Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Spoiled Little Rich Girls

In New York City it's common to meet spoiled little rich girls. I've met a few since I've been here, and like anyone they can be pleasant enough in mixed company. But once I had the strange experience of nailing two completely spoiled rich girls in a row, within the space of a couple of weeks.

My regular girl at the time was out of the picture (in her home country). I met and gamed spoiled little rich girl A — let's call her "Ariel" — in a pretty typical meet-number-date-kiss-date-fuck manner. She was sweet enough, actually had a really good heart. The two things that I didn't like about her were that she had fake tits (an 18th birthday present from Daddy, huge warning sign there!) and that she made this weird laughing noise the whole time when we fucked. But she was a hot little lay, and like I said, a sweet girl.

Ariel had a way nicer apartment than me, in a neighborhood where the rents are sky high in that truly obscene Manhattan way, and all kinds of fancy electronics and toys and clothes and original art pieces. She had got her cush job at a big media company the way a lot of these girls do, by interning for free when most working and middle class kids are out working lower-rung jobs to pay the bills with hopes of climbing the ladder. Her parents still paid her rent even though she was pulling down fat paychecks. But Ariel never boasted about it or acted too spoiled.

One morning though, after a late-night session at her place, we were getting on the downtown train and she was talking loudly about how she had to wait three more weeks to go to the Caymans with her Mommy and Daddy. I was a bit hungover, or maybe just tired of being around her and annoyed that we had to take the same train downtown, and I let slip a bitter comment about, "Oh, Daddy's poor wittle girl has to last thwee more weeks before her island vacation."

Said in the proper tone, this might have been a playful neg. I did not say it in a playful tone. It was not a neg. I really let her see my contempt and yes, my jealousy.

The irony here is that I had just got back from a beach in Central America myself. And all things considered, Ariel was much less of a spoiled brat than most girls in her situation. But I had already tipped my hand. I showed bitterness.

Bitterness comes from feeling that your lot is somehow unfair. It's a useless emotion, and frighteningly common. And it's the mark of a beta. Many men are expert as seeing unfairness around them all the time. It's a common trait in reactionary liberals. The only purpose it serves is to keep you down. Even when things are unfair, being bitter about them achieves nothing. And more often then not, at least in a country like the US, bitterness comes from people who really ought to be counting their blessings and enjoying their lives of relative freedom, health and abundance. People like, ahem, yours truly.

Ariel defended herself slightly and we both let it drop. We rode the train in silence and when her stop came it was a half-hearted kiss goodbye. I saw her a couple more times after that and we went through the motions of sex, but the spark was gone. She saw me as someone who resented her; and I came to notice more and more ways her special privilege was obnoxious to me.

That same week (I think), I met spoiled little rich girl B. "Betsy" was light years worse than Ariel on the spoiled cunt meter. She was a dynamite little bodacious package of a Jewish princess, with that slutty sultry look in her eye. I met her at a bar where we were both lone-wolfing. We struck up a conversation about literature (she had been reading some short stories), and several drinks and another bar later we were back at my place as she insisted she "never did things like this." (HA ha ha ha ha hahhhh!) For a girl who never did things like this, she sure did know how to suck cock.

I had no illusions about the long-term quality of this girl, but we had an intense flame going, and I was actually impressed with how well-read she was. The sex was great that night, and again the following morning. After fucking in the morning we got some late breakfast and fucked again. That kind of repeated sexual contact in a short space of time is one of the best ways for two humans to bond. I'd suspect that's how most couples that are really in love, fell in love in the first place.

Well, I didn't fall in love with Betsy, and thank god. She exhibited some of the best/worst characteristics of the modern liberated spoiled slut. She was a mean dicksucker — top 5 I've ever been with. She had some (very attenuated) Spanish heritage, which apparently made her feel like it was sexy to say in a wittle baby voice, "Ay papi ¡que rico!" when I fucked her from behind, even though at no other point did I ever hear her speak Spanish, by "accident" or otherwise. [Note: an actual spanish hottie saying "ay papi que rico" in a baby voice while getting fucked from behind is hot, very hot.... but some rootless little spoiled rich Jewish girl saying that out of a desire to cling to an "authentic" culture because she knows how empty she is inside, and hoping it will seem exotic and sexy, is not hot. It's annoying. I suspect she did it for some guy a couple years back and he loved it and now she whips it out for every white guy she's with. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that she would never, ever dare to do that shit with a real Mexican dude, if she ever happened to condescend to fucking one.]

Another thing about Betsy was that she suffered from too many options. With bailout money always and forever at her side, she never had to commit to anything. I've seen this disease strike trust-fund men too, of course, but with women it's usually even wose, and absolutely fatal to their character. A young, hot girl is prone to flake almost by definition. Add a few hundred thou in the bank (plus millions more, eventually) —money she did nothing to earn — and the situation becomes intolerable. As a matter of fact, Betsy also complained about trips to the Caribbean, just like Ariel, though when Betsy did it I just wanted to smack her in the face.

The kicker came two days before Christmas. She had invited me to spend Christmas with some Christian relatives of hers in the 'burbs, and I agreed, turning down two invites from other people. On the 23rd I gave her a buzz to see if she wanted have a drink [and a shag, natch]. She answered from the airport. She decided she wanted to go home for the holiday, to the other side of the country. Apparently it hadn't occurred to her to inform me that my Christmas plans would be canceled.

"Do you have already have a ticket?" I asked.

"No, I'm just going to buy one here."

"Do you have any idea how much it's going to cost to buy a ticket for a transcontinental flight, in person, at JFK airport, on the day-of, on December 23rd?" I asked, incredulous.

"A few thousand, I guess." She sounded bored by the whole concept of weighing costs.

"Have fun." I hung up.

I ended up having a great Christmas, incidentally, no thanks to the spoiled whore. When she got back from her trip home and then the Caribbean, she called a few times and once I let her catch up with me at a coffee shop in our hood. She looked at me very sincerely, tears in her eyes. She said she was sorry that she was such a flake. That she had really, really missed her family, and that she knew it must seem crazy to people the way she just jumps around without notice. Part of my heart started to melt a little. I looked at her DSL and started to reconsider shutting her out...

Then I tuned back into the words those DSL were forming, "I really want to be a war correspondent in Georgia or Armenia." She was spouting off with an inspired look in her eye.

"Jesus. What?"

She was dead serious. I'm all for having dreams, especially unique and ambitious ones like being a war correspondent in the Caucasus (provided, um, there are actual wars to cover). But it suddenly became so clear to me this girl had no idea what she was talking about. She lived her life with utter ease, not beholden to anyone. There was no conceptual difference, to her, between being able to fly home on Christmas Eve on a whim and covering wars in far-off countries. I tried to tell her that shit didn't work that way. That eventually if she tried to do anything real with her life, she would have to put in actual work, even when she didn't feel like it. "That goes for relationships too," I said...

Well, as soon as I said that, I realized what I had done. I was caring. I was pissed off, and incredulous. I was frustrated by her utter lack of concern for anyone but herself, and I was bitter... Against my better judgment, I was trying to change this little girl, or at least give her some advice.

Needless to say, once I caught myself, I pulled back. "Bail, Master Dogen, Bail!" shouted the (tardy) game-regulator in my head. We finished our conversation, I finished my coffee, and we said goodbye. I never spoke to her again after that.

But every encounter provides a lesson, and in their own way, sweet Ariel and cunty Betsy both taught me the same thing... Never care about a woman's financial situation; never feel jealous or bitter; never try to change her attitude about these things.

Always clarify in your mind what it is you desire from women, whether its love or sex or companionship. Then pursue that, and ignore the rest. Everything else is extraneous, at best an amusement.

Sex, Life, Love and a woman who is happy

I started reading Jenny Block's "Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage". I am always interested in hearing a woman's perspective, especially if we seem to be on the same page when it comes to all women craving to be sluts, so I thought I'd give it a try (I didn't know she is associated with Feministing.com).

It starts promising. This is girl next door in a nutshell (in her own words):

"This is a story about a girl who grew up believing what many girls believe—that one day she would fall in love with the man of her dreams, marry him, have kids, and live happily ever after. ...

She set off for college ... she had several relationships and many lovers, and she was happy.

Then she met a nice guy whom she thought she could love ... she was ready to settle down ...

Then they had a baby and their sex life plummeted ...

And so she had an affair...

She made a pact with herself to try to be what was expected of her ... she couldn't keep it up ...

perhaps she just needed to have lovers outside of her marriage...

she wanted to show him [her husband] how they could love each other and be married - even if they slept with other people"



And so it goes... Her hubbie gets a threesome and they start what she calls a marriage "like most people's marriages - except that they were honest with each other." Great! Really?

So why do we guys keep complaining about female sexuality? Wouldn't that be awesome - to be married to a self-proclaimed "modern feminist slut" who is happy sleeping around and grants you the same "right"?

While there may be men, who do want exactly that in their lives, I doubt that they are in the majority. The truth is an open marriage is the ultimate fantasy for women - this way they get the cake and can eat it at the same time: A loving, caring, "stable" provider beta male to pay for the kids - and lots of raunchy bed sheets-staining sex with the rugged, irresponsible asshole next door. No surprise then, that this book is a pseudo-feminist praise of a woman who "found happiness" (and does not even feel bad about what she did to her husband - before he agreed).

For men, the story is different.

Men want sexual diversity, too. But they do not need to marry someone in order to sleep around without the nagging feeling of being still single.

Why would a man marry if he wants to (and truly can!) be promiscuous?

There is no social stigma for a man who does not marry, there is no biological clock and even if he decides he wants to be with a woman for more than just a fling, why sign a legal document?

Since the man is the one who typically gets the (financial) burden - regardless of whether the marriage works out or not, men tend to be more wary (it is him who is expected to propose, he will be seen as losing the fun of being a bachelor, and typically her parents will pay for the wedding - a tradition that foots in the realization that the guy is at a loss).

The only reason a man would marry a woman is:

a) he can't get laid regularly and thinks he got a "regular sex deal" (typical beta male)

b) he wants someone to do the household (in the West practically obsolete these days)

c) he gives into her nagging and society's pressure (uh, oh - an alpha male in demise)

Women don't get that. They think that if a man "truly loves" a woman he fantasizes about "happily ever after" as much as her. At the very least, if he would want to have kids, he would want to marry her, right?

Why? Can't you just love someone and have kids? Why go to court and sign a contract? Why would a man need any legal security? Especially so, if it is "true, eternal love" that is bonding him to her and vice versa? Are kids of unmarried couples really at a disadvantage these days? There simply is no rational reason for a man to marry (while there are very rational reasons not to marry, such as him paying for his wife throughout and after the likely end of marriage).

Here is why woman are so confused about that issue.

Women marry because:

a) societal pressure of being a "Madonna"/romantic fantasies reared since childhood (they get looked down upon if >30 and single)

b) the lover/provider dichotomy/the need for a "nice guy" to cuddle with (and to fulfill their need to give birth!) in addition to being an alpha's "little slut" (female instinct is to build a nest with a stable man to raise kids - not necessarily his)

c) the emotional predominance in female cognition/the capricious "living in the moment" - women cannot see what lifelong monogamy actually "feels like"; wedding day is where romance novels and chick flicks end (while society portraits marriage as a man giving up his "freedom", women are still seen as virtually "losing their virginity" in the wedding night - in societal folklore women do not give up sexual pleasure, they are thought to gain it!)

d) the "biological clock" (in reality this is less about fertility than about becoming less attractive; sensing their decline in "market value", women will see that they can get the highest bid before it is too late)

The result: Modern urban life

So, during their tewnties women fuck around happily (the same few guys) while most men stand on the sidelines.

Turning thirty, the majority of guys suddenly become attractive. This is often attributed to becoming financially independent or "confident", but the truth is that most guys now are seen as marriage material.

Women feel that their market value sinks, their friends and parents pressure them to find a "great guy" (rightfully concerned about their increasingly bad reputation of "putting out freely"). And upon meeting one of these "nice guys" who they did not even look at in a sexual way before, the approaching-thirty women these days will make a new discovery - the feeling of wanting to "settle".

Biology (nest instinct) and societal brainwash interact and make her push for his commitment. After all, it will be a good deal. Once he signs that piece of paper, he will pay - for the rest of his life. Regardless if he will stay with his increasingly unattractive wife, or if he or she (inevitable) "lose the spark" four to seven years into their marriage.

The guys might be an alpha (think Tom Cruise). In that case, she will not even try to push for marriage. Higher alphas are seen as truly unattainable. They are the exciting men she is truly happy - grateful for - that they have sex with her. There is no need for such a man to do anything else for her - buying her a drink, talking for more than a few minutes at the bar, cuddling, giving advice or emotional connection, let alone marriage.

The guy might be a beta, but he might waver. Her pushing for commitment is suspicious. having been unattractive for most opf his life, he know realizes he is getting offers of sexual escapade the same way the jocks and alphas did since their teens. Why settle now? This is just starting to get fun! The more he wavers, the more he actually moves away from being beta/provider. This will instigate her attraction to new levels. The race is on - she sees in him all the good traits of a husband (compared to the irresponsible tattoo'ed guys she blew and took up her ass for all these years), and now his value is going up in front of her eyes, too!

The guys who actually want to marry remain on the sidelines. Women are too busy chasing the remaining alphas (they will do so for the rest of their lives), and the betas who suddenly have become "hard to get".

Eventually, guys will "give in" or the women "settle for" the guys who are boringly easy to "snatch" as husbands. Either way - she now has what she wanted for so long; all she fought for so hard.

And then what? Turns out that all the happiness that was supposed to happen, doesn't. It is just to people living together, with all the problems that come with that. Plus, sex gets less and less exciting. There is repetition. There is tiredness after long work days and kids. There is her instinct that tells her that the guys who supplicates by paying her stuff and has no other women as options (definition of beta and/or husband) is not attractive. yes, there is her love for the guy - kissy, cuddly, stability-and-all love. But all in all, there is massive disappointment.

And that is where the women have a huge advantage. For a guy to score an affair, he needs to game. A woman just needs an add on Craigslist. Reading stories such as in this book are striking in how much women see themselves "entitled to" sexual pleasure - even at the expense of the marriage vow. And pleasure it is to do something so taboo, so naughty, so slutty in all secrecy. Plus, the guys she has an affair with is an alpha almost by definition. All her romantic ideas of catching and beta-izing a silverback return. She can enjoy casual sex again. And this time there won't be the shitty feelings of waking up alone the morning after. Feminism in the sixties gave women the "freedom" to act upon these feelings. The result (check here and here for other "side effects"):
This curve has the same shape all over the Western world. More than half of all marriages in the U.S. these days end up in divorce. Note that the guy will lose not only the relationship - he will likely lose money and custody for his kids, too. All of this would not have happened if he hadn't married in the first place.

Open marriage has the advantage for a woman that she can enjoy sex, and keep that beta for an emotional relationship and as a a dad. Plus, this way she can get rid of her bad conscience. Plus, she gets to deal with her jealousy.

For a woman, jealousy is tied to the fear of losing a provider. Her husband happening to get an anonymous fuck in the bathroom of an airplane is not something a woman would be happy about, but nothing to truly worry about either (if it is not something regular). He can basically fuck whoever he wants, if she knows - truly knows - that he will stay by her side. In an open marriage she can find out who he bangs and see if there is the danger of emotional attachment to that partner (i.e. another woman "stealing" her man) - a headstart that will allow her to step on the brakes in time.

Meanwhile, the man feels differently. Biology did not equip men with an instinct to keep a purely emotional relationship. The man's fear is hardwired to another dude's semen inside the woman who gets (legal) access to his hard earned resources. A man who wants to enjoy other women - why would get legally tied to one while doing so? And if he truly is in love with her - why torture a male mind with the thought of other guys dicks losing up his wife's snatch?

The problem is not that women these days just bang alphas the whole time, and get old and unattractive, failing to "snatch" a husband. That does happen, and these women suffer for their sexual nature (telling them to go for what they can't get). Most women, however, do settle earlier or later - and profit from a system that was set up in a time (let's say before the 50's) where a marriage contract was seen as a deal (see "why men marry" above).

Most men understand. The result is this:

Monday, March 30, 2009

Sex sells

It's not Fool's Day yet, so you still can trust the oddities reported in the media. Check out this story in a local German newspaper. Make sure you read it all the way to the end. All the way. It gets better and better.

Go and read it first, because I will spoil it here. My prose is less entertaining. The punch line is what I am after:

So basically, a guy paid his neighbor to impregnate is wife. That sounds bizarre, but there actually are many men out there who got beta'ed down so much that they started enjoying their misery. The result is a "cuckold fetish" - a hard one to explain to any evolutionary biologist since all the explanation that work for priests and homosexuality fail when a guy monopolizes a woman just to make sure that he will not pass his genes on to the next generation.

But what I am getting at is not that a guy asked another dude to bang his wife (72 times!). I am not even impressed by the fact that he paid the other man for doing it (I would not be surprised if he watched and it turned him on - he has an omega status fetish).

What I am getting at is that the alleged alpha who got hired to "bang my wife" got cuckolded by his wife as well. Surprised? What a coincidence? What are the odds?

Well, the odds are actually high. And that is why this story is not that surprising (yet somewhat amusing).

This leads me to the following: If wives really "only" cheat 50-60% of times, how come the paternity fraud rate is so high for the general population (an over and over confirmed estimate of 10%)?

How can women get impregnated so poorly by their actual husbands, and so readily by the "few" times they had an itch for strange?

The answer is clear to any guy who's got some game (and especially so if that wasn't always the case). Women go crazy when there is alpha sperm at stake (ever heard of "birth control sabotage"? You are a tool if you believe that is a masculine idea).

So, her craving for a "great guy's" sperm and her craving for a "good guy's" money, affection and emotional security creates an interesting mix of selective birth control (a lot of it unconsciously - see first chapters in "Sperm Wars").

Here is a fun little game to make use of this female instinct. It is called:

Test your alpha status by pretending the condom broke.

If she freaks out, and runs for the morning after pill/ Plan B - you clearly are in her boyfriend category. If she is your wife, test your kids with a battery of DNA kits.

If she tries to bareback you while you are asleep - congratulations. You are a stud. Your problem will be disposing the condoms properly, so she can't access your fertility while you take a leak. Chances are she is married, and hasn't told you yet.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Dick in a Box vs Jizz in My Pants

Before anyone accuses me of taking comedy too seriously, let me say that this is a somewhat jokey post. But on one level, of course, I'm kinda serious.

Both "Dick in a Box" and "Jizz in My Pants" are absurdist videos, and both make fun of the kinds of guys who act like this. By offering these videos for analysis, I'm not suggesting that men should act like the guys in either video. What makes them funny is the absurdity of it all. The characters Andy Samberg and his friends play are ridiculous; hence the comedy.

But to make the jokes work, the comedians have to engage us in a recognizable world, and only then can they make fun of it. The subtext has to be familiar, so that they may then build a layer of jokes upon it.

"Dick in a Box" shows men literally gifting their cocks to women. "Jizz in My Pants" shows the exact opposite: men who can't control their own cocks.Notice that both use alpha/beta code that doesn't need to be explained to the viewer, because we all already intuit it (or we should).

Remember here: in both videos, the men are silly. But the women react differently.

Dick in a Box = Alpha



In Dick-in-a-box they sing about not buying the girl fancy cars and rings and houses... she should be pleased to be gifted with the marvelous alpha cock. It's all silly... but notice that the women in this video stay enraptured with their men (except for that one take where the feather is bugging the girl), because that's part of the code.

Jizz in my pants = Beta



In Jizz in my Pants... notice how turned on the girl for the first 30 seconds. Then at 0:30... it turns to a look of disgust. Unforgivable beta sin! A man who jizzes in his pants is not used to being with women, and women only want what other women want. Then the extra beta: he blames it on her instead of playing it cool. Ditto in the supermarket at 1:15.

Even when people make fun of these rules of primate behavior, you can't escape the way they dominate our lives. Even in absurd, hilarious SNL videos, alpha beats beta.

Even when you're playing shit up for laughs, never relinquish your position. You're a man; she's just another girl.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Funny = Good Sperm

If there is anything approaching a universal when it comes to women's taste in men, it's that they almost always say they want a guy with a "sense of humor," sometimes alternately phrased, "a guy who knows how to have fun."

I just took four minutes and looked at the first few postings under "women seeking men" on craigslist in a random US city, and found the following requests:

make me cry from laughing.

I'm looking for a fun guy

most importantly someone who can keep up with me and make me laugh.

The kind of man I want to spend time with knows how to laugh and does it often. When he smiles, his eyes twinkle and people wonder what he’s been up to.
[This one is my favorite --ed.]

3.Must be witty, sarcastic and fun

Qualifications:
*Fun
*Great sense of humor

Me: Killer karaoke singer
You: Witty conversationalist

looking for a guy who has a good sense of humour that can make me laugh

I could go on and on. Try it for yourself. It doesn't matter the city. It also doesn't matter what kind of relationship the women are looking for. Of the above women, some were young girls looking for drinks at a cocktail lounge, some were divorced women with children looking for a stable "$ecure" man, some were fat women looking for one night stands from chubby chasers, some claimed just to be looking for friendship. This is a nearly universal request from women.

Men, of course, love to laugh too. Laughing feels good. All else being equal, most men would choose a funny girl over a dull one. But it doesn't carry nearly the same weight for men as it does for women. You certainly don't find it in nearly 100% of our classified ads. So what's going on?

A man who can make other people laugh is a social man. He's confident, he's interested in communicating with other people. He doesn't pull into his own little shell, wallowing in self-pity. He's happy. All these are strong indicators of alphaness. The women who posted these ads would never admit it, because they don't even realize it themselves, but they want a man with a sense of humor because a man with a sense of humor is a man with superior sperm.

Daniel P. Howrigan, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kevin B. MacDonald, of Cal State Long Beach, recently published a study called Humor as Mental Fitness Indicator. They ran an experiment involving hundreds of college students in which they were rated for humor and for intelligence (as well as a number of other factors like age, height, weight, and personality). Their findings? "The current study lends support to the prediction that effective humor production acts as an honest indicator of intelligence in humans."

Translation: Funny = Smart.

While both genders value intelligence, it's far more important to women than it is to men. Men will look past stupidity to a fantastic pair of legs. Women, not so much.

The researchers were most interested in the correlation between humor and intelligence (humor was measured by a panel of peers evaluating a number of "jokes" manufactured by participants through drawings, stories, and emails; intelligence was measured using a standardized test broadly accepted in the research community). But they also found some interesting correlations with other factors.

This is an incredibly rich table for students of human nature. Look at it closely:


OK, so those numbers are a little mystifying. Let me help you read it...

The numbers indicate the strength of correlation between the two factors. A rating of 1 would indicate that there was a 100%, exact one-to-one relationship between the two factors. For example, if the column heading was "Has a Penis" and the row was "Is a Man," the the number in the box would be 1.00, assuming their were no transsexuals or Bobbitts in the group. A rating of 0 means there the two factors are operating independently of each other. A rating of -1 would mean that the two factors were diametrically opposed: the presence of one factor excludes the presence of the other (a column "Born in 1822" and a row "Alive Today" would have a -1 in the box). Got it?

The strongest relationship on this table is between Humor Production and General Intelligence: Funny = Smart. A .29 correlation might not seem like much, but in this kind of study it's considered a rather strong piece of data. It's exceedingly difficult to measure these things in a laboratory setting, and researchers generally expect the numbers to tend toward zero. So .29 is more than significant.

The biggest negative relationship is between Age and General Intelligence. In other words, Old = Stupid (also, if you notice, Old = Not Funny). Before you get your panties in a twist, remember that these are tendencies, not ironclad rules. Of course some people get smarter as they get older. Just like there are funny people who are kinda dumb. But people who continue to get sharper with age are the ones who were exceptionally bright as young people. Most people are terrible mediocrities... the natural vivaciousness and energy of youth — which can be used for good or evil, as we all know — gives way to alcohol, television, and soul-crushing conformity.

This also why, incidentally, a truly energetic, engaged, funny, and witty older man ("when he smiles, his eyes twinkle and people wonder what he’s been up to," according to our lonely craigslisting woman) is pure catnip to pussies. They are nearly powerless to resist him. This man has the positive social indicators of age (more earning power, higher status) while keeping the positive genetic indicators of youth (a quick mind, a general sparkle in his eye, a sense of adventure).

But there's more to learn from this table:

What are the personality factors that rate highly with humor? "Openness" and "Extraversion." That seems unsurprising. People who are more engaged with the world are more likely to make witty observations about it: Worldly = Funny.

Note also that humor is negatively correlated with "Conscientiousness" and "Neuroticism." That is, those who are locked up inside with their own issues (neurotics) and those who are too concerned with the feelings of others (the conscientious) can't really cut loose and be funny: Being a Pussy = Not Funny. (Side note: There is not a strong negative relationship between being conscientious and being funny, just the lack of a correlation, the number is close to zero... in other words, being an asshole is not necessarily a sign of being funny, but neither is being a panty-waisted bitch.)

You can see something else from this table something that is widely known and very well-established in the scientific community, but which most people don't know: Height and weight correlate strongly to intelligence. This is a real "Life is Unfair!" datum. But then, um... life is unfair. Height also correlates to beauty and physical attractiveness. Alert the hurt-feelings police! Unsurprising then, that Doctors Howrigan and MacDonald found that bigger, taller people are also funnier. Unspecified is whether it is their size that gives them more confidence and thus leads to humor, or if it is their better genes and better childhood nutrition that led to both big size and smart, funny brains. My guess is both, but there's no data here to support that either way.

Finally, I'd like to point out one more thing: Note the relationship between "Semesters In College" and "Humor Production" and "General Intelligence." It's .06. Zero point six. Point zero six. In other words, almost none at all. While education does a lot of things, making you good company is not one of them. If you're trying to get in a woman's pants, don't spout some Derrida bullshit to prove your smarts, unless you are really good at making it funny and engaging and poetic, which, my friends, you probably aren't.

So there you have it. Women, always sniffing out the best sperm for their vaginas, use a "sense of humor" as an indicator of your superior quality as a mate. They don't know they do it. But the mechanism, bred into them by millions of years of evolution, works nonetheless.

Use this to your advantage.

Added:
How do you use it to your advantage? There's little to nothing you can do to increase your natural intelligence, though you can maximize whatever intelligence you do have by thinking for yourself and trying new things.

But if you're just not funny, my biggest advice would be to lighten up. Look again at the correlations involving personality traits. Openness and Extraversion are good; Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, less so. Don't take yourself too seriously. Open up to the world around you. Be happier. That much you can control.

A Happy Man

"The thing I truly need the most is passion. Whatever I am doing, I have to be deeply passionate about it. Otherwise, I feel as if I am dead."
(from: "How Sex and Passion Transformed Me by D. Rose - same point I am making here but some more eloquence)

On a scale from 1 to 10 - how happy are you?

If your answer is less than 8, you should take a moment and reflect.

I know this sounds like chick crack, and indeed it is, but there is a serious side to my question. A very serious side.

Cheesy as it sounds - life is too short to waste time in a happiness state that low.

We all know that.

However, almost none of us act accordingly.

Why?

Because HOPE is easier than WILL. Because it hurts to admit that the path you're on is not the right one. It is harder to make adjustments and changes than to compromise. We fear that we will lose the little we have instead of getting more.

We endure prolonged periods of unhappiness because we always believe that "things will get better". But why wait?

This is not a self-help, RSD-type, new agey "get your act together" post for slackers.

Au contraire.

Happiness does not require hard work. But it does require sex (for most guys).

Here is a true deep rapport story of mine: I was one of the guys who believed that I do not have a job, but "a calling". I did not "work for the money", I worked out of pure "intrinsic motivation". I practically lived at the office, and I felt bad when not showing up on weekends or taking more than just a few days of vacation. I was unhappy most of the time, but I "looked ahead".

I wasted the best years of my life like that.

I wasted my health, too. My stomach revolted against the fast food, irregular meals taken while walking or typing single handed on my computer, the coffee, the stress, the lack of a proper social life. I got fat, my girl friend of several years left me for someone less "burnt out"and soon I found myself at the hospital.

The chronic acid reflux had burnt a hole into my stomach, and attacked the cells in my esophagus so badly that they were about to turn cancerous. When my doc returned, she did not know for sure the ulcer was benign, and her prognosis for my esophagus was sobering: "as much as a 79% chance of developing cancer in 6 years". A very deadly cancer.

You see, this is where I got in touch with the community. And now, years later, I feel entitled to tell you about happiness. Because today I am a happy man.

What does this have to do with women and sex? A lot.

How do you get happy?

It is all about biology (again).

You are an organism, shaped over millions of years of fierce competition between your ancestors and other organisms. As a result, evolution has left you programmed with feelings of pleasure and content ("happiness") in order to make you do things that are beneficial to win the competition.

For a biologist an organism is just a vehicle. An "ex and hop" soma that is used by genes to get from one generation to the next. Happiness is nothing but the result of living in a way that is in line with that "purpose" of yours.

A career is nothing but one way of getting there. Being successful, powerful and rich (and teh confidence that comes with it) definitely increases the mating market chances of a man. Our genes tell us to go for it accordingly.

It is also the kind of activity that society benefits from the most. As a result, you will get a lot of social approval for taking that route.

But it is not the only way to get successful with girls. And for many men the ultimate goal - achieving high sexual success - becomes secondary to the power, money and all else that is linked to societal success rather than biological success.

Now, while money can add a lot of convenience to your life, I have seen many more guys who professionally successful who suffer (in fact, I am surrounded by them). They soon realize that their power is often limited (to their work place) and that after achieving a certain standard of living, there is little to get from extra money. These guys yearn for affection (and sex) - and they have become the prime target of the "seduction industry" that sells ridiculously overprized seminars and ebooks to rich guys who don't get laid.

Amazingly, I have never met a single guy who was sexually successful with a long face. Some of these guys had the crappiest jobs, and enough debt for a small town, but they lived their lives freely, unbound and with an unending experience of pleasure. And their happinness produced a positive feedback loop - the happier they were the more successful they became socially. Despite the envy of less attractive men, they are generally sought out for companionship. We all like to be around happy people. They attract us magically. Our own void of meaning, purpose in life makes us crave whatever others have found to fill it.

I am not denying that there are genetic factors in play when it comes to base happiness. I am also not denying that having a "calling" rather than a job will increase your overall happiness (I still see my job as a paid hobby). There is much more than sex to happinness (all I am saying is if you have a choice between long hours at the lab and a promising date with a young attractive sexual libertine - dont be stupid). One of the best sources on the web on this topic can be found HERE (note the focus on social interactions).

Being a man involves more than a big car, house and nice suits.

"Love life. Love yourself."

(Feel free to use as chick crack this Friday night - it works)

PS: If there is nothing else you can take from today's post, you might at least appreciate the following:
"Oookayyyy. Let's not waste any time here. On a scale from 1 to 10 - how good are you in bed?" is one of my favorite, fun and field-tested openers of mine. Free for your entertainment!
(BTW, most girls answer "7". No, seriously! Extra prize for those of you who can come up with a good follow up on that in the comments section...)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Reverse Game

"A pimp is really a whore who has reversed the game on whores."
[Iceberg Slim - Pimp]

It just takes one simple thing to become "good with women": Act like one.

Most guys approach the d/m/ating scene with a "fake-it-till-you-make-it-attitude" of the wrong kind. They have realized that "chicks dig jerks", so they try to be one.

A lot of bullshit advice out there tell guys to think "what would an asshole do?" accordingly. And they fail. And keep failing as women see right through their facade.

The key is to ask yourself "what would a woman do?"

Here are some behavioral differences between guys and women that exemplify my point:

Women are not afraid to talk to strangers.
"Approach anxiety" is something so completely male, women simple do not get it. Not approaching a woman who looks at you is seen as a rejection or extreme cowardice. Women have never experienced an inhibition to talk to strangers. Women talk. All the time. Just see what happens at the register of the local grocery store. Women enjoy social interactions. They are not afraid of it. This is true for the most socially awkward female (women never think of themselves as being socially awkward - they always attribute it to the situation and/or people they interact with). An attractive guy is someone who talks to whomever, whenever - just like a chatty chick.

Women are testing/seemingly selective
As stage two put it - a woman posing a provocative question is not just sassy. It is a magic weapon. The man can be Brad Pitt in person - if he falters, reacts emotionally or even just in the socially accepted (expected) way to her test, she will lose attraction. The result is that women can turn any attractive member of the opposite sex into an unattractive person in an instant. It is like turning a hot 9 into an ugly fat chick with the snap of a finger. This mechanism (while also being a curse to any horny girl who just wants to get laid) gives women a tremendous advantage in the mating game. Most men cannot help but feeling attracted to all the pretty girls around him. Women feel that there are very few attractive men out there - and hence seem more selective (even when their actually needy enough to go home fist themselves). A man who is able to not just fall for a woman's looks, but testing her words and actions with the true intend of rejecting her for a mere sentence he dislikes is irresistible to a woman. Again, note that most women do not realize that the interactions leading to sex are not relevant for a man's attraction. If you do not (give her the impression) that she needs to "qualify" and can lose you any moment by failing to respond wittily, she will assume that something is seriously wrong with you (since the opposite is so second nature to her), exactly as in the case when you did not even approach.

Sex is no big deal to women
This one is key, too. If you talk about sex before it happened, you are out. Sex is something "that happens". Dogs that bark, don't bite. Women love men who are casual about sex. This does not mean that women do not attach meaning to sex. Sex can be the deepest emotional experience to a woman she ever had (that's why the tears after orgasm). However, women are very well able to dissociate sex - even very satisfying sex - from making love. A woman will have no inhibitions to sex a guy who does not seem to be confused about the two. But if she assumes the guy is not the kind of man who just gets fucked, but needs emotion and relationships to get to that point - she will not sleep with him unless it is in that framework. Women enjoy men who are "liberal" in their sexual attitude.

Women are empathetic and emotional
This one may be surprise for guys who read a lot of PUA literature. Isn't a man supposed to be all masculine/macho?
Having no sign of feelings can be attractive to a woman indeed.
But a man who is (feigning) deep emotional experience while not being emotional (i.e. fully in control of his feelings) is the non plus ultra for any woman. Mind you, what a woman wants is both: a inseminating alpha with sociopathic traits and a caring beta with a big heart. Getting both at the same time is what women call romance.
the fact that this is simply not achievable in practice (because any alpha becoming beta is not alpha anymore) does not matter to female fantasy. This is why romance novels and chick flicks end at the wedding day - the woman does not even need to think about the betaization of the guy who was moronic enough to commit and thereby give up his "unattainable" status.
Simulating "beta" moments while remaining alpha is an art - and a lethal weapon for women craving commitment. Alphas can keep several women in their harem for long periods of time by quenching the beta-thirst of the women they met with alpha posture.

Women are irrational when it comes to sex/relationships
What drives most men insane, can be used for your own advantage. Stop assuming logic when it comes to sical interactions. Break the rules. Do not repond in predicatble ways. Never. The result will be tremendous attraction. This is what women call a "mysterious" man.
This is how most guys fail during pickup and later on in relationships:
SHE: Did you just check out her ass?
YOU: (looking at her) I was just - no. I didn't!
This is the correct way of dealing with the situation
SHE: Did you just check out her ass?
YOU: (looking at her) I was just - did someone recommend that eye liner to you or did you select it yourself?
Do not be afraid to be childish. Ever seen how women start smiling when everyone around seems happy - just because of that (like little kids)?
If you suggest to go "oustide and roll down the nearest hill", because "you feel like it", women assume that you are an adventurous man, mysterious and spontaneous. You will not be seen as what you are that moment - a child.

Women do not worry
Guys worry about carreer, money, mortgages and their dicks. Women do not worry about their lives. Women mind what others think of them. Women do think about what to wear and what to eat. But they do not worry about existential crashes and crises. Most women feel like there are people (mostly men) in their lives who will "fix things" if they go wrong. There will always be a daddy. Women need a dense social network - and assume that their "connections", not the money or carreer is what ensures that life's obstacles will be dealt with. Having a similar aura of carelessness is appealing to women. Unless you are supposed to be the guy who "fixes" things for her (which turns you unattractive).

These are just a few examples of how a (masculine) man can gain points by taking on some feminine behaviors.

These behaviors (i.e. being emotional, silly and careless) will work all the way to the bedroom despite the fact that even bisexual women crave masculinity once their pants are down. It is important to find the right balance between male and female behavior to not miss the tipping point, but as a general rule - the more masculine you are naturally, the more you will gain from employing female behaviors once in a while.

Monday, March 23, 2009

"Don Juan was not such an extraordinary case"

In an ethics seminar I recently attended at work, someone bon-mot'ed that "Ethics is about Money. Morals are about Sex."

Power and Love are the two main fields of human life that can account for almost all behavior, inspire most books, songs and movies and ultimately define a life's success.

No wonder society is constructed in a way that impacts both more strongly than anything else (your friends are all interested in how much you make and who you had/have sex with, but no one gives a crap about what you had for lunch - n'est-ce pas?)

No surprise then, that people are as hesitant to talk about their actual net worth as about the numbers of sex partners they actually had.

However, while most people realize that there are a select few who are insanely rich, people still get shocked by what happens between men and women behind closed doors.

I found a freely accessible link to the study on sexual networks published in Nature that I frequently link to (as one of my colleagues striving to get published in put it - Nature simply is the most prestigious journal in the universe). This is not just some bullshit data.

In this survey, the number of sex partners was collected for 2810 responding individuals (the fact that almost half of the people asked for did not respond leaves room for bias - the authors acknowledge the lack of elderly women, but let's assume it is a fair sample).

According to the discussion, the sample represented <1500 women (Swedish). Only one of them reported a triple digit number of life time partners (no porn movies and swinger's clubs up there in Sweden?!?). In line with other studies, the mean amount of life time sex partners is seven, with the median (what the actual majority of women experiences if you take the "outliers" of very promiscuous women into account) being closer to 3.

The numbers for men are much higher (it is well known that men tend to over-report and women to downplay their actual number of partners even in anonymized surveys).

There is reason to believe that there is truth to these numbers. The reason is that the distributions of male and female data looks exactly like what natural scientists expect: heavily skewed distributions (following a "power law), which are ubiquitous in biology.

The (somewhat counter-intuitive) implication that there are some men (and fewer women) who are responsible for most sexual contacts!


The authors point out that one of the guys reported >800 partners (keep in mind - this a random sample; there is no reason to believe that this is "glass ceiling" where things end in reality. Likely that there are guys with higher numbers as one screens through larger populations). This pretty much corresponds to half the female sample. In other words, this guy's ratio was 50% of the total population that participated in the study. In larger terms this means:

"we find that the 10% most connected man have 48% of the sexual connections, while the 1% most connected have about 15% of connections...

In contrast, for men, the 50% less connected are responsible for 12% of sexual contacts (about as many as the 1% most connected)"

Read the last sentence again. If you combine what half of all the men out there manage to pull into their bedrooms, you end up with the same amount of sexual contacts as the top guy in a thousand!

Women literally fuck the same guy(s).

Now, one twist of the study is that this is also true to some degree about women.

Does that mean that there are some very promiscuous people out there, who sleep with each other while most people are rather modest in their sexual behavior?

Nope. yes, there are very few promiscuous women who get around a lot. The guys with few partners are more likely to have slept with such an "easy girl" (fat? ugly?) than having enjoyed the actual pool of "good girls" (who, ironically are busy banging the same guys).

The point is that the high scoring men have high numbers of different partners. In other words, they are likely to bang the few sluts out there - but it just doesn't stop there. They pretty much bang any other woman, too (the ones with few partners). Since these women report less than a handful of life time partners, it seems likely that one or more of these were those "uber-scorers".

How can this be? It is because women love the guys who is loved by women, that's why.

If you are not one of these guys yourself, chances are that you are well connected to one of these "Kevin Bacons". He was there before you - or he will while you aren't there.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Listening to what she wants

Few people I know truly enjoy one night stands. And most of them are women, who get off on the fact that it realizes their "being fucked by a stranger" fantasy.

As a guy, you will either have suffered through terrible sex (be it because she is ugly, fat or recreational drugs were in the way of full enjoyment), or you want repeat. Usually the feeling of wanting her again starts soon after you leave her place. If the sex really was good, this urge cannot be quenched by fucking other women (even that day). A man's biological imperative is to keep the new conquest for a while or to add it to the harem. It is a less pressing feeling than getting to fuck her for the first time, but if she is hot there simply is no "buyer's remorse" for guys.

This is certainly true for same night lays, but even more so if you put in some effort ("dates" / Day 2's"). Why would you bother all the texting, seeing her again, attraction, comfort and seduction for a single lay? Seeing her crawl back to you, begging you to fuck her again a couple of days later is the ultimate alpha male experience.

For many guys this never happens.

In many cases, especially after same night lays, the women they "won over" the night before start crying soon after they leave their apartments the morning after, sulking to their friends the rest of the day and for the next days to come. They will feel "dirty", "used", "slutty" and will tell all their friends how bad the sex was.

In other cases, they will not feel bad, but "confused" and similarly spend hours with their friends obsessing about every sentence the guy dropped the night before.

Or they will simply decide that "it did not happen" and activate a dialer block on their phone.

All the guys see is that she turns into a "flake" after the "close".

While poor sexual technique certainly can put you there, it is something completely different in >98% cases (while an uber-dick and a talent to turn anorgasmic women into squirters will be enough to keep a woman coming back asking for more, keep in mind how many women happily stick with poor lover's for months and years without major complaint):

Most guys do not listen to what the women say they want.

Huh? Am I not always preaching that women say they want one thing and then go for another?

Yes. But women do not speak (openly/directly) in words when it comes to desire, they sub-communicate their needs.

"Listening" to a woman is in a sense the complete opposite of what men do when listening to each other: You fade out what she actually says, and instead start reading between the lines.

Most men are so focussed on how they do during meeting a woman (approval seeking), they will miss her messages. If you need to counter her indicators of interest to find out whether she is attracted to you, you will not be able to process what she says in order to react to that verbally and read into what she says at the same time.

Women have a hard time sleeping with someone without knowing where this is gonna go.

Sex is such an emotional experience for women, they eventually learn to "manage" it.

If she believes you are just a one night stand, she will turn off anything that could trigger her long term mating instincts/emotional attachment. The resulting mechanical sex is closer to the experience of a prostitute than a girlfriend. Woken can still enjoy this kind of sex, because she feels protected - she will not fall in love with you and get hurt by you leaving her soon after busting a nut.

On the other hand, if she decides that you have the potential to become a boyfriend, she will open up emotionally during sex (to some degree). This woman will be "confused" or "feeling used" if she finds out that she was wrong.

While a same night lay is socially expected to put a couple into the first category, and (experienced) women will steer their sexual/emotional response accordingly, the opposite is true for "dates". Hence the confusion if your goals where not aligned with the expected continuation or termination of the relationship after the first fuck.

Women do not completely decide by themselves whether or not they can open up emotionally and there will be a "repeat" of the initial sex.

Women drop hints at what they think where this (sexual) relationship is going before the actual sex happens. If the man does not react (because he doesn't even get the hint), she will assume he agrees.

This phenomenon has been termed "Early Frame Announcement", and handling it is one of the most important skills in pickup after getting consistent pulls (see introductory paragraphs at beginning of post).

As a man you do not want to let her make the decision.

You need to lead.

An Early Frame Announcement is similar to a shit test. The woman tests for your lead (the only difference to a shit test is that failing to detect the Early Frame Announcement does not lead to a loss of attraction - instead it might to lead to lots of drama in the near future).

If she (sub-)communicates that she assumes that this is a one night stand, and you disagree - make it clear. You will not lose that hottie after doing all the work of getting her to drop her pants for you if get that shit handled. Reframe her if needed.

Franco's original post on Early Frame Announcement can be found here.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Out-alphaing

Yesterday I explained why many loving, caring relationship-oriented men feel like they are unable to really "give it to" their woman.

It is because they can't.

But what about the few alpha males (or those willing to put in the work to get there)?

Is it a problem of betas only that the women they sleep with (if they get there) crave strange cock? Do you need to become an alpha to "enjoy marriage" without fear of losing the woman's affection, getting cuckolded, left for good?

Study carefully the graph (Fig. 4.2) on the bottom of this page of a textbook on "Primate Sexuality". It simply plots the number of copulations over a certain time range against the rank of the male animal (alpha being 1). I call it the "Number of lays as a function of status" plot. The point here is that you find the same basic trends in monkeys and apes (and I predict: humans):

You can see there is a steep curve going from zero for almost all males to hundreds per month for a handful of "lucky males". No big news. It is common knowledge and scientifically proven that there are a few (say 20%) men who get to sleep with most (say 80%) of the girls.

But - what is to point out that the common alpha vs. beta dichotomy is oversimplifying the fact that there is actually a continuum between these ranks.

And that means that unless you are the absolute number one, there are always males around you who are more attractive (i.e. able and probably willing to snitch your woman). More than that, even if you the guy is lower in rank, he is still fuck-worthy to the (primate) female mind:
"Paternity studies often reveal that reproductive outcome does not always correlate with male dominance rank"

Add to this the loss of rank by mere commitment to a woman, and the fact that rank is not set into stone, but dynamic and you pretty much end up with the complete impossibility of becoming the exclusive object of her desire.

In other words, you can be freaking Justin Timberlake, and you still will end up banging pussy that had just been filled with another guy's creampie.

Don't cry, beta boys. Your fate is the fate of any man (who give up their alpha status and the harem-holding privilege that comes with it).


(Awww, medieval-style romance! A courteous man and cute dogs in the background... wait, wtf?)

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Why women keep coming back to the guys who don't give them the affection (they say) they want

"Oh, he treats me with respect,
He says he loves me all the time,
He calls me 15 times a day,
He likes to make sure that im fine,
You know I've never met a man,
Whose made me feel quite so secure,
He's not like all them other boys,
They're so dumb and immature.

There's just one thing,
That's getting in the way,
When we go up to bed your just no good,
its such a shame!"

[Lily Allen - Not fair]


Popular songs are about topics that people can relate to; and many women can relate to this.

What they don't get is that it is not the guy's bedroom skills. The lyrics really should go:

When we go up to bed it is just no good

The reason it sex with such a guy sucks for the woman is not always premature ejaculation or his <6'er. She doesn't get wet for all the reasons she says she likes in him.

The sex is bad because he says he loves her all the time and calls 15 times a day (he is insecure and needy; he is emotionally overwhelmed like a woman and not in charge of his feelings like a man).

This behavior reeks of low social status. The guy communicates that he
a) has a hard time getting other women (hence he is clingy)
b) he did not choose her for what she is, but because of a)

And that is not really what a woman wants.

A woman wants a guys who
c) could fuck any woman any time
d) still just goes (and feels) for her

A woman wants a guy to care and call and profess love, but from a position of strength.

The reason women get frustrated is that guys who are at the c) stage, simply do not offer d)

So, after being trapped with c) guys for a while, women will start to go for b) guys. Then they finally get all the things that come with d), yet the sex will be terrible because of a).

In the Olde Thymes, women were assigned to a man. They were happy with what they got. If you never shoot heroine, you will never get hooked. A live without being on hooked on H can be a very happy life.

A modern woman's dilemma is that she will make her first (and ample) sexual experiences with (quite a few) guys who have no problem attracting women. The sex will be awesome. As they age, and get exceedingly frustrated by their lack of romance, commitment and child bearing plans (as well as getting exceedingly unattractive to men with options), they will start to gravitate towards men with low or no options. And this is where their complaints change from "he's not paying enough attention" to "he sucks in bed". I ask you this - which one is worse?
(Hint: The answer to that question can be found in US statistics on divorce and extramarital coupling:

Percentage of marriages that end in divorce in America: 53%

Percentage of "arranged marriages" (where parents pick their sons or daughters spouses) that end in divorce: 3%)

Wednesday, March 18, 2009


You might have heard that the length of the ring finger with respect to the index finger has something to do with testosterone. It is a great party conversation. It is also a great routine to use for pickup. Ask the girl to hold her hand close to her face while examining herself, then gently and playfully push it so she slaps herself in the face.

A more serious side to that is that this is one of the freak phenomena in science that actually hold true.

There is a whole field of 2D:4D research, and the correlations they find are stunning.

Here are some examples:
"low 2D:4D ratio in men predicts success, not only in sports or music, but also in job performance. According to the authors, low-2D:4D traders perform better (i.e., they earn more)"

A more complete list of traits that go with a long ring finger can be found here.

The reason this is interesting is that "2D:4D ratio can be used as a crude measure for prenatal androgen (i.e. testosterone) exposure".

In other words, all these positive traits do not just correlate with a random length relationship between body parts, they correlate with how much someone (men or woman) got in touch with the male sex hormone. The more you are/were exposed to male sex hormones, the better you do in life.

Now imagine you were a gene (or a complex of genes).

You are part of the genome of an American woman standing at a bar.

You exist for one reason only - you have been passed on from generation to generation until you got trapped in that woman's body. The No. 1 one trait that you have gained this way is to make sure you get passed on to the next generation. It is your absolute imperative - leaving this body through her womb is your justification and meaning of existence.

More importantly, you know you will be trapped in another body again. Together with a novel set of genes that could stem from someone at this very bar at this very night.

Since you are a (complex of) gene(s), you have the power to influence the behavior of that woman's body that you are trapped in.

You need to get passed on.

Being trapped in a body that doesn't procreate is your ultimate death.

Wouldn't you program that woman's brain using your protein encoding power to go for the best male out there? And if males who got in touch with more testosterone are the most successful - wouldn't you program that woman to seek exactly that? A high testosterone guy? And if that is easily detectable, not only by over-confident, loud and rowdy assholeness, but by the 2D:4D ratio, wouldn't that be something to look out for?

Make sure your fingernails are well trimmed guys, ladies are on the look for your hands! ;-)

Monday, March 16, 2009

Masculinity, Machos and True Men

There are basically two sorts of alpha males. There are males who are physically so strong and hyper-aggressive, they become sort of like dictators. ... And then there’s a completely different situation, where you have males who are much smaller than the other males, but who are nevertheless the alpha males, because they are diplomatic, and they know how to make friends.
[Frans De Waal]

Women are attracted to human alpha males.

All the why "nice guys sleep alone" and "women like jerks" discussions boil down to this simple biological fact. The guy with the highest social status is seen by the majority of women as the most desirable man.

Humans are primates. And primate females prefer to mate with alpha males. Biology determines our behavior when it comes to sex in the same way as it determines us to breathe, sleep and eat. And just like we prefer sweet and fatty food over any high-fiber, low fat, low carb diet even if we know it harms our well being, women prefer dominant men even if they are less "healthy" to their emotional well being.

If (sexual) success with women is equal to alpha status, why not try to get there?

Most men come to this conclusion sooner or later in their lives. In a way, the masculine strive for career, money, power and prestige is nothing bu the eternal attempt of males to achieve the social status their genes "demand" (in order to get passed on to the next generation).

But what defines alpha status?

Is it the Porsche? Being a CEO? Or being macho-masculine, all muscles and such?

The answer is more simple and complicated and the same time.

Alpha status is defined as the highest achievable social status. As we all know, someone with a high income may not be well respected, or even laughed at and hence devoid of high social status. The same is true for meat packets and "guidos" in sports cars.

Social status often, but not always correlates with "social class" and status symbols. And primate females have been programmed to detect true social status during a period of time where we climbed trees instead of driving cars.

The cues that women use are more subtle (f.ex. body language, actual power displays, displayed and communicated confidence etc.) and holistic (i.e. they do not just use one cue - they integrate all cues they can get from a man - from his posture to his facebook page).

Women are experts at discovering "fake alphas", because men have always tried to mimic the studs who go free poon in order to get some, too. If a woman is unsure about her own assessment of a man's status, she will use the assessment of other people (including his own!), and start to test him mercilessly. Remarks and questions designed to get the guy in an uncomfortable position are the best tool in the "anti-fake alpha" defense that defines female flirting.

After attending the Neil Strauss booksiging this week, I realized that his book on pickup ("The Game") might have done more damage than good to many men who strive to get better with women. They did understand that they need to work on their alpha status (display), yet they confuse alpha males with machos, CEOs or rich bunks.

The result is the type of "creeper" (as one of the few women in the audience - a petite Asian who I jumped ahead of while waiting in line - put it, who did not even get approached by anyone) who became synonymous of the seduction (PUA) community. I know, I am not the first one to point this out, but just preaching against being creepy doesn't do the trick. The problem is that there is a wide spread misconception about what defines an alpha male, and was long as this doesn't get rectified, women will still go home with naturals (and the few who realized the truth) only.

Yes, machos and CEOs can be alpha. But so can the waiter at the Greek restaurant next door. What defines alpha status is how this guy is seen by other people.

Physical dominance and aggressive behavior are certainly masculine traits (and attractive to wmen), but so is the man who uses his brain to gain status and power. The quote at the top of this post is from one of the leading primatologists of these days, and it refers to chimpanzees. Even our closest relatives know obnoxious alpha males and diplomatic rulers. Both kinds of males achieve the same status, yet they use different means and achieve different effect.

David Deida might be one of the few who has realized that men often go awry in their search for masculinity and "alpha-ness". He thinks that we take on additional "shells" of fake masculinity when we realize an overly feminine side to us, instead of stripping away what has been put upon us.

You can see men like this wherever you look - pathetic attempts of being more aggressive than they actually are, ridiculous attempts of talking in a deep voice or gaining more muscle where genes set natural limits. Women see right through these pseudo displays of confidence to the insecure core of a man without an overwhelming option of dripping pussy at his fingertips. A true alpha does not need to supplicate to a woman like that (i.e. to change his ways and life in order to impress or please them).

Neal Strauss: Here is your autograph. (looking at me and the petite Asian behind me) Did you guys come together?
Me: Not yet. (winking at her)
Her: (giggling)
Me: Looks like we might leave together, though.
Her: (looking back to the other guys in line, then looking back at Neal) He's sooooo baaaaad. (giggling)

Thanks, creepers. That one was all too easy.