Articles from August 2011

Learning to Play

 

Think of the best musician you can think of now. I’m a guitarist myself so I’m going to throw out some old school shredder’s names like EVH, George Lynch, Nuno Bettancourt, but you might think Jimmy Page or B.B. King, or maybe Andre Segovia really kick ass.

When you listen to a virtuoso – a guy so good he makes his talent seem effortless – you’re not listening to just him, you’re listening to all the musicians who influenced him, who inspired him, to become the musician he is now. You’re essentially listening to (or at least variations of) the riffs, licks, arpeggios, melodic stylings, etc. of all the musicians that came before him to which, out of passion, he was inspired to commit to memory.

It’s important to remember, when you hear a great guitarist that his ‘improvised’ guitar licks are still built upon a solid base of a series of learned patterns that harmonize within a given key of music.

A good musician practices his scales, and learns the runs of the guys who influenced him, note for note until they’re subconscious, then he can improvise with them. Likewise a good player caters his learned approaches to the tune of the woman and the environment.

Many critics of Game fail to understand what the ‘A’ stands for in PUA – “artist”. If it seems like a forced script to you, that’s because you haven’t practiced it enough to become a fluent ‘social artist’. Rote memorization of any subject is never conducive to actual internalized learning. All of the subroutines and “canned material” do in fact have a teaching purpose, but it will never seem ‘real’ for you until you understand that they are simply teaching tools to help a greater learning of an internalized Game.

This is why it’s seemingly easy for critics outside the community sphere to ridicule Game; it all seems like laughable parlor tricks and 70’s disco club pick up lines repackaged for the 21st century. All they see is the ‘how to play guitar’ book and the practice tablature intended to teach the skills needed to play the instrument. They don’t (refuse to?) see the jump between the practice and the learning, to the internalized skill, that to everyone else seems like a natural, enviable, ability. Even the guitarists who never create an original piece of music, but play cover songs so well they can play professionally are still equated with have an effortless skill.

There is no One.

ONEitis is paralysis. You cease to mature, you cease to move, you cease to be you.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.

This is what trips people up about the soul-mate myth, it is this fantasy that we all at least in some way share an idealization of – that there is ONE perfect mate for each of us, and as soon as the planets align and fate takes it’s course we’ll know that we’re ‘intended’ for each other. And while this may make for a gratifying romantic comedy plot, it’s hardly a realistic way to plan your life. In fact it’s usually paralyzing.

What I find even more fascinating is how common the idea is (mostly for guys) that a nuts & bolts view of life should be trumped by this fantasy in the area of inter-sexual relationships. Guys who would otherwise recognize the value of understanding psychology, biology, sociology, evolution, business, engineering, etc. and the interplay we see these take place in our lives on a daily basis, are some of the first guys to become violently opposed to the idea that maybe there isn’t ‘someone for everyone’ or that there are a lot more ONEs out there that could meet or exceed the criteria we subconsciously set for them to be the ONE. I think it comes off as nihilistic or this dread that maybe their ego investment in this belief is false- it’s like saying God is dead to the deeply religious. It’s just too terrible to contemplate that there maybe no ONE or there maybe several ONEs to spend their lives with. This western romanticized mythology is based on the premise that there is only ONE perfect mate for any single individual and as much as a lifetime can and should be spent in constant search of this ‘soulmate.’ So strong and so pervasive is this myth in our collective society that it has become akin to a religious statement and in fact has been integrated into many religious doctrines as feminization of western culture has spread.

I think there’s been a mischaracterization of ONEitis. It’s necessary to differentiate between a healthy relationship based on mutual respect and a lopsided ONEitis based relationship. I’ve had more than a few guys seeking my advice, or challenging my take on ONEitis, essentially ask me for permission to accept ONEitis as legitimate monogamy. In my estimation ONEitis is an unhealthy psychological dependency that is the direct result of the continuous socialization of the soulmate myth in pop culture. What’s truly frightening is that ONEitis has become associated with being a healthy normative aspect of an LTR or marriage.

I come to the conclusion that ONEitis is based in sociological roots, not only due to it being a statement of personal belief, but by the degree to which this ideology is disseminated and mass marketed in popular culture through media, music, literature, movies, etc. Dating services like eHarmony shamelessly marketeer and exploit exactly the insecurities that this dynamic engenders in people desperately searching for the ONE “they were intended for.” The idea that men possess a natural capacity for protection, provisioning and monogamy has merit from both a social and bio-psychological standpoint, but a ONEitis psychosis is not a byproduct of it. Rather, I would set it apart from this healthy protector/provider dynamic since ONEitis essentially sabotages what our natural propensities would otherwise filter.

ONEitis is insecurity run amok while a person is single, and potentially paralyzing when coupled with the object of that ONEitis in an LTR. The same neurotic desperation that drives a person to settle for their ONE whether healthy or unhealthy is the same insecurity that paralyzes them from abandoning a damaging relationship – This is their ONE and how could they ever live without them? Or, they’re my ONE, but all I need is to fix myself or fix them to have my idealized relationship. And this idealization of a relationship is at the root of ONEitis. With such a limiting, all-or-nothing binary approach to searching for ONE needle in the haystack, and investing emotional effort over the course of a lifetime, how do we mature into a healthy understanding of what that relationship should really entail? The very pollyanna, idealized relationship – the “happily ever after” – that belief in a ONE promotes as an ultimate end, is thwarted and contradicted by the costs of the constant pursuit of the ONE for which they’ll settle for. After the better part of a lifetime is invested in this ideology, how much more difficult will it be to come to the realization that the person they’re with isn’t their ONE? To what extents will a person go to in order to protect a lifetime of this ego investment?

At some point in a ONEitis relationship one participant will establish dominance based on the powerlessness that this ONEitis necessitates. There is no greater agency for a woman than to know beyond doubt that she is the only source of a man’s need for sex and intimacy. ONEitis only cements this into the understanding of both parties. For a man who believes that the emotionally and psychologically damaging relationship he has ego-invested himself  is with the only person in his lifetime he’s ever going to be compatible with, there is nothing more paralyzing in his maturation. The same of course holds true for women, and this is why we shake our heads when the beautiful HB 9 goes chasing back to her abusive and indifferent Jerk boyfriend, because she believes he is her ONE and the only source of security available to her. Hypergamy may be her root imperative for sticking with him, but it’s the soul-mate myth, the fear of the “ONE that got away” that makes for the emotional investment.

The definition of Power is not financial success, status or influence over others, but the degree to which we have control over our own lives. Subscribing to the soulmate mythology necessitates that we recognize powerlessness in this arena of our lives. Better I think it would be to foster a healthy understanding that there is no ONE. There are some good Ones and there are some bad Ones, but there is no ONE.

Female Dating Advice

The prey does not teach the hunter how better to catch it.

Why women give bad dating advice.

This one is always a controversial topic on SoSuave. I find it ironic that the same guys who whole-heartedly agree with the idiom “believe what she does, not what she says”, are often the same men who really want to believe that, select, special women actually do give other men advice that has merit.

The problem is most guys simply parrot the words women have told them over the years when they asked them “What do women want in a guy?” and then think it works since they got it straight from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately, too many guys, especially recently, have bought the same line women have been repeating for ages thinking it’s a way to put themselves at an advantage when all it does is disqualify not only them, but the poor suckers who hear ‘chick advice’ from another guy, repeat it, and the cycle continues.

My take is that the ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a socio-evolutionary fail-safe mechanism meant to filter women’s selection process of less desirable men from more desirable (competition worthy) men. Think about this – women almost uniquely own “relationship advice” in popular media. There are a few notable feminized male exceptions (i.e. the Dr. Phils), but the ones who don’t align their opinions along a feminine-first priority are surreptitiously tagged as misogynists and marginalized or ridiculed.

On some level of consciousness women know they’re full of shit when they offer up the ‘standard’ chick advice. To greater or lesser degrees, they know they’re being less than genuine when they see this advice regularly contradicted by their own behaviors. Women (and now men) repeat in article after article how well developed the female capacity is for communication, so it follows that they must know to some, maybe subconscious, degree that they are being less than helpful if not deliberately misleading. Even the mothers with the best interests of their son’s at stake still parrot these responses. It’s like a female imperative. Why?

For the answer, all you have to do is look at the bios of single women on any online dating service. When asked to describe the characteristics they find desirable in a man, the single most common responses are confidence, decisiveness, independence. Traits that would require a man to be a Man and have the foresight and perseverance not to take things at face value. The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

Most guys are natural pragmatists, we look for the shortest most efficient way between two points. The deductive reasoning that follows is that if we want sex, and women have the sex we want, we ought to ask them what conditions they require from us in order for us to get it. The problem is that women don’t want to tell us this, because in doing so it makes us less independent and and more compromising (and lazy) in our own identities in order to get at her sexuality. This is counter to the decisive, independent and masculine Man they really want and is evidenced in their behaviors. He should know what women want without asking because he’s observed them often enough, been successful with them often enough, and taken the efforts to make decisions for himself based on their behaviors, especially in the face of a world full of women’s conflicting words. This makes him the commodity in the face of a constant, overwhelming contradiction of her own and other women’s motives, words and behaviors.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

The True Romantics

When watching this video, or any similar to it, notice how you feel physically before you hit play and then compare it to how you feel after viewing it. Is your heart rate elevated? Did you get a little fight-or-flight adrenal rush? We laugh to relieve the visceral anxiety we feel for this chump, but think of seeing this in terms of transferring this guy’s stress level to yourself. We know the ship is going to sink before we watch, but we feel, by order of degrees, what this guy is feeling by association to the point that it prompts a chemical response in us. Why?

Is it that through some psychologically evolved mechanism we’ve learned to protect ourselves in similar situations in our primal past? Think about what a man would have to believe in order to overcome that mechanism and place himself in a position of public ridicule that ALL depended on the woman’s response. This woman is mediocre at best – I’d rate her about an HB 5 – and this guy proposes to her in what he undoubtedly believes is a grand chivalric gesture. I’m sure he genuinely believed she’d appreciate his ‘vulnerability’ and create a cherished memory for them both as they gracefully age in their marriage. I doubt either of them will ever forget it now.

In some of the comments they were saying it was a set up, but what’s the point of that? Who’s benefiting from it?

And even if it was contrived, the real lesson being taught is from the ‘audience’ around them. People still want to believe that it was authentic. It’s still a pretty useful illustration of a beta mindset. How many guys like this want to believe that a woman will appreciate his romanticism? It is men who are the real romantics. It’s men who are the imaginative ones when it comes to romance, and all in an effort to provide a woman with the romantic experiences she says she wants. Romance is what Men perceive it to be for women.

Women do not appreciate planned, romantic gestures. I’m sure this guy thought he was being brilliant by noticing how she cuts a cupcake – “girls like it when guys pay attention to the little things, ‘other guys’ don’t listen to women, I’ll show her I’m unique,..” What most men and all women don’t understand is that the things a woman finds romantic are rarely ever planned. Your sweaty t-shirt is more romantic to her than any candlelit evening. It’s the things you don’t think would ever be romantic that stick with her. In the same way you cannot negotiate genuine desire, likewise you cannot engineer genuine romance.

The problem with planned romanticism is that it’s pregnant with an obligation to be appreciated. Men can be romantic, just not the way women say how they expect it. Like pretty much anything else women say, it’s not what they really want, but a man can’t be told what that is, he has to figure it out for himself, otherwise it isn’t genuine. For the high value Man, romance is an effortless and unthinking gesture.

Buffers

Rejection

Rejection is better than Regret.

Sifting through some of my past posts on the SoSuave forum it hit me; over 90% of what I advocate there can be reduced to overcoming a fear of rejection. 90% of the dilemmas AFCs and rAFCs find themselves in, and a majority of men’s concerns, with the opposite sex find their roots in the methods and means they use to reduce their exposure to female rejection. These are buffers meant to reduce the potential for this rejection of intimacy. Men of course aren’t the only ones who use buffers – women have their share as well – but I think it would be much more productive for guys to recognize this propensity in themselves and see the methods they use, and often ego-invest in their personal psychologies, to buffer themselves against rejection.

Virtually every common problem guys deal with finds its basis in these buffers:
LDRs – Long Distance Relationships. The AFC will entertain an LDR because it was based on a previous acceptance of intimacy and being no longer convenient (due to distance) the guy will cling to the “relationship” because it’s a buffer against potential rejection from new women instead of accepting the relationship as being finished and maturely re-entering the dating pool. It’s a perceived “sure thing”, even if only rarely rewarding.

Playing Friends – Usually after an LJBF rejection where the perception is the potential love interest “might” later become an intimate with time and qualification. No matter how misguided, the time and effort spent by an AFC in proving himself as the would-be “perfect boyfriend” is a buffer against further rejection by new potential females, which is then further compounded by a moralistic sense of duty to be an actual Friend to his LJBF girl. In essence, his buffer against further rejection is his misplaced dedication to the LJBF girl. Another variation of this is the Cap’n-Save-A-Ho dynamic.

Emails, IMs and Texts – I should also add lengthy phone conversations to this list as well, but really any technology that seemingly increases communication serves as a buffer (for both genders) the more it limits interpersonal communication. In the AFC case, the rationalization is that it keeps him in constant contact with his sex interest (which in and of itself is a mistake), but only serves as a buffer against her rejection. The latent perception being that it’s easier to read a rejection (or hear one) than to potentially be rejected in person. A lot of guys will counter this with how Texts and IM’s are just how this generation plies its Game. The difference I’d argue is that when digital communication becomes your preferred method of interacting with women, it’s a buffer.

Facebook & Online Dating – This one should be fairly obvious for the same reasons as above – Online dating is perhaps the best buffer ever conceived – particularly for less than physically ideal women. In fact it’s so effective that businesses can be built upon the common insecurities and fear of rejection of both sexes.

Objectification of Gender – This might be less obvious, but both sexes tend to objectify the other. Naturally when we think of this, the popularized notion is that men objectify women as sex objects, but women have a tendency to objectify men as “success objects” for the same reason. It is easier to accept rejection from an object than it is to take it from a living, breathing, human being. This is why we refer to intersexual communication as a “game.” We “score” or we get “shot down” not personally or emotionally rejected; the buffer is in the language and mental approach.

Idealization of Gender – This is the myth of the “Quality Woman.” The buffer operates in perceived self-limitations based on a search for an ideal mate. Thus a tendency to fixate on one woman (ONEitis) or one type of woman (a gender Archetype) develops. By limiting to, and/or fixating on one woman (or type) the potential for rejection decreases, while insuring that any real rejection will come only from what will later be deemed non-qualified women. Rejection = ‘Low Quality Woman’ and is thus disqualified. This works in a similar fashion to the objectification buffer in that the woman delivering the rejection is reduced to an object.

Scarcity Mentality – The “Take What I Can Get and Be Glad I Got It” mentality acts as a buffer in that it works opposite of the Idealization buffer. Deprivation is motivation, and by sticking with the “sure thing” as the “only thing”, the potential for new rejection is then eliminated.

Older Women, Younger Women – I should also include certain body types in this category as well, but the buffer is in certain types of women being less likely to reject a man due to their personal circumstances. The Cougar dynamic debate has been done into irrelevancy, but the buffer is that older women, acting in accordance with their conditions, will be more inclined to accept the advances of younger men. In the same vein, very young girls will be more apt to accept the advances of older men due to naiveté and fat women are easier to become intimate with due to sexual deprivation. This isn’t rocket science, but an internalized preference for particular women develop by associating that particular type of woman with the minimization for potential rejection.

Leagues – This is the opposite of a “high standards” buffer which could be grouped with Scarcity. There is the woman some guys actually fear because she is perceived to be so much more socially valuable than the AFC. Think of the HB9+ corporate director who runs marathons, travels a lot, has good friends, dresses well, etc, etc, etc. The AFC tells himself “wow is she out of my league I would just get shot down because I would need to possess A, B & C to be her social status equal for her to even be interested”.  Ergo, the idea of Leagues is a useful rationalization buffer against rejection.

Pornography I realize this will draw some fire from the masturbation / no-masturbation set, but porn (as men use it) is a Buffer against rejection. Porn doesn’t talk back, porn doesn’t need a few drinks to loosen up nor does porn require any social skills to produce rewards. It’s convenient, immediate, sexual release that requires nothing more than a PC and an internet connection (or a magazine if you prefer the analog means). We can argue the obsessive-compulsive aspect of it, or the “my GF and I enjoy porn together” reasoning, but for the single guy the root reasoning is its facility as a Buffer. I should also add that it’s this very facility that makes women hate it (when they do). Porn gives a guy his reward for free; a reward that should be her single best agency is rendered valueless when a man can get off to an infinite variety of sexual experience at the click of a mouse. It’s unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability without the stress of learning methods to earn it as a reward.

These are really just a few notable examples, but once you become aware of how buffers manifest you’ll begin to see how and why they are useful against rejection. Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego-invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preference” as they are about the motivations behind them.

At this point you might be thinking, “well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, these buffer become “just how I am.”

Lastly, experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best. Rejection, real, raw, in your face rejection stings like a bitch. It must be something so intolerable that human beings will devise countless social and psychological constructs in order to avoid it. However, there is no better teacher than getting burned by the stove. As a Man, you are going to face rejection in far more facets of your life than just dealing with a woman. The buffers you learn in one aspect of your life will be just as encumbering when they’re transferred to another aspect of your life. All of these buffers listed, and many more, become indicators of how you confidently deal with adversity. Some make you look like a beta-herb pussy, others are subtle and nagging parts of an internalized personality, but dependence upon them incrementally reveals your real character to a woman. Are you Alpha enough to take a rejection on the chin, smile and confidently come back for more? Or will you run, will you block yourself, will you hide with convenient buffers?

Imagination

A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal. Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating her imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. DHV relies on it. Sexual tension (gina tingles) relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can learn in any context of a relationship (LTR, STR, ONS, Plate Spinning.)

This is the single greatest failing of average frustrated chumps; they vomit out everything about themselves, divulging the full truth of themselves to women in the mistaken belief that women desire that truth as a basis for qualifying for their intimacy. Learn this now: Women NEVER want full disclosure. Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than to think she’s figured a Man out based solely on her mythical feminine intuition (i.e. imagination).

When a man overtly confirms his character, his story, his value, etc. for a woman, the mystery is dispelled and the bio-chemical rush she enjoyed from her imaginings, her suspicions, her self-confirmations about you are GONE. AFCs classically do exactly this on the first date and wonder why they get LJBF’d promptly after it – this is why. Familiarity is anti-seductive. Nothing kills Game, lust and libido like comfortable familiarity. Despite their common bleating filibuster tactics, women don’t want to be comfortable with a potential (or proven) sex partner, they need their imaginations stoked to be excited, aroused and anxious to want sex with a potential partner.

In an LTR there’s an even more critical need to keep prodding that imagination. I would go so far as to say it’s imperative for a healthy relationship, but then you’ll ask, how do you go about that when your LTR GF or wife already knows your story and the familiarity becomes cemented in?

The easy answer is never let it be from the outset – the health of any LTR you might entertain depends and survives on the frame you enter into it with. The foundations of a healthy LTR are laid while you’re single and dating non-exclusively. I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established. The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame. And that’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame BEFORE they commit to an LTR. They believe, (thanks to their Matrix conditioning) that commitment is synonymous with acquiescing to her frame control. Combine this with anti-seductive familiarity and the growing commonness of your own value because of it, and you can see exactly why her sexual interest wanes.

So what do you do to prevent that? First and foremost, understand that whose frame you enter into an LTR sets the foundation of that LTR. If you find yourself buying into an “it’s women’s world and we just live in it” mentality where your default presumption is that commitment means she wins, you lose and that’s just how it is, don’t even consider an LTR. She enters your world, not the other way around.

Secondly, you need to cultivate an element of unpredictability about yourself prior to, and into, an LTR. Always remember POOK’s proverb, Perfect is BORING. Women will cry a river about wanting Mr. Dependable and then go off to fuck Mr. Exciting. In an LTR it’s necessary to be both, but not one at the expense of the other. Too many married men are TERRIFIED to rock the excitement boat with their wives because their sex lives hang in the balance of placating to her and her already preset frame. She must be reminded daily why you’re fun, unpredictable and exciting, not only to her, but other women as well. This requires covertly implying that other women find you desirable. Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends.

By playfully staying her source of that rush you maintain the position of stimulating her imagination. Married men, who were defeated before they committed, don’t think that elements of Game apply to marriage out of fear of upsetting their wives frame, when in fact C&F and Negs and many other aspects of Game work wonderfully. Just kicking her in the ass or busting her chops, playfully, is sometimes enough to send the message that you’re fearless of her response. You can break her frame with cockiness and the imaginings that come with it.

Breaking from an established, predictable familiarity is often a great way to fire her imagination. Married guys will report how sexual their wives become after they get to the gym and start shaping up after a long layoff (or for the first time). It’s easy to pass this off as looking better makes women more aroused (which is true), but underneath that is the breaking of a pattern. You’re controllable and predictable so long as you’re pudgy and listless – what other woman would want you? But start changing your patterns, get into shape, make more money, get a promotion, improve and demonstrate your higher value in some appreciable way and the imagination and competition anxiety returns.

The Desire Dynamic

How-Sexual-Desire-Works-615x290

You cannot negotiate Desire.

This is a very simple principle that most Men and the vast majority of women are willfully ignorant of. One the most common personal problems I’ve been asked advice for in the past 10 years is some variation of “how do I get her back?” Usually this breaks down into men seeking some methodology to return his relationship to an earlier state where a previously passionate woman couldn’t keep her hands off of him. Six months into a comfortable familiarity and the thrill is gone, but in truth it’s the genuine desire that is gone.

It’s often at this stage that a man will resort to negotiation. Sometimes this can be as subtle as him progressively doing things for her in the hopes that she’ll reciprocate with the same sexual fervor they used to have. Other times a married couple may go to marriage counseling to “resolve their sex issues” and negotiate terms for her sexual compliance. He’ll promise to do the dishes and a load of laundry more often in exchange for her feigned sexual interest in him. Yet, no matter what terms are offered, no matter how great an external effort he makes so deserving of reward, the genuine desire is not there for her. In fact, she feels worse for not having the desire after such efforts were made for her compliance.

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other.

From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream. The code is often something like this:

I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want.

Makes sense right? It’s simple economics, but built on a foundation that relies on a woman’s accurate self-evaluations. The genuine desire they used to experience at the outset of their relationship was predicated upon a completely unknown set of variables. Overtly communicating a desire for reciprocal desire creates obligation, and sometimes even ultimatums. Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.

Meta-Game

In the starting of this blog I’ve recently been contemplating the last 6 or so years I’ve spent on SoSuave. Every time I consider the things I’ve written for the ‘community’ I always need to put them into the perspective of where I’ve come from and what I’ve learned in that time. I just reviewed a ‘single-mommy’ story in an other forum thread, one that I learned from almost 20 years ago. I also go into how things were before the advent of the internet occasionally.

I think it’s really hard for a generation of young Men to fully appreciate the progress that guys in their mid-30s, mid-40s and even 50s have made in their respective times. It’s hard for mid 20s and teenage guys to relate to a time before the level of communication we take for granted today. There was no term for an AFC, beta or “herb” in 1995. I didn’t own a cell phone until 2002 and never texted anyone regularly until 2005. When guys in their 30s and 40s now were learning the lessons I relate here, there were no forums, no PUAs (formally anyway), and the phenomenon we call feminization and the ‘Matrix’ was at the peak of it’s influence by virtue alone of no one questioning, let alone being aware of, its influence. We lacked the male-to-male social communication, certainly the global communication, to really bring common experiences together and form ideas from those observations. We were in the dark. Remember, no Tom Leykis, no internet, and the “how to pick up girls” books were what losers ordered by mail from an ad they saw in the back of a Hustler magazine. In fact porn was only accessible by renting it from the back room of a VHS rental store, by magazine or pirating the Spice channel from cable. Good times.

Now lets flash forward to 2011. I can’t go a day without having viagra or porn solicited to me in my email. Porn is now part of the utilities; it’s like hot and cold running water now, but moreover, so is the collected experience of literally a world of men considering the same nagging questions. Thanks to globalized, instant communications, a new generation of Men can collectively consider experiences and observations that were previously left unsaid. Where before there was a stigma of “not being man enough” just in asking questions and seeking relevant advice about women, now it’s been replaced by the ‘community’.

The internet is to Men what the sexual revolution was for women.

The genie is now out of the bottle, and for better or worse the information is liberating. This is the Meta-Game. Lets consider it for a moment: Just last week I added my voice to a chorus of other men from around the world to help out a young man struggling with his AFC problems. I joined guys from Britain, Australia, Spain, Canada, New York, Los Angeles, and anywhere in between. A global collective of Men advised this kid. That’s pretty powerful stuff. This is one world of men advising a young man about his situation with a girl acculturated in a world influenced by women for five decades.

This is the Meta-Masculine pushing back against the Meta-Feminized. We’re now aware that this Feminine Matrix is everywhere, and I think we all can appreciate how encompassing and pervasive it is. I know the LoveShack.orgs of the world are largely the antithesis of the Meta-Masculine. I didn’t say the mountain looked easy to climb. However, just the collectivity of the global community gives me hope. Every time we unplug a guy from the Matrix it’s a group effort. We are the collective fathers these sons never had.

Yes, there’s differences of opinion. The community advocates, Game gurus, and theorists of the world are going to lock horns over priorities, but the bigger pictures is making Men aware. The global collective waking them up is the first and best benefit. It is dirty, filthy, work unplugging Men from the Matrix, but that’s the start.

If I’m optimistic about anything it’s in the hope that the next generation of men will at least have the opportunity to be made aware of the “code” in the Matrix – that simply didn’t exist when I was struggling to unplug myself. By that I mean that a younger generation of men will develop at least a capacity, or at least a sensitivity to acknowledge that certain feminine social conventions exist, and were the gender roles reversed they’d be accused of sexism. I’ve always felt that making these comparisons is the first real step in understanding what the Matrix is. I am far more attentive to the veiled, socially excusable, feminine sexism that we casually pass off in common culture today because I realize the latent function those conventions serve. Like G.I. Joe says, knowing is half the battle.

The main obstacle for the positive-masculine Meta Game is that a majority of the same men it would serve are the unwitting (or at least willfully ignorant) pawns of the feminized Meta Game. I think its wrong to think of these men – the betas, the AFCs, the naive Alphas – as “recruits” for the feminine imperative. I come to that because it takes an entire feminized society to condition a young man over the course of a lifetime to psychologically ego-invest himself in the feminine Meta Game as a means to achieving his best interests. They need to be raised and trained before the ego-investment becomes self-propagating, at which point only extremely traumatic experiences will open his eyes to that conditioning.

I used the example of a typical rAFC or ‘seeking’ young man asking for advice from the collective at SoSuave. Almost universally the problems they want to solve are themes so tired and so thoroughly covered by the collective of men in the community that we’ll defer them to well-worn advice or rephrase old posts on the same topic. I do this myself, but think about the profundity of that for a moment. Here we have a questioning guy dealing with a problem I dealt with, sometimes, over 20 years ago, and men my senior dealt with 30 or even 40 years ago. The memes haven’t changed much in the past 60 years. I think a common missive is to think that the only reason guys seek out the community is to “get laid more” or “find the secret to getting their dream girl”. While that’s a definite motivator, so many more want solutions to relational problems that have existed in their current form for over half a century now. How do I get her back? Why did I just get LJBFed? Why does she fuck the Jerk, but tell me I’m a such a great guy? Do looks matter? How do I get my LTR to bang me now that we moved in together? There are countless others. Our Meta Game does a great disservice to ‘seekers’ when we dismiss them as just wanting to get their lay numbers up. Of course that’s only the recognizable motivator, but what they’re really searching for, what they’re unaware they’re searching for, is a real, positive, confidence in a masculinity that can rise above the chatter of the invectives of feminized Meta Game.

When I see 5 pages of advice explaining to that noob the reasons he’s in the situation he finds himself in, and instructing him how best to deal with it based on collective experiences while opening his perspective up to consider the greater landscape he’s in, that is the masculine Meta Game pushing back. Think of that; a poor, isolated kid, frustrated by how to approach, how to deal with a LJBF, how to man-up, etc. pits the influence of a world-wide collective of men’s experience against the behaviors and mindset of an individual girl who’s been socialized and acculturated by the feminized imperative. That is the Meta Game.