Non Sequitur Game

A reader emails:

I’ve found a version of one word game to be highly successful: one-word non-sequitur game.

It’s great for initiating text messages if you don’t really want to be the one to “initiate”.  I discovered this accidentally by typing “yo” and pressing send, but the auto-correct changed it to “up”.  It causes the girl to wonder what you’re typing about.  And even better, she wonders if you were actually texting someone else.

It can’t be a long or uncommon word.  Too implausible.  It has to be a word one would conceivably use in conversation.  Ideally, a one word declarative.

You may only be able to use it once on each girl.

Possibly the perfect choice? “No”

I like it. Non sequitur game is mystery bait. An odd word or fragmented sentence is like an eight ball to her head hamster — the little rodent will snort it right up and spend the next hour spinning frantically trying to figure out what you were saying, or – *squeal with delight* – whether it was meant for another girl.

I’ve done the accidental non sequitur text to girls, and come to think of it they did text back immediately, asking me to clarify. It’s a superbly sneaky tactic to trick a girl to chase you.

Some other truncated non sequitur game examples:

“see you at”

“leaving” (this one will trigger her threat of loss anxiety)

“we’ll see”

“wow!”

“cocka”

A similar version of non sequitur game is reverse eavesdropping game (REG). This is where you send a text to a girl that has nothing to do with her and is clearly not meant for her, thus inducing her to “eavesdrop” on your putatively private conversation. The REG text should be constructed such that it hints at your high value and/or social proof. Something like “bring the chips and i’ll get the booze. it’s gonna be crazy.” Or “hey troublemaker, how are those red heels holding up?”, which is quite devious since you have any number of plausible excuses to explain the text to her — “I meant to text my friend. She stole a pair of shoes yesterday” — but not before she has stewed in her jealousy for a while. The beauty of the REG DHV (aaaand two consecutive acronyms! high five me!) is how effortlessly it slips under your target’s poseur identification alert system. It’s almost as if a third party is communicating your high value to her. Naturally, she will be inclined to text back immediately, and this will mindfuck her into thinking you are a higher value guy than she originally thought.

REG texting is similar to trial texting. Text game really deserves its own book.

Slow Motion Videos Are Comedy Gold

0:57 lmao

0:43 nose smoosh

Chicks Dig Jerks: Game Is Its Own Status

I love the chicks dig jerks series. Why? Because nothing better reveals the actual, instead of professed, sexual preferences of women than the real life men they boff. And quite often these men are the bunghole of society.

Today’s installment would be frickin hilarious if it weren’t also so bloody violent. Eh, it’s still a knee slapper.

Two pretty girls enter the ring to fight over one thug wannabe. One girl will not leave, killed when the other girl stabbed her in the chest with a kitchen knife and left her to die in the street.

It starts with a love triangle. Always best for bringing the drama.

He did it again, Sarah told her best friend.

Her boyfriend, Josh, kept saying she was the only one. He’d been telling her that the whole time they’d been together. More than a year.

But that day she found out he had been hanging out with his ex — this girl named Rachel.

All morning, while she suffered through school, Rachel was texting Sarah, boasting that Josh was with her. Again.

One of the leading indicators of alphaness is how many women fight over your asshole affections.

I’m so over it, Sarah said.

Maxim #73: When a girl emphatically insists she is so over you, she’s never been more into you.

He did it again, Rachel said.

Her boyfriend, Josh, had slept over the night before, then bolted. He swore he cared about her, but it didn’t feel that way.

Worst of all, she kept finding evidence that he was still seeing his ex — this girl named Sarah.

Playa gonna play!

For months, Rachel’s friends had been telling her to forget about Josh. She could have any guy she wanted.

It’s true. These pretty girls who pine for lowlife assholes have lots of choices in conventionlly defined high quality men. Yet they cling like baby chimps to their jerk lovers. Wazzup wit dat, B?

Rachel and Sarah hated each other, saw each other as competition. But they were more alike than either would have liked to admit.

And more alike to a hundred million other women. Once you strip away the packaging and the cocktail party fluff, women are essentially interchangeable. Players know this, which is why they swim in pussy while romantic idealists struggle to claim one overharvested plot of poon.

So who is this dashing Lothario the girls love with all their young hearts and open snatches? Meet Josh Camacho.

But the main thing Rachel and Sarah shared was Josh Camacho. [...]

Josh had curly hair, the color of coal, spilling across sculpted shoulders. Black eyes, a long nose, wide lips curled into a sneer. His dark jeans hung low on his slim hips. He stood about 5 feet 5, but walked with the swagger of a bigger man.

Josh loved posing for cell phone portraits: flexing his biceps, waving a gun, showing off the tattoo that arcs across his back in inch-high Gothic letters: CAMACHO.

While seeing both Sarah and Rachel, Josh kept up a relationship with a third teenager, a girl he called “my baby mama.” They’d had a son together. He spent time with the baby but didn’t pay child support.

For a while, in high school, Josh cooked at Chick-fil-A and Pollo Tropical. But after graduation, he didn’t go to college, didn’t have a steady job or a car.

Chick-fil-A! That’s high status, ladies.

Here is a photo of the three lovebirds:

So what does this guy bring to the table? Let’s see…

Good looks? Not really. He’s got the skinny man six pack going for him, though. And of course the… ahem… exotic allure.

Money? Nope.

Job status? No.

Social status? Not any societally approved status. But he does have multiple women chasing him, which is a powerful form of social status. In fact, the most powerful kind.

Fame? Not when this was going down. But now he’s been preselected through the roof! Go long on his future lay rate.

Kindness, emotional support, and domestic chore splitting? No, no and fuck no.

Looks to me like this guy doesn’t offer women much of anything, if we go by what women — and the entire cultural apparatus — tell us that men should be offering them. But wait, there’s more. Here is what Senõr Camacho *does* bring to the table:

A cocky smirk. Slay lady, slay.

A righteous tattoo. Because how better to advertise your reproductive fitness than a self-referential tribute etched into your back?

A cool, unflustered demeanor. He knows the pussy is coming, so why sweat it?

And game. Oh yes, my friends, this kid has got game, and got it good. Keep reading for a prime example.

A lot of doubters of the efficacy of game insist that game is a charade that only works in the short term to fool women, and that women will eventually figure out the man doesn’t have “real” high status. Stories like this put the lie to that thinking. Game is its own status; the mere application of game is a demonstration of status, and not just a proxy for status. A cocky smirk and a devil-may-care attitude is as much real male status as a big bankroll. Often, it’s higher status. See: Mark Zuckerberg. This loser thug gets more and higher quality — yes, HIGHER QUALITY — pussy than a fucking billionaire.

And the continual application of game causes it to become second nature, an unthinking process, so that it is no longer a deliberate mimicking of the alpha traits women love but an extension of a man’s nature. Josh Camacho may have been born with some natural game, but undoubtedly his first successes with women reinforced whatever latent confidence he had, and the smirk that started as an affect soon became a subconscious reflection of his weighty ballsack and supercharged ego. Game will do the same for any man; the successes with women build on each other until your alpha pose isn’t a pose anymore. The opposite is also true: continual failures with women will build on each other until the latent, baby beta in you grows and consumes your soul.

Conclusion: if you want to nail good-looking women as efficiently as possible, and to keep them around fighting for your attention, start with learning game.

Game/charisma — One to six months to begin seeing results.

Money — Five to fifty years to earn enough to make a difference in attracting women.

High status professional career — Four to twelve years slogging through academia for the proper credentials.

Fame — Infinitesimally low odds.

Good looks — Luck. Or plastic surgery (see: money).

It’s a no-brainer.

Furthermore, if you want to bang the HOTTEST babes, learn uncaring asshole game. The hotter the girl, the more she will tingle for an unrepentant asshole. Corollary: if you want to date haggard cougars who’ve been plunged like a backed up toilet for twenty years and would settle for any old kind-hearted beta to help them raise their bastard spawn, then skip the asshole game. It’s overkill.

What was it about Josh that was so alluring? What made the girls swoon and dream of him at night and exclaim their undying love and tell their friends and family that “He’s special. You don’t see what I see in him” and stab a competitor in the heart in a jealous rage?

Well, here’s a telling glimpse at the source of his power:

Sarah texted Josh.1:06 p.m.: “Whatever Josh, you get so mad at me for everything but you don’t give a shit when she puts something up or says something. You always believe her.”

1:08 p.m. “It’s like no matter what I do she’s always that much better.”

1:13 p.m. “All we fight about is her or something that has to do with her, and it sucks. I hate fighting with you . . . I love you so much, but this shit hurts.”

Hours passed. Sarah tried again.

6:36 p.m. “You say you love me, but you don’t even have the decency to text me back?”

Finally, at 8:02 p.m., Josh typed, “Bring the movies.”

“Bring the movies.” Step aside, Skittles Man, there’s a new kid in town — Bring the Movies Man. This kid has mastered laconic text game. Overgaming man should take note. In the future, whenever I hit a stumbling block with a woman I’m trying to bed, I’ll remember the philosophy of “bring the movies”, and instantly my game will tighten and my ladykiller attitude will reassert itself.

Damn this chick isn’t calling me back? Wait… bring the movies!

Three dates and we still haven’t banged… bring the movies!

How do I reply to this weird text from her? Bring the movies!

She’s trying to make me jealous by flirting with another guy. Bring the movies!

She refuses to do anal. Bring the movies!

What else did Josh Camacho have going for him that girls found irresistible? He understood female psychology, and used that knowledge to his adavantage.

“When a teenage girl feels another girl is intruding on her territory, when she feels someone is disrespecting her, those are the things that upset them most.”

Josh Camacho may have understood this. Though he later denied saying it, his girlfriends remember him declaring, “If you love me, you’ll fight for me.”

Is this manipulation? Or romance? Whichever it is, in-demand girls can’t get enough of it.

Sarah was her dad’s sidekick. He took her to karate classes, Lightning games, Keith Urban concerts. She rode beside him in his cab, blaring the radio, singing country songs.

“Sarah loved to sing and dance,” said Danielle Eyermann, her friend since preschool. “She was always making up these crazy moves, pretending she was Britney Spears.”

Sarah also loved the cock of badboys. Like most hot chicks.

What I just wrote above is harsh, but necessary. The sugar and spice veneer needs to be stripped to the knotted wood below. Fathers across America need to understand what motivates their blossoming daughters, what primal forces shape their decisions and their reckless impertinence. For without that understanding, many parents will continue being hoodwinked by the predators in the weeds. And the predator isn’t who they think it is…

it’s their own daughters’ ids.

“[Sarah] just fell in love with [Josh Camacho], right then,” Amber said.

He said his name was Josh. Soon, he would be a senior at Pinellas Park High.

Two months later, Sarah told her parents she wasn’t sure she still wanted to be a veterinarian.

She didn’t know what she wanted to do, really. Except transfer to Pinellas Park.

Feminists wept. And yet, I’m sure they’ll find some way to rationalize the patriarchy for being at fault of dashing this young girl’s career dreams. Must be stereotype threat, or something.

Josh’s command of game is obivous:

Josh and Sarah flirted through the summer. But that fall at Pinellas Park High, he would hardly acknowledge her. He would just cut his eyes at her, Amber said, tip his chin.

In November, they finally got together. But even then, “he would never hold her hand or walk with her, claim her in front of other people,” Amber said. “When they were alone, he was all over her.”

PDA is beta. Josh understood this.

Everyone said Josh was Sarah’s first kiss, her first boyfriend, her first everything. He made her feel beautiful, like she mattered.

But her friends were worried. The first sign was when Sarah started wearing pants. Sarah always wore shorts. Even in winter.

“Josh didn’t want other guys to see her legs,” Amber said. “He started telling her who she could hang out with, who she could talk to.”

Chicks like to be led by men with psychosocial dominance. Josh understood this.

Sarah started spending all her time with Josh. She was so scared of losing him that she was losing herself.

Chicks love the drama of unstable relationships. Josh understood this.

Josh saw himself as tough and streetwise. Sarah pretended she was too. On her cell phone, she stored photos of Josh apparently smoking pot, Josh waving a gun. She downloaded hip-hop songs like Stop Callin’ Me and Chopped N Skrewed.

Chicks love men with strong identities. Josh understood this.

Where was Sarah’s father in all this?

She begged her dad for a pit bull. “You gotta be joking!” he remembers saying. He referred to Josh as “the rat.” He kept telling her, “That boy is no good.”

“But she was in love,” Charlie Ludemann said. “You can’t do nothing about a teenage girl in love.”

“The rat”. Pretty accurate description. Ok, so the father was aware the kid was a loser. But he sounds stupid — “can’t do nothing” — so it’s likely he didn’t have the brainpower to figure out a plan of action. Too bad, because there is something you can do about your teen daughter in love with a badboy…

You can ritualistically humiliate him in front of her. Nothing drains the passion from a girl’s love faster than a public diminution in her lover’s status.

Let’s see if the father took my advice:

He couldn’t keep Sarah away from Josh, so he invited Josh over for dinner, took him to ball games. To keep an eye on him.

“Don’t let nothing happen to her,” he said.

Nope. Instead, he elevated the kid’s status and welcomed him into the family. Dumbass. So how’d that “don’t let nothing happen to her” work out for you, pops?

Sarah had never been in any kind of trouble, but now that started to change.

In the first six months she was with Josh, police interviewed her six times, all over public confrontations. She and Josh screamed at each other at intersections. Yelled at Josh’s baby mama in the parking lot of the movies. Once, Sarah said Josh had punched her in the face and he admitted it. Her parents wanted her to press charges, but Sarah wouldn’t.

Chicks fall in love with men who hit them ALL THE TIME. It’s the dirtiest little secret about female psychology that the feminists try so desperately to keep hidden from public consciousness. I’m not surprised Sarah balked at pressing charges.

The next time her name was in a police report, Rachel’s was in it too.

Cat fights are sexy until someone’s pierced heart is spurting blood onto the street.

Soon a comment appeared under Rachel’s post. It suggested that Josh had “found better.”

It was from Sarah.

The biggest misogynists are other women.

Sarah didn’t feel she was worthy of Josh. Without a job or a car, how could she compete? Plus, she told her friends, she still had a curfew!

Rachel is so much prettier, she thought.

But she had already given everything to this guy — her senior year, her heart, her virginity. If he didn’t want her anymore, who would?

Rachel was cocky. How could Josh want anyone else? Look at her, she had her own car, her own apartment.

She was so much prettier than Sarah.

Camacho was playing these two girls like a fiddle. Master game. And all it required was an aloof attitude, an amused demeanor, and a terse communication style.

About 11 p.m., the time Sarah was supposed to be home, she and Josh were playing Wii at his sister’s house when headlights pierced the windows.

Josh recognized the car: Rachel’s red Saturn.

“Now I know why you’re not talking to me — because you got her,” Rachel texted Josh.

“That’s right,” typed Josh.

Alpha. No apology, no dissembling. If you thought that would turn off the girl, you thought wrong. The Betas of the Month winners could learn from this kid.

It’s a wonder [Camacho] had the dexterity: By then, he later admitted, he had thrown back five vodka shots and smoked seven White Owl blunts of marijuana.

“I don’t like you no more. Why are you down this street? Go home.”

I think I’ve ably proved the point of this post. To go on would be torture for the pretty lie pissants. I’ll just end on this game-unrelated note:

America is doomed. Way to go, progressive elites. GOOD JOOOOORB.

Traitors In Our Midst

A federal judge (leftie female, naturally) blocked Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Just to clarify –

An American federal judge told the good citizens of Arizona they could not effectively act to identify and deport illegal immigrants — invaders by another name — from the soil of an American state. Her decision, besides being utterly wrong, is traitorous. In a saner time, she would be stripped of her judgeship and tried for treason against the United States of America, with capital punishment an available sentencing option.

But these are not sane times.

Has there been a time in American history when the administrators and interpreters of the law were so at odds with the will of the people? The Judicial Branch, and in fact most of the legal profession, is stuffed with traitors. A great purge is needed. I cannot find it in me to be concerned how such a purge might proceed.

Why Game Is Worth More Than A Billion Dollars

In fact, if you’re worth billions, game is practically a necessity.

(photo link courtesy of Adam)

The Machiavellian F Close

Apropos of yesterday’s post, there is valuable game ore to be mined from those study conclusions. For example, here is an excerpt from one of the studies:

Engaging in uncommitted sex may be one form of female-female competition. If this is so, we would predict that women attribute to other women comfort levels that are higher than they, themselves, feel; this would generate PI that would heighten women’s awareness of potential threats from female competitors and may motivate women to engage in competition.

A clever man could use this information to gain insight into female thinking, and thus improve his odds of fuck closing any one girl. He now knows, thanks to science (and his own experiences if he isn’t brainwashed by feminist agitprop), that women are likely to overestimate other women’s comfort with casual sex in order to gain a competitive advantage at securing and keeping an alpha male’s attention. A woman is, in short, more likely to sleep with a man if she thinks other women are quickly and easily putting out for him.

A man can use this knowledge of female psychology to great effect in a seduction. All he has to do is hint — suggest ever so slyly so as not to alert her poseur identification defense system — that other women have been giving themselves over to his charms with questionable rapidity.

“I don’t know about girls these days. They’re so quick to jump into bed. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

***

“Sex has become so devalued. Girls hardly date anymore. They make it so easy for guys.”

***

“Not so fast. I’m the romantic type. The last girl I dated was a stripper who wanted to have sex on the first date. it’s crazy out there.”

Etc.

This is the idea behind Female Competition Exploit (FCE) game. Commenters are free to provide other examples of hastening F closes utilizing the Pluralistic Ignorance sociosexual concept.

Proof Of The Modern American Harem

Back in this post I tantalizingly wrote that the female predilection for having sex with a small cohort of alpha males was proven by the rates of venereal disease transmission.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

Some commenters, though, remained unconvinced. Well, there’s more proof of the universal law of female hypergamy, the sexual cornucopia of alpha males, and the near-celibate aridity of beta males. Did you think I was finished after busting one nut?

Exhibit A: 80% of women and only 40% of men reproduced in human history.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

If you were a man living 4,000 years ago and you knew that you only had a 40% shot at sweet sexual release with the women of your tribe, would you tend toward short-sightedness or have the temperament of someone with a well-developed future time orientation? Would you put more emphasis on learning how to swing a club or mastering the multiplication tables? Compare and contrast with today’s geographic distribution of sociosexual norms.

But maybe things have changed?, some of you will argue. Yes, I believe these ratios have changed with the advent of Christianity, the nuclear family, and Western civilization in general. How much the 80-40 ratio was altered by the preeminence of the rising West is subject to debate, but there’s no doubt that strong patriarchal norms and a social and religious proscription against infidelity and hoarding of women contributed to the increased sexual access of beta males. If I had to guess, I’d say at the high water mark of the kingdom of beta (1950s America? Victorian England?) 90+% of men had nominally exclusive low risk sexual access to unmarried, childless women during the women’s prime fertile years.

But that was then. As this blog has claimed for the past three years, there is change in the wind. The future is the past. The constraints on female, and to a lesser extent male, sexual choice are lifting and the hindbrain is reasserting itself, waving its banner of bloody tooth and claw as it crests over the hilltop. The pendulum is swinging back. The 80-40 ratio may yet return to claim its rightful throne.

That is, unless the reconstructed monogamous Mormoms and Orthodox outbreed the seculars and morlocks. It’ll be a demographic cage match between zealots and orcs as SWPLs haughtily congratulate themselves until there is no one left to admire their virtuous posturing. Fun for the whole family! Kinda makes the latest iPod release seem trivial by comparison.

******

Exhibit B: The rise of the “hook-up” culture among teen and college-age women may be a leading indicator of a forceful female hypergamy reshaping the sexual market, (or responding to it).

Abstract: “Hooking-up” – engaging in no-strings-attached sexual behaviors with uncommitted partners – has become a norm on college campuses, and raises the potential for disease, unintended pregnancy, and physical and psychological trauma. The primacy of sex in the evolutionary process suggests that predictions derived from evolutionary theory may be a useful first step toward understanding these contemporary behaviors. This study assessed the hook-up behaviors and attitudes of 507 college students. As predicted by behavioral-evolutionary theory: men were more comfortable than women with all types of sexual behaviors; women correctly attributed higher comfort levels to men, but overestimated men’s actual comfort levels; and men correctly attributed lower comfort levels to women, but still overestimated women’s actual comfort levels. Both genders attributed higher comfort levels to same-gendered others, reinforcing a pluralistic ignorance effect that might contribute to the high frequency of hook-up behaviors in spite of the low comfort levels reported and suggesting that hooking up may be a modern form of intrasexual competition between females for potential mates. [...]

Popular media coverage may be sensationalistic, and undoubtedly influences attitudes and sexual behavior in adolescents and young adults. However, the hook-up phenomenon is not merely a creation of the media; rather, the media seems to be reflecting an actual shift in behavior. Such casual sexual experiences among college students are by no means a product of the 21st century; “one-night stands” and “casual sex” have been studied without the current “hook-up” context (Boswell and Spade, 1996; Cates, 1991; Maticka-Tyndale, 1991). However, the high prevalence of these behaviors, coupled with an openness to display and discuss them, appears to be recent, particularly with respect to women (see Reitman, 2006).

Now why would women be quick to believe that other women are more comfortable with hooking up than they actually are (pluralistic ignorance)? The study authors suggest evolution has primed humans to embrace pluralistic ignorance when the sexual marketplace changes and it is in the interest of the individual to do so.

We expect that because human psychological processes are the product of evolution, the capacity and tendency to exhibit pluralistic ignorance – particularly with respect to sexual/reproductive behavior – must reflect the evolved best interest of individuals, and thus be predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory and sexual selection. [...]

Several predictions follow from these evolutionary sex differences. First, men are predicted to be more comfortable than women with all hook-up behaviors. Second, each gender is predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of the opposite gender. [...] Third, individuals of each gender are predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of their own gender. [...]

[M]odern Western women live in cultures in which there are simultaneously large differentials in male resources and status, and imposed marital monogamy, the combination of which is expected to provoke intrasexual competition among females for potential mates (Gaulin and Boster, 1990). Engaging in uncommitted sex may be one form of female-female competition. If this is so, we would predict that women attribute to other women comfort levels that are higher than they, themselves, feel; this would generate PI that would heighten women’s awareness of potential threats from female competitors and may motivate women to engage in competition.

Fascinating. Women are slutting it up because they fear competition from other women taking their men. This is another confirmation of my analysis of modern society: as the sexual revolution freed women and men to act on their desires outside of a marital framework, women’s sexuality became their primary, in fact their only, bargaining chip to secure attention and commitment from attractive (read: alpha) men.

And what about the male side of the equation? Well, it’s not betas this hookup culture is benefiting. At least, not while the women are young and at their hottest. Women don’t fight intrasexually for the gift of tepid beta spooge. They’re fighting for the choice cuts of meat. If the structurally numerous betas were getting pursued by women, then the market would reach saturation and there would be few unhitched women to compete against each other; but because women prefer dating up into the arms of de facto harem leaders, the female-to-female competition rages at a heated pitch.

Now it should be noted that a few upper betas may ride the hookup wave to more sex than they would’ve gotten in a less licentious culture, but for the most part it’s alphas that are enjoying the bounty of free pussy. This is why game has come at JUST THE RIGHT TIME in our culture’s hedonistic careen — it’s allowed men to fully capitalize on an already emergent trend toward hooking up with dominant, flashy alphas. In another time, game would’ve served the function of strengthening relationships instead of fostering hookups.

******

Exhibit C: Our currently operational sexual market is influencing women to prefer short term hookups favoring alpha male harem builders over long term commitments favoring beta male nest builders.

Short-term sexual appeal largely rested on targets’ attractiveness, particularly among women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation. Dating appeal was dependent on attractiveness, particularly among unrestricted women, and on ambition. Ambition and attractiveness synergistically influenced targets’ long-term desirability, and these preferences were not moderated by women’s sociosexual orientation.

The take home point: as cultural and biological constraints have lifted, women are giving more weight to their preference for short term hookups with bold, dominant alpha males. (The women would probably prefer long term relationships with these alphas, but if they are given free rein to choose between a flighty alpha and a commited beta, the alpha wins more often than not. That is, until the woman is past her peak and losing sexual leverage by the day.)

You’ll note a common theme in all the above studies: women’s sexuality is wilder and more dangerous than men’s, and absent social shaming and other similarly restricting mechanisms designed to encourage “acceptable” (i.e. civilization enhancing) sexual behavior, women will quickly revert to their more primitive 80-40 norm.

The $4.7 trillion dollar debt question: Is a reversion to the 80-40 norm inevitable? And, even more discomfiting, does the modern welfare state guarantee a return of the 80-40 norm as a sort of “cleaning house” that will purge the overpopulating dregs and filth and help continue human evolutionary progress as our one true god, the Lord DNA, intended?

We lament the betas, but we wouldn’t be the humans we are today if those 60% of bygone male rejects tossed to the icy wastelands in unrelenting pain and misery had instead gone on to enjoy sex and love in the bosoms of wonderful women who bore them children. Had our sympathies been retroactively indulged, we might still today be digging in the dirt for tubers and termites instead of arguing about the oppressive patriarchy.

******

Commenters sometimes complain I don’t bring the science to back up my personal observations, honed as they are by a very keen eye, a finger on the pulse of cultural trends, and an empathic understanding of human psychology. If you want a steady stream of backing science, feel free to open an institute in the Chateau’s name and hack away. Meantime, I’ll be skipping the lab work and enjoying myself with the best pleasures of life. You can sleep easy that about 80% of my observations are eventually corroborated by scientific evidence.

Overgaming

I got this illuminating email from a male reader:

I recently started reading your blog. I am usually fairly successful with women, though I could definitely improve my game. In particular, I lack the boldness and swagger your archetypal alpha possesses. I needed practice.

I met this girl a couple weeks ago and we texted back and forth. Because she lives about an hour away and is a little below my market value, I wasn’t planning on an effortful pursuit – but I did cross my fingers for convenient banging. Last week I invited her to hang out, and – suggestively – proposed she stay the night. Likely because of the beta-manner in which I made the suggestion, she became defensive, saying she doesn’t sleep with people on the first date…etc and so forth – I felt at the time I was too upfront. She said she wouldn’t come down, but that I instead should come up and go dancing with her and her friend. I said maybe, but canceled later. Last night she randomly texted me. I thought, what the hell, I’m going to try and follow the dark lord’s benighted example. I was literally stunned at the results. While I’m sure my banter was sloppy, and even cheesy, the difference in reaction this week compared to last was remarkable. What follows is our (somewhat lengthy, I apologize) text conversation. She was all tingles.

My texts in italics:

So guess who just got in a fight at the club?

A fight?

Haha yeah… She threw the first punch though

I see – did you win?

Of course! Im tough, and she backed down

hmmm, i don’t know if i need a trouble maker coming over

Haha funny, im not a trouble maker… It was self defense…and who said I was coming over…

lol fiesty i see :)

Haha i can be feisty ;)

Show me.

Maybe this weekend? you’ll love it

I better

Oh ok Haha. Well i hope im On’t disappointed ;)

Never fear

Is that a promise?

A threat :) if that’s possible lol

Mmm even better ;) Cause i get feisty when someone threatens me, i like to fight back ;)

Yes, seems like you like to fight ;) How about we fight, and you can try to stop me

You MAY have your way with me, whatever you want

?? That sounds kinda submissive

Hmm is that a bad thing? ;)

No, but i hope you put up a good fight

Yes, im a fighter ;)

Good, cause if you don’t, it might be rough

The more rough, the better

Happy to oblige. Mmm, but you’re so innocent

Innocent? Im far from it, i can be a very bad girl

Ha ha innocent looking then. . . we’ll see how bad . . .

Oh my, im so turned on right now!

Think you can you stay wet until tomorrow. . . when you come down?

Of course. Im wet right now

. . .and think, we’re just talking. . .

You’ll be surprised. Im a classy women, but i love to have fun ;)

Classy? You just got in a fight at a bar! :) :) :) :)

… A club. And that doesn’t happen often. :(

Only kidding

Well, im sure im not the only one turned on…

There’s someone else??

You’re not…?

Oh, I thought you might be with your friend

Hahaha no! Im laying in bed alone now

Tragedy

True. I was referring to you though

Another tragedy

Haha for you.

Partly

Yes… What are you thinkin?

Its complicated . . . But arousing

Tell me :)

You might be too innocent

Doubt it

Putting it to words would destroy your imaginative curiosity

Oh wow, now you have to tell. Im curious

Well, you might have more success in a wrestling match if you brought backup. . .

Oh i know what you’re thinking… You’d like that huh?

Maybe you would too . . .

Possibly ;) But wouldn’t i be enough?

. . . Normally, but I am insatiable

Perhaps in the future i could bring a friend…

Gotta make sure i’m quality huh?

You will be

I understand, well I should sleep, plan on tomorrow?

Haha yep ;)

***

Again, I’m still completely stunned, and convinced – dominant, forward, laconic = gina lube. Doubt I could pull this off in person, texting is easy. I’m also sure there is a lot of beta in there. Any suggestions for improvement?

I’m curious if the girl wound up going to this emailer’s place the next day, or if she flaked at the last minute. While this text exchange has (mostly) the right frame, it smacks of overgaming. And overgaming can quickly activate a woman’s anti-slut defense. There is a lot of back and forth here with a girl you haven’t even had a date with yet. Reading this, my initial impression was “entertainment monkey”. You’re feeding her snappy alpha quips with the calculated smoothness of someone who knows this will stroke the psyche of his mark. And she knows you know. The risk here is getting LJBTed — Let’s Just Be Teases.

Overgaming is usually poison to a pickup when the girl is very high value. Hot chicks experience the pleasures of smooth alpha operators more frequently than do lesser girls. Your clever retorts and masculine lack of punctuation are nothing new to the hot chick. She will enjoy it and place it in her mental pile with the rest of the suave suitors. You need to bring something more to the table, and that something is *escalation*. Escalation is what separates the men from the dilettantes. Establish your frame, parry her shit tests, laconically disabuse her of the notion that you can be boxed in beta-wise, and then cut the flirty courtship short either by exiting prematurely or forcing the seduction forward into more dangerous psychological and kinesthetic territory.

Despite the overgaming by the emailer, I think he is in good shape to close. The key information in this pickup attempt is “[she] is a little below my market value”. Women subconsciously know when a man who is seducing them is better than what they can normally expect to date. If you, as a man, judge that you are higher value than the girl you’re picking up, it is likely that she is aware of the same value discrepancy. What this means is that her hypergamous impulse will be sated by your attentions; she will be quicker to forgive your beta missteps and happier to indulge your excessive alpha badinage. She will, in sum, put out easier. So a good rule of thumb when seducing women at or slightly below your own market value is:

Overgaming > undergaming.

Go ahead and flirt endlessly with the 7. She is grateful for the dry hump love, and will probably succumb to your later game when pressed.

But if she’s too much lower than the median mate value of girls you can get, overgaming will cause her to prick up like a porcupine. Girls want to be played, but they don’t want to be sloppily overplayed like a marionette. She will balk if she thinks you have assured yourself she is an easy mark, and her ego will reassert itself, even at the expense of losing a mating opportunity with a higher value male.

If you’re about to lose a girl because of jet-fueled cocky banter, a good antidote is vulnerability game. Overgaming kills attainability, and male attainability is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for female surrender. Sharing a self-effacing story designed to humanize you will establish your attainability, and draw her closer to you.

Conversely, if the girl is hotter than what you normally get, your overgaming will be perceived as cloyingly indulgent. Her poseur alarm will go off. A Texas girl would think you are “all hat, and no cattle”. Sure, the hot chick will enjoy your clever ripostes, but it will still be YOU doing the chasing, feeding her an endless stream of movie moments while getting nothing in return but platonic banter at best and apathetic toleration at worst. And to get a hot chick, you have to arrange the seduction so that it seems to her that SHE is chasing you. For very hot chicks:

Overgaming < undergaming.

If I were this emailer, I would have ended the texting about halfway through when her buying temperature was peaking, with a vague hint at continuing it at some point in the future, preferably in person. I also would have dispensed with any threesome innuendo. It’s too strong for initial flirty banter, particularly as it went on in this example for long enough to ping her perv radar. It’s possible that she will wake up the next morning feeling a little dirty, and not in a good way. Save the threesome talk until a month or two into a sexual relationship.

Inception

It is explained that subjects under sedation have to be “kicked” into a falling motion in order to wake up, and that this is accomplished by falling in the dream state, such as driving a van over a guardrail into a river. Why couldn’t Fischer alone have been dropped instead of everyone being dropped? Since he is the primary dream vehicle the others enter to plant the idea, wouldn’t his waking have a cascading effect that would wake all the others? This would free the group to deal with the projections instead of sitting comatose in the three levels of Fischer’s subconscious.

I read Nolan spent ten years crafting this Möbiusian script. Perhaps the length of time devoted to a metaphysical quandary is inversely proportional to the quickness which millions of movie viewers with uncover logical inconsistencies.

I give this move two inverted thumbs up. Marion still looking good.

Women Are Most Deluded At 31

A survey of older women and their husbands who were being watched while filling in the survey questions “”"concluded”"” that women were most attractive at age 31.

The poll of 2,000 men and women, commissioned by the shopping channel QVC to celebrate its Beauty Month, found that females in their early thirties are seen as more attractive than younger girls as they are more confident and stylish.

Shopping channel QVC — where unbiased science calls home!

[Beauty] was defined as being confident by 70 per cent, having good looks by 67 per cent and being stylish by 47 per cent.

Helen Thomas is undoubtedly a confident woman.

This confidence deluding device is one of thinnest reeds women hang onto as they age. It’s a classic case of gender projection. Women are attracted to confidence in men, so surely men must be attracted to confidence in women. Obvi! Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out that way in the real breathing world. Above a very minimal level of functioning self-esteem (i.e. not so depressed that she shuts herself indoors and whimpers in a corner in the fetal position), a woman’s attractiveness has little to do with her confidence, however amorphously defined. A confident beast is still a beast, albeit more insufferable than a beast who knows her place.

A lot of women also confuse sexual openness for confidence. Raging tankgrrl sluts are especially prone to believing that their sexual aggressiveness is the hallmark of feminist confidence. In reality, it is the hallmark of sluttiness, nothing more. It doesn’t take much confidence in one’s self-worth as a woman to spread one’s legs for horny men who will gladly dump a serviceable fuck in any halfway decent and readily available pussy.

Almost two thirds of women surveyed – 63 per cent – agreed that “with age, comes beauty”.

Too easy.

The same number said that as they get older, they care less about what others think of the way they look.

We tend to openly care more about things we have control over. When you’re ugly and getting uglier by the day, it assuages the ego to imagine that you are above such trivial matters as impressing the opposite sex with your looks. And yet, even ancient grandmas will smear lipstick and rouge on themselves before heading out the door for dinner. It’s sad. So the compulsion to care what people think of us never disappears completely; it just fades away as reality continually reconfirms the uselessness of caring very much for something that long ago escaped our scope of influence.

And 51 per cent said as they age they shed their insecurities and feel prettier.

Only 51% in full denial mode? I figured mirrors would be in more homes than that. Interestingly, this survey result contradicts the survey result directly above it.

“Shedding insecurities” is another female empowerment trope. It’s easy to “shed” insecurities when there’s no hope of benefiting from acknowledging insecurities and working to improve the underlying conditions creating them. The rationalization hamster was strong in these survey results. Which brings us to another maxim…

Maxim #85: As women’s bodies age and weaken, their rationalization hamsters grow bigger and stronger. Eventually, the hamster is powerful enough to take control of all higher order consciousness.