Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Women are all the same - Part II

"She had come to him to escape  a world where all bodies were equal. She had come to him to make her body unique, irreplaceable. But he, too, had drawn an equal sign between her and the rest of them: he kissed them all alike, stroked them alike, made no, absolutely no distinction between [her] body and the other bodies. He had sent her back into the world she tried to escape."
[M. Kundera - The Unbearable Lightness of Being]

I had two epiphanies in my life as to the question of individuality and uniqueness.

The first insight I gained into the reality behind the comfy illusion of "self" that we bathe ourselves in I got thanks to amazon.com. More specifically, the recommendation system they set up for anyone who is crazy enough to rate his purchases.

At the time I was your typical hip, early twen who prided himself in his exquisite and eclectic taste in the fine and not so fine arts. I was surrounded by and surrounded myself with geeky nerds, fashionsitic hipsters, rowdy jocks and music snobs. And it rubbed off on me, of course. I prided myself in being neither of the above but a little bit of all of them at the same time.

I was particularly proud of the very out-of-the-ordinary selection of music that would constantly blare in my apartment, car and headphones. My friends and I were on the constant quest for the rarest gem that we could show off to each other. My mix tapes (and later mp3 CD's) sported Viennese A capella groups from the late thirties next to Russian high school bands improvising on self-built synthesizers. Given that even within that group I found my own taste in music, I felt like the uniquest being on the planet. Who else would enjoy the weird mix ranging from classical and fold music to modern mainstream all the way into obscure metal, experimental noise and cutting edge electronica?

My literary taste was similar eclectic. I was one of the few who commuted between the humanities and tech-y parts of campus, proud to be able to discuss the problems of postmodern deconstructionism with one set of people and the latest progress in magnetic resonance spectroscopy with another. And my young show-offy self felt the need to let the whole world know by uploading all my irrelevant opinions on the individual elements of my private library to the amazon.com rating system (well, there also was a free book coupon for every ten reviews submitted).

It was then that it happened.

After literally registering more than a hundred books in my possession, I returned to the home screen one day and felt compelled to check the recommendations produced by the vast database exploiting similar users.

I was intrigued to find out that all of the ten books that got recommended to me by amazon.com after it had learned about my reading habits were books that I had already read or was about to read.

But what really blew my mind was that all of the then top music CDs that were selected for me - based on my book selections alone! - were bands in my current playlist.

It was amazing. I had not rated a single song and I had never bought a CD at this retailer.
All that the amazon.com system knew about me was my taste in literature.
And that of others, of course.
And as it happens, there are many, many guys out there who share my interests and tastes. To the degree that they also like the same music.

It was then that my idea of being a unique individual crumbled. If there was anything that I would have used to "prove" that I am different form anyone else around me, it would have been the one way in which I (thought) I expressed my youthful individuality: my eclectic collection of music.
And it had failed.

But accepting that you are just one of the many, replaceable as any other individual that lives and has ever lived is just part of the realization. The even bigger, more shocking insight is gained by realizing the lack of uniqueness by those who surround you.

When I started out "picking up" women, my biggest obstacle was the most basic social skill of all: Holding up a conversation of small talk.

I remedied that problem by crafting a routine that I would use time and again on the girls I got interested in. It started out as a couple of sentences that I stole from other guys that posted their successful use online. But over time, I transformed them into my personal life story and added detail and effect to it.

I repeated the routine dozens of times, sometimes altering small nuances of what was being sad and done, and I soon had a feel for what resulted in positive reaction and what better got dropped from the little play I put on for the object of my desire. After more than a year and literally hundreds of approaches, I had it perfected.

The routine I had developed consists of approximately 3-5 minutes of constant talking. It ends with a kiss. I almost always made it to that end. What is remarkable about the experience of "running it" is that virtually all women react the exact same way when they encounter it. The predictability of reaction enabled me to win lots of bets (I have not used that routine in almost two years). But what is more than any online bragging or cheap bar makeouts I got thanks to its invention and perfection is the philosophical insight it gathered me: I still remember the shock when I first realized this, and part of that feeling never went away.


Experiencing first hand that any woman will give you the exact same look at the exact same moment in your spiel is outright frightening.

I realize that all I have achieved is a little glimpse into what social engineers do on a daily basis. I have found some buttons to push. Buttons that we all share.

And just like the guys at Walt Disney accidentally found out how they can exploit our natural tendency to like faces with big eyes, a big protruding forehead and a small nose and mouth, I tapped into a natural tendency of women to feel positively about certain male traits.

And just like we all fall for artificial and caricatured cuteness thanks to the genetic programs that are part of our human condition, women fell for some of the cheesy lines I whispered in their ears. Thanks to the power of our biological determined mind, the (emotional) result was entirely predictable.


There is a flip side to the female lust for alpha males.

By wanting "nothing but the best", women get drawn to the same few men in hordes. All their uniqueness and romantic ideas about individuality falter as the sexual tastes of women of all colors and ages align.

It is right there and then when women become all the same.

33 comments:

  1. I hope you don't mind that I plagiarize a section of this for my blog. You know, since we're not individuals. The truth you speak is ours.

    ReplyDelete
  2. it's and odd feeling, when by and large, you know that if you talk to a girl, unless you slip and say something out of routine.....the interactions virtually always end the same. takes a bit of the mystery/awe out of it that i once felt. now it's not a matter of 'oh shit, what if she shoots me down,', it's more like, if she shit tests, i'll exaggerate and reply with a smirk, if she ups the ante, i stick with the game of chicken....blah blah. *sigh* kinda makes me weary just thinking about the predictability of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Jonathan - I am honored.

    @ John - The weariness you describe is what made me drop the routine years ago. I was bored to death running it, and it got increasingly hard to veil the ennui. It got to the stage where a slight deviation from the expected outcome made the women more interesting - because they seemed "different" again!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, are you going to let us in on that little routine, or what?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Anonymous - I thought about writing a post on it, but I am not sure it is worth it.

    I basically open with "Do you like strawberries?" - a variant of Tyler Durden's "Do you like salad?" opener. But instead of using it to demonstrate that it really doesn't matter what you open with (or say at all), I launch directly into a little spiel about my thing for strawberry fields. I then take her on a mental journey with to one of these fields at night. There is a deliberate use of swear words at certain high points, and increased physical escalation that culminates with my hand in the hair at the back of her head while I whisper in her ear that I like to blindfold girls with a satin tie that I otherwise use for bondage. The make out follows a minute later when I ask her to close her eyes and imagine that I top the blindfolded enjoyment of red wine in that field at night by feeding her tiny pieces of chocolate at the tip of her tongue ("Don't be greedy! Don't swallow! Not just yet!").

    The predictable response is a certain kind of look that she will grant you when you flip from the romantic part to the satin tie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would be awesome to see an entire post on that routine!

    ReplyDelete
  7. When I read this:

    "By wanting "nothing but the best", women get drawn to the same few men in hordes."

    Combined with:

    "Experiencing first hand that any woman will give you the exact same look at the exact same moment in your spiel is outright frightening."

    This set off an alert.

    Yes, social engineering is a science. Yes, most people will react the same as other members within their groups. Yes, Western societies function primarily by the lofted ideal of individualism, which dictates social behaviors more than actual uniqueness of self.

    We know this.

    But it is also given that if one stays within one's own set of social groups, picks up their own female type (or types), one still stays within a narrow social-sexual framework where the same routine will work on the same type of women one will encounter every night at the same places that every city has that one frequents.

    So it isn't at all shocking to find that the same routine works on the same women over and over again.

    Nor is it surprising that these women, in their standard social scene, will have the same definition of "best" when it comes to their mate selection and fight over (and flock towards) the same type of male whenever one becomes available.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11 minutes,


    After watching some primate videos, Ive come to the same conclusion as Whiskey has as to why women hate game so much: Its a betrayal in evolutionary terms.

    In the wild, apes fight to determine who the alpha is, and the winner is easy for all the females to select. In bars, the confident men are the alphas, and women shit test them to make sure. If a bunch of guys are out there loud-n-proud and confident, women generally dont know who the real alphas are.


    So few men physically "stand out" to the point that they are "obvious" alphas by striking appearance. If men who are merely 5's and above in physical appearance all act like they own the place and the world is their oyster.........it fucks up female spidey-senses in sniffing out the most-alpha of them. I literally think status is absolute king with females, with aesthetic judgments about men a distant second unless the guy is damn near a 10 in appearance. I think a loud-mouth-popular 6 male with game can beat out a guy who is a 8 without game almost any day of the week with most women, especially young ones.

    z

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a useless posting. Great describing your point what where are the examples? Post your routine, lines and maybe some stories. I'm also inquisitive of the male characteristics both physical and social that women look for.

    Your whole post can be summarized in one line from Fight Club.

    You are not an unique snowflake. You are just a decaying organic matter like everything else. Nothing is static everything is falling apart.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow my above post is awful I blame Salvia. Anyways still interested in male characteristics both physical and social of what women look for.

    Poetry's Flesh has very good points. Interracial dating is rare for a reason. That said some guys do get women from all races and ages.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Anonymous

    "Your whole post can be summarized in one line from Fight Club."

    not really. the Fight Club citation doesn't point out just _how_ we're basically the same. when reading that quote you might think something like "yeah, but how many other dudes like both band X _and_ band Y, while also being into Z?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. 11:

    great post. I can't add anything more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Poetry of Flesh:
    Nor is it surprising that these women, in their standard social scene, will have the same definition of "best" when it comes to their mate selection and fight over (and flock towards) the same type of male whenever one becomes available.

    It really has not much to do with the group a woman is in. Even though the man's outer appearance and some of his behavior changes, i.e. reading poetry instead of rap, the men are still more similar than different. You will see the same cockiness, the same aloofness etc. the wanted man's core is the same: He is wanted by other women.

    Reason is that eleven wrote the phrase incomplete, i add the bold part:

    By wanting "nothing but the best", best as defined by "most wanted by other women", get drawn to the same few men in hordes. All their uniqueness and romantic ideas about individuality falter as the sexual tastes of women of all colors and ages align.

    I am of the firm belief that preselection trumps everything, it is the number one criteria in inducing the gina tingles.

    It is circular logic...

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Poetry of Flesh - I am always happy to get comments from female readers since they are the most revealing. In this case it is particularly interesting since you are the only one trying to defend what I teared down.

    The "this only works on some girls" attitude about game is common. As z.g. points out, it is based on the confusion about what constitutes an alpha male.

    The truth is, all women want guys who are (to put it in "womanese"):
    - confident
    - assertive
    - manly
    - straightforward
    - strong in character
    - witty/humorous and socially savvy

    No woman dreams of great sex with a man who is the opposite. And as a woman you know that most men are closer to the latter.

    This is why all women compete for a few "interesting guys".
    All of them.
    The "type of woman" doesn't matter.
    The religious fundamentalist virgin in the Bible Belt is as much revolted by the thought of ending up with a whimsical mamma's boy as you are.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ z - You raise a great point. "Game as Betrayal in Evolutionary Terms" is a very interesting concept.

    The only reason I am hesitant to fully embrace the idea is that "turning betas into alphas" is not what women tend to attack. As you can see even in this thread, women are most unhappy about another implication of game: the notion that women are all the same.

    I believe that the evolutionary betrayal fails to trigger instinctive emotional reactions in the same way plastic surgery does.

    Men do not get upset if women betray them evolutionarily by looking younger and more fertile than they actually are because there was not enough time to adapt to this new reality.

    One can argue that shit testing is an indication that game-like attempts have been around for longer and women have adapted to that indeed, but this conflicts with the fact that there is so little mention of game in the canon of human literary works.

    Another important point (that often gets neglected) is that women are not averse of betas - they just treat them differently.

    A beta is expected to put all his resources into the woman he has sex with, while alphas are allowed to stay aloof.

    I have posted my personal experiences in this regard before (it's also nicely captured in the famous "secret society" post by RSD's Tyler Durden):

    If a woman has sex with you under the pretense that you are alpha, and jumps to the conclusion that you are not, she does not get upset. She just changes her strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The human traits from which PUA tactics are derived are universal. Yes, women are attracted at a very base level to those traits in men the same way that men are attracted to physical signs of fertility in women.

    I think what POF is saying is that if your routine is supremely effective, it's because you've honed it to be so within a target group. Let's face it, you aren't exactly trying it out on soccer moms and LARP-geeks because, first of all, you're probably not attracted to those women. Secondly, they don't frequent the places where a routine like that would be appropriate.

    I don't think you can deny that most PUA tactics are designed to screen for, and appeal to a fairly specific demographic that does not represent all of womanhood.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A true natural will be able to always have a fluoid routine at the ready. Just like Sun Tzu said you have to adapt and change form like water depending on the situation.

    Every pickup is a combination of opening, body language, negs, rapport and closing. Naturals will always trump PUAs because of experience and instincts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Aldonza - I don't think you can deny that most PUA tactics are designed to screen for, and appeal to a fairly specific demographic that does not represent all of womanhood.

    I respectfully disagree.

    POF is wrong.

    Having an education does not alter your most basic instincts such as hunger, thirst or sexuality. And my whole point here is that we tend to confuse sexual attraction and a conscious assessment of what a woman deems "attractive".

    It really boils down to the good old "attraction is not a choice".

    Game works on any human being with two X chromosomes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Having an education does not alter your most basic instincts such as hunger, thirst or sexuality

    Yes, but wouldn't social status alter peoples' tastes? For example, don't affluent folks have an acquired taste for fine cuisine and fine wines? Aren't they apt to shun fast-food in preference for higher quality fare?

    ReplyDelete
  20. wouldn't social status alter peoples' tastes? don't affluent folks have an acquired taste for fine cuisine and fine wines?

    True. But in contrast to food choices, "taste" doesn't matter for mate selection.
    That is my whole point.

    Just think about it the other way round: Men think of themselves of having a "taste" for certain women, too. The reality, though, is that Playboy magazine, serving one kind of food only, sells rather well regardless.

    We all like to think that we have a preferred "type", yet when it really comes to what is sexually attractive, we all agree.

    And the same is true for women. They all prefer the same "social status porn" alike, regardless of their particular "taste" for men. Except instead of young fertile people having sex, for women it is the Golden Globe Awards or other displays of high status males that does it for them.

    There is another factor that confuses people when it comes to that issue: The duality of female mate choice (the infamous "long term" versus "short term strategy", or "lover" vs. "provider" distinction).

    If you ask women about their ideal man, they will almost always confuse their instinctive preference for alpha male sperm and beta male resources. Their "taste" in men may well matter for who they like to get as husband since this is a largely asexual decision. Sexual decision making does not operate on these variables as we all know. Attraction is not a choice.

    Let me illustrate my point with a different metaphor:
    As you get increasingly educated you might prefer surrounding yourself with people of similar background (as they can well relate and converse with you). Yet, whether you like or not another person is an entirely different story. And accordingly often times people assemble friends from rather diverse backgrounds.

    You might think that you have a "taste" for educated people as friends, but really you are just drawn to some people you deem nice while shunning others that somehow got on your shit list. Even if we all believe that we select people according to our "tastes" (such as them being in our intellectual class), it does not really surprise us if we get along better with the janitor than your law school peers.

    Emotions just don't operate under the same laws as reason.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "taste" doesn't matter for mate selection.

    Ahhh! Now I get it! Danke schon, Herr Elf.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Roissy, or one of his commenters, I forget which, said it well. "Success with women is more disillusioning than failure."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Your mistake was thinking that taste in music and literature are what define people and make them unique.

    I have no qualms about calling myself unique in the sense that my ideas, beliefs and perspectives are completely different from almost everyone. I can't and won't subscribe to any ideology, movement, philosophy, political orientation, subculture or lifestyle because I don't agree or fit in with any of them.

    Most people are highly similiar, but not everyone.

    Thanks to the power of our biological determined mind, the (emotional) result was entirely predictable.

    Biological determinism is junk science. We are rational, thinking human beings far removed from the animal world. Free agents. Biological determinism does not land people on the moon, build enormous cities and invent the Internet. Biological determinism does not allow people to discuss biological determinism.

    The reason why all the women you encountered appeared to provide the same reaction is most likely caused by selection and confirmation bias. I read the routine, and it's clear that it will only work on specific kinds of women.

    The truth is, all women want guys who are (to put it in "womanese"):

    This is a pretty vague set of features.

    Game works on any human being with two X chromosomes.

    Yes, and all black people are criminals.

    But in contrast to food choices, "taste" doesn't matter for mate selection... ...we all like to think that we have a preferred "type", yet when it really comes to what is sexually attractive, we all agree.

    Speak for yourself. I have very specific preferences when it comes to women, and I am not interested in the vast majority of women. Most of the "10s" that other men swoon over elicit no reaction from me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. there better be a part three, because so far it's been amusing and interesting, but it's.. a foreplay?

    example is what is missing :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ JCS - I can't and won't subscribe to any ideology, movement, philosophy, political orientation, subculture or lifestyle because I don't agree or fit in with any of them.
    ... and there are thousand of people who feel just like that (I am one of them).

    But that is beside the point. The point I was making here is that
    a) we have delusions about our uniqueness (which is a well know cognitive bias);
    b) in sexual terms none of that matters anyways; evolutionarily old, base instincts work on what mattered during the stone age and not on what we deem important in our culture

    Biological determinism is junk science
    As a general statement, this is rather uncontroversial.
    The controversy begins in those areas of psychology where there is good evidence that strong biological forces shape our behavior. (here's a starter). As a behavioral biologist, I am astonished, time and again about the biological constraints that limit our behavior. And these forces are the strongest when it comes to sexual selection. Just like our minds are biologically determined to eat and sleep, so is our sexuality. The vast majority of men gets aroused seeing the same young naked women. And the vast majority of women feel attracted to the same few men of high social status.

    The reason why all the women you encountered appeared to provide the same reaction is most likely caused by selection and confirmation bias.
    That is well possible. I am not a fan of anecdotal evidence either (although my experience suggests that education, IQ, ethnical and cultural background do not matter - and that is quite a lot of variance).
    I am much more in favor of mass approaches (such as the massive databases of field reports at mASF and pickuplabs.com). If hundreds of guys try the same words on thousands of women and the results converge, we start dealing with a pretty good sample of the population. The immense success of "gaming techniques" is most parsimoniously explained by this effect.

    Yes, and all black people are criminals.
    Black people are not as genetically different from white people as women are from men. I don't see your point (other than that I am overgeneralizing).

    Most of the "10s" that other men swoon over elicit no reaction from me.
    Most heterosexual men react physically to a naked 10 (pupil dilation etc). You might be one of the few exceptions (I have my doubts), but that does no take away from the fact that people do have the same preference. And from the perspective of someone who is seeking a mate, this is all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I was going to write a comment in response, but I wrote a whole blog post instead: Individuality is Real.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm mildly annoyed that it took this long to get the internet set up at my new place, and now this post is well over.

    What z.g. said was gold:

    "By wanting 'nothing but the best', best as defined by 'most wanted by other women'..."

    What is most wanted by other women varies from social group to social group. Yes, it will tend to stay within the checklist supplied in a later comment, but it does vary, sometimes greatly. I circle through vastly different social scenes constantly and the most prized men in one scene will be third runner-up in another. It is the group that defines what is desired, with a heavy emphasis on, yes, our needs supported by evo-psych. It's a bell curve, and the further out you go, the more rare the deviation from the norm becomes until you run out entirely. But there is deviation, and if you look at the percentage distribution of standard deviations, you'll find that you've got a good 31.8% that doesn't fall within your norm.

    So, when I say that I believe your rountine works on that girls you try it on, it isn't saying that I think that the majority of girls are different, unique, special, too smart to fall for canned rountines, whathave you, it's saying that I think it would work on the typical female (which, again on the bell curve, would represent 61.8% of a generic female population), then you throw that into a bar or club scene where girls are going out -specifically- to have sex-based interactions (I'm not saying sex here, but flirting, gaming, drink buying, being the center of attention) with the sex of their choice, you're going to take that success ratio from 3:5 and bump it to what you found: 9:10.

    It's gold.

    "No woman dreams of great sex with a man who is the opposite."

    Two words for you: Michael Sera.

    Three words, if you'd like: Michael fucking Sera.

    "The religious fundamentalist virgin in the Bible Belt is as much revolted by the thought of ending up with a whimsical mamma's boy as you are."

    If I ended up with a whimsical mama's boy, for whatever reason, he would stay a mama's boy, quite content with that as I am as deeply attached to my mother as any mama's boy, but he'd be trained, just as I've trained others.

    "Having an education does not alter your most basic instincts such as hunger, thirst or sexuality. And my whole point here is that we tend to confuse sexual attraction and a conscious assessment of what a woman deems 'attractive'.

    "It really boils down to the good old 'attraction is not a choice'."

    I agree with you on this, quite strongly. But I do not think it is 100% generated by nature, but by our experiences, easily illustrated by who knows how many different tribal groups that modify their bodies in ways that the average Westerner would find revolting, yet their own people find of utmost desire. Also, within Western culture, illustrated by the relatively rapid change of what is desirable on the female form, not just build, but clothing and how and what it accents, facial structure, make-up to hide and highlight different things varying from year to year, usually dependent on the Hollywood and fashion machines. It does not widely swing, but it does swing. Look at Playboy spreads based five years apart, all the way down the line.

    Education certainly does not control or influence desire, simply allows us to articulate it better, or find better ways of hiding it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. b) in sexual terms none of that matters anyways; evolutionarily old, base instincts work on what mattered during the stone age and not on what we deem important in our culture

    This is another way of saying that personality does not matter. Which is very obviously false.

    Evolutionary psychology is about as scientific as intelligent design.

    Most heterosexual men react physically to a naked 10 (pupil dilation etc).

    What constitutes a 10 is entirely subjective. Most of the women presented as 10s simply bore me.

    You might be one of the few exceptions (I have my doubts), but that does no take away from the fact that people do have the same preference. And from the perspective of someone who is seeking a mate, this is all that matters.

    All people have the same preferences for a mate? This is self-evidently absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Evolutionary psychology is about as scientific as intelligent design.

    You are disqualifying an entire academic field of study based on empirical data, subject to peer-review and boasting successful practical implementations (affirmed theoretical predictions) without even hinting at something you base that opinion on. How do you expect us to take that seriously?
    BTW, have you even read my post on the topic?

    What constitutes a 10 is entirely subjective.
    No it isn't. Far from it. Men agree remarkably well on a woman's attractiveness. Here's a good blog post about that.
    You confuse "attractiveness" with how interesting you find a woman (likely for long term potential). I am talking about sexual arousal, you (probably) talk about companionship.

    All people have the same preferences for a mate? This is self-evidently absurd.
    You think there are perfect matches made by divine order? So how do you explain that on average women have more sex partners than men? Or how about the fact that a few men get all the phone numbers in speed dating events while most men return empty handed ("generally agreed-upon mate
    values as opposed to mate values driven by assortative or other attribute-matching trends")?
    Read the studies. There is little variance, and we can explain it quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi, Good post this is very precise. Thanks for sharing.

    short term accommodation alpha

    ReplyDelete
  31. Order a professional Sparkling White Smiles Custom Teeth Whitening System online and get BIG DISCOUNTS!
    * 10 shades whiter in days!
    * Results Guaranteed.
    * Better than your dentist.
    * Same strength Teeth Whitening Gel as dentists use.

    ReplyDelete