Two Conversations, Same Girl, Same Day

Her: I have to tell you something.

Me: Oh man, here we go. What?

Her: It’s going to make me look bad. I’ll understand if you hate me after this.

Me: You’re a child molester?

Her: I’m married.

Me: [thinking about the last girl who forgot to mention she was married] Fucking great. Really?

Her: Yes, really. I’m a bad person.

*****************

Her: Would you like to do me in the ass?

Me: It’s funny how you ask so matter-of-factly. But, yeah, sure.

Her: Ow ow ow ow. Eeee.

*****************

Question for the studio audience: In what order did these two conversations happen?

The earlier conversation was


This holiday season, we should all take time to remember that women

  • have little sense of justice.
  • perfected the art of amorality.
  • like to be choked.

Merry Christmas!





Comments


  1. on December 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm ironrailsironweights

    Did she have a GNP?

    Peter

    Like


  2. on December 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm ironrailsironweights

    Oh, since it’s time for lunch, here’s a tasty snack. It goes well with apple pie.

    Peter

    Like


  3. The “will you do me up the wrong hole?” conversation was first.

    That’s because “Oh man, here we go. What?” sounds like an expression of post-coital annoyance, not a pre-coital neg.

    Like


  4. We are all remodeled and reshaped by the companions we keep. At work and with family, we have little choice. In our discretionary social life we have choices.

    Like


  5. “Her: I have to tell you something……”

    Rule of thumb: End conversations with girls right here.

    Leave, and go swoop other girls.

    You will better for it mentally and physically.

    And it helps your International Player Ranking.

    – MPM

    Like


  6. girls who like it in the ass always get my gratitude.

    Like


  7. Maybe it’s all made up?

    Like


  8. You’ll get a bigger bang for your buck by shagging a married chick who is in the military (not knowing that she’s married until afterward, of course.)

    That’s because the military justice code punishes adultery pretty severely and a conviction will almost certainly be a career-ender for her if she’s an officer.

    I’m not a military lawyer but I don’t think that anything can happen to a civilian in this case.

    Like


  9. I can imagine plenty of things that might happen to a civilian, up to and including jealous husbands with guns.

    Like


  10. Roissy,

    You have mentioned several times that women have almost no sense of justice. What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have some empirical evidence (studies that sort of thing), or is this just purely based on your N=1 experience?

    Serious question.

    Like


  11. Well in his case, I doubt n=1

    Like


  12. Recent case when one of the New Jersey “Our Boys” having gone SF (Black Beret) came home and shot his wife (wounded), her lover (wounded) and himself (fatally.)

    Crime passionnel Ur doin’ it wrong.

    Like


  13. I can imagine plenty of things that might happen to a civilian, up to and including jealous husbands with guns

    To be clear, I don’t endorse adultery. A dude who sleeps with a married woman forefits his right to remain alive and in a normal society, a jealous husband would get a slap on the wrist for retaliating.

    Having said that, if you have to be in a position where you discover that the girl you just shagged is married, it’s kinda fun if she’s in the military, especially an officer, because of the law that she’s subject to.

    As far as guns, stateside servicemembers can’t just take out their rifles and run around with them. They’re kept in locked armories and signed out only under controlled circumstances, and usually without live rounds.

    Like


  14. Carl Sagan, here’s a good starting point for reading about how amoral women can be:

    http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf

    Really good piece by Devlin.

    Like


  15. Why is this posted under foreign girls?

    The answer to the question is part B before part A. What I’m really wondering is, would Roissy have gone ahead, had he known? Did he come back? Why, or why not?

    Like


  16. Carl Sagan, here’s a good starting point for reading about how amoral women can be:

    http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf

    Really good piece by Devlin.

    Ya, I’ve read that article. It’s interesting but I’d hardly consider it to be well researched science. I’m looking for studies with large sample sizes, random sampling, cross cultural study etc. Something a bit more robust than some personal interviews. Think quantitative rather than qualitative. It also doesn’t help much that Devlin doesn’t cite and sources.

    Feel free to throw in some more popular sources (based on good science). I’ve got some other articles by Devlin already (the ones mentioned in this blog).

    Like


  17. PA, been there, Marines.

    However, there are civilian weapons – and if you don’t own/are too cheap to buy one, you have to check your rifle out of the armory for cleaning every week. Those controlled circumstances were “bring it back before we close” at least when I was in, which admittedly was pre GWOT. The government won’t give you ammo, but you can buy a box of .223 for about $20 anywhere, and if you’re going to kill someone, sweating having your rifle back on time is probably not high on your priority list.

    I don’t really get the point of cheating. If it’s over, or you can’t live up to your promises, leave.

    Like


  18. Sagan, in the book Devlin cites, Women’s Infidelity by Michelle Langley, Langley interviewed at length at least 123 women and 77 men and reported the patterns she noticed. It may not be intensely scientific, but how exactly would you test for amorality using hard science anyway, outside of describing the workings of the female brain and presence of mood-altering chemicals that affect judgment? (Although Langley actually does cite findings from books about those topics) I would think for some matters, widespread anecdotes shouldn’t be discounted.

    Like


  19. I can understand people not condoning cheating, either because its morally wrong or simply not worth the risk, but I never understand people who say they can’t understand why someone would want to cheat. What’s so hard to understand about it?

    Like


  20. Hmm…I wouldve thought Michelle Obama would be instantly recognizable by now!

    Like


  21. There was a Harvard moral development scholar named Lawrence Kohlberg who devised a theory of adolescent moral development based on Western principles of justice and life (i.e., Kant).

    A protege of his, Carol Gilligan, thought that Kohlberg’s theory was limited and male-centered and came up with a new theory, written up in her seminal book, “In a Different Voice”, that stated that women’s moral orientation is based on an orientation of “care” and not justice. In other words, women’s moral systems were basd on interconnectedness and not wanting to hurt others rather than an abstract notion of justice.

    Like


  22. Sagan, in the book Devlin cites, Women’s Infidelity by Michelle Langley, Langley interviewed at length at least 123 women and 77 men and reported the patterns she noticed. It may not be intensely scientific, but how exactly would you test for amorality using hard science anyway, outside of describing the workings of the female brain and presence of mood-altering chemicals that affect judgment? (Although Langley actually does cite findings from books about those topics) I would think for some matters, widespread anecdotes shouldn’t be discounted.

    The problem I have with the interviews is that the sample is not random. How can you generalize her findings to the rest of the population when you have a highly biased sample (she even admits she met these people through other interviewees)?

    Furthermore, how can you accept her interpretation of the events when she’s personally attached to the outcome (she claims to have gone through the very same feelings and emotions that she has “discovered” in her interviewees). Where is the sense of objectivity?

    I don’t take issue with qualitative research in the form of case studies and in depth interviews. My problem here is with the design of the study. It hardly constitutes good research.

    Like


  23. Also, as I recall it the Myers-Briggs test has a word-association portion where at one point you need to choose among pairs of words for their immediate appeal to you.

    One such pair was Mercy / Justice. Whichever one you pick is supposed to chalk one up for “Feeling” vs. “Thinking.”

    Like


  24. @T.

    And who, exactly, is Michelle Langley? She strikes me as another incarnation of the “psychic” phenomenon, using an equivalent of cold reading to intensify already present paranoia and, through it, create interest in her invaluable insights which, conveniently, are available for a reasonable cost, by purchasing her book.

    And her claim to authority comes from being a (as in, one) woman. Somehow, she is found more credible because she panders to pre-existing insecurities. It works for conspiracy theorists, too.

    So we have Devlin using Langley to bolster his appearance of authority, and you people using Devlin to bolster yours… leverage, much?

    Like


  25. Are you seriously quoting the rantings of a White Supremicist propaganda rag like Occidental Quarterly?

    Like


  26. Furthermore, how can you accept her interpretation of the events when she’s personally attached to the outcome (she claims to have gone through the very same feelings and emotions that she has “discovered” in her interviewees). Where is the sense of objectivity?

    How can ANYONE approach the topic of relationships and cheating without being attached to the outcome? Whether you’ve never felt like cheating in your life and have no tolerance for it or whether you’ve been on the receiving end and have been cheated on before, no matter what you’re going to approach the topic with SOME personal attachment to the issue. It’s impossible to interpret findings about something as fundamental as relationships without some personal bias and experiences entering your interpretation. Besides, how can one objectively interpret a concept such as amorality anyway?

    Like


  27. Women are such attention whores. I haven’t had Roissy’s experience, but I have had women hide their wedding rings on me, just to soak up some attention from a cool guy, even if they had no intention of cheating.
    And a _lot_ of girls will let you _heavily_ kino them even if they have a boyfriend/husband.

    Like


  28. How can ANYONE approach the topic of relationships and cheating without being attached to the outcome? Whether you’ve never felt like cheating in your life and have no tolerance for it or whether you’ve been on the receiving end and have been cheated on before, no matter what you’re going to approach the topic with SOME personal attachment to the issue. It’s impossible to interpret findings about something as fundamental as relationships without some personal bias and experiences entering your interpretation. Besides, how can one objectively interpret a concept such as amorality anyway?

    And the purpose of good science is to limit the amount of bias in research.

    You cannot honestly say that in her research she took every reasonable measure in her power to limit her bias. In fact she did the exact opposite.

    There are ways to study moral questions either directly or indirectly with a high degree of internal and external validity. Langley’s “study” was not one such way.

    Like


  29. Are you seriously quoting the rantings of a White Supremicist propaganda rag like Occidental Quarterly?

    Wait, so because you disagree with them on one topic, they are by default automatically wrong on every other topic they have or will ever write about? It’s not even a race issue, why does it matter if it’s a white supermacist periodical? That’s like saying because I disagree with Jezebel.com on feminist issues I can’t trust their restaurant reviews.

    Like


  30. T. AKA Ricky Raw,

    in this case, yes you can reject them.

    We’re not talking about restaurant reviews, we’re talking about an intellectually bankrupt periodical. When their underlying political bent is so far out in whack job land, it undermines their standing on any other intellectual topic (or in this case pseudo-intellectual).

    Like


  31. I’m not too familiar with Occidental Quarterly but lots of people like to define the term “whtie supremacy” down to include basically anything that is not sterling-grade far-left politically correct.

    Not just flaming liberals either, but normal people who have little interest in ideology and get their news from mainstream sources. It’s scary, actually.

    I hardly ever read leftie publications but sometimes when I do I am shocked at how low their threshold for considering something “hate speech” is. Not just on race either, but also on gender, elections, tax policy, et al.

    Like


  32. PA…i recommend you check out the Occidental Quartley website…it’s quite enlightening….

    The first issue has some loving words for Enoch Powell and appreciation for Lawrence Dennis (the self described “America’s Leading Fascist”).

    The cover page subtitle is “A Journal of Nationalist Thought and Opinion “.

    Richard McCullough wrote a long piece about how Northern European race identity politics were being given short shrift in the USA.

    It’s funded and published by Regnery…he’s in John Birch Land.

    This is far beyond fascism=not-kowtowing-to-PC.

    Like


  33. And Isaac Newton was a passionate alchemist:

    http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/BIOGRAPHY/Newtonian.html

    I guess by your reasoning, we can now safely ignore Principia Mathematica and his other writings on physics.

    Look, it’s cool to disagree, but at least do it on the contents of the piece like Sagan is doing.

    Like


  34. Re women’s amorality: women are not only much more sensitive to status, but they are inclined to respect or disrespect a man based on it. If he’s a “beta”*, she’ll have a much easier time justifying wronging him.

    Men give most everyone about the same level of respect. Certain people will garner their esteem, but it’ll be for their accomplishments, not status per se.

    *Does anyone know a real word that means the same thing as “beta?” Using the word, with its esoteric origins, has a nerdish air about it.

    Like


  35. Does anyone know a real word that means the same thing as “beta

    I believe the Alpha/Beta terminology comes from the study of social animals, wolves in particular.

    Like


  36. T. AKA Ricky Raw,

    While i appreciate that you enjoy having a civil dialogue, i don’t think comparing our intellectual abilities today with 500 years ago is really a strong point.

    These guys at Occidental Quarterly are current. They think that 1940’s Germany was the high point of Western Civilization. They are not part of the civil discourse today and we shouldn’t try to legitimize them.

    Like


  37. jindc,

    James Watson has made some racist comments that have been picked up by the news. I’ve also heard some first hand anecdotes. He also won a Nobel Prize for his studies into the structure of DNA. Does his racism discredit his DNA research?

    Like


  38. Jindc, looks like my firt post got lost in ether. Trying again:

    Thanks for your recommendations, but here are my counterpoints:

    – Was Powell wrong?

    – Homegrown facsism is a figment of the Left’s imagination and a useful fundraising tool for groups like SPLC

    – I don’t begin with a premise that nationailsm is wrong

    – I don’t begin with a premise that it’s illegitimate for northern Europeans to speak on behalf of their interests as a group

    – Regenery published lots of best-sellers. Are all those readers in Jon Birch Land?

    Like


  39. on December 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Oh no! A few white people band together to form a group and its…its…WHITE SUPREMACY!!!

    God forbid that people who invented Western culture should be allowed to have a sense of identity.

    And this is coming from someone whose ethnic group the KKK would have torched 50 years ago.

    Like


  40. PA,

    It doesn’t seem that we are going to find much common ground here. If you’d like to go round and round about ways that we disagree we can, but i’m unlikely to be convinced by you and it seems clear that i won’t have much more success.

    Yes, Powell was wrong.
    Homegrown Fascism is real. The CCC is real. The NPI is real.
    To accept Nationalism, in the sense that TOQ uses it, is to accept National Socialism. Do we really have to discuss why Nazi’s and neo-Nazi’s are problematic? Hitler may have made the trains run on time, but that doesn’t excuse his other little foibles…

    FWIW, this Regnery is related by family to the guy who started the publishing company, but had nothing to do with that concern (which I believe is no longer owned by the Regnery family, in any event).

    Like


  41. PS To Animus: Western Culture was invented by a bunch of folks in the Middle East. For the “Nordish” to claim its ownership is ridiculous on its face.

    Like


  42. Life is so easy for women. They don’t have to DO anything, just kind of ‘be’. There is an enormous sex-divergence in ego-gratification, and it begins at a young age. Women just stand around doing nothing and get lavished with attention. in fact if you break down your interactions with women you quickly find that, objectively, they are very very boring creatures, with little of interest to say. And they are not funny… at all. Because they don’t have to be.

    Here’s a fascinating discussion on the virtues of prostitutes by Sebastian Horsley. I read about how prostitutes can help game first in Russell Brands great biography. He went off to East Asia with his Dad when he came of age, being haphazardly successful with women prior, was with a gazzilion nightladys, then returned to England a confident lothario indifferent to female approval and only after one thing.

    Like


  43. They don’t have to DO anything, just kind of ‘be’.

    Good point, but there is a flip side to everything.

    – To increase his luck with women, a man can do a lot in terms of self-improvement, while a woman has a much more narrow range of possibilities when it comes to working with the assets she was born with.

    – An adult male has nearly 40 years of viability on the dating market, and adult female 10-15.

    Like


  44. She told you she was married first. When you didn’t freak out and bail, she then knew without a doubt that nothing is off-limits to your hedonism, and then came the anal offer.

    Like


  45. jindc
    “Are you seriously quoting the rantings of a White Supremicist propaganda rag like Occidental Quarterly?”

    Reminds me of somthing that this r(R)oissy fellow said. Something to the effect of the quicker and angrier the attack, the more you know you’re right.

    Like


  46. Life is so easy for women. They don’t have to DO anything, just kind of ‘be’.

    I know. They go out to bars and expect men to lavish their best shit on them to keep them entertained. And they don’t do anything, except soak up the attention.

    Like


  47. on December 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm boyinthebubble

    YT,
    If being “right” was measured by the swiftness or anger of the attacking response, then there would be a lot of folks who were right as rain and yet are deader than a door knob. A vitriolic response and angry attack are no more proof of an ideas correctness (moral or otherwise) than the popularity of a particular idea. Such attacks or measures of popularity just makes it hard to have a reasoned discussion of the merits of a particular idea or subject.

    I for one think jindc is on to something regarding the views of the source and their particular readings of social science. That Roissy and many commenters here share these views does not render any attack a rant. Just as someone could question left leaning publications (or mainstream media) and the analysis that appears in its pages, they can question the bias of the source. But it is hard to start a dialog when everyone’s sources are viewed skeptically or dismissed out of hand. +

    Like


  48. Animus,

    my apologies, i meant my PS as a response to Days of Broken Arrows, and typed to quickly.

    Like


  49. I know. They go out to bars and expect men to lavish their best shit on them to keep them entertained. And they don’t do anything, except soak up the attention.

    In fairness to women, they have a sense of entitlement because guys in America treat them like they’re entitled to stuff just for being female and pretty. Who can blame them for being that way? I’d be that way too.

    Like


  50. “But it is hard to start a dialog when everyone’s sources are viewed skeptically or dismissed out of hand. +”

    I can’t but agree. Over to you jindc…

    Like


  51. I stand by my views. Feel free to read TOQ, but to use anything that you read there as support for an argument is thin gruel for an intellectually suspect logic.

    Your larger point may be correct, but why not find less tainted sources?

    Like


  52. Your larger point may be correct, but why not find less tainted sources?

    So you are willing to consider that the larger point may be correct, but won’t be willing to seriously consider it unless I find another article making the exact same points, but from a more PC source?

    Like


  53. I’m a grad student and we were out at the bars last night. I was pretty drunk and this one girl who I kind of have a unspoken sexual tension with accidentally spilled beer all over my pants. She didn’t seem sorry at all, claiming someone else’s elbow hit her. I wanted to pour a little beer back on her pants to mess with her a little and ended up pouring more than I wanted. Then she basically accused me of being a wuss for not pouring any beer on the guy whos elbow hit her. I told her I felt bad about spilling the beer on her, stupidly, and that I’ll owe her a couple drinks. Then when we hugged bye, it seemed like she wanted to kiss me, even though I didn’t.

    What should I do next time I talk to her? Forget the whole incident happened? Lots of other people were around too.

    Like


  54. Thursday – I haven’t had Roissy’s experience, but I have had women hide their wedding rings on me, just to soak up some attention from a cool guy, even if they had no intention of cheating.

    No intention of cheating? How do you know? Are you sure you projected enough of a bad boy vibe to make her feel okay about it? It’s the latter that is needed for bedding “taking women” – as well as fro anal during the first night…

    Like


  55. on December 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm Dave from Hawaii

    She didn’t seem sorry at all, claiming someone else’s elbow hit her.

    I’d say this is a major red flag…hit it and quit it if you can, ’cause she’s definitely not a keeper.

    This is the reaction of just another typical “it’s never my fault” female.

    A say a person who is not a self-centered, narcissist would apologize even if they know it wasn’t technically their fault.

    Like


  56. Rick,

    Don’t they teach anything in grad school these days?

    From your story, you are out the Game.

    Move on to the next girl.

    Or move cities.

    Next time, don’t let the beer get spilled on you.

    And no more “good bye hugs”.

    Be the mack.

    Spit some Game and lead her out the bar to your crib. (or car if you have other things to do that night)

    – MPM

    Like


  57. I’m guessing A then B, just because as amoral as asking for that and then telling you she’s married afterwards is, telling you she’s married and then asking for that would be even more so.

    Like


  58. She told him she was married second. Some women like surprising men with that crap. It’s kind of a power trip.

    When I was a teenager, I was fooling around with a girl who was a few years older than me. One night, while I was at her place, her Alaskan fisherman fiance showed up drunk…

    I didn’t even know the guy existed.

    Oh well, you live and learn.

    Like


  59. “So you are willing to consider that the larger point may be correct, but won’t be willing to seriously consider it unless I find another article making the exact same points, but from a more PC source?”

    How about merely locating a non-whack-job source?

    If I presented an article from Lyndon Larouche’s rag or from Socialist Worker, I doubt that you or anybody else here would be willing to engage the article’s points on “its own merits” (which it wouldn’t have) without considering the bankruptcy of the source.

    The people who read OC want you dead, by the way.

    Like


  60. Of course she told you she was married after you sodomized her. Of course women are amoral beings who have no sense of justice. There’s only 3000 years of literature asserting this. No reason to resort to crypto-nazi publications, even if it is a pretty good article.

    Like


  61. The first issue has some loving words for Enoch Powell

    Anyone who doesn’t have loving words for Enoch Powell is pretty much an idiot.

    Like


  62. T. AKA Ricky Raw,

    no, i actually disagree with your larger point, but was trying to keep the discussion within the boundaries of whether TOQ is a reasonable source.

    Whether woman are amoral or not is a discussion we can have, but i’d like to have it based on serious sources.

    Like


  63. Oh, since it’s time for lunch, here’s a tasty snack. It goes well with apple pie.

    Now you must have meant cream pie, right?

    Like


  64. on December 18, 2008 at 6:23 pm ironrailsironweights

    To increase his luck with women, a man can do a lot in terms of self-improvement, while a woman has a much more narrow range of possibilities when it comes to working with the assets she was born with.

    To some extent that’s true with respect to men, but there are limits. If a man is just unsure of how to act around women he can improve his luck quite a bit with a few tips. If, however, he is deeply introverted, it’s much, much harder for him to change.

    It’s probably easier for an overweight woman to lose 100 pounds than it is for a pathologically introverted nerd to develop social skills.

    Peter

    Like


  65. on December 18, 2008 at 6:36 pm Dave from Hawaii

    I really don’t give a shit if Devlin’s article were printed in the Klan National Times…why don’t some of you folks read the message instead of taking the lazy route and attack the messenger?

    I’ve read a lot of Devlin’s stuff, and most of it is concerned with male/female cultural dynamics, feminism and other topics that have nothing to do with nationalism/racism.

    So what if the Occidental publishes some of his stuff? Read it for yourself and than tell me if it has merit or not….

    …that article is rather fascinating to myself, because I’ve read it twice now – once before, several years ago before learning about “game” and now once again that Ricky Raw posted the link.

    A lot of what Devlin writes pertains exactly to what I have been writing about here for the past couple of days with regards to “game” in marriage or LTR’s.

    In essence, the entire treatise is about men who fail to maintain the attraction of their wives over time…and their wives begin to deeply resent them, and start cheating on their husbands, and backwards rationalize and justify their behavior to themselves, blaming their behavior on their husbands.

    The author emphasizes the gullibility of the men she interviewed. One man’s wife had walked out on him and rented an apartment; three years later, he still had no suspicions that she might be with another man. Often the wives who took advantage of their husbands’ credulousness were highly jealous themselves: “Some of the husbands learned to look down in restaurants and other public places, because they feared their wife would accuse them of looking at another woman. Some claimed that their wife didn’t want them to watch certain television programs.” Psychologists call this projection: the automatic attribution of one’s own thoughts and motivations to others. Thus, dishonorable women tend to be suspicious; faithful husbands are trusting.

    Both Devlin and the author of the book he is reviewing fail to understand what PUAs or Game acolytes understands…these unfaithful wives have fallen completely out of lust with their husband’s beta behavior.

    It’s a woman’s basic biological imperative to avoid mating with a beta at all costs…so when a husband turns into a beta and surrenders all power, authority and leadership to his wife, every single female instinct in her screams to get away from this beta’s unworthy genetic material.

    Initial response to their wives’ stated unhappiness was to try to make them happy. “In most cases, their husbands launched futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house.

    Regardless of these women’s past and present complaints, the last thing they wanted was to spend more time with their husbands.” (Langley notes that wives do often complain that “my spouse doesn’t pay attention to me,” but calls this code for “I want another man.”) In fact, wives often became angry precisely over their husbands’ efforts
    to please them, because this increased their own feelings of guilt for infidelity.

    Wrong. She’s rejecting her husband for acting like a beta. His response is to act even MORE beta, thinking that is what she is demanding.

    “…wives do often complain that “my spouse doesn’t pay attention to me…”

    Translation: He continually and repeatedly fails her shit tests and she cannot stand being married to a beta any longer.

    On the other hand, “the word used by the majority of women I interviewed to describe their husbands [was] ‘pathetic.’” When the full extent of their husband’s emotional dependence upon them comes out, women are not moved or gratified; they feel contempt for what they see as weakness.

    Their is nothing more contemptible to a female than finding herself waking up next to a beta in bed everyday.

    Someone wrote about complaining about bias sample in regards to the research conducted as the basis for this book and Devlin’s review.

    I say it’s quite instructive, because the lady was interviewing unfaithful wives and the husbands they left…and the common thread amongst all of them?

    When the husband acted like a beta, the wife acted upon her biological imperative and cheated on him — cuckolding her provider — or left him to jump into the bed of a man with the alpha traits her biological imperative demands she seek out as mate material.

    Like


  66. on December 18, 2008 at 6:41 pm sara I spam alert

    This holiday season, we should all take time to remember that women

    have little sense of justice.
    perfected the art of amorality.
    like to be choked.

    Here’s hoping Roissy has better luck next year!!!!

    Like


  67. LOL………………

    Ive witnessed this female behavior through friends. Women who have “girls night out” at bars while hubby is at home with the kid, cultivate relationships and go bang guys through the week while baby is in daycare and daddy is at work.

    What is the real genesis of this behavior though, really?

    Child support/alimony/division of marital assets is the answer. There is no punishment for it. If she lost the kid, and only got weekend visitation, lost the house, had to get a job, didn’t get any of his money if she was caught………….it would be different. Sure they’d WANT it, like the married guy WANTS Scarlett Johansson, but they wouldn’t act on it for fear of the severe economic reprisal. The laws have made it so.

    She told you she was married after the assfuck.

    Like


  68. on December 18, 2008 at 7:09 pm The King of Canada

    z couldn’t be more right

    ALL BOW BEFOR ME, FOR I AM THE LORD OF THE NORTH

    Like


  69. How about merely locating a non-whack-job source?

    How about merely focusing on whether the content of an article is good or not rather than the source?

    The people who read OC want you dead, by the way.

    Who gives a fuck? If racism of an author or publication was reason enough not to read informative things, as a black man I wouldn’t be able to read over half of the great classics in Western literature.

    Like


  70. Roissy,
    Didn’t you recently write that you had no interest in cheating women?

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-a-cheating-woman-is-worse-than-a-cheating-man/#comment-38150

    Like


  71. If I presented an article from Lyndon Larouche’s rag or from Socialist Worker, I doubt that you or anybody else here would be willing to engage the article’s points on “its own merits” (which it wouldn’t have) without considering the bankruptcy of the source.

    Speak for yourself. I just finished a book by a socialist called Redneck Manifesto and am starting Zinn next. After that I have 3 books by the socialist Eric Hobsbawm to read.

    I even posted on my blog a request for readers to recommend me even more liberal books to read, and anyone who knows me knows I’m pretty far to the right:
    http://therawness.com/looking-for-books-from-a-liberal-perspective/

    Like


  72. Richard McCullough wrote a long piece about how Northern European race identity politics were being given short shrift in the USA.

    I don’t think any racial or ethnic identity politics can do the US much good, but even you have to admit that there is exactly one brand of racial identity politics utterly and completely demonized in the entire West and that is precisely the Northern European kind while several others are well tolerated and even celebrated as cultural richness.

    Like


  73. These guys at Occidental Quarterly are current. They think that 1940’s Germany was the high point of Western Civilization. They are not part of the civil discourse today and we shouldn’t try to legitimize them.

    Hitler had a great many autobahns built. Are you against motorways because Hitler endorsed them?

    Like


  74. on December 18, 2008 at 7:23 pm ironrailsironweights

    If I read a well-written, well-reasoned article, I wouldn’t reject it merely because it was published in the Journal of the American Women’s Hair Removal Association.

    Okay, maybe not. But you know what I mean.

    Peter

    Like


  75. One time in my twenties I was at a party where a girl let about 20 guys shave her pussy.

    Peter would have wept.

    Like


  76. on December 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm ironrailsironweights

    Here’s a variation on the Alpha/Beta split: L’Homme Fatale.

    One time in my twenties I was at a party where a girl let about 20 guys shave her pussy.
    Peter would have wept.

    I’d have been too busy putting my head in the oven.

    Peter

    Like


  77. Peter, in their unairbrushed realness your girls exhibit a delight in the erotic that the plastic “actresses” in professional porn never accomplish.

    Keep posting them!

    Like


  78. Western Culture was invented by a bunch of folks in the Middle East. For the “Nordish” to claim its ownership is ridiculous on its face.

    What part of Western Culture other than Christianity originated in the Middle East? Some questions for you (to which I know the answers but want you to find out for yourself): which language was the original text of the New Testament written in? Who brought that language to where it was spoken at the time?

    Like


  79. on December 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm ironrailsironweights

    Peter, in their unairbrushed realness your girls exhibit a delight in the erotic that the plastic “actresses” in professional porn never accomplish.
    Keep posting them!

    Well thank you!

    Indeed, Voyeurweb is a treasure trove of wondrous delights.

    Peter

    Like


  80. on December 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm Dave from Hawaii

    To continue the review of Devlin’s view from the “game” perspective…

    Langley reports that she interviewed just two men who responded effectively to the challenge of their wives’ disloyalty. The first man took the initiative and filed for divorce after his wife expressed on several occasions that she was unhappy and considering a separation.

    Before the divorce was final, his wife was trying to reconcile, but he chose not to because of her [lack of interest] in working on the marriage prior to his
    filing for divorce.

    She was literally begging him to act like an Alpha…once he did, she wanted him back in the worst way.

    The second case was a man in a second marriage who had made all the usual mistakes the first time around but, unlike most husbands, managed to
    learn from the experience. As soon as his second wife started talking about a vague “unhappiness,” he inferred that she had met another man. He put down in writing clear conditions for remaining married to her and refused to agree to any separation, knowing it would only be a prelude to divorce.

    Insisting she break off her extramarital affair at once, he wrote: “I will not allow my spirit to deteriorate because of your indecision.” Rather than attempting to remove all
    possible grounds for his wife’s discontent, he simply told her: “complaining is no longer acceptable. If you want me to do or not do something, you must tell me what it is. I do not expect you to read my mind and I will no longer try
    to read yours.” This worked.

    Translation: The man found his spine, stopped acting like a beta and she found her attraction for him renewed.

    A man cannot force his wife to be faithful, but he can force her to make a clear choice; he can refuse to allow her the opportunity of having both a marriage
    and an affair, of continuing in a “limbo” of indecisiveness. Langley even reports that some unfaithful wives themselves “wanted their husband to give
    them an ultimatum—a kick in the ass, so to speak.”

    No, they wanted their husband to quit acting like the beta that they instinctively are repulsed by, and to sack up, reclaim their balls and start acting like the kind of man that turned them on in the first place.

    The institution of marriage is dangerous for men in this day and age because once we get comfortable in a marriage, we get complacent…than we stop “gaming” our women.

    We take the path of least resistance, and just “Yes, dear” to let her have her way.

    We subconsciously think that as long as she’s getting what she says she wants, or that we’re at least trying to give her what she says she wants, life will go on, no problems.

    Except when men don’t realize their wives are shit testing them, and they are failing their shit tests…their wives become “bored” and “fall out of love.”

    “Game” is not just for pick up artists looking to score casual sex.

    Game is the very essence of men fulfilling their natural gender role in the biologically driven male-female mating behavior. Women are hardwired for hypergamy. As soon as you get complacent and she no longer senses you’re the dominant male she fell in love with and married…get ready for divorce hell.

    Of course, that only applies if she married you out of “love” — i.e. she was truly attracted to you’re alpha characteristics — rather than because she identified you as a great beta provider and she’s “ready to settle down now” or even purposely plan to cuckold you….

    Like


  81. “Of course, that only applies if she married you out of “love” — i.e. she was truly attracted to you’re alpha characteristics — rather than because she identified you as a great beta provider and she’s “ready to settle down now” or even purposely plan to cuckold you….”

    I have always had trouble accepting this premise because I like men who have boyish sides. As long as a man is in charge a boyish side really does give enjoyment to a man’s personality.

    Like


  82. Dave from Hawaii – When the husband acted like a beta, the wife acted upon her biological imperative and cheated on him — cuckolding her provider — or left him to jump into the bed of a man with the alpha traits her biological imperative demands she seek out as mate material.

    Right, but a man simply cannot maintain alpha status throughout an entire marriage. The mere fact that a man committed lowers his status in his wife’s (subconscious) eyes.

    Someone here pointed out recently that infidelity can be costly to a married man. Women do not think that way. Not by nature (true – they just need “be” and not worry about ways to ensure an uninterrupted stream of material supply), and not by the way our society is constructed (once married they have a provider by law).

    There is little to no cost to women for cheating. The sensitivity to mood-changing chemicals that Devlin points out is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Alpha or not. In this here and now there is simply no guarantee your women will stay faithful – and the chances are against you. A fool who accepts to pay for kids without checking DNA footprints first.

    Like


  83. Dave, the only formal reading of Game I’ve done is Doc Love, and he claims that when a woman’s Interest Level, as he calls it, falls below 50%, it’s never coming back. It’s over forever. From what you’ve mentioned here, it sounds like you and your lady have been pretty much to the bottoma and back. You think the Doc is wrong?

    Like


  84. I have always had trouble accepting this premise because I like men who have boyish sides. As long as a man is in charge a boyish side really does give enjoyment to a man’s personality.

    If the man is in charge, he can have a boyish side and still be alpha. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Like


  85. A fool who accepts to pay for kids without checking DNA footprints first.

    My sister and my female friend just recently had babies, and in both cases the babies’ resemblance to the fathers for a few weeks after birth was uncanny (as it should have been) Both babies were girls.

    Afterward, their faces started taking on more of their moms’ features as well. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, but others did too. Someone in fact noted that it’s a very common thing and an evolutionary adaptation to keep the dad involved.

    Anyone heard anything about this?

    Like


  86. I have always had trouble accepting this premise because I like men who …are in charge of their boyish side

    in charge of their boyish side?

    yeah, that’s a convincing counter-argument right here

    Like


  87. “Right, but a man simply cannot maintain alpha status throughout an entire marriage. The mere fact that a man committed lowers his status in his wife’s (subconscious) eyes.”

    Is there any more proof for this than for Freudianism?

    “Someone here pointed out recently that infidelity can be costly to a married man. Women do not think that way. Not by nature (true – they just need “be” and not worry about ways to ensure an uninterrupted stream of material supply), and not by the way our society is constructed (once married they have a provider by law).”

    Women are far likelier to forgive infidelity than men.

    I think there is something to the ideas presented on this blog but you’ll have to come up with a more scientific argument than Devlin’s.

    Like


  88. PA – Evolutionary Psychologists call it “neonatal anonymity”. Here is another paper – in line with your reasoning (and the notion that there is high paternal uncertainty in human populations):

    “Parents are often unable to discriminate their own infants from other parents’ infants, and in humans it is appreciated that infants do not necessarily resemble their parents. … a simple population genetics model shows that some aspects of neonatal appearance may arise as adaptive strategies on the part of infants actively to conceal the identity of their parents, especially of their father. Concealing paternal identity is advantageous as a strategy to avoid paternal neglect, abuse, or infanticide when the ‘domestic father’ is not likely to be the ‘biological father’. The model reveals that ‘anonymity’ as a neonatal strategy can be adaptive in a wide range of mating systems, because infants are expected to resemble their fathers only if the ‘domestic father’ is also the ‘biological father’ a high proportion of the time: even small amounts of paternity uncertainty are sufficient to select against parent–infant resemblance. The available empirical evidence suggests that human infants have been selected not to resemble their parents. However, if paternity certainty is sufficiently high in some groups for resemblance to evolve, the model predicts that offspring will resemble their fathers but not their mothers, consistent with the results of one recent study.”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-45R7566-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9136d552161f2b3749d212bdffc42fa3

    Like


  89. Afterward, their faces started taking on more of their moms’ features as well. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, but others did too. Someone in fact noted that it’s a very common thing and an evolutionary adaptation to keep the dad involved.

    Or maybe women’s relatives have an adaptation tee see it and assure the father that the baby really looks like him…

    Like


  90. T. AKA Ricky Raw,
    I know, but the alpha as presented in the passage I quoted from sounds like a joyless authoritarian.

    PA,
    I’ve heard of that.

    11minutes,
    A man who’s so insecure about appearing wimpish that he hypermasculinizes is not only obviously an inner beta but no fun to be around. Be a man and hold the fort down, but loosen up a little. What good is being an alpha if you drop dead at 45 from a heart attack?

    Like


  91. Thanks 11. It must have sucked back in the tribal days especially when everyone in your clan looked alike, women were left alone, and you were never really sure of paternity. I wonder if cheap DNA testing will have an effect on things on the scale that the birth control pill did.

    Like


  92. hello – Is there any more proof for this than for Freudianism?

    Yeah. It’s called Evolutionary Psychology and is backed by genetic studies. Here is a good primer: http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

    you’ll have to come up with a more scientific argument than Devlin’s.

    You mean studies like this:
    http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Scotsman_96_percent_of_women_are_liars_09DEC04.aspx

    or this:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/05/10/shock-as-paternity-tests-reveal-different-dads-89520-20413010/

    or actual well done science, which deals with some of the common criticisms towards surveys and DNA paternity test data:
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p12n56tg30502604/

    in the end the conclusions are all the same…

    Like


  93. on December 18, 2008 at 8:20 pm Dave from Hawaii

    hello – How can you have trouble accepting the premise?

    “As long as a man is in charge a boyish side really does give enjoyment to a man’s personality.”

    AS LONG AS A MAN IN CHARGE…

    i.e. – if he’s “ALL boyish side” than you wouldn’t find yourself attracted to him at all.

    11Minutes – Right, but a man simply cannot maintain alpha status throughout an entire marriage.

    It’s hard, but it can be done…but other than that, I won’t disagree with anything else you wrote. Our marriage and divorce laws are FUBAR for men, and any married man is always in danger of his wife falling for a man that is more alpha than you.

    But I believe the feminist zeitgeist that dominates our current day culture does two things – it indoctrinates women to act more male and indoctrinates men to act more female – deliberately engineered gender confusion.

    I wouldn’t recommend marriage to any young man in this day and age.

    But many men who have been or are married already will look at the state of affairs and blame feminism, the injustice of the divorce courts, and the fallen nature of women…and a lot of their complaints will have validity…but men have their own role to play in the failures of their marriage as well. If you’re married, and you act beta, the failure of your marriage is almost guaranteed.

    Like


  94. It’s hard, but it can be done…

    I wouldn’t even say it’s that hard. OK, it’s hard if you have to adjust your formerly beta personality, but like everythign else, it becomes second nature with practice.

    I wouldn’t recommend marriage to any young man in this day and age.

    Fucking agreed 100%. Early-mid 30s, to a girl in her early 20s is the way to go.

    Like


  95. on December 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm Dave from Hawaii

    Dave, the only formal reading of Game I’ve done is Doc Love, and he claims that when a woman’s Interest Level, as he calls it, falls below 50%, it’s never coming back. It’s over forever. From what you’ve mentioned here, it sounds like you and your lady have been pretty much to the bottom and back. You think the Doc is wrong?

    I don’t know…haven’t read Doc Love…but as I wrote before, I believe the only reason why I’m not divorced right now is because my wife came from a happy, intact family and has a lifelong, healthy relationship with her father.

    She learned by her parent’s example that marriage can and does take work, hard times are inevitable, and that you don’t “escape” when the going gets tough.

    If she didn’t have that upbringing, I highly doubt we’d still be married today.

    Like


  96. “How can you have trouble accepting the premise?”

    I have trouble accepting the premise that the only way for a relationship to succeed is for a man to never, ever let his guard down and end up acting like the immobile guards at Buckingham Palace. I might respect someone like that but I could never feel close to him.

    Do you expect these women to one day take care of you when you’re dying?

    Like


  97. Dying is a way beta move.

    Like


  98. on December 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm Dave from Hawaii

    I have trouble accepting the premise that the only way for a relationship to succeed is for a man to never, ever let his guard down and end up acting like the immobile guards at Buckingham Palace. I might respect someone like that but I could never feel close to him.

    Who ever said you have to act like that? The point is men have to learn to recognize when their lady is shit testing them and how to pass that shit test…because most men nowadays are clueless about this.

    Hence the popularity of the stereotypical shit test in our culture today that’s supposed to strike fear in the hearts of all married men…”Do I look fat in this?”

    Like


  99. Hello —

    A rational expectation would be that no, no one is going to stay married for very long, and certainly not as attractiveness ends. Let’s be honest: this is the fruit of the Sexual Revolution, and while it’s bitter eating, it’s the natural result of the profound sexual freedom women (and some men) desire.

    If I read you right, your criticism is that men and women in marriage did not always behave this way, older couples now call each other their best friend and experience companionate love. As Emilio Estevez once said, that was then, this is now.

    No, of course not, an emotionally open man is going to get dumped during ages 20-45 for women in favor of a hotter, more commanding guy. That’s just reality, on average, though some women won’t and some women will stick with guys who are doormats, on the tails of the normal distribution. But we’re not concerned with that, only how most people most of the time act. Nothing comes for free.

    I’m sure the disclosure of marriage came after the act. Women cheat, and often seek the most dominant guy around. Drew Peterson, is marrying his fifth wife, a 23 year old, after his latest one is missing (and he’s charged with her murder) along with the murder of wife #3. According to posters in Ohio, women in that town there line up to do shots with him and pose for pictures with him and seek him out. College age and slightly older. Enough do it so that it is remarked upon.

    Like


  100. Dave from Hawaii: responding to hello’s inane questions is sorta beta itself, isn’t it?

    Like


  101. Smiler – with the exception of Clio and occasional others, just about all women make inane comments here; the younger the more inane.

    But I’m glad they’re around; they make it fun. Plus, sausage blogs suck.

    Like


  102. “Smiler – with the exception of Clio and occasional others, just about all women make inane comments here; the younger the more inane.

    But I’m glad they’re around; they make it fun. Plus, sausage blogs suck.”

    A neg? I’m flattered.

    Like


  103. With Chic gone, you now have to be twice as inane as usual. Can ya do that?

    … actually, we’re talking about Chic. Make that 3x as inane.

    Like


  104. on December 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm Dave from Hawaii

    “A neg? I’m flattered.”

    Look PA…a shit test!

    Smiler – perhaps…but than I don’t care if hello thinks I’m alpha, beta or omega, I’m not banging her, nor am I trying to.

    Like


  105. Do you want Polish jokes?

    Like


  106. That would be so inane, that Sara would have to drop out so as to not overload Roissy’s blog with megainanity. And we wouldn’t want that, she’s kinda growing on me.

    So no.

    Like


  107. That would be so inane, that Sara would have to drop out so as to not overload Roissy’s blog with superinanity. And we wouldn’t want that, she’s kinda growing on me.

    So no.

    Like


  108. Here’s my po-mo, not entirely serious idea of the night:

    The “Roissy” persona is the thesis, and David Alexander is the antithesis. Almost comically so. In fact, from Roissy’s post frequency, the plain unseriousness of both, and their quasi-dogmatic points of view, I’d say the “real” roissy is Some Dude in an undemanding cube-farm job, who started off as a D.A. / AFC – type, figured out Game, realized that hedonism gets you pretty far, but only so far, and now delights in getting a rise out of people by playing both ends. He writes both DA and Roissy.

    Like


  109. If the blog gets too inane we might have a triage scenario of people whose inanity we can tolerate, people who are in the danger zone and people who are direct threats and must be eliminated for the sake of the blog.

    In which case Roissy would have to go.

    So I am actually being quite self-sacrificing in my earnestly heartfelt posts for all that I am a woman born after the sexual revolution.

    Like


  110. You’re a nurse? and born after the 70s?
    You’ll find yourself a boyfriend here yet. I have a feeling it’s gonna be Kick a Bitch.

    Like


  111. “You’re a nurse? and born after the 70s?
    You’ll find yourself a boyfriend here yet. I have a feeling it’s gonna be Kick a Bitch.”

    When you leave your wife for David Alexander.

    Like


  112. If the conversation was truly, i’m married, then will you do me in the a$$, you could have then after stage 2 said, well i have something to tell you too, you are LIVE on youtube right now =)

    Like


  113. on December 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm ironrailsironweights

    Fancy restaurants serve shrimp with part of the shell left on, because the shell helps concentrate the shrimp’s delicious flavors and enhances the dining experience.

    In the same way, a GNP helps concentrate the woman’s delicious flavors and enhances the dining experience.

    Peter

    Like


  114. Here’s a question – how does “game” operate in a mixed-sex environment like school or even the workplace where you are going to see these people every day? The methods must be different when compared to anonymous bars, though the basic principles (being a man in charge) are all the same. But these “game” techniques seem like they would make you into an unpopular person in these mixed-sex environments.

    Like


  115. “The “Roissy” persona is the thesis, and David Alexander is the antithesis. Almost comically so. In fact, from Roissy’s post frequency, the plain unseriousness of both, and their quasi-dogmatic points of view, I’d say the “real” roissy is Some Dude in an undemanding cube-farm job, who started off as a D.A. / AFC – type, figured out Game, realized that hedonism gets you pretty far, but only so far, and now delights in getting a rise out of people by playing both ends. He writes both DA and Roissy.”

    In the world of the internet board, anonymous posters take on any persona they like. In addition, we’re discussing sex, which people lie about even when they’re not anonymous. We’re totally in the world of the unverifiable.

    The best way criteria for any theory about this place: “Is it entertaining?”

    You, sir, have developed the greatest theory ever.

    Like


  116. Here’s a question – how does “game” operate in a mixed-sex environment like school or even the workplace where you are going to see these people every day?

    Managing your rep becomes more important and you don’t get as much credit for having the balls to open. It becomes more important that you be seen talking to and having fun with everyone. Kino has to be a bit subtler. You don’t want to be seen as office player dude.

    On the other hand, you don’t need to worry about such things as blowouts. People naturally stop talking to each other and do other stuff and you will see the person again.

    Like


  117. I miss Hope’s comments. She tended to generalize too much from her own Asian nerd girl perspective, but there was genuine wisdom there.

    Clio is a bit too quick to dismiss a lot of negative generalizations about women, except when they involve women being nasty to other women, but she has a lot of genuinely intelligent and interesting things to say.

    The rest of the regular female commenters here range from the inane but generally well meaning (Chic, Nicole, hello) to the harpy brigade (Sara, Dizzy).

    Like


  118. Gordon somehow managed to type out:
    *****
    So we have Devlin using Langley to bolster his appearance of authority, and you people using Devlin to bolster yours… leverage, much?
    *****
    If every single person in the world agreed the sky was blue, they could all use each other as evidence that it was true!

    Like


  119. on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 am Comment_Lyndon_Larouche

    ****
    If I presented an article from Lyndon Larouche’s rag or from Socialist Worker, I doubt that you or anybody else here would be willing to engage the article’s points on “its own merits” (which it wouldn’t have) without considering the bankruptcy of the source.
    ****

    A short history lesson for the uninformed.

    One of the silly, ever so silly things, that Lyndon Larouche claims is the the English Queen is a dope dealer.

    After all, poppy fields were blossoming throughout Afghanistan prior to the English occupation, and are now gone. This would be a somewhate compelling point if the reverse weren’t actually the case.

    Also, the British Crown used the English Army to stop the sale of Opium in China in 1839. Well, TECHNICALLY, they used the English Army to force the Chinese Government to allow them to sell opium and to place all Englishmen above the law in China. BUT in alternate universe it is possible they fought to shut down the opium trade.

    http://wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

    Ha. Ha. That wacky Larouche.

    Like


  120. T/Ricky Raw — The guy behind “Redneck Manifesto” is a socialist? Is that Jim Goad? Who also did “Answer Me”? He’s a socialist? I’ll be darned. I remember his writing from the pre-web days. He was really raucous and outrageous, and seemed hyper-un-PC. How was “Redneck Manifesto”?

    Like


  121. jindc,

    I do not find it productive to treat some publications as absolutely worthless and others as great. I’ve found diamonds among the waste and waste among the diamonds.

    Each person’s arguments should be judged regardless of what publication they are in. Granted, there are publications which are on average better or worse. But that’s hardly a reason to totally dismiss an article just because of where it was published.

    As for TOQ: I can’t say much about it because because I don’t read it. But are you quite sure someone writing in TOQ argued that 1940s Germany was the high point of Western Civilization? Can you point to this article? Do other articles in TOQ agree or disagree or ignore this argument?

    Like


  122. “But these “game” techniques seem like they would make you into an unpopular person in these mixed-sex environments.”

    Game is really just social intelligence…… so it is really applicable to all dimensions of life. If you have charisma in interpersonal interactions… it generally extends to both sexes and in most situations. Lack of social intelligence is a lack in the understanding of what others value.

    For instance… take business… there are two main strategies when it comes to business…. high volume/low margin and differentiated/high margin…. Wallet game is like the high volume/low margin strategy… there will always be someone with an incrementally better wallet than you… and your advantage is not sustainable… Social Intelligence is like the differentiated/high margin approach… its harder to copy, the value is hard to dis-aggregate and quantify, and you are resilient against wallet variation.

    Like


  123. You might find this interesting. A woman admitted to her incredulous boyfriend that she’s had 100 partners.

    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=858357&view=comments#comments

    Like


  124. on December 19, 2008 at 1:51 am sara I spam alert

    Thursday

    to the harpy brigade (Sara, Dizzy).

    To the harpy brigade!!!!

    Smiler – with the exception of Clio and occasional others, just about all women make inane comments here; the younger the more inane..

    THAT IS NOT TRUE.

    Did I hear a rumor that Chic is gone? I can’t keep up here.

    Keith

    The best way criteria for any theory about this place: “Is it entertaining?”

    I’m THERE, but more Polish jokes please.

    Like


  125. on December 19, 2008 at 1:54 am sara I brags and brags and brags

    I have a dilemma guys. How do I tell the guy I lost my virginity to at the age of 15 and 3/4 that I’m not interested in getting back together? Or should I just ignore him?

    Like


  126. On the flip side, would the gentlemen in this forum like to explain to me why there are men who will pursue a woman they know is married?

    Like


  127. “On the flip side, would the gentlemen in this forum like to explain to me why there are men who will pursue a woman they know is married?”

    Mostly, it’s the women who do all the work. While I’ve slept with more married women than I have fingers (and possibly toes; I’m not very good at math), I’ve never pursued one. Think about the logistics of a married woman cheating: she has to do serious work to cheat. Upsides: they’re always a lot less of a problem than a single woman of their age, unless you’re more of a sucker than their husband, and they decide to move in with you.

    Like


  128. futurepundit.com is the shit

    Like


  129. UPDATE ALERT:
    If Nicole is reading this, please contact me at [email protected]; my current Target is a Sub, & I need some advice as how to handle things. I figure your own personal background/training can be helpful. I don’t have the time to peruse the literature you suggested in time for our meeting, scheduled right after New Year’s. Besides, I already have a stack of Erotica/Seduction/Evolutionary Biology/Psychology books as tall as myself, LOL. Please advise…

    Salaam
    Mu/The Obsidian Project

    Like


  130. Mu,

    The worst thing to do would be to try to Cliffs Notes your interaction with her. Stick with what you know. It’s vastly better to be a credible strong man than an amateurish master.

    Like


  131. Not that I’m sayin’ that you’re a credible strong man. 😉

    Like


  132. Gordan: Noted.

    Thanks.

    Salaam
    Mu aka The Obsidian

    Like


  133. @ December 19, 2008 at 12:05 am Comment_Idiot

    If every single person in the world agreed the sky was blue, they could all use each other as evidence that it was true!

    If every single person in the world axiomatically believed what Langley’s espousing, she couldn’t make money selling her “explosive revelations.” (But it still wouldn’t make it true, not that I expect you to realize that.)

    If Devlin had better sources, he wouldn’t need to refer to Langley. He’d realize that he only stands to lose credibility by citing a source that lacks it.

    If you had better sources, you wouldn’t need to soothe your confirmation bias by drinking KoolAid from Devlin’s sippy cup.

    Yes, there’s truth interspersed among the sensationalist bullshit they peddle, just like there are good loans interspersed among all the subprime crap bundled with them. The scam wouldn’t work otherwise.

    By the way, the sky’s not blue.

    Like


  134. so did you corn-hole that bitch or what?

    Like


  135. on December 19, 2008 at 9:37 am Pope Goaz D'Weezil

    I would guess the “I’m married” conversation took place first. Either is very possible, but having “I’m married” come first points out a nasty trait of women – once they have rationalized their behavior (even in an irrational way), it is over, and they will proceed with their behavior to amazing ends. I was making out with a girl who I knew had a boyfriend, and she seemed a little reluctant to close the deal. “You’ve already gone this far and cheated; you may as well enjoy it,” closed the deal. I think once she told Roissy she was married, she felt it was okay to fully exploit/enjoy the infidelity. That is a much more telling story, although the other order is much more “normal”.

    See also “I’m not losing my virginity if I just take it in the ass”.

    Like


  136. Since Gordan already touched on something I’d been meaning to post about, I’ve been thinking about ways to tighten up “Inner Game”. So, I’ve decided to do several things:

    1. Slim down. I’m 180lbs/5’8″ right now, I figure dropping 20lbs would be good, then cut it up from there. *Mu sheds a tear & waves goodbye to the Philly Cheeseteak* Some of the guys here at work are already hardcore bodybuilder types, and have been all too wiling to offer hints and pointers for doing this in relatively short time (wanna be in prime shape in time for say, Cinca de Mayo 2009).

    2. Self-Defence. Being a Player in the Hod *can be* potentially dangerous, espeically when time comes to deal w/AMOGs mad because “their” Lady chose you. Most “huting/mating grounds” places in Inner City USA tend to be heavily guarded and they scan religiously for weapons, especially firearms; but that still doesn’t mean that something can’t jump off, especially since I’m a bit slight of stature. I’m thinking I need a Martial Art that packs a lot of punch and can get things over with quickly, but brutally (in case anyone else wants some). The Gentleman in Mu prefers things be dealt with peacefully but even he recognizes that there comes a time to whip some a**. I’m thinking of taking up some basic Kali and/or Krav Maga classes. Suggestions welcome.

    3. There’s nothing to build up Inner Game I think, than to see what you’ve studied come into fruition. Though I’ve yet to go full out Sarging (Xmas and NYE’s parties on tap for that), my “mini tests” of the principles in The Game and MM have proven highly effective, even outside of the club environment.

    That’s it for now. Comment and reply, invited.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  137. Most “huting/mating grounds” places in Inner City USA tend to be heavily guarded and they scan religiously for weapons, especially firearms;

    If I see them doing pat downs or checks on people going into a club, I take this as a sign to go elsewhere. Why would you want to waste your time with an environment that has an expectation of violence?

    Like


  138. Animus,
    I understand your concern, and it is a legit one. But to paraphrase Willie Sutton, you have to go where the Females are; in the hood, that means the aforementioned places.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  139. on December 19, 2008 at 10:10 am Pope Goaz D'Weezil

    “If I see them doing pat downs or checks on people going into a club, I take this as a sign to go elsewhere. Why would you want to waste your time with an environment that has an expectation of violence?”

    Is this poster a woman? Honest question.

    Like


  140. Yes, there’s truth interspersed among the sensationalist bullshit they peddle, just like there are good loans interspersed among all the subprime crap bundled with them. The scam wouldn’t work otherwise.

    So which parts are true in Langley and Devlin’s findings and which are bullshit? Is it bullshit because you have conclusive proof that it’s wrong, or is it bullshit because they don’t have conclusive enough proof for you that they’re right?

    Like


  141. T,

    The bullshit parts tend to be prescriptive/predictive based on less than robust grounds, whether those be anecdotal, non-sequitur, or just plainly mischaracterized. This has been pointed out by numerous others.

    Like


  142. This thread has been pretty enlightening. A few threads ago people were discussing why smart people do so badly socially, especially those in the hard sciences. After this comments section it’s hit me: information snobbery.

    The same rigorous information standards one does (and should) apply to the hard sciences high IQ nerd types try to apply to fluid soft concepts like female morality, sexual attraction and human nature in general. It’s a very binary mindset for them, 0 or 1, if you can’t conclusively prove something with a double-blind, randomized study with a flawless methodology or the finding isn’t from someone who has impressive enough IQ, peer-reviewed or Ivy credentials, all the findings must be tossed out, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Extremely smart people, if they can’t make exact logical sense of something and understand exactly WHY something is true, then they refuse to believe it’s true, which kills them with social understanding where things are often illogical or counterintuitive or contradictory, especially in the minds of women.

    Look at all the people who are naturally good with people and women. They usually are not the type of people to be high IQ genius study-reading brainiacs. If they needed to nitpick and get 100% foolproof feedback with airtight, rigorous scientific testing and Ivy league citations before adopting every belief that helped them with people and women in particular, they wouldn’t have the social success that they do. If they get a notion about women that seems plausible enough, even if just based on anecdotes, they just try it out for themselves and see if its true or not, or whether it works. They examine their past life experiences to see if it rings true with their own experiences. They talk to other guys with game and run it by each other. Nerds sit around debating if the credentials of the messenger are impressive enough to open their minds to the information and waste energy demanding better and more impressive studies or publication sources before even moving on to evaluating and seriously engaging content and field testing. Is it any wonder nerds are always playing catch up?? BY the time any social concept would ever satisfy such rigorous criteria, the intuitively socially savvy people have already long adopted it and moved on.

    To me this is the beauty of the pickup game, it took long-accepted player and mack truisms and gave it enough scientific plausibility and reverse-engineering to let a large enough group of high IQ types willing to accept it, since they can’t accept things on faith alone but only after the case is airtight and the concept has been totally reverse-engineered. The problem is, even many people who accept pickup concepts that have been valdated through evo psych keep hitting stumbling blocks when introduced newer concepts that are validated only by anecdotal information and non-scientists.

    Think of every naturally gifted person with women you’ve ever seen. Ask them how many of their beliefs they validated through the same scientific verification methods people use for testing pharmaceuticals and other areas. Ask them whether they intensively screened their mentors for top academic and career credentials, racist beliefs or exacting objectivity before considering every new piece of information they came across, or whether they treated all new info with an open mind.

    This need for bjectivity, airtight logic, emotion-free detached analysis as the prerequisites to understanding something inherently subjective, illogical, counterintuitive, emotional and involved are the exact reasons why nerds are the worst at and most bitter at the game of love. The people who excel at this are willing to make leaps of faith, go against conventional logic on hunches and accept anecdotes and personal experience to a degree.

    Like


  143. If I see them doing pat downs or checks on people going into a club, I take this as a sign to go elsewhere. Why would you want to waste your time with an environment that has an expectation of violence?

    Exactly. It’s like seeing a sign outside a bar or nightclub prohibiting motorcycle leathers or gang attire. A bar or nightclub that is worth patronizing would have no need for such a sign.

    Peter

    Like


  144. JaJaJa
    On the flip side, would the gentlemen in this forum like to explain to me why there are men who will pursue a woman they know is married?

    Um, no-commitment sex with a bitch that will probably want to get real freaky cause she’s not been fucked in a while?

    ……………………………………………………………………………

    You might find this interesting. A woman admitted to her incredulous boyfriend that she’s had 100 partners.

    Only one solution for that – ANAL THEN DUMP.

    Like


  145. I’ve awakened out of my trance of unawareness! I’m going to stop linking to articles from The Nation no matter how good or provocative a given article may be, because The Nation is a doctrinaire leftie rag that has published many commies.

    But why stop there? I’m going to stop buying most CDs of music I like, because the organizations issuing most CDs are ugly self-interested transnational conglomerates that don’t have our best interests in mind. Hey, same with most books and movies.

    Come to think of it, I’ll never again fill up a car’s tank of gas, because I just don’t like the entities that create and sell the gas.

    Like


  146. The bullshit parts tend to be prescriptive/predictive based on less than robust grounds, whether those be anecdotal, non-sequitur, or just plainly mischaracterized. This has been pointed out by numerous others.

    This sentence is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Don’t give me a generalized, pedantic explanation of formal logic, just tell me which theories put forth are true and which are false. Don’t just say “the prescriptive and anecodotal parts are bullshit,” tell me which specific findings about women she points out you feel to be bullshit.

    Like


  147. That’s a fine comment above Ricky.

    I can think of one nerd who just curled up into a fetal ball and as howled as his rattling little shoulders convulsed with sobs: “Oh sweet fancy proles… Sarah Palin! Sarah PALIIIIIN!!!”

    Like


  148. @T., 11:00 AM

    I find your last two comments exceedingly entertaining. If this blog is chock full of anything, it’s nerdy reductionist “0 or 1” stuff.

    I have no problem with people following their instincts – no amount of book learning will give you situational smarts. I also have no problem with people following rigorous studies, as long as they realize their limitations as applied to day-to-day life. I have a problem with people who try to lend their own preconceptions greater weight through (mis)use of studies or through reliance on charlatans.

    How does your praise of nuanced thinking and complexity square with the general tone of this blog?

    Like


  149. Mu: Krav Maga, simple, intuitive, when the other guy learns the fight’s on as he’s on the floor, choked out. But why would you want to do that when you still have to leave the club, and he can have his boys with their guns in the parking lot? Fighting that stops with fisticuffs is a white trash thing.

    Like


  150. Let me go even more nerdyeval on your ass. What’s wrong with this picture:

    1. Nerd can’t get laid.
    2. Nerd reads up on evo psych.
    3. Nerd googles “getting laid quick” and finds Game-related info.
    4. Nerd reads for hours, dry-mouthed and wide-eyed.
    5. Nerd assiduously applies himself to the study of Game.
    6. Nerd decides to repeatedly try out what he’s learned:
    a) if failure, conclude that NERD DID SOMETHING WRONG, GO TO 5.
    b) if success, conclude that GAME WORKS ON EVERYONE.

    If (GAME WORKS ON EVERYONE), and (GAME IS BASED ON EVO PSYCH), then (HUMAN BEHAVIOR CAN BE REDUCED TO EVO PSYCH)

    That’s not just nerdiness, that’s bad nerdiness. This blog is just a circle-jerk among a bunch of nerds who need reassurance that they sold their soul (so they could use the proceeds on their Game lit) because it was necessary.

    Like


  151. And by selling your soul I mean replacing a soft, nuanced, open-minded approach to other individuals with a mechanistic one.

    Like


  152. T-Raw makes some seriously excellent points above. Definitely one I gotta cut n paste later on.

    And his points tilts towards something that really doesn’t get enough “facetime” I think-and that’s this:

    Hi-IQ Men almost always tend to be Atheists. And Women, by and large, don’t select Atheists.

    That’s a fact.

    One major thing I’ve learned about Game, is just how much Women value that “leap of faith” that T mentions above. Its the basis on which Romance, even Love, is built; and why so many Hi-IQ guys, never get it.

    But more than that, the completely illogical thing to me is, that these guys turn around and go apesh*t, hatin’ on Players, Game and even Women themselves; wouldn’t a keen, logical, Hi-IQ guy simply accept the documented facts, and call it a day? Why the need for the vitriol, the complaints, the this, the that?

    Personally, I’ve always been deeply interested in what could be called “social sciences”. And I’ve always admired WEB DuBois’ work, arguably America’s first true social scientist. So, when I stumbled upon Game, I was interested.

    But, I aint gonna front-who WOULDN’T jump at the chance to bed some of the Hottest Women around, by simply learning proofed methods and applying them oneself? LOL What an experiment.

    So often, when discussions on IQ take place, they seem for whatever reason, to invariably focus on the “left” side of the Bell Curve-and let’s be honest, we’re talking Black and Brown folks, “NAMs” as we’re known. The discussion takes on, depending on who’s talking, alarmist notions or in its more benign form, paternalistic notions.

    And before anyone says anything, let me be clear-I wholly embrace the idea that Black folk may not be, taken as a group and on average, as smart as Whites or Asians, etc. While there are many Black folk and even some White, who take umbrage at the very notion being raised, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Why?

    Precisely because of what T discussed above-because everything in Life has its Tradeoffs. Being on the lower end of he Cognitive scale may not get you the Nobel Prize, but being on the top of the Cognitive Heap comes with its share of problems, too. And here, in this very forum, this very thread, as T so eloquently laid bare for all to see, we can see this for ourseleves.

    And now perhaps we can understand, fully, why Hi-IQ Males are the *least* likely to mate, to have children, to leave a genetic legacy. They also tend to be the biggest purchaser of Escort/Prostitution services, because they lack any scintilla of social skills, and if the evidence as we have it is any indication, this will not change any time soon, because this group fights as much tooth and nail to resist change as any religious fundamentalist. Just look at Dave Alex, for example. Its a pretty good chance he’s smarter than me.

    In the opening pages of his Mystery Method, and several times during the book, Mystery makes it plainfully, and painfully clear to his readers: if you are not willing to adapt to the changed social landscape, Nature will have no problem in the least with efficently weeding your genes out of existence. Period.

    That alone, should be reason enough for a Man to do something-if not Game, *something*. For my part, Mu intends to have remnants of himself representin’ lon after he’s buried and gone.;)

    Holla

    Salaam
    Mu/Obsidian

    Like


  153. Markku,

    Even among the Aryan ranters, the Greeks and Romans were categorized as “Mediterranean” not “Nordish”.

    Like


  154. Eurosabra,
    Good point you make. But doing what you said above definitely beats getting beat outright, don’t you think?;)

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  155. some beta drone:
    If this blog is chock full of anything, it’s nerdy reductionist “0 or 1″ stuff.

    dizzy, is that you?

    I have no problem with people following their instincts – no amount of book learning will give you situational smarts.

    that’s just something lazy people say.

    I also have no problem with people following rigorous studies, as long as they realize their limitations as applied to day-to-day life.

    you must be one of these “human beings are magical mysterious creatures who can never be fully understood, all hail the inscrutable beauty of sexual attraction” head-in-the-sand believers.

    I have a problem with people who try to lend their own preconceptions greater weight through (mis)use of studies or through reliance on charlatans.

    studies, the experience of others, and one’s own experience are all important learning tools.

    Let me go even more nerdyeval on your ass.

    let’s try to keep ass out of this, mmkay?

    1. Nerd can’t get laid.

    so you agree that women are universally repulsed by nerds?

    2. Nerd reads up on evo psych.

    it’d be a start.

    3. Nerd googles “getting laid quick” and finds Game-related info.

    should losers forget about self-improvement?

    4. Nerd reads for hours, dry-mouthed and wide-eyed.

    why dry-mouthed and wide-eyed? do those sensationalistic adjectives bolster your assertions?

    5. Nerd assiduously applies himself to the study of Game.

    beats doing it half-assed.

    6. Nerd decides to repeatedly try out what he’s learned:

    it is required.

    a) if failure, conclude that NERD DID SOMETHING WRONG, GO TO 5.

    practice makes perfect. or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.

    b) if success, conclude that GAME WORKS ON EVERYONE.

    or maybe steer clear of false premises and conclude that game works to a lesser or greater extent for men based on the time and effort they put into learning it, in combination with their other attractiveness traits.

    If (GAME WORKS ON EVERYONE), and (GAME IS BASED ON EVO PSYCH), then (HUMAN BEHAVIOR CAN BE REDUCED TO EVO PSYCH)

    do you deny that the scarcity of eggs and the abundance of sperm has an effect on gender psychosocial dynamics?

    That’s not just nerdiness, that’s bad nerdiness.

    it’s not necessary to have possession of the complete truth for pieces of the truth to be of benefit to oneself.

    This blog is just a circle-jerk among a bunch of nerds who need reassurance that they sold their soul (so they could use the proceeds on their Game lit) because it was necessary.

    after you finish explaining in your enlightened non-nerdy way why learning game is akin to selling one’s soul, you can inform everyone why game is an unnecessary tool of seduction for the majority of men.

    And by selling your soul

    please present evidence for the existence of a soul.

    I mean replacing a soft, nuanced, open-minded approach

    translation: i’m a nancyboy who’s skeered of unmuddled thinking.

    to other individuals with a mechanistic one.

    we are machines, your paeons to a nebulous higher transcendence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Like


  156. Oh, look, the papa Smurf of the jerk circle called me beta. I think I’ll skulk away to a dark place to cry a little.

    Ok, I’m back now. You apparently can’t, or pretend to be unable to, distinguish between truisms that have broad, if shallow, applicability and usefulness, and stretching that applicability to the breaking point by basing your whole belief system on a sloppy generalization of those truisms to everything, everyone, and everytime. Perhaps you should study up on organized religions. Most are likewise based on truisms, extend them sloppily into areas where they don’t belong, dogmatically enforce adherence to these ill-founded precepts, and militantly deny that salvation is possible by following any other belief system. They, like you, strive to punish any bringer of information that conflicts with the dogma, and yet claim to be concerned with the ultimate truth.

    We are machines, yet we are not explained by your precious halfwit schematics. A broader knowledge base is necessary, and it won’t be attained through your methods. But keep preaching to the choir, Brother Roissy (for, thankfully, you appear to be selecting yourself out of the gene pool, so I can’t call you Father). Just please don’t pollute late-night TV with your drivel.

    Like


  157. Gordan,
    I’m having trouble seeing your point. I don’t think anyone, no anyone here at least, is trying to make the case that Evo-Psych explains any and everything; just that it plays a big role in the dating and mating game.

    Of course we all have choices. Dave Alex can choose to implement the myriad advice he’s gotten, or he can choose not to, for example. Simply acknowledging EP doesn’t mean that anyone is a slave to it.
    Nor do I see the huge problem with Game in and of itself. Of course, it can be abused and used to hurt others, but so can a kitchen knife or a car. They are just tools. It is what the wielder does with them that makes the difference.

    So again, I’m having trouble following your argument. What should a guy do in the absence of Game? Suggestions?

    Please explain?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  158. What should a guy do in the absence of Game? Suggestions?

    That’s a good to-the-point question.

    I don’t mean this sarcastrically at all when I say that I’m looking forward to an interersting answer, hopefully something other than “just be himself.”

    Like


  159. Game, allowing for small differences, works on almost all types of girls. Not all women are amoral sluts who offer themselves to the first available alpha, just as not all men will cheat on their wives with the first available hottie. But what attracts women, good, bad, intelligent, unintelligent, religious, non-religious, lefty or righty, remains remarkably constant.

    Like


  160. What should a guy do in the absence of Game?

    You don’t really need game to get an average woman. After all people do get together without game. If you are content with a 6, you really just need a job, some average looks, average social skill and a bit of backbone.

    Like


  161. smurfette squealed in horror:
    Oh, look, the papa Smurf

    ghey.

    of the jerk circle called me beta.

    if the diaper fits…

    ps the term of art is circle jerk.

    You apparently can’t, or pretend to be unable to, distinguish between truisms that have broad, if shallow, applicability and usefulness, and stretching that applicability to the breaking point by basing your whole belief system on a sloppy generalization of those truisms to everything, everyone, and everytime.

    my view is that generalizations are a useful tool for understanding much of the dynamics of the sexual market and relations between men and women. your counterpoint that generalizations cannot account for every single instance, dot and tittle, of mate choice is true but trivial. there will always be exceptions to the rule. but it would be silly to approach dating with the exceptions in mind, as that will lead you down the wrong road quite a bit more often than not.

    Perhaps you should study up on organized religions.

    perhaps you should pull the gerbil out of your ass.

    Most are likewise based on truisms, extend them sloppily into areas where they don’t belong, dogmatically enforce adherence to these ill-founded precepts, and militantly deny that salvation is possible by following any other belief system.

    religion has no basis in science. evo psych does.
    ya moron.

    They, like you, strive to punish any bringer of information that conflicts with the dogma, and yet claim to be concerned with the ultimate truth.

    nah, i just strive to inflict cruel sadistic pain on dumbasses like yourself who believe that valid universal inferences made about men and women are equivalent to dogma.

    We are machines, yet we are not explained by your precious halfwit schematics.

    i’ll ask my question again, since you conveniently forgot to answer it the first time around:

    do you deny that the scarcity of eggs and the abundance of sperm has an effect on gender psychosocial dynamics?

    A broader knowledge base is necessary, and it won’t be attained through your methods.

    you seem confused. my “methods”, like most everyone’s who knows a thing or two about how the world works, is a composite of knowledge gleaned from science and my real life experiences and observations. typically, soft, nuanced persons like yourself are the ones who pull shit out of their asses.

    But keep preaching to the choir, Brother Roissy

    flaming ghey.

    for, thankfully, you appear to be selecting yourself out of the gene pool, so I can’t call you Father

    in the end, we’re all dead, no matter how many children we have. so your concern for the gene pool is nothing but empty-headed expedience in a lame attempt to zing your lord and master. unfortunately, our pleasure centers don’t much care for kids, but they do care whether we’re scoring some quality poon.

    Just please don’t pollute late-night TV with your drivel.

    you watch a lot of late-night tv hoping for discounts on buttplugs, cavernous boy?

    Like


  162. Mu,

    There’s game, the set of rituals in which we all engage to varying degrees of success, with varying styles, and for varying purposes. Then there’s Game, a set of prescriptive “systems” that try to reduce game to the point where it can be packaged and sold to guys who want to score with more chicks than they could without it. Then there’s Roissy and the like, who take their success with implementing the dictates of Game and draw a whole lot of conclusions about existence in general, without recognizing that their choices have biased their experience. They get into all these self-referential tight circles and wax authoritative about things whereof they know nothing.

    For a life worth living, game is necessary, in all its inexact give-and-take splendor. It can be learned, and it can be taught, but it can’t be swallowed in pill form with a can of Red Bull. For impatient, petulant, infantile chasers of ego through notches on the bedpost, Game, done right, will add to those numbers, if you don’t care how deep the notches are. But you are cutting out, purposely, a lot of game and a lot of experiences that could contribute to a fulfilled life, as opposed to the embittered one evidenced by our host’s attitude.

    Like


  163. on December 19, 2008 at 4:42 pm Dave from Hawaii

    Game is just the response to millions of guys raised in the era of the decline of Western Civilizations transformation from Patriarchy to Matriarchy.

    Public schooling, television, radio…our entire mainstream media has indoctrinated an anti-male, pro-feminist cultural zeitgeist.

    The exponential growth of the divorce industry has lead to millions upon millions of young boys raised by single mothers, all raised with the mindfuck of a mother constantly reinforcing false ideas into their boys about how they should “treat women right, not like your jerk of a father!”

    In short, millions of boys have been socially engineered to avoid masculine behavior, that testosterone is a bad thing and aggression is a negative attribute.

    Men in this day and age are raised to try and act feminine and suppress their masculine instincts. “Dominance” has a negative connotation.

    Male sexuality is constantly demonized, while female sexuality is celebrated and worshipped.

    It is this kind of cultural zeitgeist that promotes and profligates male beta behavior. Millions of men literally don’t know how to relate successfully to the opposite sex, because societal programming overrides the natural behavior that males would engage in when seeking a mate.

    The mere fact that folks like Gordan and a lot of the ladies that come here deride, criticize, scoff and try to impute shamefulness to “game” merely proves my point.

    It’s perfectly fine for women to “manipulate” men into sexual relationships advantageous to themselves. Push up bras, makeup, cosmetic surgery, revealing clothing…all “manipulations” to impart the appearance of youthful fertility to get men to submit themselves to female control. It’s all good!

    But teach a man that being submissive, accommodating and putting the female on a pedestal is a losing strategy in relating to the opposite sex? Oh please…all the ladies scoff and act like they are “smarter than that” to be “manipulated.”

    And mangina’s protest that “game” is “shallow” and “pathetic.”

    Game is embracing masculinity.

    It’s refusing to apologize for pursuing successful mating strategies.

    It’s a direct FUCK YOU to the Femi-Nazi Blitzkrieg that has screwed up our society and started this insane gender war in the first place.

    Like


  164. Game is as necessary for deep relationships as for shallow ones.

    Like


  165. our pleasure centers don’t much care for kids

    Correction: some people’s pleasure centres don’t care for kids. Since the introduction of birth control, natural selection is undoubtedly starting to select for those who deliberately want children, at least among the more intelligent.

    Like


  166. there will always be exceptions to the rule. but it would be silly to approach dating with the exceptions in mind, as that will lead you down the wrong road quite a bit more often than not.

    Spoken like a true connoisseur of the commonplace. I am an exception; I seek out exceptional people; therefore, approaching dating with anything less in mind would lead me down the wrong road nearly every time. But it all depends on you desiring the exceptional, and having confidence in your ability to offer the exceptional.

    perhaps you should pull the gerbil out of your ass.

    Patience… your nose will get its turn.

    religion has no basis in science. evo psych does.
    ya moron.

    Your misuse of evo psych has no basis in science.

    nah, i just strive to inflict cruel sadistic pain on dumbasses like yourself who believe that valid universal inferences made about men and women are equivalent to dogma.

    You’re about as good at inflicting cruel sadistic pain on me as you are at distinguishing valid inferences from ridiculous ones. That is to say, presuming you have the capacity in the first place, you’ll have to try a lot harder.

    i’ll ask my question again, since you conveniently forgot to answer it the first time around

    This from the king of conveniently unanswered questions. You can do better.

    do you deny that the scarcity of eggs and the abundance of sperm has an effect on gender psychosocial dynamics?

    Not at all. I deny that your claims of the magnitude of this effect are justified. I also deny that your claims of the magnitude of the effect of gender psychosocial dynamics on interpersonal dynamics are supported by scientific studies or by universal personal experience.

    typically, soft, nuanced persons like yourself are the ones who pull shit out of their asses.

    You’re so obsessed with the typical. And my ass. Are you sure it’s not you who’s… confused?

    in the end, we’re all dead, no matter how many children we have. so your concern for the gene pool is nothing but empty-headed expedience in a lame attempt to zing your lord and master. unfortunately, our pleasure centers don’t much care for kids, but they do care whether we’re scoring some quality poon.

    Being exceptional, I realize that I don’t have to choose between the two.

    you watch a lot of late-night tv hoping for discounts on buttplugs, cavernous boy?

    There you go obsessing about my ass, again.

    Like


  167. Dave:

    Game is embracing masculinity.

    No, Game is a poor facsimile of masculinity.

    I don’t approve of the emasculation (and, really, infantilization) of this society, but I think that holding up Roissy and the like as a necessary or even reasonable (as opposed to regrettable) result of the anti-male mindfuck here is a bit misguided.

    Masculinity encompasses quite a bit more. I suspect that you know this already; Roissy doesn’t. He’s an infant. Probably raised without a strong father figure.

    Like


  168. nancyboy:
    Then there’s Roissy and the like, who take their success with implementing the dictates of Game and draw a whole lot of conclusions about existence in general, without recognizing that their choices have biased their experience.

    you must be dizzy. she’s the type who would screech incessantly about how the game i run only attracts whores and sluts and low self-esteem girls.
    she was wrong.
    and so are you.

    They get into all these self-referential tight circles and wax authoritative about things whereof they know nothing.

    or patrickh. you and him share the same effete, huffy writing style.
    btw, does the thought of a tight circle cause your micropud to sprout?

    For a life worth living, game is necessary, in all its inexact give-and-take splendor.

    “inexact, give and take splendor”. lol. spoken like a true pansy full of faux-moralistic hubris quivering in fear of the universal truths of the bestial nature of humanity. tell me, do you cry into your chai latte when i offend your poetical sensibilities?

    It can be learned, and it can be taught, but it can’t be swallowed in pill form with a can of Red Bull.

    please describe in non-fruitcup language the difference between being taught game and swallowing game in pill form.

    as opposed to the embittered one evidenced by our host’s attitude.

    keep telling yourself that.

    thursday:
    Since the introduction of birth control, natural selection is undoubtedly starting to select for those who deliberately want children, at least among the more intelligent.

    true. and i should clarify that the pleasurable feelings associated with thoughts of having children are stronger in women than men.

    Like


  169. The mere fact that folks like Gordan and a lot of the ladies that come here deride….

    Gordon is a lady. Called it right on the ass fuck quiz so i have a proven track record.

    Like


  170. Gordan:

    How does your praise of nuanced thinking and complexity square with the general tone of this blog?

    Actually I was criticizing overreliance on nuanced thinking and complexity by high IQ people when analyzing sexual interactions, not praising it.

    If you analyze three groups of people, women, men who are “naturals” with women, and high IQ men and ranked them in terms of success with the opposite sex, then ranked the three groups on how much they care about supporting studies and the minutae of their methodology, I’m pretty sure the sexual success rankings will be inversely proportional to the level to which they care about the supporting science.

    For example none of the naturals I know who’ve been good with women from teen years would say “Okay, you’ve spotted a pattern with 143 women, but that doesn’t mean anything because the sample wasn’t random enough, so I’m ignoring every finding until someone shows me a better study.” If a natural sees something works with as little as three women they are already intrigued and incorporating it with women. Women never needed to wait until today’s evo psych studies to accept that makeup and other manipulations work on men.

    Requiring the rigorous methodology and elimination of all bias you mention before applying a theory is great for engineering, business and pharmaceutical analyses but horrible for sexual and personal interactions. If that wasn’t the case, the hyperlogical would excel above all others in social and sexual matters the way they do in the sciences and business. But on average they don’t.

    Like


  171. on December 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm Dave from Hawaii

    No, Game is a poor facsimile of masculinity.

    Bullshit.

    Game is reconnecting men to the masculine gender role that has been under assault ever since the feminists began their attack on Patriarchy.

    Isn’t it funny that mostly every woman that ever comes here always talks down on “game.” They almost always declare that they are too smart to fall for it, that men who study it and use it to try and get laid are “shallow” and they MUST be unhappy or living a miserable life.

    That is because they read blogs like this and visualize a caricature about what game is – that it’s a manipulative technique employed by guys “tricking” women into bed.

    Game is about avoiding behaviors that turn women’s attraction off.

    Game is about learning the behavior that inspires or enhances female attraction. It’s about learning to exhibit the traits she is instinctually looking for in a mate.

    All the women that are protesting or trying to use shaming language at Roissy and any other man that studies and applies game are merely reinforcing the feminist shibboleths that demonize male sexuality and demand the worship of female sexuality.

    Women in our society are raised since birth with this notion of “equality” and “you go girl!” Yet all the indoctrination and brainwashing in the world cannot overcome their basic, biological imperative to seek out the most dominant genes they can to mate with.

    It’s the males natural role in the mating game to establish dominance as the primary trait to attract a female.

    But most women simply can’t admit this, because of a life time of programming by a Matriarchal-dominant culture that has branded male dominance with a negative connotation and promotes female superiority in the name of equality.

    I think the cognitive dissonance caused by the biological instinct for hypergamy clashing with the feminist cultural brainwashing of female superiority is why so many Western women are a disaster to marry and have children with.

    Like


  172. puling nancyboy AKA patrickH:
    Spoken like a true connoisseur of the commonplace.

    when was the last time you found a morbidly obese woman attractive?
    or are such considerations too commonplace for you?

    I am an exception;

    exceptionally mangina.

    I seek out exceptional people; therefore, approaching dating with anything less in mind would lead me down the wrong road nearly every time.

    you sound like one of those airy fairy “inner game gurus”. why don’t you prove your exceptionality to everyone and seek out ugly old women for fucking.
    not holding breath…

    Patience… your nose will get its turn.

    so you’re saying you enjoy putting foreign objects up your bum? i’m shocked, shocked i say!

    But it all depends on you desiring the exceptional, and having confidence in your ability to offer the exceptional.

    paging deepak chopra.

    Your misuse of evo psych has no basis in science.

    you’re just pissed that the human sexual marketplace can be so effectively leveraged by those who don’t let flimsy notions of majestic human irreducibility get in the way of clear thinking.

    You’re about as good at inflicting cruel sadistic pain on me as you are at distinguishing valid inferences from ridiculous ones.

    it seems to be working.

    That is to say, presuming you have the capacity in the first place, you’ll have to try a lot harder.

    as least you know who’s delivering the voltage.

    This from the king of conveniently unanswered questions.

    yep, patrickh. i nailed it.
    ps i answered your question. it’s not my problem that you didn’t like the answer.

    I deny that your claims of the magnitude of this effect are justified.

    on the contrary, sex differences have the biggest impact of all human traits in our social interactions. underlying everything we do is our genes telling us to score that primo mating partner real estate.

    I also deny that your claims of the magnitude of the effect of gender psychosocial dynamics on interpersonal dynamics are supported by scientific studies or by universal personal experience.

    your ignorance of the science is not my moral crisis.
    and you’ll just have to take what i write about my personal experience at face value, because i have no intention of setting up a viewing booth for you every time i talk to a girl.

    You’re so obsessed with the typical.

    lame.

    And my ass. Are you sure it’s not you who’s… confused?

    the gerbil sure looked disoriented.

    Being exceptional, I realize that I don’t have to choose between the two.

    neither do i. you do understand the condom isn’t putting itself on me?

    There you go obsessing about my ass, again.

    do your farts make whooshing noises?

    Game is a poor facsimile of masculinity.

    every super alpha natural i’ve ever met runs game, whether they are aware of it or not. that some men actually think these things through and seduce women with full knowledge of what they are doing, using identifiable and replicable techniques, is not evidence of a lack of masculinity except to those for whom the essence of masculinity must forever remain a nebulous mystery of the universe untrammeled by incisive minds with no regard for your poetess posturing.

    I don’t approve of the emasculation (and, really, infantilization) of this society, but I think that holding up Roissy and the like as a necessary or even reasonable (as opposed to regrettable) result of the anti-male mindfuck here is a bit misguided.

    having choice in which women you fuck, and exercising that choice successfully, is the heart of masculinity. just as attracting the best men is the heart of femininity for women. any quibbles over the definition and how masculinity and femininity are expressed are just minor set changes in the background of the main act. it just so happens that those expressions are fairly consistent, unchanging and universal across generation and culture because the hindbrain that regulates our sexual desire has remained mostly unaltered for millions of years.

    Masculinity encompasses quite a bit more.

    there is considerable overlap between traditional notions of masculinity and ability to bed women. that is, the most conventionally masculine men are also the men who do well with women. that some of these men *choose* to not act on their attractiveness to women in favor of monogamy or even celibate monkhood, does not mean they aren’t masculine by the standards of men who *do* choose to sleep with lots of women. the critical factor here is how many quality women find a man attractive enough to want to fuck him, not whether he goes through with it. that is the FUNDAMENTAL description of the alpha male.

    Roissy doesn’t. He’s an infant. Probably raised without a strong father figure.

    it never ceases to amuse me how often those i’ve hurt turn to the feeble tactic of attempting remote psychological diagnosis of me and pop freudian guesswork about my family history.
    as with the other clacking droids who do this (hello hello), you are nowhere near the mark.

    Like


  173. […] Two Conversations, Same Girl, Same Day Her: I have to tell you something, Roissy. Me: Oh man, here we go. What? Her: It’s going to make me look bad. […] […]

    Like


  174. T-

    snob = sine nobilis?

    It used to, in old-time Brit.

    We are all sine some nobilis, some where. Then, we go by rep. Snob on.

    When we got game, nob on.

    Like


  175. “And now perhaps we can understand, fully, why Hi-IQ Males are the *least* likely to mate, to have children, to leave a genetic legacy.”

    Bullshit. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Prove or find any piece of evidence to back that High-IQ men are less likely to reproduce.

    “All the women that are protesting or trying to use shaming language at Roissy and any other man that studies and applies game are merely reinforcing the feminist shibboleths that demonize male sexuality and demand the worship of female sexuality.”

    So if they disagree, that shows you’re right, and if they agree, that shows you’re right. Confirmation bias in action!

    But you totally got this one, dude. Roissy demonstrates how secure he is because he never stoops to shaming language.

    Like


  176. I love how angry people get, this is great. I think that angry posts should be equally hilarious. Angry-Angry posts are not very effective.

    Like


  177. on December 19, 2008 at 8:23 pm Dave from Hawaii

    So if they disagree, that shows you’re right, and if they agree, that shows you’re right. Confirmation bias in action!

    What can I say..when you’re right, you’re right.

    Like


  178. Bullshit. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Prove or find any piece of evidence to back that High-IQ men are less likely to reproduce.

    Are you serious? Please tell me that you’re not so dense and so blind as to not see a strong negative correlation between IQ, class, and education on one hand and fertility on the other. No deep scientific study is necessary; just go out in public (do you ever?) and see who’s toting around five or more kids at age 21 and who has zero or one at 40.

    Click here and look at the bottom under “Fertility to Date.” Here’s the data:

    IQ: <75, Fertility: 2.3
    IQ: 75-90, Fertility: 1.9
    IQ: 90-110, Fertility: 1.6
    IQ: 110-125, Fertility: 1.4
    IQ: 125<, Fertility: 1.0

    Like


  179. “What can I say..when you’re right, you’re right.”

    And when you ignore all evidence that you might be wrong, you can just keep telling yourself you’re right! Good times.

    “IQ: <75, Fertility: 2.3
    IQ: 75-90, Fertility: 1.9
    IQ: 90-110, Fertility: 1.6
    IQ: 110-125, Fertility: 1.4
    IQ: 125<, Fertility: 1.0”

    Z, at first, when I saw your numbers, I had a hard time buying that the people with under 75 IQs were the most fertile.

    But I checked it, and yep, I now buy it. I thought the stupid ugly dudes weren’t getting laid, but it turns out they’re fucking the stupid ugly chicks and having stupid ugly babies.

    Like


  180. Roissy,
    Excellent comments in reply to Gordan. And I fully agree: Game, no matter wht anyone may think of it, gives Men choice. Choice as to who they will pursue, choice as to whether they want things to go further with any particular Woman, and so on. This is what I most appreciate about Game. It gives me Choice.

    And that’s a beautiful thing.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  181. Gordon, I think you’re looking at this whole thing too dogmatically yourself. It’s a common thing for people to do, so I’m not trying to insult you or something. I’d just like you to consider some things that have come to my mind in my exploration of men and game.

    Most of them revolve around the fact that men don’t want to be pitied. Nerdy or otherwise “unattractive” guys are pitied by other guys, and by women who feel magnanimous for talking to them. When they’re not pitied, they’re pretty much ignored or picked on.

    Is it so wrong for someone to want to improve their situation? to not be pitied, picked on, or ignored?

    How do you suggest they go about improving it? clicking their heels together and making a wish?

    These guys are using the tools available to improve their lives. So it might take some of them in a bad direction that leaves them unsatisfied. So what? They’ll learn their lessons and pay their costs.

    So just relax. None of this makes anyone here a better or worse person than they were when they started…but at least being here and participating is a sign of a will stronger than a noodle. That has to be a good thing.

    Like


  182. Mu,

    Well put.

    The whole thing comes down to eggs expensive, sperm cheap.

    Another science fact that shows the same thing:

    66% of our ancestors are female.

    Think about that one for a minute. Lots of guys dying childless and lots of other guys impregnating multiple women.

    Puts game in perspective doesn’t it? “Just be yourself” is pretty lame and stupid for guys. You’ve got to be extraordinary to get laid by quality women.

    Like


  183. Mu,

    I think the misogynist thing comes from the fact that PUAs know things about women that no one wants to admit. Women are amoral, women lie constantly, women are always using deception (consciously or not), etc.

    Now, why would I try to learn how to be a PUA? I think it’s actually a mirror of the way women feel about PUAs. Women say PUAs are sleazy and manipulative and they complain about the idea of the neg, etc but when it comes time to pick a man, they pick a PUA whenever they have the chance. In theory, they don’t like PUAs but in reality they do.

    I’m the same way. In theory, I don’t really like women. In person, talking to individual woman, I find them very charming. Just the sound of a feminine woman’s voice and the way she carries herself effects me in such a way that I’m not bothered by any of the negatives. The challenge for me in being a PUA is to basically ignore that I truly do like women and act more like the way women like, which is like a man who doesn’t really need anything from her.

    Like


  184. “In theory, I don’t really like women. In person, talking to individual woman, I find them very charming. Just the sound of a feminine woman’s voice and the way she carries herself effects me in such a way that I’m not bothered by any of the negatives. The challenge for me in being a PUA is to basically ignore that I truly do like women and act more like the way women like, which is like a man who doesn’t really need anything from her.”

    Bullseye. Very nicely put, SJ.

    Like


  185. Very good information.

    Like