Last week Heartiste had some excellent play-by-play Game analysis of this video. The guy doing the approach in the video is Steve, who is a friend of Krausers, and before I go into today’s post I just wanted to take a moment to say that Steve’s confidence and Game savvy is impressive. Whether he’s consciously aware of how well he’s internalized Game or if it’s a practiced effort, just like Krauser he gets a lot of points in the Tomassi book for application.
I’m not going to speculate as to whether Steve tapped into some natural reserve of Alpha mojo, or if he’s got his Game down to the point that it’s been internalized into his personality, or that his choice of woman in this instance was more advantageous to his personality type. Nor will I speculate that it may have been his Look and physique that led to a 5 minute kiss-close. I don’t have to because all of this was predictably scrawled across Roissy’s post comments. I say ‘predictably’ because when we observe a process we do so in terms of how it fits our own internal narratives.
As would be expected, the accusations of fraud and the disqualifications of how hot Steve’s target was started the hit parade, but amongst the “it was a set up” and “how much did it cost her to go along with it?” were some very interesting (though equally predictable) responses from The Chateau’s host of regular female commenters. The responses ran the gamut between “that’s so disrespectful”, “He’s so desperate. He comes across as a stalker and a lunatic” and “wow, did I just watch video documentation of sexual harassment?” to “that would never work on me! I have self-respect” to “yeah he’s kind of cute and has good Game.”
Geisha Kate summed it up best:
Its a simple matter of perception. An onlooker cannot feel what the people in the video felt. To them it was an awesome experience. The onlooker can’t tap into that and so it appears silly, etc. (no offense). Girls can look at this video and say, “that wouldn’t work on me,” but it likely would, and guys can look at the video and say it was because of his looks, which may be part of it, but its not the whole picture.
Kate’s was far and away the most objective of the female input; the rest of which were mostly an effort in plausible deniability of women’s universal attraction/arousal cues (NAWALT and “we’re attracted to different things”) to their, now expected, self-important anecdotal experiences absolving women of the obviously effective results Game had on one of their sisters.
The rest of what followed was essentially a debate between women (and less Game savvy men) coming to terms with Steve’s close and the red pill community’s dissection of the social and psychological dynamics observed in the video. The feminine side qualifies, disqualifies and personalizes the reasons why Game works, while the red pill side builds workable theories upon concrete analysis. All of this comes as the result of observing a process.
Steve’s approach video has everything the community and women alike could ask for. In it’s shot-on-video, raw genuineness it appeals to feminine indignation, the likes of which even Cheaters or Tyra Banks pale next to. Yet at the same time it is titillating enough to women’s arousal process that they’re drawn into casting themselves in the role of Steve’s Columbian target (not unlike the Twilight Dynamic). For blue-pills and white knights, it’s easily dismissed as some girl who “has no respect for herself” and they’ll continue their quest for the Holy Grail (a Quality Woman®) with a twinge of self-doubt that all women are in fact ‘like this’ and Steve’s approach might actually have merit. And that of course leaves the red-pill community with a lot of red meat to consume in verifying proposed dynamics and how well this girl’s response aligned with what’s already been established in our own version of ‘women studies’.
The manosphere is prescient if it’s anything, and as if on cue Vox fired off a very relevant post in light of the video debate at the Chateau – The logical fallacy of female attraction. As per usual, Aunt Giggles is still soft-selling the ‘betas-are-the-sexiest-of-men’ trope that only women in their 50’s can afford to invest themselves in. I say this is relevant to the debate over Steve’s video because the women (and manginas) commenting about it are uniformly conflicted amongst themselves in defining what characteristics, qualities, physique, attitude, behaviors, etc. empirically constitute attraction/arousal cues for women.
As I detailed in the Feminine Mystique, from a social perspective, the feminine imperative can’t afford men understanding the methods behind the madness with regards to optimizing hypergamy. A persistent sense of feminine ambiguity and female unknowability must constantly be reinforced for men by women. Thus women (and less enlightened men) perpetuate the myth that “women just don’t know what they want”, but is that the truth of it? Are women really unaware of their own attraction triggers? Or is it that they are so preoccupied with optimizing hypergamy (in a short window of SMV peak) that they’re simply never bothered by an inquisitive thought about what factors contribute to their being turned on enough to fuck one guy, but conversely being attracted to another for a long term commitment? Are women ever really prompted to observe their own process?
Observing a process will change it.
From the end of Vox’s Logical Fallacy post:
“Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.”
Vox mentions that more sociopathic men, being entirely self-concerned and outcome indifferent, are primarily the types of men women feel the most arousal for and attraction to. In other words, the sociopath, in his self-importance, can’t be bothered to observe the process of attraction in women.
That said, I can’t help but find a similar parallel in women’s cognitive ignorance of their own attraction cues. Women’s innate solipsism (further reinforced by fem-centrism), like the self-importance of the sociopathic man, predisposes her to be oblivious to her own pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha vs. Beta attraction). A woman’s solipsistic nature suggests she can’t be bothered to observe her own process.
In fact I would argue that evolution and hypergamy has selected-for women who are more predisposed to being oblivious to their own attraction cues, thus allowing them more cognitive brain-space to be devoted to filtering for the best mating option and the best long term provisioning option among prospective males.
By its very nature, women’s strategic sexual pluralism – Alpha Cads and Beta Dads – creates an unresolvable internal psychological conflict. Women cannot consciously reconcile the sexual impulsivity that drives them to (want to) fuck the hottest genetic Alpha with the drive for the security that a Beta provider represent with respect to parental investment. This dichotomy is even hard-coded into women’s hormonal cycle, impelling women to the sexual prowess of Alpha dominance in the follicular phase, and to Beta comfort in the luteal phase of menstruation. The solution? A healthy female psyche pushes this irreconcilable conflict to the peripheries of her conscious awareness.
The rationalization hamster we know today was psychologically evolved to mitigate the mental anguish that results from women’s pluralistic sexual strategy.
One of the contentions women participating in the manosphere have with red pill Men is that those men are observing women’s process and bringing it to conscious light in a globalized, meta perspective. Thus the scramble back to NAWALT, or women mature into new ways of knowing what they want, or “silly man, don’t try to figure out women, you’ll never figure us out.”
Recently Professor Mentu had a twitter debate with a manosphere-aware female wondering if there were in fact ‘red pill women’. Naturally in her self-congratulatory solipsism she wanted credit as a woman figuring out the Men who’d figured out women. I got a good laugh out of this, as I do with bloggers like Aunt Giggles and a few select other manosphere women because in truth, all women are red pill women – it’s dragging the truth of the red pill out of them that’s the trick. On some level of consciousness, and as evidenced by behaviors and the construction of larger social conventions, women are aware of their own hypergamy. The Threat, again, is men looking under the hood for women and then overtly attempting to get women to confirm the realities of the observations they’ve drawn conclusions from. The problem is that the feminine imperative will NEVER allow a consensus of women to confirm men’s piecing together of hypergamy. Men observe the process and thereby change it.