Social Conventions

Late Term Virgins

Anyone seen the Virgin Diaries yet?
Originally Posted by jafyk on the SoSuave forum:
What’s your take on people waiting to get married to have sex?

I could simply take the easy way out of this and defer to my now infamous Wait for It? post, but I don’t think it would sufficiently address the phenomena of women abstaining from sex until marriage. I mention women here implicitly because there’s no man on planet earth with a mean average testosterone level who wants to wait for sexual intercourse. For guys who convince themselves of this sadistic delusion it’s generally an element of their particular form of Beta Game.

Many an AFC believes that having held onto his virginity for so long is a great selling point for himself. It follows the standard Beta Game protocol of attempting to instill value by proxy. In other words “I’m not like those other guys, I held onto my virginity this long and you are so special a girl that I’ll forego this conviction to bang YOU, you lucky special girl you.” The assumption is that she’ll be so flattered by such an offer she’ll reciprocate with all her unbridled lust. Of course the more likely scenario is she’ll use this confession as a convenient out of the situation by saying how she could never live up to his expectations – essentially a moralized version of the LJBF escape clause. She’s not the girl he’s looking for. By admitting this, he’s essentially saying “I was saving my virginity for the woman who’ll be my wife.” The covert message is just short of a marriage proposal; marriage being the pretext for sexual intimacy. Needless to say, this will often be overwhelming for the girl.

All that said, and as odd as it sounds, I can appreciate the conviction of saving oneself for marriage. As impractical as it’s become, the latent purposes for doing so do make practical sense, or at least they used to. Unfortunately the idea has been subjected to the modern insecurities and inconsistencies of the overly religious, smashing headlong into modern entitlements of contemporary feminine hypergamy. Without turning this into a theology thread, the idea of maintaining virginity has become a hinderance to full maturityin modern times, and this is then exacerbated by confused and inconsistent understanding of gender definitions from the past 50 or so years of feminization. Religion is no insulation against the rigors of the sexual marketplace and the church is no shelter from the Matrix, and if anything, feminization thrives there.

Simply put there are experiences and opportunities for personal growth that only embracing our sexuality can offer. One point I regularly make with respect to AFCs is that at some stage in their maturation they became retarded. I use “retarded” in the clinical, not the derogatory sense here; their social maturation becomes held up by their lack of access to experiences that would help them develop new cognitive models. Most of the time this is due to an inability to see past old conventions they learned in adolescence which halts them from passing to the next level so to speak. The problem with saving oneself for marriage becomes apparent in this. I’m not saying there is no merit in it, just that most people subscribing to it blindly do so without understanding the limitations inherent in it.

From my experience in the church, most men I know are either so entirely unprepared for the responsibilities of marriage they tend to hook up with single mothers, or they see marriage as an inconvenient obstacle to their getting to fuck and marry at 19 in order to be “legitimately having sex” with no caution or condition whatsoever to whom they marry. Add to this the predominance of weak-masculine, asexual fathers and dominant masculinized mothers insisting on the feminine as priority and the religious AFC cycle continues. I should also add that this arrangement of marriage-for-sex is total abdication to the feminine imperative. The new feminine primacy paradigm figured out the utility of using duplicitous traditionalism to further it’s influence long ago.

The Odysseus Effect

One last conflict that “late term virgins” have to resolve is that in order to get to a point of intimacy with a woman – in order to marry them and thus have sex – is that there is a necessary sexual desire for both people. The conflict is this; in order to get to that pure, acceptable sexuality there is a needed sexual desire that has to preexist. It’s exactly this lusty taboo (sin) about sex that is necessary to prompt a person to marriage (holy). The selling point is a mutual sexual interest – we want to fuck people who want to fuck us – and this ‘forbidden fruit’ dynamic is a primary element in Virgin Game. If you have a professed strong conviction against premarital sex, and your desire for a woman is more consuming than that conviction, you’re essentially willing to defy the gods to fuck her. What woman, especially the pollyanna religious variety, wouldn’t appreciate being elevated above the dictates of God? It’s the ultimate in pedistalizations.

The Myth of the Biological Clock

Popular culture likes to teach women and, by association, unenlightened men that there is an innate biological clock inside each woman that slowly ticks down to a magical period where her maternal instincts at long last predispose her to wanting a child. Perhaps, not so surprisingly, this coincides perfectly with the Myth of Women’s Sexual Peak as well as conveniently being the age demographic just post or just prior to when most women hit the Wall.

The concept of a biological clock sounds very convincing on the face of it – it’s “biological”, and when it comes to feminine social conventions, nothing convinces women more than their bodies, their selves. In girl-world biological reasonings are always suspicious rationales for men’s bad behavior, but when applicable to women, biology is “Mother Nature”, and you don’t argue with that bitch.

Unfortunately, and as fate would have it, the hard science of biology often tends to crash headlong into feminine social conventions. Lo and behold Many Women Underestimate Fertility Clock’s Clang. Who’d have thought? It would appear the cold hard science of women’s actual fertility window doesn’t exactly coincide with the articles of faith that feminine primacy is teaching them.

A new survey finds a big disconnect when it comes to fertility. The age women think they can conceive a baby is far different from what their bodies are actually capable of. This poses an increasing problem, as more women wait longer than ever to have children.

What’s the chance a 30-year-old can get pregnant in one try? Many thought up to 80 percent, while in reality it’s less than 30 percent. For a 40-year-old, many assumed up to a 40 percent success rate. It’s actually less than 10 percent. And when you keep trying? The survey finds many think you can get pregnant more quickly than it actually happens. It also shows many women underestimate how successful fertility treatments are.

Not only is the myth of the biological clock inaccurate in terms of when a woman should get pregnant, it’s dangerously misleading in the odds of becoming pregnant.

“The first thing they say is, ‘Why didn’t anybody tell me this?'” says Barbara Collura, who co-authored the survey and heads Resolve, the National Infertility Association. She laments that no federal agency pushes this issue, and neither women nor their OB-GYNs tend to bring it up. Though, Collura admits that fading fertility is a hard message to deliver.

“Let’s be honest, women don’t want to hear that they can’t have it all,” she says. “We can have a great job, we can have a master’s degree, we don’t need to worry about child-bearing because that’s something that will come. And when it doesn’t happen, women are really angry.”

I wont argue that women actually possess maternal instincts, I will argue that their understanding of when they manifest has been deliberately distorted by a feminine-centric cultural influence. If women are “angry” about the revelation their inability or difficulty to conceive in their post Wall biological conditions presents, their anger is misdirected. Rather than come down from the heady pedestal of ego-invested female empowerment psychology, they’ll blame men for not being suitable fathers, or lacking a will to “play-by-the rules” and satisfy the dictates of the feminine imperative by whiling away their time in porn and video game induced comas.

“I just feel like it’s something else they lump onto women that we have no control over,” says filmmaker Monica Mingo, who’s blogged about her decade-long effort to conceive. She says the real issue is society at large, which is pushing back the age people are expected to settle down and have kids. Mingo didn’t even meet her husband until she was 32.

“You tell us your fertile years rapidly decline in your mid-20s,” she says. “Well, if I’m not dating anyone, and I want to have a family, what’s that information going to do for me?”

Well for one thing it might force you to come to terms with the course you want to set for your future life with an informed choice, rather than blaming it on so-called “Kidult” men when you do realize you want kids. I guess that’s asking too much when you’re in your prime party years at film school. Sorry Monica, time’s up, and you did have control over it in your pre-Wall years. All the haggard ghosts of feminism are cackling heartily around the cauldron of boiling good intentions in hell.

What were seeing here is a collision of hypergamy and feminine primacy smashing against the harsh reality of biology. The feminine imperative needs to create a new social convention to make this incongruent reality agree with its doctrine. It’s been done before with the convenience of Sexual Fluidity. Blame men for not living up to the tenets of the “having it all” ideology and create a convenient new social convention that shames men in its retroactive resolution of the problem it caused itself.

Intergender Friendship

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

Ever since “When Harry Met Sally” was released there’s been a constant droning about the validity of intergender friendships. To even suggest that men and women couldn’t be strictly platonic, mature friends is to invite reproach from a society that’s been steeped in notions of egalitarian equalism. If men and women are fundamentally “the same” there should be no impediment to developing and maintaining a friendship in like terms to a same sex friendship.

First off, men and women cannot be friends in the way or to the degree that most people perceive same sex friendship to be. Now the natural resoponse to this is “I have lots of female friends” or “what are you trying to say, I can’t have female friends, they all haffta be enemies?” Which of course is the standard binary (black or white, all or nothing) retort and the trained AFC thinks anyone suggesting that men and women’s relations as friends could be anything less than equitable and fulfilling is just a neanderthal chauvinist thinking. However, they are incorrect – not because you wouldn’t want to actually be a woman’s friend. There are fundamental differences in the ways men and women view friendship within the framework of their own sex and the ways this transfers to the concept of intergender-friendship.

Quite simply there are limitations on the degree to which a friendship can develop between men and women. The easy illustration of this is that at some point your female “friend” will become intimately involved with another male; at which point the quality of what you perceived as a legitimate friendship will decay. It must decay for her intimate relationship to mature. For instance, I’ve been married for 15 years now; were I to entertain a deep friendship with another female (particularly an attractive female) other than my wife, my interest in this woman automatically becomes suspect of infidelity – and of course the same holds true for women with man-friends. This dynamic simply doesn’t exist for same sex friendships because the sexual aspect is inconsequential.

I understand how stupidly obvious this seems, but remember we’re qualifying the characteristics of intergender friendships in the face of a social undercurrent that wants to convince us that men and women are fundamentally equal. According to this precept, men should essentially possess the capacity to repress their sexual impulse to the point that it should have no bearing on his rational decision to engage in a platonic friendship. Likewise, a woman should be able to dissociate herself from her hypergamous nature to pursue a completely asexual friendship. And both genders should maturely pursue the friendship for their mutual enrichment, however, reality tells a different story.

Girl-Friends

All of this isn’t to say that you cannot have female acquaintances, or that you must necessarily be rude or ignore all women with contempt (that is binary thinking once again), but it is to say that the degree of friendship that you can experience with women (as a man) in comparison to same sex friendships will always be limited due to sexual differences. Most men will only ever engage in friendships with women that they initially find attractive which then, of course, is colored by their attraction to that woman. Now I’m sure the “not in my case” card will get played and attempt to make the anecdotal case for how much an exception to the rule you are, to which I’ll say, even if you legitimately are, it makes no difference. Because the very nature of an intergender friendship is ALWAYS going to be limited by sexual differences. Even if you can legitimately make the case that you aren’t now, or weren’t in the past, attracted to your opposite sex friend, your other intimate relationships will still modify and/or limit the depth of that friendship.

Even the best, most asexual, platonic, male-female friendships will be subject to mitigation based on sex. The easy example is; I’m sure you’d be jealous and suspect of your girlfriend were she to be spending any “quality time” with another ‘male-friend’. It’s simply time spent with another male who isn’t you and you’ll always question her desire to do so in favor of spending time with you.

Bear in mind that it’s also important to consider how women relate with their same-sex friends as a template for their intergender friendships. Remember each sex uses its same-sex model of friendship on which to base their understandings and expectations for an opposite sex friendship. Very few men have the patience to sort out how women interact with their women friends, so they opt for the easy answer that equalism gives them – we’re all the same, so your buddies are the same as women. Any guy that’s been in the circular hell of being a woman’s “phone-friend” knows this isn’t true. Girl-friends have a much different dynamic for friendship than do men, but likewise, and by way of her innate solipsism, she’s presuming her intersexual friendships will follow along a similar template to that of her girl-friends.

And why wouldn’t women expect their male friends to conform to their template for friendship? In a feminine-centric world it makes practical sense for men to realign themselves to women’s friendship frame. Men will all too readily tolerate behavior and attitudes from girl-friends that they’d come to physical blows were their male friends to do the same. Since the prerogative of maintaining that friendship is, by default, cast in a feminine-centric frame, women (generally) wouldn’t even think of altering their own interpretations of friendship to accommodate a male perspective.

Get it out of your head now that you’re even in a so called “friend zone” with any woman. There is no friend zone – there is only the limbo between you being fooled that a girl is actually a friend on an equitable level to your same sex friends, and you understanding that as soon as she becomes intimate with another guy your attentions will become a liability to any relationship she might want to have with the new sexual interest and she puts you off, or you do the same when you become so involved with another girl.

The Female Wingman

A lot of guys cling to this mistaken notion that they can parlay a female friendship into action with one of her hot friends. You may even have legitimate examples where that might’ve happened, but for each one, I’ll show you a girl who would’ve fucked you irrespective of whether or not you had a mutual female friend to vouch for you. That friendship may have been a convenient pivot into another hot girl, but it wasn’t the prior intergender – friendship that got you laid; it was that the girl who banged you found you attractive enough to fuck.

I’m not denying the utility of  ‘Social Circle Game’, nor am I ignoring that the conspicuous attention of hot women is good social proof – that’s not what the friend pivot is about. It’s about assuming a girl-friend will endorse you as a preselected, potential sexual partner.

You may think it’s great social proof to have some hot friend endorse you as a good lay for her other friends, but women talk. In fact it’s all they do most of the time. Your status as a friend gets transferred to her girlfriends. Why? First, if she was a prior target for you who turned into a LJBF, you already have that as an association of your friendship. Any of her girlfriends that would subsequently date you will know that she was your primary interest initially – not them. Secondly, assuming you even could have a completely innocuous, asexual, platonic beginning to your inter-gender friendship, there will be competition anxiety with the other girlfriends. This will result in a tendency for the original friend to filter your exposure to which of her girlfriends she finds the least threatening. You have to consider the balance between your value to her as another friend / orbiter against her endorsing you as a potential intimate for one of her girlfriends. Just because you have a girl-friend with a social circle of attractive female friends doesn’t mean you’ll get her endorsement for the one you’d prefer to get with.

To complete the circle here, all of this leads up to understanding that your female friend will NEVER be one of your guy friends. This silly notion is founded on the expectation that your female friend will hold the same interests and have the same reactions that your male friends will. Women are never going to be your wingman. One of the great downfalls of men today is too much female influence in their lives, to the point that it’s become stigma. Beware the guy with too many or exclusively female friends. This might make for the plot of stupid movies, but most women are wary of guys with so many female friends that they question their being able to relate with and be Men.


Humanism, Behaviorism and the Amorality of Game

Our great risk in life is not that we aim too high and fail, but we aim too low and succeed.

I think one of the major hurdles guys new to Game encounter is an inherent discomfort with experiencing just how raw and uncaring the motivators are behind intergender dynamics. I can’t entirely blame this on a naive, White Knight dependency on wanting to have things fit into their perspective, it’s something more than that. For men with some sense of honor or duty there also comes with it a need to enforce a perception of morality. Understanding the evo-psych roots that drive what would be considered ‘immoral’ behavior by their mental frame is often enough to have men reject Game and the red pill altogether. They believe that even attempting to understand the roots of that immoral behavior is tantamount to rationalizing a way to excuse it.

For all the accusations of being a moral relativist, it’s still very hard not to see the latent purposes behind the behavior itself – this is cause for a lot of internal conflict for a morally predisposed man newly discovering the foundations of Game. In War Brides I made a case for women’s propensity to establish new emotional bonds after a breakup or a widowing with far greater ease than men due to a hard-wired psycho-evolutionary sort of Stockholm Syndrome. You can read the details in that post, but the implications of that is one of rationalizing a cruel, heartless bitch’s actions that could very well be considered amoral, if not immoral. There are plenty of other illustrations that to a newly Game-aware Man seem deplorable and duplicitous behaviors. Why can’t women just say what they mean and mean what they say, right? It seems like a horrible inefficiency to have to rely on women’s behaviors in order to really see their true motivators. What’s ironic is that much of what men have invented as moral considerations were designed to keep these behaviors and their functions in check.

All that said I can’t help but see a want for a higher order of self-image in understanding Game and how the visceral world of sexual dynamics operates. It’s raw behaviorism clashing with a desire to find a humanistic meaning in the cosmos, all set in the theater of intergender relations. I could simply take the easy way out and advise men to drop the pretense of morality altogether since it’s always subjective to whomever’s benefit the moralizing is done for. But that doesn’t remove the desire to see what we think is justice; the key being the desire for it, not necessarily the application of it. While I can certainly respect the aspirations of the nobler prospects of this approach, overall it’s a bit Pollyanna to nuts & bolts behaviorists. That’s not intended as a statement of fact, it’s just an observation.

From the humanist perspective you have to follow a linear, chronological advance in human understanding in many different realms – math, art, cultural ritual, science, societal conditions and any number of other ‘advances’ we’ve made from our hunter gatherer, tribalistic beginnings to our globally connected present. And while it is very ennobling and self-satisfying to see such achievements as evidence of our high-minded progress, it’s far too easy to overlook the root motivations for these advances that are anchored in the very evolution that the humanist perspective would like to claim triumph over.

For example lets consider Pablo Picasso. Not my favorite artist, but one of them and one most people recognize as a considerable personality in art. The humanist would hold Pablo up as the banner of human achievement – a fantastic artist as the result of our progress as a race and a tribute to our overcoming our brutish past. To which the behaviorist would ask, “why should it be that art is so highly valued among human beings?” For that answer we have to go back to the root causes for creative expression. Cavemen painted pictures of animals they’d killed on cave walls for millennia before Pablo arrived on the scene. Now you can argue that these drawings were communicative in nature, but the function of them was to convey a message – “Here is how we killed an antelope and you can too thusly.” Language then springs from this methodology and we progress, but the base function is communication that benefited the survival of the species.

Then you may ask why would Pablo personally want to be an artist? The humanist replies, “to fulfill his personal need for expression to become a self-actualized being” and the behaviorist answers “to make his life’s function easier.” I sincerely doubt that if any manifestation of creative intelligence wasn’t a precursor for sexual selection there would be so many “artists” throughout history. I could easily make similar arguments for famous inventors, scientists or even Benjamin Franklin. It all returns to root motivations.

The self-actualized man still finds himself aroused by the Playboy Playmate irrespective of how much he convinces himself he should reserve his ‘feelings’ for his wife or girlfriend to “morally” conform to his higher-order of self-expectations. Powerful establishing operations such as deprivation virtually ensure that he will have an ‘inner conflict’ and to remedy this he will behaviorally condition himself to act accordingly. Regardless of the method, it’s still the biological root that has been hardwired into his head millennia ago by his hunting ancestors. Whether or not he acts on an opportunity to cheat on his wife, the base desire is still present and an undeniable motivation. A wife can close her eyes and imagine she’s fucking Brad Pitt when she’s with her husband – the motivation is still the same.

2/3rds of the American population is overweight, why do you suppose this is? According to the cognitive-humanist we’ve solved our hunting/gathering needs and can devote ourselves to ‘higher pursuits’, but yet statistics confound us here. The behaviorist sees this and notices that our own evolutionary psychology predisposes us to over-eat since in our evolutionary past we didn’t know whether or not we’d eat at all tomorrow or the next day (thus the ‘gathering’ was invented I suppose). Our bodies process this food in such a way that we burn fat far slower than carbohydrates and protein is reserved for muscle building. All of this in an evolutionarily efficient manner to preserve us, but now once we’ve (more or less) mastered our environment and food is convenient and plentiful it becomes a disadvantage. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just our innate biological mechanisms motivating us to behave in a manner that will benefit us best.

Every vice you can point a negative finger at operates in precisely in this dynamic. Our morality, our intelligence, our sexuality and the behaviors that are manifested by them are all motivated by this base. It would be a pleasant fiction if we could all remove our consciousness from this and be these enlightened, self-actualized beings, constantly operating in a state of peak experience, but this damn testosterone in my body keeps pulling me back down to earth. It may be morally reprehensible for a woman to break her marriage commitment, divorce her husband and remarry a rich entrepreneur, but from a behavioral perspective it makes long term pragmatic sense.

The problem that moral relativism poses to the humanist approach isn’t so much in recognizing this primitive base motivation, but an unwillingness to embrace it and live with it and use it.

I want to run, I want to fuck and I want to fight – I want to feel the blood, testosterone and adrenaline pumping in my arteries. I also want to write a sonata, paint a masterpiece and be a loving father to my daughter.

Behaviorism is the antithesis of putting angels wings on our backs and claiming we’ve evolved ‘above all of that.’ I haven’t, you haven’t and no one has, and our behaviors will make hypocrites of us whenever condition and opportunity facilitate it for us. It’s not that behaviorism would have us all living like animals in the bush as an ideal state, nor does it deny that people have very ennobling qualities; it simply accepts the whole of what prompts us to do what, why & how we do things and explores the reasons why in a far more fundamental way than a romanticized humanism. I’m sure this is akin to atheism for people invested into humanism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s simply a more pragmatic, efficient and realistic approach for explaining behavior.

Good Girls ‘Do’

Good girls are just bad girls who never got caught.

Allow me relate here a case study I counseled a friend on personally about 6 years ago. I have a very good friend, Ray, that I hired and work with. Though we started out as work associates he bcame one of my better friends and had the benefit of my personally having unplugged him from the Matrix. He was a good student (for lack of a better term), but in becoming so he went through a transformation process. Like most guys fed on a lifetime of feminine conditioning he patronizingly accepted what I was initially teaching him, but privately, he still clung to his AFC mentalities. That is, until the turning point came.

Unbeknownst to me Ray had entertained a flirtatious “friendship” with a semi-attractive PR girl we were working with for a while. He knew what I’d said about LJBF rejections and “playing friends” with women, so he left me out of the loop on the whole affair. He had “dated” her on several occasions, but beyond the infrequent “kiss while drunk” she kept him at arms distance using the standard fillibuster techniques women classically use – “I’m not ready for a relationship”, “I’m not looking for a BF”, “We’re good friends”, etc. She did however keep him in her ‘attention web’ with little carrots of affection for him to pull her cart for about 3 or 4 months. Mind you, Ray was never a chump. He’d hooked up with his share of women, but this cute, “good girl” who was at best an HB7 developed into a ONEitis for him.

This all came to a head when one night she had to do some work with Aaron Lewis (yes, from Staind) while he was doing his solo acoustic act at our casino. To make a long story short, the PR girl ended up buzzed on this night and fucked Aaron Lewis’ tour manager in a classic situation of right-alpha, right-environment, right-conditions. Her mistake was in feeling the need to confess her actions to Ray who’d felt betrayed considering all the investment he’d put into doing what he thought was the right way to go about things. Here was one guy on one night who she fucked in a moment of chemical reaction because “he was hot, I was drunk and one thing led to another,..” versus his 3-4 month personal investment.

This was of course when he consulted me and informed me of everything leading up to it, only now he was at an impass. She appologized profusely to him and held out (once again) the olive branch of a LJBF rejection. He asked me what he should say, and it was at this point he took the initiative to tell her “no, we can’t ‘just be friends’.” He did what I advised him to and he walked away from a woman for the first time in his life. This is when all hell broke loose for her. She’d never been met with this response before and all the cards went straight into Ray’s hands. She would consistently ‘bump into him’ at bars or events to “have another talk”, she did a complete 180 in her attitude with him all in an effort to “be his friend.”

Now I’m exceptionally proud of Ray because, unlike most guys finding the true power of a takeaway, he stuck with it rather than being contented with her chasing him and then giving into the LJBF. He had actually learned a valuable tool that he still uses now – the power of the takeaway. In addition he also came to understand the principle of understanding a woman, not by what she says, but by what she does – he learned the importance of reading behavior. Of course after about 6 or 8 months she stopped pursuing him “to be friends” and he has talked to her in the interim years, but the frame of their discourse has changed. She has respect for him that she never had when he was the pursuer and never would’ve had if he’d surrendered to another LJBF.

Good Girls

This girl, at every opportunity, loved to display her ‘properness’ and would always say she “wanted a man with a good heart” when asked what she looked for in a guy. She was very outgoing as befits a PR person, but at all times she presented herself as someone conscious of how people perceived her and her reputation. Hers was a classic case of basing estimations upon behavior above words. Biology trumps conviction – sexuality, for as much as we think we can, will not go unexpressed. Celibate priests, moralistic republican statesmen, and the pure-as-the-driven-snow virtuous girl you’ve got ONEitis for all want to get off, and they’ll find a way to do so. According to FaceBook she now lives in Montana with a thoroughly beta husband who likely has no idea that she had the capacity for raw, feral hypergamy.

One of the trappings of a woman a guy perceives as a ‘good girl’ is that he’ll have a tendency to pedestalize her by default. White Knights are a given, but even hardened PUAs are prone to want to read more into the personality of a ‘good girl’. A cute-ish HB8 ‘good girl’ is a recipe for ONEitis because she seems to be above seduction. “I just want a guy with a good heart” sound so fairytale perfect and with just the right amount of naivete applied, she comes off as a girl who truly believes Disney wishes really do come true. To guys with Game she’s a jewel in the rough amongst the bitch-shielded mean girls that populate the new hook-up paradigm. To chumpish White Knights she’s an archetype – the innocent damsel who needs to be saved from the world before it corrupts her soul and she turns into all the other women who wont date them. Both of them are equally shocked when she spontaneously fucks an Alpha tour manager.

If you haven’t done so yet, I highly recommend adding The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene to your reading list. In this seminal work he begins by profiling the archetypes of seducers and amongst them we find our ‘good girl’ is really The Natural; a child like innocence that masks a seductive motive. You may be inclined to think of a good girl as a prude, but this is often in error. The good girl needs to be seductively cute enough to make her hypergamy work for her. Any prudishness is reserved for putting a suitor into stasis long enough to evaluate better options, or in the case of our PR girl, the option to capitalize on an immediate Alpha experience.

The good girl’s Game is built around playing to the ‘Quality Woman’ mythos that men harbor. They want to believe she exists among a sea of vapid, self-absorbed sluts looking to cash in before they hit the wall. She’s not the prudish Madonna and she’s not the Whore of Babylon, she’s the cute good girl somewhere in between. She’s only an HB7-8, not the demi-goddess HB9+, so she also emanates a tantalizing potential of attainability. All of this makes for a very idealized, very cemented form of ONEitis until it’s graphically dispelled for the guy suffering from it.

Just like all men have some form of game, women have their own game. Since we live in a feminine defined reality, women’s game is not considered subterfuge, it’s simply how women are, or the feminine mystique. What makes a good girl contrast with ‘other girls’ is still founded within this feminine social normalization.The wise practitioner of Game knows what works best for him, but he must also be aware of the Game being used against him. One of the most important aspects of the principle of Amused Mastery is actually having the mastery to be amused. That may sound cryptic, but what it means is having the experience to know what to expect from feminne Game, mastering it and being able to riposte with an amused laugh.

For example, the operative goal of girl-game is to maximize hypergamy, this is a foundation of Game. So in knowing this, you can craft an amused response to any seduction methodology women use on you. The good girl is still looking for an Alpha, and will still stop the good girl car to get out and fuck him should the opportunity arise. When you deal with the good girl or any of her sister’s methods always see them beginning with the end in mind.

Could a Man have written this?

Blame the Sexual Revolution not Men.

Mona Charen had a very concise critique of  the overwritten personal ad that passed for Kate Bolick’s life’s confession, All the Single Ladies.

I wont say that I don’t admire Mona for having the courage to write a less than favorable critique; particularly one that points the blame back on a feminization that enthusiastically looks to reinvent it’s own social conventions in order to rationalize away the post-Wall dire straits women like Bolick are finding themselves in. However, is anyone really surprised that it’s now women receiving public recognition for acknowledging psychological and sociological principles and dynamics that the manosphere has covered for over a decade now?

I’m glad to see it getting the publicity, but ONLY a woman could write this without suffering fem-screech backlash accusations of misogyny. This is the environment we’re in today. I have no doubt that Ms. Charen will receive her share of frothing hate from ego invested Jezebels, but at least her critique will register for them. No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. This of course has an overwhelming appeal to White Knight prone guys, but the push is disingenuous for the same reason ‘pro-men’ female writers are – they still use the girl-world, female imperative rule book to define their outlook.

I’m once again painfully reminded of how women believe that they are the only lasting authority and irrefutable arbiters of anything that has to do with personal relationships. They have, and continue to control the language of anything relationship. Just look at the comment threads of any relationship article. Every female response is written from a position of authority. The same women who can’t articulate anything informative in other contexts  can write absolute volumes about relationship by-laws, etiquette, formalities and how it’s men’s honor bound duty to comply with their reality in a comment post.

We are acculturated into a world where the ‘common sense’ is to presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essences everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

Is Game Adversarial?

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

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

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

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

Firestarter

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

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

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

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

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

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.