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.