t have them.

    They’re toxic people and they’re danger is in the fact that their magnetic.

    Like


  50. You quote a study then go off on your own unrelated rant. The study claims that those qualities facilitate explorative dating strategies. In other words, those types of men are more likely to seek out women. Not that those qualities are more attractive to women.

    [Heartiste: Actually, that conclusion of yours is not what it claims. “Facilitate” could just as easily mean women are more attracted to men with those qualities. Stop making shit up.]

    Like


    • “Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness, such traits may facilitate — especially for men — the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.”

      Men like that pursue women more for short term relationships. That’s what the article says. I’m not making things up.

      [Heartiste: Yes, you are. What the study says is that the Dark Triad traits facilitate, i.e. HELP, men get women for short term sexual conquests. But of course I understand your need to muddy the waters. Whatever helps you sleep at night.]

      Like


  51. Senseiern

    Disagree all you want. The straight truth is, men want to think the target of their desire is as pure as the wind-driven snow.

    I can’t believe guys still think this way.

    The more sexually experienced the woman lets a man know she is, the more he sees her as a quick lay and less as a woman he wants for more than a sperm dump. If he finds out she is too much a slut, he won’t even want to do that. There are men who express to be the exception, but in truth, they would rather have a virgin who somehow knows everything about sex than a well-experienced woman who knows everything about sex.

    Yeah, yeah I’ve read about that on here, Hooking Up Smart, and the Spearhead. Can’t say I’m completely all for that line reasoning, but that’s just me.

    Like


  52. So basically, what the current mating culture will produce is a gradual but inexorable eradication of the ‘middle’ types, because the only people who can really contribute offspring are those at the extremes on both sides. The elites — those of very high intelligence, creativity, earning potential, and of course physical attractiveness — can still feel confident about the prospects of their offspring because they will undoubtedly have access to plenty of resources in the distant future; the proles — those at the bottom level on all the aforementioned qualities — can’t feel any such confidence but couldn’t care less anyways.

    The middle types are essentially screwed unless they have what it takes to achieve elite status. The mechanisms which ‘middle society’ functional have totally unraveled with the elimination of the older culture.

    So, what will emerge is an extremely stratified society where one’s life prospects will be practically set in stone at the moment of conception; a massive, unbridgeable gulf will develop between two extremely different classes, each with its own separate set of genetically-derived life strategies.

    [Heartiste: All available evidence indicates this is the direction we’re moving in.]

    What would it take to turn this around?

    [Disaster.]

    Is this some sort of weird, modern ‘cleansing program’ intended to ‘update’ our species for the new requirements of survival in the future?

    [A case could be made that mixing r and K selected human subspecies into one cultural cauldron ultimately ends with the Ks being wiped out or shunted to de facto reservations.]

    Like


  53. Okay, so where does ‘feminism’ fit in?

    [Heartiste: In my lap. badabing!]

    Clearly, it’s a disservice to the vast majority of women, because only a tiny sprinkling have the ability to extract commitment from ‘elite’ males; so what is it?

    [Feminism is the natural menstrual discharge of a culture that has had its bottom two Maslow needs fully met.]

    An elitist agenda on the part of the few women at the top dressed up as ‘concern’ for women in general?

    [It’s best understood as ugly women’s desire to shift the sexual market playing field in their favor. Later, when the results started pouring in, it became an alliance between alpha males and beta females seeking shame-free sexual access, presumably leading to commitment access, to men normally out of their league. Suburban moms joined forces later when their daughters had to compete in the working world for the same sort of security that used to be had by marrying a sole male provider.]

    Like


  54. Feminists often say that a genuinely “nice guy” wouldn’t be upset that his niceness wasn’t getting him laid. Being a nice guy is its own reward, and the mere fact that the “nice guys” expect pussy as a reward for being nice is proof that they aren’t nice.

    Guess what? They’re right.

    You’re not really a nice guy. You’re an asshole, who only really cares about sex. The “nice guy” thing is a facade. All that game does is teach you to act like the asshole that you really are.

    Like


    • That’s an interesting spin on the whole thing.

      Like


    • I see your point, but…
      That’s assuming that wanting sex is assholish.
      It’s a basic human need. Am I an asshole because I want to eat?
      Developing a nice character is a survival strategy, which is encouraged by social pressure and the keepers of the civilizational order.
      Betas are that way because they are or they’ve become genuinely nice. Shit, many betas, when confronted with the truths about women’s hypergamy and the efficiency of game, hold onto their beliefs because they sense a potential cognitive dissonance. And many others cannot become assholes even if they wanted. I’m struggling with it right now.

      Like


    • Which would essentially mean there are no nice guys. Well it’s just fair.

      Like


    • Those feminist are still wrong because in reality the woman is using and string along the guy. The female knows it or should know it, just the guy doesn’t realize it.
      I don’t agree that wanting pussy makes the nice guy not nice. Besides maybe he wants a reltionship and not just pussy or friendship. Everyone puts on a facade to some degree. And you can always make the argument that there are no selfless deeds. Motive and selflessness isn’t the defining quality of nice or asshole.

      Like


    • There is nothing wrong with a nice or good guy wanting to get laid. If he is nice by nature what is the problem? I agree some men play games and *try* to act nice and are really being manipulative, but its not fair to lump the genuinley nice guys in with the manipulators. All men want to get laid, be them nice or assholes. Any woman that doesn’t think this is living on a different planet.

      Like


      • The only time you could argue that a guy acting nice is really being an asshole and manipulative, is if he truely just wanted to pump and dump going in and he knew that. And he acted nice or faked sincere interest in her and in a relationship that he knew he never really wanted. I’m not going to say that doesn’t ever happen but most girls aren’t really holding out sex for a guy until he convinces her he truely has feeling for her and wants a relationship. Usually the girl is either in to him or she is not from the get go. So in most case it is the woman who knows she has no sexual interest in the nice guy. And the nice guy really does like her and does want an intimate relationship with her and not just a pump and dump. The woman know she is leading the nice guy suitor on.

        There’s nothing manipulative about being nice to a girl thinking that is what she wants and will make her happy and in return hoping she wants to have sex. That’s just reciprocity. It may be an erroneous way for the guy to go about it, but it doesn’t make him an asshole or manipulative. On the flipside neither would acting like an asshole be manipulative if that’s what the woman wanted.

        The feminist argument, sometimes adopted by advocates of asshole game who say nice guys are assholes, is just an example of women justifying using and leading a nice guy on that they aren’t attracted to. And no, the reason the woman is not attracted to the nice guy isn’t necessarily because he is nice and not asshole enough but more likely he is not good looking enough for her.

        Like


    • you are right, without going into a bigger explanation from my part I would just like to point out that human/male “niceness” is a pretty recent development and is usually found more in the more materially blessed, comfortable areas of the world,. No such thing existed in our primal past and we acted tike animals which at our basal level is what we really are.

      Like


      • Exactly. Game puts a lot of emphasis – rightly – on depedestalizing women. But you also have to depedestalize yourself. Game reveals the dark side of human nature, not just female nature.

        Like


    • I agree completely, given the feminist argument that “all men are rapists”. Many beta men buy into that argument, but then say, “I’m not like that. I really like you for you (oh pretty pretty please have sex with me).” That is the context of all their interactions, moreso because they aren’t getting any, and certainly aren’t getting the quality of woman that their looks/station in life would otherwise command. The femtard women they do get brow-beat them mercilessly in an unending array of failed shit-tests. That’s why it’s so easy to convert a high beta to game. He just needs the wake-up call from Morpheus.

      Like


  55. So guy A wants to improve his ability to attract girls and get a girl to have sex, preferably an attractive one. What to do? How should he talk to the girls and what attitude would work best? The PUA literature is clear. Act like an asshole!

    [Heartiste: False premise.]

    So he goes out and approaches many girls with the asshole approach for a period some days, weeks, months and finds he isn’t getting any results or maybe even less results.

    [False premise number two. More likely he returns with improved results. Please take you dumbass troll act somewhere else.]

    And reports back such. What is the PUA community’s response? You did do the asshole act “right”! See it can never be falsified. Maybe the truth…troll troll troll

    [The truth is that asshole-ish behavior is more attractive to women than niceguy behavior, and behaving like an aloof asshole will get you laid more than behaving like a deferential betaboy. hth.]

    Like


    • You can argue against game from all kinds of angles, Diem, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it works. Try again.

      Like


      • I’m arguing from the angle of several years experience in the PUA community

        [Heartiste: I don’t believe you.]

        , a few 1000 cold approaches,

        [This is something a troll would write.]

        and from meeting and hanging out with many PUAs from lairs. That’s not to say that everything I say is right, but if people want to assume every anonymous poster with a dissenting viewpoint is a troll, then all we have is myopic group think. Point is a lot of guys go forward with the asshole tactic and find they have to do a lot of fine tuning and scaling back. Asshole game needs to be better defined.

        [It’s already been defined here. Uncaring asshole game works like gangbusters on the hottest chicks. Caring asshole game comes across as bitter and spiteful.

        ps pick a handle and stop trying to foist your trollery using proxy ips, then you might be taken seriously.]

        Like


  56. Two points….

    The girl I’m seeing is driving me crazy with her shit-tests to the point it’s wearing me down.

    But….she says “we can’t get along…” and then bangs me.

    We had a long talk about how in the past guys were “protecting her” and “taking care of her”…but I only see her once or twice a week.

    But that tension in and of itself seems attractive to her.

    She loves crying and fighting. She bangs my brains out when I say “leave now”…

    Am I an “asshole?” no. But I am tough and I am strong.

    That’s “assholish” to a girl.

    The second observation here is that a common shit-test from a girl I’m gaming is to write me and ask me questions…

    Why is this a shit-test? Because it means I’m responding to her when she wants. She’s gaming me.

    But when I don’t reply for a few days…I know it gets her thinking.

    Again…am I a “jerk”? no…. but I’m mysterious, hot/cold to her = interesting= attractive.

    I read these posts and get the impression that guys here think by being a dick or by being mean they’ll be attractive.

    Somewhere here is the idea that “caring asshole” vs “uncaring asshole”….it’s the deliberate nature of the act that is unattractive.

    [Heartiste: Good comment. “Caring” assholes are less attractive to women than uncaring assholes. It’s how you communicate your assholery that matters.]

    Like


  57. Let’s assume women are attracted to guys with dark triad personality traits. The question is why? Are women attracted to these qualities because they are attracted to immorality more than they are morality? Or is it women are amoral and are confusing dark triad traits with with things like confidence, masculinity, high status etc.

    Many years ago before the internet and game discussion I observed women and concluded that they were attracted to guys who were immoral because the guy were immoral. In other words women loved “evil” or bad and hated “good”.

    Nowadays I’m more inclined to think women are amoral than immoral.

    I believe everyone has a good or nice side and bad or evil, devilsh side and favor one or the other more. I know someone will likely attack my premise of moral vs immoral with moral relativism. But does anyone understand my question of whether or not women are attracted to dark or immoral for its own sake?

    Like


  58. ”? Even if it was scientifically proven that women were more attracted to so-called alphas, it wouldn’t prove that “only alpha assholes are attractive.” Because… well that isn’t true.”

    You’re a dumbass. From the feel I get from this sentence, I’ll go ahead and assume you’re a woman.

    While I’m at it I’ll explain thisto you.

    What would you do if you had 2 guys in front of you, both of them equally filled with the positive qualities you look for in a man?

    Both of them are your physical ideal – but one is taller than the other?

    You’re probably into the tallest guy – as most females are – which means that you’d pick up the taller guy.

    So….

    This can be compared to..

    Even if a woman MIGHT be attracted to a beta male, that beta male will always lose out if there’s an Alpha male around.

    Even I, standing tall at a height of 6’10” and naturally bulky, physically superior yadayada, have been passed over for a guy who was 7 feet tall AND with a jerk attitude.

    Women always want the best guy they can get, so fuck ’em and dump ’em, as they aren’t capable of love or loyalty.

    Like


  59. […] – “Chase, Interrupted“, “Chicks Dig Jerks: More Scientific Evidence“, “Equality Ruins […]

    Like


  60. Is it me or does this CNN article about a murder suicide just gloss over the fact that the crazy woman cruelly killed her husband along with herself as if he was her favorite dog:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/21/mesquite.murder.suicide/

    The article seems sympathetic toward the murdereress for killing herself (the murder of her husband is just an afterthought).

    Like


  61. To be capable of great Good, one must be capable of great Evil.

    Fuck science, learn Zen

    Like