“A woman in love can’t be reasonable, otherwise she wouldn’t be in love”
— Mae West
Last week The Chateau posted an article about a Beta male asking girls for reasons why they rejected him. In the typical deductive logic that most Betas are prone to use, he runs down a checklist of questions regarding what he thinks killed his chances with the girls he thought he could get with. He petitions four women with questions about themselves, which, being women, all are more than eager to answer.
Do you usually figure out if you wanna do more than make out with someone pretty instantly? Or, is it a slow burn?
Was there anything I did wrong that turned you off?
If you had advice for any guy looking to meet a girl, what would it be?
What makes someone attractive to you? Do you have any types?
Do you feel that you could never date someone shorter than you?
Am I an unattractive person to you?
These are some of the more common questions John Brown puts to the girls, and true to form the girls answer with the standard feminine boilerplate responses that absolve themselves of their part in his rejection, while trying not to hurt the feelings of a guy they knew would never see them naked. With the exception of maybe Vanessa, it’s pretty clear that John’s punching well above his blue-pill weight with these girls even though I’d only rate Victoria as the only HB8 in the bunch.
The questioning is what I’ve come to expect from most chumps mired in their blue pill bubble of applying logic to their sexlessness, but it’s not John’s overt grilling of these women that’s keeping him trapped in the Matrix – it’s his buildups and followups to those questions. John isn’t just interviewing them to ‘get to the bottom of things’ so he can solve his sex problem, he’s leading these women with ‘if then’ logic in an effort to convince them that, by their own words, they should be attracted to him.
John is make the most fundamental error every plugged in chump makes — he’s appealing to women’s reason.
Why Women Can’t ‘Just Get It‘
Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.
If you read through the responses these women give John from a red pill perspective, you’ll see a pattern emerge. On an intrinsic, subliminal level, women understand that their genuine desire, their genuine arousal and attraction, has to be an organic process. When a guy like John makes attempts to convince a woman that by her own reasoning (and led by his) she should be with him intimately, it offends and then cancels that process for her.
For women, one of the qualities of the Alpha her Hypergamy demands is a guy who Just Gets It. An Alpha would intrinsically know what women’s arousal and attraction cues are without being told and without even the inclination to ask about them. John’s issue of overtly confirming for himself ‘what women want’ is really an abdication of a Beta who doesn’t get it. And true to form, John’s, and Betas like him, next logical resort is to rationally convince a woman (preferably using her own words) to be attracted to him by attempting to re-impress her of his status.
Betas like this generally end up as the infamous emotional tampon, or the Surrogate Boyfriend to a woman who’s banging the most Alpha Man her looks can attract. However, this appeal-to-reason rationale filters into other aspects of men’s lives. The logical progression for John would be to better identify with the women (really the feminine imperative) he hopes to bang in the future – embody the feminine prerequisites, get the intimate approval. For married or monogamous men this appeal-to-reason may come as a mistaken belief that doing more chores around the house will lead to more (or any) sex for him.
The fallacy of Relational Equity is essentially founded on men’s dependency on appeals to women’s reason. Your doing homework with your children to better their lives (while very ennobling) doesn’t make your wife any hotter for you in bed, nor will it be any bargaining tool should she decide to leave you. Just as John is learning here, women don’t fall in love with who you are, they fall in love with what you are, and no appeal to their reason will convince them otherwise.
Red Pill Women
There’s a lot being made in the manosphere about the emergence of red pill or Game aware women. I’m on record for stating that every woman is a red pill woman, it’s just getting them to drop the feminine-primary, psychological pretense and cop to red pill truths that’s the trick. While I do share the generally wariness of self-identifying “Red Pill Women” and their potential for sanitizing or repurposing Game-awareness to a better feminine liking, I think most women are already aware of the truth of Game. There’s a very real danger in Men accepting “red pill women’s” conversion and acceptance of those truths for exactly the appeal-to-reason dynamic I’ve described here.
Red pill women’s acceptance of what the manosphere forces them to acknowledge about themselves is essentially a convincing appeal to their reason, and this will always make their “conversion” suspect. Regardless of their reported red pill self-awareness, red pill women still want a guy to Just Get It, their desire still can’t be negotiated, and as illogical as it may seem to a manosphere Man, hoping to appeal to the same reason that made her “red pill” still wont get you laid.
Red pill or not, women are still women, and basing any relationship you have with them on appealing to their reason, rather than solid Game awareness and truths, is building you house on a foundation of sand.