First, take a moment and look out the window. Do you see them? Their rotund pink bodies sailing through the air?
Heartiste has a brilliant new post, When Beta Male Strategies Can Work. While I’ve long expressed an admiration for Roissy’s brilliance, powers of perception, and wordsmithing, this is the first time our missions have crossed paths.
Beta male sexual market strategies are not always doomed to failure. They can work under certain conditions. The two primary scenarios in which the beta male strategy is workable (if not necessarily optimal) are:
1. As a “softening agent” to improve your attainability, or your “long term lover” potential, if your alpha male traits have pushed a woman too far into feeling unloved and unneeded.
2. As a self-advertisement for long term relationship suitability, given preexisting sufficiently compensatory alpha male traits.
Obviously, this advice will apply to men who are seeking more than a ONS – it’s geared to the man who enjoys the idea of falling in love or at least of introducing some emotion into the mix.
Number one is a game corrective. Number two is a specific game strategy designed to screen out girls who would make bad long term relationship prospects, and attract women who are looking to settle down.
Female college students are very familiar with players running “false beta game.” These guys know they often need to act boyfriendy with the freshmen to get laid, so they say things like, “Whoa, dude, what’s happening between us right now is really a game changer.” Or, “I really like being around you, it’s like I don’t have to be a bro and shit.” Meanwhile, unaware betas (Roissy might say hapless) walk around with no clue that the most dominant guys on campus are instinctively using Strategy #1.
For my purposes, Strategy #2 is more applicable. Here Roissy is advocating a mix of alpha and beta traits for LTRs:
Note that the common denominator in all successful beta male mating strategies is the assumption of some degree of preexisting alpha male characteristics, or an already present alpha male dynamic within a relationship. Beta male strategies, in other words, are meant as adjuncts to alpha male, or high value male, game.
The order is important – a male must bring the dominance or alpha first, as it is the primary hurdle for female sexual attraction. The jerk acting like he wants to be your boyfriend (Only you can tame this beast into monogamy!) is going to fare much better with girls than the nice guy who clumsily delivers negs at the bar (“Are you sure you should be wearing horizontal stripes?”).
The reverse — adjunct alpha male strategies to complement low value beta male game — is hardly ever an effective strategy for attracting and bedding the women you want. But it can be a decent way of life for beta providers who wish to spice up their marriages as a preventative against wifely infidelity or bitchiness.
Nice nod to Athol there. 
In very unusual circumstances, an extreme form of beta male game — the loathsome male feminist orbiter — can occasionally redound in rare, ungainly and passionless sexual favors from the manipulative, flabby wymyn to whom this execrable species (hello hugo!) ingratiates himself.
(This last quote is provided solely as an example of Heartiste’s writing style, which never fails to strike its target.)
He goes on to give some examples of beta moves winning girlfriends back, and while I think the moves are generally more beta than he does (and that many women like beta traits more than he admits), he astutely points out why they work, including creativity, humor, and balls. Definitely worth a read.
The most dramatic move anyone ever made to get me back after a big fight was to break into my apartment while I was sleeping, deliver a love letter, and sneak back out without my knowing. We did get back together, so maybe it was the thug move that compensated for the abject apology.
{ 693 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 5 »
I agree that there is definitely something to the whole alpha/beta argument and that there are definitely correlations that can be drawn from looking at guys who are successful with women vs. those who aren’t…
However, I believe that there has been far too much anxiety created in the minds of men about whether they are “alpha enough”–which in and of itself is a very beta mindset.
I think instead of posturing or collapsing, there is a third way in which you can completely ignore the dynamic together and just be your own man… of course, a guy would need to let go of his own beta insecurities in order for this to work otherwise he may fall victim to believe that he’s “just being himself” while acting like a supplicating doormat.
There’s a lot of inner game work that a guy needs to do to be confident in who he is to the point where he doesn’t have to put on a front to get girls. By letting go of the vanity of “being alpha enough” he can free himself from the whole neurotic game of trying to balance between two unhealthy extremes and become a truly attractive guy capable of having a meaningful interaction with a woman (assuming of course, that this is really the “end game” of the dating and mating game, rather than the fist bumps he gets from other dudes for “getting some”)
“it’s geared to the man who enjoys the idea of falling in love”
That “idea” with all its happy balloon and shooting-star imagery typically ceases to exist immediately upon discovering what the proximate objects of affection have allowed themselves to express explore and embrace.
Being Beta does work with women who aren’t so experienced, which is most women. The complaint about Alphas versus Betas are with the high market value women. Most Beta men are not in that league so it doesn’t apply. Of course, if you’re into short term dating, it doesn’t hurt to be more alpha, but why are you bothering with Beta techniques since what you’re already doing? Your Beta behavior signals long term dating techniques.
Great post. My only observation was that AK and Roissy were on the same wave-length yesterday. AK saying dump the gal who wants to date another while preaching to the LTR choir and Roissy coaxing the reluctant betas into how to get into an LTR. Maybe all of you are cut from the same cloth after all.
@Clay:
“There’s a lot of inner game work that a guy needs to do to be confident in who he is to the point where he doesn’t have to put on a front to get girls. By letting go of the vanity of “being alpha enough” he can free himself from the whole neurotic game of trying to balance between two unhealthy extremes and become a truly attractive guy capable of having a meaningful interaction with a woman (assuming of course, that this is really the “end game” of the dating and mating game, rather than the fist bumps he gets from other dudes for “getting some”)”
O: Hello Clay! Glad to meet you.
I find your statements to be just a weebit confusing – to tell you the truth, it comes across as more of the quasi-New Agey type fluff that I do have a pet peeve with. Personally I prefer more formatted, step by step tactics that have been field tested and proven to work with a high rate of success, whatever the goal of the guy in question may have for himself. I tend to be neutral in that way.
As for the notion of “putting on a front”, let me ask you a question:
Do you “put on a front” on your day job? Or do you tell your boss exactly what you think of him/her (like me, for example – I truly do keep it brutally raw, and have no compunctions about telling a boss that I have absolutely zero intention of laughing at his lameassed jokes, etc.) – if so/not, why? If “putting on a front” for the sake of your job – which most Americans are located there more than anywhere else – why ISNT it alright to “put on a front” for one’s girl?
Please explain?
O.
“Alphas versus Betas are with the high market value women”
Sure, until you discover that -your- high value woman was the low hanging fruit for numerous other men
“than the nice guy who clumsily delivers negs at the bar (“Are you sure you should be wearing horizontal stripes?”).”
This is the second time recently our kind hostess has seemed to misunderstand what a neg is, so I am going to try to clarify. A neg is not an insult! It is an ambigious comment that makes a girl think “what is that supposed to mean”. In your example above, that isn’t a neg, that is an insult. A better neg (in form using your setup) would be “it is refreshing to see a girl confident enough that she doesn’t feel self-conscious wearing horizontal stripes”.
A primer: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/the-subtle-art-of-the-insidious-neg/
Money quote: It’s supposed to be perceived as a throwaway line of sincere and innocent intent that serves two purposes: one, it disqualifies you to sexy babes who start on the assumption that you’re just another joe schmoe who wants in their pants, and two, it infiltrates a girl’s subconscious so that she spends more mental energy analyzing her worth than she does analyzing yours.
I always hate to admit this, but personally commit a lot of the major beta-behavior sins that Game bloggers tend to warn against—I will buy drinks, dinners, tickets/venue covers, flowers, date gifts, etc. I also tend to flatter; in fact, I actively try to find things that I like about the person so that I can compliment her about them and hopefully establish lines of rapport that can be used to deepen the discussion.
These could all be seen as natural chump moves. Perhaps what keeps me relatively safe is the fact that I’m Explorer/bi-strategic (both STR and LTR-oriented for different reasons) and that I tend to do these things in formulaic fashion. I see these gimmicks and techniques as a means for refining a personal artistic expression, as if I am an entertainer working an audience and looking for the emotional levers and dials that crate a satisfying performance for everyone.
Some of the really sharp tech-start-up entrepreneurship authors have written about the need to make bold moves and to conduct meaningful experiments in the beginning of the start-up operation. Rather than trying to come up with a detailed business plan from the beginning and to fine-tune a product that may suck, you develop a Minimum Viable Product (“MVP”) and get it out in front of potential customers as early as you can. You ask big questions and use the feedback to make significant changes in the product—these changes are called “pivots”. Later on, when you have firmly established the link between product and market, you can enter a second, “optimization” phase and start fine-tuning.
You can imagine that, during the “pivot” phase, you are trying to decide on cardinal directions—should you go north, south, east, or west. As you get “warmer” to your desired location (the bedroom, the altar, a 3some, whatever—I’m not judgmental) you would “optimize” and start differentiating between, say, northwest, north, and northeast.
I think that this iterative, feedback-oriented “lean start-up” mentality may have lessons for courtship.
I though the summer got too fresh suddenly… Mmm time to check the emergency supplies.
@BB
I see these gimmicks and techniques as a means for refining a personal artistic expression, as if I am an entertainer working an audience and looking for the emotional levers and dials that crate a satisfying performance for everyone.
Interesting. You could describe your teaching style similarly .
@Ana
LOL. Soon my DH will have me filling empty milk containers with water.
N0, actually 2012 will be described by historians as the summer of love. SW agreed with Roissy, Roissy agreed with Athol, I agreed with Obsidian. It’s the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Now let’s all sing.
@Negs, not insults
I think SW and the rest of the women folk understand what a neg is. She was commenting on negs gone wrong.
J, yes, absolutely. I think that people in our self-absorbed, hyper-kinetic ADD age sometimes just want a performance, an escape. I think a guy probably has to view himself to some extent as a product in the SMP, a product with a “value proposition” that women agree to if it solves a perceived problem.
According to some neuromarketing materials, people tend to have two types of problems: they have things that they want and don’t have (aspiration problems), and they have things that they don’t want but do have (affliction problems).
Seriously? You equate an intimate relationship with a woman with a workplace relationship with a boss? For some of us, the appeal of an intimate relationship is the dropping of the “front”, the exposure of oneself, authenticity etc.
But that’s probably “new age fluff” to you.
*I will preface my post with saying I’m not to fond of chateau Heartiste. I lurked on his site for nearly a year. at first I was fascinated with his understanding of the female mind. Then I was disgusted because he really is an amoral, shitty guy. I got totally sick of PUA.*
I have one major problem with this post,
here: ““if I could just remind him of our intense connection…” Man oh man, is that not just a perfect archetypical hamster rationalization? “I know he loves me because we had an intense connection. He just dumped me because he got scared.” Goddamned priceless. Anyhow, if this chick is telling the truth, she must be really REALLY hot. Because, in reality, that’s the only sort of “game” that works for women, especially women who do weird stalkerish shit like she did.”"
Guys complain that girls won’t ask a guy out, or pay for the first date. Here’s why we don’t. Whenever a girl professes her love for a guy first, asks him out and other things, guys call it creepy or call her “a stalker chic”. Girls are, in effect, penalized for showing interest in guys by being forward. I have love poems hidden in my drawer for every guy I have ever crushed ( three guys in total, well, maybe they weren’t crushes because they lasted for years, but whatever), but I would never send any of these guys nathing I had ever written or express my affection publicly,because somehow this is not correct or appropriate.
All Heartiste can tell women to do in this SMV is
1. Don’t be fat. (i.e., lose all extra weight, be skinny)
2. Lower your standards
3. Be hot.
thanks, heartiste.
Precisely, which is why women have evolved to select for those traits for non-casual sex.
This blog post inspired me to check out the infamous Roissy. I took the Dating Market Value Test and scored a 23. According to the test, if I got reasonable sized implants (+2 points) I’d be dealing with constant stinging pain and muscle discomfort for several years and still be a “Greater Beta” (15 – 29). Looks like I would gain the most points by dropping just 10 more pounds (+7 points) which would take me clear into Nascent Alpha Female range before my age demotes me!
Or I could just sit here and enjoy my ice cream.
@Negs, not insults
Thanks for the lesson in Game but am very comfortable with the concept of negs. (What was the other recent example?) Did you see the part where I said clumsily? That was my point – most guys are terrible at negging, and throw insults instead. Here are a few of real life “negs” women have reported to me:
“Do you always go out to bars with spinach in your teeth?”
“Your friend is really hot.”
“You look like you dig fried food, are the sweet potato fries any good here?”
“Are you sure you don’t want to go with a vodka soda instead? Calorie-wise?”
Here are some that I thought worked well:
“Do you have time for coffee, or did you spend your whole lunch hour trying to get into that parking space?”
“What do you call that skirt? Is that what Spanx is?”
“Hey, where’d you learn to dance like that?” (grin/smirk)
Also, about negs. You will know when you have successfully negged your target when she smiles or laughs, looks pretend shocked, and slaps you on the arm. If this happens, you have scored a direct hit.
It is impossible for a woman to respond this way to any neg, however indirect or amusing, about her weight. Even a SHB10 will feel her spirits sink when teased about her weight. A weight-related neg is incapable of producing the tingle. Do not do it. At best, you will find yourself with a sullen SHB10, at worst she’ll tell you to fuck off and mean it.
@Royale W. Cheese
Hilarious!
This blog post inspired me to check out the infamous Roissy. I took the Dating Market Value Test and scored a 23.
Heh if you take them as a joke they are quite funny. I think I lost 7 points just by becoming a full size 2, how dare I.
LOL. Soon my DH will have me filling empty milk containers with water.
N0, actually 2012 will be described by historians as the summer of love. SW agreed with Roissy, Roissy agreed with Athol, I agreed with Obsidian. It’s the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Now let’s all sing.
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind’s true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oq_IskRIg
CALIBRATION IS EVERYTHING.
If one were to search my past comments going back a long time, I’ve repeatedly mentioned the concept of calibration.
Injecting some beta is particularly useful if the guy is on the surface very alpha. To take an extreme example, the 6’4″ ultimate fighter that rolls up to the front of the club in a Porsche can easily demonstrate a soft side in interactions, and in fact HAS TO.
I get the fact that women in this SMP are hyper-sensitive about their place on the fat-thin continuum. I even think I know why. They are terrified of what they see all around them – that looks like the rapid and inevitable fate of so many women and girls to lard up sooner than later. There is the freshman 15, then 30 equals 30 extra pounds, and then the “accept-me-for-who-I-am” surrender to blimpiness.. This looks more like the rule rather than the exception.
Women today have very little confidence that they can, with attainable effort, avoid this path. If they were not so worried they would not be so sensitive about the subject.
I have hung out with a lot of female long distance runners. I seriously doubt that a fat-neg would make much of an impression on them at all. Same with our pioneer ancestors slogging across the praires. It would be like a joke that got no laughs. It would not even work as an insult, since it not make enough sense. I mean, when there are no real worries of being suddenly ambushed by a fupa.
Mike C, I agree. Absolutely. A 5’5/145 pound PUA may have to play up the dominance act because his ability to actually physically dominate a fit woman—let’s imagine that she went feral for some reason and attacked him—could actually be in question. He could conceivably get his ass kicked by a girl, let alone some vodka & Red Bull-fueled, coked-out Jersey Shore type with a bullying streak.
The dominance potential of the big badass guy in your description is just beyond question. He’s playing a deeper game now, running chess instead of checkers, dealing with second and third-order social/seduction concerns and trying to disarm them because the immediate questions of physicality just aren’t issues for him at all.
If you ever have a chance, my friend, please link me to some of your previous calibration discussions or steer me that way. I’d very much enjoy reading them.
“These guys know they often need to act boyfriendy with the freshmen to get laid…”
Badger has a post on this. Short version is that men need intimacy, too, and have found that this is the best way to get intimacy and sex on our own terms. The man has a point. Just because the intimacy is short-lived doesn’t make it any less real.
Royale: I would gain the most points by dropping just 10 more pounds (+7 points) which would take me clear into Nascent Alpha Female range before my age demotes me!
Or I could just sit here and enjoy my ice cream.
So, it’s a win either way!
@BB
You are quite right, both in theory and in how you market yourself.
@Ana
Thanks for that blast from the past!
@rwc
Taking the Dating Market Value Test calls for a gallon of ice cream.
Thanks for that blast from the past!
I actually never saw the musical that came from the song I added it to my netflix
.
Now I’m watching Total Eclipse of the Heart…*nostalgic night*
Royale W. Cheese (15),
“Greater Beta” is the best place to be, because it means that your assortative mating counterparts are “Greater Beta” men. The best kind!
@Ana
I saw Hair on Broadway when I was in my teens. It was my first Broadway show, and I thought it was pretty cool. The movie is worth watching too. Are you watching the original video of “Total Eclipse of the Heart”? The boy’s eyes freak me out.
Are you watching the original video of “Total Eclipse of the Heart”? The boy’s eyes freak me out.
Yes. I actually started my love affair with music videos with this one. Till them I was like “meh music videos” then this one blew my mind “Wait music videos can have symbols, metaphors and be a minimovie?!!!…GREAT!!! I saw it before I saw Thriller of course.
“Obviously, this advice will apply to men who are seeking more than a ONS – it’s geared to the man who enjoys the idea of falling in love or at least of introducing some emotion into the mix. ”
I’m trying to square the idea of the man who enjoys falling in love with the object of that love in our modern society, namely the hot chick with douchebag: http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com.
I think the thing that you don’t get Susan is this: the manosphere is trying to explain the hot chick with douchebag phenomenon. It’s the most pressing and most vexing question of our time: How can women be so stupid as to love these morons (and not “good” guys).
You’re unconsciously trying to mitigate the importance of this issue, mainly with the old NAWALT canard, but it’s like trying to stop up a leaky dam by sticking your finger in the cracks. You don’t want men to conclude that actually all women are fundamentally like that, to varying degrees.
But you won’t be able to block out the blindingly obvious fact: The hottest girls spend their prime years putting out for these losers. And they like it. And all the other guys notice it.
You try to promote an alternate paradigm for alpha/beta divide than the crude one Roissy promotes. But the reason Roissy’s breakdown works is because it’s so simple and the examples are so prevalent. Girls, especially the hottest ones in their primes are putting out for the biggest, dumbest douchebags. Everyone sees this. In popular culture, in their social circles, and in their personal lives. Stop trying to bury it and divert attention from it. If those guys are not ‘alphas’ the word has no meaning.
Great interview here: http://nueport.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/hot-chicks-with-douche-bags/
“In very unusual circumstances, an extreme form of beta male game — the loathsome male feminist orbiter — can occasionally redound in rare, ungainly and passionless sexual favors from the manipulative, flabby wymyn to whom this execrable species (hello hugo!) ingratiates himself.”
Ha. Roissy can say what he wants about Hugo and his (Roissy’s) perceptions of who ‘feminists’ are, but being a self-described male feminist or just being a very liberal man in general is simply NOT mutually exclusive with being an alpha male. At least not where I’m from on the Left Coast.
And I definitely know a lot of objectively high-SMV women who are feminists, of the liberated-slut variety, naturally. I thought this was the more common Sphere definition of ‘feminist’ as opposed to flabby/fat/hairy/ugly/masculine feminazi? Because that type of feminist is relatively rare among Gen-Y women in my experience.
Also:
@Jonny
“Being Beta does work with women who aren’t so experienced, which is most women. The complaint about Alphas versus Betas are with the high market value women. Most Beta men are not in that league so it doesn’t apply. Of course, if you’re into short term dating, it doesn’t hurt to be more alpha, but why are you bothering with Beta techniques since what you’re already doing? Your Beta behavior signals long term dating techniques.”
Heh, yes. There’s varying degrees of honesty about this in the Manosphere, but it is absolutely true in general that when these dudes complain about ‘women’ they mean high-SMV women, 6s at the VERY least.
I guess Roissy is advising guys who’ve mastered what he would consider the ‘basics’ of Game but are still more LTR-oriented, or want to be at some point in the future.
@Odds
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about physical or sexual intimacy? Because emotional intimacy develops via a process of exposure, vulnerability, support, sharing, trust, loyalty and deep caring. It is not possible to have emotional intimacy in a hookup or ONS.
If you’re referring to post-coital moves like spooning, many women have learned the hard way that affectionate gestures during or after sex mean nothing. In fact, they often signal a coming whiplash and withdrawal, as the guy freaks out that things felt a little close there for a minute. In my experience, those are the worst dumps – they occur precisely as the relationship is moving from STR to LTR.
@Rum
I wonder if this varies by location and/or SES. I attended several college graduations this spring, and I was struck by how few overweight graduates there were. I’d estimate that 10-20% of both sexes were overweight. This is in Boston, excellent schools, so that may be part of it. Though I’ve also attended a graduation in the South where the same was true. I also know that eating disorders are common at all of these schools.
Women are paranoid about their weight very early – I recall my daughter worrying about it at age 4 after her ballet teacher told her to hold in her “hot fudge sundae belly.” They are bombarded with body image materials, and the fat acceptance movement isn’t fooling anyone, including the fat girls. You’d be hard pressed to find a single American teenager who genuinely would prefer to be fat.
I don’t doubt that a woman with exceedingly low body fat would laugh off a neg about her weight, but such women are rare. Even (or especially?) anorexic women fear that they are fat and disgusting. I have never known a single female who didn’t feel sensitive about at least one body part, and that includes the track and cross country teams my own daughter ran with.
I stand by my earlier statement. A neg about a woman’s body is very poor strategy, because the risk of genuinely offending her is so high. It’s not a good way to generate attraction. On the other hand, if you want to get revenge on some woman for rejecting you, a comeback about her fat ass or thighs will be very effective.
@modernguy
Because the women are morons and not “good” girls. Like attracts like.
I actually don’t care what men conclude, which is why I’m always trying to avoid NAWALT debates. You’re gonna think what you wanna think. If that’s what you see out there, I’m not trying to tell you you’re wrong.
My readership is demonstrably not like that, and they are the women I counsel. *shrugs*
Huh? This post endorses Roissy’s view of beta game. I have proposed no alternative. The whole point of the post is that I think beta guys would do well to follow his advice.
The key difference in this Heartiste post is that it addresses men who want relationships. Game as conceived and written is focused on getting beautiful women into bed within 7 hours of meeting them. Most of Roissy’s writings (not all) have been geared toward that objective.
My blog is geared toward relationships, and other bloggers, including Athol and Keoni Galt, have addressed Game for LTRs and marriage. This post of Roissy’s does as well, and that is why this is one moment when our missions overlap.
@modernguy
“I think the thing that you don’t get Susan is this: the manosphere is trying to explain the hot chick with douchebag phenomenon. ”
Haha trust me . . . I think we have gotten that message loud and clear. But thank you for your honesty.
and PS the majority of couples on that site look made for each other. It’s a funny site, but I canNOT understand how these couples could make anyone *angry.*
“Huh? This post endorses Roissy’s view of beta game. I have proposed no alternative. The whole point of the post is that I think beta guys would do well to follow his advice.”
That was the point of the post!!!? I thought it was to highlight that PUAs will use every trick to their disposal, such as even acting like a chump, to bed hot beautiful women.
“The key difference in this Heartiste post is that it addresses men who want relationships. Game as conceived and written is focused on getting beautiful women into bed within 7 hours of meeting them. Most of Roissy’s writings (not all) have been geared toward that objective.”
“That’s enough for this post. Sometimes beta male game can win an attractive woman over if it’s executed with extreme creativity, whimsy, ballsiness or unpredictability, and is reinforced by a preexisting alpha male context. “Sometimes” being the key word here, because if you think that this sort of rom-com sappy beta male suckuppery is the ticket to poon paradise or marital bliss, you will be sorely reminded of the squalid nature of female sexuality in short order.”
He’s not advising guys on how to get relationships. LOL. He is simply saying that when you encounter a woman with exceptional LTR-filters, you might have to splice some beta into your game, in order to get her to bed.
“In very unusual circumstances, an extreme form of beta male game — the loathsome male feminist orbiter — can occasionally redound in rare, ungainly and passionless sexual favors from the manipulative, flabby wymyn to whom this execrable species (hello hugo!) ingratiates himself.”
Feminist women are not horrible monsters. I’ve had a couple of feminist women ask me out when they noticed I had an interest in feminism. I didn’t have to act like Hugo to attract them.
@Cooper
That was a point supporting the value of beta game, even douchebags use it. Obviously, it’s used to soften an otherwise hardened, unempathic exterior for appearances sake, because guys know that most women won’t have sex with them unless the potential for a relationship is there. Nearly all the pump and dump stories I hear include the guy’s pretending to be interested in more than he is. I have heard of a couple where the guy actually stopped before penetration and said, “Just so you know, I am not looking for a relationship.” But only the highest SMV guys can pull that off and still score.
He does say “marital bliss.” Re strategy #2:
Good god, are you suggesting that Roissy is providing a road map to pretend interest in an LTR to achieve a pump and dump? I didn’t think even he was that cynical. I don’t think that’s what he’s saying.
I think he is acknowledging that some men do want LTRs and those men need to advertise their beta traits, though never make it the “main course.”
Cooper, here’s the background you’re missing. Roissy has had multiple LTRs, and he has said in the past that he tended to prefer them. When he started the blog circa 2006/7, it was a lot “nicer” and had quite a few romantic musings interspersed with red pill stuff.
The tone has changed, but there used to be entries where he’d talk about the joys and pains of being in love, etc. If the same person is writing, it’s not inconceivable for him to go back to writing about LTRs. The LTR/marriage game stuff by Dave in Hawaii and Athol Kay got started there, around 2007/8ish. Since then Athol Kay broke away on his own and found his own success, but Roissy was among the first to take PUA game’s lessons to pontificate on LTR game.
I don’t wish to muddy these already-cloudy waters with an appeal to yet another round of jargon, but I think that we may need to somehow differentiate between the guy who is a 100% hook-up-oriented pump-and-dump professional (if he says he wants an LTR, he is invariably being deceptive) and the guy who will switch between short and long-term mating strategies depending on his environment; incentives; emerging information about a potential mate; a relationship’s ability to continually provide high-quality sex, fun, and male ego validation over long periods of time; and so on (if he says he wants an LTR, he is being honest in at least an abstract, theoretical way—under the right incentive structure, he would want an LTR).
Just to add: the first guy does not *want* an LTR, full stop. The second guy does not *need* an LTR. Both types of men can enjoy casual sex.
“Good god, are you suggesting that Roissy is providing a road map to pretend interest in an LTR to achieve a pump and dump? ”
PRESICELY!
I think he is promoting beta behavior in the likes of how the bird, killdeer, find use to fake injury. He using beta-traits as a fake out – deception.
I’m not sure, does he at any point advise his readership to NOT use the method unless they’re genuinely seeking a relationship? I don’t think so, cause #1 was to use it as a softening technique – note the quotation about “long term.” He is essentially saying feed their hamster – give them a bit of beta so they’ll believe what they want to.
“Beta male strategies, in other words, are meant as adjuncts to alpha male, or high value male, game.
The reverse — adjunct alpha male strategies to complement low value beta male game — is hardly ever an effective strategy for attracting and bedding the women you want.”
Most people are terrible at most things until they get good at it. Which usually comes through practice and failure.
Susan, I have “atom bombed” girls successfully before. A recent example involves calling a girl’s nutrition regimen horse-shit right to her face. I was not trying to pick her up, but, she kept falling me around the party giving obvious IOIs. It’s almost like passing/destroying her shit test before she ever got the chance to shit test you in the first place.
However, I agree that calling some girl, especially if she is at least a little bit overweight, fat is likely to ruin any chance you might have had.
I canNOT understand how these couples could make anyone *angry.*
Which town would you rather live, and raise your children, in:
- the one filled with hot chicks and their douche bags, or
- the one filled with “girls next door” and their engineer husbands
?
Girls sexual choices have major consequences.
Yazz, a woman never bore you , you just came out fully formed from your father’s skull.
Ramble, I would like to point out that in your situation you have two different girls, who make two different choices. Girls Next Door are the female equivalent of beta men, guys don’t really notices them as much. Hot girls are the equivalent of alpha men, they are extremely attractive and guys love them. So, in this case, how can we limit the power of the most attractive girls? Guys could hand them less power. Or, more likely, we can’t limit their power. We can only convince the girls next door not to act like their alpha hottie friends and tell them to act sensibly in dating.
@GudEnuf
Do you recall the interview with Jaclyn Friedman where she complains that feminist men don’t turn her on because they are so ingratiating?
A good example is these guys:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
Girls Next Door are the female equivalent of beta men, guys don’t really notices them as much.
Hugh Hefner modeled the Playboy Bunny after the “Girl Next Door”. I know, I know, the average girl next door did not usually look like his playmates, but that was the idea he was starting from.
Not terribly different than Walt Disney modeling Disney Land/World after your typical Main Street in America.
The appeal was there.
@Just a Thought
Um, there’s this guy you may have heard of? – Hugh Hefner? He made a bit of a fortune (and a reputation) from photographing “The Girl Next Door”.
It’s been 60 years now, and ever since, “The Girl Next Door” is hardly the one men don’t pay attention to.
Could it be that the guys paying attention to that type are not the one’s you want paying attention?
Do you recall the interview with Jaclyn Friedman where she complains that feminist men don’t turn her on because they are so ingratiating?
Feminist being really, really honest: “Look, you can’t win. So, you might as well be as bad as you want to. At least we we have something good to complain about.”
@BB
The first obviously is likely to be a cad, as 42% men confess to having told a woman they were in love with her just to get sex. That means this must be true of a very, very high percentage of men with a short-term orientation. This guy is unlikely to ever be a “dad.”
The second guy can be either, but the ability to sustain an LTR if he wishes is something the first guy lacks. The vast majority of guys fit into this group. I’ve been uncovering some data about men in college and a much higher percentage report hooking up with intercourse in the last year than some might expect (at least 50% IIRC). Most men will experience casual sex and prefer it some of the time. This guy is not very likely to be a full-blown cad, though he may have his douchebag period.
Cad and dad are not perfect equivalents to what you described, but they’re approximate.
@Joe
IDK, a lot of college girls get told they’re just too wholesome for right now. This usually takes the form of “You’re the kind of girl I would introduce to my mom, but I don’t want to do that till I’m much older.”
IDK, a lot of college girls get told they’re just too wholesome for right now.
Tyler: “Gee, Mary Ann, I was really looking for a pump and dump, and hopefully some anal, so you are not really what I was looking for.”
Feature, not Bug.
Mary Ann: “That’s it, I am going to that Alpha Nu Asshat party and blowing the first guy I see, that’ll show him”
Bug.
When women think of the “girl next door” type, women typically imagine this:
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/7700000/Girl-Next-Door-jessica-hamby-7786208-550-550.jpg
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/070/d/0/the_girl_next_door_by_mikeshART.jpg
Men typically imagine this:
http://images.buddytv.com/userquizimages/86ddb8de-e269-4fcd-a2fb-a4695107c016the_girls_next_door_08_calender.jpg
http://celebritygossips.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/girls.jpg
How playboy playmates could be considered “girl next door” types is beyond me. Perhaps they could be girl next door types, if you live in a wealthy neighborhood in Las Angeles. Since most people don’t, I don’t see how such women can define the type.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I always assume that the imagined “Girl Next Door” is an Erin Heatherton type. In real life, the actual girl next door probably looks more like Lena Dunham.
Gents, watch that “Dear Woman” youtube link that Susan posted. At first I hoped that it must be some kind of gag or brilliant satire piece—i.e., we’d suddenly find that these guys were all commodity traders at Goldman who had put this thing together prior to hitting Scores to celebrate after a big quarter. But it appears to be completely serious.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I always assume that the imagined “Girl Next Door” is an Erin Heatherton type. In real life, the actual girl next door probably looks more like Lena Dunham.
Well, I think the old fashioned comparison was Mary Ann versus Ginger on Gilligan’s Island.
Either way, Lena Dunham is considerably heavier than the GND back in the 50′s. I am also guessing that she is snarkier and much more accepting, or approving, of douche baggery.
Re: Hot Chicks With Douchebags (the website)
You’ll get the occasional “Wtf!” couple on there, but most of the pairings on that site seem to be Chav + Chav assortative mating.
@Joe
“Um, there’s this guy you may have heard of? – Hugh Hefner? He made a bit of a fortune (and a reputation) from photographing “The Girl Next Door”.”
Oh, come on. Those are hardly girls next door. They are a fantasy built around the idea of the girl next door. That’s like saying that a 6’5″ guy built like a young Dolph Lundgren and drives a Maserati is a beta male because he happens to wear glasses.
@Susan
Well, sure, for certain values of “a lot”.
From the guy’s POV, though, I know too many of them who thought “The Girl Next Door” on whom he was crushing wasn’t interested in him, either, because he thought she was looking at the team quarterback. Like always, it works both ways. It makes for a lot of unnecessary misery because many times, both of them are wrong.
… for certain values of “many times”.
But doesn’t it make finding love, after all that time and frustration, all the better? /pollyannaism_of_the_day.
Sassy, tons and tons of “beta” would love a girl like the Jessica Hamby you linked to.
re: The Whores Next Door
When I referenced Playboy, I was talking about the image the original playmates portrayed way back when. Although I can’t remember the last time I saw a Playboy mag, I believe that the pictorials are still somewhat “wholesome” and “innocent”.
Royale, a female equivalent would be if girls fantasized about some “farm boy” who happened to be 6’3″, broad shouldered, confident (though, not cocky), perfectly weathered jeans and sparkling blue eyes (or hazelnut brown, or whatever). And he should NOT smell of manure.
It’s a fantasy.
Actually, i think that girls still sorta get this today. I am thinking of Fireman calendars where the guys have all their equipment and they are sitting on the truck, but they are shirtless. It’s almost real.
@BB
Yup, it was serious. Here’s the parody, but it’s almost as painful to watch, haha!
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLRu6PJtRv4
@Royale
Well, they are after photo-shopping.
It’s not exactly like a guy believes his neighbor looks like a centerfold 24/7, unless he’s an idiot, of course. A little secret, Royale. Guys are looking for a diamond in the rough too, you know? The reality of TGND can easily trump the paper on which the fantasy is printed.
That teenage boy and young man you’re thinking of is also quite capable of seeing his neighbor in a flattering light. Sometimes beer isn’t necessary for beer goggles, at least to some extent.
Can anyone explain to me how I can change my user photo?
When I go the “profile” and click “appereance” I get:
“You do not have sufficient permissions to access this page.”
@ Cooper
Try using the site that I use.
http://www.gravatar.com
@ Sassy,
Well that Jessica Hamby picture was amazing, so if that’s what the girl next door looks like, I’m all about that.
Quickly, to the Google Images-mobile!
Gahhh! Vampire fangs!
The only way she could be the Girl Next Door is if in some kind of gender swap Fright Night. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/08/19/movie-blog-fright-night-the-vampire-next-door/
Not that I would be against that.
@ Dan_Brodribb
Hahaha!! Thanks for giving me a good laugh today.
If you’re curious, the actress’ real name is Deborah Ann Woll. She is soooooo pretty, in my opinion. I can easily imagine seeing women that look like her in my neighborhood as well.
@Sassy
Thanks. I still don’t think I doing it right. It seems like the wordpress account I created, and the Cooper account on HUS are separate, so it seems.
What’s very interesting to me, isn’t the current post by Roissy/Heartiste as much as the (utter relative lack of) responses from his own blog’s commenters; currently, there is a 66 comment count; right now, HUS sports 71 comments on the same issue.
This goes to my point that R/H has never really been about straight ahead Game teaching, but rather, just merely “outrage”. For example, let’s consider a few other high-comment posts of his:
“A Little Pain Warms The Female Heart” has 268 comments:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/a-little-pain-warms-the-female-heart/
“Comment Of The Week” has 216 comments
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/comment-of-the-week-11/
“What Kirsten Stewart’s Cheating Tells Us About Good Looking Beta Males” has 183 comments
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/what-kristen-stewarts-cheating-tells-us-about-good-looking-beta-males/
And, of course, there’s the post on James Eagan Holmes: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/holmes-another-lovelorn-beta-male-rampage/
Which garnered a whopping 341 comments. All of the posts mentioned and linked, are taken right from the frontpage of R/H’s blog, and no older than a week or so. Thus very recent.
Again, I repeat: the post by R/H that is the topic of this post has gotten only 66 comments, thus far.
Proof if there ever was, one, of what the true intent and purpose of Roissy/Heartiste. The “Game” stuff, while accurate most of the time, is nevertheless a cover for just having a forum with which to make outrageous statements which attract disaffected and often very angry readers.
O.
@Ramble:
“Royale, a female equivalent would be if girls fantasized about some “farm boy” who happened to be 6’3″, broad shouldered, confident (though, not cocky), perfectly weathered jeans and sparkling blue eyes (or hazelnut brown, or whatever). And he should NOT smell of manure.”
This guy isn’t representative of beta men, either.
@Joe
“It’s not exactly like a guy believes his neighbor looks like a centerfold 24/7, unless he’s an idiot, of course. A little secret, Royale. Guys are looking for a diamond in the rough too, you know? The reality of TGND can easily trump the paper on which the fantasy is printed.”
A “diamond in the rough” seems to basically be a hot babe (9/10) who happens to live next door who is often spotted without her make-up, not your typical girl next door (4-6). Yes, if a hot babe is living next door, of course she’ll trump the centerfold. Proximity matters.
This guy isn’t representative of beta men, either.
Right. It is an idealized, or fantastic, version of a farm boy.
@Cooper
Try signing up for a Gravatar using the e-mail address you use here. (That’s what I did. But I also signed up for a Wordpress account at the same time, so I’m not sure which one of them did the trick for me.)
@Cooper
Ooops! I didn’t see that Sassy already gave you the exact same advice. Sorry! I hope you can figure it out.
@Royale
So, you’re saying that the typical 4-6 living next door, that *he* thinks is a 5-7, but isn’t approaching because he’s intimidated by the quarterback she’s after is sitting home alone waiting for him to pay her some attention???
Interesting. So is he.
Frustrating, isn’t it?
Joe (78),
I think the scenario you’re describing is pretty common. Betas of both genders tend to suck at IOIs.
Emily, don’t I know it.
I must sound flippant, but really, I’m kicking my younger self for all the times I did just that. In hindsight, it looks pretty foolish and all the angst was just wasted energy.
The last thing teens and 20-somethings want to hear, I know, is “Have patience. It’ll work out.” It’s useless advice. But for almost everyone, it does, despite the inevitable screw-ups.
@Ana #29
I’m ambivalent about videos because I’m old.
I remember a time when the listener got to write their own video in their head. I’ve loved some videos like “Take on Me,” which I would never have pictured in my own mind, but I’ved felt screwed out of the opportunity to imagine by others.
@Sassy
I don’t about your GND pictures. When I imagine a cute, attractive ‘Girl Next Door’ type, I do not imagine anything like the bakini-babes you posted – I imagine something much, much closer to first examples.
the manosphere is trying to explain the hot chick with douchebag phenomenon.
I wish I could help with that, but I’ve never been attracted to douchebags, nor am I sure that the women who love douchebags are hotter than most women–just more likely to show off what they’ve got.
@#73 O’s 3rd link
““Will you visit me in prison?” read a haunting line at the top of his profile page.
This is about the closest Holmes came to using effective game.”
O.O
““Am a nice guy. Well, as nice enough of a guy who does these sort of shenanigans,” read his [profile] introduction.
Here, Holmes admits that he is a niceguy. Do niceguys generally own up to their niceguyness?
I’ve observed that many of them do. They seem to hold their niceguy status as simultaneously both a moral virtue and an unlucky burden to bear. Narcissist niceguys like Holmes love the feeling of martyrdom because it erects in their minds a triumph over their self-inflicted failures.”
Wow.
@Cooper
Are you at Gravatar? Is that your body btw? I think you should keep it up there
Cooper looks like a naked male homoerotic Adonis. This isn’t Greece or Italy folks. Am I the only girl of the Millenial generation who dislikes these type of male “in your face” sexualized nudity? We have these naked muscular men who resemble Graeco-Roman warriors prancing around everywhere in the media. In the commercials, in the advertisement, in TV shows, in movies, in magazines and whatnot. It’s annoying and unattractive. But then again I am a religious girl. And I’m a ‘beta girl’ (if there is such a thing).
Due to feminism and sexual liberation (e.g. hook-up culture) this type of sexualized male nudity phenomenon has exploded on a mass scale and normal guys are imitating them. It would be interesting if Susan Walsh did a post about this.
Oh noes. Susan Walsh likes Cooper’s pic too! *sighs*
@ Cooper
Holy Hell Coops!!!! Holy Hell!!!
*Proceeds to fan myself*
I agree with Susan Cooper. Keep the photo up there.
@Obs
I thought the same thing. His beta readers don’t want to hear it, which I find interesting. I recall being quite surprised when I wrote a post outlining 10 good beta traits. The women were all thumbs up and the guys were really pissed off, like I was telling them to stay substandard or something. It seems like beta self-loathing, and that’s a tragedy, because truly, a mix of alpha and beta traits is ideal.
This goes to my point that R/H has never really been about straight ahead Game teaching, but rather, just merely “outrage”.
Outrage? Chez Jimmy??? Nooooo!
Say it isn’t so, Obs, say it isn’t so.
@ Susan: The “Dear Woman” people are not feminists, and they were universally panned by feminist bloggers.
http://feministcurrent.com/2332/conscious-men-issue-fauxpology-creep-us-all-out/
I know I’ve expressed frustration with certain feminist bloggers, but the average woman’s studies major is not trying to bite my dick off. They’re just normal women who are interested in politics and skeptical of gender roles. They don’t want their men to be constantly feeling guilty. They just want their men to recognize how gender roles hurt both of them, and be willing to change their behavior when it’s problematic.
@Susan
Sí – ’tis my body. I wasn’t able to crop the photo correctly, so I lost the aviators. (which I had on to echo Ted, and M3) The way it turned out is growing on me though – it evidently keeps the anonymity. I think it should suffice in keeping guys from telling to get my testosterone up. (something I’ve grown somewhat tired of)
@Cooper
OK, let’s start from Square 1. You are obviously HAWT. So what is the problem? This is not computing for me. Is it that you are an LTR kind of guy in a sea of STR kind of girls?
Cooper, I know that you get frustrated with some guys giving you advice that you already know, but, here goes:
1. Make sure to get properly tailored shirts. Often enough, “fitted” shirts (i.e. those shirts labeled as “fitted” or “slim” fit) are still not all that tapered to a mans physique.
And “regular” shirt are usually quite puffy at the waist. Getting your dress shirts tailored is not that expensive and can make a big difference.
2. When buying t-shirts, look to brands like Banana Republic (or CK, or a dozen other brands) that will actually fit your shape. Most t-shirts tend to flare at the arms and float at the waist. If you are wearing one of those loose t-shirts, Sassy will not have the opportunity to swoon.
3. Jeans, same deal. Make sure they fit. And, it can make for a nice date (“Keira, I need to get some new clothes and you have a good eye for these things. Help me pick out some stuff and I will buy you some gelato.”)
Anyway, nohomo and all that.
“politically, these are the guys that I should be sleeping with!”
Annnd… that’s the problem with feminist women in a nutshell. I would hope for a woman who sees me as a (male) human being, not a political statement.
“Proof if there ever was, one, of what the true intent and purpose of Roissy/Heartiste. The “Game” stuff, while accurate most of the time, is nevertheless a cover for just having a forum with which to make outrageous statements which attract disaffected and often very angry readers.”
They’re angry because they’re unsuccessful with women and they’re unsuccessful with women because they’re spending all their time on the interwebs instead of out there getting practice. Wonder how their numbers compare with their female counterparts Facebooking themselves to death?
All big technological innovations are highly disruptive, sometimes in ugly ways. Dog bites man.
@Ramble
Really!? I’m not sure if your joking. I know in my photo I’m not wearing any clothing, but I do know how to dress myself. (I practically only wear Obey Ts, lol personal preference)
@Susan
I’ve written a lengthy response to your question, but I’m going to have to revise it and get back to you later.
@ramble
Do know, I joke. Say what you wish.
@Cooper – I’m guessing you want STR and one-night stands type of girls coming after you? Because with that picture that’s all you are going to get. LTR and marriage-minded girls (both secular and religious) prefer less sexual guys (aka manwhores) and STR girls will go after you like bees attracted to a beehive. You’re projecting too much sexiness for a LTR and unless you cover up your body scores of sluts, ONS girls, STR girls and bad girls are all you are going to get. How do I know this? All of the slutty girls I saw went after sexy guys like you. The LTR girls went after cute but clothed men.
No, I wasn’t joking. Hey, I see tons of guys who are athletic that wear standard dress shirts at my office. And, personally, I have found that “slim” fit shirts will also have some “poof” at the waist.
I figured I would put it out there.
Oh, bull about the “projecting too much sexiness” crap. Cooper is built like me, though he’s a bit more cut and I have broader shoulders. I didn’t have a problem scaring off LTR girls, and while women did approach me occasionally for STR stuff, my beta mindset killed them off.
Mary, I am guessing that Cooper wears a shirt every now and then.
Ramble, thanks. It’s appreciated.
OTC, I know, right! These girls aren’t familiar with me. Practically anyone that’s been on HUS, for a minute, knows I’m not like what they imagine.
Mary, are you saying good looking people ate restricted to STRs? No such thing as an attractive pair? I didn’t think so.
@Susan
Are questions in particular you’d like answered? I don’t feel like going into depths about my failure with various women, during college, and if I don’t absolutely have to. (maybe I’ll summarize a few of them)
Hot 10/10 bikini babe that you could recognize if you saw her again, because she has some distinctive features about her face = girl next door
Hot 10/10 bikini babe that you couldn’t recognize because she looks as plastic as the rest of them = babe
Of course we realize that it’s not actually like that in the real world, but this is the instinctive response to those expressions, constantly reinforced by porn.
I think the scenario you’re describing is pretty common. Betas of both genders tend to suck at IOIs.
Oh boy so this. Again a beta woman that likes beta men have to whether suck it up and approach/initiate, recruit the help of a friend, develop IOI’s of the size of the moon or hit her crush with a baseball bat and drag him to a cave…maybe she will need to use two strategies at the same time and there still not guarantees. We Beta people come with a “clueless” gene ingrained on ourselves.
I’m ambivalent about videos because I’m old. I remember a time when the listener got to write their own video in their head. I’ve loved some videos like “Take on Me,” which I would never have pictured in my own mind, but I’ved felt screwed out of the opportunity to imagine by others.
Actually I’m the same the difference is that usually in my country you saw the video first then you got the LP/CD. The few times I have heard the song then saw the video I do get the “I though about it differently” the same if I see a movie based on a book shortly after I read it. I hated the Prisoner of Azkaban because I just finished the book and then went to watch it. When I rewatched it a year later I saw how brilliant it was so from them on I rather wait for the movie or read the book when the movie is getting filmed to avoid being comparing it to the movie in my head.
@Everyone
Mary and Julianne *Plain Pane alert* She is copycating Jackie.
IWhen a guy has a toned, gina-tingling bod, our host spugged out the hopelessly honest words: “Your Hawt.”
Well, why not just lay it out there. ? Honesty is cool even when it ratifies every guys suspician that his dates would be wetter in their panties & jeans if he were more buffed up.
BioMechanics is not really God. But it is Gods messenger.
@Ana
“@Everyone
Mary and Julianne *Plain Pane alert* She is copycating Jackie.”
======
I will let Darth speak for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
So what is the problem? This is not computing for me. Is it that you are an LTR kind of guy in a sea of STR kind of girls?
I’m speculating a bit, but I think it is a congruence issue and that is parsed together from bits and pieces of several comments including descriptions of some of the crowd he hangs with. Cooper’s outward appearance probably sends one message (for example Obey T-shirts) but his personality says something else. You’ve got a few women saying they find that particular image offputting in this thread (Mary and Julianne) and no offense but my guess is they probably lean more towards the beta end of the spectrum.
Again, I’m speculating but I think to summarize you have a “look” and a crowd that maybe attracts more “hook-up” type girls but the personality turns them off to that while at the same more LTR oriented girls are probably disinterested once they see a certain outward image. If I was trying to find a LTR with a good church girl I wouldn’t show up in an Affliction t-shirt.
I’ll say that women don’t quite know what to make of a guy that seems to have a more alpha outward appearance, but leans very heavily towards beta personality traits. Either move your appearance more in the beta direction or alpha up your personality depending on what your primary objectives are, and what type of women you want to attract.
Mike C, I agree. Absolutely. A 5’5/145 pound PUA may have to play up the dominance act because his ability to actually physically dominate a fit woman—let’s imagine that she went feral for some reason and attacked him—could actually be in question.
Yeah, that might be part of it, but I think it has more to do with that “badass” thing you mentioned once. On the surface, a 5’5″ 145 lb guy is probably starting with a “badass” value of 0-1 whereas a guy who is 6’4″ 250 is starting with a “badass” value of 9-10. I think the main thing is that a guy who is already bringing a lot of obvious outward dominance has to be careful of “overgaming” to use PUA speak whereas a guy who doesn’t have much outward dominance has to work harder to establish that frame initially.
If you ever have a chance, my friend, please link me to some of your previous calibration discussions or steer me that way. I’d very much enjoy reading them.
To be truthful, it wasn’t anything in super depth that you probably don’t already know. But often people will criticize cocky/funny, or negs, or whatever/take your pick, and it isn’t that the core concept is off, but that the guy just may have overused something. One thing I have come to appreciate more is that I really do think women are on a spectrum so there is no one size fits all calibration. I”m comfortable saying 99.99% of women don’t want a supplicating pedestalizer, but how far you amp up the cockiness/aloofness/teasing/etc, from there probably varies quite a bit. Wudang had a comment somewhere about which women are attracted to which masculine traits that crystallized some stuff for me and allowed me to kind of reconcile personal observation with discussion here.
I think Cooper actually IS the mythical sexy beta “Farm Boy” that Ramble was describing earlier!
I have a few quick thoughts:
* I’d be cautious about doing the whole abs-and-mirror thing on social media profiles (Facebook etc.). Pics like that can sometimes give off a sleezy vibe. I’d recommend having a more low-key (but still handsome!) profile pic and have pics like that slightly buried. (I realize that you probably already know this, but I figured I’d mention it just in case). Trust me, girls are expert Facebook stalkers. Even if you “hide” it a bit, she’ll find it!
* The fact that you actually give off a pretty “Alpha” vibe probably means that you’ll need to do all the initiating/approaching. I don’t think that you need to downplay your looks (I actually don’t think you should!), but realize that some girls might be intimidated. For example, I think you’re more than capable of getting somebody like Jackie, but you’d almost certainly have to make the first move. But once you get her talking to you, I’m sure the “beta/comfort” traits will come out naturally.
There was a great french movie from the 1950′s about truck drivers delivering nitrogylcerin to a construction site over bumpy mountain roads. Very suspenseful – hit the bump wrong = boom! or get too close to the edge of the mountain road and …..crash off the side of the mountain (and them …boom!)
I mention this because this is what men have to do with their relationships with women. And women get to “explode” for no reason – they just “felt” it. Alpha! er, no Beta!..no… a perfect, constantly changing mixture of the two! While a Jessica Biel may be worth it, a Lena Dunham.. (vomits in mouth) *cough* ….is….NOT.
[thanks for Deborah Ann Woll reference - I looked her up, and if she were in a cheerleader uniform she'd be a dead ringer for my high school girlfriend.....ah, high school! goodtimes!]
@mike c @cooper:
Well, heres where i jump back in:
Mike cs definitely on point with his commentary to/re: cooper, but i just wanted to add a few things.
First off, coopers congruence is way off. If hes gonna roll per the profile pic hes got up, hes setting a fairly high bar for himself. Women see that and get their hopes all up, and when they find out youre more like clark kent than kal el, its a serious lady boner killer. Gotta pick a horse and ride with it.
As one of the shorter guys here let me say that i have never had a problem being perceived as “little” or anything like that; i think its the way that i carry myself, which is “big”. It truly is a mindset. And to tell you the truth, militarily speaking the badasses are more my size (5’8″, 165-170lbs, 42-44 Atheletic suit size). Because for women, attraction triggers are much more psychological than merely physical, what it really comes down to for a man is how “hard” his grey matter-not his abs are. Ive seen plenty of male eyecandy looking like shemar moore or boris kodjoe utterly strikeout, and guys like style clean up. Yea, ideally a guy wants the best of both worlds-leading man looks/height and solid game, and on occasion such a guy comes along. But for the vast majority of guys this doesnt happen much; a guy will find himself on one side or the other and will have to learn how to compensate.
As for clothing: definitely agree with getting gear that properly fits, though i am NOT a fan of them “skinny jeans” etc. As my avi suggests i like gear thats both urban and “street” but at the same time its highly utilitarian. But whichever way you go do understand that youre sending a message about yourself. What are you telling others?
O.
@Obsidian #73
Did you read the comments on his Eye Contact Game post ?
A woman commented thus :
It generated 12 responses, of which the majority were not complimentary.
And their common theme : Never take Game advice from a girl.
Ha.
@Mary
I think we can assume that Cooper doesn’t walk around town naked.
I do think that Cooper is likely to attract sexually aggressive women, and he has shared some confirmation of this already. He may be that unicorn – alpha outside, beta inside is how my focus groups describe it (though in actuality they do want a mix of traits). In which case he will need to fend off sluts and make some sweet beta girl’s dreams come true.
@Cooper
Based on your comments over time, and your dismay at learning some of the nuts and bolts of female sexuality, e.g. shit tests, push/pull for the tingle, etc. I’m assuming that you are prone to oneitis and pedestalizing (No offense, I’m genuinely trying to understand). Or perhaps just going all in too soon or showing your hand too soon.
Here’s the reality: A guy with your looks who doesn’t want casual sex is like Christmas. It happens 1/365 of the time. I exaggerate but you get my point. You are going to have to aggressively filter women, and find a way to identify and approach LTR quality women.
Who are you attracted to?
I’m just confused as to why you’re struggling. Your strategy has to be off. Either you’re going after the wrong girls, or you’re committing way too early.
You’re 26, right? Just want to put that in perspective as well.
Anyway, don’t feel the need to explain your disappointing experiences in detail. But if you want to put it out there, we’ll try to get to the bottom of it.
@Markku
That’s a really interesting observation about porn. I have heard young guys go on at length about whether girls are cute or hot. I have always thought that girls next door = cute, and that those girls are generally not casual sex types. Girls guys describe as hot are often advertising their sexuality aggressively by comparison.
Isn’t that what I did? For the record, I zoomed in on that photo to see what I could of Cooper’s face. Though we can only see the bottom half, it’s clear he’s handsome, barring Marty Feldman eyes or something.
But yeah, guys with cut, moderately hairy chests are going to get attention from women. Is this news? Just this week during a convo about alpha and beta I pointed out that we were neglecting perhaps the most important determinant of who women find attractive: looks.
Anyway, the response to Cooper is one of surprise because he has felt unsuccessful with women, despite his natural advantage.
It probably would be if the expression “girl next door” didn’t have a porn meaning. What you are getting with that description is almost certainly not a literal girl next door. Of course, “cute” does have such a meaning too, but it is counteracted by the fact that it is used very often in real life.
I’d say that there are 10/10 girls that fit the “cute” description better than “hot”, although “hot” will always not be far from the truth for them either. However, “cute” -region goes lower in 1-10 score than “hot” -region. What porn does is that it selects from the absolute upper end of the “cute” region and calls them “girls next door”.
“barring Marty Feldman eyes or something”
thanks for that. most amusing, even if it’s an age giveaway for us both.
The best advice (that I think I believe) for a facebook shot is a guy asleep = non-threatening. Clearly capturing abs in a photo of him asleep, should be the money shot…FWIW
Mike, just to add to your observations: I think that someone can end up cannibalizing his own accomplishment(s) in a given domain if he insists on continually qualifying himself to others. The UFC heavyweight or light heavy in your example can safely assume that he can kick anyone’s ass in the bar or club—in a straight, unarmed fight, at least—unless it is a bar or club that for some reason is frequented by UFC fighters. He shouldn’t need to mention it and it would detract from the “professionalism” effect if he did—the contextual subtext of almost all of his social interactions will feature the implicit threat of total physical dominance.
I think there is a primal, initial filter that people tend to measure each other by that really understands only Sex, Money, and Violence. If a man successfully clears that hurdle, he may be good to go (in a shallow, relatively unsophisticated Jersey Shore type setting that prioritizes raw physical tools). More discerning members of the population may need him to clear a second hurdle and demonstrate intellectual capacity, the ability to articulate complex thoughts, “culture vulture” refinement, interesting conversation/storytelling, etc. Still others—perhaps a much smaller group than the first two—may need him to jump over yet a third hurdle and establish that he’s not a total dick.
A dude still trying to clear Hurdle 1 might not want to focus on what a nice guy he is, since he still needs to establish that he’s got the raw physical and economic tools needed to be a winner in a highly competitive SMP. Your UFC badass, however, got out of his Carrera GT and effortlessly cleared Hurdle 1. He doesn’t need to go back and jump over it again and again; it’s behind him, it’s done. He should be thinking ahead and anticipating the other hurdles.
Words like “adorable” are probably better for 10/10 cuties, because the word “cute” is so often used as a booby prize for average girls that fail to be hot, that it is the first impression you’ll probably have when you hear “cute”.
I always preferred cute to hot. “Cute” to me connotates “If you talk to me, I will at least let you down easy.” “Hot” implies the risk of an icy rejection. Yeah, mixed metaphor.
They are expensive, but custom shirts off the best bang t0 buck ratio in clothing. And, if you know what you are doing and are patient, you can get them for reasonable amounts of money, far less than what a lot of RTW stuff costs.
@Susan
Cute vs. Hot.
To me cute has always involved an element of innocence. Hot has always been more of an ‘I got tits and I know it’ vibe. Hot typically only applies to the upper numbers. Cute tends to apply more downward but the women qualified as cute (to men) are still beautiful, maybe not model gorgeous but above avaerage.
@Susan
I’m actuslly only 23. Your definitely right about being prone to oneitis, ect.
It is why my faith in relationship has, somewhat, been shaken. Because everything I do that signals LTR-orientation turns women off (with lightening speed), and implementing any STR-stragedy can really get them going. (which in turn practically turns me off)
I just don’t like how I have to pretend to be seeing other girls, or am willing to walk away. Have to deliver a opener from over your sholder, after you already walked by, coming from an indirect path, ect. Just to subconsciously give the impression I was walking towards some else. (readying game earlier)
Why is it that showing direct interest can send a girl running for the hills? (and this included girls that do know me, and no my dating life (lack there of) – as well as strangeres.
Which reminds me why I don’t like preselection too. I don’t want to have to be “spinning plates” to be seen as a catch. I realize it can be a mentality, but I don’t necessarily have that ‘I can find anyother girl’ attitude either.
I don’t like game, but my life is full of evidence of why any alternate method is sure to fail. I’m pretty MGTOW now-a-days.
Reading Roissy always puts me in a very foul mood. So, I avoid him at all costs.
Why wouldn’t Cooper want to “commit way too early”?
The only time that I’ve ever gone after a woman was when I already determined that she met marriage criteria. I have done so precisely two times in my life.
My decision was already made before asking her out. This is not true for women who have gone after me. I generally get rid of them because it was their criteria that drew them to me, *not* my criteria that drew me to them.
Why would you want to waste the time otherwise?
@Cooper
“Why is it that showing direct interest can send a girl running for the hills?”
I think this is because girls distrust guys who seem very interested in them, without knowing each other well or having just met. When this is the case, all a guy really knows about the girl (and pays attention to) is her looks. And most girls realize this, which is why I think that “running for the hills” after direct interest is a filter for guys who are only interested in sleeping with her.
For example, a cute guy I met two days before Valentine’s Day send me a very romantic card on the day itself. That made me think “oh wow, take it easy there, you have no idea who I am!”. I interpreted this gesture as him thinking “she looks good, I want to go to bed with her so I will act all romantic to accomplish this asap!”. Which made me feel that I had to make clear that that was NOT going to happen (other girls might have just run for the hills…).
Turns out he was interested in more, and wanted to get to know me better, so I overreacted a lil’ bit, haha. But still, at the time he didn’t really know anything about me, so I concluded he was just after what he DID know about me – what I look like, and that he therefore he only wanted to sleep with me.
This is just my experience though, maybe other girls are completely different and perhaps it’s not a filter at all. And I guess this doesn’t apply to situations where the guy and girl already know each other quite well. But thankfully there’s plenty of people here to correct me on this :p
Wait, I said that wrong. Running for the hills isn’t a filter, it’s a response to direct interest because girls interpret direct interest as a guy only going for their looks. I don’t know where I got the “filter” part from, sorry haha.
Cooper, my two cents. Feel free to disregard.
Carmen and Mike C are right on. You’re projecting an image that is turning off the LTR-minded girls from you, and it is incongruent with your actual romantic interests (which turn off the STR-minded girls). For instance, I would probably never think to strike up a conversation with a guy wearing an OBEY shirt because I would automatically assume that he’s a P&D type of guy (that, and something about that vibe just makes me think he doesn’t have the same intellectual interests, either).
You’re in a better position than most other guys, though. I think that if you just change your image (and maybe the company you keep), you could be on track to getting the sweet beta “girl next door” of your dreams.
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE in how I respond to this guy: http://www.mltd.com/images/T/44-65.jpg (Douche)
And this guy: http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/wenn10278538.jpg (Ladyboner)
Check out r/malefashionadvice for tips on how to change your style. Yeah, they’re pretentious pricks, but they’ve got some good suggestions. I have the utmost confidence that if you changed your style, you’d get some LTR hotties sniffing around.
@californio
“There was a great french movie from the 1950′s about truck drivers delivering nitrogylcerin”
Yeah! Great movie. I was a kid when I saw it for the first time
And it has +1 for one of heroes being Polish nobles 
))
@J
“I wish I could help with that, but I’ve never been attracted to douchebags”
sure, NAWALT. But I would believe you only if some douchebag would go to you, actively trying to game you, and you would still give him firm f*off without having to fight off some of your instincts. Otherwise, is like saying “I am resistant to alcohol” without trying few shots of vodka (one shot is not enough, unless it is within an u-boot coctail).
As other have said, so many males have witnessed it, in so many different countries, that there have to be so grain of truth in “girls are attracted to arseholes”. And most of those girls would say that they are NOT attracted to arseholes, jerks and so on. Most of them would definetely believe in what they say.
I saw a lot of girls who were all about how they hate douchebags, until they were “gamed” by them. My first “almost-girlfriend” who was your typical girl-next0door –very intelectual, she was visiting me to borrow books, we talks about those books (yeah, really, would you believe it?). Then a new boy entered a class, he was arsehole. End of story.
I had also witnessed my collegues (not friends, a friend is an intimate word) bedding girls who i would never even think would do it. The biggest eye opener ever was when i witnessed my friend sleeping with a girl he met just a day before, very catholic, from rural area, and he asked her “why you are allowing me to do it?” and she became red and said “I don’t know”. NONE of those girls were attracted to douchebags.
@obsidian
I was trying to think why the roissy blog is so attractive to me and the only explanation is that i am a sorry a*e bitter about all those woman who prefferred my collegues 
After all, i know why I am reading athol and susan,(to improve my marriage and get female perspective). But why I am following Roissy?
you could be right with saying that roissy popularity may be due to “outrage”
re: cute vs. hot-
“To me cute has always involved an element of innocence. Hot has always been more of an ‘I got tits and I know it’ vibe.”
Exactly the way I see it. If you’re a girl whose only interested in STR’s, aim for hot. But if you’re looking for a LTR, you’re best bet is to go with “cute”. Which kinda’ ties in to the whole Cooper discussion. At least from my point of view. I have no problem finding (or attracting) “hot” girls. But I have a REALLY hard time seeing any of them as LTR material. Cute, sweet, somewhat innocent is LTR material.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that all the attractive young girls (at least in my social circle) want to be Britney Spears or Christina Agulera, and none of them want to be Taylor Swift. Which is great if all you’re a guy who just wants to get laid. But for a guy like myself (and I’m assuming Cooper), who prefers LTR’s, the pickings are pretty damn slim…
Personally, if I’m presented with a Britney type and a Taylor type, it comes down to this: If I’m looking for a night of crazy sex, I’m gonna’ go with Britney. But after that night of crazy sex, I’m gonna’ be moving on. On the other hand, if I’m looking for a girlfriend, I’m gonna’ go with Taylor. And chances are I’m still gonna’ be with her when Britney is getting old, and looking around wondering where all the guys went.
I think their are a lot of good looking guys out there looking for a Taylor and only seeing Britney’s. Eventually those guys give up and just say “The hell with it. If I can’t find a decent girlfriend, I might as well have fun.” (which is where I’m at). Or they MGTOW (which is where it sounds like Coop is at…).
By the way, in my experience, the Britney/Christina girls are ultimately looking for LTR’s, not P&D’s. They just seem to think that the way to go about getting it is to put off an “I’m a badass, sexy bitch” vibe. While that approach definitely gets them male attention, it doesn’t get them the attention that they want. Guys don’t want to girlfriend a “bad ass, sexy bitch”. If the physical attractiveness is even close to equal, IME any guy even remotely looking for anything deeper than a roll in the hay is gonna go with the “cute”, sweet, innocent (by that I don’t mean virgin. I just mean a girl who isn’t constantly trying to ooze sex) type. I just wish more girls would understand that. More is more if you’re looking for sex. Less is more if you’re looking for a relationship.
Cooper, your photo is really distracting because the lower part of your face looks SO MUCH like my husband’s face when he was your age. He didn’t have quite as much muscle then, but he had the pecs for sure.
@Carmen
Great comment there about why women are wary of strongly expressed interest too early. Basically, women have numerous reasons for not wanting a guy to fall for them based on looks alone:
1. As you noted, fear that all he wants is sex, because he is failing to qualify us for compatibility, a prerequisite for any good relationship.
2. We are objectified our whole lives by the media, culture, and yes, men. Most of us are desperate to find someone who likes “the real me.”
3. Fear that the guy will lose interest when he finds out we are not really a “sex goddess.”
4. Suspicion that going all in from day one indicates some sort of desperation – “Why is he so eager to close the deal in just a few days?” Desperation implies a lack of options, so it’s the opposite of social proof.
Markku
I’ve often thought this, too, and the standard compliment guys used to give me back in the day was “cute.” I suppose I do have the shy, sweet, innocent, goodie-two-shoes vibe going for me, but then the guys get to know me and are surprised by how cynical I can be. >.>
@Susan
I’ve always thought it has something to do with low self worth.
“I’m not worth it, why does he think so?”
It’s amazing how little some women think of themselves, as if they truly believe it when they say “I’m useless.” (which I’ve heard plenty of times)
And when they come across a guy who does appreciate them – something is wrong with HIM. I think it’s the other way around.
I think I’ve figured out why reading Roissy is bad for me.
Since I’m a perfectionist expanionistic puritan moralist idealist at heart, it makes me want to start throwing the human race into the abattoir.
I would have made a great Roundhead. Unfortunately, I was born three centuries too late. I’m just glad that I’m through my militant anti-Catholic anti-Mormon phase.
Nothing like arguing with your Mormon girlfriend about the inherent corruption of Mormonism. Based on personal experience, I recommend *not* getting into a heated argument with your girlfriend about the idiocy of her religion.
“Must think happy thoughts!”
“Fluffy pink bunnies!”
“Fluffy pink bunnies!”
“People are not completely depraved.”
“People are nice.”
“Fluffy pink bunnies.”
@Cooper
IMO, you should never have to pretend to be something you are not. You may have to pretend to be a little less than you are. Let me explain.
1. I think pretending to see other girls is an asshole move. If a girl wants that from you, she’s unworthy for a LTR. IMO a better strategy is to focus on one girl as long as you sense she is interested. By focus I mean spend your time on her and escalate sexually – we want you to try, even if we intend to say no. However, do not:
Text frequently
Thank her profusely for spending time with you
Eagerly jump the gun on planning the next date
Express your feelings before mutual emotional intimacy has been established via spending time together and sharing personal stories, etc.
IOW, don’t show your hand! You want her to work for it, and we want to work for it. It raises your value in our eyes if we have to fret about whether we can “catch” you. This is because it implies the opposite of desperation, and that is that you have options and all the time in the world. We want you to play it cool. If a woman ever uses the word “eager” to describe you to her friends, it’s over.
2. Delivering over the shoulder openers, making cocky funny comments about her outfit (Hmmmm, what an interesting necklace…), pretending you have to be somewhere and leaving – all this is appropriate for barflies. That is not your target market.
For the women you seek, the ones who will reward you for and with romance, friendly and direct hellos are the way to go. Be the good guy, but be the confident good guy, not the Nice Guy TM. No supplication, just a friendly vibe. With your looks you need to be more approachable, and that is how to achieve it.
3. Spinning plates is for losers. The only reason to do it is so that you have a Plan B if and when you get rejected. That only works if pussy is the goal. You’re not going to be spinning LTR plates, that makes no sense.
OTOH, it is essential that you remember that you can find another girl because….you can. There are many women who would be delighted to be seen with you. You have no business acting like a guy who can’t get a date because one look at you and no girl is going to believe that. I could wing for you tonight and get you three dates.
You don’t need to cultivate an abundance mentality that is “fake it till you make it” because you already will have an abundance of options for casual sex. Most women will assume that’s your preference. So the mindset you need is one that says, I can get girls for ONSs on the reg, but I’m thinking about settling down, and now I need to find a really extraordinary girl who’s worth it.
Jason and Zach would be good people to get advice from too. They’re both your age, both good looking, and have both had some beta experiences IIRC where they went head over heels and got burned.
@Travis
Interesting, so it’s a way of presenting oneself that may not be related to promiscuity?
It sounds like the guys are saying there are very few women around who are genuinely feminine, and I would have to agree. I rarely see or meet one. It might be time for another post on femininity.
@Cooper
FWIW, the beta loving girls I know swoon over button down shirts. “OMG he wore a gingham shirt, so adorable!” While you don’t want to project eagerness, you do want to project earnestness. You need to avoid anything cocky or you’re going to read: PLAYER.
Cooper, that is a female head case – no bueno. Not LTR material AT ALL. For one thing, those are the women who have the most casual sex in a never ending attempt to get validation of their worth. This can include some very attractive women, so be careful.
You want a girl who is flattered to receive the attention, but not shocked. If she asks “Why me?” or anything like that, drive on. No girl should question a man for his attention or even his appreciation. But you must calibrate.
Seriously, if you have a tendency to get serious too soon, you should enlist a buddy to help you chill, someone who you can run questions by. Or at least every time you are tempted to be mushy, dial it down by at least half.
We don’t want to be rejected, but we can’t believe you are the prize if you can be won with zero effort.
Men want to work hard for sex. Women want to work hard for commitment. This is immutable.
As a style matter, an open collar with points that don’t button says to me either “club rat playa” or “poor soul who doesn’t know how to dress.” If your shirt buttons up the front and you want to wear it without a tie, the collar points should button too.
@ Susan Walsh
It depends on what you mean by “feminine”. Personally, I see three categories of good looks. The first is “hot”, which denotes the kind of girl that wears sunglasses, a low cut top, short pants, and has her hair died blonde. The second is “cute”, which denotes the kind of girl that wears regular clothes like t-shirts. The third is “pretty”, which denotes the type of girl that wears a skirt, lots of makeup, and has a very intricate hairstyle.
When someone says “feminine”, I think of that third category. Personally, I only like “cute”. Back in high school, there were a lot of cute girls
, but it feels like once they get older they started trying to look “hot” (that or all the cute girls stay indoors or something). It feels like most college-age girls who try to dress “cute” are very overweight or obese. 
“You want her to work for it, and we want to work for it. It raises your value in our eyes if we have to fret about whether we can “catch” you.”
This kind of think just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t like the idea of having to inflate my value, in her eyes, by withholding interest. To me, that sounds like trying to get a girl – who has no attraction towards you – to sleep with you. It’s like getting a bull riled up by waving around red – I don’t want a attraction built on gimmicks.
Plus, I also think that any girl can switch from unsure, to attracted, and then to potentially head-over-heels, has a great potential of doing a similar progress within a marriage. (honeymoon-lust, to only satisfied, to unattracted, all the way back to disqualification)
This ability to move through different phases of attraction signals, at least to me, that a similar progression out of attraction is just as possible.
From the sounds of it you’re saying typical Game (STR-stragedies) aren’t ideal for LTR searching. Isn’t that what has been recommend to me until now – learn game? The major difference between beta and alpha, at least IMO, is aiming for either STR/LTR. Suggesting Game, cause it has evidence of working, implies STR-orientation is what is attractive.
“1. I think pretending to see other girls is an asshole move.”
It’s quintessentially how Game suggests to deliver openers.
” you already will have an abundance of options for casual sex. Most women will assume that’s your preference.”
What do think female friends think when I explicitly don’t pursue casual options? I get the feeling they think “something is wrong.”
And then there’s the whole lack of experience issue – which I’ve seen prove to be another attraction killer. (which again says there is a particular “fake it to ya make it” necessary)
@Susan:
Instead of a post on Femininity, I sure could use a episode by episode analysis of the next season’s Bachelor/Bachelorette.
My wife watches that show and I sure could use some color commentary.
@ Sassy:
Haha, looking good, Coop!
@ Carmen:
Eh, I’m sure this make sense for girls who get hit on by strangers. But IME, direct interest is well received IF there’s mutual interest. That goes for both genders, too. Showing direct interest isn’t going to get a guy/girl anywhere unless the person is already attracted to them.
I wouldn’t run from the hills if a guy I was interested in directly asked me out. I would turn the guy down if I wasn’t attracted to him or sense other dealbreakers I knew of (say he didn’t want to get married ever, or if he was missing teeth – very different examples, but examples nonetheless!).
@Susan,
“Interesting, so it’s a way of presenting oneself that may not be related to promiscuity?”
Sometimes. And sometimes not. I’ve had quite a few genuinely promiscuous girls and “reformed slut” types try to lock down exclusive relationships before.
But I’ve also known quite a few girls who weren’t slutty or bad ass try to “slut it up” in regards to the way they dress and the way they talk because (I’m assuming) they think it’s what guys want. And in a way, they’re right. They’re constantly bombarded by the media with women like Christina, Britney, and pseudo porn star Kim Kardashian. And they hear all they guys talking about how “hot” they are. Guys DO fantasize about banging those chicks. But I’ve never heard a guy say he’d like to marry one of those women.
My theory is that it’s kinda the male version of the cad/dad meme. According to you, most women want “dad’s”. But their actions show that they’re a hell of a lot more turned on by the “cad” type. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna act on it, but when most women think “hot and sexy”, the bad boy type is what they’re thinking of. But I doubt many of them want to get into a LTR or marry that type. Still, a lot of guys see women drooling over that kind of guy. Which is why you see all these beta’s trying to learn how to “act” more alpha.
I think the same thing has been going on with girls for a while. They see the guys drooling over the Britney/Christina/Kim types (the female version of cads), but they don’t realize that most guys would rather have a LTR with the Taylor types (the female version of dads). So just like the betas who try to give off more of a “player” vibe in order to ramp up sexual attraction, these girls try to give off more of a “bad ass” slutty vibe to ramp up sexual attraction.
The problem is that they don’t understand that sexual attraction doesn’t always mean that a guy is going to be interested BEYOND sex. In fact, if they go too far, it can easily have the opposite affect. Guys DQ them as a relationship prospect BECAUSE they’re giving off too much of a “slut” vibe. Just like a lot of women will DQ a guy with too much of a “player” vibe.
Now, keep in mind I’m blue collar, which nowadays pretty much means LMC. I don’t know how things are in your neck of the woods. But the girls down here are VERY sexualized. Even when they don’t have super high N”s.
I know he’s off in Vegas, but I’m pretty sure Ted would know EXACTLY what I’m talking about…
@Susan,
Reading back over it I realize that post might have sounded kinda’ convoluted. To summarize, I think everybody seems to be trying win over the opposite sex by becoming their “sexual” ideal, as opposed to their LTR ideal. Not realizing that those two things are oftentimes very different. Then we wonder why the hook up culture is thriving, but the marriage/ LTR culture is dying.
“Men want to work hard for sex. Women want to work hard for commitment. This is immutable.”
I’m not so sure I understand this.
Do guys really enjoy working hard for sex?
I know we sure as hell want to know that she has been discerning in regard of other men, but beyond confirming that (with a fair amount of certainty), we don’t think we have any preference against receiving sex easily.
And what part about getting a man to commit is enjoyable for women?
Is that after being sexual for a while, and then wanting him to commit to remain receiving what he’s already getting? Why would it be enjoyable to work for him to stay?
Wouldn’t women like it if the guy they’re already seeing (as in he’s already pasted the ‘gates’) shows he is happy to stay – rather than seeing him considering moving on, and having to convince him to stay satifisied?
Cooper
So… you expect a girl to fall head-over-heels immediately? Or be perpetually lukewarm? I don’t understand this.
I went from unusure, to attracted, to completely in love with my husband. That’s how a normal relationship starts. I’m still deeply in love with him. I don’t see how the progression of relationship beginnings should make you so wary?
Anyway, it only took about a week or two before we told each other about our deeper feelings for each other, and we didn’t scare each other off. I think when it’s right, it can go very quickly. But there’s still a time curve.
1 2 3 … 5 »