Women Prefer Dominant Men. You Don’t Say!

Straight from the laboratory, yet another study confirms a core game concept (namely, the concept of demonstrating higher value than the woman you are trying to seduce):

Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige.

In many human societies, high male social status associates with higher fertility, but the means by which status increases lifetime fitness have not been systematically investigated. We analyse the pathways by which male status begets reproductive success in a small-scale, Amerindian society. Men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation, i.e. dominant men, have higher intra-marital fertility for their age, and men with more community-wide influence, i.e. prestigious men, exhibit both higher intra-marital fertility and lower offspring mortality. Both forms of status elicit support from allies and deference from competitors, but high status men are not provisioned more than their peers. Prestigious but not dominant men marry wives who first give birth at earlier ages, which multivariate analysis suggests is the strongest pathway between status and fitness in this population. Furthermore, men are motivated to pursue status because of fitness gains both within and outside of marital unions: dominant and prestigious men have more in-pair surviving offspring as well as more extra-marital affairs.

Chicks dig male power, and power is a catch-all word encompassing the variety of dominance displaying avenues that men pursue to attract women. Large men who can beat other men in fights are dominant. Captains of industry are dominant. Men who demonstrate artistic talent that wins accolades from others are dominant. Musicians who wow audiences are dominant. Preachers who captivate whole congregations are dominant. Men with enough social savvy to win friends and influence people are dominant. Men who are deferred to for their expertise are dominant.

And, yes, men who can seduce by displaying the characteristics of dominant men are irresistibly sexy to women.

In game, many factors contribute to dominance displaying. The oft-misunderstood neg is best seen as a tool to rapidly express male dominance by switching the approval seeking algorithm from the man to the woman. DHVs (demonstrations of higher value) are subtly embedded assertions within a conversational framework that suggestively influence a woman to believe the man she is talking with is a dominant alpha male. Compliance tests (eg: getting a woman to hold your hat for you while you go to the bathroom) are displays of dominance that rely on the natural human instinct to perceive those in whom we have invested our time and attention as high status people. (After all, who in their right mind would spend energy on a low status person? Right?) Flirty teasing is a form of dominance in that the use of it implies you are so high status that you don’t care if your teasing offends and turns a girl off.

Men who lack dominance do the opposite of all the game tactics described in the above paragraph. They are self-deprecating and loath to assert themselves or hint at their accomplishments. They will never neg, preferring instead to compliment women. They will never ask a woman they’ve just met to do anything for them. And they drone, instead of tease. So if you find yourself acting like a low status man, stop, and immediately force yourself to do the opposite. Think of Opposite George. It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Girls are subconsciously hard-wired to respond with sexual interest to men of higher value than themselves, and to men of higher value than other men in their milieu. In other words, women are attracted to dominant men, and dominance is relative to social conditions. A penniless singer in a crappy indie band can get as much play as a high-powered lawyer, because their social circles are distinct and they don’t directly compete, either man to man or by proxy through the girls who follow them around. A janitor who has better game than a stockbroker will take the girl home more often because his skill at instantly communicating his dominance trumps the broker’s higher occupational status in any venue outside of the office environment or expensive restaurants where the broker’s fatter income really shines.

Dominance that results in gina tingles can be achieved through two strategies. Dominance over other men (DoM) or dominance over women (DoF). There is much overlap between these strategies, though the overlap tends to go in the direction from DoM ==> DoF. That is, men who are dominant over other men are usually dominant over women, while men who show dominance over women (think of every smooth-talking seducer in the literary classics) are a little less likely to be dominant over other men, though still more likely than the average beta bear.

There are notable exceptions, which have been discussed in posts like this one and this one. A man can be a wealthy CEO and still be a piss-poor nincompoop with women, while another man can sweet talk the hottest chicks out of their pants but have no interest or talent in running companies or leading groups of men to victory.

If it’s quick sex you want, then the DoF strategy should be your primary focus. The investment required to be dominant over men is significantly more costly than the investment required to display attraction-inducing dominance over women. Game is primarily a DoF-centered strategy (though there are important game concepts dealing with AMOGs — alpha male other guys), but the mastery of game will eventually redound to mastery over other men, because success will women will fill you with confidence that will carry over into all areas of your life.

The DoF strategy may seem separate and distinct to the DoM strategy, but that is an artifact of the particular skillset brought to bear on the issue of seducing women, and the time compression that DoF operates within. Cockiness, aloofness, negs, DHVs, teasing, hoops, takeaways and venue bouncing — all of them displays of dominance over the women you are picking up — are simultaneously subcommunications of dominance over other men as well. A woman who gets aroused at your neg and subconsciously replaces her suitor assessment mental algorithm with a “self-assessment” mental algorithm (as one astute commenter put it) is turned on by your deft composure in the presence of her beauty as well as the tacit implication that your self-interested, cocky confidence is powerful circumstantial evidence that you also possess a facility with dominating other men.

However you seek it, know this: the pussy must always be subordinate to the cock. If it isn’t, she’ll let you know with an icy cold stare, a backturn, a polite dismissal or, worst, another man’s baby.





Comments


  1. What’s truly amazing is how hard it is for many men to accept this, much less put it into practice.

    Like


    • When you’ve only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.

      Like


      • This!

        Like


      • ALL men know chicks dig power.

        Some just don’t know how to obtain power or have a misguided idea of what power truly is. An example is the cubicle dweller who thinks that a good salary and stock options will one day help him gain pussy. Maybe one day he’ll turn into a CEO with a mistress or maybe he won’t.

        In other news, the beta male (i.e., alpha #2) gets more ass than gammas and the rest, but less than the alpha. But the beta male lives longer.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/science/15baboon.html?_r=1&hp

        Like


      • Men here,

        In your opinion, have the truly beta males had a more difficult time accepting the truth of this or women?

        Like


      • Feminists harder than beta males harder than not so feminist women. Even natural alphas who don’t know about game get this right away.

        Many feminists will at least privately admit they want a dominant man in the bedroom be rarely more than that. Whereas in truth the usually do want a take charge, charismatic leading kind of guy in their life generally, so long as he listens to them.

        Like


      • feminists love power, its just that their narcissism and desire interfere. They love powerful men, but then crave power of their own, which again interferes with their desire to be ruled. They are quite obviously miserable and conflicted creatures like a dieter in a donut shop.

        Like


      • It’s the social conservative kinds of betas that have the hardest time accepting the truth that women crave psychosocial dominance, and especially that game is something that can be learned, and works to raise a man’s attractiveness to women.

        Like


      • I disagree. Social liberal betas are the worst ive seen. Social conservatives like those in fly over country lean towards the redneck/white trash end of the spectrum and have no problem putting a woman in her place.

        Like


      • Given that even beta males are driven toward women and pine as they see the women chasing the alphas, I am disposed to assume the women are more firmly rooted in denial on this point. That, abetted by their shame in admitting to the fact.

        Like


      • I tend to agree here, but the shame that you are seeing is because they were wrong and the man was right. Not totally because of the tenants of Game.

        Like


      • Males in general are better at accepting that the “truths” they hold dear aren’t really so true. This is why males have throughout history made the great breakthroughs in science: they refused to accept the beliefs of others.

        “Where pretty lies perish” is about the same as “the search for truth”.

        Like


      • Yeah men can be much more practical at how they approach life and realities. I just think its in a woman’s nature to want to imagine that things she desires most are always real and true. But I’ll admit, i still believe in “the one” even though he may not really exist. LOL. I’ll never stop believing that even if it never happens.

        Like


      • Nominated for Understatement of the Year award.

        Like


  2. All his life he impressed mama with tears and vulnerability not dominance.

    Like


  3. Yes, a “neg” is a projection of higher value within the man, the most famous being:

    “You’re pretty, but beauty is common.”

    In other words, you’re challenging her to be more than her most powerful asset by far, her sexuality, thereby neutralizing it. It indirectly raises your value by implying that you can get other women, other pussy to be more specific, you have standards, and she has to prove herself to you in other ways. Acting as if she has to prove herself to you, or “flipping the script”, is a core fundamental part of game. It IS game really.

    So along with organically building higher value within yourself with jobs, money, social status, physical attributes, you also should neutralize her sexual power in subtle ways, depending on her looks.

    All things being equal, two hypothetical male/female 7s interacting, she wins by default by simply having a pussy. You must be above her or the relationship, whether its ten minutes or ten years, will suffer.

    Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 9:29 pm (R)Evolutionary

      “All things being equal, two hypothetical male/female 7s interacting, she wins by default by simply having a pussy.”

      Is this your neutral belief about a misandrist culture, or a purely misandrist belief? From a purely philosophical view humanistic point of view, both must be of equal value, by definition, because they’re both 7’s. So I have to call bullshit here, though I understand you may simply be making a value-free observation on society.

      Ok, so let’s say you’ve got a male 7 and a female 7. Let’s say the male gets started right here reading and digesting applying the wisdom of the Chateau. Does he grow beyond a 7? This is the manosphere’s zen koan version of “Does a bear shit in the woods?”

      Yes, yes he does, kids.

      Like


      • I hear you (R)evolutionary , but dude was explaining that all things being equal, women like to deal with men who are higher status than her…

        If he takes in CH’s advice, OF COURSE, he would raise up from a 7….

        Like


  4. What are your suggestions for women who aren’t sluts and want to get married? You teachings seem to be geared towards men who want to go out and take home attractive skanks without any commitment but what about men and women who value marriage and family? Jw about your thoughts, thanks!

    Like


    • Real simple. You can rely on bonding and basic fair play only so much. It needs to be reinforced with sensual desires which is nothing other than what insures human health. Trade youth and beauty for what ever combination of male high value suits you. If you don’t like butt ugly, give up a little alpha behavior. Better is an age gap and widowed at 70 than abandoned at 40. A 22 year old girl and a 35 year old minor alpha is the best hope for a successful marriage.

      Like


      • 17-35 is probably more ideal, but tough to currently arrange in the mainstream West. By 22 most women have generally experienced too much, to rely on much beyond intellectual fortitude to maintain a stable pair bond.

        Given some generations, what is currently the mainstream West, will of course be replaced by cultures where 17-35 is closer to the norm (in technologically more advanced societies, males will still have to wait longer than in agrarian cultures before they are able to take on the role of breadwinner, and before they can demonstrate reliable quality as mates.); and where continued pair bonding by pregnancy and child rearing result in a more youthful and vigorous population.

        Like


      • About the only places where those kinds of numbers are found are n the middle east and central Asia, which will be well and truly screwed in a couple generations as the petro dollars run out. Even now Egypt cannot afford to feed itself.

        Like


    • I would put this in 100 point type if I could:

      Game works on ALL women. I was going to put “almost” in there but I don’t even think it’s necessary.

      You might need to calibrate a bit based on the setting and the girl, and occasionally girls are smart enough to sniff you out, but the principles are sound.

      Even nice girls want to think they’re with an alpha male. Don’t ever think that game is merely about banging bar sluts. I’m divorced and I’m doing fine now. But I could have saved my marriage (to a nice girl) if I’d known about game back then.

      Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm The Specimen

      Game is about getting women period. Whether someone wants to use that to bang sluts or find a wife is up to them. To find out what women in the states are doing wrong, I suggest going to Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Brazil and taking notes from the women over there.

      Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm Wrecked 'Em

      Everybody above assumed that “A” is a man.

      Prepositions are funny things. “for” may have meant “to” in this case.

      Like


    • “but what about women who value marriage and family?”

      Myth.
      One comedian said it, and said it best.
      “Next time, I’m going to find a woman to fall in love with and just give her a house”

      Like


      • on July 18, 2011 at 8:37 am Willie Johnson

        Not to be a dick, but the line is from the late Lewis Grizzard. And it goes…

        “Next time I think I want to get married, I’m just going to find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house.”

        Like


  5. on July 14, 2011 at 6:01 pm Harmonious Fist

    “Game eventually fuses with a man’s personality”

    Yes. Virtues are habits, not some innate quality. This was known to Aristotle, so it is a long-standing insight. A person becomes what that person chooses to consistently do, and follows through on doing. A guy who decides to man up in some area of his life really becomes that kind of person. There is no “deep down real person” that remains in hiding. The actions, repeated until they become habitual, ARE the real person. You are what you do. A Beta who consistently changes what he does becomes something else. He will not become a tall, craggy featured natural Alpha. But he will be a different and better man than he was.

    Like


    • the one truth in the world is this. It is a very common theme among men who know what the fuck is going on.

      There is no “deep down real person” that is somehow hidden from others. There is no, “gosh, if she just got to know the real me” bullshit. To everyone here, you are how you act. Action is the one true quality that is objectively identifiable and what others can base their opinions on.

      From what I’ve seen, no one really cares about deep down bullshit. They may say they do, but when the rubber meets the road, all that is second to what they actually respond to.

      And to anyone who can see how the world works, all that matters is what people respond to.

      p.s. it’s why everyone on this blog laughs when women try to tear down game. We know it works.

      Like


  6. Sad, but true: those high-powered career descriptions trump even perfect Game run with dhvs, negs and routines.

    The moral is, be rich, successful and desired – and a touch of an a-hole.

    Much easier to maintain a frame than remember pua jargon.

    Like


    • No. Gaining high powered status–averaged 15 years. Remembering acronyms–a weekend. Gaining mad game skillz–average 6 months.

      I could fetch a wench of a high powered statusian any time I desire, if that was my thing.

      My skittles have more value than a diamond ring.

      Like


      • “Gaining mad game skillz–average 6 months.”

        Not even close to true, it’s more like

        6 months – mediocre skill, one lay per 3 months
        1 year – above average, one lay per month
        2 years – talented, 1-2 lays a month
        3 years – player, gets laid 2-3 times a month

        Learning game is hard work and takes dedication. However, learning game is more guaranteed than becoming a rich man.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm Practical God

        2-3 times a month?! Are you completely and utterly mad? (Or extremely ugly?) If I get laid fewer than 3 times a week, I start thinking that I ought to go find someone with a higher libido.

        Like


      • By lays, I meant new lays.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 3:17 pm Practical God

        Point taken, but in that case, may I offer an observation: the only reason you would want to bang 3 new girls per month is if you’ve got no other way to validate yourself. That’s not a problem with women; that’s a problem with the player. If a guy only pretends to be alpha to score women, then he will never have enough women to satisfy him, because he’s not satisfied with himself.

        Like


      • Good lord! I’d commit a suicide if I had those results! I guess that I based the timetable on my truly. Granted, when I decided to soak it up, it was an intense reprogramming and out going. But I established in 6 month the foundations of my serail that I maintain.

        Admittedly, I had alpha traits initially in my youth and early 20’s (that have been dented by two marriages). Maybe that is the reason for my “fast” track. Fast in quote marks b/c for me that was painfully slow.

        Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm The Specimen

      Spoken like a true bitter denizen of the man-o-sphere. Truth is, if your game is tight, you can roll up to a bar in a ritzy part of town on a bicycle and swoop a hot chick. It’s been done before. Simianly brilliant, no?

      Like


    • errrrrrnt!

      Wrong.
      I’ll bet on Justin Timberlake/Orlando Bloom game any time, over average poserdude spouting biblically, religiously perfect game.

      And, if you look like JoeD, you don’t even get your own lousy show.
      Not even a measly webcast.

      Like


  7. I thought AMOG meant “alpha male of group.”

    Damn these acronymns!

    Like


    • Same thing. alpha male of the group is more descriptive actually.

      Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm Johnny Caustic

      My librarian moment. According to my records, the acronym AMOG was introduced by [email protected] in a January 28, 2000 post to the Usenet group alt.seduction.fast. His original quote:

      I can offer three proven tactics to counter Alpha Male Other Guy (AMOG)
      intrusions:

      Typical Situation One: your above “I was working her and this AMOG
      moves in”

      Solution: As soon as the AMOG inserts himself, and, she pays attention
      to him, do the following:

      Smile at the AMOG and say “hold on a sec OK”. Touch her shoulder and
      turn your body so that you’re between her and the AMOG. Then, lean
      forward and whisper in her ear: “I don’t want to share your attention
      with anyone else. Let’s continue this some other time” She’ll either
      respond positively or not. If negative, smile at her and say, “he’s
      all yours”. If positive get the #, smile, and say “I’ve got to run but
      I will see you again” Use a strong hand pointing gesture when you say
      the “See you” so that it places a verbal anchor and also asserts your
      dominance over her vis a vis the AMOG.

      [continued…]

      It’s a terrible acronym and I have no idea how it’s survived. It was a pretty good post, though. Google the text above and read the whole thing.

      Like


  8. An old friend once asked me: ‘Would you rather have the love of all women or the respect of all men.’

    The correct answer is: the respect of all men, because if you have the respect of all men, the love of all women will quickly follow.

    Like


  9. on July 14, 2011 at 7:20 pm Miley_Cyrax

    So how are feminists going to hamster-spin this? Let’s see… women prefer dominant men because only dominant men can handle their strong, independent female magneticism and dynamicness.

    Like


    • Superb!

      Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 10:57 am Practical God

        Eh, I dunno. I think that it’s not that women like men who bully them; it’s that they dislike men who let themselves be bullied. Women like resistance. Even when she asks something innocuous, like what color curtains you think she should get, that’s a test. Even if the true and logical answer is, “I don’t care; you should get what you think best,” it’s not the answer she wants; she wants you to say “blue” or “green” or “those ones, because they match your eyecolor” or whatever, because she wants you to demonstrate constantly that you have an opinion. She might listen to it or not, but she wants to hear that it’s there. That’s all their bitching about handling their dynamic personality is about. That’s also what they mean about being on equal footing with a man. She already knows what the fuck she wants, but women like consensus; they feel better knowing that they’ve taken other opinions into consideration, and they get frustrated when men deny them that satisfaction.

        The only time there should be dominance by one party or another in a relationship is when they are in their specific milieu. Like, if she sails and you don’t and you’re both on a boat, then she’s going to have the upper hand whether you like it or not, cause you know jack shit about handling a ship. And that’s fine; that’s why I advocate having non-competing spheres of influence. Different professions result in lack of resentment and presence of mutual respect. That simple.

        tl:dr version: always have an opinion, except when you know zilch about the subject, in which case, don’t be an ass and listen to someone who knows.

        Like


      • “I don’t care” is a fine answer. “Zat the kinda guy you want, someone who thinks about curtains?” It falls under your other advice of non-competing spheres of influence.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 11:58 am Practical God

        Hey, it’s experience talking. You try that and she will inevitably follow it up with “you’re not even listening to me” or “I want us both to be happy with it” or an indignant “what do you mean you don’t care?” or any number of things, all directed at one and one goal only: to get you to state an opinion, any opinion. That’s what they all want all the time. Not dominanace, but assertiveness. It’s simpler to just say “I want blue” and stick by it than it is to play all those games.

        Granted, maybe I’m a “natural” or whatever, so I don’t get the plight of all the dateless little people, but it’s not rocket science. Treat them like human beings; don’t let them treat you like garbage.

        I mean, compliance tests? Really? Hold my hat? It’s a girl, not a coat hanger. That’s the reverse of “hold my purse while I go over there.” The only time I would hold her purse is if she was flying a helicopter and my life depended on her having teh use of both hands. I don’t take that shit from her; she shouldn’t take that shit from me. .

        Like


      • “I don’t take that shit from her; she shouldn’t take that shit from me. .”

        She WANTS to take that shit from you. That’s what makes the ‘gina tingle. A man that she’s willing to take that shit from.

        Like


      • Besides the life style benefits of not being a human Ken doll, you really think the only way to pass that shit test is to care about curtains? Not having any interest in curtains has nothing to do with treating anyone like garbage. I don’t consult her on what to do about the plumbing either like asking her if I need 3/8″ by 25ft or should I go with a 1/4″ and 35ft? One thing I make abundantly clear is I am not one of her girl friends. Hasn’t been a problem. I learned that from not just from experience but from watching my father who was consulted on important shit. Speaking of assertive, one thing I assert is that if you are looking for a guy who has a 100 balls of yarn in his closet, you have the wrong fucking guy.

        Like


  10. There is no fooling anyone. Give yourself completely to the blood of war. Seek it out. Eventually, it will find you on it’s own.

    Your blood is crying for it, man, ENGAGE THEM!

    For a society to be at all peaceful, we must curb our desire for war, but it’s ultimately a charade. War is the natural state of every living creature, whether it knows it or not.

    Where there is the other, there is war. Seek war, and you shall find women waiting there for you.

    Like


    • Cat + Scarface = Ideal man for women…

      Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 4:25 am NYCBachelor

      Every time you go to a bar, a club, whereever to pick up women- you’re at war with the other men there.

      Like


      • Man, get a grip on yourself! (In your case specifically it my mean you’d be masturbating tonight)

        Go to a bar and count the numbers of M and F. There would be likely a slight disparity towards higher M count, but not much (your locale may vary).

        Count the number of both M and F that leave without pairing. Again, a slight disparity with a higher M count.

        But, there were F’s leaving unpaired. Why? Think about it.

        Like


      • You are at war with no one but yourself. Your self-doubt, your weakness, your inability to close the deal. You must master yourself before you can master others.

        Like


  11. I’m a woman (broken out of lurk-dom), and I agree with the CH maxims (to an extent), but have reservations about beta males fooling women with fake alpha personalities. One day the ball will drop, and I’m pretty sure the hamster will not be forgiving.

    [Editor: Your premise is flawed. Game eventually fuses with a man’s personality, such that his years of continued success with women imbue him with an improved character. Furthermore, game itself is objectively attractive to women, so there will be no “ball dropping” as long as the man doesn’t regress into game-less betadom. But this happens to many men regardless of their knowledge or use of game. Many a good beta male has been caught off guard by his wife’s resentment and sputtering libido when married domestication took a toll on his masculinity.]

    Side note – do women really disagree with your overall thesis??!!

    [Try broaching this subject over at jezebel and see what happens. Or try broaching it anywhere but on a blog that probably attracts an exceptional demographic of women who are not immediately scandalized by such bold truthtelling.]

    Like


    • Cept that it often works in a feedback loop. Success encourages the subtle displays of dominance. The way I look at the maxims is that it is a tool that converts intellect into a recognizable dominance. Intellect is dominant, but its not in a form palatable to women. The simple knowledge that this hottie or that hottie can be easily replaced is going to bring alpha posture to the surface; fake it until you make it.

      Like


      • I think women do agree that they are attracted to power.

        The fat femi-cunts at Jezebel don’t count as women.

        Like


    • This is where “fake it ’til you make it” comes into play. Act like you’re X long enough, and you will become X.

      Like


      • Couldn’t agree more, Tom and chi-town. As Aristotle is attributed to have said, “to be a hero, one must simply behave as a hero.” Or, as some religious orders believe, “Act as if you have faith and it shall be given unto you.” Its all just another version of “fake it till you make it.”

        Like


    • Game is the medicine that cures. But it requires patience, fearlessness, and consistent work to eliminate all traces of beta psychology. The creation of a new ‘default’ mindset is among the hardest things to do for us, as human beings.

      Like


    • “One day the ball will drop…”

      This automatically implies the man has already widely savored the fountain.

      So what?

      Like


    • That’ll be the day women stop judging things they buy by their pretty packaging.

      In case you didn’t figure it out, that would be never.

      Like


    • “One day the ball will drop, and I’m pretty sure the hamster will not be forgiving.”

      Better to fuck and fuck and then drop the ball than never to fuck at all.

      Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm Wrecked 'Em

      Game is makeup for men.

      Do men recognize that they’re being “fooled” when a woman is wearing makeup? Of course they do. They still like it.

      Are they the kind unforgiving you talk about when a woman is caught au natural? Nah. Just as a man appreciates that a woman can be smokin’ hot when she dresses to the 9s, a woman appreciates that a man can be charismatic when the situation calls for it. If she’s seen your alpha side enough to know that you have it in you, that’s enough for the hamster.

      Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm Practical God

        I am vaguely inclined to agree with this. More often than not a girl knows what you’re doing, but hey, she wants to get laid too.

        It’s self-selecting; that’s why it seems like it works on nigh all women.

        Like


  12. The DoM both explains and is illustrated by the female obsession with gay romance at an extreme (yaoi, m/m fanfiction pairings, m/m erotica).

    Like


  13. This leads to the “what do you do” conundrum.

    I do a lot. I earn good money. I help betas earn good money and eventually become alphas. I travel a ton and provide for many people’s livelihoods. But there’s no easy way to ever say that — braggadocio is a huge beta move.

    The key to showing off social status is by reputation. I tend to play it down, except for the haters. If someone hates on me, I support it publicly. Nothing wrong with playing up those who hate you, I find it’s as strong a social proof as having female stalkers.

    The conundrum, though, is that SOME women, especially young ones, can run away from a man with obvious power or high social proof. It has to do with their low self esteem, or worse (all they have is that they’re young and hot). So even if I get a big rep blip from a peer, or am talked up, it can work against me.

    I firmly believe the answer is to be vague. Mystery, if you will. Playfully deny, or lessen the power of high reputation from others. A good NLP maneuver is to “own” another guy by talking HIM up — it shows possession that you’re able to be the one to judge him positively. This seems to work, especially with the only-young-and-hot women.

    Him: “Oh, Dada, he’s awesome, he helped me so much when I had to such-and-such.”

    Her: “Oh really? How so?”

    Me: “Nah, ignore him. It was all Bobby’s doing, he’s the one to get the credit.”

    Vagueness, mystery, showing possessive strength over other males — that’s what works for me better than excessive social proof which can work against you. Even excessive DHV can be a huge fail. One of my closest female friends is a solid 9, and most guys think she’s a 10. When I go out with her, other women seem intimidated by her, and I’ve even gotten the “You hang out with that really hot girl, why would you like me?” line. No one believes the “she’s just a friend” line.

    Too much DHV, too much social proof, too much reputation, too much power can work against you with average women, and an average woman tends to be a better woman than the club bunnies.

    Like


    • @AB Dada

      Too much DHV, too much social proof, too much reputation, too much power can work against you with average women, and an average woman tends to be a better woman than the club bunnies.

      This was a mistake I made when first learning game. Too much cocky funny is turn-off.

      Women want to be intrigued…but they want to know there’s something behind the curtain not simply more curtains or a hollow suit…..

      The alpha/beta dynamic shifts depending on the situation.

      It’s about knowing how hard to push and when to pull back.

      Like


  14. on July 14, 2011 at 7:55 pm The Shocker

    Fantastic, simply fantastic. I just read this to the pantsless 20-year-old laying next to me who never heard of game. Blew her mind.

    Like


  15. So are you going to start writing about DoM strategies? Take the blog to the next level? Or is that too gay?

    Like


  16. Male 46 fairly new to game but been a high beta or alpha most of my life. Married 18 years to a good woman, 2 kids, decent sex life.

    Anyways I’m here to tell you guys this stuff is all true. If and when you demonstrate higher social value to women (either by negging or dominating other males) women notice and get interested.

    Had a bad case of oneitis when I was younger. She barely gave me the time of day but the minute I got a hot girlfriend she opened her legs and basically begged me to take her. After 2 years of that, I found an even hotter girl (easily a 9) and that drove her even more crazy. Did things she never would have done before.

    Point is game works. Show her you’re higher on the social totem pole than she is and she’ll get interested real quick. He’ll, it even works when you’re married!

    Thanks for your good work here gentlemen. Keep it up.
    Men need to know this stuff.

    Liked by 1 person


  17. Dominance over women is always the quickest route. Combine it with a *disinterest* in dominance over men. Casual disregard. Live outside the male-hierarchy system. It’s assumed you’re to be successful at this, of course.

    There’s a type of woman who falls for that bit like no tomorrow. It also tends to screen out the gold diggers: they go directly after the ones who are most dominant over other men in a financially productive sense. A lot of hot girls want the material reward as the operating price for their sexual market value. Some won’t part with this without full compensation. Such women aren’t interested in guys that have no material/hierarchical dominance.

    By avoiding them, you target the girls who like guys with chutzpah but don’t care as much about cash.

    Being outside this script, while still being dominant over females, if the maximal convergence of convenience and pussy access.

    Like


    • Many alpha ways to skin a cat, and her pussy, on a long term basis.

      Like


    • Same page, here. I am outside the hierarchy. A hunter-gatherer, after a fashion.

      Like


    • Living outside the male hierarchy system is a pretty big sacrifice for only one specific type of hedonistic pleasure. There are an infinite number of things to experience before we die.

      Like


      • Just the opposite. It’s not only the poon that is the benefit of LOTMH. Though my “kingdom” is small, I’m still a king in it.

        But to each their own. You can’t imagine being outside the hierarchy. I can’t imagine being inside. It’s all good.

        Like


      • Agreed.

        Being an entrepreneur is not just a way of business. It’s a way of being.

        Like


      • Living outside the male system of hierarchy is frankly less stressful and happier than being in it. Perhaps 5-10% of males in the system are happy and well-off and can make it. The rest are very little better than slaves.

        Work on contract. When it ends, make sure you did well and get accolades.

        Male hierarchy hasn’t changed in 6000 years. Here’s a lowdown. Young men read this. If I’d have known how the world worked in highschool, I wouldn’t have waited until I was 32 to reprogram my life.

        Forget all of your notions of “morality in the workplace” and “institutional loyalty” and “career ambitions”. Look at other peoples’ lives honestly. Watch your fathers and mothers waste away in cubicles. Observe as people monotonize their existences. Learn from it.

        Like hot young girls? Consider what you want to be able to offer hot women when you’re 33 or 35 or 37 or, even 45 or 50. I know guys who are 50, not particularly attractive, who have hot young things dripping off them. What do they have? Okay, they have game: learn it. Women aren’t mysterious. Female attraction psychology is straightforward. it’s not perverse: it makes perfect sense. Learn to think like them. They don’t even know how they think. You need to study them. Learn Game. Learn *why* game works.
        The other reason is the choice of career/identity. On that, read this.

        Male Hierarchies

        Top: King. Good luck with that. Luck, skill, machiavellian intelligence. Expect assassination attempts. Tends to suck long-term. Usually requires targeted violence, amorality and constant, never-ending vigilance. No-one can be trusted when you’re on the top. Best shared: watch each other’s backs. But you can never rest.

        Below the top:
        1) A landlord/Lord (the owner of lots of land/titles). Maybe 3% of men. It’s possible to be elevated to this level, but very unlikely. Within these men, there are those with and without game and other hierarchies.

        2) Lord’s Servant (upper-class salaried professionals): Maybe 10% of men. You can’t get to the top; and your competition is savage. Staying in one place once you get up is hard. Women who want these men are often “mates of convenience” or fickle friends. Take away the status – take away the mate. Samples would be heads of medical associations, high-ranking doctors at big hospitals, local dignitaries, heads of departments in large bureaucracies, coporporate vice-presidents, ultimately answerable to the actual decision-makers at the top; all responsibility, little real authority. Wages fluctuate but are just enough to keep you in a lifestyle you can’t quite afford, while jealous of those-slightly-higher-than-you; you work for and with them, but can’t quite get there. Everyone is clawing their way up the ladder, and you need to swat them down and use/abuse them. They’ll walk right up your back if you’re not limber. A great life, right? Sure.

        3) A Minor Functionary – the jailers, soldiers, tax-collectors, factors, police, naval officers, post office clerks in the old west, telegraph operators in important stations, harbor masters.

        4) **Tradesmen**: Men with useful skilled trades. These can be anything from leatherworking and tool and dye making to HVAC installation and custom motorcycle or car building. These guys generally live outside the system and service all sectors of it. Historically, it can also be fishermen; You can’t take a man’s boats, though you can steal a farm.

        For a guy inside the system, these are the most free of anyone under the King.

        5) Peons

        These are your average workers. Their compensation varies, but is never enough to get them anywhere. If they end up owning a house, it’s entirely based on circumstances of history: free land, economic expansion. This level includes farmers: They’re subject to others, the marketplace, etc. A soldier cam come along and take their land.. They’re not meant to actually do more than survive as long as they’re able to serve. This accounts for most of the human population.

        In order to free men, Solon changed Athenians from farmers to fishermen. It reduced the power of the landed gentry and landowners. Very clever. Helped make Athens free. Based on the same principle: Independence through self-reliance and de-facto inability to take away the means of production.

        6) Serfs

        Those in bondage for whatever reason. Our society has done away with this class, but they’re common in most societies. Slaves would be a lower class of serfs. Serfdom encapsulates the overall effect. Those who owe huge amounts of money are prime examples. Student loans, men reduced from peonage or lordship to alimony/child-support cripples – etc. Job choice is no longer an option.

        Obviously, we can’t all be Kings. The operating goal of all men with any moxy should be to live outside this system.

        Pick a career that matches high income and freedom but gives you mobility – options – and choice. Travel is good: What do you need in addition to a passport? A degree? Get one. Skillset? Something sellable anywhere. Legal trouble? Stay out and avoid like the plague.

        There’s a class of people that fit this bill.

        – 4) Independent Tradesmen. “City Air Makes Free” : They work in large population centers, can move between them at ease, their skills are valuable everywhere, and they stay abreast of technological change. Much innovation comes from this sector. They’re adaptable. If they fail to adapt, they fail to thrive. They tend to be smart, keen and clever: those without these skills can’t live this way.

        Examples: Custom car builders. Video/sound technicians. Film directors. Journalists with extra skills. Food/wine production experts. Fine food chefs. Dance instructors. Accountants and auditors who work in specific fields. Doctors who perform specific surgeries. Make no mistake: Doctors are tradesmen in the same sense that plumbers are. Some function more in this regard than others. Restructuring consultants. Some software engineers. Some telecom engineers.

        They’re sometimes in high-brow fields and sometimes in fields that require extensive education. A lot of technical work is of this nature.

        These are the people who innovate and create in their respective fields.

        You can take many jobs and find individuals who operate within them like “independent tradesmen”. They’re the ones who take almost all of the advantages from an industry. Why? Independence. Their skills make them beholden to no particular social order, no particular hierarchy.

        You can be the bird at the top of the tree – Super-Alpha – but if you can’t, be a bird that can hop between trees – and levels on the tree.

        Creative Independent Tradesmen often carve out their own kingdoms: Facebook. Craigslist. Apple Computers. When they do, they tend to fail, but we read about the ones that succeed. These men change the world on a regular basis. We owe civilization to them, and largely to them alone. We owe *social order* to the Alpha King and Alpha Women; but we owe *civilization* and its advances to these men.

        Christopher Columbus would be one of them, hired out to Alphas. The same was true of the Conquistadors: they bought off the leadership with percentages. Same was true of the original founders of our country. Some of them were “factors” and functionaries, of course. In the New World, those that survived were or employed Independent Tradesmen.

        4a) Merchants.
        These have one qualifying success meter: How much money they make. They can be rich or not. This skill can be parlayed into large organizations, like Creative Independent Tradesmen.

        These men combine freedom and wealth, the best mix. Succeeding is a hard game; many more fail than succeed.

        CIVILIZATIONS

        You can build a civilization on either 4) or 4a).

        Arabs built using mostly 4a). Theirs is a society of traders, when they’re not raiding or killing each other. To be a “maker” is almost insulting. To be a trader is respectable.

        Europe was traditionally the reverse. Tradesmen and makers and creators were venerated; if not wholly trusted (because they were independent). When Trade Guilds sprouted up, they became parallel states, but one the authorities couldn’t dispense with. Tradesmen were often controlled this way, but it was a tug-of war: In a society ruled by Alphas, the Sub-Alpha Tradesmen needed alliances to get by. If they were assaulted by the Alphas, the Alphas lost access to their skills. There was protection from alphas in mutual support.
        Chimps behave the same way.

        Now, many of us are subconsciously aware of all of this. Men are instinctively programmed to recognize these things. Women create their own parallel, but not equivalent, structures: their politics are remarkably different, and their hierarchies both less fluid and more subtle. They’re governed by different rules. They’re not any more fair or decent or “moral” – they’re actually much more Machiavellian and far more intricate. Ego and venal ambitions are far more prevalent. Any organization of females in any kind of competition will make male organizations seem like tea parties by comparison. When women attack, they do it with vengeful bloodlust. Be warned. They don’t single out men, either: They’ll do it to each other with regularity.

        As women break into male hierarchies, they both morph – women become more male, and resenting the shit out of it or being “more male than male”, as they have to to get by; and the organizations become more Female.

        Which means that no matter what happens, it’s bad news for most men.

        The only viable option is to adaptively opt out of the system. Not all men are up to this, but any man who can give it a good go SHOULD TRY.

        When you’re young, pick a career that leaves you with good portable skills and lots of freedom.

        Don’t voluntarily involve yourself with large systems unless the rewards are palpable; always maintain an out. At all times. NEVER grow complacent.

        Women will tend to want you to *settle down* in the hierarchy. The confusion and conflict scrambles their need for security.

        Fuck ’em.

        Don’t serve FEMALE interests. Men Who Would Be Alpha, or even just Men:

        Serve your own interests. Serve your society’s interests ON YOUR OWN TERMS.

        There’s no need to Fight The Man. That way lies stupid battles with the minor functionaries of the King, people who have invested interests in the system, and will defend it tenaciously. Those who don’t might ally with you, or let you win, but you’ve no idea when they can turn on you. Pick your battles wisely; learn when to withdraw. Focus on your interest. Focus on your own goals.

        Don’t fit yourself in. Use the system.

        (BTW, criminals fall out of this: They entangle themselves with the Law. That’s a good excuse for others to interfere in your business; the best reason to avoid breaking the law is self-interest. It guarantees all those brutal battles, most of which you won;t win and whose consequences are the most damaging. Other than that, many criminal enterprises mimic all of these structures, with innovators, independents and hierarchies).

        And:

        Look out for females who can operate within these systems. They often make the best allies.

        I have two or three I ally with myself. We’ve helped each other hugely. It’s easier to trust them than it is other men; they say the same. We have different, but complementary interests.

        I say this to young men: independence and self-reliance. All the time. In all things. Don’t be afraid of alliances and dependence if you need it; but always keep your eye on what you want.

        Like


      • on July 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm betondo fuchatuch

        Bravo.

        Unquenchable desire for independence, courageous enough to be self-reliant, white hot passion to be rich and a portable skill that’s in demand, sells to the world and is affordable – and an audacious approach.

        The only other thing I needed was to be born in a free country – got that one too.

        America Rocks!

        Like


    • True, but I must admit that pistol whipping a dude gets chicks wet too. Just sayin’

      Like


  18. on July 14, 2011 at 8:59 pm Mr.Banana'z

    What I find funny about women is they use a man’s dominance to size up his genes rather than his actual genetic quality. A women will turn down a 6 ft 5 muscular beta over a 5 ft 8 chubby alpha. It’s all about the dominance above all else. Perhaps its the fact that it doesn’t matter how big or strong you are if you dont have the balls to use your strength. I’m sure youve all seen a big dog become submissive to a dominant smaller dog. The big dog could tear it to shreds but it doesn’t believe in itself while the small dog does.

    Of course the small dog will eventually run into a big dog who will not bow down to it, but most big dogs do simply because they aren’t dominant. Just believing in yourself takes you far. Most people who could pummel you into a pancake will respect your dominance simply because you have a stronger frame than them. So perhaps women just don’t care for tall and handsome betas over short and ugly alphas, because they lack the most important trait of all, confidence.

    Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm The Specimen

      Well said. Often it’s more important that you’re the type of guy who’s willing to fight than it is for you to actually be able to win.

      Like


    • If your an alpha and short, the only time she is going to notice your stature is before she knows your alpha. After that, unless she is a shallow bitch, it will never again cross her mind.

      Like


  19. on July 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm Neil Hansen

    the pussy must always be subordinate to the cock.

    It has to be this way. The cock is noble; it is spirit. The pussy smells; it is musky and pungent.

    Like


  20. It’s not only genes or only dominance. Is it ever only slut or innocent girl? Blonde or brunette?

    People like a lot of things and to imagine we understand one millionth of any aspect of our true nature is a joke.

    We’re infinitely complex creatures living in an infinitely complex biological environment, and an infinitely biological environment containing it’s own lifeforms is living within us.

    Like


    • Yes, please ponder about the complexities of the “verse” and its unfathomability vs accepting some basic principles of the Game. For me, it means more poon while I can still ponder about unfathomability of the verse whenever I feel compelled to do so.

      Like


      • Ah, another false dichotomy.

        Like


      • Whether the dichotomy is false or not is irrelevant. What counts is that game works. Despite complexities, we have some basic programming–men and women. The attempts of the utopians (and their feminist offshoot) to reprogram us failed, We are rediscovering what our ancestors knew and used for millennia.

        Like


  21. My mom knows nothing about game. Yet today she told me the reason she fell in love with my dad (whom she divorced long ago for his philandering) was that he was much more dominating than any other man she dated.

    Like


    • You’re a fuckin idiot. The guy died in a car crash as a teenager; of course Orlando Bloom doesn’t mind Miranda honoring his memory with ONE OF the baby’s MIDDLE names. Did I mention you’re a fuckin idiot?

      Like


  22. (just don’t go and die)

    Like


  23. on July 14, 2011 at 10:21 pm anonymous_one

    A little related to this. It has been discussed here before that the fattening trend of women is a net loss and if they overall learned to stay on shape and feminine enough, it would be a net gain because for a beta since banging a 7 – 8 is satisfying enough on itself that it wouldn’t matter that much if the top men are having all 10s.

    The question is: Is there a similar positive effect if all men got better game? I have the sinking feeling that the answer is no, since women will always choose the upper quartile of men no matter how high the overall quality of men is. If this is another ugly truth, is there a workaround for it?

    [Editor: You don’t need a workaround, at least not in the time you’ll be on this earth. To wit:
    More hot babes = more happy men.
    More socially attractive men using game = more happy women.
    Game is, itself, objectively attractive to women, so more men using it means more horny women.]

    Like


    • I’m old enuff to have a direct experience with things BFE (before feminist era).

      In my extended family (MEF) comprising of about 400 members, the males were a part of the social hierarchy, alpha, beta and other ranks. In the context of their families, most of them were alpha–they had game naturally or by osmosis–learning from their parents or older siblings . There were some supplicating betas, but not that many, perhaps 10%. There were only a few omegas in MEF, never married and used as babysitters–at least they had some redeeming value and not being useless. Most marriages lasted a lifetime, with exception of the beta ones–they were likely to have problems and either they dissolved or cuckolding was the result. About 5% of women ended up as spinsters that did not reproduce. That was due to the disparity of male/female population figures and also to their low SMV.

      I hope that answers your question.

      Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 11:33 pm The Specimen

      It would be a net gain for society. Fewer divorces, fewer broken families, fewer used up 30 something cougars, happier healthier society.

      Like


  24. Middle class status values can get in the way here. What you do for a living (and where you rank in your profession) has a lot to do with how you are perceived, but the message that society sends you about what increases your status is not always helpful. You can wind up wasting a lot of time.

    The modern obsession with earning degrees is sidetracking thousands of men. Instead of using their precious twenties to start moving up a career ladder, they’re spending time in grad school trying to get credentials that too many people already have.

    Here are 100 reasons NOT to go to grad school: http://100rsns.blogspot.com/

    Of course, if you buy the “more education is better” message, you can eat top ramen for ten years while you earn a Ph.D. and then try to get your first real job when you’re 35. Try displaying dominance from that position.

    The message is everywhere, so people just keep falling into the trap.

    Like


    • on July 14, 2011 at 11:31 pm The Specimen

      Well thanks to degree inflation, the days of coming in with a bachelor’s and working your way up to running the company are over. Unless you have the connections for startup capital, some savvy, and some luck to start your own company, and MBA at the least is pretty much mandatory now. Of course, you could always pull a Roosh and find a way to make just enough to live a modest, decent life in a place like Columbia, Portugal, or Southern Spain. I’d say the guy who does that has it more figured out than the middle manager with an MBA from whats-its-face U.

      Like


    • Try landing a decent job in hard sciences with just a bachelor’s degree. Yeah, didn’t think so.

      Like


  25. Regarding the DoM/DoF paradigm, would you write a post about dealing with female bosses? My office management is mostly women, mostly single, unattractive career-focused types (yes, it’s govt). By simple virtue of their positions, they dominate me, and it’s starting to rub down to my female coworker peers – favored assignments, etc.

    How does your office fit into this office situation?

    Like


    • I work in a fem-top-heavy office too. In fact it is getting worse. Because the U.S. is turning into a Pink Ghetto. A big steaming pile of Pink colored shit. The white men in my office (yours truly included) have no interest in advancing up the corporate food chain. The women are becoming seriously bent out of shape by that. Women want to see men ambitious. Otherwise, the women correctly surmise, women’s long term future is clouded (since the ambition of its men propels a civilization forward). But that is another story. About your question. Develop a niche for yourself. Use the gonads God gave you to become the expert on something or some skill. It doesn’t have to be obvious. You could be a great documenter or filer. Something out of the ordinary that no one else can do or wants to do. People will become impressed with your work and go to you. You will develop a good reputation. Even if it is a niche skill. The women chiefs will want to use you. Value you. Protect you. You won’t get treated like a dog by them. Because you are not a dime a dozen like the others. You become a rare diamond. Once the upper level women become protective of you (maternal instinct?) you can unleash them on any lower level bitches harassing you. Women love to beat down other women.

      Like


      • Otherwise, the women correctly surmise, women’s long term future is clouded (since the ambition of its men propels a civilization forward).

        I doubt that this crosses their minds, ever (bare outliers), being emoting bundles free of self-awareness in their majority.

        If it does, it is manifesting in a sublimated form, with one or another type of rationalization.

        Women don’t want to see men ambitious because that provides a basis for propelling the civ forward, it is because it tingles their vaginas.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm Wrecked 'Em

        Actually, if the women have received any MBA education at all, or if they can just plain read business literature, what they’re correctly surmising is that instead of fighting his way up the food chain, the seriously competent man Who Would Be CEO One Day is instead going to leave and start a competing company.

        And what’s worse, they’re also correct in worrying that (at least initially) he won’t be hobbled by an affirmative-action-addled HR department and the company he builds is going to eat their lunch.

        It’s a trend.

        Like


  26. on July 14, 2011 at 11:20 pm The Specimen

    DoM—–>DoF does run the other way. If women tend to swoon in your presence, it definitely affects how other guys treat you. Some will differ to you, some be driven into a rage by jealousy, some will accept you as a member of their social standing. If you know how to use it right, it can go pretty far toward enhancing your career/status in he world of men. While status gets women, women are also status symbols. Another facet to the whole pre-selection thing.

    Like


  27. Thanks for the feedback guys! What you said above seems true (although I’m under 22 and idk what a girl that age would have in common with a 35 yo….) and it’s great to know that game is about “more than banging bar sluts” (lol) for some of you. ❤

    Like


    • Who cares what age you are? Attraction is attraction. I’m 37 and see a 19 year old regularly. The first time I went to her place, her friends were there (19-21) and the gals had no clue what she saw in me, and the guy orbiters were just haters. The next time I went, those same gals flirted endlessly — all it took was a few hours for them to compare my strong leadership attitude with the puppy dog doormats they normally meet and they were hooked.

      The biggest problem with dating young is the fact that MOST women lose their looks very quickly after 23 or 24. I prefer the 25-27 age range myself — if they still look hot, they’ll probably hold onto it longer, whereas I’ve seen some really drastic falls-of-a-cliff with many women after 23/24.

      Like


  28. Like Tony Montana said…

    Like


  29. Another theoretical post with an intense lack of actual direction as far as game is concerned. I’ve read nearly all the posts on this blog by now, and I value all of them highly. The posts here are well written, enlightening, and routinely make me feel angry about my station in life (as any good charismatic leader should). However, the time has come for CH to move beyond theory and into the realm of practical application.

    Like


    • Why don’t you apply it? You scared or something?

      Game is about having balls. Looks like you need a pair.

      Like


      • Because your anonymous ad hominem comment on an internet blog makes you such an alpha male. FaggUt.

        Like


      • Chill out. He has a point and it is no ad hominem–the phrase “you need a pair” did not mean you’re a eunuch, it meant being aware you have ’em.

        The problem with “practical application” is that it’s a canned form. Won’t get you far. You need to go out and try, try, try. Structure your Game in manageable snippets. Be task oriented. Start with just approaches. Do it 50 times, does not matter how. Consider it a field study. An experiment. Then go to next stage.

        Grow your skin thicker, it seems to be hair-thin.

        Like


  30. How would a dominant man reply to the following tweet : “laduree is the cake marie antoinette intended for her people” Thanks for any help.

    Like


    • i don’t know what laduree is but it sounds like it’ll make you fat

      Like


    • Dominant man doesn’t reply to tweets involving cakes.

      Like


    • on July 16, 2011 at 3:28 pm betondo fuchatuch

      He wouldn’t.

      Total radio silence. The hamster will 90mph until pooped woundering why you didn’t greedily partake in so dazzling a display of mental masturbation.

      The next tweet YOU get won’t have a damn thing to do with her last tweet, which proved that the laduree tweet was totally fucking irrelevant – which you already knew.

      Don’t forget which one of you calls the tunes here, Marellus.

      Like


  31. A few points from personal experience.

    1) A few girls I’ve demonstrated high value to by the Mystery Method: cocky-funny, negs, push-pull etc etc….even when I haven’t closed or when I disappear, when I see them again, it’s like they’re that much more interested. It’s like when you reappear, as long as you haven’t done anything beta in the meantime, they tend to pick up where you left off…the last flirt, the last neg etc.

    2) If you can demonstrate that you are in charge of something…anything…being a crossing guard when you’re in grade-school….running a meeting, organizing a party, whatever…that works as “DHV” as long as you follow through with neg, aloof, cocky-funny etc

    3) I’ve had a situation where now that I have a cute girl I’m seeing, other girls in my social circle immediately continue flirting even if previously I hadn’t closed with them. It’s the idea that now that someone else finds me attractive–it’s a major DHV.

    4) Passing shit-tests is DHV.

    5) Vulnerability after displaying alpha (Vulnerability game) is another DHV. If you can demonstrate that you’re both strong but also have a soft spot for something…it raises your value. The cocky-funny as has been my experience, if used too often…becomes tiresome to women.

    It takes practice and confidence to make this concept work for you along with trial and error.

    Like


    • Walawala:

      1. This is true, actually. Recently went to a bar (maybe 2 months ago) with a few guy friends. Saw a table of cute gals but they were all back to us. I went out for a smoke, one of the gals came a minute later. I got her name just as 2 of my guy friends walked out. I bailed before she could ask my name (although her mouth was open and she obviously scanned me leave). When we left the bar 2 hours later (the gals were still back to us), the 2 guys yelled at the one gal their names and said beta shit like “don’t forget.” I just kept walking. When I ran into that gal again a week later at another pub, she bee-lined for me to get my name and try to get my # and email. She looked too plump for me, so I told her I wasn’t available. Call again in 10 pounds.

      2. This is also very true. As you commented on my response above, you have to be careful not to appear that you’re TOO out of their league, although this is very community-driven as a standard. Low self-esteem pretty gals in Chicago can only handle so much DHV, whereas going to LA or South Beach the gals can handle (and want) a lot more.

      3. If a gal shows too much drama, no matter how hot she is, I LJBFs her before she can do it to me. I have plenty of 8.5-9s I’ve LJBFd who still want to orbit me, and having them around helps raise the eyes of the new gals. I flirt constantly with every woman of any age and rating, just because it’s fun and good practice, and it’s harmless.

      4. I still fail shit-tests from time to time and always know immediately. I guess I get too confident and need to slow my mouth down before responding.

      5. So important. It’s like the 1/3 rule about showing affection — you need to surprise them with your soft side, when they least expect it. They’ll work harder to see it again.

      Great post, W.

      Like


  32. I’m a woman and I’m NOT attracted to dominant men – and before you say I can’t exist, remember that there are women who are attracted to other women or are completely asexual too. It’s not because I’m trying to be a feminist, or any crap like that. I’m just not.

    So, this dude can’t speak for everyone.

    Like


    • MO,

      I’m with you. A woman doesn’t have to be a feminist b/c she doesn’t like men to neg her and play with her emotions. I think women who are emotionally stable do like ASSERTIVE males – not dominating ones. There are just some emotionally unstable women who like dominate men for a variety of reasons. But not all of us.

      Like


      • You’re both women. It doesn’t matter who you think you’re attracted to. You’re physically weaker. In the real world you would be the property of your male kin and nobody would ask you for your opinion on anything.

        Like


      • Thank God I don’t live in that world, wherever it is. Oh the middle east. My bad.

        Like


      • Seems to me you’re interchanging words for the sake of argument.
        Also, this “oh but I’m different” spiel is used so often but isn’t worth anything…

        Like


      • Assertiveness is nothing but a display of dominance.

        Like


    • Fuck off. You are only the millionth woman to say “But it can’t be true because I am not like that…” blah blah blah.

      99% like them, and just because you are fucking retarded doesn’t make it any less true.

      Like


    • Dominant , confident and assertive can basically be interchanged here. You may be thinking of dominant in terms of asshole. But that’s not always the case. Most women will not tolerate a man without at least some confidence. If you are more comfortable with that word, go with that. But women like their men to be at least somewhat more dominate than they are themselves.

      Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm Practical God

        These are not the same things in any fashion.

        Confident is knowing what you want.

        Assertive is stating what you want.

        Dominant is thinking that what you want is always right. It’s better expressed as domineering, which is what most people who use this word on this blog tend to mean with respect to women.

        This is the distinction she is trying to make.

        Like


      • I know the difference between these words. I have not been here very long but it seems to me that commenters will often us them interchangeably. If not, apologies. My point was simply that 99.99% of women want a man to be stronger than she is, no matter what word you put to it.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm Practical God

        Commenters do tend to use them interchangeably, and on occasion that leads to shit flinging as people belabor the point, so I was just trying to cut that off at the pass, not singling you out.

        As for what women want, in my experience, all they want is a guy who knows what he wants and is actually actively pursuing it, resists when they push him, and takes the lead at least half of the time in any mutual endeavor.

        I’ve seen a lot of people here wax poetical about how women like it when guys ramp up their asshole game, how it somehow proves that if she takes shit from you that it gets her excited, etc. I think that’s getting it backwards. Relationships succeed when there is mutual exception making. She makes allowances for you being an aloof jerk and you often let her get away with shit you’d never let your friends pull, because you like her and she likes you. As for being aloof in the initial stages, that can be true of anyone; men and women both chase whatever they think is hard to get.

        In the end though, the only true test of any practical philosophy is not even “does it work” but “does it make you happy.” If your belief that all women want a stronger man is what you based a successful life on and it’s made you happy (and maybe the women too), then I won’t fuck with it. It works for you. I roll a bit different, and it works for me. I think we can ultimately agree that being a stronger person, period, is sexy, which is why it works.

        Like


      • I agree with you. I think the asshole game will work for PUA’s and might be needed from time to time in a LTR but it is not going to go over well for the long haul. Mutual exception making has to be part of every relationship, but I think it starts in part because of a strong man in the relationship. Once he shows that he won’t be a pushover she will stop pushing and make more exceptions and he will then do the same for her. Happiness then can stem from all of this and help keep the relationship strong. At least this is a big part of a good relationship. PUA Game and LTR Game, while they may start out the same must naturally change to turn into a LTR and maintain one.

        Like


  33. @intp,
    Women love to beat down other women.

    Absotodledootley.

    Use that all the time. The “sisterhood” is a complete myth. In any organizational setting, use one woman against another. You hardly need to do anything at all.

    Like


    • This is so true. i think a lot of women say all that feel goodsy sisterhood stuff to sound good. In reality and in most cases its a bunch of bull. Been there and done that.

      Like


      • Hey Neecy! Still going strong, I see.

        “i think a lot of women say all that feel goodsy sisterhood stuff to sound good. In reality and in most cases its a bunch of bull. Been there and done that.”

        Yep! Been there and done that, too. I’m now over it and done.

        Like


      • HEY YOU! You know exxxactly what I’m talking about too. LOL. So over it already.

        Like


      • When I read this blog and others like it, I always get the impression that the women they are complaining about are actually the women they desire the most. Neecy, do you get the same impression?

        Like


      • You seem to think like a chick.

        Wait…

        Like


      • Yes. That is why I say if they are going after “particular” kinds of women then yes, they may find these women have the same qualities, thus, they feel all women behave a certain way. There are so many types of women in the world. If one focuses on one specific kind, then your vision is already narrowed and encompassing.

        Like


      • Exactly, there are a lot of decent women out there. And some of them are 9s and 10s or the girl next door and they are OUT THERE. And they would love to meet a decent guy. But the decent guys seem to be focused or waiting on the slutty bad girls. I know this first hand for myself being an attractive nice girl. I remember “nice guys” canceling dates with me when the slutty bad girl who wasn’t even as attractive as me would promised them sex that night and them knowing I wouldn’t – they’d bail on me. What I’m saying is: Nice guys aren’t interested in nice girls.

        Like


      • How many nice or not so nice guys you slept with before this particular nice guy? Wouldn’t you think that may something to do with him wondering why in his particular case you don’t put out? I know, this is an assumption, you may be a rare snowflake, but … the really nice girls are a minority, about 1/4 of total, if that. So, there are 3 in 4 chances that you play head games.

        Second, one of the main reasons why guys may go for the ONS instead of sticking with you is the marriage 2.0. They are uneasy about the whole LTR thing, seeing around themselves as their peers are taken to cleaners.

        Thank to your feminazi sistas. They screwed the pooch.,

        Like


      • Yeah, you may be right, nice girls have become the minority. This blog’s subtitle: “Where pretty lies perish” is where feminism comes in. It ended some the pretty lies about women. I believe feminism revealed the true nature of women. Yeah, we enjoy sex and sex with multiple partners; we cheat; we lie; we kill sometimes for no reason; we prefer dominate men; we don’t always like chivalrous behavior from a man; we care about a man’s looks; we care about how much money a man makes; we want control; we enjoy the company of a younger spouse and so on. This is who we are and who we have always been but men for centuries have been attempting socialize these natural tendencies out of us – forcing us into a tiny little box.

        So, we lie to man about our true desires because we didn’t want to be socially ostracized. Basically, we were behaving the way men wanted us to. You wanted the pretty lies, so we told them to you. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice, that’s merely a male fabricated fantasy of womanhood that really never existed for most of us. It’s not entirely our fault that many of you feel betrayed or lied to. We didn’t create the lies – men did. And now that feminism has pulled back the curtain you’re angry at us for finally being who we really are. Really?

        Lastly, I’m sometimes surprised that there are still men out there that continue to bury their heads in the sand about the true nature of women. Please, get a clue.

        Like


      • Exactly Liza. And then what happens is they call these “nice girls” who are over 30 ‘sluts” who rode the cock carousel all their lives and that is why they are alone etc. Its a no win. That would be like the girl who has gone after all the “hot” bad boys all her life then saying all men were users and abusers. Well yes, if those were the only men she ever sought or allowed in her life then that is all she knows. Same principle here. Just like they say its not a “nice guys” world anymore it certainly isn’t a traditional or nice girls world either. We get the short end of the stick.

        Like


      • Lisa, I don’t get angry, that may have been a long time ago, but that’s past. I adapted an merely state he obvious. I recognized the reality, drew my conclusions and built on that. I can’t complain about my lot at all.

        If anything, there is sadness that the social contract that was at the root of the success of our civilization has been broken and that does not bode well for our descendants,because barbarians with more rigid and quite dysfunctional social structures are at the gates.

        Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm Wrecked 'Em

      If you got all of “her” ex-boyfriends together in one place, they’d get up a game of touch football.

      If you got all of “his” ex-girlfriends together in one place, they’d scratch each others’ eyes out.

      This is the basic difference in the social dynamics of men and women.

      Like


  34. I can tell who the dominant calm alpha guys are in the comment section pretty well also.

    The nerds who complain about women, like in the comment section on the last post about the elevator nerd, are terrible-low in pickup terms.

    No strong dominant man will complain about a situation with a woman or in life. he will simply work around it.

    Here’s a tip for the nerds who get too caught up in feminism and their own problems with women; ACCEPT IT AND WORK AROUND IT.

    Like


  35. Anno Anon, in Australia the middle “educated” class and all those with middle class aspirations secretly hate the fact that those in the working class trades (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and all those benefiting from the Australian mining boom) have been doing so well financially in the last 10 – 15 years.

    A tertiary education is expensive and the competition to get a job can be fierce, few professions pay well from the first year in the field and the expectations of how fast they can climb up the corporate ladder/pay rate are unrealstic.

    Like


    • on July 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm old guy, lc

      Everywhere on Earth the middle “educated” class and all those with middle class aspirations secretly hate the fact that those in the working class trades, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and are doing so well financially.

      There, fixed that for you.

      My Dad was a lawyer workin’ for the government, nuthin’ funnier that when he had the plumber over to fix something and would just fume about how much the plumber was making.

      Like


      • Depends. I’m middle-class, white collar professional, as are about half my friends. The other half are middle-class, blue collar tradesmen. We “hire” each other all the time (often by trading services) and learn as much as we can from one another. No envy, no hating. As a result I’m a college professor (physics and computer science) who’s become a fair plumber and electrician and can do most minor repairs on my HVAC system – to the extent that I recently traded some plumbing “skills” for some body work on my car. Every man should have a broad pallete of skills.

        However it is key is to never, ever, EVER try to buy a girl’s affection by using these skills to “help out” around the house – a beta mistake I’ve made many times. I won’t pick up a tool for a girl I’m not sleeping with. Period. As is often the case for us recovering betas, that seems completely counter-intuitive, but it works.

        Like


  36. When it comes to women and their “sisterhood” it’s all about self-serving convenience and self interest.

    Like


    • The “sisterhood” is indeed for the most part in shambles. Finding kinship among other women is a challenge. The loyal kind where there is honest, open communication and issues are dealt with in a logical, synergistic and constructive manner (ie. without grudges which is so common for women….the scorned one applies viciousness without discrimination to gender).

      My personal experiences have been that the dependable, “true blue” female friends also happen to have had tragic pasts or many hardships that were successfully overcome. I am not talking about have a bad boyfriend once in the past while living a spoiled life in the suburbs. No. I speak of living through war, extreme poverty, extreme health problems….things the average American simply will never know or understand. Such bad experiences weed out the ones with a bad character and force one to appreciate and adhere to the qualities the are also charecteristic of a good friendship.

      Like


      • on July 17, 2011 at 3:22 am old guy, lc

        Hardship builds character in men and women. A cushy upbringing is not good for building character. Thus, the society we live in.

        Like


    • Mr.C and GG you both are so right. I don’t believe in the whole sisterhood meme so many women and feminists like to rage on about. For the most part sisterhood only exists IMO, within the small circle of female friends one finds true commonality with.

      Like


  37. on July 15, 2011 at 4:15 am Ardepithicus ramidus7888888888888888888888888888888888885555555

    “Women love to beat down other women.”

    Oh, yeah! I see this chickenshit every day. (I work in a hospital; most of my co-workers are broads.) You can add that “Sisterhood” shit to all the other feminist claptrap.

    The worst thing is some of them would pull this crap on me. They would give me grief about the pettiest garbage you can imagine. Finally, I got fed up and instead of trying to reason with the dull witted cows (Ha, ha, yes, I actually used to try to reason with them. A fool’s errand if ever there was one!) I decided to confront them. In other words: Fight the Matriarchy.

    I would do things like stare them straight in the eye and say, “Why are you giving me grief? Is this a power struggle to determine who is going to be alpha female of this troop of baboons?!” (Said with a bemused smirk on my face. Then I would laugh.)
    Works like a charm. I now realize that this is a neg, cocky-funny, and a DHV.
    Yep, Game works.

    Like


  38. What should I do if its 7pm and I want to meet women? Walk into a bar? Then what? What do I say? Do I have a reason for being there apart from meeting women? Because I’m not going to tell them thats why I’m there.

    Like


    • There are men on this forum who know far more than I do, but I am a little bit ahead of you. Here’s my advice: bars are a hard place to begin.

      I started by doing my grocery shopping at the busiest hours. I timed my approach to the checkout line so that I was behind a woman. When you are first starting out, it helps if the woman is not particularly attractive to you. I was amazed how easy it was to strike up a conversation and keep it moving. Women in lines are bored and do not have their bitch shields up. They are also not surrounded by a pack of jealous and disapproving harpies. As you get more comfortable, you can single out an attractive woman. This principle works in many venues, especially ones where women are not there for the express purpose of meeting men.

      Once you gain a little confidence in starting and maintaining conversations in casual situations, it’s easier to move on to greater challenges.

      Like


      • Thanks for your reply but you havent adressed my specific concerns. I need something to do after 7pm. And not grocery shopping.

        Like


      • Sorry I cannot be more helpful. My game is not tight enough for bars or other pick-up venues, but even as a beta with a little game, I seem to have a lot more luck in bookstores, art galleries, and other places where women do NOT go specifically to meet men. Where those places are depends on your interests. I grocery shop a lot because I love to cook. Wherever I happend to be while pursing my interests, I look for opportunities to strike up a casual conversation with women.

        Like


      • I only use bars as a form of flirtation. I much prefer women in cafes and bookstores, even the grocery store. I think it’s more alpha to be able to land a dame sober in a neutral arena than it is to do it drunk in a place where half the crowd is practically demanding sex. Nice work.

        Like


      • Very interesting perspective. I live in a small town. I get shot down immediately in bars, probably because I am not attractive and don’t have incredible game. Women in neutral venues are more likely to give me a chance because when I first speak to them, it’s not an obvious pick up. Women who frequent bookstores and go to art galleries are also classier than women who hang out at bars. I am interested in LTRs, not one-night stands.

        By the way, culinary skills impresss the hell out of women looking for an LTR. Cooking a meal for a woman can be a cheap, intimate, and impressive date.

        Like


      • I’m not superficially attractive either, anonymous, but it surely hasn’t prevented me from bedding and dating high value women. I know of quite a few (dozen?) guys who constantly try to talk me down out of envy, but that only works to increase my high value to women (and other guys). I’m short, 37, missing teeth, crooked face from too many faceplants in my alternative sports days, etc, etc, etc, but none of it matters. I still get great women in my life who take care of my needs and work hard at it.

        Bar women are not for me and never have been. I’ve dated literally ONE bar woman in my life, married her, and lost a cool million bucks in that fiasco. As Rollo Tomasi says, alpha is a state of mind, and one can lose that state quickly and fall into a beta state. It can happen in seconds to any alpha if we’re not sticking to putting our own needs and wants first, always.

        Don’t chase girls who you can’t attain yet, chase those you can and work your way up. I remember when I landed my first 9 and dated her for quite a few years. Everyone was shocked, but it became part of my personality — once I attained that level, nothing was blocked from my path ever again. Just work at it slowly, meticulously, judge your own faulty actions constantly and stop repeating mistakes. You’ll get there.

        Like


      • You’re “not superficially attractive”? Didn’t you say you weren’t fat? If so, then you’re superficially attractive, at least more so then those of us in the lardass neckbeard club.

        Like


      • Your question in somewhat location specific. Des Moines? Manhattan?

        What do you like to do? Join a group that does that. Take dance lessons. Do exercise classes. Go to book/poetry readings. Go watch a band play at a small club.

        Like


  39. Interesting information, after finding this website i realize I’ve been a beta my whole life.

    Women do not have a sisterhood, they hate each other. The women here at work constantly bitch about each other behind each others backs.

    Like


  40. @ Son of Hod

    Women have a sisterhood and they hate each other simultaneously.

    They hate the more achieving (more alfa male attracting) members of their sisterhood, yet give in to the pressure to be just like those women whom they hate.

    Women fight over control over beta men all banded together, but they fight for a beneficial disposition from an alfa men individualistically and compete among themselves.

    Like


  41. on July 15, 2011 at 8:42 am Eric Carter

    Somehow, these threads make me think of this

    Like


  42. In a moment of honesty, a (heterosexual) woman explained to me that when she dressed up to go bar hopping;

    “the cleavage was for the men, the shoes were for the women”

    Like


  43. As a woman…the worst thing in the world is when you perceive yourself to be of such low value, or are so starved for affection that male attention from anybody makes you respond emotionally. It can make one feel vulnerable and open to manipulation.

    Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 10:40 am Emma the Emo

      Happened to me once. Hung out with men I didn’t like just so that somebody would be friends with me. It worked badly, and even made me feel more lonely than just being by myself, so I don’t recommend it.

      Like


    • That’s interesting. Guys (or me anyway) feel strong emotions so rarely that we don’t realize how often women do. We usually get a better response and maintain our frame by not reacting at all. I think it’s more fun to recognize situations like these though, since it explains your behavior.

      Like


  44. on July 15, 2011 at 10:00 am a.nonny.mous

    Wow, check this out. Older widow looking for new man in her life, claims she’s realistic, then rips apart 5 betas on 5 blind dates:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2014998/Five-dates-days-I-single-fun-TOO-geriatric-man.html

    Her rationalization hampster and her sky-high solipsism is evident in every other sentence.

    Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 10:43 am Ricardo di Matteo

      Nice one, a.nonny. I read that article earlier on and immediately thought of this blog. I guess the unfortunate old bird who wrote it doesn’t realize that decent older men are either:

      1. happily married
      2. able to pick up younger chicks

      Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm Practical God

        Eh, the first 4 seem like reasonable rejections. Fat and self-absorbed. But that last one. A little boring, oh yeah, lady? Were you particularly riveting and thrilling? Perhaps, magnetic and dynamic? Sure he was a beta guy, but decent, not a lost cause. With a bit of provocation and shine, she could have had herself a match. Too bad on her.

        Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 11:46 am John Norman Howard

      Herein lies the problem, and why men will never win the war of the sexes… even this harridan sexagenarian gets inundated with offers from men… much like the obese divorcees with kids who somehow get another man to marry them within a year (saw this happen before my unbelieving eyes TWICE in a short time span, back when I lived amongst the suburban middle-class).

      [Editor: Correction: Aging wall victim harridans get offers for sex from losers. It’s a critical distinction.]

      Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 11:58 am John Norman Howard

        On a side note, I almost did a spit-take upon reading her:

        However, we women of a certain age have become so ridiculously choosy that someone who may have suited us perfectly well when we were younger is no longer good enough for us.

        Talk about living in Bizarro World!

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 12:02 pm John Norman Howard

        [Editor: Correction: Aging wall victim harridans get offers for sex from losers. It’s a critical distinction.]

        Point remains, they get the attentions of innumerable MEN… no matter how far gone they are.

        Like


      • yeah, it’s unbelievable. Since when are ANY men interested in a 60+ woman? What’s this world coming to?

        Like


  45. Don’t like dominate men at all. Neither do all women. I like assertive understated men who can still be compassionate and who have some chilvary left in their blood. I don’t understand why men feel all women like cocky dominate men who neg her and make her feel less than. Its like what kinds of women are you guys meeting who love that kind of stuff?

    I believe there is a certain kind of woman who is easily gamed and doesn’t even know it. But most of the time I believe women on top of things *ALLOW* themselves to get gamed & already know they are being gamed, choose play along for a variety of reasons. Usually its temporary and she is gettiing something short term out of it. Happens all day everyday.

    Like


    • 5 min of alpha > 5 years of beta

      Like


      • Do you think that there are actually Alpha males who are assertive vs. dominate? Ones who can still actually posess some kind of compassion towards women ad still be alpha? I’m really asking b/c i am new to this alpha, beta territory. Still trying to work through what really makes man alpha vs. beta. It would seem that not all men are he same, BUT if they fit into either of those descriptions they may possess only *some* same qualties. EX: Beta nerdy guy who musters up courage to approach women he likes vs. beta nerdy guy who never does. Alpha male who is dominate, negs, and sees women inferioir vs. alpha male who is assertive (still gets what he wants), but compassionate and level headed when it comes to women?

        Like


      • In the context of this blog:

        Alpha = gets tons of pussy, no need of LTR, or in multiple LTRs
        Beta = average guy, often in monogamous LTR
        Omega = sexual loser

        Again, only in the context of this blog. Other valuations involving moral character, honorability, etc. are not considered, only how succesful sexually speaking a man is.

        Like


      • LOL Alrighty then.

        Like


      • There are still some alpha males out there who can be compassionate and whatnot and wish to marry, but they are fewer and fewer. Why marry when it is such a dangerous proposition for them and they can get the sex for free. I don’t like it but I can’t blame them. Thank you feminism.

        Like


      • I hear you Stingray. Today there is NO incentive for men to settle down and stick with women who don’t want to have casual sex or be mistreated. This is defninitley not a traditional girls world anymore.

        Its so sad. Women have replaced the need for male attention/attraction with sex.

        Women would rather high five each other and call themselves “empowered” b/c they sleep with a billion men a month. But the women who want to *try* to at least make a man earn her sex and who do small things to try to attract men are beat down and kicked and called weak man made women.

        Soooo. Sleep with a million men a month you get a “go girl” empowered woman plaque of the month.

        Don’t sleep around, try to act feminine, dress and keep yourself looking nice you get a side eye, UPTIGHT, shallow weak man made male identified woman stamp.

        The mind boggles….

        Like


      • Bullshit.

        There is still plenty of incentive for a man to settle down if he’s too busy to date — for a million reasons. I’m not against very long term relationships or even monogamy (I’m not monogamous but I have very long term relationships). That being said, there is plenty of reason for a man to avoid long term commitment with women who are unable to provide for the man’s needs.

        Women’s empowerment movements have created the idea that man is useless for all but conception in the minds of millions of young women. It’s caused women to go out and start careers, expand education, and basically price themselves out of the dating pool entirely. Worse, when women entered the work force en masse, they increased the supply of labor which caused wages to fall; lower wages have now put a burden on non-careerist women to have to get a job so the household income is enough to get by; non-careerist women working jobs has led to household inefficiencies causing some households to need to hire additional help (nannies, housekeepers, etc) which puts more pressure on bringing in more income.

        The worst thing ever to happen to family has been the artificial empowerment of women that they can be equal to men in the financial economy — it’s created a terrible rolling stone that’s gathering speed and leading many households to economic collapse, divorce and a lifetime of suffering for all parties involved.

        For me, I prefer dating self-employed women because they DON’T want to settle down into a monogamous relationship. If I did want to take on a monogamous marriage relationship, you better believe I’d be looking for a gal 19-21, without a college degree, who was raised to understand what she can offer a hard working man and knows what she needs from that hard working man. That’s what leads to stability and solid efficiency in the home — both parties knowing their places.

        Like


      • A.D. you bring up some good points. Let me ask you though. How do you feel about the women who are not on most men’s radars, who will never be pursued by an Alpha male b/c her attractiveness level isn’t where most successful or powerful men find. Don’t you think this set up for women in the workplace, education and such works to benefit those women who will most likely not be sought after by powerful or successful men and as such have to be able to provide for and take care of herself and find some other fulfillment b/c she may not get it in the form of male companionship?

        What I am trying to point out is not all women have this privilege to wait on a male to come and lead, protect. If they are not on the list of what men normally see as “ worthy” “beautiful”, if they are not “young enough” they understand that independence is crucial and necessary for her survival.

        Like


      • One of my side projects/incomes is helping guys become men — helping them lose weight, find their confidence, and start businesses eventually. I have yet to meet a guy who can’t go from a 36 waist to a 30 waist in 6-12 months.

        A side effect has been that their significant others who follow the program also lose weight. A few of my Facebook fans (women and men) have also lost significant poundage (40# is easy) in 6-12 months. You know what the effect is on women who are overweight and are 4s? They jump up, a lot. I’ve seen some 7s hiding behind 60# that make them 3s or 4s. There’s no excuse to not work on the things you can fix.

        If she’s not so pretty in the face, $300 at a high end beauty salon can get her a great haircut and makeup routine that can make her superficially pretty/prettier. Again, no excuse not to take advantage of the woman’s option for makeup.

        I would even go so far as to say that 40% of ugly women can be pretty, and 10% of them can be gorgeous — I’ve seen that 10% and it’s mindblowing what a little bit of self control can do.

        The rest is internal, but once they taste the “freedom” of power and individuality, few women will ever be worthy of wifedom or girlfriend status or even F&R.

        Like


      • neeecy, why do you think that an alpha isn’t compassionate?

        One of the rules of being a man is to offer a sense of compassion and emotional bonding to women who show it doubly so. I have no problem telling one of my dames that I appreciate her, but I don’t do it unless she’s already done it a lot more. That’s not because I’m not emotionally tied, it’s because showing too much emotion is the same as showing overeagerness, and ALL women need to feel special by knowing her guy is desirable in the dating market. By being too eager, her inner brain (hamster) all of a sudden starts questioning if he is a good judge of women, and if he is a desirable mate for other women. End of relationship in 3…2…1…

        An alpha doesn’t have to neg one bit. I have one long term relationship (18 months so far) where I haven’t negged her more than a handful of times, and usually over her own shit tests. For most alphas that I know, the neg is most useful in bringing down a typical woman’s anti-man defenses when we first meet. After that, knowing how to properly respond to a woman’s shit testing is more important than negging.

        Like


      • I say compassionate bc sometimes when reading the blog and posts I get the idea that to be an Alpha means to basically make women feel they are “less than” b/c she likes it. To me a compassionate man understands women are already in the non dominate position, so its like “why kick someone when they are already down” kind of thing.

        Like


      • Again, I think we agree completely.

        When a man introduces himself to a female, her standard barrier is up instantly. It could be an anti-slut defense barrier, or it could be a “who are you to talk to me?” barrier. Whatever that barrier is, compassion has no part of it. A man has literally 8 minutes to decide if a woman is worth more time, and a woman will decide in less than that if she wants him pursuing her.

        When a relationship goes beyond the superficial, be it 2 dates, weeks or months, a man can introduce compassion in direct ratio to the woman’s outward compassion for the man. A good woman will externally appreciate the man’s leadership ability, she’ll internally appreciate his ability to block her shit tests, she’ll keep herself looking good for him, and she’ll show plenty of physical attention, be it the hand on his forearm or play in the bedroom. When she’s proven herself a worthwhile companion, compassion WILL be shown from him to her.

        I would never kick someone when they’re down, but you better believe I will lay the fire of heaven down on a female who thinks she’s superior and throws shit test after shit test. Some females need to be reminded that they’re not all that — and in a few years, or a few pounds or a few wrinkles or a few grey hairs, she’ll think back to the guy who predicted her downfall.*

        * I actually don’t mind years, wrinkles or grey hairs, but the pounds get me off at the relationship highway’s next exit.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 12:47 pm And Balls...

        It’s “dominant.” And, with respect to the distinction between alphas and betas, ask yourself one question: “Does this man cause a stirring in my loins?” If yes, then he’s alpha to YOU. Since you’re an amoral solipsist, that’s all that matters.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm Emma the Emo

        No, he’s still objectively whatever he is (alpha, beta, whatever), even if she is attracted to him. He’s an alpha if he’s getting a lot of women (or can get them), and he’s not alpha if he doesn’t, even if she’s attracted to him.

        Like


      • I think a lot of your confusion is just semantics. Assertive is dominant. What you probably object to is the so called domineering person, the guy (often childish) who needs to demonstrate his superiority or dominance over others. The truly superior man doesn’t need to brag or domineer. His skills and accomplishments are obvious.

        If you look at CH’s original posting it defines alpha and dominant in many ways. The technical expert who walks into the room and tells everyone how to fix their problem is dominant. The guy who gets up in front of hundreds and gives a passionate speech is also dominant. I bet you’d like those kind of guys, in which case you do in fact like dominance.

        Like


      • on July 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm Practical God

        That’s like saying A is A. EVERYONE likes that. That’s how the saying goes. You either want that guy or you want to be that guy. There is no gender distinction there. Whether you’re a guy or a girl, unless you are a bitter, envious shit, you will enjoy being around a capable person.

        Like


      • “The technical expert who walks into the room and tells everyone how to fix their problem is dominant. The guy who gets up in front of hundreds and gives a passionate speech is also dominant. I bet you’d like those kind of guys, in which case you do in fact like dominance.”

        Yes you are right, those kinds of men I find attractive. I would have deemed those men “Assertive”. But in many cases you’re right dominace and assertiveness are one in the same. What i was grappling with was how I felt dominance was being defined. I my eyes, i read it as an as overly aggressive, cocky male looking to get women by making her feel inferior by telling her negative things about herself..

        Like


      • In all human interactions (not just romantic or sexual) you can demonstrate your dominance though your own qualities as a superior man compared to others (more confidence, more power, more wisdom, more influence, more money) or you can express dominance through bringing others down. They both work. I prefer using the former but am not adverse to the latter, if the situation requires it.

        For example, if you’re dealing with a know it all A-hole, bringing him down a peg through your superior knowledge and reasoning can be a good thing. Same thing with some women. But if you can make your mark by proving yourself, rather than disproving others, that’s the best of all worlds.

        Like


      • I think the description of “taking a person now a peg” is one I can get with. Maybe negging should be called pegging? lol

        I can see if a woman is being possibly very cocky or somewhat rude or standoffish (b/c she knows she is very attractive) how taking her down a peg may be necessary for her to recognize she isn’t “all that” (even though physically she may be).

        Like


    • game works on 99% of women. i wouldn’t say 100%, because i don’t believe anything in life is 100% guaranteed except death.

      we don’t care about that last 1%.

      Like


    • Neeecy, I am naturally the kind of man you describe: assertive but not overly aggressive, compassionate and chivalrous. This got me nowhere with women.

      After reading this blog, I started practicing a little game (mild negs, a few qualifiers, etc.), and I found that just a little game works wonders with women.
      This is the way women are, not the way I would like for them to be.

      Pardon me for stooping to the level of giving a personal story and then generalizing from it, but I know you like this kind of reasoning.

      Like


      • Wow. Okay. Its always good to hear it from a level headed man b/c to me its more credible. It seems what you are saying is women actually like mild forms of “abuse” (i.e. negs IMO are mild forms of abuse – i can’t think of a lesser term to use than abuse) more than extreme forms of flattery and chilvary.

        Could this be “certain” kinds of women only. I have a feeling that the men here typically go for certain kind sof women who possess the same qualities, thus feeling as if all women are like that. I’m trying to figure out if this is suddenly cultural vs. innate. It seems women of the past adored chilvaric (is that a word) males while a minority of women liked the bad boys. Today its the opposite.

        Like


      • It’s not specifically “certain” kinds of women — it’s an important test for men to make sure that they’re dealing with women who want a natural leader and not a puppy dog doormat.

        I use the same attitude with the ladies I date, my mother, my sister, my aunts and female cousins, my female clients, etc. The minute a male allows himself to get pushed around, the women lose subconscious respect. If it’s a woman they’re sexually involved in, that loss of respect will eventually lead to the relationship’s demise.

        Now of course there is a certain type of female (I am loathe to call it a woman) that prefers doormat guys they can boss around. No real man wants to give up control over his life, so we test women we meet to make sure we’re not getting involved in a relationship with any sort of power struggle. The guys here typically harp on female lawyers, Women’s Studies Ph.D students, etc — powermonger females are terrible girlfriends, lovers, wives, etc.

        No good woman adores chivalry, what she adores is a man who knows what he wants and isn’t afraid to get it. Chivalry is a fairy tale myth created by decades of men who capitulated to the new found power of women in the economy. Those assholes kowtowed to women, lost their sense of masculinity, and provided doormat experiences for women that women today say they “miss.”

        I won’t let a female tell me what to do. I won’t let a female control me. I won’t let a female have expectations that she is to lead in any area of our relationship. Because of this, I have females in my life (friends, lovers, family, clients) who respect me, cherish me, and don’t want to give me up.

        Like


      • Great explanation AD. It makes sense. I do believe there is also a woman that likes total control and wants to boss men around in relationships (see the Millionaire women on Millionare matchmaker – EGADS! SUUUPer masculine!). Usually this woman is extremely successful in her career & has to possess some forms of masculine energy to get ahead, but hasn’t figured out how to turn off that need for control and competiveness in a relationship. They haven’t figured out The things that work in the boardroom are not the things that work in the bedroom.

        most sane emotionally stable women do want a man to lead and who is assertive and for some dominate. But there are still women who feel that men can lead, be assertive and still be charming and compassionate while not being a wuss.

        My opinion is a woman being submissive to a man is a privilege extended to men who have proven they can handle that kind of control. When you meet one it can be quite relaxing bc you know you don’t have to worry about anything b/c he’s going to take care of things.

        I’m a girl who likes nice guys who are ASSERTIVE and smart. I feel safe in letting them lead. But if they don’t muster up the courage to even speak or go after a woman they want, I translate that they will have those same issues in other areas of their lives – which isn’t a good thing.

        Like


      • neeecy: Usually this woman is extremely successful in her career & has to possess some forms of masculine energy to get ahead, but hasn’t figured out how to turn off that need for control and competiveness in a relationship.

        And she won’t. Maybe it’s hormonal (high testosterone females?), maybe it’s childhood abuse of some kind, but whatever caused her to get to the point of power is something that can not be changed. There might be rare stories of a powerful woman who gave it all up and became the endearing and appreciative housewife, but I’ve never heard of one, nor have I experienced it.

        most sane emotionally stable women do want a man to lead and who is assertive and for some dominate. But there are still women who feel that men can lead, be assertive and still be charming and compassionate while not being a wuss.

        Again, a real man, the alpha, is both charming and compassionate, but what you’re missing again is that a good man knows when a woman needs compassion (internally) versus when a woman’s inner brain is making her outer brain pretend to need compassion in order to test the man for doormatism. Women have two brains, men have one. When women talk (their outer brains), a good alpha man understands what her inner brain is seeking: is she testing him, or does she actually have a need of him?

        My opinion is a woman being submissive to a man is a privilege extended to men who have proven they can handle that kind of control. When you meet one it can be quite relaxing bc you know you don’t have to worry about anything b/c he’s going to take care of things.

        This is spot on. When I take a woman out to dinner (rare, but it happens), I am the one who does the ordering. One menu per table, and what I order is what gets eaten. I pick where we go and when. I decide on if we’re drinking and how fast we order the next round. I have never had a woman of any amount of power or fame complain about this, and ‘d say the vast majority actually give me compliments on not having to think about what is going to happen. I’m a leader, I make decisions, and I make life fun for the women who have too many responsibilities in their lives already.

        I’m a girl who likes nice guys who are ASSERTIVE and smart. I feel safe in letting them lead. But if they don’t muster up the courage to even speak or go after a woman they want, I translate that they will have those same issues in other areas of their lives – which isn’t a good thing.</I.

        Don't say nice guys, say non-manipulative guys. Many "nice" guys who aren't assertive are manipulators. Many "bad" boys who just want to fuck and run are also manipulators. I won't disparage either, but they both manipulate to get what they want, and I don't do that. My time is too valuable to invest in short term relationships of any kind, be it sexual, familial, platonic or financial. I'm NOT a nice guy, but I don't manipulate anyone for any reason.

        Like


      • I was very uncomfortable delivering negs to a woman. It went against my upbring and sensiblities. It still does not come naturally to me, but I realize that women respond positively to negs. If they are thinking less of themselves, it seems to be on a subconscious level; on a conscious level, they think more highly of me.

        I can assure you that game works even for highly educated women who should know better. I am willing to go for a significantly less attractive woman if she has excellent personality and character. A woman’s intelligence matters to me. Game works for them, even though it has to be carefully adjusted and calibrated for this particular demographic.

        There may be a few women who do not demand game. I suspect they marry at young age and stay married. I know a few women who, I think, fall into this category.

        I would prefer to live in a world where game was not required to meet and date women. Dating should not be this combative and difficult, but it is. I have to deal with reality.

        Like


      • Anonymous: It’s extremely important that guys understand what a neg is. I’m sure you understand it, but just in case you or others don’t…

        Too often, guys I meet (especially people who just read The Game or some other PUA book) think a neg is to make a disparaging comment about a woman. That’s really far from the reality. A neg is a comment that the woman thinks the man thinks is a compliment, but points to a flaw that she knows exists (or just realized might exist). We’re complimenting women in a manly way, but the compliment is double-edged and she will likely (hopefully) take it as the opposite and focus on that flaw and how it might lower her value in the market you’re discussing.

        I use negs with female clients, but they’re not disparaging. I recently said “I know how it is to be a new business owner, you always have to be perfect.” That’s a neg. I use negs with female family members, too: “Don’t worry, there’s plenty of guys who aren’t looking for 20 year olds.” Those can be construed as a compliment from me, but cause the woman to rethink their social status and bring themselves down a notch or ten.

        Like


      • Excellent point! I’m always looking for good negs. People frequently throw around the term without giving good examples. Recently someone posted, “Tough day?” which sounds sympathetic but also makes a woman question her appearance. I’ve used that one before.

        Like


      • Because of the uptick in PUA traffic (I don’t consider myself a PUA, ever), a lot of alphas are unwilling to share their negs and other actions because a good one can immediately be discounted by the scenesters doing it wrong. In Strauss’ tome, he talks about the entire town using his actions and women calling him out on it.

        For me, I’m a natural negger. I’ve always “known” that it’s better to come off as a guy who puts his foot in his mouth than a man who kowtows and begs and offers idiotically false compliments. None of my negs are derogatory or disparaging, though — I don’t even call them negs. I prefer calling them ambicomps (ambivalent compliments), but that term never stuck.

        Like


      • Anon. I understand and I guess it is what it is? Its true dating unfortunatley today is just not so simple. lol. Its literally like having an easy job where your superior gives you a lot of “busy work” to make it seem more than what should be. lol

        Like


      • Trying to meet people takes too much time. That’s why I try to meet people while doing activities I already enjoy. It gets me out there, makes me more interesting and occasionally successful.

        There still more misses than hits, more failures than successes, but I am learning. I just don’t care as much as I used to, and that attitude seems to help.

        Like


      • neeecy: Dating is easy when a person knows what they’re good at providing, and what they truly need specifically in every area of their lives. When it’s obvious you can’t get any needs fulfilled by a relationship, you bail. I’m “non-monogamous” so I am able to get SOME needs filled by many, rather than ALL needs filled by one.

        Anon: Focus on what you’re “missing” and then when you date, break it off before they do when it is obvious they can do nothing for you, or they expect too much from you. Dating is easier when you put your needs first.

        Like


      • Yes. Unfortunatley it takes people some time to figure this out. For me, I hate dating. I’d rather not date then go through a bunch of “dates from hell” to meet someone. The vetting can be a task as well. It also seems many men (at least the ones I meet) feel sex should be something done fairly early in the dating phase and that’s irritating. That’s why I’m trying online dating b/c at least you can do most of your vetting and qualifying before hand as well the other person can do the same. We’ll see what happens.

        Like


  46. Anybody else pick up on this part of the abstract: “We analyse the pathways by which male status begets reproductive success in a small-scale, Amerindian society.”

    The last four words mean it might not be generalizable to other cultures – especially as looking the paper only used a total of 87 participants recruited from two villages.

    I agree that like other animals, humans have mating patterns, but I don’t think we can use this study to generalise too much.

    Like


    • I cannot prove it scientifically, but the title implies a study of this sort is overly wonkish.

      Like


  47. I’ve been through three years of law school and its interesting how this all works. Whether for relationships or for hookups, attractive women all prefer guys who are socially adept and well-liked above all else. It also helps to be high in the class and have honors, because smarts help in getting a law job. So it comes down to, in this kind of social circle game, be somebody she can look up to.

    I can use game on women decently well. My problem has always been dominance/respect among other guys. I don’t have that many close guy friends, and the ones I do have I don’t know that I can always trust. It’s a huge problem in my life because while I can pick up a girl for a night, that gets tiring. Eventually, you want the cute girlfriend you can depend on and the confidence that goes along with that. But when you’re not socially dominant, that’s almost impossible to achieve, and it’s a vicious cycle.

    Like


    • Don’t use women in law school as any sort of example, Jack. Women in law school, or women lawyers, are good for one thing: disposable scrub.

      You said It also helps to be high in the class and have honors, because smarts help in getting a law job. So it comes down to, in this kind of social circle game, be somebody she can look up to. Sure, that’s because those women are already control freaks and their inner brains need a man who is higher on the social ladder than they are. Once those students become lawyers, 99% of men in society are useless to them.

      Like


      • Nevertheless, being a lawyer myself, it poses a problem for me in that I can’t even get “disposable scrub” from these women while other guys can.

        And female lawyers and law students aren’t that different from other upper middle class educated urban American women.

        Like


      • I’d say that half the gals I date are upper middle or upper class, most are educated at the BS level. Few are urban (I prefer suburban girls), none are lawyers. I detest female lawyers 100% of the time (although I did ask out the District Attorney in a recent case against me).

        Why don’t you exit stage left and work on women who AREN’T in your program? Gals in bars and cafes would get really hot for a guy about to take the bar — plus you can feign busyness easily to keep their interest hot.

        Like


      • I do date other women. Non-lawyer women, and all else being equal I prefer them too, though I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. But my point was that I need more social dominance to get attractive women, whether in my occupation OR outside of it. Sure I can get a date, but longer-term, women want to know that you’re well-respected and have lots of friends.

        Many people have paired up in my law school. No doubt it helps any man’s reputation when people know he’s banging an attractive girl. That’s the kind of social proof I want.

        Like


      • A few things that I’ve given men for a fee that really seem to help:

        1. Lose a lot of body fat. I do the Primal Blueprint and a paleo upgrade called Archevore. Easy as pie (but no pie to eat).

        2. When entering a room, own the room by having that once-over look-around. Make and hold eye contact with any woman who offers her eyes first.

        3. Always be playful and flirtatious with other women if you’re with a woman (friends or otherwise).

        It doesn’t matter if you’re a pretty boy or a troll, if you’re short or tall, if you’re rich or poor. These 3 things make you desirable to more women all of the time.

        Like


    • Don’t ever get involved with a female lawyer as a long-term matter. Bad news. Seriously.

      Like


  48. The natural beta is fundamentally feminized; I don’t mean that in terms of appearance or physical demeanor, though such factors are affected as well. An emotional and psychological feminization that was previously limited to smaller number of beta-losers has now spread to afflict vast majorities of the male population, especially in economically developed countries such as the United States and its European counterparts. It is worthwhile to explore the deeper facets of this new ‘feminized’ state of men.

    Firstly, there is heightened emotional sensitivity. Natural betas are unable to take criticism or anger or mockery, etc. without a strong emotional response; this is, historically speaking, the province of women. Men have been usually been expected to maintain their emotional composure under all circumstances, a sign of strength and essential to masculinity. This has changed drastically. Walk down the street and throw an insult at some guy. Instead of laughing at or simply ignoring the perpetrator, he will either feel sad/emotionally low, or become consumed with anger (the latter response is more likely in lesser alphas; nearly all natural betas will feel just feel sad and not do anything beyond that). This kind of emotional response is further exacerbated by nearly constant state of anxiety—-fear of what people think of them, what people will say.

    Such psychology is only amplified in the beta’s interactions with women. He fears her perception of him, and is hurt if and when she speaks lowly of him. In basic emotional terms, then, there has been a turning of tides. Instead of men carrying psychological strength over women—-that is, maintaining their emotional composure—-women (the beautiful ones at least) now carry it over men. This is the betaization of the American man.

    Like


    • Optimistically launching from your point; I do believe that the betaization of the American man can, however, be significantly reversed with game – ‘fake it til you make it.’

      As has been stated oftimes here before, a natural beta will still be a beta, but through game he might just might be able to reach the lesser alphatudes.

      Like


    • Great analysis. All fixed by adjusting internal psychological geometry.

      Like


  49. “Power is a catch-all word encompassing the variety of dominance displaying avenues that men pursue to attract women. Large men who can beat other men in fights are dominant. Captains of industry are dominant. Men who demonstrate artistic talent that wins accolades from others are dominant. Musicians who wow audiences are dominant. Preachers who captivate whole congregations are dominant. Men with enough social savvy to win friends and influence people are dominant. Men who are deferred to for their expertise are dominant.”

    One of the better posts because is reminds us that dominance is expressed in many ways.

    Like


    • on July 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm Practical God

      As I have pointed out above, everyone (except for bitter envious shits) likes a winner. It’s not just the women.

      Like


  50. on July 15, 2011 at 1:38 pm Rollo Tomassi

    Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic.

    Like


  51. Women “prefer” beta males.

    They “want” alpha males.

    Like


  52. Can you post all your maxims on one page somewhere? I know your commandments are, but didn’t see a page for the maxims.

    P.S. Write a book so I can give it to my kid.

    Like


  53. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh872c7sOpc7P8OXh0

    The Truth Will Make You Free… I live in reality… Where do YOU live…?

    Like


  54. There is an interesting sub-story in the recent Bridesmaids movie where the main character is the willing fucktoy of a wealthy Alpha that of course is made out to be an arrogant douchebag.

    At one point after getting in trouble she calls him to “save her” from a predicament and only after he outdouches himslef does he come to her senses and realise what a stupid bitch she has been.

    He kicks her out of the car and his parting insult.

    ….. ” You are no longer my third “

    Like


  55. […] – “Potential Rapist Syndrome“, “Women Prefer Dominant Men: You Don’t Say!“, “Cutter […]

    Like


  56. I should have posted this here not on the other thread 🙂

    Lets start with why some women try to make men more feminine (bitches, feminists, narcissist ones etc ):
    The whole thing has to do with women who have been abused, have daddy issues or other sorts of problems with men in their past. But mostly parental issues.
    So in their attempt to deal with their own problems from the past, they relive the script and try to fix it, like make men more feminine or play a victim role in order to get compassion then suck men into their world of “little scared bunny” in an attempt to overpower them so they don’t be a “threat ” anymore.
    A healthy woman has nothing to fear in a man, she likes sex and don’t expect a man to marry her immediately, which is stupid by itself. She is not desperate.
    Desperate women and men too, get into whole bunch of troubles in relationships. And they wine like this:
    “I gave you my pussy/i gave you my small dick, and you are not going to stay with me forever and give me the love i lack in childhood ! ”

    And finally, biggest mistake in life (regarding relationships) is to look for someone to save you or fix your problems, eg. to complete you.
    Let me explain.
    Healthy strong women look for healthy strong men (true alpha) to stay with them for life.
    Women with deep issues want Alpha males too, but for different reasons, usually to be their daddy, but Alphas don’t want them for life, real one not even for sex.
    The only “Alphas” that want them are the ones who also have “issues” themselves, and the girl gets hurt again and the vicious circle continues.
    So until a person heals itself, the same persons cannot attract what she really needs.
    I hope you understand this.
    Most of the people on this blog are not Alphas, they try to learn to be one because for everyone dating sucked at some point in life and they want to change this. This is also good because in the process they will learn to be better Men and learning always brings progress.

    The priority of a true Alpha male is not looking for pussy ( he is attracting them by nature), it’s fighting the world for his ideals. But deep down he knows he will settle for The One. A woman that will hopefully give him children and stay by his side and sooth his wounds when he comes home from battling the world to make it better place to be.

    Like


  57. Science has proven yet another Heartsie concept. To wit: dominant poses make men less resistant to pain.

    “While most people will crawl up into a ball when they are in pain, Bohn’s and Wiltermuth’s research suggests that one should do the opposite. In fact, their research suggests that curling up into a ball may make the experience more painful because it will make you feel like you have no control over your circumstances, which may in turn intensify your anticipation of the pain. Instead, try sitting or standing up straight, pushing your chest out and expanding your body. These behaviors can help create a sense of power and control that may in turn make the procedure more tolerable. Based on previous research, adopting a powerful, expansive posture rather than constricting your body, may also lead to elevated testosterone, which is associated with increased pain tolerance, and decreased cortisol, which may make the experience less stressful.”

    http://tinyurl.com/3hjt7s2

    So remember guys. Whether you get your wisdom teeth yanked out, take a tumble down the stairs or find yourself with a knife in your stomach; keep your chin up and shoulders back at all times. It may just be the best way to mitagate pain. Also, if you read the article you’ll see that keeping a dominant pose will help you forget about bitch of an ex-girlfriend that shamelessly dumped you. Indeed, it may just get her running back to you.

    Like


  58. wasn’t sure where to put it, but here’s a precious and deluded post from the comments/tweet about the men marrying younger women and having more children –
    “As a woman who has for the last 20 years, dated men younger than me 10 years, 13 years younger respectively, I find that men who were my age (from 32-to now 45) were always too busy having fun and just being absolute players did not want a serious relationship when they were younger then when they hit their late 30’s to mid 40’s they all of the sudden want children. Well a woman does not WANT to have children in her 40’s so men Will go for the younger women. That makes sense if you look at it in a scientific aspect. So be it. I had my children in my 20’s (with a man of the same age) and am glad. I would have wanted to have them with an older more established and settled older man, because it would most likely be a more stable environment for the kids. This study makes sense to me. When women get older, they might not want the “stable” relaitonship and want to date the younger men who are turned on by older women. It has probably been happening since time began. Older men younger women, Older women and younger men. It might be instinct. It just sometimes makes sense. Just nature, pure, simple and uninformed!”

    – ah, rationalize why men don’t marry old ass women past their prime, it’s surely ONLY b/c young women can have kids. what a joke.

    Like


  59. This blog is ludicrous and will best suit the artless, uncultured worshippers of television & male-centered mediocrity. Everything my parents taught me and my friendship with females (for the whole person, they ARE people too) taught me demonstrates the opposite of this blog is true. What people will learn from this dribble is how to be a jerk. By the way, instead of putting on a front, why not BE YOUR SELF? What? Are you so accustomed to hiding behind a mask since high school you don’t even know where to start?
    This blog is so flagrantly and obviously false it is probably part of a government-funded study in population control.
    Instead of following this blog’s “advice” and taking us back to dark age barbarism, why not listen to Mahler or read some Adorno, or at least Edgar Allen Poe and teach yourselves there is more to being (American) men than thinking with your penis!
    Slaves!
    Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Babbitt: may art be your Salvation! Reference Schopenhauer!

    Like