Category Archives: Psychology

May 20, 2013

He’s Special

By Rollo Tomassi

special

Sunshine Mary had an interesting insight about some of my analysis of Soft Dread:

It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

Although it seems mercenary, there is some truth to that. However, we are grateful because our husbands have saved us from spinsterhood. So it’s not a “rather than” situation, it’s that we are grateful to him because of what he has done…it’s both the who and the why. I wouldn’t have wanted to be saved from spinsterhood by just any man, ya know?

Mary knows I love her, and this is in no way a cut on her, but here’s a new item to add to the Hypergamy doesn’t care list:

Hypergamy doesn’t care about who you are, it only cares about what you are.

Your awesome personality, charm and any number of ingratiating personal traits are all perks – value added – that contribute to what you might consider Relational Equity, but as we’ve already observed, Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. The problem with Mary’s estimation here is she hasn’t considered women’s Hypergamic capacity to make any man into a special man so long as he meets her Hypergamic criteria.

Chick Logic

In the past I’ve described the female sexual strategy as schizophrenic, but what it really is is pluralistic. All the jokes you read as 4Chan memes about ‘chick logic’ are only funny because we all have an intrinsic, largely unspoken, understanding of this sexual pluralism. The female sexual response is characterized by a dual nature, Alpha fucks and Beta bucks.

That’s the simplistic, distilled version ready for easy consumption and understanding, but the feminine sexual response is much more detailed on an individual level, and much more significant on a social level than just this jargon. Every stimulus bearing on the feminine, from how she’ll explain her girl’s night out to her LTR Beta, to how women in the workplace can rejigger legislature to create a society directed by the feminine imperative, all come back to the Alpha fucks / Beta bucks equation for optimizing Hypergamy.

Alpha fucks and Beta bucks is literally a biological imperative for women. I wrote in Balancing Sexual Pluralism about this pluralism describing the desire for that perfect balance of Alpha sexuality when ovulatory impulse predisposes women to it, as well as Beta comfort and security when her cycle predisposes her to it. This isn’t just my speculations, it’s a scientifically documented phenomenon common to all women. Yes, in this instance, all women are like this. It is literally in their DNA.

Hypergamy is the constant striving for an optimization of a woman’s sexual plurality. Although there may be behavioral permutations that women will use to achieve it, or the imitation of it, the underlying motivation of Hypergamy is the same for all women. It’s a hard-coded psychological survival script that’s benefitted the human race since our tribalist beginnings.

The War Brides Effect

Recently there’s been a lot of discussion on the forums I frequent about  Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus being held captive by Ariel Castro for a decade. Let that sink in a minute, a decade. That’s 10 years. That’s a lot of life to live. That’s a lot of normal to get used to. There are other cases like this; Jaycee Dugard and  Elizabeth Smart come to mind, but are all of these instances the results of a hard-wired Stockholm Syndrome in women?

As it applies to women, I think Stockholm Syndrome is a convenient term for psychology to a give a name to what really amounts to adaptive hypergamy. Granted, due to media sensationalism we may not hear about incidents where men have been taken captive for as long, but this identifying with one’s captor is far more prevalent in women than men.

Primarily I attribute this to the War Bride effect, wherein evolution selected-for women with a psychological facility to adapt to a new dominant male captor as a species-beneficial survival trait. Have a read of War Brides for the full theory, but the short version is essentially this: in early tribal societies, women evolved a capacity to accept new out-tribe (presumptively Alpha) conquering men as their masters after the fathers of their children were killed or otherwise defeated and neutralized.

This is not unfounded historically. There are documented tribal traditions in cross-culture societies where it was not only accepted, but expected of a man who’d defeated another in a challenge to assume responsibility of the slain man’s children and wife(ves). In terms of inter-tribal warring, it was common practice for the conquering tribe’s men to take (and often rape) the defeated tribe’s women. Another, more humane, version of this War Bride effect is found in Old Testament Jewish law where a dead man’s brother was expected to take his wife to bear children irrespective of the woman’s interest.

I originally went into detail in War Brides about this dynamic due to men’s observing women’s ease of transitioning romantically from one lover to another. That facility is a vestige of a psychology evolved to ensure Hypergamy is optimized with the best mate a woman’s environment (and her own physical conditions for attraction) will allow her. More often than not, in our evolutionary past, a woman’s conditions and environment were not of her own choosing, thus psychological contingencies had to evolve in order for women to maintain a mental and emotional dissonance while still ensuring as Hypergamously optimal a situation as she could.

Women lacking the mental capacity for selective, impersonal indifference to men would’ve been selected-out, either by debilitating emotional breakdown or by her new captor’s disregard for her provisioning. We can draw modern day parallels to the latter situation when we hear about how a woman might divorce her previous Beta provider husband for an Alpha lover only to regret having done so. It’s not the emotional consideration she regrets, but rather the loss of provisioning when her Alpha pumps and dumps her. Hypergamy is sated from one side of her sexual pluralism (Alpha fucks), only to create a deficit on the other side (Beta bucks).

War Brides vs. Alpha Widows

Where all this gets interesting is in considering the Alpha Widow dynamic;

 These are the Alpha Widows – women so significantly impacted by a former Alpha (or perceptually so) lover that she’s left with an emotional imprint that even the most dutiful, loving beta-provider can never compete with. A woman doesn’t have to have been an archetypal slut in order to have difficulty in pair bonded monogamy.

On the surface of it, it may appear that the Alpha Widow dynamic contradicts the War Brides dynamic, but if we dig deeper we find that they are both mutually reinforcing principles, and both are expressions of Hypergamy attempting solve the problem of women’s plural sexual strategy.

It is actually a woman’s capacity for selective indifference that predisposes her to an Alpha Widow state because the Alpha(s) she “can’t get over” imprinted an idealized state of an optimized Hypergamy for her. So the guy she banged in high school or college (the one with enough Alpha impression to take her virginity) is the idealization she harbors while married to the dutiful Beta. Even the abusive lout that a battered wife keeps returning to and refuses to press charges on, still represents that Hypergamous ideal to her.

Women will pine for the most significant Alpha they’ve experienced in life. It’s not who the Alpha was it was what he represented to her in terms of an idealized Hypergamy. That’s not to delegitimize women’s genuine feelings of love, respect and devotion for that Man, but it is to say that all of those feelings are consequences of her impression of an idealized Hypergamy.

There’s a lot being made about how women should or shouldn’t settle for ‘Mr. Good Enough’ before it’s too late. Granted, much of women’s indignation about settling for less than they deserve stems from an overly exaggerated appreciation of their true (and decaying) SMV courtesy of social media and social conventions intended to alleviate the anxiety of the approaching Wall. However, the underlying psychology of that indignation is rooted in women being forced to acknowledge that they’ve reached a point in their lives where they can no longer achieve an idealized Hypergamy.

So the stress responses are social variations of “Don’t tell me I can’t have it all”, “I deserve better than ‘good enough’” or, “Look at (insert aging celebrity’s name), she’s proof that you don’t have to settle.” All of these are pleas for a recognition of an imperfect ability to balance her sexual pluralism.

74 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Alpha, Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Idealizations, Psychology

May 13, 2013

Soft Dread

By Rollo Tomassi

soft-dread

 

In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30′s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:

Print

When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20′s and early 30′s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30′s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

107 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Biomechanics, Game, Psychology, Relationship Game, Sexual Market Value

February 26, 2013

The Crying Game

By Rollo Tomassi

SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA

Not Carrie Bradshaw (?) made an observation in last week’s post I wanted to riff on a bit:

…..A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

Only to an extent. A crying women will elicit support and sympathy from men only if she is young and beautiful. Otherwise she is just an irritation that needs to be shut up,

A crying woman will elicit support and sympathy from women only if she belongs to the same “tribe” as the woman offering support and sympathy. Will a crying old black woman get any sympathy from a young white chick ? Not so much.

Men are not biologically pre-disposed to crying (not as much as women anyway) so when they do, no one really knows how to respond. Particularly if it is in front of strangers and the reason for his tears is not clear at all. Admittedly this is a very very rare occurance – usually when a man has mental issues or is having a mental breakdown.

Normally men cry in front of family, very close friends, people whom they trust implicitly or in front of medical emergency personnel so I don’t think he will be shunned in those circumstances, especially if it involves death or loss of something very very important to him.

Since 2010 I can think of only three instances when I broke down and cried – my father’s death, my wife’s younger brother dying suddenly at 39 and the loss of one of my best dogs. It’s not because I’m some unfeeling badass that nothing affects, but I think it’s more about what moves me, or any guy, beyond that threshold. I’m pretty good at holding back that lump in my throat from crossing the line.

Since its inception, part of the of the package feminization sold men about “getting in touch with their feminine sides®” included the encouragement of boys learning to be in touch with their emotions and cry more often. It was part of their ‘sensitivity training’, and they were acculturated to believe that women would appreciate them more for their honest tears. You’d think guys who’d learn to cry on demand would have it made, right?

Vestiges Revisited

NCB’s comment was in response to Hero’s observation from that same thread:

A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

A woman crying is still biologically valuable. She still has a vagina and a uterus. She could still successfully carry and care for a child. Thus she is embraced and supported by the tribe.

A man crying is a liability. His crying will alert the predatory animals and invading gangs to his position. His distress is actually a problem for the tribe.

It is a blatant lie that feminism is about creating equality. We have been misled into thinking that men should emote and talk about their feelings. Very few people in a man’s life will give a shit when he is going through a rough time in his life.

Women are afforded vast support and provisions that men will never know.

One of the most annoying sounds for me, and if the studies are accurate all human beings in general, is the sound of a crying infant. It was a species survival trait that this sound psychologically evolved to prompt such an irritated response in humans. No matter who’s child was doing the crying, you damn well couldn’t ignore the distress coming from the baby.

It’s easy to make the association of how this ‘check-the-baby’ dynamic is a vestige of what evolved to make our species so successful; if it didn’t annoy us, more distressed babies wouldn’t have made it to semi-adulthood. However once we pass a certain stage of development, overt emotional displays (the most obvious being crying) diverge drastically for us by gender. As Hero observes, graphic displays of emotionalism were a sign of weakness to protohuman tribal societies. Women generally took care of crying infants and the association of infantile helplessness, in addition to being a general annoyance,  would necessarily be a liability to the group’s survival integrity. From a male-only perspective we can see the implications of this, but expand that to the social cohesion of the tribal unit and you can see that overt displays of emotionalism from men would also be associated as signs of implicit weakness for tribal women. Thus a rational control of emotion became hardwired into men’s psyches.

So you see when the feminine imperative makes attempts to feminize men, as with all of feminization’s efforts, it struggles against thousands of years of species-valuable, in-bred psychology.

She Cries

The parallel to this dynamic is women’s crying. Have a listen to the interplay of emotionalism in the woman’s voice in this radio bit and article.

White Knights will come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible in spite of the circumstance responding viscerally to a woman weeping. How did you feel when you heard the girl cry?

Once again, as Hero points out, the sound of a woman crying elicits the innate protector response for men, but as NCB examines, only insofar as that woman presents a viable reproductive prospect. Since this woman’s vocal intonation is within a feminine pitch as she weeps and pleads her case we’re more predisposed to sympathy for her, even in light of her redhanded betrayal of trust. Imagine this woman’s voice being raspy from years of smoking, lower from a higher testosterone  level or chordless like an old woman’s. Our male reflexive response, while still humanistically sympathetic as manageable, would be far different than what a young and associatively breed-worthy woman’s vocal intonations would cue us in to.

Again, we’re seeing hearing a species-valuable evolutionary vestige in the reflex men experience when they hear a reproduction-viable woman cry. To a degree it overrides even our rational capacity to separate the implications of her behavior with the empathy we want to establish with a woman we perceive as being a potential mating opportunity. It’s not that men can’t resist this empathy and apply a rational solution to a problem, it’s that it requires an effort for a man to do so.

It comes back to the Cap N Save a Ho dynamic and the Savior Schema. Empathize, protect and bond with a woman in distress (particularly emotional distress) and the potential payoff will be sexual intercourse.

Men’s effort to sublimate this empathetic sexual opportunism in favor of rational action has not gone unexploited by the feminine imperative. Thus you have women’s facility to cry (even under conditions of culpability) in order to provoke that male protector response. It’s like the crying baby example, stimuli and response.

Also, it’s important to mention women’s preferred method of communication, that is to say covert. When a woman cries she’s moving into an overt form of communication she knows will register with men, and this is usually the result of her having exhausted all her covert utilities. When women opt for overt communication it generally means one or two things have occurred: 1) she has reached the point of exasperation using covert means to convey her message, or 2) she has reached a point of desperation in her condition and needs the visceral response men will react to in order to defend and/or empathize with her (often in spite of herself).

32 comments | posted in Inter-gender Communication, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative

February 21, 2013

Genetic Celebrity

By Rollo Tomassi

Before you hurl in disgust, watch this TED episode to the end. It’s important you do since the real meat of what Cameron Russel discusses here is towards the end. It’s very easy to dismiss her musings here as just another pretty girl suffering from liberal white privilege guilt, but what she’s driving at here is an inversion of the body (fat) acceptance movement.

Today’s topic comes courtesy of Burrough’s SoSuave forum thread, and after watching this video I felt there was a lot of interconnected gender and social issues being danced around. I have no doubt Cameron is one of the more intellectually developed ‘super models’ of the past decade or so, but her apologetic observations here are only effective because she aligns them with what she knows will be received well from a fem-centric audience.

PlayHerMan had the best comment from that thread which puts her message into context before I go any further:

Well most attractive women don’t start to really understand how the world works until they start losing their looks. Most of them are truly oblivious to the fact that their looks have opened probably 95% of the doors in their lives. I’m guessing the chick in the video was oblivious too when she was 22. This is why she is talking about it NOW and not THEN. If you told her this crap back then she probably would have called BS.

Now that she is past her “prime” she has realized her looks meant everything in her life. Once her looks deteriorate, she will be tossed out of the industry like yesterday’s donuts and be invisible to most men of dignity.

Once the bloom of youth starts to fade and stuff starts to sag.. its a real wake-up call for most women. For the first time in their lives everyone is not kissing their ass. For the first time in their lives they have to pay a speeding ticket. For the first time in their lives they actually have to be qualified or connected to get a job. For the first time in their lives, men are not drooling over them. For the first time in their lives they face the harsh reality that all men face from adulthood onward = Be useful or perish. 

Entitled women who figure this out early get knocked up ASAP so they can mooch off the state as an insurance policy should they not find a willing man to serve them financially.

If you spend your life in delusion exploiting men and thinking you can live that way forever, its a harsh wake up call when you find yourself in your 40′s with no skills, no money, no kids and no men to take care of you. Scary stuff.

PlayHerMan gives us a good point of origin here. Cameron is having her ‘come-to-Jesus’ moment in that, while she’s still attractive as she’s aged, she sees the Wall for what it is finally and requires some sense of catharsis, some degree of absolution, for having lived in (willful?) obliviousness of it for so long. She knows  full well that the majority of the womyn in a TED audience will likely have gone through various stages of hating women exactly like her in their upbringing. She also knows that at some stage she’ll gradually have to join their ranks in a post-Wall existence and needs to make the peace with them in order to coexist in their own phase of life.

For their own part, these women living on the outside of beauty, in the context Cameron represents to them, even the most staunchly intellectual amongst them wants to feel some sort of kinship with her. These are the women who’d hack up in disgust at commercials with the message “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”, but when Cameron delivers the same message in a more intellectually palatable way, they embrace her surrender to the greater sisterhood. The hate her, but they love her.

The Genetic Celebrity

Cameron Russel is correct in one assertion, she did win a genetic lottery, contextually speaking. She’s been too insulated in her own version of model’s girl-world to really have pause to think any deeper about beauty and the biological associations with it beyond what’s served her feminine solipsism. She acknowledges the genetic aspect of beauty, but only insofar as she’s experienced the utility of it in her very insular model’s world. To her, beauty is just the luck of the draw. Maybe a woman can enhance herself with cosmetic surgery and maintaining her diet, exercise, etc. but for a girl who already benefits from natural good looks and a high metabolism at an early age, you can hardly expect her to develop the insight to see beauty beyond fate or luck.

As with most women in search of a rationalization for the unforgiving brutality of their genetic draw (or inability to build upon it), she predictably resorts to the beauty-as-social-construct feminist trope. It’s interesting that even former supermodels will embrace feminist boilerplate when it serve their interest better than their looks used to. You see, it’s not that you’re not beautiful it’s that the patriarchy society has perverted beauty into what’s commercially applicable.

While this fem-centric rationale serves to assuage many an HB4′s sexless  Alphaless existence, there is one kernel of truth to it. It’s not that men respond to a prefabricated  social norm for beauty, it’s that we tend to idealize certain biological templates for beauty. In Why Men Are The Way They Are Dr. Warren Farrell describes this idealized female as a Genetic Celebrity. This is the girl that most closely resembles what a teenage boy sees as his dream girl. She is the one who in real life best matches the Playboy Centerfold, the SI Swimsuit Model, the TV personality, etc. who turns him on. This is just the surface level idealization, however, the degree of idealization becomes further compounded with layers of idealized personality, a woman’s sincerity, an emotional connection, sexual availability, and a host of other attributes is added as a man matures.

That said, in the beginning, the Genetic Celebrity is what most boys start with. Show me a guy with really bad ONEitis and I’ll show you a guy who’s psychologically sold on her being his Genetic Celebrity ideal on some level of consciousness. For myself it’s easy, I love pretty blondes with flat stomachs, long legs, perfect small asses and mediumish tits. Back in the 80′s Heather Locklear was my teenage Genetic Celebrity template. Since then I’ve experienced a variety of different women, but by far the most common recurrence of woman in my LTRs, including the evil BPD, and yes, Mrs. Tomassi, have followed this Genetic Celebrity template.

I think it’s very important for men to recognize this preferential template in themselves. I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing, but it can predispose a Man to make bad decisions, relinquish frame or develop ONEitis to make that dream girl come true for himself despite the dangers she may represent.

While I can’t pinpoint it now, I think there may be a vestigial, psychological purpose to a man developing a genetic template for his idealized mate. Sex sells for obvious reasons, and commercialization of sexuality picked up on this long ago, but the added bonus for commercial interests is the compulsive tendency for men to imprint that template in their psyches.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this template is the result of it being manufactured for men – this is feminism’s rationalized ego salve – the associations a guy must make to elevate a woman to Genetic Celebrity status are founded upon the environmental sexual cues that we evolved long ago. In other words the reason Heather Locklear was my template, instead of Rosy O’ Donnell, was due to her physique aligning with what my hard-wired sexual response found arousing. If it were true that beauty is a social construct, then it would stand to reason that with enough social reengineering the Rosy O’ Donnells of the world end up becoming Genetic Celebrities. The lie in this, and in Cameron’s beauty analysis, is the genetic part of the description; it’s the biomechanics that make beauty in the first place.

 

79 comments | posted in Biomechanics, Idealizations, Psychology

February 15, 2013

The IKEA Effect

By Rollo Tomassi

ikea

 

Before I launch in here, yes, yes, I already know that CH scooped me on this topic last week, but he took a different bent than I had in mind. Heartiste took the perspective that I expected in relating this psychological phenomenon to principles long established in Game by PUA’s – women who invest in a man are more likely to stay invested:

Pick-up artists have a term called compliance, which is a game tactic designed to raise a man’s value relative to the woman’s value, and to gauge a woman’s interest level. The concept is simple: You make a request of a girl, and if she complies you know that she is attracted to you. Furthermore, the very act of complying with your request will cause her to feel more attracted to you.

Investment as a means to attachment isn’t a new idea in psychology, but the PUA application of it is a new twist on it. However the problem with the Ikea Effect is that it can cut both ways.

“Imagine that, you know, you built a table,” said Daniel Mochon, a Tulane University marketing professor, who has studied the phenomenon. “Maybe it came out a little bit crooked. Probably your wife or your neighbor would see it for what it is, you know? A shoddy piece of workmanship. But to you that table might seem really great, because you’re the one who created it. It’s the fruit of your labor. And that is really the idea behind the Ikea Effect.”

From a male perspective it’s easy to see the compliance utility of such a phenomenon when employed with women, however, when you combine this dynamic with a beta (or God forbid an omega) AFC mindset you can begin to understand how it molds the ego of a person ego-invested in reciprocity or Relational Equity.

Most of us intuitively believe that the things we labor at are the things we love. Mochon and his colleagues, Michael Norton at the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely at Duke University, have turned that concept on its head. What if, they asked, it isn’t love that leads to labor, but labor that leads to love?

I’ve counseled countless guys who are miserably “in love” with BPD women, women who’ve cheated on them, women who by their actions have no capacity for appreciating any effort the guy has made towards relational equity, yet they’ll say “I dunno man, I just love her.”

In a series of experiments, they have demonstrated that people attach greater value to things they built than if the very same product was built by someone else. And in new experiments published recently, they’ve discovered why it happens: Building your own stuff boosts your feelings of pride and competence, and also signals to others that you are competent.

There is an insidious element here: People made to feel incompetent may be more vulnerable to the Ikea Effect. On the other hand, Mochon has found, when people are given a self-esteem boost, they appear to be less interested in demonstrating to themselves and to others that they are competent.

Consider the degree of competence most beta men feel about their lack of (or limited) success with women. They tend to look for convenient excuses for their limited experience with women. They’ll appeal to fate – “I’m just not lucky with the ladies” – or they’ll make comparisons of inadequacy – “Chicks only dig jerks and I’m not like that” – or they’ll disqualify women – “I’m not looking for a skank.” So with all of this at work, imagine the degree of competence a beta guy must feel when he meets with some limited success with a woman. He’ll feel vindicated to be sure, but more so he’ll invest himself in those feelings of adequacy. He’ll be ‘in love’ because of the labor that led to it, and the labor that he feels is necessary to maintain it.

To take this a step further, imagine our now competent beta considering the prospect of losing his ‘loved’ investment, and returning to his former state of incompetence. Combine this with the false expectations of an appreciated relational equity, together with a socialized feminine-primacy conditioning, and likely a marginal social intelligence, and you just begin to see the formula for a potentially violent frustrated chump.

 

26 comments | posted in Idealizations, Psychology, Unplugging

February 5, 2013

Vestiges

By Rollo Tomassi

vestiges

The greatest inconsistency that most people discussing Social Darwinism fall into is the “survival of the fittest” falacy. Nowhere in any of Darwin’s writtings will you ever see this terminology refered to in the context of natural selection. It’s not survival of the fitest, it is survival of the species best able to adapt to it’s changing conditions and environments. Dinosaurs ruled the earth as the preeminent species for eons (far longer than humans). Then in the relative blink of an eye, they were extinct because a radical environmental change, for which they were, biologically, completely unprepared wiped them out wholesale. They simply couldn’t adapt to that environment.

This is what people fail to see; adaptation is the coin of the realm in evolution. 68% of the population in the U.S. is overweight, not because of “bad” genes, but because the environment has changed and people have adapted to it. Our bodies naturally store fat. We evolved from a necessity to do so since food sources were scarce in our biological past, however now the environment has changed. Food is too abundant, too convenient, too calorie dense, etc. for us not to be fat. Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator. Now this biological legacy only makes us fatter when you can buy ding dongs at any 7-11.

Legacies

With regards to monogamy or polygyny, essentially what we’re observing in this era is a result of a restructuring of adaptive methodologies to account for changes in our environment. Single motherhood, readily available forms of birth control, greater potential for security provisioning for men and women that isn’t based on physical prowess, etc. Yet, in light of all that we still struggle with the legacy of our biological pasts.

Men and women, biologically, have different methodologies for reproduction. It is in a woman’s biological best interest to mate with the genetically superior male best able to provide long term provisioning for her and any potential offspring. Again, it is in her best interest to find a man best fitted to share in parental investment. This is due to her comparatively prolonged period of gestation (9 months), the rigors of rearing a child to self-sufficiency (at least adolescence) as well as her own insured survival. They ovulate in a 28 day cycle and are at a peak of feritlity 5-7 years after puberty. They posess a limited number of eggs and become biologically inviable after a certain age (at or around menopause). Their hormone and endorphin biochemistry also reflect this reproductive schema; they produce in bulk oxytocin and estrogen, both responsible for prompting feelings of nurturing as well as serving as buffers for sexual indescretions. At the peak of their menstrual cycles they produce more testosterone in preparation for sexual activity and in the low periods produce more estrogens and progesterones. In addition, both during and after pregnancy they produce high levels of progesterone and oxytocin, both primary in engendering feelings of love and nuturement for offspring.

Men’s methodologies are much different. Biologically, we produce 12.5 times the amount of testosterone than women. As a result we have higher accuity of vision, hearing and touch. We have more muscularity, lean towards feelings of aggression in preference to sadness. And of course we are easily prompted to a state of sexual arousal – we’re always ready for it in our natural state. We produce millions of reproductive cells daily and are sexually viable until very late in life. Our reproductive methodology revolves around “spreading the seed” as indiscriminately as possible. Ours is quanity, women’s is quality.

Now, having done the break down of this, you can see the conflict in mating methods; thus enters adaptive sociological and psychological mechanisms to regulate this process. Thus, being social animals, we introduce ethics, morality and implied responsibilities to buffer both methodolgies. In our biological past, sexual arousal in both men and women was mitigated by physical prowess. Large breasts in women, an appropriate hips to waist ratio, physical symetry in both sexes, muscularity in men, physical manifestations of testosterone (square jaw for example) etc. we’re the call signs for sexual activity. Physicality was (and still is) the primary motivator for sexual activity and this is literally encoded into our genetics.

However, as society progressed, conditions and environments changed, thus social adaptation changed. A lot of freshly unplugged guy’s make an astute observation in this progression – Why is it that women are still hot for:

  • Celebrities
  • Musicians
  • Criminals
  • Drug dealers
  • Daredevils and risk-takers

Social proof began to become a secondary consideration for intimate acceptance (from a female mating methodology) for women as society progressed. Physical prowess, while still a primary sexual attractor and indicator of prefered genetics, didn’t necessarily ensure a continued committment to parental investment. Men and women’s reproductive methodologies have always been in a see-saw balance since we began as hunter-gatherer tribal societies. As society (see environment) changed other factors for parental investment became important. Artists became attractive bcause they possessed creative intelligence and this was manifested in their creative abilities to solve problems. When you see the broke musician with the dutiful girlfriend this is that legacy at work.

Social proof and intersexual competition, while always present, began to move into the psychological. It was far more efficient for women to compete for a desirable male covertly – usually by not confirming his acceptance – than to do so overtly. As society further progressed, male competition moved away from the physical and into a provisioning capacity. A drug dealer and a high powered corporate executive could both be “alpha” males – both have high social proof and provisioning capacity – albeit in different social strata.

Polygyny and Monogamy are natural human methodologies. Polygyny serves a mans biological imperative better, while monogamy serves a woman’s better. The conflict arises when either is compromised. A single man who’s non-exclusively dating is essentially in a state of polygyny, while a married woman is in her prefered state of secured monogamy. Either sex must surrender their prefered methodology to accommodate the other’s. This is why, socially, we have stages in our modern lives where one is exercised over another.

Animal Planet

I was recently watching an animal planet special on dogs and cats that compared their “domestic” behaviors with those of their wild counterparts, like preadatory cats and wolves. Not so surpisingly a dog will instinctively do circles and tramp down his bed in exactly the same fashion as a wolf will his sleeping area. So too will cats cover up their own excrement, burying it so predators wont catch their scent so readily, just like house cats will. To us, these and many other behaviors seem cute, but entirely unnecessary for domesticated animals to habitually perform. One would think that after literally thousands of years of domestication, as well as selective breeding, these behaviors would be less prominent or entirely “bred out” of them, but this is obviously not the case. They are hardwired, unlearned behaviors that are imprinted into them from birth that proved to be valuable in their species’ survival over the course of generations.

Using this analogy, how much more complex are our behaviors and the motivations behind them? There are many global studies that compare physical features in attraction across culture and race for both sexes that show very frequent commonalities for physical attraction. Broad shoulders, squared jawline and chest to waist ratio in men and symetry of facial features, breast size and hips to waist ratios in women are universal attractors for each respective sex. In fact the very common propensity for women to exclude men shorter than themselves from their consideration for intimacy is specifically derived from what evolutioanry psychologists call vestigial sexual selection.

Bear in mind this is attraction and how our subconscious interprets external cues for prompting desire. You see a naked woman in Playboy and the result is a hard on. External prompt – biological response, pure and simple. That’s a quick and easy one, but there’s a variety of other reponses that occur too – quickening of heart rate, release of hormones and endorphines, dialation of pupils, flushing of skin, etc. Again this is a reaction that was unlearned and part of our chemical make up.

A lot of frustration most men and women endure in our modern socio-sexual education is the result of a psychological attempt to reconcile the vestigial behaviors and predilections of our feral past with the need for adaptation in our present environment. Hypergamy is the prime directive for women, but precious few are cognitively aware of it, and even the ones who may be still find themselves subject to it. Hypergamy is a vestigial, mental subroutine running in women’s peripheral awarenesses. So vital was this species survival methodology in our past that it had to become part of a woman’s limbic understanding of herself.

So when these processes are brought into our awareness (i.e. feminine hypergamy, male polygyny, etc.) we tend to play them down or dismiss them wholesale. Sometimes the truths of these vestiges are ugly – in fact the reason we find them uncomfortable or offensive is the result of a societal effort to keep them under the surface in ourselves. They offend our sense of justice, or notions of equitability, but they did serve to bring us to where we are now as a society.

A lot of critics of evo-psych (in particular), as well as the revealers of some of the more unsettling aspects of human social and sexual evolution, like to start their criticisms by conflating the revelations of these dynamics with condoning  the behaviors that are results of them. Yes, hypergamy, in all its permutations, can be a very ugly truth to witness, but exposing it, attempting to understand it, is not tantamount to endorsing it. Human beings can’t handle too much reality, so the recourse is to attempt to stuff the Genie back into the bottle. Being aware of our feral natures and attempting to deconstruct the vestiges of those we deal with today is not the same as expecting absolution from the consequences of them.

Just because you know the reasons for your behaviors doesn’t grant you a license to engage in them. Yet neither should anyone be discouraged from legitimate inquiry into the natures of our primal selves for fear of the shame that others would want to apply to you to ease their own discomfort.

159 comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Psychology, Social Conventions

February 1, 2013

Male Sexual Response

By Rollo Tomassi

This now cancelled show was the brainchild of the creators of Mate Check.

The short version of this is basically this is a “service” that tests (attorneys call this entrapment) a man’s fidelity by setting up an encounter with an attractive woman who approaches them in an effort to see if the man will ‘bite’ and seek out more intimate contact with her. Generally this service is paid for by insecure women involved in LTRs. I should also add that 100% of men so tested fail the test and pursue the attractive woman.

Salacious, stupid, and basically everything you’d expect from a FOX reality show, but also a very interesting social experiment. This is Social Matching Theory in practice. If you’re approached by a woman obviously not in (what you believe) is your “league” and she’s expressing blatant IOIs and approaches you, it’s much the same as the ‘Stripper Effect.’ Men are so accustomed to having to be the initiators and dealing with rejection (and potential rejection) that they’ll willingly pay for the attentions of an attractive woman giving them a $20 lap dance and this becomes physically and psychologically gratifying.

In this scenario, the element of plausibility is introduced (as a bait). You can say that these guys took the bait because they were already predisposed to do so because of their foundering relationships, but I’d argue that few men (if any according to the stats on this site) would turn down an exceptionally attractive and visibly sexually available woman if she were inclined to be as forward as to actively seek out a man and pursue him.

I’ve read psych experiments where attractive college age women approached men they’d never met on campus and proposed having sex with them after 20 minutes of converstaion. Close to 100% of the men accepted the offer (much like this service), but when an attractive college age man performed a similar experiment with women the acceptance rate was around 60%. I think that this service is playing to this very dynamic.

Now here’s a thought, do you suppose the ‘investigators’ at Mate Check get a picture of their mark and match him up with a girl they think he will believe he could get? I would think they’d have to have a variety of women “investigators” of varying levels of attractivness in order to allay suspicion. For instance, a hugely overweight guy (unless he’s very stupid, despreate or both) would be skeptical (at first) to believe that a stripper grade woman would thorw herself at him voluntarily. So I wonder if Mate Check matches like for like in attractiveness when running their scam?

Disinfecting Sunshine

Sunshine Mary think’s she’s busted some manosphere myth today in asserting (with entirely anecdotal points) that men don’t necessarily have to be hitched to a frigid or obese woman to be moved to cheat. I’m inclined to agree, however, those factors are what behavioral psychologists term Establishing Operations:

Establishing operations work by changing the reinforcement properties of a reinforcer. If a reinforcer is made to be more reinforcing, the consequence will be more desirable which should have a greater effect on eliciting the target behavior. Establishing operations for reinforcers make us want something more that we might have.

Ergo, hunger, thirst, and yes, sexual deprivation can be considered establishing operations, thus making satisfaction of those operation much more potent reinforcers.

For her part, I’m afraid that Mary’s isn’t going to like what crawls out from under the rock she’s just turned over. What she’s digging at here is the nature of the male sexual response, and as with most women, she expects that response to align with a feminine-centric interpretation of it. Women’s solipsistic nature predisposes them to define the male sexual response in ways that make sense to what their own response is.

As I stated in Women & Sex, until a woman lives in 12.5 to 17 times her present testosterone levels 24/7 she cannot ever understand male sexuality. And since she lives in a fem-centric reality (both personally and socially) her awareness and expectations of male sexuality is defined by the only terms she has a frame of reference for – female sexuality.

So it should come as no shock that women are bewildered (and disgusted) by a male sexual response that is incongruent with their own. They want to force fit it. In the Feminine Reality I stated:

For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one.

One of the reasons I repeatedly assert that women lack a fundamental appreciation for the sacrifices men make to facilitate their reality finds its roots in women’s lacking a male frame of reference. In general, Men are far more self-controlled than any woman can realistically understand. When we analyze the realities of the male sex response and the underlying biology that contributes to it, the control men exert over it is actually a triumph of evolved psychology and social directive.

As Men we take this control for granted because (for most) it’s a living state for us – even we don’t apprciate how controlled we really are over our sexual impulse. We live in a condition of controlling this drive, but the drive still motivates us.

Women are shocked that men are literally, neurologically wired to see them as sex objects. The parts of our brains that are attuned to using tools is stimulated when we see scantily dressed women. Women may be horrified by this, but one thing you will never hear them utter is a word of how astounding it is that men (largely) have such psychological self-control over it.

56 comments   |  tags: | posted in Biomechanics, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative

January 28, 2013

The Choice of Attraction

By Rollo Tomassi

choice

This has always been an interesting debate. I think it was  David D’Angelo who coined the phrase, “Attraction is not a choice.” This notion is so popular even red pill carpet baggers like Aunt Sue had to give it wings.

Pandora from SoSuave broke it down thusly:

What is the true nature of attraction? I am often ambivalent about this myself. This is ultimately the root the contention between the so called “AFC”s and the so called “cynical” red pill guys.

Camp 1:
Attraction is a deeply psychological phenomenon that is largely unpredictable. This camp implies that there is no deliberate decision that a woman makes to become attracted to a man. Her decision is made largely within the first few seconds of meeting or noticing you. They claim that whether a girl is into you or not is largely out of your control ( D’ Angelo). This philosophy gives credibility to the people who say money and looks really don’t matter too much. They are just icing on the cake. In all honestly I have seen example of this play out many times in real life. I mean we all know the common phenomenon of a hot girl with a loser boyfriend who sits on the couch all day and plays video games. We all had a girl that just was “attracted to us” no for no apparent reason. There are plenty of examples of successful women going after losers (not marrying, but screwing regularly). These guys are pretty average looking to tell you the truth. These guys are not really even that “alpha”. Kinda like Casino, I know its a movie, but when DeNiro’s wife who had everything was still deeply in love with the scumbag loser pimp who had nada. Many of these guys have self destructive tendencies really, aka bad boys types, emo losers, broke artsy dudes to plain ol average joes. If you ask the female why do you like this guy so much when you could get just abut any other guy… 9 outa 10 times they say “ i dont know, i just do, i wish i didnt”. They have no rational explanation for it. Many times the girl will admit that the guy isnt even attractive or her type thus supporting the view attraction is not a choice and deeply psychological.

Camp 2:
Money, looks, power, and overall dominance will get u women more reliably than anything else. This is the red pill crew. There are a TON of examples of this also. Go to any rock concert, football game or club and you will see this in action. There’s a reason why women want to marry the rocker,doctor, lawyer, CEO, athlete. The catch is by agreeing with this viewpoint you have to agree that the nature of attraction in women is largely logical and deliberate. That women turn off or on their attraction based on status and resources. If you are this camp then how do u explain the examples of hot women going out with loser to average boy friends. Are these truly exceptions to the rule? How do you also explain chicks that dig you for no apparent reason at all (rare but it happens) and we have all had these types of girls once or twice.

This is an important question to answer because i think its the cause of many of the conflicts in the manosphere. Its also a fundamental question for any man. I think the truth is in the middle. I think that both camps are making something that is very complex into a cut and dry matter. For every instance of a chick being attracted to a high status male there is an instance of a chick just being attracted to a regular guys. Im starting to believe attraction is just one of those things that is largely unpredictable and mysterious. This is the whole basis of when women say they just felt or didnt feel any “chemistry”. Its largely mysterious. Like Rollo eludes to, attraction is a chemical thing.

There’s a very clichéd truism from the 80′s that states “a woman knows if she’ll fuck you in the first 5 minutes of meeting you.” I disagree somewhat, I would say a woman knows if she wont fuck you within the first 5 minutes of meeting you.

Attraction is instinctual and predictable, but is it a choice? It really depends upon the conditions of the persons involved. Honestly I think it’s kind of a loaded question because the answer tends to validate the beliefs and ego-investments (also prompted by personal conditions) of the one promoting it.

For the unemployed, chubby guy, believing that attraction is some nebulous, random occurrence gives him hope that, with a bit of Game, he can enjoy sex with the HB 9s that his douchebag “natural” friends are. Similarly, the good looking, affluent guy with a bit of Game is rewarded with sex so often that he attributes his success to his own capacity for ‘creating attraction’ that he presumes a woman is making a choice to be attracted to him.

Choosing Attraction

Like pretty much everything else, attraction is conditional. I wont go so far as to say it’s a choice, but I will say there exist many prompts that can spur attraction when they are congruent with the conditions a woman consciously or subconsciously requires at a given time.

For example, in high school, teenage girls tend to focus their attraction (which is prompted by sexual arousal) on the teenage boys who best display an ideal physicality. Cute face, good body, maybe a slight bit of status with regards to exceptional performance (sports or drama for instance), but generally affluence and personal status aren’t an issue since none of them can expect a high school junior to be the CEO of his own company. Remove money & status from the sexual environment and physical arousal will tend to dominate. Personality and game, play in of course, but to a far lesser (adolescent) degree than when a woman is 19 and in a college environment where potential status, affluence, game and personality begin to take on more importance. Physicality still dominates arousal, but compatibility and future emotional and parental investment potential begins to factor into attraction. As a woman approaches 30-35 her preconditions for attraction and the priority she places on them shifts towards long term security. Physicality, while still important, is compromised in favor of long term security potential.

Now, is she choosing to be attracted to specific characteristics or types of individuals at different phases of her maturity? No, not consciously, but on some level of consciousness we are all aware of our own conditions and what (we believe) is necessary to meet satisfaction of particular deficits we lack. For the 32 year old AFC who’s never done anything different and has waited the better part of his 20′s for the, now 30, HB 8, he thinks his ship’s finally come in and that attraction is indeed some random act of divine kindness – rather than the fact that he now makes the kind of money his dream girl subconsciously realizes is necessary for her (and her offspring’s) long term provisioning.

Predicting Attraction

Human nature being what it is, it’s important for Game aspirants (and those applying Game for other reasons) to understand that Game, inter-gender dynamism and the physical elements of arousal / attraction are Probablistic not Deterministic.

I don’t believe attraction is a conscious choice – no girl says to herself “hmmm,..I think I’ll be attracted to him” – but there are definite, predictable determinants, based upon the personal conditions of the woman, that influence a subconscious state of arousal and attraction. I know those are big $10 words, but try to think of it in terms that a woman doesn’t make a rational choice to be attracted to a guy, but rather is influenced by motivators she’s not fully aware of and makes an emotional association with them and the guy she is attracted to. Accurately determining what those motivators are and manipulating them (within any one Man’s capacity) is the heart of Game. Attraction may not be a choice, but what you do to stimulate the motivators of attraction is a choice – your choice.

I rarely engage in the “american chicks suck / foreign chicks rule” debates, but one of my best friends is Filipino who’s recently been making frequent trips back to the Philippines to visit family and (still) help out with the recovery effort after the last hurricane. He comes back with stories about how eager all the hottest Filipinas are to do anything sexual with him. He’s not an ugly guy, but by American standards he’s not all that desirable – short, stocky, about 15lbs overweight, well off but not wealthy. But because he’s American and Filipino he’s got status that few guys in P.I. can match. He has what we joke is the ‘Golden Ticket’ (ala Willy Wonka) to Amercia since he’s single. He’s got decent game and he does hook up in the U.S., but he says he doesn’t even have to make an effort in P.I. Women catch wind that he’s American and their legs spread involuntarily.

This is an excellent illustration of how status can influence attraction based upon personal conditions / deficits that prompt it. However, sustaining that attraction after that personal deficit has been satisfied is another post altogether.

The Choice

So in layman’s terms you are saying Attraction is not a conscious choice made by women but one that can be unconsciously evoked by a guy with good game?

Yes, if that particular guy’s Game is what she’s subconsciously lacking. However, it’s all in the ‘read‘ of any given woman. If you read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene, the first foundation of seduction is to have as full an understanding of your target as possible – this is called ‘reading’ your mark. To the best of your abilities, it’s important to evaluate where she is in her stage of life and pick out areas where she’s in a deficit. You may think this is impossible to do in the short space of sarging a girl at a bar for instance, but once you have a general understanding of the cues to look for it actually becomes second nature. I’ll give you an example.

There’s a woman I know named Julie who I bump into on occasion at promos I do. On first sight I see: she’s attractive, mature (late 30′s early 40′s perhaps), dresses to get attention, she’s thin, bleach blonde, and married (I know from the big diamond ring). After speaking with her for less than 10 minutes I know she’s attracted to me; there are ‘tells’ in her conversation with me, verbal cues that she’s hoping I will pick up on and deliver back covert confirmation of. 10 minutes in and I know she’s in a marriage of convenience with an affluent man, who can take care of her financially, but who’s incapable of meeting her physical deficit, her excitement deficit, her covert communications deficit, etc. If I wanted to seduce her, these would be the areas I would adjust my sarge to emphasize. She’s attracted to me because she sees my potential for satisfying her deficits, and then probes me for confirmation of her suspicions. I tell her I’m married in code-speak, and she chooses not to be attracted to me any longer, or at least not to such a degree that she wants to pursue any more.

Some people would call this being a good judge of character, but essentially the ability to ‘read’ a person (of either gender) is the beginning of good ‘natural game’.

37 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Foundations, Idealizations, Psychology

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,513 other followers