Tag: women

I’m afraid I can’t accept that answer:

I’m fairly responsible with finances, but my girlfriend is in a terrible financial situation with a lot of credit card debt, an expensive car payment and a big, fancy apartment. Plus, she just quit her job because she didn’t like it anymore. Now, she’s thinking about filing bankruptcy and thinks us moving in together will help solve her problems. If she can’t handle her finances on her own, what’s going to happen if we get together? Can you help?

At least Dave Ramsey advises the guy not to marry the woman or let her move in. But he doesn’t give him the proper advice, which is to ditch the financial vampire now before she can manage to get her teeth fixed any more firmly upon him. Don’t ever date a woman in debt, and don’t even allow the thought of marrying one to cross your mind for a moment. It’s more expensive and less financially prudent than playing blackjack in Vegas.

DW has created a quiz on the male socio-sexual hierarchy. So go ahead and take it, all you precious male snowflakes, and report back on how astonishingly alphasexy you are!

I do note that lambda was somehow omitted, but I suspect most lambdas can readily figure out where they rank. For example, if your answer with regards to question four would have been You were in the mall a week ago with a bunch of friends. Are you: “The one giving/getting a hummer in the men’s room”, then it really doesn’t matter what your answers to the other questions happen to be.

I’ve been intending to put together a quiz of my own at some point in time and I’ll eventually get around to it, but this is certainly entertaining for starters.

Not to women, children, or dogs, anyhow. Roissy tells the tale of a text message written in response to a blow-off:

I begin reading his reply in a trembly voice, imitating as best I can a lovelorn beta. Paraphrased:

“Ok, I’m sorry to hear that. I was hoping we could date a few more times and see where it goes. I think you are really great, and a very special girl, and I felt we had something between us. I definitely felt we bonded on our dates together. Remember that time playing pool? That was pretty funny. But oh well, if you need some time to yourself, I understand. If you ever change your mind, you know where to email me. I’m willing to give it another try if you are. Ciao.”

Look, guys, no woman ever needs any time to herself. With very few exceptions, women are not contemplative and few can even entertain themselves for any extended period of time. The expression is merely a conflict-avoidance device utilized to communicate a lack of romantic interest. The correct translation of “time to herself” means “time with men who are not you” and by “time” she means “until the end of it”. If a woman is genuinely attracted to a man, she will make time for him even if it means abandoning her children, quitting her job, or doing without food and sleep.

But a blow-off shouldn’t inspire this cringing, lachrymose attempt to convince a woman that she has made the wrong choice. “I definitely felt we bonded”… seriously? This is classic delta and all it does is convince her that she was right to blow off the weakling when she did and make him a figure of mockery and scorn. The correct response, as numerous Chateau denizens have pointed out in the comments, is nothing. Niente. No response. To lash back at her over nothing more than legitimate rejection would be gamma; this need to ensure the rejector that there are no hard feelings on the part of the rejectee is pure delta. The omega, of course, will vow eternal vengeance (to himself) and tell his fellow rejects about the ten different terrible things that would teach his rejector a lesson she’d never forget if he ever followed through on one. Which he won’t. There is no single appropriate alpha response, as the real alpha is already involved with at least one of her friends and will feel relieved that a potentially messy problem has sorted itself out again without requiring any effort on his part.

The sigma response, of course, is “????”

Now, since there are clearly a few quasi-aspies here of the sort that regularly drive the Chateau regulars mad with their inability to understand the concept of behavioral gradations, the injunction to show no weakness is a relative one. If you are covered in blood, surrounded by headless bodies, and holding a severed head in your hand, then you can safely shed a tear or two and permit a woman to read your diary of secret doubts about your courage and masculinity. Any perceived weakness will be tend to be outweighed in her mind by your manifest ability to wreak massive havoc and that delicious sense of fear and security it inspires in her.

Please note that I am primarily speaking metaphorically here despite the literal truth of the statement. Casanova can confess his fears of rejection without concern, (although quite possibly not without sarcasm), because the woman knows that if she rejects him he can and will find a replacement for her within days, if not hours. Your average delta – and this very probably means you* – not so much. In summary, the strong man can afford to be seen as vulnerable, but the average man cannot.

*Except you, of course. You are a unique and precious sigma snowflake.

Which reminds me. Pop socio-sexual rank quiz:

Omega: You have threatened to kill yourself over a woman. But you stalked her instead.
Gamma: You have thought about killing yourself over a woman. But you wrote about how she made you feel instead.
Delta: You have taken it seriously when a woman threatened to kill herself. She did not do it.
Beta: You have listened to a woman threatening to kill herself over your best friend. With some amusement. On more than one occasion.
Alpha: A woman with whom you were involved has threatened to kill you because you also had sex with a) her roommate, b) her best friend, or c) her sister.
Sigma: A woman has asked you to kill her during sex. You thought it was hot.

UPDATE: The Dark Lord explains the optimal response to a blow-off and why it is better than the alternatives. You’ll note that it is precisely the response I recommended:

#1: No response. (Credit: Gorbachev)

90% of the time, and in 90% of situations, this will be your best option. Radio silence is a failsafe method for causing reckless hamster spin in a woman’s headspace. You have got to understand a couple of things about women and breaking up.

One, women initiate most breakups. I have read it is on the order of 75-85% of all breakups. Women also initiate 2/3rds to 3/4ths or more of all divorces.

Two, women secretly get a thrill out of the power they wield as society’s de facto hypergamous dumpers. When a woman dumps a man, she wants to know she got to him. Though she will never admit it, the act of gettting to a man is a blissful ego massage for the typical woman.

Women often have a hard time understanding why men have such a problem with “the number” even though few men put much of a premium on actual virginity these days. But it’s a mistake for women to assume that men think about sexual histories in the same way they do because whereas the pre-selection and DHV aspects tend to counteract any negative sense of jealousy and/or disgust that women might feel when considering a stud’s copious history, there simply aren’t any equivalent positive aspects working in favor of the slut.

So, if women wish to better understand the way most men react to hearing about their girlfriend’s sexual histories, it might help to contemplate how they would feel about a man’s hypothetical past homosexual activities. While it might be at least possible to overlook a youthful indiscretion or two at boarding school or band camp, very few women are attracted to a man who spent the last ten years running rampant in the gay clubs and having sex with 20 or 30 men before deciding that he’d had enough fun and was now ready to settle down with a woman.

This is obviously somewhat of an exaggeration, but I think it’s much closer to the way that most men feel about female sexual histories than the way women feel about male sexual histories.

Susan Walsh is skeptical about the depth of the female need for uncertainty and drama:

I understand that women like men who are strong, dominant, and refuse to put up with their shit. Indeed, if a man cannot do these things, he may strike out time and time again. But that’s a far cry, a whole other continent, away from wanting to feel dread in the pit of your stomach for the rest of your life.

Susan is highly unusual in that she is a female blogger who grasps the reality and the importance of Game without being offended by it. I suspect this is in part due to the fact that she is a) happily married, and b) has a reasonable grasp of economics. Therefore, she has the ability to consider Game-related matters rationally rather than in a defensive and emotionally reactive manner.

That being said, I think she has underestimated the dark complexity of the human psyche here, in this case, the female one. More importantly, I think she has failed to take into account the powerful consequences of state interference in male-female relationships. This is why it’s not a question of want, but rather, a question of need. Due to Marriage 2.0, there isn’t a married man who does not live with at least some sense of dread that he will find himself among the 43% of men who are legally and financially raped by the divorce industry. So, what Roissy describes as “dread” and what Haley describes as “providing a drama fix” is little more than an emotional leveling of the playing field.

Susan understands that women have a strong tendency to behave badly when they feel they have the upper hand in a relationship due to their hypergamous nature. If they can’t respect you, they despise you. As Churchill once said of the proverbial Hun, they are either at your throat or at your feet. This hypergamy presents a serious problem now, since the male dread of divorce has caused many men to quite reasonably become fearfully deferential of their wives and as a consequence rendered the marital relationship unstable.

Therefore something is required to remove the feeling of the upper hand from the state-sponsored wife. Enter “dread” or some other equally effective psychological substitute. Contra Susan’s title, it is failing to counter this state-imposed imbalance that will tend destroy marital relationships, and now that courts in the UK and USA are beginning to grant awards to women who are non-marital partners, increasingly threaten long-term non-marital relationships as well.

However, this does not mean all men are well-advised to behave according to Roissy’s most extreme position. It simply isn’t necessary or even productive in some cases. Take Russell Brand, for example. He can behave in the most omega manner possible, because his wife already knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that if she behaves badly or leaves him, he will immediately react by replacing her with two Victoria’s Secret angels, six topless lads mag models, a Hollywood actress, and three waitresses from a Thai restaurant, very possibly all at once. The Roissyan “dread” for lack of a better word, is implicit in the core concept of “being married to Russell Brand”.

(Side note. SB and I laughed out loud when watching a quiz show on which Brand apologized to the women of England for not having slept with all of them despite his best efforts to do so.)

As with most things related to Game, the actionable concepts are not dogma meant to be accepted without question, but are instead designed to provide for the conscious emulation of the unconscious actions of men who are naturally successful with women regardless of the specific form that “success with women” is deemed to take. This is the central concept that so many critics of Game fail to grasp. Whether success means “nailing skank #3” or “remaining happily married to one’s beloved wife”, there will always be those men who manage it without trying and those men who don’t. And the latter will always be well-served by learning from the example of the former.

It should be noted that just as some men don’t need to provide dread or drama, some women don’t require it. Having the legal power of the state at her command is not necessarily going to translate into a feeling of superiority in a woman, especially one who happens to be more psychologically or emotionally vulnerable. In the same way that Brand has no need to demonstrate his options, the vulnerable woman doesn’t need to be emotionally unsettled in order to prevent her from behaving badly.

That’s all the time you have, gentlemen. So, figuring out how to make the optimal impression in that time is the only place your efforts should be concentrated if you are seeking to meet women:

They say you should never judge a book by its cover. But when it comes to the opposite sex, it seems that’s exactly what women do. It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not, a study has revealed.

The average female spends the time sizing up looks, physique and dress-sense as well as taking in scent, accent and eloquence of a potential suitor. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. It also emerged most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to gauge whether or not he is Mr Right, or Mr Wrong.

The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction – and believe they are ‘always right’ in their assumptions and judgments.

It would appear that women become emotionally invested in their decisions about whether a man is attractive or not, which means that in most cases, a man will have no need to worry about keeping up whatever false front he projects in order to win the 180-second window.

How you apply this is up to you. I suspect overly outrageous exaggeration will backfire, unless utilized with irony. The important thing to keep in mind that if an attribute isn’t going to come across in less than 180 seconds, it may as well not exist. The second thing to conclude from this is that if you haven’t lit a spark in those first three minutes, the marginal return on your time investment will drop off a cliff. This means a man should never give any woman more than five minutes of his time unless she provides him with a definite indication of interest.

It is perhaps useful to keep in mind that women are usually less interested in those who openly express interest in them.

“Women who believed the men liked them a lot were more attracted to the men than women who thought the men liked them only an average amount. However, the women who found the men most attractive were the ones who weren’t sure whether those men were into them or not.”

Betas, Deltas, and Gammas may do well to keep this interesting fact from the Pew Research Center in mind the next time they hear a woman sailing off on what they believe to be her heartfelt romantic fantasies:

Men (31%) are a bit more likely than women (26%) to say that every person has only one true love.

In other words, nearly three-quarters of women don’t buy into the Disney myth by which many men believe women live. This is one reason it often surprises men when they discover how ruthlessly calculating women can be, especially when those men happen to buy into the Disney myth themselves.

Never put a woman on a pedestal. Never put anyone on a pedestal. Statues belong on pedestals, not living people.