Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Why women hate sluts (and love being one)

Even the most hardcore feminist will agree that female sexuality gets suppressed in our (and other) culture(s). In other words, there is a discrepancy between actual female desire (how bad and how often women want it) and societal norms (what is seen as normal).

It boils down to a myth that managed to survive and flourish in our enlightened times: Men want more (dirtier/raunchier) sex (partners) than women.

This has tremendous consequences for society. This assumption is the very basis of the common belief that men are supposed to bring more to the table than women. Men are expected to be successful in their jobs, make money, own houses and cars and provide other material means (dinner dates, movie tickets, gifts, a place to host) for the women he has sex with. If men would realize how much more women enjoy sex (at least with some men) than they do themselves, they would ask for all these favors in return - and not the other way round.

If a woman keeps having sex with a man, she will ask for even more. She will push for more of his attention and time, seek advice and ask for little favors such as opening doors for her or moving/carrying heavy stuff - and ultimately blackmail the guy for "commitment" (i.e. law enforced monogamy) to ensure exclusive access to his resources.

By artificially limiting sex (such as holding out for the first few dates), men are forced to believe that they have to put all these extras on the table in order to get to sleep with a woman, since there is no other way to get there other than fulfilling these societal expectations.

The obvious downside for women is that they have to suppress their own sexuality in order to keep up the illusion of "valuable sex".

And this is where the above conspiracy seems to fall apart. It is unlikely that each and every woman will adhere to these unspoken rules. And if some women stop adhering to the paradigm of sexual scarcity, these women would have an obvious advantage in the mating market: they could freely chose (the best) men for themselves, since they do not ask for anything in return for sex - and who wants to pay more than necessary? This advantage alone should be a strong incentive for women to drop their "hard-to-get" act.

So, what is the reason for the phenomenon of ubiquitously suppressed female sexuality then?

The above scenario can still hold, if it is not an actual conspiracy held up by individual women who enable the status quo. Instead, it could be a cultural phenomenon that gets passed on from one generation to the next. It is conceivable that some women (either by chance or after conscious reflection) realized that if they establish a social norm of sexual restriction, man will start to treat them (and other women) better.
Instead of just restricting their own sexuality, they started to brand all women who would fail to adhere to the norm as "sluts" - lesser beings who are supposed to be shunned. No woman then failed to restrict her sexuality. The price of losing the (social) support of the group was way too high.

The price of restricting fen=male sexuality was high for men, yet not unbearable. Plus, it makes sense for men to rather chose a less promiscuous woman if he is forced to give out so many resources. Forced to "commit", men started disliking sexually uninhibited "sluts", too - and thus the norm proved a viable strategy to enable both genders to live (and procreate) together. This is simply what happens during the process we call cultural evolution.

Over the centuries rules on how men and women are supposed to act became more and more part of how children were raised, laws (and religious texts) were written. With enough time passed, this norm will seem so "natural", it will seem bizarre to question it.

Yet, women will always be conflicted by contrasting their own sexual desire to the suppressed sexuality of what others seem to live (and what they are told to do, too). Ironically, this will help to foster the existing paradigm. Being forced to restrict themselves, women will be even more restrictive to others.

Or could it be that all of this is wrong and that women would be putting out freely if there wouldn't have been man-made restrictions?

After all, men suffer from paternity uncertainty and therefore could benefit from restricting their partners sexuality. And, if women really are (even) more sexual than men, wouldn't society turn into Sodom and Gomorrah, if there wasn't any control over their desire? Don't men use religion, double standards (slut/stud) and even genital circumcision to restrict female sexuality? Isn't that what the sexual revolution was all about? Didn't feminism free women from this male restriction?

Science reveals objective data, but is always restricted by current social norms. Thus, it is remarkable that psychologist Dr. Roy Baumeister and a colleague (more of this guy tomorrow) braveley freed themselves from any "politically correct" presumptions, and studied the actual evidence for each of the above hypothesis.

In their study "Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality", they went out and reviewed data Data "on cross-cultural differences in power and sex ratios, reactions to the sexual revolution, direct restraining influences on adolescent and adult female sexuality, double standard patterns of sexual morality, female genital surgery, legal and religious restrictions on sex, prostitution and pornography, and sexual deception."

Their finding was conclusive.

"The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage."

There have always been men who understood what was going on.

This knowledge gives these men enormous power over women.

These men reverse the paradigm by restricting their own sexuality, thus creating scarcity on the other end of the supply line.

Knowing that women only pretend to be free of (tremendous) desire until they receive a certain amount of attention/time/dates/kisses/exclusivity from the guy, they will refuse to give them what they want. Instead they are the ones demanding before sex can happen.

You might expect that women will stay away from guys who do not put put easily. After all, they want sex, and they get much more on top of that from other men.

Somewhat surprisingly, it is the complete opposite that happens. Women are drawn to such men. Up to the point where they would do anything, literally anything for a guy who is that hard-to-get (it is interesting to note, for example that pimps use that very technique to lure women into prostitution).

There are many reasons for that, some of which I outlined in my previous post on "nice guys".

Women assume that guys who demand from the woman instead of offering to her in order for intercourse to happen must be of higher value/status. And while women are interested in receiving whatever they can receive from men in exchange for sex, they are ultimately interested in having sex (i.e. receiving sperm) from the best possible men out there (the one who is choosy because he gets so many women and whose babies will be like him).

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Curing the Disease to Please

A commenter on yesterday's post asked: "Any advice on how a congenital NG can overcome his niceness in dealing with females?I mean without feeling,and therefore acting,awkward?"

Before I start answering this - note that I am not a pickup instructor, nor would I define myself as a PUA. All I can do is outline what I did (and learned) after getting dumped after a seven year long betaizing relationship to become succesful in the mating game.

The bad news is that a big part of becoming better is to "fake it 'till you make it". There is no need to become a true "bad boy" or even an "asshole". But, you are stuck in behavioral patterns - your "comfort zone" - and the only way out is to do things that do not seem "natural" to you. You will learn that what you think is "your true self" or your "personality" is actually just a conglomerate of habits, and that there are way more things you are capable of behind that narrow horizon of your current thinking. And no, this does not mean that you will (need to) start to become less ethical or moral - on the contrary (remember how being "nice" often results in the opposite?). This is self improvement - and the process itself feels good (and is never ending). But with no pain, there is no gain.

Here is my no b.s. advice - this is what worked for me:

1) Identify your sticky points

- Ask yourself: why do you think you need to be (overly) nice to women?
Is it because you feel less "worthy" than other guys?
If so, find out why and work on it. In my experience it is not enough to merely tell yourself that it doesn't matter that you are poor, short, bald or whatever it is that stand in the way of your self esteem (and believe me, these things do not matter at all).
One way to deal with this problem is to be pro-active about them.
If you are balding, start a treatment regime.
If you are short, get a heel lift.
If you are pale, get a tan.
If you are fat, lose weight.
If you are skinny, go to the gym
Even if you are not skinny, go to the gym.
If you have sexual problems, get medical help and/or learn how to become better.
And above all - learn and practice game.
You get the hang of it. There are tons of things to do that will give you a feeling of improving yourself. The list is endless (I have done most of these and more): Get better clothes, work on your body language, read books on self improvement (most of them are crap, but it will still have an effect on you), seek friends who join your path, get interesting hobbies, re-furnish your place, set goals in your life and follow through (my marathon finish time was 4:15 - just a hint).
For every problem you might (think) you have, there is something you can actively do about it. The feeling of being proactive, of not being doomed to live with something you do not like is the best cure of depression. It is okay to use (the reward of future) sex as a motivator, but try seeing your self improvement as what it is - self improvement, not another "nice" thing you do "for" the woman.

- Ask yourself: are you just "too nice" or are there other problems that keep you from being succesful with women?
Nice guys often fail at more than one point with women (i.e. they do more wrong than being too supplicative). The often year- or even lifelong frustration with women (and men who will use the nice guy's niceness to their own advantage), made them bitter and misogynistic. Other problems include uber-nerdiness (there is a good and a bad kind), a general lack of social skills, a deep Madonna/Whore complex, a lack of understanding one-itis and most of all - approach anxiety.
Be aware that it is painful to admit flaws and mistakes and the natural reaction will be to come up with a cognitive defense: "But, ...". Investigate throughly whether your counter-argument as to why you dislike changing these things really is based in reason or whether it is just a way for yourself to stay inside your comfort zone. Can you really tell you dislike something or that something is "not you" if you haven't tried it?

- Ask yourself: Do you really achieve your goals?
Being nice often goes hand in hand with giving in. This is an ailment not just with girls, but with life in general. Study yourself for a couple of days. Are you the one who gets what he wants, or are you likley to compromise? How do people react towards you? Do they take you seriously? Do they give way when they walk on a collision course with you? Do they ignore you? Do people - any people, not just your friends - listen to you, or do they tend to interrupt you? Why do you accept being treated this way? What makes you think that other people have more of a right to get service before you, to walk straight while you give way or to talk even though you were in the middle of a sentence? Are they really just assholes, or is it you who allows them do be that way?
Learn how to change and use your body language - most importantly eye contact - to your advantage in these situations.
Here is the whole secret (as to why assholes are happier than nice guys - and why women prefer these bullies):
Set goals for yourself in life, be passionate about them - and steadily move towards them.

2) Train assertiveness
There are professionals offering this kind of therapy. There are e-books and audiobooks for PUAs for "demonic confidence" (I have no experience with either of them) and there is anecdotal advice from people such as Style and this guy. What it boils down to is the following:
Break social norms
This does not mean you should go ahead and kill someone. Rather than just breaking any social norm, you are supposed to break the kinds of norms that we follow for no rational reason. The best example for this is the ubiqituous inhibtion of complaining about bad service. Most people would rather accept bad food than to complain to the server. This is completely irrational behavior, and based in fear of social embarrassment. By learning that social embarrassment is not the immediate consequence of breaking irrational social norms, you can train yourself to stand up for yourself.
Ultimately, this will get you to the point of being able to socialize freely since most people are (irrationally) inhibited to talk to strangers. It will also result in a better life, by learning to put yourself first (this is NOT a bad thing!) and to act upon desire rather than fear.
Steps to get there are to walk around for a day in outrageous clothes (such as a wig), to ask people silly questions (What year is this? 2009? Thank god - then there is still time!) and to complain about bad service or food when shopping. You get the hang of it. If you can't get yourself to do that, give a friend of yours 10 ten dollar bills and ask him to only give them back to you (one at a time) every time you completed such a task.
Learn to communicate openly and directly. Do not beat around the bush. Say if something bothers you. Ask for the things you want. Be polite, but drop any unneccessary, submissive, manipulative attempt of being "nice". Do not be afraid to speak up for yourself (other people expect that from you), or to complain. Do all this - and experience how positive people will react.
Learn to be confident (rather than bold). Remind yourself of your self worth frequently. Remind yourself of how short this episode of life is, and that each minute spent without a smile is a lost minute that you could have smiled.
Get there, step-by-step.
[BTW, you can improve your social skills tremendously by starting to see going out and "hitting on" women as a true game. Try shock openers such as "You are baaaaad!", and gauge the reaction. If you deliver it with a smile, women will immediately join in. Women love to play in this way - and you will soon realize that the reason they enjoy it is that we always act/play in social situations]

3) Understand value and (reverse) compliance
You need to realize what is wrong about being nice. You need to understand that women want to please before being pleased. Every social interaction is give-and-take. To paraphrase "Pimpology": When you see an old lady walking to the street corner every day, feeding the pigeons, realize that she is a whore. and the pigeons are her pimps.
This is even more true for the mating market. You want something from a woman, and she will ask for something in return. It is up to you to regulate your market prize by controlling what you offer - and what you give away for free!
Once you realize what is really going on - behind the shroud of spoken words - you will realize how your "niceness" had in fact the opposite effect on women. They instinctively saw it as exactly the manipulative approach that it is. Let her work for your compliments, your concern and your money. She will not feel that this is bad on your part - she will be more happy once she gets you to be nice, because now it comes with a feeling of deservedness.

There is much to add, but this is a good basic framework. Theory is ony of value if it alters your behavior. You need to go out and start practicing these new social/behavioral patterns.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Nice guys are assholes

There are many reasons for why women do not like "nice guys".

- Sexually: Nice guys suck in bed.
Nice guys do get many women because of their handicapped character, and the result is a pussy-drying mix of insecurity, lack of experience and neediness (ranging from too many compliments to premature ejaculation).
Moreover, women see nice guys as potential "relationship guys". They know that guys who think long term girlfriend are often jealous (of the alphas endangering her faithfulness), and therefore prefer less promiscuous women. To women this Madonna/Whore syndrome is equal to being judgmental about devious, raunchy sex. Women do not want to be judged for their fantasies. They will keep them secret is they fear the guy will not understand. As a result, these guys often will live their lives without ever getting to know the side of female sexuality that is not shown in the love making scenes of Hollywood movies. Merely providing monotonous kissy-cuddly vanilla sex and failing to see the need for dominance and taboo-breaking variety in their sex lives, they will fail to cater to a women's sexuality in the long run.

- Socially: Nice guys are getting tooled by other people, and will never get anywhere in live. They typically are low ranking males.
For women this means sperm (and possible offspring) of men who are less successful than others, and less resources than what she would get when with a man who "made it". This is how the evolutionary molded, unconscious mind of a female primate sees it:
An alpha offers great sperm (turning into scores-of-women-fucking alpha sons).
A beta can at least provide for the (ideally alpha) offspring.
Nice guys are omegas. They have nothing to offer

- Economically: Nice guys don't have options. Nice guys have nothing to offer, and they know it. They use "niceness" instead. They are nice, because they hope it is their pathetically cheap niceness that will make the women want them. But, attraction is not a choice. Women cannot be persuaded (and that is a nice way of saying: bribed) into attraction. Women are attracted or not, and they have no control over that. Women are attracted when they feel that the man is of high value. After all, all mating rituals are nothing but a barter interaction.
Women have a feel for their "market value" and expect the same or more in return. If a man offers right away what other men do not put out that easily (say attention, a touch, a kiss or even sex), she will rightfully assume that this person's offers (attention/touch/kiss/sex) are "easy to get".

High value equals high demand and low supply (scarcity). A high value male is in high demand, and hard to get. Nice guys are the complete opposite

- Emotionally: Nice guys are insecure. Their niceness is nothing but a "don't bite me" reflex. Smiling has evolved from the fear grin elicit by low ranking primates in the presence of aggressive, high ranking males.
Women are receptive beings. They will not just decode these signals sent through beta male body language, due to their heightened empathy they will eventually experience (feel) what the man is feeling. These are unpleasant feelings to a woman, especially compared to the feelings of strength, calm and decisiveness projected by alpha males.
Women want a leader. They feel most secure (and sleep better) in the presence of the kind of strong, masculine man they go to bed with.
To most women the only emotional benefit of a nice guy is that of a male girlfriend (emotional tampon). They offer "male" advice in the absence of sexual tension. Women do not notice that the absence of sexual attraction is one sided. They literally think of these guys as penis-less.

- Ethically: Nice guys are assholes: A lot of what nice guys think is nice is anything but. Woot? Yes, you heard it. "Nice" is often the complete opposite.

Nice guys are liars.

Take the following example:
- Great job!
- Thanks, but ohhh nooo - it wasn't that great. You are so much better!

This happens quite frequently. "Nice" people assume that (false) modesty/humbleness requires them to downplay their own achievements. They believe this makes the other person feel better and it prevents the perception of them bragging about themselves.

Think again! The first person says that this was a great job. The second person disagrees. The second person essentially questions the first person's judgment - or worse assumes that the first person is a liar - only trying to please the person who did a great job.

There is no need to be that argumentative. There is also no need to say it wasn't that good is both sides are likely to agree that it was great. This is a genuine asshole move. Done by somebody who believes it was the "nice" thing to do.

Nice guys do that all the time. And they don't leave it at that. Instead of telling a woman what they want (i.e. sex), they automatically assume that the woman - if anything - wants a relationship (or worse: their money in the form of gifts and dinners) with them. So, instead of signaling a woman that they want to fuck, they will signal that they want a relationship just to get laid. For women this is confusing (and actually very creepy). Are they so unattractive that someone does not want to sleep with them? How can a man want a relationship if he does not even know yet whether they are sexually compatible? Women understand that the guy is either trying to fool them (and why?), or so desperate he will hold on to anything female he ever gets (and who wants to be with someone who couldn't chose to be with you freely?).

Nice guys are spine-less brown nosed opportunists

Lacking options when it comes to women (and that is mostly due to a mindset of low self worth and female scarcity), a nice guys will take whatever he gets. Starved of female attention, he will fall in love with any girl that signals even the slightest interest. Nice guys are not just needy, they are greedy.

Interestingly, many nice guys do not seem to have any moral issues if the girl they fall for is already "taken". If she complains to him about her jerk of a boyfriend (assuming he is just like her girlfriends), he sees an opportunity. He fantasizes about "saving her" from the assholes she sis attracted to, and conveniently "win her over" at the same time.

Shit tests are designed to test for spine and to detect the opportunism that characterizes nice guys. Women despise men that let them walk all over them. They know that a man who does anything to please them will do so to everyone else in life. They will do anything in fear of loss or punishment. A good deal of "nice guys" too greedy to risk material loss and to afraid to stand up were the kind of people who made fascist regimes possible. A woman will find out quickly ny throwing something in his face that would take balls to answer honestly.

Girl: I love Britney Spears
Nice guy: Yeah, she's cool.
The Man: You kidding me? That's your "taste" in music?

Girl: You think that girl over there looks fat? (pointing to a girl with a physique just like her own)
Nice guy: Oh no, she looks very feminine. Not like one of these skinny supermodels
The Man: Wouldn't hurt for her to go to drop the ice cream and go to the gym

[Note in this context how "negs" are a way of passing shit test before they even get posed.
Girl: I do not know about you - are you always going out hitting on women like that?
The Man: I can't believe just said that! We are broken up (pushes her a little).
Nice guy: Oh no. I am just waiting for a friend.]

Nice guys are unjust.

By putting the woman on a pedestal, they set the bar way too high. Imagine someone you like (and who likes you) would think of you as an idealized perfect-to-the-point-of-gold-shitting, fart-less, god-like superhuman. This person thinks you are devoid of any moral failures, always charming and good looking and misses to see that there are other moments in your life, too. You want to please that person, but you know you have flaws. You know that eventually you will disappoint this person.

Sucks? Yeah, that is how it feels like for a woman with a nice guy who's emotional balance is so out of control that he becomes delusional. Even if a woman would not listen to hear instinct and go for such a nice guy, she would end up unhappy because of his exaggerated notion of what the woman he is interested in really is like.

Nice guys treat all women like whores

More so, they treat them like whores where they want to be treated as laddies (in public), and treat them as laddies where they want to be treated as whores (in the privacy of the bedroom). A woman does not want to be "bought"; she wants to conquer a desirable man. She wants to make herself pretty for him. She wants him to be choosy (which implies options - something that nice guys don't have).
Buying drinks just to have a conversation, buying movie tickets and expensive dinners just to get laid - that is the hallmark of the nice guy. Most nice guys don't leave it at that, though. Their whole way of life is geared towards paying for what women actually want to give away for free. They try to become successful in their jobs in order to make money, lots of money - because they believe that this will land them a hot chick. In a sense, they are willing to pay for a woman to become their wife.
"Someday we'll live on Venus
And men will walk on Mars
But we will still be monkeys
Down deep inside"

There are two kinds of scientists studying what might be underlying human mate choice (i.e. finding out whatever it is that a man needs to get laid consistently).

On the one hand we got (social) psychologists. Their conclusions are by and large consistent with mainstream thinking: "Men want hotties" while "Women seek men with brains and money". Only recently have things started to move in this field, and researchers find "surprising" results that explain why Game works: we (esp. women) say we want one kind of partner but fall for a completely different type, non-neediness is a turn-on, men's body language (and sexual/romantic interest) is easy to read, the more men the choosier the women but if women put in the effort of approaching, they become less choosy.

On the other hand, there are primatologists (and evolutionary psychologists as an extension).

Their old model was simple: Males want all the sex they can get, and women grant it to select individuals only.

The two factors deciding on whether or not a male ape or monkey got some action were:
1) his dominance rank (i.e. alpha or beta males)
2) female mate choice

Classical theory assumed that these factors are separate and independent of each other.

A male had to achieve a certain rank by (often literally) beating its competition. Dominance rank was seen as the result of male-to-male competition. Alpha males were physically keeping other males from mating, thereby ensuring the valuable ressource of poon (ovaries).

The other factor was female choice. Since females do not mate with alpha males exclusively, it was believed that their preference for certain males was independent of their rank. The only reason the alphas got laid more often was their physical dominance over other males.

This soon proved wrong.

For several reasons:

- Females prefer high ranking males
Even in our closest relatives, females solicit more sex from high ranking males.
Interestingly, female monkeys orgams more often if they copulate with higher ranking males. So pleasure could be a proximate reason.
The ultimate reason is believed to be the higher quality of sperm that alpha males might possess (i.e. the promise of "sexy sons").
Another possibility is that there is a rank-transfer, i.e. females can gain rank by gaining high ranking males (this is related to the role of the selectivity of male mate choice; I will expand on that in a later post).

- (high ranking) Males are selective about females. It is not just females who chose. Females compete (heavily) for the best mates.

- Ovulation shifts between long term versus long term mating strategies.

- Group size (and other factors) alter female selectivity

- Primates are likely to experience sperm competition

What does that mean for humans?

The fact that rank is not neccessarily established through physical dominance is revealing. While this is certainly a factor in human societies, it is not the only one (ever been beaten up by your boss?).

Yet, there is ample reason to believe that women are more attracted to alpha male-like behavior (conveyed status) and (possibly) a large amount of money/ressources (socioeconomic status).

This leaves space for an interesting dilemma.

Who decides about rank (if it is not physical violoence)? What role does the female choice play?

It is conceivable that alpha status is (co-) established through female choice, i.e. women 'decide' or 'create' high ranking men by preferentially sleeping with them (the resulting hend and egg problem is similar if not related to that of the sexually successful son hypothesis).

Friday, February 6, 2009

Nonverbal Seduction

Is it possible to meet a woman, not speak a single word with her and have sex with her the very same day/night?

This is not as much of an unusual situation as you might think. People who travel a lot and expats to non-English speaking countries often face this problem.
And many will be surprised by how easy it is (my personal record was less then 15 minutes from bar to bedroom).

Given the common misconceptions about how selective women are in deciding on whom to sleep with, it is mind blowing that you do not even need to speak to them to get them to forget all the usual caveats about being a slut/ in danger / irresponsible for walking home with a guy they don't know.

The reason nonverbal pickup is possible (and surprising to the average male) is nicely summarized in this cartoon:

Women do not just communicate with words (and if they do they are masters of innuendos, double meanings and reading between the lines).

Men do not just communicate with words either, but they are less aware of it.

In a sense, men are more pronounced in sending out nonverbal signals (men are distributors), while women are more sensitive in reading them (women are receivers).

This principle is so powerful that it is often not despite the lack of spoken words that a woman will follow you to your bedroom, but because of it. Words distract (mostly the males) from what is actually going on.

So, what is actually going on?

Actors are very aware of the fact that the number one piece of information we communicate (usually subconsciously) non-verbally is our status.

It gets (dis)played through channels such as "posture, gesture, vocal tone, amount of space one's own body commands", to name just a few.

Women are very responsive to the status conveyed through these actions. Women (as all females in social species) seek high status males, and they have highly evolved mechanisms to detect these rare individuals.

Interestingly, though, they are often unaware of what it is that they perceive and how they react to it. When asked, they will often backwards rationalize what caused their attraction.

Here is one interesting example.

I have been recommended to watch/analyze this chick flick by a woman who said "she never felt so attracted to a man before". I do believe that chick flicks offer lots of (hidden) cues as to what is attractive to women - as long as one keeps the caveat in mind that they usually cater to the more beta male-oriented long term dating strategy rather than the alpha-induced short term mating strategy of same night sex.

The reason that chick flicks can be interesting nonetheless is that the ultimate female fantasy is that she can unite these opposing desires inside of her by beta-izing an alpha male. While movies cannot depict female desire to the same degree as women under circumstances of extreme anonymity, they do (need to) make use of everything that triggers female attraction, and often exaggerate it to turn the main guy into the literal uber-alpha (a "superstimulus").

The movie I am introducing here is doing just that.

Study this short scene - it starts with the first encounter with the uber-alpha (who happens to be a male escort, hence already owns the ultimate pre-selection/social proof). As always, I recommend watching the movie snippets on mute before watching them with the sound on.