Study Proves The Validity Of Game

A reader (a Ph.D. scientist, for those of you who yearn to believe only d-bags read about and practice game) writes:

…it is a delight to understand what motivates women and how to make sense of various factors and my previous dating life.   Your continuing incisive reporting has helped my understanding tremendously.

He attached a link to a study confirming YET ANOTHER essential game concept — that men’s attractiveness to women, at least in the early rounds of meeting, is based as much on, and perhaps more on (if you expand the criteria list to include all modifiable male attractiveness traits), their attitude and sociosexual-related personality dimensions (i.e., their game) as on their looks. Taking the usual caveats about speed dating studies into consideration (which the authors discuss), you really should read the entire paper, because there is so much in there that confirms just about every Chateau maxim in the whole.

men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness (see Table 3)…

Interestingly, there is evidence that all these [male attractiveness attributes] can be accurately judged in short periods of time…

However, only sociosexuality added incremental predictive power over and above physical attributes in the current study. Unexpected was that sociosexuality emerged as a relative powerful predictor of men’s popularity to women, particularly because women largely expressed a long-term mating interest. A possible explanation is that male sociosexuality indicates a history of successful mating experience or mating skills that are attractive to women.

Sociosexuality is basically a psychological term that, in this context, defines the personality and temperamental characteristics of a man who has game, and encompasses such time-tested game concepts as preselection, confidence, assertiveness, cockiness and, well, pretty much everything listed in the 16 Commandments of Poon at the top of this blog.

Game is notoriously difficult to measure scientifically in the field, so sociosexuality serves as a comparable substitute for measuring the traits that are common in men who are good with women. Think of sociosexuality as more of an indrect indicator of overall game proficiency, rather than as a measurement of familiarity with specific game tactics.

The takeaway lesson of this study is a powerful one: women, sluts and saints alike, are really attracted to men with high sociosexuality, otherwise known as game/charisma/chemistry.

This is about as close to scientific proof of the effectiveness of overarching game proficiency to mating success as I’ve yet seen in the literature. To be sure, there are plenty of studies confirming the efficacy of specific and narrowly-defined game tactics, but not many that have found a positive correlation between men who embody game as a personality trait and their success with women. This is why I think the study’s authors were a bit surprised by their results pointing to sociosexuality as a major player in male attractiveness.

What other stone cold but soft on the inside Heartiste truths are buttressed by this study?

– Older men have higher sexual market value, while older women have lower SMV. This is reflected in their choosiness. Older men are like aged single malt scotch; they command a higher price. Older women are like milk; they hit their expiration fast and no one wants them:

As Figure 1 shows, men’s choosiness increased and women’s choosiness decreased with increasing age. […] The higher choosiness of women that is ubiquitous in studies of young adults decreased and even tended to reverse for older women.

– The 463 bullet point checklist that women carry in their heads when they meet a man is true and relevant:

[…] females based their choices on more criteria than men did…

– Women had best be hot or they aren’t getting much attention from men with choices:

[F]or women only facial attractiveness [increased the frequency of matches]…

– The higher your sexual market value, the choosier you are (and this goes for men as well as women, although, surprisingly, it seems to be more true for men at the very right tail of the SMV curve, possibly because very high mate value males are rarer than very high mate value females):

As expected, many of the attributes that made individuals attractive were negatively related to the frequency of choices (see Table 3), and thus positively related to choosiness (Hypothesis 2a).

– Being a niceguy is a tingle killer (or, at best, a non-tingle generator), as is having nerdy or beta traits like shyness and conscientiousness. (In contrast, shyness in women is not a bad thing for them.):

The expected negative effect of shyness was also confirmed but reached significance only for men. As expected by Hypothesis 1a, agreeableness had no effect on being chosen by either sex.

– Women are the choosier sex, but men exercise choice as well:

On average, male participants were chosen by 3.6 females (32% of their 11.2 dating partners), female participants were chosen by 4.1 males (37% of their dating partners).

– Men are more interested in short term mating opportunities than are women:

Confirming hypothesis H4b, the sex by interest interaction was due to the fact that men reported more short-term interest than women… and this effect was due to a higher variance of short-term interest in men than in women.

– The icy hell of LJBF banishment is real, beta orbiting and sycophancy will not get you sex, pushing for sex sooner rather than later is a better pickup strategy, and acting like a beta provider who wants a relationship will have no effect on women’s interest in you for either sex or LTRs:

As Table 4 indicates, Hypothesis 4d was fully confirmed. Women had a preference for having sex with men who pursued more a short-term mating tactics but did not tend to develop a romantic relationship with them, whereas the long-term interest of men did not influence women’s mating or relating.

– Game, and other attraction triggers, work on all kinds of women, even women who are very dissimilar to you:

Together, these findings suggest that similarity effects are weak in studies of brief real dating interactions.

– Men really do prefer to invest more in women who aren’t slutty:

Conversely, men had a preference for relating with women who pursued more a long-term mating tactics but did not tend to have sex with them…

Ignoramuses (paging Amanda Marcotte) who think evolutionary psychology doesn’t tell us anything useful about male-female mating and relationship dynamics will blow an aortic valve if they stumble across this post.

Our analyses were based on numerous evolutionarily informed hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses were confirmed and were consistent with earlier dating studies, lending further support to evolutionary accounts of human dating, mating and relating.

I can just hear the wailing and see the rending of garments of all the anti-game haters and feminists reading this study. May your suffering burden you this holiday season with the cursed tidings of a full-blown mental breakdown!





Comments


  1. “May your suffering burden you this holiday season with the cursed tidings of a full-blown mental breakdown!”

    Amen.

    Like


  2. These are psychologists from serious Universities. No polytechnic departments of feminist studies here. As I have commented previously, I am 60 and it is a lot easier than when I was 25 to find a woman. In my case I mean women 30-40 years old, the Balzac age. Under 25 year olds are age sensitive and completely hare brained anyway. Older gets better if you get better with it. You have demonstrated your evolutionary fitness or not demonstrated it (in which case I guess its tough).

    Like


    • I’d like to know what game techniques are working best for you. I’m also past the half-century mark and targeting 30-40; it would be nice to compare notes. Not that I have much in way of results.

      Like


    • I am over 25. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be seen with a man 20-30 years my senior. There is a certain “ew” factor. 10 years older wouldn’t be a problem for me, though.

      Like


      • You protest too much. I betcha you would suck off George Clooney in a heartbeat.

        Like


      • With young girls, I always quickly screen for ew! by steering the conversation in the direction of which male movie stars are hot. If she says Clooney is hot / sophisticated / handsome straight up, she’s basically good to go. If Clooney is old, but OK anyway since he’s a star blah, blah, she’s just playing hard to get. If she seems genuinely disgusted by the thought of the guy, well….. I guess even the Cloonster can’t win’em all.

        Like


      • George Clooney is a very well preserved 50, not 60. And 99% of men do not look like him when they are his age.

        Like


      • You said you were over 25, not over 30. 30+20=50. You also didn’t say the man can’t “look” 20 years your senior, you said “be” 20 years your senior.

        Basically your words can’t be trusted.

        Like


      • Hilarious!

        1) Woman presents condition she states is necessary for a male

        2) High-value male is made available (in theory only, alas)

        3) Woman immediately backtracks on 1)

        Happens every time.

        Like


      • Evil hits the nail on the head. Women never check ID and there’s nothing illegal about having photoshopped docs lying about your home. I’m not even sure it’s illegal to show a hotel receptionist a fake ID and it would be cool to see a citizen nail down that it’s illegal for a cop to blurt out to car passengers what he or she reads on a valid license after a traffic stop.

        Like


    • on November 17, 2011 at 5:57 pm MayaProvesOnceAgainSheHatesMen

      What?! You think you can get a 30 year old woman?! I really get angry when 60 year olds are hitting on me, thinking they have chances (?!) … It disgusts me. And I feel like my SMV is zero.

      Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 6:06 pm MayaHatesTheMalePenis

        “MayaProvesOnceAgainSheHatesMen”

        Can you now stop with this? I said I’m disgusted by old men hitting on me. I don’t hate anyone.

        [Heartiste: I will not stop until you stop hating men. ps you’re getting up there. 60yo is not going to be too old for you much longer.]

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 6:23 pm MayaHatesWordsThatSoundLikePeen

        Fuck. You’re right. That’s scary … I’ll have to marry a 60 year old and than he will die at 80 (he’ll live a little longer because old men with young wives live a bit longer) and I will be a lonely widow (cougar?) for the next half a century …

        [Heartiste: Well, it beats never having been with someone.]

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm MayaHatesTestesOneAndTwo

        It does. But do you think that after my SMV falls further I’ll become attracted to men who now disgust me? The study says so … I mean, that women become less and less choosy by age …

        [Heartiste: You just need to meet the right 60 year old man.]

        Like


      • MayaHasOrgasmsEachTimeSheCatchesTheEditorsAttention

        Like


      • Mercy, Maya. You are trapped in his frame and clawing yourself to death. Stop waiting for the white knight to deliver you from your cage. Adopt a joyful attitude and the behavior will follow, and then the joy will follow from that. Interrupt the vicious cycle with an act of will.

        You are the definition of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

        Try a variation of “I may be fat, but you’re ugly, and I can diet.” Diet the mental baggage away. You have the most important prerequisite to self-improvement: a brutally honest and fearless self-assessment. But you are using that assessment to reinforce your despair rather than the great advantages a 29-year-old woman still retains.

        Report to us specifics about your circumstance rather than these generalized kitten-groans at the tragedy of your existence. You are healthy, you are alive, you are thin (are you?). You are busy dying — frittering away your last moments of youth on sorrow — when you should be busy living. Trust that some of us will do our best to give you good advice, despite your annoying style and frustrating pig-headedness.

        How have you been lately maneuvering yourself to improve your condition?

        Acknowledge your tendency for masochism and liberate yourself from it. Despair is a choice, and you are choosing it lustily. Nobody around here, or anywhere, is going to feel sorry for you any more than they feel sorry for a drunk. But some here will give you the tough love you need to rise out of the self-created slough of despond in which you are entirely too happy to be drowning.

        Embracing your morbid attitude leads to a kind of serenity, but that serenity tempts you to stasis. Your first task is to recognize that serenity as the peace of death, and to reject it, and to focus on encountering the pains (and pleasures) of life.

        Who was the last man you seriously flirted with? (Besides Heartiste.)

        Like


      • now, that’s enough. more than enough. leave maya alone.

        [Heartiste: Leave Britney alone!]

        isn’t it clear to even the most brain-dead of men here (hello, heartiste)

        [Hey now, that’s no way to win friends and influence people.]

        that maya’s going thru a tough time? jeez… you guys remind me of boys pulling wings off flies.

        [Ain’t I a stinker?]

        you ought to be ashamed.

        [I hang my head low for I am burdened, burdened I say, by this monstrous dong which swings like chimpanzee between my legs.]

        it’s one thing to dance gleefully on the grave of western civ, another to indulge in heartless cruelty.

        [Doesn’t make sense not to live for fun.]

        and maya….don’t be such a masochist. heartiste’s playing with you. don’t let him.

        [buzzkill. I’ll be out in the hallway sparking up a j.]

        Like


      • well, that proves it- you’re incorrigible.

        [Heartiste: Chicks dig incorrigible. Or was it insufferable?]

        congratulations.

        [*preen*]

        i sense you’re kidding, but really not kidding.

        [ambiguity is the soul of courtship.]

        so you should sense when to lay off.

        [senses were made to be broken.]

        you know it’s painful to watch, and you don’t do yourself any favors.

        [maybe i’m not looking for favoritism?]

        some advice-listen to yourself sometimes.

        [no, that would open a portal to a doomscape even i don’t want to contemplate.]

        Like


      • you are truly hopeless. a couple weeks ago, rod dreher on his blog was speculating that you were evil. real evil vs faux evil. my sense was that would be shooting the messenger, but it’d help your case if you didn’t fiddle while rome burned and not be so fucking nihilistic.

        but yeah, then you wouldn’t be so much fun.

        Like


      • Rod dreher was a Heartiste fanboy until he read his well-deserved beta of the month roasting. I think he still is a Heartiste fanboy.

        If he didn’t believe in an imaginary sky wizard, he would be ranting in here about women just like the rest of us.

        Like


      • @carolyn: You would not recognize true evil even if it hit you on the head with a brick. Here’s a tip: they feel gleefully happy when causing other living things pain and humiliation. CH actually writes this blog that has a great positive benefit for the struggling beta males and slim to none positive benefit for himself (except for the validation of his world-view). If he was evil he would play the game very differently. According to game theory, he would benefit more from simply encouraging and supporting the liberal-feminist delusion. More pussy for him, less pussy for the rest of men.

        Benefiting the society as a whole on ones personal expense is called being a hero.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 12:14 pm View from inside a hot chick

        @carolyn, he also benefits the women whom the readers of this blog ply. They get what they want rather than what they ask for. Yes, even you.

        Like


      • noob-

        ‘CH actually writes this blog that has a great positive benefit for the struggling beta males and slim to none positive benefit for himself’

        he must put alot of time into it. (doesn’t he have a job to go to?) having said that, i do agree with you. he’s helped me even while simultaneously being horrified by his grim message.

        reading some of the archives here and thinking it over, i believe heartiste assumes the pose of a court jester, or maybe the game version of the archetypal trickster, in order to get his message across more effectively. like gbfm, his shtick gets him a wider audience than it would otherwise.

        Like


      • view-

        ‘They get what they want rather than what they ask for. Yes, even you.’

        i plead guilty, being a sucker for witty banter. our peerless host heard my admonition and deftly thwarted it, amusing all who read it i’m sure.

        advice-don’t post after having a drink, you’re not at your sharpest.

        Like


      • carolyn wrote: “rod dreher on his blog was speculating that you were evil. real evil vs faux evil.”

        You trivialize evil by calling Heartiste’s harmless teasing evil. Not to mention you empower the man you are attempting to discredit. Which then leads a gal to the very opposite of her intentions, open complimenting: “so much fun,” “witty,” “deft[],” “peerless.”

        Ah, women.

        Further, you discredit yourself by citing Dreher, who gives all religion a bad name by projecting his beta-omega tendencies onto the requirements of faith. He attempted, clownishly, the same thing with conservatism, by appending his taste for granola and SWPL onto a venerable set of principles, while attempting to appropriate it all to his own authorship. I’ve got a different definition of “crunchy” conservatism, which involves the crunch of his wispy bearded, hipster hatted skull between fat volumes of The Old Testament and The Collected Works of Edmund Burke.

        Leave the white knighting to beta males, Cara mia. At least they don’t allow their attacks to become an unintended love-letter to the “incorrigible.”

        Like


      • “Leave the white knighting to beta males, Cara mia. At least they don’t allow their attacks to become an unintended love-letter to the “incorrigible.””

        LOL. She’s very unconvincing with her attacks, yeah 🙂

        Like


      • It doesn’t mean your SMV is zero, it means you’re still kind of cute. Take it as a compliment.

        Like


      • I guess that makes you quite different from that 18yo Miss Wherever, reported to be swooning over Mr. Berlusconi in these pages a while back. For the sake of the last remnants of sanity in womanhood, I honestly hope she is about as much of an outlier as you, but sometimes I really wonder.

        Like


      • Pierce Bronsnan – 52
        Harrison Ford – 63
        Sean Connery – Here age 59 and 80
        Antonio Banderas- 51
        Johnny Depp – (even though he is a douchnozzle) – 48

        You seriously wouldn’t consider sleeping with any of these men? They disgust you?

        [Heartiste: Maya the girl who hates men is just doing her usual naive troll act. Have some fun with her, she likes it.]

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 7:38 pm MayaHatesGettingHitOn

        Hi Sting,

        I’d consider sleeping with Johnny and Pierce Brosnan. I’m not saying that older guys are disgusting and I don’t feel disgust when I watch them or talk to them. I’m only disgusted when they hit on me.

        [Heartiste: I wonder how many cats it would take to compensate for the lack of a man in your life? 27?]

        Like


      • I’d boink Sean Connery now and if Paul Newman were still alive I’d boink him to. Alpha is alpha. Regardless of age.

        Like


      • Sean Connery? He’s 81 …

        @Heartiste, “I wonder how many cats it would take to compensate for the lack of a man in your life? 27?”

        Nothing can compensate for the lack of a man in my life. Hugging my cat helps a little but my heart still craves somebody I could love.

        Like


      • Maya,

        And he is one of the manliest men . . . ever.

        Like


    • Lulu and Maya are the hand of feminized society pulling you to betaness. Ignore.

      Like


      • Thank you.

        Women have no idea what they want. Their words are worthless.

        Tight enough game and other status indicators, a 60+ man could pull in the 20-30 range.

        Not saying it would be easy, but is possible.

        This terrifies feminists.

        Like


      • Berlusconi game.

        Like


      • I’m not a feminist, and 60 year old men with 20 year old men don’t terrify me. I personally wouldn’t want to be with anyone that much older than me. While I agree with the premise that looks matter more when men choose women than the other way around, men’s looks aren’t completely meaningless. At least to me and to my friends who are my age they arent. If other women are OK with men 30 years older that is their business.

        Like


      • Lulu, I’m 27 and most of my girlfriends would not like to be with a man older than 33 or 34. At least that’s what they say.
        I personally have always been attracted to much older men and them to me, despite my baby face. My latest crush is a 51-year old doctor. He doesn’t look like George Clooney; he’s average-looking at best, tall, a bit overweight and balding, and has a heavy accent. But he is extremely
        smart and though he seems to respect me, he still teases me a lot (other times he ignores me entirely). I don’t tell my friends because they
        would think I was foolish for being attracted to
        such an ‘old’ man. But he obviously knows game
        and I’ve seen girls my age and younger compete
        for his attention.

        Like


      • Sorry for the messy format of my post. I’m still getting used to typing on my phone. 🙂

        Like


      • Miss_Fu, you’re 27, don’t spend too much time for crushes that don’t lead anywhere. Find out whether he’s single (you don’t want to be a mistress of a married man) and then hurry up … or move on if he’s already taken. Don’t be too childish now, you really don’t have time for that.

        “I don’t tell my friends because they would think I was foolish for being attracted to such an ‘old’ man.”

        Why is it foolish to be attracted to an older man? (He’s not 60 or 70 after all)
        It’s very normal. But it’s seriously foolish to waste your time fantasizing about married guys at 27.

        Like


      • Miss_Fu wrote: “I personally have always been attracted to much older men and them to me, despite my baby face.”

        Witness a truth filtered through the distortion filters of the female mind to produce its complete inversion.

        Despite your baby face? What do you think older men are attracted to? Older faces?

        Pobrecita. Substitute “despite” with “because.” Mix well. Bake for 30 minutes. Watch the magic happen.

        I’ve actually reread your words a couple times, sure that I misinterpreted your meaning. Nope. Literally incredible.

        Like


      • @ KingA
        I’m sorry. I used the word ‘despite’ because along with my baby face, I have a very small frame and have been told that I look childlike instead of womanly, the latter of which I assumed most men prefer.

        Like


      • Miss_Fu wrote: “I have a very small frame and have been told that I look childlike instead of womanly, the latter of which I assumed most men prefer.”

        Well, this blog should have begun the long overdue correction of your assumptions. Feminist lies in the service of coddling post-wall cougars, “curvy” blubberbodies, and drybox spinsters run deep, and you could hardly be blamed for incorporating them into your (already insecure) notions of your own attractiveness.

        We do prefer “womanly” over babylike, if that means the features of a literal infant or prepubescent child. But generally (with apologies to Keats), “Beauty is youth and youth beauty. That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” Youth and beauty are rough synonyms, especially in fully post-pubescent young women.

        The beauty curve for a girl is essentially flat as her chest is until she hits puberty, where it begins riseing steeply beginning in her teens, tops off at the nice round number of age 20, and then begins its steady decline to the cliff of 30-35. The women with baby features can skirt the edge of that cliff for years past their sell-by date.

        Further, being childlike awakens the father-protector instinct in a man. There is a reason why cutesy-wootsy babydoll affectations — even to the point of abject dimwittedness — create a visceral attraction in men. That is not anything near the entire picture of female magnetism, but it is a powerful superficial influence that plays a large role in specifically short-term sexual transactions. The schoolgirl theme in strip clubs and porn sites is no coincidence.

        Now, speaking openly about this issue is strictly verboten, of course. Whenever we even approach the idea of youth as beauty, easily spooked crusaders and feminist ideologues pounce, extrapolate the logic into absurdities (e.g., acknowledgment of a child’s cuteness = pedophilia; the merest hint of erotic attraction for nubility = predatory danger), and vilify every observation of young sexuality as the proof of mental illness.

        A further complication is the sexualization of children, which makes draconian enforcement of random age thresholds almost understandable. When the list of official sins has been reduced to “only what harms children,” we will simultaneously define harm down while ramping up the paranoia against harmers. The child predators, sick as they already are, must now bear the burden of our own unacknowledged guilt. We dress our 8-year-old daughters like prostitots, watch shows like “Toddlers and Tiaras,” outfit our girls in bikinis and earrings as soon as they can walk, give barely teenage chicks webcams and lingerie — and then profess to be shocked when minors are targeted as sexual objects. We can’t have it both ways.

        Children, most especially young girls, do need a bubble of privacy and protection while they are developing into mature women. We have stripped away that bubble while thinking (“barely”) legal protections are all that’s required to save them from predation. It is no surprise, then, that our very notions of beauty have been given over to chaos and confusion, exemplified by your internalized misinterpretation of the limits and advantages of your own youth-like attractiveness.

        Like


      • So what you’re really saying is that you’d like to ry such a man out, but are afraid of what your girlfriends would say.

        Like


      • Generally true. I should be less inhibited by the opinions of my friends, but I’m not there yet.

        Like


      • YOU, maya and ms.fu (and all your 3rd Battalion Vaginal Blog Storm Trooperette Attack Squad

        Would wear teh dick off Brad Pitt or Geo Clooney (aka G-Cloo.)

        Game isn’t your deciding factor, despite your objecting Hamsterings.
        Fame IS.
        You’d all go Anna Nicole or Melania Knaus for a grandpa
        who’d look great to your friends
        on your FaceBook Wall
        Use lots of tongue
        girls

        Like


      • a 60 y.o. in a ferrari would have little trouble pulling college girls if he had any semblance of game

        Like


      • Well, there IS a reason I’d be buying a Veryon if I won a MegaMillions or PowerBall big pot… >:-D

        Like


  3. A ‘Man’ da (heh) Marcotte has to know deep inside of her testosterone-overflowing body that she is being delusional to ignore the overwhelming evidence that evolution explains what men and women find attractive.

    But for miserable pigs like her, delusion is better than facing the bitter reality that you lost the attractiveness lottery of life. Well hopefully her cats won’t be bothered by her lantern jaw and whiny screeds…

    Like


    • No shit. A ‘Man” Duh! (how we say and write it in these parts).

      If you’ve ever seen her rants against Nice Guys, you’d recognize immediately that she’s really just tirading against betas…which of course don’t exist according to her world view. The bitch is conspicously crazy.

      Like


      • I don’t know anything about her, so I looked this up. The Nice Guy(tm) thing rings true to my experience. Not just beta-males, but guys who become entitled creepsters. Do not become that guy.

        I’d also agree there’s way too much emphasis on the “Chicks dig assholes” thing in the PUA world. That’s a Nice Guy/Beta view of the universe. Chicks dig guys who can afford to be assholes maybe.

        [Heartiste: Part of it is that chicks dig alphas who can afford assholery. But the bigger part is that chicks GENUINELY get horny for guys who give them the jerk treatment. Jerk:T&A, niceguy:fattie. This is mostly true for younger chicks, who are in the prime of their hotness. The tolerance for asshole behavior decreases as women age out of their prime years.]

        Like


      • To pick up on your point about nice guys/betas. Here is a dating recollection from a local paper that I read yesterday. If we take her word for it, this guy did everything wrong from gifts on the first date, to white-knighting to extreme fawning, fussing and agreeing etc.

        http://www.thegridto.com/timewasters/dating-diaries/nicole-edmund

        Like


      • And your “Denzel, you so nasty ” opinion is the feminist view of the universe. Diidn’t it cross your mind that one of the views has to be correct regardless of the “team” that owns it?

        Being manhandled verbally, and emotionally turns women on physically. In other words “Chicks dig guys because they are assholes”, not ” Chicks dig guys despite the fact they they are assholes”

        Curiously, do you have a government education?

        Like


      • Eh, fuck teams. Video game blog Nice Guys + crappy PUA tactics + comicbook view of women made an easy target for this woman. She trolled them and won the social argument. As for asshole tactics, sure, but there’s a reason the game world is full of terms like “social proof” and “congruence”.

        Like


      • Nice guys ™ exist because women say one thing and do something entirely different. End of story. And of course Marcotte’s #1 dating tip for guys is to “Be generous about women’s motivations.” Imagine that!

        You’re a sucker. You know that right?

        Like


      • Your username implies you’re 13, so go off and interrogate some girls about their number, kid.

        Like


  4. Even the ancient Greeks knew that sycophancy was beta (female) behavior. Sycophant literally means ‘showing the fig’, and they would mock sycophants by making a palm-down fist while sticking their thumb between the middle and ring finger. What does this ‘display of the fig’ look like? A clit flanked by labia.

    Like


  5. Having trouble finding the definition of “sociosexuality”

    Like


    • I didn’t know either, so let me google that for you:

      The SOI has seven items. Two items ask respondents to report on their past sexual behavior: Item 1 (the number of sexual partners in the past year), and Item 3 (the number of times they have had sex with someone on only one occasion). Item 2 assesses future sexual behavior (the number of partners anticipated in the next 5 years). Item 4, answered on a Likert-type scale, inquires about sexual fantasies (how often they fantasize about having sex with someone other than their current [or most recent] romantic partner). Items 5, 6, and 7, all answered on Likert-type scales, ask about respondents’ attitudes toward engaging in casual sex. These seven items load on a higher-order factor labeled sociosexuality.

      That is, women like guys who have fucked a lot of other women. This is more of a description of *how* game works rather than a mere validation.

      Like


  6. I find it funny that feminists and their ilk are the first to jump on the People are Born Gay Bandwagon of Absolute Certainty, yet refuse to accept even more credible (but inconvenient) truths attested to by evolutionary psychologists (like the one in this study) or anyone willing to take an honest look at the world around them. The transparence of their agenda is astounding.

    Like


    • I have always been very curious what is the case against homosexuality and why it is so bad. The best I’ve gotten so far is that homosexuals encourage polygamy. Could you possibly enlighten me more?

      Listening people rant against gays never leaves me with a shred of logical thinking or scientific proof of anything. I need something more than just “because God says so.” So far I have no reason to fight against the gays or be anything but supportive of basic human rights of expression and freedom.

      Is this possibly connected with the religious brainwashing and how it is used to build stable societies? One of the reasons why gays are so bad is that it chips at the traditional marriage model that has been very successful in the history of civilization. But I’m really reaching here.

      I’m completely open to socially shaming homosexuals, but see no logical reason to. Other than sometimes being disgusted by it. But I can’t really justify my actions just by some offshoot emotion.

      Anything to do with Nietzschean will to power? Male homosexuality is a direct threat to the power structures of alpha men?

      Like


      • It’s a purity thing. Some men have a gene that makes them extra disgusted at stuff, and they take this disgust to be a hint that real truly existing moral failures exist out there, independent of their disgust.

        You can google the research. Start with something like “genetic basis for morality”.

        It’s genetic. And the funny thing is that those without this gene can never comprehend the mindspace of those with it, and vice versa.

        Like


      • Everything is a gene!

        Your modern phrenology, no matter how many times you or Heartiste repeat it, no matter how many Google entries you find, is fucking inane. It’s crayon connect-the-dots compared to Caravaggio. Hardly worth acknowledging beyond the need to repair vandalism.

        Morality is, like, all a genetic construct, man. Like, think about it, mannnn.

        What did I stumble onto here? A ganja-fueled bull session in xsplat’s perpetual freshman dorm? Do you arrested-development potheads have any conception that your materialist-determinist flights of fancy have been asked and answered again and again and again over 3,000 years of the history of philosophy?

        Put down the bong, and pick up the classics. Then get back to the rest of us who made it past first-semester survey-course anthropology.

        Like


      • You don’t like it that morals are distinct and evolved traits.

        This leaves you with no option but to have internal inconsistencies and a worldview that does not accept all the facts that reality presents to you.

        Morals are an innate human nature – and yet they are not all universal. The science of connecting moral attitudes to genetics and evolution is a science. That you don’t like.

        Because your mental world space can’t handle the truth.

        Like


      • Really? That’s the best you got? Dismissing the history of philosophy, the works of genius and art and dialectic over the span of 2500 years, as my personality quirk?

        Do you really think your facile notions hadn’t occurred to me and minds far superior to yours and mine? You can’t just posit something (“Morals are distinct and evolved traits”) without even attempting to support it with anything more than simple bluster. Who “can’t handle the truth” here? Cogitation takes work, a basic familiarity with “the best that has been thought and said,” not skimming over the editor’s summary of Popular Science magazine from March 2007. You are the talking Barbie doll …

        … only it isn’t math class that you find tough, but philosophy 101.

        Nietzsche weeps from purgatory at his intellectually-inbred retard progeny.

        Like


      • aha haha ha ahahah

        whew…

        Like


      • Don’t overthink it, noob. There is wisdom in repugnance. It’s wrong because it’s disgusting (the political campaigns to denature us for ideological purposes notwithstanding). And it’s disgusting because it is a deviancy. Literally, the activity deviates from the purpose for which those organs were made.

        By that standard, though, we might have to look askance at all sodomy! All extraneous pleasures too! Whoa there. Easy. As bisexual conservative Florence King once put it, why did the gay lobby have to go and ruin a perfectly good perversion by publicizing it?

        Ay, there’s the (pee-pee) rub. If you’re going to make a habit of pipe-cleaning other dudes’ colons with your erection, don’t ask your neighbor and society at large to ratify your predilections as the equal to the very act that sustains life. And for your own sake, do not construct your public identity around the quirk of your sexual kinks. That can’t end well.

        Further, if you know gay people, you know that more often than not they are damaged people, like porn stars or strippers or drunks, abused early, wires crossed, something is queer with their psychology. There is a purpose for the complementarity of the sexes beyond the biological requirement. Our opposite tempers our runaway flaws, whereas similarities reinforce and magnify each other. The male libido absent any female restraint leads to bathhouse fuck-alls and anonymous restroom encounters that incubate despair and brand new super-viruses like HIV.

        Sex without the possibility of reproduction is advanced mutual masturbation. There is no purpose beyond self-satisfaction, nothing to dignify the friction to create a bond that transcends the transaction. If you want to decriminalize sodomy — whatever. But to elevate it to the equal of the deed that creates future citizens and sustains the republic? No. The best you can get is that we will turn aside our glance and let you destroy yourself in private.

        We can concentrate on legitimate reasons for “socially shaming homosexuals,” but that is jumping ahead of the key factor for the prohibition. Your “open[ness]” to making this a social issue — rather than engaging it as the natural issue it is, which by definition precedes the possibility of society — is a concession to the politicization of gay frottage. That concession is the problem. We must not allow gay behavior to be defined as strictly a social issue. It goes deeper than that. (As Adam said to Steve.)

        We didn’t just dream up the idea of persecuting fruits, do it consistently for 10,000 years, and then suddenly become enlightened in the last 40 or so. There is a reason why civilization always and everywhere has excluded sexual perversity as a policy. And it’s not coincidental that promoting and indulging deviance openly leads to the fraying of social cohesion. If you have to wreck yourself on your abnormal addictions, do it in private, where at least your antisocial proclivities can be contained. Or shall we carve out special political protections for people who publicly identify themselves as masturbaters, too?

        The old ways comported with the queasiness in our gut at the sight of two dudes macking, and everything was stable sexually. The only trouble occurred, as with feminism, when certain malcontents wanted to recharacterize that natural queasiness as the real abnormality, and then seek to eradicate it from the earth. Feminist women with penis-envy wanted to be treated exactly like men; deviant men with penis-mania wanted to be treated exactly like couples. Women can only play dress-up for so long before the idea exposes itself as absurd. Gays can only play house for so long before their infertility exposes the fantasy as pointless. Neither are worth the severe social contortions required for the full expression of their private desires.

        That’s the long answer. If you’re of a certain brutish type, “Because God said it is wrong” will suffice.

        “Male homosexuality is a direct threat to the power structures of alpha men?”

        Dude, you need to take fewer college courses. Only a pseudointellectual could come up with something so obtuse with a straight face, and mistake it for a genuine possibility.

        Like


  7. on November 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm SomeonWhoDisagrees

    The problem with those studies is that they always take average and above men as samples, then declare that looks in men play little or no role. I’ve tried game and all it did was destroy my confidence when women laughed out loud at my attempts and told me that that I’m too ugly to be making passes at girls.
    Sure, “sociosexuality” is important, but only to those who pass the initial looks test.

    Like


    • It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Bows are difficult to draw, halberds are difficult to wield; as you become accustomed to the bow so your pull will become stronger.

      Keep at it. Start by hitting on and nailing ugly and fats chicks. Slowly work your way up. Don’t give up. You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

      Like


    • You can improve your looks by being fashionable, style-conscious, having a good haircut, and doing what you can to improve your health.

      Make sure your teeth are reasonably white and straight. I had a chipped tooth in the front, and it made a massive difference for me to get it repaired.

      Get as healthy as you can. Lift heavy weights, eat a paleo diet, get at least 20 minutes of sun in mid-day. You WILL improve, if that is your desire.

      Also, don’t focus too much on memorized lines. Get Roosh’s ‘Day Bang,” and learn indirect game.

      Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 7:48 pm SomeonWhoDisagrees

        I’m already doing all that. I just happen to have a torso deformity and a very ugly face. Exercise and generally taking care of myself has improved my life significantly, but I goddamn tired of trying different clothes and different hairstyles – nothing looks good on me. And all this reflects on my lack of sex life or rather lack of thereof – many women who have rejected me cited my looks as the main reason. Quite a few have said outright that they think a man with an appearance like mine has no chance.

        Like


      • A good looking guy has 20+ years of expecting good reactions from people.

        An ugly guy has 20+ years of not expecting good reactions from people.

        The type of reaction you expect radiates through your sub-communications and girls are experts at reading sub-communications. Even if you’re telling yourself “this will go well my new haircut is awesome!” if parts of your internal core will still post stuff like “I have an ugly face” (even if you just consider that a logical observation on your part) it will come thru in your vibe.

        You know what guys who are naturally amazing with girls have going on in their head? “I am awesome. Awesome awesome awesome. Fuck I look good today! Oh shit I tripped but that was badass how I landed! Everything i do is awesome and im the Best! That chick wants me why else would she be in the same room as me, duh! Cause I’m awesome. 51% on my exam! I passed, I’m so awesome and I didnt even study which makes me more awesome!!”

        Like its delusional which sounds retarded to normal sane logical guys. But they honestly can’t comprehend a girl not wanting them or that they aren’t 10/10 for any reason regardless of how ugly anyone else would think they are because their entire internal belief system is based around positive self talk and trust.

        It’s not the best way to live, it can be obnoxious to be around people like that, but that’s how their mind works and it gets them attraction from girls. Your mind doesn’t work that way yet, but down the road it can. It’s just not going to come easy or fast for you compared to, say, an average looking guy who’s not ugly but not a supermodel so he doesn’t have a lot of reference experience going either way. That guy will have a much easier time because while he doesn’t have much good experience he also doesn’t have much negative experience to replace in his head.

        It takes a long time and a lot of internal work and external experience before new beliefs take over that 20+ years of old beliefs. And you don’t just suddenly start getting positive reference experiences, you get more bad reactions with only the occasional glimpse here and there of “not horrible” reactions. It’s a rough journey if you’re starting out ugly and could take years, like 5-10, before you can really solidly replace those old beliefs.

        Look into stuff by David DeAngelo, Brad Branson, Tyler Durden’s current stuff (there’s lots of videos on YouTube of him), Tony Robbins (the king of positive internal beliefs). These guys tend to focus more on rewiring your thinking vs giving you lines to say to make girls giggle. Once you handle your internal shit, that’s the time to get back into the giggly Mystery Method stuff.

        Like


      • Knew a guy with front teeth missing who totally believed he was hotter for it because it gave him “character, and girls hate those fake looking pretty-boys anyway.”.

        Knew a guy who had cauliflower ears and totally believed he was hotter for it because it made him look “tough, and chicks like guys who can handle themselves, not pussies scared to fight”

        Knew a super short guy with a small dick who totally believer he was hotter for it because “I get to do anal with every girl. I just tell em it’s so small it won’t hurt and they go for it lol”

        Good luck with your journey, don’t give up!

        Like


      • I knew a guy in high school who had severe burn scars covering more than half his face. Dated one of the most popular girls in school for a long time and was liked by all the other girls as well. Everyone who knew him said that after knowing him for only a short time, the scars were invisible. They simply became part of who he was and went completely unnoticed. Attitude is everything. Looks may slow down those initial reactions, but if you move beyond that and maintain a confident frame, they will not hinder you much.

        Like


      • Facial scars are more attractive to women:

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081118081446.htm

        I guess it’s really like a badge of honor. Women are viscerally attracted to tough guys.

        [Heartiste: Already covered here at the Chateau.
        Ya know, I hate to be one to toot my own horn, but a lot of revelations about the sexual market, culture and female psychology have been covered here years ago.
        ah, fuck it, I will toot. I’ll toot myself a new asshole.]

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 7:51 am SomeonWhoDisagrees

        That’s also part of the problem – you guys don’t know what ugly is. Ugly is missing teeth, some acne, a short stature. You ever met a person who gets jeered at by strangers just for the way he looks? I’m that guy.

        Like


      • To: SomeoneWhoDisagrees

        Read over YaReally’s comments again very carefully. He’s spot on.

        Bro, without sugar coating it: your inner game is fucked up. Even just starting with your name “SomeoneWhoDisagrees”.

        I know a guy in a wheelchair who is a paraplegic. He pulls ass. And good looking younger women at that. He’s very alpha. Every time I see him out we *fist bump* and shoot the shit about pussy and how we’d like to wear t

        generalization based on afew

        Like


      • Go with Dan’s advice. Forget about the “it’s all inner game, man – confidence is ALL that matters”. For one, that’s a lie, meant to be internalized in order to maximize confidence, which will help. But it’s still a lie. There are valid and real and truly existing attraction triggers that are not reducible to confidence, and are not replaceable by confidence. It’s like a plate of food. Is it enough to have chicken? Yes. But chicken and rice is better. Chicken rice plus corn is better still. And better still is rice and corn and chicken and ice cream. You can get away with even only having ice cream, sometimes.

        Every attraction trigger is a real attraction trigger. There are not some that are more real than others, and attraction triggers do not reduce down to one main essence called confidence. Confidence is ONE attraction trigger, that can do a lot.

        Again – it’s helpful to bullshit yourself into believing that confidence is the 100% sum of game. For some, that bullshit will help them hypnotize themselves into a hyper confident mental outlook.

        But you don’t NEED to bullshit yourself, in order to maximize the benefit of confidence. You can realize and admit and acknowledge other real attraction triggers, without getting all wheezy and weak. A weak minded person with tissue thin confidence needs to bullshit himself, but any one with a stronger ego can afford to realize more reality without crumbling from the inside out.

        So do what Dan suggests. He suggests fuglies first. I suggest older women first.

        Start somewhere, improve everywhere, and gain experience. You will learn what your strenths are, as those strengths improve. Work on location also. Work on targeting.

        Game is not ALL about confidence. You can do wonders with many of the other attraction triggers, and you can also do wonders with confidence. Start slow and small, and see for yourself what actually in real life does work for you – then work it.

        Like


      • 20 min of sun is about vitamin D?

        Other tips would be:
        Stop masturbating and doing other stuff that lowers your T, like using tight underpants, hot showers, sauna, sitting all day long, running long distances, eating soy products…

        Like


    • Isn’t the first rule of game, to simply keep making passes until you are so desensitized rejection, no matter how harsh, no longer destroys your confidence?

      Noone said life was fair, whatever that means. If you lack looks, things will be tougher. But absent gross physical deformity, I doubt there is any level of looks beyond which no woman will stoop, regardless of how high a guy’s sociosexuality is. And from there, it’s basically a numbers game, negatively dampened due to women’s preselection bias.

      Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 7:49 pm SomeonWhoDisagrees

        You try going at it for three years without anything even closely resembling success, then tell me about desensitization.

        Like


      • Was reading YaReally’s link about the Secret Society of Women (just further down) when a very similar situation to yours was discussed by some chick.

        Notice how the guy is using the bare basics of game and getting some results:

        Your mindset is wrong. You care about what women (and everyone else) think and say about you. None of that matters. What looks good on you is what you choose to look good on you.

        Focus on only yourself. What you want for yourself. Not what they want. Don’t try to please them. That’s how you should treat most things in life.

        Confidence is not something that can be destroyed by others. It’s much closer to a worldview, a perspective on things. To sum it up: “I come first! My desires are to be fulfilled no matter what!” Apply this to everything you do in life.

        What’s three years when winning is your only option? Are you alive to do anything else but win and fulfill your goals? If you’re still alive you keep on trying until you win. There’s no other point in life then setting goals and working towards accomplishing them.

        Also, did you at least chastise the women who laughed at you?

        Here’s something to do. Go up a random attractive chick (shoot for the top, no bottom feeding) and call her a cunt, out of the blue. Then, come back and talk about desensitization.

        Chick will react with words or a facial expression. You ignore whatever she says and troll her. “You’re so easy to troll” “You women are so easy to manipulate” “One word and I can own you” “You’re such robot, all programmed.” blah blah blah. Improvise into whatever you want or exit, doesn’t matter. Do this bit a few times until you tire of trolling them.

        If you can’t gratuitously troll them you’re never going to learn any game.

        [Heartiste: Funny thing is, he’ll probably see some success with that “cunt/troll” game. I’ve said it before: if nothing else is working, go full asshole. There are more girls than you know who would sleep with a man who went the full asshole on them.]

        Like


      • “What looks good on you is what you choose to look good on you.”

        My favorite quote to tweak for describing that mentality is “I don’t do it because it’s cool, it’s cool because I do it.”

        It’s a subtle mental flip but a very important one. “I don’t wear this shirt because it makes me cool, this shirt is made cool by the fact that I’M wearing it.”

        For the original poster, this isn’t to belittle torso disfigurements and shit ’cause you’ve probably heard gay feel-good “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” crap all your life over it, but it’s just to say that there IS a way around it. It’s just not as easy as someone telling you “feel good about yourself!”, it can be a massive undertaking that involves rewiring huge parts of your psyche and general world view, and could require a big chunk of your lfe to see results, let alone competantly master.

        …but no one said it’d be easy, and like Brazen implies: what’s the alternative?

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 7:55 am SomeonWhoDisagrees

        >Notice how the guy is using the bare basics of game and getting some results

        Yeah, whenever I tried that with a woman, she ridiculed me and usually started avoiding me big-time.

        >What you want for yourself. Not what they want. Don’t try to please them. That’s how you should treat most things in life.

        I’m pretty well off in my life in things other than dating and sex. Own a home, have a stable job that I love, awesome hobbies, future prospects.

        >Also, did you at least chastise the women who laughed at you?

        I did at first, but they usually react with extreme aggression, appealing to strangers, security, friends etc to have me beaten up andor thrown out.

        >You ignore whatever she says and troll her.

        And get my face punched in or she just walks away and if I follow I get my face punched in. It simply doesn’t work the way you’re describing – she has to like you initially, if only a little, to let you get away with that shit.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 8:33 am SomeonWhoDisagrees

        And as for three years, well… I guess I just don’t want a girl that bad to keep wasting time in hope all this public humiliation eventually pays off. Ugly as I am, people are already sometimes recognizing me on the street as the fucker who got thrown out of this or that bar for trying to flirt with the patrons.

        But seriously, can you bring up any examples of men who only got their first game success after several years of fruitless attempts?

        Like


      • “But seriously, can you bring up any examples of men who only got their first game success after several years of fruitless attempts?”

        There are TONS of them. A lot of guys start from pretty fucked up situations (that’s what causes them to type in “how do I talk to girls?” in Google and find pickup). Most of them give up once they realize it’s going to be hard work though, and then they tell people “that game stuff doesn’t work”.

        “I guess I just don’t want a girl that bad to keep wasting time in hope all this public humiliation eventually pays off.”

        The guys who succeed after not seeing success for years didn’t have this attitude, that’s the main difference. If it’s not important to you, that’s cool, pussy isn’t the end-all be-all of the universe, focus on whatever makes you happy in life. I don’t have a house like you, that was something you wanted and you went for and it’s not something that I want badly enough to focus on it right now, you know?

        I wish the marketing for pickup wasn’t so “We’ll tell you the 3 magic lines to get supermodels in your bed tomorrow!!” but that’s what sells. I’ve been around since before The Game when it was less commercialized (people taught bootcamps for free) and there was an understanding across the community that this was something that would take a large chunk of your life to handle. I’m 7 years in, and there were a lot of shitty nights in those 7 years, but this was something I wanted bad enough to make it through all that and the results have been worth it to me.

        Your self-defeating/hopeless internal beliefs come thru in your writing (Riff noticed it too) and now, like most people naturally do, you’ve created an identity for yourself to embrace and label yourself with, which is “the ugly guy who girls just laugh at”. That’s why I recommend focusing on inner game if you actually want to work on this part of your life. The results will come even SLOWER, but it’ll sort your internals out in the longrun.

        But again, if you don’t want to, that’s cool, it sounds like you have the rest of your shit together and some of the best guys I know with girls let the rest of their lives fall apart (jobless, homeless, no hobbies, no money, etc.) all in the pursuit of pussy, so it’s not like you’re a piece of shit or anything lol

        Like


      • If Luis Guzman can get famous in showbiz and get stacks o’ poon, any man can. Hell, just turn it into an asset: become known based on the fact that you are incredibly ugly but you act like the fucking pope. Then you’ll be seen as even more alpha than the Tom Brady’s of the world.

        Like


    • Look at: Steve Tyler, Lyle Lovett, Rick Ocasek. You no doubt look BETTER than them. They’re ugly as heck (ditto Mick Jagger). They’re so ugly, they hit every branch of the ugly tree on the way down.

      But they are on stage as musicians. Get comfortable and good playing a “good” instrument: guitar, sax, etc. Join a local band. Get aggressive. The same girls who laugh at you would be all over you if you were playing some bar. Just because you’re on stage. The best advice for any guy is to join a band and play in front of a live audience.

      Like


      • This is very good advice. You can also forego the instrument and just learn to sing reasonably well, which may not take you more than a month. The front man gets most of the action, and most guys would rather play the guitar, so the competition may not be that strong.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm View from inside a hot chick

        Sax is the shit. It’s a lot easier to learn than guitar, and there’s a lot less competition. Even the guys who do play it are beta band-nerds, so you can run circles around them.

        Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 12:39 am Too Smart To Fail

      It is important to make the distinction between ‘attractiveness’ and ‘good-looking’. In the context of sociosexuality, ‘physical attractiveness’ is the same as ‘good-looking’. However, what is ‘attractive’ between the sexes differs.

      Woman will choose the most physically attractive male who is also dominant over the most physically attractive male who is least dominant or socially visible. Dominance is ambiguous because you can ‘appear’ dominant (broad-shouldered, square-jaw, 5 o’clock shadow, v-tapered back, above average height) without saying a word or applying Game, and you can ‘behave’ dominant (assertive, decisive, intelligent, masterful) and apply Game.

      All woman have to do is look sexy and not act like a man.

      My advice SomeonWhoDisagrees, is that you need to disconnect and disengage those broads who you are allowing to influence your state of mind in an adverse and negative manner. Don’t be afraid to turn up the volume, give it right back to them 3-fold! Don’t be concerned if you shit on them because they felt like shit-testing you to the 3rd degree by being rude, disrespectful cunts. You will know you are most effective when she goes out of her way to get her guy friends to kick your ass. Don’t sulk, lose your cool, or drop the ball, or it will be game over. I guarantee their eye’s will open, they’re lips will moisten, and the hamster/tingle generator will go into overdrive.

      Never compromise your self-worth, respect, and value over some loser female with no class or couth becaue she’s got a vagina.
      And I highly doubt you are ugly or physically unattractive, but I know for certain in 10 years that woman will be!

      You can change a woman’s initial perception of you from negative to positive in 5 minutes.
      A woman does not have that luxury!

      Like


  8. This really highlights the difference between reality and the crap women are told by dating coaches.

    Here is the ever popular beta evan katz spreading his wisdom. The actual comments on the thread are even worse.

    I’ve been reading for a while, and I find myself hopping on your blog whenever I meet a new guy or am faced with a new situation. But have yet to find something to address my question, given all the differences in the way men and women view sex and relationships and communication: What are the rules about disclosing your number of sexual partners and should it matter?

    Now of course I think about this more so in a safety sense, not that I need to know how many girls a guy has slept with but more so I want to know that he is safe for me to sleep with. Inevitably though, this question of numbers comes up and I always hate when my number is higher than his or significantly lower. I know it sounds silly but it’s hard to know what a man is thinking when you share this type of thing. Is it better to just keep it to yourself? Do numbers really matter?

    Megan

    Dear Megan,

    LOVE YOU for asking this question. As always, my opinion is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. (And I know you will!)

    So, like the whole “Who Pays” thing, there are different rules for men and women. Mainly because the sexual double standard is alive and well. I don’t endorse this. I report this.

    The average number of partners a man purports to have in a lifetime is around 11. The average number of partners a woman purports to have is closer to 6. Of course, this is not true.

    Says Dr. Norman Brown of the University of Alberta:

    “Every time a man has sex with a woman, a woman has to have sex with a man. So either there are some very lucky joes out there or someone is not getting their numbers right,” Brown said.

    I know I haven’t answered your question, Megan, but I thought I would puncture a hole in the “men are promiscuous/women are chaste” thing. If a man’s sleeping with a woman, a woman’s sleeping with a man and everybody’s numbers are going up. So there.

    And as far as I’m concerned it is NOBODY’S BUSINESS HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU’VE SLEPT WITH.

    And as far as I’m concerned it is NOBODY’S BUSINESS HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU’VE SLEPT WITH.

    Similarly, it’s none of your business how many people he’s slept with. This is a classic “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation, on par with “Are you dating anyone else right now?” and “Have you ever had a drug fueled orgy with six Polynesian dwarves?” If you say yes, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do, and frankly, you shouldn’t have to explain….

    http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/should-i-disclose-the-number-of-sexual-partners-ive-had-in-the-past/

    Like


    • I see NOTHING wrong with wanting to know how many guys a woman has been with, and Mr Katz is a major putz.

      This is one of the big reasons I refuse to date anybody within a few years of my age. I spent my 20s busting my butt studying and working. I missed out on a lot of fun, and I don’t consider “fun” to be stuck in a relationship with some woman who was used as a (pardon my language) cum dumpster by the football team when she was younger. Who the hell wants to run into some random guy on the street and hear “You’re with her? Don’t take this the wrong way, but I used to f*ck her.”

      There is still a part in my medulla oblongata that completely understands why the new male lion kills the cubs fathered by the previous male. That’s just the way it is. You might as well tell me to get rid of the “fight or flight” reaction.

      Like


    • If you are a slut/slutty your best chance of having a LTR with a smart, quality dude with options is this…

      Rule 1. Don’t lie about your number if asked.
      Rule 2. Be consistent. If you fuck on the 1st date. Then do so. Don’t make some guys wait 2 weeks and blow another in the club bathroom. If a guy finds out he’s “paid” more for you than other guys you’ll be a booty call and nothing more.
      Rule 3. For long term guys follow the porn star rule. “I get fucked on camera, but I save X for my man”. (X can be anal, threesomes or whatever)

      Like


      • When the definition of a good girl shifted from “virgin” to “few LTRs”, it was downhill from there. Reformed sluts have plenty of opportunities with successful brainwashed men, who value female careerism and independence.

        Naah, I’m dubious about the manosphere talk about how sluts have to be careful. As long as the old age truck doesn’t hit them hard, sluts can find plenty of grateful betas and brainwashed alphas to take care of their used up asses.

        Like


      • Ya know part of the feminist brainwashing is that sluthood has no matrimonial cost, but since marriage is on the decline, and women still lie about how much cum dumping they’ve endured I’m doubling down on the manosphere.

        The plot of the 2011 movie What’s your number laid it all out there. The 29 yo slut lead character couldn’t even find a boyfriend, let alone a groom. Just sayin’.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm View from inside a hot chick

        I agree. A slut ought to at best own up to *past* sluttiness, claim it was a phase, and refuse to discuss actual numbers or details.

        Like


    • I have no idea how you ask a girl for her number without sounding beta as fuck. You won’t get a straight answer regardless.

      her: I’ve only been with 3 guys!”
      me: Yeah, but how many have sucked off? 😉
      her: (laughing) A lot!

      Most women seem to have two narratives in their head anyway: the madonna and the whore. They’ll give you one or the other depending on they think you want to hear.

      [Heartiste: It’s not a good idea to ask a girl directly about the number of men she’s slept with. That’s just asking to be lied to. You have to be able to sniff out tells. Women aren’t as good at hiding these tells as they like to think they are.]

      Like


      • Yep, they’ll let you know somehow. (I like to ask how they lost their virginity .. gives you a rough idea and often makes for a good story.)

        And if she perceives your ‘sociosexuality’ factor to be high, she might embellish her experience rather than minimize it.

        Like


      • They drop all kinds of hints. Attitude towards sex will be a big leading indicator and comments about her friends actions are also good for mining the truth.

        Like


    • Also everyone lies on those surveys, but this is still bullshit:

      “If a man’s sleeping with a woman, a woman’s sleeping with a man and everybody’s numbers are going up. So there.”

      Which ignores there’s a small percentage of men & women with huge partner counts and are responsible for a lot other people “getting lucky”.

      [Heartiste: There’s a small percentage of men with high partner counts. Women are more evenly spread out in their partner counts, though there seems to be a large segment of very religious girls (according to self-reported surveys, so take with a grain of salt) who have very low partner count numbers.]

      Like


    • Ever since I saw the study that demonstrates a steep decline in a woman’s ability to pair-bond, with each additional partner she has, I realized how important the number is.

      http://tinyurl.com/7erlzzn

      I will no longer be shamed, accused of being jealous or having a double-standard, or otherwise coerced into trusting a whore with a high notch count.

      Number of past sexual partners will be a huge criteria if I ever get suckered into another LTR, and the number will be below 5. I realize I’ll likely have to look overseas to find a woman who isn’t a battle-hardened whore by age 17.

      Of course as our host points out, you can’t ask for the number directly but you can easily coax it out of her or look at her tells.

      You can’t just ignore science and stats when it comes to placing your trust and half your wealth on the line. The odds for LTRs are already miserable. Factor in a high partner count on her end, and it’s pretty much inevitable that it will end in heartbreak.

      Like


  9. “men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness.”

    I imagine that this breaks down at the extreme right tail of the attractiveness curve (ie, that extremely good-looking are the exception to this rule).

    But otherwise, yep.

    Like


    • Nope. Wrong headspace still. Extremely good looking guys get more opportunities thrown at them, but 1) most of them have never needed game so they don’t know what to do with those freebies and don’t get laid unless the girl is super up front and leads everything (which having to do makes them less attracted anyway) and 2) girls will point to a picture or video and say “that guy is hot i’d fuck him” but when the guy is actually in the room it becomes a sociosexualwhatever assessment instantly. Plus 3) an uglier guy with game can take the girl away from the guy unless she adamantly has “I want to fuck a guy with a 6-pack” just to cross it off her mental list. Also often guys who are extremely good looking are gifted attractive sociosexualwhatever traits. Everyone wants to be their friend (social proof), girls say he’s hot (preselection), he’s learned to expect good reactions (leading), he has a strong frame (frame control), etc. and that’s what gets them laid while guys sit on the sideline oblivious to those factors and go “it’s just looks man, whatever, I know they don’t matter but trust me, at the end of the curve it matters man!!”

      Chicks only care about the emotions you make them feel. Seen and been a part of it so many times.

      The guy to be scared of is the extremely good looking guy WITH game. One of my buddies is that and he slays it. Over 100 new lays this year and they come from everywhere from waitresses at restaraunts he’s at to girls from the bar to girls he passes on the street to Internet chicks to co-workers to his friend’s friends, 3somes, etc.

      I’m not as good looking as him and I have to be on my game 100% just for the girls to not ignore me just to both talk to him. But it’s not his looks, it’s cause he has rock solid natural game. He has equally good looking friends and I have to throw girls at them to try to get them laid and they still end up driving the girl home for a kiss on the cheek. Terrible.

      Like


      • as far as im concerned, this is the final word on looks relating to game. this has mirrored my experience as well. the only thing i would add is that looks serve only to make the approach much easier (youll catch the attention of girls you want often before you notice them). the other difference w looks is that (extremely) good looking girls are initially more comfortable in your presence, which means you can afford to be direct even if your frame isn’t 100% tight. but game more than makes up for any other deficiency.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm View from inside a hot chick

        Exactly. A lot of game is trying to feign the attitude that one would have if one gets laid a lot. After a while it becomes more natural because you really do get laid a lot. Conversely getting laid a lot engenders the attitude naturally. I think guys who get it early on are just learning through observation and trial-and-error, rather than listening to what women say they want.

        Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 2:52 am Too Smart To Fail

      Consider if weight-training only resulted in increased confidence, would it make that much difference? If that were the only benefit, then why do those who do not see physical results, drop out? If the increased positive self-image that accompanies a nicely well-developed figure was not attractive to woman, the impact would be minimal and we could safely assume that woman do not prefer physically attractive men. The gym would not be referenced as a great place to improve one’s self, but rather focus one’s effort on making more money instead. But hey, not all woman are confident enough to chase the guy out of her league anyway and resort to rationalize why they are are still fucking chubby.

      In my experience, woman in LTR’s with bread-winners who do not stay in healthy physical shape lose sexual interest in their men regardless of their dominant characteristics (Dominance is an image as well as behavior).
      They still sleep with them, but fake their orgasms while fantasizing about me. True story!

      It’s better to be born with great genes (selective breeding) and develop game than be genetically disadvantaged and forced to learn game.

      Looks matter, and men who look better make more money!

      Did I mention woman love wealthy men? Or are men more attractive to woman because they have money?

      Looks + Wealth trumps, need I say, no Game required!

      Like


      • “Looks + Wealth trumps, need I say, no Game required!”

        False. Plenty of wealthy guys who look decent enough, who have no game, no personality, no sociosexuality, and thus no women, no sex. The one dude who shot up the gym full of women seems to be an example.

        Like


      • Because the word AND has not been invented yet.

        The conversation can only be about looks plus wealth OR game.

        a+b+c=3. a=/b. b=/c. c=/a

        A is not in opposition to b or c. All attraction triggers that work are attraction triggers that work. They are additive, not oppositional.

        And yes, you don’t need to have all of them. And yes, without some social skills, money and looks are not always enough. But then again, in some cases and for some purposes, without money or looks, even the best social skills are not enough.

        You can be an expert at karate, or you can carry a gun, or you can be a smooth talker. Looks, wealth, and game. You can win the day with any one, and you’ll do best with all three.

        Like


  10. I have a background in animal behavior and sociobiology but I never understood what reproductive advantage WOMEN secured by having an innate inclination to produce art. Steven Pinker and his disciples are very clear on the reproductive advantage men secure–that makes sense. Painters are peacocking and displaying talent for manipulating onlookers’ emotions; they also are conspicuously flaunting time and resources they have to waste while they develop their painting skills.

    But why oh why do women feel the drive in their gut to create art?

    Like


    • ‘But why oh why do women feel the drive in their gut to create art?’

      because being the same species they share an artistic sensibility. they certainly have an artistic appreciation even when not creative. the creative aspect may be muffled by women’s ability to bear the next generation. what you refer to are the exceptions.

      yeah, cliched, i know.

      Like


      • I think its an extension of the nesting instinct. Most women express their creative side in home decor and clothing/make-up, others in handi-crafts. I think its also a signal for being a good mate.

        Like


      • Let’s be honest here. Women cannot rest at night knowing that there is something men are better at than them. They have vainly attempted to compete in all kinds of male endeavors, with decidedly mediocre outcomes. A female *anything* will be lauded just for her gender, rather than the quality of her work. Similar to how “the first African American President” could not possibly be ignorant and racist.

        Let’s look at the work itself – is there any great, non-derivative, insightful art out there being pioneered by women? Yawn…of course there isn’t.

        Like


    • It’s interesting to note that women tend to succeed at different arts than men do. There are a lot of women writers and poets, few women painters and musicians. (And for the love of GOD don’t start listing exceptions. I’m talking about aggregate numbers.) More male moviemakers and architects. Acting seems to be about even; don’t know enough about sculpture, etc.

      My suspicion is that women are drawn to “social bonding” art forms. Storytelling. Crafts which can be shared. That suggests women will gradually take over sculpture.

      Men go for “showoff” arts. Painting, music. Look at my work! Worship me! Also artforms which involve bing the Boss: Build the building the way I SAY you build it. Quiet on the set and SAY YOUR LINES THE WAY I TOLD YOU TO.

      Like


    • Purely to annoy me.

      Like


    • You have met a creative female?!

      Like


  11. “A reader (a Ph.D. scientist, for those of you who yearn to believe only d-bags read about and practice game) writes:”

    I am also a Ph.D. and also rich.
    I regularly read this blog and practice game
    with good results.

    Like


  12. Every time you post a scientific study backing up stuff PUAs have already known for years I get the same feeling reading the studies that I’d get watching cavemen banging rocks together. “Come on guys, you can do it, you’re almost there, look it’s fire! See? Sparks make fire!! Good job guys, one day you’ll figure out how to make cars and TVs, what a day THAT will be for you!”

    Everything in game is verifiable by simply going out frequently and trying, experiencing, and observing it in action right in front of you.

    Tyler Durden from RSD put it best in this cocky audio seminar he gave way back before The Game came out:

    [audio src="http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/realsocialdynamics.com_audio.mp3" /]

    “What about the notion that you don’t want to stand out too much? You don’t want to be too good looking or too ugly.”

    “Why? Where’d you read that?”

    “Psyche books or something…”

    “Lemme tell you something, the guys who write those books don’t get laid. Mark my words, the work I’ve done on attraction will probably be examined by the academic community eventually. These guys that studied attraction for years and years will not be able to wrap their heads around the shit that I can do. How are they gonna’ wrap their heads around watching me roll up, breaking all their principles, and still getting girls? They’re not gonna’ be able to explain it.

    You know who writes this shit? Nerds. Who don’t get laid. How many academic reports do you read of guys that laid 100 girls in 3 years? Seriously. It’s not something you read on MSN.com’s “10 funky ways to attract your partner”. If these guys are getting laid, it’s not because of their theories.”

    Like


    • Have to give props to YaReally. Solid commenter and 100% accurate.

      I go out every night. And simply just being out in the field and continuously practicing game is all the evidence you will need to confirm that it works.

      But I also enjoy that CH secures the bunker with scientific data further reinforcing the logical argument. It amuses me to berate haters and ugly women with facts.

      Like


      • haha thanks. I can tell you go out, it’s really obvious to me when people know what they’re talking about or are just bullshitting KJ theory.

        I like The Chateau ’cause it hits that middle-ground of guys who aren’t obsessive enough to actually go full out into studying pickup and going out all the time, but who also are waking up from the Disney bullshit we were all fed growing up about how attraction works. They’re the guys who are realizing there’s something amiss, but need help pin-pointing exactly what’s going on because it’s such a mind-fuck.

        So keep it up Chateau!

        Like


  13. Beautiful study, thanks for linking this!

    Like


  14. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131427513&s=68fee86b62f293309e87b25f6235ac00

    Also here’s a fun read. A bunch of dudes found a big forum where women anonymously confess cheating and stuff and the guys are all mind-blown by the shit they find on there.

    “My boyfriend is perfect though … Are we whores because we have had sex with more than one guy (without counting the ones that don’t count like jerk ex boyfriends or jerk one night stands or black guys).”

    “I was just having this discussion with the “other” guy. I told him if I left my husband then I would have nothing, no money, no car, no ability to sustain myself.”

    “I think it’s like the 7 year itch. After I have been with my FWB, and I come home to my husband, it put’s a spark into our relationship. For me, feeling desired by someone other than my husband makes me feel sexier. I have told my FWB he’s my sex therapist :)”

    “my boss & i play grab ass when no one is looking too!! I’m not attracted to him outside the fact he is my boss & that fact along is such a turn on for me! I would love for him to throw me on his desk and “force” me to perform sexual acts on him!”

    “he only fingered me, it doesn’t count!”

    The guys reactions in the thread are funny becuase you can see the Disney “girls are innocent flowers” illusions being shattered as they read the forum.

    Learn to make a woman feel like she can truly open up to you with absolutely no judgement from you and you will hear them tell you to your face some of the most fucked up shit you can imagine, with excitement in their voice, not shame.

    Like


    • Ay-fucking-men! It’s been an education learning some of the things they’ll talk about when there is no judgement involved.

      Like


    • Women are whores and should be treated as such.

      I know that there are guys in here who don’t care about their women’s sexual past. But for those who are on the purity side, it’s better to come off as tolerant and totally OK with women’s sexual fucked up shit.

      Looking for slut tells is often not enough. Some chicks are particularly cunning and aware of men’s long-term attraction triggers.

      I’m adamant about promiscuity and past cheating. That’s why I try to display the attitude of the guys in Tyler durden’s secret society:
      Being totally OK with cheating, caring about how it’s difficult for girls to manage their feelings etc…

      A couple of months ago, I had a sweet innocent little flower confessing to me some pretty crazy shit. I thought she had two previous boyfriends. It turned out she had 5 bfs, a string of lovers on the side, and regular ONS.
      I was like “that’s OK. How did that make you feel? (you cunty little whore)”.
      I dumped her after being tired of fucking her.

      The war of the sexes is raging out there, better to behave like a merciless sociopath.

      Like


      • “The war of the sexes is raging out there, better to behave like a merciless sociopath.”

        I’m starting to see few alternatives.

        The more sweet and innocent a girl presents herself as, the longer the yardage of dick she has rode.

        Pump and dump. No mercy.

        Like


      • Only fools don’t care about a woman’s sexual past for anything long term. With that said you are kind of knee jerk.
        Never dump a whore. She’s on demand, low resource sex. Just ratchet down the non sexy time and ratchet up the perverted sex acts (ATM is my favorite) til she withers out of your life.

        Like


      • One of my wives–I’ve had three– accused me of screwing around on her because I had a wart that had to be frozen off my penis. She said, ” There’s no other way you could have gotten it.” I said, “Yes, there is, you could have given it to me.” After that she shut up.

        Like


    • even better are the women on the bodybuilding forum who write things like ‘i don’t believe women would discuss these things publicly like this’.

      lmfao

      Like


  15. KUATO IS MY WINGMAN.

    Like


  16. this is stupid. u post 4 years worth of content… for FREE!?

    Like


  17. Impressive. It’s as if the Chateau’s archives were filtered through a scientific lens, verified experimentalliy, and fed back into the system.. I’ll have to dig into the nuts & bolts of the linked piece.

    This series of studies creates a structural buttress to the Chateau’s hallowed halls that put it on par with the most impenetrable fortresses.

    Takeaway:Charisma=sociosexuality. What players have that betas don’t.

    Like


  18. Demi Divorces Ashton due to him having fun with young women

    Silly cougars ! they never learn

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/demi-moore-to-divorce-ashton-kutcher/2011/11/17/gIQAtZ5iVN_video.html

    Like


    • I heard she cheated too.
      Ashton is such a fucking beta anyway. I can partially understand someone who fucks cougars, marrying one is a beta dead giveaway.

      [Heartiste: well, he wasn’t beta for long, if his hot young mistresses are any indication.]

      Like


  19. So where’s Amanda? I can’t believe she hasn’t dropped by to set us all straight about EP.

    Like


  20. Sociosexuality does not refer the a man’s level of game. It refers to a person’s level of sluttiness.

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_orientation

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/184/sociosexual_orientation_inventory_or_failing_to/

    [Heartiste: Not quite right. Wiki is off on its definition. Anyhow, that’s why I said in the post that sociosexuality is an *indirect* measure of a man’s game. Fact is, it’s much more difficult for a man to be “slutty” than it is for a woman, so a man with high sociosexuality is a man who possesses those game skills that allow him to bed a lot of women. And women are attracted to that.
    The near opposite is true for women who are slutty; men don’t want to invest much if anything in them at all.]

    Like


    • Wikipedia is off on hypergamy too: “Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself”.

      It’s different from the PUAsphere’s definition, more axed on the alpha/beta stuff.

      Sociosexuality is a nice word to describe men’s sexual power. Since women are more attracted to a man’s physicality and demeanor than to his looks or real status.

      I’ll stick with those definitions. They clarify women’s motivations better than the mainstream retarded views.

      Like


    • You need a new name.

      Like


  21. on November 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, D.R.G.

    It’s heartening to see social scientists produce quality work like this, but the findings are basically centuries-old common sense for one sex and, for emotional reasons, will never be widely accepted by the other, despite their repeatability and methodological soundness.

    The funny thing is I could get just as far explaining mating behavior differences between men and women by relying on good old-fashioned stereotypes as I could on studies like this. Stereotypes=politically incorrect common sense. Them shits exist for a reason.

    Like


  22. Most women don’t cheat. They leave. Why tolerate a sexless deal with a beta when they have an Alpha in hand? Of course most women overestimate their beauty, youth, and sexual value. But most don’t cheat — just leave.

    Like


    • Tracy Clark-Flory, who wrote the bullshit answer for the “reader’s” question follows Chateau Heartiste on twitter. I bet my left nut she is the anonymous linking here and whoever (heh) wrote the question and would like nothing more than spread her ass cheeks and be degraded by CH.

      Like


    • No shit.

      It’s depressing for young guys who want to have a family someday. Up until sexual liberation, men got to have their fun with a small pool of sluts and prostitutes and drain their balls until they hit their prime when they can afford to provide for a family. And they could choose a wife from a relatively large pool of decent women, who could generally make decent wives.

      The small pool of sluts tended to lose on the long-term.

      Now, chicks are bringing their entitled asses to the workforce, and act like if they were equipped to play the field just like guys. The pool of sluts gets larger and larger, and marriage material chicks become an endangered species.

      Now everybody tends to lose on the long-term.

      Sluts lead to players indeed, and not the other way around like some might think.

      Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 4:14 am Too Smart To Fail

        I agree with you 100%.
        American woman from small towns are probably the best bet. You can forget woman from metropolitan areas.
        Countries where prostitution is legal is also a great choice. Woman know they need to bring more to the table than a vagina and tend to be more loyal and appreciative.

        I feel you, adjust your game accordingly and take a trip to Germany, Czech Republic, Romania. In Hungary (“You will have girlfriend in 2 minutes!” as my friend Gabor says!

        Like


      • Find a nice EE girl. Look for a reasonably religious one from Ukraine or Poland. Don’t write to any, just go there. Avoid really big cities. The 3 Baltic nations are also a good place to visit.

        Like


      • Poland, maybe, but my experience with Ukranian women has been that they are beautiful, but amoral as all hell, and will cheat, lie, steal, and fake being a ‘good girl.’

        In reality, there’s no single demographic of ‘good women,’ only individual good women that must be individually qualified and vetted through an arduous process to demonstrate their worth.

        Like


      • I disagree. Yes you must always vet, but Asians and truly religious girls are such a better demographic bet than others.

        Like


      • Asians, I agree with even less as being good girls. Ask former frequent commenter Gorbachev about his experience with Asian women, or look up some of his old comments. Asian women are some of the most brazen cheats, liars, most radically hypergamous, most wickedly scheming women, perhaps in the world. Not hating, just stating things as I see them, and as others have seen them, without sugarcoating things.

        Like


      • Not my experience at all. I Love me some Korean BBQ… young, tight, baptist virgin ass. Mmmm.

        By “good” I mean very low partner count plus sexual fidelity.

        Also spent some time in Taiwan and on the west coast.

        Like


    • “Sex at dawn” is the most degenerate piece of trash that I read in a while, barely worth its weight in toilet paper.

      Entertaining, yes But it doesn’t make any sense. Only cuckold fetishists and slutty washed up tarts will applaud its “findings”. I’m glad the chateau debunked it, and it was about time for EP scientists to say something.

      Like


  23. “May your suffering burden you this holiday season with the cursed tidings of a full-blown mental breakdown!”

    Isn’t it a little early to be in a festive mood? 🙂

    [Heartiste, au contraire madam! I have already hung stockings from my nipples with care. and mistletoe… down there!]

    Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm View from inside a hot chick

      So he describes a lot of passive-aggressive behavior by men (backing off from their true feelings by saying “I was joking, calm down”), which he labels evil manipulation, then he describes that same behavior by women, and calls it passive-aggressive but excusable because they were manipulated (“You’re late :)”. Nice. I defy him to explain the difference between “I was joking” and “:)”.

      Like


    • Yashir is a fag. Women are way, way more emotionally manipulative then men. Girls will put out for other guys just to get revenge on their boyfriends. Guys fuck chicks because said chick gives us an erection, not for spite.

      Like


  24. “After a devastating breakup, Eric Smith does the only sensible thing: he buys a full set of armor inspired by Halo. …”

    http://bygonebureau.com/2011/11/16/master-grief/

    Abso-fuckin’-lutely! (He had the engagement ring in his pocket when she said “we need to talk,” etc.)

    Like


  25. A major problem with game(tard) is that there are lots of other competitions. If you decide to “ignore” a woman, she can easily find alternatives. Women does not need to rely on the 10% of the men who practice game when 90% of the men are very willing.

    Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 3:57 am Too Smart To Fail

      You are ignoring the hypergamous nature of woman and projecting the polyamorous nature of men onto woman.

      If you ‘ignore’ a woman, you are an impossible man to catch.
      If you ‘game’ the woman, then ‘ignore’ her, you are a hard man to catch!

      She will grow intrigued, attracted, and then attempt to regain your attention, if she has options or not!

      Like


    • ummmm, no, you aspergery doofus.

      women (especially desirable ones) do not generally ride any old random cock indiscriminately, they want to ride the cocks belonging to that 10%.

      women want to be gamed.

      it’s when they can’t get the cocks of that 10% that they’ll settle for the cocks of the 90%.

      Like


  26. “Sociosexuality is a concept in social psychology that refers to how favorable people are to sex outside of commitment.”

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/a-theory-for-why-latvian-women-are-beautiful.html

    Doesn’t this apply to the majority of men? Most men -would- have casual sex with a hot girl if given the opportunity.

    Anyhow, are women conscious of the fact that game/power/dominance is attractive to them? Because it appears that most women (and men), mistaken or not, are under the impression that looks and wealth are the most important.

    Like


    • on November 18, 2011 at 3:53 am Too Smart To Fail

      Research examining consensually preferred characteristics has revealed that most individuals desire partners who are ‘physically attractive’ (Buss & Barnes, 1986;Green, Buchanan, & Heuer, 1984; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966), ‘possess attitudes, values, and beliefs similar to their own’ (Byrne, 1971; Hill, Rubin, &Peplau, 1976), and have ‘pleasant personality characterstics’ (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Kaplan & Anderson, 1973).

      In terms of sociosexuality, unrestricted individuals date partners who were
      more socially visible and attractive, whereas restricted individuals date partners who were more responsible, faithful/loyal, and affectionate.

      -I’m not sure why these characteristics are mutually exclusive, but the research states it is preferred and difficult to obtain.

      At least three features of a mate should influence an individual’s inclusive
      fitness: (a) a mate’s ability or willingness to invest in one’s offspring; (b) the
      extent to which a mate possesses either adaptive traits or resources that could be passed on to offspring (either genetically or socially) to enhance their fitness; and (c) for males who invest heavily in offspring, a mate’s sexual exclusivity (see Trivers,1972).

      During evolutionary history, all three features probably were difficult to obtain
      in a single mate (Buss, 1985). Therefore, individuals could have enhanced their inclusive fitness by preferentially focusing on one feature.
      According to this perspective, some women may have come to prefer romantic partners who were willing to invest in their offspring, as revealed by the partner’s pro-nounced faithfulness and proficient caregiving qualities.
      Other women may have preferred partners who possessed characteristics associated with fitness in our evolutionary past, particularly those that could be genetically or culturally transmitted to their offspring.
      Although it is not clear precisely what these characteristics were, physical attractiveness (an attribute that might have possessed additive genetic variance associated with fitness in the past; Hamilton & Zuk, 1982) and dominance/social status (Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987) are two viable candidates.

      *Anyhow, are women conscious of the fact that game/power/dominance is attractive to them? Because it appears that most women (and men), mistaken or not, are under the impression that looks and wealth are the most important.

      Power (wealth, social influence) and dominance (behavior and/or appearance) are intraconversial. Wealth is subjective, a woman is not conciously aware if you are in the top 10% or top 1%, but requires certain traits and characteristics to acquire either way and may be passed genetically to offspring.
      Physical attractiveness is preferred by men and dominance is preferred by females. Wealth, physical attractiveness, and social dominance (humor, intelligence, assertiveness) is both concious and sub-conciously universally attractive to all woman. Looks(genetic) and wealth(genetic fitness applied to the environment) advertise power and dominance.

      Like


    • i’d argue that wealth is often a measure of dominance

      Like


  27. As usual, Chateau delivers on the observations but not on the interpretation. These observed differences in male and female psychology accord with reality, but not the pseudo-science.

    Here’s what we miss out on by going along with the genes bullshit. Those who assume that it’s all in the genes subscribe to the assumption that there is something “smart” in the way that women think. They don’t get to appreciate how women’s psychology is actually the very opposite to smart. Womanly incompetence, amorality and indecision relate to immaturity and insecurity, not to smarts. They relate to women never having to have to grow up and take responsibility for their choices. There is nothing clever about women’s hypergamy, for example. It’s simply an extension of childhood dependency – “I want mommy and daddy to take care of me” becomes “I want a dude to take care of me.” And by inference, the dude who comes from a higher social standing will be more likely to respond to a woman’s “hypergamous” priorities. In a very important sense, women are just children in adult bodies.

    To this day, women rely on affirmative action to “achieve” anything. If that’s not babying, then I don’t know what is. Women don’t have to survive. They just have to turn up. They just have to establish proximity. Women are like bowerbirds for whom pointless shiny objects like tinsels and colored stones become the most significant things in their shallow, materialistic, provided-for lives. Same as children, who are captivated by colored toys, balls, leggos, shapes and playthings. Like children, women make simplistic assumptions about their experiences, for example, equating brain-dead thug with strength and dominance.

    EP is in no position to make such powerful inferences. EP explains nothing. It simply explains “It’s all in the genes – get over it.” It’s an extension of creationism, a variation on the theme “God created it – get over it.” And with this EP version of creationism, Game theory pays the price, by validating women’s choices with a legitimacy that it does not deserve. The truth is that women’s choices are based not in knowledge or understanding, but in the ignorance of assumptions. Women possess all the rationality of children. If they can’t make up their minds about something, then they choose what everyone else chooses (that’s “social proof” I’m talking about). Women are herd creatures, they go along with the crowd. Just like children. The solipsism of women is not too different to the solipsism of children. Me, me, me, I want, I need, I hurt. Women’s brains are more like underdeveloped men’s brains than something exquisitely, magically feminine. Game works only because women are as easy to fool as children are. But where Game theory (as currently marketed) falls down, with its deference to EP genocentrism, is that it ascribes an importance to these adult-children’s choices that is unwarranted.

    So long as we keep defering to the “it’s all in the genes” mantra, we will continue to regard womanly logic as “logical” somehow, smart somehow, somehow superior, because it was selected for from among our hunter-gatherer ancestors as the “best” wiring ensuring the surival of our species. But it is nothing of the sort. There is no survival logic required in being hypergamous and provided-for. It is the default condition of all living entities to choose the path of least resistance, and the provided-for sex is simply subscribing to a most primitive impulse that begins at birth. It’s the path of least resistance, and has nothing whatsoever to do with surival smarts or best genes. Even babies know how to be provided for. Their survival depends on it. I can prove this. If infants didn’t know how to be provided for, then they would die within a few days of birth. Gee, babies must be real smart, eh… to think that even babies are genetically programmed with the survival instinct. The prettiest babies will attract the most attention, while overweight, cantankerous babies with attitude will attract the least. Even babies can pick up on the subtleties that can manipulate doting parents. No smarts required. Genes are irrelevant.

    Consider the animal kingdom… seals, lions, elephants. The males compete within one another for different reasons, which ultimately equate to territorial advantage. I don’t accept the EP line that it’s in competition for females and the survival of the best genes. A male seal, for example, does not care a flying toss about his progeny and whether or not his best genes get to survive into subsequent generations. But he does care about survival, which equates to dominance within his territory. Female seals just come with the territory. Female seals, like women, don’t have to survive. They just have to turn up. It just doesn’t matter what women think. If you’re confident and successful, then they come with the territory.

    Do we see where I’m taking this, and why it is so important? We cannot work with some mysterious, alien intellectual force programmed into a genetic blueprint that stuns half the population with amazing pussy-power. But we have something much more solid to work with when we frame it in the context childish, solipsistic logic and stunted emotional development.

    Like


    • How the fuck can you know what a bull elephant seal is thinking about? Are you a seal whisperer? You talk out of your ass. Your anthropomorphizing the motives of animals outside of commonly accepted scientific fact belies your lack of biological knowledge, which you’ve demonstrated on this forum before with your sorrowful lack of erudition on hormonal action and its importance in driving mating behavior.

      Extensive studies on male mating behavior in Cervum Canadensis, the North American Wapiti (elk) make it abundantly clear (by behavior) that the males DO care very much, about accessing and protecting his access to as many cow elk of fertile age. They demonstrate this with behavior.

      Their reproductive cycle, the rut, is triggered by female ovulatory surges of hormones, (which is in turn triggered by decreases in photoperiod,e.g. onset of autumn). The rise in olfactory presence of female hormones in the air triggers a rise in testosterone, which then triggers mating behaviors in Cervum Canadensis. Supply those hormones in the lab, you get a horny bull that wants to fight with other bulls for territory, isolate cows, etc. In late autumn, and early winter, when all the available cows are impregnated, testosterone levels in male elk diminish, their testes diminish in size, and the rut ceases until next year.

      Your lack of biological knowledge, and worse, your rationalizing against it, belies the fact that you are either a raging femicunt a la Amanda Marcotte, or you are a low-T male rationalizing your place in the sexual heirarchy (nee lack of sociosexuality.)

      Either way, Nobull = Noballs, (your handle is perfect exactly the way it is–you are clearly not a bull.) To sum up, you’re trolling. But your genes tell you to, so it’s cool.

      Contrary to your estrogen-dominated groupthink, EP explains much, including your sacklessness. Women’s mating behaviors are ONLY rational through the lens of evolution. Russian biologist Theodesus Dobzansky made clear that “nothing in biology makes sense outside the light of evolution.”

      Come to grips with your position in the sexual hierarchy, and you’ll see clearly what EP has to offer. But you won’t do that, because acknowledging the truth, runs counter to your mating interests.

      Like


      • Apart from your anthropomorphizing the motives of the North American Wapiti, you have a long-winded way of saying nothing at all. Irrespective of what either you or I say other animals care about, one thing that they do not care about is the genes that they pass on into the future. They don’t care about the quality or survival of their progeny. I’m sure that on this one point we can both agree.

        It’s not an accident that EP scientists often talk as they do about male displays to attract female attention. Is this really how males in the animal kingdom operate, or is it more a case of projection by the dateless and desperate? It’s very like a nerd to be anthropomorphizing the motives of animals as they so often do. Are you of the same “elk” (pun intended)? 🙂

        Like


      • Yet animals don’t care about “gene quality”, since they don’t comprehend what it is. Endocrine signaling and other mechanisms are only the modulators of sexual reproduction,there’s no “higher order” which controls which genes get selected (unless you do it deliberately by controlling the conditions, which is what livestock breeders have done for centuries).

        What matters to living organisms is “fitness”, and “fitness” changes according to the environment.

        Like


  28. unrelated
    but you will enjoy this video
    http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh89WZWNFsi61Z4qmD

    the last one leads me to believe we are all guilty of overgaming

    Like


  29. Women had a preference for having sex with men who pursued more a short-term mating tactics but did not tend to develop a romantic relationship with them,

    I felt a great disturbance on the Internet, as if millions of betas suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    Like


  30. “Pretty Sure my wife is cheating on me”
    http://www.qfora.com/ot/thread.php?threadId=21839

    You guys need to read this.

    Like


  31. OT ….

    Have you seen the “stuffing” fetish yet?

    Like


  32. There is no question that women whom I game earlier and harder (even if it is not successful) are more attracted to me in the long run, more interested in my actions and more likely to ascribe purpose and seriousness to my causes even if they are totally frivolous.

    Before I started learning game, I struggled to find some perfect ratio of interest, attraction and timing. It’s shocking, really shocking, how the only strategy I need now is balls-to-the-wall-boldness, resistance to shit-testing, and an attitude which is unbothered by anything a woman might throw at me.

    There is a prayer in Judaism which translates to “thank god I was born a man and not a woman.” Yes, ancient Hebrews, thank god indeed.

    Like


    • Confirms the necessity for men to marry (if this word still means something) chicks who are younger.
      A 10-15 years difference would generally be enough, but in this lady’s case, let’s just say that marriage is really not a good idea.

      Like


    • errr…what did you expect? she’s almost 70.

      sadly, lots of women look like that at 50.

      Like


  33. That’s pretty impressive for almost 70, dude.

    Like


  34. I’ve always struggled with game as a useful tool for achieving true happiness.

    I have grown to believe that the greatest happiness comes from true connection with a woman who you deeply and truly love. Anyone who thinks that an assembly line of new hot pussy offers a greater source of happiness has in my view a pessimistic banal view of our humanity (and hasn’t probably experienced a really good connection with a woman).

    My grandfather did not pratice game and he ended up with a beautiful devoted woman who made him very happy in his life.

    They were very similarly situated socio-economically and there was a natural progression and attraction in their relationship.

    I’ve always idealized the life they had.

    My grandfather was alpha in many respects. He was strong, intelligent, successful, good looking and often assumed a leadership role in various spheres of his life. But I know for a fact he did not game my grandmother. He was into her and he showed her. She was into him and it worked.

    The contrived nature of interactions that come with game is what concerns me. It requires a duplicity that is unappealing. If we see any woman as a complex machine, ripe for manipulation and focused on biologically derived imperatives, then her personhood necessarily erodes. And with that erosion of personhood necessarily comes our detachment. And with detachment the possibility of a deeper connection erodes.

    In other words, game distracts from the possibility of true lasting connection. Be yourself (an often complex concept I admit), and let the interaction flow as it does. Sometimes people just click and it works. Why not just wait for that?

    Like


    • I have grown to believe that the greatest happiness comes from true connection with a woman who you deeply and truly love.

      welcome to the matrix. we hope you enjoy your stay!

      Like


    • My grandfather did not pratice game and he ended up with a beautiful devoted woman who made him very happy in his life.

      He may not have practiced game knowingly, but I promise that he did it naturally from the way you describe their relationship.

      I don’t have the brain capacity right now to go into a detailed post about why you are wrong in your post about game, but in short you are at the wrong site for what you are looking for (go to Married Man Sex Life for what you are seeking). Great happiness can come from marrying a good woman that you truly love. But women are what we are, and if you are not natural with game (a natural alpha) if you do find this woman of your dreams, she will not stay the woman you married if you don’t game her. She simply won’t. Game is only contrived for the men who are beta and are relearning what they were born to be. Game is what 100 years ago came naturally to many (if not most) men. Their is nothing contrived about it as it is what women respond to and naturally want (though most women truly do not know this).

      If we see any woman as a complex machine, ripe for manipulation and focused on biologically derived imperatives, then her personhood necessarily erodes. And with that erosion of personhood necessarily comes our detachment. And with detachment the possibility of a deeper connection erodes.

      If you choose to not see us women as we truly are which is a whole lot of biological imperatives, them you will never find the personhood you so desperately seek in that woman of your dreams. Many of us are incapable of finding ourselves without the peace of mind that comes with being taken care of by a strong and capable man. A woman’s personhood erodes more without game in our lives. You have to look no further than feminism to see all the evidence of that.

      Like


      • How does someone that is a full blown beta learn game? Where does one start?

        Like


      • The other gentlemen here can point you to websites to go to. I frequent here, Alpha Game, and Married Man Sex Life because I am pro-marriage (I fully understand why so man are not, however).

        Also, the biggest thing you need to understand is that most women do not understand game and cannot tell you what will truly make them happy. What does make us happy is not compliance. Actually, for the most part it is exactly the opposite of what we want. We want strength. No . . . we need it. We need a man to take the lead, unabashedly. This brings us happiness and peace, even though we will rail against it from time to time.

        Like


      • Anybody else have advice on where someone who is a complete beta, would start to learn game? To begin totally changing their lifestyle and attitude? What books would one read? What places would you start at? I’m 19 btw.

        Like


      • @Jason

        rule #1: treat yourself w/respect
        rule #2: keep her guessing
        rule #3: don’t be mean (she may SAY “you’re so mean!”, but if you’re doing it right, her eyes and mouth will both be smiling)

        The Game is a well-written book, then The Mystery Method, and of course the archives of this blog

        Like


      • Precisely he did not knowingly game my grandmother. That’s my point. An attempt to “game” another person necessarily turns them into an object you are attempting to manipulate. That objectification necessarily brings with it detachment and detachment destroys the possibility of true connection. Imagine a life where you are constantly attempting to manipulate and control all the other actors you come in contact with. Would you ever really relate to any of them?

        Sometimes it just works without any need for planning, manipulation or strategy. If you are into her and she’s into you, then it will work. I recognize that’s a rare thing, but if you are constantly gaming then I fear you may miss out on an opportunity for the true click and all that offers.

        Like


      • Look, the whole point is for this to become natural. I don’t believe most betas are in their natural state now. They are learning how to attract a woman by knowing what makes her tick. It’s not manipulative, it’s growing to learn the opposite sex and what they find truly attractive. You can use it to manipulate or not. That choice is up to the man.

        What would you have a currently married man do, whose marriage is failing because if there was a true connection it is now gone? Let the marriage and his family go? If he truly wants it to work, he can use game to win his wife back, or he can leave and try to find happiness elsewhere.

        If you are into her and she’s into you, then it will work.

        No, man. I’m sorry. Women don’t work this way. If you are into her and she is into you right now, it will work right now. That does not simply mean that she is going to stay into you forever. That part is up to the man and game gives him that knowledge. It is really not all that different than finding out what her favorite flowers are and what she likes to do on a Friday night. You find out what makes an individual woman tick to make her happy. Game gives betas the knowledge of what all women want so they can pursue them with confidence and bring happiness.

        Like


      • I think we may be discussing different aspects of game. I am not disputing those elements of game that relate to being dominant, making decisions, being direct and taking on the role that it appears evoluiton has assigned to males in the human dynamic. I agree that taking on that role in a relationship is in fact what women want and is what will sustain the relationship.

        What I don’t like about game is the idea that our interactions with women should be framed such that we deconstruct a woman’s value and simply see her as an object to be manipulated with the ultimate end of sexual conquer. It seems to me that much of game suggests patterns of interaction that aren’t natural and don’t involve genuine engaged conversation. My point is that when you meet a woman you find attractive and interesting you should simply speak to her naturally and let the conversation go where it may, without any preconceived end or goal in mind. That’s where the manipulation and objectification comes in and to me that’s what distracts from the possibility of true connection and relation.

        Like


    • Because you can spend your entire fucking life waiting for someone who will never come, while you rot away in loneliness. Because having one person in your entire life is a losing proposition, since it robs you of experiences that allow you to screen for potential partners in a more accurate fashion.

      But hey, by all means go ahead and live like a gullible idiot, my dear concern troll.

      Like


  35. Sociosexuals – a new orientation/interest group?

    Like


  36. Height
    Intelligence
    Shoulders
    Waist
    Some Muscle
    Middle-Class Money or above
    Social Proof / Fame
    High-Status Job
    Good Looks
    Personal Behavior / Game

    Each is worth one point. I explain more here: http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/chapter-7-the-score-2/

    Like