Inter-gender Communication

The Mature Man

I recently got into an interesting debate as to the reasonings why mature men tend to opt for younger women with whom to settle down with. As is to be expected from femme-screech and their mangina enablers the social shaming mechanisms abounded. Most of these are some variation of the “men’s fragile egos” canard or the “a real man would want to get with a woman his own age” trope. This quote pretty much summed up the opposing point:

Older guys want to bang college-age girls for the same reason that many older women like dating younger guys: to live in a state of suspended youth and be reminded that they “still have it”.

I half-agree. Older women definitely want to think they “still have it”, with regards to their capacity to hold the attention of younger guys they find themselves in competition with younger women for. However, older men who naturally pursue younger women come to realize that they’ve “finally got it”. Why wouldn’t a guy of 40 have a natural preference for the younger woman after reaching a level of maturity and accomplishment that allows him this? Professional women tied to the male template of life’s progression tend to think that they too should be entitled to the sexual attraction of ‘eligible’ men by virtue of their mature achievements, status, intellect and some imagined sense of knowing themselves better. They are mistaken.

The Associations of Maturity

First off,  it’s a mistake to just peg 40 y.o.s in this demographic. There are plenty of early to mid thirties guys that can and do pull girls 5 to 8 years younger than themselves regularly. Funny how there’s little shaming stigma with that age difference. It’s not a man’s physical age so much as what the age represents (or is perceived to) – maturity, accomplishment, better provisioning capacity, status, etc. Do ALL men actually realize these to their satisfaction by this time? Of course not, but it’s the perception that they SHOULD have actualized this that is the attractant in comparison to younger guys who haven’t, nor would really be expected to. Mature Men represent this perception of assumed accomplishment and security – exactly what women are looking for in a phase of life where their sexual marketability declines and their need for long term provisioning becomes more urgent..

Second, understand that the incidence of 30-40 y.o. men remaining single up to this time of life is far lower. Most guys (AFCs in particular) are already engaged by 25 y.o. and or have been serial monogamists up to this point. For all the recent hand wringing about ‘kidult’ men not manning up and marrying women, rare is the guy who remains single into his late 30s. At this point he’s either divorced once or on marriage number two. Still fewer come into the realization of their own vastly increased sexual market value assuming they’ve managed to stay in shape and accomplish things financially, emotionally and maturity-wise up to this point and THEN use this to their own advantage with younger women. An interesting aside here is that men get berated for being peter-pans in their late 20s for not living up to female entitlement, then get the same treatment for marrying younger women when they do mature into Men. This is a glaring illustration of the female imperative at work.

Now add to that a constant feminine social contrivance telling them they have “fragile egos” or shames them for dating young chippys (i.e. future trophy brides) instead of mature women (generally single mothers) with all their accompanying baggage. Unsurprisingly we see in most cultures older males striving for the attentions of the younger and more atractive females, but in western culture he becomes vilified and shamed for this – or at least that’s what western feminized women would like to be the case. The most common complaint women in their mid-thirties bemoan is that “There’s no good men” or they can’t understand why men just can’t “grow up”. Increasingly ‘career women’ desiring to finally start a family at age 35 find that men – particularly the ones that meet their provisioning criteria – in their age range (33-38) are not interested in women (to say nothing of ‘career women’) of their age. They’re interested in the 22 year olds who wouldn’t give them the time of day when they didn’t have the status (or maturity) that they’ve just discovered they now have. And of course the 35 year old career woman was one of these 22 year old girls, only 13 years prior, who was doing precisely the same thing the 22 year old girls are doing today.

Mid-Life Crisis Epiphany

These Men are not trying to relive anything; they’re newly aware of their own sexual market value – and nothing both frightens and attracts a woman so well as a Man aware of his own value. That’s the foundation of confidence. This represents a problem for women though. They want a Man with the confidence and maturity (derived from experience) to make important decisions, be an initiator, a good provider, etc., but not SO confident that he weighs his options and selects her out of his provisioning for a competing woman based on his primary requisite of sexual experience. So to counter this, the feminine creates social conventions that shame a Man for considering a woman too much younger than herself. This has the latent purpose of leveling the playing field in order for her to compete with women who are younger, hotter and more sexually available. He has to be kept ignorant of the whole process, but still ashamed enough into thinking his desire for the young and attractive mid 20s girl makes him “juvenile” or he has a “fragile ego”, or he’s “trying to recapture his youth”. The feminine reality demands he be dissuaded from pursuing his interests in favor of women’s sexual strategies, and the best way to do that is to slime his intersets as disgusting:

To most college-age girls, a guy in his 40s (even 30s) and up is usually the “creepy old man,” even if he takes good care of himself. The old guy usually ends up trying to fit into the young girl’s world instead of the other way around.

This is the Creepy Old Man tactic. I don’t necessarily disagree with this, however I think it’s contextual. I’m regularly at events (mixers, clubs, promos, vodka nights, etc.) as part of my work where I’m approached by much younger women. If the 40 y.o. guy is perceived to be attempting to “fit in” with that age’s social peers, then you’re absolutely correct. The disconnect comes from a man who’d otherwise be perceived as possessing the attributes he should have for his age trying to retrograde himself into another age’s social profile. THAT’S when he becomes the “old guy in the club”. When I’m on promos, or out socially as part of my job, I NEVER attempt to ‘backdate’ myself style-wise, linguistically, etc. If you’re attractive, the girls who want to associate with a mature Man will find you.

I work in the alcohol / spirits industry and as part of this I travel internationally about 3-4 times a year. I’m at bars, events, conventions, martini clubs and mixers fairly often. And with the exception of a few men older than myself, I’m a senior in my company and older by 5 to 10 years than most of the people I interact with. In all honesty, I find people my own age or in their mid 40s, and particularly women, insufferably boring.

Men become happier than women by mid-life and for the most part I think I can see why. Most women in their late 30s to mid 40s are, for the most part, chronic complainers. After going through the high drama phases of her 20s, into kids, marriages and divorces in her 30s, women tend to content themselves languishing in this dissatisfaction that her fantasy life isn’t panning out. Nothing measures up to the perceived ideals she thinks are her due. Most women in western culture who find themselves single at 38-42 are there after an earlier life that didn’t go as planned. They almost universally carry some kind of baggage. Can they be attractive? Uncommonly, but yes. However it’s a mistake to assume older (or at least age level peers) women to be more intellectually equitable with older men and therefore more compatible choices for LTRs / marriage. I’m sorry if this comes off as glossing myself, but honestly, I’ve encountered very few women I can relate to intellectually or that I’d consider equal in my particular interests, my life experiences, my passions, etc.

I wish this didn’t sound like conceit on my part because, in all humility, I think the better part of what I find important is really pretty mundane. It’s not that I hold a low opinion of women’s capacity to be more intellectually equitable; it’s simply their own general indifference to even trying to relate to that in comparison to their own distractions. I don’t think women (and particularly 35-40 y.o. women) feel it’s incumbent upon them to HAVE to be a good mate, intellectually stimulating, or a good mother, or even a good sexual partner for a Man’s consideration. I’d attribute most of that to the female sense of entitlement / victimhood that permeates feminine popular culture, but also to men and women’s interests really being disparate. In other words, with the extraordinarily rare exception, women will NEVER put forth the same effort a man will for a woman to better identify herself with his interests for the explicit purpose of being a better mate for him.

“Mature” Women

Obviously a more mature woman will have a greater urgency to settle into the long term provisioning security that marriage provides her, but this urgency gets confused with actual maturity. Just because a woman is more motivated to start a family and enter into a more traditionally domestic life doesn’t mean she’s an intellectual or mature equal, nor does it make her more compatible with you in this sense. It simply means she is more motivated to do so based on her conditions of diminishing sexual value.

I think on some level of consciousness, older, more mature men who’ve spent a good portion of their lives dealing with the experiences that create this baggage for older women, recognize a necessity to distance themselves from it. After making the sacrifices, and avoiding (or not) the pitfalls that he must to become the healthy, mature and accomplished man that older women complain are in such short supply, I think it’s pretty matter of fact to seek out a younger, hotter, more sexually available woman with little to no baggage. The counter to this is the feminine social contrivances of shame that I’ve already covered earlier.

Men on a basic functioning level are pragmatists, even when we do allow our emotions to get the better of us. One tenet we maintain is an understanding that women tend to operate from an emotional level, whereas men tend to operate from deductive reasoning. And while a hot piece of ass is it’s own motivation, I think on some level, after the necessary experiences, sacrifices and time it takes to get to a point of personal maturity, we see a younger woman with less baggage as a sort of double bonus. If I were to find myself single tomorrow, this would be exactly my motivation. Why would I invest my considerable capacity for financial, emotional, intellectual and security provisioning into complicating my own life with a woman fraught with the baggage of her own failings and inconsistencies of the last 10-15 years? For what I’ve become myself and what I know is valuable, why would I not look for a simplification considering what was required of me to get to that maturity? If middle age men are happier than women at this stage of life, it’s because they’ve arrived at a place where they don’t feel the need to qualify themselves to women any longer.

A rich man doesn’t need to tell you he’s rich. You can see it in his appearance, his mannerisms, his bearing. The same is true for a mature Man. In his maturity he’s comfortable in the knowledge that he doesn’t need to prove it by qualifying himself to a social contrivance that’s counter to his own self-interest and his well being.

Taking things Slow

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Indignation

In the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves.

Over the weekend, The Chateau had an interesting quick-hit post extolling the Game virtues of a man losing his cool. This is an interesting concept from a behavioral psychology perspective in that it unexpectedly rattles comfortable, predictable, behavioral patterns women come to expect from their men. When controlled and used tactically it can reinvigorate a woman’s failing interest level, but I should add the caveat that for it to be effective you already need to have established a relationship to the point that doing something unexpected conflicts with a set expectation of behavior from you. If a woman doesn’t know your character “losing your cool” will only make you seem erratic and unstable.

Lets dig a little deeper here – what makes this break in routine so appealing to women’s psyches? You can of course argue that it’s outburst of feral Alpha that sparka ‘gina tingle, and that’s definitely a visceral effect, but what drives that glandular response is the prompt of indignation. Women live in a quandary when it comes to security. On an evolutionary level, the security impulse is a primary directive. Long term provisioning, parental investment and the innate understanding of the rigors of hypergamy and it’s relation to breeding make ‘security seeking’ a woman’s primary impulse. This isn’t to discount the influence of other impulses – sex being the next in order – however, herein lies the problem; the very cues that fire a woman’s sexual triggers are the same that conflict with her security needs.

On the surface, women have a social responsibility to present the perception that their interests are those of the uniter. Everything should revolve around home and hearth and security above all, but their behaviors tell a much different story about their appetites. Women need indignation. Watch one episode of ‘Dance Moms‘ and you’ll get a much clearer picture of the value indignation holds for women. Whether the source is gossip, living vicariously through third parties or eating it up in popular media (Oprah, Tyra Banks, romance / fan fiction media), in the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves. A lot of men believe that this need for indignation is the calling card of a “high drama” woman when in fact it’s really psychological predisposition for women.

Women’s biology predisposes them toward security, but they chafe in a condition of total security. In contemporary terms this translates to living under the conditions of relative security whilst seeking out avenues to create that indignant spark. The wise Man will develop tactical, measured ways to make himself the focus of that need for indignation. The Chateau’s article actually illustrates the most common way Men stumble upon the usefulness of this dynamic. You get fed up and pissed off, either at some boundary she’s crossed or some 3rd party has, and your anger flares up. Your usually patient countenance is gone and you go caveman. The reason this is shocking is that most men will tolerate far more personal indiscretions from their romantic interests, or want to present the appearance of humility or patience with others while she’s around, in an effort to convince his LTR interest that he is a good security provider. And while this may appeal to her provisioning instincts it directly conflicts with her more feral instincts of physical attraction.

Most plugged-in men don’t like this reality. It’s far more comforting to think of women’s attraction as requiring less confrontation. Women who are grossly overt in this need for indignation are (rightly) labeled ‘Drama Queens’, but what they don’t consider is that ALL women have this innate need by order of degree. It can be a useful tool for a Man who can use it covertly and skillfully. Accepting a feminine need for indignation is the first step, the next is to center her focus for it on yourself – instead of Dance Moms and gossip. An occasional, well timed flare up is sometimes all it requires to grab her attention, but be damn sure you’re in the right about whatever issue you decide to explode upon. Send a perfectly good plate of food back at a restaurant. Find some issue that meets with your disapproval and “let it get to you”.

The Power of No

A perceived righteousness of purpose is often best when you “get upset”, however, it’s not always necessary. One very powerful assertion of frame control is simply the word “no”. For as often as men will blather off a complicit “yes” in order to keep the peace, women NEED to be told “no”. Get into the habit of saying no, even when it seems unreasonable. Get comfortable in saying no for the sake of establishing your authority. Most men don’t see the purpose or value in this to even consider experimenting with their respect and frame control. They just want to keep their heads down, not rock the pussy boat and get along. That’s the recipe for a beta-herb divorce.

Here’s an example: there was once a point in my life when Mrs. Tomassi asked me if we could buy a new bed for our daughter; I told her no. I had the money, it was really no issue, I just didn’t want to build a new bed at the time and get rid of the old one. Besides, her bed was more than fine for the time and Mrs. Tomassi really wanted it because of the style. She got indignant; “I don’t see why we can’t, it’s a good price,…blah blah blah,..” and against my first impulse toward contrition I again said “No. We’re not getting the damn bed.” At that point the dynamic of the conversation shifted. It wasn’t about a bed, it was about frame. Of course lesser men will laugh and think, “yeah, she turned off the pussy after that to I bet, heh, heh,..” and for about a week they’d be right, but learn this now:

No amount of negotiated pussy will ever be worth losing frame for.

It’s always better to fuck a woman who accepts you as her authority than some half-assed lay with a woman who’s only fucking you out of a sense of obligation. Learning to use indignation is a fantastic primer for frame control.