Joker79 from the SoSuave forum relates a common red pill dilemma;
I’m a huge fan of the rational male and I can’t deny that it helped my a lot in these years. I’m spinning plates and I can literally pull out from the crowd the girl I want to bang. I find really amusing though when I challenge some chicks with the uncomfortable truth of the matrix (e.g. their hypergamy, decreasing SMV with age, the feminine mystique and so on). I wonder which is the common (and the worst) reaction you got from your female friends, girlfriend, women you’re meeting daily when you show them that you know the game they’re playing? I usually get “pffff NAWALT” or “you’re a player” or they seems to be butthurt once they realize I turned the table against them… nothing concrete of course because they know I’m right. any meaningful and/or funny experience?
Synergy1 adds the most common response:
I don’t openly discuss the RM and other theories with people, but its funny how a lot of the truths are actually accepted by people. Just the other day I had a discussion on how if you insult a man its funny, but if you mention a fact about women, it’s considered misogyny. The coworkers’ comment was that women are weaker than men are and I responded – why do you hate America. It got some laughs.
Some people get it. These are the same people who have been through divorce and see things for as they are. The younger guys who are still in fairytale land don’t understand or buy into it.
Joker79:
It’s not really discussing openly or starting a conversation about red pill topic, it’s more about observing their behavior when your reaction is different from what chicks expect (e.g. walk away when you’re supposed to beg them to stay, hitting on different chicks when she’s with you and disrespects you and you’re not trying to qualify for her attention at all). More often than not you get either an annoyed reaction (he’s a player) motivated by the discomfort of her knowing that you know her strategy and how to workaround it or a butthurt behavior where she pretends not to care and avoid you (rationalization hamster spinning!)
Think about it this way – you can never tell a woman about the red pill or how Game savvy you are, you can only show her.
Demonstrate, never explicate. While it might be satisfying to overtly crush a woman’s gender perceptions, being overt will always come off like conceit, or bitterness or melancholy.
If your purpose is to alienate and/or correct a woman you have no interest in by pointing out the brutal truths of being Game-aware, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you will never get into a woman’s pants or be more attractive to her by explaining the Game you are engaged in with her (or hope to be).
Women want a guy who Just Gets It.
She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shït test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.
Remember what I’ve bolded here, the same applies to you revealing your understanding of Game. As I’ve stated many times, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Women want to play the Game with you, but they want it running covertly in the background, not overtly and in her face. Much of the reason the red pill, Game and the manosphere are vilified by a blue pill public is due to the overt nature of explaining the psychological and sociological mechanisms operating underneath the social conventions, ego-invested beliefs and masks we wear in engaging with the opposite sex.
The red pill strips away a comfortable veneer – we’re supposed to Just Get It, without explaining how we just get it. Men being the more pragmatic and rational sex tend to think that a reasoned approach should be the most practical one. We deduce that women ought to be just as reasonable and can handle the truth – after all the constant repetition of how women and men are the same with different genitals – so to the uninitiated, newly unplugged red pill guy it seems sensible to remove all the pretense and explain all his understanding to a woman he’s interested in.
Play with her, and play with her.
As I’ve explained before, appeals to a woman’s reason will never bear the fruit that hopeful Beta men expect it will. Women don’t want to be told how the Game works (on some limbic level they already know how it works), they want to play the Game with a Man to determine that he knows how the Game works. There is nothing so self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a Man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition. Understanding this basic tenet of women is one of the most under-appreciated advantages men have in Game.
This is where the ‘Art’ in Pick Up Artist is important. Too many men believe that understanding red pill truths and the underpinnings of Game should be enough to be convincing with women, but that learning isn’t enough. Playing the Game and applying that knowledge with women without revealing an overt understanding of it is an art that must be practiced and developed to the point where adaptation and improvisation become second nature to a man. Men with this understanding are often the ones with the most comfort and facility with women – Amused Mastery is his natural state, because he knows his advantage in not revealing the secret of the red pill to any woman he’s interested in.
January 7th, 2014 at 4:18 pm
I have an idea to answer your question, Rol – women are opting to have children without marriage because… well, because its easier. Being married, as more and more women are starting to realize, is really fucking hard (not just for you guys), and often not worth the trouble, even when they are almost guaranteed to earn less income than if they were married. Incidentally, less than 10% of total single mothers in the US are collecting welfare. I’ve gotta head out to an appointment, but I’ll bring on the math for you when I get back.
January 7th, 2014 at 4:44 pm
@Rol, what’s the incentive?
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/marriage-may-not-be-silver-bullet-poverty-study-says-2D11863554
January 7th, 2014 at 5:10 pm
@Living Tree
What you refer to as genuine people who don’t care what people think are just alphas. They have internalized a certain life code and things are simple. The rest, who still need to try, are betas with perhaps some shades of alpha that have not yet fully formed.
January 7th, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Hmm, Interesting theory, New Yorker, not sure I’d agree with you though. I take them more to be gammas. http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2010/03/gamma-man.html
Gammas are the ones that pose a threat to the status quo, the loners, the private types that question the system. Alphas I’ve met have a tendency towards extreme opportunism, domineering, and ultimately, conceit – Alphas being the ones that betas emulate and prop up in our capitalistic society, because of their superior game skills.
I think at some point in everyone’s development, they come to a crossroad, when they recognize what’s expected of them to participate in this society, and they have to make a choice – they can either play the game and hopefully get better at it (ie. go alpha) or turn away from it and GTOW (ie. go gamma). The alpha route most often seems like the most attractive option to take, because of the reward/punishment structure we have in place in our society. Questioning the status quo gets you ostracized.
But at least that way you get to keep your integrity. Integrity may not be worth much to you guys in the SMP, but in my mind, its the most precious thing there is. Any man who has it is a winner and deserves far more than what this stupid world will give him.
January 7th, 2014 at 7:10 pm
BTW, New Yorker, I have met a lot of Alpha males (and females) in my time, and not one of them I could say with sincerity doesn’t care about what other people think of them. Quite the contrary, actually, they are generally speaking, more obsessed with it than betas are. Alphas are acutely aware of the fragility of their rank, of the constant challenges to it, and they work diligently to maintain position, often by way of carefully designed charismatic distractions.
January 7th, 2014 at 7:26 pm
BTW, New Yorker, I have met a lot of Alpha males (and females)
Here we see a standard attempt at a reframe; redefine the terms, and thereby control the narrative. By peddling a definition of “alpha” that is different from the more or less agreed upon usage of the androsphere, LyingTree clearly wishes to steer men away from thinking in clear terms.
There is no such thing as a “female alpha” in androsphere terms, for example. Throwing that meaningless term out there is not communication, but obfuscation.
Now, what purpose is served by fogging up men’s thinking about women? Is it an imperative purpose, perhaps?
January 7th, 2014 at 7:32 pm
LyingTree2013
Corral??! WTF are you talking about? I don’t want you in any corral, I don’t want you being used any more than I want women to be used, or any more than I want either of us to learn to be better users. I want us all to be able to stand on our own two feel, take responsibility, have agency for our actions, even our bad ones. But, since using seems to be all we know how to do to each other these days, is there any option besides play along, or leave?
Yes, corral. LT likes to use words that imply she desires some equalitarian state, but when the issue of The Children comes up, she’s back to the standard coercive mindset women generally take. So, for example, here she babbles about “stand on our own two feet”, but earlier she clearly demanded that men take care of other men’s bastard spawn, no matter what. And we all know what that means, in the modern world: at gunpoint, if need be, resources will be extracted from men.
The interesting thing about this is seeing it from a woman who claims to have been sterilized. We also see it in post menopausal women. So it isn’t the potential for pregnancy that drives this part of the Female Imperative, it must be a result of the brain structure wiring at a deeper level.
I left
That is an option not open to men in the global sense. Obamacare is a kind of bachelor tax, and we can expect more of the same in the years to come. A man can be forced to pay child support for another man’s child, i.e. the state completely supports women’s rights to commit fraud. That is not a problem you need worry about, and I suspect you are quite aware of that fact.
PS:
All feminists are fish, and that’s all they are…
January 7th, 2014 at 7:36 pm
Its not intended to fog you, AR, its intended to remove the blinders from your eyes. I know you’re just learning this stuff, and its much easier for it to be as simple as “choose alpha or beta” and “feminine imperative” but there’s far more to this than you think. There’s plenty of evidence of it, and you can use it to your advantage, if you would just pull your fucking head out of your ass, stop hero-worshipping Rollo (not that you aren’t awesome Rollo), and learn something more than just what he tells you.
Or, if you just want to take the easy route… go right ahead. Your choice.
January 7th, 2014 at 7:51 pm
@LT, I’m going to be upfront with you. For as much as I think you’re a troll, I do in fact appreciate your input here. More often than not for your proving my points or presenting an example of them, however you do give me food for thought.
That said, you’re very smugly presumptuous in that your first reactions to some novel idea you think you’ve had, some particular topic of an essay, or something that you believe only people of your mindset ever consider, haven’t already been discussed in detail on this blog, in my book or even the manosphere on whole.
I’ve had to backtrack links to articles I’ve written (some more than 10 years ago) that completely dispel your knee-jerk presumptions several times since you began commenting here. I still welcome your input, but the next time you’re ready to post something you think myself or the commentariat here are clueless of, do us all the favor of using the search feature on this blog, or skim the side bar topic links and do some due diligence.
Now then, you should probably read up on Alpha:
http://therationalmale.com/category/alpha/
January 7th, 2014 at 11:26 pm
@Living Tree
What you define as Alpha are just ambitious betas. The definition of Alpha is of someone who does not project vulnerability. Money, career, etc. Have nothing to do with it although they of course correlate to alphatude to some degree.
A stressed out CEO who can’t hide his fears from his wife is a beta compared to a regular Joe who has his life under control. The definition of Alpha is having control over your life. You can’t have control over your life if you don’t give primary impetus to your vision of the world, which by definition makes everyone else’s opinion irrelevant (perhaps informative, but still irrelevant). Among women, what people call Alpha Women are just mostly ambitious hamsters who like to show off degrees and other symbols of general approval. They are total and utter betas in terms of mentality. I have met a few legitimate, independent-minded Alpha women, but they comprise a very, very, very small portion of the total pool.
January 8th, 2014 at 12:52 am
Well New Yorker, I suspect that we’re just using two different names for the same thing. I disagree with you, I think men are more complex than just simple, limiting alpha and beta classifications. But anyway, I don’t even care about the definition, I really don’t. The social ranking system is a made-up social concept in urban mythology, without any scientific definition. Its kind of ridiculous, and I feel ridiculous using the terms, so I’m not going to get into a debate with anyone here about what they mean because that would be preposterous.
All I do want to say here is that if authenticity really is the goal for you guys, call it whatever term you like, it hardly matters in the end, as long as you stay true to the goal and don’t get side-tracked by the reward system. I don’t have much faith in that though, I’ll be honest with you. I don’t really believe that this time around, humanity will behave selflessly. Its just more of the same, a struggle for power. Nothing more than a modified strain of the same virus humanity already had.
Honestly, its just the intentions of this mens’ rights movement that I take issue with. Its the idolatry, the hostility, the victim behavior, the blaming, and the opportunism that I have issue with. To me, those things are very limiting to true potential, they are the antithesis of free thinking. Not entirely unpredictably, they are exactly the same things that limited feminism from reaching its true potential. And if this men’s rights movement doesn’t take heed of that, it will suffer the same fate. In fact, it is well on its way already.
January 8th, 2014 at 1:15 am
I’m sorry Rollo, but I’m not sure I get what you mean. You have posted linkbacks to your articles several times in response to things I’ve said in the past, but in almost every instance, they largely validate whatever it is that I’ve said. Not even one time can I remember where you “completely dispelled” a `”knee-jerk reaction” you believe me to be having.
Au contraire! I really should thank you more often for backing me up! This last link you posted basically said exactly the same thing that I said in my post (though you said it with considerably more words). Its all just theorizing anyway though, right?
At any rate, if you find me smug or arrogant in my tone, or disapprove of my choice of words, i do apologize. I know I have a tendency to come off as haughty sometimes, its not my intention. Usually I reserve genuine contempt for people who have nothing to offer the dialogue.
But again, I`d really prefer it if we didnt focus on me, please. Ì know you guys are deliberately doing it to make me talk about myself, so you can prove the point about how much women like to talk about themselves, but I really don`t want to. I`m here to talk about issues with you guys, because the topics are interesting and thought provoking. Please?
January 8th, 2014 at 7:26 am
“.. I`d really prefer it if we didnt focus on me, please. Ì know you guys are deliberately doing it to make me talk about myself ..”
… a-a-aaand. As if by Magick.
Women lack agency.
And as averse as I am to nominating anyone as a troll (rather than merely slightly stupid), almost the entire post above that …
… well … Concern Troll is Concerned.
It’s like ‘show and tell’ at the kindergarten. A fresh-minted exemplar of the Imperative in every post. Brilliant!
January 9th, 2014 at 2:03 pm
OHHHHH my god! My bad,I totally get it now! I foolishly had assumed that you guys gave a shit what women have to say, but I now realize what you’ve been stating here all along, that you only give a shit about women’s opinions when you’re trying to fuck us, and even then you only pretend to care if there’s a chance of getting laid (being the betas that you are). Since you stand no chance of getting laid with me here (plus you have the advantage of anonymity), you feel entirely comfortable dismissing my input outright.
I’m so sorry for my genuine misunderstanding of the situation (sarcasm alert). Going forward, I will attempt to make my posts as sympish as possible to avoid any risk of you thinking I’m trying to tell you unfortunate, emasculated victims what to do. You’re men’s men, obviously, and only want to be told what to do by other men.
Your complaints and accusations about this horrid thing you call “feminine imperative” is actually little more than a stark acknowledgement of what feminists have always known – that no matter how sane or true anything a woman (feminists particularly) might say, you don’t want to hear it because it comes from a woman (unless, of course, it reinforces your masculinity). Same exact thing said by a man, well he’s preaching the gospel! A woman says it? She’s an irrational, knee-jerk reactionary troll, demonstrating “feminine imperative,” rather than clear-headed independent thinking.
I have officially lost interest in you.
January 9th, 2014 at 4:22 pm
I have officially lost interest in you.
Looks like Rollo’s got a new groupie…
January 9th, 2014 at 5:03 pm
That was more directed towards you, AR, and not because I think your behavioral problems are sexy as heck. I have the rare ability to make my inward beliefs and my outward behavior congruous. I am attracted to integrity. You do not have it.
Whereas, I do think Rollo has some rare abilities which do make him more interesting than the average MRA subscriber. That being, he is able to read between the lines, and understand without accepting an opposing point of view. Perhaps under his tutelage, you might learn those skills one day.
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/further-materials-toward-a-theory-of-the-man-child/
January 9th, 2014 at 8:31 pm
I have the rare ability to make my inward beliefs and my outward behavior congruous.
Of course you do. That’s why you intersperse your thickets of text about “fairness” with little stink bombs of coercive utopianism. I hope that you have not caused injury to your shoulder with all that self-back-patting.
I am attracted to integrity.
Of course you are, since a man who strives to keep his word is much easier to manipulate by a woman who knows she can change her mind at any time, “just because”.
Plus if need be, you have the option to go all Valerie Solanas at any time, and blame the results on “men” or “society” or “patriarchy” or any other handy scapegoat – just part of “being a girl”, of course.
But do keep posting. It’s always handy to have examples of the Female Imperative that are fresh and new to point to.
And besides, I care…
January 10th, 2014 at 12:29 pm
AR, if you can find ONE single example among anything I’ve EVER said on this forum relating to any form of coercion or utopia, please do point it out to me, I will be sure to correct it. I suspect though that you are fixating on what you think I said, but didn’t actually say, because for some reason you have been trained to believe that feminists are marxists, and that marxists are bad, so therefore feminists are bad.
Admittedly, I had a few moments of delusion in my youth that there could be great strides made by way of putting collective effort into conscious evolution, but that delusion was crushed out of me years ago by the painful recognition of the reality of the world we live in. Utopia is something we are far, far, FAR from in this manipulated chaos we laughingly call “civilization”, and getting farther from it by the day. The more we collectively try to make it “better”, the more the individual wants to wrest control back, possess it, and fuck it up just because they can.
Capitalism is inherently selfish, and capitalists are not capable of acting for the benefit of the collective. They are contrary ideals which simply cannot be reconciled. Capitalist’s breeding is the ultimate form of narcissism, an extension of one’s ideal self, made deliberately so that we can love, because a capitalist is genuinely incapable of loving anything that isn’t his/her own creation. There is a shelf-life of this system though, and the decay has already started.
But meanwhile, as I plan my escape from the inevitable chaos, there’s no reason as far as I can see not to help out the poverty-stricken single-mom neighbor’s very decent kids with some mentorship and personal development that they wouldn’t otherwise get from their bum dad….
Point being, rather than making new ones, why not use what you have to make life a little less shitty for kids that already exist? They don’t deserve the crap world they were handed.
So, AR, if you’d call my view “utopian coercion”, or marxism, well I think you had best be finding yourself a better dictionary.
January 15th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
lt2013
AR, if you can find ONE single example among anything I’ve EVER said on this forum relating to any form of coercion or utopia, please do point it out to me, I will be sure to correct it
and
But meanwhile, as I plan my escape from the inevitable chaos, there’s no reason as far as I can see not to help out the poverty-stricken single-mom neighbor’s very decent kids with some mentorship and personal development that they wouldn’t otherwise get from their bum dad….
Exactly. Or as Marx put it, Labor battallions will be formed. So I’m going to be helping the local babymomma and her bastards whether I want to or not – at gunpoint, if need be. Because the Female Imperative demands that it be so.
An extreme example of where this kind of thinking – the “labor battallion” or “industrial army” coercive utopianism leads – can be found in the details of the White Sea – Baltic canal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Canal
Oh, and thanks for issuing your demand, then providing an example, in the same comment. It saves me from searching…
Point being, rather than making new ones, why not use what you have to make life a little less shitty for kids that already exist? They don’t deserve the crap world they were handed.
We have a philosophical difference that I doubt you can appreciate. Very few people get what they deserve, for which we all should be grateful.
So, AR, if you’d call my view “utopian coercion”, or marxism, well I think you had best be finding yourself a better dictionary.
Thanks for the advice. I’ll look into it real soon. In the meantime, I’ll just have to rely on the weight of history, and the reality I see around me, to draw conclusions. Perhaps you should read Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archapelago” to see where your way leads.
January 15th, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Oh yes, I can certainly appreciate the vast gulf between our “philosophies”. And since you appear to be a nutjob of epic proportions, I’d rather not engage with you any further if you don’t mind. Although that seems to be impossible for you, since every single one of your posts contains some diatribe directed at something I’ve said which you’ve extrapolated into your chart illustrating female totalitarianism.
January 15th, 2014 at 3:40 pm
LT2013
Oh yes, I can certainly appreciate the vast gulf between our “philosophies”.
I feel your pain, it must be simply dreadful for one of the pack mules to decide not to be a pack mule anymore. And that pretty much sums you up: men are objects for women like you to use, and little more. Rather as Stalin chose to use the zeks in his construction projects, but on a retail rather than a wholesale scale, and without obvious executions.
Well, obvious executions, anyway. A man who blows his brains out to end his depression while being divorced is just as dead as any zek shot in the head for malingering on the White Sea canal project, y’know.
And since you appear to be a nutjob of epic proportions, I’d rather not engage with you any further if you don’t mind.
Oh, ok, so you prefer the Soviet approach of the 1970’s, to call dissidents against totalitarianism “mentally ill”, is that correct? More Andropov, less Stalin? Do you think you’ll ever get around to reading “Gulag”, or does the prospect of all those pages with big words just scare you too much for words?
Although that seems to be impossible for you, since every single one of your posts contains some diatribe directed at something I’ve said which you’ve extrapolated into your chart illustrating female totalitarianism.
If you are going to lie, at least try to do a better job of it than this. Or try explaining how these postings “contain some diatribe” directed at you:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/comment-page-2/#comment-28540
http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/#comment-28493
I know, I know, because you are such a special snowflake, ultimately every posting on any thread you pollute must be about you in some way, because everything in the world revolves around your special awesome specialness.
Meanwhile, in the real world, I’ve been posting on this site longer than you have. Maybe if you could have pulled yourself away from your mirror of solipsism long enough to read the site prior to posting, you’d have noticed that.
January 15th, 2014 at 3:49 pm
PS:
LT
And since you appear to be a nutjob of epic proportions,
Ah, Code White, a classic example of feminist shaming language as seen here:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
I’m always impressed by medical doctors who can diagnose other people over the Internet. Tell us, LyingTree, where and when did you graduate from medical school, where did you do your residency, and in what location are you a licensed medical professional?
January 16th, 2014 at 5:09 pm
You have to play dumb a little bit because she is hoping to sucker you.
Once she realizes she cannot manipulate you at all she will move on.
January 17th, 2014 at 7:05 pm
@rol
My theory had always been that the general public is becoming more and more wary of marriage because numbers of failed marriages are giving it increasingly bad rep but you got me thinking…
In my generation at least (Europe, 90s kids) there’s virtually no talk of marriage except for the topic of divorces. Virtually everyone I know either knows someone who has or has been through that particular wringer between 6 and 16. There’s very few idealists left who believe marriage can still work and, even among the womanfolk who do believe, incentive to marry is shot down by an uncertain economy and unfavorable tax policies.
The last one is particularly hard to beat when single mothers get benefits left and right, which is the only thing that allows them to live up to the ideal of independence AND family can be worked at the same time.
Shit, now I think of it, back in trade school we were explicitly told that marriage is a bad idea in this day and age. That’s a pretty strong message coming down on kids in their late teens. We discussed the topic a bit and the consensus was that, unless someone adheres to a moral code that demands marriage for whatever reason, it probably won’t happen.
I’m not sure my point of view counts for much, since it’s subjective, but I and many others my age see only drawbacks to marriage, be they social, financial or emotional in nature. That perception contributes to a lack of faith in the concept, which in turn feeds back into less marriages, which again reinforces the original notion that marriage isn’t worth the whole damn effort. It’s a downwards spiral that probably started a generation or two before us and is really rearing its head now that the older women in my generation are starting to get serious about LTRs.
TLDR: I assume it’s a cumulative effect of everything you mentioned.
February 2nd, 2014 at 6:49 am
“appeals to a woman’s reason will never bear the fruit that hopeful Beta men expect it will.”
exactly.
February 3rd, 2014 at 9:17 pm
[…] or not) doing with her. In doing so he laid all of his Game-aware cards on the table, and as has been discussed many times on RM, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full […]
September 10th, 2014 at 12:17 am
[…] Secret of the Red Pill […]
January 16th, 2015 at 1:36 pm
The solution to the battle of the sexes is quite simple, we must eliminate all women at once, starting with our country the (US)! Science already made a break through, scientists can take a man’s bone marrow to make sperm, a doctor in Japan (Helen Lang Lui) successfully created an artificial uterus and carried a goat to full term in an incubator. They’re already doing trials with human embryos, since we (men) can reproduce without women, women don’t have any value whatsoever! Once we get rid of all women our problems will be solved completely. As for sexual gratification, we already have porn, pocket pussies and soon we’ll have human androids (female robots) that are 100 times better than the real thing, they’ll be a million times smarter than any woman including the highly educated and they’ll be programmed to treat us how we deserve to be treated. Swallow the red pill, abort all female fetuses, and teach your sons their best bet for a happy relationship is to have a successful relationship with themselves and a femabot. If you teach your sons this lesson they can’t and will never be screwed over by some crazy, hormonal woman!
February 20th, 2015 at 11:19 am
Remember what I’ve bolded here, the same applies to you revealing your understanding of Game. As I’ve stated many times, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Women want to play the Game with you, but they want it running covertly in the background, not overtly and in her face.
You can actually train them to like it in their face. To be comfortable with their nature. My first GF taught me that. Back in ’62. But most of them won’t like it. At first.