Biomechanics

The Rush

For today’s post we’re going to do a little experiment. Before you press the play button, take a deep breath, and while it is work-safe, you may want to plug your headphones in or be in someplace where you can be uninterrupted for 10 minutes. Be forewarned that any women within casual listening distance will likely be provoked to indefensible, yet hysterical defense of the sisterhood after eavesdropping. Pay attention to your heart rate and do quick self assessment of your mood. As you listen to this, be aware of the chemical reaction percolating in your bloodstream as the inevitable end comes. Then be aware of how you physically feel afterwards. Ok, press play.

 

All done? How was that for you? Heart rate up?

 

I must admit, I got an adrenaline rush out of that. Kind of like watching a car wreck in slow motion. However, I find that kind of ironic since any number of daytime shows (i.e. Tyra Banks, et. al.) have been basically doing the same shit for decades now. A lot of guys acknowledge the power of the chemical rush, but it’s only episodes like this that make it real for them. I’m sure most of the guys hearing this felt it; the high of adrenaline, endorphins, dopamine, etc., this is the chemical cocktail that women come to crave. I’ve read the chemical profile is very similar to that of heroin. Indignation triggers it for women in the same way sex and death trigger it for Men.

The main reason I wanted to pick this apart is because there’s a lot of elements to the whole incident. There’s so much at play in this, it’s hard to know where to begin. It’s interesting to read the responses to gauge what impacts people first. Women naturally lean toward the guy being classless for opting to hash this out in a very public forum, yet it feel fully justified for doing it themselves for decades. 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? We can pour through the reasons why the guy was a chump to have been living with her for as long as he did, but think of this more from the perspective of the physical effect it has upon the listeners.

Funny how even when a woman confesses to her infidelity we’ll look for ANY angle available to still cast her in the victim’s role. We’ll readily analyze the guy’s history, we’ll euphemize her misconduct as a “mistake” (or she’ll do it for us), and we’ll speculate “where her heart is really at.”

 

“but, Rollo, dumping the hor in private would have achieved the same end.”


I’m not so sure about that. I’ll be the first to advocate against revenge, but for pragmatic reasons (wasted effort), not so guys can cling to some self-righteous high ground. If the guy is resolved to break it off with her, and he has the opportunity to rub it in (on valentines day, caught red handed, thinking a proposal is due, etc.), but instead holds back and discreetly pulls up stakes, does it have the same impact? Would she genuinely appreciate the gesture? How would she ever know that he could’ve resorted to publicly humiliating her yet chose not to?

The guy opting for the “high-road” would be the only one capable of appreciating what he could’ve done if he hadn’t, and even his expressing his option to do so makes him sound vain and conceited. By all rights this woman was under the impression that he was going to propose to her on-air and was utterly crushed instead. How does a woman spared from this ever make that kind of acknowledgement?

The answer is she doesn’t. I’m not saying he should’ve done it, but in light of the life-altering gravity of entering into as binding a commitment as marriage (a topic of much discussion in the manosphere), I can understand why he’d consider it. We can call him a chump for living with the woman for 5 years, but he’s a chump who’d made the decision to commit and had the ring to prove his intent. She on the other hand, knew he’d decided to enter into this commitment, and not only betrayed that, but KNOWINGLY, and happily, was ready to let him propose in spite of herself.

 

“Is justice somehow rendered as “less than justice” when it is administered by your OWN HAND?”

 

Therein lies the rub. There will always exist an element of bias (revenge) whenever one enacts what they perceive as justice. Women are almost universally absolved of this. Carrie Underwood can write a chart topping song about vandalizing the truck of a cheating lover that women (and men) will gleefully memorize the lyrics and sing along with, but let a man publicly humiliate a caught-in-the-act, cheating lover and “he’s less of a man” and runs the risk of having his personal life ruined as a result.

As far as this guy breaking Iron Rule #4; yes, the guy’s a fool for having done so for 3 years, and I’d go so far as to say an even bigger fool for being monogamous with a solitary woman for 5 years during his prime (I assume Chris was in his 20’s). My point was to illustrate his degree of commitment (he bought a ring) not to justify his having lived with her as long as he did. Contrast this incident with Tiger Woods situation: a lot has been made about commitment being tantamount to male virtue, so my emphasis was his readiness to commit and the gravity it bears on a man’s life.

There was another aspect that I hadn’t considered in this. I don’t entirely believe that reversing the roles to understand a contrast would be applicable in this case. Generally women don’t ask men to marry them. I understand it happens, but never to the degree that a man must prepare to make a proposal of marriage. Chris had resolved in his mind to marry the girl, and acted on this resolve by buying a ring and planning to propose on V-Day. Men are the True Romantics; Women simply do not have a parallel experience for this.

I understand this is a bit of a stretch, but for a moment lets assume Chris knew exactly the future liabilities of his commitment – all of those high-road, morally binding liabilities Tiger reneged on in his marriage – should his response to her deception be any less measured than what he did when you think of what he’d almost committed to?

Think of the impact his commitment to her would’ve entailed; think of how it would effect their families, his career and / or educational opportunities, their future children and their personal decisions, his finances, his psychological well being, their quality of life, and the list goes on, but essentially he was betting his future life on this girl. The guy was a hair’s breadth from making that commitment when he discovered the deception. I think she got off rather lightly.

 

*I’ve got to give props to the guys over at the BodyBuilding.com forums for rediscovering this link for me. I had originally used this audio in a SoSuave forum post back in February of 2010 and lost the audio link. Thanks guys.

Mr. Perfect

Rational reader Edger had an interesting question:

“Rollo, I don’t get it. Why would a woman stay with a guy she knows is a chump?  I find it interesting how women will stay with their boyfriend’s/husband’s regardless if they’re AFC. Yea, there will be those guys who will say they get with these men for their money, or stay with them for financial security, but come on, we all know women will generally ONLY give their intimacy to men who have their game down tight and fit the profile – doesn’t matter how much they make. We know you don’t need to make a lot of money to get laid or to develop relationship with a woman. I have seen many many dudes who have had shit, develop long term relationships with hot women. But to be more specific, how do these AFC’s get with these women in the first place if they’re AFC’s to begin with? This is where it gets confusing..”

Why would a woman stay with an AFC? A lot of reasons actually, but there are some commonalities.

First, there’s the guy that was once the Jerk, who had been attractive enough, or played the role well enough, to get involved with a woman who successfully “changed” him. And in an effort to better identify with what she’s convinced him (and herself) that he ought to be living up to, he reverts to being an AFC in the relationship. She can’t complain because he’s changed into what she thought she was supposed to want in a guy, but he’s turned into the kind of guy she’d never have been attracted to if she were to meet him while single. So she stays with him up until the point that she meets another Jerk who she wants to fuck and eventually ‘fixes’ him too.

Second, lets not forget that some of the most wealthy and physically attractive men also happen to be the biggest AFCs you’ll ever meet. I realize that sounds odd, but the wealthy man and the attractive man have little to prompt them to re-think their own behaviors. Because they are more readily rewarded with female intimacy, there’s less reason to question the framework of intergender relations, and / or their own predispositions and conditionings that would make them AFCs.

I once worked with this guy named Jake who was model quality good looking. He had no trouble with attracting women, and most would simply approach him, but Jake was probably the biggest AFC tool I’d ever met. He used to constantly complain that he couldn’t get a girlfriend or keep a girl interested in him, even though he was tapping beautiful women every other weekend. Once he opened his mouth and spilled his life story out on the restaurant table on the first date these girls would run for the hills. He literally had ONEitis for ANY girl he was dating at the time and swallowed hook, line and sinker the soul-mate mythology. He tried to be friends, tried to be sensitive, tried to be funny, tried to be savior and every other AFC technique in the book, but all this did was push these women away from him. They enjoyed being fucked by the guy, but when he started up the ice cream cones and puppy dogs, cuddle-bitch mentality, they moved on to other guys.

In other words AFCs aren’t all dorks and geeks, and being attractive doesn’t insulate you from internalizing stupid, feminized romanticisms. Nice Guys may finish last, but that doesn’t mean they don’t finish at all, and some manage to get laid occasionally along the way.

Mr. Perfect

The problem with guys like Jake is that they strive to fit a feminine-centric idealization. They want to be perfect for her.

Quoted from Mr. Right Does Not Exist:

Three in four women believe there is no such thing as the perfect man, with most seeing their partner as only 69 per cent perfect.

The poll of 2,000 women showed more than 75 per cent believed the perfect man did not exist.

It seems that women are actually quite realistic on what they look for from their partner.

“While they might happily overlook a few common flaws from their guys, there are certain behaviors that men just won’t get away with.” The results showed one in five women think their partner only pretends to listen to them while leaving clothes on the bedroom floor and snoring were among other gripes. The perfect man would be expected to make an effort with his partner’s friends, avoid using her toothbrush, stay clean-shaven and not be lazy.

Feel free to read the rest if you can stomach it. I realize this is a sugary breakfast cereal of an article, but it serves to establish a point,…

Perfect is Boring.

Say that again, Perfect is boring. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s your imperfection that makes you attractive. There’s an implied, ambient confidence that’s radiated from a Man who knows what a woman’s stated ideal of perfection would be and yet refuses to embody it for her. That underlying message to her is “I know you hate having the toilet seat left up, but I’m supremely confident enough in your attraction, and other women’s attraction,  to me that I’ll ignore your silly pet peeves rather than pander to them.” It’s the guy who engages in this pandering by attempting to be a woman’s stated ideal who sends the message that he is really optionless. It’s essentially a failed meta-shit test. It says to her that he’ll be a willing participant in his own manipulation.

As I’ve written in prior posts, women will never substantively appreciate the efforts a man makes to facilitate her reality. A feminine-centric reality means that any extraneous attempt he makes to appease her will be interpreted as the normative. It’s just expected that he’ll do her bidding, because that’s just what guys are supposed to do. Yet it is the Man who refuses, either consciously or as a matter of course, to engage in trying to appease her who holds women’s attentions the most. If there is a categoric Alpha trait it’s just this obliviousness to the wants of a fem-centric norm.

Mr. Perfect doesn’t get extra points for being perfect because the aspects of that “perfection” is the expected norm. It’s boring because it’s mundane. The problem of a feminized norm is that it makes feminine similarities between the genders the ideal state. It ignores, willfully or otherwise, that biomechanics has evolved an appreciation for the differences in the genders to be primarily attractive to the other. The more like we become – men becoming feminine, women becoming masculine – the more we lose that innate attraction. This goes for the aspects we both love and hate about the other gender.

In defying this inborn attraction, and making attempts to socialize it to better fit the feminine sensibility, we grate against what is really characteristic of each gender. In the natural world Men will be Men and despite the protestations, women really don’t want it any other way.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

Most ‘professional’ women are forced into an uncomfortable choice in life. Generally women in this demographic have decided to pursue a career at the sacrifice of caring for a family, and for some, initially, there is a learned disdain for the idea of being ‘trapped’ in a domestic life. Some are aware of this sacrifice and some are not. Most professional women swallowed the all too common ideology that “you can have it all”, a ‘rewarding’ career, a family and are deserving of an equally professional, equally intellectual husband that will respect her choosing the career path and equally share in what she perceives as his domestic duties. This of course is the new image of the American Dream for egalitarian equalists. And like most professional women, at some point they come to realize this dream is false because the sacrifices required to attain this fantasy defeat it’s own conditions.

Timeline of the Professional Woman

At age 18 she’s progressed through high school with a high GPA and her single mother or 2 parent equalist family (only rarely is it a single father) has raised her to believe she can go far, and through the financial aid available only for women and/or the college fund her parents planned for her to be ready to compete in “a man’s world”, she’s ready for college. Not a bad thing for a woman who understands the future sacrifices she’s about to make and is ready to actually meet the challenges of a University and a ‘promising’ professional career.

At age 24-26 she’s achieved a bachelor’s or master’s degree, perhaps a doctorate by 28. More often than not though it’s a bachelor’s degree, and an expectation of professional respect in the professional world. 90% of professional women graduate with education, psychology, journalism or communication degrees. That’s not to say some don’t seek out careers in law or medicine or business, they do, but in far fewer numbers. Regardless of her education, her expectations are the same as her peers – once in the workplace she will be rewarded and respected based on merit. Unfortunately, in the professional world, things don’t go as smoothly as her Women’s Studies teacher prepared her for. She discovers that to function as a professional she is also required to be responsible as a professional and more times than not, it’s not all that ‘rewarding’. In fact it entails a lot of rejection and a lot of hard work at the sacrifice of a personal life and personal relationships.

At 30 she sees the girlfriends she went to college with married and perhaps having their 2nd child. She still clings to the self-affirmation that her choice requires she have, but can’t understand why she hasn’t ‘gotten it all’ by now. She’s single or may even be divorced at this point, but looking for that ‘professional’ and intellectual equal of masculinity that the fantasy sold her, yet it hasn’t quite worked out that way. Most guys her age don’t have the intellect she expects they should or they lack the status in their careers. Men more successful and mature aren’t interested in her since she pales in comparison to the 22 y.o. women they seem to prefer.

At 35 she’s achieved quite a bit in her career, but has no prospect for a family at this point. She enjoys reading the articles in the women’s magazines that affirm what she thinks she experiences often enough – that men her age are juvenile with ‘fragile egos’ and only want to become involved with women in their 20’s because they feel ‘threatened’ by a woman who would dare to be their equal. The truth being that the men who she’d consider her peers are hardly juvenile at this age, but rather calculating, they generally have a better understanding of what they want and what is satisfying for them after more than a few failed attempts and have learned how the game is played to a greater or lesser degree. Particularly professional men of the same or higher status than she, since they have more access to being particular with the women they choose to become involved with. They are aware that the 35+ y.o. professional woman’s personality has been shaped by 12-15 years of expectations of ‘having it all’ and they are aware that she is generally not a good candidate to start a family with since he knows all too well the sacrifices and responsibilities necessary to achieve his own status. A career man rarely sees a career woman as a good choice for a wife or an LTR, not because he’s ‘threatened’ by her status, but because he’s known and worked with enough of them once he’s reached 35+ years of age to steer clear of them.

Men typically could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it – it’s simply not a factor in attraction for us – we don’t take a woman’s status or wealth into consideration; all she has to be is hot. That is a guy’s one condition for intimacy, physical attraction, sexual availability. She’s gotta be hot – whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jone’s husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodisiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from ‘professional’ life are conditions women have for MEN in attraction. That’s not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring’s security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

The ‘Today’s Woman’ crowd loves to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy’s ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction on the physical by blaming it on ‘men’s fragile egoes’ or how they ‘feel threatened by professional women’. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their ‘professionalism’ that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

This is the overreach of the feminine imperative – to attempt to thwart men’s biological predispositions by convincing them what they should find attractive and arousing in women. This becomes all the more ironic when you consider that the women the imperative would have men be attracted to are masculinized versions of  women.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects of their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men’s basic impulses – she’s-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive, a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it’s just icing on the cake for us, but this is analogous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking and fun in bed.

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this ‘professional woman’ mythology is that professional women want to be success objects themselves, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman’s choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as she understands the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

The Mechanics of Kino

It’s no secret that I think one of the best ways to practice Game is to understand the mechanics behind Game. It’s very important to remind ourselves why what were doing is (or should be) effective and what exactly that effect is to predict an outcome. Ironically I take the most amount of criticism for disassembling Game mechanics from both sides of the debate. Women naturally hate explanations of the crimson arts because in revealing the blueprints for how Game techniques and principles functionally operate, they acknowledge their Achilles heels and feel forced to scramble and misdirect or mischaracterize Game for fear of the sisterhood being wantonly manipulated by less than scrupulous men.

Male Game critics (i.e. manginas) have similar misgivings, but I also get a bit of flak from Game practitioners who’s only real concern is making the technique work without any care for functionality. Lastly, there are guys who think it’s really kind of remedial to review Game principles and prefer my theory over the “under the hood” disassemblies of Game.

I think stressing the importance of Game mechanics is necessary. I was actually taken aback a little by the responses I got from my Learning to Read post. “Stick to theory man, we know this shit already.” With all of the current debate about how Game is evolving and to what end I think it’s really necessary, occasionally, to explore the fundamentals more thoroughly. We assume (myself included) that anyone reading a manosphere / Game blog must be familiar with the techniques and concepts behind them, however I’m increasingly having to defend core principles of Game precisely because opponents lack even a basic understanding of the mechanics of a particular principle or technique. If you’re unfamiliar with the functionality of Neg Hits, why would you think a woman wouldn’t react to them with anything but offense and insult?

So, it’s with all this in mind that I will occasionally return to the basics and hopefully help further a more thorough understanding of why Game works. Try to remember that the freshly unplugged guy still in the discovery phase of his awakening doesn’t have the benefit of having read Mystery Method or even knowing what alt.fast.seduction ever was.

The Mechanics of Kino (kinesthetics)

Human beings require touch and physical affection to bolster praise and self-affirmation.

Children need this in great amounts when in their infancy and I’d argue into their teenage years as well. Babies need contact with their mothers and all OB/GYN neonatal caregivers are instructed to pick up and cuddle newborns since this human contact is essential in triggering hormonal and immuno-chemical changes that benefit the survival of the child.

All mammals to some degree employ this physical connection to one another and so do we. A pat on the back, a hug from a parent, an embrace between lovers, or even sick or elderly people petting a dog or cat — goes a long way for stimulating not only the sympathetic nerve and immune systems, but also the psycho-biological feelings of well-being that come from the endorphins that accompany the stimulus. That’s the nuts and bolts of Kino. Your touch is a stimulus, but it’s how that stimulus is interpreted that makes or breaks how it’s employed.

Casual Kino

Casual kino is something we already do to a greater or lesser degree unconsciously. The act of petting a dog is Casual Kino. Once your subconscious (and sometimes conscious) has determined whether an animal is friendly, the natural unconscious impulse is to pet it. Why do we do this instead of just going on about our business?

The latent reason is because we want to gain its favor (some would say to ’tame’ it), but we also experience physical pleasure from that simple act of stroking a cat, petting a dog, etc. This same Casual Kino holds true for people as well. This type of Kino isn’t meant as intimate contact so much as subtle reassurance of acceptability by that person. In other words, to tame them.

There are also cultural and conditional rules that make Kino more or less acceptable. Dutch men and women for instance greet women with three kisses on alternating cheeks and in other cultures certain acceptability of subtle gestures of Kino are expected. Unfortunately modern westernized American culture is probably the most uptight in this regard. While contact between unrelated males is usually limited to a handshake or a pat on the back, the older an individual is the more acceptable it becomes to be more affectionate with them — as if there is an unconscious understanding in humans that the older an individual is the more affection that person needs to stimulate these health benefiting responses.

I’m sure you’ve encountered the ’touchy-feely’ kind of people? Try to remember what it was about them that made them remarkable. Did they make you more comfortable or less comfortable in their presence? In some instances I’m sure you could call Kino ’groping’, but this is when the line between subtle Kino and intimate Kino has been crossed. Likewise the touchy-feely person betrays a neediness for this contact, most certainly as a result of deprivation, thus conveying a subconscious message that the person hasn’t been found acceptable for touch for any number of reasons in the past.

Using Kino

The trick to effective Kino is to make the contact seem casual and subtle without crossing into betraying intent of intimacy seeking or to present the appearance of ’needing’ the contact.

For instance, we may consider a slight squeeze back from a woman whose hand you’ve just grasped as an indicator of interest (IOI), but this connotes something different than the woman who grasps your inner thigh while sitting down for drinks or dinner. The same holds true for men in the opposite role of delivering a message with touch, only it is much more exaggerated.

Bear in mind that women are far more adept at interpersonal communications than men are aware of. They covertly communicate with innuendo, subtle and carefully chosen words, visual and non-verbal communications to be sure (i.e. dirty looks) and, of course, touch. They will understand a male’s intent when he is unaware that he is even communicating it to her — and nothing belies this intent better than carelessly applied Kino.

Strategic Kino

Casual Kino is easy to understand, but Strategic Kino is an art. Recall that physical touch engenders bio-chemical changes in a person — this is the basis of Strategic Kino. In this Kino we establish a reward-reinforcer relationship with our target.

This principle is rooted in behavioral and child psychology — we reward children with praise and affection for a desired behavior, but remove it when an undesired behavior is performed. This is effective because of an actual physical need for this contact. Reinforce desired behavior – deincentivize (not punish) undesired behavior.

It should also be emphasized that this Kino is only ever effective after a dominance / affirmation seeking relationship is established. Using effective Neg Hits, demonstrating higher value (DHV) and making your target see you as the PRIZE is essential. Kino without a pretext of higher value only worsens your approach and you slip into the creepy zone. Strategic Kino is just one tool in a Man’s tool box and using Kino prior to setting yourself up as the objective for her will in all likelihood turn her off to you. You have to establish a perceived value for her prior to initiating any casual touching.

That said, the principle of Strategic Kino is to reward your target with touch for appropriate responses while in conversation. Your target should be isolated to ensure there is no external interference. This Kino is akin to shutting your target out in the initial stages of opening to a group by keeping your back to her and only recognizing her when she becomes insistent. Your touch becomes comforting to her once you’ve established a baseline for this sense of comfort.

Remember, there is a bio-chemical element to touch, so on a subtle level her body becomes accustomed to this. When it is removed (and you’ve made this touch valuable), she will covertly understand that this touch implies approval and acceptance, and the absence of it connotes a lack of affirmation.

As with most things Game, what you’re looking for is reciprocation of your effort on which you can then amplify to a next level, ultimately resulting in intimacy and/or sex. Game is a dance and a language – as a Man you need to lead and direct the intercourse, but it’s vital to see the signs of reciprocation and the willingness of a woman to dance with you. Returned kino is an excellent IOI (indicator of interest) and confirmation of a willing ‘dance’ partner.

The Myth of the Biological Clock

Popular culture likes to teach women and, by association, unenlightened men that there is an innate biological clock inside each woman that slowly ticks down to a magical period where her maternal instincts at long last predispose her to wanting a child. Perhaps, not so surprisingly, this coincides perfectly with the Myth of Women’s Sexual Peak as well as conveniently being the age demographic just post or just prior to when most women hit the Wall.

The concept of a biological clock sounds very convincing on the face of it – it’s “biological”, and when it comes to feminine social conventions, nothing convinces women more than their bodies, their selves. In girl-world biological reasonings are always suspicious rationales for men’s bad behavior, but when applicable to women, biology is “Mother Nature”, and you don’t argue with that bitch.

Unfortunately, and as fate would have it, the hard science of biology often tends to crash headlong into feminine social conventions. Lo and behold Many Women Underestimate Fertility Clock’s Clang. Who’d have thought? It would appear the cold hard science of women’s actual fertility window doesn’t exactly coincide with the articles of faith that feminine primacy is teaching them.

A new survey finds a big disconnect when it comes to fertility. The age women think they can conceive a baby is far different from what their bodies are actually capable of. This poses an increasing problem, as more women wait longer than ever to have children.

What’s the chance a 30-year-old can get pregnant in one try? Many thought up to 80 percent, while in reality it’s less than 30 percent. For a 40-year-old, many assumed up to a 40 percent success rate. It’s actually less than 10 percent. And when you keep trying? The survey finds many think you can get pregnant more quickly than it actually happens. It also shows many women underestimate how successful fertility treatments are.

Not only is the myth of the biological clock inaccurate in terms of when a woman should get pregnant, it’s dangerously misleading in the odds of becoming pregnant.

“The first thing they say is, ‘Why didn’t anybody tell me this?'” says Barbara Collura, who co-authored the survey and heads Resolve, the National Infertility Association. She laments that no federal agency pushes this issue, and neither women nor their OB-GYNs tend to bring it up. Though, Collura admits that fading fertility is a hard message to deliver.

“Let’s be honest, women don’t want to hear that they can’t have it all,” she says. “We can have a great job, we can have a master’s degree, we don’t need to worry about child-bearing because that’s something that will come. And when it doesn’t happen, women are really angry.”

I wont argue that women actually possess maternal instincts, I will argue that their understanding of when they manifest has been deliberately distorted by a feminine-centric cultural influence. If women are “angry” about the revelation their inability or difficulty to conceive in their post Wall biological conditions presents, their anger is misdirected. Rather than come down from the heady pedestal of ego-invested female empowerment psychology, they’ll blame men for not being suitable fathers, or lacking a will to “play-by-the rules” and satisfy the dictates of the feminine imperative by whiling away their time in porn and video game induced comas.

“I just feel like it’s something else they lump onto women that we have no control over,” says filmmaker Monica Mingo, who’s blogged about her decade-long effort to conceive. She says the real issue is society at large, which is pushing back the age people are expected to settle down and have kids. Mingo didn’t even meet her husband until she was 32.

“You tell us your fertile years rapidly decline in your mid-20s,” she says. “Well, if I’m not dating anyone, and I want to have a family, what’s that information going to do for me?”

Well for one thing it might force you to come to terms with the course you want to set for your future life with an informed choice, rather than blaming it on so-called “Kidult” men when you do realize you want kids. I guess that’s asking too much when you’re in your prime party years at film school. Sorry Monica, time’s up, and you did have control over it in your pre-Wall years. All the haggard ghosts of feminism are cackling heartily around the cauldron of boiling good intentions in hell.

What were seeing here is a collision of hypergamy and feminine primacy smashing against the harsh reality of biology. The feminine imperative needs to create a new social convention to make this incongruent reality agree with its doctrine. It’s been done before with the convenience of Sexual Fluidity. Blame men for not living up to the tenets of the “having it all” ideology and create a convenient new social convention that shames men in its retroactive resolution of the problem it caused itself.

Humanism, Behaviorism and the Amorality of Game

Our great risk in life is not that we aim too high and fail, but we aim too low and succeed.

I think one of the major hurdles guys new to Game encounter is an inherent discomfort with experiencing just how raw and uncaring the motivators are behind intergender dynamics. I can’t entirely blame this on a naive, White Knight dependency on wanting to have things fit into their perspective, it’s something more than that. For men with some sense of honor or duty there also comes with it a need to enforce a perception of morality. Understanding the evo-psych roots that drive what would be considered ‘immoral’ behavior by their mental frame is often enough to have men reject Game and the red pill altogether. They believe that even attempting to understand the roots of that immoral behavior is tantamount to rationalizing a way to excuse it.

For all the accusations of being a moral relativist, it’s still very hard not to see the latent purposes behind the behavior itself – this is cause for a lot of internal conflict for a morally predisposed man newly discovering the foundations of Game. In War Brides I made a case for women’s propensity to establish new emotional bonds after a breakup or a widowing with far greater ease than men due to a hard-wired psycho-evolutionary sort of Stockholm Syndrome. You can read the details in that post, but the implications of that is one of rationalizing a cruel, heartless bitch’s actions that could very well be considered amoral, if not immoral. There are plenty of other illustrations that to a newly Game-aware Man seem deplorable and duplicitous behaviors. Why can’t women just say what they mean and mean what they say, right? It seems like a horrible inefficiency to have to rely on women’s behaviors in order to really see their true motivators. What’s ironic is that much of what men have invented as moral considerations were designed to keep these behaviors and their functions in check.

All that said I can’t help but see a want for a higher order of self-image in understanding Game and how the visceral world of sexual dynamics operates. It’s raw behaviorism clashing with a desire to find a humanistic meaning in the cosmos, all set in the theater of intergender relations. I could simply take the easy way out and advise men to drop the pretense of morality altogether since it’s always subjective to whomever’s benefit the moralizing is done for. But that doesn’t remove the desire to see what we think is justice; the key being the desire for it, not necessarily the application of it. While I can certainly respect the aspirations of the nobler prospects of this approach, overall it’s a bit Pollyanna to nuts & bolts behaviorists. That’s not intended as a statement of fact, it’s just an observation.

From the humanist perspective you have to follow a linear, chronological advance in human understanding in many different realms – math, art, cultural ritual, science, societal conditions and any number of other ‘advances’ we’ve made from our hunter gatherer, tribalistic beginnings to our globally connected present. And while it is very ennobling and self-satisfying to see such achievements as evidence of our high-minded progress, it’s far too easy to overlook the root motivations for these advances that are anchored in the very evolution that the humanist perspective would like to claim triumph over.

For example lets consider Pablo Picasso. Not my favorite artist, but one of them and one most people recognize as a considerable personality in art. The humanist would hold Pablo up as the banner of human achievement – a fantastic artist as the result of our progress as a race and a tribute to our overcoming our brutish past. To which the behaviorist would ask, “why should it be that art is so highly valued among human beings?” For that answer we have to go back to the root causes for creative expression. Cavemen painted pictures of animals they’d killed on cave walls for millennia before Pablo arrived on the scene. Now you can argue that these drawings were communicative in nature, but the function of them was to convey a message – “Here is how we killed an antelope and you can too thusly.” Language then springs from this methodology and we progress, but the base function is communication that benefited the survival of the species.

Then you may ask why would Pablo personally want to be an artist? The humanist replies, “to fulfill his personal need for expression to become a self-actualized being” and the behaviorist answers “to make his life’s function easier.” I sincerely doubt that if any manifestation of creative intelligence wasn’t a precursor for sexual selection there would be so many “artists” throughout history. I could easily make similar arguments for famous inventors, scientists or even Benjamin Franklin. It all returns to root motivations.

The self-actualized man still finds himself aroused by the Playboy Playmate irrespective of how much he convinces himself he should reserve his ‘feelings’ for his wife or girlfriend to “morally” conform to his higher-order of self-expectations. Powerful establishing operations such as deprivation virtually ensure that he will have an ‘inner conflict’ and to remedy this he will behaviorally condition himself to act accordingly. Regardless of the method, it’s still the biological root that has been hardwired into his head millennia ago by his hunting ancestors. Whether or not he acts on an opportunity to cheat on his wife, the base desire is still present and an undeniable motivation. A wife can close her eyes and imagine she’s fucking Brad Pitt when she’s with her husband – the motivation is still the same.

2/3rds of the American population is overweight, why do you suppose this is? According to the cognitive-humanist we’ve solved our hunting/gathering needs and can devote ourselves to ‘higher pursuits’, but yet statistics confound us here. The behaviorist sees this and notices that our own evolutionary psychology predisposes us to over-eat since in our evolutionary past we didn’t know whether or not we’d eat at all tomorrow or the next day (thus the ‘gathering’ was invented I suppose). Our bodies process this food in such a way that we burn fat far slower than carbohydrates and protein is reserved for muscle building. All of this in an evolutionarily efficient manner to preserve us, but now once we’ve (more or less) mastered our environment and food is convenient and plentiful it becomes a disadvantage. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just our innate biological mechanisms motivating us to behave in a manner that will benefit us best.

Every vice you can point a negative finger at operates in precisely in this dynamic. Our morality, our intelligence, our sexuality and the behaviors that are manifested by them are all motivated by this base. It would be a pleasant fiction if we could all remove our consciousness from this and be these enlightened, self-actualized beings, constantly operating in a state of peak experience, but this damn testosterone in my body keeps pulling me back down to earth. It may be morally reprehensible for a woman to break her marriage commitment, divorce her husband and remarry a rich entrepreneur, but from a behavioral perspective it makes long term pragmatic sense.

The problem that moral relativism poses to the humanist approach isn’t so much in recognizing this primitive base motivation, but an unwillingness to embrace it and live with it and use it.

I want to run, I want to fuck and I want to fight – I want to feel the blood, testosterone and adrenaline pumping in my arteries. I also want to write a sonata, paint a masterpiece and be a loving father to my daughter.

Behaviorism is the antithesis of putting angels wings on our backs and claiming we’ve evolved ‘above all of that.’ I haven’t, you haven’t and no one has, and our behaviors will make hypocrites of us whenever condition and opportunity facilitate it for us. It’s not that behaviorism would have us all living like animals in the bush as an ideal state, nor does it deny that people have very ennobling qualities; it simply accepts the whole of what prompts us to do what, why & how we do things and explores the reasons why in a far more fundamental way than a romanticized humanism. I’m sure this is akin to atheism for people invested into humanism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s simply a more pragmatic, efficient and realistic approach for explaining behavior.

The Pheromonal Beta

You choke the chicken before any big date, don’t you? 

Anyone who’s seen Something About Mary is pretty familiar with the now classic ‘Hair Gel’ incident.

Dom: You choke the chicken before any big date, don’t you? Tell me you spank the monkey before any big date. Oh my God, he doesn’t flog the dolphin before a big date. Are you crazy? That’s like going out there with a loaded gun! Of course that’s why you’re nervous. Oh my dear friend, please sit, please. Look, um, after you’ve had sex with a girl, and you’re lying in bed with her, are you nervous? No, you’re not, why?

Ted: Cause I’m tired…

Dom: Wrong! It’s ’cause you ain’t got the baby batter on the brain anymore! Jesus, that stuff will fuck you’re head up! Look, the most honest moment in a man’s life are the few minutes after he’s blown his load – now that is a medical fact. And the reason for it is that you’re no longer trying to get laid, you’re actually… you’re thinking like a girl, and girls love that.

Even if you’ve never seen the film, it’s likely you’re at least peripherally aware of the Beta Game principle Dom is explaining here. Can you spot the inconsistency?

“.. you’re thinking like a girl, and girls love that.” No, they don’t. Sorry Dom, they want a loaded gun.

Desexualization as Game is one of the primary mistakes betas make. This is the ‘Something About Mary’ effect; the presumption that your biological impulse to desire sex is a hinderance to getting sex. From a rational standpoint this is ridiculous, but betas eat this idea up because it dovetails nicely into their misguided sexual conditioning that assumes like attracts like – identify more with the feminine to be more attractive to the feminine. Watching this movie is like an effort in deconstructing all the Beta Game tenets of the past 40 years.

I apologize for not having the sources to site for this, but I can remember reading case studies on the bio-chemical effect of human sexual interaction doing grad work in college. I believe they were done by Dr. Martie Hasselton, but they outlined the endorphin and hormonal profiles present in healthy adults bloodstream’s while in various phases of attraction, arousal, pre-sex and post-sex interaction between couples. The most dramatic one to look up is the similarities in the chemical properties of dopamine and heroin for people experiencing “love” or “infatuation” depending on who’s doing the study.

Even more fascinating is the effects hormones play on portions of men’s brains when assessing sexual cues in a potential sex partner. Healthy testosterone levels literally causes men to perceive women as sexual objects; stimulating the same portions of our brains used for cognitive problem solving. However, testosterone is mitigated by oxytocin, the hormone secreted just post orgasm. While testosterone is responsible for sex drive and aggressive impulses (not to mention muscular development, deepening of voice and hair growth), oxytocin is linked to feelings of nurturing, trust, and comfort. Oxytocin is believed to be a primary influence in post-sex, and post pregnancy, emotional attachment in women who produce the hormone in much higher amounts than men. Postpartum depression is actually a withdrawal symptom triggered by the decrease in oxytocin (and progesterone) in post-birth women.The effect of post-orgasm oxytocin in men is similar to women, however in men it is also serves as a buffering agent to heightened dopamine and testosterone levels.

Oxytocin plays a critical part in regulating a man’s testosterone levels. Just post-orgasm, the human body flushes oxytocin into the bloodstream to balance out the endorphin and dopamine high of sexual arousal. While this hormone promotes feelings of trust and comfort in men, it also serves to ‘calm the guy down’ sexually. Oxytocin is a testosterone buffer in men, thus resulting in you going limp for a while after busting a nut. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense in that it ensures the sperm deposited stays in a woman’s vagina, thus increasing fertility odds, instead of being shoveled out by a still erect penis. Not only that, but oxytocin serves as a ‘pair bonding’ hormone in that it fosters feelings of protective trust in men. Oxytocin discharge in humans is also triggered by pheromonal and environmental prompts.

In addition to all of this, there’s the role that pheromones play in regard to sexual attraction and arousal. You can google these, but there are several pheromonal studies that indicate that men with differing scents from those of women tend to attract opposite scents in women. From an evolutionary perspective the conclusion drawn is one that people of similar genus or genotype (i.e. blood related family members) will be less aroused sexually by persons of the their own genotype, thus ensuring biodiversity (nature’s prevention plan against inbreeding). However in the same “sweaty t-shirt” studies, the perspiration of men with higher testosterone levels were deemed more sexually viable or arousing by women than men with lower T levels.

You can attribute whatever legitimacy you want to studies like this, but the evidence points to higher testosterone levels as playing an influential part in sexual attraction. Also bear in mind that pheromones influence women living in close proximity to each other to synchronize their menstrual cycles – another evolutionary mechanism believed to ensure fertility and communal support for social animals.

The Pheromonal Beta

From a bio-mechanical perspective, the indication is that men who consistently masturbate are essentially broadcasting their status as Pheromonal Betas – and women’s bio-chemical mechanics subconsciously registers this for them. Higher testosterone males manifest their sexual viability in both sexual assertiveness and scent. If you are chronically depleted of testosterone, and/or subjected to the calming effects of oxytocin your sexual viability is at a disadvantage. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, the beta males of our feral hunter-gatherer beginnings would be more prone to masturbation as a sexual release since, theoretically, they would’ve had less access to breeding opportunities than Alpha males. It would then follow that definitive, subconscious behavioral and chemical cues would evolve to aid females in selecting the best mate for parental investment.

So, for as much as beta guys would like to have you believe that snapping your radish before a date will improve your chances of fucking the girl, odds are you’re shooting yourself in the foot. This stupid belief is rooted in the “Something about Mary” myth that women don’t want an overly sexualized man, but the biological truth is far from that. The myth is one that women need to be comfortable with a guy in order to sleep with him, so men will actively desexualize themselves in order to comply. However, all indications point to a need for sexual anxiety and tension in arousal to prompt sexual intercourse.

Comfort and trust are post-orgasm conditions; anxiety, arousal and sexual urgency are pre-orgasm conditions – and both have their own unique hormonal signatures.

Disclaimer

And now for the disclaimer; I’m not a endocrinologist, biochemist or physician. I’ll admit this is a work in conjecture, but it’s plausible conjecture. For the record, it’s not about ‘less’ desirable pheromones, it’s about a lower incidence of any sex-cue pheromones due to depletion. It stands to reason that women would be more attracted to men motivated to being sexual with them, manifesting this in chemistry and behavior, than sexually unmotivated men manifesting signs of disinterest.

I used to think that the primary issue with beating off was this feminine double standard – women masturbating is sexy, arousing and, nowadays, socially empowering. For men, masturbation is a perversion. It implies an inability to be ‘man enough’ to fuck a real woman; whacking off is failure for a man, but victory for a woman. Why would this social conditions exist, and what is it’s latent function?

I still see the double standard in all that, and while I think it’s valid, it kind of only brushes the surface of self-pleasure from a social convention perspective. Sigmund Freud once said, “all energy is sexual”, meaning that subliminally we will redirect our motivation for ungratified sexual impulse to other endeavors. Thus it’s men, being the sex with the highest amount of libido inducing testosterone, who must look for far more outlets to transfer this motivation to than women. So is it any real surprise that it’s historically been Men who’ve primarily been the empire builders, the conquerors, the creators, and destroyers who’ve (for better or worse) moved humanity the most significantly?

Masturbation defuses this impulse. It kills that drive, or at least sublimates it. So wouldn’t it stand to reason that a global social convention that shames men for masturbation would be beneficial to a society interested in expanding? So the cultural meme becomes men who jack off are losers, and Men who don’t thereby prove their sexual viability (because if they’re not beating off they MUST be fucking women semi-regularly) AND become motivated to redirect that impulse to the betterment of themselves and/or society.

Taking things Slow

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

“Taking things slow” is covert communication for “I have other irons in the fire, and you’re not the first best option.”

This is the law of diminishing returns; at what point is the yield out-valued by the effort needed to produce it? If you allow yourself to be put into a holding pattern with a “take it slow” woman you will ALWAYS expend more effort than the reward yield, if for no other reason than that you are ignoring other, potentially better, opportunities in exchange for your attention and effort.

The “take it slow” methodology capitalizes on a guy’s insecurity in that it automatically places him into a constant position of qualifying himself to the woman at the risk of his reputation. In other words, if he doesn’t take it slow (i.e forces the issue, pleads his case too emphatically) OR he ejects altogether, he risks becoming who she, conveniently, “fears he really is”, a Player only interested in getting in her panties. It’s a self-fulfilling social convention that protects a woman’s ego no matter what the outcome. However the converse of this is that he wastes his own resources (time, opportunity, attention, money) indefinitely while trying to negotiate terms for what he thinks is her genuine desire. Ultimately, assuming there is one, the reward (which initially is always sex) will never out-value the cost of the investment.

In most instances, a guy getting this response is one of multiple options she’s entertaining at the time and will conveniently be dismissed if a higher value guy becomes viable for her (i.e. the hot guy in Cancun). In a way this “take it slow” contrivance is a similar, but more manipulative version of the LJBF rejection. In the TIS method there is an implied presumption that a guy “may” qualify for her intimacy IF he can prove himself to be patient and match her set of prerequisites. There is no presumption in an LJBF and the guy simply takes it upon himself that he can qualify if he can only plead his case well enough.

the SEX might not be worth the wait, but the relationship might.

Beware of this rationale, sex is the glue that holds an LTR together. Sex is an integral part of an LTR and if it is established from the outset that a woman’s sexuality is a conditional reward for desired behavior from a man rather than a mutual experience based on mutually passionate desire, this LTR becomes fundamentally compromised. It is her frame, her world, that the waiting guy is entering from the very inception of what later may turn into an LTR. His first act of that LTR is capitulating to her terms for sex.

You can dress this up in esoteric reasonings as to how, later, she’ll appreciate him more for respecting her wishes to move slowly, but it doesn’t negate the fact that the Alpha traits women find the most attractive, and the most sexually arousing, have nothing to do with patience and everything to do with impulsivity. Women want to be pushed for sex. Women constantly complain that they need to feel sexy to want to have sex, and so long as it’s ‘the right guy’, nothing makes them feel sexier than knowing he’s hot for her to the point that he’s acting on impulse. The token resistance might seem cute or it’s used as some ASD ego preserving buffer, but it’s really a another way women prolong that feeling sexy dynamic which can be more rewarding than sex itself.

The nature of the Alpha guy that women crave pushes him to have sex, not wait for it. In fact that sexual insistence is a prime indicator that a woman is dealing with an Alpha. The man who’d agree to ‘taking it slow’ telegraphs Beta to her. Sexual impulsivity is an Alpha indicator that translates into a Man who insists on getting what he wants in other aspects of life – which benefits HER and her future offspring’s long term provisioning. In the long term, women want Men who other men want to be and other women want to bang. The man agreeing to the patience and effort needed to “take it slow” is indicating that he’s not accustomed to insisting on, and getting what he wants. If he can sublimate his most powerful biological imperative to get sex, what else is he willing to sublimate?

Sex is the deal breaker, but in my pointing it out I run the risk of coming across as “shallow” or “superficial.” It’s important, but it shouldn’t be that important, right?

Wrong. It is THAT important. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

Remember this sexless state doesn’t come after having had sex before (due to an injury or disability), it’s a pre-condition for the relationship. That’s the underlying message of  “taking it slow” – all the benefits and emotional perks of a relationship with no expectation of sex. It’s like men having a fuck buddy, all the sex he wants with no expectation of emotional investment.

This is how important sex is. People tend to think of love as coming in different varieties and colors – platonic, fraternal, familial, erotic, agape, etc. All of this is nonsense. Love is love, it’s how it’s expressed that’s different. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister. Sex can be an expression of love or it can be an act of recreation, but it is always a prerequisite for an intersexual relationship. It’s time we all stopped deemphasizing the importance of sex and accept it for what it is. Every time we think we’re taking some moral high-road by saying it’s superficial or shallow to place such importance on sex, we only do a disservice to ourselves and our lovers. We’re only screwing ourselves by thinking that we’re in some way above sexuality in some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be above sex anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.