Louise Brooks
“The Technique of the Love Affair makes, I am bitterly afraid, considerable sense. If only it had been placed in my hands years ago, maybe I could have been successful instead of just successive.”
Dorothy Parker
In 1928 Doris Langley Moore wrote The Technique of the Love Affair at the age of 23. Langley Moore was a Byron scholar, a costume designer, a novelist, a friend of George Bernard Shaw’s and a a newlywed when she penned the tongue-in-cheek guide to making men fall in love with you. Modeled after Plato’s Symposium, it was an immediate sensation and scandal in England.
Long out of print, the book was rereleased ten years ago, and received a positive reception from critics. Reviewing it for the New York Times, Liesl Schillinger wrote:
If enough women read it, there may yet be time for the Irresistible Woman to avoid going the way of the dodo.
The book…is a virtual cocktail shaker on paper, written by a young woman who styles herself ”A Gentlewoman,” and it could very possibly undo the years of damage that earnest flocks of pastel volumes have worked on formerly swashbuckling female psyches.
Reading about the SMP of the 1920s, I was immediately struck by the similarities to our own era. From the book’s jacket:
Its readers were the so-called New Women who emerged during World War I. The subject of cartoons in The New Yorker and Punch, the typical modern woman lived in a bachelor flat in the city; she earned her own living and believed in “sexual freedom” (although she might not have known exactly what that meant). She smoked cigarettes, drank cocktails, and swore in public. She even looked different: Slim and uncorseted, she wore her skirts short and her hair bobbed. To all appearances, she was physically, legally, and emotionally emancipated. The generation gap between the woman of the 1920s and her Victorian mother was all but unbridgeable, and a girl could no longer look to her elders for advice.
Langley Moore understood the sexual economy of the time – a male shortage after WWI resulted in a sex ratio that increased female intrasexual competition. Her book was meant to give women an edge over their less prepared flapper sisters. Technique offers specific guidelines for the newfangled practice called “dating.”
In one generation the Byzantine rituals of Victorian courtship had undergone a revolution: single women no longer extended invitations to suitors to “call” or held “at homes.” Now even respectable women went unchaperoned to nightclubs, restaurants, and movies. The modern date was born, and the once neutral telephone became an instrument of both despair and bliss.
…It was a time when men and women had dalliances or affairs, not relationships…This was an age in which it was important not to be earnest; flippancy and cynicism were sane responses to an insane war.
Schilllinger:
Where the Rules girl seeks a clothesline of her own, the Technique woman wants frolic, Champagne, banter and devotion, although she knows that ”it is generally only in the course of a light affair that the serious one springs up.”
Sounds like hookup culture, no?
Still, she is a sensualist who courts experience to perfect her craft, as well as a realist who knows that ”it is useless to tell men we are independent, and then beg them to come and dance with us,” so one might as well admit the need to scheme all along.
This is the refreshingly honest dissimilarity – the acknowledgement of sex differences allows the open sharing of the secrets to tripping a man’s switches, which can not really have changed much in just 80 years. Keep in mind that this guide is about sexual attraction, not finding a husband. It assumes that men are in a position of strategic advantage – no assumption of apex fallacy here.
Here is a summary of Langley Moore’s strategy – all written by her or paraphrased.
Ten General Principles
1. We dare not give reign to our generosity, because men soon tire of what is soon obtained.
2. A woman has not made a conquest until she finds herself pursued. Her conquest and the pursuit are synonymous; there cannot be one without the other.
3. Your surest weapon and most powerful spell lie in his own hunger for possession of you. Until you fulfill your ambition, you must always remain unattainable.
4. A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.
5. You must not let his love stagnate the moment he has obtained you, but subtly rouse him to fresh pursuit whenever he shows apathy.
6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his, but a woman who is infatuated will find it difficult to conceal her feelings.
7. The knowledge that there is a soul desperate with devotion before them can only excite pity or amusement, not love. In her abjectness and anxiety she ceases even to be congenial company. Her unhappiness is tedious, and he begins to chafe under his responsibility.
8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.
9. It is not just physical desire that he seeks. He also wants intimacy. When he cherishes and protects you, enjoy it. Draw him into slight intimacies that seem charming, he will want more.
10. Do not give a man an idea which may prove disadvantageous to you. E.g., that he finds a certain other woman more fascinating that yourself, that he will cheat on you, etc. If you show that you expect infidelity, you will get it.
The Fundamental Principle of Femininity
1. Contrast is the keynote. Be different from the man in female ways.
2. Avoid being nasty about other females or blabbing their secrets.
3. If a man is able, he enjoys the burden of providing for you, and enjoys the feeling that you are dependent, his dependent. Be dependent materially and independent spiritually.
4. To sustain admiration for an indefinite period, display good nature, a sense of honor and a capacity for friendship. But never show yourself to be completely unselfish in your devotion to him.
5. Refinement of taste is an important virtue. Avoid indelicate conversation and coarse language.
Men to Avoid
1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own. You need to feel at ease, even a little superior, to enjoy yourself.
2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.
3. Men who must conceal you
4. Men who are dissolute
Tactics
1. Be interesting
- Have poise of manner (free from self-consciousness or arrogance)
- Don’t laugh with abandon, becoming ungainly
- Don’t become vehement in discussion
- Be lively without being obstreperous.
- Be spirited but never carried away.
2. Display accomplishments and allurements without calling attention to them.
- Be cheerful, free from hint of grief or dejection. Misery long sustained begets pity without sexual love.
3. Dress well.
- The less women’s clothing resembles their own, the more men like it.
“Whether is was the first cause or not, from the earliest times one impt. Function of clothing was to promote erotic activity: to attract men and women to one another, thus ensuring the survival of the species. One basic purpose of costume, therefore, is to distinguish men from women.
Alison Lurie, The Language of Clothes, 1981
- Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.
- If a woman is not groomed to perfection from head to foot, she will lack the necessary self-confidence.
4. Display a talent for flattery.
- Seem attentive to his conversation; conceal signs of boredom, but don’t look too eagerly engrossed.
- Draw a man out to speak about himself, but never attempt to probe him for secrets. This will make him think of you as more of a friend.
- Don’t tell him secrets of yours until you are sure he likes you.
5. Be more generous with words than actions.
- Actions should seem more indifferent than infatuated. If you are always flattering a man, he will see that you want him badly, and stop pursuing.
- If you are always cold and casual, he will think you don’t want him at all, and a passion cannot flourish when rebuffed at every turn.
- Many women [are] rude in their speech but complacent in every act. Better to spare no kindness that the tongue can utter.
- Express gladness to see him, but show no desire for his company in any of your actions, i.e. pursuit.
- When he is with you, let him feel strong, courageous, generous.
- If you signal to him that you expect to be treated poorly, he will comply. Men will give you whatever you seem to ask of them, so ask much.
Methods of Approach
1. Don’t approach a man who is engrossed in another woman.
2. Any appearance of haste is unseemly and may defeat the purpose.
3. Don’t single a man out for special glances or flattery, unless you know you will have no opportunity later. Be encouraging at the second or third meeting, giving a hint of sexual interest.
4. Being good at flirting lets him know that you are used to the attentions of men.
5. Do not respond as much as he would like; make a little show of surrender. Always give a little less of yourself than is wanted, a little less than satisfies.
6. If he is indifferent, give it up immediately. An unattached man who is indifferent to your flattery is indifferent to you.
7. In a group of men, be delightful and personal with each of them. Don’t single any one man out for particular attention unless you can do it without being observed. Be so kind to the women that your attention to the men does not stand out. If there is a woman likely to resent you, be extremely amiable to her, and distinguish her by all the courtesy you can show.
Errors Common to Love Affairs
1. Allowing yourself to be won without adequate preparation, or taken unaware. The occasion of your surrender should be prearranged and have the ideal background. Do not let him think his victory an easy one. What he wins, or thinks he wins, easily, he will not esteem.
2. Attempting to arouse a fatigued or worried man to demonstrations of emotion. By taking the role of supplicant you make him feel that the right order of things has been upset, and give him a mortifying memory of yourself. Before a man has declared himself, make no concessions of any importance, but once he has done so, it is very unwise to demand repetitions and confirmations, for it will indicate over-anxiety.
“It is proverbial that after a woman tells a man she loves him, he assumes she’ll continue to do so until she says otherwise. In contrast, women seem to require periodic updates on a man’s emotional temperature. Fear and anxiety, and the behavior they engender, are lethal to love and well-being.”
3. Calling attention to one’s own defects. Conceal flaws if possible and do not apologize for them. In a love affair, you should display your assurance and conceal your humility.
Langley Moore’s only nod to marriage:
“Even those who would reform or abolish matrimony are prone to forsake their principles when they are seized with a passion for one who cannot be otherwise obtained.”
There is much wisdom here, and little I would disagree with. I have used many of these suggestions to great effect myself. Unfortunately, feminine and masculine roles have largely been lost since DLM wrote her book. Women are not practiced at communicating interest and attraction, and men are not practiced at reading those cues. Much of what DLM recommends will be most effective with men displaying a high degree of self-confidence. Then again, self-confidence is a strong female attractor, and she provides an excellent roadmap for engaging those men. It is interesting to note that Langley Moore speaks of the benefits of preselection, playful teasing, and a bit of push pull as important tools.
Finally, as noted above, Langley Moore has written a how-to for passionate love affairs. I see no reason why one’s approach to relationships should not be the same, as exciting a man’s sexual interest is crucial for both. The key is to follow her 1920′s guidelines for when to have sex, not contemporary ones.
{ 652 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 »
This cracked me up. It’s so late, I’m getting punchy. Time to sleep.
@ SayWhaat
But that isn’t what happens. In the example of your girlfriend, those beta orbiters were interested in her in spite of her being in a relationship, not because she was in a relationship.
@ SayWhaat
Regarding cultural standards of beauty, once again you’re missing the point. Yes, on the macro level culture can influence attraction triggers. But on the individual level, preselection isn’t going to have that big an effect. Thus, a guy might know other guys like big boobs and thus conclude when he sees a girl with big boobs that she’s attractive. That’s a cultural effect. But that isn’t preselection. Preselection would be where his friends say “hey look, that girl is ugly”, and then the guy thinks she is ugly despite having big boobs, which he knows are attractive.
INTJ, Susan just posted about a study re: social proof working for women. I know you’ll find a ton of ways to discredit the study without actually reading it, but it holds more credibility than your opinions. No offense meant, just stating it as it is.
SayWhaat @ 279
I think it’s just simply a naturally flirty girl gave some beta types attention that they rarely get from any other woman. It’s not to compete for mates because of a perceived inflation of SMV, it’s begging for table scraps.
There’s no doubt that can and does work, but he’s also just as likely to take that comment at face value (neutral), or back away in the face of implied competition (negative).
I honestly think the highest percentage strategy to inspire guys* is: Physical Attraction + Emotional Escalation + Good Odds of Winning.
* non-alpha guys
And you missed the point here, again. I wasn’t questioning their interest in her, I was questioning their motives in pursuing that interest.
Right, which is why I added the caveat that he is already interested in her. If not, she should be able to suss that out and know when to stop escalating emotionally.
“added the caveat, *if* he is already interested in her.” (fixed)
@ SayWhaat
Quite the contrary. This experiment seems well designed and valid. I’ll take a look at it tomorrow to see what the magnitude of social proofing demonstrated in the video is, and take back my statement about men being much less susceptible to social proofing if necessary.
I agree, the key here being “good odds of winning”. He should have odds of winning between 50% (arbitrary number, YMMV) but less than 100% (i.e. no real certainty of a win).
Well, color me floored!
I look forward to hearing your review, and don’t be surprised if I hold you to it!
Alright, it’s late. G’nite, y’all.
I don’t think guys are immune to pre-selection. But I think it works a lot differently.
In terms of attraction, I think guys have already made up their mind on “yes/no”, and that won’t change. But added pre-selction can possibly give a slight bump or tiebreaker (i.e. picking the more popular 8 over the less popular 8 if all else is equal).
With girls, I think pre-selection has a big enough impact to change her original “yes/no” assessment, either positively or negatively.
SayWhaat said:
This one is really straightforward. Whenever a women opens on me, the first thing I do is glance at her hands. 50/50 split she’s got a big sparkly rock on her finger. Women are more happy and more confident when they’re in a relationship. This makes them massively more approachable. In turn, women in relationships still enjoy flirting for fun. To the woman, she’s just being friendly. Men, on the other hand, can’t tell the difference. The body of research in psychology says there is no discernible difference between flirting for fun and flirting for romance, and men are predisposed to infer interest from a woman anyway, so… drama.
At first when I realized this was happening, I was like, ok, flirting practice. Now it’s just annoying since it wastes my time and energy and discourages any single girl in the room.
Let’s put it this way:
Women A starts a conversation with me. 80 % chance she’s in a relationship.
Woman B won’t make eye contact. 80 % chance she’s single.
I’m being a little facetious but you get the gist.
I’m getting the feeling that this advice was written by a woman that looked and acted like Nefertiri in the 10th commandments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXjOOS4zAq4&list=PLDAF3D3C423008654&index=4
YMMV
@mr nervous toes
“Women A starts a conversation with me. 80 % chance she’s in a relationship.”
Yes but if she likes you, then the boyfriend disapears in the background. And if you bundle in your speech, then YOU disapear in the background. Altough I’m not advocating a player’s game here, just natural instinct. What I’m saying is that in the end, women always make the call.
“Woman B won’t make eye contact. 80 % chance she’s single.”
Or rahter 100% chances she’s not interested.
@Anacoana:
“a woman that looked and acted like Nefertiti”.
There is a long list of those women who where from the white anglo-saxon upper middle class and who jumped into the artsty liberal band wagon of the 20′s, bound to Montparnasse/Montmartre. Anais Nin, Doris Moore, Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein…the list is very long.
I guess that was their way of getting “liberated” and seeing exotic and “thrilling” new horizons, yet within a “civilized” enough environement as they perceived it at the time.
@Sai
“It’s good to know guys don’t like the chase as much as I was told they do”
(N.B. I’m smiling as I write this, and it isn’t aimed at you Sai)
trust the men here on this; We don’t like games and drawing a line between games (cock-tease) and what you see above is a ticklish task – as far as many men are concerned anyway. we saw the girls practice these skills at school (or I did in the olden days), things may have reversed these days (anecdotal tales of BJs behind the bike shed)*. by the time men get to uni, they’ve usually woken up to issue. We don’t like drama – that’s why we don’t watch soaps and read emo-porn…why is it so hard for you ladies to work this out? lmao
even most of the guys here saying that a little mystique is attractive, well yes it is, ‘a little mystique’. They still have a very low threshold for what is acceptable, at least they do as soon as they catch on to the fact that games are being played (we can be slow here, I’m the first to admit that, but once we do…).
I love femininity, but I love honesty too, in fact if ‘you’ want commitment from ‘me’ then I require honesty above femininity. Communication between the sexes is already fraught with difficulty, but ‘you’ want to add games back in like some princess emo-porn fantasy? not the best advice that I’ve seen here TBH.
So Sai, you can take it easy on that one
“Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.”
errr, we need to define terms (so huge tatts and facial piercing vs unconventional dress or hat), but…no, no it doesn’t. Men aren’t herd oriented to the same extent as women. We’ve already said above that many of ‘us’ would choose the equally attractive to us girl#2 over the much chased girl#1, despite what other people thought.
Weird is bad, but just standing out from the flock isn’t. And if you don’t stand out from the flock, how are you going to get noticed?
Despite what the emo-porn tells you ladies, most men don’t enjoy the chase / getting jerked around (it’s a fine line between those). Ones that do are probably spinning multiple plates – they’re spreading the risk of being played by reduced investment in any woman, but multiple women at the same time. They’re more likely on the PUA end of the spectrum, does that decrease the romance of the chase for the ladies? lmao
@Susan
luxury pricing can work when the alternative is a pinto, when the market has plenty of reasonably priced Lexii available, not so much.
*UK TV ‘news’ ( http://www.channel4.com/news/generation-sex-is-sexting-the-norm ) stumbled on to sexting between school kids last night. Their lead story! It’s not even news to anyone with an IQ over room temperature (in celcius ~22). Just how lame can the lamestream media get?
@Marellus
she dead? I’m not surprised given what she wrote. (I couldn’t check the link at the time)
@Han
yeah, I did like that video
I’m a cat lover, but given a more settled life I would consider a dog. it would have to be a smart breed though and well trained. toy, yappy dogs need not apply, alsations or other shepherd type dogs, yeah.
@Damien
It’s not rubbish. Many men and women have told me someone is hot or not and it doesn’t change my opinion. What each man finds hot or beautiful will vary somewhat but there is fairly high correlation. Of course there will be some outlier guys like INTJ that thinks Catelyn Stark is hot and that other women aren’t.
@INTJ
I think his excuse of being in love is better than Joffrey’s excuse that her father was loyal to the true laws of the land–namely Stannis should be the next king as Robert’s brother.
@Susan
“I don’t understand. If men are wired with a competitive instinct, why would that not apply to mating? Why would every guy not want to get the highest SMV woman?”
They / We do want the best woman that we can get.
But chasing / competition is expensive (time, money and emotions). We only get to pursue so many women.
Now, in the olden days, the men of the village were competing for the women in the village. Their status hierarchy was probably pretty much established by the time that they reach manhood, and it was clearly available for the women to see. The next village required half a day walking, so what you see is what you get basically. Maybe a few men competed over a few women. Expenses were acceptable. Men had to play this game to get a woman. Cue the Brontes etc old style emo-porn. The market was limited for both men and women.
Nowadays? well men are asked to compete with every other man on her facebook, twitter etc and celebs on TV, lifestyles of the rich and famous…this isn’t promising for the man. Beyond the financial ramping up of the costs of car, apartment and ‘fine’ dining, it’s the size of the competition in her subconcious mind. This isn’t old style competition with a few guys for a woman very well aware of what her options actually are. This issue over the size of the perceived marketplace often leads to what is often termed ‘choice addiction’ – why should she actually settle for an even slightly less than perfect guy, when she could meet mr perfect tomorrow? and all those guys on facebook etc keep telling her how fabulous she is (not that she wants those losers, but the attention! *swoons*). Choice addiction wasn’t a huge issue in the Bronte era, but it damn well is now. The 300 point list of must haves on a woman’s list is a sure sign that she thinks that she can insist on her perfect prince.
This is a common complaint (by men) about dating sites; there are women getting so much attention from drive by emails from plate spinners, and the women mistake this for real attention from guys truly interested in her (not guys just spamming the list playing the numbers game). her self-image balloons, she’s happy for a few years until she finally works out that none of this attention is about her actually getting the marriage proposal. She can’t filter out the genuine guys, even if she wanted to, in the meantime…the attention! *swoon again*
So men might ‘enjoy’ the chase if it has reasonable odds and reasonable costs, but the price of chasing a princess-fantasist who sees him as just another guy in the huge pack chasing her, one to be played with? nope.
Men here are saying that they have adapted to the market place. That market place heavily favours low investment (skittles man), reasonably quick delivery of reward (sex on the third date) and playing the numbers game (spin those plates). Clearly not all men like that, but that’s what the men getting sex say works. Roissy may not be seen favourably around here, but I am damn sure that he knows what he’s talking about regarding getting sex. Sex being seen as a step towards a relationship nowadays (shakes head)…oh how far things have fallen
I see your advice to woman showing interest (not saying sex immediately) in a guy is the smart advice. It’s saying to him that he is not wasting his time, money and effort – that’s good thinking (as long as she isn’t playing games). Playing hard to get, coquettish…no, not so much. The price is too high and the odds too low in the modern world for many men to bother with your luxury priced models, and the ones that do are probably PUAs / plate spinners / pedestalising deltas – so bon appetit
@Susan
Do you have the actual study?
But some thoughts based on a couple of internet articles reporting on it.
http://www.livescience.com/6538-strangers-influence-dating-choices-study-reveals.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100607142221.htm
First of all that experiment did not ask the men how beautiful or hot they rated the women. The women were not rated as an 8 or 4 or whatever. Rather, it asked them a yes/no question as to whether they wanted to see or get romantically involved with the woman.
An uncertainty about the experimental setup is how detailed a view of the woman was available in each speed-dating video?
The less detailed the video of her (e.g. not a clear close up, no view of her figure, etc.) then the less information that the man watching the video has to put through his own mind and attraction triggers and the more he would have to rely on the man talking with her.
If he doesn’t have as good of a view as he’d like then he will subconsciouly infer from the attractiveness of the man and how enthusiastic he is to try and fill in some of the gaps on the information he is missing.
So, the experiment only tangentially answers the question of whether and how much male social proof adds to another male’s perception of her beauty. To really answer it you should ask them to rate her beauty with and without the social proof of the men and after giving him really good photos of her or meet her in person so he can really tell for himself.
I think that other men’s favorable opinion could bump his perception of his looks by maybe half a point.
The interesting thing mentioned in these articles is that a lack of interest on the part of the men speed dating the girl didn’t make the guys less interested in romancing them. Only when the hottest guys showed interest did the guys show more interest in romancing her.
For the women being studied, it showed that they are more influenced by social proof. The women were likewise positively influenced by the women showing interest in the man they were speed dating but they were actually less likely to want to meet/romance the guy when the women didn’t show interest–that result was different from the men’s case.
@Susan
Another part of this is that I think many men, especially unrestricted men, don’t want to miss out on a hot woman and so they give her looks the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.
Within the first 10 minutes of meeting a girl the most beautiful she looks is nearly always in the first second that I see her. My mind fills in the blanks I haven’t seen as if they were beautiful and then as I can look at her for a bit longer and start to process the information and see things that detract from that initial perception of beauty.
I think I’ve heard other men mention this though I have no idea how widespread it is. But it makes sense if men want to impregnate as many women as possible and are actively looking to include women, different from the female tendency to want to disqualify guys up front unless they somehow stand out.
What can I say, men are democratic and inclusive, at least up front!
So, relating that idea to the video, by seeing that the attractive men (or equally or more attractive than themselves) is showing interest in the woman then it could make him change his mind and think, hey, maybe there’s something I’m missing and I need to include her in my potential mating pool and meet her and give her a closer inspection.
I think that if a better experiment were performed where the men could fully see her up close and in person and rate her looks from 1-10 and then later see her interacting with interested attractive guys speed dating that they might raise her rating by 0.5 or so but no huge change like +3.
@Just1Z 324
Great post about attention and choice addiction with the huge numbers of people that can be interacted with.
@Susan
I would say I’m pretty impervious to social proof. Look at one of the most successful and famous athletes ever, Michael Jordan.
I don’t find his first wife highly attractive and my opinion of her beauty is not swayed at all by her then marriage to Jordan.
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/michael-jordan-juanita-jordan.jpg
http://cdn103.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/150/644/641/1991-november-ebony-issue-michael-and-juanita-jordan-ad9f.jpg
Another example is Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian. Don’t find Khloe hot at all.
@Susan
A final note about social proof and then off to bed. I mentioned thin runway models already. On the flipside, I don’t like porn boobs (the fake, volleyball looking ones) and in spite of seeing many of them and knowing that a lot of men must like them my opinion on them has not changes and they are actually a turn off for me and I avoid them for more natural looking ones.
@INTJ
“All you girls that liked the modesty pinterest page, you should post positive comments there. It’s up to you to counterbalance the jezebel trolling.”
If I can figure out how to post on this site I’ll defend Abbot’s right to point out things he likes.
@HanSolo
“So why can’t any women here just state that the roommate’s girlfriend should do some kind of nice gestures for him and recognize that he seems starved for some genuine affection? He’s not jealous of the positive attention he sees others getting because he’s a bastard, it’s because he’s a human being who wants to be treated nicely and isn’t getting much.”
She should give him food.
I used to have (somebody else’s) killer recipe for Mexican cheese cookies so easy a cavewoman could make them, but I left it with my dad and he misplaced it.
@Just1Z
“luxury pricing can work when the alternative is a pinto, when the market has plenty of reasonably priced Lexii available, not so much.”
No worries.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryCarIsAPinto
@ SW:
This confirms what a friend of mine has been arguing for years. Specifically in the case of some minority men who view landing any woman from the dominant culture as a “win” regardless of her objective level of attractiveness.. She will be regarded as a greater catch than women from their own background.
@ Just1Z
“I love femininity, but I love honesty too, in fact if ‘you’ want commitment from ‘me’ then I require honesty above femininity.”
And this is why I have a deep respect for you Jus..
No pussy footing around.. You lay your cards on the table.
I value honesty and integrity very much.
I have never played games.. Nor has my husband.
@Han re 324
thanks, feedback appreciated.
stuff like the concept of choice addiction is what I get from reading the manosphere (I know it originated outside the manosphere, but I found it there), it helps men understand what is going on in the world. men like understanding that stuff. that’s what gets men beyond the angry / annoyed stage of taking the red-pill, once they understand how things do work, they can accept the rules and adapt to them (or GTOW).
I know that the manosphere gets a bad rep around here, but there is far more to it than ‘AWALT’ / sluts / gold-diggers etc etc. I must admit that the good stuff tends to be intertwined with the bad, so those of a delicate disposition aren’t going to look very far into the ‘sphere. Susan works very hard to keep this place accessible to both men and women. Most of the ‘sphere just lays it out for da menz and the women can take it or leave it – man style debate.
Suzan
… I dunno Suzan, I got myself banned from a Christian forum yet again, for telling its female moderator, that I wanted to spoon-feed her some bean-soup fortified with whiskey and laxatives, so that I may record her noises in the toilet, as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head …
Then we met on another religious forum, where she took some pot shots at me yet again. And this time I wrote her this :
So you see Suzan, I can be a real scoundrel too …
@Sai
cool, thanks for confirming the Pinto thing. We never had them over here, so as usual it was a bit of a guess at a cultural reference. Lexii (Lexussessessesse) could probably be improved though.
Might one recommend ‘Top Secret’ to all those not having already partaken of this comedy gem of yesteryear?
Pinto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo
Omar Shariff(!) and the novelty guy (pre car crusher)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPB2g1y2VFk
Omar Shariff(!) after being in a car that went through a crusher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61AWnIZrT5g
@Kathy
no games? yeah, I get that from you.
loved the coat story too
men love that stuff, but you knew that already!
“Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”
really not, really, really, fifty times really not
you don’t believe it when feminist ‘academics’ spout out on how women should have sex like men, so why believe this quack?
the men here are telling you what they feel, honestly, up front. why would you rather believe dr numbnuts?
don’t confuse your seeing beta-orbiters following around their target with what the men that you probably prefer anyway want.
do you see men religiously reading society pages to see what women the celebs are picking? no, that’s because we don’t, and we don’t because we don’t care.
regarding ‘the chasing of women’
if you look at typical man-fiction (war / sci-fi / thriller whatever) where is the chasing after the woman? there isn’t any. we don’t want to see it any more than we want to do it (naWKalt).
the gorgeous woman just falls into his arms when he has done the important stuff (saves the world blah blah) – there is no chase. she recognises him for the worthy man that he is due to him being extra-ordinary – not for buying her choccies and giving her a foot rub.
possible signal being mis-read
we might look at pictures of celebrity women, but not to learn what to aim for…basically we’re probably speculating on the hand shandy potential of the woman dressed up to look her best.
@Marellus
“I wanted to spoon-feed her some bean-soup fortified with whiskey and laxatives, so that I may record her noises in the toilet, as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”
that old story!
jeez the number of times that I have had exactly the same thing happen to me…one day our dreams may come true brother – cheers
@Sai
your asian dad meme is really cool. my pity for any victims of this. but it is laugh out loud funny
@ Just1Z
“regarding ‘the chasing of women’
if you look at typical man-fiction (war / sci-fi / thriller whatever) where is the chasing after the woman? there isn’t any. we don’t want to see it any more than we want to do it (naWKalt).”
Ha! Come to think of it, you are dead right Just1Z.
Never ever thought of it before.
Which brings me to another point.. I too am an avid Sc-fi reader, like you.
I was reading sci-fi novels from the time I was twelve. (My dad was a sci-fi fan as well) Thank goodness. I missed out on all that Harlequin- Mills and Boon romance junk.
Ray Bradbury and Brian Aldiss were favourites.
Did you ever read Hothouse? Great stuff.
@Just1Z
Susan 194:
“If men are wired with a competitive instinct, why would that not apply to mating? Why would every guy not want to get the highest SMV woman? In his chapter What Men Want in The Evolution of Desire, David Buss attempts to explain why men marry:”
Well, Buss is wrong. Maybe he should have polled the male readership of this site before publishing his conclusions.
Sure, men compete for things like jobs and status. That’s indirect competition. But when we are talking about “competition” for the best female mating partners, I consider this to be DIRECT competition where two or more men are literally jousting for a woman. This is Ug going over to Og’s cave and trying to take Og’s woman. I realize this is a panty-wetter and a dream for women and that’s the appeal of it. That being said, there are a couple of problems with it from the male side:
1. Most women, even the most desirable ones, are not worth direct competition. It’s simply too difficult and the potential reward just isn’t worth the risk.
2. Whenever there is direct competition for a woman involving two or more men literally facing off toward each other, the threat of physical violence is involved. A woman is not worth this unless she is married to me. This is doubly true in the SMP we’re in now.
3. Part of the “bro code” is that if your male frien is interested in a woman and he saw her first or has her, you don’t pursue her. Period. Full stop. Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her. Reasons 1 and 2 are precisely why these portions of the bro code exist — because the woman isn’t worth it; and because the possibility of physical harm and busting up a friendship isn’t worth it.
”“Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”’
Say what? How would a guy telling me that natural double D’s on a 6 feet tall woman is not attractive make her look unattractive? Because he’s ”social dominant”?
Since when do men care about what other guys think? Each one of the guys I interact with has his own set of what makes a woman attractive. I enjoy the sight of Asian women and Middle-Eastern women. Most of the guys aren’t into what I am into, and some of those guys are pretty ”socially dominant.” Am I defected?
A couple of hours ago I was spending time with a 5’6” Jewish girl. She’s pretty darn average when compared with all of the other girls, but I think she’s attractive enough to warrant my attentions. Of course she thinks she’s unworthy of my presence because I displayed too much prestige/asshole game, but that’s beyond the point.
”Part of the “bro code” is that if your male frien is interested in a woman and he saw her first or has her, you don’t pursue her. Period. Full stop. Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her. Reasons 1 and 2 are precisely why these portions of the bro code exist — because the woman isn’t worth it; and because the possibility of physical harm and busting up a friendship isn’t worth it.”
True. A friend of mine thinks this sluttish little thing is hot. I look at her and I see a dandy time, no effort necessary to bang her. But I won’t do it because he’s crushing on her, and there are so many women in the world, it doesn’t matter that one or another, or a hundred can’t be reached. The funny part is that he’s slightly autistic and he even knows you don’t mess with a girl your bro is interested in, even if the guy has feelings for her and all you want to do is smash her(bang her).
“Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her.”
You don’t go after your bro’s GF even if she is coming on to you. In fact, the code demands that you report the GF’s actions to your bro. In this case, and in this case only, you risk inciting your bro’s anger. Your bro deserves to know.
@Jimmy
I think this is right. I have no idea how social dominance was distributed among males in the 1920s – as I pointed out in the post there is clearly no attention to apex fallacy. Either DLM only knew alphas, or, more likely, there was less bifurcation and a more level playing field.
I also think, as I wrote, that this approach will be effective on guys with strong self-confidence. Not cocky guys, and not douches, but guys who, at the very least, are not anxious around women.
Most of this is better handled in a subtle way. It’s not the Rules – where you pretend you’re busy even though you’re dying to see him – it’s about not being too eager, keeping a cool head, having some outcome independence, etc.
@Kathy
me heap big sci-fi fan too.
Niven and Pournelle – Ringworld / Mote in God’s Eye / Man Kzin wars / Tales of Known Space
They were great stories. I would love to see some movies made of them. In fact the technology to make Ringworld as a series would not be expensive, and what a world to make stories of! These are big-concept stories, so far above the banal dreck of what makes it to TV. Continuum was the only recent TV series with an interesting concept – just who is the terrorist, who are the bad guys? I didn’t love it, but at least it had an underlying concept that was interesting.
I like Dune, but never got swept away as a fan.
For a while the SF went to high math concepts but little story, but for the last decade the story is back. Iain M Banks / Peter Hamilton / Neal Asher / Paul McAuley / Richard Morgan. I knid of got burnt out reading in France (no TV), but I’m getting back to it now.
I re-re-re-read “Who goes here” by Bob Shaw recently – the story of space trooper ‘Warren Peace’. If you aren’t laughing after the first two pages, you’ve had a serious sense-of-humour-ectomy. It’s kind of Harry Harrison in its comedy (another great writer of scifi).
“as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”
Hmm, I suppose racism makes you feel like a big man…
@Anacaona
Haha, Yul Brynner had some tight Game! Here’s a pic of Langley Moore when she was in her 40s:
She looks like a cross between Wallace Simpson and Charlotte Gainsbourg – two women who are not beautiful, but have/had a lot of power over men.
But this is true for women as well. It’s not as if some random low quality guy is identified as “hot” by a woman with social dominance and then everyone is crazy about him. I think the dynamic of popularity among adolescents is instructive.
The boys all gravitate to the hottest girls, which resets the girl social hierarchy completely, promoting the girls popular with boys and demoting the Queen Bees who the boys don’t find attractive. This happens around 7th grade.
The girls all gravitate to the boys who are at the top of the male pecking order. This is usually determined via athletics.
So in a real way, men determine the popularity of both sexes.
@Han Solo
I think most women have the same experiences. Do you recall when Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett?
Among the women in my focus groups, there is a lot of divergence around which males are physically attractive. One thing girls frequently say in support of their friends is, “I don’t find him at all attractive, but she does, so good for her! That’s all that counts.” etc.
I think it’s fair to say that most women find aspects of social dominance attractive, notably status and prestige. A lot of guys who are observably physically unattractive do very well because of status alone, as we have explored. A movie star marrying an ugly rich guy will not effect other women’s judgment of him in the least.
@Marellus
I really think you were born in the wrong century. You would have made an excellent pal for Byron.
@deti
This is a hilarious and ironic statement, as it is his work that is the entire foundation of Game. Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).
I don’t understand. Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?
Susan – “I don’t understand. Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?”
Because in a ‘polite society’ men compete for jobs and status indirectly. We DO NOT condone violence so guys don’t start throwing punches over a job. However, when it comes to women, men WILL throw punches or worse. And as a society, we expect this behavior even if we claim it is improper.
Guys won’t risk getting arrested or killed over a job. (most of the time.) But over a woman? I’ve seen guys hauled away by police because he got in a scrap with the interloper, and I’ve seen a few interlopers get their asses beaten badly for their attempt. Most men don’t want things to get physical, because when they do, someone will get hurt/killed/arrested.
@Susan
“Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?”
Because if we’ve already gone and beaten all of our components in terms of prestige/status and social dominance and she still expects us to compete with a gaggle of orbiters for attention she’s probably nuts or values you so little that the chance of a relationship is nil.
Or the provision/prestige is actually valueless.
An analogous question would be to ask why women don’t compete directly like men do in jobs/academics?
Despite this, you would be surprised just how often I have been in situations where men have competed for me. The example I gave was just 1. There are a few other examples I could give.
I think this is an example of women seeing some men behave in certain ways, in the SMP, and some men are reluctant to admit that such behavior exists among their sex.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.
Some men do compete over women. I’ve been involved with 2-3 situations where the men who competed for me were friends. They broke the supposed “bro code” and competed for me anyway. I’m not saying that all men act this way, but I’ve seen enough men compete for women to know that it does happen.
@Susan
“This is a hilarious and ironic statement, as it is his work that is the entire foundation of Game. Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).”
so, this is looks like credentialism.
Any belief in Game is righteous because Buss described its basis? To doubt Buss is to doubt Game? WTF?
No, I feel utterly free to doubt or discard what isn’t true in my experience. Now, given that he has said a great deal which is correct, I will apply a heavier weighting to what I hear from him. But no way does he get any kind of pass on things on which I have experience.
Einstein is considered pretty smart, but he hated Quantum Mechanics. That didn’t make any difference to the correctness of QM. (note to geeks, I’m not saying QM is correct or not, just that its correctness isn’t and wasn’t dependant on who believed it).
Science is not a popularity contest, it isn’t a democracy and past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness.
Now social ‘science’ operates in the muddiest of waters, where poor data is likely the best you’ll get, political agendas abound and an inability to operate under logic and mathematical correctness is seen as no bar whatsoever to having a fabulous career.
Having said that, I will reiterate that Buss appears to be among the best in the field, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right.
@Susan
“Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition?”
fisticuffs
The Brits had a million guys killed in WW I, and probably the same number crippled into economic or social uselessness.
Given the resulting ratio–worse than college today–women would have to do some work.
But playing hard to get? Hell, the guys had all the choice in the world.
After the War of The Triple Alliance, one of the combatants–I think it was Paraguay–had lost something like 90% of its men from age 15-55. Or perhaps even higher on the old guy end. Imagine that social scene.
Sassy – “I think this is an example of women seeing some men behave in certain ways, in the SMP, and some men are reluctant to admit that such behavior exists among their sex.”
I said there ARE men that will compete for a woman. For me the larger point is: exactly WHAT type of men are those, and do women really want them for LTR/Husband roles?
Guys that will literally fight for a woman, and certainly guys that make it a habit, tend to be the VERY aggressive VERY ‘alpha’ type men. Now, I would fight for my wife IF she was threatened by a man, but to keep her affections? Hell no! You want him that badly, go get him. I don’t feel the need to qualify myself to her or him by “fighting” over her. I don’t play the “lets see you and him fight” game. Either you pick me, or you move on.
That being said, I’m not a very competitive person anyway, and certainly pretty low on that drive in comparison to most men. I am generally confident in things I’m good at, and know I suck at things I’m not. I don’t see the point in trying to “prove” it in either case. I much prefer an objective assessment of my abilities based on what I’ve accomplished myself.
@Sassy
‘some’? yeah, I’m okay with ‘some’.
I happen to think that they’re dumb
N.B I am not making a comment about you or your behaviour in your scenarios.
Any man that falls for the old ‘let’s you and him fight’ for the amusement / sexual excitement of a woman needs to learn a lesson pronto. Women encouraging this are the absolute lowest of the low as far as I am concerned. Men’s lives get changed so that she gets a little emo-porn drama…quality nice /sarc
Let me expand on my last comment.
Most forms of conflict in nature are indirect.
You stare the guy down, physical violence is a last resort. Intimidation is the preferred form of dominance. (Ex. Dog growling down another dog in the pack.)
Or in the job market which is relatively indirect and mating market which is determined by looks/prestige/provisioning capacity. Being the guy who killed all the other guys and is now the de facto alpha male is rare.
Thats true across most animal species (especially social group ones).
When a woman is trying to select from multiple males and pit them into direct competition with one another the end result will be physical violence which is only really effective is your likely to win which applies to a small group of individuals. Most animals prefer flight over fight because the ancestors who fought died (or were the rare ones who won EVERY time without ever suffering a mortal wound in their entire ancestry before reproducing, which is extremely unlikely.)
Indirect competition —-> I’m better looking, more charming, higher status and able to socially dominate (indirectly) is the preferred form of mate attainment merely from a C-B standpoint.
If a woman wants to guys to fight over her non-physically there is a chance it can escalate to physical violence which most would lose.
wrt, Sassy @ 357
How many men would you say compete directly vs. indirectly vs. give up?
@TedD
“but to keep her affections? Hell no!”
“Either you pick me, or you move on”
aced it, congrats
any woman trying the white feather thing on me would be unwise. it was a favourite ploy of the early feminists, I believe.
Did I miss anything?
No matter what century it is, hypergamy is hypergamy, and plate theory is plate theory:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/plate-theory-v-ladys-game
@SW,
Apologies. I fell asleep on you last night. But in my quick reading over the rest of the posts this morning it seems you stumbled onto some truth.
One thing I’m surprised about, though, is that no one mentioned an analogy to rutting bull moose.
[Okay. Stop saying "Huh?". That's not out of left field.]
Everyone’s seen the Nat. Geo. clips of moose in mating season. The alpha bull is always challenged for supremacy by the up and comers. When he wins, they become betas (or die). When he loses, they become the new alpha.
Those beta orbiters you were talking about were still showing alpha tendencies because that’s what they have to do (and btw, I chose my words a little carefully last night – I didn’t say that they were alpha, just that they were trying to act alpha). The specific girl actually has very little to do with it. It’s one of the reasons that the competition itself is no fun, which was the real thrust of my statement.
No. It’s “Girl who is (period, end of clause) => competition.”
We’re thankful we’re not moose, or it would be more obvious and less subtle.
Now I have to ask. You seem to be interesting in the dynamics of this competition, and how it comes about. At least, that’s how I interpret many of your comments since last night. You’re not interested in generating this dynamic yourself, are you? Please tell me you’re not.
@SayWhaat
Oh all right, I’m sorry … I’ll send that sect a Barbie-doll with a dustpan on her head …
No Joe, I am not interested in generating a competition for male suitors.
What I *am* interested in is how women can figure out strategies for relationships. For me, learning about the “odds of winning” fit another piece into the puzzle. It’s akin to guys realizing that when a girl says she wants a nice guy, what she means is she wants a nice guy that she finds attractive. She assumes the attraction is a given, but that is not clear to the guys.
Likewise, a girl who already has physical attraction and emotional escalation down, may still lose out to another girl who is similar in all aspects, save for popularity.
In other environments, the “odds” of success may be assumed to already be less than say, 70% (high enough to motivate courtship, but not so high as to dissuade entirely). However, in environments where the population is heavily skewed female (like say, a college campus), the odds of successfully “winning” a woman go way up (more male choice).
Therefore, it appears that it would be a good strategy for women in such environments to subtly drop clues about their “options” in order to increase a male’s interest. Because if she can afford to have options in an environment that clearly works against her, she must have some sort of status with males. And having that makes her worth further pursuit.
Marellus, nice try, but that’s still racist.
“Those beta orbiters you were talking about were still showing alpha tendencies because that’s what they have to do (and btw, I chose my words a little carefully last night – I didn’t say that they were alpha, just that they were trying to act alpha). ”
I don’t think that was the case. One of these orbiters was a foreign student who gifted her a large stuffed animal for no real reason. He was very nebbish, I think that it was more a case of him being so besotted that he overstepped his bounds.
@Sassy
“Some men do compete over women.”
I’ve already stated that I agree. Some men will compete over women, and the reasons are varied- for some it’s not about the woman at all, it’s about winning. SayWhaat says she’s seen it too among “betas”. They’ll probably take a swing at a taken girl for lack of options. Not sure why that would be a revelation lol. Most men, and especially those with options, won’t, and the guys are telling you why: most don’t need a fight ruining their night, or worse, a friendship. Now, there are definitely cases where you’ve started talking to a girl and someone else steps up. You need to stand your ground. That is where competition most often happens, and often it’s really short lived and usually ends with one guy shutting the other down with something witty, or in the case of a guy who knows what he’s doing, pulling away a bit and disqualifying himself.
So, Sassy, I ask you, what is your tale on the situations where you have seen guys compete over you. What type of men were they? Were they your type? And as a general observation did you end up favoring the victor? Or did you even find yourself interested in any of them at all?
@Susan- I think you may have missed my comment to Cooper where I suggested you start to advocate that girls start playing the game from the inside out. If you look at the philosophy behind pickup and the community around it, the way they started off was with principles like those in the post (the book The Game was all about this approach). Now if you google some of the biggest sites, many of the most recognized ones are preaching building a life and an understanding of one’s ego that leads you to naturally embody a lot of the principles. I have a friend who got into pickup several years back (which is how I found out about it)- he got into the “tactical” side of things, and at about the same time I got into improving myself and my mindset. He and I are of the same mind today- it’s better to actually BE better, and to be effortless beyond just having an ego (because ego is more externally influenced). When I see lists like this, I see the same progression. In advocating these things You are starting where many have already been, and chances are you will end up coming to the same conclusion. This is just my general take on where your strategy could be more geared toward helping women become more self-aware and truly in control beyond a few tricks. Suggested reading might be helpful.
@ SayWhaat
Where is Plain Jane when you need her?
Re; Game of Thrones
Late to the party, buut nevertheless.
I was astounded at the last scene of the first season.
How else could you show the naked breasts of a young woman and make them the second most interesting thing in the shot without adding dragons?
” SayWhaat says she’s seen it too among “betas”. They’ll probably take a swing at a taken girl for lack of options. Not sure why that would be a revelation lol”
Not sure why understanding why girls like nice guys who are also attractive had to be such a revelation either, lol.
@Iggles
“Specifically in the case of some minority men who view landing any woman from the dominant culture as a “win” regardless of her objective level of attractiveness.. She will be regarded as a greater catch than women from their own background.”
http://youtu.be/493pL_Vbtnc
(I’M SORRY)
@Just1Z
“the gorgeous woman just falls into his arms when he has done the important stuff (saves the world blah blah) – there is no chase.”
I guess that’s (one reason) why I like Leia, Valeria and Elizabeth. On the other hand, I thought Holly was very ungrateful for leaving John after he saved her TWICE.
@Richard Aubrey
I learned something today.
Between WWII, Uncle Joe, Afghanistan and the alcoholism-inducing economy, the ratio in Russia is similar to what you described… but still not as bad as Paraguay.
@ BroHamlet
I would classify most of the men who competed for me as Alpha. A few of them were Beta though. Most of them were my type, but not all.
I found myself interested in the men who were the victors most often.
I do need to clarify that I never egged on any of the competitions I have witnessed. The men decided to compete against each other by themselves. I never pulled the “let’s you and him fight” routine. I usually just sat back in astonishment, praying that they wouldn’t try to physically harm each other. I’ve never witnessed such competitions come to blows before, but I have witnessed more than a few arguments/verbal battles.
@ Lokland
Do you mean specifically over me, or men overall?
I can’t speak for all men, but I can give a breakdown for the men I have encountered.
I’d say that 50% of the men give up, 25% of the men compete directly, and 25% of the men compete indirectly.
That has been my experience.
Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.
@SayWhaat
… weeeelll, I suppose I can send that sect a voodoo doll of Rush Limbaugh … but you’ve gotta ask me nicely … I mean, they’re gonna need hair and nail clippings to make the bloody thing … and that means I’ve surreptitiously gotta stand beneath his window holding up a bucket, while Hillary Clinton is making a speech on my car’s stereo …
Exactly, this is what I meant. Men do compete indirectly for women all the time. This may be observed in all social settings.
And that is why alphas make terrible mates.
@SayWhaat
To go back to your initial comment, I’ve seen the phenomenon you describe (taken girl, orbiting interested suitors) multiple times. I have a friend in particular who has essentially not been single since age 14 due to this “method”. The reasons for it existing have been pretty much covered in all of the following commentary, but just saying, you’re not alone in witnessing this. Out of curiosity, are you still in college or are you a recent graduate?
There’s a lot of powerful advice in the original list: “Be dependent materially and independent spiritually”, ” Always give a little less of yourself than is wanted, a little less than satisfies”, “A woman has not made a conquest until she finds herself pursued”…. If you are really set on making a man obsess about you, I have to admit, much of this has (& would) work on me. And yes, the similarities between those advices & Game is striking.
The one part I thought was a glaring piece of female projection, as the other male commenters have pointed out, is:
4. A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.
As Just1Z said, “really not, really, really, fifty times really not”. The only word-of-mouth that markedly lowers female status for men is implications of many sexual partners, & so the “slut” label. There’s very little else that anyone could say to make a man change his initial desire for a woman he found attractive.
@Bro Hamlet
Well I aim to do that as well. HUS is by no means predicated on tricks. I didn’t miss your comment before, I replied that I think a lot of women have the Inner Game piece down, and what they lack is the understanding of feminine demeanor and its appeal to men. The “finishing school” aspect, if you will. Those finishing touches cannot take the place of internal value and integrity, but they may still be necessary to make a woman appealing to men.
Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is in a relationship => “Shall we joust?”
I do believe that’s called “pre-selection.” Oddly, I think the amount of attention that I get as a middle-aged married woman is way out of proportion to what I got when I was young and available. On some level, I think men think that if you have what it takes to make on man happy, you could make them happy too.
If I stopped threading my eyebrows, I doubt I would receive as much male attraction than if I didn’t.
Actually guys don’t care if you thread your brows, they just like anything that gives the illusion of big wide eyes. You might want to try plucking your hairline instead.
I woul posit that on a micro level, women follow beauty trends as part of intrasexual competition, but on a macro level they follow beauty trends in order to be more attractive to the larger male population, or at least the particular demographic that they are targeting.
Yeah.
My husband did the orbiting girls in relationship thing, too. I think there’s an aspect of “relationship preselection” going on, as in “this girl must be girlfriend material if she’s taken.” Also proximity would be a factor, since they often belonged to the same social circle.
I’ve never had guys compete directly for me, but when I’ve been in LTRs I’ve also had guys express interest in me. I agree with J that it’s probably the perception that the girl has more “relationship skills.” In my opinion, the danger is, if she can be mate poached once, she can be mate poached again.
Re: the games outlined in this post, I think after a certain age and emotional maturity, these games should no longer be necessary. My husband and I didn’t play them and don’t play them, and our passion levels are still quite high.
Marellus,
An idol, or Murti, has a very rich and deep meaning. In Hindu culture, we find divinity in all things. The Murti allows for the expression of the divine in a tangible form. The human form of the Murtis is designed to awaken the worshipper’s experience of their own body as an embodiment of spiritual truth. That is why murtis are crafted to represent gods in states of meditation — to represent human form in union with divinity, which cannot be captured or truly expressed in any material form.
It has a very deep and beautiful meaning. It saddens me to see it reduced to Barbies and voodoo dolls. What a shame.
Ted D:
“I said there ARE men that will compete for a woman. For me the larger point is: exactly WHAT type of men are those, and do women really want them for LTR/Husband roles?”
They are not bros. Any friend who did this to me or tried to do it would be my friend no longer. They might be bull alphas with brass ones the size of grapefruits, but they can’t be trusted. You violate the code, you’re out.
“Guys that will literally fight for a woman, and certainly guys that make it a habit, tend to be the VERY aggressive VERY ‘alpha’ type men. Now, I would fight for my wife IF she was threatened by a man, but to keep her affections? Hell no! You want him that badly, go get him. I don’t feel the need to qualify myself to her or him by “fighting” over her. I don’t play the “lets see you and him fight” game. Either you pick me, or you move on.”
Yep. If a wife is telling me she expects me to beat down some other man she tingles for so she can tell me who tingles her more, we’re done. She’s off her rocker, and I’m not sticking around for it.
Pixie, I graduated college a year ago.
Suzan
Saints and Ministers of Grace … I have been negged by a woman !
@SayWhaat
… you must be one of the few women, whom I’d treat to a candle-lit dinner, out of sheer exasperation …
Right. In this case, large eyes is a hard-wired attraction cue. But despite having large eyes, I doubt I would receive as much attention with a unibrow!
Not sure I follow…
@Susan, Susan
“I’d say that 50% of the men give up, 25% of the men compete directly, and 25% of the men compete indirectly.”
“Exactly, this is what I meant. Men do compete indirectly for women all the time. This may be observed in all social settings.”
Yes. Direct competition is when you have two aggressive males or when to males have an equal-ish value and reason to believe they can win the competition will then escalate from indirect to direct (intimidation).
Indirect is what I thought would be more common.
The guys who give up are the ones who know their outmatched.
I know I’ve done all three ranging from giving up and walking away to actual physical escalation (though in that case the woman was already mine, some guys just don’t get the meaning of fuck off).
@Susan
I am curious why your recommending techniques for an affair as relationship worthy.
I’m sure a woman could get her husband to indirectly compete continuously and make him hyper-active in terms of sexuality but jealousy will kill the relationship anyway.
I also mentioned earlier that competition is best when the winner is already aware that their highly favoured. (Think two knights jousting and one gets the ladies ribbon thing.)
To think that guys will enjoy having to joust for their wife everyday (even with the ribbon) is a nice female fantasy, cause she is so valuable, but also highly unrealistic (ex. HBs have it worse).
@Saywhaat
honest question.
Why are you so obsessed with increased perceived value in a relationship?
The only real benefit it adds is the potentially to trade up/find another boyfriend more easily.
Personally, I see no reason to even consider ones perceived value to others after entering a relationship unless your not really serious about that relationship.
I’ll vouch for this as an effective technique for guys, one of my buddies considered trading up woman for slightly hotter models the most effective method of getting beautiful woman. Its advice he gave me back when we were in high school. It worked well for him.
@Susan
Now I see your comments after having a chance to re-scan the thread. Here’s my thoughts.
“I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males.”
Disagree totally. If a woman is attractive, she’s got 90% of the game played as far as sexual interest goes. What so many women are not doing, is inspiring feelings of trust and commitment, and the feeling that “this is someone I can live with long term”. And what is your definition of high value? I’ll get to why this is important in a sec.
“The fact is, men respond to female traits, including coyness. They enjoy feminine wiles, which are a key component of femininity.”
Yes. A dash of coyness. I think we agree.
“I replied that I think a lot of women have the Inner Game piece down, and what they lack is the understanding of feminine demeanor and its appeal to men.”
I agree with the second part- a lot of women don’t get what gets and keeps a man, but I completely disagree with the first part. In fact, I really can’t even see how you can say with a straight face that women have strong inner game in a culture where we have campaigns to bolster female self esteem and make sure “every woman feels beautiful”. That doesn’t speak to any ability to detach from the status quo.
Most women are building a foundation on sand when it comes to inner game. I need not even go into how many women are insecure and seek validation through a number of means, mostly external, or how many women get out into the world and get hooked on that one guy who doesn’t pay enough attention, or want to get married because it’s the “right thing to do”, or follow the female social herd because they are afraid of being ostracized from it (just a few examples of a long, long list of tells to lack of centeredness). Why is their foundation unsteady? It’s really simple- so many women have internalized what society and their parents, friends, and male attentions have granted them for free since birth. But that’s all EXTERNAL. They have not sat down and detached themselves from the matrix of societal approval and asked themselves where they really stand (even though their stance may result in a complete revocation of approval) and truly believed from the inside out that “I am enough”, nor have many EARNED their confidence. Confidence that is unearned is just pumped up ego. And ego has it’s roots in meeting external approval. It is plainly obvious to me that most women have not even earned their OWN approval, which is really the only approval that matters, let alone managed to understand the ways in which their own approval has been shaped by the messages they have been fed. The fact that most girls will fold like a house of cards and become “beta” in the presence of a guy that is of higher station is a really obvious symptom. This is not the first time I have said exactly the above, and you have agreed with me before.
Maybe I should ask you what you see as high value, because to me, high value doesn’t really correspond to just attractiveness or credentials. I have seen people with a healthy disregard for the “hierarchy” be the highest value person in the room.
@Lokland
I’m not, I specifically said they are techniques to arouse male interest, which may or may not lead to a relationship. Again, I’ll draw the similarity between this post and hookup culture. The attraction mechanism is the same for STR or LTR. Langley Moore’s advice makes you more likely to truly capture the male imagination, IMO. From there you can proceed to an LTR if that’s what you want.
Obviously, this is all from the female POV.
Lok 363:
You nailed it.
“Indirect competition —-> I’m better looking, more charming, higher status and able to socially dominate (indirectly) is the preferred form of mate attainment merely from a C-B standpoint.”
Yes. And in our culture, direct competition is too risky, physically, legally, socially, professionally, and otherwise.
Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.
Most of the time it takes place in public, with a lot of spectators. There will be a winner and a loser. Somebody’s probably going to the hospital, and whoever doesn’t go to the hospital will be arrested, maybe prosecuted, and then sued. The loser will also go home with a bruised ego. The winner might get a woman, but also a rap sheet and the enmity and contempt of most other men. And for both men, their families, friends and employers will get wind of the incident — and why it happened. Most employers don’t want to employ men who get into brawls over women, or worse, have police rap sheets because of brawls over women.
Like I said — is the woman worth that? Nope.
@Susan
“Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.”
It’s genuinely very interesting that you say that, because there’s no scientific basis for that statement. ‘Ergo’ is a particularly ironic word to use as well, as there is no logic involved in that statement.
If we’re pretending to be scientific, we need to stop believing something is true just because a guy / gal described it in a paper. As I said there’s plenty of claptrap talked in feminist ‘literature’ and there were lots of papers written long, oh so long ago about the inherent inferiority of females to males – that kind of thing is quite controversial stuff nowadays, believe me…they were wrong.
Evolutionary Psychology was just as true before Buss described it, as it was after. He gave it the name, he didn’t invent it or its veracity.
Game (as in what PUAs practice) is either true or not. This is independant of EP for exactly the same reasons. EP may give a theoretical basis for why game works. But even if EP was debunked tomorrow, Game would carry on – because it works (YMMV on the working bit).
PUAs verified game by intense, focussed, in-depth research…*ahem*
When guys say they discover ‘game’, what they usually mean is that someone finally put a name to a lot of behaviours that they’ve seen work with women. It was true before they put that name to it, it’s not true just because Strauss wrote a book about it.
Maybe this explains some of the gap in communication here between men and women, or more likely scientists vs social scientists. one set are looking for objective truth which can be proven, the other wading through very rough and ready data* trying to generalise a useful set of theories.
*not a criticism per se, more an observation that the ‘truths’ are buried in very complex systems and so are very hard to isolate. Physics experiments (e.g. Michaelson-Morley’s experiment) are designed ideally to give a clear cut proof of something (not existing in M-M’s case) wherever you carry it out, whoever carries it out, you get the same result (I did iirc). MUCH harder to do something so unequivocal with human society.
This is a common complaint (by men) about dating sites; there are women getting so much attention from drive by emails from plate spinners, and the women mistake this for real attention from guys truly interested in her (not guys just spamming the list playing the numbers game). her self-image balloons, she’s happy for a few years until she finally works out that none of this attention is about her actually getting the marriage proposal. She can’t filter out the genuine guys, even if she wanted to, in the meantime…the attention! *swoon again*
You really think women are that stupid? No — the difference between drive-by dating site spammers and genuine guys is really very obvious.
@BroHamlet
While I agree with your POV on the lack of self-awareness, I can say that as a foreigner living in the US, most Americans, men and women, seem to me to lack in that department. Perhaps the added sexual projections on women make them more visibly affected in a society that is always asking for more and puts people in boxes.
But I also would like to point out that women are different of men in the fact they value relationships more; this is not a “birth defect”, it is what makes them great agents in society, that makes them care for their husbands and children. I would contend that if we seek approval, we mostly seek peace, as in the absence of conflict. It isn’t so much that we are eager to do what other wants so much as we don’t want to receive a hard time for our choices, and guess what, everybody has an opinion of what women should or shouldn’t do. Their choices are not as respected as men’s. Some give up fighting, some stay in the ring. In any case, you’ll always find someone to comment on SAHMs (“lazy”) or on career women (“ball busting feminist”).
@BroHamlet
Yes, the culture is damaging, but not all women have been damaged by it, IMO. A girl’s family is in a strong position to influence her values, oversee her development and counteract the culture.
I said that I think a lot of women have inner game in the sense that they are interested in real relationships, with the give and take that implies. The young women I know who are in relationships are extremely loyal and loving. I wouldn’t necessarily call them feminine, but their relationships are working. They are generous and do make a special effort to please and appreciate their boyfriends, though I would not describe any of them as subservient.
I don’t disagree with your description of a lot of women today – the worst women. I believe we probably differ on what percentages we would assign to that group.
I personally know a lot of really good young men and women. Earnest, genuine, humble, hard-working. If anything, what they lack is polish and the ability to do the superficial things that their “fake” peers are so good at.
Men’s sexual instincts haven’t changed, but the psychological climate has. I suspect that the men of 80 years ago held women in generally high regard, were confident in their masculinity, and expected to pursue women as their social role. In contrast, the men of today have a lot of negative sentiments towards women, are anxious or defensive in their masculinity, and are indifferent in pursuit.
Doris Langley Moore’s girl game seems predicated on the availability of men motivated to pursue an elusive, high value prize. Does that condition even exist in today’s SMP?
@LJ
“the difference between drive-by dating site spammers and genuine guys is really very obvious.”
it might be very obvious after she gets P&D, before? IDK
I mean if she was just after an ONS, fair enough, no deception occurred, but I’m sure that there are women genuinely upset when they get played. PUAs exist and they do game women with some success.
maybe we’re thinking of different levels of skills employed in the drive by…?
@ Susan
You’re making an association fallacy there.
@Sai
Thanks for suggesting she bring food. Have you searched for that recipe on the internet? Or have you written it down as best you can and then experimented? Well, there I go as a guy, offering solutions that you may not want!
It does suck you lost your recipe. There, how’s that for trying to listen? 
I have to agree with what BroHamlet says above, I see precious little evidence that North American women have inner game of any sort. What I do see is women posting new pictures of themselves on Facebook all the time to elicit the reflexive, “Oh you’re so pretty!!!” comments from their friends. Or they are wasting time watching escapist entertainment such as Game Of Thrones instead of working on themselves (::cough:: as everyone suddenly glares at me).
For example, in my yoga world I observe that its largely practiced as a form of therapy rather than its more intended purpose of opening oneself emotionally and releasing the creative juices. That message is unpalatable in our culture of shame. The result is you have the pretty yoga teacher, and her cluster of wanna-bes who desperately try to improve their physical bodies in the hope it will magically improve their mental state. The tantra girls, on the other hand, are plenty approachable.
As much as we bemoan the unwillingness of beta males to approach, beta females are just as reluctant if not more to be approachable. Being approachable implies some degree of emotional openness or vulnerability. What I see instead is largely facades and emotional defenses to prevent any man from getting to know her. I see teaching women the game of flirting as defined in the post just so that they become more approachable.
I’ve posted this lecture by Brene Brown before, and it’s probably time to post it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o
and similar talks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Qm9cGRub0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UoMXF73j0c
@deti
“Yes. And in our culture, direct competition is too risky, physically, legally, socially, professionally, and otherwise.
Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.”
This is crazy talk.
Unless you live in some 3rd world ghetto maybe.
Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.
@Mr. Wavevector
I agree with your take on it, and also with your question. It’s one of the reasons I suggested her methods will only work with confident men. As to whether high SMV men will pursue – the answer is yes, when they tire of staffing the carousel, or if they are not inclined to unrestricted sex. At that time they will pursue women of high SMV. In fact, they will not be satisfied with any woman they do not have to pursue – in this way, they will get the woman that inspired them to effort and tenacity after all those years of easy pickings.
It’s probably fair to say that DLM’s book is a guide for people of high SMV.
I know, I was actually making a joke. Not a very good one, I admit.
My point is that I find it amusing when men go around making broad claims about female nature, pretty much Buss’ book Chapters 1-3, without even knowing it, and then when someone cites Buss Chapter 4, they say Buss is full of shit.
Cherry picking fallacy.
One of the summer associates at the firm I used to work at had 4 kids by the time he was finished with law school.
I think he was 24, 25?
This was 6 years ago.
Well educated turbo-Catholic
I think some of this “wait for kids” stuff is Blue Area only.
I’ve pretty much always lived in Redopolis, and people seem to have tons of kids pretty darn early.
Although 5 kids by mid-30s seems to be the upper limit.
Lots of 3/4 kids by mid-30s.
We only have two, which is on the low side with respect to family/friends.
We may have another, but I’m 38 and burnt out, generally.
@Susan
Lyle Lovett is uglier than Juanita Jordan.
I don’t know if you plan on responding but I showed some weaknesses and unknowns about the experiment you mentioned. Namely, that the women were not rated for their beauty, only a binary yes/no decision to want to romance/see them was asked. And second, that we don’t know if the men were able to glean as much information about the woman’s looks as he would have liked (maybe they did but I couldn’t tell based on the two articles I found) and that many men will act to include a woman until they have reason to disqualify her. I gave my example of seeing a woman and perceiving her as more beautiful–filling in that missing info about her looks as beautiful–until I can get a better look.
At very least it did show that the women were more moved by social proof than the men were.
Namely, the men were not negatively affected in their desire to romance/see the woman when the male in the video didn’t show interest whereas the women were when the women didn’t show interest. And on the positive side it was only when men of higher perceived attractiveness showed interest in the woman.
Lokland – “Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.”
This is crazy talk.
Unless you live in some 3rd world ghetto maybe.”
Doesn’t have to be the 3rd world. Just come to my town and hang out “below the tracks” and you’ll see this shit on a regular basis. Guys get shot around here for “hitting” on another guys woman at the bar. Last year there was a gun fight two miles from my house that happened in the early evening in shopping center because some guy “hit” on a woman in the liquor store, and her “man” started shouting. it escalated and someone pulled a gun.
“Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.”
Sorry but no. IMO this is all still indirect. Direct competition begins when someone takes off their coat. that being said, if I’m already established with a woman and she promotes a situation where I need to have a “battle of wits” with a guy to “win” her affection, I’ll just NEXT her and move on. Once she chooses me, I don’t expect to continually need to qualify myself to her. If she has a doubt, she can move on.
@Susan
And my point was that men’s opinions about a woman’s beauty won’t change a man’s perception of her beauty (very much, maybe 0.5 points at most and even that’s dubious in my own eyes, at best hearing their favorable opinion would prompt me to give her another look and decide for myself if I missed something earlier).
So far I haven’t heard any men on here say that other men’s opinion will sway his opinion of her beauty very much or at all. In a marginal way I could understand it swaying things a bit by pointing out real flaws or strong points that for some reason he wasn’t focused on before but that speaks to a lack of full awareness and information on his part.
In terms of wanting to date a girl I could see maybe if everyone starts saying how she’s a slut or horrible or something that a man would feel less inclined to date her but I don’t think it would change how pretty he “objectively” thought she was.
“Sorry but no. IMO this is all still indirect. Direct competition begins when someone takes off their coat. that being said, if I’m already established with a woman and she promotes a situation where I need to have a “battle of wits” with a guy to “win” her affection, I’ll just NEXT her and move on. Once she chooses me, I don’t expect to continually need to qualify myself to her. If she has a doubt, she can move on.”
yep. well said. direct competition means that claret* is evident or imminent.
*blood. a ref to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
Sorry but I’m currently watching ‘Cockneys vs Zombies’
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1362058/
it’s got Brick-top (“the ‘orrible c***” from Snatch), so far it’s the dog’s b******s
@HanSolo
Yes, I did see this. I am curious to learn more about the effects of social proof in general, and preselection in particular, for each sex. If I find anything interesting I will report back.
“And my point was that men’s opinions about a woman’s beauty won’t change a man’s perception of her beauty”"
That’s because lots of men listen to one opinion.
Their own.
I’ll translate a bit of the IMBD blurb
tea leaf -> thief
half inching -> pinching -> stealing
quid – pound
berk – idiot
Pete Tong -> wrong
coffin dodger – old person
Gregory (Peck) -> neck
Pony (and Trap) -> crap
Adam ‘n’ Eve it -> believe it
Bubble (bath) -> laugh
You guys just don’t know cultcha like this.
@HanSolo
I understand what you are saying about men not being swayed by the opinions of other men. I’m not sure it’s very different for women. I’m also curious how preselection might affect different women differently – what is the correlation to various personality traits, self-esteem, SMV, etc?
I think there’s also the question of the women who comprise the “selecting” group. A player with a roster of bedded 5s and 6s is not going to find that his “social proof” gets him anywhere with 7s and up.
Then there are the guys who assume a cocky “women love me” attitude even when it’s not true, i.e. PUA tactics. As Game has gone mainstream, women have become increasingly aware of cocky funny, the neg, push pull, takeaway, Fake Asshole, etc.
Most men who are truly preselected by high SMV women are very high SMV themselves – it’s a chicken and egg question. And I’m not sure it’s not quite similar for women. High SMV women get a lot of attention from males, it’s not a question of preselection, just that her SMV results in a crowd of suitors.
Lok:
“Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.”
I don’t know. If it gets to this point where you have two men squaring off, staring each other down, talking trash, clearly trying to intimidate, that’s physical or the threat of physical violence. Where I come from, you don’t do any of that unless you’re clearly getting ready to deploy physical force. And if someone does it to me it clearly denotes the next step as someone putting their hands on me, and it will get there PDQ. And where I am now, that kind of conduct is plainly intended to provoke a physical confrontation.
@Just1z:
“maybe we’re thinking of different levels of skills employed in the drive by…?”
Maybe. There are a lot of guys who seem to be cutting-and-pasting the same message to who knows how many women online. You should be annoyed that those guys are cluttering up the inboxes of the women you’re trying to reach, but I wouldn’t worry about those women getting “played” by them since I don’t know many who would even reply.
As a funny example of the above, I once right after joining a site got a message that said, “hi! you have a really interesting profile” but I had just joined and hadn’t written a single thing yet – the profile was completely blank.
@Mireille
“most Americans, men and women, seem to me to lack in that department.”
Definitely.
“But I also would like to point out that women are different of men in the fact they value relationships more; this is not a “birth defect”, it is what makes them great agents in society, that makes them care for their husbands and children. ”
I would like to point out that valuing relationships is not the same as seeking to maintain validation that one has become used to. No one is saying the priority women place on relationships is a birth defect, what I am saying is that validation is something you become accustomed to. In that way, measuring yourself by the status quo is something you learn and reinforce.
I would contend that if we seek approval, we mostly seek peace, as in the absence of conflict.
Yes, and I am arguing that the way most women (and men) in the US are taught to seek that peace is not very thorough. Their desire for it is not wrong or flawed, but especially in the case of women, it is really important to understand the ways in which one gets “plugged in”. I am saying that Susan is overestimating how much control even high value women really have. This isn’t to kick dirt, it’s to call attention to the fact that there is a deeper level that has been explored by those who have come before her, one that I think this blog only scratches the surface of. The assumption here appeared to be that women have inner game, and I am saying that by and large they don’t, even if they have achieved superficially high value.
“It isn’t so much that we are eager to do what other wants so much as we don’t want to receive a hard time for our choices, and guess what, everybody has an opinion of what women should or shouldn’t do. Their choices are not as respected as men’s. Some give up fighting, some stay in the ring. In any case, you’ll always find someone to comment on SAHMs (“lazy”) or on career women (“ball busting feminist”).”
Oh I understand- I wouldn’t characterize it as eagerness, but as a desire for as smooth a sail as possible. But the truth is that society is much crueler to men who can’t or don’t want to “measure up”. The point of all of what I have been saying is that on this blog and others, there’s a lot of advice and not as much talk about the “matrix”. I am saying it is equally important for women to work on their inner game, if not more, because of their tendency, and that Susan can help.
“Where I come from, you don’t do any of that unless you’re clearly getting ready to deploy physical force. And if someone does it to me it clearly denotes the next step as someone putting their hands on me, and it will get there PDQ. And where I am now, that kind of conduct is plainly intended to provoke a physical confrontation.”
Yeah this describes my locale as well. And I’ll tell you, I don’t believe in a “fair fight” or any such nonsense. If someone comes at me with intent to harm, I assume it is a direct threat to my life and act accordingly.
It is no different than carrying a gun. IF I pull out a gun, I fully intend to use it. And, if I fully intend to use it, I DO NOT shoot to disable. A friend of mine is a police officer. He likes to say “dead men can’t be defendants.” Put another way, if you shoot someone and they live, you can be sued or jailed. So, if you are going to shoot, make it a fatal shot.
I approach physical violence the same way. If I’m going to throw a punch, I’m going to keep throwing them until the aggressor is down for the count. I actually keep a piece of lead pipe under the driver seat of my car. Anyone trying to pull me out of the car over road rage or whatever is going to get a pipe to the head if I get a chance.
I think that experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that men from various cultures routinely find the same women attractive, so the advantages of pre-selection or social proofing for women may be very straightforward in terms of application.
We probably have all heard of the experiments in which a hot girl was placed in the equivalent of a Burger King uniform and a plain girl was placed in executive attire, and then men were asked which girl was more attractive (100% of male respondents found the BK employee to be more attractive). If the hot girl and the not-hot girl had switched clothing the results would have been the same—in other words, if I find a woman to be hot, I feel confident that other men would also find her to be hot (with some variation allowed for differing tastes if we stress guys a bit and make them choose between two very attractive women).
In contrast, when women were asked about the hot stud guy in the BK uniform vs. the plain guy in Savile Row pinstripes, the plain guy actually did quite well. Because female attraction may have multiple dials and levers involved, it would seem that some desirable traits may not be immediately obvious and thus a woman could use a man’s social proofing as an indicator of his status, wealth, profession, and other “hidden” assets (and creating these indicator effects in contrived and theatrical ways is what gives some PUA types a chance).
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “Girl Game” consists solely of being hot, but that’s definitely a large piece of it. Another big piece is finding a differentiated “Blue Ocean” with relatively favorable gender ratios (in other words, a South Beach night club would be a poor choice for a woman who didn’t want to compete head-to-head with other women on the basis of pure physical attractiveness. South Beach would be a “Red Ocean”).
A final piece may be the willingness to approach (perhaps indirectly, through a friend—that seems to be how I usually run into an interested party). I think that the high SMV girls need to be aware that those girls who are not as hot are trying to make up for it these days by being extremely aggressive, willing to approach favored men, willing to escalate physically, etc. The competition is intensifying. I think that these women realize that they have to be more entrepreneurial in this SMP.
”were confident in their masculinity, and expected to pursue women as their social role. In contrast, the men of today have a lot of negative sentiments towards women, are anxious or defensive in their masculinity, and are indifferent in pursuit. ”
A man doesn’t need to chase women to be masculine. Alexander The Great was homosexual and he was more Alpha than most men alive today. Men of today don’t have negative sentiments, trust me. Paying attention to the young men around me, lounging about in the cantina, I notice that they don’t pay much attention to the women who walk by them.
These guys are either playing games with each other or are discussing class(who’d guess that young men care about school?).
The young women walk around well-dressed and with their physical display on display despite the freezing cold. Every guy and older woman around here has a thick as bear’s fur coat on them, gloves, and the young women seem to be immune to the cold. I suspect they’re having their fertile period of the month and are ”inviting” suitors.
Of course both you and I know most of the potential suitors will be rejected and these young men know it too, that the game is rigged against them, so they focus in what makes them feel good.
I can relate to them. I could get it on with women who look naturally good but I subconsciously fck it up(like opening my mouth) when the chance shows up. Its my body’s method to protect me from stds, fatherhood and child-support.
””In contrast, when women were asked about the hot stud guy in the BK uniform vs. the plain guy in Savile Row pinstripes, the plain guy actually did quite well. Because female attraction may have multiple dials and levers involved, it would seem that some desirable traits may not be immediately obvious and thus a woman could use a man’s social proofing as an indicator of his status, wealth, profession, and other “hidden” assets (and creating these indicator effects in contrived and theatrical ways is what gives some PUA types a chance). ”
Doubtful. I see plenty of guys driving executive cars at the age of 20, dressed in power-suits and with other gadgets that signal high status and these guys don’t clean-up as much as the Alpha males. They tend to find a long-term girlfriend that is not bad-looking, but the Alpha guy gets all the women”
A claim is not the same as a physical reaction. I doubt a woman gets her panties wet when she sees a rich average-looking guy, but put her next to Brad Pitt and she’s going to need a raincoat. What women are willing to do when they decide to get married is to forget their lack of attraction for the guy and to either sex-up some other guy on the side, or they divorce the man after securing alimony support and find the guys they’re interested in, sexually.
On the other hand, go to your nearest college and see them panties flood when they look at poor, but good-looking guys.
One of the old tropes was two men competing for a woman’s intention, and one with natural game advantages like attractiveness or wealth would win. However, he would be unmasked as a villain, using the woman for his own hidden purposes, and the real story would be how the other man, the rightful love interest, has to overcome this defeat and run back to save her.
The point is that the one who displays good game and wins a competition is not always someone you want, because ruthlessness and skin-deep advantage can often be a better spur to winning than love. The qualities that the loser of the competition possessed can be good, yet work against him: his honor makes him lose, his respect for your well-being and your wishes makes him withdraw. Many times the woman would only realize this in the middle of being tied to the train tracks, when the villain twirls his mustache and suddenly reveals why he competed.
It’s interesting and a little saddening to see this reversed. Now the man with the skin-deep advantages is seen as the rightful victor, and the others as orbiters or beta men who need to red pill up and emulate the villain more. Mixed messages and forcing competition can have powerful downsides, too, as they can select for the worst man as easily as the best one. Even an air of mystery can, because one of the biggest complaints of men to women is that we cannot read your encoded signals. She thinks “Now that I’m being chased, if he loves me he’ll double his actions,” while he thinks “she wants him more than me.” Trying to provoke the hero to interest or jealousy in those old melodramas winds up getting you in the arms of the villain more often than not.
I don’t write this to give advice, as most of my interest in this is more from the outside looking in. I’ve just been lurking here and find the ideas fascinating. Take it as you will.
@Susan
“I said that I think a lot of women have inner game in the sense that they are interested in real relationships, with the give and take that implies.”
Wanting a real relationship, or not, doesn’t have anything to do with inner game. It’s about being confident in yourself in the absence of all of it. Then you are more likely to be able to maintain a good relationship with someone, because you have your relationship with yourself handled. But other people shouldn’t really be the goal anyway. The only person you are absolutely guaranteed to spend the rest of your life with is you.
“I don’t disagree with your description of a lot of women today – the worst women. I believe we probably differ on what percentages we would assign to that group.”
No. You have to understand that I am making no value judgement about people here. There are as many men trapped in the game of achieving approval. I am saying that what I, or anyone else thinks is not important, and that too many people are too attached to the concept. I am also saying that knowing your tendencies in a value-neutral way is important. Asking yourself “why do I want what I want” is important, and though most men have not asked themselves this, I would say even fewer women have. And if the answer is “because that’s how I was raised” or “that’s what my friends have”, to be honest with yourself about that (and that in itself, what you want is largely value-neutral).
“I personally know a lot of really good young men and women. Earnest, genuine, humble, hard-working. If anything, what they lack is polish and the ability to do the superficial things that their “fake” peers are so good at.”
The superficial flows from whatever’s inside, and people can smell it if they’re around you enough- a lot of why people respect you or not is based on whether you own your identity and are consistent with it. The list of principles we have been going back and forth over comes off as reading the baby steps leading to what lies beneath. Most of what’s on that list won’t be as convincing or respectable as when it is backed up by a real ownership of what’s you. The hard part, is that sometimes you have to come full circle.
That makes sense. A man who truly has high SMV will likely have a healthy attitude towards women, confidence in his sexuality, and the motivation and assertiveness to pursue.
As an aside, I wonder if the Roissys and the Rooshs really have the high SMV they claim. Their writings often betray a much more negative attitude towards women than the amused disinterest they aspire to. (I am occasionally guilty of that too, but I make no claim to super-alphadom!)
But back to the girl game. I’m curious what your recommendations are for women who are dealing with the more conflicted, anxious and passive men who populate the middle rungs of today’s SMP.
I didn’t want preselected males. If I saw a guy with tons of girls around him vs. a guy who’s a loner, I totally zeroed in on the loner. I’ve always been drawn to outcasts. Male celebrities are not interesting to me whatsoever. My husband had been single for years and had zero girls after him when I fell for him.
Maybe in the same vein, there are guys who are also more swayed by preselection, though the guys posting here are not like that.
@LJ
I think the guy in your example was pretty early in the learning game process – the probably still has training wheels on and learner plates (driver’s ed(?))
I was talking a little more advanced than that…promise :0
@ Dawin,
Well, in this context I was assuming heterosexuality. I’ve met some masculine and alpha gay men, but I have no idea what kind of “game” works with them.
I’m glad the young men you observe don’t have negative sentiments. No doubt many are as you say, but many of the young men I observe are very confused about women. In some this confusion takes the form of resentment and hostility. Others go for obsequious and supplicating. Others decide women just aren’t worth the trouble and do their best to ignore them. None of these attitudes are optimal.
Well, ‘Cockneys vs Zombies’ gets around a 7 out of 10, I think.
Some genuine laugh out loud moments
Real yuck factor at times – better than the walking dead
Acting pretty good apart from the Bond-Girl (oh yes! Honor Blackman from Goldfinger 1964 – ‘Pussy Galore’ no less)
Gets a bit soppy and mawkish now and again
and a bit more translation
(Having a) Giraffe – (having a) laugh
Tin bath – laugh
Raspberry ripple -> cripple
I enjoyed it sober, but beer would have enhanced the experience (comme d’hab)
go on, give a butcher’s
(butcher’s hook -> look)
”I’m glad the young men you observe don’t have negative sentiments. No doubt many are as you say, but many of the young men I observe are very confused about women. ”
Unfortunately there are still young men like that, but like every child eventually grows out from stomping their feet on the ground as soon as their parents refuse to buy them whatever it is they want, so these guys will come to terms with the fact that effort does not necessarily result in rewards.
Not only would they be wasting a lot of time, energy and resources in chasing women, but they’d be playing the fool’s role by chasing what was easy for a few to have(and there’s no guarantee the women wil be interested in the betas).
The guys who have yet to accept their place in the sexual pyramid(they’re right on the bottom, not wanted) are indeed suffering but they’ll grow out of it and they’ll see they’re better off by being invisible to women.
” None of these attitudes are optimal.”
Not for our current society. The law will probably be molded to suit women’s desires for Alpha males. One Alpha male per group. Groups of 10 women a piece, one Alpha in it. The women become sexually and emotionally satisfied and the Alpha males spread their superior genes.
The betas adapt to the changing world by buying fleshlights and by coming up with real-life sex robots. Creating a boost in the developement of industry and technology. Everyone’s happy, and everyone’s sorted out.
You know, I know this girl who loves Tolkien and all his works. You should have seen the gleam in her eyes when I showed to her a First Edition of The Hobbit in perfect conditions. Today I saw her and she was looking smoking hot. I was tempted to invite her to come with me to watch the Hobbit tomorrow, but then I took a good look at her and it hit me that she was in ”come at me Alphas” dress-mode.
Her body is probably preparing for reproduction. I’d have to compete with other guys for her. Why? How do I know she’s not clingy? How do I know she’s not going to accuse me of false rape report when I tell her I’m not interested in a relationship? How do I know she doesn’t have a std? I trust condoms as much as I trust mouthwash.
More importantly. Despite her good-looks and fertility: Am I even interested in sleeping with her?
No. After seeing so many beautiful women on a daily basis my body sees her as yet another average girl – why would I work myself up for an average girl?
Instead I’m going to call my high school friends, dress up as Gandalf and have a jolly good time tomorrow.
I don’t think it’s cherry picking to say “I agree with A, B, and C, but not D” of what an author writes. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
The only person around here that I’ve seen completely trump up Buss is Obsidian. I think most of the other guys are on the “He makes a lot good points, but there’s some other stuff where he’s a little out there…” mindset.
Personally, I think that’s how any source should be viewed. Nobody’s always right about everything.
@BB
Yes. A man’s occupational status predicts a wife’s attractiveness better than looks does, and there are many more attraction triggers for females as well. Instead of the “boner test,” we have a multifactorial weighted formula that spits out a cumulative value. What I don’t see is how another woman’s weighted score affects mine. For example, a woman may prioritize physical strength, size and dominance, while dependability has a negative value and intelligence is neutral. I may value the intelligence highly, find dependability neutral, and assign negative value to the high T unibrow. If her weighted score is 85 and mine is 65 her liking him is not going to affect me in the least.
It seems to me that preselection, if real, would only last as long as a first impression. Once you take the measure of the man, you are going to assign him a weighted score independent of other women.
That said, there are certain traits that all women give great weight to. Occupational status, good looks, quick wit, self-confidence/social dominance. The men with high marks for these traits will turn up again and again with high scores.
I’m not sure of the cause and effect here.
Dawin = feelist = Michael et al?
Darwin wrote:
You really need to watch the Youtube videos on vulnerability I posted above.
I thought the problem was inflated self-esteem. If this is your definition of Inner Game, don’t we have a surfeit among women?
As others have said, I think it’s the “proceeding to an LTR” part that most college-aged girls struggle with… not inspiring attraction. I think most of them have that part down pretty well.
I think there are some good points above, but I don’t know if it really can be of that much help to a lot of your target audience.
To use a basketball analogy, to me it’s like telling a great 3-point shooter to take an extra thousand 3-point shots at practice, when he/she could spend that time working on defense, rebounding, passing, etc. to become a better all around player. JMO.
Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).
LMAO. Will she clean the spit coffee off my keyboard when she finishes the toilet?
“as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”
Doooode, srsly? Is this how grownups talk?
Yes
Mr. Wavevector
Ironically, the only solution to the problems that feminism has created in the SMP is more feminism. Let me explain. Women have lost the right to have any expectations of chivalrous behavior. It is now our right to share expenses and all other relationship responsibilities 50/50. Obviously, because of some hardwired sex differences, men still do pay most often, and women still like it. However, I feel strongly that women are not entitled to anything, even being asked out on dates or being the ones to get approached all the time.
Because men today are less likely to approach and initiate, I believe that women will be most successful if they meet men halfway. 50/50. Express interest clearly. Make approach very low risk by signaling attraction with extended eye contact, a wave, or even crooking your finger if you like. Tell a guy you like him. This can all be done in a flirty and appealing way – and I think Langley Moore actually offers some good tips on intersex communication. My daughter has a friend who will likely be engaged soon. She met her bf in a bar in the summer of 2010. The girls were out to watch a basketball championship, and Sarah observed this guy from across the room. She made eye contact and he nervously looked away after a minute. She told my daughter, “I’m going to stare at him until he comes over here.” She literally looked at him hard for ten minutes. He finally walked over, lol, probably annoyed this was happening during an exciting game. The point is, she’s going to marry that guy because she made his risk zero. After the initial approach, he had no trouble taking the lead.
Last night I was at dinner with my MBA women’s group. One woman is in her 40s and divorced (he left her seven years ago, in case you are wondering). Anyway, she has not been on a date in five years. Recently, she met a man at a conference and was told that he was divorced and not dating anyone. Both of them are full-time parents, as it happens. She introduced herself and asked where he lived. Flirtatiously she asked, “So what do divorced people do in Cohasset?” He was taken aback but mumbled something or other. At the end of the conference, she approached him again and said, “If you want the Divorced in Cambridge tour sometime, let me know.” Now, I wasn’t exactly bowled over by these lines, but he texted her two days later. They have been on four dates. He expressed his surprise and delight that she invited him to ask her out.
I don’t think it works super well for women to ask men out – opinions vary on that. But I do think it works very well for women to make clear that the risk of asking them out is zero.
I think women need a set of strategies depending on who they like and what their own personality is like. My husband liked my feistiness, which complements his own reserve. The more people one can read and communicate effectively with, the better odds of finding a great match, IMO.
@ Susan Walsh,
Your posts seem to reflect Hope’s posts. Kathy’s posts. Mirelle’s posts.
Are you all of those posters? Interaction with young women nowadays does not seem worth it. I have several young women as friends but I wouldn’t touch them. They’re attractive and have great personalities but free sex is too expensive, especially in the context of a relationship.
”You really need to watch the Youtube videos on vulnerability I posted above”
Sure, I’ll take a look.
@Jimmy
Except that he’s right about women and wrong about men.
3. Men who must conceal you…[Possessive Betas with no other actionable options andfearful of your hypergamous impulses]…..
Did I miss anything?
Yes, you missed the reality that lies outside of your narrow frame of reference. A woman should avoid a man who must conceal her because he is most likely concealing her from his wife. It has nothing to do with hypergamy; a man who won’t take woman out in public in either ashamed of her or has a big something else to hide.
An example: A divorced friend of mine was given what she thought was a cell number by a new man. It turned out to be an office number. That raises a big red flag. It says that he only wants to be reached when he is at work, away from his wife. It’s likely that he is married or otherwise attached and doesn’t want random phone calls from my friend to be intercepted by whomever.
”As others have said, I think it’s the “proceeding to an LTR” part that most college-aged girls struggle with… not inspiring attraction. I think most of them have that part down pretty well.”
Ain’t that odd. They have perfect bodies and vivacious personalities but young men are looking at them and thinking the women who’re moving about dressed in yoga pants and mini-skirts are nothing special. What is average now in terms of female beauty and what is considered beautiful when many young men who, themselves, are nothing special to write home about, are shrugging it off?
Is this a self-defense mechanism? They’re trying to trick themselves into believing that the women aren’t worth the effort because they have no shot at them, or are they decisively turning away from the Path of Testosterone to live comfortable lives behind their iphones, ipods, and xbox360?
What about the young women? Are they asexual beings? I know women love to feel sexy, but I very doubtful believe young women are nearly naked for the pleasure of getting hit in the face with the freezing wind.
Lesbianism?
@ SW:
Sounds like Michael alright.. and also Piper, Lowland!
Notice how feelist used a smidge of righteous indignation before disappearing. It has become part of his MO before he switches to another handle…
@Jimmy
I agree with you. Mostly I found it an interesting read as it contained some “secrets” about femininity and feminine wiles that have largely been lost. Perhaps these approaches no longer work, but we may be certain they were effective at one point in the not-too-distant past. If I were young and single, there are probably half a dozen nuggets from this post I would commit to memory and try to keep in mind.
« 1 2 3 4 5 »