Tag: women

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.

If you’re not only a Gurkha, but a Gurkha who clearly has Samuel L. Jackson-style Oedipal references inscribed on your khukari, you can white-knight all you like. You can, in fact, arguably do whatever happens to suit your fancy and no one in his right mind is going to be inclined to tell you otherwise:

Bishnu Shrestha, a brave Gurkha soldier in Indian Army, defeated 40 train robbers while returning home after a voluntary retirement…. While in the train, Maurya Express from Ranchi to Gorakhpur on September 2, 2010, 35 year-old Bishnu saved a girl about to be raped by train robbers, in front of her helpless parents. After looting the train, when the robbers started stripping the 18 year old girl in front of him, he couldn’t contain his calmness. He took out his khukari and attacked the group of 40 robbers, alone. In the fight, he killed three of dacoits and injured eight others. Remaining looters ran for their lives.

The police arrested the eight injured dacoits and recovered Rs. 400,000 in cash, 40 gold necklaces, 200 cell phones, 40 laptops and other items left by the robber while fleeing the train.

I don’t think the lesson we can take away from this really has a whole lot to do with white knighting, so much as the extreme importance of never messing with a Gurkha.

Another would-be White Knight manages to get himself killed unnecessarily:

Wednesday night during a fight outside his Conejo Valley apartment, authorities said. The suspect, who was injured in the fight, was arrested and booked into Ventura County Jail on suspicion of murder, Ventura County sheriff’s officials said. Authorities declined to comment on what sparked the fatal fight. The victim’s daughter said relatives were told he was stabbed while intervening in an altercation between a woman and man….

Barnes died of stab wounds to his torso, said Michael Tellez, a deputy medical examiner. It was unclear if Otal and Barnes knew each other, officials said.

So again I will advise all the deltas and gammas prone to white-knighting: if a man and woman are engaged in a verbal or physical altercation, stay out of it! It’s not your concern and if the man doesn’t attack you, the woman probably will. On a tangential note, it would be very interesting to know if those who thought a woman is justified in aborting her child in order to save herself to raise the rest of her family also believe that it is right for a man to intervene in domestic altercations.

John Molloy offers some advice to women looking to get married that is based on real world statistical behavior rather than Disney movies and HBO television shows:

One of the most common mistakes young women make is to assume that because they’re ready for marriage in their early- or mid-twenties, the men they date are, as well. But as the above research shows, that’s usually not the case. If a woman is seriously trying to find a husband, she should date men who have reached the age of commitment. She can date men slightly before they reach that age, because by the time she’s gone out with a man for a year, he may have reached the point of being receptive to the idea of marriage. But this is taking a gamble that the man is typical, because the figures I’ve just given are educated estimates. Not all men mature at the same rate, and other factors can and do affect a man’s readiness to marry.

His advice corresponds pretty well with my own observations of my friends who have and have not married. Both logic and economics dictate that women should not get involved with men of their own age unless they are planning to marry between the ages of 18 and 20. The problem is that because women hypergamous, those who want to start thinking about getting married around the age of 27 after riding the carouselhaving fun for a few years face the choice of a) pursuing men of equal or higher status and competing with younger women who are more focused on getting married than they are, or b) pursuing men of lower status. Game theory – of the logical sort, not the sociobiological variety – indicates that the correct play for a woman is to be the younger woman looking for marriage among the men at the next higher age of commitment.

This means a woman who is not going to college should look for men who are twenty-three or twenty-four, while college women should look for men who are twenty-six or twenty-seven. Women over the age of thirty should look for men who are thirty-eight to forty, while those over forty should look primarily at divorced men and widowers since men who haven’t married at all by forty have become confirmed bachelors and seldom want to get married or are capable of altering their lifestyles to accomodate it.

These are general guidelines, not hard and fast laws, but they should help women significantly increase their chances of having relationships that blossom into marriage rather than a series of disappointing ones that never go anywhere.