Thursday, January 29, 2009

Don Draper's advice on how to pick up women

This is a video of a brief (and funny) sketch from Saturday Night Live, but the topic is interesting: Don Draper (the lead character of "Mad Men") on how to be a womanizer.

Of course, most of it is b.s. as in all mainstream dating advice. But there are pearls of truth shimmering through. In particular, the "Strut around with supreme confidence" is key in understanding why women watching the series intuitively feel convinced that he is the kind of man who gets a lot of action (and for whom they do not feel any moral outrage about him cheating on his wife).

It is interesting to note that the writer of Mad Men was also a writer for "The Sopranos". Both series portray two different types of The Man (read: uber-alpha). And even though their behavior is fictional and bordering on caricature, there is much to learn. Whether intuitively or consciously, the writers and actors in both series exemplify human traits that will either attract or appall women. And attracted they get.

So what is it? Can you believe the sketch that first and foremost you have to be successful and good looking in order to score?

Of course not.

Tony's and Don's secret is much more subtle.

It is their behavior.

They both play high status males. Their whole body language, their tone of voice, the assumptions they make that influence their decisions and interactions with other people (and objects!) - all of this conveys, no screams that these guys are on top of the social hierarchy.

My favorite scene in Mad Men exemplifies the effect of this on women. other men and the audience perfectly. It is a short scene in which Don gets approached by a (bisexual) father who wants him to meet his 21 year old jet set daughter, who he will soon proceed to have sex with. To top the metaphorical character of the scene, the woman is named "Joy".

At this point all these people have to go by to judge Don Draper is the way he carries himself. The daughter even makes a remark about that (hinting at why she selected him). Of course, Don does everything right in this scene.

The beauty of this little interaction is that Don's demeanor gets contrasted with that of one of his underlings. He joins the group and does nothing more than the socially required acts of politeness. Yet, the reaction to him by anyone else in the group is instantaneous aversion. Needles to say this guy doesn't get the golden key for a luxurious vacation in a lavish villa, and he won't even get laid.

This is very interesting and telling about a brutal fact of life.

On the surface the low status guy does nothing different than the high status guy, yet there is an instantaneous transmission of who is worthy of the Joys of life and who isn't.

I recommend watching it twice. Once with the sound on, and then again on mute.

Things to pay attention to is the amount of relaxation in each persons body as well as the amount of limb movements, particularly of the heads.

Men in the Know vs. Ignoramuses

Why do women react so strongly to men who expose their manifold sexual experiences in public? Mind you, for men who have learned to be successful in dealing with women articles like that one in the New York Times wasn't shocking at all. If anything, it didn't go far enough.

The reactions I have witnessed on the internet range from repeated denial to outright censorship (i.e. "flagging" blogs as violating the ToS).

The fact that women go crazy about public exposure of the true nature of female sexuality, the fickle morality of women in relationships and how easy it is for some men to discreetly enjoy porn style sex with women who seem more prudish than Mother Theresa to anyone else in their lives is telling enough.

If the the revelations about the whoring second nature of women would be a lie, or true for only a small subset of women indeed, there would not be such a strong emotional reaction.

Women realize that this is the truth. But it cannot become public knowledge. The consequences would be fatal to their need of finding a nice guy, naive Provider (in addition to the knowing bad boy Lovers whose cum they happily inhaled since their teens).

As an anonymous commenter pointed out yesterday - censorship has always been a likely consequence for men who saw behind the facade of female virtuosity:

"D.H.Lawrence, like Flaubert before him, [got censored because they] had told the truth about women when society wanted to believe a myth. He contended that a woman had a sexual appetite, and that she would cross class boundaries and defy any moral duties in order to satisfy that desire. The ideal of the virtuous woman and perfect lady was an image only."

How can women - who so often become political activists to "fight for the weak", who go Vegetarian because of the "poor animals", who join the peace corps, habitats for humanity, amnesty international be amoral?

The answer is that female ethics, just like female logic, is based on emotion. It is empathy - the shared feeling of misery that makes them do these things. When confronted with misery, women will feel for (empathize) with the weak and meager.

But when it comes to sex, women empathize with the strong (ever noticed who women will fuck the guy who does the beating, not the guy who gets beaten down?).

Women want to help suffering beings such as men who for one reason or another are on the losing end of things - but they do not want their sperm. They want the sperm of the guys on the winning side of the game.

However, women cannot accept that this knowledge gets public.

It literally is a secret (society) between them and "men in the know" - the few alpha males who just need to show up at a social gathering to induce instant wetness and helpless attempts to drag him into a bathroom for a quick load of cum.

When it comes to marriage in the sense of female monogamy, our society is simply based on a lie.

Women need men to think they are something that they aren't. Otherwise they would not be able to build the "nest" they instinctively need. Women need men to supplicate (think Taj Mahal).

Women get men to supplicate (i.e. offering resources such as money, gifts and ensuring it with the exclusivity of sexual monogamy) by seemingly offering a deal.

It is one thing for another.

Marriage in a classic sense is characterized by a contract in which men guarantee a woman access to his resources (so her kids are safe).

In return (and what used to be part of the contract in the sense of marrital duty), women offer unlimited, exclusive access to sex. Exclusive is a key word here. A sexually non-exclusive woman is worthless to a man since his instinct is to make sure that her kids are made of his prime sperm and not the fruit of another man's labor.
[Note that there used to be other things on that list such as regular, high quality food, a clean household and laundry as well someone taking care of the offspring. Needless to say that in the age of washing machines, dishwashers, maids and kindergartens these things have become obsolete.]

For many beta male providers, the marriage deal worked well for centuries (and possibly millenia), but with the newly "liberated" women in our age, the consequences are disastrous. Women do not need to marry young anymore. They do not get punished as badly as they did in The Olde Days for giving in to the temptation of a silver back showing up in her life.
[Fact: When my Dad grew up in Germany more than half a centry ago, a woman went to the wedding altar with a ring of flowers on her head. If anyone in the church knew she wasn't a virgin anymore, they would jump up and take it off her head to warn the husband. I am not saying women did not screw around at all in these times - but they sure thought twice about the risk involved.]

Whereas in the old days, a woman would get publicly ostracized for being a slut, nowadays men are supposed to accept female promiscuity (and the fact that the average attractive woman more than likley had more previous short term alpha partners than the average beta male who went from girlfriend to girlfriend) as "normal" and "modern".

Things have changed. And our society hasn't really adapted to it yet.

What men (still) have to offer:

Many women have no hobbies, no career plan, or just a career and hardly anything else. Yes, they travel. But ultimately, they just end up banging dudes in other cities. Women specialize on social relationships. A man who "takes her places" is the ultimate dream. Men are supposed to be explorers, inventors, philosophers, walking encyclopedias who spice up the dull life of the average Jane with intellectual wit. Men are supposed to lead. Women like to follow (up to the point where they prefer the man to order her entree for her).

Many women get raised as "Daddies Little Girl", never having to worry about the material hardship that is life to anyone striving for independence. There is a period in their lifes these days where they go to college and follow up with a little work. This is typically seen as the "transition time" towards the next man in their life to pay the bills - the husband. Women rack up student loans and credit card debt during these years, knowing that chances are someone wil pay it off while she can stay at home "and take care of the kids" (i.e. going to yoga and the spa while the kindergarten and the dishwasher do the actual job of a stay-at-home mom).

Ever been to a sex shop? How many toys are for men and how many are there for women? Women insert literally anything into themselves to get off. They are so highly sexualized, they need a regular pressure valve. Yet, masturbation is less frequent than in men. Women crave orgasms, and they can have them harder and more frequent than most guys. Make no mistake about it - a relationship provides the woman with sex. The only reason it may seem like that is what the guy gets out of it is if she is not turned on as much as she could (and would with another guy). When anonymous women will tell you things like this:

Yes, there is artifical insemnation. But ultimately, she will need a man and she wants to be picky. The reason why women "settle" is that their instinctive call for reproduction ("the biological clock") is getting too loud to be picky anymore (read this - and you'll understand...).

Women are steered by emotions. They want and need a "rock in the stormy see" on their side. When it comes to practical things, many women will adapt to a "Daddy will fix it" attitude towars their husbands. If she is single or still too busy

So - in the age of "liberated" women, where most of the "benefits" of having a wife have disappeared thanks to men being able to feed and dress themselves as well as to take care of a household - what remains what women have to offer:

Buddies are much better at that. Aren't they?
Well, there is something to female company, but you can get massages at your local spa and female consoling and sympathy from your mom and female co-workers. Your wife might turn more into a buddie at some point anyways.

You can get plenty of that for free if you are an alpha male (or learn how to feign one). Not to mention masturbation and prostitution (if you can get something out of that). And let's not forget the drying pussy effect of male commitment (aka sexless marriages) - if you really want lots and lots of hot sex, you better stay single.

She will get old soon. Chances are if she is about to "settle" (read: done baging alpha guys and ready to squeeze out babies) her beauty is fading already.

At some point in your life a guy might want to create his own dynastty. We need women for that. And it is what they want the same thing. The only difference is - a woman knows the kid is hers. A man needs to trust his wife for that (nowadays paternity tests can deal with doubts; but check out the reaction if you ask for one without having hard evidence about an affair on her side).
This is wh a man who want skids becomes slut aversive. Your stone age-adapted brain tells you the more she's yours, the more likely the kids are as well.
And there is truth to that. Here is a recent conversation with a woman who slept with >15 guys in the past year:
ME: You said you cheated on your last boyfriend, yet there was no sex?
HER: Yeah, I went home with another guy. But we just kissed.
ME: So he didn't know how to push it? A nice guy? Did take your slight resistance as absolute no?
HER: *laughs* No, he wasn't a nice guy. Not at all. The truth is I never had a one night stand at that point. I was scared. If I would be in that situation again - now knowing that it can be fun and just that - I would probably act differently.
ME: So what you are saying is that if I seek a faithful woman I should seek someone who hasn't had one night stands?
HER: *smirks* I guess you're right. But good luck with that!

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

So, looks like my whole blog got shut down over at WordPress after I posted about this piece on female sexuality in the New York Times.

Why? We'll never know since WordPress does not even care to explain themselves when taking such drastic action. And frankly, I do not care. There will always be someone taking issue with what I do. All my posts and your comments are saved on my hard drive. It will be fun to re-post some of that stuff and give it a new makeup.