Inter-gender Communication

SMV in Girl-World

If you haven’t been to the Badger Hut, why not? As reluctant as I am to thread-jack Badger I am compeled to repost his YouTube find because it, and his post, were instrumental in opening my eyes to a fresh take on an old (see, previously hashed-out) social dynamic convention. The manosphere has been awash in articles detailing the sexual marketplace and the impact women’s short-term vs. long-term sexual strategies have for them for as long I’ve been writing about gender issues (10+ years). These analyses range from the biological consequences to the insidious, life-damaging punishment a socialized feminine primacy (feminism) inflicts upon unassuming members of both sexes. The most recent manifestations of this have been the social ‘shaming’ efforts of the Man Up! 2.0 popularizations in mainstream media.

You can read Badger’s breakdown of the history of women lamenting their ignorance (willful or by design) of the true nature of the SMP and the inevitability of the impact with the Wall, which I cosign, however I recently had a somewhat inspired post about exactly the nature of the modern SMP about a week ago. So, yes, I’m guilty of cracking this topic more than once, but it took this video to really bring home the association of how feminism, equalism and the feminine imperative conspire to reinvent sexual market value for women.

SMV

Just last week I graphed out my own rudimentary overview of how the SMP lays out, as well as sexual market values relative to each sex. Although I began a bit tongue in cheek, in all earnestness I attempted to visually plot out what a persons’ life time-line might look like were he or she to have a ‘God’s Eye’ perspective of when their SMV will be at it’s apogee, when it builds and when it wanes. As with everything I put to keyboard, my effort was to get to the honest nuts & bolts of the SMP and how our live’s events coincide with that valuation. Here’s the breakdown from last week:

This was an effort in defining a contemporary, realistic view of how sexual market value fluctuates for each sex. I think it’s comparatively reflective, if a bit rough, however I approached this graph from a male perspective in that its intent was to educate Men of their SMV potential later in life, and to plan accordingly.

What I failed to account for is feminization’s influence on women’s (and by association men’s) gestalt understanding of their own SMV. Given the plentitude of manosphere articles devoted to women’s distorted and deluded interpretations of their sexual market value I figured this had been done to death, but it took Badger’s post and video to shake a new thought into my head.

Women like men

As if on cue, Team Red vents his frustration from yesterday’s comment thread:

“Why should money even matter anymore to these women in the long-term when it seems like the majority of them have put their careers first and put marriage/kids off until later on in life? It seems like the dating world is polluted with 30+ year old career women that have been riding the carousel 10-15 years and are now ready to “settle down” and pop out 2-3 kids by ripe old age of 40. What these women seem to have forgotten is the greater risks involved having children so late in life.”

I found this comment apropo since it sums up my epiphany: Women want to be men. This is the legacy that a since-decayed feminist social impetus has imparted to the generations of both men and women who’ve come after the Gloria Steinem’s got married themselves and blew away. Women need to be the men of tomorrow. I suppose I should’ve seen this messaging long before reading Badger’s blog, and in honesty I think the greater part of Matrix thinking revolves around role reversal, but this is more than reversal. Women want to be men.

If a man can wait until his maturation develops, his achievements are more actualized and his SMV peaks at 38-40, equalism says “why shouldn’t you Man-Girl?”

Whether it’s in terms of Dom vs. Sub in sexually fluid relationships, or in terms of respect or social entitlement, Women want to be men. This is what 60+ years of feminization has taught women is valuable, and taught men to accommodate for. In fact men are ‘lesser men’ for not offering women a ‘hand up’ to manhood. Feminization in this respect is the ultimate form of penis envy; acculturate consecutive generations of both sexes willing to masculinize women into prominence. This is the heart of the feminine imperative and feminine primacy.

Hypergamy and women’s innate psychologies naturally conflict with this socialization effort. Thus we have women expecting masculine equitability while simultaneously feeling entitled to traditionally feminine courtesies. In the interests of feminine primacy, if it works, use it.

So it should come as no shock that in a desire to be like men, a popularized parallel had to be socialized into women’s collective understanding of SMV expectations. In the most literal sense, if men could enjoy a more progressive and maturing SMV then, by the doctrines of equalism, a ‘new’ woman should also be able to mirror that masculine SMV.

Feminized SMV

By a combined effort of feminism, feminine primacy and its imperatives women have been socialized and acculturated to believe that their SMV profile encompasses and is synchronous with that of men. Since women are essentially men, Equalism (the religion of feminism) convinces women that their SMV schedule should at least be identical to that of men.

I could have simply recolored the MEN bell curve from my previous SMV graph to illustrate the feminized redefinition of SMV, but that would be inaccurate. It wouldn’t account for the obvious benefits women expect to enjoy in their true sexual peak years (22-24) in addition to the masculinized SMV feminization has convinced the modern woman of.

One thing I did find a need to account for was the Myth of Sexual peak. As Team Red laments, and in my post Myth of the Biological Clock, this feminine defined delusion is deceptively close to women’s post-Wall valuation. Since men’s SMV generally peaks around 38, women needed a social convention that would also make their sexual peak coincide with men’s. Thus we read the endless articles about sexual peak inflating older women’s sexual prowess above that of the 22 year old ‘girl-children’ men manifestly prefer for sexual partners. Equalism enforces the delusion that if men are at their most desirable at later stages of life, then so too must be wo-MEN.

Cracks in the Wall

For all its efforts to convince women of a feminized redefining of SMV, there are obvious cracks beginning to show in the social constructs designed to ensure a lasting feminine primacy. Badger’s video find is an excellent illustration of these cracks. Since the last wave of significant feminism was carried along by the Baby Boom generation, women of the consecutive generations are only now beginning to realize the gravity of the “have-it-all” lie.

The institution of gender primacy (masquerading as ‘equalism’) is largely, and grossly apparent, at odds with women’s true sexual market valuation and its progression. Try as it may the feminine imperative has never had an effective counter for the biological motivations that drive SMV – as women age, feminine primacy becomes a victim of its own hypergamy. Thus the imperative must continually redefine its mission, create new social conventions and rely on blaming the men it subjugates for its own inadequacies.

The reason this video is humorous is because all too many women in this demographic are realizing their true SMV isn’t what feminization has convinced them of too late – one crack in the Wall. Another other tact is to shame men for their unwillingness to participate in the SMP the feminine imperative defines for, and expect them to participate in. “Man Up you infantile boys!” – and another crack appears in the Wall.

That a writer like Kate Bolick can form a prosperous career and celebrity around her inability to come to terms with the conflict between her true SMV and the SMV model the feminine imperative has conditioned into her ego is an indictment of the scope to which the distorted, feminized SMV model has been ensaturated into our women and our culture.

The New Sensitivity

With profuse apologies for shamelessly lifting this thread from CH’s most recent post comments, but it dovetailed perfectly into my topic today.

From The Whammer:

I can acccurately predict who is the Alpha or Beta with a simple test which I will prove here. I’ll tell you who will get laid within the next week. Do this, take out your wallet and then describe the wallet and list the contents (don’t bother to list that condom that expired in 1999) I can determine from this test how well you will do with females and whether you’re a true Alpha.

OK I’ll explain then. Have you ever seen someone carrying around a wallet bulging with stuff? Sometimes you’ll even see a rubber band around it it’s so full of junk lol This is typical prole (beta) behavior. They carry all of this stuff in case they have to “prove” something. You will never see an Alpha carrying around all of this crap. Alphas carry a slim wallet with perhaps some cash, a credit card and a license at most. Alphas have certain habits or traits and they’re reflected subconsciously in a lot of outward ways. An Alpha would never even think that he’d ever have to prove anything to anyone.The first guy who answered said he just carries some cash in a money clip and that would indicate Alpha behaviour to me. I wasn’t really concerned with the amount of cash.People, especially females, subconsciously equate a bulging wallet with a beta flunky and that’s not even taking into considerstion the bulge you’ll have in your chest suit pocket. Betas don’t get laid.

I’d encourage readers to read the thread in its entirety. It’s some real funny shit, however there is a germ of truth in The Whammers humor. A lot has been written about Beta (and Alpha) ‘tells’ in the manoverse. In fact, I’d argue that in its infancy formalized pick up artistry was fundamentally about ridding oneself of the Beta ‘tells’ and emphasizing Alpha ‘tells’ to maximize guy’s chances of getting laid.

However, with the unplugging from the Matrix comes a progressively developing sensitivity to the feminized world around us. We see it all around us, usually in advertising first – maybe the undertone of masculine ridicule in TV commercials, then the subtle association we make when considering that women arre the primary consumers in society. The next easy observation is how men are portrayed on television; feckless, ridiculous slobs in need of feminine intuition to solve their problems.

This new sensitivity then becomes more refined. We pick up idioms and subtle attitudes in people’s conversations. We pick up on terms and assumptions of premise that previously, in our Blue Pill fog, we would’ve taken for common sense or matter of fact. We hear the same tropes offered as the solution to the same issues that we thought were so confusing in our plugged-in existence.

I use The Whammer’s wallet test as an illustration here to detail this new sensitivity. It’s fairly easy to assess the difference between a Beta’s Look (or lack thereof) and that of an Alpha. Like most other higher order animals, human beings have an evolved sense, on the subconscious level, that helps us determine the looks, posture and vocal cues of sexual competitors. But looks can be deceiving, and in an age of feminization, the guy who outwardly may be the very specimen of an Alpha in a physical sense, can also be the most debilitated Beta due to his life’s conditioning.

Maybe it’s from having been unplugged from the Matrix for so long, or maybe it’s my constant observation and writing about it, but I am very sensitive to the choice of casual words men use when talking about gender issues. It’s been acculturated into feminized men’s vernacular to use words, idioms and presumptions that are assumed, on the subconscious level, to be more neutral or inoffensive to women-as-authority or feminine primacy. I can pick out the subliminal self-deprecations men filter into their conversations, often with a nervous laugh, or else they’ll drop some blunt truth only to casually (but practiced intentionally) to backpedal by ridicule themselves or men in general for being ‘how they are’ as if it were some kind of apology.

Everything you need to know about a guy, or really the state of feminine primacy in society, is in the choices of words he uses. It’s a fairly easy task to pick through the writings on someone’s forum posts to determine where they stand on the Beta-Alpha spectrum. Is he using Disney-esque dialogue about the girl he thinks is special? Is he using Shakespearean prose, words he would never actually speak in casual conversation, to describe his yearning and longing for a soulmate? These are easy ‘tells’ when you read them on your monitor; all but the most Aspergery of men probably wouldn’t use Arthurian vernacular when casually speaking about women.

Better to beg forgiveness than beg for permission.

On my commute to work I often listen to local talk radio. No, not the conservative AM band, rather the variety show FM band type shows. I actually work somewhat closely with a few of the stations and hosts  whenever I’m doing a brand promo or a launch party at some local club or event. Of the talk show personalities I know, it’s really only in a business sense. Most of them are pretty likable enough guys, but every time I listen to any topic on their show that veers into intergender issues (which is quite often) the Beta just oozes from every pore. Matrix trope after trope, constant repetition of fem-speak colloquialisms, I swear, some of the worst offenders in perpetuating feminine social primacy are talk radio hosts – even the conservative ones. Naturally I bite my tongue in the interests of my business, but these guys are worse than any White Knight, mangina or Beta I’ve ever encountered in the manosphere; and all are blissfully oblivious to their conditionings.

In all of their ramblings, there is always a default premise of female authority. I’m convinced it takes the better part of a lifetime to inculcate into a man, but on the limbic level the Beta mindset uses the feminine imperative as his starting point for everything. In every issue, and on a subliminal level, the origination of a thought is tempered with how it will be interpreted in a feminine-primary context. This is almost a default state of mind for the Beta mindset: ask permission from the feminine.

I’ve got another friend who’ll always abdicate to his wife’s authority by saying “Gotta clear that with the boss” in reference to his wife when we’re making some plans to hang out. This tells me everything I need to know about his perception of gender and his history of success with women in general. Woman = authority; before all else, in any decision the thought is colored by the feminine.

Just as in the wallet test, the unplugged develop a sense in placing an Alpha mindset. Although we may hear it occasionally in their choice of words, it’s the lack of words that indicate an Alpha. Just as an Alpha doesn’t need a wallet full of safety measures, the Alpha doesn’t need superflous words. By virtue of his confidence-through-options the Alpha mind doesn’t care about feminine priority. He may occasionally say “uhm,…sorry?“, but his first thought isn’t to ask permission from the feminine.

When your silence inspires more intimidation, more respect, more gravity than your words, then, you’re thinking like an Alpha.

Coquetry

I generally avoid troubling myself with the blatantly girl-world propaganda advice articles over at AskMen.com, but I had a friend refer this article to me. It’s the same predictable boilerplate reasoning I’ve come to expect from the Hooking Up Beta crowd when discussing the merits of Waiting for It. Side note: please do read the short bio of Giulia Simolo for an enlightening brief on what makes for a good ‘relationship correspondent’.

All this article does is reinforce the feminine as the primary sexual interest. As is the default pre-position of every solipsistic woman giving advice, every point she makes presumes the woman is the PRIZE. So lets break this down from a less orthodox presumption:

Waiting Creates Anticipation
Anticipation is already present from the moment you and she feel arousal for each other. Attraction isn’t a choice, and anticipation isn’t something “created” by intent. Trust me, no girl making you wait is thinking, “Oh I just want him to savor this delightful anticipation.”

Waiting Creates Challenge
Yeah, for you. I love how the feminine rationale is that it’s the Man who’s given the opportunity of creating the challenge, when in fact it’s classically been a woman’s realm for millennia to play the coquette. Who are we bullshitting here?

Waiting Shows You Don’t Think She’s A Slut
The only gender concerned with being perceived as a slut is women. Once again, feminine primacy. Every man loves a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut. The importance is less about his perception of her being a slut and more about her self-concern about her moving past the thinking she’s one. When it comes to sex, single women filibuster with concerns about slut status, when in an LTR they filibuster with concerns about “feeling sexy” – in both instances sex is always about her, not you.

Waiting Keeps YOU Interested.
And again, feminine primacy. For centuries, nothing has served women better than an implied promise of future sexual release with her. The longer you stay in a state of suspended sexual interest, the less time and opportunity you’ll have to weigh other, better, options than what she may represent. However, you can only shake the shiny keys for so long before someone else shakes their own and draws attention away.

Waiting Shows You’re A Gentleman
Qualification for her pussy. Women don’t want to fuck gentlemen, they want to fuck Men who are sexual and have a mutual, covertly recognized desire to bang her.

Waiting Gives You Time To Evaluate Her
The only thing most men are evaluating about a woman they haven’t slept with is HOW to sleep with her. This may sound like logic, but it’s really an unassailable idealism meant to compliment a man’s ego. It’s complimentary; of course you’re a well rounded man of the world who’d be interested in qualifying her for your intimacy, you’re mature and experienced enough to know what’s best for you, right? Women ALWAYS play by the rules when they’re relaxed and show you their true colors while you’re waiting to fuck them. They’re incapable of hiding their character flaws in the time it takes for you to wait her out sexually, right?

Good Things Come To Those Who Wait
And of course what girl-world article would be complete without a trite aphorism at the end? At least we get down to brass tacks. She is the PRIZE. The carrot really is worth the effort of towing the feminine primacy cart. Play her filibuster games and there’s a nice piece of chocolate cake at the end of it for you. It’s the same piece of cake the outlaw biker got about 8 months ago due to her hormonally fueled urgency to fuck him immediately, but she’s turning over a new leaf with you. She’s trying to do things different now with you, because you’re really the ‘special’ one.

Coquetry

I was skimming through the Art of Seduction last night and I came across a passage there that reminded me of this article. The section was about coquetry. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, playing the coquette is by and large the natural (some would argue ‘unlearned’) default method of seduction for women; going from hot to cold, interest to feigned disinterest, the promise of fantastic sex and then a complete disconnected indifference. That is coquetry, and it hardly needs to be taught to women since for thousands of years it’s proven to be so effective in covertly drawing out what they want in men. As I’ve said in many prior posts, a woman’s best agency is always her sexuality. It’s their first best key to power over men (which explains why it’s so distressing for women as it decays with age).

What this article is attempting to do is convince men that they can play an effective coquette too – essentially adopt a female seduction method. While there is some merit in adopting female seduction methodologies (i.e. “flip-the-script” Game), when promoted by women giving men advice, the premise is disingenuous on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin with it. However, after re-reading it I can see the mechanics behind it. The idea is to draw men into thinking that they are the ones doing the resisting, when in fact they are only better playing into a woman’s coquetry and ultimately better facilitating the methods of her innate hypergamy.

The principle is this: the one who is doing the resisting is the one who is controlling the dynamic. It comes back to The Cardinal Rule of Relationships

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

The trick to feminine coquetry is incrementally rewarding her target(s) with marginal intimacy while simultaneously resisting him enough to keep him in the limbo necessary for her to assess the best options for breeding and provisioning from a pool of potential suitors.

Now, why would a woman want to do this? The polite answers, the pretty lies, are found in the bullet points in this article. Each of which is intended to convince men to play along with her coquetry (feminine seduction) and better facilitate the real function of her coquetry – sexual selection from amongst her best options (i.e. hypergamy). If a man can be convinced that it’s in fact he who is doing the resisting, for all the noble and acceptable reasonings, it only makes her coquetry easier.

Coquetry is a woman’s socially approved methodological equal of Plate Theory for men. And just like Plate Spinning, it requires a woman to keep a covert stable of potential suitors in rotation. They can’t implicitly know about each other. If they did, she runs the risk of them losing interest in frustration. So, how much the better if a Man is an active participant in her own coquetry? How much the better when he believes it’s his own idea to be his own coquette?

In Iron Rule #3 the reason I said waited-for sex is never worth the wait is because it reduces sexual tension and urgency. It’s essentially negotiated desire – “OK well play by your rules and fuck when you’re finally convinced that I’m worthy of your vagina.” By playing your own coquette, you may think you’re drawing her into YOUR web and she’ll be a foaming hot mess for you by the time YOU “allow” her to ride your cock, but you’re only fooling yourself. Assuming you even get to actual sex with her, it’s still her who’s doing the resisting, and now your sex is based on the implied negotiation you agreed to by waiting her out. And what were you waiting for? Her to come to the conclusion that she couldn’t do better than fuck you in the immediate future.

Every chump in human history has, in different versions, thought he was doing the right thing by playing the friend, waiting patiently, building comfort and trust, being a gentleman, being emotionally supportive and sensitive to a woman’s desires in the interim times when she’s not riding the Alpha Bad Boy’s cock. Women who are interested in you wont confuse you. If you are her “A” guy she wont make you wait (very long) to get after it with you. If she’s delaying and filibustering, rest assured you are her “B” or “C” guy, and she needs negotiated convincing to bump you up to being her starter.

Ultimatum

A comment on the Iron Rule of Tomassi #4

Rollo mentioned that once a woman gets into a cohabitating situation, that her sexual availability markedly decreases. It seems to me that so long as the man is able to give and act out the ultimatum that “either I get a sexually satisfying relationship or I’m out (or you’re out, if it’s my place)”, then there should be no problem.

Sure, there are financial and legal entanglements, but this would be akin to dead money on any investment – sure it hurts, but that’s the risk one takes. And in the case of a lease, the man could always take the attitude that he wants out, and is only living in the apartment because he is on the lease (he could always go back to his available bachelor days.)

Interesting you used the word “ultimatum” here. It’s important that you understand what an ultimatum implies. Whenever a person delivers an ultimatum, always understand that this is a declaration of powerlessness. In other words, “I am so out of control in this circumstance you must do this or I will remove either myself or you from the circumstance.”

First off, in this particular instance it’s far more likely that you’ll be the one leaving considering the preference modern legalities give women today with regard to evicting them from such a situation. Secondly, it only confirms for her what she wants to know, that she is your one and ONLY source of sexual intimacy and by you cohabiting with her, emotionally, financially and logistically it makes it almost impossible for you to really make good on your ultimatum. You only consolidate her sexual monopoly by living with her.

I’ve already gone into all the practical reasons as to why a guy should never move in with a woman in Iron Rule #4, but I think it may be better to ask yourself why you do want to move in with her. What are you benefitting from in this situation that you aren’t by remaining independent of each other? For most guys the fantasy is more accessible sex, but if you’re living as you suggest here already, how is living together any different? And even if this were the case, that you had more sex with her by living together, you are still assuming a greater degree of responsibility, accountability and liability in your relationship and in your day to day life in exchange for that sexual accessibility. How is that an advantage? How is that not like marriage anyway?

As I’ve stated in the prior posts, when you commit to ANYTHING – women, career, education, family, etc. – you necessarily lose options and your ability to maneuver in taking advantage of them.

Ultimatums

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness because you are resorting to a direct threat to get someone to do what you want them to, and in doing so you OVERTLY confess your weak position. If you were in a genuine position of control it wouldn’t be necessary to resort to an ultimatum; you’d simply use that control. There are many ways to effect a change in another person, but ultimatums will never prompt a genuine change. If they change behavior it’s prompted by the threat, not unprompted, organic desire.

One of the primary tenets of my Game philosophy is that true desire cannot be negotiated. A natural, unsolicited desire state, unmitigated by obligation or concerns for resources exchange, is the ideal basis for any intergender relationship. Any factors that introduce elements that hinder this genuine desire – exchange, negotiations, obligations, reciprocity, etc. – weaken this desire and weaken the relationship. Delivering an ultimatum is the most direct, overt way to introduce exactly these elements into a relationship.

Now you might say that an ultimatum is implied in how you stated this it to her, or the context it was in. If this was your intent, you are still in a position of powerlessness since you are still trying to get this person to do what you want. It’s not what you can do to her (i.e. withdrawing your attentions) that’s the power issue, but the actual desired result, getting her to genuinely have a desire to do what she has no desire to do.

I should also add that ultimatums are, ultimately, self-defeating. You can keep your dog from running off by chaining him in the yard, but that dog still wants to run off. You cannot effect a genuine change of desire with an ultimatum as your relationship will be founded on that threat. And this is the real power issue; that you’d want a person to conform to your desire so badly that you’d use a threat to effect it in spite of the foreknowledge that it can never be a genuine conformation because they didn’t orginate it and did so only under duress.

So from your standpoint, yes you do have the power to affect your own actions (like walking away), but you are powerless to force her to do what you want (prompt a genuine desire in her), thus you resort to an ultimatum and only illustrate this OVERTLY.

Boundaries

It’s very important to make the distinction between setting boundaries and delivering ultimatums. Men with a head for absolutisms seem to think that avoiding ultimatums is the same as spinelessly avoiding laying down the law and setting the frame for a relationship (or even a particular plate they’re spinning). Establishing boundaries and assuming frame requires exemplification and demonstration. As with the 9th Law of Power: Win Through Your Actions, Never through Argument – demonstrate, do not explicate. There is no more overt an explication than your delivering an ultimatum. Ultimatums only lead to behavioral shifts based on the fear of repercussions, never a genuine desire for that behavior.

However, a continuous demonstration of what you necessitate in a relationship is vital to its health and your continued primacy of frame. Telling a woman what’s what or else often smacks of insecurity and childishness, but a firm discussion-less enacting of what is important to you and necessary for any future relationship viscerally teaches her what is expected by experiencing the very repercussions you ultimatum would only advertise to her.

Relationship Game – Wife Sex

At the risk of leaning too far into the Athol Kay demographic, over the weekend I had some thoughts inspired by the Wife Porn thread that I thought were relevant.

It never ceases to amaze me how readily divorced women (and sometimes thrice divorced) are to dispense tips on the makings for a great marriage. Or more fascinating, to hear pussy-whipped husbands parrot these same lines. A divorced guy’s marriage advice is usually “just don’t get married.” So allow me to toss in my two cents here.

In all the years I’ve been counseling men I have yet to have a guy tell me he’s getting more sex now than when he was single or dating his wife, but sex isn’t the issue here – desire is the root of the problem.

As I’ve stated in many previous posts, properly motivated, women will move across the country, crawl under barbed wire and out a 2 story window to fuck a guy she has the genuine desire to fuck. This applies equally to your wife of 10 years. Before marriage women look for ways to get laid with a guy they want to marry, after marriage they look for ways to avoid it, but it’s desire that motivates it.

Chris Rock says it best when he goes into sex after marriage –

“If you like fucking, marriage aint for you. I haven’t fucked in 8 years. I’ve had ‘intercourse’, but I haven’t fucked since I got married. I haven’t had a blow job in 8 years. I’ve had ‘fellatio’ but I haven’t had my dick sucked in 8 years.”

This is the essence of desire after marriage; it generally becomes another chore to add to a woman’s to-do list. Get the kids to soccer practice, go get groceries, fuck her husband and fold the laundry. Add a fulltime job to that list and sleep becomes the new sex. But it’s not about being tired or overwhelmed, it’s about desire. My wife used to work a night shift and if she came in at 2am and woke me up telling me she felt like having sex, I could be in the deepest of REM sleep and wake up to knock it out with her and be ready to go for two, because I want to have sex with her. Women love to play the “but I really want to, I’m just not into it now” card to counter this, but as always, never forget it’s her behavior that defines intent, not her words. Remember, a woman will fuck; she might not fuck you, she might not fuck me, but she will fuck somebody. She just needs to be properly motivated.

Desire Levels

All of those preconditions she had for you to accept YOUR offer of marriage – a good job, be a good provider, a good listener, be funny, have status, being reliable, a good physique; all of that does nothing to increase her desire to have sex with you. The single, bachelor is concerned with Interest Levels, the married man should be concerned with Desire Levels.

So how do you prompt this Desire? How do you get a woman who knows every intimate detail about you for the past 10 years properly motivated to fuck you like she did when you were 20-something? Women will offer the Oprah-correct, “more romance!” and men will roll their eyes and murmur “more alcohol.” Put out of your head right now all of these feminine-correct notions that you need to “rekindle the fire” or find some gimmicky ritual that will lead you back to that desire she picked up from some article in Cosmo – I’ve gone down that road before. ‘Date Night’ is a band-aid for a symptom of a larger ill and this is a prolonged lack of Desire. There is nothing worse than going through the motions of a pre-planned, pre-scripted, ‘date-like-you-used-to-have’ only to have your wife lay on the bed like a dead fish. No amount of opportunity (which is what a date night is, scheduled opportunity) will lead to her wanting to have sex with you.

It’s not about frequency, it’s about quality. Frequency declines after marriage, it’s just logistics (especially after kids), but spontaneity doesn’t have to. Would your wife fuck you in the car like she did when you were dating? Would she be up for fucking in the great outdoors if you were hiking together somewhere? Would she be down for anything kinky that she hasn’t done before or in ages, or is it all just ‘vanilla’ sex now? Here’s a list of things you should do from a a man’s point of view:

Make her want it
If you’ve been married for years, she probably feels pretty secure with you and whatever degree of control she has in regards to regulating the flow of sex. Make her uncomfortable. As counterintuitive as it sounds, this is the single most important advantage you can take. Begin to incrementally take the power that her intimacy has had sway over you for the past 10 years back from her. When you were unmarried even the slightest bit of anxiety that she may be put off for another, better, prospect than herself prompted that desire to fuck you better than the others.

Most important though is to do this covertly. If you go popping off about how you’re taking your balls back and she’d better shape up or you’ll be looking for a woman who is into fucking you, you’re dead in the water. You have to imply with your attitude and behavior that something’s changed in you. The best principle to remember in marriage is that you will only get what you’ve gotten if you keep doing what you’ve done before.

The power of the ‘takeaway’
In one form or another PUAs use the takeaway to shape desired behavior. This is behavioral psychology 101, reinforce the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t, all the time remembering that too much reward leads to satiation and cessation of the desired behavior. Don’t buy your wife flowers in order to get her to fuck you, buy them AFTER she’s performed accordingly and to your satisfaction. So many married men I know (even in their 60s ) still attempt to purchase sex from their wives by ‘allowing’ them to buy expensive things thinking it will lead to ‘appreciation sex’. In reality it will invariably lead to negotiated, obligatory and desireless ‘debt sex’. Remember, the pool boy that your wife cheats on you for didn’t buy her a goddamn thing to make her want to fuck him.

Your attention is your best tool in this regard. One thing I tell AFCs is not to give away the farm on the first date and that women are by nature attention craving. When you give away your attention without her having to seek it devalues your attention. This is a paradox in marriage because it’s understood that she ‘should’ have 100% of your attention and over the years there is zero mystery about you. When you begin to take away attention she’s grown accustomed to she will seek it. And again you must do this covertly as she will respond to it covertly. You have to be sensitive to the adjustments she makes in her attention seeking, in conversation, in posture, in habit and behavior, because she wont overtly tell you “oh please pay attention to me.” This will add to her desire to have sex with you in order to reaffirm this attention. Sex then becomes a reinforcer for her in this attention seeking which you can then use to modify her behavior – in this case being genuine desire.

Other forms of the takeaway may include certain regularities she’s grown used to over the years that she takes for granted. One of these is a regular kiss. I used this to a great effect with my own wife. I would regularly come home from work and go kiss my wife as soon as I saw her, she became accustomed to this and after a few years I came to realize that I was like a puppy dog in this regard, immediately seeking affection as soon as I got home so I began to take this away. Eventually she covertly recognized this and began to greet me at the door with a kiss. She was prompted to desire that connection by a takeaway.

Stay in shape
Nothing kills married sex faster than one or both partners letting themselves go physically. Most married Mothers who do so love to use their pregnancies as justification for their lack of motivation and obesity. Arousal is the important component to desire. If your wife kept herself in bikini model shape after she’d been overweight your desire to fuck her would undoubtedly increase. The same applies to you. Every day I’m in the gym I see countless 30 and 40 somethings straining and training as if their lives depended on it. Actually their sex-lives depend on it. For far too long we’ve been taught that “it’s what’s on the inside that counts” and how wonderful inner beauty is. Funny how hard men and women will train once they’re divorced eh? The question is, what is it about their situation that would make them take care of themselves physically that they wouldn’t while married? Before the divorce, they never had the time or motivation, but now it seems they have plenty of both.

By staying in shape – and by that I mean better shape than your spouse if possible – you send a message, not only of confidence, but a covert understanding that she’ll have some veiled competition for your attention via social proof. Thus you not only create genuine desire by physical arousal, but you simultaneously create a psychology of desire by prompting her natural competitive impulses (i.e. Dread).

Dont drive drunk
“It provoketh the desire, but taketh away the perfomance.”

Alcohol is NOT an aphrodisiac. I know that sounds odd coming from a guy who’s worked in the liquor industry for 8 years, but it’s true.  Alcohol does lower inhibitions and perhaps disposes your wife to lovemaking. After years of experimentation I’ve perfected the ‘pantydropper’ – that magic formula of just enough alcohol to get her going, but not so much as to have her passed out over the toilet bowl. Still, sex is better sober and the obvious setback of whiskey-dick isn’t going to improve her already dubious desire to have sex in the first place. Understand the dynamics of her sexuality too. Strike while the iron’s hot and be sure to be up and ready to go at the peak of her menstrual cycle. I have my wife’s period down to a science now and I know that she’s physically ready to rock & roll her best by week 2. Catch her right after a good workout and after I’ve come back from lifting and that’s the benchmark for ‘real’ genuine sexual desire. You simply cannot inspire her to a standard of desire if one or both of you have a depressant in your bloodstream. If anything you want to accelerate blood flow not impede it.

Spontaneous combustion
Predictable is BORING. There’s nothing more predictable than sex with the same person you’ve been getting busy with for 10+ years. Oddly enough the spontaneity principle is exactly why garbage advice like ‘date night’ and “keeping it fresh” articles in Marie Claire sell magazines and don’t save marriages. All of these “freshen it up” ideas are predictable. For all of the wacky ideas you can come up with for ‘new’ sex, you’re still fucking the same old lady you married 10 years ago. You’ve got to be willing to push the envelope with her expectations of predictable sex.  Suggest it when she least expects it. Tell her to flash you her boobs or some other cheap thrill when the opportunity presents itself at the beach or somewhere semi-public. Creating a condition of desire doesn’t have to directly and immediately lead to intercourse. Ask her for a hummer in the parking lot before you go to dinner one night. Even the asking is arousing. And even if she turns you down you can still use her rejection to your advantage since it implies that, perhaps at some point in time, she (or some other girlfriend you had) used to do this because she wanted to (assume the sale). When you do proposition your wife make it seem as if it just popped into your head at that very moment. Again, think covert, not overt. Overt requires planning and planning = predictable and boring. Covert implies spontaneity.

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships 
In any relationship, whether romantic, personal, business or familial, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

This may sound Machievielan, but it holds true, especially in marriage. If you are wondering who has the great degree of control in your relationship the answer is always her. Just like a good DJ knows, she must come to you. If you are the PRIZE and she recognizes this, you will inspire genuine desire. Women don’t want to marry other women (with the obvious exceptions), they want to marry men and you have to man up and be a man to do so. So many married guys I know have walked their entire married lives on eggshells because they put their wives in a position of being the gatekeeper of his own sexuality. “She’s got the vagina man, I don’t wanna piss her off” is the mantra they repeat to them and themselves. This then flows over into other aspects of their lives and places a woman (often unwantedly so) into becoming the authority in the marriage. Just as in single life, if her intimacy is used as her agency to get a desired behavior from her husband that’s the value it has. When you can prove to her that her pussy is no longer a rewarding reinforcer for her desired behavior of you, you remove this agency and reset yourself on at least a partial footing of your prior bachelorhood.

As I stated, women don’t want to marry other women, neither do they want to marry themselves. In becoming accommodating for her by allowing her sexuality to dictate their behavior, men often see identifying with a woman as the best course of getting laid in marriage. And like in single life this ends up putting a man in a sort of married ‘friends zone’, with which a woman feels obligated to have sex occasionally. You’ve got to avoid these traps by maintaining a stubborn sense of your own identity and actively protect against identifying with her.

Have A Look

One of the hardest things to drive home for a freshly unplugged guy is their tendency towards absolutism. You can’t really blame a guy who’s been desperate for intimacy for so long to want to follow some prescribed program that will only solve his most immediate problem. “OK, what do I haffta do to get girls? Wear this? Say this? Act like so?,..” It’s exactly this type of literalistic, binary bent that makes most Plugins skeptical of the proponents of Game, and thus the veracity of Game itself.

Understanding the difference between Peacocking and having a style is one of these major entanglements. “Wear a funny top hat? Black nail polish? Get the fuck outta here!,..” Most guys new to Game tend to conflate the more extreme aspects of Peacocking with having a style or as Adam Carolla puts it here, having A look. This is a very awkward progression for ‘regular’ guys to make because for so long they’ve been told to Just Be Themselves. They find comfort in saying things like “I don’t want to be with a girl who doesn’t like me for who I am” yet wonder why they’re dateless virgins who’ve never kissed a girl at 29.

A Look

It’s important to have A Look. The basis of physical attraction is going to be conditional for any individual girl, but always bear in mind that A look is contextual. The archetypal “douchebag” with tats and an MMA appeal is a Look. Guyliner, black nail polish and Emo skinny jeans is a Look. The guy in a 3 piece Armani has a Look, and there are dozens more, but the point is that women are in fact like casting agents looking for the right character to fill a role.

But, does “A” look really imply “any” look? Some of these men look so bizarre that it’s hard to imagine them conforming to an interesting character sought by a particular group of women. Can freakishness itself be a strong pivot in attracting women?

“Freakishness” to some is mundane to others. Everyone is playing a role by order of degrees on any given day and in any given circumstance. Where I work I’m free to wear jeans and a t-shirt if I so desire, but I opt to dress much sharper than that, why? Because it commands a certain respect, even if it’s not necessarily legitimate. When I’m at a club, say, doing a new product launch, my persona and dress changes to match the environment.

A guy like Mystery doesn’t go around wearing elevator boots and top hats to the 7-11 to buy a big gulp. I doubt he even wears that getup to clubs any longer;  those shots were taken in his experimental phase. He still peacocks for sure, but it takes far less now because guys like him have distilled the principle down to what draws attention in various situations.

Club hopping in full Gene Simmons stage attire isn’t impressing anyone, but that’s what a lot of guys without a Look like to poke fun at – the extremes. An extreme douchebag, an extreme Emo, an extreme Orange County Chopper style, etc. make for easy targets, but that’s not the point of having A look.

Peacocking

Peacocking is not a style, it is a functional PUA skill ( use of props actually). It takes a sense of style to know how to pull it off effectively, but peacocking as a skill is more about use-of-instance than it is about your overall look.

When PUA studies were in their infancy, the idea of peacocking was pretty much a no-brainer. It’s not too hard a concept to follow since most socially intelligent people will want to set themselves apart from the mating herd. Truth be told, everyone peacocks to some degree. Just selecting a tie or a pair of shoes for an occasion may seem innocuous enough, but subconsciously you make choices and develop preferences for certain items in certain situations because you think they improve your appearance, and thus your odds for drawing attention to yourself.

The intent behind peacocking is more about having a subtle difference, or a conversation piece that draws a woman into your frame. Oddly enough (or not) I’ve found that nice expensive shoes seem to be a natural pull for some girls. This isn’t surprising considering most women’s obsession with shoes. One thing that’s important to remember is women’s sensitivity to covert subcommunication, body language, appearance, non-verbal cues, etc. In the briefest glance they’ll size one another up and come to operative conclusions about a woman’s status in their girl-hierarchy. It follows that they use the same tools with the Men they find attractive.

Most newly Game-aware men who are comfortable enough to venture using Peacocking don’t realize that a little goes a long way. Your Game isn’t peacocking, it’s just the flashy lure to get the fish to strike. It’s up to you to play the fish once it’s hooked.

I should add here that it sometimes helps if you can combine an element of  Chick Crack to your flair item. Of all the strippers I’ve ‘dated’ every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic, etc. These types look for that connection in a guy. For instance I bought a very smal silver yin-yang ring that I’ve worn for almost 18 years now when I was in college. I don’t really have any eastern mystic beliefs, I just bought it from a street vendor at the time when I felt I needed a reminder to keep balance in my life. But damned if I haven’t had more women point it out and ask me about it, and have it be some karmic conversation starter since I got it. The thing is tiny, but that’s a cue that they gravitate towards.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

Myth of the Dark Arts

According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix. Associating Game with Dark Triad personality traits makes this qualification process much easier, since the feminine imperative owns the definition authority of what is social and what is anti-social.

The problem then becomes one of defining what acceptable use of Game is social and anti-social. Predictably Game-accepting women will want to cast Game into terms that suit them individually and accommodating for their own personal conditions as well as the priorities of their particular phase of life. However, because of such diverse conditions, consequently there is a lot of disagreement amongst Game-accepting women about what contextually constitutes appropriate use, thus a pick-and-pull form of rationalization about aspects of Game gets thrown about in their internal debates.

For feminized men this is a very confusing debate. It’s difficult enough for them to accept that women love Jerks (despite being told the contrary for half their lives by women), but for the Game-accepting women they still think are ‘quality’ it’s a bitter pill to swallow when these women debate the aspects of acceptable, lovable Jerk-like qualities and the evil, user, manipulative, ‘dark art’ Jerk that only contextually misaligns with their present conditions and priorities. For both the plugged-in and the freshly unplugged this is an incongruency that they have a tough time reconciling against the ideals of moralism that a fem-centric society has unwittingly convinced them of.

While a broader understanding of hypergamy and Game make for useful tools for enlightened single men, the Game-accepting Beta plug-in will still see it strictly as a means to satisfying the female imperative – long-term provisional monogamy. Any deviation from this narrative, any guy using Game for personal gain, personal pleasure or to enact his own sexual strategy is guilty of crimes against (feminized) society. Since the societal Greater Good has been defined by the feminine imperative, anything counter to it is definitively evil, counterproductive, anti-social and manipulative sociopathy.

The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. In the introduction section of the 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene explains the same about power. Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.

The unwritten, 49th Law of Power, is denying the utility of power itself, or demonizing its use both moralistically and socially. With the wide dispersion of Game theory this has been the reactionary tact of the feminine imperative; appeal to the deeply conditioned moral, ethical, honorable, virtuous ideals engrammatically planted in men by a fem-centric society, while redefining the acceptable use of the same Game the imperative demonizes for its own purposes.

Welcome

I’m still very busy at a Vegas tradeshow at the moment, but briefly, I’d like to take this opportunity to personally embrace all the newly disenfranchised and disillusioned commenters who were once regulars at the Hooking Up Beta echo chamber.

Welcome.

I understand that you may have once believed that Aunt Giggles was sincere in her assertions of wanting to come to some gender neutral middle ground as a mission statement for the catharsis that passes for her blog. I understand your frustration, but always know that the comment threads here at RM will never be edited or censored of conflicting viewpoints and insight (only spam). You see, personally, I believe that a real understanding of gender issues can only happen in an open forum of debate. A true marketplace of ideas needs all voices to determine the strength and validity of those ideas.

Again, welcome, and please feel free to browse the categories and archive.