Girl Tells Boyfriend He Needs More Male Friends

A reader writes,

I wrote to you before about your advice improving the relationship with my mom.

I want your critical and scrutinizing take on another situation. I’ve been in a relationship for almost 3 years now. It’s going great. I keep it in-line with CH preachings and wisdom, and I would even go as far as saying that both of us are pretty happy. I’ve never been the type to be the super macho alpha male. I would describe myself as Tom Haverford from the show Parks and Rec, except caucasian, and a bit taller. Now that the necessary background info is out of the way, here’s the question: I find it much easier to talk to girls and make friends with them than with guys. I have 1 guy friend, and about 11 girl friends. (As a side note, from those 10, about 2 of them are dtf.) I’ve never cheated on my gf. I don’t hide the fact that I am in relationship from any of them, and I do not broadcast every detail of my relationship either. I find that girls are easier to go out and do things with, like go to the bar, play pool, or even just grab a coffee, or lunch with. (Maybe it’s easy for me due to the fact that I internalized your ways of game and flirting, and had ample of practice on my actual gf.) Where as with guys in the past and now I had friends who I would do a certain activity with i.e. soccer sam, xbox mike etc. but thats about it.

Anyways, naturally this drives my real girlfriend nuts. She’s not the overly attached girlfriend, who texts me every minute asking me where am I, but if she hears that I’m in company of girls when she calls, she would go like “oh right, you are with your girlfriends, sorry I’ll call you back” Or if I’m about to send a text to someone and she sees my phone messaging screen and its mostly girls names she gets upset. She also met a few of my “girlfriends” and every now and then would throw something like “sorry I’m not Katie” etc. My gf keeps hinting that I need more guy friends, and that it’s “weird” that I don’t hang out with guys at all, and that I should do something about it. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied with the situation.

What’s your take?

My take: you’re sitting in the driver’s seat. You’re right to feel quite satisfied with the present arrangement. Everything you’ve written tells of a woman who is beset by irritating, if manageable, jealousy pangs, and has assumed the perpetual chaser role of the girlfriend who feels she must continually re-earn her man’s love and affection.

This state of affairs may sound bad in print, but these kinds of men aren’t the ones getting taken to the cleaners by icy ex-wives.

When a girl like this one tells you to swap out most of your female friends for male friends, she’s practically confessed to feeling threatened.

Women who are in charge of their relationships typically put the kibosh on their men hanging out with their male friends too much because those women don’t want their men’s attentions (read: resources) spent frivolously on his gang of bros.  These women don’t worry so much about female competition because they don’t believe their beta herbs are capable of seducing other women. This is how it goes for, oh, 80-90% of long-term relationships.

In contrast, women who *aren’t* in charge of their relationships typically fret more about their men spending time in the company of women, any women, in any context. These women do worry about the female competition, because they know their boyfriends/husbands have the charismatic chops to woo aspiring mistresses. And they know that women are mercenary behind the fair maiden masks, and will eagerly encourage a betrayal.

Be happy that you hold court with women. It’s not weird, it’s exhilarating, for you and your girlfriend.





Comments


    • > “I’ve been in a relationship for almost 3 years now.”

      THREE GOD-DAMNED YEARS?!?

      I mean, WTF?!?

      Either start putting some buns in her God-damned oven or else step aside so that a Real Man can do it for her.

      You are eating up the very best years of her fertility for what – so that every few days she can consent to giving you exactly the same sensation that you’d get from whacking off to internet porn?

      Seriously, the White Race and Western Civilization in general simply cannot withstand this sort of unserious vapid fatuous adolescent horseshit on the part of its would-be Alphas.

      Man up.

      Or quit considering yourself to be an “Alpha”.

      God damn it.

      Like


      • on January 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Exactly what kind of sex are you having (if any) that you would call it just the same as beating off to porn?

        Every few days…

        Like


      • You’re trying to say that if you don’t knock her up, you’re “not alpha”?

        Dude. Go to church. Observe the dozens of men trailing after their fat wives and toddlers, miserably remembering the days when they had freedom and joy, when they spent time with women who *wanted* to have sex and weren’t threatening to divorce rape them.

        Now try telling us again how having kids makes you alpha.

        Like


      • In this day and age of ubiquitous Darkness descending upon the entirety of Western Civilization, being “Alpha” means planting your seed firmly in The Tree of Life.

        Going home with your tail between your legs, in shame and humiliation and defeat, and stewing away throughout your fertile years, in a suicidal refusal to procreate, is for betas and gammas and deltas and epsilons all the rest of the human filth who are doomed for EXTINCTION.

        Life.

        Or Death.

        You decide.

        Like


    • i think as advice it’s accurate enough, and i think it goes both ways. the dread both sexes feel when their significant others can walk across the room and get another partner does keep things together to some degree.

      i just don’t understand the whole “i find that girls are easier to go out and do things with” part. sex is the reason i can stand women as company. beyond that, they are entirely different beings. when there’s no sex, i just can’t see why you’d hang out with (and listen to) women by choice.

      Like


  1. +1.
    Although I predict we have an incoming shit storm from certain commentators(Matt King??) regarding the “virtues of male friendship” and “Masculine honor”.

    All that said and done….being women non of his friends will come to his aid when real shit hits the fan.He should find a few male friends. Just not for the reasons his girl states.

    Like


    • This dude has 12 friends total, or so is my reading. Seems he needs to get out more, and make more friends of any gender.

      Like


      • The aid the female friends will come to will be helping him break up with his girlfriend. To me, the harem of female friends makes him kind of like an adorable puppy. Its nice, and he gets a pat on the head. To the girlfriend, I suspect its become a sign of immaturity- even insecurity on his part. It doesn’t exactly command respect.

        You’ve been together three years and still have this entourage? It sounds to me that she’s ready to move on to something more serious. She’s irritated in a “whatever” kind of way, not necessarily motivated to keep her “spot.” Keep your eye out for a preemptive break up (if she can be easily replaced and she knows it, why bother?) or a Big Dawg who’ll offer her something more.

        NB: “Friends” of any gender are overrated. Family>Friends (and not the one you’re born into- the one you create).

        Like


      • I agree with most of this, because I am not in favor of the endless “relationship” thing. It’s been 3 years now. Either marry her and start banging for real, or move to a different chick. She doesn’t have an infinite amount of years of being attractive, so her impatience is justified.

        I don’t agree she’s being dismissive, but she might well be getting desperate. Don’t belittle her for it. It’s her biology. She wants to start a family with you. Honor that one way or the other.

        Keep the female friends even if you get married though. You vow to be faithful sexually, not to avoid talking to another female. Vows are meant to be taken literally, no more and no less.

        Like


      • “Friends” of any gender are overrated. Family>Friends (and not the one you’re born into- the one you create).”

        ptttthp! That is such a chick thing to say.

        Like


      • Family = people you don’t mind accidentally vomitting on you 🙂

        Like


      • Dumb, chick, tomato, tomatoe. Either way, it isn’t even wrong.

        Like


      • Granting your conclusion, how does one create family without a pipeline of friends? Your statement is akin to saying superstar athletes > rookies. While it may be the case that a superstar athlete is preferable to a rookie, all superstar athletes are rookies at some point.

        Like


      • Through alliance.

        Like


      • Stupidest fucking reply.

        Like


      • You’re going to marry one of your friends?

        Like


      • “Friends” of any gender are overrated. Family > Friends (and not the one you’re born into — the one you create).

        Friends = family

        It’s a bro thing. The informal use of fraternal terms, even among men of recent acquaintance, is not coincidental.

        Like


      • I love watching women interpret a mans actions through her filter of femininity, glaring self serving proclamations evident for all to read.

        Sounds like your boyfriends female friends make you jealous also…

        Like


      • HAHAHAHAHA!!! Thank you for that much needed laugh. Over and OUT! 🙂

        Like


      • Nervous laughter, check.
        Deniwl by Dismissal, check.
        Ending the conversation, check.

        Just be glad (I know you are) that your man has the ability to keep friends that inspire jealousy in you.

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 2:52 am Carlos Danger

        Kate’s a pretty realistic woman in her outlook. Her husband is a lucky man.

        Like


      • That is very sweet. I think I’m the lucky one though as you can see how grumpy I get without him!!!

        Like


      • Kate may very well be realistic, but her response above, disapproval of the man in the story for having female friends that threaten the girlfriend, reveals that she is indeed female, also evidenced by her patting you on the head for defending her honor.
        It isn’t wrong for her to feel the way she does, it’s natural. I just find the whole situation humorous.

        Like


      • HAHAHHAHA!!! Again! My fiance also finds it humorous when I reveal my femaleness and literally pats me on the head. I think you’ve got the correct attitude. And now that I’ve come out of my snit, I apologize to those above for being cranky and not constructing well thought out responses yesterday.

        I still feel that often those we consider “friends” are awfully apt to disappear when the going gets rough and that I don’t want to scratch the surface of the great majority of people for distaste of what’s under there. Not to mention that being a heterosexual is practically a closeted condition these days, so people get upset if they scratch my surface. Its really seems to be better to have superficial interactions with most people and to create “alliances” versus “friendships.” To me, friends are people to spend time with and allies are people who aren’t going to disband because underlying principles join them. So, whereas some annoyance could end a friendship, in an alliance it is overlooked because there are greater things at stake. I also disagree that people marry their friends. As far as the original topic, I don’t see those other women as “threats” so much as indicators of youth. I sometimes forget how ancient I am and for a man in his early twenties, this is probably normal, maybe even encouraged. But I would think he’d want some male friends as not all life should revolve around women.

        Like


      • I can already predict at least one dumb-shit here will attack me as a white knight, but whatever… Anyway, a sadly common argument tactic here is attempting to twist any response into a confirmation of one’s position (including positions/assertions that can’t be proven or disproven). Alternative checklist:

        Amusement at pathetic logic, check.
        Dismissal of above-described ‘logic’, check.
        Refusal to waste anymore time on a fool, check.

        Like


      • Here.

        Here is the response you wanted from me. Random Guy.
        Hope it’s everything you imagined it to be.

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 3:07 pm Carlos Danger

        Actually, she and I are in agreement about him being immature. People can be correct and self serving at one stroke. Jealousy isn’t the only issue in this case, although its the one most focused on. I also have to ask is this fellow a man or a pixie. Dealing with ten+ women and listening to them yap or try to out position one another while sleeping with only one of them seems self defeating to me. Far too much pain for the sake of making your girl jealous. As far as defending her honor is concerned, Kate has passed a lot of shit tests here.

        Like


      • Doc Holliday: “Wyatt Earp is my friend.”

        Jack Johnson: “Hell, I’ve got lots of friends.”

        Doc Holliday: “I don’t.”

        Like


      • Right up there with Glengarry and Lebowski for quotability:

        Though the translator pusses out by his less than literal renderings, especially Horace’s proto-realtalk, “Credat Judaeus apella, non ego.”

        Like


      • “Evidently he’s an educated man… now I know I hate him.”

        Sounds like something Patriarch would say… lozoozlzlzozozlzlzozlzlzl.

        Like


  2. Most of his female friends he might not now bang certainly see HIM as a viable company in their bed. You are beeing hunted m8.

    Like


  3. “Women who are in charge of their relationships typically put the kibosh on their men hanging out with their male friends too much because those women don’t want their men’s attentions (read: resources) spent frivolously on his gang of bros.”

    I think the woman’s motivation depends upon the man’s male friends. If they’re single and perceived as living an active and fun life and ably bedding women, the wife or girlfriend is probably concerned that her inside cat husband or boyfriend will either stray secretly or move on from her. In other words, she doesn’t want him to see that the grass is greener. For women who have within their grasp a beta herb with similar friends, I think the issue is as much that she is probably already disgusted with the one she’s got, and feels no need to have that multiplied with more of the same which she would probably find unbearable.

    Aside : Is there a collective name for a group of betas like there is for other things that group together? Like a school of fish, flock of geese or murder of crows? Perhaps a loathing of betas?

    Like


  4. on December 31, 2013 at 9:16 am LongLostFriend

    I disagree. Just about everyone here would raise a red flag on a woman who only had male friends. It would make her a poor LTR choice in any sane man’s mind.

    If I were a woman, I’d be asking myself why my boyfriend has such a hard time relating to men. There’s a difference between holding court with female acquaintances (inspiring preselection) and having a majority of your “buds” be broads.

    That’s an indicator of a lack of masculinity from my point of view.

    Like


    • She won’t leave him over it though. She’ll be afraid one of those other girls gets her man and she can’t get him back. Maybe he’s not masculine by her standards, but she knows (the hamster tells her) that she could be wrong and those other women probably aren’t wrong.

      Like


    • “Just about everyone here would raise a red flag on a woman who only had male friends. It would make her a poor LTR choice in any sane man’s mind.”

      Two sexes, two standards. This is not high level stuff.

      Like


      • But it’s not just the standards – it’s the effect. Even if she had inklings or constructive knowledge that he either a) banged one or more of his “friends” in the past; or b) is banging one or more now, it would make her want him more. The only question would be whether or not she could deal emotionally with his cheating. In the reverse situation, knowledge of a woman straying and banging “friends” would lower her value in the eyes of man.

        Like


      • on December 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm LongLostFriend

        Two standards, and two different reasons why each is a red flag.

        In the dark recesses of my blue pill past, I used to be that guy who mainly hung around chicks. It wasn’t because I was gaming them all, either.

        Like


    • pure chicktalk.

      Like


    • The blue pill is strong in this one.

      Like


    • I personally couldn’t stand to be around only women all the time. I agree. It seems cool if you have never done it, but they get tedious fast if you have an IQ above 85. If women are 3/4 men, then by virtue of his company, he is also 3/4 of a man.

      Like


    • lol — having a group of decently attractive female orbiters > male friends. Live it learn it love it.

      I doubt they treat him like a little brother. If it makes his girlfriend jealous, it’s likely because these women are tingling for him.

      Like


      • Or he can be queer.

        having a group of decently attractive female orbiters > male friends

        Spoken like a man who has experienced neither. Again, your thesis reeks of bisexuality, which is the confusion of brotherhood with sexual attraction. This is the kind of guy who looks at the center-QB exchange as “homoerotic” because he lacks a frame of reference which delineates the very bright line between brotherly love and complementary love.

        A huge and perhaps fatal misconception of the “game community” is its omega beatification of sex. To imagine banging a couple bimbos to be the height of human excellence and worth the abandonment of all other concerns (without discussion or argument!) is to reveal one’s unhealthy sexual upbringing. “Bros before hos” is the apex, and you realize this the first time you plumb the depths of a woman’s soul. Only from the outside looking in, and only pre-orgasm, can any man imagine a life surrounded by women is some kind of holy ideal. The pursuit is holely, not holy.

        “Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.” — Nietzsche

        Matt

        Like


      • on December 31, 2013 at 4:16 pm The Spirit Within

        Matt King: excluding women and idealizing clubs of manly Catholic men since … forever.

        If you weren’t sexually abused by a priest as a child, I’ll eat your vestments.

        Like


      • Remind me: you’re the Obama booster, right? The fellow who wants to marry leftist politics and PUA practice?

        Like


      • Every exerienced and intelligent reader here has come around to wisdom of Matt King…
        So instead of another one making fun of him, I’d like to see people actually try to refute his points.

        Like


      • “Slurp slurp slurp slurp…”
        -Mob Barley

        Like


      • I do uncomfortable things hat make me wiser. I don’t like praising other men, but I HAVE A FUCKING BRAIN INNMY HEAD. patriarch you’re a dumbass. Or more precisely, you are very smart but pride makes you look like a fool.

        Like


      • Trying to refute Matt King is a fruitless endeavor. I’ve tried. He doesn’t debate, he just tries to amog. You’re falling for his frame. You’ve been here long enough to read enough of his posts to know that he doesn’t discuss anything with anyone, unless of course they already agree with him. You know why he does it? Because he can, because you let him.
        Don’t be a “yesman.”

        Call me whatever you like, but show some respect for yourself.

        Like


      • Respect for your response. That was smart and something I could digest to my own taste.

        Like


      • You are smart. I’ve read your posts.
        If Matt King shows anything it’s how to maintain frame and redirect whenever possible during conversation, which is downright lethal to confusing girls and liquidating their resistance via confidence, but it is a transparent tactic.
        Be like him, not his follower.

        Like


      • Meant to say “I knew you understand what I’m trying to say, you are smart, I’ve read your posts.”

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 2:57 am Carlos Danger

        I like Matt because I can’t get solid Jesuit philosophy on any street corner and he is pretty good at it. I like Catholic theology but can’t stand most parishes or priests. This is a way of exploring those arguments delivered well without having to deal with church BS for me.

        Like


      • Hey, Carlos Danger does not owe Patriarch one single explanation for his behavior or tastes.
        Carlos Danger does what Carlos Danger wants, end of story.
        The same goes for anybody here.

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 3:12 pm Carlos Danger

        I wasn’t explaining to you. I was explaining the value of Matt’s dialogues for the readership.

        Like


      • I like Matt because I can’t get solid Jesuit philosophy on any street corner and he is pretty good at it.

        Is THAT what you crazy kids are calling it these days?

        😉

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 7:24 pm the latent sadist

        matt k is one of the more lucid commenters here, and a veteran contributor . ive been reading since late 2009/early2010. He’s a valuable devils advocate here, and i agree with him. While it is psychologically torturous to be without any female affection whatsoever….women indeed are a bottomless pit. They cannot satisfy you, or make you whole.

        I think this is a good time to link people to an essay by Arthur Schopenhauer….damn good stuff. I think i bookmarked this after another commenter left this here awhile back. Excellent stuff.

        http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

        Like


      • Matt k is lucid until a point, that point being you disagree with his worldview or demonstrate plainly the illogic or downright hypocrisy of his actions with the philosophy/religion he espouses. I personally remain unconvinced he is anything more than a character designed to teach betas the error of their ways, a larger than life caricature of an amog that attempts to bludgeon his way to the top of the imaginary social hierarchy in the comment sections of various manosphere blogs. Sure, his posts look intellectual at first glance until you realize there’s no substance, only shame and redicule for those who refuse to acknowledge his claim to the throne of the manosphere. It’s a cute act at first, but watching comment after comment pile up with contemptuous negativity for dissenters and lick spittle followers on the attack gets old. It’s hard for me to believe echo chamber denizens have internalized some of the teachings around dealing with being your own man and being self confident when they act too timid to question certain personalities around here.
        My 0.02. Do whatever you like, just remember you don’t have to get sucked into the groupthink.

        Like


      • on January 2, 2014 at 5:38 pm Never Mind the Balzac

        “She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man“

        Since the advent of Epidurals, On Demand Abortion and No Fault Divorce the cheque has been waived.

        Like


      • Context, my dudebro. Where are we at? A place that tells dudes how to get girls. What is better for getting girls —- a group of loyal male friends or a group of fawning female orbiters? That’s right. I guess I’ve just gone bi-crazy with my recognizing that pre-selection is best served with female orbiters instead of smiling pike brigades.

        Like


      • So….he can be queer….because “Bros before hos” is the apex….that guy hangs out with chicks who dig him rather than try to play nice with sausage….what a faggot, according to MK…apparently.

        And then there’s this — To imagine banging a couple bimbos to be the height of human excellence and worth the abandonment of all other concerns (without discussion or argument!) is to reveal one’s unhealthy sexual upbringing.

        You are ON A BLOG THAT IS FOCUSED ON “BANGING A COUPLE OF BIMBOS.” And sometimes non-bimbos. JESUS CHRIST.

        Like


      • Step back Scray and see the interraction for what it is, two dominant type males trying to force the acceptance of their worldviews.

        Like


      • The theme of the blog is not strictly How-To-PUA if you hadn’t noticed. This very OP isn’t even about banging bimbos so much as discussing how to maintain perspective within a relationship.

        The “How Does This Get Me Laid” monomania has been dissected a thousand times by now, but fellows like you never cease to bring it up as though it were a conversational showstopper.

        The truth is, getting laid isn’t as hard as those who are trying to extract your money make it out to be for purposes of separating you from your bank account (or, in the sadder cases, for their own self-gratification/ego-feed).

        Finally, and most importantly, if you would be so kind as to read the entire clause, if not the whole sentence:

        To imagine banging a couple bimbos to be the height of human excellence and worth the abandonment of all other concerns (without discussion or argument!) [emphases mine]

        No one said it wasn’t a worthwhile endeavor. I simply said it wasn’t and couldn’t be a man’s highest concern for long.

        Now, when I corner you into this truth, you will say obviously there are greater things in life besides a feverish bout of latex-layered dick-dunking, but that wasn’t my point either. In the absence of a conscious higher directive, we default to a greatest concern (or inadvertent religion) quite randomly, regardless of whether that pursuit can provide the substance for a life in full. You are a pew-dweller in the Church of PUA, and all I said was: there is more to life.

        But the mythos must be maintained. You must regard banging girls as some 10th-degree blackbelt skill when in truth it’s not much more complicated than arranging three-and-a-half fruity rum drinks and cab fare back to your floor mattress in this day and age.

        You are one of the more realistic acolytes here, and for that reason I don’t like splitting hairs with you. But this is one red cunt hair that has to be split if you’re going to advance out of this necessary stage of development with any kind of productive momentum.

        Matt

        Like


      • See Scray, it’s responding in any meaningful way that causes the mountain of nonsense that is Matt King to tumble down.
        He’s here for the attention.
        Don’t give it to him and watch what happens. Post after post he tries to call out CH and the commenters not within his mobile comment section echo chamber, his inability to remain aloof in the face of people who find his behavior silly at best and painfully embarrassing at worst. There is no reasoning with him because he isn’t interested in reasoning.

        If you disagree with him, give him the attention he deserves,

        None.

        Like


      • This article is about why his relationship is safe and further underscores what women are actually attracted to and how they react in such situations.

        Pop-quiz hotshot — what do you get when you take a guy and have him focus on high-minded ideals while leaving him deficient in the grimy, dirty politics of the flesh? A beta. Most of the men who “take the red pill” are betas. They’ve had enough of “other” conscious directives. They missed out on the foundations. I supposed you’re worried about them becoming trapped in this pursuit of “baser” impulses. But to be honest, if I had to choose…better to be lost in pussy than clouds any day of the week.

        Back to the immediate situation — a man with female orbiters will ultimately attract men as well as women. Men want women, and they go to where women are. A man who has a rolodex of women on call is of immediate value to other men. Why? Because he can become a source of other men meeting women. Ultimately, there is no disadvantage to this situation.

        I’m at the point where I dislike the terms “red pill” and “game,” because a lot of what goes on just seems like common sense and being cool. But I have enough awareness to remember where I started and how much I had to work on myself to even get to this stage. Assuming your credentials as accurate, then you just take whatever you have for granted. And as such, your ability to teach the men here who need to learn is greatly hindered because you never offer the path through the woods. You just continually point to the Valhalla on the other side of those dark trees.

        Like


      • [W]hat do you get when you take a guy and have him focus on high-minded ideals while leaving him deficient in the grimy, dirty politics of the flesh? A beta.

        Wrong, and tellingly wrong.

        It’s not a choice between higher pursuits and base pleasures. When you achieve superior things, all inferior things are more easily attained. You are still carrying the “beta” mindset that tells you to focus on the one exclusive of the other when, given the nature of power, it never has to be a zero-sum choice.

        Does the lead guitarist in a band lose pussy by concentrating on his craft? Or does concentrating on his craft put him in a position to ever more easily scoop mountains of groupies?

        Does the ambitious congressional page miss out on prime poon by working his inside connections and doing favors for DC players? Or does building his professional status lead him to a position of power from which he can more easily take advantage of women?

        Does the entrepreneur decrease his lifetime N count by making hay while the sun shines? Or does constructing an empire put him in the position to increase his N exponentially over what he might have scraped together as a penniless shlub?

        No, like I said: the key to understanding your error is in the exaggeration of the difficulty of procuring pussy. If it is a tremendously difficult skill to master, then it makes sense to forgo other pursuits. But if it is actually not rocket science — which it is not — then concentrating on building your leverage is the smarter play.

        You can teach game to a rich guy in a month or two, but you can’t make a gameboy rich, powerful, or high-status with a street magic instruction book and a couple of no-duh insights into female psychology.

        Again, I am talking about keeping perspective, not about the frivolity of game. I don’t think it is frivolous or not worth pursuing. I simply think it is easier to achieve and less important in the grand scheme of things than you do.

        Matt

        Like


      • Does the lead guitarist in a band lose pussy by concentrating on his craft? Or does concentrating on his craft put him in a position to ever more easily scoop mountains of groupies?

        There are plenty of amazing guitar players (and amazing-anythings) who fail with women. So, yes, I agree that focusing on those external attributes does position an individual correctly. However, all of that positioning means dogshit if Mr. Guitarist -is- dogshit with scoring women.

        Ultimately, scoring women is a necessary foundation for your lifelong pursuits. You can only become great at something you are passionate about. To truly find your passion, you have to be free of any intervening motives. When you lack pussy (or the ability to score pussy), all you think about is getting pussy —- dispute that too, if you like. When you find yourself in a comfortable position vis a vis the opposite sex, you can expand and develop yourself — your true, uninhibited self. Like I’ve previously said, Maslow has love/intimacy BEFORE self-actualization.

        Your mistake is viewing “game” as a skill separate and apart from a ton of other skills. Game/getting chicks/whatever is a stepping stone — a crucial element — on the way to greatness.

        Like


      • When you lack pussy (or the ability to score pussy), all you think about is getting pussy —- dispute that too, if you like.

        I do like to dispute that, because it’s your obstacle. Not because the sexual drive isn’t next to hunger and thirst in terms of influence but because you fatally underestimate the liberating power of discipline and volition. That makes you slave to determinism, and you therefore can never be free. Not when you say up front and as an article of unshakable faith that it is impossible to master the base passions.

        Read yourself some Buddha and contemplate how he survived on a single grain of rice per day.

        I know you like the classics. Here’s some Phaedrus to learn you on:

        Now the winged horses and the charioteers of the gods are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other races are mixed; the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him. …

        As I said at the beginning of this tale, I divided each soul into three — two horses and a charioteer; and one of the horses was good and the other bad: the division may remain, but I have not yet explained in what the goodness or badness of either consists, and to that I will proceed.

        The right-hand horse is upright and cleanly made; he has a lofty neck and an aquiline nose; his color is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honor and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only.

        The other is a crooked lumbering animal, put together anyhow; he has a short thick neck; he is flat-faced and of a dark color, with gray eyes and blood-red complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur.

        Now when the charioteer beholds the vision of love, and has his whole soul warmed through sense, and is full of the prickings and ticklings of desire, the obedient steed, then as always under the government of shame, refrains from leaping on the beloved; but the other, heedless of the pricks and of the blows of the whip, plunges and runs away, giving all manner of trouble to his companion and the charioteer, whom he forces to approach the beloved and to remember the joys of love. They at first indignantly oppose him and will not be urged on to do terrible and unlawful deeds; but at last, when he persists in plaguing them, they yield and agree to do as he bids them. …

        After this their happiness depends upon their self-control; if the better elements of the mind which lead to order and philosophy prevail, then they pass their life here in happiness and harmony-masters of themselves and orderly-enslaving the vicious and emancipating the virtuous elements of the soul….

        If, on the other hand, they leave philosophy and lead the lower life of ambition, then probably, after wine or in some other careless hour, the two wanton animals take the two souls when off their guard and bring them together, and they accomplish that desire of their hearts which to the many is bliss; and this having once enjoyed they continue to enjoy, yet rarely because they have not the approval of the whole soul.

        Matt

        Like


      • 1) There could be an ethnic thing at work here – it could be that life for Christians is much different than it is for Jesuits.

        2) Once you become an Alpha [or realize that you’re an Alpha], you don’t have much use for guy friends anymore – in fact, to a certain extent, betas start to disgust you every bit as much as they disgust their own women.

        3) In my personal experience [Bible Belt], dudes don’t really have “guy” friends, and, in general, having a lot of guy friends would be a HUGE warning sign that the dude in question is a homo.

        Bottom Line: Scray is the only fellow on this thread who sounds like he’s experienced life as a true Alpha [where your beta wingman does nothing but get in your way, and you spend most of your time trying to help the poor bumbling idiot score with chicks who wouldn’t have otherwise given him the time of day].

        Finally, Kate way up thread is right: At the end of the day, your family is your one and only set of friends.

        Like


      • Who “on this thread” is a “Jesuit,” crypto-Jew?

        Like


      • If you have to ask…

        Like


      • Shane, lately you’ve been missing the mark… by a lot… and I’d hate to see that take away from your otherwise savvy take on other things, like the YKW question.

        Stay away from comments about persons, which are increasingly clueless, and stick with your forte.

        Like


      • WASP men don’t have “friends”.

        They just don’t.

        They only have family.

        PERIOD.

        Maybe y’all Jesuits are different, with the Union Local or the Knights of Columbus or the Knights Templar or some shit, but WASPs just don’t do that kinda stuff.

        WASP men go home to their families at night.

        That’s just the way it is.

        I can’t think of a single WASP grown adult man [a father, with a wife and children], from my youth, who had “friends”.

        And these days, I don’t keep in touch with any of my old WASP buddies, and they don’t keep in touch with me.

        It’s just a completely foreign concept to the WASP.

        In WASP culture, having “friends” is like playing sports – it’s something for little boys – not for grown men.

        In fact, it’s so severe that if two married WASP men were spending too much time together, then the working assumption would almost have to be that they were homos who were cheating on their wives.

        Like


      • “I’m on the board of directors at the zoo… cost me a million bucks, heh. But there’s one thing you gotta learn about WASPS, Bud… they love animals… but hate people.”

        It was your praise of one of the total muh-dik dweebs on this site as an alpha that inspired my initial observation.

        Like


      • give us a kiss, greggy.

        Like


      • WASP men don’t have “friends”. They just don’t. They only have family.

        Explains much of your bizarre hostility.

        Family/women are complementary. Your love for them is a completion, parts coming together to make a whole. Looking inward, at each other.

        Friends/men, in contrast, pursue goals in common. Your love for them is camaraderie, a mutual possession of similar traits with which you identify. Looking forward, shoulder to shoulder, at an object.

        I have friends I made in elementary school. Do I go home to them and devote my attention and efforts to their protection like I do family? No. I sometimes have zero contact with them for years, and the day I see them again it is as if I had seen them yesterday. You pick up where you left off.

        This omega confusion between philia and eros makes a hash of a healthy perspective toward both the women in your life (longing/completion/complementarity/sex) and your fellow brothers (camaraderie/similarity/honor/war). They are different animals altogether.

        Matt

        Like


      • The first kick in the ass I give you will feel like a kiss once you’d gotten the second, n166er.

        Like


      • well just for that i guess ill have to fuck ur wife.
        i require these items:

        gas mask
        harpoon
        whaling vessel

        ty.

        Like


      • Scray plays the Moby Dick card.

        Hey Greg, I think you better lay off this guy because the more you spar with him the better he gets.

        Like


      • I’m starting to think MK’s “crypto-jew” designation may be accurate. Please prove him wrong, ZS.

        Like


      • I devote 99.9999999999% of my time at The Chateau to railing on The Frankfurt School and you filthy jesuitical faggots think that I’m a God-damned jew?

        With friends like you, who needs to be cuckolded?

        PS: I didn’t know that Scray was a miscegenator.

        Huh.

        PPS: What’s it like to suck the dick of a Jorge Mario Bergoglio when you’re an altar boy?

        Is it salty or sweet?

        Like


      • Scray plays the Moby Dick card.

        Hey Greg, I think you better lay off this guy because the more you spar with him the better he gets.

        You mean the Muh Dik card… dog-eared and tattered.

        C’mon, thwack… just because you and he share the same shit-colored hide doesn’t mean you should revert to kind and play oh-snap-cheerleader for his lame grade-school barbs.

        It’s far, far beneath you… and sigh, just when you start gaining some cred at the chateau… tsk, tsk.

        You pseudo-PUA dweebs sure fall into the shaming stereotype litany of the Cathedral you supposedly fight against.

        Indeed, with you dim muh-dikkers, you’re often their staunchest dupe allies.

        Like


      • ZS: that’s half-miscegenator to you, buoy. [pronounced booooo-eeeee]

        Greg:

        I had lost myself in an uneasy, slumped slumber over the harpoon gun; that peace ended with a broken wall of sea mist dousing my face. The sun, just two hours into the sky, stared back at me from the horizon. I peered over the ship’s iron rails…..and there it was, treading water. His wife floated, corpulent and calloused — I could tell that life had ridden her and her cellulite dimples hard.
        Two of the others saw that I was awake and came to join me on the deck. They too, shared my silence at the sight. Finally, Starbuck glanced at me, timbre shaken by revulsion, “….there’s nothing to be gained here. What do you plan to do? No ordinary man could arouse himself for such a thing — let alone survive such an encounter.”
        I tilted my head back, focused full on the distant clouds that struggled to hide daylight; the absurdity that watches us all.
        “I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I’ll go to it laughing.

        After all…”
        The rusty missile in chamber shimmered as I angled the weapon.
        “…only a madman like me would raw dog such a foul beast as Greg’s Wife.”

        To be continued….

        Like


      • At least my wife, unlike yo’ mama, doesn’t have to iron her pants in the driveway.

        Like


    • I disagree. Just about everyone here would raise a red flag on a woman who only had male friends.

      Since when did you imagine the usual sexual equivalence argument would fly here?

      We didn’t invent the double standard, but we are in the process of forcing its revivification.

      Women are not by their nature capable of friendship. Indeed, they hardly have a frame of reference for friendship among men except through their husbands, according to Aristotle.

      The friendship of man and wife, again, is the same that is found in an aristocracy; for it is in accordance with virtue the better gets more of what is good, and each gets what befits him; and so, too, with the justice in these relations. The friendship of brothers is like that of comrades; for they are equal and of like age ….

      Nicomachean Ethics, VII.10

      A woman’s “friendship” with a man is either sublimated sexual desire (waiting for alpha) or utilitarian (beta orbiter), depending on her status below or above the man. Friendship exists among the similar and equal, not among the naturally complementary and unequal. A woman’s relationship with a man, and a man’s relationship with a woman, is based on completion, which requires complementarity. See both Jerry Maguire (“You complete me”) and When Harry Met Sally (“Men and women can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way”) for the cliched popular versions of this verity.

      Matt

      Like


      • on January 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm the latent sadist

        RE:

        Wrong, and tellingly wrong.

        It’s not a choice between higher pursuits and base pleasures. When you achieve superior things, all inferior things are more easily attained. You are still carrying the “beta” mindset that tells you to focus on the one exclusive of the other when, given the nature of power, it never has to be a zero-sum choice.

        Does the lead guitarist in a band lose pussy by concentrating on his craft? Or does concentrating on his craft put him in a position to ever more easily scoop mountains of groupies?

        Does the ambitious congressional page miss out on prime poon by working his inside connections and doing favors for DC players? Or does building his professional status lead him to a position of power from which he can more easily take advantage of women?

        Does the entrepreneur decrease his lifetime N count by making hay while the sun shines? Or does constructing an empire put him in the position to increase his N exponentially over what he might have scraped together as a penniless shlub?

        No, like I said: the key to understanding your error is in the exaggeration of the difficulty of procuring pussy. If it is a tremendously difficult skill to master, then it makes sense to forgo other pursuits. But if it is actually not rocket science — which it is not — then concentrating on building your leverage is the smarter play.

        You can teach game to a rich guy in a month or two, but you can’t make a gameboy rich, powerful, or high-status with a street magic instruction book and a couple of no-duh insights into female psychology.

        Again, I am talking about keeping perspective, not about the frivolity of game. I don’t think it is frivolous or not worth pursuing. I simply think it is easier to achieve and less important in the grand scheme of things than you do.

        Matt

        ——-

        I know i seem like im virtually blowing you lately, but i couldnt agree more. Cash in on your niche, and focus on your mission in life. Its within the maxims of CH anyways. Life becomes increasingly harder the further you stray from your vocation/lifes purpose.

        A baseball analogy:

        Achievement, and the distinction that comes with it can be likened to swinging a bat with a donut in the on-deck-circle. Once you take it off you can swing the bat faster and with more authority. Such is the case when you build a name for yourself, or distinguish yourself in some way. Imagine tuning your car so that it more efficiently gets you places by exerting less effort. Your reputation precedes you, and the goodwill it creates goes a long way towards minimizing the effort needed with women. Some may argue to the merits of bypassing that with game….but this is foolish. Game is necessary, but a greater proportion of a mans confidence is derived from success regarding his mission.

        Achievement endures.

        Like


    • Tell me,
      In your group of friends are you the leader or one of the followers?
      Rarely if at ever do alpha type males tolerate other alphas for long.

      Like


      • Are you retarded? Explain Hillary, Scott, Perry, Franklin, Mallory, Wellington, Drake, Columbus, Cook, Nevsky, Aurelius, Vikings, Legionnaires, Mamaluks, Spartans, the Huns, The Mongols, etc, etc, etc. Great men were/ are surrounded by other great men, not chicks. Alphas aren’t so insecure that they can only have simpering sops of men around them. Great men are attracted to the company of, and need, other great men. They are naturally disgusted by and pity weaker men. They certainly don’t first and foremost fear them as potential sexual rivals.
        What great general, leader, warrior, explorer, creator, inventor, philosopher, was surrounded by only females or didn’t tolerate being around other strong resilient men???

        Like


      • So you deny any form of social group dynamics among men?
        You allude to great generals and warriors and inventors.
        All generals surround themselves with followers by definitions, and warriors within their respective ranks have followers. World war two would be the easiest example to for you to sample. Did Hitler or Patton or Montgomery or Eisenhower pine for their need to be surrounded by powerful alphas, or were they the respective alphas of their circles?
        Democracy is a relatively recent phenomenon, with the majority of human history naturally expressing the male drive to dominate and subdue others under rule. This is the normal state of affairs. Look at your own social circle, do you do what you want most of the time or do as the group dictates in conjunction with the dominant male decisions?

        Like


      • I see where you’re coming from. I’ve noticed that guys generally don’t like hanging around other guys they deem better than themselves, especially when it comes to attracting women. I stopped associating with a few friends because I got tired of the constant competition. It would sour my attitude when I was just looking to have a good time with friends. This wasn’t the fun kind of competition guys engage in, it was the jealous variety.

        You’re either a follower or leader in most cases. I’m no alpha, but I can’t accept a lower position (or constant jealousy inspired attacks) and be content.

        Like


      • Rol,
        Glad you see it also. I’ve noticed a tendency for guys who are within the social group, the underlings, to bellyache on and on about some sort of egalitarian fraternity of males coexisting peacefully within the ranks. Of course they believe what they do, they haven’t seen what’s in store for them if they disobey their social heirarchy. It’s beta male psychology philosophically codified.

        Like


      • Of course their are social group dynamics. I agree men want to move up the hierarchy. However, this article is about friends and friendship, not strange men trying to outdo each other at a fucking Christmas party for the attention of a big boobed secretary. FYI – I never said those guys were “pining” for other men. What is the point of all this keyboard wanking then if only a minuscule fraction of a fraction of a fraction percentage of men can be the “alpha” we are supposed to become or is your goal to be the contextual “alpha” in every situation? Trying to be the biggest chest beater at all times eventually comes across as insecure and inauthentic and is something other men won’t want in a tight brotherhood. If someone is always trying to outdo the others it is going to break the cohesiveness of the group and make them question his loyalty, which is probably the most important trait required.
        Anyways, I hang with people who enjoy the same activities I do and I believe they do the same, like normal well adjusted people do. I also am perfectly capable of saying “I don’t want to do that”, like a normal person with assertive communication skills. I am also not interested in being surrounded by sycophants or diffident people who just say “I dunno, what do you wanna do?”. I chose my friends based on things like loyalty, tenacity, intellect, erudition, authenticity, individualism, sense of humor, and similarity in outlook.
        The concept of male brotherhood seems lost on you. We don’t hang out for the sole purpose of hunting vagina and trying to one up each other in the presence of said vagina. Quite the opposite. We hang out because the satisfaction, understanding, accomplishments, and sense of community we get from each other is something we don’t get from female friends.
        My guess is you were severely bullied growing up and you automatically feel threatened by bigger men.
        The only thing hanging with just girls does for a man is give him a superficial ego boost. It doesn’t generate any respect from other men and the absolute dearth of stimulating conversation, interesting ideas, humor, authenticity would become stultifying quickly.
        Tight male groups do things together like – go climb a mountain, go fishing, camping, hiking, rebuild a car, tackle projects, form a band, build cool shit, etc.
        I bet the only thing this guy does with his female friends is go play pool, go for drinks, go for coffee, or go eat and gossip.

        Like


      • You’re missing the point.

        I’m not aware of the hierarchy of males because I was bullied,
        I was the bully.
        Your post is a defense of herd mentality, the “brotherhood” as you called it. If you aren’t being competed against within your social or professional circles and you find yourself being treated with kid gloves by other males, then you aren’t being seen as a threat to them.
        Those same “brothers” of yours would cut your throat given the incentive, it’s human nature.
        Your lack of awareness of what it means to be at the top of a social circle, ie being oblivious to the backstabbing and competition along with your contempt for me pointing out the ugly reality of social rank, betrays your lowly social rank.
        My advice is for you to ditch your “friends” and become the lord of your own fiefdom like your instincts demand.

        Like


      • Those same “brothers” of yours would cut your throat given the incentive, it’s human nature.

        Eyeroll.

        You’re watching too many comic book movies and misreading too much Nietzsche. Have you played team sports or been in the military?

        “I was the bully” = My childhood insecurities survived into “adulthood.”

        Human nature is the opposite of what you claim, Hobbes. Emergency is a bonding experience, it creates an almost automatic deference to virtue and cooperation among men (see Flight 93 on Sept 11, 2001) not the opportunity for a war of all against all. There’s just no time for that nonsense.

        Only a “weak piping time of peace” affords decadence of your sort, when you have the luxury to undermine your betters in a crude attempt at equalization, like a sniveling Jew saboteur.

        But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
        Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
        I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
        To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
        I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
        Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
        Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
        Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
        And that so lamely and unfashionable
        That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
        Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
        Have no delight to pass away the time,
        Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
        And descant on mine own deformity:

        And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
        To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
        I am determined to prove a villain
        And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

        — Richard III

        Matt

        Like


      • Rarely if at ever do alpha type males tolerate other alphas for long.

        This unequivocal declaration puts your credentials in question.

        Being a hotheaded male attention whore doesn’t make one alpha. It is rather an indication of tryhardery prompted by a fear of the security of one’s status.

        The alpha doesn’t have to advertise, and the more he does, the less alpha he is. Underneath all the self-puffery, people just know where the power is. You are describing the growing pains of adolescence, where every boy feels the need to explain or gratuitously demonstrate his awesomeness, not confident that reality is enough of a persuader.

        Alphas tolerate alphas because, at the most superficial level, they like to be around their own kind. I don’t see much conflict among them but rather a kind of automatic mutual respect and deference, if only because they know intimately how retarded it is when others fail to acknowledge reality for reasons of personal insecurity. When you are subject to that annoying beta trait all the time, the last thing you want to do is imitate it when in the presence of your better.

        Now complete your absurd position and tell me that no one is better than you (like Tilikum infra), and that will confirm your posturing for what it is.

        Matt

        Like


      • I don’t expect you to understand.
        Run along, Matt, there are weaker minds here for you to manipulate into your internet flock.

        Like


      • awww…you think about me when i’m not here!

        you sweet little lotus, you!

        Like


  5. You’re doing great- the lady’s on tenterhooks and you have a few potential replacements lined up. Don’t drop any of your friends.

    I would say one thing: 9 times out of 10 a good male friend is better in a crisis, and thus getting a few more male friends mightn’t be a bad idea.

    But not at the cost of damaging your current arrangements, and definitely not because of your lady’s nagging.

    Like


  6. Now the next question is: since he hasn’t vowed fidelity and they’re not even engaged, is he making a definite mistake by never banging any of the other women? Or is that OK strategically?

    He might be like me and much into comfort. But if he wants to move forward toward having a family, does he need to establish a background of genuine dread first?

    Like


    • with this much action, he either needs to marry a dime and move her somewhere out in the woods, or like any sane man, wait until he is 50-60 and knock up a hot 28-32 yo.

      you get 4 years of lovey dovey chemicals dude. if your lucky then Agape after that.

      how it is.

      Like


    • In the woman’s mind, he is banging them, or just about to.

      Like


  7. on December 31, 2013 at 9:38 am North Vinlander

    Interesting article, but it’s still a sign that there’s something wrong with you if you only make female friends. Maybe it’s how you act around them.

    Like


  8. Never do something in direct response to a woman’s nagging. If what she wants is a good idea, make it happen in your own time, on your own terms, for your own reasons, and do not acknowledge that she had any part in the change. For, in truth, he who decides is the decider. Ideas are cheap.

    Is is a good idea to have more male friends? Yes, if only for the self-serving reason that male friendship is stronger and more likely to last through bad times. This doesn’t apply only to David-and-Jonathan level of friendship. I’ve lost touch with many casual friends whom I would still help tomorrow if they called out of the blue.

    Like


    • I agree that male friendship is stronger. Male friendship is about so much more than meeting for a chat in a coffee shop.

      People can only handle about five friends, so this guy having twelve “friends” doesn’t sound right. How many of them would show up to help him move? If they only meet for coffee, what kind of “friends” are they? And if he can’t bring them home, how much of a part of his life will they be?

      We don’t find friends just because it feels good to talk about our day and get someone’s confirmation that our self-interest has value. We get friends to make them an integrated part of our lives, not just now but for the long term. For decades. If you don’t get male friends when you are young you are much less likely to have male friends when you are middle aged and older. Don’t think female “friends” will still be around then. They will drop from your radar when they get married and have kids.

      Like


  9. Every dude I’ve known that only hung out with chicks was always thought to be a closet homo (term is metro sexual now).

    My guess is something doesn’t compute in her hind brain. One on hand, you got the preselection thing going. On the other, is there a lack of masculine energy?

    I got nothing else though. After college i found it hard to make guy friends……there’s little way to bond if you have up power drinking, breaking stuff and running from cops at 22

    Like


  10. This comment is lost in mod hell on the Sociopathy post so I’m gonna put it htere.

    FR (Married man FR – yeah, game is more than getting laid; it’s socio-sexual relationships)

    Went to a local sports bar this past Monday. Before red pill if I went to a bar, I’d see all other guys as potential people I may need to fight, or competition for girls, and see the girls and think to just stand at the bar and act cool and eventually a girl would notice and initiate a conversation, or I would if I was drunk enough. LAME! (I can’t believe I actually got laid as much as I did not knowing all the red pill shit I do today). Anyway, today, anytime I go out I’m actively seeking conversation openings with men and women just to be more damn social. I’d like to share two methods I thought of that I think are pretty good. Heartiste and YaReally, let me know what you think.

    When you see someone getting shots lined up at the bar – Saw this wealthy-looking middle-aged dude order a line of shots for him and several of his buddies. They had the look of successful rich Joowish guys out letting loose over a big business deal or something. Game immediately kicked in and made me think to say, “Damn, I’m in the wrong social circle, adopt me, man!” The guy instantly liked the comment and offered me one. We shot the shit for a bit with me telling him how lame my office has become recently and how I wish the dudes at work genuinely let loose like he and his buddies did. He told me when they usually visit that bar and I told him I’ll look out for him next time. Cool interaction. Now, this person ordering the line of shots could just as easily have been a bachelorette party girl so I think it has potential to open any set.

    When you see a group of people wearing the same college shirts – Later I saw a group of people that all had on the same college gear. They were at the bar to watch their college bowl game. A couple of the girls were cute (much cuter than the coworker dude I was sitting with), so I simply wanted to talk to them. The guys were all athletic looking. I said to the one guy, “You guys went to X college, huh?” He responded, “Yeah.” I said, “You know the one thing I hate about that college?” He asked what. I said, “Those fuckers waitlisted me. Heard it was a great party school too.” That was the in. I told them about the other party school that I went to that was much colder and we shot the shit. He introduced me to the girls and the rest of the group. Cool interaction. Never would have done that shit before. Now, did I actually get waitlisted to that school? Hell no, but does it really matter? I met some new people which gave me value and entertainment for the night and I made them laugh a few times which gave them value. Win win.

    Game is a trip. Thank you Heartiste, YaReally and the rest of the sphere for opening my eyes. This New Years, I’m making it my goal to open one person each day for the entire year.

    Like


  11. Why the hell would any guy want to hang around so many women without fucking them? I cherish my time with the boys. Women are for fucking.

    Like


    • lol. some guys don’t need male/male competition to be successful financially or with women. these men are the ones that fuck YOUR girlfriend. Figuratively speaking, of course.

      Like


      • Yeah. This is what I mean. Late-to-the-Game reformed omegas simply lack the frame of reference.

        They see brothers as “competitors” for pussy, nothing more, while failing to realize — through an apparent lack of experience? — that the men who have been familiar with women since childhood are not so pussy-agitated and needy to be in constant competition for your monthly slut, that chicks are essentially interchangeable, that they are a dime a dozen.

        In other words, a man who fucks a girl you’ve already territorially marked — even after you have broken it off with her — is no friend at all. This is brotherhood 101 stuff, a gut instinct not to cockblock or risk one’s friendship over some cheap piece of trim. Like I say elsewhere: it’s evidence of bisexual confusion due to late maturation, that blurred border between omegadom and faggotry.

        Matt

        Like


      • At the risk of sounding like a broken record… +1

        Like


      • it’s evidence of bisexual confusion due to late maturation

        Interesting, I never thought such behavior could be an expression of bisexualism.

        I have a longtime friend who has cockblocked me on three occasions over a ~7 year period. The last offense he told a chick I was actively fucking that there was nothing she could do to win my commitment. He even told her that I was confused and that I didn’t know what I wanted.

        Weird.

        When I approached him he denied it … but his eyes betrayed him. Since then, about a year ago, I don’t expose him to the females in my life because he’s proven himself a coward and a traitor.

        Even so, I’ve tried to help this guy by pointing him to this blog and a handful of others for almost two years now, I even bought him The Rational Male but he refused it, literally, he would not take the physical book from me, and he refers to the manosphere sites as “gay magazines”.

        His unearned ego will and has been destroying him. As of this writing he’s lost my friendship.

        Like


      • It’s just conjecture, but I imagine it is difficult to get one’s mature sexuality straight, after an adolescence of being shut out from the opposite sex. If you survive your formative years with no experience of women, anything goes thereafter: same-sex confusion, asexuality, sublimation of frustration. And not necessarily sexual experience but simple familiarity with the man-woman dynamic.

        It is one of the cruelties of feminism, to have “liberated” homely girls to be pumped and dumped rather than gravitating toward the matching of like with like. Now the top quartile of men mingles with the top three quartiles of women, gaining valuable intersexual knowledge while forming their adult identities, shutting out 75% of boys whose experience will be with used girls or, even likelier, with none at all.

        And one effect of that distortion is an inability to maintain healthy relationships within one’s sex. Fraternal closeness becomes indistinguishable from suspicions of sexual intimacy — a group of brothers out for a drunken pub crawl can only look like a “sausage party.” If you don’t want bitches ruining a bachelor event (or an infantry platoon), then “What, don’t you like pussy or something?”

        Well, yes, we do like pussy, and we have lived through enough of it to know that for everything there is a season. Whereas late bloomers need to imagine themselves always on the hunt, lest someone somewhere think he’s queer, like they did in the bad old days.

        Incidentally, women are envious of this kind of male-only brotherhood (and feminism is the most advanced iteration of that notion). [Mrs.] Stingray from On The Rock writes most eloquently about it.

        As a (maybe silly) example, a few months ago I was watching 13 Assassins and a band of 13 samurai strangers band together to kill a man. Within days these men were bonded in a way that women are incapable of. Some of us do see that and crave that. However, we also understand that if these men were to ever allow a woman into this bond, the entire thing would be finished, merely by her presence. Her mere presence would weaken and destroy the very thing she wants to be a part of. The best we can hope for is to be outliers and supporters of this bond. It is a noble place to be and it is necessary. But, deep down, we know it is never the same and this can be a very difficult thing to come to terms with.

        — “The Power of Men and Women

        Matt

        Like


      • sometimes i think matt king is the only true alpha in these here comments. some of his insights show a deep, true understanding of male/female relationships and what makes a man a man. the comments about male friendship articulate things i always knew instinctively but could never put into words.

        Like


      • For anyone to believe this, we must believe that in a bygone age, substantially more men gained experience with women. The way men and women are has remained unaffected by 50 years of femmie propaganda.

        If anything, the modern era is pushing us toward a future where beta males are more valued — the advent of birth control has ensured that beta providers are vastly outbreeding alpha cads (yes, their marriages are awful, but it’s the genes we’re discussing).

        And if the bond discussed were so special — why would a woman have ANY effect on it? COULD IT BE, that the bond is only present when a man’s SEXUAL URGES remain dormant? Think about it. When a woman gets tossed into the mix, the harsh reality is that men will desire her and men will compete for her. Men act on their desires and throw friendships aside over women — for some reason, when it’s in On the Rock, you agree with it. When I say it, you disagree.

        Like


      • Scray: I’m glad you agree with Stingray, and if you were trying to make her point, you did it poorly.

        When a woman gets tossed into the mix, the harsh reality is that men will desire her and men will compete for her.

        I’m glad you put it this way because it’s exactly where you go astray (or ascray).

        Men will compete for her only if they don’t have their priorities locked down, if they were strangely deprived and have psychosexual issues. As I have been saying, only men who struggle with pussy procurement would even dream of fucking up a lifelong brotherhood for a piece of interchangeable trim.

        Now, your estimation that most men are this way, that they will sell their brotherly birthright for a mess of pussage, is more a commentary on you and your environs than it is an accurate rendering of secure men among men.

        Do you mean to imply that a group of childhood friends will shit away their singular bond for the chance of fucking the hottest wife at the reunion? Look, it happens, but you are vastly overestimating the temptation.

        Ted: Shh, you’re just baiting the insecure into AMOG theatrics.

        Like


      • Now, your estimation that most men are this way, that they will sell their brotherly birthright for a mess of pussage, is more a commentary on you and your environs than it is an accurate rendering of secure men among men.

        Men who can restrain themselves in the way you describe have ample experience with women. So much, in fact, that another bit of puss really is meaningless to them.

        According to you, this type of man represents a majority.

        According to what I’ve seen, this blog, the average partner count reported by men, and the scores of ‘betrayal and love’ art tropes — I’d say, yes, most men are the opposite way.

        ‘Secure men among men’ are a rarity. That’s the entire point. A huge part of a ‘secure man among men’s value is his relative scarcity.

        Which is it, MK? Are there just scores and scores of omega dweebs out there who fail to grasp “basic” attraction, or are “most men” secure manly men who have mastered their sexual desires? Pick one.

        Like


      • Now, your estimation that most men are this way, that they will sell their brotherly birthright for a mess of pussage, is more a commentary on you and your environs than it is an accurate rendering of secure men among men.

        Well, DUH! He’s a negro… and those oh-so-endearing muh-dik traits have been amplified by the Comedy Central upbringing of his generation.

        Like


      • Are there just scores and scores of omega dweebs out there who fail to grasp “basic” attraction, or are “most men” secure manly men who have mastered their sexual desires? Pick one.

        As I have said elsewhere, your damaged-childhood type is trending upward. “Most men” who learn young that women are not to be pedestalized — by, you know, interacting with them rather than gazing longingly from afar — will find it easier to master their sexual desires.

        The majority/minority question is a distraction. The point is, which is the truer exemplar of manliness, the man aloof from his passions (from up close and personal experience) or the one who is convinced there is no possibility of transcending them (due to late blooming remedial learning)?

        Like


      • The point is….

        Lest we forget what the point is— “according to what I’ve seen, this blog, the average partner count reported by men, and the scores of ‘betrayal and love’ art tropes — I’d say, yes, most men are the opposite way,” not “which is the truer exemplar of manliness, the man aloof from his passions (from up close and personal experience) or the one who is convinced there is no possibility of transcending them (due to late blooming remedial learning)?”

        Indeed, what you are discussing is an ideal. Its status as an ideal, obtained only by “exemplars” and paragons further underscores my point that the typical reality is different. We are discussing the positive, rather than the normative.

        So, the “majority/minority question” is relevant.

        I go further and say that this situation has been reality for….well, ever. It’s why only 40% of men have ever reproduced. It’s why men must take great risks and accept their expendibility. A few men win big and have the privilege of prolonged “interaction” with women, where those men can delve deeper into the systemic inner workings.

        Even assuming what you say is true, that this “omega rise” is a recent phenomenon, the way you’re approaching the whole situation will do nothing for it. Like I said, assuming you just innately know all of this red pill stuff or that you got it from the Bible or the Iliad or wherever, you are conversing with beginners like a master would converse with another master. It teaches nothing.

        Like


      • Dude. The culture of patriarchy and one man for one woman makes your savage proto-man anthropology irrelevant. We have since abandoned what worked for a different masculine ideal.

        It doesn’t really matter that you assert “this situation has been reality for….well, ever,” you aren’t following cause and effect. The faggy ideal creates the reality.

        You want to teach every man game at the micro level, scrutinizing field reports and níggling over every last detail, thinking you can push on a string. I want to adjust the incentives, the end state towards which men strive, and inspire them to arrive at the same place on their own. We didn’t just forget how to be men 100 years ago, the ideals were adjusted and we were shamed into gradually renouncing our nature.

        My method has the advantage of being applicable to childhood development. Boys emulate archetypes, those “ideals” and “exemplars” you dismiss.

        Like I said, assuming you just innately know all of this red pill stuff or that you got it from the Bible or the Iliad or wherever, you are conversing with beginners like a master would converse with another master. It teaches nothing.

        It teaches everything and much more organically. You don’t have to promulgate a million commandments and pro-tips through precious new jargon when you can point a kid to an archetype and say, Be Like Achilles and Be Like Jacob. We learn quickest, deepest, and best through imitation. Even the very act of articulating a notion of manliness, as they do on game blogs, is contrary to living the example.

        Yes, I did get it from “the Bible [and] the Iliad,” among other sources, like my father and uncles and friends and my own trial and error. We all used to. Emulating the time-tested archetypes is not the exclusive preserve of the top 20%. It was the very minimum expected of a man, lest he be shamed as a pussy into reforming himself.

        Matt

        Like


      • “Be like Michael Jordan,” the coach said before walking off, satisfied by another job well done.

        Like


      • “[W]alking off, satisfied by another job well done” is your pipsqueak addendum, evidence of a will to loserism. The father or coach or mentor does not spit formulas at you, as your PUA betters tend to do, they refuse to allow you to quit. They don’t let you revert to your old self, the one who could never imagine being Achilles (so why bother trying)?

        Unlike your daddy, they stick around until your formation is complete.

        And unlike your low-wattage role models, achieving 1/100th of an Achilles is a greater accomplishment than becoming 100% street magician. There is no indignity settling for the good while striving for the perfect, so long as your goals are lofty enough.

        Michael Jordan is an excellent popular example for those young men who haven’t been convinced by their single mothers that greatness is foreign to them. Jordan didn’t even make his high school varsity team but rather achieved his (contextual) greatness through indefatigability and hard work.

        Most important: your will to defeatism is greater than my will to deliverance. You bear the mark of the loser, always circling back around to his comforting omegatude, the impossibility of self-starting achievement. If only you could channel that sheer persistence of asserting how pathetic you are into a will to improvement, you’d Be Like Mike much more easily than you think.

        Matt

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm Carlos Danger

        This lack of honor seems to be more common with the single mother, fatherless generation in my observation.

        Like


      • It comes from either lack of a father or from a weakened father. Though relatively, it is better to have a weak dad than none, it’s still going to instruct a guy to behave like a coward.

        My friend who coined the term “NMS”, says it happens like this:

        The “liberated” woman is straddling two lives, as mother and as worker. The father is basically shut out because he’s still expected to be the main provider. He might see the kids for 2 hours of the day…not abnormal historically, but oh the difference in the quality and perception of those two hours, the “liberated” mom can make…

        The mother idealizes herself and all women, and villainizes men, masculinity and maleness all the live long day until the child is in school. When there are inevitable problems in school, the mother gives feminine solutions, such as telling teachers and avoiding bullies, rather than a balance mix of this and confrontation or perhaps fighting. Fighting is forbidden, and standing up for one’s self is considered inviting trouble.

        Kids don’t know much about sex. Honest to the Gods, no information was actually hidden from me as a child, but simply from having feminists telling me about how much women suffered, and rape being around every corner, I thought sex was painful. The noises I heard at night proved this. The way my mom resisted at first usually, proved this. I thought that, like for cats, it was something extremely painful that women only did because their animal instincts demanded it.

        I looked at diagrams of penises and vaginas. I thought there was no way that thing was getting into that hole without some pain. Since I didn’t want any of this pain, I thought I was a Lesbian.

        Then at some point in my life, I was brought to ruin due to heterocuriosity.

        I hate to think what a male growing up in such an environment would think about sex. Even if they get a sense that women like it, it becomes something they feel they have to steal from women. So they approach sexuality and many other things like theft. From that base, and from having only feminine (90% interest based) coping strategies, they internalize a thief’s moral system, and view friendships and romantic relationships in the context of getting the greatest payoff for the least investment.

        So what sons of feminists learn about relationships, they learn from moms who either hate them a little for being male, or are participating in the grand social experiment to create the kinder, gentler male.

        Dad is shouted down by mom, mostly female educators, and the television.

        Like


      • I looked at diagrams of penises and vaginas. I thought there was no way that thing was getting into that hole without some pain
        —————————————————————————-

        internet porn FTW!

        I thought I had a warped mind, then I got my first computer.

        Like


      • The “men who have been familiar with women since childhood” are fairly rare, and so, most of your “brothers” are indeed just competitors for pussy.

        Like


      • ‘men who have been familiar with women since childhood” are fairly rare

        Now I’m worried about you, brother.

        Boys and girls going on dates is “fairly rare” in your experience? I will agree that our shitfuck culture is trending that way, but it isn’t a whore wasteland just yet, and it wasn’t when we were younger.

        YES, brothers are “competitors” for the hottest girls, but we are hardly “just competitors.”

        Like


      • You call that groin-centric clown “brother” and you’re stretching that Christian grace thing a bit far.

        What fellowship does light have with darkness?

        Like


      • Going on dates is meaningless. Experience with women = the ensuing relationship with a woman after she has sex with you. That’s where you go to the circus, see the clowns, tame the lions, and listen to the ringleader id.

        Most men simply lack the attraction capability to gain tons of experience with desirable women. Like I said, it’s a top 20% sort of thing.

        Like


      • for all your muh-dik talk, no one here talks about muh-dik more than you, Greg. add content for a change, instead of….idk…jeers?

        Like


      • Scray, going on dates is not meaningless. Women who don’t hate themselves, and are not feminists, require at least buffer before inviting you into their home or going into yours. It is a minimum requirement even for old sluts who, not being feminists, know we are old and sluts, but lacking the affliction of un-reality, do not have a high enough sense of entitlement to believe ourselves impervious to the bare fists of males possibly untrained in self mastery.

        That was possibly an overcomplicated way of saying that I am afraid to be alone with a guy who has not been seen with me with witnesses. Some dudes today are quite twisted from feminist upbringing, and I need to know if he has territorial/protective body language, or if he behaves like he’s frightened to touch me like he owns me or could. Guys who don’t own it won’t value or appreciate it, and are a bad bet to be alone with. You never know what kind of sick is crawling in the brain of the passive aggressive.

        Like


      • Look, somebody gotta name the muh-dikk.

        Like


      • for all your muh-dik talk, no one here talks about muh-dik more than you, Greg. add content for a change, instead of….idk…jeers?

        Get your story straight, twerp…

        I call out you muh-dikkers on the incessant muh-dik nig-speak.

        And as I’ve mentioned innumerable times, jeers and mocking is all that ilk deserve.

        If the shoe fits, watch you don’t catch it square in the azz.

        Like


      • I call out you muh-dikkers on the incessant muh-dik nig-speak.

        lol looks like there’s a new sheriff in town.

        Like


      • No new sheriff, just the same ol’ bouncer, here at the chateau…

        Or, as a bruther once put it: “rayciss enforcer”. llzozozlzlzozolzlzlzozolzlzlz

        Like


      • By sheriff I mean faggot

        Like


      • Scray, you are self-admitted short black guy who cried about being too beta to pick up any girls. You spam the forums constantly. You post text exchanges where you crash and burn. You even refer to women as “mini heart break girl”. You are as bad as Patrice.

        I hope, for your own sake, you are a gigantic troll. Please stop trying to act tough.

        Like


      • It’s kind of funny to watch wannabe white nationalists who spam the comments with a constant stream of self pity, talk trash to someone for talking trash.

        Hey, wasn’t it your favorite magical Jew who said take the beam out of your own eye before trying to get the speck from someone else’s?

        Like


      • As usual, big n166er mouth from the safety of his keyboard.

        Like


      • As opposed to what?

        Like


    • I need male company for intelligent conversation. Competition gets in the way of things.

      Like


      • I never discuss politics, literature or science with women, only men.

        Like


      • Same. You can rarely discuss serious topics with women for long before they start shifting from objectivity and degenerating into moralism, “fairness”, and the like. And even when they try to be objective it’s still evident that they’re trying to rationalize a belief or emotion.

        To be fair, this happens frequently with men as well. Just not nearly as much as women.

        Like


  12. Think about it, though. Would you like it if your girlfriend only had guy friends?

    Like


    • if your GF is actually in love, that is an impossibility 😉

      exception given to a few higher end bad ass alpha (i know, i know) chicks who can turn a HVM’s head. but they always tend to be BPD or other wise not worth a shit. men can be alpha (heh) widows too.

      yet i love them crazy bitches so…..

      Like


    • Nobody’s saying she has to like it. Chivalry would say we should care whether she likes it.

      But that’s the part we are missing here. We don’t necessarily care. We decide on a case by case basis whether to care or not.

      Like


      • It sounds like his lack of friendships, with other men, is bothering him somewhat. If that is the case, he should put some more effort into it, for himself, not his girlfriend.

        Like


      • ^^^^^ and that is herd protection instinct uncloaked, gents.

        The funny part is that she would say the EXACT SAME THING to her own son or brother in spite of the fact that this arrangement directly benefits his interests (and by extension her genetic promulgation, in each case the successful male ensures that 50% of her genetic content).

        This is why you NEVER listen to women on issues of inter-gender dynamics. Even though its subconscious (maybe), they will choose the herd safety over even their own biological interests.

        Thanks Lara!!

        Like


      • You expressed clearly what I was really thinking, Til. Incisive!

        Like


      • I think it is good advice. It is harder to manipulate/control a man who is well liked by his peers.

        Like


      • and she doubles down….

        Like


      • He is well-liked by his peers —– women. A man who doesn’t want for a woman wants for nothing.

        Like


      • Should women really be his “peers” though? I thoughts dolls were “something to have only when they come in handy, like cough drops”? 🙂

        Like


      • They are handy — they are female orbiters. Women who are in love with you kiss your ass. Men who are your friends bust your balls. The only reason you want men to kiss your ass is so that women will love you. Again, cutting out the middle man? Not so bad.

        Like


      • Hmm, I don’t know. It sounds lonely. Must be one of those crazy gender differences 🙂

        Like


      • Did you ever feel lonely around your beta orbiters?

        Like


      • I didn’t have that kind of heft 🙂

        Like


      • The funny part is that she would say the EXACT SAME THING to her own son or brother in spite of the fact that this arrangement directly benefits his interests (and by extension her genetic promulgation, in each case the successful male ensures that 50% of her genetic content).

        You can’t be this daft.

        “Herd instinct”? “Genetic promulgation”?

        Scientism run amok. Who are you going to believe, textbook theory voodoo or your own lying eyes?

        You could have just said, Yes, Virginia, There Is A Double Standard, men can have friendships in ways impossible for women, and left it at that. Instead you invoke dead philosophasters’ even deader thoughts in some play for intellectual intimidation, rather than referencing the common phenomena everyone can understand.

        This is CH’s scientistic legacy , opening Pandora’s box and salinating all the potable water in the ‘sphere. Now even dunderheaded dilettantes like you think you can fabricate a pet evolutionary theory, tailor it to any circumstance, and call it situational insight. Above all things, it’s just lazy.

        Matt

        Like


      • ya but I AM lazy.

        because I can be.

        Like


      • No, you can’t.

        You can’t even get the art of self-aggrandizement right, and that is deadly in a puffed-up entitlement queen like you. Men at the top know how small the difference between #1 and #1,000 is, how slippery the perch.

        You’re the worst kind: so much work yet to do, but resting on imaginary laurels.

        Like


      • ur funny.

        happy new year!

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 12:36 pm ballsweatsoop

        Now even dunderheaded dilettantes like you think you can fabricate a pet evolutionary theory, tailor it to any circumstance, and call it situational insight

        I’m not sure if it was an original thought on my part, but for a while now I’ve been living under the impression that much of evolutionary “theory” is just ex-post-facto just-so-story-ism.

        Like


      • You likely arrived at it independently, since it’s the first thing you notice once you transcend the cramped quarters of unconscious dogmatism. “Ex-post-facto Just-So Stories” is perfectly descriptive.

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 3:26 pm Carlos Danger

        My kids are going to get a lot of Kipling.

        Like


      • ni66ers have an extra bone in their foot.

        Like


      • Hyperbole trolling is weak sauce.

        ps blacks do have more sensitive androgen receptors than whites.

        Like


      • My eldest boy was annoying me the other night, so I started reading him Kipling poems. Now he’s reading them to his younger siblings. When Earth’s last picture was painted…

        Like


      • I don’t get that from rereading his what he wrote. He’s just asking whether he “should” be bothered, is he missing something essential, (over)exercising his logical brain, and I would answer no.

        Like


      • Plus one.
        The question is moot, Lara because it doesn’t matter what the girlfriend wants.
        She needs him to have a harem of women threatening to steal her boyfriend at every moment.

        Like


    • If she’s into you, she avoids all “guy friends.” Exceptions for gay dudes, tho.

      Like


  13. Don’t give up your female friends, but you also need to do more to cultivate good men as friends. Hanging out with man friends will help keep your testosterone levels higher, and will be a big help in vaccinatting you against the more egregious beta behaviors.

    Spending too much time with female friends will over time warp your behavior toward beta, female behaviors and speech patterns.

    Like


    • You’re thinking ’emotional tampon’ friend. Think female equivalent of beta orbiter — T will be high, you will be dominant, and you will be more attractive.

      Like


      • With only 2 of the 10 described as DTF, I’d say he is not in the midst of a soft harem, and having a few more solid male friendships would help him maintain his frame and T-levels.
        Besides, men are generally more interesting to hang around longer term anyway.

        Note I didn’t say a thing about giving up a single one of his female friends, just that he needed to cultivate his male friends more. It will also give his girlfriend more hamster fuel, which is a bonus, as she won’t always know for sure which set of friends he’s going to hang with at a given time. Logical? No. But the hamsters have their own logic.

        Like


  14. Lol. Whatever the context, it is weird. He’s getting the high five from you guys because, for now, she’s jealous. That’s good, but he should watch carefully for contemptuousness. To me, guy with no guy friends + lots of girl friends that he isn’t trying to have sex with = feminine. Or gay. If she’s making cracks about whether you’re getting good scoop on shoe sales, that’s *not* jealousy. That’s a shit test because you’re acting beta.

    I have heterosexual male friends. There are certain dynamics to it that can work. But since my guy friends are heterosexual, they have GUY friends too. Men and women are not going to be able to fill all of each other’s needs in friendship. Do any of you guys like to shop or discuss nail polish? Because I don’t know anything about professional sports…

    Like


    • on January 2, 2014 at 1:30 pm Hugh G. Rection

      Well he’s banging a girl so you thinking he’s gay is probably of little concern.

      Like


      • When and to whom was what she thought of concern at all?

        Like


      • He cares what the girl he’s banging thinks though, doesn’t he? I’m telling him what to look for when the girl is shit testing his masculinity (contempt=bad) vs. shit testing his commitment to her (jealousy=good).

        If he acts like a gay girlfriend who doesn’t want to be around other guys, she might start questioning his masculinity, because most men don’t act like that. Whether he actually IS straight or gay is beside the point.

        Like


  15. I agree with CH. I also go out with other women, and it does keep my women eager to please.

    On the other hand, making friends with a couple of men is a good idea. For one thing, they won’t desert you when the chips are down.

    What your gf is hoping is that your male friends will displace your female friends. Don’t let that happen. Keep them both.

    Like


  16. CH READER TIP FOR THE CH check out juliens not so known convos with his chicks for nuklear red pill insights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yTf1LkWFXM

    Like


  17. ” I find it much easier to talk to girls and make friends with them than with guys.”

    How boring or gay you have to be to say something like this?

    I find girls generally very boring. Like somebody said, “men have biographies, women have grandchildren”. There is a reason “friendzoning” works only one way; very seldom a alpha wants to be friends with some girl he does not want to fuck, as girls are generally very boring. Men in the other hand are usually interesting, we do stuff. Another example is the fact that magazines for girls are called “me”, “woman”, “self” and so on. Magazines for men are called “technology”, “boats” or “motorbikes”.

    I think this is not “holding court for women”, rather than something else. So I have to disagree with CH here.

    Like


    • http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/12/29/3842994/two-dead-in-domestic-shooting.html

      The result of Hypergamy and no fault divorce letting women run feral. Page 2 of bible explains why.

      Like


      • The guy got revenge on his wife and her family for cuckolding him, and the story calls it “senseless”!? They need better writers.

        The blue pill overlay is pervasive. I was watching a BBC special (on youtube) about the Italian sculptor Bernini. His younger brother was secretly fucking his girlfriend (who was by the way another man’s wife, but that’s beside the point …) and they said Bernini had too much temper for chasing his brother into the Vatican and trying to kill him there. They continued to talk about Bernini’s horrible temper, even though this was the only example.

        I was saying “of course, what else should he have done?” He also had a guy slash up the girl’s face. Then he got pardoned because the pope was his good friend, and the girl after having her face slashed spent years in prison for adultery!

        Like


    • Concern trolling.

      I like chatting with women, stimulating them, joking with them, seeing what reactions I get, pushing the envelope. Game is (usually) fun for the guy.

      Maybe some guys are so smooth it’s all automatic and it’s boring for them. If there are such guys, they have my respect but I am not that advanced.

      Like


      • Yes, playing is fun. The point is that he found it easier to make friends with them. I like fucking them as much as the next guy, but my best friends are guys. Girls are like console-games: at the end you will come bored because they are actually always the same game just different cover / slightly different story.

        I love it when I start talking to some HB 7-9 and it is very much the same story: first school, then they went to Uni, after Uni they went to travel in Australia for a year, did not go to NZ because they had no time (read no money), came back to old continent and started working.

        I am generalizing obv. but hope that you see my point.

        Like


      • “after Uni they went to travel in Australia for a year”

        I believe this is in physics known as the “many-cock” problem.

        Like


    • My sentiments exactly. He could cut his chick time in half and still have the same number of options with the ladies and his GF.

      Like


    • Some Girls i know are more friendly, in a new classroom if i was passive the first people that tried to talk with me for long time were mostly girls, most guys would say hi and be more brief, though there were some few talketive and friendly guys who tried to talk with me long time.

      Like


    • Nah, bray. Try having a few girls who are “secretly” in love with you as friends. You will then know why girls string along beta orbiters. It’s pretty great — like a personal cheerleading squad.

      Like


      • You probably have a good point here. And if I one day have enough time, I might try that.

        But I have to say that I am too busy to have girls around just because they are girls. Past two years I have had almost none free time. And the time I have I like to either meet a fuck-buddy, girl that I am hoping to play with or spend it with my friends (guys). I rather not spend it with girls that I actually do not want to fuck.

        Also to the point that I had above was that the guy in the blog did not have harem, he had girls as actual friends.

        Like


      • I think we see the frame differently. Girls are just about never “actual friends”. Either there’s mutual sexual repulsion (must admit to a few of those, back when my game was on the negative scale) or …

        One or the other has the sexual upper hand. This does not require that they ever even touched physically. Basically I don’t think it’s hard for a guy to get that upper hand. All he has to do is not be supplicating, think with his large head rather than his small one, and have a little patience. Even if he was supplicating before, just stopping that will in time move things in his favor. If the woman starts random abuse, it’s because she sees her position slipping.

        Girls are dogs, pack animals. They don’t understand ambiguity. If you’re not supplicating and can waltz in and out of their lives (easy to do, the male has license to approach and retreat) you have the upper hand.

        Like


  18. CH drops ball badly on this one. Of course it’s weird unless the guy writing is a homo. This guy needs to get some male friends ASAP (is Friendster still active?)

    Other major disagreement with CH is over importance of children. What real man wouldn’t want a son to grow up and be a football star? Too many people in manosphere never played sports, I fear. Nothing better than seeing fruit of loins dominating on the gridiron or other athletic endeavor.

    Have kids you faggots.

    Like


    • Agree on the first half of your last sentence, not another word of it. You like sports, that’s fine but it has little to do with procreation. Bruce fucking Jenner, ffs, was recently cuckolded with stories in the tabloid press.

      Like


      • That whole marriage has to be a beard. The guy is turning himself into a woman slowly and the Kardashian mom is a warpig. Personally I think it would be immensely cool to produce a Michael Phelps or Payton Manning and I’m not a big sports fan.

        Like


      • I agree with none of your comment, and not a word more. A former athlete getting played by his harpy wife is rather irrelevant to the question of whether having athletic kids is a desirable thing.

        Athletic generally equates to biologically fit. Thus having athletic children is a biological imperative. Don’t be a denier, the science is in.

        Moreover, the commentary about the manosphere being a bunch of lamda lamda lamda rejects, without a physically competitive bone in their body, is worth discussion. I’ve too often seen snarky snipes about “sportsball” on this very blog. I’m not saying that one need enjoy sports, but the butt hurt inherent in such commentary underlies a psychological profile of a loser. Someone whose disdain for sports in not a function of any innate preferences, but as a function of their oversensitivity to scrutiny and aversion to competition.

        Like


      • Great comment. A strong mind needs a strong body.

        Like


      • “A strong mind needs a strong body” … but why it has to be within the confines of this heathen land’s second religion?

        Like


      • on January 1, 2014 at 9:11 am Carlos Danger

        It doesn’t, but team sports has altogether different dynamics and lessons than do individual sports. I think both should be pursued. I don’t really care if its football or soccer or volleyball. It’s making them fit, building their bodies, and teaching them important lessons in socialization.

        Like


      • +1, especially on the tri-lamb reference. 😉

        And you hit it on the head… most of the snark on this site (and others) is coming from socially-awkward nonfit clowns that couldn’t get laid in high school… some self-admitted… and those scars run deep enough to show themselves the minute they get called on their bullshit.

        Like


      • Be that as it may, it’s still got truth in it. As guys discover red-pill truths, they exclaim “I’ve been fooled, I’ve been lied to” and some angry outburst is normal. The same thing over and over, true every time it’s said.

        Like


      • Anger and outburst is fine. Just channel it productively.

        Distortion born of lingering resentment, however: get the fuck out of my face.

        Like


      • Sorry, I’m short and unathletic and raising children as the head of an intact family. Athletic fitness is not the only kind of fitness, nor is the only kind that attracts women. I’ll admit my 20’s were pretty unexciting, but that’s partly because I went to engineering school and destroyed what was a somewhat promising social life in high school. My monastic period was mainly from choice leading to a lack of effort.

        I like playing some sports even though I am not good at them. Team sports are more fun and less pressure.

        Like


      • It’s not about physical fitness. It is about learning how to act among men to accomplish (contextual) greatness together.

        “Freedom is the disciplining of desires so as to make the achievement of the good first possible and then effortless” — Robert Barron

        That thar is your vagin-o-tingler.

        Like


      • Well why, as the head of the household, are you letting your kids see their chief male role model as “unathletic.” Athletic fitness is probably the most important kind of fitness, because all the other types of fitness flow from it:

        In every demand, therefore, which can be laid upon the body it is much better that it should be in the best condition; since, even where you might imagine the claims upon the body to be slightest—in the act of reasoning—who does not know the terrible stumbles which are made through being out of health?

        It suffices to say that forgetfulness, and despondency, and moroseness, and madness take occasion often of ill-health to visit the intellectual faculties so severely as to expel all knowledge from the brain. But he who is in good bodily plight has large security. He runs no risk of incurring any such catastrophe through ill-health at any rate; he has the expectation rather that a good habit must procure consequences the opposite to those of an evil habit; and surely to this end there is nothing a man in his senses would not undergo….

        It is a base thing for a man to wax old in careless self-neglect before he has lifted up his eyes and seen what manner of man he was made to be, in the full perfection of bodily strength and beauty. But these glories are withheld from him who is guilty of self-neglect, for they are not wont to blaze forth unbidden.”

        Even Socrates — Xenophon’s, admittedly — knew it. Being muscular makes your game better, makes you think better, makes you work better, etc. etc.

        Like


    • Oddly enough, CH is meta gaming the chick by ignoring her sentiments in a question about her sentiments, (high level stuff).

      Like


    • It’s unusual for most guys to be able to draw lots of female attention. He has that covered in spades. Social proof is high. His only real concern with that much estrogen around, is he doesn’t start acting like they do and continues to use them as he has for sharpening his attraction skills.

      Having male friends doesn’t necessarily make you more masculine although they can add to your life in many ways that women just can’t. Playing sports and having children are distractions like anything else. Neither makes you a man. Responsibility doesn’t make you a man. Calling other guys faggots doesn’t make you a man.

      How well you stand on your own and achieve social status is what makes you a man.

      Like


      • Achieving social status is what makes you a man? You mean like the pansified liberal social strivers who spout PC bullshit at cocktail parties?

        Watching your son dominate or at least participate in manly sports is an indescribable feeling. The tone around here never acknowledges how great that is. It’s a shame. Love CH but it’s a HUGE blind spot and I think he knows it.

        Like


      • Yes, insight about the value and rewards of having children is indeed a blind spot in the manosphere in general. I suppose because so many are childless.

        Like


    • As much as you are railing against the manosphere, you too, are also in a limited scope.

      So I wouldn’t be a good dad if I don’t watch my kid play ni66aball? Really? You are way off on that one. I do not disagree, AT ALL, with the need for athleticism in a son but there are a dozen outlets for such a thing.

      Practically speaking, one of the most obvious and best would be start them into martial arts at a young age. Early on it would be the less useful and more structured type but as he gets older move him into “applied” martial arts like Krav Maga.

      You can cheer little Johnny smashing the blocking sled as a teenager. I can cheer him whipping your kid’s ass AND the other kid who thought they were tough jocks until they mouthed off too much to the wrong kid.

      Intelligence is the primary asset it is what seperates man from beast, athleticism is secondary, but important.

      Like


      • If you think your son is beating up two football players at the same time you’ve never been in a fight. Watched too much tv most likely. Mariska Hargitay is not really an ass kicking detective.

        Krav Magaw or whatever the fuck you call it is a nice addition but the best for fighting and best base for MMA is wrestling which btw those two football players are doing in the winter months. People that know fighting know this.

        We’re probably not far apart though. P

        Like


      • But wrestling is “homoerotic.” So is MMA. My junior college gender studies prof told me so.

        Like


      • Lol
        I started taking MMA because of Krasuers blog and I’m an infinitely happier man for it. There’s more to these blogs than meets the “pua’s” eye, and the wisdom is infinite in the comments section. It has been the best education of my life, and very little has been about literal “game”.

        Like


      • So I wouldn’t be a good dad if I don’t watch my kid play ni66aball? Really?

        Insecure overinterpretation. Not what he said at all.

        The goal is to develop arete or excellence and the universally acknowledged virtue of leadership as early as possible in men.

        You can cheer little Johnny smashing the blocking sled as a teenager. I can cheer him whipping your kid’s ass AND the other kid who thought they were tough jocks until they mouthed off too much to the wrong kid.

        What were you saying about níggers again?

        You smell like a bitter burnout here, not the impression I got from your previous posts.

        Like


      • he goal is to develop arete or excellence and the universally acknowledged virtue of leadership as early as possible in men.

        Oh I am well aware of his intent, my point was it can be accomplished in a myriad of ways that do not have to be throwing pigskin around.

        You smell like a bitter burnout here, not the impression I got from your previous posts.

        There is some truth here which was not hard to ascertain as I telegraphed it pretty heavily. I have no objection to football itself. I have objection to what is had done to a nation of men that have became so enthralled with it that while the house is crumbling down around them, they are busy watching bucks run a ball around a field. We have no great cause, in their eyes, to rally behind so Go Team!

        Therefore, the danger you run with football as your only source of ‘arete’ is that this next generation of sons will also turn into couch potato burnouts when they get older as well. Yes, some exceptional few will become true scholar/athletes and leaders of men. But they will be a gross minority and I feel like most will simply ignore the other “stuff” that is needed to watch Tyrone run back that interception for big win.

        Like


      • My follow up got nuked into cyberspace and I don’t feel like typing it out again so I’ll summarize.

        I wouldn’t say ‘bitter burnout’ but football leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it turns white males into negro worshipping couch potatoes. There is ways to build rapport and leadership with men that doesn’t involve pigskin. Football the sport, I have no beef with at all, I am just 100% aware of its deleterious side effects. And there is a good chance if you push your kid hard on the gridiron he is going to start fucking up in -way- more important areas like building himself intellectually and expanding knowledge.

        Like


      • Jay in DC

        but football leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it turns white males into negro worshipping couch potatoes.
        —————————————————————————————————–

        And whats wrong with that?

        You mad bro?

        When I watch the winter olympics I become a honkey worshipping couch ni66a? You don’t see me hatin?

        BTW– one day a great black skier is gonna show up and snatch all ya’ll gold. Mark my words, its only a matter of time.

        Whatchoogonna do then?

        Like


      • poop

        Like


      • I wouldn’t say ‘bitter burnout’ but football leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it turns white males into negro worshipping couch potatoes.

        I see our disconnect.

        I’m not talking about pro sports or fandom from the couch. I’m talking about participation in team athletics as young men as the means of proper formation.

        Male stage mothers and divas living vicariously push a kid into sports for dreams of superstardom. The well-adjusted father, on the other hand, kickstarts his son’s manliness by forcing him into that severe meritocracy where he will learn to associate effectively (and in unison) with both his betters and his lessers.

        Like


      • Team foraging.

        Like


    • Too many people in manosphere never played sports, I fear.

      Nail —> Head

      So much learned on the field and in the field by doing, and without all the inane feminine chitter chatter chattiness beloved by late bloomers and recovering omegas.

      It’s like you have to explain and defend the things any coach or father should have taught them beginning at age 5.

      It’s sportslessness and also fatherlessness, no dad or substitute figure, the (literal) fruits of the Divorce Generation.

      Like


    • This.

      I’ve never understood the manosphere’s obsession with not having kids. That’s essentially genetic defeat for your line. Why do this? Because society is hostile towards masculinity? Yes, it’s a pain in the ass. But it’s your duty as a competitive, living organism.

      If anything people like us should endeavour to have MORE kids. Look at all the leftist scum, refusing to have lots of kids because they think “the world has too many people”. If our children outnumber theirs, this demographic advantage could play well in the coming generations.

      Like


  19. “Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god.
    Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”
    ― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

    I believe that if you substitute dogs and cats for men and women respectively; you end up with much the same result.

    Like


    • But I read a fairly convincing piece saying that men are cats and women are dogs.

      Like


      • Taken as a collective, women are dogs. Pack animals. Men are like cats, indiviualistic loners.

        Taken as individuals, the inverse is true. Men are very dog like in that treating them kindly will breed affection and in many cases a fierce loyalty in which they would, in dog like fashion, offer their life up to protect yours. This is behavior 100% foreign to females.

        Cats, on the other hand, seen individually are women. You are living in their world and you must meet their needs. If they are feeling magnanimous on any given day they may acknowledge you exist, if only for their amusement.

        Like


      • As sound a summation as any. +1

        Like


      • a perfect segway for some Kipling

        http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/79/just-so-stories/1296/the-cat-that-walked-by-himself/

        But the wildest of all the wild animals was the Cat. He walked by himself, and all places were alike to him.

        Of course the Man was wild too. He was dreadfully wild. He didn’t even begin to be tame till he met the Woman, and she told him that she did not like living in his wild ways. She picked out a nice dry Cave, instead of a heap of wet leaves, to lie down in; and she strewed clean sand on the floor; and she lit a nice fire of wood at the back of the Cave; and she hung a dried wild-horse skin, tail-down, across the opening of the Cave; and she said, ‘Wipe your feet, dear, when you come in, and now we’ll keep house.’

        Like


      • We all know that you know how to spell “segue” and that you’re just baiting.

        Like


      • no white man can resist a negro spelling error

        Like


      • Very good analysis, Jay.

        Like


      • Well said Sir.

        Like


      • Yet, game behavior is for a man to act catlike. Cold, aloof, self-centered. And when it works, which is often, it elicits doglike behavior in a woman: submissive to the man, concerned about pecking order vs. other women.

        And doesn’t it make sense for the group behavior to be consistent with the individual behavior, animal-wise, rather than switching?

        Like


  20. putting up with ten different girl friends and their blather in order to keep the one girlfriend on edge enough to keep things fresh? and no sex with them? that’s a huge price to pay to keep a girlfriend, in my opinion. if you like it, great, but your life is sex with one girl, and ten chickens clucking in your ear. no thank you.

    Like


  21. Well at least the OP reads CH to obtain balance…all that girltalk only is brain bio-hazard material.
    That said, Russell Brand comes to mind. This new age skinny jean metrosexual is no stranger to unlimited pussy on tap. Hes seems to kinda ride the edge of what women want and what they dont want..like his alpha confidence vs. touchy feely emotional Men Mars..Women Venus guy.
    I would bet a thousand bucks he was gay, but id probably be wrong.
    Women need masculinity..i dont think they get that vibe from Brand over time or in bed. ?

    Like


    • Apparently the dude is hung like a weasel so…..hey, maybe.

      Like


      • And yet he gets Katy Perry…maybe she got tired of having to peg him all the time.

        I think CH should do a whole post dedicated to examining the new age metrosexual man raised in this single mom feminist era.

        Like


    • Do women need masculinity? Probably so, it’s good for them.

      Are women attracted to masculinity? That’s far more questionable. Much of game involves acting more like a girl than a guy.

      Like


      • Women are attracted to masculinity. Attraction comes from the hindbrain.
        Don’t listen to what they say, it usually comes from the forebrain.

        Nice guys don’t get girls because they think being nice means not acting like a “guy”. They act more like girlfriends with the girls they want to bed and thats how the girl’s hindbrain sees them. As a friend.

        Always remember when you deal with a female, you are dealing with two people. Her forebrain, who she sees herself as/her conscious self and her hindbrain that is constantly judging if you can make/raise/protect babies well.

        Like


      • Women are attracted to masculinity in a way they are not attracted to their girlfriends. Very few women are lesbians, far fewer than homosexual men.

        I’ve just always found that what I lacked was not masculinity but understanding of what to do with women. And when it comes to women, understanding them is a matter of femininity. Game is full of catlike behavior, which Jay said above is (on an individual level) feminine, though I am not sure I agree.

        Like


    • No need to marvel at magnets. The dude is rich = all mystery explained. Meanwhile, Tom Brady still pulls way better birds.

      Like


      • Precisely. This is so obvious, hat one can see that he cause of commentators confusions are the people magazines that make them even think about clowns like Russell brand. If I ever met him in the street id gag and shuffle the other way. If I met Tom Brady in the street id probably peg him as a regular cool guy. This is obvious.

        Like


    • Brand once estimated that as a “sex addict” he had sex with 83 women a month. In an interview. Boasting, bs, overcounting? Maybe. Perry was by her own account incredibly attracted to him and distraught and semi-suicidal at the end of her marriage. Guy acts VERY gay. And is by all accounts a ladykiller. Perhaps not to the degree he boasts but certainly large even for celebs.

      Like


    • lol. brand acts that way to dq himself.

      good god you all are so one-dimensional at the absolutely wrong times.

      Like


  22. ” I find it much easier to talk to girls and make friends with them than with guys.”

    All girls do is talk…that’s their thing. No wonder its easier.

    I find I have much better and more interesting conversations with guys than women.

    Like


    • A comment may lead to competition with a guy, but the same comment will be appreciated by a woman, because I guess she appreciates my dominance.

      Not hard for me to understand at all. At parties I always feel better after long chats with females than with males.

      Like


      • I see what you mean in that post. Out of my guy friends, I only have one who acts slightly alpha, and we’ve physically fought on several occasions, having known each other more than two decades. It’s an uneasy peace. The other members of the group are lowly yesman type followers.
        I personally find dominant type males annoying company as they intend to do things their way, which is against what I intend to do, things my way. Rarely do I see dominant aggressive type guys keeping peaceful relations for very long with others unless some sort of hierarchy is involved to keep the peace. In any group of guys theres always a leader and followers. Egalitarian relations between men is rare, exceptions of course for brothers and cousins or males you may have grown up with being more typical in my experience.

        Like


      • I personally find dominant type males annoying company as they intend to do things their way, which is against what I intend to do, things my way.

        A man doesn’t socially dominate by insisting that everyone do what he wants, like an 8-year-old girl at her birthday party. There is a time and place for marking your territory, but it is simply counterproductive to rub a fellow’s face in your urine. There is an art to being first among equals, and it doesn’t involve perpetual piss matches. It involves persuasion, chiefly by example, not words.

        A leader primarily enforces the ethos that makes it safe for men to cooperate rather than compete, which is the more natural instinct. Once you drop the insufferable faux-manly edginess about winning every battle (often through self-deprecation and lighthearted ridicule), you can enlist alphas to your side rather than making everyone a loser in a perpetual war of all against all.

        You know you’re all right when you can acknowledge superiority in your midst. It’s weak men — with much to hide and much to prove — who fixate on their butthurt in the presence of better men than they. Recognizing greater virtue in another is its own virtue: courage.

        I “personally find dominant type males” the greatest possible company — if only for their intolerance of bullshit and weakness, for their unparalleled honesty — though I can see it might be annoying if all you’re bringing to the group is resentment and attitude.

        Now I doubt that is the dynamic in your case, but you are squandering an opportunity by surrounding yourself with weak men. Rather, you should hammer out an understanding with fellows like your alpha friend, an unspoken mutual respect for each other’s strengths.

        It’s almost like … wait for it … gaming women.

        Matt

        Like


      • I prefer to keep more dominant type males at arms reach, more of a social network of sorts. I have an acquaintance who’s father was a mechanic. He grew up in his pops shop, and inherited the impressive pile of equipment when his old man died.
        He’s one hell of an auto mechanic, and enjoys cigars. He keeps me away from his group and I do the same, meeting in the middle to talk cigars and when I need work done. It’s a limited friendship, but it’s the best we can muster.
        Is this what you’re referring to?

        Like


      • “Egalitarian relations between men is rare, exceptions of course for brothers and cousins or males you may have grown up with being more typical in my experience.”

        Or well-adjusted guys. They exist, yeah.

        Like


      • Very few and far between.
        If you’re lucky to have them as friends, keep them. Of course you may be confusing one of your very own yesman type followers as well adjusted. 😉
        “That Brandon is a cool dude.”
        “Only because he behaves according to how you would expect him to. You approve of his behavior because he obeys you.”

        Like


      • I’m mostly talking about guys who have their own thing going on the side, but are willing to spend some of their time with others (not necessarily alpha others) in a win-win scenario. Going on to pick up chicks is a classic examples, but you can also introduce a friend to a sport event you go to regularly for example (you bring an extra player and he gets to move his ass while having support from an experienced player).

        It’s nothing really out of the ordinary, in fact manly behaviour isn’t necessarily “impressive” to watch, but the idea is creating win-win scenarios. It’s very easy to do, but very rarely do people actually do that. A now good friend of mine confessed he thought I was very “strange” at first, but learned to understand what I was doing and why (he had a lot of admiration too). Creating positive social bonds isn’t the norm anymore it seems, how low have we fallen.

        Like


      • bob

        “Egalitarian relations between men is rare,
        ———————————————————————-

        Thats because men rarely work together with a TRUE collective purpose anymore.

        “5 decorated officers say you’re the shooter, the cathedral is gonna want a tube of your blood; what they gonna find bob? Do tha math; You been hangin out at the Chateau all day readin game haven’t you?

        Like


      • Yeah. I don’t get into fights, but then I hate bars, I can’t hear in them and look very awkward because of it. It’s not that I have bad hearing, in fact I have the hearing of a musician, but communicating in a bar defeats me.

        With men, there’s often a tension in a conversation. With a woman, I can say anything, and generally the more aggressive the more interesting the result. I am free to push the envelope, with inspiration from my experience confirmed by sites like this. Let’s stipulate that I am doing at least a non-shitty job talking to these women. I do not claim to be some sort of smooth expert, but I can come across as non-supplicative at least.

        That’s better than things go with men. With men it’s always partly about pecking order unless I already know them well. With women, we’re different so we don’t need a pecking order, or else I am naturally slightly higher in the pecking order — it’s easy because the woman wants that too, and I’m married = social proof + non threatening.

        If I weren’t married, women would be more into qualifying me “what work do you do” etc., and this leads to competitive relationships post-feminism. I hate that part, just glad I am out of that so far …

        OP is in an established relationship, it sounds like he’s acting equal to dominant with these other female friends, so I think I know where he’s coming from. I just think his current gf is right to expect him to shit or get off the pot because she has an expiration date. That’s not really stupid “chivalry” but acting with respect to the realities of nature.

        Use game to take what you want and need, then get out of the way!

        Like


  23. On the one hand, this arrangement definitely makes me think ‘homosexual’ because those dudes always have big groups of girls for friends. On the other hand, there’s a few different types of womanizers, and the soft velvety woman minded man is one of them. One I have a hard time understanding because I personally am excessively macho and am bad at hanging out with girls I’m not/not trying to bang, but if it works, good for him.

    Like


  24. Add those girls to your rotation. Start a harem.

    Like


  25. Me, I’ve got two true friends… pain and a dollar bill.

    Like


  26. on December 31, 2013 at 2:08 pm Holden Caulfield

    Here’s a direct comparison of 18 vs. 60 for all the beta males out there thinking about or wanting to “man up”:

    http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-news/grudge-match-surprise-ireland-baldwin-acting-debut-003208396.html

    1) If you can have younger cute female “friends” all the better when your gf behaves badly and you need a comfort bang.
    2) the wall is real

    Like


  27. I’m parroting what some others have said, but I do find this whole this a bit odd. Yes, at face value, having a soft harem is virtually never a bad thing and brings more benefit than liability.

    However, I have to say many people are seeing this as I am. The guy has either won the karmic lottery by having 12 chicks that are either a) very dudebro like in their inclinations or b) have something really interesting to say on any given day.

    Statistically speaking, the chances of this are probably close to zero, so then we must look at the alternative.

    He could be the right combination of handsome and vapid himself. It doesn’t make him gay as others have posited. He is just not a typical macho man and can entertain himself with fairly mindless crap. No harm, no foul.

    There is of course, the chance that what everyone else is saying is true that he is “on the fence” in some way, but I don’t see that as being the only reality here.

    Like


  28. on December 31, 2013 at 3:14 pm Mitch Cumstein

    “I find that girls are easier to go out and do things with, like go to the bar, play pool, or even just grab a coffee, or lunch with…”

    I don’t refute the lunch or coffee part, but the rest…what kind of girls are these? It’s a hassle to get men to go to the bar or play pool, or do you just like playing against someone with zero chance of beating you?

    Having lunch with an interesting girl you’re not fucking is a distinct honor, like being the world’s tallest midget.

    The reason I say that is men like to talk about all sorts of things, whereas with girls never transcend discussion beyond relationships. Namely yours. I’ve got a group of girlfriends, though I spend less and less time with them. Not because of pressure from any one girlfriend (though there certainly was that), but because an entire lunch is really an interrogation in disguise. “What’s new with you?” is code for “Are you and your gf still together?”

    If you’re ever in a bind, it won’t be these girls who swoop in to help you. If your car breaks down and you need a lift back to town, it’ll be a guy friend who comes through in the clutch. A woman will take your call, list an excuse, and then text you later to make sure you made it back okay. She may be “invested” in helping you, but she will put zero effort in to actually doing so. Unless you call her up and request an emergency meeting to discuss your relationship. “I’ll be there in five minutes.”

    Don’t listen to your girlfriend and don’t ditch these girls as your friends, but don’t depend on them for anything beyond innocent chitchat, either. Cultivate more male friendships. You can do both, you know. Do you know how to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time?

    Like


    • The most reasonable and realistic comment in this thread ^^^

      Nice work Mitch C

      Like


      • Werd

        Like


      • on December 31, 2013 at 6:41 pm Mitch Cumstein

        Eight ball, corner pocket. Thanks fellas and Happy New Year

        Like


      • Correct, Mitch. Just one small detail, they are “female friends”, not “girlfriends”. Some women like to refer to their friends as “girlfriends” because they think it sounds daring and sexy, but as always, we shouldn’t encourage the linguistic faults women engage in.

        Like


    • True. And that’s why when one of my best friends stopped coming thru a couple times for help, I put two and two together and started seeing his other pussy tendencies. A real male friend will save your life at the drop of a hat. No question, we all know this.

      Like


      • on December 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm Mitch Cumstein

        I just realized something: if he’s got 11 female friends and one solid male buddy, who the hell does he call when he needs help moving?

        Like


      • His 11 bishes and they sit around a round table at starbucks “discussing” his options. Then he gets ass raped by a moving company.

        Like


      • I’ve had women help with actual things. But I don’t know if they would be willing to do it with just a bunch of other girls i.e. no eye candy or attention for them.

        Like


      • Most droll.

        Although I will say, in the past, after having helped someone move, I’ve often told them that the next time I’d rather help them with the mortgage.

        Like


  29. First of all, a great sigma or a alpha plus will never colligate with betas or omegas for create the bullshit called men friendship.

    Alpha plusses and greater sigmas know what they need to do, know what to say and know jow to make things interesting,

    Please, don’t start with the bullshit off”I just talk with man because they are more interesting”, because they can’t be interesting if you are already interesting.

    Woman attract more woman and give you more respect with another alphas.

    Have you ever seen a lot of 10/10 girls colligate with some ugly girls just for support? THEY DON’T DO IT, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SUPPORT.

    Allright, it’s true that you have to socialize sometimes with some betas, omegas and another loosers just to support your alfa kingdom, but if you are a true self made man you will perceive that for the cost benefit relationship woman are better company than man.

    Like


    • Yes, this. But sober.

      Like


    • I concur, Fora.
      There’s ALWAYS a hierarchy in any social circle, male or female.
      Alphas do what they want, the rest rationalize their positions.

      Like


    • I’m presuming you’re drunk or English is not your native language. Elements of your statement are correct to an extent. But saying that interesting men can’t find other men interesting is absurd.

      You’re buying into the false, commonly held (or heavily implied) assumption in the manosphere of the omnipotent alpha and that poosy is the be all and end all.

      Alpha does not mean all infallible, all conquering, completely unaffected and operating independent of the currents of the rest of society. It doesn’t exist (no, not even Silvio Berlusconi).

      And I seriously doubt that even super alpha Berlusconi would support your last sentence. If you observe him, while he may constantly be joking about pussy in public discourse, you’d realise there are more important things to him that deserve devotion of his time and energies.

      Like


      • He described the “alpha life fantasy”, where you are some kind of super-hero above everyone and everything. If anything, alphas have to be even more responsible, or else they will lose other people’s respect and be taken down (no, you’re not invincible or omnipotent).

        Like


      • Never underestimate the rationalization power of your fellow men. Most men are content to sit back in a social circle and be the peasantry of their local lord, creating an echo chamber of agreement for his various opinions and rediculing his fellow naves if they step out of the implied unspoken boundaries of the group. Pay closer attention the next time you’re in your social circle, the guys are all subconsciously deferring to one male in your group, hopefully it’s you.
        They laugh when he laughs, they agree with his opinion or if they must disagree, only do so very, very tucktailed, singsonging their voice apologetically with prefaces like “I see what you’re saying, but…” or “I agree with most of what you say but it’s my opinion…”. They always laugh when he does, or appear very nervous after realizing that they laughed and he didn’t. He is critical of them, never impressed, only handing out compliments as necessary to reinforce their compliance. They ask him for advice (read approval) by telling him all of their personal business, a psychological equivalent of rolling over on their backs and exposing their soft underbelly.
        Mention their submissive behavior and watch the rationalization of the most weak and the anger of the more bold, their reaction to you of course being a telltale of your social standing within the circle, whether they submit or challenge is relative to your rank.
        No one said it was fair or right, it just is.

        Like


      • Patriarch

        Never underestimate the rationalization power of your fellow men. Most men are content to sit back in a social circle and be the peasantry of their local lord, creating an echo chamber of agreement for his various opinions and rediculing his fellow naves if they step out of the implied unspoken boundaries of the group.
        —————————————————————————————————

        This needs to be carved on the side of a moutain.

        Take a bow Arch.

        Like


      • Psychological slavery is and has always been in existence.

        Like


      • Please. Are you president of the US, are you Putin of Russia? Top doggie in the world? You have about 3 billion brothers. You aren’t boss of most of them. You are either equal or subservient to most of them.

        I respect PUA as talented. But few of them are important outside their circle of local pub boys.

        There is no dishonor in not being the commander in chief, or an admiral or a general, Society needs Private First Class. There is no dishonor in that. And unless you are top doggie dog in the world, you’re just one of us as well.

        Get over yourself.

        Like


      • Touched a nerve.
        I never claimed to be the top dog of the Earth.
        Just my social circle.
        Get over your own desire to rationalize and form your own social circle.

        Like


      • Or even just join a circle. We can’t all, and some of us don’t.

        Like


      • I know a guy who actually only has a few acquaintances and his rotation of hoebags.
        Some people seem to not need it.

        Like


    • lol once we start getting into ‘pluses’ ‘greaters’ and ‘sigmas,’ this shit has become a geek circle-jerk.

      Having said that…..I agree that women who are in love with you and attracted make better company than other men. Alphas compete with you, betas supplicate but fail to increase your status, and omegas drop your status.

      Like


  30. on December 31, 2013 at 4:20 pm The Spirit Within

    OT

    The Atlantic swallows the red pill, re: sociopaths and attractiveness.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/manly-faces-and-aggressive-men/282438/

    Like


    • Successful men are mean and attractive, and don’t give a fuck about equality or fairness any other liberal feelings. Deal.

      Like


  31. on December 31, 2013 at 5:11 pm The Big Red Eye of Jupiter

    PUA tactics and behaviour work on women, some fools pull it on men. The result is inevitably social exclusion. Male friendship for a man is as psychologically necessary as sex and food and there is no shame in wanting it. Treat men the opposite as one treats girls as a rule and things will be ok. Unless you are a fag and actually like hanging out with women.

    Like


    • To call a man a homosexual because he likes heterosexual conversation is absurd.

      Like


      • on January 2, 2014 at 6:47 pm The Big Red Eye of Jupiter

        Yes, it is positively silly of me to ignore all those straight men out there who actually love talking about celebrities, gossip, and their latest personal grudges. Look, even on this blog, we can note that it’s only the men who have interests in abstract subjects like history, science, religion, and policy. The ladies generally prattle on about themselves and test the men. Women are best enjoyed for their vagina and as eye candy.

        Like


      • Babies are the ultimate vagina candy.

        Like


  32. Having few male friends is fine, in light of the general beta-ness of Western men.

    Like


    • This, unfortunately, I have come to see all too well.

      Like


    • Indeed… all my life, I’ve only ever had one or two male friends I could almost count on… and none when the chips were truly down.

      Not even family, come to think of it… except MAYBE my father-in-law, IF push came to shove… and IF I ASKED for help outright, rather than waiting for him to jump into the breach on his own accord.

      And women, when it comes to loyalty and friendship? Pffffft!

      I attribute it all to the lack of true struggle over the past few generations, making people soft, unappreciative, and oblivious to what would happen to them if I wasn’t around at the right times.

      That, and the general churlish pride of these, the End Times.

      Like


  33. Just sounds like the OP is gay.

    Like


  34. Women are good for sex and having kids.
    Men are good for conversation, sports and hobbies.
    If you want friendship or love, you can’t do better than a dog.
    Cats, parrots or horses work well, too.
    Heck, even a tarantula makes a better and more interesting friend than a woman does.

    Like


  35. Wolfie, you are right on. It is very helpful in a LTR for men and women to have certain separate spheres of influence. There are certain activities such as golf or fishing where the whole purpose is to get away from women. Chicks have similar activities such as shopping where I would assume just not be anywhere near when it is going on. I don’t go in my kitchen much.

    Like


    • I’ve found that to be true, but if OP is doing fine without it, I am sure he can add it if he sees the need.

      Besides, as someone already noted, his participation here counts for something doesn’t it?

      Like


  36. Competition (perceived or otherwise) makes women work harder… a woman wants a man other women want. (Hope some of his female friends like to flirt with him.)

    Like


  37. Ceteris paribus, as long as she is not a bona fide Cluster B personality disorder (i.e. specifically Borderline Personality Disorder), there is more positive than negative to this scenario.

    Like


  38. on January 1, 2014 at 2:08 am Anonymous-one

    I do not know how I found this blog. Needless to say, I find it very interesting. When I read your “Dating Market Value” page, I had a real laugh. What does the amount of weight you can bench press have anything to do with your dating value?

    Like


    • Understand how people perceive physique. Maybe you will learn something. Or you can just type out how you are “laughing” (doubt that you actually do it) in order to sound superior with no facts at all to back up your opinions.

      Like


      • The more you look like you can slam a ni66a head thru a fish tank, the less likely you eva have to actually do it.

        Chicks dig presence.

        My rhyme don’t stink so don’t be claim you smellin it,

        my post so droll bitches call me Greg Eliot.

        (lays mic on floor, raises hands and backs away)

        Like


      • Droll, indeed. (golf clap)

        Like


      • Shouldn’t that be “bitchaz” or something?

        Like


    • The question assumes you go to the gym regularly and maintain a workout program that will improve your physique.
      Imagine asking a woman, ‘How much cardio do you do per week? like on a treadmill or jogging?”
      And she says ‘What does cardio have to do with my dating value. and finding the perfect man?’

      Like


    • If you even have ask the question— you are doing it wrong. Try MOAR.

      Like


  39. […] A reader writes, I wrote to you before about your advice improving the relationship with my mom. I want your critical and scrutinizing take on another situation. I’ve been in a relationship for almost 3 years now.  […]

    Like


  40. The commenters saying this guy needs male friends assume there are very many males around worth having as friends these days. At least in my area, once you weed out the assholes, omegas, the socially backward, and the guys who’ve handed the social calendar (and their balls) over to the wife/girlfriend…you’re talking about a pretty small pool of guys you’d want to hang around with.

    Like


  41. This guy is definitely in the driver’s seat, no doubt about it. The more he stirs feelings of jealousy from his partner by having female friends, he will continue to reap the benefits of his relationship.

    Personally for me, I find it difficult to be “friends” with women (outside of work interactions). Why would I want to talk and hang out with a girl who I’m not banging? Why give her the time of day if I wasn’t trying to stick my dick in there?

    Like


  42. A vision of the future: His girlfriend gets tired of him spending five days a week meeting other girls for coffee and leaves him. Ten of the female friends get boyfriends or get married and disappear. He dates one of the DTF girls for a while. After that comes a new chapter.

    Like


  43. Guys who have a bunch of female friends are in denial about the fact that they would put zero effort into giving these women the time of day unless they wanted to fuck them (whether or not they actually do). They aren’t friends, they’re place holders.

    Every guy I’ve met who has claimed a particular female was just a friend was with someone of a certain minimum fuckable threshold. Ugly women are literally invisible unless you’re forced to interact with them and/or exchanging common courtesies.

    Like


  44. Saccharine beta-male proposal goes bad:

    Like


    • This looks fake to me.

      Like


    • Didn’t look fake to me. But wtf is wrong with that bitch. I’ve heard and seen in my own life that a woman can turn cold in a moment, but the change from one second he’s trying to get him to stand up (OK if she’s going to reject, even noble) to hitting him and walking off, it’s like Jekyll and Hyde within about two seconds.

      Like


  45. bad boy, cougar, wall

    “A Manhattan underwear heiress says her newlywed hubby conned her into raiding a trust fund with phony sob stories about mob gambling debts — only to lavish the six-figure payout on his New Jersey
    mistress”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/01/man-duped-new-bride-into-spending-744k-on-his-mistress/?intcmp=trending

    Like


  46. on January 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm Full-Fledged Fiasco

    Pure lolzzolzz.

    Like


    • Mean girl. One of the comments implies that the bitch who posted the comment is a single mom.

      Single mothers are nothing but issues regardless of their hotness. It’s a test to see if your larger head can overrule your smaller one.

      Like


  47. In my experience there are no true female friends, even thought I thought different at the time. There are only women that you have varying degrees of sexual tension with. You are their pet tom cat, and as a tom you come and go as you please. You have only moderate interest in them, but no real passion for any of them so you keep them around as chew toys. The only real enjoyment is that their boyfriends hate you.

    Like


    • You can find them, but they are very rare. I know a girl who is unusually intelligent and has an analytical mind, even more so than most men. Advanced studies, down to earth due to good upbringing, and interesting to talk to. She has an older brother who she looks up to, that is always a factor that improves a girl (and a guy). I have known her for many years because she was the friend of an ex-girlfriend; she lives in another town now, but we send emails once in a while because it is a valuable contact. When you start getting older, you have to value the contacts you have. You won’t find many new ones.

      Two other girls I know are also interesting to talk to, but not as much as the first one. I see either of them for coffee once in a while, for three reasons: (1) it is good to talk to women you aren’t trying to date, just like it is good to talk to people from all walks of life. It helps you gain a wider perspective, and helps you hone your social skills. (2) You never know when they might come in handy. For example, I ask a girl to meet me at a coffee shop right before I am going to see another group of people, where I am looking to date a girl. Social proof. (3) Heck, it’s relaxing, and it’s just once in a while, with several weeks in between. It’s not something I move around in my schedule to do.

      That’s it. I don’t think of them as friends the way I think of guys as friends. (My two best friends I wouldn’t trade for anything.) I know that once they get boyfriends or get married, they’ll be gone. You have to keep the right perspective.

      Can you have female friends? I think people approach the question wrong: friendship with a woman won’t be the same as friendship with a man. It will be a lighter thing, fascinating and educational in its own way. Not like the deep friendship you have with another man who is on the same level as you.

      To put it another way: you can dance with a girl and go shoot beer cans with a guy. Both are fun, but different.

      As for the guy in the OP, he is spending way too much time with girls who will eventually disappear when they get boyfriends and get married. They are not his “friends” the way he thinks. He is damaging his relationship (the girlfriend will no doubt leave him) and losing lots of free time every week that could have been used for other things. He loses emotional energy – this way he doesn’t feel the need to find guy friends (and he doesn’t have the time for it).

      People can handle five friends on average. Anything more than that and it will erode their lives in various ways. Guy in the OP, you know this is a situation that doesn’t give you much in the long term. You have to think of getting friends that will stay with you for life. You will need those friends when you are middle aged and older. Now is the time when you have to lay the foundation for your later years.

      Like


  48. Off-topic tales from the hood:

    http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131225/uptown/man-accused-of-arranging-mothers-slaying-is-local-actor-rapper

    Chicago-based psychopathic, faggish-looking 24-year old rapper with unpronounceable name Qaw’mane Wilson kills own mother for life insurance policy. Uses the money to “make it rain” at his various performances and buy fancy cars. Purportedly has seven children by six different women. More Dark Tetrad at work!

    Like


  49. I’m a brazilian guy that have scored almost the maximus at the “dark tetrad” tests, so If you wan’t do any question about it I think i’m able to answer.

    Let me make some things clear about some advantages and disadvantages of male/female friendhsip in some cases.

    Lambda Mode: Female friendship Male Friendship
    Social inclusion on group 8/10 1/10
    Just a matter of fact, girls would accept a lambda into their realms and on other way man would excluse lambda males from their social circles to avoid being ostracized. (8/10 bcuz the 10/10 acceptance just exist for trully alphas)
    Social wins with the group 7/10 -1/10
    Just a matter of fact, It’s acceptable to a lambda joins females reals, otherwise a lambda at a male social circle would be focus of jokes, violence and used to help some beta alwawannabe to increased their value (by beating him).

    Ômega mode: Female friendship Male Friendship
    Social inclusion on group —– 3.5/10*
    Just a matter of fact, ômegas aren’t accepted in females realm because they are strange to the point that they aren’t worth the social exclusion because of him, otherwise at the male friendship and groups ômegas plusses are also invited to colligated in works that don’t need social show up, if they need to do activities that show up and need social value (clubbing, movies, meet ups) they are discarded.
    Social wins with the group ——- 8/10
    As a matter of fact, an ômega by himself is a ômega, but a ômega at a male group can easily be confused with a beta minus or a beta plus (depending on case), and with the fact that his social value was none and could upgrade he wons an 8/10 with this interaction.
    Beta minus mode: Female friendship Male Friendship
    Social Inclusion on Group 3/10 6/10

    At female league, betas minus are always discardable and used for socialize and get the contact of others alphas for the female alpha, and to do their hard work, otherwise, at the male league he wins more respect and get invited more often than if he was in the female league, and can also be confused with an beta plus, a fact that increase his value.

    Social wins with the group 5/10 7/10

    At female league beta minus can use the fact of being surrounded of woman in his favor when socializing with other mans, or when he needs to use them against his girlfriend, at the male league he can be confused by being an alpha minus, or an beta plus depending on ocasion, and with the fact that he is included on group he would him more than being co-oped with females.

    Beta plus mode : Female friendship Male Friendship
    Social Inclusion on Group 5.5/10* 7.5/10
    At female league the beta plus work like an tool, but not like the usefull beta minus he can wins sometimes the affection of the omegas/beta woman of the female league, and also get invited to some events. At the male league (since he is like the General) he wins respect, loyality, and is fully included on the group.
    Social wins with the group 6 or 9.5*10 8/10
    The 6 works by the hamster in another females, because he can be misunderstood by an alpha plus or minus, the 9.5 can just be used if he is a greater sigma with the dark tetrad almost mastered (if he have this he can make it look that it’s him tribe and his own harem). At the male league he wins respect, loyality, get always invited to social events and are the bro that alfas use to make the law on hierarchy works.

    Alpha plus/minus mode/Greater sigma with dark tetrad mastered mode
    Female friendship Male Friendship
    Social Inclusion on Group 8 or 10*/10 9.5/10
    At female league this kind of man get fully included when they co-op with the female alpha, and when not they get an incluse of 8 that makes him invited to their events, worth of photos, worth of remenbering, worth of making them buddyfucks and also using them to know more girls.
    At the male league he is not mastered at the group since the betas plus can sometimes see him as an enemy that can be destroyed and slowly put him down, otherwise they are the stars of the group, always get heard, always respected and with the lolyality mode on.

    Social wins with the group 10*/10 8/10
    This kind of man when co-oped with a great female league use the hamster in his favor, use the woman submission in his favor, use all the hierarchy in his favor (since he will look like a Sulthan) and get automatically respected by other alphas and automatically seen as an alpha by other girls.

    Otherwise the mans what just co-op with another males lose the new hierarchy benefits (since the moment that hamster dont get used by it), just win automatically respected by old hierarchy followers, and can easily being defeated by a dark tetrad co-oped with females.

    For the old hierarchy it was sure that man league would be far greater than female league.

    But the hierarchy have changed, and with the new psycho-social structure the use of female leagues can be far greater if you are a greater sigma with dark tetrad mastered or an alpha plus or a good womanizer minus.

    Like


    • You must be one of them crackers that plays a lot of that Dungeons and Dragons shit.

      Like


      • Never enjoyed the rpg kind of game, was always into sports and reading stuff.

        I can easily observe and with this observation improve the tactics to conquer something.

        Like


      • I think I was able to comprehend 80% or so, and related it immediately to what happened at New Year’s party just 2 days ago. The English is rough but worth working thru. Partly it’s hard to read because it’s a different way of looking at things, considering both the male and female heirarchies together.

        Like


      • I didn’t have known that when you post the text the layout runs out, sorry.

        Like


      • Being in Brazil, the chance he is a cracker is -quite- slim given the overall demographics. Not to mention, he speaks better English than any pavement ape walking around Detroit, Baltimore, etc.

        Like


      • Haha, thanks.

        Like


  50. Yet another type of alpha that is right up CH’s alley:
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/77771/video-of-jordan-belfort-the-real-wolf-of-wall-street

    Go see this movie. Then realize that what you’re watching — for the most part — really did happen (yes, including the high-as-a-kite heli landing).

    Like


  51. Jealousy aside, it’s still good to have a network of friends who’ll back you up. Most guys are too selfish to do this, but even fewer women can be counted on for real support. They can be nice and generous, but too moral and emotional. A close male friend is more likely to put himself on the line out of honor to your relationship.

    The women who consider me a friend are usually dumb White broads who think I’m an innocuous minority. Or another minority who thinks we’re comrades in being oppressed or something.

    Naturally I don’t consider any of them a friends. Just nice albeit dumb acquaintances.

    The women who see the world clearly are usually vicious, hyper materialistic Asian girls who would backstab me if they ever got the chance. Kinda respectable, in its own way.

    Like


  52. Off topic

    pussytivereinforcement.com

    any suggestions or ideas on the designs. Obviously the site looks like shit.

    Like


  53. on January 2, 2014 at 8:04 pm Nate Higgers loves Jill Kews

    What do we know about this terrible situation? He has success with women through “internalizing” game and practicin it on his girlfriend for years (I know, Jesus Christ). Nevertheless, He can easily find other women to enjoy his company yet has great trouble finding any men who want to be around him. Girlfriend naggin is just the excuse to examine this flaw. A buncha pickup artists commenting here think the same contemptuous attitude used on women will work in all social situations and it sounds like “internalized” is fruity’z code for doing it without thinkin. Anyone think men pull something as batshit crazy as a shit test to guys they just met? Anyone really think being a selfish jerk will make you male friends who want to hangout? So for the hard of thinkin: Treat men the exact opposite to how you treat women. it works fer me anyway…This should be one of the author’s useful maxims. Praise and treat a bro well and he will feel loyalty and affection towards you, praise and treat a woman well and she will have contempt and disgust for you. Just my two sheckles.

    Like


  54. “Trying to refute Matt King is a fruitless endeavor. I’ve tried. He doesn’t debate, he just tries to amog. You’re falling for his frame. You’ve been here long enough to read enough of his posts to know that he doesn’t discuss anything with anyone, unless of course they already agree with him.”

    Bingo.

    That’s why there is a cadre of fellow-travelers (sock-puppets?) who stand at the ready to run interference for him when pressed on even a minor point.

    I am curious, though, why do you even bother?

    Whatever MK is, he is evidently smart enough to defend himself, assuming he could admit he might possibly be wrong about something. The fact that he consistently doesn’t, relying on guards to protect him, indicates he is simply an erudite troll. I half suspect he and his comrades are feminist posers here as saboteurs, in which case ‘debate’ is truly pointless.

    The comment thread here has become valley of the trolls now. You have to accept it and move on. I used to read through them regularly, but that was a year ago. Now I read the posts and only occasionally skim for CH comments.

    Better to read other blogs, Jesus, READ ANYTHING ELSE, than spend it reading 300+ entries of jabbering drivel.

    Cue the lap dogs in 3…2…1

    Like