Category Archives: Game

September 27, 2012

The Perfect Man

By Rollo Tomassi

Arcbound had a bit of insight about the tactical applications of predictable behaviors resulting from women’s menstrual cycle phases:

So then how would someone reconcile the two characteristics… Is there some sort of balance of alpha and beta traits? Should we show alpha and beta traits on different times of the month?

I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t anticipated this response, but the key to answering this question is found in how women perceive attraction versus how they feel when sexually aroused. I detailed this briefly in my last post:

I think where most beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy.

For women and most plugged in men, what I’m illuminating here probably seems like an effort in semantics, but it’s important to make a separation between what conditions and cues a woman is sexually aroused by and what traits make for her overal attraction for a man.

Attraction is not Arousal

Women love to be asked about what they look for in a man. It’s kind of like imagining what you’ll do with all your lottery winnings after you buy a quick-pick – you want the mansion and the yacht, but you’ll also give some to charity so as not to seem like money could fundamentally change you into a greedy prick. Women rationalize that their most self-indulgent wants need to be tempered with some measured appearance of prudence. This is a kind of meta scale anti-slut defense. However, while ASD is a localized private dynamic, on a socialized, public scale this translates into women presenting a perception of judiciousness in explaining what they find attractive in a man, without being burdened with the perception of ‘shallowness’ for what they find arousing in a man.

You also have to consider that when women list their prerequisites for their ideal man, they are approaching this question from the perspective of whom they would like to pair off with for committed long term security and provisioning – entirely sidestepping women’s innate pluralistic sexual strategy and what really turns them on for a short term sexual experience. Most of what a woman will list as redeeming attributes on her ‘attraction list’ are what red pill men would describe as beta traits. In fact, as per my last post on menstruation, most of these attraction cues would be best expressed while a woman is in her luteal phase. In this frame of mind she says she wants comfort and trust endearing qualities – sensitivity, empathy, familiarity, humor, charm, compliments, caring, etc. – in other words the beta traits the average chump has in spades as the result of his constant immersion in a fem-centric acculturation.

Generation AFC

One of the most resounding themes in the manosphere is that the vast majority of guys are beta chumps. A lot of men and women outside the sphere bristle at this estimation because it sounds callous and accusatory – all coming at them from the end of a pointed arrogant Alpha’s finger. But the root of their anger really comes from being made to understand that the overwhelming mass of average frustrated chumps are actually the direct result of the feminization they thought would benefit humanity. Let’s level the playing field and play by women’s standards for a change, lets see what they’d like men to be, lets identify with the feminine more and the world will be a better place.

Only it turned out not to be a better place. It turns out women didn’t know what was best for men as based on their own inadequate (really solipsistically indifferent) understanding of masculine nature and the results are summed up in articles like this; feminized men bemoaning the feminization of men. All as a proxy for women complaining about how the feminized men they created are now too feminine for them to be attracted to, much less aroused by.

So as you can see, the world is actually awash in beta men; and all so well conditioned to be in touch with their feminine sides that they seek out the guiding dominance of masculinized women (by choice or by perception) to provide them with a direction in their life. Beta Game is a dead end (sometimes literally), so unsurprisingly it’s a painful realization for the majority of men to have this spelled out for them in no uncertain terms. At the same time it comes as a stinging retribution for women who see what’s become of the men they created – they got the men they deserved.

More Beta is not a Sexual Strategy

There are certain femosphere bloggers who’d advocate the building of a better beta. Their presumptions are based on the same misguided feminization that resulted in the greater feminization of the men Hugo Schwyzer complains about (for women) in his article. They fear a push back towards masculine Alpha dominance will result in a generation of assholes, devoid of the nurturing beta qualities they thought women could identify more with. Yet they simultaneously bemoan the absence of dominant, arousal inspiring, Alpha aspects of masculinity in men today. Ted D in his new found red pill epiphany sums this paradox up fairly well over at Aunt Giggles echo chamber:

We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM

In this short sentence Ted D encapsulates the conflict between Attraction and Arousal for women. When women say “they want the whole package” they enumerate the qualities of what makes for their best long term provisioning, however, this conflicts with what arouses women sexually. The guy who exemplifies the best beta male characteristics isn’t getting the same play as the guy exemplifying the best Alpha arousal cues. This is precisely the duplicity men experience when women mislead them to believe that beta provisioning traits are equatable with Alpha arousal cues.

A stay at home Dad might have himself convinced that he’s more fulfilled in his mothering role, but he’s gravely mistaken in convincing himself that women find his fatherly efforts sexually arousing. They may find it attractive in “whole package” sense, ultimately Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a father you are.

For the better part of the last 70 years men have been conditioned to think that more beta equals more pussy, and the results of this social experiment are now manifest in the pathetic men Hugo (himself included) complains of. The greater problem women face now is accepting the genuineness of an Alpha transformation of so many men.

Up the Alpha

Women love the concept of tempering the dominant asshole Alpha. It’s a common romance novel fantasy for women to be the uniquely soothing influence over the rebellious jerk who wets her panties with her arousal. It’s self-affirming for women to think their Alpha superhero would only show his beta side to her. Unfortunately the reverse of this situation is the reality – the vast majority of men must fight an uphill battle from beta origins to Alpha transformation. It is Game and red pill awareness that aid in upping the Alpha, but for women conditioned to expect beta male frailty, for women whose lives have been defined by male submissiveness, this transformation is herculean task.

Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled with a faithful loser. The easier path for women is to ditch the primarily beta man in favor of finding / holding out for (and sharing) an arousing, primarily Alpha man.

84 comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Alpha, Game, Idealizations, The Feminine Imperative

September 25, 2012

Your Friend Menstruation

By Rollo Tomassi

From Schedules of Mating:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

Years ago, when I was writing this post, my emphasis was on how an evolved dynamic (female pluralistic sexual strategy) translated into evolved social dynamics (feminine primary social conventions). My focus then was on how the feminine creates and normalizes social conditions that favor hypergamy by covertly manipulating social expectations – not only of the men who would facilitate that hypergamy, but also for women themselves in how their own self-rationalizations (hindbrain, hamsters) can be socially justified (i.e the myth of  the feminine mystique).

I wrote Schedules of Mating in 2005 (on SoSuave) in an effort to explain the rudiments of hypergamy in a more accessible way for guys who were still struggling with understanding why women would say they wanted “a Nice guy with a good heart” yet would behaviorally opt for Bad Boy-Jerks as their sexual partners of choice. I still think it’s a pretty good essay, which is why I revised and included it in the earliest posts at Rational Male. However, even at the time I was writing, I knew that the concept of an evolved hypergamy and its social implication still had a lot more under the hood to explore.

Biological Hypergamy

My point of departure for today’s post is this study on hormones and brain activity from the Kinsey Institute. I’ll be quoting the 2008 study, but do read it, it’s fairly brief.

“One area of the brain in which we observed a difference in activation in response to masculinized versus feminized faces — specifically during the follicular phase — was the anterior cingulate cortex, which is a region involved in decision-making and the evaluation of potential reward and risk,” said neuroscientist Heather Rupp, research fellow at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. “Activation in this region has been previously reported to correlate with ‘high risk’ nonsocial choices, specifically monetary risk, so it is interesting that it is observed to be more active in response to masculinized male faces, who may be both riskier but more rewarding to women.”

Previous studies have shown that women’s sexual preference for facial characteristics vary depending on their menstrual phase. These fluctuating preferences are thought to reflect evolutionarily founded changes in women’s reproductive priorities. Around the time of ovulation women prefer more masculinized faces — faces with features that indicate high levels of testosterone. These facial cues predict high genetic quality in the male because only such males can afford the immune-compromising effects of testosterone. Testosterone may be costly for the males’ mates as well because high testosterone levels also are associated with high rates of offspring abandonment.

Around the time of ovulation, a female’s preference apparently shifts from avoiding negligent parenting to acquiring the best genes for her offspring. At other points during the cycle, women will prefer more feminized male faces, as they might signal a higher willingness of the males to invest in offspring.

Alpha fucks and beta bucks is a biologically hard-wired feature of the female mind. Studies like this aren’t unknown to the manosphere, and even the early PUA teachers had an almost instinctual(?) understanding of how a woman’s ovulatory cycle could affect a guy’s odds of a successful hookup without ever having read them. There’s a plethora of practical applications a man might use with a firm knowledge of how a woman’s cycle affects her mood, her susceptibility to his influence and how her rationalization will be altered as a result of the particular phase she happens to be in.

In his blue pill years, I think a lot of what accounts for a guy’s sporadic successes with women can be attributed to the woman’s ovulatory phase and favorable circumstance. Right phase, right place, right time and a guy who gave off just enough subconscious Alpha cues to get the lay – or the brief girlfriend status until her subsequent follicular phase peaked and he wasn’t the Alpha she thought he was 3 weeks prior.

Alpha Phase

From a Game perspective, using the this illustration as a guide, the latter half of the folicular (proliferative) phase – the period between day 7 to about day 14 – might be called the Alpha Phase for Men. The Kinsey study (and many similar ones) would indicate that this 7 (maybe 10) day window predisposes women to (Alpha) sexual influence and would be the optimal period for a man to make a lasting Alpha impression. ‘Gina tingles are most commonly born in the proliferative phase.

I’ve caught a lot of grief in the past from angry women for suggesting that all women have an ‘inner slut’ and that all a guy need do is be the right man at the right time to bring this out in them. I think understanding a woman’s cycle kind of puts a punctuation on this. The hot coed on spring break in Cancun who fucks the hot guy in the foam cannon party is probably in her proliferative phase. Add alcohol and you’ve got the chemical formula for sexual urgency – even from the ‘good girl‘. When she thinks or says “I don’t know what came over me, I’m not usually like that.” she’s observing her behavior from luteal phase perspective. She really isn’t “like that” the other 21 days of her cycle.

As the Kinsey study reports, it’s during this part of a woman’s cycle that she become subconsciously attuned to masculinized traits and makes subliminal efforts to capitalize on her concurrent ovulation. In other words, this is the period in which hypergamy doesn’t care the most. It’s “fuck me now, I’ll rationalize it out later.”

About now you’re probably wondering, “That’s all well and good Rollo, but how the fuck do I determine what cycle phase a woman is in?” If all a guy were doing was cold approaches I could understand the confusion. There are countless ‘tells’ women will display when they are in their proliferative phase. Dr. Martie Hasselton has done some excellent studies on female ornamentation coinciding with ovulation and also how women’s vocal pitch shifts lower (sultry voice) during this phase, but if you’re still unconvinced, listen to your gut – men instinctually know when women are in the pro phase of ovulation. If you have the patience to learn, pay better attention to the behaviors of the women in your immediate social circle, or to the behaviors of the girl you think you may want to target at some point. Since women living in close proximity tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles, more likely than not they’ll covertly infer when it’s ‘rag week’.

Beta Phase

If the proliferate phase is the Alpha Phase for Men, then the luteal phase could be considered the Beta Phase. Again using the Kinsey study as our guide we can infer that women become drawn to more feminine features in men during the 14 day down side of their cycle. The attributes of attraction (not arousal) that define this stage are associated with comfort, familiarity, empathy, etc. meant to reinforce the perception that a man is a good choice for parental investment.

Again, this is nothing novel in the manosphere. Even Roissy has written posts regarding the applied use of beta-side Game – in context. Far too many men believe the WYSIWYG myth about women and their advertised attraction requisites as being predominantly beta-associative. As I illustrated in Wait for It?, the girl who spontaneously banged the hot guy in the foam cannon party is the same girl who’ll tell you you need to earn her trust because she needs to be comfortable with you before you have sex. Betas believe this at face value and don’t strike while the iron’s hot (the proliferate phase), wait her out and wonder why they get LJBF’d at the end of her luteal phase.

I think where most beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy.

Nowhere is this disparity more obviously manifested than in the biological reality of a woman’s menstrual cycle which creates it.

The Hypergamy Link

One aspect of hypergamy that I’m not certain most men really understand is that hypergamy is a biological phenomenon in origin. I sometimes wonder if Game-aware men confuse hypergamy with being a social construct. Women almost certainly do, but more from a need to protect the rationalizations that result from confronting the uncomfortable internal conflict that hypergamy causes for them – “why am I not hot for the sweet beta who’d give me the world, but am tingly all over for the hot guy who’s casually indifferent to me?”

The base truth of hypergamy as a dynamic is that it is the logical result of women’s innate, hormonal and neural condition. This root-level disparity of a plural sexual strategy led to the evolution of the feminine psyche – to be covert, to be excusably duplicitous, to be better communicators on more varied levels, but also to be the nurturers and empathizers.

Since the sexual revolution began, the biological rationale for social feminization has been men’s biological proclivity for violence and aggression. We were told that we’re poisoned by our testosterone; we’re controlled from youth to repress that in school to the point where teachers expect boys to ‘act out‘, so we drug them. Yet, the biological rationale for hypergamy could also be said to lie in women’s biological (menstrual) impetus that motivates their sexual pluralism.

46 comments | posted in Alpha, Biomechanics, Game, Hypergamy, Social Conventions

September 21, 2012

Sex in the 90′s

By Rollo Tomassi

Solo hit me up with an interesting question once:

There’s been lot of threads popping up lately of how technology/social networking has changed dating, I know I’m a bit younger then most, however I truly didn’t start dating till the mid 2000′s (by then texting and Myspace had already taking full flight)

What was dating like in the 80′s? 90′s? or hell even the early 2000′s? Was Attention Whoring in clubs/bars as astronomical as it is now? Was flaking an epidemic in the 90′s?

I talked to a guy who use to be a vendor for a sales company I worked at. He told me the biggest difference in the 90′s was that the cost of dating was cheaper and it was easier to go bareback with a girl.

In 1993 a number close was actually significant because it meant she was giving you a personal landline number you could call, not a nebulous cell phone number with caller ID. I think guy’s these days still think a number close means something, it doesn’t. In 1995 a kiss close was somewhat significant, but not a guaranteed lay or implicative of anything beyond a flirtation. Now it’s almost necessary for a girl to make out with a guy in order for him to get the message.

There are a lot of 80′s and 90′s era dating holdovers that young men still think are applicable today. Which is kind of silly when you think about it. I would’ve laughed my ass off if a 40 year old guy told me that dating rituals in the 70′s were still applicable in the 90′s back then. I met Mrs. Tomassi at a gig I was playing in 1995 (you know, at a club, the place every white knight tells you you’ll never find a ‘quality woman™’). No cell phones, no IM, no internet. Compared to 2012 that was the wild west as far as dating was concerned. There was no manosphere, and if you owned a book titled “How to Pick Up Girls” you were obviously a loser who’d mail ordered it from an ad in the back of Hustler (analog porn was still all there was). Basically you were on your own to figure things out.

The Wild West

In the 90′s feminization had reach it’s apex. I know that comes off as a bold statement, and probably a lot of guys would disagree with me because of the dating environment they find themselves in now. However, I say that because it was the wild west and feminization was unchecked and normalized, and there was very little any guy could realistically do to unplug himself. Go back and watch any of the sitcoms or movies from that era and pay attention to the mannerisms of men and women. Seinfeld, Friends and Fraser are good ones to observe. All the time you do, remember there is no internet, there is no global consortium of men comparing experiences about women’s observed behaviors and their motivations, and there is no way to unplug from the Matrix beyond one’s own upbringing, character and insight. Compared to the mid 90′s, the mid 2000′s was the age of enlightenment for Men.

The most tragic reminder of this era being feminization’s apex can be summed up in the suicide of Kurt Cobain. The archetypal self-loathing, tortured-artist beta marries the era’s archetypal fem-warrior, attention whore slut. In hindsight, was there any doubt there’d be a casualty? Aint love grand?

Women flaked and Attention Whores were present, but not in such identifiable ways as now. With the rise of the internet and social media it was proven to me that ALL women are attention seeking to varying degrees, and they’ve always been so. However now the technology is such that they can more actively indulge in their attention obsession from both sexes, so it appears as if women have become more self-important. I’d argue they were always this way, but lacked the outlet to entertain it. It’s ironic that the girls in the 80′s and 90′s who were so repulsed by the nerdy computer geeks are the same 40 somethings sitting in front of their computers for hours at work soaking in the attention of their “Friends” on FaceBook today.

46 comments   |  tags: | posted in Game, Inter-gender Communication, The Feminine Imperative

September 19, 2012

Kill the Bunny

By Rollo Tomassi

New Case Study today. Reader JAS at SoSuave wanted help with his most recent target (edited for length):

I am 42. So here is the deal.

I moved to a new city a year ago and started a new job. There is a 35 yr old, hot woman there who I will call D. D is hot- about a 7, very smart, cool etc. From the beginning we hit it off and we have always spoken and interacted with some flirtatious undertones.. but we work together. Much as I liked her, I was up to my neck in pussy all this year. Little by little we would talk about our dates etc. and just generally were cool.. but we never spoke outside of work or anything. I liked her but not so much that I felt the need to pursue.

About 2 months ago I noticed a change in her that coincided with a change in myself – we were upping the stakes mutually. She would come around and talk more to me, lingering, lots of eye contact. I started feeling the need to do the same. Things went on this way until eventually until 2 weeks ago I asked her to get a drink. She jumped at the chance. We met up that Friday and hung out. I was still unsure if I was interested enough to pursue her, but by the end of the evening it had all clicked. I LIKED her.. in a keeper sort of way. We ended our hanging out with a peck on the lips.

We met up at a work function the night after and weren’t able to do much, but we snuck some hand holding and another short kiss. She wanted to do brunch the next day, but I had a  birthday party for family Sunday and had to say no.

So back to work on Monday and due to our schedules wouldn’t be able to meet for a bit. Wednesday we both walked up to each other and she literally stamps her feet an says “I really want to see you!”. I said me too and that I would call her that night to meet up. Its was do or die, because she had a trip out of town and would be gone until this week. So I get home, text and …..nothing. No response until 10 pm saying she went jogging without her phone and met her sister for some errands. I was like WTF?

I played it off and said no big deal, but that I did find that confusing, could we meet tomorrow? she said she had tentative plans and wasn’t sure, but knew I wouldn’t hang around waiting so probably not. I didn’t respond.

Next day she is texting me and asking me questions all the time.. I responded late and only curtly as I sensed she was fishing to see if I was angry.

She went on her trip and when she got back on Tuesday, I played it cool and didn’t say much at all. I was polite but never brought any of it up. But I didn’t flirt much either.. Just being neutral.

So yesterday I was talking to her and decided to force her to either drop it or go for it. I went to her and said “go out with me”. She kind of hemmed and hawed but said she wanted to and Friday might be best. I said fine, but then she said that maybe she had to check on something to make sure. I remained cool and said, contact me and let me know.

I haven’t heard from her yet, but its still Thursday, so I decided to just leave the ball in her court.

What are my next steps? If she doesn’t call at all, I plan to not remind her about our plans at all. If she is interested, she will contact. If she doesn’t I plan a freeze out. But not sure what else to do.

This was JAS’s set-up situation. Later he developed a bit more:

I get to work today and she is walking in early. She comes to where I am and starts talking about the weather etc, as she talks I continue my trajectory towards the spot I sit at outside during my break. She realizes I am continuing on my path and starts walking and facing my direction. I am not overly talkative, but not acting all butthurt either, just chill. She eventually breaks and goes inside.

Later on, during the day she is insinuating herself into my conversations. Again, I am not being rude, or any different than usual, except I cut out the flirty vibe we always have and thats all. I notice her trying to read me throughout, kinda like “is he really ok, or is he secretly mad?”, but that may be projection on my part. Who knows what thoughts are in there.

As I get ready to head home, She corners me in the hallway, this is, more or less, the convo as I remember it

Her: I feel I’ve fucked this up. I should have called you but I’ve really been a mess lately.
Me: its cool, I had a feeling you weren’t feeling it and made other plans
Her: really? I mean, should we talk about this? Its always so weird talking here at work, I feel strange.
Me: I’m not sure what you mean. What is it you want to talk about exactly?
Her: this, us. I don’t know whats going on.
Me: if you like we can
Her: I give up, I don’t know what……..
Me: for me its simple, we are either feeling it, or we’re not. By your behavior my assumption is you are not. Or you would have made more of an effort. And if that is the case, Its ok.
Her: Are you feeling it still?
Me: are you? Look, we’re being crytpic, So let me show you how its done: Yes, I would like to get to know you, I made that clear by asking you out. I expect, if its mutual for you to follow through. If not, well..
Her: it is. We do need to get together. Cant we get together tomorrow? Doing things here at work is just always confusing. I feel weird here, its confusing.
Me: I have plans (I really do)
Her: this is ridiculous. Wednesday?
Me. Wednesday is fine.
Her: I can’t read you. You give me this look, I don’t know what it means. I give up
Me: grabbing her hand: It means I like looking at you. So wed? set?
Her: yes.
Me:good
Her:good!
We both walk away smiling.

This is the first stage for JAS. He gets a B- for performance thus far. The first exchange was weak – a peck on the cheek, hand holding, etc. sound like an episode of Hannah Montana. This is not how adults date. If I had to guess, it was his hesitancy to consolidate on getting more intimate with her that’s what gave her pause. When the green light’s on brother, drive the friggin car.

However, his recovery is what’s saved him. She is qualifying to him and in a big way, this is exactly how you want it. He handles himself maturely and with amused mastery when he’s not ‘on a date‘, he needs to transition that into getting intimate with her. Notice how she accepted his direction here:

Her: I can’t read you. You give me this look, I don’t know what it means. I give up
Me: grabbing her hand: It means I like looking at you. So wed? set?
Her: yes.
Me:good
Her:good!

This is the dominance a woman is expecting from you when you’re building up to having sex with her. He owns it when he’s not on a date, but needs to own it when he is. Hesitate and thou art lost. Go timid on her on Wednesday, play nice and don’t escalate to making out (or more) and she goes off to find the next Alpha she thought you were.

Thus far JAS had been Alpha at work and Beta on the date. Her confusion comes from initially ‘reading’ him as Alpha, but he didn’t close the deal.

This is what women mean when they say they “can’t read you”
Translation: “You’re sending me Alpha cues, but you pull back like a Beta when it’s time to get physical.”

Also, have a plan. You lead. Tell her where you’re going and what you’ll be doing. She enters your world, you don’t enter hers – from his last conversation this is how she wants it anyway. Be fearless. She wants a whirlwind, you need to be that whirlwind.

After the Wednesday ‘date’ JAS gives us an update:

Well, we got our coffee today. I think it was good and bad… not sure if it was more of one or the other.

We got a coffee because lunch was impossible for both of us. As we walked we talked a bit about BS, until I stopped her and said “lets talk about what we came here to talk about”
So we started in. She gave me the “I’m not sure about what to do” thing. “I like you- obviously- and I’m attracted to you, but this is really complicated for me”
Me: yeah I got that vibe.
Her: so I don’t know, some days I wake up and say I want to pursue this, and other days I wake and think “fuck it, I cant deal with it”. I know I’m going to regret it if I don’t”

And so I pulled out my favorite move. I LJBF her. I said “look, whatever we do we’re good. Lets just be friends then”.
Hit the mark, “really?” she asked looking disappointed. In short, she didn’t let it drop there. She started saying she was attracted to me, and felt a deep connection to me and that I really understood her, probably more than anyone.

By now we’re back within eyesight of our hosp. co-workers are in and out. We go back and forth talking about it all, and she says “I’m sad” I asked her why. She said she didn’t know. I tell her “I’m a little sad too” she asked me why. I said “for the same reason you are probably. There is something here” We go on like this for a bit.

This where I think I got one bad thing- and I immediately thought of Rollo. She says “but you’re not very aggressive“
OUCH. I let it pass, mostly, but then it occurred to me “you make sure to keep us surrounded by people and never alone enough for me to do anything. You have your shields up, and you know it”
Her: yeah, your right. I’m scared of you, I think.

So I LJBFd her again. Basically I’m push pulling here, using the LJBF as a push every time I get something I don’t like.
Eventually, I say I have to go.. that I am leaving town. She says “tonight?” arent you driving?” I say “yes” she says I should wait until morning.

Is this an invitation to invite her out tonight? I’m still in LJBF mode with her. I say that was the plan, but I’ll see how I feel.
I then pulled her to me and kissed her, mind you, within view of potentially the entire hospital. So it wasn’t a major kiss, but it was on the lips and risky. Now she looks a bit confused – to be honest I am as well, since I am not sure if this is all good or not. Weird.
She then tells me again “I’m sad”
Me: dont be
her: no? why not?
Me: this isn’t over.
her: its not?
Me: no

So some good and bad here. The “your not aggressive” was a blow. I think I fended it off well though. I got her to admit alot, while maintaining frame, but its not where I would have wanted to go with this. Its about what I suspected. She is still scared to have a relationship, after what happened with her ex. I got her to tell me more about it all. etc. So I need outside imput here.

I also am of two minds of how to go here. I can try to get her to meet up again tonight- tell her I want to see her again before I go, etc. Or I can use the next two weeks vacation as a reset. Use it as an opportunity to work her via texts and having her miss me.

I believe she is being sincere as far as she can tell. Rollo is right she wants me to lead, but all the while making sure I can’t by blocking me out at every opportunity. I think I revealed alot of herself to her. I think she is being sincere when she said that I am a mystery to her, that she has never met someone like me. She says I am dark, and deep, and complex and she feels connected and attracted to me. And scared.

JAS, read what I’m about to write here carefully because it might help you with the next girl you meet after this one.

YOU NEED TO KILL THE FUCKING BUNNY!

Up to this point you’ve just been batting her around and confusing her with this coffee house, “safe-date shit. You’re not Gaming her or push-pulling her, or preempting anything with a LJBF.

“lets talk about what we came here to talk about”

Learn this now, you cannot negotiate desire. This is exactly what you’re doing here. You wanna fuck this woman? You wanna get some kind of relationship started?

STOP BROKERING THE DEAL.

Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated. Once you get past a certain point in the waiting game, what once had the chance to be an organic, sexual desire becomes mitigated negotiation of a physical act.

I feel like I’m reading a script between two kids from High School Musical. Take her on a ‘real date’. Go to a lounge, have cocktails, be indirect. Up to this point you’ve been overtly telegraphing your intent – this is the kiss of death. It’s like you’re writing up a proposal for a speculative relationship you might have if she signs the papers.

She is still scared to have a relationship, after what happened with her ex.

Yeah, my guess is this guy was the decisive Alpha you haven’t been with her, or if not she was hoping to find after the breakup. My advice to you is to chalk this one up to experience and NEXT her (workplace affairs are always a bad idea as it is). My readers will probably tell you she’s damaged goods, but if you insist on following through with this train wreck, stop being the PG rated JAS and start being the R rated JAS. Presume you’re dealing with an Alpha Widow and standing in her ex’s Alpha shadow.

48 comments | posted in Alpha, Case Studies, Game

September 14, 2012

Amused Mastery

By Rollo Tomassi

I think a lot of guys get hung up on the term “aloof”. The word conjures up the idea that a guy has to pretend to be looking down his nose at some girl he’s interested in in a lame effort to get her to qualify to him. When people read “aloof” they tend to think “haughty” or feigned disinterest. Throw that term away right now, because you don’t want to be “aloof”. What you want is AMUSED MASTERY.

Roissy made this distinction a couple years ago; there’s a difference between an arrogant ‘aloofness’ and a confident Amused Mastery.

A presence of Amused Mastery puts you into a position of maturity while still remaining playfully approachable and forcing her to qualify to you by acknowledging your mastery of her (really all women by association). An attitude of Amused Mastery implies to a woman that by virtue of your maturity and/or authority you’ve “seen it all before”, you already know what women mean when they say or do what she is, and it’s amusing to you. You’ll play along, but only so far as to cleverly poke fun at her attempts to get you to qualify to her. It means you never take her seriously, like a bratty younger sister, but also with the presence of mind of a senior Alpha male who knows her game before she plays it.

I’ll admit, I never fully appreciated the potential of Amused Mastery until I had a daughter. I found myself naturally using it with her because that’s the actual, unforced relation I have with her. When she was younger this added to my Daddy-Alpha credentials, but now that she’s 14 theres a history of my Amused Mastery she finds comfort in. However, I also noticed my wife finds Amused Mastery just as appealing, to the point that she includes herself in my Mastery over my daughter.

Amused Mastery is particularly effective for older men / younger women Game. Assuming you’re in reasonably good shape and have some degree of affluence, being older gives you a degree of authenticity. With maturity comes an expectation of knowledge and experience for Men. I’ve used Amused Mastery with my “pour girls” at promo events and it’s like cat nip for them. You become that Father figure to them (FILF?) that they crave, but can’t seem to get from younger guys. There’s a certain Alpha security dynamic at play between a woman and a Man who emits an ambient vibe of having been with enough women to be able to predict her shit tests, and then pass them with a casual roll of his eyes and a knowing smirk. When a man is giving off the cues of Amused Mastery theres an unspoken presumption by women that he “just gets it” when it comes to dealing with women.

Dominance

Another term that gets very abused both in the manosphere and the feminine Matrix is the word ‘dominance’. That word also conjures up a lot of preconceptions in people because it carries the same negative connotation the word ‘power’ has been associated with. Women will rarely admit to wanting a ‘dominant’ man or male influence in their lives because the word seems so binary and absolute. In the feminine defined equalism of the Matrix, if one partner is dominant the other must necessarily be submissive. After having been fed on a steady diet of “independent woman” tropes for the better part of the century, to admit to desiring a dominant man is to admit dependency upon him. Dominance is synonymous with aggression and oppression to this mindset, and women and feminized men have a pavlovian reflex response at even its mention.

On the red pill side we look at the truth of the dominance need women have for men. We can evidentially see women’s desire for dominance in their behaviors and the latent meanings of their words, but I think, at present, the manosphere also has a somewhat absolutist idea about what constitutes dominance. We classify it as ‘social dominance’ in that it indicates an Alpha status, but it really goes beyond this. Ideally I think most guys imagine dominance as having his particular woman present when he’s issuing commands to the underlings which he has power over as some form of social proof she’ll want to fuck him that much harder for.

After 50 Shades of Grey became a best seller it became sort of an ‘ah ha!’ moment even for the men still plugged into the Matrix. Women really do get off on being dominated, but this too is a very narrow facet of masculine dominance. Obviously the popularity of that particular type of fem-porn is enough to reinforce that women do in fact harbor fantasies of dominant men, but does it require a sex dungeon and bondage paraphernalia to confirm masculine dominance?

Personal dominance, social dominance, doesn’t have to be cast in such extremes. I am the dominant personality in my marriage and in my family, but that doesn’t mean Mrs. Tomassi plays step-and-fetch-it or wants me to include zip ties in the bedroom. Dominance is much more than making demands and issuing commands. I display it in my speech (even my silence), the way I dress, the status of my career, my attitude towards people on either end of that status spectrum, my tolerance and my intolerance, etc. As Men we have a tendency to think that the more overt our displays are the more women will take notice, but women are far more sensitive to the nuances of our actions than most could imagine. A little goes a long way, and what we think are useless gestures are often the most memorable for women.

Amused Dominance

I got ran up the flag pole by femosphere pundits when I wrote my essays on Dread and Dread Games. Women don’t like overt dominance, just as they don’t like overt objectification or adoration. It’s when it’s covert that they respond most favorably – women love to be objectified, dominated and adored, but only by men who know better than to remind her of it. I’ve always advocated the positive effect of maintaining an ambient threat of competition anxiety with women, but this form of dominance cannot be an overt display. Dominance must be playing in the background, only occasionally being amplified as situations warrant. Women need to know it’s there, but her imaginations of that masculine dominance are more useful to a man than a constant, present, overt reminder of it.

And thus we come full circle; Amused Mastery is a form of social dominance. That sense of knowing the answer before the question is asked, but still giving the answer with a smirk is a very effective form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). An attitude of Amused Mastery begins from a default position of social dominance.

38 comments | posted in Game, Inter-gender Communication, Relationship Game, The Matrix

September 6, 2012

Women Studies

By Rollo Tomassi

Last week Heartiste had some excellent play-by-play Game analysis of this video. The guy doing the approach in the video is Steve, who is a friend of Krausers, and before I go into today’s post I just wanted to take a moment to say that Steve’s confidence and Game savvy is impressive. Whether he’s consciously aware of how well he’s internalized Game or if it’s a practiced effort, just like Krauser he gets a lot of points in the Tomassi book for application.

I’m not going to speculate as to whether Steve tapped into some natural reserve of Alpha mojo, or if he’s got his Game down to the point that it’s been internalized into his personality, or that his choice of woman in this instance was more advantageous to his personality type. Nor will I speculate that it may have been his Look and physique that led to a 5 minute kiss-close. I don’t have to because all of this was predictably scrawled across Roissy’s post comments. I say ‘predictably’ because when we observe a process we do so in terms of how it fits our own internal narratives.

As would be expected, the accusations of fraud and the disqualifications of how hot Steve’s target was started the hit parade, but amongst the “it was a set up” and “how much did it cost her to go along with it?” were some very interesting (though equally predictable) responses from The Chateau’s host of regular female commenters. The responses ran the gamut between “that’s so disrespectful”, “He’s so desperate. He comes across as a stalker and a lunatic” and “wow, did I just watch video documentation of sexual harassment?” to “that would never work on me! I have self-respect” to “yeah he’s kind of cute and has good Game.”

Geisha Kate summed it up best:

Its a simple matter of perception. An onlooker cannot feel what the people in the video felt. To them it was an awesome experience. The onlooker can’t tap into that and so it appears silly, etc. (no offense). Girls can look at this video and say, “that wouldn’t work on me,” but it likely would, and guys can look at the video and say it was because of his looks, which may be part of it, but its not the whole picture.

Kate’s was far and away the most objective of the female input; the rest of which were mostly an effort in plausible deniability of women’s universal attraction/arousal cues (NAWALT and “we’re attracted to different things”) to their, now expected, self-important anecdotal experiences absolving women of the obviously effective results Game had on one of their sisters.

Women Studies

The rest of what followed was essentially a debate between women (and less Game savvy men) coming to terms with Steve’s close and the red pill community’s dissection of the social and psychological dynamics observed in the video. The feminine side qualifies, disqualifies and personalizes the reasons why Game works, while the red pill side builds workable theories upon concrete analysis. All of this comes as the result of observing a process.

Steve’s approach video has everything the community and women alike could ask for. In it’s shot-on-video, raw genuineness it appeals to feminine indignation, the likes of which even Cheaters or Tyra Banks pale next to. Yet at the same time it is titillating enough to women’s arousal process that they’re drawn into casting themselves in the role of Steve’s Columbian target (not unlike the Twilight Dynamic). For blue-pills and white knights, it’s easily dismissed as some girl who “has no respect for herself” and they’ll continue their quest for the Holy Grail (a Quality Woman®) with a twinge of self-doubt that all women are in fact ‘like this’ and Steve’s approach might actually have merit. And that of course leaves the red-pill community with a lot of red meat to consume in verifying proposed dynamics and how well this girl’s response aligned with what’s already been established in our own version of ‘women studies’.

The manosphere is prescient if it’s anything, and as if on cue Vox fired off a very relevant post in light of the video debate at the Chateau – The logical fallacy of female attraction. As per usual, Aunt Giggles is still soft-selling the ‘betas-are-the-sexiest-of-men’ trope that only women in their 50′s can afford to invest themselves in. I say this is relevant to the debate over Steve’s video because the women (and manginas) commenting about it are uniformly conflicted amongst themselves in defining what characteristics, qualities, physique, attitude, behaviors, etc. empirically constitute attraction/arousal cues for women.

As I detailed in the Feminine Mystique, from a social perspective, the feminine imperative can’t afford men understanding the methods behind the madness with regards to optimizing hypergamy. A persistent sense of feminine ambiguity and female unknowability must constantly be reinforced for men by women. Thus women (and less enlightened men) perpetuate the myth that “women just don’t know what they want”, but is that the truth of it? Are women really unaware of their own attraction triggers? Or is it that they are so preoccupied with optimizing hypergamy (in a short window of SMV peak) that they’re simply never bothered by an inquisitive thought about what factors contribute to their being turned on enough to fuck one guy, but conversely being attracted to another for a long term commitment? Are women ever really prompted to observe their own process?

Observing a process will change it.

From the end of Vox’s Logical Fallacy post:

“Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.”

Vox mentions that more sociopathic men, being entirely self-concerned and outcome indifferent, are primarily the types of men women feel the most arousal for and attraction to. In other words, the sociopath, in his self-importance, can’t be bothered to observe the process of attraction in women.

That said, I can’t help but find a similar parallel in women’s cognitive ignorance of their own attraction cues. Women’s innate solipsism (further reinforced by fem-centrism), like the self-importance of the sociopathic man, predisposes her to be oblivious to her own pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha vs. Beta attraction). A woman’s solipsistic nature suggests she can’t be bothered to observe her own process.

In fact I would argue that evolution and hypergamy has selected-for women who are more predisposed to being oblivious to their own attraction cues, thus allowing them more cognitive brain-space to be devoted to filtering for the best mating option and the best long term provisioning option among prospective males.

By its very nature, women’s strategic sexual pluralism – Alpha Cads and Beta Dads – creates an unresolvable internal psychological conflict. Women cannot consciously reconcile the sexual impulsivity that drives them to (want to) fuck the hottest genetic Alpha with the drive for the security that a Beta provider represent with respect to parental investment. This dichotomy is even hard-coded into women’s hormonal cycle, impelling women to the sexual prowess of Alpha dominance in the follicular phase, and to Beta comfort in the luteal phase of menstruation. The solution? A healthy female psyche pushes this irreconcilable conflict to the peripheries of her conscious awareness.

The rationalization hamster we know today was psychologically evolved to mitigate the mental anguish that results from women’s pluralistic sexual strategy.

One of the contentions women participating in the manosphere have with red pill Men is that those men are observing women’s process and bringing it to conscious light in a globalized, meta perspective. Thus the scramble back to NAWALT, or women mature into new ways of knowing what they want, or “silly man, don’t try to figure out women, you’ll never figure us out.”

Recently Professor Mentu had a twitter debate with a manosphere-aware female wondering if there were in fact ‘red pill women’. Naturally in her self-congratulatory solipsism she wanted credit as a woman figuring out the Men who’d figured out women. I got a good laugh out of this, as I do with bloggers like Aunt Giggles and a few select other manosphere women because in truth, all women are red pill women – it’s dragging the truth of the red pill out of them that’s the trick. On some level of consciousness, and as evidenced by behaviors and the construction of larger social conventions, women are aware of their own hypergamy. The Threat, again, is men looking under the hood for women and then overtly attempting to get women to confirm the realities of the observations they’ve drawn conclusions from. The problem is that the feminine imperative will NEVER allow a consensus of women to confirm men’s piecing together of hypergamy. Men observe the process and thereby change it.

80 comments | posted in Game, Hypergamy, Inter-gender Communication, The Feminine Imperative

September 4, 2012

Play Nice

By Rollo Tomassi

Overheard this past weekend:

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.

And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.

Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

I’m reading this a lot lately. The Nice-Guy-as-ruse rationalization would be laughable if not for so many women using the trope to explain their misgivings or lack of judgement with a guy that pumped and dumped them. Furthermore, the False-Flag Nice Guy is also a ready-made social convention used to excuse the worst behaviors of women when a man might (albeit immaturely) make a public example of that behavior. Not surprisingly this cad-in-sheep’s-clothing rationale really pisses off the genuine beta Nice Guys, and for exactly the reason less attractive women get upset when their more attractive sisters mistreat the Men they could never hope to pull themselves.

So with this in mind I thought I’d pick apart this meme in detail.

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me.”

When truly nice guys (80-90% of the masculine sphere) read a line like “Nice Guys are the real jerks” something snaps in their heads. Black is white, up is down and Nice Guys are Jerks. Most Nice Guys have been playing the self-internalized Beta Game, identification scenario out for so long that to read something like this is akin to blaspheme. “Great now all these women I’ve been trying to be so nice too (like they all say they want) really think I’m a jerk?” One would think this would be a moment of clarity for the Nice Guy and he’d realize the truth of what his ‘misogynist’ Game-aware friends had been trying to enlighten him about for so long. You’d think, until,..

“They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.”

Ah! Well there you have it! They’re really just Alpha cads playing at being nice in order to bed these women ,..how fiendish! Now, not only are women jaded by the players, but they’re also more wary of the ‘Nice’ men due to the players utilizing their own Beta Game. Dammit! The Jerks have poisoned the Nice well!

What they fail to realize is the inherent ridiculousness of the premise – niceties never got a man laid – and of all men, the Nice Guy knows the difficulty of actually consolidating sex upon ‘niceness’. While I have no doubt that many a Game savvy man has gotten laid by misrepresenting himself as being more interested and pleasant than he actually was, it’s understandable that no woman would ever want to admit to her active participation in that deception. Solution? Paint Nice Guys with the broad brush of the Bad Boy Jerk.

“And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.”

Well, we could debate the social implications of women defaulting to the easy epithet of ‘misogynist’, but that’s an old post for me. You know the more I pick this apart the more I have to empathize with the truly Nice Guy; his is a particularly cruel hell. The Nice Guy in this definition isn’t necessarily the Alpha in sheep’s clothing. This is the guy who, most likely, believed he was going about ‘courting’ his woman-to-be by the rules he knows were established as the sensible proper means to arriving at a woman’s intimacy. The fact that he plays by those rules is integral to his sense of not-like-typical-guys uniqueness.

He subscribed to the Sniper Mentality, played friends, and unfortunately after taking his big shot, got rejected by his (most likely ONEitis) target girl. If men of this stripe are one thing, it’s dedicated to their personal investments into a particular girl they know will one day appreciate their stand-out qualities,..some day. What they fail to grasp is that hypergamy doesn’t care about the equity he believes he’s building for a future relationship. That’s one thing to realize when you’re deep into an LTR, but it’s really a lesson that should be learned when you’re the chump trying to prove to your paramour how perfect a boyfriend you’ll be for her – once she’s done fucking the Jerks she can’t get enough of.

This is a tough lesson for a guy who’s ideology about women and dating is virtually a mirror of his ideology on a ‘strong work ethic’. Work hard, pay your dues and you’ll be rewarded compensatory with your efforts. So, again, it’s unsurprising that this guy would get upset (maybe vindictively so) when his ‘dream girl’ proves to him that hypergamy doesn’t care about compensating all his efforts.

“Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

In the meantime, back in solipsistic girl-world the narrative, as always, continues to revolve implicitly around how his ‘pseudo-niceness’ impacts her reputation and her, now damaged, self-impressions. Because, of course, no genuine Nice Guy would ever feel slighted enough by her rejecting him intimately so as to feel the need to broadcast his displeasure on FaceBook. ‘Real’ Nice Guys would just shut the fuck up and accept her rejection; which then completes the circular fem-logic of being attracted to guys with the wherewithal to stand up for themselves, speak their minds and not stand for the injustice of being sold one message and having another’s intent proved for him. Sometimes, we call those guys Jerks.

You see, behavioristically, what women mischaracterize as ‘nice‘ is usually the male-methodology they misinterpreted when they couldn’t find a way to reject a guy in an efficient fashion. So yeah, Nice Guys, you’re the real Jerks and Alpha Jerks, you’re the truly nice guy’s because you “act the same with everyone.”

Ladies, stop complaining about the sheep when you’re looking for a wolf.

108 comments | posted in Game, Hypergamy, Operative Social Conventions, Psychology

August 31, 2012

Girls on the Side

By Rollo Tomassi

 

Not to be outdone by the tired ‘Man-Up’ tropes begun by Kay Hymowitz, nor the upstart success of Kate Bollick – who’s managed to parlay her chronic, unconsolidated hypergamy into a career and a new TV series – we again hear the feminism triumphalist wailings from Hannah Rosin. Apparently it wasn’t enough for Hannah to allow her End of Men article to fade into the annals of feminine primacy on the pages of The Atlantic, no, she’s extrapolated her tales of anecdotal misandry into a new book of the same title. And here I was concerned about compiling the better part Rational Male into book form (*eye roll*).

I would generally pass off of Rosin as I would the ‘concerns’ of any long post-Wall, solipsistic yenta, however in her book advertisement article Boys on the Side (h/t Aunt Giggles) there was so much feminine primacy tunnel vision it made me wonder if she’d ever read the word ‘hypergamy’. When I read the complaintive screeds of neo-feminists I expect to read a certain degree of self-confirming, self-important concerns for the female condition all reinforced by anecdotal evidence, and Rosin doesn’t disappoint. Her entire article is filled with op-ed personal vignettes of how the brutality of the contemporary sexual marketplace has reduced ‘dating’ (for women) to a series of passing fuck buddies until such a time that a (westernized, upper middle class) woman feels ‘complete’ enough in the professional realm to want to shift into marriage and mommy mode.

For all of her analysis Rosin simply doesn’t grasp the totality of feminine hypergamy and the social influence it has effected upon men and women. I can’t imagine Hannah would be ignorant of the dynamic of hypergamy, but from reading this article, it’s apparent that the feminine imperative makes acknowledging hypergamy’s influence an inconvenient truth that needs to be danced around, all while complaining that men are ruthlessly capitalizing upon it and enjoying some new boon for their own sexual strategy.

I’ve brought this up on Susan’s echo chamber more than once, but what Rosin (and really any woman) doesn’t get is that from the mid 60′s to 2012 we’ve been living in a social reality defined by feminine hypergamy. Since the sexual revolution and the advent of exclusively female controlled birthing, men have progressively become ancillary to the female reality. So when women run headlong into the negative social consequences of their own unfettered hypergamy – such as the evolution of hook up culture – the reflexive response is to presume that the downside of that hypergamy must necessarily be the results of men refusing to play by the social rules they constantly and conveniently rewrite for themselves.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about the rationalizations of the feminine imperative.

Every observation, every personal account of frustration, in Rosin’s article can directly be attributed to a modern sexual marketplace (SMP) that was formed by women’s unrestrained hypergamic impulses. The college women she interviews don’t mention ‘hooking up’ with average betas, they mention banging the hot guys on Ivy League lacrosse teams. In reality, there are likely far more average frustrated betas lining up to get with these ‘poor girls’ who are more than willing to take them out “for frozen yogurt and a $3 date.” Hook up culture or not, these aren’t the guys women are motivated to fuck. Frat guys, cads, indifferent Alphas, PUAs, incarcerated murderers, these are the guys that get the reflex response from a 23 y.o. girl.

Hannah’s mistake is in presuming, in classic feminine-primary myopia, that hook up culture is the result of men sexually exploiting women’s new life schedule for career with a side of family later. Never is there an afterthought that it is in fact women’s innate predisposition to fuck and secure commitment from the best male her sexuality can afford her has  almost singlehandedly created the environment which developed the hook up culture she and her poor college girls lament. As I’ve said before, Game is the logical countermeasure to evolve under the condition of unrestricted hypergamy. This in turn contributes to creating a new socio-sexual environment that changes the rules of engagement for how men and women relate to each other.

 

63 comments | posted in Game, Hypergamy, The Feminine Imperative

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,511 other followers