What Do You Do If A Girl Calls Your Disqualification Bluff?

Disqualifications — false or genuine — are a powerful pickup tool. Pulling the rug out from under a girl who autonomically believes you desire her is a lickety-split way to raise your status vis a vis her status, and thus delight her hypergamous reflex. The fact is, women are constantly in a disqualification state of mind: she glides through the masses of maledom programmed to disqualify as many suitors as possible, and to settle upon the one man who is the best of all the men she can attract with her looks and youth.

Knowing this, the appropriation by the pickup artist of the female prerogative to disqualify is a classic example of flipping the seduction script and deviously moving the woman into the chaser role, where she is more likely to perceive you as higher status and sexually desirable. Psych 101 and various books on influencing friends and clients touches upon this stuff, but of course the estimable textbooks don’t follow the logic down the crimson road of poon hunting.

There are four primary types of disqualification. Briefly, I will describe them here, before tackling the subject of this post’s title.

1. Preemptive self-disqualification

Introduced by Mystery, this is a statement you make to a girl that lets her know, in so many words, that you aren’t a serious prospect. You do this by disqualifying yourself. Examples: “I’m gay”, “I’m in a relationship”, “I’m not interested in dating at this point in my life”, “I have the AIDS”, “I poop myself during scary scenes in movies”, “I’m a male feminist”.

This type of DQ (disqualification — I don’t feel like typing the whole word out because my pinky finger isn’t working, fuck you acronym haters) is called “preemptive” because it short circuits a girl’s hypergamous instinct by robbing her of the opportunity to disqualify you first. It essentially reverses the chaser-chased dynamic, and upturns millions of years of evolutionarily molded female expectation. All of this works on the subconscious level. In the heat and fury of a real live social interaction, these game tactics fly under a girl’s conscious radar, barely perceived by anyone but her omnipresent war room hamster and the hotline the fevered critter has to the gina general at the front.

The preemptive self-DQ is intended to act as a bitch shield runaround: a girl is less likely to blow you out if you make her think you’re not available to her in the first place.

2. Target disqualification

Self-explanatory, this is a tactic whereby the man disqualifies the girl from being a serious mating prospect. Owing to the greater chance that Target DQ can be perceived by the woman as sour grapes, this is a more aggressive, and thus riskier, form of DQ, its risk weighed against a potentially more rewarding payoff. Examples: “You seem like you’d make a great friend”, “You’re not really my type”, “You’re a good girl, I’m nothing but trouble… we would never work”, “I’m glad you’re off the market” [just assume she’s off the market], “Phew, so nice to talk to a girl who isn’t trying to flirt with me”, “Since your vagina is cemented shut by a rare disease, I can talk to you like you’re one of the guys”, “You’re the first lesbian I’ve met in this town”.

The Target DQ is less about lowering a woman’s bitch shield than it is about instigating a woman to qualify herself to you. It’s a more proactive DQ compared to the PSDQ above, serving as it does as an immediate status differential cue to the woman that she has to do something to correct the imbalance to the natural order of things. This “something” usually involves convincing you, the incorrigible player, that she is hot and sexy and goodtogo. PSDQs are female disqualification — aka rejection — avoiders or neutralizers, while TDQs are meant to coax women into self-qualifying.

3. Handicap Principle self-disqualification

This is a sub-genre of vulnerability game, and promoted by Charisma Arts (A Wayne Elise aka Juggler production). Basically, you bring up some faux embarrassing thing about yourself — some minor personality flaw that you blow up into significance — and reveal it to the girl. The theory behind the Handicap Principle is that women perceive men who are comfortable “handicapping” themselves — either through bright plumage (peacocking) or through admission of beta characteristics — as alpha males, because who else but an alpha male would be strong and powerful enough to shoulder a weak beta flaw without suffering any hit to his overall status?

Be careful with the Handicap Principle. First, it’s a theory, an elegant one to be sure, but one that remains, as far as I know, largely unproven by evolutionary biologists. The degree to which HP might apply to humans is unknown. At some great enough level of flaw possession, the Handicap Principle must surely break down, and we see evidence for this in the many stories of alpha males who became beta in relationships and then lost their women’s love. Personally, I think the Handicap Principle is easily confused with the theory of sexual selection, but that is a topic for a future post.

Nonetheless, it is true that women coo for the alpha male who unloads a perfectly timed admission of (cute) self-abnegation. Examples: “Oh man, I’m so bad at figuring out if women are flirting with me or not”, “I don’t dance, I’ve got two left feet”, “Ever since an unfortunate childhood trauma, I’ve had a fear of puppies”, “Black people scare me”.

The trick is to admit your “flaws” with utmost confidence and unconcern. Don’t say them as if you’re waiting to judge her reaction. They should be spoken off-the-cuff, almost as if you’re unaware that there is a girl standing there listening to you. NEVER admit to a real beta flaw that would repulse most women; i.e. “I go limp when a woman makes more money than I do”.

4. Beta bait disqualification

Another Juggler specialty, the idea behind the BBDQ is to disqualify yourself as a sucker for women’s flirtations. This is a minor school of DQ that you probably won’t use or need very often, but when you do use it, its power is undeniable. Women will very frequently try to “tease out” beta males by complimenting men and judging them on their reactions. Does the man express a little too much appreciation for her compliment? BETA. Does he seize upon her compliment as a springboard to ask her out? BETA. Does he say “Wow, no girl has ever said something so kind to me before!”? BETA.

But if a woman compliments you, and your reaction is to ignore it, downplay it, or even disagree with her (without veering into self-deprecation territory), she will think ALPHA. Examples: “Thanks, but this actually isn’t my favorite shirt”, “You like these shoes? You’re easy to please”, “Yes, that bulge is my penis. Now you’ve made me self-conscious”.

The BBDQ is both a self-disqualification and a target disqualification. You deny the woman’s positive assessment of you, while simultaneously denying her power over your emotions. It is a very subtle art form that, when mastered, is chick crack to women’s status discernment modules. A successful BBDQ is only superficially a signal of modesty; underneath the calculated modesty is a heat-seeking missile aimed straight at a woman’s id heart that explodes in a fireball of lust for your total lack of interest in winning her approval.

***

DQs are one of the most difficult game techniques for noobs to grasp. They are tangentially related to negs, and like the neg, they are often abused and misused by beginners. Their power is also their danger; because they work so well, men new to the game have a tendency to throw them out at awkward moments, and with too much expectant fervor. They then come across as creeps and try-hards, and wind up providing fodder to bitches to later log into the social media borg to mock the hapless betas who tried to run game on them.

(Leave it to a woman to mock a man for trying. You don’t hear too many men mocking fat chicks who make a real effort to lose weight by going to the gym and eating right. But then, in some respects, men simply have more compassion and empathy than do women for the opposite sex. But I ingest.)

The keys to getting your DQ money’s worth are timing, context and delivery. Too soon –> weird. Too late –> spiteful. Too unrelated — > try-hard. Too forced –> creepy. Too self-deprecating –> beta. Too nasty –> sour grapes.

But even when you have timing, context and delivery down pat, you will sometimes get your DQ called out by a woman.

You: “I’m not looking for anyone right now.”

Girl: “Good, because neither am I.”

***

You: “You’re a good girl, I’m trouble… we would never work out.”

Girl: “Yeah, I guess I am a good girl.”

***

You: “I’ve got a weird fear of puppies. Goes back to a childhood incident.”

Girl: “That’s fucked up.”

***

You: “Thanks, but this isn’t my favorite shirt.”

Girl: “Yeah, now that I look at it closely, it’s not a very good shirt.”

Don’t worry. These kinds of reactions, as plausible as they are in writing, and as much as cunts will cackle that they will respond like this to players whenever one of them tries to hit on their skanky carcasses, are blessedly rare. Most girls will be too high on their torqued emotions to call out a player’s DQ bluff so directly. The hamster is simply not that rational; hence, why he’s called the rationalization hamster, devoted to creating rationale out of nothing at all.

But DQ bluff-calling does happen, and more often to newbs than to experienced PUAs. When a newb gets his DQ bluff called, the result can be hilarity (not to mention the newb’s demanding his money back from some overpriced pickup seminar he attended). A great illustration of a newb’s DQ bluff being called out was provided by Juggler in this post.

ASPIRING NOOB: “I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

GIRL: “No thanks.”

“Aww. You’re playing hard to get. That’s so cute.”

“Whatever.”

“I hear an accent. Where are you from?”

“Nowhere.”

“Ha. Nowhere. That’s funny. Can I buy you a drink?”

“Yes. I’ll take a piña colada but don’t even think about dropping a roofie in there. I’m not going to hook up with you.”

“Whoever said anything about hooking up? You’re more of the kinda girl I see as a friend.”

“Good.”

“Good. So what’s your name?”

If a girl isn’t already invested in the conversation with you, a DQ is less likely to have the intended effect. If you walk up to a girl cold and start spouting off about how you just want to be friends with her and you aren’t available for dating, what kind of reaction do you think you’ll get? Do you imagine girls will start qualifying themselves to you on the spot? No, you have to first reel her in and dangle the promise of your interest before unloading the soul-sucking DQ.

Many PUAs, like Tyler Durden, recommend a preemptive approach to DQing; that is, you train yourself to sense when girls are about to disqualify you, and disqualify them before they get a chance. Often, this occurs during the late comfort stage of the seduction, when the girl is beginning to feel pangs of guilt about the release of her inner slut which looms on the horizon. Other PUAs, like Mystery, advocate active DQs early in the attraction phase, as a direct method for building attraction. Still others say to avoid them entirely, as the risk of delving into “sour grapism” territory is too great to assume.

I will say this about DQs:

They are supposed to sound spontaneous. The best DQs are unexpected and off-the-cuff. If it sounds like a line, it will backfire. If it sounds like you thought about it beforehand, it will backfire. Body language and facial expression are important conveyors of indifference and spontaneity.

Never DQ from a position of weakness. If you are working overtime to keep a girl’s attention, a DQ will only lower your value even more. Remember, DQs are FALSE disqualifications. When you DQ as a last resort to keep a girl around, it is no longer false; it is a real disqualification.

If a girl calls out your DQ, my best advice is to ignore it and change the subject, OR readily agree with her in return. A pinpoint DQ destroyer, while rare, is not to be trifled with. You want to avoid at all costs the impression of being flustered or annoyed or dispirited by her agreement with your DQ. Just roll with it, as if you’re glad she agreed with you, and reassess if she’s worth your continued effort to bed.

The upside to a failed DQ is that, later, if the girl is into you and starts to return your interest, you can remind her of the claim she made earlier about not wanting this to go anywhere. A pullback at a moment when the girl MOST WANTS TO PULL INTO YOU is like sticking TNT up her hamster’s anus. You are beginning down the road of building your own slave harem.

Preemptive DQs — the type of DQ that occurs before you have built adequate interest in the girl (think Mystery Method-style) — can work great IF you don’t linger on them waiting for a reaction. You drop the DQ, ignore whatever reply she gives in return, and plow. The goal is subconscious infiltration, leading to script flipping.

Mystery-style preemptive DQs work best on hot girls. Since hot girls are the most likely to assume every man wants them (justifiably), a quick correction to the contrary can temporarily scramble their status differential discernment algorithms.

Be careful about DQing 6s and 7s. You can easily blow a girl out of the water and render yourself unattainable to them.

If you’re going to agree with a girl’s DQ nuke, don’t make a production out of it. For example:

WRONG WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Yeah, yeah, friends. That’s what I want to.” [pained expression belies your words]

RIGHT WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Cool. So… you see that guy over there? I think he wants you. That’s the way to do it. Stare hard.”

In Juggler’s example above, when the NOOB says “If you’re lucky I might invite you”, he’s expecting the girl to reply something along the lines of “Wow, you must think you’re special”, a shit test to which the NOOB thinks he is well-trained to parry. But instead, she deflates him totally with the cold “No thanks”. The NOOB is now left flailing, hurling more DQs at her in hopes one will stick.

The best defense against the deflating DQ nuke is to simply avoid putting yourself in the position where such nukes are likely to happen. If you pace yourself, the likelihood of triggering a DQ nuke goes way down. Should one happen to you, one that is particularly disheartening, you may consider bailing.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Ok. See ya.”

A good player knows when to cut his losses.

However, if you see an opening and want to continue working on her, AGREE AND REDIRECT.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Yeah, come to think of it, it’s probably better you don’t come. My ex might start a fight with you.”

OR

You: “Well, I suppose now I can make room for my Mom to come with me.”

OR

You: [fake look of indignation] “Invite… REVOKED.”

OR

You: “Great, now who am I gonna set up my friend with?”

OR

You: “Damn, I guess I’ll have to buy my own drinks.”

This has been an introductory course in DQs and sidestepping DQ nukes. The subject material is advanced, so I encourage the commenters to flesh it out for the 1 billion readers who are hanging on your every word.





Comments


  1. lmfao !
    brilliant 😀

    Like


  2. on July 12, 2012 at 4:31 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

    Where did he come up with this line? Kindergarten? I would recommend never using this, because it sounds would-be arrogant, which women see as insecure — perhaps rightfully so.

    A better line might be something like “Yeah it’s a party, but trust me you won’t want to go.”

    This not only works as a disqualification but gets her in defensive mode: “Why would you say that?” Then you can take this in any direction. If she seems too good-girlish, you can go there or wherever.

    One other thing. If you get a nasty rejection and you’re gonna walk anyway, might as well throw a bomb:

    ASPIRING NOOB: “I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

    GIRL: “No thanks.”

    OR

    You: “I’ve got a weird fear of puppies. Goes back to a childhood incident.”

    Girl: “That’s fucked up.”

    RESPONSE: Wow, such compassion. I bet you’ll make a great mother someday with a heart like that.

    Even if this doesn’t get you any further then, this response will bring out massive insecurity within even the most hardened of bitches, because no woman likes to think she’s unqualified to raise kids. The reason I know this works is because someone used it on a female friend of mine who had 50 shades of breakdowns afterwards. He didn’t get laid (IMO he got disgusted with her — she’s not all that hot anymore), but he definitely left an impression and she was waiting to talk to him again to “prove” him wrong. So there you have it: she now wants to qualify herself.

    And if she engages you in a defensive argument, it’s easy enough to calmly explain that no one, male or female, really likes a bitch.

    Like


    • Yes! You wouldn’t want to go is such a good one, I’ve never not heard rightafter “why nottttttt?”

      Like


    • I like Krauser’s nuclear DQ which I recently used on a girl I was text gaming.

      After a bunch of back and forth with her qualifying herself, sending photos etc and then saying I was too old too xx too yyy

      I wrote: I’m not so sure about you anymore..

      Her; Why?

      Me: Three things

      Her: What what?

      Me: You’re cute and sexy in a weird way

      Me: You are intriguing

      Me; But I’m not sure I like you as a person

      Her: What!??? Why??? You find me intriguing?

      Her: Blah blah blah I’m nice this is just because I don’t know you blah blah blah

      Thanks Krauser.

      Like


    • I gotta agree, “If you’re lucky I might invite you” is a terrible sort of disqualification. It’s way too transparent.

      It’s as if you walk up to a girl and say “Hi, I’m awesome, you should try to impress me!” That’s the correct *attitude* to have, but not something you should actually *say*.

      Like


  3. You think too much.

    [heartiste: a hazard, to be sure, when in the company of dummies.]

    Like


    • ^^^^^^ ha

      Like


    • I’ve heard this line from the likes of you Sam Vincente. I then usually hear “Just be yourself bro, you’re overthinking!”

      Ha, shut the fuck up and get on your knees, hater.

      Like


    • on July 13, 2012 at 10:54 am drunicusveritas

      “A hazard, to be sure, when you’re in the company of dummies”

      True, but we are referring to the female of the species – when she’s pickup potential, odds are she (or at least her lizard brain/hamster) isn’t at all looking for brains, learning, or much in the way of street smarts, besides the standard alpha dismissiveness.
      This leads me to a question for the maestro of muffitude.
      Should we adjust approaches, comfort, interest, etc to how the girl PERCEIVES herself to be, versus how she is? Many 5’s think they’re 9’s, many attornagurrls think they’re extreme athletes, despite what their dress size would indicate, and many who have lower single digit IQ’s fancy themselves Stephen Hawking.
      I assume one should go with how the girl perceives herself, rather than how she IS, but how can you tell, within three seconds? Can clothes, speech, body language, or other factors be clues, and if do, how?

      Like


  4. Love this and the recent Juggler post. I’m here to get laid, not circle jerk about the pills I swallow and what color they are.

    Like


    • You’re “here” at a website “to get laid.” Problem number one. You think you mask the stink of beta ambition/desperation with Axe body spray? But leave that aside. Reconsider what motivates you in differing situations, and make your motivations congruent to the opportunity in front of you.

      Another commenter: “You think too much.”

      Just so it’s clear. You can’t get laid at a website. No matter what eHarmony claims in its ads. You can only exchange thoughts here. It is an environment designed for “much” “think[ing].”

      You cannot hump your computer screen (comfortably). But you can communicate the words that design the circumstances where you can more easily “get laid.” In real vaginas. Part of that requires the patience to return to fundamentals. And fundamentals are not always directly applicable to techniques you can use tonight.

      The world is not tailor-constructed around the needs of princesses like you and The Boy Who Thinks Too Little. Take what specifics are useful to your circumstances. Be man enough to discard or ignore the rest, rather than bitching and sighing about how awful it is to navigate past conversations that have no apparent utility for you.

      Women are not much in evidence on this forum, but that’s not because they are intimidated from participating. Rather, they find the discussions of science distasteful, boring, repetitious, and/or superfluous. They like the sausage (heh), but they don’t like to see how it’s made. This website is where the alpha sausage is made. It is a butchershop reeking of blood and ground flesh, where omega scraps are shaped into tasty, glorious wieners. Stay away if the acrid stench of dying things gives you the vapors.

      Have you ever heard women complain about nothing just to sate an urge to re-validate a perpetual right to complain? That’s you.

      Matt

      Like


      • Have you ever heard women complain about nothing just to sate an urge to re-validate a perpetual right to complain? That’s you.

        :*

        Like


      • Okay. You’ve gone from obscure acronyms to inscrutable emoticons. What is :* ? Anusface?

        Like


      • It makes a kissy-face on Blackberries and some IM programs. I learned it from girls. I guess it makes sense that you wouldn’t recognize it since you’d have to interact with women to run into it.

        Now, however, I will refer to it as an anus-face lol :* :*

        Like


      • You continue to expose me, this time with your Durdenesque knowledge of … BlackBerries. And here I thought I was cool reintroducing XOXO to a lost generation of naïve sweethearts.

        It is true, I don’t know many girls with BlackBerries anymore, considering that they peaked sometime at the beginning of last decade and have been officially extincted by iPhone/Android. I do however know a few obstinate middle-managers who cling to old memories and pine wistfully for the days of the “CrackBerry.” Enjoy the RIM job and those fresh Matchbox 20 CDs on your trip back to 2002.

        I’m gonna put you on an AOL e-mail alert so that I don’t miss a single post of your incisive, turn-of-last-millennium Y2K Field Knowledge.

        Hold up. I just got an IRC message on my Macintosh. What do you make of it?

        8====D~~ O:

        Any idea what eight equals equals equals equals D means, guru, or two squiggly Spanish N-mustaches in a row? I think I get the O-face part.

        Matt

        Like


      • aww c’mon don’t be an anus-face.

        Like


      • God is a superstition, and King A (Matthew King) is a false prophet.

        For fuck’s sake, King A. Must you ALWAYS respond to a reader’s post with some smug, arrogant, condescending drivel? Remember: what with your belief in a supernatural being who created mankind, you are fundamentally no different than the most ignorant, superstitious jungle savage who bows down to handmade idols and implores them to stop, or start, the rain.

        That inescapable fact makes your arrogance, not to say your nauseatingly flaccid prose, a bit much to take.

        Despite what you may think, you are not “Diogenes with his lamp,” doggedly pointing out the proper moral path to legions of misguided wanna-be PUA’s. Instead, you are the equivalent of a wild-eyed, long-haired subway masturbator wearing a placard which says “Repent now, sinners: the end is near.”

        GBFM’s seemingly mindless comments always make perfect sense, and illustrate his point with wit and humor. Your comments, on the other hand, are the intellectual equivalent of a Happy Meal from McDonalds: superficially tasty, but actually completely valueless.

        Please avoid commenting on matters above your intellectual pay grade, Matt.

        Like


      • I hear what you’re saying Tertullian. I actually appreciate King A putting down dickriding hater Sam Vincente so go easy on him. I actully enjoyed King As post.

        King A, I do have a grievance. Although your verbose comments do make a good read, you do little in the way of offering actual advice or solutions.

        For example, a couple posts ago here on CH, you and YaReally got into it and went back and forth yet in the end I was exhausted reading your shit. YaReally provides good solid insight and advice on pickup.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think you are above the cut but please add value in the sense that for us aspiring to exit the realm of beta, simply reminding us of our rank and cutting us at the knees is not productive.

        Give some practical advice as YaReally does or GTFO really. That’s why I think YaReally is superb with his comments, his input is a way to work our way out of our current predicament while you use big words to point and laugh.

        I’m not trying to come at you dude but if you know so goddamn much why don’t you point us in a positive direction and try to make a change.

        -I.G.

        Like


      • @ immoralgables: there’s a simple reason King A only offers insults and sarcasm, and never offers practical advice.

        Ready for it?

        Here it is.

        King A knows nothing about Game, and has never picked up a woman in his life.

        If you doubt me, just try and imagine an example of “King A game.”

        Can’t do it, can you?

        Like


      • Ha, tis a shame Tertullian I actually enjoyed reading KingA’s shit until a few days ago when him and YaReally went head to head. It seemed that YaReally represented nurture and KingA smugly represented nature.

        I will always side with the camp that believes they can improve through willpower and dedication, hands down. KingA’s musings are good but amount to intellectual masturbation.

        Glad I’m not the only one who feels this way.

        Like


      • You’re all posturing too. What makes KingA unique is that the women love interacting with him online. His whole style of writing is a DHV. And the women cannot get enough of it.

        And whatever else is being said, it’s harder to impress a woman online than in real life … especially when there was no face-to-face contact beforehand.

        So the question is this : If you’re good with women online, does that make you good with women in real life ?

        Yes.

        Still disagree with me ? Ask Maya then.

        For the converse is not necessarily true. You can be good with women in real life, but be atrocious with them online. Hence many PUA’s denigration of online game.

        One ability does not guarantee the other in this case.

        The only way that any of you will beat KingA, here and now, is by being poetic.

        Otherwise start reading Seneca.

        Like


      • “Ask Maya then.”

        Still pretty sure Maya is a dude lol

        “You can be good with women in real life, but be atrocious with them online. Hence many PUA’s denigration of online game.”

        lol wow no, online is easy as shit. We tend to hate it though because it’s passive/slow and more of a numbers game and the quality of women is usually pretty awful. The turbo hottie that intimidates other men isn’t on a dating site (if she is, she’s getting 500 emails a day or she’s a prostitute rounding up clients or is actually a dude luring guys to porn sites). Now if you want chubby single moms with depression who spout that annoying “if you can’t handle me at my worst” quote, online is a smorgasbord.

        I keep a POF account going in the background for dry spells but it’s a last ditch desperation fallback move because eww lol

        Like


      • Why would you ever ask a woman anything about game? Especially Maya? Haven’t you seen her picture?
        Internet is not IRL. Just because KingA can wax pedantic in text, doesn’t mean he has the body language, wit, attitude, and style to interest a girl in person.

        And why would someone who is good at picking up girls IRL ever want to do so on the internet. You can’t fuck through a fiber optic cable.

        Like


      • Look, brother. I am not in the advice column business. I don’t dispense Hints from Heloise because the idea bores me. If this is cause for a handful of haters’ insecurities to shine, I frankly cannot be stirred to give a shit. The only practical “solutions” I can come up with are: inhabit your game, and apply as circumstances warrant. Not terribly helpful, I’m sure. I cannot imitate Heartiste’s (pbuh) saintly patience or urge to reduce all social phenomena into bite-sized acronyms. I like big-picture conversation, a dialectic with veterans and expansive minds who are mature enough not to regard every exchange as an after-school pissing contest between boys.

        “Verbose” is a put-down employed by ADHD sufferers. Thoughts that cannot be reduced to a three-line soundbite are suspect to them. Readers distracted by their own brain are asked to make an effort at focused comprehension not normally required of them, and for this they are resentful. Rather than improving themselves and extracting what wisdom may (or may not) reside in complexity, they lash out at complexity itself — even as they comment beneath a blog’s 3,000-word post that they presumably read.

        I had every opportunity to become a professor, a teacher of elite youth. I never went down that path because I knew the repetitive nature of pedagogy would deplete my ambition (despite the constant restocking of freshwoman tail). Others are blessed with the patience and zeal required to repeat themselves day after day, year after year to new audiences.

        This website is boot camp for betas. Recruit-betas are tomorrow’s alphas, and that is where my interest lies, that is why I comment. I am not here to squabble, I am here to put up a flag. That is also why I don’t suffer fools like Yeah Really for affecting a superior pose through his rainman attention to social detail, borrowed from his betters. If detail is what helps you continue your rise, by all means follow its more astute observers, and YeahYeah’s fanatical dedication is what places him among the best of them. I won’t be desolated for having lost the immoralgables constituency. We are in the same stadium, but we are indeed playing different games. The decathlete has no ill will for the sprinters who run faster than him.

        After you have mastered the introductory tricks and are ready for an advanced discussion, we can go grab a beer.

        Matt

        Like


      • You’re right about being a professor. It does get boring despite the constant restocking. But if you hit the gym regularly you get top quality with a combination of looks, smarts, and naivity (willingness to learn) that often makes it worthwhile. It’s a low-stress gig and allows you to be “respected without being respectable” (per Mark Twain).

        Like


      • Laughed hard at Tertullian’s post–well done sir, you nailed it.

        Like


      • @ Tiger: (takes bow)……thank you, thank you…..it was my pleasure, believe me.

        Like


      • Many people in the Manosphere describe themselves as being unplugged from The Matrix (rooted in “The Allegory of the Cave” btw). If you can look at your AFC friends and wonder how they cannot see what you see, isn’t it logical to apply that same understanding to religion? Do those who have left the cave not view those still inside as watching shadows of reality? In much the same way it is not easy to convince an AFC of the truth of the sexual marketplace unless they are prepared for that knowledge, someone who is not open to the light of God will not see it. Until we reach the Augenblick, I think it is safe to assume we don’t know what we don’t know 🙂

        Like


      • Well said. Now try to unplug yourself for real:

        http://goo.gl/cjG4n

        Like


      • How many of those ya got?

        Like


      • http://goo.gl/WgHpX

        You’re so hard to convince. I give up.

        Like


      • We’ll call it a draw.

        Like


      • Well put, GeishaKate.

        I have saved this.

        Like


      • Thank you.

        Like


      • @ GeishaKate:

        “If you can look at your AFC friends and wonder how they cannot see what you see, isn’t it logical to apply that same understanding to religion?”

        No, dear, you can’t. I’m not going to belabor the point, but the main difference — in case you haven’t figured it out already — is that those who are “unplugged” and can “see” can demonstrate, empirically, the exact conduct that is needed to “unplug” oneself, and can also demonstrate, factually, what they “see.” That sort of proof is impossible to offer in the case of religion, no matter how desperately you or “King A (Matthew King)” might wish it otherwise.

        “In much the same way it is not easy to convince an AFC of the truth of the sexual marketplace unless they are prepared for that knowledge, someone who is not open to the light of God will not see it.”

        I’ve always believed that the Founding Fathers were right to disenfranchise women. This comment, and the reasoning behind it, confirms my belief.

        Try this on for size, Kate:

        “In much the same way it is not easy to convince a person of the truth that unicorns exist, unless they are prepared for that knowledge, someone who is not open to the existence of unicorns will not see them.”

        I’ll leave it to you to make the comparison between that statement and yours.

        Incidentally, you may be interested in knowing that most of the philosphers quoted by other commenters firmly believed that women did not even possess souls. Judging from the conduct of most American women, especially in divorce court, they were right.

        Feel free to cluck out a breathless, indignant response.

        Like


      • Cluck, cluck 🙂 No, its alright that we disagree. There are some things that just can’t be demonstrated in empirical ways. Watch the balconey scene from this movie, Contact; it is one of my favorites.

        Like


      • Plato and his Cave were arrayed against the Dionysians (cf. Nietzsche’s account of this great Western error, Christianity as “Platonism for the people”). We are the children of Epicurus and Lucretius, hedonist and materialist, the refined philosophical version of the throbbing Dionysian cult. Plato was the transcendentalist gnostic, a believer in higher things rather than the proximate pleasures of wine, women, and song.

        In other words GeishaKate, the creed of Dionysian Game must reject Plato’s formalism as nonsensical even before your attempt to allegorize it for them. They must act under the assumption that the senses are sovereign and comprehensive, and Platonic daydreams of heavenly forms are absurd, lest they admit that they’re behaving absurdly. All that matters is what they can see and touch and feel (scientism); everything beyond their experiential purview is unverifiable, irrelevant, and ipso-facto non-existent.

        You’re not really asking them to “unplug” Matrix-like. You’re asking them to deracinate the mighty tree of their assumptions after having spent a lifetime nurturing its deep roots as the only solid foothold in a universe of flux. That’s simply not going to happen in a combox.

        You can tell Contact was written by a nihilist with Agent Mulder leanings. “I Want To Believe.” Still, cute clip. It’s melodramatized ontology with good-looking people, which is better than ontology in prose, which is better than no ontology at all.

        Matt

        Like


      • You’ve really got to watch the whole thing.

        Like


      • Oh no. No, no, no. The weepy female vs the officious domineering man? This further confirms that the film was germinated in an atheist’s envy of the believer’s hope.

        Yes, it touches on some important inquiries into the nature of faith and certitude. But its misrepresentation of faith as soft and illogical optimism in the face of “hard” “truth” is an indicator that Sagan went to his death with the typical misunderstanding that faith must stand in permanent tension with reason. Faith is the foundation of reason.

        Even the most God-hating rationalist has the faith that reason is the instrument of truth. Even the most skeptical scientist must begin in the faith of the universe’s intelligibility and her laws’ comprehensibility. Even more mundanely, he must persist in the faith that his senses are reliable and the wisdom he observed the day before still applies today. Without that steadiness of faith — that hidden certitude — he would be caught in an OCD loop, unable to achieve the certainty that allows rest, checking and checking and checking to see if he put the alarm clock on.

        Do not search for faith among the soft and feminine things. That’s the atheist’s error, the one they are in love with, the one that informs their entire understanding of the straw men against which they obsessive-compulsively take arms. Faith is the hardest, most jagged, most challenging test of all.

        Matt

        Like


      • Game is religion. Developed in the Dionysian neo-paganism tradition.

        There is ritual (sarging/daygame), baptism (take the red pill), spiritual discipline (approach techniques, negs, handling shit tests, just about any topic on this site), prayer (inner game), apostles (deep-thinking artistes de la cœur), priests (PUAs), church fathers (Devlin, Farrell, Jeffries), doctrine (poon commandments), theology (evo psych), status (notch/flag counts), catechisms (blogs), liturgical language (insider-speak and acronyms), angels (alpha legends), demons (femmcunts), condemnation (“walking death of celibacy”), and salvation (fuck close).

        This culture, important as it is to the next generation of manhood, deserves its own anthropologist not named Kay Hymowitz or Charlotte Allen. Notice anything they have in common? The one man who attempted a true investigation, Neil Strauss, went native!

        Game is not a professed or formal religion. It is semi-conscious of itself. Most paganism is half-assed today, simply because the thought of formalized worship is regarded as dependency among men who are rightly suspicious of The Great Feminizing. So to preserve a plausible claim to freedom, neo-pagans seek the satisfaction of their religious impulse no differently than any man in history did — except they cannot call it “religious” by name.

        It is impossible to live without a metaphysic. The choice that is given us is not between some kind of metaphysic and no metaphysic; it is always between a good metaphysic and a bad metaphysic…

        Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means

        Or apocryphal Chesterton: When men stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — for that is impossible — they believe in anything. This quest for metaphysical independence or invention doesn’t set them free, it only shackles them to a new set of operative beliefs, but they deny these new shackles to be unbinding by denying them to be real. In formalized worship, this can’t happen because it publicly announces itself as binding. Solution: keep the doctrines cryptic, secretive like a Pythagorean order and/or officially optional.

        There is another approach to game, the stoical/Apollonian, but that is a poorly-developed heresy wholly inexplicable to the typical novitiate and jealously rejected by higher-order magisters. Pew-level true-believers can only understand game in terms of the bacchanalia wherein they first encountered revelation and metanoia. The hedonism is synonymous with and impossible to understand apart from their liberation from beta chumpdom.

        “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized..” In game-speak: “The AFC Saul of Tarsus took the red pill and became St. Paul the Player, Evangelist to the Betas.”

        I find it hard to talk with former betas who remember the bad old days like women recounting childhood abuse. They have a defensive reaction against going back to their slavery, and so they viscerally reject even the possibility of analysis. The liberation has been so overwhelming, they have nothing but gratitude for their liberators, and so they must condemn anyone who suggests their liberation was less comprehensive than they think. We are regarded as bad men trying to bring them back to the scary place.

        Natural or “naturalized” alphas are more relaxed about exploring the nature of betatude than their self-made cousins, who shrink in fear of accidentally returning to beta world or to be seen by his peers as returning to beta world. Cradle alphas shrug off such perceptions as one more ressentiment, one more false notion of haters. Artificial alphas have a harder time being laid-back about a potential beta-slide, having experience of that horrific world, knowing their in-born potential chumpery, and swearing to die rather than return. Every criticism becomes a potential breach to be rejected violently; every mole looks like skin cancer to be burned off by the oncologist — just to be sure.

        Deviations from the creed, particularly the skepticism of just-so Darwinian mythos, are considered anathema beyond the need to argue, defend, or even respond to.

        Matt

        Like


      • After reading the above, I feel like I’ve been trapped inside a bathysphere slowly making its way toward the bottom of the Mariana Trench — and someone just farted.

        Where is GBFM’s witty, pithy, and ultimately informative prose when we need it?

        Like


      • That’s what women do. They feel emotions about other people’s expressions, rather than engaging them rationally.

        Did you just feel so devastated when your boss belittled you for fucking up the latest project? WHAT A MEANIE HE IS!

        “Oh bother! I just feel like there are too many words there. It feels like … like … like an ocean! He must be trying to say something not with the words, but through the word count! Why would he use terms I don’t know about concepts I can’t grasp in ways I can’t comprehend? And then keep doing it?!? It’s all about me.”

        If you had something besides incontinent emoting like a bitch, you’d have shown it by now, little daisy scout.

        Matt

        Like


      • KingA; the quintessential keyboard jockey, a keyboard jockey’s keyboard jockey.

        Thing is, you can compare anything to anything. That’s what’s great about metaphors. “This table is a philosopher. This world is an orange. Your butt is a baloon.”

        It doesn’t mean anything.

        It’s interesting to me how angry you are with these former betas. It’s like your mad because they’ve found something you haven’t.

        It’s just like when a fat girl loses a bunch of weight and then starts banging a ton of guys that used to be out of her league. Who cares. Let them have their fun. They’ve earned it.

        Like


      • stupid motherfucking atheists who can’t grasp the vallue of my farts. Or anything else, really.

        Like


      • you know that advice that explains how it comes off as try-hard to invest more detail/effort into a response than the original statement? That should apply to non-seduction situations too.

        Like


      • Hey dumbasses, King A is not here to teach you pickup. This blog is not only about pickup. If all you can read is pickup, google rsd and gtfo.

        There’s no way I would have understood essential shit about conservatism and manhood without king A, even if I’m as allergic as any of you to the belief in a big boss monkey in the sky and the occasional verbose sophistry. As long as King A doesn’t proselytize, I’m cool.

        Calling out the patriarch on his psychorigidity can be funny sometimes, but y’all must remember that not a single commenter rivals King A in the wordcraft and mastery of the classics (except maybe uh).

        If you can’t stand his prose, scroll the fuck down.

        Like


      • Not exactly, heathen. I don’t proselytize. You bring the topic up, and silence is consent. Now you import this irrelevancy in some attempt to establish credibility or otherwise avoid conflict with the hateful and the loud, and I understand the motivation. But don’t portray me as some Jehovah’s Witness screaming bible quotes in a strip club. I am under no illusion that anything remotely reminiscent of God-talk is tolerated here, much less immune from the vicious alacrity of the typical online atheist.

        I am only here to represent. I know how full of shit untutored pagans (who repeat tired errors like “big boss monkey”) are. Others who are on the fence, and perhaps susceptible to cartoon logic, cannot detect the bullshit as well because our feminist-atheist culture has steeped them in assertive ignorance. To know where your error lies requires an investigation into matters deeper than an average Joe (or even an inquisitive pro, like the proprietor of this site) can handle or even has an ability to be concerned about.

        Game is not directly related to God, of course, but it also is not incompatible. I won’t say a word, as much of this topic is irrelevant to the matter at hand. But then you’d have to stop provoking me with ignorant blasphemy. Unfortunately, provocation is impossible for certain people to resist, even casually (as you demonstrate above). It’s a reflex born of an essential disquiet, arcane knowledge that something important within has not been reconciled.

        I am not a conciliator in that regard. I am not your proxy savior. I am only an ally of the silent readers who retain the capacity and courage to investigate themselves. For the rest of you, I follow my namesake’s advice from his eponymous gospel account:

        And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

        Matthew
        (10:14)

        Like


      • You’ve been really obnoxious, man.

        Like


      • Good. Well said, man.

        Like


      • on July 22, 2012 at 6:27 am Subway Masturbator

        My invisible friend is REAL. He is, he is, he IS!!!. And you’re, you’re just STUPID. You ARE. Jesus told me so!!

        Stupid stupid stupid. I’ll just shake the dust off my feet, that’s all you realists are. I’m SPECIAL because I agree with all those people that said the same things the last 2000 years!!!

        Like


  5. Ive been called on these before. Generally the two types of girls who do it are ones who are very inexperienced with guys actually slick with their tongue, and girls who still aren’t sure if they’re down for you or not; the spark may or may not still be there.

    In the latter case, In the past I usually just leave. Sometimes, if I’m really extra cocky, I’ll mention me meeting another girl, turn my back and walk away. This REALLY gets to some girls.

    I know I could be missing out on prospects because of this – should I start continuing plowing through?

    Once in a blue moon the girl will actually follow me or find me later, and I’ll get a lay out of it, but sometimes I don’t think it’s worth it – and other times I actually do feel spiteful and want to get back at her for not playing into my schemes

    Like


    • If its an inexperienced girl, I usually just wink at her and keep on going. These are the girls who actually can say “yeah, I actually am a good girl” and mean it.

      Like


    • In either of those cases, a girl’s agreement with your DQ could simply be her taking what you say at face value, rather than assuming there’s some trick and “calling it out”. No bitchiness intended, it’s more about responding sincerely (in the case of “fear of puppies”, my response would be more of an “ok….. that’s kinda weird….”, as you’d expect a reasonable person to respond to such a thing). Not that I can talk for all other girls who have responded in this manner under such circumstances, but at least under these circumstances, walking away would leave a girl quite offended and confused, rather than having the “compassion to the opposite sex” that you were talking about… Just something to consider.

      Like


  6. RE: acronyms
    Can we get one page glossary that defines the relevant acronyms? I’m all for saving strokes (in typing that is) but I sometimes get lost.

    Like


  7. Ever have experience with chicks preemptively disqualifying other men while with you?

    Like


  8. Sounds like people watching!! That’s great, you lean in and you and she bad mouth all the competition in the place. I think it establishes a false-rapport that can be used to your own ends.

    Like


  9. on July 12, 2012 at 5:28 pm Wrecked 'Em

    Passing a shit test with a HDQ:

    Her: So, you’re a fighter pilot?

    Him: I’m living proof that even dumb farmboys can do it.

    Like


    • I’m confused. Are you a fighter pilot? If so, is “So, you’re a fighter pilot” really a shit test?

      Like


  10. on July 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm ThatNorwegianGuy

    Nothing like a good, lengthy Heartiste post to occupy my blog-reading time.

    Like


  11. on July 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm Jolly Rauncher

    Offtopic, but I did want to mention that the possibility for a Beta’s betahood is an endocrine disorder. For example, hyperparathyroidism causes psychological (and physical) effects via overproduction of parathyroid hormone causing hypercalcemia, effects such as depression and fatigue. Hypogonadism can be another endocrine issue which results is lowered testosterone, and obviously this has a feminizing effect.

    People should be crosschecking endocrine diseases if they seem to have noticed a marked decline in ‘manliness’ over the course of a half-decade or so. Endocrine issues cause systemic problems…

    http://parathyroid.com/parathyroid-symptoms.htm

    Like


  12. Her: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

    You: “Cool. So we can just hang out sometime…?”

    Her: “Sure.”

    You: “…NAKED?”

    Like


  13. Just a note on Mystery VS Tyler and DQ timing differences. Mystery’s style tends to involve an entourage and generally standing out a ton from the start, whereas Tyler tends to just be him and a wing like any other dude the girl has seen.

    Mystery’s giving off high value signals early on (peacocking showing he can handle social pressure, entourage of friends and pivots (female friends/wingmen) showing he has social proof, doing his magic tricks as DHVs etc) so it makes sense for him to DQ himself ASAP.

    Tyler’s high value doesn’t come through as immediately because he’s pretty average at first glance and isn’t surrounded by people and PUAs strategically giving him props. Tyler’s value comes through over the course of the interaction as the girl shit-tests him and his frame and he demonstrates his value repeatedly. So for his style it makes sense to DQ later once the girl has seen his high value and is hooked.

    Basically this boils down to the consistent principle of “you can’t disqualify yourself and have a girl chase you if you’re not high value to her.”

    (there are nuances and exceptions to this but this is the jist for newbies to keep in mind)

    Like


    • I’ve always considered it that way.

      Tyler gets laid with game, Mystery gets laid by a horde of followers.

      Inb4 critique – I honestly think less of neither men for it.

      At the end of the day, they’re sticking it into a juicy warm hole (or 2), no one but a sniveling beta or a female would think less of the method they get there.

      Like


  14. […] What to do if a girl call your Disqualification bluff – In-depth article by Chateau Heartiste about what to do if your DQ is called out Definition by Vince Lin […]

    Like


  15. “You: [fake look of indignation] “Invite… REVOKED.””

    This seems like I’m giving her control over my emotions. I’m trying to picture a scenario where this response won’t end in embarrassment.

    Somehow Heartiste manages to post the exact topics I’m struggling with irl, like DQs. Serious gold on here.

    Like


  16. I buy cigarettes at a certain shop, and the salesgirl there is quite beautiful. We are familiar with each other, but we’re not on first-name terms as yet. Anyway, this happened between me and her, late last week :

    Me: So what do you think of my beard ? Must it grow a bit more, because I need to take a photo with it.

    Her : I don’t like men with beards.

    Me : So you’re not a beard-girl then, are you ? Your opinion doesn’t matter.

    And I walked out.

    Earlier this week, when I returned, I asked her opinion on something else … and she was helpfulness itself …

    Strange.

    Heartiste, what you’re implying is that it wasn’t a shit-test I passed, but some DQ-thingamajig I manipulated into my favour.

    Food for thought.

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

    On another social media, my status was this :

    The guy who invented the double entendré should receive a good shot, together with some plain Whiskey.

    And another girl responded like this :

    You smell

    And my response was this :

    Oh ??? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qMSmIeTouqI/RrIDwlND_NI/AAAAAAAAABg/OsO9ao-H92A/s1600/1950s%2520spanking.jpg

    I’ll see how she responds.

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

    Thanks for this post.

    More like this please.

    If possible, give your interpretation of Tyler Durden’s seminal Secret Society article.

    Now that would be interesting.

    Like


  17. If you’re lucky I might invite you.

    The only time to use that is if she’s engaged and there’s a bit of banter/playfulness going on. Use it to pique interest already demonstrated, not to create interest out of thin air.

    Like


  18. What happened here, DQ’ed?
    A younger girl I was trying to game told me about her professor coming by to confess his love after she caught him w/ someone else earlier that night. She knows my girlfriend and I have been friendly and flirty to this young girl for sometime. I then told her my current girlfriend and I were in a bit of love triangle ourselves and another girl was after me. I then tried for her phone # to talk and she said she wasn’t really comfortable with that and didn’t think that would be a good idea. I simply told her OK, I understand. What to do?

    Like


  19. What happend here, DQ’ed
    PS: I really thought I had developed a good rapport with this girl and had good conversations w/ her over a period of time. I was quite shocked when she would not even relent a phone #.

    Like


    • Don’t even sweat it bro move on.

      I believe Roosh alluded to the principle that if you’re asking friends and forums on advice regarding a girl, odds are that it won’t work out since you have already invested more than she has.

      Like


  20. OT but fark me, at first I thought this was a pisstake…apparently not though:

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/real-life/why-i-am-terrified-of-bucks-nights-20120712-21y1b.html

    Like


  21. @ DQ’ed
    Maybe your current girlfriend frightened her off?

    Like


  22. on July 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm Virgin-for-life

    game only works when you have a good-looking face and money to spend. without neither, 100% of women will tell you to fuck off 100% of the time. still persistent? here come the police

    Like


  23. “Her omnipresent war room hamster and the hotline the fevered critter has to the gina general at the front.”

    Not only do you do a godly service to average joes around the world by giving enough of a fuck about men to actually help us out with women, but you do it so well. A talented writer be you, with a keen mind. Why you aven’t written the anti The Game and made a million is baffling. We need the rebound to 50 shades of shit, and you’re it.

    Like


  24. Here is a related topic written last week by MRM chick Typhonblue:

    http://www.genderratic.com/p/1673/how-a-limp-dick-can-save-the-worlduncut-version/

    Quoting:

    “Society (and when I say society, I’m talking in terms of a social organism that uses men and women like cells to perpetuate itself) Society controls men through rejection. Social and sexual. In particular, men are constantly told their sexuality is depraved, damaging, disturbing, and demonic. Men experience this social drumbeat of sexual rejection as continuous pain. It could be likened to a shock collar wrapped around the neck of every man that delivers a constant electrical shock, varied just enough so the man in question never gets used to it.

    “The only time the shock collar stops delivering is when the man in question acquires approval from a woman. This approval can be social or sexual, but it is a woman who provides it.

    “This system really only works when there is a constant flow of electricity to men’s shock collars. This flow is generated by holding men to an ideal of ever-ready sexual desire for women.”

    Me again – the DQ by a PUA breaks the “shock collars” and indicates an out-of-a-woman’s-control man – something both terrifying and intriguing to women. Go, hamster, go.

    Like


    • Go beyond pleasure and pain and freedom shall be yours. But we don’t aspire for freedom or mastery – we aspire for pleasure and comfort – hence our bondage.

      Like


  25. Soo the question really is how the fuck do you get into deep conversation, so you can use timing, context and delivery in order to seduce/manipulate her hamster? That bitch shield and her hypergamous reflex are the hardest things to subdue. To complain is natural. Similarly, a Show of Frustration is beta. _Alpha_ does not get frustrated outwardly because he has social knowledge and cunning. There is no frame rocking/crumbling/questioning of his faith. It’s a waste of time; He learns and then does, “Simple”. If you cannot execute properly then you do not understand; the knowledge is beyond you at the moment. Let it go-no need to get frustrated. Allow yourself that so you can continue the “good work” Stride on, confident of your path. Obviously, satisfaction and reward come from the results of your experiences. [Trying to do shit you do not really understand gives you shitty results, but results none the less] Dedication: Burning frustration grips you like a vice forged in pure hate. Tirelessly focused you grind on; though, it pains you greatly. Your pain will be what sets your dick free. To remain static, or worse, to regress is truly Beta. … gentlemen, It Is a-no shit-hamster wheel that we’re dealing with…

    Like


  26. All disqualifications are not created equal. They are operating on subtle, but different, psychological principles…

    Preemptive Self and Target types of disqualifications (#1 and #2) are most often working on the principle of Reactance (i.e. reverse psychology). Basically, this is the idea that people “react” by wanting something they are told they can’t have. Therefore, these disqualifications increase perceived value or desire for what is being denied. In PUA terms, they primarily increase attraction.

    In contrast, Handicapping and Beta Bait types of disqualifications (#3 and #4) are most often working on the principles of Liking and Credibility. People tend to like and trust others more when they are a bit human, fallible, and imperfect. It makes them feel more approachable and easier to relate to. Also, being a bit modest and non-reactive makes someone seem more credible (and motivates others to let their guards down). Therefore, these disqualifications make someone more likable and trustworthy. In PUA terms, they primarily increase comfort.

    Overall, that is why different PUAs use what seems like the same qualification technique at different times. Mystery, for example, is using type 1 and 2 techniques early on to build attraction and pump arousal. Juggler, in contrast, is using type 3 and 4 techniques a bit later in an interaction to create comfort and build trust. Therefore, correct use of disqualification in the moment requires knowing what emotion you need to build – attraction or comfort – and picking the right type of disqualification technique to trigger it.

    Like


  27. “You know, I think you would make a great wife, but you’re completely undate-able.” If she focuses on the ‘great wife’ part, you can clarify that you aren’t looking for a wife, but generally she would make a great wife, for somebody else.

    If she focuses on the ‘undate-able’ part, she’ll either be rushing to qualify herself, completely fall apart (most common reaction) or spew molten venom (not good, but at least you’ll get insight into her current/last relationship).

    Niche variants: “I think you would make a great mom” (delivered without a neg, works amazing on low self-esteem girl ), “I think you would make a great mom. Horrible wife or girlfriend, but a great mom. But maybe stick to just having girls, ok? You probably shouldn’t try to raise baby boys.”

    “You’re a single mom? Wow, must be really hard. I have a lot of respect for that?” If she actually is a single mom, she probably was trying to hide it and will ask what gave her away. Most likely -she is not a single mom, and will rush to qualify herself, “What? I don’t have kids!” Your non-sequitor of “Didn’t you just tell me you were a single mom?”

    A disqualification of something she didn’t say is fun. Respond to something she didn’t say, and either she’ll consider it a game and have fun playing along, or she’ll take it seriously and be off-balance, unguarded, interested and invested.

    The best DQ for me is one with plausible deniability – if she is trying to figure out whether she is over-reacting, she has less capacity to critically evaluate you. When she desperately wants information from you (why did you say that? what do you know about her), you have a good hook, and her defenses against sharing personal information drop to zero (because you’ve already zero’d in on what she is trying to hide).

    When she badgers you into reluctantly conceding that it is only fair to let her fellate you in the backseat of her car before judging her date-worthiness, and she uncritically and immediately accepts your suggestion that the experience would be better for you if she stripped completely, the hamster is too busy to mount any defense.

    Like


  28. I got a question~ how can you respond to a girl who tells you: “you try too hard”?
    Is that just an instant cut-your-losses scenario, or is it salvageable?

    Like


    • Every shit test forces a choice between cut-your-losses and salvage operation, some more sharply than others. She wants the betas to do the hard work of weeding themselves out for her.

      The better part of valor is discretion (according to the fat witty coward Falstaff). Don’t give in to the constant temptation of disengagement. If you can imagine the necessity of any “instant” retreat, she holds all the power before you say a word to her. A version of “don’t flatter yourself” is the best generic neutralizer.

      Depending on receptivity signals … “So you’re not used to men trying for you?” … “You try too little. I’ve been bombing like a bad comedian here, and you still haven’t bribed me with a pity drink or fake phone number to get off the stage.” … “Then I’m guessing you don’t want to hear the song I wrote about you?” … Whatever melts away the defensive perma-sneer of B-plus bitches.

      Alternatively, there is always the possibility that you are in fact trying to hard. Ease back.

      This has been my attempt to play Dear Abby. How do you advise someone to be witty? Other than to say, practice practice practice?

      Matt

      Like


    • Generally “you try too hard” isn’t a shit-test, usually it’s a girl’s way of saying “I think you’re cute and WANT to like you more but you’re turning me off with what you’re doing right now.”

      There’s actually a deep/advanced principle in pickup where occasionally girls will basically tell you how to seduce them and you learn when that’s a test and when it’s as simple as agreeing with them and following the blueprint they laid out.

      Tyler demonstrates this with the red-headed rocker chick at 1:02:

      Where he’s like “I’m a nice guy” and she tells him no he’s not he’s secretly a bad guy. He can tell this is her saying “i like bad guys and i like you so I hope you’re a bad guy” so instead of clinging to the nice guy thing he switches gears and goes “okay I’m a bad guy”. She’s telling him how to seduce her.

      So the try-hard bit is her doing the same thing, telling you how to seduce her (tone it down). So agree with her and drop in some vulnerability. If you throw a zingy witty cocky/funny response it just feeds into the try-hard label she assigned you.

      Something said super sincere like “I know, sorry, you make me nervous, I don’t meet many girls who (something awesome about her)” or “Ya I know, my bad, I’m just saying stupid shit right now because my brain stops working when you look me in the eyes like that.” as you grin and stare into her eyes.

      Usually this’ll save it and make her go “awww” and give you another chance, and at this point you drop any cocky/funny or teasing entirely an just focus on building comfort/rapport like a normal chill dude. Down the road you can sprinkle in some teasing and stuff but she needs you to “be real” for a bit.

      Like


      • I was going to amen that, but then you put “for a bit”. If the chick is that non darma she doesn’t want any bs ever. Keep it interesting and exciting but cut the non genuine crap because she’s obviously seeing through it and is annoyed enough to say something.

        Like


      • oh shut up…

        Like


      • Generally “you try too hard” isn’t a shit-test…

        Maybe “generally,” but in dickmojo’s case it is. Whatever the girl’s intent it had the effect of making him contemplate either “retreat” or “salvage.” That’s the tell-tale sign of a failed shit test, and you are addressing some other topic entirely. At least in his own mind, his confidence is telling him a bomb went off. However YaReallyPUA.com might react, clearly this guy is not at your olympic level of “chill.” Her response rattled his insecurities.

        And so now you advise him to indulge and advertise those insecurities? A cocky smirk or a knowing glance can make any line work, but clearly this fellow needs something a little more basic.

        She is not indirectly admiring him with irony. She is calling him out on his awkwardness. Use Occam’s Razor: is it more likely he needs advice because he couldn’t detect her coy interest or because he was actually trying too hard and cooling her off? Maybe she isn’t telling him “how to seduce her.” Maybe it’s a polite brush-off before taking the GTFO hammer from her clutch.

        Rather than counsel him to confront his anxiety, you tell him to go “super sincere”: “I know, sorry, you make me nervous, I don’t meet many girls …” (Should he add a tear for effect?) This must be some advanced meta-game where you somehow convince her you’re not a vulnerable pussy by … acting like you’re a vulnerable pussy? Whatever that does for the chances of an emo-pity fuck, he is beginning the relationship from a position of weakness. You are telling him to be pitiable. This will “salvage” him from a try-hard framework?

        Or are you asking his twinkle to do all the real communicating here — a twinkle his very request for advice indicates that he does not possess?

        There’s actually a deep/advanced principle…

        This earnest young striver can’t even handle a routine half-rejection without wanting to head for the hills, and you lay advanced PUA principle on him?

        A last point. “Generally” the try-hard accusation is in fact a shit test. A very common and devastating one, too. Generally the try-hard accusation is not her way of saying, “You Had Me at Hello, so stop trying so hard.” Generally it is a much more straightforward way of saying, “I know what you’re doing here, and I deserve better than your canned lines and street magic.” What kind of aloof mastery in the hind brain ever inspires a girl to spout “try hard” from her front brain, even in irony? His seams are showing. She is not along for any ride, she wants to get off at the next stop, thank you very much.

        I know, I know. I’ve never met a girl or talked to one (much less made her laugh or scored with one! what’s that?!?), and so I regularly fail to see the fine-points of your brilliance. The masses cheer at your brand of casuistry, and when have they ever been wrong? I’m left scratching my head. Must be me.

        Either that or you specialize in an authoritative tone that desperate chumps jump all over, like orphans on a bread crust, independent of any usefulness.

        Matt

        Like


  29. on July 13, 2012 at 8:59 am Newly Aloof

    That lesbian line is a trip. Stealin’ that one. And the one about not being a good potential mother is brutal, but good to have in the back pocket in case of nuclear war with a nasty B.

    Like


  30. on July 13, 2012 at 9:06 am HeManMasterofthePooniverse

    I make it a rule never to use the phrase “I’m the kind of guy…”

    Like


  31. Women don’t mock men for trying to date us properly. We mock them for lying to us in order to (probably) sleep with us for one night while acting like you really like us. It’s like a thief getting caught on his way out of the store. Of course he’ll be the laughing stock of the witnesses for the next few days! He tried to break the rules. Why should we reward this?

    Like


    • Keep reading and stfu.
      You’re obviously new around here and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Like


      • Stop chasing the chicks away with your He-Man Girl Haters Club. Their delusions are valuable reminders of how they think in their front-brain. We reap our dividends elsewhere.

        “He tried to break the rules. Why should we reward this?”! Perfection.

        Her hamster will be driving her to ask this in a hypnotic mantra all the way to her infiltration. Talk about a “thief.” He tried to break me. Why am I rewarding this? He is breaking me. Why did I reward this? Petite mort. Exeunt. Next day: He broke me. Why do I want to reward him?

        Matt

        Like


      • You know, some of us do have ethics and self-control. I fell in love with an alpha once. I will tolerate some level of game (it’s understandable that you want to appear attractive to women) but I cut him off when he started lying to me by omission (hint: gaming girls in your social circle can backfire when she has spies looking out for her). I had an opportunity to have sex with him and I was too disgusted with his duplicitous behavior (which of course was designed to make me feel more attracted) so I declined.

        If he was nice, he could have had me. Of course I still find him very attractive physically, but like I said, some of us have self-control.

        Like


      • … like I said, some of us have self-control.

        I know you do. And God bless you for it.

        But which is the more likely constant in women? Reliable self-discipline, or overconfidence in one’s “self-control” right up until it fails under acute circumstances?

        Of course I still find him very attractive [full stop]

        I know you do. Your posture of reported “disgust” is easily overcome by one meta-duplicitous gesture. Do you not understand that a girl’s reaction to “duplicitous behavior” has already been factored into the formula? Like the terrorists say to law enforcement, we can fail a thousand before we finally break through, but if you drop your guard once, we succeed.

        Welcome to your uncomfortable enlightenment. We want to be the ones to enlighten girls like you.

        Your name wouldn’t happen to be Sarah, would it? Amanda? Jen, is that you?

        Matt

        Like


      • I can’t remember if theres a term for the threat girls use when arguing against game where an individual girl will speak for “the group” and basically threaten to cut a man off from sex.

        Like if you dare do something “we” don’t like, no girl will ever have sex with you again. It’s not “shaming”, but it’s along those lines where it’s like “get in line with what I say or we’ll all cut you off from pussy”

        Aunt Sue did this one a TON to me when we went back and forth a while back lol I didn’t call her out on it cause I was trying not to get banned too fast but there really should be a term for this technique if there isn’t one.

        This chick’s post is a good example of both that tactic and the “girls just KNOW” vagina omnipotence where girls threaten that no one can trick or deceive them. It’s impossible, they have spies everywhere and they know how to play the game etc etc etc.

        Both are bullshit threats that guys should laugh off. 🙂

        Like


      • on July 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm ImmoralGables

        Hahaha YaReally and KingA just verbally dp’ed Mangos.

        Good stuff.

        -IG

        Like


      • You’re taking it too personally, as I’m not “threatening” all men or speaking for “all” women. I’m simply saying that someone behaved like an ass, and instead of chasing after him like Game preaches I will do, I said, “Hey, this person is not nice. I should not attempt to date this person or I will end up more hurt in the end as he obviously doesn’t want what I want.”

        I don’t know if other girls are having sex with him and I don’t care. It’s just not right for me. Even if he “got in line”, he has already made his decision.

        Like


      • Whatever you say sweetcheeks.

        Like


      • For the record and even though I’m anonymous, I don’t look like that fat little dude in the video.

        lolz./

        Like


    • Who’s rules?

      Like


      • Rules of society: don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, treat others how you want to be treated

        Aren’t men supposed to be more moral than women?

        Like


      • treat others how you want to be treated

        +1.

        this is exactly why i treat girls like sex objects.

        Like


      • lol’ed! Stealing that

        Like


      • Cocky funny? Check
        Assumes the Sale? Check
        Field Tested? I’ll be using it tonight.

        Like


      • right frame of mind dude.

        Like


      • Men can’t treat women the way men want to be treated, nor vice versa. Feminism is an abomination of nature. Men treat women like women, and women treat men like men. That’s how we are “more moral” than today’s “women.”

        It’s not the lying and the cheating and the stealing per se that revs hamsters while scandalizing the situational morality of the modern girl. It’s the courage which attends transgression that makes you hate yourself for tingling. Retain your morals, little one. But leave their ultimate enforcement to the stronger sex. You cannot help but make a mishmash of them so long as you are fertile.

        The fairer sex, the weaker sex. Stick to your specialties and you might once again become “our better half.”

        Matt

        Like


      • I may be a kind of a troll here but I’ve read this blog for + 3 years and I have to say that King A speaks the truth.

        But maybe he shouldn’t focus so much on it because children really enjoy boogeyman stories and what not. The truth is for men, only. And not every men though.

        Like


    • Also, I see men mocking women for trying all the time. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with a man lecturing me about wearing makeup or criticising me for spending an hour on my hair. Hell, I was in a club and some loner player at the bar had the gall to ask me if my hair color was natural!

      Men hate it when women put effort into making ourselves beautiful.

      Like


      • Those are not “men,” loosely speaking, those are cantankerous betas. And you’re unfamiliar with the widespread amateur misuse of the neg.

        Men don’t hate the effort, they hate signs of effort.

        Are you British or Australian?

        Clairol or L’Oreal?

        Even Don Draper asks, “Does she or doesn’t she?

        Matt

        Like


      • on July 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm ImmoralGables

        I see the difference there between your and Mangos “negs”. If people could let that transcend there pickup and other parts of life no doubt that would be beneficial.

        -IG

        Like


      • I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with a man lecturing me about wearing makeup or criticising me for spending an hour on my hair.

        Men hate it when women put effort into making ourselves beautiful.

        men who deal with beautiful women on a regular basis know that beauty requires maintenance. men who know how to deal with these women wouldn’t lecture you or criticize you. tease you, maybe. if you mistook the teasing for lecturing or criticism, that just means you don’t score very well on social aptitude.

        so, chances are the problem is the type of men in your social circle, i.e. you’ve yet to meet a real alpha. or, you could be wearing too much makeup.

        I was in a club and some loner player at the bar had the gall to ask me if my hair color was natural!

        hint: he doesn’t really care whether your hair color is natural or not.

        Like


      • Agreed. It’s just conversational filler

        Like


      • Yeah right… now come here and suck my cock bitch. Or better, bring your nice to suck me cock ‘cos I bet you’re 40something years old with an ass the size of a pick a truck.

        Bring your nice to suck me cock bitch.

        Like


  32. Hi, I know this is like shooting fish in a barrell, but the jizzabel crowd is again making the world a worse place with their commentary on daniel tosh so please write about them

    Like


  33. Way off topic but is Romney serious about wanting the neocon Condi Rice as his VP? Is he that shallow that he thinks real conservatives will want that because she’s black and she’s a woman? I recall that Condi slammed Germany’s Merkel for allowing “one hundred thousand” women to be sex trafficked during the World Cup in 2008 with Merkel responding that the real number had been zero (except for a van with 4 Polish women stopped at the border and the Polish women were sad not to be allowed in).

    At least if it’s Rice, it won’t be Jindal.

    Like


  34. I think that what the post is missing is whether the DQ is meant to be ironic or serious. If they’re already hooked you can convey that you are serious and that will make them seem like a DOD and the girl will worry that she did something wrong and is losing you. If you’re still building attraction you need to convey that you are being ironic, when done right their meaning should be interpreted to be opposite of their literal meaning. Take your examples:

    You: “I’m not looking for anyone right now.”

    When you say “I’m not looking for anyone right now”, if shes hooked she will worry that she is going to lose you and it will get her working harder for your approval. On the other hand if you are early in the process saying the same thing needs to be taken ironically, the girl is supposed to know that you not serious and that obviously ARE looking for someone right now. Say it with a smile to convey that you are of course joking. If she says “good because neither am I” she might be either ironic or serious and it should be clear which one it is. If she is serious then you probably delivered it wrong or she had no interest in you yet and you need to start from scratch in building attraction.

    Like


  35. So…being handsome and well-built, should I avoid the DQ’s except with 8-10 territory hotties?

    I feel like I’ve missed a couple of 7-8s by being too quick to assume that they were about to throw a DQ on me. Maybe I crossed a line and made them feel inadequate. Thoughts?

    Like


    • Your looks automatically DQ you with 7s-8s because they assume they couldn’t REALLY have you.

      So DQ’ing on top of that is overkill. They’re dying for you to DQ yourself so they can say “it’s not that I don’t deserve him it’s that he’s not looking for a GF right now” or whatever your DQ was, to protect their ego. Sometimes they’ll be complete bitchy assholes to you even lol since they’re thinking “he’s obviously about to DQ me because he’s so good looking he couldnt possibly want me, so I’ll DQ him first harshly so I can tell people I’m the one who rejected him!” and then that’s how you have the fat girl saying you just want to use her for sex and she’s not that kind of girl, or the plain Jane girl saying she doesn’t like when guys are too muscular etc.

      9s-10s expect to get a guy like you and are used to getting what they want in general, so you need a DQ because your looks aren’t a DQ by default like with the 7s-8s.

      Like


  36. I think the peacock theory is bs. It looks like a runaway biological contest is responsible for peacock feathers more than anything else. At one point it was attractive for a peacock to have a little bit longer tail, but once that attractiveness was recognized by females, there was no way to stop it. Its kind of an evolutionary accident like being painted into a corner. It is a very real handicap which is probably why we dont see so many animals with the evolutionary equivalent of peacock feathers.

    Like


    • From what I understand it depends on the environment. Birds of paradise for example are really out there in plumage. If it is an environment with no predators and ample resources animals become more flamboyant to attract females who don’t need protection and providing. I think we are in that situation in modern western society today.

      Like


  37. would anyone appreciate a girl’s take?

    Very quickly (I just want to be helpful) I’m 22 always get that I look younger, light hispanic. Solid 8.5 low 9 for some guys on my best nights. It doesn’t matter if you believe it or not but I’ve been reading for years and decided newbies would appreciate hearing from me. For your own good assume that I am what I say I am.

    Well just to address the whole how do hot girls react to DQs. The truth is that they usually don’t work out too well for the guy. I won’t believe any man who claims I am not what he’s into. So yes, everyone, it is all about timing and quality. They have to be unexpected and when they happen in just the right way they will work.
    There aren’t too many alphas out there but in my experience they don’t usually use DQs too much. My guess is because they weren’t PUAs they were just naturals.

    If a man is talking to me I always assume he is interested. If he were to “disqualify” himself I will always assume it is fake. Nothing will convince me otherwise so it’s not a good way to go. I might be wrong but that doesn’t matter. When guys try doing this I don’t really respond to it I just kind of say “yeah, sure” with my facial expression or in words and the exchange ends soon after. Of the DQs on this post I would react positively to #2 Target DQ and sometimes #4 Beta Bait DQ. I can’t speak for every woman in the world but this might be of some value.

    One things that almost always make me self-qualify is when older men (I like men over 26) insinuate that I am too young for their taste/ they wouldn’t date someone my age seriously or otherwise. Immediately I try to change his mind. I can never accept it even if I wasn’t interested to begin with. #2 is a good move in general with a girl like me because I can’t handle rejection in the form of target DQ. But it can’t be obvious it has to seem real. I can’t stress that enough.

    #4 is perfect. I would say in general it is true that girls will try to tease out the beta in him. I feel very confident dropping compliments on any guy. I do it even if I’m not interested in him.

    I’m casually dating a very alpha man (the shortest, poorest and not the cutest of my most recent dates but he is the only one I sleep with) we had sex on the first night. He almost never reacts to compliments. Not when we met and not when we see each other. It drives me crazy.

    Recent example: I went on a date with a yuppie and he nearly bored me to death. So I called it a night with him and called up the alpha guy. We met at a bar near his area. He left me waiting 40 minutes by the way. I was mildly inebriated when he finally shows up I sit down next to him and say “I want to slap you and I want to kiss you.” Then I do the latter. I tell him he smells great, he says nothing or something unrelated. I tell him he looks hot. He talks about some art thing he is working on, I say “You are so sexy.” He smiles. I kiss his neck and face like some kind of crazed nympho.
    He rarely reacts and thus my compliments grow more and more outlandish.
    Eventually I ended up at “I would pay money to suck your cock.” He finally raised his eyebrows and said thank you.

    Hey I’m not proud of it but he’s the only man I’ve ever said that to and his non-reactions were getting to me. I’m pretty sure I meant it at that moment.

    Like


  38. Been reading this blog for…well 2 years now I suppose. I’m still a 21 year old virgin.

    People fucking scare me, man.

    Like


    • Congratulations bro.

      Like


    • You’ve been 21 for 2 years now? What is your secret – fountain of youth?

      Stop reading and start doing! Men are agents – we do stuff. Women are objects – they have value only for what they are. Male agency is amazing and attractive to women, but only when you exercise it. The only thing worse for a man than a failing effort is making no effort at all – like chicks.

      Like


  39. Nuclear Neg made one week ago on an 18 year old has worked.

    She had texted “We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”.

    I had texted back “Excuse me but, In two years, no guy under 30 will want you and by age 25, no alpha male under 40 will want you”.

    She responded “WTF?!! In two years every man on Earth will still want me”

    and then we text argued back and forth as I fed her some standard (and short) evo psych lessons which, when read or heard by an inteligent young woman, tend to tame the hamster well.

    We ended the first text exchange with her admitting that she’d be no longer attractive to alpha males at age 25 but “that’s a long way off” and I was saying that her expiry date would be more like 22.

    Cold silence between us ensued. I held frame and simply dated someone else.

    Our mutual friends were aware of a cold war between us for the past week.

    But we made peace today, first via text.

    Me: It’s wrong to think I was trying to insult you by stating the truth about how the men of your generation will abandon you for the girls of the next generation

    (I was still holding frame here – no apologies)

    Her: Yeah, but it’s insulting even now that you want to rub that in

    (she’s admitted that evo psych speaks the truth)

    Me: All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that. But you made me believe that I was ugly and you didn’t enjoy that.

    Her: You didn’t understand at all. I think you’re cute. I don’t just want sex with you. I enjoy the hugging and kissing too.

    This complete submission floored me. It’s everything that feminists would say could never happen. They’d say I made the above exchange up. I didn’t.

    Now I may have initially overreacted. The text that set me off only really said that she couldn’t imagine us publicly being a couple and me meeting her mother. But that’s what she’s saying now after I passed the shiite test.

    I’m sure PUA experts will find I was quite rough around the edges in that exchange and I maybe wasted a week (in which I dated someone else, no man should ever waste time itself with any woman).

    But whether it was necessary or not, the fact remains that I dropped more than one nuclear bomb on a girl who openly believed every man wanted to sleep with her, and the end result so far seems to be that she likes me better than ever.

    Like


  40. not being a stickler but sour grapes actually means you rationalize your failures, not being a sore loser. “a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.’

    Like


  41. Truth. Although it takes BOTH pinky fingers to type DQ (one on Q, one on shift).

    Like


  42. That “you’re off the market” line works wonders if you combine it later with “tell me a secret” after she’s hooked.

    For example, last night I opened a set. Early in it, my target casually mentioned something about her boyfriend’s family before changing the subject quickly enough I wasn’t concerned.

    After I had her hooked anyways, I mentioned that girls make the worst wingmen because they have no clue what they’re doing. My target immediately began telling me how she wasn’t like other girls and what a great wingman she was (the usual response).

    “I mean I’m not a perfect 10, but I’m pretty and flirty enough to make a girl jealous”

    “Well, pretty enough sure. But since you have that boyfriend I have no idea if you can flirt. Kinda too bad you’re off the market though, cause I sorta like you.”

    A few minutes later I had my target isolated for a few minutes. So I told her to tell me a secret you’ve never told anyone.

    Her secret? “I’ve been dating my boyfriend for about 9 months now. But what nobody, not even my girlfriends, knows is that about six months ago, I cheated on him.”

    It’s one of the best ways past IHAB that I’ve found. Get the girl hooked anyways, THEN use the boyfriend as the DQ line. Her hampster will go into overdrive trying to figure out a way to marginalize him.

    For the record, this works best on smart girls. Dumber ones won’t be able to figure out how to make the BF irrelevant and will simply give up.

    Like


  43. […] and Conversational Context, Questioning The Meritocracy, Universal Logo Of The Feminized Male, What To Do If A Girl Calls You Out. . ., Liberal Men And Fat […]

    Like


  44. […] of wits on comment threads, that you just have to post, and this particular spat occurred on one of Heartiste’s posts. I’ll post verbatim […]

    Like


  45. on July 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm the fat cat from the kebab house

    I just noticed a short disqualification neg from Ridley Scott’s new movie “Prometheus.” The company representative Meredith Vickers and the ship’s captain Janek discuss in front of the holographic map. In reply to Meredith’s constant bitchin Janek asks if she is trying to get laid. She replies with more bullshit about why she would have to come half a billion miles away from all the men on earth to get laid . Then the following two liner solves the problem

    Janek: Are you a robot?
    Meredith Vickers: Meet me in my room in ten minutes.

    It looks like more and more of mainstream media is consulting your services as relationship advisor. Your blog is even more popular than I imagined.

    Like


  46. “Mystery-style preemptive DQs work best on hot girls. Since hot girls are the most likely to assume every man wants them (justifiably), a quick correction to the contrary can temporarily scramble their status differential discernment algorithms.”

    This sounds so nerdy, but it’s true.

    Like


  47. For example, hyperparathyroidism causes psychological (and physical) effects via overproduction

    We need to raise global awareness join people all over the world to act immediatelly on this scourge. It is more dangerous than Global Warming, Financial Deregulation and Iran all put together

    We must wage a war on Thyroid. It causes obesity, diabetes, betaness, depression. It is a truly global threat

    Like