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.

Qualities of the Prince

You know, I’m not quite sure if my readership is aware of this, but I’m a Prince. No really, I’m a Prince (stop laughing), or at least that’s the expectation I’ve come to have others recognize in me after sifting through women’s online profiles on such fantastical dating resources such as Plenty of Whales Fish and OK U-Bid Cupid. But don’t think I’m such a rare bird, because amazingly enough, if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a Prince too! And you didn’t even realize it did you?

You see, virtually all the women you encounter on these Buffers online dating resources are simply undiscovered, under-appreciated jewels in the rough. They’re Princesses, and goddammit they deserve to be treated as such. Just reading through each profile is like going on safari and encountering a virtual cornucopia of rare and exotic animals (kind of like a zoo), each meticulously described in encyclopedic detail of their uniqueness and rarity of finding. What mere mortal man could possibly deserve to touch such feminine refinery?

A few years ago the denizens of the SoSuave forum accidentally conducted one of the most humorous social experiments ever performed. A member by the handle of Bonhomme was a frequenter of Plenty of Fish and noticed an interesting trend in women’s profiles. Though most of the women using online dating run the gamut from hopelessly fat to 2-drink fuckability, the one thing most had in common was an entirely overblown sense of self-worth to compliment their grossly overrated self-impression of their sexual market value (SMV for those of you playing the home game). This is nothing shocking for unplugged Men; the ‘community’ has long held that social media and online Buffers work in tandem to convince a woman she’s 1 to 2 degrees higher on her SMV scale. What hadn’t been studied up to then was the descriptors and qualifications that online women used in both their “list of demands” and their own self-evaluations, or “the brochure of value added features” any man with common sense (see fem-centric conditioning) would ever be considered a ‘Man’ for appreciating in a woman.

The following is an example pulled from a typical profile:

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of guy I am interested in… 5’10” or taller, lives near by, compassionate, intelligent, giving, VERY Attractive (someone other than your mother or sister has said so, lol) and in shape, prefer self employed, FAMILY orientated, open to new spontaneous things, likes to camp, likes to golf, wants children, would be a good father and faithful husband, a gentleman, gives me my space when I need it, not a nerd or too sarcastic, can take a hint, social, calls for no reason, remembers sending a note or a nominal gift IS romantic and necessary, respectful, sense of humor, and thinks the world of me. I am not interested in anyone older than 41 and anyone who makes less money than me since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be a stay at home mom and furthermore… my children will never want for ANYTHING (but of course will not be spoiled brats either lol). You should also love animals  I am not attracted to red heads at all lol sorry.

Wow! A rare find indeed. Thank heaven for the internet in providing men such a valuable resource that we might encounter such rational and strong women as this. This is one common example, but by far the most common self-references women made involved the word “Princess” – “I’m a Princess waiting for my Prince” or “I’ll admit it, I’m a Princess, I just need to find a man who can appreciate that and treat me right.”

Well, far be it from Rollo J. Tomassi to deny these undiscovered royals their due! Quickly I began to craft a cunning profile of my own; one which these pouting Princesses would surely recognize as that of none other than the Crown Prince of Man-dom. Using their own profile’s jingoisms and idioms as a template, I established an idealized persona, one that any woman worth her equalist “common sense” salt would instantly be irresistible to,…

Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of gal I am interested in…5′ 5″ or taller, but not over 6 feet (because while I don’t mind being eye to eye with you, I won’t ever be looking up to you), lives close enough to be at my house within 10 minutes after I make the call, genuinely passionate, intelligent enough to be good company, sexually available (preferably insatiable) and VERY attractive – we’re talking Jessica Alba, Keyra Augustina attractive – women with a body-fat percentage higher than 8% need not apply. Must be employed but not so well as you’ll interfere with our sexual activities, FAMILY oriented, but only after you’ve hit 30-33, open to spontaneous sex (you know, like outdoor stuff or a surprise 3 way with one of your hot girlfriends after our 2nd martini), likes to camp (in the nude), knows not to complain when I go play golf with the clients from work.

She must want children after 33 years of age if at all, and only after she’s proven to be a good mother and faithful wife, must be a lady with class and know when the right time is to speak and not to speak, not a prude or bitch, can take the first hint, sociable, unexpectedly texts me pictures of her wearing something new from Fredericks of Hollywood, understands that the best gift she can give me is expressing her desire to fuck me like a wild animal, and also understands that gifts for her are treats or rewards for desired behavior.

Must be respectful of my decisions being final, can’t take herself too seriously and thinks the world of me. I’m not interested in anyone over 31 (since this is most women’s expiration date anyway), she cannot have exorbitant spending habits or a credit debtload in excess of $1,000 since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be able to send my own children to college (rather than pay for your student debt), and furthermore… my children will be taught to reasonably earn their achievements on their own and respect the decisions of their Father and mother (and absolutely will not be spoiled brats either). I’m very attracted to redheads, blondes, brunettes, Latinas, Asians, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc., pretty much any woman that meets my physical requirements. I am not attracted at all to even slightly fat women no matter how much “inner beauty” you think you may possess. Hope to meet you soon, your Prince.

There! What woman could possible fail to appreciate all of the qualities of a Prince based on their very own template? Insidious, clever and witty. All I had to do was await what could only be a landslide of returned affection and positive responses. I contemplated how I would have to let down the poor cast off Princesses who failed to meet my humble criteria as the first response came in,…

“I read your profile, and is any of it serious?????”

A bit perturbed I reply,

Why do you think it’s not serious? Am I not allowed to be a bit specific?

“Sorry not about to put up with your kind of shit.”

Strange and yet strange again. Here I’d learned that self-confidence and assertiveness were traits women admired in the land of gender-equalism. Ah, perhaps this Princess was a bit jaded by such a dearth of qualified Princes at her disposal. I waited a bit more and was rewarded by a Princess called ‘Lil Sweet Heart’ who’d randomly read my glowing self-description,..

“what a profile
see iam a strong willed person!!
i speak when i want to say what i want and when i want and the way ur profile sounds i dont we;d be a match and the part about raising a spoiled brat thats a hard one to over come depends what u see as spoiled sure my boys r a bit spoiled well a lot but thats the way i was raised and it did me no wrong my kids know that they have to work to earn their spending and treats but no reason why a parent cant buy something just because so maybe ur profile can off wrong but my feeling is not some one id wanna meet hmmmmm”

Egads! I respond,

“Honestly, I really tried to read your message to me, but all of the bastardized English and the run-on sentences made it virtually impossible to understand what you were trying to say.”

I do say. Whomever this royal child’s au pair was is deserving of a public scourging! The thought of so ill-preparing a Princess for courtly discourse with the Man who will one day be her King is inexcusable. Bah, the blazes with this one, I’ll be patient on another,..

“uh, yeah, i don’t think so. maybe your profile’s a joke (which would make it less sad), but i don’t find it amusing, not my sense of humour at all.and the fact that i’m even bothering to reply to say no, rather than just ignore you, should tell you how distasteful it is.happy hunting. (though you’d have better luck if you went back in time 100 years or so, have fun finding chics like that today)

After checking out your profile, you are one of the rudest people i’ve even encountered. In your dreams…”

Hmm, I was beginning to see a flaw in my profile design. You see I had simply reworded the profile of my original Princess’ profile and changed the gender specific terms to the masculine, while adding a bit of my own desires to the outline of the ideal Princess I’d like to meet. After all, they all want to be treated like Princesses, I’m just asking to be treated like a Prince. But,..perhaps I’d been remiss in my waiting for the Princesses to respond. How unmanning of me – I would seek out my prize and pursue her. This profile caught my eye,…

“I am friendly, outgoing, generous, loyal, honest and adventurous. I work in a hospital. I also drive and have my own car.
I love to get my nails done every two weeks. I love fashion and style. I care about pop culture and social issues.
I have an IQ of 146. I am extremely intelligent and educated.

First Date: I dont want to meet Cheaters, users, players, haters, crumb bumbs, guys who want booty calls or fuk buddies… ya’ll dont let the door hit cha on the way out… I guess Im looking to meet someone around my own age, who is taller than me preferably caucasian, attractive, who likes to work out, has a unique, ghetto and sarcastic sense of humor like me.”

Well, not the ideal prize I’d been seeking, but perhaps this was another jewel in the rough that just needed a bit of spit and polish. I respond in the affirmative to her brassy, assertive equalist nature. After reading my profile, she responds,..

“i mak emy own moneya nd pay for own 5hit.. and for someone with such high standards take a good look in the mirror becuz these girls aka jessica alba are way out of ur league… if u want someone who is hot at least BE hot urself!”

I found this confusing since I had no picture on my profile at this point. I’d have to address that, but strange that the assumption was that my physical stature would necessarily be inadequate for her. I respond,..

“Dear woman, for someone with such a high opinion of her intelligence your grammar, punctuation and syntax are far from reflecting this. You type like shite.”

What I’d found most entertaining of this whole affair is that these women somehow feel compelled to respond to the profile. As if it were some personal affront to their sensibilities that it should need their attention to correct, rather than simply move on to the next profile. Judging from the frequency and intensity of the responses, how many men do you suppose responded to the original woman’s profile with the same fervor?

One of the best ways to illustrate how insaturated feminization has become in society is to flip the gender script on certain gender-specific dynamics. As funny as all this was, it serves to show that women live and operate in gender assumptions that they simply take as normalized conditions. Were a Man to publicly expect the terms and demands for his own provisioning and intimate access that women demand without an afterthought, he’s instantly accused of misogyny at worst, comedy at best. There are many more dynamics that illustrate this fem-centric normalization. My critics get fits of hysteria when I describe the acculturated, feminine-centric undercurrent operating in society. Girl-world is the only world for them, so pulling back the iron-veil of the feminine reality like this is usually a hard revelation. Ironically it’s the vitriol engendered in the responses to my reworded profile that prove the point.

Command Presence

A few years back I went to a popular martini bar for a mixer event that one of our agencies was throwing for my company. It is a very upscale bar, all the waitresses were easily HB 8s & 9s and the bartenders looked as if they got the job based on how close they resembled male models. If you know any about Central Florida and the sordid details about Tiger Woods’ affairs, this was one of his primary spots for a hook up. Whenever I’m in a professional / social outing such as this I tend to pay attention to social dynamics and take mental notes. I’m almost always in behavioral observation mode (which sometimes bugs me I’ll admit) and I apply these observations to what I know. I sometimes feel like Jane Goodall in Gorillas in the Mist when I’m at promo events. This night was one of those instances.

At the time I’d been studying what is called Command Presence. If you work in law enforcement, emergency services, or served in the military you’ll know this term. My brother was formerly in law enforcement and he explained it as taking control of, by appearing to have, authority in confrontational or high stress situations. When a cop stops you for a speeding ticket he is trained to instinctively adopt a Command Presence when approaching your car. This is what makes people think cops, generally seem egotistical or arrogant, but it’s this ‘presence’ that leads them to this. Google search ‘command presence’, there are hundreds of articles on it.

I decided this evening to experiment a bit with Command Presence. Rather than wear my usual club crawler attire I wore well tailored suit and tie with some very expensive dress shoes. I never wear a tie, even at work. I’ve always felt a good physique is the best form of peacocking and this met with a lot of success in my past, but a man in a well tailored suit projects a different presence and prompts different (though favorable) responses, not only from women, but men as well.

Command Presence is founded on the associations with an appearance of authority, so it helps when you actually do own that authority. I’m the art director for a major brand of vodka and liquor import company and this place had the full line of bottles I designed, as well as their proprietary vodka being my creation. I am the ‘authority’ in this regard and this is always an easy ‘in’ with club people. Within the first 5 minutes of being there I’d gotten multiple IOI and AIs from an exquisite brunette (HB 8.5 easy) after a deliberate push to use Command Presence and taking with her.

Next was the HB 9 waitress that led me up to our VIP section. Maybe 24 y.o. and absolutely stunning, she pulls me away from the bartender and kino-walks me to where our party was meeting. This isn’t a stripper, or a paid hostess, she fetches drinks. She initiates convo with me and I use my art director routine that worked with the bartender. All time I maintain an air of authority and take the fatherly role with her. She’s visibly impressed, more IOIs, and goes off to bring me a martini.

Later I’d met up with some web agency people and some coworkers from my office. We’re launching a new micro-website that I worked on with them. I worked with most of the creative team, but I hadn’t met the PR or research people. One of these was a fantastic blonde named Tawny. Maybe 25, an unbelievably hot HB 8.5, had a boyfriend, but not present. Our logistics girl was a squat, Puerto Rican lesbian and she whispers to me that she could get her before I could. I reminded her I was married and wouldn’t take her bait, but it was game on from that point. She already knew who I was so that angle was done. I got good eye contact from her and caught her looking twice before I introduced myself formally. I then went Dean Martin on her and added the Command Presence to my ‘knowing all about her’ attitude. She ate it up and it was at this point I had to dial it down because she was talking about sticking around after the party had broke up and I wasn’t about to consolidate anything.

One thing I think older single guys miss out on is exploiting the maturity and wisdom that younger women expect them to have. Think Rat Pack guys, Dean Martin, Sinatra, Hefner, these guys were PUAs well into their 60s (even when they were married). Sure they were celebrities, but modeling that attitude into your 40s can take you a long way with younger women.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Command Presence thing was working almost too well. At about the point I was trying to separate my attention from Tawny the waitress brings me a martini. This engagement made for one of the more fascinating observations of female communications I’ve seen. Tawny was sexy and in a busness casual outfit that certainly made her hot, but waitress (never got her name) is in tight black form fitting pants and a tight halter displaying a great rack and a perfectly flat stomach with navel piercing.

I’ve previously gone into about how women communicate on levels that men are rarely aware of and here I had the perfect opportunity to see this in actions. Facial gestures, applied kino, innuendo, subcommunication, you name it was all there. Tawny of course has the high ground because waitress is on duty and thus is in a service role, but wow.

I still have to pry myself out of the Tawny predicament and lead a bit about the boyfriend, to my surprise she says he’s not really her boyfriend anyway, “more like a friend.” Now I’m in trouble, but I hold the Presence and give her the principled opt out “it’s a Tuesday night and I probably shouldn’t even be drinking because it messes with my morning workout” Oops, shouldn’t have added the last part, but that was my non-Presence slipping in. I excused myself around 8:30pm, but not without her letting me know she hopes I’ll drop by their studio sometime soon. Pfeww,..

I posted this to encourage older guys to adopt a Command Presence as a means to interact, but it doesn’t have to be an act for you. The part of the story I ommitted is that while I got a lot of female attention this night, I also got solid in networking with some very influential men who picked up on this. They sought out my association. I could say it was an Alpha thing, but I think it’s about the application. I have legitimate confidence and I expressed it with my attitude, expression and appearance. Yes, I have legitimate authority in this instance, but I owned it in a way that was respected. Too many, tragically older, men are afraid to own their authority and/or confidence.

Amused Mastery & Command Pressence

As I began with, this experiment was from a few years back, and since then I’ve seen how Command Presence dovetails very well into Roissy’s principle of Amused Mastery. Amused Mastery is a good compliment to Command Presence. It tempers the ass-holish impulse that can result from taking Command Presence too far. It smooths down what can be taken for arrogance.

I think a lot of guys get hung up on the term “aloof”. The word conjures up the idea that a guy has to pretend to be looking down his nose at some girl he’s interested in in a lame effort to get her to qualify to him. When people read how a guy needs to perfect being “aloof” they tend to think “haughty” or feigned disinterest. Throw that term away right now, because you don’t want to be “aloof”. What you want is Amused Mastery.

Amused Mastery puts you into a position of maturity while still remaining playfully approachable and forcing a woman to qualify to you by acknowledging your mastery of her (really all women by association) and your surroundings. An attitude of Amused Mastery implies to women that by virtue of your maturity and/or authority you’ve “seen it all before”, you already know what women mean when they say or do what she is doing, and it’s amusing to you. You’ll play along, but only so far as to cleverly poke fun at her attempts to get you to qualify to her. It means you never take her seriously, like a bratty sister.

I’ll admit I never fully appreciated the potential of Amused Mastery until I had a daughter. I find myself naturally using it with her because that’s the actual, unforced relation I have with her. Especially now that she’s 13. However, I also notice my wife finds Amused Mastery just as appealing, to the point that she includes herself in my Mastery over my daughter. Command Presence is useful when others are only peripherally familiar with you, Amused Mastery is what you need to employ when you’re dealing with people who have familiarity with you.

It’s particularly effective for older men / younger women Game. Assuming you’re in reasonably good shape and have some degree of affluence, being older gives you a degree of authenticity. With maturity comes an expectation of knowledge and experience for Men. I’ve used Amused Mastery with my “pour girls” at promo events and it’s like cat nip for them. You become that Father figure to them (FILF?) that they crave, but can’t seem to get from younger guys.

The Beta Hamster

I’ve never had meaningless sex; I meant to bang every woman I’ve ever banged.

It’s endlessly entertaining to read the rationalizations men will create in order to better identify with what they’ve been conditioned to think is expected of them to achieve the ‘precious gift’ of a woman’s intimacy. They get quite creative sometimes. Aunt Susan has (yet another) anecdotal analysis of Casual Sex highlighting exactly these anonymous stabs at male pre-qualification courtesy of Reddit. And once again, in classic feminine form, the thread becomes this echo chamber circle jerk of male identifiers qualifying themselves to the equally anonymous women – parroting the ‘right thing to say’, and we all renew our faith in humanity and the hope for men who really ‘relate to what women want’.

I think I covered this identification motive as a primary element of Beta Game fairly adequately in Identity Crisis, but lets look under the hood at this specific dynamic. The inherent problem with doubting what is intended as the noble motives of a guy to eschew casual sex is that you risk appearing shallow for doing so. Betas generally love to wallow in preconceptions of nobility and delusions of being more ‘deep’ than the general mass of men that they hear women complain of. They think it gives them an edge. It’s an integral part of the beta mating strategy; the more alike you are with women the more they’ll appreciate you as being unique and reward you with sex.

The Spinning Wheel

For beta men this mindset also has the added bonus of giving the perception that he is unique among men in his ability to place the importance of relationship above his natural impulses. In publicly confirming his stance on placing relationship (women’s first security priority, i.e. wait for sex) above his ever-present physical need for sex, his subconscious hope is to appear so in control of his feelings and so above his feral nature that women will have to appreciate him as a paragon of female identification. That’s some REAL pre-fucking-qualification there Mr. Alpha. This guy not only has the capacity, but also the depth and conviction to turn off his sexuality in order to better comply with the relationship security priority women need to enable their own sexual strategy. This is the ultimate in pedestalization of womankind – to put women’s emotional criteria above his physical need for sex. And the god of biomechanics laughed atop his throne of genitalia.

The Beta Hamster

It’s very difficult to criticize social dynamics rooted in personal feelings. All one need say is “it’s just how I feel” and the discussion grinds to a halt because who am I, or who are you, to doubt the veracity of what they’re telling me? Add to this that it’s men who are the true romantics of the sexes and it gets even harder to be suspect of an underlying self-serving motive. In fact it may not even be a conscious effort on the part of a guy to express this. Feminization has conditioned into society a greater, almost default validity for personal feelings. As men have become increasingly adaptive to a feminized culture, placing primacy on identifying with, becoming more like, women, so too have they developed their own version of the female imagination – the feminized-male version of the mental Hamster that spins the wheel in women’s heads. The doubts, suspicions and anxieties caused by the male Hamster are directed towards an idealized female-centric goal state which they mistakenly believe is a male-centric goal state.


Self-reporting has always been an unreliable measure in psychological analysis, particularly when the one doing the reporting isn’t aware of the latent purpose of the psychology behind those ‘feelings’ they’re sharing. The only truly reliable, provable means of demonstrating motive or intent is observable behavior. It’s kind of a cliché in the community now, but bears repeating: never believe what a woman says, believe what she does. We use this meme more liberally with women because men make the mistake of wanting to believe that women are more rational agents than they are emotional agents, but this should really apply to men as well, and particularly when men are predisposed to women’s mental models.

From a behavioral standpoint, we’re going to see a lot of incongruent behaviors vs. the Beta Hamster’s rationalizations. To begin with, I’m not going to deny that there is some base element in men that desires a real emotional connection with a woman. However, sex is a man’s priority, it’s a biological imperative, and actively denying that it isn’t or creating mental schemas that attempt to sublimate this imperative are disingenuous at best, psychologically retarding at worst. Sex is the glue that keeps a relationship together, and it’s sexual arousal that prompts a relationship in the first place. Deemphasizing sex, actively desexualizing yourself in the hopes that it will make you more sexually arousing is an effort in self-defeat.

To paraphrase Joe Rogan, men will blow themselves up for the very unlikely possibility of sex in another dimension. That’s the degree to which men place a value on sex, any sex, meaningful, a fuck buddy, a hooker, any sex. Pornography isn’t a multi-billion dollar industry because guys are concerned with adding some nebulous ‘meaning’ to sex. Women are concerned with applying meaning to sex because it is integral to their long term mating strategy and locking down a commitment of male provisioning. The men who claim to share in this importance (at least initially) are listening to the Beta Hamster and repeating what it says to them back to the women they hope to fuck. Even anonymously on a Reddit thread, they can’t let the pretense drop for fear that they’d miss a potential opportunity to prove themselves as ‘deep’ meaning oriented guys.

I have to laugh when men make these self-effacing claims to be seeking more ‘meaning’ after they tire of their long string of ONSs or ‘cheap sex’. Statistically, most men never even approach a lay count that could validate such a claim. According to the most recent studies I’ve read, most men have an average of 7 sexual partners over the course of a lifetime. That may be changing, but even if it were an average of 10 or 12 it would still make the rationale for seeking ‘meaningful’ sex as a result ridiculous, as well as suspect of a feminine-identifying mating strategy. Add to this that 80% (a conservative estimate) of men are plugged-in betas, hopelessly lacking the social skills and motivation to rack up a lay count that would ever justify this reasoning. So what is it that compels them to concoct these self-convincing rationalizations? The Beta Hamster.

It’s a far healthier mentality for men to embrace their own sexuality. God forbid a woman actually might think you find her sexy and want to fuck her. Despite their protestations, women want guys to want to fuck them. Women often complain that the reason they don’t feel sexual is due to their not feeling sexy, and they wont feel sexy if you approach sex from an asexual starting point because you think it adds ‘meaning’. Of the 40+ women I’ve had sex with, not one do I regret banging. I most definitely regretted some of the ensuing drama as a result of a few of those relationships, but I thoroughly enjoyed the sex. Sex for the sake of sex is OK. Trust me, after the one thousandth time you’ve had sex with your wife or LTR, sex for the sake of sex is fantastic. Stop writing poetry about sex and get fucking.

The Honor System

“An unfamiliar feeling for one of you, but a horribly familiar feeling for the other.”

The concept of Honor that men began has been made to serve a feminine purpose. I have no doubt that the principle of honor dates back from as long ago as we can track human civilization, but like so many other social foundation Men have instituted, the feminine will covertly position them to their own purpose.

In the introduction to the Art of Seduction author Robert Greene explains why there was an original need for seduction to be developed into an art. For this we can look back to ancient civilizations where women were essentially a commodity. They had no OVERT external power to control their fates, but they excelled (and still do) at COVERT psychological internal power, and this of course finds a parallel in men and women’s preferred communication methods. The feminine’s primary agency has always been sexuality and manipulating influence by its means.

Much in the same way that each gender communicates, so too is their method of interacting within their own gender. As Men we’re respected when we keep our word, sacrifice ourselves for a worthy cause (even to the point of disposability), solve problems rationally, our word is our bond, and a whole host of other qualifiers that make us respectable and worthy of integrity. We must be OVERT and above board; and when we encounter a man who is COVERT in his dealings we call him ‘shifty’ and think him untrustworthy. Even for the most noble of purposes, practicing the art of misdirection is not something men are respected for – at least not publicly.

It’s just this overt masculine interactive nature that women are only too ready to exploit. In combination with their sexual agency and influence they use this overt male social interactive dynamic to position themselves in places where they can use indirect power. Cleopatra was an excellent example of this – sending armies to war by appealing to powerful men’s pride and honor, while reserving her sexuality as a reward. Virtually every Feminine Social Convention is rooted in appealing to, or attacking male social institutions – a dedication to an idealistic sense of honor being chief among them. The obvious example is of course “shaming” and the “do-the-right-thing” social contract.

In fact to be a “Man” has become synonymous with living up to a feminine imperative that’s cleverly disguised as masculine Honor. It’s not that women created Honor, but rather that they’ve recreated it to serve their purpose. In the Biblical Ten Commandments we’re told not to commit adultery – don’t sleep with another man’s wife – which probably wasn’t too hard to abide by when polygamy was the norm. In fact multiple wives was a sign of affluence, it used to be the conspicuous consumption of the epoch. Why then is polygamy a social perversion now? What changes occurred that made polygamy honorable (even enviable) into a very evil taboo?

Along with language and culture, social conditions evolve. What we think of as Honorable today are the result of centuries molding. It’s very easy to romanticize about times when Honor among Men reigned supreme, and then lament the sad state of society today in comparison, but doing so is a fools errand. Honor in and of itself is, and should be, a foundation for Men, but it’s only useful when we understand it in the perspective of how it can be used against us.

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

In contemporary society we have a very different understanding of what Honor was, or was intended to be initially. One of the psychological undercurrents I see in most AFCs is a strong, self-righteous dedication to a very distorted conviction of Honor. A main tenet being an unearned, default respect for women; essentially an unearned Honor placed on a woman for no other reason than she’s female. We learn this (usually) from the time we’re children, “never hit a girl”. Naturally, this has only been ferociously encouraged by the feminine since Victorian times because it served a latent purpose right up until on demand (feminine exclusive) birth control was offered, and then prompted the sexual revolution.

Today, we still have women using the anachronism that is male Honor in a manner that serves their interests, but it’s contrasted with a sexually emphasized opportunism. A Man’s responsibility should be “Honoring” her as ‘the fairer sex’ while recognizing her ‘independence’. The AFC gobbles this stuff up and in an effort to better identify himself with her ideals he begins to convince himself that he’s unique in that he better exemplifies this false-virtue, this feminine defined sense of Honor than “other guys”.

Dijo sin hablando

Dijo sin hablando – Told without speaking.

Communicate with your behavior. Never overtly tell a woman anything. Allow her to come to the conclusions you intend. Her imagination is the best tool in your Game toolbox. Learn how to use it.

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 or enduring commitment. 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 you blurt out your ‘feelings’ or overtly make known your optionless status, regardless of the context or the nobility of your intent, all you do is deny her this satisfaction. And like an easily distracted child she discards you for another, more entertaining, toy that holds some kind of mystery or puzzle for her figure out.

Always remember, women care less about the content of what’s being communicated and more about the context (the how) of what’s being communicated. Never buy the lie that good communication is the key to a good relationship with out considering how and what you communicate. Women are naturally solipsistic. Your ‘feelings’ aren’t important to her until you make them important to her.

Despite what any pop-psychologist has ingrained into you, communication is NOT the key to success in an LTR. It’s what and how it’s communicated that is. It seems counterintuitive to deliberately withhold information that you think would solve whatever problem you have. Every touchy-feely therapist will tell you to open up and express yourself, but all that leads to is the negotiation of desire and the disingenuous obligations based on those terms. You cannot ‘tell’ women anything, they must be led to your conclusion and be made to think that they are the ones coming to it with their own devices – preferably by way of her imagined feminine intuition. How you effect this is subject to your own situation with your LTR or your prospective woman, but understand that internalizing the idea that she can be made to understand your perspective indirectly is the first step in ‘real’ communication. Indirect communication is the foundation of effective Game.

Dijo sin hablando – Told without speaking.

Playing Friends

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

“Rollo, how do I get out of the Friend-Zone?” Never allow yourself to get into it.

Women have used the LJBF (“let just be friends”) rejection for a hundred years because it serves an ego preservation function for her. To a greater or lesser degree, women require attention and the more they have of it the more affirmation they experience, both personally and socially. The LJBF rejection is a Social Convention that has classically ensured a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the ‘offer of friendship’, he is then responsible for entertaining this ‘friendship’.

This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard AFC response will be to accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hope of ‘proving’ himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect ‘surrogate boyfriend’ – fulfilling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy. I should also point out that this situation is analogous to men using women as “fuck buddies” – fulfilling all his sexual availability needs with no expectations of reciprocating commitment. Needless to say this merely positions the new “friend” into being the ’emotionally supportive’ Beta counterpart to the indifferent Alpha she’ll consistently bang and then complain about – also popularly known as the Emotional Tampon.

The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of ‘friendship’ to him in her rejection she can also sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. After all, she offered to be friends, right? She is absolved of any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.

Men get a LJBF rejection because of a process. These are the “friends first” mindset guys; the guys who put far too much emphasis on a solitary woman and wait her out until the perfect moment to attempt to escalate to intimacy, at which point her most comfortable rejection (Buffer) is to LJBF. This is made all the more easy for her because of the process the guy used to get to that point.

Virtually all guys who get to the point of a LJBF rejection come to it because they fall in line with some variation of what I call a Sniper Mentality. They patiently wait for their one target, to the exception of all others, constantly attempting to prove their quality in doing so – meaning they emphasize a comfort level and try to be friends before lovers. In essence they believe that desexualizing themselves will make them more attractive (by virtue of not being like “other guys”) because they’ve bought into the idea that a woman must be comfortable with them first before they initiate intimacy. Once the AFC gets to a point where he’s mustered enough courage to initiate, and he feels she ‘should’ be comfortable enough to appreciate him as boyfriend material, the Sniper takes his shot.

The problem with this process is that it bypasses essential stages of attraction and the necessary discomfort and sexual tension necessary for intimacy and proceeds directly to a warm familiar, comfortable, (and ultimately anti-seductive) rapport, the exact opposite of arousal. If you think about this in terms of sex, this is the stage right after climax when she wants to cuddle, spoon and be wrapped up in her nice, secure oxytocin induced comfort. This is the opposite of the testosterone fueled, sweaty, anxious and uncomfortable stage of arousal and intercourse before that release. So in terms of “friendship” and the Sniper mentality, you’ve skipped arousal and gone straight to comfort. You’re perceived as a stuffed animal she can hug and then put back on the bed. Thus, when that previously platonic stuffed animal uncharacteristically gets a hard-on and says “I think we ought to be intimate” her reaction is to think that everything you’ve done for her up to that point has been a grand ruse. “My God, all you wanted was sex this whole time?”

Her most predictable response is then the LJBF rejection. The field has already been tilled by you, it’s only one, very easy step for her to stay in that suspended comfort – “can’t we just be friends?” And then the cycle repeats. The AFC believes the LJBF is a genuine offer (not a rejection) and then falls back into the Sniper mentality. He mustn’t have been convincing enough to prove his worth to her and therefore returns to further proving himself as the perfect boyfriend until he once again presses his intent of intimacy after another period. All this goes on apace until she becomes intimate with a ‘real’ boyfriend and/or he acquires a new target after realizing his efforts with the LJBF girl aren’t bearing fruit.

The problem with a lot of the ‘friend-zone’ advice women tend to offer is that they cast doubt on whether a LJBF rejection is in fact a rejection and not a genuine offer of friendship. To which I’ll say, the only reason the ‘friend-zone’ is such a common issue among men & women for so long is because it’s been repeated so regularly and the outcome so predictable as a rejection. A woman’s behavior is always the only gauge of her intent, and thus when a rejection like LJBF has been so consistently met with the same outcome and behavior (as evidenced by thousands of identical stories from men) it’s only prudent for a Man to behave in kind.

A man’s default response should always be to excuse him from the LJBF situation. The reason for this is because it serves his best interest whether she is testing him or is rejecting him. If he is confident enough in himself to walk away from the sexually tense environment, he proves himself as decisive enough to put himself above being ‘played’ like this. Ergo, he leaves her with the impression that he is the PRIZE, possibly has contacts with better prospective women and is confident enough to take away his attentions from her and thus passes any shit test she might have implied, while placing the responsibility of a re-connection on her (where it should be anyway). If she has in fact had a change of heart (her prerogative, remember?) and is using the LJBF as a means to reject him, he still benefits from all of the above and plants the ‘seed of doubt’ in her about her initial estimation of his acceptability for her intimacy. And even if she is truly not interested in the guy, he walks away on his feet and not his knees, by playing “friend” with her and wasting still more time that could be far better spent with more productive prospects.

It is really one of the few win-win Game situations for a guy to make a wholesale withdrawal of his attentions when he is confronted with an LJBF. Women know all too well how an LJBF places social pressure on a guy to accept what basically amounts to an ultimatum of negative social proof, and that’s a hell of a shit test no matter what her real intent is. If the guy turns down her offer of friendship, he’s the dickhead, not her. But the guy that can do what common sense and gut instinct points out to him will be the one to succeed, with her, other women and himself.

Human being’s natural inclination is to avoid confrontation. When a man makes an approach to intimacy with a woman this becomes confrontational. If she is unsure of a man’s sexual acceptability for her intimacy she must resort to psycho-social, learned behaviors to diffuse this confrontation. Preferably these techniques should be reinforced beforehand and proven to diffuse just such a confrontation, thus the LJBF response is acted out through generations of women across many different cultures – quite simply it works more often than not. You can also apply this to the Boyfriend Disclaimer; women who not-so-nonchalantly weave into their casual conversation that they have a boyfriend in a preemptive effort to diffuse a potential suitor’s interests. It’s basically a proactive LJBF rejection.

It’s the guy who is unwilling to accept these conventions that makes the most lasting impressions of confidence with women. It goes against what our common human heritage dictates for us – avoid conflict, don’t make waves, be her friend, etc. By not accepting a LJBF you emphatically make known that you are good at confrontation, you have an understanding of her motives and you’re confident enough in yourself to make it known. Not only does this impress her with potential for security provision it also implies future confidence. The problem for most guys is enacting this and making it a default behavior when our biology would have us move away from conflict rather than engage in an unacceptable social dynamic that is subtly damaging to his own interests.

“We’ll do it Live!”

Just letting everyone here know that (against my better judgement) I will be on SoSuave’s first ever live internet broadcast, Saturday, September 10th at 3pm EST.

We’ll be discussing the most popular topics from that forum as well as taking live video calls and text questions from whoever wants to join in. We want as much participation from you guys as possible so don’t be afraid to make your voices heard and hopefully bring the community a little closer.

Check out the link and don’t forget to click on the “RSVP” button at the bottom of the page because I think you have to be a registered user of VOLKE to join in the discussion. If you guys have any question you can ask me in the comments section of this thread or hit up Thundermaverick at SoSuave since he’s the show’s host.

PS: Questions about my relation to Brett Favre will be summarily dismissed.