Here are comments I left on therationalmale.com blog in November of last year.
Comments from therationalmale.com/2014/11/14/mental-point-of-origin:
@Biff, I also have had experience with women in their teens or early twenties seeming to be affected by the status of the man.
One 21 year old girl here had a crush on me, even though there were two other westeners living in my same building were much more young and handsome. Apparently me being their boss and the boss of the shophouse here had a big effect.
The stages of mating broad outline works well, but I don’t see it applying always and cross culturally.
A lot of women want to marry and have kids as teenagers or in their early twenties also, and some of them also are very interested in status.
That 21 year old was the live in maid, by the way. I never touched her as I didn’t find her attractive enough. But it was a lesson to me how local status can have an affect on attraction.
By the way it’s been studied that an increase in testosterone will correlate with an increase in selfishness.
Giving the woman commands regularly is a great way to show her of your self interest – and this can get her to not only view you as her leader, but also to start to view attending to you has rituals of devotion.
Hierarchy can be used to great advantage also withing the relationship with the girl.
@ Biff, I was watching a documentary last night that included stories of rich playboys in the 1800s. They would date 14 year olds, and this was considered the norm.
Their wealth apparently had a huge influence on who they could date, back in those days. There are many stories of famous or wealthy men older men getting better access to youth and beauty than the younger hot guys, throughout history.
So I don’t know how data like that fits into the schedules of mating blueprint. I do agree generally with that blueprint, but I don’t think we need to squeeze the square pegs into round holes in order to make it work.
I agree with you Biff that for some women status itself is sexually attractive, in a hindbrain way – regardless of their schedule. And also the schedule may not be the same for all women – it may turn out that some younger women have stronger maternal or other instincts, even at their younger ages. Also cultural influences will affect things a lot – in some places a girl is an old maid if not married by 21, and in those places she does not choose the bad boy to marry.
And along the same line, I think that our mental maps can be too rigid regarding the rules of what to expect from women.
If it’s true that at least some women are turned on in a hindbrain way by relative status and power, it can also be true that the power to provision is not necessarily only in the category of “beta bucks”.
Money can be a tool of power used to promote genuine desire.
That’s not to dispute the general overal concept of alpha-bucks/beta-bucks. But it is to refine the idea to include alternate uses of wealth and social power that do necessarily fit into the beta-bux category.
@Bango Tango, I wonder how much behavior alone would affect the woman’s attitude towards you.
There are many (myself included) who claim that behavior alone can get a man the same treatment that is usually reserved for the tall handsome hard-bodies – at least with some women
@Bango, I agree, women prioritize their values differently. Some girls are all about the hawtness, and there is nothing more to say about it.
And I agree that the very subtle alpha/beta or whatever cues we give can not all be known to us. I think we can learn charisma over time, and that it’s an endless process. However as we do we grow older and uglier.
For any particular girl we might not have the power to push her buttons, but I think that charisma and actions, as well as our social positioning and other aspects of our life we have power over such as fitness and style, can be effective enough in a minority of girls, such that a skilled man can get the alpha treatment. Not from as many girls, but from some.
@badpainter “It’s my understanding you can only expect them to trade up, or always be looking to, when the opportunity and desire coincide. Otherwise I have zero expectations.”
I understand that we all have some innate advantages and disadvantages in the sexual marketplace. Some of us are ugly and balding (me). Some of us are not too bright, or have a touch of the ass-burgers, and so will never come across as socially on the ball. Some people grew up with not much testosterone during fetal development, and so lack testosteronized brains, and will never be able to think like a man. Some guys don’t have enough drive to overcome their manboobed inertia.
So indeed, we may not all have the choice to use red pill truths in order to be in that top 10% and get the alpha treatment from attractive women.
But it none the less seems to me as a waste of potential for people to use red pill ideas just to classify themselves as beta losers incapable of maintaining attraction for long enough to bother.
@10×10 . Great comment. There was a time when Roissy’s voice was predominant in the manosphere, and he over-emphasized game. I disagreed and kept putting forth the same conception that you outlined above; the confluence of overlapping traits making up a total value.
It took a long time but that conception is now more dominant.
But there was still resistance in other places to including other values into what raises overall value. Values such as money. Money to women is the same as tits to men. Men will be attracted to women with small tits, and some value tits less than others, but overall men find tits to add to attraction.
Every now and then even the greatest writers will be just slightly off in one or another portion of their mental map. Usually it’s harmless, but sometimes it’s not – for instance the notion that dark triad traits are the best seduction tool is pernicious – so poisonous that it can fuck up a man’s life. The confidence is king meme can lead a man to neglect his future.
But everywhere in the world, including all message boards and blog comment sections, going against the memes of the leaders and their followers will be met with resistance.
On this blog I see just a very few slight mis-steps. One is a rigidity in women’s stages of mating. Another is a lack of inclusion of finances into overall value and thus hind-brain physical attraction. Another is a lack of personal experience with using strong lust as a tool to create lust – or escalating in the face of resistance. I wish I could remember where the studies are on that one, but it’s been scientifically studied, and we have all sorts of rapey women’s romance novels to show us how that works. And another is the difficulty in explaining mate guarding as an effective tool to spike and increase attraction, when done from the position of an attractive selfish man with hand.
Of course overall this blog is one of the best resources, and is my personal favorite, of all manosphere or red-pill related blogs. Incredibly well written and thought out, and great contributions in ideas and presentation.
Other ideas we are going to start to have to notice is how women are not homogenous in how they rate certain values in men. Some are more into looks, some more into social power, etc. And men are also very different in how much they prefer purity and fidelity. Our strategies on both sides are far from homogenous.
As women get turned on by men that other women want, it’s even cultural what traits some will value, and so what traits will get the physically wet, with genuine desire. In some places money is more valued – and that does not correlate with beta bucks.
So there is another problem with the mental map here – the alpha fucks beta bucks conception has the contrast turned way up and uses of money that arouse attraction are ignored or downplayed.
I know that in speaking to betas of the overall map, it’s difficult not to be cartoonish about it and paint in stark contrasts. However if one wants to do more than just accept betatude and work on increasing overall value in order to get the alpha treatment, he will need to know how to leverage all possible tools to do so. And that includes money, it includes escalation, and it includes mate guarding.
@Rollo and “alpha is not a demographic” and “Bear in mind this ‘maxim’ (if you want to call it that) was in response to the tendency of men (and women) to self-define Alpha to better fit their own image, or an idealization of a pro-social man.”
You may want to examine if you are lately sliding into the same tendency and defining the demographic according to your personal experiences.
For instance you never felt the need to strongly escalate, and so now seem to define alpha as not needing to strongly escalate.
There are ugly men who get the alpha treatment by high SMV attractive young women.
So if you want your mental map to be inclusive of as much data as possible, you’ll include looks as well all the other overall traits that add to a mans value and induce the alpha treatment.
So far you’ve had no experience with the value that women impute onto men who escalate hard. But you don’t necessarily need personal experience of it – there are thousands of romance books along that theme.
Yes, I know you count looks. I was suggesting that lately you’ve been over-counting them, and dis-counting aggressive dominance. Because you assume that if initial physical based attraction is not high at the beginning, then a man is not alpha, and you talk about dominant escalation as a beta move.
And of course your idea seems to be that money is only attractive to women in later stages of mating, and only from a beta bucks type of attraction, not sexual attraction.
Which does not include the data of sports cars turning young women on.
Rollo said:
“Alpha dominance, and confident escalation is definitely a component to that arousal, but the necessity to oversell it to a less than compliant woman is time better spent with a new prospect, don’t you think?”
No, and I think you are not really grasping my point.
A less than compliant woman becomes a more compliant woman through the very act of seduction.
You are implying that the seduction is done before she gets on the bed. If she isn’t fully complying by that point, then there is not enough “real” arousal.
I’m explaining to you that your worldview is so partial as to be incorrect.
The seduction and showing of male value continues even while on the bed.
The very act of escalation is a show of value that arouses the woman.
And no, it is ABSOLUTELY not more worthwhile to chuck out all the girls who give resistance!
I’ve moved many girls in on the first date, and some of them were initially resistant.
Overcoming that resistance – the very fact of OVERCOMING it – creates sustainable physical attraction and genuine arousal.
—
“What’s bothering you is the conflict between an organic genuine desire based on a woman’s arousal and having to negotiate for a mitigated desire based on her necessities. Is it better to be desired because she hot for you, or because she’s fearful of you?”
No, you are not listening.
That is what you are forced to think if you rigidly maintain your mental map. But your mental map is wrong.
I am not correcting your worldview as an ego protection. That argument is like government official claiming that any anti-war sentiment is anti-patriot. I am correcting your view of what is beta behavior, and you come back with – “oh, you are only doing that because deep down you fear being known to be a beta”.
No. Listen more carefully please. Your conception of what constitutes beta behavior is incorrect. You should correct it, in order to better be of use and value to all the men that you influence.
Fearful?! Am I miscommunicating so poorly that that word is what comes to your mind? Fearful?!!!!
Negotiated desire?!
You just aren’t listening.
Rollos said:
“Women don’t get turned on by expensive sports cars, they get turned on by what they represent and the emotional association they get from the thrill of riding and being seen in one. Conspicuous consumption is a tingle inducement for most women.”
My point is that wealth can be used in ways that create genuine hind-brain non-negatiated desire in women who are not in later stages of mating.
My point is that the alpha-fucks/beta bucks dichotomy can be misused to give a false view of the value of money to men who want to arouse young women.
I could give example after example of how my escalation style, which includes pushing past boundaries, in alternation with backing off and letting the woman come to me, has led to forming extremely strong desire and bonding.
I have given the examples. Here and on my blog.
At this time in my life I have 5 women in my life. One of them has been very close to me for over 7 years. On the first date she was screaming at the top of her lungs while I was pulling her pants off.
There was nothing negotiated about her long term desire for me, and nothing fearful in her attitude towards me. She is deeply bonded to me, even to this day, and we don’t even fuck anymore.
Another of the girls has been with me for over four years, and I basically had to rape her (with her consent) to take her virginity. We have extremely passionate sex, even to this day. Yesterday I fucked two of my girls, and on some days I can fuck three, if I choose.
And a long distance fling was reticent on our second meeting, but due to my seduction style she again is very interested in me and now again texts me about meeting up, missing me, marriage, etc.
I have personal data after data after data. But like I keep saying, you needn’t rely on my anecdotes. Thousands of romance novels agree. It is built into the female psyche to see the very act of sexual escalation itself, and not just all the calculations of value that lead up to the final yes, as a very important display of the mans genuine worth as a mate.
Genuine, non-negotiated, sustained hind-brain desire can be invoked in women during the sexual escalation process.
Rollo said:
“Do you think your experiences with women in Southeast Asia have had an influence on your perspective of Game?
Let’s be honest, the context you consider escalation and dominance has to be colored by the necessity of the women you bed.
I’m not saying your wrong in your assessment, just that your particular conditions there may lead you to think they’re reflective of a larger picture.”
I’m not operating in a vacuum here.
Do you think all the locals have no money?
Do you think I’m the only westerner here?
In any location there is going to be intense competition for hot girls.
I’ve never found any hot girl anywhere who didn’t have richer and more handsome competition currently in contact with her.
They don’t stay with the guys who don’t sexually escalate. And again, I have story after story about it.
Other westerners who don’t boldly sexually escalate don’t initiate enough attraction nor maintain it.
I can give story after story about the competition I’ve blown out of the water. Younger, richer, taller.
—
I’ve read many of his posts, and he makes a lot of strong points.
It’s unbalanced though.
It’s known that a man’s looks can grow on a woman, through familiarity. So an ugly guy can grow on a woman, like a fungus.
The initial physical attraction makes a huge difference. I don’t do well at nightclubs, and would never even both with tinder. I struggle to get even a single online date.
But in person to person there are non-physical traits that can invoke genuine non negotiated pussy wetening orgasm producing desire.
A properly fucked girl will come back to the ugly man, and a girl who is bonded to a dominant man will stay bonded despite all the hard bodies at the club.
I know this from personal experience, over and over with many hot girls.
And again – it’s not a vacuum out here. What works is what works. Looks alone are not the only thing that works. An ugly man can compete, and win.
And I’m going to just keep hitting on the same point over and over. A very valuable component to showing value that arouses genuine desire is a mans seduction prowess. And a very important component of his seduction prowess is his finesse at escalating past boundaries.
—
And Rollo, be cautious about setting up unfalsifiable world views.
There are people who believe that everything is purely a mental construct, and therefore if you believe hard enough, you can literally fly. For them the fact that nobody is seen to be flying is therefore proof that nobody believes hard enough.
You’re setting up these systems in which you proclaim what is a beta behavior. Anybody who shows evidence otherwise is therefore a beta fighting against being known for his true beta nature.
It looks like you are lately slipping into the belief that Alphas are the alpha foremost by looks. There is ample evidence that you must be aware of that this is not necessarily the case. Often the case, yes. Usually the case, probably. Always the case? No.
If a man wants to date women two, three, four or more points above his physical attractiveness level, and receive the genuine full out alpha treatment, it is possible.
Now if you therefore believe that it MUST be negotiated desire, and MUST be caused by fear, regardless if all the outward signs match up exactly with your definition for what constitutes being treated as the genuinely desired alpha man, then your views are unfalsifiable.
—
So it’s been implied that anyone who escalates while their is resistance is “negotiating desire”, or ruling through “fear”. That escalation during resistance is means that the man is not even desired, and therefore during and after the escalation and sex will remain not desired. And therefore that he should just find a woman who really desires him, instead of being such a beta.
So if the the logic is that escalation in the face of resistance is beta, then I’m going to use the same logic and turn it around.
Anyone who truly believes that no means no has very a very poor understanding of women, when it comes to fucking them.
—
It’s been studied that women’s estimation of a man’s attraction can dramatically change after long exposure to his face.
Several of my girlfriends would initially call me ugly to my face, but after long association would later tell me that they now considered me handsome.
One girl last night, who I’ve been with for over a year, compared me to Prince Charles.
Any salesman will tell you that no interest in a product only means that the customer is not yet aware of how much interest she can have.
Having the frame of reference that desire is a pre-ordained snap judment thing, and after that it’s done, is not only flat out incorrect, it’s cock blocking yourself.
Interest can be developed.
And every hurdle you pass cements more interest. And if you can fuck worth a damn, then passing that hurdle can cement a great deal of attraction.
Your actual face will look better.
—
Snap judments about “genuine” desire are an invalid mental model.
A better model is that genuine hind-brain desire can be cultivated.
—
Sometimes people say that what works in SEA is not applicable to what works in the USA.
While there are some important differences, the foundation of dealing with women remains the same even across the races and cultures.
But where there are differences, if someones mental model can not account for them, but instead must wholesale dismiss all data from other countries, then it is THAT mental map which is not taking in the wider view.
There are vast cultural differences just within the US. Within any high school in the world there will be vast cultural differences – geeks and jocks and sluts and prudes.
The foundational truths are universal – and whenever something is not universal, if you can’t account for why it works in one place and not in another then your model is not a model of WOMEN. It is a model about what works for some people in a certain time and place.
Here in Indonesia the local girls always tell me, with such certaintainty that it’s completely impossible to argue them out of it, that
1) western men prefer dark Indonesians
2) western men prefer ugly Indonesians
I’ve never met any man in SEA who does anything even close to what I do.
The older guys tend to be with uglier, darker, older girls.
They get what they can get. They don’t shoot WAY out of their league, and they don’t make the girls fall in love. They tend to have wallet funded short term associations, or trade commitment for association.
Just because I’m here in this location, don’t assume that I’m doing the same game.
The game is not defined by the location.
When I walk in the mall with one of my hotties, it stands out as really unusual. People never see such contrasts in SMV. They just don’t – it doesn’t happen.
And so most people assume, according to their mental maps, that the girl MUST be a prostitute.
Never mind that everytime the girl comes home from shopping she’ll proclaim how much she missed me. Never mind that everytime I come home she’ll remove my shoes for me, and get insulted if I try to do it myself. Never mind if she tells me 20 times a day that she loves me.
No.
She MUST be a prostitute.
Because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to have such SMV disparity.
Nobody does what I do out here. Over and over, year after year and decade after decade.
And while greater age disparities are more accepted out here, they are also very uncommon. The locals tend to date within about 5 years of each other, but allow a bit more for inter-cultural pairings.
But without question, every girl I’ve ever dated has had all her friends tell her, loudly and over and over, that I’m way too old and ugly for her, and that she can and should do better, and to dump me now.
You don’t just get a free pussy pass to the hottest and best. You get major pushback, from all of society and all the girls friends and usually family too.
For a guy like me It’s useless to approach groups of girls in a mall. I have to have her isolated in order for my voodoo charms to work, as the peer pressure of friends won’t allow any one girl to associate with me.
Guys who think that hot girls date any old westerner just for a financial leg up haven’t tried to date hot girls. Hot girls have options. Anywhere. In any coconut grove village the beauty queen will have local and international suitors.
Youth and beauty is a scarce commodity, and every beautiful virgin in every location on the earth instinctively knows her value.
And her value can be in millions of dollars. These girls are not so easy to get.
Rollo is correct in his “genuine desire cannot be negotiated” maxim. But what he’s saying in these comments is that if you have to compensate via excessive dominance or by material possessions, then her sexual desire isn’t genuinely based off her wanting you. It’s either based off fear (by excessive dominance) or her gaining something from you (material possessions).
See, that’s the exact problem right there.
With a strict mental map that doesn’t account for the interplay of variables, you can come up with such a profoundly wrong conclusion.
Material possessions are NOT only useful for “negotiating” a non-real desire that leads to tepid sex.
Dominance is NOT used as fear to force a tepid desireless sex.
The mental map is grossly off the mark – you feed in correct data into that mental map and you get out garbage.
I have incredibly great top notch sex with my girls, and they are extraodinarily enthusiastic. One girl routinely eats my asshole just to show her total devotion.
Dominance is sexually attractive. Say it with me, people. Dominance. is. sexually. attractive.
Status is sexually attractive. Come one everyone. Status. is. sexually. attractive.
—
@Softek, regarding how to escalate, I’ll try to put down a few thoughts. I expect my efforts to paint an accurate picture will be more like a child’s fingerpainting; it’s not easy to describe what is mostly unconscious embodied knowledge.
A few weeks ago I had a date with a 17 year old beauty queen. She was bold enough to put an hours attention into her makeup and dress hot, and she came straight up to my room, so it was my situation to fuck up, but there was no guarantee provided.
At first we just sat on the edge of my bed, chatting. I was openly nervous, and both of us kept commenting on it. She was so hot that it was a bit uncomfortable to look straight in her face – I think most of us have experienced the anxiety that comes from looking at a true hottie way out of our league.
But there is no shame in being nervous. It just added to the energy between us. Because I’ve been through this same ritual over and over with many women, most usually successfully, I was deep down completely at ease, even while being nervous. I was at ease with being nervous. Being nervous was not a problem that needed to be corrected; being nervous is perfectly fine.
We just took turns asking and answering questions about each other, but from the get go I initiated touch. The body is talking, the face is talking, the eyes are talking. The words are carrier tones to the deeper signals.
It’s possible to even do the entire dance if the two of you don’t speak the same language. I did that a few weeks later with another 17 year old.
So at first I just sit near her, perhaps knees touching. Quickly I put my hands on her leg, totally un-self-consciously, as if that’s completely natural and to be expected in such a situation. Because it is. She came up to my hotel room – of course I’m going to be familiar.
Either her or I initiated holding hands, I can’t recall. Then later I might informally cross my legs with mine over her. Now we’re starting to have the body language of people who accept a familiarity with each other. The bodies are creating a shared physical mood. We are sharing the same space; intertwining.
And the eyes are starting to share the same space – intertwining such that we can melt into each other.
Later I might move my hand up her legs over her ass, and she might pull them down. Her body language is saying “No! That’s off limits to you. We are not THAT familiar yet! You don’t have a pass.”
But I just put my hand right back. Immediately, as if her resistance either didn’t happen, or didn’t mean anything.
She pushes down again, and I just go back.
I sense what attraction is there, and I understand her resistance, and what her resistance means. It does not mean “I’m not attracted to you and don’t want to have sex with you.” It means “I have not yet given you the green light to have sex with me, and that is going to by my choice.”
But I know that touching her in that fashion is going to have an effect. And it does.
Not much later I undo her bra, in a surprise move. Same thing; she goes to put it back on. Shortly after I undo it again. I’m very good at quickly removing bras with one hand. I’ve done it a lot. I don’t have to struggle with it.
So this time she let’s the bra be undone. Then I complain that her shirt is evil, and has to come off.
She hesitates, looks me in the eye, finds my face to be happy and at ease, and she feels comfortable with me. She is having fun and it’s a good time. Ok, she takes her shirt off.
Shortly after that I open up her pants. And then I pull her pants off. Maybe she resists a bit. I’m also expert at taking off pants. You have to pull them off over the waist a bit first, but then pull from the heels.
After that she just dives in and goes for it.
Oh, wait, no, she was bleeding. So at first it’s – “no sex, because I’m bleeding”.
I’m like “I don’t care. Let the hotel staff clean up the mess, it’s not my problem”
So that goes on for about five minutes.
And then it turns out that I don’t have a condom.
So we go out of the hotel, and spend 1/2 hour driving around trying to find a place that’s still open to sell condoms.
And after that we go upstairs and fuck like porn stars. She even recorded some of it on her cell phone and sent it to me the next day.
Oh, and that girl claims to only have ever had one cock inside her, and claims that usually guys who get her in the same situation don’t ever get her naked.
I can’t know how much of that is true, but she did convince me that she was not an easy slut.
She never took any money or gifts from me. She seemed completely uninterested in anything financial.
Later in the week I was back in my own town in Indonesia, and she’s texting me about moving in with me. Then after that she says that her sister totally hates me and stole her phone to keep her out of touch with me and that she can never see me again.
So I took 40 minutes on the phone to convince her to have one last brief meet up at a restaurant.
She finally conceded, and I flew back up.
She was adament that it was totally over. For about 20 minutes. After which we where fucking.
There was a great deal more resistance the 2nd time. None of which meant that she didn’t want to fuck me.
I’m still in touch with the girl, and sometimes she texts me that she misses me, and bullshits around with flirty messages about wanting to marry me. We both expect to meet up again. This time I’ll try to record some of the sex properly.
Oh, and it was explained that the reason why her sister hates me is because I’m old and ugly.
Damned cock-blocking fem-borg.
If I get a girl isolated, I can do very well. Never understimate the power of charm.
Many girls have told me, many times, that I’m an unusually charming man. “You can charm the pants off of any woman”, etc, etc.
It’s true that a girl might be into your looks because you remind her of that older guy she once dated. But don’t forget – some ugly guy had to be first. Some guy got in there who reminded her of no one at all.
I’ve been that guy, and I am that guy. I don’t have to remind a hot girl of some other guy. Charm alone can be very persuasive, but add fucking skills and it’s much more so. Add finances and romance and you can compete with younger, taller, richer, more handsome men with more hair.
—
“Can we separate dominance from status?”
There is an interplay of variables, and that is what confounds most of the simpler mental maps.
The variables are distinct, yet additive and subtractive and holistic.
Muscles alone are attractive. And having them will ALSO increase confidence, which is a SEPARATELY attractive trait.
The system is so holistic that merely upping your status in one area will have ripple effects into others.
And the ripples will show up in tiny micromovements of your face. Getting laid by an attractive woman and having a few others on the side will affect how a man deals even with a super hot girl who he become incredibly infatuated with. And all his previous experience and all of his social and financial support systems will all display themselves subtly in his demeanor.
What we create out of our environment – our business and social and family and sex and martial arts and musical lives – all emanate out of our demeanor. It’s a holistic system. Gains and losses in any portion can affect gains and losses in others.
So yes, increased status directly affects our sense of dominance. And vice versa. And they are also distinct.
And what especially confounds the simpler mental maps is where there is crossover between different categories of attractive traits.
For instance we can make the two different broad categories of attraction that women can feel – for safe long term provisioning, or for sperm from a dominant and physically attractive man. And the we can associate provisioning with money, and therefore categorize all things to do with money with turning on only that type of attraction in a woman – the attraction for provisioning.
But there are crossovers and interplays.
Money can also be used and interpreted to signal dominance and even good genes. Successful people are often successful because they are in some respects superior; they competed in an open market and won the competition. They are the winners, and will produce winners. Money and social dominance can intertwine. Money and fun can intertwine. Money and social access can intertwine.
And so the simpler mental maps can wind up giving dramatically incorrect outputs for perfectly good inputs of data.
It’s fine to occasionally make stated allowances for various variables. But our deeper internalized assumptions come out in how we process the data into the final conclusion. For instance Heartiste can eventually and finally admit that muscles by themselves are inherently attractive, independent of confidence, but doing so won’t change how he processes data – he fundamentally still believes that everything ultimately and only boils down to confidence.
It’s difficult to have true knowledge of something without true personal experience of it. Can a man who has never sexually escalated in the face of resistance be able to properly interpret data about such events? Or will he fall back to his gut feeling interpretation, no matter what allowances he is forced to concede on the matter in regards to the fact that yes, a great many people do and have talked about no not meaning no and the value of sexual escalation for hundreds if not thousands of years.
And the interplay of the variables is also difficult for some people to grok, because they may simply have never needed to. A handsome guy in a rock band has absolutely no need to understand how finances can up his game.
We can come to the wrong – completely backwards – conclusions, using our gut feelings.
Truly understanding how all the variable fit and work together requires actually dating girls, consistently, in many different situations and from many different advantages and losses.
Date them as a poor man. Date them as a skinny man. Date them as a rich man. Date them as a buff man. Date them in this country. Date them in that country.
It’s not really possible to be an armchair philosopher, and still have the gut process the information accurately. That requires experience.
I think its why people meet me and say I’m really attractive, yet a picture never captures it and people say I “came out bad”. Nope, thats really me- very much a 5 or less. But I have spirit and energy that attracts.
@Hobbes, yes.
The girls I’m with will take photos of us together. They will be all enthused because when they are with me they feel a lot of attraction.
But when they see the picture they complain that “I ruined it”. The camera never captures what the girl sees.
—
Tindermaster said: Men do not do this to women (as often). When a man fucks, he fucks and really lets loose on his chick no holds barred. But women are not the same in this regard. She is selective with who she unleashes her primal desire with and that’s what guys are getting at here. Do you honestly think a chick fucks a beta with the same tenacity as an alpha?
I’m talking about a man she views as a genuine alpha here. Whether a guy fucks a cute girl or hot girl ( if his test levels are normal), his genuine desire for both is still there. You can’t say the same for girls. Banging chicks with boyfriends made me realize that most girls simply tolerate most men until something better comes along.
Hobbes said:
@TM
“Do you honestly think a chick fucks a beta with the same tenacity as an alpha?”
actually, yes. I’ve had women dripping and letting loose thorughout my life. Are you so hung up on your looks you think only betas, or uglier men are cheated on? lol or get a woman really hot and bothered?
I understand what you’re trying to say, I am telling you, as a 5, that you are wrong. Simple. Plain. My experiences disprove your statements. I don’t know how else to say it.
Notice I do not deny the role of looks, nor does anything I say discount your experiences.. but what you are trying pass off as truth, is disproved by several posters experiences.. and if you chose to look around, you’d see it everywhere as well. I can count several guys in my lifetime who were average looks and drove girls crazy.
Crap, I’ve even competed on several occasions with much much hotter guys than me and got the girl- and these guys were going for them too, not just laying back.
To buy what you’re saying I have to discount all of that. Xsplat is right when he says that you are allowing your experiences, what you live to become the Law of the Land.. it’s filtering your perceptions.
Again I do not deny that more women throw themselves at alphas, I do not deny that women desire them the way we desire models. Bu yo are trying to deny my lived experiences.
It’s actually quite egotistical- which I’m sure ups your success rate- women love that confident arrogance.. but you are kidding yourself if you think only good looking guys get women wet and horny and wild and get great sex. So, so kidding yourself.
—
@ Tinder Master. You’ll have to give a more specific question as I can’t see which part was unclear.
But I’m disagreeing with “if you have to compensate via excessive dominance or by material possessions, ”
We play to our strengths. Is having a handsome face compensating for a small dick? Dominance is attractive – compensation doesn’t come into it. It is, in and of itself, attractive.
If dominance raises the overall value of the man enough such that invokes genuine desire, then perfect. Strength played to.
And the same for material possessions. Wealth can be attractive and increase the overall value of the man past the threshold onto which he receives genuine sexual desire from the woman. Is that a compensation? Is working out at the gym a compensation? Is getting a good haircut a compensation? Is learning social skills a compensation?
It’s an additive factor, that can help to ameliorate deficits in other areas, yes.
But it is NOT a sign of transactional sex.
—
I wonder if a properly fucked girl is inclined to cry regret-rape.
I’ve never had any experience of regret sex. Ever. I have no idea what people are talking about.
After sex girls want more sex. Always.
—
@D-man, I plan on some cosmetic facial surgery this year, and one of my girlfriends keeps objecting. I poked fun at her that it was because she knows I’ll become more attractive to the competition, and she at first denied it. But now she’s open about it and wails “I don’t want you attractive to young girls!”
—
And she is only 25 – she means she doesn’t want me to keep up my habit of dating teenagers and early twenty somethings. My newest girl is over thirty years younger than me.
By the way if I am to keep up this lifestyle it’s going to require very creative ways to get social access. Online dating isn’t doing it anymore. And to that end I’m developing entire businesses that give me social access in the best possible situations with a large and continuous pipeline of young model quality girls.
A lot of guys think that the solution is to give up. I don’t think that’s the best solution at all. There are solutions that require more effort and more time that can work.
—
@Softek, I used to suffer from manic depression, OCD, anorexia, and social anxiety. I also learned about hypnosis, starting at about age 12. At age 16 I discovered meditation and noticed some important differences between the two mind training techniques.
While hypnosis is very useful for dealing with beliefs, meditation can deal with mindfully re-training ones direct momentary experience.
It was at 16 that I also discovered body the body centered meditation including hatha yoga. Also some of the self-hypnotic routines I did were body centered meditations; especially feeling love physically in areas of the body.
Later in life I learned chi-kung, which is another body-centered meditation, which I found to be very powerful and important, and practice to this day.
For self improvement and getting over old habits, you may want to look into these other approaches. Beliefs are important, but there are other approaches that will help a great deal in other ways.
Oh, I also used to have runaway thoughts, and would sometimes crave peace from them. At times they even were close to voices in my head. The neurosis was so painful as to be a living hell and I’d think of suicide occasionally. And I had another condition, and I forget the name, where the russling of paper would give me the chills.
It was the meditation that had the strongest effect on all of that, and all of that, including the worst of the social anxiety, went away by about the age of 21, after many long meditation retreats.
While other people were out at college getting their career in order, I was out in a Buddhist monastery and in distant isolated forest hunters shacks or in a tent in an isolated sea-shore field or in big meditation centers, working to get my head in order.
As an investment in my future, the meditation was far superior to working on a career.
Later I worked on building up my own businesses, and that took decades to get off the ground. But the foundations for me were really worth the investment – taking the time out to just focus on meditation. I did that for several years.
Softek said: “I’ve pretty much struggled with suicidal thoughts almost daily since I was 12 or 13,”
Ya, I was mostly normal, except for very minor OCD, up until puberty as well.
You mentioned studying Buddhist material. Did you also regularly practice a meditation, such as sitting still and following the breath, or mantra, or similar? My gains in wellbeing took an extra-ordinary and long term effort. I’ve met very few people who have put in similar hours. Doing that was also of course not without risks and side effects. At one point I was seeing the guru pictures in 3-d and thought they were embodied by the presence of real gurus. He he. And I was very hard core about not caring about worldly things. I took it all quite seriously, and really did my very best.
And some of the most extra-ordinary gains were temporary or came back in fits and spurts.
And it took years just to even begin to get a real vipassana style formless meditation of just resting the mind.
And much of the meditation was truly arduous.
But none-the-less, some dramatic personality and wellbeing changes did happen. I am nothing today like the troubled teen I was. Nowadays my inner voice spontaneously proclaims “I’m so happy”. That’s what I just said to myself not 5 minutes ago. And I wasn’t trying to tell myself some self improvement story. I really am so happy that those words just naturally burst out of my mind.
So ya, neuroplasticity is real, and great and lasting long term changes are possible. It can be a long grueling process that requires intense willpower though.
Oh, and I had a nervous breakdown too – even after most of my heavier meditation. That was due to the stresses of living with a BPD wife. The nervous breakdown is what got me out of there; I realized I had the option of staying with her and go crazy, or leave.
It took about a year for my nervous system to recover.
And I’ve had periods of needing anti-anxiety medicine. Moving to SEA fixed that – the pace here is easier, and you can get by on less, so there is less stress of what happens if things fall apart financially. Oh, and the regular sex with young women helps more than I can explain. For everything. That’s huge.
And comments on the next post http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/17/boundaries/
@WaterUnderTheFridge , deciding which acts are despicable or not doesn’t actually carry any influence.
We tend to think that it does, but that’s an error.
People don’t really care what we think about them. They care about the consequences of our actions.
And women are not integral or integrated. They are segmented, like an orange. Their ego is one thing among certain peers, and another thing in different circumstances. They barely have an ego, as men understand it. So don’t expect integrity from them; it’s impossible. They don’t have it.
Our emotional reactions to other people actually carry very little weight. Social pressure carries very little weight.
What matters is consequences.
—
@watercannon: “Then she told them she doesn’t know why he would get mad, it’s not like she’s ever going to meet him.”
It’s a shit test, of sorts. His anger is mismanaged, as you said. He’d do better like you said, to do tit for tat and tease her in turn.
Actually, you do it in stages
1) ignore
2) tell her to stop doing that particular shit test, because it is rude. She can do that in private if she has to (contacting guys on her phone in front of you, looking at online dating sites in front of you, etc)
3) call other girls in front of her in return
4) get physical – hang up her phone, give her a hard spank, etc
5) scream
5) threaten to abandon
6) abandon
And in all stages humor and misdirection can be used to diffuse the situation.
But shit tests can escalate into emotional abuse, and so the man really must get emotionally and even physically violent to prevent being treated like a shit stained doormat.
—
And the notion that we can just casually next any girl if she messes up really isn’t in line with reality.
1) girls are not all of the same value to us – some girls are hotter, have better personalities, have a valuable history with us, are trained up according to our desires, have a superior sexual chemistry with us, etc. Girls are not equal and replacable like gears for a gear box – they are all different sizes and shapes and don’t match our needs in the same way
2) Not all relationships are fuck buddy relationships. You are not an alpha by virtue of only having fuck buddy relationships. Some relationships have deep personal bonds value and meaning to the man.
3) It is unrealistic to assume that even the most alpha and desired of men is going to constantly maintain a full pipeline of girls of the same quality as the girls the guy is currently in relationship with
4) maintaining a relationship will certainly have moments of drama, and is certainly an ongoing investment in time. However as a cost of hours and emotional and financial outlay per sex act and other benefits, it’s far more cost effective than getting new girls.
Yes, maintaining and increasing attraction is worth it, and far superior to nexting, in most circumstances. If you are actually into the girl.
—
There are also a great many stories online of guys who were once treated as betas by their wives, who successfully turned things around.
So for them it was certainly not better to just dump a girl who wasn’t really into him and spend his efforts on getting a new girl. They were able to CULTIVATE attraction.
Attraction is not just a given thing, set in stone and done, at the first glance. You are not an Alpha or Not-an-Alpha.
They cultivated genuine sexual desire. Over time. And it was worth the investment.
—
We can decrease the risks of cheating. Decrease the risks of having our property stolen. But we can’t eliminate them, as far as I know.
Risk management and reward management.
I’ve been able to learn of some of the more extreme rewards that women can provide, and I find such a vast life improvement, that I’ve found it important to be able to stay in the game and minimize as much risk as possible while still getting as much reward as possible.
But there is always risk. I fully expect losses as built right into the very fabric of the game.
—
@jf12 , I have no first hand knowledge of what happened with the guys who claim to have increased the frequency and quality of sex and lessened the strife with their wives. But I know that in my life the act of laying down boundaries and expectations does not all happen on the first date. So the framework of a cultivated sexual response to a cultivated alpha persona is in line with my personal experience.
Now of course by now I lay a lot down immediately – in fact that’s a big part of my fast seduction style – to act from very early on as if we are already familiar. People very quickly fall into familiarity. Sexual familiarity, as well as couple-dynamic familiarity. In the first fucking session people can make love, as well as grunt fuck. It doesn’t take long habituation.
But still, some things take time, and some dynamics are cultivated.
And some of those cultivated dynamics lead to the woman treating the man with all the signature alpha-sucking-up-to tells, such as sucking his dick in public.
—
Treat em mean to keep em keen.
Ya, but 80 or 90% of the time they have to feel warm and comfortable with you.
Yes, you can’t be honey all the time, and even vinegar is not always harsh enough.
—
bbb said:
Assault, battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, and statutory rape are against the law. Sure, definitions can be parsed by jurisdiction, but the fact remains that NOBODY should behave in a manner that could be construed (even if factually innocent) as any of these things.
Man, you are such a fan of hyperbole and exaggeration.
I mention a spank and unhooking bras and sex with a 17 year old and you bring up all these completely unrelated things, such as sex with a minor, sexual assault, sexual battery, etc.
We don’t have to tip toe around so cautiously. Stop making shit up.
In my country the legal age of consent is 16, by the way.
The girl told me she was nineteen, and will be eighteen in a few months. I have nothing against her being 17. Not a damned thing.
If I date a 21 year old for five years, in five years she’ll be 26. Have you ever compared a 26 year old ass against a 21 year old ass?
In 5 years the 17 year old will be 22.
It’s no wonder that people in the US, Europe, and every fucking where else on the whole planet used to marry women of the age of fourteen not that long ago historicically and since for ever.
—
Regarding Charles Bukowski game, that short temper can be a byproduct of long heavy drinking.
It’s been about five years since I was a regular drinker – I drink less than once a month now – but I’m very familiar with the drinkers short fuse. I look at that clip and just smirk. Most guys would not be able to intuit the response to expect to such actions. A fiery temper is base and crass. Cave man. That not holding back instant expression of primal emotions tends to elicit some primal responses. I’m not sure if 1 in 100 guys can intuit what those responses are. You pretty well have to live through that lifestyle to know it.
But from previously being a heavy drinker who didn’t work hard to moderate his emotions, I did learn that that style was personally valuable, and so have for the most part kept that style – although now as a sober man.
Cave man emotions. It just works.
—
Here is an example of my Charles Bukowski style game. (I’ve never read his books and that’s the only clip of him I’ve ever seen).
Two nights ago my new 17 year old came over late. She had been clubbing and had a few drinks, and fucked me like a wild animal possessed by the spirit of another wild animal. In the morning she was unresponsive and distant.
That pissed me off.
So after five minutes of gently trying to get some action started, I just got up, pulled my shorts over my lubed dick, and started walking out.
She clung to my t-shirt and physically tried to prevent me from going. She kept pulling at me, following me down the stairs naked, from the 4th floor of the building that I rent all the way down to the 2nd floor. I gave her a nice wave goodbuy before I left and walked over to fuck my 18 year old.
She visited again last night, and asked me where I went. “Out.”
“You were with a girl, weren’t you!”
“I was just out.”
The next morning she was again a bit cold and distant, but I just lay on the bed, and let her come to me. She casually started arousing me, and then I locked the door and manhandled her into a long and rough and later mutually intense fuck. After that she cuddled with me as I slept for a few hours.
That’s the kind of thing that I mean about developing actual real desire through dominance. Ya, in a way it’s treating the girl like shit. But it’s not though. It’s treating her in a way that she knows she no choice but to respect you and treat you well.
And that makes her happier. She will be happier treating a man well. Even if she is being treated a bit like shit, some of the time.
And events like that also give me much more leeway to be sweet and romantic. As long as you have balance you don’t have to worry so much about being overly beta, some of the time. And then the more romantic stuff is really appreciated. Wow! He sent me an SMS! He really cares!
Oh, and a few days ago I had left her asleep in my bed to go visit a different girl, and came back with a heart and “I love you” drawn in pen on my belly. I forgot to wipe it off and she discovered it while I was naked with my belly near her face.
I turned around and quickly rubbed it off and claimed first “oh, it’s just dirt”, and then “oh, I drew it on myself”.
Both excuses were transparently lame. But I didn’t care how lame they were. I wasn’t trying to pretend they weren’t lame.
And I didn’t really see her seeing that as much of a problem, really.
—
thedeti said: The man and/or the relationship has to be high enough value to her such that worsening the relationship or losing it altogether is a less appealing choice than working to preserve it.
Yes, and this is another way in which the alpha bux/beta fuck dichotomy can break down.
A woman loves pragmatically. She will subconsciously calculate the mans value to her, as an overall picture. And this calculation will affect how much she fucks him and wants to suck his cock. And the calculation can include how much she needs his money.
Necessity is the mother of good blowjobs.
Now that might sound like manipulation, or it might sound like some economic exchange. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then isn’t it a duck? If the woman feels love and wants to suck cock, then who is to argue that her wanting the man’s financial support is some sort of cheating negotiation? Her hindbrain made the calculations, and her genuine pussy juice flowed egged on by those calculations.
I’m not denying the alpha fux beta bucks dichotomy. I’m just saying that there are overlaps and feedback loops that intersect between the two categories.
The man can become and feel and behave more dominant as part of his increased income. He can use the money in sexually attractive ways, such as by throwing parties where he is top social dog, having greater free time and better social positioning, and on and on.
So it’s not just that wealth can increase status and confidence, but the increased lifestyle can cause subconscious calculations that feed into the hypocampus and whisper “release the pussy juice”.
—
@Hobbes “The only security is no commitment. Thats it.”
Isn’t that similar to saying that the only way to insure your bank account against loss is to have no funds in it to begin with?
—
Comments from http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/05/teach-your-children-well/
@BC re Briffaults Law, from https://xsplat.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/how-to-keep-a-woman-in-aquisitive-mode/
People have positive emotions to you in relation to the value that you add to their life. So with a girl her emotions will be swayed in a positive direction the more you add value in any domain, such as;
1) Financial – if she is financially dependent on you that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more
2) Social – if you and your social circle are a main part of her social life that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more.
3) Sexual – if you fuck her the way no man ever has and likely no man ever will ever again, bringing her to emotional and sexual depths and heights beyond compare regularly, then that hand over her quality of life will translate into her loving you more
4) Your status – if your status is well above all her other suitors, because you exhibit many status markers, such as wealth, fitness, social circle leadership, business leadership, community connections, and so on, then you will have hand over her future quality of life, because if she lost you she would lose her close connection and even self-identity with your status position.
5) Romantic – if you manipulate the moods in your shared space, injecting some dramas but keeping the general tone warm, positive and sexual, then she will associate all positive emotions with you. This will give you hand over her, as she will fear losing you, the focus of her good life.
—
Heyjey said: If we imply that 20% of the male population be alpha by default and you can’t change anything about it, women have to make sure all other men are thirsty beta providers awaiting to fulfill their part i.e. provisioning.
yes, women conspire to create the beta class of men.
It biologically hard wired into women to band together as a hive mind borg and create and maintain a caste system. This is not any artifact of modernity, or western modernity in particular.
It is instinctual and timeless and hard wired.
I wrote about that in 2012 “Women willfully create the beta class of men, and willfully keep them in the dark about there even being another class, and work hard to deny class mobility. By willful I don’t mean consciously – I mean willfully; they make a co-ordinated concerted effort to do so, and strongly oppose any countermeasures. “
—
@ Magnifque, I’m not following what you are saying. Are you saying that dealing with women can be a pain in the ass, that they cause needless drama, are financially and emotionally dangerous, and that sooner or later will leave you, taking whatever they can grab? And therefore that men can seek higher goals, and not waddle in the muck of feminine slime?
I believe that sustainable, if ultimately temporary, mutual benefit is possible with women.
It’s difficult to wring more reward out of women than pain. It’s difficult to seduce and maintain sexual tension and a love-slave relationship with attractive women. Sometimes it’s impossible. Wanting something impossible is more painful than not wanting something impossible.
But wanting something difficult is called motivation.
—
but what about your OWN individual positive emotions that are inner-generated? What happens when external beings no longer perceive you as “value-add” to their life? What then?
It’s not an either or thing.
I was in Bali last week, away from my lovers. Although I did score one date that went well, at the end of the week I was suffering from severe sex and love withdrawal. Very anxious, could not focus.
I also did a lot of meditation and chi-kung that week, and the contemplative practices enriched my life.
We are mutually entwined and engaged, and no amount of forest meditation will ever cure a human of the fundamental disease of being interconnected with other people.
Our happiness, even while alone in our room, depends upon and is contingent upon our social happiness.
We are never alone. Everything that we are is enmeshed.
The trick is to be a nexus of value such that the enmeshing is mutually enriching.
What happens when the only thing remaining in your domain is *you*? What then? . . . . . . it happens, c’est la vie. . . . . . to the best of us.
You mean if we are broke? I was flat broke for the two years that I was in Thailand, and for many of my years in Indonesia. I was often late in paying my rent. I sometimes had to use coin money for the days ration of booze. I frequently cut my own hair.
One girl looked up at me in wonder and said “Daddy, why I love you? You no rich. You no handsome. Why I love you Daddy?”
Money is only one thing a guy can give that is valuable. Emotional and sexual value is huge.
—
4) Teach them to love but not respect women…
A date was probing about a girl I’d recently dated, and I told of how the girl was a prudish virgin who wanted me to meet her mom before we’d even made out.
“You have to respect girls!” she said, as if that was the obvious solution to the disparate needs of the virgin for security and me for testing for sexual compatibility.
I looked at her like she’d sprouted a second head, twisted up my eyebrows into a look of incredulity, and then exclaimed “No I don’t!”
It took her a pause, and then she laughed.
We have to respect girls?! Wtf. No thanks. That’s not my job at all. My job is to love them up. Respect has nothing to do with it.
Do you “respect” your children? What does that even mean? It usually means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, which is “hand over your authority and decision making power”.
—
badpainter said: The only question now is striking a balance where we determine acceptable amounts of rape, regret rape, prostitution, and diminished male economic activity that are the price of open hypergamy.
Sounds like you are at the bargaining phase of the Kubler Ross five stages grief.
There is not going to be any collective or individual decision making going on. What’s going to happen is what’s going to happen, and neither you nor anyone here will have any meaningful influence upon it, outside of keeping his own women in his personal sphere of life interested and (temporarily) in control.
It’s really a male-socialist fantasy, all this talk about society “collapsing” and reinventing itself in a new glory day of men controlling the finances and therefore the pussy once again.
Up to you if you ever want to get to the acceptance stage. But we men have no collectivist bargaining position here. We are each on our own.
—
In addition as we can see by some examples above, women are somewhat flawed in selection, such as:
“Me and my 6’4″ inside-linebacker built friend simply bookended him wherever we went. Our muted dark jackets and naturally stern faces played perfectly into our assumed role as his personal ‘security’.”
Notice the 6’4 linebacker is ignored.
This is another example of how the idea that physically attractive+socially dominant=alpha, all else=beta is so simplistic as to be wrong. Wrong and defeatist.
A guy can play to his strengths, and build up and strengthen his weaknesses. A guy does NOT have to be attractive to successfully lek (display), and get genuine mate choice and receive equal or greater sexual attentions from attractive young women.
There are many ways to hack the system. Relative status and social positioning being the most obvious.
—
@Sun Wukong, your projections don’t take into account the wild card of technological change.
Society follows upon opportunity, and opportunity follows upon technology.
Agrarian technology ushered in dramatic social changes. The industrial revolution ushered in more. The pill and the service economy ushered in more.
If we could forecast that there will not be any more major socially disrupting new technologies, then we can try to see our horizons. But I personally don’t see that as likely at all.
We are going to start to see some very major technological shifts that will dramatically change culture, in ways far more profound than feminism ever has.
Genetic engineering of ourselves and offspring, surgical remolding as well as biological grafts, computer implants, and yes, even the borg.
If you are looking 60 years into the future and not even thinking about technology then you are thinking that history is cyclical.
Technology is not cyclical.
History is not cyclical.
Social changes are not cyclical.
I’m old enough to have lived pre internet and pre cell phone. Nobody imagined our current future. It was a surprise.
We will have surprises FAR more disruptive on society than feminism.
In other words, adapt or don’t. If people think they have witnessed big cultural shifts, and are hoping for things to swing back around, they’ve got it ALL wrong.
We aint seen nothin yet.
The changes have only barely begun.
Sex robots. Resource wars that could impact our physical safety and use unfamiliar weapons, such as bio-tech, micro-drones, and autonomous robots.
Mind controlling implants. Brain upgrades.
Even in the last few years facebook and tinder have changed society. Forty years ago that was not a prediction.
Forty years from now the battle of the sexes will be held on a vastly different landscape. What having a baby even means will be vastly different; genes will no longer be a matter of paternity and maternity alone.
And the effect of native genes will be vastly different. We will be altering our own genetic makeup after being born. As well as our appearance, and organs, and senses, and even how our very brains and thought processes function.
Society will be connected up in new ways we have never imagined.
People think sexting is an issue. Brain-wifi all-senses connected international sex orgy anyone? What is your chosen avatar?
My point of injecting this pragmatic uncertainty into the dialogue is to point out that in order to live strategically, our short and medium term goals must include working with the system as it is. Our long term goals should include being in the best possible position to adapt. And that for me means increasing wealth as much as possible.
Nowhere is it pragmatically useful to plan for a future in which the battle of the sexes continues to be waged in our current techlogical landscape.
That present is ALREADY the past. The present is history. This landscape won’t be where the battle happens.
It will be a DIFFERENT battle.
—
Coments from http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/comment-page-3/#comments
wanderer said: Unless a man were to knock a woman unconscious, have an EXTREME size advantage, or drug her, I don’t understand how a man could force a woman to have sex with her.
I had to rape away a virginity, and I can assure you that rape is physically impossible.
That is not hyperbole. It is physically impossible for ANY man, regardless of size, to fuck a woman against her will if she is struggling against it.
All she has to do is put her legs close together. Have you ever forcefully tried to pry open a girls legs? I have. It takes two hands. And once you use your hands for that her hands are free to cover up her vagina. And then if you use your two hands to pin down her hands, she can squeeze her legs together again.
You can try to pry open the legs and then use your legs to keep the legs open while holding down the hands, but I know from experience that doesn’t work.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to rape a struggling woman.
The only way it is at all possible to rape a struggling woman is to bind her arms, at least.
And by the way my virgin girl gave me consent to take her virginity, but could not stop herself from struggling. Her mouth over and over was giving consent, but her body would not stop struggling. I am still dating her to this day, over four years later.
The only way I was able to take her virginity that night was she eventually allowed for her struggle to die down.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate a womans vagina who is struggling against it and who is not bound.
—
Glenn said: And the phrase that would fall out of my mouth, after she’d spent an hour or more dragging it out of me, was ‘I feel like I’m falling in love with you – I know that sounds crazy, but it’s true. Do you feel it too?” Lol, yes they did, each time. But this is no beginner gambit.
I call it love at first sight game and have done that a lot. Although for me I do it with girls that I’m genuinely into, and allow for some genuine emotions.
People have a difficult time believing that it can work, as they have no experience with anything remotely similar. But I’ve done it so many times I know it’s a powerful and viable strategy.
But tell me the truth, X, it was always game, right? I mean, it was technique – you don’t actually tell yourself you are falling in love with these women, do you? Are you one of those guys who tells yourself you do love them all? I get the sense you play many high stakes games yourself, if you want to share more of your exploits here I know I would enjoy hearing them.
I don’t consider that I tell myself anything or play any games.
I have an internal narrative, as we all do, but I also feel genuine emotions. I can somewhat regulate my emotions, but my emotions are honest.
I’m honestly into the girls that I have honest emotions for.
I’m not a segmented orange, with this part of myself battling that part. I don’t have warring narratives nor warring emotions. I’m at peace with feeling infatuation, and I’m at peace with feeling nervous. I’m at peace with strong libido and passion, and I’m at peace with finding a beautiful body to be a thrill to see. I really am into the girls that I’m into, and I don’t have to lie to myself or think her shit doesn’t stink in order to remain into her. I know all about shit and stink, and I know all about girls. More than any other man that I know. And I really do love them. I still fall in love, to this day. And I expect I always will.
—
Sounds like your mental map matches up closely with The Planet Of the Apes.
My mental map looks nothing like yours. In my mental map those who are successful with women are at least as likely to be intelligent and well bred.
—
@JJ, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Yes, some women can be attracted to some guys in jail. That does not mean that all women are attracted to all guys in jail.
Yes, you have to treat em mean to keep em keen. That doesn’t mean that you can’t be forward thinking in order to be attractive.
Yes, handsome guys get more female attention. That doesn’t mean that only handsome guys are “alpha”.
You’ve made yourself a completely black and white view of the world.
If you go to a football stadium and prime yourself to notice everyone in the stadium who is wearing a red shirt, instantly you will see all the red shirts. They will stand out to you. Those are real red shirts, and they are really there.
But while you are doing that excersise, you will NOT notice any of the blue shirts.
All you are seeing is red shirts. This is not The Planet of the Apes, this is not High School, and it isn’t only the bad boy thugs who women fuck.
This alpha fucks beta bucks idea is so fucking completely overblown as to be a fucking comic book charicature.
Jeesus. There is a real measurable world out there. Not ALL women have BPD, you know. And we can see with our own eyes who they are fucking. It isn’t just criminals and stupid thugs.
Where do you live, anyway? In some getto? How old are you and how old are your friends? Do you really get out and see people, or is this all some fantasy in your head?
As for bad boy behavior, you don’t have to be a stupid thug or criminal. All it takes is not being a blue pill do gooder beta boy. It’s not so starkly black and white.
For instance a few weeks ago a new lover was acting out by sexually teasing me. She was watching loud porn on her cell phone, and refused to let me grope her or undo her bra. So I ignored her and did some chi-kung, then she’d walk up to me and rub all against me, again refusing me to take off her bra. So I ignored her more and walked off to the toilet, and then she called out “no sex tonight”. So I told her to go home. When she protested, I physically threw her out of my room. She kept fighting and fighting, trying to get back into my room and I had to fling her far from the door just to get a chance to lock it. She stayed outside my room crying and begging to come back in for 1/2 hour and I had to get my live-in handyman and maid to tell her leave.
She sent me a few texts telling me what a horrible man I was, and I just fucking ripped into her on text, badmouthing her hard.
Needless to say all of this not only turned her bad behavior around, but made her start to fall for me. I knew it would.
A few weeks later she told me her period was starting, so I came in her a few times that night. The next morning I notice there is no blood anywhere, and ask her when her period was. I had to press and press her for an answer, and it turns out it was two weeks ago. So I had one of my secretaries rush out to get birth control pills that she can take many of to equal the dose of the morning after pill. She wouldn’t eat them and I had to grab her by the hair and push the pills into her mouth. She still would not swallow them, so I had to explain to her that if she became pregnant she was on her own, and that she’d be a single mom. I told her how many girls have tried to trap me before, and many have been pregnant by me before, but that I will never change and I will still remain single and that there is nothing the girls can do. In Indonesia a girl has NO legal recourse, in ANY way if she gets pregnant out of wedlock, and I told her as much.
Needless to say the kiss goodbuy that morning was sweet and tender, and I got the puppy dog eyed treatment.
Am I a thug with no future time orientation? Do I have a low IQ?
No. Nothing of the sort.
Women mate assortively, and are evolved to seek out fitness. As do men. When I choose women, I do so mostly by looking for youth and beauty, but if I can swing it, I also want brains. Brains is down on the list, but I ALSO want it.
Women want looks, and social power, and they ALSO want every other possible marker of fitness, including at least enough smarts to do better than the other guy.
And the statistics bear it out. The wealthy and the beautiful marry the wealthy and the beautiful, and on average wealth is correlated with beauty and correlated with IQ. People mate assortively, and the most fit get to choose the most fit.
Your view of all girls going after bikers is so over the top black and white as to be outright false.
The world does not work like that.
This alpha fux beta bucks notion has been WAYYYYYYY overblown.
It’s true. There are red shirts in the stadium. But not everybody is wearing red shirts, and some of the shirts only have some red in them.
Turn down the contrast people!
—
@badpainter, it’s not true that a man is EITHER a provider, OR a cad. It’s not true that women ONLY have a dual sexual strategy.
We’ve heard it mentioned over and over that during the fertile period women are more apt to stray, and with a certain type of man, right?
However that’s NOT right.
ONLY women who are not with a high value man show any difference at all.
Women can and do get both their strategies met by the SAME man.
All the time.
It’s not some rare dolphin unicorn.
Yes, women have a dual sexual nature.
But there are not only TWO inputs into the system. There a variety of variables, all interacting.
For instance people in this very thread associated driving a valuable sports car with being an alpha. See? The variable inter-twine. Having financial ability can and does bleed into being seen as a high value male – it’s not ONLY about one side of the alpha fucks beta bucks equation.
Now yes, a man can be trained up blue pill and can fall into blue pill ways. Yes, women work in collusion to train men up that way. They fight against all red-pill knowledge. Yes, women prefer men who “just get it”.
But are we all so fucking simple minded that we can’t hold more variables in our head at the same time? It is not planet of the apes here! Girls are in real life absolutely NOT fucking only stupid handsome criminals. Just look around you and see what real life hot young girls do.
In real life in any city and in any time throughout any age a percentage of women will be lower sexual score, and mostly go after serial monogamy, and a percentage will be higher sexual score and decouple commitment from sex. In real life young girls are not all tossing around their pussy to the most handsome bad boy and then extracting resources from a guy she has no interest in fucking.
That’s not what actually happens in the real world.
That’s ONE thing that happens in the real world. The real world is not a fucking comic book of good and evil and stark contrasts.
I call it the Peter Parker underwear hero syndrome.
Guys feel under-appreciated by women. In order to not walk around in a funk all day they downplay the competition. “Oh, those guys are just the stupid jocks. Or, oh those guys are just the bad boy criminals. They’re dumb and girls are dumb to want to fuck them.”
It’s just enough truth to convince a desperate ego that it’s not really our own fault for for not being attractive.
It’s an underwear hero syndrome because we tell ourselves that if only girls took the time and were smart enough to see beneath the surface, they’d realize that actually WE are the real superheros after all.
And it’s often the same underwear heros who harbor fantasies of the apocalypse, when the meek shall inherit the earth.
That story has been around so long that it’s possibly genetically influenced.
Ya, right, the apocalypse is right around the corner guys. Ya, you meek and downtrodden are finally going to get what’s coming to you, and all the guys on top now are going to be up against the wall.
Yup.
Enjoy that fantasy as if hope actually mattered.
Me, I’m taking real life actions and having real life consequences.
—
Some guys really do think that their value to “society” IS heroic, especially as exemplified in their willingness to marry and provide stable familes and work hard. Da-da-DAA! It’s Family Man!
—
The metaphor is that women *ought* to want anything at all other than what they want. It’s a metaphor. I’m not suggesting that people literally are heros. I’m suggesting that people think women *ought* to want them.
You seem to be hung up on the hero part, for some reason. There is SOME quality or other that people assume women are too stupid to see. Call it whatever you want. What you call that quality is not my point at all.
Any man who feels undervalued by women is in a way a Peter-Parker-Underwear-Hero, not by virtue of his having any superpowers, but merely by virtue of his considering himself undervalued.
—
@Rollo, we don’t disagree that alpha fucks/beta bucks is a real dynamic that really happens.
And I don’t think we even disagree that it’s not the ONLY thing that happens. You’ve said yourself before that women strive for an alpha provider, and I’m sure every now and then you’ve admitted that such men exist and do get into long term relationships.
So fundamentally we agree on what colors are in the landscape. What we disagree on is the level of contrast and the distribution of colors.
I’m suggesting that your painting is cartoonish – a dramatically reduced color pallate and exagerated contrasts.
It’s NOT an either or thing. There are way more men who get the alpha treatment who are ALSO into long term relationships than you lately seem to let on. And I don’t hear you mention much that there are no differences in womens attitude towards their mates throughout the entire range of the ovulatory cycle when she perceives her man as high value.
And again – making a sharp division between provisioning and being sexually appealing is way to sharp a distinction – so much contrast that it becomes more wrong than right. It’s not that black and white. Yes, in broad strokes there is that contrast. But it’s not that stark, and variables bleed into each other.
—
A pretty straightforward example of why alpha fucks/beta bucks is WAYY overblown; most all rock stars and top level male celebrities marry or otherwise pair bond.
It’s not either/or.
There is a really powerful word in the English language. It’s called “and”.
Heartiste has his pet theory that EVERYTHING boils down in the end to confidence. No matter how clearly or in how many different ways you point out to him this amazing word “and”, he literally can not hear it. Confidence AND looks? No! Looks increase confidence, and it’s therefore ONLY confidence. So now he just censors anything that goes against his pet view. He’s that attached to it.
Alpha fucks beta bucks is true. But it’s not ALL that is true. There is also apha bucks.
It’s not true that:
1) Only handsome men are treated by women as Alpha (and it’s women who decide, by their actions, what category men are in, individually. If a woman is giving a man the full alpha treatment, then to her, he is an alpha.)
2) All alphas only want short term relationships or flings.
The extreme view that’s being assumed here relies on both of the above falshoods, and it leads to:
1) men assuming that they are not class mobile, and
2) men not seeing the value of learning to increase charisma, and improve relationships
3) men having no concept of healthy mutually satisfying long term relationships where the man is treated like a fucking king.
So we start with a partial truth, and turn it into a cartoon charicature of how the world actually works, and in so doing harm individual men’s will to progress.
—
Glenn said: This is an argument that should be put in proper context. The most brilliant evolutionary biologists (and other scientists who study human sexuality) on the planet haven’t figured all this out yet. If you keep track of the field, you see that there are major disagreements about many basic issues.
The ideas presented here are best thought of as heuristics. Sure, we have evidence and some theories that seem promising, but that’s about it. AF/BB is a good perspective, but more than that? If you think Rollo’s got scientific certainty here, wake up. This isn’t a lab or a university research center, it’s a fucking blog site. It lags the science – it doesn’t lead it. And the science is still up in the air. That’s a plain fact.
The point isn’t whether rock stars get divorced, and the point isn’t what percentage of the population are rock stars.
I would have thought the point as obvious as the morning sun. How can you not see the morning sun? How can you not see my point?
I’ll repeat. It’s not just alpha-fucks and beta bucks.
It’s ALSO alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
Unstop your ears.
alpha-BUCKS.
All men, alphas and betas, tend to pair bond. NOT just betas.
ALL men, alphas and betas, tend to pair bond. NOT just betas.
—
Unless I’m reading Rollo wrong, lately he’s been leaning in his essays and comments to a different view than he seemed to start with. Lately he seems to be making more of a drastic K and R selection distinction, and implying that if you are what he terms an alpha then by definition you have no interest in pair bonding, simply because you don’t need to.
—
Tedd, I’m not missing any point at all. In fact you’re thinking that I am is likely just another example of the very black and white thinking that I’m talking about.
10,000 times yes, I agree with the alpha fucks beta bucks distinction.
Get it? Or should I agree 10,000 times more?
But that’s not ALL that’s going on.
There is nuance, and also OTHER options.
It’s not JUST those two things.
That is MY point.
The other point was long ago agreed with.
You seem to assume that if I’m not with em I’m against em. It’s not that black and white.
And look, men make very grave relationship errors when they assume that finances can not be an aid to maintaining genuine lust and aquisitive mode and alpha treatment. Define what behaviours women show that prove she is treating her man like an alpha, and use that empirical evidence as the real test. It’s not what she says, it’s what she does.
A big reason men have a difficult time maintaining aquisitive mode is that they lose hand. Financial hand.
It’s an ALPHA tool to maintain hand. A tool that causes orgasms and blow jobs, and empirical outward signs that are not in any way distinguishable from outward signs caused by facial symmetry.
Men really struggle with understanding that, because we are simply not wired that way. A womans wallet does not make our dick hard. But a man’s wallet CAN have a sexual effect on a woman, depending on circumstances and how he uses it. I’m not just saying a wealthy sperg is going to get women wet, it’s not that black and white. I’m saying that the careful use of finances to gain and maintain hand is a valuable psychological ploy to maintain hand, which directly relates to how sexual she FEELS towards you.
—
Does she like your six figure income? Hell yeah! But you don’t want her to choose you based on it alone. Right?
Women are hypergamous and go for the best they can get. So she’s going to choose me for SOMETHING. Somethings.
I’m fine if money is a variable in why the girl chooses me. The money is a major reflection on my character. It took brains and ambition and perseverance and social skills to earn my wealth.
A hottie was once asked why she married the old man. Her answer shut everybody up. “Because he’s rich and hung like a horse.”
I doubt the man felt slighted or underapreciated.
We bring everything we can to the table. There is no shame in bringing money. It CAN help. Poor people get upity and jealous, because they can’t take any pride in something that they don’t have. I’ve heard again and again from guys who’ve had periods of both wealth and poverty – money CAN make a very, very big difference.
And I’m also tired of having to tell the same stories over and over. I’ve only been relatively wealthy for 4 years or so, and have a long history of doing well with attractive young women being flat broke – so broke I regularly had to cut my own hair. So I don’t rely on money at all.
AND.
And. That magical word. AND.
Not either or.
AND.
And money helps.
—
Using money to aid attraction does not CAUSE the beta bucks side of the equation.
The opposite. It helps to cause the women to give all the measurable signs of treating the man as the alpha, and to engender real lust and real passion and real devotion.
AND
It can be used in ways that don’t cause attraction.
See?
See how that works?
—
My apprentice/business partner is in the top 1 percent of attractive males. He is one definition of alpha, in that he neither needs nor wants pair bonding and can get laid with multiple women every week.
But if that is the definition of alpha, then spell it out and let it be known.
Because it’s rather useless definition.
Like you said, every man is only alpha because one or more women perceives him to be. He may be perceived that way by 50 women in a room, or by 1 in a city. It may have been instant attraction or built up over days or even months. Is he getting treated like an alpha by a woman? Then to THAT woman, that’s what he is to her.
Men CAN and DO learn to get that treatment. We don’t have to be born in the top 1% of looks. We can STILL get that exact same treatment. Better even. Far better.
Very very few men really know the depths of the alpha treatment – just how far a woman will go. Most men have never even dreamed of it. Not just regular devotionals such as taking off your shoes every time you come home, blow jobs every morning and regular ass-hole licking, not just blow jobs in taxi-cabs, but risking life and limb for the man. Giving over her heart and soul. I’ve seen it, and with more than one woman. And I’m short, bald, and ugly.
Alpha is as what alpha receives from women. It doesn’t have to be from a huge percentage of women. It just has to be from women – preferably hot and young.
And of course a guy can even learn to have multiple women treat him like this, all knowing of and even knowing each other. Year after year.
Alpha is not a demographic of guys who limit themselves to one night stands.
In fact I hereby propose a new definition of what makes a man alpha:
It is how he is treated.
We can measure how he is treated in two ways:
1) By what percentage of women would fuck him with little resistance
2) By what behaviors of total devotion any particular woman regularly does show him. Behaviors such as
a) cooking and cleaning, including regularly asking the man what he wants to eat, and cleaning with joy, as if the duty is a devotional
b) initiating sex and blowjobs
c) public displays of how proud she is of her man
d) regularly telling the man that she loves him
e) Initiating little greeting and parting rituals that are meant to convey love.
f) Risking her wellbeing for the man
g) Putting up with infidelities even when they deeply pain her
h) Going against the advice of all friends and family regarding leaving the man
and so on.
I posit that the 2nd definition is the only really valuable definition, because it’s something men can learn. We can alter ourselves and our environment to get the best possible alpha treatment – treatment better than kings and rock stars receive. From genuine hotties of very high sexual market value.
—
@Tedd, ya, people don’t seem to easily grasp the fact that money can increase lust.
No matter how many different ways it’s stated, men seem completely unable to grasp it. For them it MUST be negotiated desire, and CAN’T be possible for wealth to increase actual lust. It is as if their very ego structure depended on the bedrock or that assumption. Lacking an accurate theory of mind for women and being unable to imagine that a wallet is tits merely enables their root emotions of jealousy and comparative financial insecurity. All thought stops and woman CAN’T be sexually turned on relative to finances.
https://xsplat.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/women-orgasm-more-for-wealthy-men/
—
@Tedd “Much better that she find out I’m stinking rich AFTER the hook is set so to speak.”
Ya, most of us feel that way. And regardless of before or after, money only can provide a boost, but is not sufficient in and of itself to create or maintain lust.
In the context of alpha fucks beta bucks it should be obvious why I brought up the scientific study that shows that women orgasm more for wealthy men. It’s because it shows directly that bucks are not only about the beta comfort and provisioning side of the equation.
The variables bleed into each other. Sometimes and in some ways for some people money is an ALPHA trait.
That’s what the science says.
So any theory of behavior for women has to account for
1) women orgasm more for wealthy men
2) even men with the most options with women – the men for whom the largest percentage of hot young women would fuck with the least resistance, routinely pair bond and even marry.
How does alpha-fucks beta bucks incorporate that data?
AF/BB is not wrong, it’s just incomplete. AF/BB AND.
And
1) Money can have effects on both sides of the AF/BB equation – it can increase comfort and be a type of negotiated desire, but it can ALSO increase and maintain lust in women.
2) AF/BB and AB
Also of course any theory for women’s behavior has to account for
1) how women of all social classes and backgrounds and cultures and countries behave towards pimps. Even old ugly pimps. There are some books put out by pimps and some documentaries that are very instructive. Women behave very submissively, to say the least.
2) The difference between the guy that more women would more easily fuck for one night stands, and the guy who inspires incredible submission and devotion and sexual attention and orgasmic lust. These are not the same thing, as even a guy that most women find outright unattractive can inspire the full out alpha treatment from some women.
We can’t just continue to define alpha as an innefable essence, and explain it a gut feeling of “I know it when I see it”, or use Cory Worthington as an example.
We can be behaviorist about it. We can look the behaviors. If a woman is treating a man as an alpha, then boom. In that context and for that woman he is.
If Justin Beaber is getting pussy thrown at him in the context of his fame, then in that context he’s an alpha to the women who would easily fuck him.
If his old ugly promoter is getting getting rim jobs by 3 teenagers who write him love poems every day, then to those 3 teenagers he’s an alpha.
—
It would be interesting to find out how cross cultural these findings that women orgasm more for richer men are https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aG9tYXN2cG9sbGV0fGd4OjcyYzQ5MWY4ZDM0MTk0Zjc
Some screen captures of graphs from that study and a copy of the sunday times article on the study https://xsplat.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/women-orgasm-more-for-wealthy-men/
A few comments with links and images about a study done using data from China about how women orgasm more for wealthier men.
It would be interesting to know if this is a cross cultural phenomena. From the study:
Thornhill et al. (1995) found that young women reported
copulatory orgasm more frequently if their partners were
more symmetrical. Shackelford et al. (2000) found that
women paired with more attractive males were more likely to
report orgasm at their last intercourse than women paired
with less attractive males. These studies are interesting but
rely on modest samples (n=86 and 388) of student
volunteers, which means that the ranges of ages and male
qualities may be quite limited. They also found effects only
if symmetry and physical attractiveness as proxies of male
quality. In a larger population cross-section, other qualities
such as income and height may prove to be important.
Their study used a larger set of data from China, and found a strong correlation between the mans wealth and the women’s frequency of orgasm.
Not exactly an alpha fucks/ beta bucks finding.
—
Rollo said: One thing I’ve learned from Aunt Giggles is that there’s a “study” to confirm or refute damn near any premise you like or hate, but what it really comes down to is seeing things in a meta-perspective.
I can just as easily present a case that women fake orgasms more for Beta men so as to preserve the provisioning those men believe is the source of their self-definition of their Alphaness.
Rollo, your attitude is the very definition of confirmation bias. Now you have explicitly stated that you will disregard all scientific studies that go against your premise.
You have an unfalsifiable world view.
Hehe,..I guess I should feel honored you’d start a Twitter account just to tell me all of that X.
From what I remember though, you’ve been ‘buying’ young ass in SEA for some time now. I’m not sure how that constitutes ‘seducing’ young ass, but hey, if you feel that what I write should be disregarded as ‘bad teaching’ because I’ve been married for 20 years, you can always look to Roosh for inspiration on how to live a rewarding life.
I still love you X. Yours has always been one of my earliest blog reads and I still pop over from time to time.