Attracting Women By Exploiting Their Insecurities

Truly the darkest and most powerful of the crimson arts is the seduction of women through the identifying and exploiting of their weaknesses and insecurities. To bed a woman is a wonderful pleasure, but to get inside her head and manipulate her to willingly offer the key to her heart — well, that is sublime gratification. Only experts in the mechanics of the human psyche can pull off Exploitation Game with any credibility.

First, it is important to note that weakness and insecurity are distinct categories of ego suppression. A weakness is an objective flaw in a woman who may or may not be self-consciously aware of it. An insecurity is a gnawing discomfort with some facet of her life that she feels is amiss, whether or not her self-doubt has any factual justification. Weaknesses and insecurities provide fertile emotional chaos upon which the master seducer may fruitfully sow a path to redemption… through his groin, of course.

Imagine, for instance, you have met a girl at a house party who you happen to know is dating a man who already has a girlfriend. Her life is in disarray, and all she can think about is how to win him away from his primary lover. This girl has a genuine insecurity about her standing with him, and she doubts her ability to monopolize the love of a high value man. You identify her insecurity, and then you exploit it by talking in general terms about how it’s nice to have someone completely devoted to you and makes you feel comfortable and loved.

“Sometimes, at the end of the day, you just want someone there who accepts you totally, and won’t make you play games or feel like an afterthought.”

Naturally, you do not directly confront the girl with her insecurities, (unless it is your intention to cause pain). That would only ensure a defensive turtling in reaction, or, worse, a lashing out like a stuck pig. Deliberative exploitation is effectively accomplished through the use of third party puppets. The girl in the example above would not be the subject, but she would subconsciously put herself in the place of the subject in your conversation.

Here is another example: suppose you meet a single mom who still has her looks. You don’t intend to marry her, but you do want to enjoy a fling. She has a real weakness; bastards are bad for business in the dating arena. Her lack of awareness or acknowledgement of her weakness is irrelevant; a weakness extracts its tribute from even the most armored egos, for the reality of its existence cannot be concocted away in the primal centers of the brain where the rationalization hamster dares not tread. If you can insinuate her weakness into your conversation — assuming the truth of its negative influence while offering an escape from its consequences — you simultaneously crush and release her ego to pursue that which will provide momentary relief from her rattled reality. Again, the use of third parties is critical.

“There are too may demands placed on some of us. People expect you to follow the script, expect you to conform to whatever normal is supposed to be, but what do they know? I was never one to judge. I see what others don’t and admire it. Nothing beats meeting that one person who will take you into a separate world, away from the day to day crap that drags you down.”

Exploitation Game can be used during the attraction or comfort stage of seduction, but is preferable in the latter, particularly if it is the patina of sincerity you are striving for. Some may consider this cruel art a breach of the last ethical frontier of pickup, but the joy on her face and the quickening in her loins belie such phony sanctimony.





Comments


  1. on November 22, 2010 at 12:29 pm (R)Evolutionary

    Well, I get the please of the first comment.

    This is classic Macchiavellian or Robert Greene seduction/power technique. It is not without merit. It is powerful. It is the Dark side of the force. We all have a dark side. Darkness is not the opposite of light, it its absence.

    I am not, and will not, condemn this kind of game, for I have used it. I will use it again, if needed, to maintain hand–for it is a useful technique for hand maintenance.

    For now, I endeavor to dwell in light, and use the katana of the Dark Side only when its brilliant blackness is required.

    Like


  2. first
    Girls are so insecure about the their beauty they wear tons of makeup paint to hide their imperfections girls are never as hot as they seem

    Liked by 1 person


  3. Hahaha second

    Like


  4. Wow…. Fun when the feminists see this.

    Like


  5. I fail to see how controlling the weak brings any sort of pleasure.

    Like


  6. I think I did this inadvertently when I had disparaging remarks about abortion. It was apparent this particular girl had one based on her reaction. I have reasonable assurances that she was interested and this probably was devastating. Unfortunately for her, I was rather conservative and her beauty could not quite offset my apprehension that she was a bit of a lune.

    Like


  7. Lottery winner ordered by court to pay £2m (three million dollars) to ex-wife who left him for another man ten years ago.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331925/Lottery-winner-Nigel-Page-pay-ex-wife-2m-left-10-years-ago.html

    Welcome to modern Britain. No Country For All Men.

    Like


  8. on November 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm Vincent Ignatius

    I like how you talk around the issue, but still make sure you trigger the insecurity. I usually have to talk about the insecurity, albeit in an indirect way.

    If I know a girl thinks she has big nose, I’ll talk about how my aunt got a nose job, but I always thought her nose looked normal.
    If a girl thinks she has small tits, I’ll mention how my best friend Amy got a boob job, but she was already so pretty that it shouldn’t have been an issue for her. People focus on their flaws and ignore their strengths. yada yada yada

    Jesus Christ! You deserve some kind of medal.

    Like


  9. One of the things I first said as a joke, but (somehow) got positive responses from girls is:

    “It’s ok, [name], why don’t you just go ahead and make you feel bad about yourself on purpose to try and get skinny?”

    I would say this when a girl is whining, or when we’re at dinner and I want to eat her food.

    Common responses are laughter and a deep “how did you know?”.

    Like


  10. on November 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm Ascending Alpha

    What would be a good example for a girl who cut her hair short and regrets it. She has told me several times that she wants it to grow back faster. A little background, we have been sleeping together for two months so I don’t need to win her over, just keep her attraction.

    Like


  11. Is there anything sweeter than the smell of loneliness on a girl who just finished college and transplanted to the area? Miss may I introduce you to your new friends… Mr. Cock and Mr. Balls!

    Liked by 1 person


  12. sounds dangerous. but clearly worth it if you do it right.

    Like


  13. “Attracting Women by Exploiting Their Insecurities”? Are you implying there’s some other way?

    Like


  14. roy-c

    to get inside her head and manipulate her to willingly offer the key to her heart — well, that is sublime gratification.

    Nowdays,
    I’d rather recite
    The Psams or read Rousseau
    to a pet shop full of Hamsters

    same diff

    Like


  15. Oh, the feminists will love this one!

    Using the dark side of Game always manages to get the lion’s share of attention from the opposition.

    Like


  16. My lord this is dark.

    Like


  17. What’s interesting in this is that both sexes are attuned to the insecurities in the other as a subconscious default. It’s only when we call attention to it that it takes on the status of being “less than ethical”. Both sexes have a natural tendency to manipulate and exploit these insecurities we just fail to acknowledge them.

    There are countless men I know who’re mercilessly preyed upon by emotionally manipulative women, but if you were to confront these women about it they’d all plead ignorance of doing so or they’d lay the blame on the man for not living up to expectations. It’s still exploiting HIS insecurities, but he’s got the liability of having them. Ignorance of the Game doesn’t remove you from the Game.

    Consciously exploiting insecurities is a legitimate practice, but like every other aspect of Game it’s like fire; you can use it to heat your house and cook your food, but you can also use it to burn your house down. The biggest danger I can think of in knowingly exploiting insecurity is that it comes with a price tag most guys are unprepared to pay. BPD women in particular are prone to becoming emotionally codependent on manipulators and the affirmations they get from them. That might be fine for women you don’t wish to have any investment in (i.e. one nighters and pump & dumps), but the problem is that the same insecurity you exploit can become the basis of an LTR or marriage. You run the risk of becoming trapped in a vicious cycle where you are associated as both the source and the solution of her insecurity.

    Liked by 1 person


  18. Seems more like schmuck than alpha to me.

    Like


  19. The seduction of women through the identifying and exploiting of their weaknesses and insecurities: Game, baby! (If they have a void they need to fill, by all means give it to ’em!)

    Like


  20. @Zammo

    Yup! The feminist cunts are really gonna be upset by this as they aren’t really interested in playing fair… just in winning. Like Rollo said, chicks exploit too, so if guys can’t be unilaterally deterred from “taking advantage” by feminist shaming, then women lose a huge advantage for keeping their sexual control in tact. And feminists are all about control, though they preach the opposite.

    Like


  21. YAWN!

    No takeaway here. Not even a laugh. 😦 le sigh.

    Like


  22. Seems more like schmuck than alpha to me

    Translation: I’m gonna exploit guys insecure about their Alphaness in hopes that they will not be able to exploit us women the way I just did them.

    Like


  23. haha…and the sociopath is back. i’d say this post sufficiently balances out the nicey nice one about SGs.

    Like


  24. Douchebag Power! 🙂

    Like


  25. on November 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm Yellow Kid Weil

    This is almost too effective to use. A few years ago when I was a senior in high school I had a short fling with this hot little freshman that was incredibly insecure about appearing mature, to which I took full advantage, being older and higher up on the food chain. She fell hard for me and that poor little hamster in her head blew its circuits when I left her. I had to switch schools and get a restraining order against her to escape the ensuing insanity. Luckily I moved to another state after college so I haven’t had seen/heard her in quite some time but some of my friends back home inform me that she is still quite the bundle of feminine psychosis. I’ll echo Rollo; this kind of game is not for the faint of heart.

    Like


  26. on November 22, 2010 at 2:40 pm Yellow Kid Weil

    One of the few things in my life I truly regret, ruining someone else’s life for a quick fix.

    Like


  27. Uh oh, Douchebag PSA…

    Like


  28. on November 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm greatbooksformen GBFM

    if you’re nice 2 a woman then she knows she can count on oyour working for the fed wlefare states while she gets cockas form asshole drummer drugegeueies zlozzlolzolzozo buttehxual heroeos neocon cheroeoss.

    lzozozozl

    Like


  29. Evil Alpha, nah-not an accurate translation.

    I don’t like male or female manipulators. I don’t think it’s much of a conquest or an achievement if you have to manipulate people to such a degree. I think it’s pathetic actually.

    Like


  30. How do I exploit this: An older married woman I know and who has always been flirty with me has recently gone on a health kick and dropped a noticeable amount of weight. She’s dressing way over the top sexy now. She looks good. I know sh’e having problems with her slightly herby husband (he does dishes). Any exploitation advice?

    Like


  31. As usual, GBFM sees the issues clearly.

    Being nice doesn’t get a beta anywhere.

    Being fair by paying money can get both the beta and the girl thrown in jail, fired, and ostracized, and feminists are working very hard to keep it this way. While I run this risk all the time, I respect the concerns of those that do not.

    That doesn’t leave many ways for an ethical beta to score. For those of us who on occasion feel guilty, as I do, bear in mind that the same girl will likely suffer the same psychosis after “she gets cockas form asshole drummer drugegeueies,” and that she has been asked out – and shot down – many a sincere guy.

    Yes, it is true that she may rationalize that she shouldn’t be as hurt by the drummer since she only expected “cockas” from him, and that it is somehow worse than the disappointment of failing to get more than “cockas” from the beta.

    Her problem – don’t make it yours by going without. The psychosis for a guy of not being able to get laid in today’s environment is life-ruining, too.

    Like


  32. As long as women are happy to hang around unchaperoned around men, there is nothign “dark” about this. Game on.

    Duh, if I were a salesman I’d use whatever insecurity I could pick up on in a prospective customer to sell him a product, as long as I wasn’t breaking any laws.

    Like


  33. Airplane II had it right about TSA:

    Like


  34. “This is classic Macchiavellian or Robert Greene seduction/power technique.”

    not to go on a tangent but it’s pretty well known that machiavelli’s works like the Prince were actually satires. heck it’s even in an article on cracked (http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong.html) He was making fun of that shit the whole time. so i mean, even the guy who supposedly touted “the ends justify the means” philosophy took issue with that way of behaving. so yeah, as some have said above..it’s best to give this kind of game a second analysis before actually going through with it.

    Like


  35. it’s pretty well known that machiavelli’s works like the Prince were actually satires

    And all this time I thought that The Prince was a job application.

    Like


  36. I’m paraphrasing here, but in the introduction of the 48 Laws of Power Robert Greene states something to this effect:

    The interplay of power is always in effect. You cannot remove yourself from it, you cannot excuse yourself from aspects of it you disagree with or simply refuse to acknowledge. In fact denying the game exists or should exist (usually based on ethics) is itself a form of manipulating power.

    There are certain laws of power that are entirely unethical and carry a heavy risk of severe punishment for, but that doesn’t delegitimize them as laws of power. You may not be comfortable employing certain laws, or in this case Game approaches, but that doesn’t mean others wont use them on you.

    Ignorance is not bliss. Once you’ve unplugged from the Matrix there’s no going back. Just by Roissy or any other proponent of Game illustrating and elaborating on the “darker” elements of Game you’ll begin to see opportunities that could be exploited in your next sarge. When a guy learns C&F or how to deliver an effective Neg to a girl, do we think “oh, that poor girl, her insecurity has just been violated”? No, it’s just a predictable response that’s been proven usable for so long. But isn’t all Game really varying degrees of exploiting insecurities?

    Like


  37. on November 22, 2010 at 3:46 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Come on now, don’t talk about this as if it were some kind of evil magical spell you can cast over a woman to make her submit to your will.

    Game is primarily about relative value. Whether you are talking about your wonderful trip to Europe last month or throwing out a subtle neg, it is all about making her think that there is a large disparity between your mating market value and hers. The travel story builds up your value and the neg drops hers.

    In the world of seduction this is simply the darkest shade of grey.

    Women get off on being jerked around emotionally. You’re doing her a favor.

    Like


  38. Using a woman’s insecurities to Game her is the exact equivalent to a woman crying to Game you!

    Like


  39. Wow Fred, that story about the lottery is truly outrageous 😦

    Otherwise, this post has a good point. Insecurities stuff isn’t a magic bullet but it sure helps. Just be sure not to make it sound like a crying-shoulder-friend advice.

    Like


  40. I don’t like… female manipulators.

    Elle

    Oh really! Cuz shmuck, your term of choice, is in the same word family as douchebag and creep. All of which are gender specific shaming words meant to influence male behavior. Like I said before, women continue to use exploitative tactics so you female protesters are either in denial as is the case with you or sneaky as is the case with feminists. Either way I urge men to fight fire with fire.

    PS. Crying won’t save you from the truth, so don’t try it. 🙂

    Like


  41. Anybody who has read The Prince would not think it was satire.

    One piece of good advice: If you gain your Kingdom by force and must kill off a number of rivals, do all of your killing in a short period of time. Then, you can became a more lenient and decent ruler.

    Didn’t he also advise strongly against taking the property or the woman of your subjects? You should kill a disloyal subject, but not disinherit his children, for example.

    If you have a rebellious province, killing your tax collectors and the like, give the job of pacification to your most vicious associate, one even who may have his eyes on your job. After he viciously pacifies the province, you can come on the scene, be shocked by his outrages against your people, hang him, and gain the gratitude of your formerly rebellious subjects. And, they will have been so terrorized by your dead associate, they will gladly pay those taxes.

    The Prince should be on everybody’s bookshelf.

    BTW, nothing wrong with exploiting a weakness. There is no “fair” in this game. Just what works and what doesn’t work.

    Like


  42. This is the basis for the effectivenes of the “neg”.

    It’s amazing….I’ve tried this with women in my social circle.

    If I meet them and just act normal: chit chat, no specific game, just hi, weather….nothing happens.

    If I meet up with them and immediately tease them: about a new hairstyle that makes them stand out, about something they’re now doing, they immediately come to life.

    I was at a cocktail party with my colleagues. One of my cute colleagues was drinking warm water from a coffee mug instead of the champagne and wine.

    She is smoking hot.

    I looked at her and pointed out “Oh, nice mug, I didn’t know they were serving hot chocolate”….

    She was all: “Don’t tease me!! Why are you doing this??!!”

    She ended up sitting with me at dinner.

    Another girl I met online who I hadn’t met but was expressing a very strong sexual interest in me suggested we meet up this week.

    I texted her: 7:30. LOCATION. Wear heels.

    Later she asked me in chat: “Are you a control freak? You sent me a text saying ‘wear heels’?

    I paused before replying, the wrote:

    “I like heels, they’re sexy. Are you a control freak?”

    Immediately she was trying to accommodate, apologizing, the sexted me and confirmed our meet up this week.

    This shit works.

    Like


  43. Evil Alpha,

    “Gender shaming” words?!?! GAH!

    Have I walked into a Diversity Studies Program or something?

    I seem not to be able to get my points across: Women can be manipulative bitches-CHECK. Men can be manipulative assholes-CHECK.

    I personally don’t think it’s such a fantastic sexual conquest if either party is a psycho manipulator. There are easier, less complicated ways to get laid with fewer strings and less pain caused.

    I am not a feminist, and not in Da Nile.

    And now, I shall go off sobbing, mascara running, weeping estrogen-laden, heaving tears in a fetal position until I get my own way 😉

    Like


  44. A line I just heard in a movie that would probably work: Congrats on the twins (peering at the boobs), but they don’t seem to be identical.

    I’m wondering if anyone thinks that this type of psychology works on men as well? I have never favored being teased or mocked by a women. They usually fare better when they, as one girl put it, stroke my ego.

    Like


  45. on November 22, 2010 at 5:48 pm Obstinance Works

    Girls seems to be insecure just after a big change in their life like a move to a new area or a graduation or even a dump from a boyfriend

    Like


  46. on November 22, 2010 at 5:56 pm Obstinance Works

    Life is a power struggle Elle.

    Like


  47. Game has unleashed men who are using psychology as a means to an end (generally sex) upon women.

    That kind of thing can indeed be ugly.

    However, what women have been doing in divorce court and custodial hearings to men with the help of the state is disgusting beyond belief.

    This kind of Game (vunerability game) is a response that is naturally going to be a reaction to men’s precarious legal position in a society like this. Men still want sex, but are finacially afraid of commitment (for some very good reasons). How can men fake forthcoming commitment to obtain sex from the sexy if they are damaged-goods-single moms? This Chateau post highlights a way.

    Women of course wont like it, but all they have to do is see articles like one in the Daily Telegraph to understand why its happening:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331925/Lottery-winner-Nigel-Page-pay-ex-wife-2m-left-10-years-ago.html

    A 56 million pound lottery winner was forced to pay an ex wife who divorced him TEN YEARS AGO to be with another man 2 million pounds (VoxDay is where I seen this).

    For the women out there: When men see things like this, it makes them hate women. When stuff like this happens to their co-workers, it makes them hate women. When stuff like this happens to one of their cousins, it makes them hate women. They then concoct ways to elicit sex from women with phony promises for the sheer delight of breaking those implied promises, thus wasting her reproductive years. Men didn’t do this kind of thing to women very often until the laws unleashed females to behave like the woman in the article.

    Game is a reaction to wrongs. It probably never would have happened on its own. The box top is off now though…..and it wont get put back on. Psy-ops will be used in interpersonal relationships as they are used in marketing and diplomacy.

    Like


  48. Have I walked into a Diversity Studies Program or something?

    Sorta. I jacked it from some MRAish site as the phrase “ball busting” lost the essence of a lot of what I was trying to say.

    But regardless, lets refocus on the fact that while you may be against ALL manipulation, your initial “schmuck” comment used such a tactic.…. because well ,manipulation is something women just naturally do.

    And this lady habit is the main reason why I advocate that men, who would prefer to be straightforward and say, “Let’s fuck”, practice the skill of manipulation. At least with the hope that we can keep up with the ladies.

    So while you consider manipulation a bad way to “get some”. The luxury of using easier ways to get laid is because you are a woman and a direct “let’s fuck” approach works. Such direct requests don’t work for men and is one of the reasons for this site and of course game.

    Women naturally manipulate even though they don’t need to do it to get sex. A man that does not manipulate women back, is fighting with one arm tied behind him.

    Yes you are in Da Nile.

    Like


  49. “I personally don’t think it’s such a fantastic sexual conquest if either party is a psycho manipulator. There are easier, less complicated ways to get laid with fewer strings and less pain caused.”
    -Elle

    These are such bizarre statements…they portray a naivete very typical of female commenters here.

    Remove the word “psycho”, which was just used for effect. You are left with this sentence: “I personally don’t think it’s such a fantastic sexual conquest if either party is a manipulator.”

    Now it seems to me that even the dimmest student of human social dynamics would understand that in every interaction there is a level of manipulation going on, and that when it comes to meeting a stranger and then having sex with them, a very high level of manipulation is required by at least one of the parties or else the whole thing goes nowhere. It should also be obvious that women respond most strongly to the most able manipulators, which explains why men with “game” bed many times more women than guys without it.

    The second part of her paragraph is equally frustrating and ignorant. “There are easier, less complicated ways to get laid with fewer strings and less pain caused.””

    What’s notable here is not what she said, but what she DIDN’T say. She is on a blog about game, claiming that there are easy, uncomplicated ways to get laid, but yet she can’t tell us what a single one of these methods are.

    Elle, what do you respond to in your personal life? A guy with average looks who merely walks up to you and says he’d like to have sex with you? Anything more than that is manipulation, and is complicated. So you are a hypocrite.

    Next.

    Like


  50. on November 22, 2010 at 6:04 pm (R)Evolutionary

    @Mschro–

    Absolutely. Niccolo Macchiavelli was just observing the ruthless Italian upper-class society within which he lived, noting what worked for people cunningly running the rat’s maze, and what didn’t. There was a fair bit of discourse about how un-Christian these behaviors were.
    I’m not even sure it was satire, other than it was delivered with the characteristic Italian smirk–see Berlusconi’s response to.. anything, really. It’s just a general comportment of Italians to be sarcastic, joking.
    As for Robert Greene, he is a total pragmatist. I see the denizens of the Chateau here as the intellectual heir to both Old Niccolo and Bob Greene.

    Like


  51. Elle’s Guidebook to Getting Laid Without Being Manipulative:

    Be Wealthy
    Be Powerful
    Be Really Really Really Good Looking
    Be a Natural Born Alpha
    Fuck All the Women Who Throw Themselves at Your Feet

    Like


  52. Exploitation game is what it is, it definitely works. Subtlety is key.

    That said, if you have an inkling of any moral fiber, you eschew it for the most part.

    I prefer fun-guy game. Or aloof and indifferent game.
    Since the goal of exploitation game is to raise your status relative to hers so as to activate the hypergamic tingle, there are just so many other ways to achieve that without having to resort to the dark art.

    Also, to consciously try and exploit someone’s insecurities strikes me as sadistic and borderline morbid. It makes me think of Smiegel in Lord of the Rings writhing in the corner as he plots his next neg in the hopes of getting a gina tingle. Corny.

    I prefer to live the sort of life where I just have high standards period. That way If I criticize her it’s not out of some conscious attempt to kick her down a notch but its because I am a man who requires the best from the women I date. Inner game will always be what separates the schmucks from the true heros.

    Like


  53. “Anybody who has read The Prince would not think it was satire.”

    It one of the most ambiguous texts ever written.

    Those tempted to use it as a guidebook might wish to reflect on the fact that Italy has been open for butthexing from the rest of Europe for roughly the past 1500 years, so the faithless ways of their rulers might not be the optimal strateragy for getting your alpha male on.

    Like


  54. “Elle’s Guidebook to Getting Laid Without Being Manipulative:”

    Defiantly real also works with the Elle’s of the world, with of course a healthy dose of teasing her about her own artifice. It’s not manipulation if it is true, and you’re willing to take as well as you give – i.e. amused and amusing.

    Like


  55. Frank Mackey would be proud

    Like


  56. on November 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Gentlemen,

    This house knows women. We know they don’t respond to logic and we don’t employ it with them. We don’t argue, we don’t explain, we don’t convince. Instead, we tease, ignore, titillate, and condescend… and then we tease some more. We do these things even when we’re not trying to game a woman, because it is the only form of inter-sex communication that is understood and appreciated by both men and women.

    So go forth, and respond (if you must) to female commenters with smileys. With “Hey, doll.” With “Plz post pics of ur tits thx.” With “Also, ur vag.” And so on.

    Stay well!

    Like


  57. The Big List of Female PEDOPHILES

    http://www.rip-factor.com/fempeds.html

    Like


  58. Reality Check: “The Big List of Female PEDOPHILES
    http://www.rip-factor.com/fempeds.html

    Damn! Where wuz all theez women when I was in jr. high… oh, yeah, that’s why we all taught by either Coach or Grandma at that age! (Then political correctness came along and it became “sexist” to “discriminate” like that… how ’bout them consequences, eh?)

    Like


  59. N Macciavelli wrote books about everything. Cook-books, probably. He just wanted to get paid for his writing. He was not some sort of philosopher. The Prince should be read in this light. It was meant to appeal to an audience.
    Hitting Their Insecurities Game is neither here nor there, as far as I am concerned. Because it is all a matter of degree. I mean, only a fool would be consistently affirming and flattering. Always mix some poison in with the compliments if you want them to value them.
    Jus sayin

    Like


  60. Damn! Where wuz all theez women when I was in jr. high… oh, yeah, that’s why we all taught by either Coach or Grandma at that age! (Then political correctness came along and it became “sexist” to “discriminate” like that… how ’bout them consequences, eh?)

    Really, you needed your your grandmother to, um, ‘teach’ you about sex?!? 😦

    Like


  61. Reality Check, da point wuz dat such little hellions as we wuz den it was just better to have folk around who wouldn’t encourage us. (If I’d been heartily giving Debra LeFavre creampies for extra credit then, I’d be in jail or dead from VD now.)

    Like


  62. Rollo

    You run the risk of becoming trapped in a vicious cycle where you are associated as both the source and the solution of her insecurity.

    Images and examples?

    Like


  63. Elle

    Seems more like schmuck than alpha to me.

    Why do you assume a dichotomy? You think alphas are necessarily admirable?

    Like


  64. Silver Fox

    Ugly chix not hiring babes

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/are-attractive-people-more-employable/?hp

    —————————————————-

    Why do you say it’s women. Aren’t most employers male?

    Like


  65. @mschro satire or not, if you compare the ideas alluded to in the Prince with a perfect inversion of them, I think that most people’s life experience would tell them that the inverted version of the prince would pretty much fail every time.

    Like


  66. I’d stand on my tippy toes; hands stretched out and up..”loooook… ( with a helpless face, pouty lips, puppy eyes….) I can’t reeeach it…. he gets up….hee! hee! It always work….ohoho..

    an even better one…

    I look at the fries in front of me ( confused look, pouty lips, puppy eyes) “wherrrrre is the ketchup?” He gets up….. hee! hee! never fails!!!

    I’m a pro!! lol!!! HE LOOVES ME!!!

    Like


  67. I loove him too.

    Like


  68. on November 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    what, post some pics of ur vagina hole pls thx

    Like


  69. sorry, those are reserved for my sweetie.

    Like


  70. on November 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    and ur tits too thx

    Like


  71. please refer to the previous comment! lol!!

    Like


  72. @Reality Check

    “The Big List of Female PEDOPHILES

    http://www.rip-factor.com/fempeds.html

    Dude, thank you so much for this link, 2 funny. The amount of stupid here is just awesome. Obviously someone needs to come up with a course called ” Secure communications in the digital era” for both the teacher’s colleges and middle school students.

    These broads seem like they were all tryin’ to get caught.

    Like


  73. Julian “I prefer to live the sort of life where I just have high standards period. ”

    Julian, your standards aren’t high. You are merely mistaken as to what promotes emotinal wellbeing in another. You’d prefer to believe that making someone insecure causes them harm for your benefit, whereas it is more likely to be a win win situation.

    A girl wants to look up to her man. She feels more alive and happy and fullfilled when she does. Bringing her down is part of bringing her up. She wants craves needs and desires it, and it makes her life better.

    Like


  74. what

    I look at the fries in front of me ( confused look, pouty lips, puppy eyes) “wherrrrre is the ketchup?” He gets up….. hee! hee! never fails!!!

    It’s in the cupboard. Munch, munch.

    Like


  75. xsplat,

    That’s why you’re not my sweetie!

    munch munch! lol!!

    Like


  76. What, domestic chores are the woman’s way to express love. You aren’t taking proper care of your man.

    A real man would give you the boot.

    Like


  77. xplat,

    Silly silly, there are plenty other ways to express love. Much more memorable ways…hehe!! don’t ask…I don’t kiss and tell.

    Like


  78. sorry..spelt your name wrong…Xsplat!

    Like


  79. “A girl wants to look up to her man. She feels more alive and happy and fullfilled when she does. Bringing her down is part of bringing her up. She wants craves needs and desires it, and it makes her life better.”

    I don’t disagree with this. I am just saying that I would prefer to achieve that same effect but through different means. Namely, by living a life where I demand high standards in all areas of life. The food I eat, the books I read, where I sleep, who I sleep with… the choices I make in life period. My discriminating nature will naturally tease, and not take her that seriously. Excellence will be rewarded, mediocrity punished. Notice the difference ?

    Preying on someone’s insecurities is very different in theory and in practice than demanding high standards. However, the result is the same which is that it raises your value relative to hers without all the unnecessary manipulative ploys.

    Like


  80. Plus being discriminating is so much easier than playing some corny “Detective Insecurity” role.

    Like


  81. Julian, you likely prey on women’s insecurities through your words and actions. You have a moral stance against doing it with deliberate intent for result.

    So, what’s the difference?

    Like


  82. julian

    High standards are kind of interesting. Sometimes you can sell them for lots of money. Sometimes they just sit on the shelf.
    But when it comes to vag-spreading… mostly, you will get to watch that happen from the sidelines.
    If your high standards resonate with involuntary celibacy you are among the luckiest of men…

    Like


  83. on November 22, 2010 at 11:22 pm O.B.A.M.A_Baracus

    I don’t agree with this article some of the women you meet now can be so self absorbed you could swear that they had no rational.

    To females who behave in this manner they might perceive your observation as a threat. No matter how coy you atempt to ejaculate wisdom into their barren vessels your seeds will ultimately wither away inside the cavernous entrails.

    Here’s an article detailing some encounters with these vain creatures

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html

    Like


  84. “deliberate intent”. nailed it.

    “whats the difference you ask” ?

    Let’s say you are a man who excels in a certain art. Let’s say for the sake of it, its the art of conversation. Every time you are in a group you excel at this art while others stand back and enjoy your verbal mastery. Will it make some of the other less verbally eloquent peers insecure ?

    Of course it will. But that insecurity they feel comes from your excellence relative to their mediocrity, not from you playing some”detective insecurity”role with those less fortunate. It’s just in my opinion a better way to live.

    Like


  85. It’s just in your opinion a better way to live.

    Thanks for clarifying with your fistful of mud.

    Like


  86. I would argue that all forms of male-to-female forms of flirting/teasing would fall under a greater umbrella of “manipulating insecurities.”

    It’s that feeling of insecurity that makes them feel dominated and thus attracted to whichever guy is doing it.

    The line is when it’s clear that the man has malicious intentions… then he goes from being attractive and dominant to being a prick.

    I don’t expect female readers to pick up on the nuance here.

    Strangely enough, guy friends do this stuff to each other constantly as a form of strengthening camaraderie and trust among one another. The element of sexuality is just missing (hopefully).

    Like


  87. I think the Chateau is just starting to repeat its own material. I remember a post exactly like this own from a year ago.

    There is only so much to be said. What more can be accomplished?

    Like


  88. People who are egalitarian and who chaffe at the notion of putting others down suffer from a severe lack of trust in their own managerial abilities. They don’t want to manage interpersonal relationships. They want them to just happen.

    Low self esteem, and low ability.

    Like


  89. And Raliv, if you don’t see new information being posted here in both the blog posts and comment sections, you aren’t looking. Sure, most of the building has been framed out, but the beauty is also in the finishing details.

    Like


  90. I would have preferred if you used a colon in this sentence:

    “You don’t intend to marry her, but you do want to enjoy a fling. She has a real weakness; bastards are bad for business in the dating arena.”

    Also, didn’t I ask you to take your shoes off when you came in?

    Like


  91. I don’t think exploiting a girl’s insecurities has ever gotten a guy laid, just made the girl he likes cry.

    Like


  92. I think, at heart, all game is exploitation game. In this day and age women aren’t physically ravaged, they’re psychologically ravaged. The feeling, for them, is the same: a forceful prying open of their legs.. from without or from within.

    Have you ever been in a situation with a very new woman and you say something that’s mildly derogatory about her to her face (a hard neg), and she reacts negatively, and then you smooth it over and warm her back up.. And at that moment you just know that you’ll be screwing her. You just know.

    I think insecurities are much more important for a seducer than weaknesses, although very often one will lead to the other.

    Like


  93. Strangely enough, guy friends do this stuff to each other constantly as a form of strengthening camaraderie and trust among one another.

    Indeed, I’d even say that it happens subconsciously. But a man who is too conscious while doing this with a woman, like having an awkward smirk, would come across as a creep and the gates will be sealed shut.

    The element of sexuality is just missing (hopefully).

    that is the reason why men could second guess themselves while doing this and come across as creeps.
    And the fact that no one feels sorry for hurting a guy’s fweeelings, unless of course he is pounding your face in for being an incessant prick.

    As for game in literature, consider the conundrum of Holden Caulfield:

    “We were playing checkers. I used to kid her once in a while because she wouldn’t take her kings out of the back row. But I didn’t kid her much, though.
    You never wanted to kid Jane too much.
    I think I really like it best when you can kid the pants off a girl when the opportunity arises, but it’s a funny thing. The girls I like best are the ones I never feel much like kidding. Sometimes I think they’d like it if you kidded them – in fact, I know they would – but it’s hard to get started, once you’ve known them a pretty long time and never kidded them.”

    one-itis, beta/douchebag in the making.

    Like


  94. Holy shit! Does anyone else notice all these females pedophile cases have happened in 2000’s.

    Like


  95. on November 23, 2010 at 9:34 am Chad Buffington

    Off-topic Beta of the month suggestion:

    “I love my wife as much today as the day I married her 22 years ago. I’ve always been faithful, but she’s had many sexual trysts, mostly with black men. (We are both white.) She never hid these indiscretions from me, and she’s assured me they are only sexual in nature and that she loves only me. I’ve had no problem accepting our rather unusual marriage until recently when my colleague told me he’s seen my wife out on several occasions with different black men and has even heard about her reputation in the black community. He explained that if it were his wife, he’d want to know. When I told him I was already aware and OK with it, he flipped out and said horrible things about my wife.”

    Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/10327/1105328-436.stm#ixzz167GgB1hx

    Like


  96. on November 23, 2010 at 9:37 am Esprit De Corps

    I really don’t see what’s so manipulative about it. Women pay $$$$$$ on dramatic movies and books that jerk around their emotions. I do not see women lining up to see a movie called “The Stable Accountant and his Mousey Wife.” No. They want to see the warriors, the players, the thugs, and the Mr. Bigs seduce the women. They imagine themselves as that woman getting her emotions all twitter-pated. And woe betide the man who doesn’t fit that standard who may be in her life.

    When you toy with her emotions, you’re just making the stories they love a reality. You’re giving her a gift. The fact is, you should be demanding more reciprocity than just her overridden pussy.

    Like


  97. @Julian

    You are absolutely right. And that’s how I’ve always perceived the study of game to be. Better yourself so you don’t have to put down others, they realize your high status from eye sight alone.

    I always find it funny that so many people harp on Style’s the game as what brought them to PUA and they don’t recognize that at the end of the game when style visits his boy in Australia that his friend is tan, fit, sociable, and wordly, and that is what mattered. all the M3 methods, and Tyler Durden blueprint’s, and every other PUA schtick in the world is only necessary to reach that level of self-attainment and goals.

    Like


  98. I’d stand on my tippy toes; hands stretched out and up..”loooook… ( with a helpless face, pouty lips, puppy eyes….) I can’t reeeach it…. he gets up….hee! hee! It always work….ohoho..

    I’m a pro!! lol!!! HE LOOVES ME!!!

    @what

    You’re not a pro. He’s a rookie. And I am so sad for you that reaching up with pouty lips doesn’t often result in a finger or something a little more substantial finding it’s way up your skirt.
    He may loooove you, but sure doesn’t seem to waaaant you!

    A guy like Logic=Anti-game would do wonders for your feminine ego. Maybe you should think twice about showing him your tits. Aoefe does it. What’s the big deal? Proper framing won’t even show your face if you are worried about anonymity. I say go for it! At a minimum maybe you’ll realize how your man should be looking at you.

    Like


  99. on November 23, 2010 at 10:47 am DevastatinglyFemale

    the concept of playing with woman’s insecurities is helpful to some extend, i just don’t think that the examples and ideas given here are any good. why would an alpha act like a phony concerned beta or even worse – a fakely friendly or jealous girlfriend? a lot of women can and will read the subtext. basically it’s:’i’m here to say or claim nothing, i’m getting your attention by putting myself in a position to analyze you and your life’. the usage of third parties would rise my suspicion right away – it shows a lack of an opinion or the guts to say it as it is. so beta, i can’t believe it?!?

    Like


  100. on November 23, 2010 at 10:55 am Logic = Anti-Game

    ^^ it’s adorable you have ideas

    pics of u bending over pls thx

    Like


  101. De title sez it all…

    “1 in 4 Overweight Women Think They’re Normal Size: Study,” Yahoo! News, 23 NOV 10
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20101123/hl_hsn/1in4overweightwomenthinktheyrenormalsizestudy

    Like


  102. but its because I am a man who requires the best from the women I date.

    Hey Julian,

    If that were true you would run NO kind of game at all. You’d open with an honest “Hey you’re sexy. Lets chat” approach and see if she responded, “Thanks for being so truthful, you’re cute too. Lets go over here.”

    But of course you don’t do that. You run your fun-guy game or aloof game on chicks with a drink in their hands. Because we all know that women make their “best” sexual decisions at the end of a long work week, after she’s tied one on, and her friends are there exerting peer pressure.

    Unless you are sitting by waiting for pussy to fall in your lap, you’re as dirty as the rest of us, but by all means keep rationalizing if that helps you sleep at night.

    Elle has a vagina so her being ANTI gets someone excused, but you’re a dude, dude.

    Like


  103. on November 23, 2010 at 11:16 am Anonymouses Anonymous

    I am compelled to admit, exploitation game is something I would excel at, but am so unskilled at it that I fail miserably.

    Like


  104. Evil Alpha,

    Your crystal ball is not working for ya!
    I’ve got the best man already. Thanks for the suggestion though, but you really need to know your customer to succeed in making the sale.

    Like


  105. on November 23, 2010 at 11:27 am greatbooksformen GBFM

    hey roisy roissy roissysysysysys !!!

    i figured it out!!! lzozlozozozlo !!

    the eneocns neocn lzozozoz neocons lzozozzlozl

    1) fund feminims and create courts to asscok men lozozoz
    2) fund foreiegen wars on foroeegn shores inciting terrorirtss and create TSA agents to feel up men zlzozlzlzo
    3) fun repeat promote the lies of butthexer hero tucker max hrymes with goldman sax zlzozl

    don’t you see it now roissy and everyone?

    the necons fiat masters are one giant assocking cartel that is never happy unless they are killing/maming/inciting wars/deestroyng the family/aborting and buttheinxgs szlzozozoz

    “woemn tame men, nuff said!” says the eneocns beeltway neocon stuffing his fat cherubic face with dc pizza as brave men die in his foreighgh war on forreign shroes he screams “more war more war more war!” zzlzozozozo

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods19.html

    “Jeff Tucker recently stated what we’ve long realized: there is something profoundly wrong with what passes for conservatism today. Entirely ignorant of the conservative intellectual tradition, many self-described conservatives sound more like Woodrow Wilson or Leon Trotsky than Edmund Burke. Unlike Jeff, though, I’m not ready just yet to give up on the word conservative. Leftists have taken enough of our words away.

    National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, for instance, who hates being told he’s not a genuine conservative (even though nothing could be more obvious), offers this justification for war with Iraq: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.” Elsewhere, he writes: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”

    If you’re wondering if these are the words of a conservative, try to imagine Russell Kirk uttering them.”

    lzozozlozozoz

    Like


  106. @what,

    But I wasn’t selling. I was fishing. And it’s obvious I had the right bait. Lol. Cute of you to protect your man.

    Like


  107. on November 23, 2010 at 11:31 am Logic = Anti-Game

    shorter sentences and fewer ideas is progress, what. shhhhh

    when posting nudie pics pls do so in hi-def pls thx

    Like


  108. I’ve only made about a half a dozen comments on this blog. Mostly about the fat chick threads.

    I’ve been reading it because I’m interested in what men think and probably can learn some new things. I am not saying that there is no natural game-playing between men and women. I was responding to the dark nature of exploiting insecurities.

    I think women respond to confidence, charm-and no-the guy doesn’t have to be rich, or even the best looking guy in the room. Going up to a woman and saying ‘hey-do you want to fuck’ might work once in a while but I think investing a bit of time, and a bit of playful, confident flirting has a better pay out rate. Women get emotionally hooked on men pretty easily.

    You guys talk a lot about responding to shit tests, deflecting, negs, etc…you all need tougher skins when you approach women. How many of you actually do chat up women strangers out of bar settings and without alcohol as a social lubricant? How confident are you?

    I guess it depends what you want from the woman though. I don’t think that major manipulation is the basis for anything long term. Obviously, that’s not what a lot of you want.

    As for what “alpha” means to me? Masculine, confident, non-neurotic. It applies to single guys and married guys.

    And I agree with the assessment on an earlier thread that for women to have the best chance of her man not cheating, she has to make sure there is plenty of sex, do her best to not ‘let herself go’, and take care of domestic things, and I am married.

    I can’t see that anything I have said has been hypocritical. I have been out of the dating scene for a while, but I do hear plenty of stories from women I work with and single friends.

    Like


  109. Logic=Anti_Game

    lol!! go play with yourself! hahha!!

    Like


  110. on November 23, 2010 at 11:42 am Logic = Anti-Game

    what pls wait ur turn before speaking

    Like


  111. Elle,

    What you said is hypocritical because what you call “confidence” is not just some effortless way of being that comes naturally to most guys. The art of looking and sounding confident around a stranger you think is hot, is very difficult to guys who were not brought up to have natural self-confidence.

    Plus, you are ignoring the fact that unless you are tall, great looking, and have a lot of social proof, your display of confidence will not get you anywhere anyway.

    More often than not, the confident guy who swept you off his feet by just being himself, was showing the results of years of careful study into the art of social manipulation.

    It makes for a prettier illusion when you don’t see the calculating work that goes behind it, just like when you watch a magician do a card trick. But to say that manipulation is not involved is just naive or disingenuous.

    I don’t know you, but if you’re like 99% of women out there, every guy who has ever slept with you has had to manipulate you and exploit your insecurities to do so. He also had to be pre-approved by being good looking or tall or having lots of social proof.

    It’s just that you would prefer to believe that it all happened naturally and effortlessly. Such is the luxury of a woman who has no sympathy for the struggles of men.

    Like


  112. Logic= Anti-Game,

    you forgot the “cobra neck weave!”hahahah!!

    Like


  113. on November 23, 2010 at 11:55 am Logic = Anti-Game

    elle has thoughts

    BIG thoughts

    on BIG issues

    it’s good because i like when females have thoughts and then mixthemupwithlogic

    Like


  114. on November 23, 2010 at 11:59 am Logic = Anti-Game

    what less talking more pics of ur ass cheeks spreading apart on a glass table

    take the pic from below the glass table pls thx

    Like


  115. I would add that when many women say they respond to “confident flirting” they are referring to the subtle neg.

    They don’t know the term for it, but it’s basically the guy teasing them and giving them playful insults.

    No doubt about it, women cannot stop themselves from responding to the neg, and the neg is definitely a form of picking on an insecurity.

    Unless of course you are an <HB6 in which case all bets are off.

    Like


  116. You probably wouldn’t want to use this sort of game on women < 8 would you? That would just get them hating you.

    The plus side is you can use this to get the fat bitches with attitude to f*ck off.

    Like


  117. Johnny-you are completely wrong that I have no sympathy for the struggles of men. Yes, looks are important, and so is chemistry. But not all women are shallow bitches all of the time-but it can’t be news to you have to get into their brains before you can get into their underpants.

    I thought it was clear that I am encouraging men to just approach and talk to more women, not be so reluctant. You talk about improving your game, getting the confidence that may not be innate-well the only way to get better at it is through practice, and not being afraid to take a few, or a dozen, or a hundred hits and flopping on occasion.

    I have a male friend who is literally a chick magnet. I was out for lunch with him recently and three women approached him and started chatting him up. All he did was smile at them and they came up to him. He talks to women everywhere-in the bookstore, at the grocery store, etc. Some pan out-some don’t.

    I am a big fan of men. I loathe the man-haters. I’m really sorry that’s somehow not coming out in my comments. Or maybe it is, but you have been especially burned in the past by some very nasty women. Anyway, this is just the internet-and only my opinion.

    Like


  118. Logic=Anti Game

    I didn’t say I have Big, or Important, or Super Amazing Thoughts. You can read it or skip it. It’s a blog.

    Like


  119. on November 23, 2010 at 12:11 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    i like to imagine pushing words through a woman’s vagina to get to her head

    Like


  120. on November 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    for some reason logic gets lodged in the vagina hole… and doesn’t make it to the head

    Like


  121. on November 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    and then guys wait… and wait… and wait… and sometimes try to push more logic into the vagina hole to dislodge the lodged logic

    Like


  122. From that dailymail article OBAMA Baracus posted:

    ‘They invariably reject every guy’s profile I send them. But if a guy rejects their profile, there is all hell to pay. There is disbelief. They are really saying: “I’m so fabulous. How dare he turn me down?”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html#ixzz167v0a3Hn

    Like


  123. Classy. Best of luck with that approach. I’m sure women respond really well to that.

    Like


  124. Oh and Elle, could you kindly fuck off this blog you annoying slag.

    Like


  125. on November 23, 2010 at 12:21 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    elle is trying to use logic to figure things out right now

    the logic women put in their own vagina holes causes the worst kind of lodging…

    shhhhhhhh, elle. shhhhhhhhhhh

    Like


  126. Anonymous
    Reality Check, da point wuz dat such little hellions as we wuz den it was just better to have folk around who wouldn’t encourage us. (If I’d been heartily giving Debra LeFavre creampies for extra credit then, I’d be in jail or dead from VD now.)

    Gotcha, my misunderstanding.

    @Reality Check

    “The Big List of Female PEDOPHILES

    http://www.rip-factor.com/fempeds.html”

    Dude, thank you so much for this link, 2 funny. The amount of stupid here is just awesome. Obviously someone needs to come up with a course called ” Secure communications in the digital era” for both the teacher’s colleges and middle school students.

    These broads seem like they were all tryin’ to get caught.

    Your welcome brother! (And your right – the ladies really do seem like they want to get caught)

    Like


  127. Can “alpha” behavior go too far???

    Capri Anderson Describes Infamous Night With Charlie Sheen | PopEater.com

    Adult film star Capri Anderson was with Charlie Sheen the night of his breakdown in a New York City hotel room, and now she’s telling her story.

    In an interview with both ‘Good Morning America’ and ABC’s ‘Nightline,’ Anderson recalls what happened. “He was, from the beginning of the night, very loud and he had no hesitations when it came to using derogatory language or cuss words,” she said of Charlie.

    “Towards the latter half of the night, it got really bad. He started yelling racial slurs</strong," she continued. "But it wasn't until he put his hands around my neck that I really thought to myself, you have gotten yourself in a bad, bad situation."

    "I'm not going to stand down and be completely walked over, mistreated. My whole life has been changed," she adds of the incident.

    She condemns Sheen for his alleged actions. "I think that this story and this treatment sends a message in itself and this is clearly something that's not right. It's not right to hurt people. It's not right to scare people. It's not right to carry on with such disregard for the people around you."

    […]

    Like


  128. Nerd see girl talking to him on internet. Nerd opens floodgates of pent-up resentment and writes abusive coments. Nerd almost as happy as if he’d done it to real-life girl.

    Like


  129. @Logic = Anti-Game

    “what less talking more pics of ur ass cheeks spreading apart on a glass table
    take the pic from below the glass table pls thx”

    ermmm……is this seduuuuction? hehehhe!!

    Like


  130. Elle,

    Could you give us your 341 point checklist of what your looking for in an ideal guy?

    il

    Like


  131. Guys, I have rape fantasies. OK? Does that make me a bad girl? Ummm… no!

    Like


  132. You guys talk a lot about responding to shit tests, deflecting, negs, etc…you all need tougher skins when you approach women. How many of you actually do chat up women strangers out of bar settings and without alcohol as a social lubricant? How confident are you?

    @Elle

    This ain’t about OUR confidence Elle, this is about YOUR hatred of manipulation game.

    Our skins are already tough. Any tougher and they might be armor. And the chatting up you describe is called Day game and has long been an essential part of pick up artistry. Personally I talk to women strangers of all kinds, all the time… just to keep sharp. Yet I still use manipulation.

    It’s no duh that sexual honesty doesn’t work well with woman. So that generates a problem because men would prefer to be honest and we also allow women to be sexually forward with us. So what are some solutions?

    1. Have women be more open to sexual offers.
    2. Have men get tougher skins, be more confident, and invest more time.
    3. Have men add manipulation to their game.

    To whom do the above appeal?

    The best option for men is #3, as a confidant man (who also uses manipulation) will make a killing and less confident men will get sex they might otherwise not have had.

    Solution #2 is preferred/offered by entitled women because men with tough skin, confidence, and time to invest excuse women to be bitchy, less receptive, and keep the price of pussy high.

    And #1 is the solution preferred by neither men, nor women because men realize it would take an act of god and women realize they would lose lots of sexual power.

    I hope I opened your eyes.

    Like


  133. on November 23, 2010 at 1:34 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    i was making so much progress evil alpha

    elle was opening up about her rape fantasies

    what was thinking dirty thoughts about suuuction on glass tables

    and then you started with lists… and numbered bullet points.. and other things that get stuck in vaginas

    Like


  134. on November 23, 2010 at 1:38 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    oh and anonymous sounded vaguely indignant and that is a good foundation

    Like


  135. hahaha!! you think you got it made?!! lol!!! your’e too funny!!! (compliment)

    Like


  136. on November 23, 2010 at 1:44 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    what don’t think you can butter me up (stern look)

    Like


  137. @ Logic = Anti-Game

    All the tag teaming aggression on here has made Elle’s mind wander. I’m sure she’ll share as a reward for your honesty. Lol.

    Like


  138. lol!!!!!!! I said seduuuuction!!! lol!!! not suuuuction!!! lol!!!

    Like


  139. on November 23, 2010 at 1:59 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    i don’t judge you for having dirty thoughts it’s fine

    Like


  140. Elle,

    Men and women can both be shallow, but men are the ones who are denigrated for it most often. We on this blog are defending our right to judge women solely on looks, because they have ceased to offer much else.

    Of course you would encourage guys to be more confident and approach more often without worrying about the consequences. That allows you to secure your place as the “chooser”, to just sit back and have your ego inflated by an endless stream of suitors whom you dismiss as not being good enough. We know that game and we are tired of it, so we are short-circuiting that bullshit.

    You don’t come across as particularly unsympathetic to men – I give some credit to any woman who can stomach this blog – but you are typically female in that you exhibit nil understanding of the mechanics of seduction. You think it “just happens”.

    About your friend, the chick magnet – how good looking is he on a scale of one to ten?

    I’ve never seen women initiate an approach to anyone but the most supremely handsome alpha. A smile doesn’t cut it sweetheart.

    Like


  141. on November 23, 2010 at 2:33 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    johnny i’ve never in my life seen a woman convinced of anything with logical argument

    sometimes they say they agree but really they are just in the mood to submit

    after “winning” an argument with a female, ask her to repeat your argument back to you… she absolutely will not be able to do it!

    Like


  142. That rape “fantasy” post wasn’t mine BTW. It’s much easier to nick-jack someone I guess than actually writing out a proper sentence.

    @Evil Alpha-thanks for being civil-definitely food for thought. I appreciate it-and will consider what you have said.

    @ Johnny-same. The friend is nice looking, not gorgeous. Again, thanks for being polite. As for stomaching this blog-some of the posters are very smart and funny.

    @DJ -you’re a pig.

    Like


  143. on November 23, 2010 at 4:10 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    thatrapefantasypostwasn’tminebythewaythatrapefantasypostwasn’tminebythewaythatrapefantasypostwasn’tminebythewaythatrapefantasypostwasn’tminebytheway

    ifiregretititdidn’treallyhappenifiregretititdidn’treallyhappenifiregretititdidn’treallyhappenifiregretititdidn’treallyhappenifiregretititdidn’treallyhappen

    this kind of logic traverses smoothly through the vagina and is absorbed effortlessly by the female brain… fellas, take notes.. for a clinic is being put on

    Like


  144. Note closely what (and who!) earns replies from Elle and What.

    No clearer illustration of the point of the OP will be found.

    Actions, not words.

    Like


  145. Nerd see girl talking to him on internet. Nerd opens floodgates of pent-up resentment and writes abusive coments. Nerd almost as happy as if he’d done it to real-life girl..

    Seriously.

    Chill out all – don’t take this stuff too seriously.

    Like


  146. what’s OP?

    Like


  147. First lemme say, excellent post!

    Now I hate to throw this out there so off-topic, but this recent article and the comments illustrate what I meant when I said that it’s incorrect to say that Obama voters have discovered he’s more liberal than they thought…

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/

    For many many progressives, quite the opposite is true.

    Like


  148. what’s OP?

    @what

    Now that desiderius has let the cat out of the bag…

    The original poster (OP) spoke of exploiting insecurities and You and Elle have been blatant examples of how that aspect of games works on women. I did a quick wing for Logic=Anti-Game, though he didn’t completely appreciate it, and you spent a good part of the day dry humping him.

    You reaching for shit should make your man wanna fuck you, not help you and your vagina knows it. And I simply reminded you of that fact. Logic = Anti-Game filled the attention void.

    I have good texting game (though obviously not on display here) but Anti-Game is very, very good as he effectively turn this blog into instant message. Just try not to fuck your man while thinking of one of us. After all, you’ve got the best man already! 😉

    Have a sexy evening.

    Like


  149. Johnny said:

    “I personally don’t think it’s such a fantastic sexual conquest if either party is a psycho manipulator. There are easier, less complicated ways to get laid with fewer strings and less pain caused.”
    -Elle

    …What’s notable here is not what she said, but what she DIDN’T say. She is on a blog about game, claiming that there are easy, uncomplicated ways to get laid, but yet she can’t tell us what a single one of these methods are.

    I suspect it’s meant to be something along the lines of, “Just be yourself!”

    Like


  150. @ Evil alpha @ desiridius
    THANK YOU!!!

    I’ve been following this thread all day checking in on comments waiting…honestly waiting, for one of these women(what and elle) to realize that they are doing exactly what the OP and roissy readers, and the commenters themselves on this post state! Don’t use logic, don’t even engage them in real conversation, just bullshit.

    The entire time I am thinking my god, one of these females must have an OUNCE of self-awareness to the scenario they are falling into. NOPE! logic=anti-game keeps talking telling these girls to shut up and spread their buttcheeks and not only dot hey keep talking to him, LOL’s and !!!!’s abound.

    (what)

    what: please refer to the previous comment! lol!!

    what: xsplat,

    That’s why you’re not my sweetie!

    munch munch! lol!!

    what: xplat,

    Silly silly, there are plenty other ways to express love. Much more memorable ways…hehe!! don’t ask…I don’t kiss and tell.

    what: sorry..spelt your name wrong…Xsplat!

    [You think xsplat gave a fuck she spelled his name wrong?]
    [I’m so sorry man that is putting me and my ideals down! Let me make up for my mistakes!]

    Like


  151. on November 23, 2010 at 6:28 pm Logic = Anti-Game

    Recognized and appreciated, Evil.

    This has been a public service demonstration.

    Like


  152. Most men here seem to only hang around very stupid females, or perhaps they are only able to consciously recognize dumb girls, and subconsciously delete from memory those smarter than themselves.

    In either case, exploiting the insecurities, etc. of the immature and intellectually challenged may indeed get you laid – I don’t really care if one is so pathetic and desperate as to need such pointers, and good luck with life.

    In my experience though, and barely touched upon here, is when a girl who is by all measures much more intelligent and objectively of higher value encounters a man trying such tactics. Its hilarious.

    For a girl with deservedly good self-esteem, when some douche-bag tries this supposedly third-person amateur psychoanalysis, or ‘negging’, or some such, its a transparently obvious and pathetic attempt to bring her down a peg or to, and into his bed. Nothing but a funny story to relate to girlfriends later.

    And since its so easy to recognize, and frequently completely incorrect, given as how such attempts are usually grounded in nothing more than the man’s superficial, stereotypical impression of someone with her appearance, it is easily reversed against the male in question.

    Usually, though, I am too humane to take any pleasure in demolishing the self-esteem of some poor fool who’s only crime is a misguided attempt to f*** me.

    Like


  153. @JS Mills

    1. There is no such thing as self esteem. It’s psychobabblespeak for a non existant non quantifiable therapeutic abstraction for people who need to rationalize away their own insecurities and failures by blaming it on something that doesn’t exist. Self confidence is real self esteem is not.

    2. It’s been demonstrated many many times that on par high “self-esteem” girls are hella sluttier than some girl from say rural nebraska.

    Like


  154. Guys pleease. You are all so sure and quick in making assessment of people. You have NOOOOOOO idea what I am thinking as I am engaging you in your fun–. You have NOOOO idea why I even visit this blog? Assumptions are great, but after all only assumptions. To truly know someone on this blog (even than is only superficial), you would have to follow that person’s every comment. There are always patterns and themes. Wonder whether you are all aware of that. oops!… I won’t give it all away. Can’t judge based on one single thread. That’s silly.
    You can make fun of me ( I can handle it ), but when it comes to my sweetie, you have NOOOO idea. You taking empty credits (implying i am getting the attention from you that he is not giving me) really says more about you than my guy–my sweet guy.

    Good night and I will have a sexy night….mind, heart and body only for my…you know…guy!

    Like


  155. “You have NOOOOOOO idea what I am thinking”

    True dat.

    And if it had anything to do with your actions, that might be a problem.

    Those, well, they’re here for all to see.

    Like


  156. JS,

    Would that that were true. Your father taught you to be more empirical than that.

    As it is, save the white-knighting for her parents – it’s wasted on her.

    Like


  157. ” For a girl with deservedly good self-esteem,”

    and then they talked of unicorns and hitching a ride to the nearest star in the galaxy of orion.

    Like


  158. LOL at these guys comments. Online dating is a joke! This is where you attack their insecurities, at the heart!

    http://pofsucks1.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/my-own-plenty-of-fish-experience/

    Like


  159. @Sid
    Fine, call it self-confidence – they’re pretty much synonymous, although I would agree that ‘self-esteem’ has been co-opted by a lot of psychobabble, much the way that the concept of the ‘alpha’ has.
    The fact that you have to quibble with my word choice indicates you can’t really think of a better rebuttal.

    A girl with ‘deservedly high self-esteem/confidence’ means one whose impressions of herself ARE quantifiable and objectively reaffirmed by the outside world’s treatment of her. By definition, it is the opposite of rationalizing away one’s own insecurities and failures.
    This is simple logic. Unsurprisingly, it appears to be beyond your capabilities.

    Also – an attempt to pseudo-scientifically smear such a girl as ‘hella’ (you from nor-cal?) ‘sluttier’? Do you really think that would be hurtful to said girl, especially coming from someone who would admittedly be eager to take advantage of the girl’s sluttiness if only he was not of such low value as to not merit her second glance?
    And I’m sure most girls in rural Nebraska, who got knocked up at 18 and are divorced with kids by 25, simply lack the ability, free time, and options to turn down guys like you routinely.

    @desiderius – not sure what point you’re trying to make. Do you realize I’m female? And my father taught me (can’t use ’empirical’ in that manner, look it up…) to empirically view the world as I am, by trying not to be mean-spirited to anyone, but to merely laugh at pathetic fools like you all who feebly attempt to bring you down to their level.

    @namae – right, i’m the delusional one, mighty alpha who must resort to elementary school level attempted insults to protect his own sense of worth.

    Need I point out that there is a Dating Market Value Test on this very site, meant to determine who may posses ‘deservedly good self-esteem’?

    Could drive a truck through your gaps in reasoning and embark on an eternal quest to find your self-awareness.

    Like


  160. oooh feisty. aren’t you the same john stuart mills that was blabbering on the women’s vote.

    “Need I point out that there is a Dating Market Value Test on this very site, meant to determine who may posses ‘deservedly good self-esteem’?”

    and why do you think that matters?

    Like


  161. Hi All, advice wanted.

    I have gamed a hot woman, 37, good shape. She lives in another country.

    We knew each other 8 years and I’d have dinner with her when I was in her city.

    I always knew she liked me.

    After reading about game, she invited herself to my city with a girlfriend.

    I gamed her and banged her.

    She was so into it, then had “buyer’s remorse” and the ASD went up. She was worried about “falling in love”

    But after gaming her more. She suggested I come visit her, so I did…and we banged each other silly for 2 days.

    Then I continued gaming her online, chatting.

    She agreed to come to see me for a few days over Christmas.

    Then suddenly wrote me a panicky note yesterday that basically said:

    “I can’t come see you over Christmas, I’m not a toy, I don’t want to fall in love and get hurt. etc etc.”

    I haven’t responded.

    How do I respond?

    IF this was a “test of your game”…and the girl was putting up the ASD after saying she would come see you, it’s like a flake.

    My response is 1) pretend I didn’t get the Instant Message and 2) not bring it up….wait instill dread and see how it goes.

    Any thoughts on reversing this or do I just leave it and find another girl to bang over CHristmas?

    Like


  162. @desiderius
    ““You have NOOOOOOO idea what I am thinking””
    “True dat.
    And if it had anything to do with your actions, that might be a problem.
    Those, well, they’re here for all to see.”

    The moment I log on to this site and the moment I decide to write any comments is the moment I am in total awareness of the fact that my script is for all to see. Isn’t it obvious? I am still commenting. Am I losing sleep over the comments…apparently not! If I am not taking this so seriously, why are you? The secret to a long and happy life is “Don’t sweat the small stuff”!!

    Like


  163. Most men here seem to only hang around very stupid females… In either case, exploiting the insecurities of the intellectually challenged may indeed get you laid…

    LMAO.

    Except that cute, nerd chicks are especially susceptible, yet are definitely more intelligent than the likes of you. Game uses emotion. And women are indeed so driven.

    Most of us here aren’t hanging out with high school dropouts and runaways, and that surely is not my case. I am surrounded by mostly college educated 20 somethings and yet my bed post is full of the notches of some poor girl who’s only crime was a misguided belief that she was “too smart” to get pumped and dumped.

    The world is full of people “too intelligent” to be fooled. Just ask Bernie Madoff. You and your girlfriends may wanna start counting up the cocks. You may learn something about yourselves, cuz your invincible intelligent female theory is a really bad one.

    Like


  164. on November 24, 2010 at 8:05 am Logic = Anti-Game

    guys i’ve got regret for last night’s indiscretions

    Like


  165. on November 24, 2010 at 8:06 am Logic = Anti-Game

    i promised myself on my birthday i wouldn’t pump and dump girls on message boards any longer

    Like


  166. on November 24, 2010 at 8:12 am Logic = Anti-Game

    and that girl’s essays looooooooooong

    i like her use of commas and careful proofreading

    Like


  167. Regrets indeed… use of the “porn star” excuse = guilty

    Like


  168. on November 24, 2010 at 8:55 am Logic = Anti-Game

    i feel like what and elle should have at least bought be dinner first

    i feel used

    Like


  169. Don’ feel used. Technically, suction, seduction, and nude isn’t talking dirty…

    if you texted it.

    …or if you say your mind, and heart aren’t into it. Lol

    Like


  170. on November 24, 2010 at 9:23 am Logic = Anti-Game

    thank you that’s exactly how it felt.. like my heart wasn’t 100% into it

    she seemed so sweet

    Like


  171. Just remember to bring the movie next time.

    Like


  172. So that’s why you visit this blog… to get free movies!

    Like


  173. hmmmmm try again..

    Like


  174. over your head.

    Like


  175. walawala, she’s shit testing and fishing for early commitment all at once. she wants you to fall over yourself telling her how much you care about her and are falling in love with her. then she’ll promptly lose interest.

    you are playing it right. only give her 1/4 of what you think she wants to hear, if that.

    Like


  176. I’m intimidated by smart, independent women like J.S. Mills.

    Like


  177. @Johnny…thanks.

    Any specific reply? It’s been two days and have’t heard from her. I haven’t reached out.

    What do I say if she says “Did you get my message?”

    I had thought about replying: “Message?”

    Then getting her to repeat all of it.

    THen not replying.

    Like


  178. what,

    The secret to a long and happy life is “Don’t sweat the small stuff”!!

    Yep, yep.

    Only one sweating round here is you, Horseshack.

    Like


  179. on November 26, 2010 at 6:03 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””“I can’t come see you over Christmas, I’m not a toy, I don’t want to fall in love and get hurt. etc etc.”””””’

    You have been friends for 8 years what is the big deal.

    Tell her yea you don’t want to hurt her just fuck she may be sore but not hurt more than likely.

    But yea tell her you not ready to commit to long term since you know for 8 years she didn’t put pressure but all the sudden you guys are making diamonds.

    Tell her you just want to be fuckbuddies whats wrong with that?

    Like


  180. I had a genuine game epiphany when reading this article, something I haven’t had for quite some time now. I feel that once I start implementing these tactics properly in the field I’ll be swimming in twice as much pussy.

    Like


  181. @Desiderius
    @what,

    “The secret to a long and happy life is “Don’t sweat the small stuff”!!”

    “Yep, yep.

    Only one sweating round here is you, Horseshack.”

    Much better version:

    you can sweat to this! hehe!!

    Like


  182. @ Elle…women don’t have to manipulate to get sex, so saying ANY sexual conquest gained through manipulation on by men OR women is a bit disingenious. You don’t have to attempt to appear to be “fair.” Deep down, women believe that sex is all men truly want (deep down, it’s really more about women knowing sex is all many women have to offer), so they use a man’s desire to fuck them to get OTHER things from him before they relent and give him sex. Manipulation on a man’s part is merely his attempt to regain some control in the interaction. Instead of relinquishing any and all power and jumping through hoops, he attempts to gain immediate control and get what he wants without jumping through hoops. This is merely psychological warfare, and we know all is fair in love (or lust) and war.

    Like


  183. Another question/advice….

    Girl I’ve long been gaming, lots of sexual tension. We are in the same social circle so it’s one of those borderline things between going for it and staying pals.

    Saturday night, we’re out at a party. I have friends from out of town, we’re all listening to music, drinking, everyone’s mildly imbibed.

    I decide to organize the after-party. I’m getting lots of IOI’s from my target: she’s initiating kino, I’m cocky-funny, playful, push-pull. She seems primed.

    Then I suggest we leave. The others will follow and meet up.

    She starts to politely demure. “Oh, I can’t…..who else is going?” That kind of stuff.

    After about a minute of this nonsense, I playfully drop her hand, turn and walk out leaving her behind.

    My friends all meet up and we continue.

    So I figure I’ll try some text game: I text: “Heyyyyyyyy”.

    Within a second, she responds with something.

    Then I reply: “You wouldn’t believe it”

    Minute later she replies twice with “What?” then….”I turned around and suddenly you were gone.”

    She followed up with me today with: “Tell me, what’d I miss?”

    I gamed with: “Was a blast.” and “You hesitate, you lose.”

    Then she wrote: “Oh, I thought you said it was just you going…”

    That I ignored and said “You don’t listen you miss out”.

    With a comment like that last one, throws a loop into my game.

    Any comments? Was my game not tight enough? Was this the Anti-slut Defense?

    What’s the best way of handling the kind of IOI’s followed by resistance when taking it to another location?

    Thanks!

    Like


  184. DEI – “I had a genuine game epiphany when reading this article, something I haven’t had for quite some time now.”

    You should certainly get out more !

    Like


  185. @namae – indeed, i am said ‘blabberer’, and yes, prob rather ‘feisty’. Noone could actually challenge anything of my facts on women’s voting, either, so comments ended….

    As for John Stuart Mill, who quite literally wrote the book “ON LIBERTY” (1859)
    “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”

    Is the same man who also wrote
    “What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing – the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others”
    ‘THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN’ (1869)

    So neither are liberty/freedom and feminism opposite and contradictory, nor are the ideals of female equality a modern conspiracy by feminists.

    Also, I don’t think that silly ‘dating market value test’ matters, except to point out to you your own contradictions – you mock the idea of a girl with objectively earned self-confidence as though such a thing is fantasy – yet presumably you would agree that a girl scoring very ‘high’ on this ‘test’ would have a right to a high opinion of herself (although I lost a point for being too intelligent – ha!)

    @EvilAlpha – sure, there’s some fairly smart girls who are so emotionally blind that they fool themselves into confusing quick sex and a meaningful relationship.

    but those girls aren’t all THAT smart, for sure, or must be very naive or immature. I don’t buy that women are purely emotionally driven, vis a vis men, but even accepting that premise, any truly intelligent, experienced girl can smell out a guy with ‘pump and dump’ motives pretty quick, regardless of his attempts at emotional manipulation.

    Good Madoff analogy, but again I point out that it can be used by females against men just as easily. Guys who think they’re too smart or alpha or whatever to be fooled – only to have me manipulate them to get whatever I want, while they remain convinced I’m ignorant of their transparent motives.

    Guys can be just as emotionally driven – honestly, I’ve had/made guys cry over me more often than I’ve ever cried over any guy. And you assume all these ‘notches’ on your bedpost weren’t looking at you as a one-night stand too, but somehow looked at you as the love of their lives? I doubt that.

    Counting up the cocks, as you say, I find that guys are really too easy to manipulate, and I don’t even find it that fun to do so anymore. I don’t know what great truth you think I could uncover – if you’re trying to imply I’m a slut, I could care less. There’s certainly been guys I’ve slept with once and never wanted to see again, same as guys who ‘pump and dump’. I’d never mistake any of that for a real relationship.

    Never said anything about all women being ‘invincible intelligent females’ – in fact, i specified that this kind of bullshit will work on plenty of idiot girls. My point was, it sure as hell doesn’t work on me or many others who are wise to such games.
    Don’t have any clue what you expect me to ‘discover about myself’.

    Yea, sorry, posts are long, but takes a while to refute all the ignorance. And actually, I never proofread these at all, I just know how to write proper english.

    Like


  186. “So neither are liberty/freedom and feminism opposite and contradictory, nor are the ideals of female equality a modern conspiracy by feminists.”

    liberty, equality, fraternity………. and sorority.
    copy pasta, the height of female intellect. And why exactly are you telling me this?

    “you mock the idea of a girl with objectively earned self-confidence as though such a thing is fantasy”

    is it not?

    “yet presumably you would agree that a girl scoring very ‘high’ on this ‘test’ would have a right to a high opinion of herself”

    you seem to be doing quite well too. did you score well on it?

    ” (although I lost a point for being too intelligent – ha!)”

    you can have two from my POV.

    “Yea, sorry, posts are long, but takes a while to refute all the ignorance”

    well, you can take as long as you want. A good laugh is always welcome.

    Like


  187. Excellent post and I hope to read more along these lines. I found this page because I was searching for information on how to manipulate women. I’ve been manipulated by multiple women in the last few weeks and I was sick and tired of it. The crazy thing is, if you do the nice, good thing for these women in the traps that they set up, you lose the game and they take advantage of you. Don’t get the wrong idea, I don’t mean that I’m such a sucker that they took advantage of me materially. They just took advantage of my attention, time, and sympathy. However, they’re fully satisfied with such small things whereas an evil man would never be satisfied with such small things. This has been a real eye opening for me. I’ve seen it before but what’s happened in the last few weeks has just made something go “ding” inside my head. All women are manipulative bitches. It seems like I have no choices other than quitting women altogether or beating them at their own game. Not playing is not an option since the game is set up so you lose by default if you don’t play it.

    Like


  188. One more thing. There have been some complaints about using the dark side of the force here. These complaints are wholly reasonable. However, I would like to point out a very important fact here. Women’s game consists almost entirely of the “dark side” of the force.

    Women’s game consist of three parts: the beauty they offer, them seeking valuable social assets, and game playing to test men for power. The beauty they offer to men is positive and also something they can offer passively. Them seeking out valuable (money, social status) is their selfish but not negative prerogative because it does not directly hurt other people. Their game however, directly hurts people. It consists entirely of exploiting and manipulating men. That is to say, women’s game is almost entirely dark.

    Like


  189. @namae – just for now, you think i copy-pasted any of that? please… from where, even? sorry if my writing’s elevated standards are above your powers of comprehension. i haven’t copied a goddamn thing

    Like


  190. *(save quotes which are duly paraphrased and attributed, above)

    Like


  191. goddamnit, woman, I wasn’t talking of you. sheesh.

    You said liberty/freedom isn’t contradictory to feminism, which I don’t remember disagreeing with, and thus wrote of sorority tacked on to the LEF.
    Just like the fight against the patriarchy as class struggle is copied from communism.
    That’s the height of female intellect as a collective, not your intellect as a female.

    Like


  192. ok, ok, sorry, with a laugh, mostly agree

    but for a group that highly values individualism against the supposed ‘female collective’, why in the world is it so hard to recognize that some individual females are idiots, and some individual females are very smart, just as with men, some are idiots and some are smart in pretty much the same proportions.

    “you mock the idea of a girl with objectively earned self-confidence as though such a thing is fantasy”
    is it not?
    you seem to be doing quite well too. did you score well on it?
    ” (although I lost a point for being too intelligent – ha!)”
    you can have two from my POV.

    damn straight, i deserve my high opinion of myself and objectively earned self-confidence. and you can believe it or not, but yes, did ‘score’ extremely high, not that i needed the test to have an inkling of the fact that i’m extremely good looking.

    here’s a bit of logic – if i wasn’t sure of my high value in both looks and intelligence, and had stumbled onto this site, i would be too depressed and angry by it to want to post comments and take you guys on directly – instead i’d just bitch to other girls or find some other wall to air my views on. however, i feel well-qualified to refute some of this misinformation head-on. (funny story on how i did come across this, btw, but for another time…)

    and thanks, i think, for the points

    Like


  193. “but for a group that highly values individualism against the supposed ‘female collective’, why in the world is it so hard to recognize that some individual females are idiots, and some individual females are very smart, just as with men, some are idiots and some are smart in pretty much the same proportions.”

    again, whom are you speaking of? I do recognize that many females are very smart, but they pale when compared to men who are truly smart.

    “i would be too depressed and angry by it to want to post comments and take you guys on directly”

    I think many do, did you go through comments carefully on that thread?
    And many others like me who scored like -6 on the other test don’t.

    “(funny story on how i did come across this, btw, but for another time…)”

    don’t be a tease, a good laugh is always welcome.

    Like


  194. alrighty, some background – i have no problem with the whole idea of ‘game’, or even with this article about exploiting female insecurities to get laid – if a girl is dumb/naive enough for this to work, and presuming the guy isn’t interested in transmitting diseases or conceiving a child either, than the girl deserves whatever she gets – with the worst outcome being she learns a needed lesson about not being vulnerable to horny guys.

    what does make me depressed and angry is how so many guys apparently think women are purely emotionally driven and hence logically stupid and emotionally weak, and that their playing any role except subservient mother and fuck (maddonna/whore complex, anyone?) is literally bringing about the downfall of western civilization.

    and I completely disagree that smart females pale in comparison to smart males – what do you base that on, exactly?

    and i have read the other comments, but i think they misread what exactly the ‘dark’ side is. I don’t in the least bit hate men, and I actually have a lot of sympathy for how hard they have to work to get laid and how they must put themselves on the line a lot. And any woman who would lie about abuse or deprive her children of a good father because of a nasty divorce, etc, is a completely despicable human being.

    The ‘dark side’ isn’t about the games guys play to try to get laid or start a relationship, or any legitimate complaints they have about this small minority of despicable women.

    The dark side is conflating these legitimate strategies with the idea that all women intentionally, maliciously manipulate any man that they can, that they are of subpar intelligence and reasoning, and that women voting, having access to birth control, etc, are ruining our society. Any rational male should be able to recognize this as the bitter tripe that it is.

    I stumbled on this after quite a period when guys seemed to be acting even stranger than normal towards me, and I couldn’t understand what the hell they were on about.

    anecdote 1 – A while back, some guy tried to play that ‘cube’ game with me, which reminds me for all the world of the things we used to do on long bus trips in grade school. Anyways, after some futile questioning on my part as to why in the world he thought he was qualified to engage in any psychoanalysis (once I figured out that was the somewhat ‘point’), when he said that my choice of a ‘big, black stallion’ was supposed to represent my ideal lover, i burst into laughter, and couldn’t stop giggling the whole night whenever i thought about it. Just because i read ‘Black Beauty’ as a child and think shiny black horses are pretty! And the expression on the face of the skinny white guy questioning me was priceless – and i actually like skinny white guys! (in general, not that one, not after that little attempt)!

    a while later, after a night of drinking a discussing dating, etc a bit, i was more or less cornered by some guy friends, who started questioning me – ‘Are you getting all this from the Game?’ ‘Do you know PUA?’ “Do you read Roissy?”

    I had absolutely no clue what the hell they were talking about. But I recognized some of the words, because other guys had asked me about it before, but i had no clue of course then either. Anyways, curiosity led me to look it up.

    Turns out, I’d unwittingly been doing many of the ‘tips’ for years, and all those guys had thought I’d heard of this online stuff and purposefully read it to use against them. No such thing, I’d just been using common sense and good reading of human nature to make sure I was never the one getting used.

    So suppose thats a lot of what makes me post – any guys who’s so naive to believe ‘game’ only works on susceptible, irrational, emotional females, guess again. Trust me, works on guys too. It just makes sense – no one wants to be in a relationship with a needy person, and everyone is more drawn to a confident winner than a codependent loser. And I give the same advice to all my girlfriends – why sweat some guy, let him chase you if he wants, and if not, there’s plenty of fish in the sea. Never let yourself be the one with all your cards on the table and nothing left to lose, pining for someone. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in actual, honest relationships though – they just take a while.

    Like


  195. When are you getting that novel published? At least GBFM has a sense of humor with his yards of screen text. Jesus

    Like


  196. *i think i have a great sense of humor. pout.

    Like


  197. what does make me depressed and angry is how so many guys apparently think women are purely emotionally driven and hence logically stupid and emotionally weak

    do we need to point out something here?

    and tl;dr

    Like


  198. “and I completely disagree that smart females pale in comparison to smart males – what do you base that on, exactly?”

    There are many things. Number 1 would be history, number 2 will be current reality, number 3 would be responses of women on this site, number 4 would be..

    “The dark side is conflating these legitimate strategies with the idea that all women intentionally, maliciously manipulate any man that they can,”

    Some women do this unconsciously, others learn it from self-help “how to make your man do stuff” books. Your qualifier “all women” however makes it impossible from the outset.

    “that they are of subpar intelligence and reasoning,”

    where?

    “and that women voting, having access to birth control, etc, are ruining our society. Any rational male should be able to recognize this as the bitter tripe that it is. ”

    Not unless you are willing to read through things. If you start going na na na throwing around charges of misogyny and getting angry over it you will never see why.
    I don’t remember seeing access to birth control being a problem, though I think abortion is a problem.

    Nice story btw,

    “It just makes sense – no one wants to be in a relationship with a needy person, and everyone is more drawn to a confident winner than a codependent loser. And I give the same advice to all my girlfriends – why sweat some guy, let him chase you if he wants, and if not, there’s plenty of fish in the sea. ”

    aha, you need to read this:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/women-are-most-deluded-at-31/

    “and that their playing any role except subservient mother and fuck (maddonna/whore complex, anyone?) is literally bringing about the downfall of western civilization. ”

    The thing is, maddonna/whore complex is a stupid catchword while dad/cad for women is more relevant. You should read up sometime on what the maddona/whore complex really is and why it shouldn’t affect most of the women.

    Secondly most civilized women not becoming madonnas is bringing about the downfall of western civilization, at least demographically.
    To give women choices, men have to be saddled with responsibilities, while at the same time stripping them of the respect that comes with fatherhood. Celebrating single motherhood as a fallout of respecting women’s choices is the easiest way to kill civilized society.
    Once the number of men refusing to play the game rises above a above a certain threshold, civilization is doomed.

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

    “Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in actual, honest relationships though – they just take a while.”

    Sometimes you lose the distinction.

    Like


  199. J.S. Mills

    I stumbled on this after quite a period when guys seemed to be acting even stranger than normal towards me, and I couldn’t understand what the hell they were on about.

    from the way you describe it, i’m sure your pretty hot.

    Like


  200. sigh. i reply, and then get crap for being too wordy. Can’t win.

    @namae
    do we need to point out something here?

    well, apparently I need to point out the obvious – its possible to experience emotions – say, anger and sadness – without being ruled by them and acting solely on emotions to the exclusion of logic.
    i wrongly assumed you guys would be capable of making that rather obvious and critical distinction. besides, i do know plenty of men who are quite aware that woman are not purely irrational, emotional creatures, so that luckily makes up for the many irrational males on here.

    There are many things. Number 1 would be history, number 2 will be current reality, number 3 would be responses of women on this site, number 4 would be..

    Ahh, history, my friend – see Queen Hatshesup of Egypt, Cleopatra, Catherine of Aragon, Queen Elizabeth I, the Empress Dowager of China, etc etc etc
    History far from demonstrates female inferiority, and I would refer you to my earlier post (on the “Crazy Cat Lady” article) re. how for most of history, when physical strength counted for much more, and physical labor took up most available energy, women were pretty much consumed with producing children so the species could survive, and over 1/3 died in childbirth, etc – regardless of intellectual abilities, made it difficult to be the ones in charge.

    Sorry if i’m generalizing about your particular viewpoints based on whats been written by others on here, the spearhead, etc. – but i’m reacting to that, necessarily not to whatever you individually think, since i don’t know it.

    aha, you need to read this:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/women-are-most-deluded-at-31/

    ok, read it, doesn’t really say much. as for me, have a ways before 31, and still get carded for being 18, so na na na back at ya. Besides, I honestly can think of a number of women who do look better at 30 than they did at 20 – their features and bodies have settled ‘into their own’, for lack of a better way of putting it, nothing to do with ‘confidence’ per se. But yes, no woman’s going to look as good at 45 as they did at 25.

    To me, though, this is even more of a reason not to get married in early 20s ‘at the height of beauty’. If that’s what someone’s marrying you for, well, when you are 45 he can always go find a new 25 year old if thats all you were worth. All the older women I’ve talked to (many of whom did get married young, and are now divorced), all counsel me the same – don’t get married young, enjoy your youth, and find someone who really wants to be with you for you.

    As for single motherhood, I wouldn’t celebrate it – I’m closer to my dad than any other girl (or guy) i know, and I feel very lucky for it – its just sad all around for kids who don’t have a father, and mothers who have to try to take it all on alone. However, I would think in general men share equal blame for this, if they’re willing to have unprotected sex leading to a child, but not take on the job of raising it.

    Sometimes you lose the distinction.
    Maybe to you, but in my real life, I understand the distinction quite well.

    Ahh, so much more i could say, but its like yelling into a windstorm….

    Like


  201. btw, sorry, i can’t figure out how to ‘bold’ other’s comments to differentiate them in my reply. damn computers.

    Like


  202. It’s irrelevant what women think about other women’s beauty. To men no woman at her best at age 30 looks better than she did at her best at age 20, because youth is its own beauty tonic. Exceptional scenarios, like extreme weight-loss with a makeover, would of course improve a woman’s ranking relative to her fat or slovenly younger self, but what we’re talking about is normal women who have always tried to look their best at every age.

    The reason why women should marry at the height of their attractiveness is because that is the peak of her sexual market value and the best chance she has to get the most desirable man she can get to settle down with her for the purpose of childbearing and family raising. This range is her early-mid 20s. Every year she waits after that decreases her value and the quality or alphaness of baggage-free mate she’s likely to get.

    Will she still get high-value males for flings or to sleep with her until 30 and beyond? Sure, but they’ll be far less likely to choose her as a long term or permanent mate.

    Like


  203. For boldfacing, precede the word or phrase with a “b” enclosed in inequality signs and close it with a “/b” also enclosed in inequality signs. Inequality signs are the less-than and greater-than symbols that look like “”.

    In other words, surround the word or phrase with and without the quotation marks.

    Like


  204. Okay, it didn’t show the inequality signs in my comment, but they are the red brackets at the bottom of this picture:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brackets.svg

    Like


  205. “well, apparently I need to point out the obvious – its possible to experience emotions – say, anger and sadness – without being ruled by them and acting solely on emotions to the exclusion of logic.”

    The problem is if you have those emotions on reading something, you are limiting yourself from correctly evaluating the validity other viewpoints. Even if you still go on reading, you are creating a bias. And finally, it’s something that should horrify you, that you can be induced to feel bad by mere words.
    Emotional conditioning, kinda like pavlov’s dog.

    “i wrongly assumed you guys would be capable of making that rather obvious and critical distinction. besides, i do know plenty of men who are quite aware that woman are not purely irrational, emotional creatures, so that luckily makes up for the many irrational males on here.”

    Women are more practical than men. But they are emotional creatures. Truth is not really wanted by both sexes, but it’s like “holy water to vampiric feminine soul”.

    “History far from demonstrates female inferiority, and I would refer you to my earlier post (on the “Crazy Cat Lady” article) re. how for most of history, when physical strength counted for much more, and physical labor took up most available energy, women were pretty much consumed with producing children so the species could survive, and over 1/3 died in childbirth, etc – regardless of intellectual abilities, made it difficult to be the ones in charge.”

    This is pretty dishonest, you are forgetting that the men that these women were wives to weren’t exactly frolicking intellectuals going to colleges. They were mostly peasants working in the fields or dying on jobs. I can as easily say that many good male brains lay split open in wars before they had the chance of making it to the history books. Maybe many big-headed boys died in those 1/3 childbirths who’d have gone to create history, or simply too many boys took a risk playing around and didn’t get an ambulance in time.
    A woman of higher birth had many more chances to attain something than most of these men. Yes, men of higher birth too had those chances, but the difference is simply humongous to just attribute it to a simple cause of having “physical superiority”.
    Our relatively new feminist history doesn’t show any equality of achievement either. Quantity maybe in romantic novels, but quality, no.

    “Ahh, history, my friend – see Queen Hatshesup of Egypt, Cleopatra, Catherine of Aragon, Queen Elizabeth I, the Empress Dowager of China, etc etc etc”

    Then as you mention that women have been given reins of kingdoms, rather earned it sometimes, and from some accounts that I have read, women have been given all those rights that feminism has done, in some relatively recent and ancient socieites; it’s kinda strange that those societies have either disappeared or put the women back in the kitchen, baby making(for the lack of a better euphemism).
    Demographic implosion of developed countries where women are given these rights and some more, looks like a big hint.

    “Sorry if i’m generalizing about your particular viewpoints based on whats been written by others on here, the spearhead, etc. – but i’m reacting to that, necessarily not to whatever you individually think, since i don’t know it. ”

    Well I don’t myself have any concrete viewpoints for the world, but vague concepts. That’s why I am on these sites.

    Is the difference between men and women that of kind or degree? If degree, are they equal in degree? The answer to second is no. But that might be changed via altering the environment artificially. Simply make it harder for one sex to succeed.

    “ok, read it, doesn’t really say much. as for me, have a ways before 31, and still get carded for being 18, so na na na back at ya.”

    I wanted you to read this:

    “This confidence deluding device is one of thinnest reeds women hang onto as they age. It’s a classic case of gender projection. Women are attracted to confidence in men, so surely men must be attracted to confidence in women. Obvi! ”

    And go back and see to what I had replied.

    “Maybe to you, but in my real life, I understand the distinction quite well. ”

    It’s a wonderful thing. And as easy to lose.

    Like


  206. Thanks, @tinderbox. I’m a stereotypical girl in that respect, can’t work technology.

    But I think you missed my point of why it can be bad to marry so young – you may look better, but if that’s all you’re worth to a guy, even if he wants to kids with you, then if he is high value, that much easier for him to leave for someone younger once you’ve worn yourself out having kids and are older.
    I’d rather just stay baggage-free myself past my mid-20s.

    it’s something that should horrify you, that you can be induced to feel bad by mere words.
    Emotional conditioning, kinda like pavlov’s dog.

    well, to start with, who doesn’t feel emotions over ‘mere words’ sometimes? Haven’t you ever felt sad from a book you were reading, or even the news sometimes? Didn’t you ever sniffle over “Old Yeller” a little, or “Where the Red Fern Grows? (speaking of emotional responses from dogs…)

    And to the extant my preexisting viewpoints complicate my ability to completely neutrally and objectively evaluate others’ viewpoints, this is a bias that everyone on earth has to some degree, and I do try my best to see things from other people’s eyes.

    I can as easily say that many good male brains lay split open in wars before they had the chance of making it to the history books

    fair point – but smart men are usually more able to avoid being foot soldiers – as are men of higher status. However, almost no woman can avoid becoming pregnant, and hence risking death in childbirth, except for strict celibacy, which is usually only achievable through some sort of religious chastity shield (nuns, vestal virgins, etc.)
    I don’t think the difference between achievement is so humongous, nor do I think it is solely due to physical superiority.
    And please do not even remotely connect any sort of feminist-type history and romance novels, of all the trash!

    Too much more I can say about so-called demographic-implosion here – birth rates worldwide among the educated and developped are dropping!!! Unless you advocate becoming uneducated and living by substinence farming, why would you fear women’s rights leading to lower birth rates? Its worldwide progress, for gods’ sake! Wrote a lot about that earlier, wont repeat.

    as for societies that granted women equal rights disappearing…ALL societies disappear in time!!! The most matriarchal and the most patriarchal, can find examples for both, but they all go away or change so much as to no longer resemble their former selves in time.

    Like


  207. goddamn it. well, i got it to bold, but apparently made some sort of mistake with the inequality signs at end of sentence…

    Like


  208. “Haven’t you ever felt sad from a book you were reading, or even the news sometimes?”

    never said that I wasn’t a hypocrite. but now I question why I should feel one way and not the other.
    answer- pavlov’s dog.

    “However, almost no woman can avoid becoming pregnant, and hence risking death in childbirth”

    well, one would expect smart women to do so.

    “I don’t think the difference between achievement is so humongous”

    BS. even if you include feminist glorified historical characters, they won’t even come close.

    “Unless you advocate becoming uneducated and living by substinence farming, why would you fear women’s rights leading to lower birth rates? ”

    tch, again fear. Why’d you even use that word? Homophobia is another….fear of homos..wtf!
    pointless idiocy of associating an emotion with an argument by the opponent, classical female projection.

    and I do try my best to see things from other people’s eyes.

    “Its worldwide progress, for gods’ sake!”

    haha yeah, few years earlier I used to hear, “save the environment for our children”.

    these days it’s, save the environment, don’t have any children.

    Progress!! let’s have sexx. kill babies and eat old people.

    “as for societies that granted women equal rights disappearing…ALL societies disappear in time!!! The most matriarchal and the most patriarchal, can find examples for both, ”

    BS on disappearing,

    “but they all go away or change so much as to no longer resemble their former selves in time.”

    tell me something that I don’t know.

    Like


  209. there’s a reason pavlov’s dogs have become a classic example of conditioning – everyone responds to some particular conditioned triggers, obviously. so, we’re at a wash here.

    as for smart women avoiding childbirth – not so easy. Some did, of course, but many wanted children, or didn’t want the only available alternative of being entombed in a nunnery or temple or some such, where they were cloistered and powerless.

    And I really don’t see how I’m projecting by using the term ‘fear’. For one, there’s not many things I fear at all – dying in a car accident, but not to the point of immobility, and thats a pretty rational fear. What’s irrational is listing all the ways that empowering women supposedly causes harm to males, and then denying that you fear it, just because you didn’t use that word.

    Ok, historical argument- depends how you define societies ‘disappearing’. If you mean they no longer had any cultural influence whatsoever, then of course, no society ever truly ‘disappears’.

    However, take the most obvious example -Roman Empire, so patriarchal that women are totally mens’ property, and they have the complete right to kill them or anything else, for cheating or any lesser ‘crime’. Roman Empire was invaded by Germanic groups, including the Visigoths, Huns, Goths, etc, culminating in the 5th century. These warrior tribes were matriarch-ally structured – like the Celts, worshiped female fertility and warrior goddesses, and tribal descent passed through the mothers’ lineage.

    Can’t say that Rome had no future influence, obviously, but neither can you say that its patriarchal structure inherently made it more powerful than societies in which women were more powerful, or that those societies did not also have a strong influence in the future.

    As for your ‘Soylent Green’ scenario, wouldn’t it be better to have less poor children born to be eaten by the rich when older? If that means ‘killing’ them before they’re born, I think an honest person could only look at the horror of some childrens’ lives and conclude they’d be better off if they had never been born.

    Like


  210. “there’s a reason pavlov’s dogs have become a classic example of conditioning – everyone responds to some particular conditioned triggers, obviously. so, we’re at a wash here.”

    Makes you wonder if rape is bad a trauma as feminists claim, or we are conditioned to believe so.

    “as for smart women avoiding childbirth – not so easy. Some did, of course, but many wanted children, or didn’t want the only available alternative of being entombed in a nunnery or temple or some such, where they were cloistered and powerless.”

    their body, their choice. woohoo.

    “And I really don’t see how I’m projecting by using the term ‘fear’. ”

    That a reasoning is borne out of emotion. In this case fear.
    Not your fault, when even the best of women says something like this:

    “I went on reading Hegel, and was now beginning to understand him rather better. His amplitude of detail dazzled me, and his System as a whole made me feel giddy. It was indeed tempting to abolish one’s individual self and merge with Universal Being, to observe one’s own life in the perspective of Historical Necessity…. But the least flutter of my heart gave such speculations the lie. Hate, anger, expectation or misery would assert themselves against all my efforts to by-pass them, and this ‘flight into the Universal’ merely formed one further episode in my private development. I turned back to Kierkegaard, and began to read him with passionate interest…. Neither History, nor the Hegelian System could, any more than the Devil in person, upset the living certainty of ‘I am, I exist, here and now, I am myself.”

    it would be expecting too much of you.

    “What’s irrational is listing all the ways that empowering women supposedly causes harm to males, and then denying that you fear it, just because you didn’t use that word.”

    That blindingly presumes that I am a male, no homo, and I think fearfully of harm that might come to me from empowering women, that I live where such empowered women are present and that ranting about them on net might help my cause.
    Interesting leaps of logic there, innit?
    All the while I see projection again, that treatment of men as a whole affects me as a man. Maybe when I was a kid who used to take feminism as a good cause I’d feel that way, now It barely changes anything.
    Men are individuals, women wish they were.

    More than fear of female empowerment, it’s anger that I had when I realized the lies of feminism and what truly meant female empowerment. Now it’s mere vanity.
    I don’t fucking care one way or the other. Those who seek out the truth will find it, those who take pleasure in their confinement, will remain slaves. Those who want to change things will try their best, those who want to change things the other way will try their best; I’ll be eating grapes on the sidelines.

    The more I read, the more it becomes apparent that feminists are lying out of their asses, and/or rather flat up conjuring things from thin air, no wait, by female intuition.
    Instead of being oppressed by men, women have had many rights given to them, based on class, of course, and real misogynistic patriarchies are probably a handful throughout history, if ever.

    And I tell you what real misogyny looks like:

    we put women do all labor, have fun with what they produce, then use them as baby makers, when the child is off her milk, let’s throw away the woman and yet, still make her pay for ourselves and our children till she dies. Probably on the job or when she kills herself.

    Guess what, change it a little bit and you have the current reality of a multitude of divorced men.

    Even roman society that you are complaining of gave women rights, and it was even proclaimed that “while rome ruled the world, women ruled rome”.

    http://bit.ly/hL94Vc

    http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/rome/a/divorceroman.htm

    http://wussyscool.com/007/The_Fate_of_Empires/

    Doesn’t Cato sound a lot like a man fearing women empowerment? lol

    Since our current society is so bent out of shape trying to provide rights and power to women, anything from history that says that women were more free in one society automatically gets glorified and mythicised while patriarchies get demonised to make a dichotomy that has never existed for most part.
    We have perhaps always lived under patriarchies that gave different amount of rights and treatment to women, say like the difference between sweden and USA, not US and taliban, while changing/degrading with time, of course.

    ” These warrior tribes were matriarch-ally structured – like the Celts, worshiped female fertility and warrior goddesses, and tribal descent passed through the mothers’ lineage.”

    Celts weren’t matriarchal, or even matrilinear for that matter.
    Accounts from authors get taken as historical evidence of some female equality in achievements, while they might be nothing more than the kick ass women you see today on the screen or the large amount of Marie Curie books for kids that go in the name of gender-equality for scientists while her being an exception rather than the rule.
    And accounts of celtic women being similar in stature to their men should disabuse anyone of the notion that those myths were a reality.

    “Can’t say that Rome had no future influence, obviously, but neither can you say that its patriarchal structure inherently made it more powerful than societies in which women were more powerful, or that those societies did not also have a strong influence in the future.”

    http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

    Matriarchies haven’t existed, save for some lesbian/limp dick professor’s wet dreams. Women always have had influence, matrifocality isn’t absent from patriarchy in the way that mothers take control of the house when the fathers are out on work for extended durations. Hell, even in a patriarchy where a woman doesn’t call her husband by name, my mother was the head while father would be out for months on his job, and the same story was true of many of my classmates.

    But they might arise now by women coming into power by moving into patriarchal structures, by putting up a show of masculinity by donning the symbols of masculinity. Where every movement into some male-dominated field is claimed an achievement for women, I see it merely women playing catch up, as they always do. At the same time, I see the patriarchal institutions getting corrupted and infantilised. Let’s see if they fall before a worldwide matriarchy gets erected and is sustained.

    Control of female sexuality is civilization, to release it from any obligations, is the goal of feminism, nay female nature itself. Patriarchy and monogamy by binding men to yoke to produce a surplus that sustains the women and children, is the basis of any sort of real progress and has got us to where we currently are. Whether that holds in our current society and future with regards to technology, is anyone’s guess.

    “As for your ‘Soylent Green’ scenario, wouldn’t it be better to have less poor children born to be eaten by the rich when older? If that means ‘killing’ them before they’re born, I think an honest person could only look at the horror of some childrens’ lives and conclude they’d be better off if they had never been born.”

    heh, I was going on with huxley’s brave new world and orwell’s big sister combined with maddox’s wisdom. But carry on.

    Like


  211. while reading on ancient goddesses(which by a giant leap of logic seem to prove that matriarchies existed) I stumbled onto this:

    http://witcombe.sbc.edu/snakegoddess/aegeanmatriliny.html

    the “goddess” looks like a whore jerking off two dudes, lol

    http://hornytimetraveler.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/snake_goddess1.gif?w=371&h=500

    hahha

    Like


  212. […] to reader B for this excellent link and overall concept. the roissy commenter “logic = anti-game” knows what he is talking […]

    Like