Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Women are all the same - Part I


I am not shy to stand up for the wisdom I share (and receive) by maintaining this and following other blogs in real life. I believe that much of the contra-intuitive and surprising insight that (a subgroup of interested) men have found in the past decade or so about female sexuality is eternal truth in the form of biological rule, nature's almighty law - and therefore of utmost consequence to each and every member of our society.

Using a massive database of systematic experimentation and a free flow of the resulting empirical knowledge (field reports) combined with critical thought (thanks to the intelligence of the masses), we have learned that female sexuality had been stifled throughout the ages - for a reason.


Society has lifted the veils and stigmas that men had put upon women under the assumption that these restrictions were morally questionable and ultimately obsolete - and now face a new reality. We have the unique opportunity to study female mating behavior in the near absence of social control. And for those who believed the old myths of "horndog men" versus "virtuous females", the effect is mind blowing.

There are good reasons, however, to discuss these things in anonymity. Putting a face, titles and biography to a publication tends to bias the reader's view. The lack of credentials forces the lazy mind to investigate the value and validity of someone's scribbling by form and content of the text at hand alone. The lack of personal endorsement has the added advantage that there is no need for self censorship. While any text that bears a name is ridden with that person's need for praise and approval, the only justification of existence of an anonymous text remains the dissemination of a thought "that needed to get out". This is the reason we enabled the option of anonymous commenting on this site (which is the most popular option used), and post using pseudonyms.

The last and saddest reason for the demand of anonymity is that the ideas we are discussing are not just contrary to mainstream belief - they threaten the entire status quo. The seducer's insight into female desire is powerful and dangerous. Those of you who enjoy the selection of blogs we list as friends (and related blogs), know what I am alluding to. Once anonymity is lifted, the quality of shared insight declines thanks to the inevitable kick in of self-censorship and fear of legal ramifications.
 
Anonymity provides protection for ideas that are ahead of their time. Ideas that would get shot down in any conversation outside the veil of fake identities. Ideas that are truly revolutionary.  Ideas that come with too much of an emotional baggage. Hurtful truths, who by virtue of being are powerful enough to instantenously right kill the p(r)etty lies that we tell ourselves.

Some of the insights that the diverse Pick Up Artists, Men's Rights Activists, Evolutionary Psychologists, Seducers, Free Spirits and Critical Observers of the Zeitgeist in our blogroll share are more controversial than others. And I believe that the reason they get attacked with utmost fervor is that they insult the female idea of self.

You see, for women, the idea of "being different" is quintessential. Two idiosyncratic puzzle pieces fitting together is is the very basis of the female dream of monogamy (with an attractive male) - the ultimate emotional need of any woman. Two matching individuals. The ultimate idea of romantic love. The heart of any romance novel or chick flick. 

Without the belief in inner beauty and the importance of "character" and "personality" for relationships, any woman will be ripped of her ability to sleep calmly. If "inner beauty" doesn't count, there is little hope for even the most attractive girls given the certain rapture of outer beauty by father time.


So maybe it does not come as a surprise that, when I went back to our own comment section and compared it with those of others, I realized that the strongest reactions by (mostly female) commenters followed posts related to one of the deepest unspoken, paradigmatic assumptions of "Game" are discussed:

For sexual attraction personality doesn't matter.

All the seduction techniques we have at hand work on this assumption (and do so well):
There are (almost) no "type-specific" techniques. The things we discuss work "on women" and not on just a select few. We even go so far to assume that if sex doesn't happen it was due to the man's (and ultimately the technique's fault)!

And I postulate: rightly so! The old clitoral joke "under the hood they're all the same" is true when it comes to female sexuality. Just like it is true for male sexuality (ever wondered why "Playboy" magazine works?).
After all, we are dealing with the raw, unchangeable laws of nature here.

The belief that "each pot finds its lid" is not just a romantic idea, but the base of our society. The harsh truth - there are few sexually attractive individuals and lots and lots of compromise - is a deadly blow to the ideal of monogamy.

We all want to be special little snowflakes.

And to some extent we are.  Of course, there is truth to our uniqueness. Yet, it is far more limited than we think.

And completely irrelevant for the sexual marketplace.

A woman's youth and overwhelming beauty as well as a man's earth shattering power are enough to short-circuit any one of our brains. Sexual attraction works in a one dimensional universe.

The result may be painful to bear for us (and women in particular), but taking of the pink tinted glasses to stare into the gory face of reality is the only way to act rationally. And time and again it has been proven that  acting rationally is the winning strategy in life. It might be another addition to the list of insults that humans had to endure during the past century such as the realization that we are descendants and part of the animal kingdom and the realization that we are not in control of our actions:

We get loved for what makes us sexually attractive and not for what makes us unique.

25 comments:

  1. An excellent post.

    I've got some thoughts on this as well which I'll link back to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll have to respectfully disagree about the anonymity. I chose to expose my identity on my blog and it hasn't led to self-censorship. Complete anonymity is rather difficult anyway- most blog hosts and ISPs bow to the all-mighty court order. Only hardcore wardrivers can achieve real anonymity.

    Absolutely right about girls being the same. One of the biggest de-motivators and thus enslavers of men is the idea that "there's a girl out there for every guy".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliant post, man. Keep 'em coming.

    ReplyDelete
  4. we have learned that female sexuality had been stifled throughout the ages - for a reason.

    It was deemed necessary to be stifled even when women risked getting pregnant at almost every sexual act, and risked catching some incurable std.

    Imagine. Just imagine.

    Women's sexuality had to be regulated even when there was very heavy risk when engaging free love.

    We have the unique opportunity to study female mating behavior in the near absence of social control.

    And in the total unnatural absence of natural control.

    That is why I refuse to "accept" female sexuality the way it is today.

    A woman not risking to be pregnant with every ONS she has is swimming in unnatural waters.

    She is no woman anymore, but some other species that risks no pregnancy upon sex.

    So this species CANNOT be treated in a similar fashion that the woman of the past was treated, who, I will repeat, even with the nature's restrictions still needed further restrictions to function somewhat less destructively to the society.

    (or even if there still exists a small risk of pregnancy, there is abortion, state support, child support, alimony, palimony, free childcare, free health care, free this free that)

    What I agree is good game works 99% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For sexual attraction personality doesn't matter."

    You mean to say a man's personality aside from alpha qualities? Because wouldn't alpha traits be apart of the personality?

    ReplyDelete
  6. aside from his* alpha qualities/traits*

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, we get sex for what makes s sexually attractive, and we get loved for more personal qualities.

    And what you are saying has some truth but is far too simplistic and reductionist. Develop some nuance.

    Yes, women want a confident, assertive male. This is a constant across the board. But the packaging matters HUGELY.

    Sophisticated intelligent educated women DONT like the confidence and assertiveness to come in a vulgar, macho, thuggish package. Smart girls DONT like thuggish low class guys. They are repelled by them. They like guys who are sophisiticated but confident.

    Low IQ girls DO like thuggish guys, and that is the difference.

    Trust me, despite what some idiot ignorant game bloggers blather on about, smart girls dont salivate over thugs. Ive seen these guys get shot down a million times.

    So yes, certain traits are universally sexy, but how they express themsleves, whether they exist together or in tandem with certain other traits, and a host of other hugely important details, all mater enormously, enormously.

    Its the same gor guys. Guys like hot girls with sexy faces and bodies, but vulgar trashy girls are NOT considered attractive by many guys, no matter how physically hot, who target sexy sophisticated girls.

    No need to be so stupidly reductionist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Sophisticated intelligent educated women DONT like the confidence and assertiveness to come in a vulgar, macho, thuggish package."

    Exactly not. Game works on everything with a pussy. It seems you didn't practice enough.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Inner Beauty in LTRJanuary 20, 2010 at 9:44 PM

    "Without the belief in inner beauty and the importance of "character" and "personality" for relationships, any woman will be ripped of her ability to sleep calmly. If "inner beauty" doesn't count, there is little hope for even the most attractive girls given the certain rapture of outer beauty by father time."

    Replace "relationships" above with "one night stands" and you would be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ z.g. - You're right. I forgot about the effects of birth control. It adds to the "cultural liberation" of female sexuality, of course.

    This having said, most women I had sex with were not on the pill. The ones that were had significant others. I therefore believe that the availablity of many forms of contraception is not a main factor. Withdrawal, anal sex and other "natural forms" of birth control have been around long before feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Justin - "alpha traits" are not part of a man's personality.

    Mainstream thinking often adds to a general confusion about what makes men "alpha". The common stereotype of "alpha males" is that of an intimidating, loud, rough macho. And while some alphas do fall into that category, many others don't.

    The key factor that makes men alpha is the sexual desire of the women their surrounded with.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Anonymous -

    "smart girls dont salivate over thugs"
    They salivate over the "few attractive guys out there" (read: alpha males), thuggish or not.

    "vulgar trashy girls are NOT considered attractive by many guys, no matter how physically hot."
    Keep telling that yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Inner Beauty - I am afraid you do not yet face the cold, brutal face of relationship reality.

    Men leave unattractive old women behind, not just at bars but also in long term relationships. A "great personality" will not keep your bf or husband from philandering or divorcing you for his young hot secretary when your looks have faded.

    Love builds on sexual attraction.

    And guys are not attracted to a "great heart", but big perky boobs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't get how alpha traits such as self-confidence, assertiveness, boldness, confident sexual projection, etc., are not personality traits in themselves? What is your definition of personality in this context if these are unrelated to one?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 11, you may be right with saying that the women you had sex with were not on the pill. True, and possibly the case for me too.

    But what about durex extra safe, durex sensitive, billy boys, kondomi, etc? Cheap and easily available condoms which possibly are more reliable than pig intestine?

    And then in the old days, a woman gettign pregnant possibly had some herbal way for abortion, humanity must have found that out, but that again would carry a great risk to the wouldn't be mother.

    If you ask me, just till hundred years ago or so, the only promiscuous women were prostitutes, and married ones; the single one could not afford to be promiscuous.

    I doubt that I would have been able to have sex with as many single girls if I were in time of Casanova, and I also doubt that he had more single women that I had.

    His main target were the married ones, as seen by his extreme obsession over the few single/virgins he had, correct me if I am wrong.

    It is not only the pill, it is the whole package.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Justin - I know I seem to contradict myself (and maybe I do). But here is the logic:

    Women want to fuck high status males.
    Period.

    My list of what POF an other women deem attractive in a man (in "womanese"), as I said is just a list of things that can indicate high status.

    If you think of "confidence" as a personality trait (which is arguable), then, yes, women are attracted to certain types of personality.
    But not really.
    Only indirectly so.

    What they really are attracted to is the man's high status. Men that women characterize as "confident" often are high status males and they confuse being attracted to their high status with being attracted to their confidence.

    The proof for my reasoning comes in guys who lack the list of attributes I mentioned and still are highly attractive to women.

    There are many examples of that (think: Michael Jackson in the nineties).

    There are many factors that seem to cause that. Pre-selection is one of them. As z.g. points out, even the most insecure guy will turn a woman on if he is the most desired guy in town (I have blogged about that phenomenon before calling it "accidental alphas"). Celebrity status is another factor that can turn a guy that seemingly lacks "alpha traits" into a ladies man.

    .All of these factors really just increase a man's social status. And it is that single one property that women select men for.

    And it is something you can earn in many different ways. It is not a part of your character.

    Hence, your personality does not count.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ z.g. - I agree. The pill itself was not revolutionary (any history buff can tell tons of stories about how prevalent anal sex was before contraception came along; it still is in many non-Western countries). But the combination of birth control, easy abortions, child support etc. without the previously instantiated stigmatization of "illegitimate pregnancies" has changed the game forever.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "A woman's youth and overwhelming beauty as well as a man's earth shattering power are enough to short-circuit any one of our brains."

    Not mine.

    "We get loved for what makes us sexually attractive and not for what makes us unique."

    No, usually people get loved for both.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Jesus Christ - those are some compelling arguments right there...

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was not making arguments, I was making factual statements. Not everyone is enslaved by their penis or vagina (I'm certainly not), and it's a combination of appearance and personality that people almost always look for, and not just one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok, ok, I appreciate your reasoning, and thanks for elaborating. However, "the most desired guy in town", is the most desired guy in town due to a combination of factors; money and a secure career could be completerly absent from those factors. Think about men in successful careers, whose girlfriends or wives cheat on them out of sexual interest with a guy of lower-status (yet alpha) because they deem him desirable, yet they may not even know women are lined up the block for him. Also, despite the "cheatee's" (is that a word? lol)alpha status, a major reason for said infedility is that their huisbands/boyfriends exhibit beta behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Justin,

    A woman who is less likely to cheat on a man occurs for two reasons:

    1. She can not be completely discreet about it. If a woman knows she has 100% discretion, I believe they will always have sex with a man they find attractive.
    2. If she cannot be completely discreet, then the she will weigh out the man's status in favor of her existing man. If the man's status is sufficiently high enough, she will use sex with the intent of making him her new man.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This whole post is all rather complete bullcrap. Women are just like men, they want to have sex as much as men do if not more as long as the man in question doesn't look nearly deformed or anything like that. Status or what not, it doesn't matter. Slightly above average looks and a somewhat well built body (as well as the having some balls to take action) are enough requisites to bang chicks left and right.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous: "Sophisticated intelligent educated women DONT like the confidence and assertiveness to come in a vulgar, macho, thuggish package."

    G: "Exactly not. Game works on everything with a pussy. It seems you didn't practice enough."


    "G" is right most of the times unfortunately, more than I'd like to admit. But "Anonymous" has very good points as well, so I wouldn't say "exactly not".

    Game only works if you play it by your own rules. Faking being a jerk - which I am not - wouldn't work for me.

    While being a confident gentleman - which is very different from being an AFC - actually works: it's another kind of game, on another level.

    Not the easiest way probably, but you can get those high quality women ("Sophisticated intelligent educated") if you practice it properly.

    ReplyDelete