Game

Girl’s Night Out

A Girl’s Night Out

I’ve been dating this girl for about 5 months now. She’s very attractive, I’d say an HB7 or 8. Her interest level is extremely high. I’d say in the high 90% bracket. She always calls or e-mails me when we’re not together telling me how much she misses me, etc, etc. And she expresses her feeling towards me in many ways when we are together. So my point here is that I know she’s really into me. And I play by the rule of keeping my interest level slightly below hers to keep things going. And it’s worked. Also, I apply all of the Game principals in our relationship. So I’m no chump with this girl and I feel that I have a good grip on the realtionship.

Her friend from New York is visiting her for four days. Her friend is single and young (25). Tonight they’re going out to a dance club with another girl whom they know who is also not dating anyone. This is all just fine. I understand that I shouldn’t discourage or show any type of insecurities regarding her going out with her friends. But I do feel that her two friends are going to be interested in the possibility of hooking up with some guys even though my girlfriend is not. It only makes sense since her one friend is from out of town, and they are single. This concerns me because I think it will put my GF in an awkward position.

I’m a bit confused on whether or not I should ask her anything about that evening in a playful manner when I talk to her next. In other words, what’s the best practice to do in this situation? Should I simply ask how her night went and if she had fun and just leave it at that? Or should I playfully poke at her about dudes hitting on her, and how girls can be naughty?

So the dillema is that on one hand, I don’t want to seem too passive about the whole thing. But on the other hand I don’t want to seem insecure. Part of me says that I should express some degree of protectiveness toward her in this situation. But I don’t want to send the wrong signal.

What are your thoughts

Let her go.

“You do know what happens when your girlfriend ‘gets drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..’?!!” Yes, I’ve been the guy who nailed your girlfriend.

“You do know that ‘taken’ girls just want to live vicariously through their single girlfriends?” I’ve written volumes about it.

This is a very common shit test. Don’t even pause to think about it and do NOT let her perceive for a second that you’re even contemplating it. Be matter-of-fact and tell her you’ll see her when she gets back. Don’t tell her to call you, and don’t you call her. If she calls be concise and ask her if she’s enjoying herself, nothing more – no details, nothing. Let her be as forthcoming as she wants and never for a minute give her the impression you’re suspicious or posessive. This is the surest way to pass this test.

When and if she asks about what you’ve been doing, tell her you’ve been busy with work/school, your family, etc., (i.e. something unavoidably responsible). Do NOT say you’re out with the boys in some lame effort to counter her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are doing anything as a reprisal to her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are pacing around the house waiting for her to call or sulking. In fact I’d advise letting your voicemail pick up the call and then call her back an hour later, if at all.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

The GNO Shit Test

The secret of the GNO (girls night out) shit test is, the truth of the matter is, that if a woman is determined to cheat on you, there’s really nothing you can do about it. You can protect your own genetic interests, but whether it’s on a GNO or with some guy from the office, if a woman wants to fuck, she’ll find a way to fuck and all the psychological, possessive arm twisting in the world wont change that desire. The covert message in this is what’s important.

Remember, a woman’s default is to communicate covertly. When you are indifferent to her proposition of a GNO it sends the message that you are confident enough in your own ability to replace her should she cross that line. Let her imagination work for you. Women love to convince themselves, “he trusts me implicitly” while they secretly sift through your text messages, but the covert message is really a veiled threat and exemplifies your self-confidence. Bear in mind it’s what she feels in this communication. If you leave her with the feeling that you’re clingy, possessive, sulky and worried, the impression she has is that you’re weak and are the kind of guy that women settle for, not compete for. Essentially you make her the PRIZE by voicing your insecurities. Alphas don’t worry about their plates on GNOs, in fact women enraptured by Alphas don’t see the appeal of GNOs.

A Prince isn’t worried about the behavior of one woman when he has several more on the royal speed-dial; one more testament to the power of abundance thinking and Plate Theory. This may or may not be the case, but the impression of it and the covert communication of it is vital. If, by your actions you can leave her with the feeling that you have a lot going for you, you’re in demand, that you are a commodity that other women will compete for, that you are the PRIZE; you plant the seed of doubt and she will voluntarily curb her desire to go on GNOs – and this is the outcome you’re striving for. You want your attention to be more rewarding than the attention she’ll receive on a GNO. You can’t force this into being so, but you can covertly manipulate her desire. You want her to talk herself out of going.

Learn this now, making a woman cognizant of higher sexual market value can only be demonstrated, never explicated.

Disclaimer: At this point I should also add that this in no way excuses the woman who CONSTANTLY goes on GNOs as some kind of ritual with her girlfriends. This is symptomatic of a larger problem and this, again, is based in desire. If you ever find yourself in this circumstance your best recourse is to NEXT and remove your attentions entirely. Women who have a regular GNO in LTRs are seeking something vicariously through their friends that they feel deprived of and need a fix for to feel completed. It’s only a matter of time until the right circumstances arise for her to consolidate on that deprivation. Better to cut your losses on a bad investment than play the cuckold for a woman who has no genuine desire for you and regularly demonstrates this in her behavior.

Possessiveness

I’ve known seasoned players who’d pee themselves over a girls night out proposition, but I always advise they adopt the attitude that she’s free to go do whatever she’d like. In fact I’d encourage it. That’s where confidence makes you a man, when you can say “go ahead, have a good time.” It’s what’s implied in the action that counts. If a woman (or man) wants to cheat, they’ll find a way to do it, with or without your knowledge. The only person who’s actions you can control are your own. Now, would it suck to break up a marriage over that? Yes, but I’d rather it be dissolved than to live disingenuously one minute longer than necessary.

If I locked my wife/GF up in a closet that only gives credence to my insecurity about my relationship and changes the nature of my LTR. In fact, in doing so the frame automatically transfers to a woman the moment you become possessive, because you confirm for her that you lack the confidence to generate new options (i.e stimulate competition anxiety) – to be a man that other women would desperately want should she decide to cheat. You must be a Man that your GF/Wife doesn’t want to cheat on. Sometimes a woman can’t appreciate this because she’s too immature to get it, but you have to be the Man confident enough to say “do what you want” while communicating higher value. As I’ve stated before, when your silence inspires more dread than your words, you’re probably an Alpha.

A lot of guys have a real tough time with possessiveness. What they tend to overlook is the element of desire. If you’ve got a girl who want’s to go off with the girls to Vegas for a weekend the operative in the whole situation is that she WANTS to go. While I do understand the necessity of ‘mate protection’ this desire is already established BEFORE you issue any ultimatum (which is a declaration of powerlessness). If she had a fear of loss to begin with she would’ve passed on the trip because she had a genuine desire to do so. In fact considering it wouldn’t even be an afterthought.

This is the Desire Dynamic – you can never force a genuine desire by means of coercion or negotiation. You can pay a woman to fuck you, it doesn’t mean she wants to fuck you of her own volition. The girl still wants to go to Vegas even if her man were to give her an ultimatum, and in addition he comes off as an optionless, possessive chump. I realize the idea is that if he’s uncompromising and she magically respects him she’ll develop a real interest level in him because he put his foot down as a “real man”, but the damage is still done. Her desire isn’t for him, it’s for Vegas, even if she says “OK honey, you win”. It’s not genuine.

Just Get It

I don’t usually cite Athol Kay on Rational Male, but I have to give him props for his recent How Walkaway Wives Run a Dirty MAP. There’s a lot going on in this post, and as per usual Athol approaches all of his observations from a married perspective constrained by a limited single-life experience, but a few fundamental points of Game really shine here. To be sure, relationship Game (or married Game) varies widely in application compared to the Game used in single-man-sex-life, but the foundational principles are essentially the same – as are the pitfalls – only the risks are higher and the rewards negligible by comparison.

I’ve stated this before, but, having experienced the ups and downs of single-man-sex-life as well as married-man-sex-life, I can honestly say that I’ve never found Game more necessary than when it’s within the context of marriage. I’ve also written volumes about the all-risk proposition of marriage for men, and women’s utter inability to appreciate the all-risk sacrifices men assume in committing to marriage. So it should be obvious that under such conditions if a man chooses to entertain a lifestyle of marriage the only acceptable condition is that it be within his frame and his terms. And this, gentlemen, requires not only a commitment to Game itself, but an understanding of, and an internalization of a much tighter Game than would be necessary in single-man-sex-life.

Higher risks mean less margin for error

In your single-man-sex-life Game, you have the leisure to Spin Plates, drop the ones which don’t produce dividends, and non-exclusively enjoy the ones who do. Though it may pain you to lose a particular girl as the result of fumbled Game, or to miss the opportunity of experiencing a woman due to a failed approach or consolidation, it pales in comparison to the risks inherent in lacking the long-term Game necessary to contend with women’s hypergamy in the context of marriage. Dumping a girl (or getting dumped) when single may be an emotional ordeal for some guys, but the decay of a marriage and the financial, familial and emotional consequences for lacking Game in marriage is a punishment that will make a single man’s break up tears seem like a blessing. Tight relationship Game means much more than just getting your wife to fuck you more regularly after the honeymoon.

A lot of men will respond that marriage is just not worth all that contextualization of Game, and they’d be right. It’s all risk with negligible reward / appreciation and the liabilities are too steep. Furthermore, there’s a contingent of men who’ll say that it’s impossible to perpetuate the solid Game necessary to assuage female hypergamy indefinitely, and they’d be right too, if Game was a constant act for them that they felt they had to keep up forever. Some guys get mad at just the suggestion that they’d need to Game their potential wives. “She should just love me for who I am!” They expect to be able to drop the Game, relax and be who they are, only to have their wives progressively convert them into an imagined ideal which really isn’t the guy who tingles their vaginas. Then they find out that their wives loved them for who they were.

Crossover

One of the points that jumped out at me from Athol’s post:

When the lines of communication are broken between you and your wife, you aren’t going to get a message that the lines of communication are broken. That’s what the lines of communication being broken means. When she checks out of the marriage, she doesn’t tell you because she checked out of the marriage. That’s what being checked out of the marriage means.

I usually have to control my laughter whenever I overhear an AFC in the crab barrel parrot back the Matrix-speak about how “good relationships are all about communication with your GF/wife.” When this is coming from a single guy I can at least partially excuse him for lack of any practicable experience, but when it comes from a married Plug-In it’s just evidence of the totality of his conditioning. Most guys who tell you this are repeating what their girl-friends always told them was the most important key to a good relationship, but as with everything femme there’s always a latent purpose underneath the veneer of aphoristic truth they sell themselves.

A few months back I was at a liquor event with my usual ‘pour girls’ and during our conversations one tells me about her ‘guy problems’ with a “clingy boyfriend” obviously on the down end of an SMV imbalance.

“It’s so frustrating Rollo, why can’t guy’s just get it?”

With a practiced, but cute, little wrinkle of her nose, and the huff of her $5K tits, my girl had just indirectly revealed one of the most vexing complexities of intergender communication – women want men to “just get it.”

Just Get It

From Female Dating Advice:

The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

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

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

In my Pour Girl’s example we see this ‘get it’ paradox from the single-man-sex-life perspective, and in Athol’s scenario we see it from the married-man (or LTR) -sex-life perspective. Many men will complain that they hate the presumption that they need to be a mind reader and ideally women ought to just communicate overtly and directly – just as a reason-based man would communicate. The problem is that in doing so it changes the dynamic for hypergamy. As I’ve stated so often, women say they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Hypergamy will not be pandered to, and will not be negotiated with.

This is why the “communication is everything” meme has been responsible for the demise of more relationships than anyone will ever admit. It’s not that you communicate, it’s what you’re communicating and how you communicate it. I’ve counseled more men than I care to recount who’ve sobbed from the depths of their souls, “IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that and a belief in open, rational communication is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him.

As I’ve written a thousand times, a cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated. The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation. What she wants, what her hypergamy wants confirmation of, can never be explicated, it can only be demonstrated. If her desire is for you to be more dominant, her telling you to be so negates the genuineness and the validity of your becoming so. Again, observing a process will change it – on a limbic level of consciousness her innate hypergamy is aware of that truth.

She wants a man who knows he needs to be dominant with her, that is the confirmation of hypergamy.

Blueprint for an Alpha Widow

Hithard’s recent flushing of his nest drew the unsurprising female indignation response from Rational Reader ‘S’. Hers is the predictable reflex with which women feel the need to associate with themselves when confronted with (even hypothetically) another woman’s behaviors reflecting badly upon the feminine as a whole. In Indignation I touched upon the need for women to create the rise that comes from indignation for themselves, or live it vicariously through the proxies of their friends or media that caters to this need.

However there is still a need for a disconnect from that indignation impulse in order to preserve the feminine ego. It may be satisfying to experience drama via a third party, but not many women can afford to be called out for it.

So when a woman inserts herself into the psychological proxy role of another woman experiencing that indignation first person, the immediate response is one of ego preservation. My drawing attention to this isn’t to burn down S’s feelings about casting herelf into another woman’s role, but rather to observe the more rational process women will use when they’ve got a disconnected God’s-eye view of all the aspects of a relationship between the two parties causing that indignation.

“I would never stick around / go back to a man who dumped me! Here’s what she should do,…”

For all of what makes women primarily emotional creatures, it’s interesting to see how rational a response they can muster to a vicarious source of indignation. And in predictable feminine fashion S makes that third party indignation about herself (here’s what she / I would do). From Point, Counterpoint:

Women on the other hand almost exclusively rely upon personal experience and anecdotal evidence to form a premise; only using extrinsic information to support their personal interpretations when the source agrees with that premise. The innate solipsism of women promotes a self-centric primary position as the beginning of forming a premise and then progresses to extrinsic sources for ancillary support.

What S fails to account for, and what Hithard elaborates on in his final comment is that, with the first person emotional investment, women will routinely return to a former lover if his Alpha impact was sufficient enough. Even when a woman cannot physically return to that Alpha defined relationship, she will return emotionally.

What Hit hard describes is the blueprint for creating an Alpha Widow:

@ S
“Well that’s good for those women but I’m serious. Why would anyone want to hang around someone who does not want them?”

That’s a valid enough question for me to give an answer on before I go. I do feel it is a topic that can benefit us all.

For women it all depends on how strong the emotional connection is to a man and if you are filling her needs.
Let’s focus on the emotional connection though as it has the strongest pull factor, and hopefully I can give you some form of idea through a post. Which is difficult when challenging a held belief

Now for arguments sake let’s say you and I (hey try to visualize I am your perfect match) S go through the usual process and begin a relationship.

Things start off strongly. There is both a physical and emotional attraction, but more than that… When we are together there is an element of excitement that sets your heart fluttering. The feeling that I overwhelm your senses, where you feel safe to begin investing in me, both emotionally and physically. With each passing day you feel a stronger and stronger connection that warms your core. Where mind body and soul feel as though they are full of the pure essence of being. You are happy to be led in this passionate embrace. Your needs are satisfied, your spirit fulfilled. YOU ARE HAPPY!!

“Wait, what you’re breaking up with me?”

“What do you mean you want to break it off, no I don’t understand?”

“How is this for the better?”

And this is where the residual emotional attachment comes into play.
Developing an emotional attachment with a woman is a bit like hooking someone on drugs when it’s done right. It is very hard to maintain past a certain timeframe though in a relationship. And there can be numerous other mishaps, with this post only touching the surface.

Now first thought is usually ‘a$$hole’ and anger.
But that passes as the innate need for contact develops. The feeling of just being close to that person even if only briefly, gives them that fix that they crave.

Now I can drip feed your emotional needs to position you to where I want you to be. If I have anchored the emotions right, then you will feel as if no one can love you like I do. Or no one touches you or makes love to you with the passion that I do. Each stage through the escalation I have to ensure I am leading, directing and in touch with where I want to be. The end result I am looking for is your emotions screaming out to be fed in my absence. The reason you run back and fuck me is because it feels as if my intimacy is feeding your soul. The reason you try to please me is to grasp at the high I can deliver

You’re probably thinking:

“I’m not that stupid”

But most people can think back to moments in their life where the heart ruled the head. Hypotheticals are always a mother foucker. The most I can say is this is a high percentage occurrence.
Guys do this as well and God knows there are forum boards full of guys wanting to run back and get stomped on again. Guys tend to get hooked from their feelings being taken high, low, high, low etc over time. Women more from an intense high to a low over a shorter time frame.

Just reading something about a situation can be very hard to identify with because it reads like a no brainer. But if a lot of people wrote down the dumb things they do in love they would simply cringe and think;

‘Was I really that stupid?’

So bear that in mind when challenged with what may feel is an inconceivable notion. Emotions can blind you.

And you are right – why would a sensible person stay. The saving grace for a fool in love is time. Time to wake from his/her stupor.And generally people eventually wake up

I suppose I treat relationships a bit like bubble gum from time to time. I mean it’s great when it has flavour but over time it gets bland and tasteless and I have enough of it and throw it away. The last thing I want to do is go find it and pop it back in my mouth again for another go.

The above was just an over the top example to try and answer the question. Not something you should try and do, some kind of relationship advice, or something I go out of my way to do. Generally you only need a bare minimum of emotional attachment and play it from there. Each step can be expanded on massively and you will have to forgive my syntax, rambling and bad grammar.

Big thankyou to Rollo who has been a great mentor over the years. Someone who has my greatest respect.

Just learnt of the passing of Jophil, a great loss to the community and one that has saved many a broken man. I regret not letting him know the positive influence he had on my life.

Later all and best wishes

I’ll come to you like an affliction, but I’ll leave you like an addiction, you’ll never forget me, you wanna know why?,…

Flushing the Nest

Esteemed SoSuave member HITHARD relates a recent flushing of a nest:

It must be an attitude shift or something. But every time I come back to the SS forums my relationships blow up. I don’t notice myself doing anything different but if I’m with a girlfriend they must notice a change and purposely start pissing me off. Perhaps it’s a good thing, a wake up call that I’m not with the right girl and I should go back to FB for a while. My now ex started getting bitchy last week and it just escalated from there. I’m pretty laid back – but arc up if someone tries to stand over me or dictate terms. Her jaw dropped when I told her to pack her things and leave. She hasn’t been living here on a permanent basis but had managed to horde a bit of her stuff over here in the past three months. She was a really nice girl, very pretty good with money. But she started to not so much nag, but nitpick at me and I’m over that at this stage of my life. It’s either something she has managed to hide for all these months or I bring it out in her. Either way it’s a no go from here. Am I being selfish over this?

So perhaps SS is bad for me short term but a deal saver long term. Or it’s a subconscious thing of ‘relationship is already over time to go on SS’
After all the FB, plates and relationships, I do look around and am just not impressed with the quality of the women out there.
I do worry I’m starting to form a trend of breaking it off with women when I get bored or irritated though. My longest LTR was with what I think was a BPD chick long before what I knew what BPD or the SS forum was. I sometimes worry if that has left a lasting effect.

There’s always going to be a contingent of guys – mostly White Knights, but some well meaning red-pill men too – who’ll presume you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when ever they read a situation like this. A Scarcity Mentality is one of the hardest mental schemas Men deal with in transitioning over to becoming Game-aware. For most, the better part of half their lifetime has been spent in a psycho-social condition that’s taught them women are to be prized, and her intimacy is a rare and precious gift, rewarded to only the man who can prove himself worthy of it.

It’s a hard schema to unlearn, and even the most unapologetic of PUA still feels that twang of doubt about a decision to NEXT a girl he thought might be of LTR potential. So it’s no shock that to NEXT a woman for what appears to be some minor infraction of nitpicking seems like a wanton overreaction – like stomping on a flower before it has a chance to blossom. Necessitous men, and men recovering from being so, will often adopt the same mentality women will when they hear about situations like this, and call it callous, or selfish, maybe even vindictive of past hurtful experiences. The reason for this is because these men, and women by default, still view monogamy from the perspective of the feminine imperative. Monogamy is meant to serve the feminine, so any action that controverts that, no matter how justified, is by definition selfish.

In the time I’ve been writing in the manosphere I’ve read more stories about how Game saved an LTR more so that the reverse, but that isn’t to say there aren’t breakups that result from a new Game-awareness. Hithard’s self-evaluation about his NEXTing isn’t unexpected. His story isn’t the first I’ve encountered about “Game destroyed my LTR” – that Scarcity Mentality self-doubt needs a scapegoat and Game is an easy foil for this, especially for guys who’ve just unplugged, pushed the envelope back against the shit they were accepting up to that point and the LTR imploded. In virtually everyone of these instances where a man reclaims his balls and the result is a breakup, inevitably the guy realizes what a tough, but ultimately good decision it was to rid himself of a toxic woman, or a woman too insecure in herself to want to relinquish frame after having been in control for so long.

Often enough, a breakup is the red-pill solution.

Flushing the Nest

However, I know Hithard (virtually) well enough to know this isn’t his case. He’s been unplugged for a while now, so my guess is twofold:

First I think there’s more to the ‘nitpicking’ and the nesting that this girl was initiating than he’s going into detail about. I think he’s trying to be more judicious about this because he’s seen (or is subliminally aware of) behavioral cues and attitude cues that are familiar to him from his prior (BPD) LTR, and wants to give her the benefit of that doubt.

He’d hit the 3 month point, and this is usually the time when a woman starts to get comfortable enough with a guy to attempt a frame grab. The obvious tell was how she was semi-permanently establishing a nest at his place. Never a good idea, but entirely expected of a woman who feels the urgency of sex decline with her competition anxiety. I don’t know for certain that this is Hithard’s experience, but it follows a very consistent pattern. At the very least she’s reached a stage at which she feels comfortable enough to make demands of behavioral change (nit picking, nagging, complaining).

On a basic, relational level these are shit tests, but these are now the variety of shit test that qualifies for LTR frame control, as opposed to the types of shit test a man receives whilst dating when the urgency of competition anxiety mediates a woman’s delivery. For example, while single, only the most vapid, self-absorbed women will feel comfortable in making the demands most other women will commonly expect of their LTR man. When single, the art of the shit test is in its nuance and subtlety, when monogamous the shit test is overt and unmistakably direct.

Secondly, after a certain age (SMV), and after some degree of prior relationship chaos there’s a want for some sense of stable normalcy. Most guys are all too willing to compromise what seem, at the time, like small concessions to their women’s demands in exchange for keeping the peace and the legs open. The problem is that this progressively becomes a situation of death by a thousand paper cuts, or frame control by a thousand conceded nitpickings. For beta men, frame control is ceded as part of their wedding vows, but of the Alphas I know who were “fixed” by their women, their backsliding into beta-dom was the result of an incessant etching away of that Alpha dominance by a steady stream of small shit tests and concession of frame by little compromises.

Dumping a woman is DHV (demonstrating higher value) of the highest order. True or not, It implies you had other, better options than her. Dumping a woman is the antithesis of the Scarcity Mentality and it broadcasts this not only to her, but her girlfriends as well as any other girls in her (your) social periphery. Dumping her implies you’ve just gone from a comfortable, familiar beta to the indifferent Alpha that she never realized you had a capacity for. My guess is Hithard will hear from her again. At first it will be desperate and crying, later it will be casual with feigned nonchalance – don’t take the bait.

Whether or not Hithard takes her back or bumps her down to fuck-buddy status, the message is now clear for her – he will control the frame. She will enter his reality or not at all. Most freshly unplugged guys have a very tough time owning this, because for most of their lives it’s been endlessly bashed into their heads that they don’t deserve it. This is the conflict Hithard must resolve.

Reality vs. The Internet

As much as I’d love to read more Field Reports and follow ups (which I do agree are important) the simple fact of the matter is that you’re relying on whatever it is any one blogger or forum poster is telling you. I speak ‘manosphere’ very fluently. I could very easily go on the RSD boards, create a new identity, and fabricate a very believable story about how I managed a 4-Way with three HB 9 swimsuit models using using a direct approach or any number of PUA techniques. Once I posted, there’d be guys who’d virtually pat me on the back and ask how they could repeat it themselves because they want to believe it.

Then there’d also be another set who’d believe it, but take the faux-pity position and say I was wasting my life away in meaningless orgies with the ‘low quality’ centerfolds they wish their LTR girlfriends looked like.

And finally, there’d be the nonbelievers who’d accuse me of making it all up. Not because it was too fanciful a story, but rather they’d think all women are just smarter than to be suckered into an instant porn movie with a random guy – only to lose all faith in women in general after watching another home-made amateur porn video.

Legitimacy of experience vs. Online personae.

Even when PUA gurus go to the trouble of making as anonymous, and as inconspicuous as possible, videos of themselves showing their approach techniques, the first thing anyone says is it was staged. And unless he could someway get a camera secretly into his bedroom after the successful pull, there will still be an element that will think it was arranged, or there’ll be another element that say the girl is just a common slut so of course it worked.

Now as bad as all that sounds, I think Field Reports definitely have their place as field testing experiments, doubters or not. Just bear in mind, you will never filter out that situational bias. Observing a process will change that process.

What’s interesting is this constant, perceived conflict between “theorists” and “practitioners”. Honestly, I don’t believe you can separate them. All the tools a guy will have at his disposal to practice don’t amount to much if he doesn’t understand why those tool work in the first place. Similarly all the theory in the world is useless until you develop an application of it by trial and error. Now, add to all that the situational bias I just described – what do you tell an AFC who’s stuck on Matrix conditioning “try using negs” or “here’s why Negs work”? I’d say both of course, but which do you start with?

Wax On, Wax Off

If you’ve seen the original Karate Kid, where Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel-San karate by having him wax his car you kind of see the disconnect here. Wax on, wax off; silly in premise, but useful in teaching. Here you have Daniel wanting to be able to fight, but for the moment his teacher seems like an exploitative fool, and he wonders if he’s been duped by an old man who doesn’t know shit about karate. That is until he puts it into practice.

Mr. Miyagi knows his shit, but Daniel has to take all that on faith; faith that Mr. Miyagi is who he claims to be, and possesses the experience he claims to have.

I am not a Guru, nor am I a Master Pick Up Artist, nor am I some motivational speaker, pastor or self-help psychologist. I’m a man with experience. What I write here is in the hopes that others can benefit from that experience and the insight that comes from sorting it out. When I can devise practices from those insights I’ll offer them, but understand that the validity of what anyone you have respect for professes or suggests you do, it’s still up to you to decide what works best for yourself and critically determine its veracity.

I can tell you, you can trust that I am who I say I am, but my experiences and how I relate them is how you can verify my own or anyone else’s perspectives. It’s exactly for this reason I take a hands-off approach to moderating my comments on this blog. I may sharply disagree with certain perspectives, but it’s more important to read them to know just what that commenter’s experience and/or legitimacy is.

Dry Spell

From Sosuave member Flatnose:

Has the PUA community sent me delusional?
Ok I’m 47, well toned still have a 6 pack. 5’11. Ok looks. Well dressed, Good conversationalist Good job, full head of hair, hobbies are climbing potholing[?], playing guitar weight training etc. I’ve worked hard on body language, can approach ok. Often get glances and flirted heavily with.

Not getting laid though!

In a real dry spell at the moment guys, I am beginning to think that banging anyone under 30 who turns me on is just an impossible dream and that I am deluded to believe it.

I guess I am seeking some objectivity about this, are my expectations unrealistic?

Are you fishing where the fish are?

When I read some guy use the term ‘dry spell’ it’s usually due to one of two things: He’s either an AFC or a recovering AFC with only a tentative grasp of Game and is in the learning stages of applied Game, OR, he’s got Game, has a workable estimation of his SMV and knows how to demonstrate it (DHV), but due to logistics and/or his environment lacks the opportunities to effectively hook up as he’d like to.

From your description here I’m inclined to believe the latter. Even with marginal Game application a guy such as yourself could be expected to be reasonably attractive enough to generate interest in the right arena. Maybe you need to change up your environment? Find a new venue to meet women?

It’s been my experience from counseling that when men complain of being in a proverbial “dry spell” it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy for them. In psychological terms this is known as a negative feedback loop. When you’re in a condition of deprivation you’ll manifest behaviors that cue others about that deprivation. Even declaring that you’re in a dry spell (really an appeal to pity) is evidence enough of your deprivation. The frustrating thing for men is that these deprivation behaviors become a subconscious default action – usually in the hope that some girl will take pity and end his period of desperation.

The Loop

“No mortal man can keep a secret. If the lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” – Sigmund Freud

The trouble with a self-acknowledged dry spell is that most guys are unaware of the subtle deprivation cues they telegraph to the very women who’d break them of the deprivation that causes it. When a beta chump is resistant to the truths of Game this feedback loop is simply a frustrating aspect of his self-denial, but don’t think that dominant, Game-aware Alphas aren imune to the dry spell loop. The inherent danger is to start believing that the dry spell is the result of bad posturing, or caused by a false impression of women’s response to Game, or worse still, due to fate or karma (“it’s just beyond my control, the gods want me celibate”). These are all rationalizations for not recognizing and making a conscious effort at controlling the cues that women read as sexual deprivation.

While it is important to be self-aware of your dry spell feedback loop, the worst thing you can do is admit to the dry spell with a prospective woman. As I wrote in Sorry,..

Iron Rule of Tomassi #9 Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance.

Apologizing for a lack of Game isn’t Game. Women want a man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck, and that guy, by definition, is already getting laid when a woman first meets him. Being necessitous isn’t an aphrodisiac, it’s a turn off in subtle ways that men don’t realize, but women register even when they’re not trying to. This is the first mistake the dry spell man makes – he attempts to leverage his dry spell into a form of Beta Game, thinking that a pity-fuck will lead to something more substantial.

While ‘slump busting’, or paying for sex, or falling back on a lesser plate may aid in regaining some confidence to break out of those dry spell behavioral tells, leveraging that dry spell for a pity-fuck is not only bad sex, but the girl who would bang you for pity’s sake will only resent herself and you more in the long term.

Breaking the dry spell loop relies upon recognizing it and changing the variables that are perpetuating it. As I advised Flatnose, a change in venue goes a long way, especially if you’re dependent upon some kind of social circle Game. Move to a new environment, meet new prospects. Most guys wont entertain this because it forces them from a comfort zone; a comfort zone which has ‘dried up’.

Changing variables is usually the key. Change in dress, attitude, doing something out of your preconceived Game routine, that may have produced fruit before, is essential. In body building there is a principle known as muscle confusion. When you do the same workout routine for months, muscle memory will find its level and plateau your gains. However, by varying your work outs, by doing new exercises and consistently forcing your muscles to adapt to unexpected condition you break through that plateau for new gains. Breaking a dry spell requires that same principle – variation, adaptation, improvisation.

Hypocrites & Little Emperors

Over the weekend I read an interesting post from Vox regarding hypocrisy (great song BTW) and the impressions we as Game-aware men sometimes indelibly leave on guys who actually make the transition from from the Matrix to being Game-aware:

It is true that adulthood and maturity are drenched with hypocrisy, because we are all largely incapable of living up to our ideals, morals, and standards. But that doesn’t mean that wallowing forever in that point between childhood and adult is desirable, or even possible. With regards to Game, it is perfectly understandable that gammas and deltas might look at the decadent world of the alpha and think it looks like paradise, complete with 72 cheerfully compliant non-virgins, but that is as much of an illusion as the world of the blue pill.

For obvious reasons, nothing motivates a man’s imagination better than the potential for sex. On the most rudimentary level, the male ideal – the counter to feminine hypergamy – is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. The most extreme idealization of this (72 virgins in heaven) is too far fetched for all but the most mentally imbalanced and religiously fanatical. However, men’s rational predispositions want to temper the unbelievable with the concept of the fantastically attainable. Think of it in terms of porn; most men tend to click past the videos of “porn stars” – huge breasted, HB10’s®, overly made up, in lingerie and high heels, all eager and willing to perform any feat of sexual acrobatic – they’re too improbable, too unbelievable. But give a guy a tempered, believable, sexual vignette, one into which he can relatively assume the POV perspective of the male, and now you’ve got participant. You’ve got a believer.

To varying, subjective, degrees of fantasized believability, a lot of newly unplugged red-pill men can visualize themselves in some, albeit limited, capacity to experience the Alpha’s porn. However, I don’t think Vox goes far enough in fleshing out the Alpha fantasy though. A majority of men (i.e. betas) wouldn’t entertain the notion that they could experience the, now stereotyped, hedonism of the rock-star bad boy PUA Alpha for the same reason overdone ‘porn stars’ don’t appeal to them – it’s too slickly unbelievable. What they will believe, and probably to their detriment, is that they can enjoy the Game well enough to fit their personal capacity to get with their ‘believable’ ONEitis girl who they just know is their perfect soul-mate. They’ll play the Game realistically and long enough insofar as it grants them access to the ‘type of girls who’d always rebuffed them.’

Rubrosa from the Sosuave forum picks up the continuation of this fantasy:

Every religious nut I’ve ever encountered who has passed judgement on me and my “sinning ways” has had a past which was heavy on the sex and drugs. In other words, they pissed all the “fun” living out of their system before they became “Born Again”. Now they preach “The Way.”

There seems to be a theme in certain parts of the manosphere (which I agree with) which states more or less the following:
It’s not about the chicks…it’s about you improving yourself….which gets the chicks.

I have a friend who’s a very successful Businessman/Playboy. We both have similar experience in terms of our journeys in dealing with the opposite sex. We were laughing at his story about how he didn’t feel like screwing this one girl only because he didn’t feel like driving that evening. I joked that if he was 20 years old, he would have made the drive. He laughed “Are you kidding? Back then I would drive 3 hours to get laid!”

I think that maybe I’m like those wackjobs who preach only after they’ve sinned. Does all my advice fall on deaf ears because no matter how much advice one hears, experience is the only true teacher? I have enough experience and Game savvy to where I can bang a different chick every night of the week with some reliability…so it’s somewhat EASY for me to say “It’s about you, not the chicks !” Kind of like a rich John Lennon singing “All you need is Love ”
I feel guilty in some weird way because I’m saying that chicks aren’t a priority maybe because I have a large supply.

Rollo ? Your take ?

I don’t read Rubrosa as making a religious statement here so much as he’s drawing comparisons in hypocrisy. ‘Do as I say, not as I’ve done’ is what he’s concerned with. The religious are easy targets in this regard, but really, everyone’s a hypocrite to varying degrees.

When I was a young AFC in my late teens I would’ve honestly been appalled by what I advocate on this forum today. My outlook at that time was incorrect and influenced by persons, conditions and social conventions of which I was totally unaware. The 19 year old Rollo Tomassi would’ve advocated the exact opposite of the 44 y.o. Tomassi would now. Does that make me a hypocrite today? Or, what if my outlook was correct and through the course of life and events I changed my way of thinking and lifestyle for a period of time, only to later go back to what had originally been truth to me later?

Life is learning. A hypocrite is someone who’s words and actions are incongruent, certainly in the present, but maybe not so much the past. I give advice here based on what I got so horribly wrong in the past, not because I did everything perfect from the get go. This is why it’s a dangerous business to build your reputation on moralism or absolutism. What your life experiences teach you will eventually come into conflict with convictions in spite of how rock solid you believe they are. And it’s then that people will call you to the carpet for being something you say you are or you aren’t.

Hail to the Emperors

Now, more to the point, yes, it is all about getting laid, AND it’s also about improving oneself too. Pussy has inspired more men to become great than any other factor in human history. I think what’s missing here is that the drive to succeed and the drive to get laid are mutually beneficial, and often symbiotic. The problems arise when you attempt to separate these two influences and turn them into absolute binaries.

Pussy = Bad.  Being a Little Emperor = Good

Pussy = Good.  Being a Little Emperor = waste of time, or just a means to pussy.

It doesn’t work this way.

When people say “If all you’re living for is fucking and women, then I pity you for not living right.” what they’re doing is making a binary judgement call while using themselves as a referendum. When one guy feels he’s living ‘by the rules’ then everyone else has to play by them too in order for him to validate his existence.

When another guy wins by not playing by the first guy’s rules he then needs to invalidate that win. Take a guy who did everything by the book, got married to the first girl he’d ever banged, went to college, has a decent job, has 2 kids, and sit him next to the high school drop out, who’s still unmarried, enjoys many women, stumbled into a well paying job and has few responsibilities. Who has the greater life experiences? Who’s “doing it right? Which one of these guys is more likely to try to invalidate the lifestyle of the other? Who envies who, and who is ‘happier’?

The Meaning of Sacrifice

Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride.  In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:

Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.

But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.

I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.

Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.

As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.

At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.

BRIFFAULT’S LAW

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.

If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.

I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.

This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:

“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.

Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.

Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.

Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.

Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.

The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.

To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.