Wednesday, September 16, 2009

"Any asshole can chase a skirt."

"Tattoos and chivalry, delicious combination."
[June Stahl]

I admit that, although I consider myself a bibliophile, my library largely consists of nonfiction. And whenever I grab a novel, I find myself gravitating towards (semi-)autobiographical writing.

These days I enjoy reading Bukowski's "Women" - a refreshing insight into the mind and life of a natural lady's man pre Game and PUA. Or, as wikipedia puts it, a "novel that may expose some women to the way a man sees the world". The book is also said to serve as basis of Duchovny's character in "Californication" (I can't verify that since I don't watch any TV).

Two things are striking about Bukowski's attitude towards women:

1) He is always (brutally) honest with them
2) He is never satisfied with them

Both ingredients make a potent mix that women get drawn and addicted to with stunning predictability.

A man who never backs down always says and does what he wants. A man who never caters to her needs but instead measures her against ever higher standards. A man like that is as irresistible to women as sweet, fatty foods before menstruation.

Behold! Old Drunkard Game according to classic American literature (paraphrased into third person):

HER: I've heard about you.
HIM: Like what?
HER: About how you throw guys off your front porch. That you beat your women.
HIM: Beat my women?
HER: Yes, somebody told me.
He grabbed her and they went into the longest kiss ever. He held her against the edge of the sink and began rubbing his cock against her. She pushed him away but he caught her again in the center of the kitchen. Her hand reached for his and pushed it down the front of her jeans and into her panties.

There are three ways to pass a shit test:
1) Simply agree and let it sit. (hard to apply to the women beating accusation)
2) Exaggerate and thereby make it funny. (still not easy in this situation)
3) Don't react to it / Hide the fact that you ignore it by surprising her with something else.

So, Bukowski's instinct is dead on. He also seems to have a pretty good gut feeling about the aphrodisiastic nature of (even fictitious) male violence.
[It needs to be noted that nowhere in the book is any other mention of violence against women. The women on the other hand tend to get dangerously violent at times during fits of jealousy - or when rejected for sex.]

HER: That mattress turns me on. I want to break it in. I want to be the first woman to fuck you on that mattress.
HIM: I wonder who will be second?

As you might expect, sex ensues right after.

But not everything works out that great for the lead character. And the times he fails are equally instructive.

HER: You were going to fuck her, weren't you?
HIM: Now look, I told her I love you.
HER: You were going to fuck her, weren't you?
HIM: Now look, baby..."
Suddenly she shoved him... He fell backward over the coffee table and into the space between the table and the couch. He heard the door slam... Son-of-a-bitch, he thought, one minute I've got two women and the next I've got none.

He failed to disarm the shit test. She even gave him a second chance, but he cares too much about her to get the truth over his lips. He is weak. Instead of standing up for his alpha male desire, he makes some lame ass (beta male) excuse about his love for her. And beta males are not allowed to screw around. No surprise she gets upset.

The thing to realize is that her emotion is stirred much more by his lack of spine than the fact that he had secret plans to screw another woman.

Contrast to this classic situation (likely to be familiar to anyone who ever dated a girl):

HER: You're looking at her, aren't you?
HIM: I can't stop.
HER: She's a slut.
HIM: Sure.

The thing about Bukowski is that he is obsessed with telling the truth. He tries to be honest to himself, to the reader and to the women he is with. And in that light, all of the above makes sense.

Women are used to men lying their asses of to get a piece of theirs. And they hate it for many reasons. The biggest one of them being that sneaky attempts to score are a sign of low social status.

An alpha male does not need to lie to get some. Alphas communicate directly. Especially when it comes to sex.

Alphas states the truth because they do not fear any repercussions of what they say. Other men, opinions and women don't scare the guy on top.

If an alpha wants sex, he will state it openly (and for a socially savvy male that means signs which are still subtle sub-communication for most other men). If she is not down to it, so what. If she does, no big deal either.

Surprisingly the mere fact that a man is that honest and fearless will make her think this option over twice. This is why even the most direct approach works better than a "creepy" hidden agenda.

9 comments:

  1. Great quotes. Sounds like I'll have to add that book to my reading list.

    ReplyDelete
  2. God I can't believe I didn't do a post on this. Bukowski is one of my favorite authors. Well done.

    My favorite Bukowski word for girlfriends: "shackjob", as in "I told the shackjob she's gotta find another place to stay. My pad's starting to get crowded."

    ReplyDelete
  3. i've always wondered why the guys i hated the most were social snakes, the type that basically acted like chicks to attack those they resented now I know: "The biggest one of them being that sneaky attempts to score are a sign of low social status."

    Women is Bukowski's foremost lengthy novel on the subject, but his others from Factotum (classic, epitome of Bukowski) and Post Office are good reads as well. i've read all of his novels and there isn't one I wouldn't recommend (save Hollywood...it is boooring and a toned down old man version of his younger days. For another look at game and the development of it (somewhat) try This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald. For a guy whose life was marked by beta-tude, his insights are dead on in many passages.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I comment here sometimesSeptember 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM

    "An alpha male does not need to lie to get some. Alphas communicate directly. Especially when it comes to sex."


    Ok,I'm going to confess to something really embarrassing.(Internet anonymity is useful like that).Twice in my life I've told women straight our "I want to make love to you" only to be rejected.These were flirtatious women that the slightest amount of "Game" could have bedded.They were flattered and kind in their rejection.They even kept up their flirting!

    I guess there must be an alpha way of expressing your desire and a beta way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @I comment here sometimes:

    One of stagetwo's aphorisms comes to mind:
    Alphas realize that whether or not they are "in" is almost opposite to the regular guy's assessment:

    When inexperienced guys think they're "in", they are usually still far from it. And most guys think they dropped the ball right at the moment where the girl starts to bite.

    I am not saying that any man can sleep with any woman just by openly stating his intentions, but even if she is interested she won't just drop her panties. In fact, projecting such an alpha ego will cause the girl to thoroughly shit test herself sure of the man's true social status.

    There is a hidden cam video out there with Hypnotica and Meehow where one can see that happening:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wLZ1AwHZU

    Note the speed at which these girls shit themselves horny after the rather intense approach.

    PUAs have heavily experimented with such "direct approaches". Names like Gunwitch and Grandmaster come to mind. A weaker form of what I am talking about is the "Statement of Intent" that Juggler is talking about.

    There is a guy in DC who is famous for opening with "I really, really want to fuck you". It works rather well for him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I comment here sometimesSeptember 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM

    Thanks for the response,Eleven.I should mention that I tried the "direct" approach a little indirectly.Once over the phone,and once by billet doux.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good review. I'm going to swing by a used bookstore this weekend and see if I can grab a copy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Many PUA techniques are "sneaky fucker" tactics that involve being the OPPOSITE of a forthright alpha male, IOW, telling the woman what she wants to hear, stroking her ego, being a Don Juan DeMarco in order to get into her pants.

    Which path do you prefer, 11?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Tupac: Interesting. Very interesting.

    Most of the criticism I heard about PUAs concerned the opposite, i.e. the use of negs. But thinking about it, I guess you are right. Qualifying her for ridiculous things such as "being adventurous" or supplying her with boring chick crack are lame ass ego stroking moves.

    Now, PUA is not the same as Game. PUA might be a crotch to get Game, or a way to pretend that you have Game, but at its high point (I guess about 2-3 years ago), it still entailed a lot of flaws. Our blog - among many others - have pointed that out repeatedly.

    The interesting question is whether or not ego stroking might work better than death honest, direct, no-bs talk. That question is reminiscent of some discussions in the roissysphere about the feminization of Male role models: Our (theory-backed) intuition is that nail polish and eye liner should lose against tattoos any time, but the successes of metrosexual guys (and those using ego strokes) make you wonder...

    I have never been fully immersed in the PUA scene, and I appreciate how things evolved from mASF into more sophisticated fora such as that surrounding roissy's and other ex-PUAs. But one downside is that the number of field reports we get has dropped dramatically (usually down to scattered anecdotes). In the heydays of mASF, dozens of people tested each and every move hundreds of times over.

    In a way it was the overwhelming power of empiricism that made PUA techniques so successful. Keyboard jockeys were abundant, but if something didn't work, it soon got out. And other things turned out to work even though nobody had a clue why.

    It would be tremendously interesting to get some more insight into some of the questions such as above by means of rigorous field testing. As in the case of "handicap game" there might be one or another surprise waiting for us...

    ReplyDelete