Strippers

In my 20s I dated (see :”banged regularly”) 4 strippers. It came with the territory in the late 80s / early 90s Hollywood music scene I found myself a part of at the time. After dating and knowing the stripper friends of strippers I can tell you that, as surprising as it may sound, strippers are rarely whores in the traditional sense. In fact I’d go so far as to say that, among ‘professionally beautiful’ women, with the exception of porn actresses, strippers are probably THE most difficult women to Game. Not because of the implied perception that they are out of the ‘league’ of most guys, but rather because there’s a difficulty for men in reading what is genuine and what is ‘acting’ in her responses. The reason I say this is because the profession of “exotic dance” puts a woman into the position of making her living from generating male attention. These women literally make a living from being praised and affirmed with male attention every night they work.

Good strippers have a unique set of social skills and (usually) a body to make them work. From a behavioral standpoint, they can turn their sexuality on and off at will, so it becomes a challenge for any man spending more time than it takes for a $20 lap dance to really understand what is in fact genuine and what is “just working” for them. These women do this for a living, they see how their behavior affects men on a nightly basis and their self-affirmation, in fact their financial livelihood, depends on their ability to manipulate the attention men will pay for the privilege to give to them. And every night they work it’s another study in male behaviorism.

The important thing to remember is that these women are paid to have attention given to them, so, assuming you really want to hit it with a stripper, you have to make your attention more sought after and more valuable a commodity than that of the constant flow of men in the place where she works. Your Negs must be flawless, and your timing and your freeze-out techniques have to be perfected to key on areas where you detect insecurities. Needless to say you’ll need to be somewhat good looking and be uncompromising in your determination. Strippers wont tolerate an AFC, in fact AFCs are their bread & butter in a club so there’s little margin for error.

NEVER try to sarge a stripper in the club she works at. All the perfect ‘reads’ you could do to gauge her interest will always be offset by the fact that she’s “working” so nothing is certain. There will always be some chode at the end of the bar with $100 who’ll get more attention than you. Isolation is a necessity, and that’s simply not possible when she’s working. Always arrange to meet up alone at a lounge later and never on the same night you run Game on her. The best way to bag a strippers is to find a way into her social circle. Most strippers hang out with other strippers on their off nights. Find out who her friends are. Do your reconnaissance work before hand and it’ll go much easier for you to accidentally “bump” into her in her non-stripper persona. Three of the four strippers I got with were the result of doing just a cursory background check to see where they worked out or what social gathering they’d be at. Call that stalking if you want, but strippers tend not to have too many hobbies, so meeting them at Barnes and Noble is pretty much out. Once you do approach, play a sucker to catch a sucker; don’t for an instant let on that you knew she was a dancer. If you do, you’ll be psychologically relegated to being one of her clientele.

Once you do establish some connection, from the outset, never give a stripper even the impression that her stripping in any way bothers you. That’s just a cold hard reality of being with a stripper. Many a man before you has attempted to “reform” a stripper. The guy who ever does most certainly wont be you – know this now, strippers only “reform” once they are forced to acknowledge (subconsciously or not) the Wall. There’s too much money, too much attention, too much ego gratification for most men to ever offer more than what she gets nightly. Remember this, the only reformed strippers existing in the world are the ones who are too old or got too fat to keep it up. If you even hint that you might be possessive enough ask them to quit in the future, you’re done.

As is the stereotype, most strippers have ‘daddy issues’; even the strong independent ones who’d have you believe they’re only dancing to put themselves through college. You can however use this to your advantage. The longer a girl strips the more she looks for stability. Young strippers probably wont respond to this, but if a girl’s been on the pole for a couple of years she’s going to be at least subconsciously looking for some kind of future stability. If you can play Alpha bad ass with just the right amount of implied ambition, command presence and an ambient sense of stability you can tap into this daddy dynamic she’s after. Rockstars are fun for a night, but ‘Daddy’ leaves a more lasting impression.

All that said, bear in mind that a stripper will virtually NEVER be a good choice for a LTR. Beware the single mommy stripper. If you can approach the girl with the intent of having a good time in the short term and moving on after the experience, you’ll do well. It’s the guys that buy into the “hooker with the heart of gold” myth that fall back on their AFC behaviors and develop ONEitis with a stripper who have substantial damage done to them, and often their lives.

Is Game Adversarial?

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

Aunt Susan came up with this little gem and it got me thinking over the weekend. Is Game adversarial?

I can certainly understand how women with a vested interest in maximizing the dictates of their hypergamy would think so. It’s not in the collective best interest of women’s sexual selectivity (e.g. the feminine imperative) that men be educated in how best to access their vaginas. For the same reason porn and prostitution is socially stigmatized, any medium that makes for easier resolution of a man’s sexual demand necessarily devalues women’s most valuable agency – her sexuality. So from Aunt Sue’s side of the equation I can certainly see how Game could be considered adversarial, but is it really that malicious? Do we “not wanna let the bitch win?” I don’t think so.

Whenever I consider reasonings for Game I have to begin from the perspective of why Game developed in the first place. Game is the logical response, the inevitable countermeasure, to feminization and female primacy. In the foggy days of emerging internet proto-Game there wasn’t some diabolical PUA who thought “Ha! At last I’ve discovered the secret psychology to make those bitches pay for all their lies and wrongdoing!” There might be an MRA guy who has such a vendetta, but it’s not the PUA community. Game developed because men began to see the code in the Matrix. They used simple behaviorism, observable results and modified their social experiments until they could get to a relatively predictable, usable technique. The internet then gave them a global access to compare notes and develop their own approaches. Thus we have Game.

Firestarter

Now that Prometheus has stolen the fire of Game from Aphrodite and given it to mortal men, what will they do with it? Warm the hearts of women by knowing exactly what a man should be, or will they burn their homes to the ground in hedonistic pursuits? Let me allay some fears here first; it’s been my overwhelming experience that men would rather see Game as some, often underdeveloped, expedient to getting with their Dream Girl than to exact some revenge upon womankind. When they first become aware of Game, most chumps reject it wholesale – they’re too insulated in their feminization programming to accept it. Of those who don’t, the first tendency is to use it to get that one elusive girl who’s been forever out of reach, even if she’s just an idealization. Finally, there are the select few Men who really understand the mechanics of Game, internalize it and use it like an art.

For all the rationalizations against Game, very rarely is it used as a weapon. In fact Game doesn’t even approach the same level of weaponization with which women have classically used their sexuality as against men. Game’s been around for a decade, women have been wielding the power of the V for millennia. We take women weaponizing their vaginas as a matter of fact – men using Game, well that’s a major threat.

Now then, for the record, and to make Aunt Sue a bit more comfortable, let me express that I in no way believe that the sexes were meant to be adversarial. On the contrary, it is the adamant view of this blog’s proprietor that the sexes we’re, and are, meant to compliment one another. It is just in this belief that Game becomes a necessity as a logical step forward for masculinity in the face of the overwhelming feminization of the past 40 years. Game is only viewed as a retaliatory threat when it is interpreted from the perspective of  female imperative interests. True misogyny and misandry are both exceptionally rare social outliers, but a female imperative, cautious of protecting its eminence and control, will fling accusations of misogyny against anything it perceives as a threat to it. In fact the liberty with which misogynistic accusations are thrown about is the best evidence of the control female primacy exerts in society. If anything is adversarial it’s the deliberate 40 year push of feminization that imbalances the genders. Feminization has become so embedded and acculturated into society at this stage that anything that attempts to tip that scale back to the masculine side (i.e. Game) is automatically ridiculed at best or legally eradicated at worst. Ultimately, my intent is that Game – real, internalized, personality changing Game – will restore that complimentary balance to gender dynamics.

Aunt Sue’s beef isn’t about the utility of Game so much as what it’s used for. If I announced that there was this great new way of thinking that makes men want to be the best man possible to facilitate better committed relationships for women I could start my own cable channel and become a celebrity psychologist. Oddly enough, this is what most men want to do with Game; do exactly what women keep telling them is expected of them and man-the-fuck-up. Only when they do they’re called misogynists. All that being what it is, the root of the point of contention is that Game places men in a better position to facilitate their own sexual interests. If a technique could be developed that would virtually guarantee a desired sexual behavior from women it destroys their sex as the ultimate commodity for men. The root of every social convention women develop and normalize can be found in protecting the valuation of their sexuality. Take that away and they cease to become the ‘protected sex’ and join the ranks of the ‘disposable sex’.

Ladies, thank your lucky stars for Game. With any luck the strong, masculine, decisive, confidence necessary for applied Game will become internalized by men, thus giving you the Men you really want – the Man Up guys you love and hate so much, but really love all the more. Worry less about a guy using Game to create his personal harem and more about a guy not fully realizing what Game can really teach him.

Plate Theory II: Non-Exclusivity

Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled by a faithful loser.

“I just started applying Plate Theory, and I have to say with all honesty that this is probably the best thing I’ve ever done in my entire life. The feeling of having options is addictive; the whole idea that you don’t come from a necessitous emotional state is genius, and in fact the more options you have, the more attractive you become to women (through the unconscious changes in your behavior), the more women become attracted to you, and the more options you have. Once you get it started, it’s hard to stop it.

Recently I’ve been Spinning Plates with some success, but there comes a point when I risk one girl finding out about another. How do I handle this without the risk of losing one of my plates? Should I even bother with the effort of spinning plates that aren’t as high a value as others?”

Real options are the cornerstone of confidence, so try not to think of it in terms of risk – as in you’re risking the loss of “a great girl”. Most guys get to a point where Game and plate spinning give them their first taste of real options to select from or fall back on when another doesn’t pan out. The problem arises when they spin enough plates successfully to the point where they think they’ve maxed out to their “best” option and the old scarcity mentality returns. Most times a guy who newly practices Game and plate spinning never really spins plates per se; he uses it for the first monogamous opportunity that’s been eluding him for so long and calls it quits. He never actualizes and internalizes an abundance mentality.

Spinning Plates doesn’t necessarily mean you’re fucking all of your plates. It’s more of a spreading out of your efforts across a wider pool of subjects. Some will reciprocate, and those you entertain. Others will not, or prove to be less desirable, and those you let fall. This isn’t as difficult as it sounds once you’ve established your own resolve to be non-exclusive. At some point women will attempt to corner you into exclusivity and this is where your resolve will be tested. Women love to say how they have Rules, well you must have Rules as well. This means not shacking up with a woman, not slipping into any routine with her, not calling her more than necessary to set up another sporadic date, saving your weekends for women who’ve had a proven IL in you (i.e. sex or intimacy) and relegating those who haven’t to Tuesdays & Wednesdays, etc. This may seem like a lot of micromanagement, but once you put it into practice in as pragmatic a way possible to accomodate your life you’ll find that the decisions you make regarding the plates you are choosing to spin will become automatic.

If you feel that you have something to lose with a particular girl, you’re no longer spinning plates – you’re thinking and approaching dating in terms of exclusivity. POOK’s great quote: “women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled by a faithful loser” A lot of guys (and almost every woman) have a big problem with the truth of this because they take it too literally. POOK was never suggesting that you overtly declare that you’ll be open to other options and that your girls should consciously be expected to accept this. Every woman takes this quote in this way, and with good reason because they don’t want to seem like an easy mark. When it’s on the table like that it unsurprisingly becomes an affront to their pride and self-worth. However, in practice, non-exclusivity has to be covert. It needs to be implied, not declared. Thus you see the truth in POOK’s observation – women’s behavior will bear him out. Imagination and competition anxiety paired with implied non-exclusivity are the tools for successful plate spinning.

Become the commodity she’s looking for.

A high value Man can spin plates, and sometimes those plates suspect there are, or know there are other plates in his rotation. They’ll tolerate it so long as he remains high enough value (or effectively presents that perception) or hypergamy wil move them along to another high value Man. As I state in Plate Theory, some plates fall off to be replaced by new plates. You must be willing and confident enough to let some of them fall. This is a tough reality for recovering chumps new to Game to accept. Deprivation has conditioned them to hang onto a “sure thing” and this becomes all the more difficult when the plate they happen to drop was the first woman they’d ever successfully applied Game to, or was hotter than any girl they’d previously been with.

As I stated earlier, you don’t have to be sexual with every one of the plates you’re spinning (this used to be called “dating” in the days before serial monogamy became the fashion). It’s the potential in knowing that you could be, or that there are women who will value your attention that prompts a competitive anxiety in women – often when you don’t even know you’re doing it. If you are sexual with some of the plates you’re spinning, so much the better since you know that they’re proven commodities and if one isn’t performing as you’d like, you have the unconscious knowledge that others will, or you have the proven ability to generate more options for yourself.

Monogamy is a byproduct, not a goal.

One of the biggest hurdles guys have with Plate Theory is breaking themselves of this ‘LTR-as-Goal’ mentality. Obviously I’m not anti-monogamy, however monogamy should never be a goal, it should be a by-product of Plate Theory, but only when you’ve properly filtered through enough plates to understand how options play into confidence and controlling the frame. If a woman is unwilling to be non-exclusive with you (i.e. “she’ll leave me if I see other girls” fear) she isn’t a plate to spin. This seems counterintuitive to a guy with an LTR-As-Goal mentality and it is, but the guy who can fearlessly, and honestly stay above-board with his intent is the one who’ll be spinning more plates. Most guys (AFCs in particular) are deathly afraid of losing that ONE perfect girl and so never even attempt to spin more than one plate, much less have any others to compare her ‘perfection’ to in the first place. I’ve even seen PUAs do exactly this. They’re so impressed with the success of newly perfected techniques that they settle for the ONE ‘dream girl’ and find that their attentions become valueless to her because she perceives she is his only option for intimacy, his script gets flipped on him, and he gets marginalized. It’s not a failure in technique, but rather a failure in his mindset.

So what do you do to establish your plates and be truly, and successfully, non-exclusive with women? Initially I’d suggest doing exactly what most women have perfected for the better part of their lifetimes, stay intentionally ambiguous. Women practice Plate Theory by default – they play the Coquette (hard to get), they know how to be ambiguous enough to keep their options open, but not so much as to let a guy’s interest fail. They naturally know that we only chase what runs away from us. They never commit fully, but still keep the carrot in front of the donkey.

Women communicate COVERTLY, with gesture, with looks, with veiled meanings – you have to communicate your intent to be non-exclusive COVERTLY. Never OVERTLY tell a woman you’ve got other plates than her spinning. Allow her to discover this by your mannerisms, your behaviors, and definitely by your availability to her. Create value through scarcity, don’t be so available to her, but just enough to keep her interest and allow her mind to consider that maybe you have other options. Even when you don’t, fomenting this anxiety is a VERY useful tool for you while you do get more plates to spin. Even the ambient confidence that comes from knowing you have a past, proven, ability to generate more sexual options for yourself will manifest itself in your personality and trigger this competition anxiety.

At some point a woman will resort to OVERT communications when she’s run out of options in her COVERT communications tool set. This is the point the anxiety becomes unbearable and the need for security forces her to be OVERT. This is usually the stage at which she’s ask something like “where is this going?” or “am I your girlfriend?” or she may even give you an ultimatum. See this for what it is, she feels powerless and this is a press to commit. This is the point at which you will end up as a “cheater” or you’ll continue to spin plates. You actually have a lot of options in this situation, in fact more than you will ever have with any individual woman. You can of course take the coward’s path and just agree to exclusivity with her, but in doing so you lose all options (for as far as you’re willing to commit) as she intently becomes your only means of intimacy. She becomes the broker for your sexuality and you lose power, whereas before YOU were in control of your sexual availability.

You could continue to spin her as well, but bear in mind she’s resorted to OVERTLY confronting you about it and it wont be the last you hear of it. Depending on how long you’ve had her around, you may simply just let her drop. You might also keep her going, but let her cool a bit and come back to her in a few week’s time. Again, this seems counterintuitive, but your attention will either wildly increase in her value of it or she’ll simply bug out in which case it wasn’t worth pursuing and you aren’t wasting your time and effort on a woman with less than 100% IL.

Confidence is derived from options.

Don’t think of plate theory as a filter so much as it is a means to reinforce confidence. If you were to step into the ring with a professional UFC fighter right now it’d probably be suicide for you. But train for a few years, spar with other fighters and win a few bouts and you’ll probably be confident enough in your past performances that you know you can hold your own in the ring. That’s the idea, confidence derived from the options of non-exclusive women in hand and from having successfully generated those options in the past.

It’s not a numbers game, it’s a non-exclusivity game. The goal isn’t racking up as many women as humanly possible in order to sift through the throng and find that one little golden flower. In fact that’s the key to disaster. There is no Quality Woman, that’s an idealization. Some are better than others of course, but you don’t find the perfect woman, you make the perfect woman. There is no needle in the haystack – that is Scarcity / ONEitis thinking – the point is to mold yourself and any woman who you do exclusively end up with into your own frame. This is a process that should come before you commit to exclusivity, not after. The world is filled with guys forever trying to catch up, control the frame and be the Man they should’ve been long before they entered an LTR. They spend the better part of their LTRs/Marriages trying to prove that they deserve their GF’s / Wife’s respect when they’d have done better in letting her come to that conclusion well before the commitment through a healthy dose of competition anxiety.

Compensation

One of the higher orders of physical standards women hold for men is height. There are countless threads in the community that address this, but I think that for the better part it’s not difficult to observe this in the ‘real world’. I should also add that this is one characteristic that is central to the Social Matching Theory in that human’s are sensitive to asymmetrics and imbalances.

Now, before I get told in so many ways that this isn’t always the case or the “not all girls are like that” exceptions to the rule, let me start by saying that this isn’t the point of this thread. I don’t want to debate the logistics of why women prefer a taller mate or the tendency for like to attract like in this respect. No, what I’m on about is really the root of the infamous “short man’s disease.” That’s right, you know who I’m talking about; the ultimate in compensation for inferiority, the dreaded ‘short man’s disease.’ You know the guy. About 5′ 6″, pounding out the weight on the bench press. Bad ass attitude, hangs with the bigger guys (which is pretty much all of them) and throws his ego around. What a tool, right?

But if you think this is only limited to short men (or women), you’re making a mistake. You see, in so many ways we all compensate for deficiencies. I recently read a thread on another “non-community” forum that saw fit to start a topic asking why men lie and it got me to thinking why any of us lie, man or woman. I’ve also been fielding a lot of questions regarding issues we kind of take for granted after having discussed them to death in the manosphere; one of those being the nature of personality and one’s ability to change their own or have it changed by circumstance, or often both. I think it’s a tragic miscalculation on our part to think of personality as static, unchangeable or to question the ingenuousness of that change, but more tragic is the doubting ourselves for that change.

One simple truism that a lot of people love to use as their convenient escape clause is the JBY (just be yourself) notion. This of course is just what ones says as advice when they really don’t know what else to say. Given that though, what is it that makes a personality shift ‘genuine’. Any number of us probably know an individual who began acting differently at some point in their life. This can be the result of some kind of tragedy or trauma (think PTSD) or it can be that the individual felt a need to change their fundamental way of thinking and made the change of their own accord. Usually in these cases we think of them as posers or try-hards, trying to be something they’re not. They reflect this change in their appearance, their regular practices, their friends or the people they associate with, attitudes, behaviors etc. And this is what’s jarring for people who knew their prior personality.

From the 48 Laws of Power:

Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.

What makes us doubt the sincerity of a personal change is what’s at issue. If their change is something we agree with or generally think of as positive, we are less inclined to doubt the ingenuousness of this change. But when their change conflicts with our own interests, when it dramatically clashes with what we’ve come to expect of that individual, this is where we doubt their sincerity. We say “dude, stop trying to be something you’re not”, we tear it down, we fall back on JBY platitudes because it clashes with our interpretations. And in this doubt, we fish for reasons as to why a person would want that change; essentially, what are they compensating for? It may be funny to presume someone driving a monster truck down the highway is making up for a small penis, but the root of that ‘compensating’ is what makes us feel uncomfortable in our own internal compensating.

It’s a difficult enough task for an individual to critically assess their own personality, and even more so to effect a change in it, but the final insult is to have other’s doubt the veracity of it. What others fail to see is that at some point in the development of their own personalities, they themselves had to compensate for deficiencies, discontentments and prompts to grow and mature. This is a gigantic hurdle for most AFCs wanting to transition to being something more. On SoSuave we’ve always called that being a DJ (Don Juan), but that doesn’t encompass the entirety of maturing. I like the term positive masculinity, but the crux of all that is the ingenuousness of the actual change. Why are you changing?

There is a saying that AFCs are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel. As soon as one is about to climb out there are always half a dozen ready to pull him back in again. Add to this a self-doubt from societal conditionings that tell him to stay the same, not to aspire to more, he’s doing it right, and it’s amazing that any AFC becomes a DJ. This has been termed the ‘Societal Cockblock’; they tell him he’s compensating, and in a way they’re right, but for the wrong reason. PUA skills, DJ psychology, Positive Masculinity are all compensations for deficiencies. They go beyond behavior modification – that’s the easy answer. PUAs teach a set of behaviors and scripts to be aped in order to mask a deficit. These are easy pickings for the JBY apologists because they are actions that generally don’t match a person’s prior personality. They’re not “really” like that, so they’re posers, or worse, they’ve been duped by guys hawking the PUA brand of self-help tools. What they don’t see is the genuine desire to change and the reasons for it.

When we compensate, we improvise, we fake it till we make it; but who determines when we’ve stopped faking it? We do. I read all kinds of articles doubting the realized capacity a person has to adopt ‘natural Game’ into their personality. It’s an internalization process for sure, but there has to come a point of transition where a Man’s default response IS his Game response. That’s who he IS now.

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.

Wait for it?

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.

If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.

I’m probably going to ruffle a few PUA feathers here, but I’ve never been a proponent of breaking down LMR (last minute resistance) with a woman. Maybe it’s a result of experiences in my rock star 20’s, but at some point I came to the conclusion that sex with a woman who’s turned on by me is always a far better than one where I had to sell her on the idea of sex with me before the act. Now don’t take this to the binary extreme and assume I mean the only good sex you’ll ever have is a first night lay (FNL) with some tart who can’t keep her legs closed. What I mean is that if you’re still trying to figure out what the magic words are to convince some girl that she ought fuck you after 3 dates – or longer – you’re in desire negotiation hearings counselor. You are wasting your time and limiting your opportunity with better prospective women in waiting out a woman who would defer less than 100% of her real desire to have sex with you. The sex will NEVER be worth the wait. A prostitute would be a better alternative.

Genuine desire cannot be negotiated. Once you get past a certain point in the waiting game, what once had the chance to be an organic, sexual desire becomes mitigated negotiation of a physical act. Just the fact that you’re having to make a case for yourself (even covertly) is evidence that there are other factors inhibiting her capacity to be sexual with you. As I stated, barring a physical inability, this is almost always because of an unmentioned agenda on her part. It may be due to a concurrent boyfriend, it may be a natural internal caution, it may be that your process is telegraphing ‘beta’ to her, or it may be that she’s filibustering you while waiting to see if another, more preferable guy pans out for her, however, none of these are insurmountable if she has a genuine desire to bang you. Many a cheated on boyfriend knows this is true. In any circumstance, sex with you is not an urgency for her. If  she’s perceiving your value as as high as it should be, she wont hesitate longer than a few dates to become sexual – and she certainly wont tell you she’s making you wait. Hypergamy doesn’t afford a woman much waiting time with a Man she sees as superior stock.

One of the more frustrating situations I often encounter comes from guys who’ve been OVERTLY told that they’re being made to wait for sex until some circumstance or criteria is met for the woman. The standard filibuster (or loss-leader as the case may be) usually comes with the reasoning that she “needs to feel comfortable” before she has sex with a guy. Even more distressing is the guy who was getting laid, only to be told the same thing by an existing girlfriend. If you find yourself in either of these situation there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

First and foremost, sex, by it’s nature is uncomfortable. Sex that is motivated by mutual, genuine desire is a tense affair, fueled by testosterone, anxiety and urgency. When two people get together for a first dance ( a precursor to copulation), it’s rarely if ever an intimate slow dance. It’s salsa, it’s grinding, it’s pumping, it’s heat and it’s sweat. What it’s not is comforting and familiar. It’s not a nice warm bathrobe fresh out of the dryer. Don’t take this the wrong way, but sex is threatening. It needs to be, and you need to be considered a sexualized player in her personal sphere. Overtly agreeing to wait for her to become sexual is anti-seductive. It confirms for her that you aren’t a sexualized player to her; an Alpha wouldn’t wait for sex and she knows this. Worse still, it devalues her SMV as being worth less than of your utmost urgency.

Secondly, always remember why women resort to OVERT communications (the language of men) – so there is no, or less, margin that her message will be misunderstood. If a woman, point blank says, “I’m not having sex with you until X,Y, and Z happens”, what is her MEDIUM telling you? That there is a precondition that’s more important to her than fucking you with genuine, uncontrollable passion. You want her to be so into you that she’s willing to break the rules. The ideal situation is for her genuine passion to be so uncontrollable for you that she’d renounce her religion and throw her convictions to the wind to be with you. That might seem a bit dramatic, but you get the idea. The good news now is that she’s being overt, which means she’s exhausted her reserves to be covert and, assuming you’re not so desperate as to delude yourself, you can NEXT her and move on.

Rapport ≠ Comfort

A lot of “waiters” find all that a tough road to hoe. They want to stick it out and see if things “might develop”, and NEXTing their ‘waiting girl’ seems a lot like throwing the baby out with the bath water after all the time they’ve invested in building what they think is rapport. Usually this is due to the guy not spinning (enough) other plates that would bear more fruit. However, keep this in mind; waiting for sex isn’t building rapport. There’s a lot of confusion about rapport, most of which is due to well meaning PUAs conflating rapport with comfort. It’s a pretty esoteric term, but rapport is a connection; it’s an implied trust between two acting agents who previously had never met or only have limited knowledge of each other. You can have rapport with an animal – that’s the connection, it’s instinctual.

Comfort comes from familiarity and predictability; all decidedly anti-seductive influences. And while comfort has it’s own merits in interpersonal relationships, it is not the basis for genuine, passionate sexual desire. For people (myself included) involved in a marriage or LTR, it’s serves our long-term best interest to convince ourselves that sex is better when your comfortable with your partner, however, the reality of it sings a different tune. Here’s an easy illustration: As reported by both men and women alike, which of these circumstances provokes the most intense, memorable sexual experiences ? When a couple plans and arranges a romantic “date night” to ‘keep it fresh’ and reconnect? Or is it the ‘make-up sex’ after a horrible breakup, or narrowly averted breakup, where long dormant competition anxiety is brought back into being a very real possibility again? If you said the breakup, you’re correct! One scenario is comfortable, the other uncomfortable. One has the element of predictable certainty, the other is chaotic and uncertain, however in both situations there is definitely a working mutually connective rapport operating.

Enter White Knight

The following was a timely question by SoSuave member “OnTheWayUp”;

 Just wanted to find out: who do you talk to about aspects of game with off this site? I’m talking here about “game” in the broadest sense of the term, so pick-up, but also self-esteem, how to keep a relationship healthy, the roles of men and women in society etc.

My experience with voicing the views advocated on here in public has nearly always been negative. I have 3 – 4 good male friends who are interested in pick-up (one has read the Mystery Method, for example), and they love it. But these friends are the exception rather than the rule. My parents (beta dad, controlling mum) think my attitude towards women is sexist and my opinion of ONSs “disgusting.” Just about everybody I know subscribes to the Disney/ soulmate view of relationships, and some of my contemporaries (I’m 21) are even starting to settle down and get married. God help them. Talking to girls in bed about what they find attractive in a man is interesting, if only to see the extent to which they delude themselves, but ultimately counter-productive, since a woman (tacitly) expects a man to know how to express his sexuality.

Can we as men ever talk about these things in public? What are your experiences?

Before I begin, let me say that I think it’s encouraging to see such an insightful question posed by so young a Man.

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism. Even under the conditions of relative anonymity (like the internet), he’ll still cling to that want of proving his uniqueness just on the off chance that a woman might read his rebuff and be fatefully attracted to him.

This is the bread and butter of the White Knight beta. It’s best to assume that most guys who pick up on just your Game vibe, to say nothing of overtly talking about it, are going to side with the feminine imperative by default. For practitioners of Beta Game (which is to say the better part of 90% of guys) this is an organic opportunity to identify with women and engage in the same shaming conventions women use without the fear of having it seem contrived.

Now this is the mechanics of it, but the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. For the Beta Game that our noble white knight is so invested in to work, he depends on an assumed system. He depends upon reaffirming his assumed understanding of how to best achieve a woman’s intimacy (sex). He must reaffirm that presumption BY defending it and looking for opportunities to show he adheres to the feminine imperative (or the version of the imperative he’s been taught to believe). His Game, his ego-invested identity IS literally dependent upon that system. So not only is he defending his Game and his ego, be he’s also defending the social architecture that makes his Beta Game even possible.

You see, when an AFC clings to the mental schemas that make up an AFC mindset it requires a constant need for affirmation and reinforcement, particularly in light of a glaring lack of verifiable success with women while clinging to, and behaving in accordance with the mindset. AFCs are like crabs in a barrel – once one gets to the top to climb out another drags him back in. The AFC needs other AFCs to affirm his blatantly obvious lack of success. He needs other AFCs to tell him, “don’t worry just be yourself” or “she’s just not a quality woman because she can’t see how great a guy you are.”

So when an AFC finally does get a second date and then finally does get laid it becomes the ultimate validation for his mindset. “See, you just have to be a patient nice guy and the right ONE really does come along.” This is when the self-righteous phase begins and he can begin telling his PUA friends that Beta Game does work, and he’s “getting some” now without all the Positive Masculinity claptrap. In actuality he rationalizes away all of the conditions that lead up to him getting the girlfriend and the fundamental flaw that he’s settling for a woman “who’d fuck him”, but this doesn’t stop him from claiming a moral high ground. His long wait is over and he’s finally hit White Knight pay-dirt.

Difference of Purpose

Have a look at these videos.

Very interesting. First, I have to acknowledge that the CFM (cosmo for men) video was funded by the magazine, and the ass-cam was funded by Levis as part of a viral marketing effort, but look at the difference in approach to both of these. They’re essentially experimenting for the same purpose, but look where each gender places the emphasis and the methodology each uses to collect data. Yes, I know this is for entertainment purposes, but it’s really fascinating to see the differences “in the wild” so to speak.

For the women it was all about “busting” (i.e. shaming) men checking out their ass, while still enjoying the attention, all set to some club music(something bigger something better). It almost wasn’t worth the effort considering that women have a much more pronounced peripheral awareness than men and they’re only confirming what they already know; guys like a nice ass. As a rule, women love the chemical rush that accompanies experiencing indignation, so it’s no surprise that the overall production is one that prompts this – and this is especially true of the clips where a guy who is obviously ‘with’ another girl takes a moment to check out an ass in her presence. “Men are pigs and here’s the proof.”

Compare this to the much more elaborate men’s video, complete with an ‘onboard’ video unit backpack to support 4 different camera angles. The approach here is to gather covert information, not to shame women. While entertaining, the purpose is to empirically educate men in one of the prime tenets of Game, which also happens to be one of the prime tenets of behavioral psychology:

Behavior is the only reliable proof of motivation or intent. Believe what a woman does, not what she says.

The approach is one of deductive reasoning. What parts of a man’s body are reported by women to be the most attractive? And here we have it; how often do we read that women are first attracted to a man’s face or eyes? To be cute they might also mention how they like a nice butt on a man. Yet neither of these regions were targeted by women very often or at all in the case of eyes. The majority also report that they’re less attracted to “overly muscular men” yet if this experiment is accurate, it was this guy’s biceps that attracted the most attention for women, followed only by crotch gazing in frequency – another body part women would rarely admit to ‘checking out’ on a guy.

Take these videos with a grain of salt. As I started with, both of these were sponsored by business ventures with a vested interest in generating attention and sales. However, I can’t help but see the code in the Matrix here with regard to how each gender process the same idea. It’s the purpose behind the video that betrays the interest. I find this idea infinitely more educational than contrived PUA street demonstrations.