Beta Game

Before I launch into this proper, let me define a few terms in the fashion that I interpret them. With the popularity of Roissy’s blog and a few notable others, there’s been a new push with regards to using the terms Alpha and Beta (and sometimes Omega) when describing certain classifications of males in modern culture. Allow me to go on record as viewing these ideas as mindsets whereas terms such as AFC or DJ are really states of being. For instance, an Alpha can still be an AFC (called a ‘paper alpha’) with regards to women. A Beta male can still be as wealthy and astute in status as his conditions and fortune have placed him in (often by circumstance). Some states necessitate certain mindsets – a positive masculine state requires an Alpha mindset as a requirement – others do not. Also, don’t make the mistake of associating success (personal and career) with an Alpha mindset. There are plenty of Alphas on hotchickswithdouchebags.com, however that doesn’t necessarily make them well rounded individuals. I tend to think of the ideas Alpha and Beta as subconscious energies or attitudes that manifest themselves in our thoughts, beliefs and actions.

Beta Game

Alright now, with this in mind I’d like to propose the idea of Beta Game. Since we’re using the Alpha and Beta terminology here, it’s important to grasp where it comes from. Anyone with even a cursory understanding about animal social hierarchies knows the principal of Alpha and Beta individuals within a social collective. Alphas tend to be the males who exhibit the best genetic characteristics and behavioral skills that put them at the top of the potential breeding pool. In fact Betas are rarely mentioned as such in scientific studies; the Beta term, in PUA lingo is really something of a novelty. Relating these terms to human social interactions, while at times a subjective stretch, isn’t to hard to find parallels in. We can see the similarity, and the applications in long term and short term breeding methodologies that mirror our own.

Like any other Beta animal, alternate methodologies had to be developed in order to facilitate human breeding under the harsh conditions of Alpha competition. In essence, and as found in the wild, Beta males have developed (evolved?) methods which attempt to ‘poach’ potential females from an Alpha’s harem, or at least in this case his perceived, potential harem.

Identification

Beta male game focuses primarily on identifying and assimilating themselves to be more like the women they hope to connect with, but it goes further than this. The methodology dictates that the Beta be perceived as being unique (or at least set apart) from the more “common” Alpha males whom his desired women naturally prefer. This is the beginning of the “not-like-other-guys” mental schema he hopes to evoke in his idealized woman.

Due to his inability to compete with an Alpha competitor in the physical, he must fight a psychological battle on his own terms. This involves convincing his target that her best parental investment should be with him (as per her stated requirements) as he more closely embodies her long term prerequisites. The Beta likens himself to her (and women in general) in an effort to maximize his compatibility and familiarity with her and the feminine.

This identification process is then further reinforced through the feminine social conventions he subscribes to. Feminine society (both beta men and women) rewards him for more closely assimilating its ideal – be more like an archetypal woman; sensitive, empathic, emotional, security-seeking, etc.. And not only this, but take de facto feminine offense when presented with anything to the contrary of a female-positive perspective. Lift women up, become less so they become more, and in reciprocation she’s more apt to breed with the Beta.

That’s the principle, not necessarily the reality. In some ways it’s a Cap’n Save a Ho mentality written on a grand scale. The fallacy in this of course is that like should attract like. They fail to understand that opposites attract, and most women don’t want to marry other women, least of all a carbon copy of herself.

Disqualification

When presented with a competitor of superior status, both sex’s innate, subconscious reaction is to disqualify that competitor from breeding in as expedient a method as possible. For animals this usually involves some kind of courtship performance or outright competitive hostility. And while the same could be said for human beings, our natural social impulse requires we take a bit more tact. “Look at that girl, she must be a slut to wear / act like that”, or “Yeah, he’s pretty good looking, but guys like that are usually fags” are an example of the standard social weapons people use to disqualify their respective sex. Disqualify the competitor on the most base level – question their sexuality. Literally cast doubt on competitor’s sexual fitness to breed with potential mates.

While most men (Alpha or Beta) will make similar attempts to disqualify, the Beta’s methodology ties back into his need for feminine identification in his disqualifying a competitor. Essentially he relies on feminine ways of disqualification by drawing upon his likeness to the women he hopes to emulate (thus furthering potential attraction as he thinks). The competitor may not be gay, but he must be cast as inferior to himself due to his competitor’s inability (or lessened ability) to identify and empathize with his desired female.

With Alpha competitors, the field has already been plowed for him by feminine social conventions, all he need do is plant the seeds. The fact that the Alpha tends to embody the masculine opposite of what he’s embraced also feeds this drive. Women aren’t attracted to the macho tough guy, they want a man who’s kind and thoughtful; a good listener. So the natural recourse is to amplify this disparity – he’s a 1950’s neanderthal throwback, he’s “bitter”, he’s a misogynist, he’s a child in a man’s body with a fragile ego only interested in fucking women and moving on. He’s unlike anything on women’s collective stated list of prerequisites for an acceptable male. He must be ridiculed – as all women ridicule – for his selfish hyper-masculinity.

Furthermore, the Beta needs to make the Alpha seem common, while making himself seem unique. In order to effectively AMOG an Alpha, the Beta has to show his empathy for the feminine, and she must appreciate it or it’s been all for nothing (which it usually is). Not only is this an ego preservation mechanism, but it’s also perceived as a tool for achieving the desired sexual reciprocation / appreciation he desires.

Interpretation

All of this really just scratches the surface of how Beta game has evolved. I’m sure there’ll be more input as to different methods that Betas use to facilitate breeding – sexual fetishes / preferences come to mind. I will add though that all of these methods come back to a common root; the need to breed under the duress of competition. Most of what I’ve gone into here, and primarily the feminine identity association, become ego-invested and internalized over the course of a lifetime. It gets to the point that under the auspices of relative anonymity (like the internet) that the Beta will still cling to his mental model, even in the face of very rational, empirical evidence to the contrary, for no other reason than that a woman, a potential mate with whom he could identify, might read his post and may become attracted to him. The Game is never dropped for him, even in light of proving his errors. Beta game is like the boy who decides to play on the girls team when a boys vs. girls kick ball game is started. He thinks it will endear himself to them, when all it really does is make him another girlfriend to giggle with.

Everyone has a Game in some respect. We don’t live in a vacuum, our ideas about seduction (in whatever form) is influenced and / or learned externally. The validity of that Game may be more or less effective, but at some point a man is going to adapt to a methodology of seduction as per his conditions and environment warrant. Even mPUAs still need to adapt their Game for differing environments – different clubs, types of women, socio-economic levels, countries, etc. – there needs to be adaptation and improvisation. The same applies for Betas, but the disparity is that the Beta tends to think of a one size fits all approach. For all the complaints of worry about the Game community turning into scripted ‘social robots’, it’s actually the Beta who adopts a far more embedded script and is less likely to variate from it. Betas tend to stick with what worked for them, what was reinforced for them, in the past.

Sexual Fluidity

As loathe as I am about doing so, I’m forced to refer today’s post topic to Oprah.com’s essays on Sexual Fluidity. I wont do this often as Oprah is the crowned queen of feminine matrix-think. However, these articles outline a what I see as the nascent development of a new feminine social convention – sexual fluidity is the newly developing rational for late-life sexual and gender dissatisfaction for post-wall ‘New Women’ . I’ve already touched on how feminine social conventions and their latent purposes effect inter-gender relations in a few prior posts, and I have forthcoming posts dedicated to better outlining established social conventions and their functions, but I think this newly developing convention may be a great starting point in understanding how they evolve.

The most recent post over at Heartiste / Roissy’s (?) site enumerating the post-wall woes of Sinead O’Conner reminded me of an interesting phenomenon that has been gathering popular cultural awareness now for almost 4 years – the newly accepted convention of sexual fluidity. Quoting Sinead O’Conner here:

And further posts [from Sinead] brought more. Prospective lovers can be lesbian; may even, she conceded, be christened Brian or Nigel; but anal sex is non-negotiable.

As distracting as it is let’s ignore the anal sex reference for now, we’ll return to it later. Here we have an illustration of an otherwise heterosexual woman petitioning the general public for a sexual partner. Male or female, the gender is irrelevant to her, all that matters now is her sexual gratification. What we observe here is an example of what cognitive (see, touchy-feely) psychologists are terming sexual fluidity. This new concept revolves around the idea that a person’s sexuality can turn on a dime; it is essentially fluid and can change throughout a person’s lifetime and in accord with one’s conditions.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the psychology of this per se, only how popular, feminized, culture is conveniently turning this idea to the purposes of its own imperatives. Heterosexual male prison inmates can and often do resort to homosexuality during their incarceration and return to heterosexuality upon their release. This is in effect a sexually fluid response to solving a sexual release imperative under the conditions of being sequestered in a same sex environment for a long period of time. The conditions dictate the response.

Feminized culture has embraced sexual fluidity, but has rejected the underlying reasons for it. As a new social convention, sexual fluidity becomes less about conditions and more about the individual for women. For the post-wall, aging spinster, the concept of sexual fluidity is a godsend. As a rationale for her lackluster personal life it becomes a salve for her ego – homosexuality becomes a realizable, socially acceptable option. The true reason for her long term unhappiness is that she was, in actuality, an unacknowledged lesbian for all these years. And naturally, for all women, there is a wide base of emotional support from the sisterhood ready to embrace and accept the ‘real’ her. The necessity of accepting homosexuality as her only, conditional, sexual option becomes a new virtue to be proud of in Oprah-world. Never is there a mention that the choices she’s made in life had any bearing on her present condition, nor is there any doubt that the measures she’s now forced to resort to were dictated by those choices.

Now, before I get too far along on the anti-femme-train I want to point out that much of the reasons for constructing a social convention such as this have a lot more to do with the conflict between social conditions and our innate biomechanics. If you read through the article Why Women are Leaving Men for Other Women, you can’t help but notice the commonalities of the testimonies coming from otherwise feminine women being attracted to more dominant, masculine women. Often these come from long married-with-children women who’ve divorced their beta husbands in favor of a more dominant, butch, Alpha lesbian.

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her. Thus, we see condition dictate response. Kind of explains Sinead O’Conner’s exceptionalism for lesbian anal sex now doesn’t it?

In 2004, after earning her master’s degree in counseling at Loyola University New Orleans, (Bridget) Falcon met April Villa, now 34, who works as a civil engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “April is a beautiful, feminine woman,” says Falcon, “yet she’s so much like a guy, analytical but not overly introspective, and, just like my dad, she likes to build things and can fix anything.”

What are the commonalities we see in each of these? Past-prime, mostly well educated women, each dissatisfied with an inability to attract and marry “powerful, accomplished, and appealing” men who attempted to ‘have it all’ by starting families with the only betas they could attract. Later in life they grow even more uncomfortable with the proposition of spending their remaining years with the herb they married and so opt out of the marriage for the growingly more accepted idea of “sexually flowing” into a homosexual relationship with a woman who qualifies as powerful, accomplished, and appealing, ergo traditionally masculine, that her former husband did not.

The advent of embracing sexual fluidity in women is an attempt by feminized culture to put a bandaid on a lingering problem. As western feminized culture progresses onward from the late 60s, more and more women are awakening to the disillusionment that the choice they made to participate as an ‘equal’ in a masculine world required sacrifices of her femininity. Sacrifices that most come to regret later in life. Between 35 and 45 women are increasingly feeling the repercussions of their attempts to ‘have it all’ or have HAD it all, yet are left wondering why they’re not satisfied in sublimating their expectations – betraying their uniquely female biomechanics – to play the role of the New Woman.

That consensus is growing, even in Oprah-world, so what to do? What feminism has always done, move the goalposts and redefine the game. Men, for any variety of shameful reasonings, are cast as incapable of living up to the standards of being powerful, accomplished, and appealing, but even if you regret having married one, and possibly brought children into the world, you can still have a second chance at ‘having it all’ thanks to sexual fluidity. It’s not him, it’s the undiscovered homosexual you that’s been repressed all this time. Never mind that those infantile men are too preoccupied with youthful sexuality to appreciate your post-wall physique, there’s a world of lesbian women out there ready to deliver on the promise of powerful, accomplished, and appealing masculinity that your man is incapable of. It’s not that neo-feminism was wrong in promising you a satisfying life, it’s just that you were really a lesbian all this time and either didn’t know it, or were a victim of the Patriarchy and were repressed from it.

The newest feminine social convention, sexual fluidity, simply attempts to patch one of the many the holes that’s sinking the New Woman’s ship. Feminized culture needs a reason for the masculine disappointment it’s systematically acculturated into society for the past 50 years.

Learning to Play

 

Think of the best musician you can think of now. I’m a guitarist myself so I’m going to throw out some old school shredder’s names like EVH, George Lynch, Nuno Bettancourt, but you might think Jimmy Page or B.B. King, or maybe Andre Segovia really kick ass.

When you listen to a virtuoso – a guy so good he makes his talent seem effortless – you’re not listening to just him, you’re listening to all the musicians who influenced him, who inspired him, to become the musician he is now. You’re essentially listening to (or at least variations of) the riffs, licks, arpeggios, melodic stylings, etc. of all the musicians that came before him to which, out of passion, he was inspired to commit to memory.

It’s important to remember, when you hear a great guitarist that his ‘improvised’ guitar licks are still built upon a solid base of a series of learned patterns that harmonize within a given key of music.

A good musician practices his scales, and learns the runs of the guys who influenced him, note for note until they’re subconscious, then he can improvise with them. Likewise a good player caters his learned approaches to the tune of the woman and the environment.

Many critics of Game fail to understand what the ‘A’ stands for in PUA – “artist”. If it seems like a forced script to you, that’s because you haven’t practiced it enough to become a fluent ‘social artist’. Rote memorization of any subject is never conducive to actual internalized learning. All of the subroutines and “canned material” do in fact have a teaching purpose, but it will never seem ‘real’ for you until you understand that they are simply teaching tools to help a greater learning of an internalized Game.

This is why it’s seemingly easy for critics outside the community sphere to ridicule Game; it all seems like laughable parlor tricks and 70’s disco club pick up lines repackaged for the 21st century. All they see is the ‘how to play guitar’ book and the practice tablature intended to teach the skills needed to play the instrument. They don’t (refuse to?) see the jump between the practice and the learning, to the internalized skill, that to everyone else seems like a natural, enviable, ability. Even the guitarists who never create an original piece of music, but play cover songs so well they can play professionally are still equated with have an effortless skill.

There is no One.

ONEitis is paralysis. You cease to mature, you cease to move, you cease to be you.

There is no ONE. This is the soulmate myth. There are some good Ones and some bad Ones, but there is no ONE. Anyone telling you anything else is selling you something. There are LOTS of ‘special someones’ out there for you, just ask the divorced/widowed person who’s remarried after their “soulmate” has died or moved on.

This is what trips people up about the soul-mate myth, it is this fantasy that we all at least in some way share an idealization of – that there is ONE perfect mate for each of us, and as soon as the planets align and fate takes it’s course we’ll know that we’re ‘intended’ for each other. And while this may make for a gratifying romantic comedy plot, it’s hardly a realistic way to plan your life. In fact it’s usually paralyzing.

What I find even more fascinating is how common the idea is (mostly for guys) that a nuts & bolts view of life should be trumped by this fantasy in the area of inter-sexual relationships. Guys who would otherwise recognize the value of understanding psychology, biology, sociology, evolution, business, engineering, etc. and the interplay we see these take place in our lives on a daily basis, are some of the first guys to become violently opposed to the idea that maybe there isn’t ‘someone for everyone’ or that there are a lot more ONEs out there that could meet or exceed the criteria we subconsciously set for them to be the ONE. I think it comes off as nihilistic or this dread that maybe their ego investment in this belief is false- it’s like saying God is dead to the deeply religious. It’s just too terrible to contemplate that there maybe no ONE or there maybe several ONEs to spend their lives with. This western romanticized mythology is based on the premise that there is only ONE perfect mate for any single individual and as much as a lifetime can and should be spent in constant search of this ‘soulmate.’ So strong and so pervasive is this myth in our collective society that it has become akin to a religious statement and in fact has been integrated into many religious doctrines as feminization of western culture has spread.

I think there’s been a mischaracterization of ONEitis. It’s necessary to differentiate between a healthy relationship based on mutual respect and a lopsided ONEitis based relationship. I’ve had more than a few guys seeking my advice, or challenging my take on ONEitis, essentially ask me for permission to accept ONEitis as legitimate monogamy. In my estimation ONEitis is an unhealthy psychological dependency that is the direct result of the continuous socialization of the soulmate myth in pop culture. What’s truly frightening is that ONEitis has become associated with being a healthy normative aspect of an LTR or marriage.

I come to the conclusion that ONEitis is based in sociological roots, not only due to it being a statement of personal belief, but by the degree to which this ideology is disseminated and mass marketed in popular culture through media, music, literature, movies, etc. Dating services like eHarmony shamelessly marketeer and exploit exactly the insecurities that this dynamic engenders in people desperately searching for the ONE “they were intended for.” The idea that men possess a natural capacity for protection, provisioning and monogamy has merit from both a social and bio-psychological standpoint, but a ONEitis psychosis is not a byproduct of it. Rather, I would set it apart from this healthy protector/provider dynamic since ONEitis essentially sabotages what our natural propensities would otherwise filter.

ONEitis is insecurity run amok while a person is single, and potentially paralyzing when coupled with the object of that ONEitis in an LTR. The same neurotic desperation that drives a person to settle for their ONE whether healthy or unhealthy is the same insecurity that paralyzes them from abandoning a damaging relationship – This is their ONE and how could they ever live without them? Or, they’re my ONE, but all I need is to fix myself or fix them to have my idealized relationship. And this idealization of a relationship is at the root of ONEitis. With such a limiting, all-or-nothing binary approach to searching for ONE needle in the haystack, and investing emotional effort over the course of a lifetime, how do we mature into a healthy understanding of what that relationship should really entail? The very pollyanna, idealized relationship – the “happily ever after” – that belief in a ONE promotes as an ultimate end, is thwarted and contradicted by the costs of the constant pursuit of the ONE for which they’ll settle for. After the better part of a lifetime is invested in this ideology, how much more difficult will it be to come to the realization that the person they’re with isn’t their ONE? To what extents will a person go to in order to protect a lifetime of this ego investment?

At some point in a ONEitis relationship one participant will establish dominance based on the powerlessness that this ONEitis necessitates. There is no greater agency for a woman than to know beyond doubt that she is the only source of a man’s need for sex and intimacy. ONEitis only cements this into the understanding of both parties. For a man who believes that the emotionally and psychologically damaging relationship he has ego-invested himself  is with the only person in his lifetime he’s ever going to be compatible with, there is nothing more paralyzing in his maturation. The same of course holds true for women, and this is why we shake our heads when the beautiful HB 9 goes chasing back to her abusive and indifferent Jerk boyfriend, because she believes he is her ONE and the only source of security available to her. Hypergamy may be her root imperative for sticking with him, but it’s the soul-mate myth, the fear of the “ONE that got away” that makes for the emotional investment.

The definition of Power is not financial success, status or influence over others, but the degree to which we have control over our own lives. Subscribing to the soulmate mythology necessitates that we recognize powerlessness in this arena of our lives. Better I think it would be to foster a healthy understanding that there is no ONE. There are some good Ones and there are some bad Ones, but there is no ONE.

Female Dating Advice

The prey does not teach the hunter how better to catch it.

Why women give bad dating advice.

This one is always a controversial topic on SoSuave. I find it ironic that the same guys who whole-heartedly agree with the idiom “believe what she does, not what she says”, are often the same men who really want to believe that, select, special women actually do give other men advice that has merit.

The problem is most guys simply parrot the words women have told them over the years when they asked them “What do women want in a guy?” and then think it works since they got it straight from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately, too many guys, especially recently, have bought the same line women have been repeating for ages thinking it’s a way to put themselves at an advantage when all it does is disqualify not only them, but the poor suckers who hear ‘chick advice’ from another guy, repeat it, and the cycle continues.

My take is that the ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a socio-evolutionary fail-safe mechanism meant to filter women’s selection process of less desirable men from more desirable (competition worthy) men. Think about this – women almost uniquely own “relationship advice” in popular media. There are a few notable feminized male exceptions (i.e. the Dr. Phils), but the ones who don’t align their opinions along a feminine-first priority are surreptitiously tagged as misogynists and marginalized or ridiculed.

On some level of consciousness women know they’re full of shit when they offer up the ‘standard’ chick advice. To greater or lesser degrees, they know they’re being less than genuine when they see this advice regularly contradicted by their own behaviors. Women (and now men) repeat in article after article how well developed the female capacity is for communication, so it follows that they must know to some, maybe subconscious, degree that they are being less than helpful if not deliberately misleading. Even the mothers with the best interests of their son’s at stake still parrot these responses. It’s like a female imperative. Why?

For the answer, all you have to do is look at the bios of single women on any online dating service. When asked to describe the characteristics they find desirable in a man, the single most common responses are confidence, decisiveness, independence. Traits that would require a man to be a Man and have the foresight and perseverance not to take things at face value. The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

Most guys are natural pragmatists, we look for the shortest most efficient way between two points. The deductive reasoning that follows is that if we want sex, and women have the sex we want, we ought to ask them what conditions they require from us in order for us to get it. The problem is that women don’t want to tell us this, because in doing so it makes us less independent and and more compromising (and lazy) in our own identities in order to get at her sexuality. This is counter to the decisive, independent and masculine Man they really want and is evidenced in their behaviors. He should know what women want without asking because he’s observed them often enough, been successful with them often enough, and taken the efforts to make decisions for himself based on their behaviors, especially in the face of a world full of women’s conflicting words. This makes him the commodity in the face of a constant, overwhelming contradiction of her own and other women’s motives, words and behaviors.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

The True Romantics

When watching this video, or any similar to it, notice how you feel physically before you hit play and then compare it to how you feel after viewing it. Is your heart rate elevated? Did you get a little fight-or-flight adrenal rush? We laugh to relieve the visceral anxiety we feel for this chump, but think of seeing this in terms of transferring this guy’s stress level to yourself. We know the ship is going to sink before we watch, but we feel, by order of degrees, what this guy is feeling by association to the point that it prompts a chemical response in us. Why?

Is it that through some psychologically evolved mechanism we’ve learned to protect ourselves in similar situations in our primal past? Think about what a man would have to believe in order to overcome that mechanism and place himself in a position of public ridicule that ALL depended on the woman’s response. This woman is mediocre at best – I’d rate her about an HB 5 – and this guy proposes to her in what he undoubtedly believes is a grand chivalric gesture. I’m sure he genuinely believed she’d appreciate his ‘vulnerability’ and create a cherished memory for them both as they gracefully age in their marriage. I doubt either of them will ever forget it now.

In some of the comments they were saying it was a set up, but what’s the point of that? Who’s benefiting from it?

And even if it was contrived, the real lesson being taught is from the ‘audience’ around them. People still want to believe that it was authentic. It’s still a pretty useful illustration of a beta mindset. How many guys like this want to believe that a woman will appreciate his romanticism? It is men who are the real romantics. It’s men who are the imaginative ones when it comes to romance, and all in an effort to provide a woman with the romantic experiences she says she wants. Romance is what Men perceive it to be for women.

Women do not appreciate planned, romantic gestures. I’m sure this guy thought he was being brilliant by noticing how she cuts a cupcake – “girls like it when guys pay attention to the little things, ‘other guys’ don’t listen to women, I’ll show her I’m unique,..” What most men and all women don’t understand is that the things a woman finds romantic are rarely ever planned. Your sweaty t-shirt is more romantic to her than any candlelit evening. It’s the things you don’t think would ever be romantic that stick with her. In the same way you cannot negotiate genuine desire, likewise you cannot engineer genuine romance.

The problem with planned romanticism is that it’s pregnant with an obligation to be appreciated. Men can be romantic, just not the way women say how they expect it. Like pretty much anything else women say, it’s not what they really want, but a man can’t be told what that is, he has to figure it out for himself, otherwise it isn’t genuine. For the high value Man, romance is an effortless and unthinking gesture.

Buffers

Rejection

Rejection is better than Regret.

Sifting through some of my past posts on the SoSuave forum it hit me; over 90% of what I advocate there can be reduced to overcoming a fear of rejection. 90% of the dilemmas AFCs and rAFCs find themselves in, and a majority of men’s concerns, with the opposite sex find their roots in the methods and means they use to reduce their exposure to female rejection. These are buffers meant to reduce the potential for this rejection of intimacy. Men of course aren’t the only ones who use buffers – women have their share as well – but I think it would be much more productive for guys to recognize this propensity in themselves and see the methods they use, and often ego-invest in their personal psychologies, to buffer themselves against rejection.

Virtually every common problem guys deal with finds its basis in these buffers:
LDRs – Long Distance Relationships. The AFC will entertain an LDR because it was based on a previous acceptance of intimacy and being no longer convenient (due to distance) the guy will cling to the “relationship” because it’s a buffer against potential rejection from new women instead of accepting the relationship as being finished and maturely re-entering the dating pool. It’s a perceived “sure thing”, even if only rarely rewarding.

Playing Friends – Usually after an LJBF rejection where the perception is the potential love interest “might” later become an intimate with time and qualification. No matter how misguided, the time and effort spent by an AFC in proving himself as the would-be “perfect boyfriend” is a buffer against further rejection by new potential females, which is then further compounded by a moralistic sense of duty to be an actual Friend to his LJBF girl. In essence, his buffer against further rejection is his misplaced dedication to the LJBF girl. Another variation of this is the Cap’n-Save-A-Ho dynamic.

Emails, IMs and Texts – I should also add lengthy phone conversations to this list as well, but really any technology that seemingly increases communication serves as a buffer (for both genders) the more it limits interpersonal communication. In the AFC case, the rationalization is that it keeps him in constant contact with his sex interest (which in and of itself is a mistake), but only serves as a buffer against her rejection. The latent perception being that it’s easier to read a rejection (or hear one) than to potentially be rejected in person. A lot of guys will counter this with how Texts and IM’s are just how this generation plies its Game. The difference I’d argue is that when digital communication becomes your preferred method of interacting with women, it’s a buffer.

Facebook & Online Dating – This one should be fairly obvious for the same reasons as above – Online dating is perhaps the best buffer ever conceived – particularly for less than physically ideal women. In fact it’s so effective that businesses can be built upon the common insecurities and fear of rejection of both sexes.

Objectification of Gender – This might be less obvious, but both sexes tend to objectify the other. Naturally when we think of this, the popularized notion is that men objectify women as sex objects, but women have a tendency to objectify men as “success objects” for the same reason. It is easier to accept rejection from an object than it is to take it from a living, breathing, human being. This is why we refer to intersexual communication as a “game.” We “score” or we get “shot down” not personally or emotionally rejected; the buffer is in the language and mental approach.

Idealization of Gender – This is the myth of the “Quality Woman.” The buffer operates in perceived self-limitations based on a search for an ideal mate. Thus a tendency to fixate on one woman (ONEitis) or one type of woman (a gender Archetype) develops. By limiting to, and/or fixating on one woman (or type) the potential for rejection decreases, while insuring that any real rejection will come only from what will later be deemed non-qualified women. Rejection = ‘Low Quality Woman’ and is thus disqualified. This works in a similar fashion to the objectification buffer in that the woman delivering the rejection is reduced to an object.

Scarcity Mentality – The “Take What I Can Get and Be Glad I Got It” mentality acts as a buffer in that it works opposite of the Idealization buffer. Deprivation is motivation, and by sticking with the “sure thing” as the “only thing”, the potential for new rejection is then eliminated.

Older Women, Younger Women – I should also include certain body types in this category as well, but the buffer is in certain types of women being less likely to reject a man due to their personal circumstances. The Cougar dynamic debate has been done into irrelevancy, but the buffer is that older women, acting in accordance with their conditions, will be more inclined to accept the advances of younger men. In the same vein, very young girls will be more apt to accept the advances of older men due to naiveté and fat women are easier to become intimate with due to sexual deprivation. This isn’t rocket science, but an internalized preference for particular women develop by associating that particular type of woman with the minimization for potential rejection.

Leagues – This is the opposite of a “high standards” buffer which could be grouped with Scarcity. There is the woman some guys actually fear because she is perceived to be so much more socially valuable than the AFC. Think of the HB9+ corporate director who runs marathons, travels a lot, has good friends, dresses well, etc, etc, etc. The AFC tells himself “wow is she out of my league I would just get shot down because I would need to possess A, B & C to be her social status equal for her to even be interested”.  Ergo, the idea of Leagues is a useful rationalization buffer against rejection.

Pornography I realize this will draw some fire from the masturbation / no-masturbation set, but porn (as men use it) is a Buffer against rejection. Porn doesn’t talk back, porn doesn’t need a few drinks to loosen up nor does porn require any social skills to produce rewards. It’s convenient, immediate, sexual release that requires nothing more than a PC and an internet connection (or a magazine if you prefer the analog means). We can argue the obsessive-compulsive aspect of it, or the “my GF and I enjoy porn together” reasoning, but for the single guy the root reasoning is its facility as a Buffer. I should also add that it’s this very facility that makes women hate it (when they do). Porn gives a guy his reward for free; a reward that should be her single best agency is rendered valueless when a man can get off to an infinite variety of sexual experience at the click of a mouse. It’s unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability without the stress of learning methods to earn it as a reward.

These are really just a few notable examples, but once you become aware of how buffers manifest you’ll begin to see how and why they are useful against rejection. Buffers are generally the paths of least rejection that become ego-invested “preferences.” Buffers aren’t so much about those “preference” as they are about the motivations behind them.

At this point you might be thinking, “well, what the hell, I don’t want to feel rejection, why not employ buffers against it?” The main reason for embracing rejection is that rejection is better than regret. Scan back through this short list of buffers; how many of these have become greater, longer term problems for you than a briefly painful rejection would’ve been? Buffers also have a tendency to compound upon themselves in that one tends to dovetail into another, or more, until you no longer realize that they were originally rejection prevention methodologies and gradually become associated with your genuine personality. After a long enough period, these buffer become “just how I am.”

Lastly, experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best. Rejection, real, raw, in your face rejection stings like a bitch. It must be something so intolerable that human beings will devise countless social and psychological constructs in order to avoid it. However, there is no better teacher than getting burned by the stove. As a Man, you are going to face rejection in far more facets of your life than just dealing with a woman. The buffers you learn in one aspect of your life will be just as encumbering when they’re transferred to another aspect of your life. All of these buffers listed, and many more, become indicators of how you confidently deal with adversity. Some make you look like a beta-herb pussy, others are subtle and nagging parts of an internalized personality, but dependence upon them incrementally reveals your real character to a woman. Are you Alpha enough to take a rejection on the chin, smile and confidently come back for more? Or will you run, will you block yourself, will you hide with convenient buffers?

Imagination

A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal. Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating her imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. DHV relies on it. Sexual tension (gina tingles) relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can learn in any context of a relationship (LTR, STR, ONS, Plate Spinning.)

This is the single greatest failing of average frustrated chumps; they vomit out everything about themselves, divulging the full truth of themselves to women in the mistaken belief that women desire that truth as a basis for qualifying for their intimacy. Learn this now: Women NEVER want full disclosure. Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than to think she’s figured a Man out based solely on her mythical feminine intuition (i.e. imagination).

When a man overtly confirms his character, his story, his value, etc. for a woman, the mystery is dispelled and the bio-chemical rush she enjoyed from her imaginings, her suspicions, her self-confirmations about you are GONE. AFCs classically do exactly this on the first date and wonder why they get LJBF’d promptly after it – this is why. Familiarity is anti-seductive. Nothing kills Game, lust and libido like comfortable familiarity. Despite their common bleating filibuster tactics, women don’t want to be comfortable with a potential (or proven) sex partner, they need their imaginations stoked to be excited, aroused and anxious to want sex with a potential partner.

In an LTR there’s an even more critical need to keep prodding that imagination. I would go so far as to say it’s imperative for a healthy relationship, but then you’ll ask, how do you go about that when your LTR GF or wife already knows your story and the familiarity becomes cemented in?

The easy answer is never let it be from the outset – the health of any LTR you might entertain depends and survives on the frame you enter into it with. The foundations of a healthy LTR are laid while you’re single and dating non-exclusively. I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established. The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame. And that’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame BEFORE they commit to an LTR. They believe, (thanks to their Matrix conditioning) that commitment is synonymous with acquiescing to her frame control. Combine this with anti-seductive familiarity and the growing commonness of your own value because of it, and you can see exactly why her sexual interest wanes.

So what do you do to prevent that? First and foremost, understand that whose frame you enter into an LTR sets the foundation of that LTR. If you find yourself buying into an “it’s women’s world and we just live in it” mentality where your default presumption is that commitment means she wins, you lose and that’s just how it is, don’t even consider an LTR. She enters your world, not the other way around.

Secondly, you need to cultivate an element of unpredictability about yourself prior to, and into, an LTR. Always remember POOK’s proverb, Perfect is BORING. Women will cry a river about wanting Mr. Dependable and then go off to fuck Mr. Exciting. In an LTR it’s necessary to be both, but not one at the expense of the other. Too many married men are TERRIFIED to rock the excitement boat with their wives because their sex lives hang in the balance of placating to her and her already preset frame. She must be reminded daily why you’re fun, unpredictable and exciting, not only to her, but other women as well. This requires covertly implying that other women find you desirable. Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends.

By playfully staying her source of that rush you maintain the position of stimulating her imagination. Married men, who were defeated before they committed, don’t think that elements of Game apply to marriage out of fear of upsetting their wives frame, when in fact C&F and Negs and many other aspects of Game work wonderfully. Just kicking her in the ass or busting her chops, playfully, is sometimes enough to send the message that you’re fearless of her response. You can break her frame with cockiness and the imaginings that come with it.

Breaking from an established, predictable familiarity is often a great way to fire her imagination. Married guys will report how sexual their wives become after they get to the gym and start shaping up after a long layoff (or for the first time). It’s easy to pass this off as looking better makes women more aroused (which is true), but underneath that is the breaking of a pattern. You’re controllable and predictable so long as you’re pudgy and listless – what other woman would want you? But start changing your patterns, get into shape, make more money, get a promotion, improve and demonstrate your higher value in some appreciable way and the imagination and competition anxiety returns.