gunslingergregi burps up a nugget of pith from his prolix comment splatter. Here he explains his thought process if his girlfriend were to hypothetically get trained by 12 angry minstrels.

after my bitch gone she need 12 dicks to try and replace mine

Great reframe! You deserve this week’s COTW. The reframe is such a powerful tool of social influence that you should try to become adept at reframing every interaction, romantic or otherwise, to your personal advantage. Reframing is sexy and masculine and dominant. It’s a self-aggrandizing tactic that alpha males use frequently and beta males almost never use, unless by accident. Of all the pickup techniques, I can think of few as distinguishing as the reframe that so starkly delineate the social behaviors of alpha and beta males. (Lesser betas will often reframe a situation or conversation to make themselves appear worse.)

***

COTW runner-up is Arbiter, reminding us that women have a very different psychology from men when peer pressure is brought to bear.

Career focused women are having ‘egg-freezing’ parties – NY Post

http://nypost.com/2014/08/13/nyc-career-women-gather-at-egg-freezing-party/

“I don’t have a significant other . . . but I hope to one day and have kids,” said attendee, Donna Kanze, 35, of Manhattan, who has a career in the technology sector. She’s already signed up for egg freezing.

Of course it has to be parties. Celebrate together like a herd and put it on the internet. Don’t forget the selfies. And when you work out, you should work out in groups.

Women act this way because women have always survived through other people. A woman had to win the approval of other women in the tribe, because children were best raised with each other’s help, and a woman needed the other women to like her so they would help her children. She also had to please her mother-in-law, who ran the household, and her husband, who brought home the food and protected her. Her day was very much about winning the approval of other people.

It is also the reason why they on average use a larger vocabulary in a day than men. Communication, connection, affirmation of belonging. No wonder that women like living in large cities more than men do, and dislike living in the country more. No wonder that they are more orthodox, no matter what the reigning orthodoxy is: Christianity, Islam, communism, nationalism, secularism. (When people talk about how women are “oppressed” by religion in the Gulf, they are unaware of the fact that the women are generally more religious than the men.) The group means survival.

And if you are a leftist, your whole ideology is about organizing in a group in order to attack and take value from other people, while the Right’s ideology is about building value. So “career-focused” New York women will be among the most group-obsessed women in the Western world.

When EggBanxx’s marketing director Leahjane Lavin, 34, announced that she just underwent two cycles of egg freezing herself, the crowed whooped with approval.

But of course they did. Whoop as a group, ladies.

The herd mentality explains a lot about women. For instance… popular misconception to the contrary notwithstanding, most sluts are not beautiful women. Sluts are largely drawn from the 4-7 SMV class of women; they are those women who can’t get the high quality men beloved by all women except by throwing their legs open and hoping that they get lucky and manage to trap one of those good men with their honeypot freebie. (Ugly women don’t even have this option because most men don’t want their sex, however readily available it’s made to them.)

Given that most women fall into the fat 4-7 part of the SMV bell curve, there is a herd-like incentive among some of them to extol the imaginary virtues of sluttitude and to actively suppress slut-shaming dissent. Prettier women have the opposite reaction — sluts undermine their sex market leverage — but they don’t have the majority herd numbers to put up an effective counterfront.

And so it is with this egg-freezing business. High SMV women (pretty, young, non-careerist) instinctively know this Wall-induced tech-savior scramble is a shit way to go about living a happy life with a loving man and bearing his children, but they are overwhelmed by the growing numbers of careerist hags rounding up their hagherd who desperately want to believe that a tech-rejuvenated hatch of eggs is the equivalent of a young pretty face, smooth skin and supple flesh.

Unfortunately for the aging careerist hags, men don’t get boners for wombs and frozen eggs.

Welcome to AndrogyNation, where women are turned into feminist lackeys and start to comport themselves in ways that betray a venomous loathing of natural male desire. Exhibit A: Jennifer Lawrence post-locks:

Still smashable, but here she is from a bygone era with long hair:

499 out of 500 doctors of love agree… so much hotter.

Boycuts optimize the looks of vanishingly few women. The best you can say about a woman with short, cropped hair is that she looks almost as good as she does with long hair. Audrey Hepburn was a classic representative of the ingenue who looks impishly sexy with short hair. But long-haired photos of Audrey prove that she looked even better with her tresses out and about for a playful romp.

Given the near-universal preference of men for longer-haired women, it is then a mystery why women chop their hair off. Don’t women want to please men? They do, but cultural and sex ratio shifts can influence how weakly or strongly women feel the need to appease the sexual preferences of men.

The last period short hair styles were widely fashionable on women (as well as flapper dresses which concealed the female form) was the Roaring Twenties, a time of feminism, suffrage, intensified status striving, and growing wealth inequality. Sound familiar?

A social milieu in which protector and provider beta males economically fall behind, home and hearth become secondary considerations to riding the cock carousel, and status whoring among women reaches a crescendo is also a milieu wherein women don’t feel much need to look and behave in the demure feminine manner that is attractive to men. We are again ovaries deep in that androgynous America zeitgeist, one defined by masculinizing women and feminizing men. Expect it to get worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

Avowed feminists loathe male desire because most feminists are ugly and resent that they aren’t the objects of male desire. These loudmouthed bitterbitches drag normal women in their wake, and a general antipathy toward men and men’s sexual preferences, already pushed in motion by larger social forces, coalesces as malign media propaganda and institutional lunacy.

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life (or played summer football in a city park or worked out at a vibrant gym) has noticed that different races have different musculature and athletic talent. Blacks are the most ripped, and often the biggest, particularly in the deltoids and lats. They respond the fastest to resistance training and are amazingly agile on their feet, (something you have to marvel at the first time a black guy with the ball makes a cut around you).

Whites are the most varied, ranging from nerd skinny to hulking well-marbled powerlifter. Few whites can get as defined as blacks, so you really become aware of those white guys who do manage to carve their abs and delts well past the norm for their race. Whites also have wider waists than blacks, and tend to stockiness, although this is far from a universal white trait.

Asians are the slightest and the least toned, and are less varied in appearance than either blacks or whites, (although asian sub-groups, like Koreans, who hit the gym hard can become quite strong in compound movements like the squat that leverage their naturally lower center of gravity and shorter limbs).

Hispanics (or amerindians, if you prefer) resemble their asian progenitors in muscle tone, but not in gracility. And depending on how you define “hispanic”, their physical variance is either very large (think Spanish-Cuban vs Mestizo) or very small (the round mamacita millions).

All these racial differences in physique are far more noticeable in younger men (and women) than in older representatives, owing primarily to the fact that most people of any race get fatter and looser with age, the biological upkeep of their sexual dimorphism becoming less relevant beyond reproductive age, and this symptom of aging is greatly exacerbated by the Western obesity plague, especially in black women who get so enormously fat soon after leaving high school that you’d need a team of archaeologists to excavate evidence of their buried female form.

So, you’d have to be blind or a self-deluding status whoring SWPL leftoid to not notice these differences.

For a while, curious noticers wondering what accounted for their observations would assume that testosterone had something to do with it. After all, T and T mimics are injected by bodybuilders to build huge blocks of muscle. Naturally, one infers that the less muscular-looking races (if not necessarily the less strong) have lower levels of testosterone in their blood.

Finding data on racial differences in testosterone hasn’t been easy, but here’s a website (can’t vouch for impartiality of author) which aggregated study results and compiled the available evidence. What was found was the following:

Average total plasma testosterone in the “Big Three” races, in descending order

East Asians
Africans
White Europeans

The slightest and least muscular race has the highest average T levels!

The complete T level ranking looked like this:

Indo-Aryan (i.e. Iranians and Indians!)
East Asian
African
American
European
Middle Eastern
Latin American

If this meta-analysis is accurate, then clearly average racial serum testosterone levels have little, if any at all, effect on average racial physiques and athleticism. Something else must be contributing to the obvious real world differences in racial musculature and athletic potential. It could be androgen receptor sensitivity. It could be non-free form T levels. It could be serum estrogen levels! It could be an environmental or dietary influence. It could be a suite of genes whose properties we have yet to discover.

The point of all this is that knowledge is inherently good, and lying liars who wish to bury this knowledge under layers of sophistic equalist fat are enemies of the good.

Some elements of game are deliberately antagonizing, because pretty women have natural social shields that need to be penetrated before a courtship can have a chance of succeeding. Antagonism (aka breezy teasing) will occasionally instigate a frisky response from a girl.

A reader sends along an example of this seduction dynamic.

After learning about the different eye lash extension curl types from my GF I told my player buddy about it. He decided to throw it out at this little tart on Tinder and see what happened.

21 yr old blonde responded with a typical shit test. Normally I wouldn’t have thought much about it, but for some reason I thought for the better part of a few hours what a good response to this would be. I was stymied on this one.

Inner game precedes outer game. Recall what CH has told you to visualize when confused about how to respond to a shit testing sexy girl:

What Would An Alpha Male With A Harem Do?

Imagine you got this reply while another girl had her lips wrapped around your cock. Really feel the moment. You look down at the tousled mass of hair dancing above your vitals, then up at your phone as this other girl’s message comes over the wire. Your state of mind duly informed, what kind of attitude do you think you’ll be sending “beach_babe55″? One of neediness? Resentment? Deference? Indignation? Defensiveness? Supplication?

No on all counts. What you’ll write back instead (after you’ve had your pleasure) is a terse glib response pregnant with self-amusement and cockiness and indifference to winning her approval. Once you have assumed this alpha male attitude, the right words will flow effortlessly. Those words could take the form of Agree&Amplify:

“no but my bf is”

or

“assless chaps don’t make a man gay”

You could assume the sale:

“stop trying to convert me”

or

“your flirting needs work”

You could backstab her self-esteem:

“knew it. you’re a j curl girl”

or

“you’re one of those”

You could make a double entendre:

“nice mouth on you”

You could ignore her:

“why is your shirt ripped? you poor?”

You could be the reckless, challenging asshole that chicks dig:

“text me back when you have something sexy to say”

or

“C+. sassy, but not sexy”

or

“no but listening to you might turn me”

You could dick pic her:

“8===D ~~~G A Y”

You could discombobulate her with a non sequitur:

“double rainbow all the way”

Finally, you could make yourself laugh with an insolent cat pic:

Once you have imbued the right attitude, the possibilities for flirtatious banter increase exponentially.

GIRL: “Are you gay?”

MAN:

Perfection is rarely seen so clearly in the wild.

Sending this pic to a frisky filly may not guarantee the bang, but goddamn will it leave a smile on your face. And likely on hers, too.

PS And here’s the worst — and also the funniest — reply to any girl’s obnoxious question:

IF A GIRL EVER SAID THAT TO ME I WOULD END HER LIFE BY PUMMELING HER WITH SOME RIGHTEOUS FISTS OF EXTREMELY MASCULINE FURY THEN WHILE SHE WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR IN A PILE OF HER OWN BLOOD I WOULD PUT A BUN IN HER OVEN. FOR CLARITY, I MEAN THAT I WOULD LITERALLY STUFF A BREAD ROLL UP HER VAGINA. THEN I WOULD WATCH SOME TOM CRUISE MOVIES. BE CAREFUL NOT TO BE CONSUMED BY THE DARKNESS

h/t yeahokcool. This may be the first time ALL CAPS wasn’t overkill.

That’s how it’s done. Suit up. Chin up. Eyes straight. Smirk like you own the joint. Or you’re about to get one over on someone you hate.

As a commenter noted, Perry’s mug shot reminded him of someone else.

It’s almost as if there are universal, cosmic rules governing (heh) what facial expressions humans perceive to be recognizably alpha, (or beta. cf: john scalzi).

When you’re an alpha male, all the world’s a studio shot.

Since we’re on the subject of alpha male mug shots:

I detect a nascent smirk and arched eyebrow. But what really ties the alpha together is the T-shirt. Yes, that’s a graphic of his own previous mug shot on his shirt. Recursive jerkboy game.

CH discussion of politicians’ body language does not necessarily imply partisan support or disapproval. So don’t litter the comments section with political yammering.

Beta bait. It’s a trap!

Beta bait and shit tests are similar concepts with some notable distinctions. Shit tests occur with the most regularity and intensity during early game, and at times when the relationship is on the skids. They are normally loaded up front to help the girl quickly take the measure of your alphaness. Beta bait happens at any time while dating a girl, and are spread out evenly in a relationship as a sort of low level boyfriend diagnosis script.

Beta bait is basically a type of leading question or leading suggestion employed by women as part of their subconscious female algorithm to elicit evidence of low value beta male psychology. It often takes the form of “poor me!” solipsistic martyrdom, a kind of damsel in distress ploy that thirsty beta males and white knights find hard to resist.

Chomping down on stinky beta bait lowers male SMV by a fraction of a point. The more chomps, the more SMV deductions, until enough demerits have been ignominiously earned that the girl can no longer stand to be in the beta’s company. The only way to decrease the frequency and intensity of beta bait is to demonstrate, through various verbal sleights of tongue, an unwillingness to tolerate them.

And that means learning how to respond to validation-thirsty girls playing gotcha! head games.

Commenter Mr. Meaner writes,

One piece of beta-bait I still occasionally fall for is when a girl, who has a great body, utters empty complaints about her body. “I’ll never be as thin as her/I wish my ass looked like hers/She has really nice boobs…” etc

If you try and reassure her it always backfires. Every. Single. Time.

It shits me that I still fall for this one. This is such a hard trap to avoid for the logical male brain, probably one of the most dangerous shit tests of all.

Beta Bait Rule #1: Don’t reassure a girl playing the ‘poor me!’ act.

There will be vanishingly few times in a man’s life when reassurance is the charismatic response and won’t backfire on him. If a cute girl is whining about her looks, and suggestively leading the witness with statements like “I wish I had her boobs”, refrain at all costs from putting her doubts to rest.

DO NOT…

Disagree with her.

“No, you are totally the thinnest girl here!”

Soothe her.

“You’re being way too hard on yourself.”

Badmouth her competition.

“Her? No way. Her boobs are way worse than yours.”

Everyone has heard betaboys say this kind of stuff. It is the coin of the realm for inexperienced men who were raised on presumptions that supplication or therapeutic pep talks are the ways to win a girl’s heart.

Beta Bait Rule #2: Think two steps ahead of self-effacing women.

As Mr. Meaner noted, the male brain is logical and linear, and thus easily exploited by the more socially intuitive and serpentine female brain. A woman asking what sounds like a logical question, or making a statement that implies a logical assessment, is not actually interested in a logical reply. The details of womantalk are secondary to the emotional subtext. Call it… girlsplaining. (Even better, call it “girlspleening”.)

A woman’s beta bait is like the Bene Gesserit Pain Box: Crisis and observation is the objective. The man is presented with a crisis — the woman’s needy exclamations of phony self-doubt — and then he is observed by her hindbrain for evidence of his appeasing beta maleness or, if he passes, of his alluring alpha aloofness.

This is why a man must train himself in the art of thinking circuitously, like a woman. To seduce a woman, you must first embody her instincts. Then, informed by the power of her wiles, you “flip the script” and hack into her arousal center with the password she unwittingly gave you.

Thinking two steps ahead means avoiding the logical response for the funny or witty or condescending response that is more precisely directed at the subtext of her words. Her subtext is her true animating force, the hamster behind the curtain.

Beta Bait Rule #3: The two best responses to “poor me!” ploys are 1. Agree & Amplify and 2. Dismissive Provocation.

Agree & Amplify:

GIRL: “I’ll never be as thin as her.”
DESPICABLE YOU: “Nope. You are one HYOOGE beach ball. Do you walk or roll?”

Dismissive Provocation:

GIRL: “I wish my ass looked like hers.”
DESPICABLE YOU: “Try to be more subtle when you’re fishing for compliments.”

There are many ways to evade self-martyrdom beta bait and come out looking like a sexy beast, but based on my experience these are the two best methods. If you go with A&A or DP, you will never be mistaken for a chump beta, and the number of times you have to hear “poor me!” crap from women will markedly decrease. A&A will usually incite the open-mouthed mock indignation, amazed half-smile from girls that is so indicative of their uncontrolled arousal. DP will cause girls to react more like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar; she’ll pout a little, squint, frown and proclaim her innocence of such nefarious manipulations. Again, like the reaction from A&A, these are the facial cues that betray vaginal inflammation.

Two final thoughts. Beta bait of the “poor me!” variety is usually the province of attractive girls, although older, formerly hot cougars are known to utilize the scam for real reassurance from older men who have more sexual market options than the aging beauties.

Girls who are aware at some mental level of their attractiveness have the ego to spare to parlay obviously false confessions about fears of their subpar looks. Truly hideous girls will rarely beta bait in this manner, (or any manner), because it will be hard for them to express self-doubts without it sounding like real pain. “Poor me!” ploys aren’t ploys when the confessor really is a poor specimen of womanhood. Try to picture a fatty saying “I’ll never be as thin as her.” It is to laugh. Her ballast isn’t some phantasm that even supplicating beta males can reassure out of existence; her ballast is taking up real world space. I have seen sordid spectacles play out where a chubster would pull this stunt on a pudding pop beta male buddy for whom she has long held a torch, only to realize too late her bait would get no traction as the betaboy just stood there blankly staring at her and muttering “oh”.

However, when a fatty or fug does attempt to sling “poor me!” bait, reassurance should still be avoided. Why would you want to reassure a fat girl that she’s perfect just the way she is? That’s adding ugliness to the world. The best response in those rare cases is “Encouragement by Tacit Shiv”:

FATTY: “I’ll never be as thin as her.”
MOTIVATIONAL YOU: “Sure you can. You just gotta stop talking about it and start doing.”

If she isn’t reaching for the bottle of pills after that, consider it a lesson well-learned!

Lastly, there are times when women in long-term relationships will defecate “poor me!” turds on your serenity. A&A and DP are acceptable responses, but once in a while — these rare moments determined at the discretion of your intuitive grasp for relationship harmony — a guileless reassurance is what she desperately needs. If your wife is beginning to worry about her wrinkles, and there’s nothing about her you don’t like, then a calming dissuasion will fit the moment perfectly.

Just don’t overdo it. These “beta male reassurance” moments should be the seasoning to relationships, never the stew. A little goes a long way. Tragicomically, it’s usually incorrigible beta males who lean on the crutch of “reassurance game” to excess, the very last men who would derive any benefit from it, and often the men who experience befuddling negative blowback when their appeasement isn’t met with the gratitude from their girlfriends or wives they mistakenly believe is coming.

Women in LTRs needing expressions of acceptance are usually moved into that position because their lovers are alpha men who are a little short on beta vulnerability game. Such women are sexually bonded to their alphas, but their emotional bonds may fray if, over time, their men — and remember these are men with options — don’t supply them with sufficient sweet talk to allay their gnawing fears of future abandonment.

If your wife or girlfriend really is getting fat or ugly, then “poor me!” ploys are a dangerous game which could blow up the relationship. Unattractive women in relationships — especially those who were formerly attractive when they met their partners — are mentally lubed by a toxic mix of superficial security and comfort coupled with a fearful sensation of impending romantic loss. This emotional turmoil drives them to seek constant reassurance of their prettiness as their men used to know them.

But it’s a catch-22. Reassure these women, and they are never incentivized to improve themselves. Dismiss their concerns, and the same results. Agree with them, and they withdraw spitefully. It’s a minefield and the best way to navigate it is the ol’ “Butter her up before delivering the bad news” tactic.

WIFE WITH POWER OF STATE AT HER BECK AND CALL: “I’ll never be as thin as her.”
DEVIOUS YOU: “You were the prettiest woman I had ever met. And hopefully always will be. I can help make that happen.”

The only other scenario in which it makes any sense to “beta up” and reassure a fat or ugly girl steeped in legitimate self-doubt is one where you want to bang the fug. But then the question has to be asked… WAYB? (Why are you banging?)

This edition of ‘A Test of Your Game’ comes courtesy of a reader in need of a quickie… game tip. Just the game tip.

I could use your advice on a fading opportunity. I need to act quickly because I’m moving across town.

I have a smoking hot neighbor living next door to me. She has a gorgeous face, the kind where her smile lights up a room. Slim, fit, great posture, perfect skin. We rarely meet. She knows I am divorced and have two daughters. She also knows I have a steady girlfriend (a solid 9, but enough about her). She must have heard me by now making my gf squeal because my bedroom borders her living room.

She lives alone, but she’s rarely at home, and I’m not home that much either. From time to time I see her clothes drying on her balcony.

I’m 44, average height, fit, above average looks and I can pass for being in my early 30s. She’s in her late 20s, educated, humble but not shy. I saw her with a dorky guy getting out of an expensive car once. That’s as much as I know.

So what’s the play?

Ok, honored Chateau guests… what’s the play? Winner (as deemed by yer preening narrator or by the reader’s successful F close) will receive a tender, Palmolive softened tug job from John Scalzi, the sci fi writer and male feminist whose pre-teen daughter can lift more weight than him.

My advice: You need to get sexual fast, but in a plausibly deniable way. Think situational opener. You see her clothes drying on her balcony. Any panties? Next time you’re able to chat with her, remark that she should be more careful about what kinds of clothes she dries outside for the whole world to see. Tell her it sends a message. This should get the ball rolling, and rolling fast if she already harbored some interest in you.

Now it’s the commenters’ turn. Hopefully our resident game experts will chime in. I didn’t hand out those VIP passes for my health!

Reco writes,

OT but just had to share. There is this series on Cable called 90 Day Fiance and basically it is typical “reality” series about guys who go overseas to find a woman to bring back to the US and they have 90 days on their fiance visa to marry them. So its ostensibly about the culture shock of these women marrying these men and moving to another country.

But what they are unknowingly illustrating all of the many concepts of the Red Pill on that are discussed on this site. Obviously you can see what kind of men are doing this. Very beta but nice guys who have no real options in the US. On the other side three of the four girls are very cute. Once looks like a lot like Sophia Vergara and she is from Columbia. And she acts like her also. Another looks a lot like Adriana Lima, and another from Russia is very cute. The last one is rough.

Anyway the Russian chick is dating this nice guy totally beta. And she is basically treating him like shit. Not mean but they have known each other for over a year he has visited her several times she is in the US for a few weeks and she has not fucked him yet. Poor bastard does not know what to do. He asks instead of taking what he wants. She just casually blows him off and gives him more orders on what to do. So one night she is supposed to meet the beta boy out after work. He is outside smoking a cigarette and two chicks come up and bum a cigarette and they see the camera and he starts talking to them. Then his frigid Russian cutie comes up and is instantly in a state of dread. She is shooting daggers at the other two chicks. And beta boy is all “worried” that frigid girl is going to be jealous. Ha, then he says “funny thing it had the opposite effect”. lol She started talking about he is her man etc.

That night she fucks his nauseating needy ass. lol Do you know what the first thing she says as she is initiating sex with him? “Your cute!!!!” This dude is most certainly not cute in any way. Amazing to sit there and watch game principles at work. This series has many potential future Heartiste posts ready to inspire the manosphere.

Dread game is powerful stuff. Use it wisely. It’s easy to overdo.

Mystery’s infamous “jealousy plotlines” are a subclass of dread game, and that’s what was happening to this frigid Russian chick. A woman’s jealousy will supercharge her emotions more than her horniness. Jealousy plotlines can be deliberately invoked, unlike this particular case where it looks like the beta stumbled into a fortuitous ensemble cast of female preselection. The trick is to frame the plotline as if the “other women” — i.e. the pawns — approached you or were accidental afterthoughts in your DHV story.  You don’t want to “force” a jealousy plotline by, say, talking about your “hottie ex who couldn’t get enough of me”, or by approaching a girl you know while leaving your date in the lurch for twenty minutes.

Jealousy plotlines are very dangerous because they can easily backfire, but when they work they work like fuckin hamster TNT.

PS: Girls will often describe a physically unattractive but charismatic man who arouses them as “cute” because they don’t have the verbal tools to describe his mysterious allure in anything but herd-like universal terms of attraction. This is why you shouldn’t bother taking a girl’s words describing what turns her on at face value. “Cute” literally can mean a thousand different things to a girl if she likes a man enough.

Max from Australia, come on down! This COTW trophy isn’t gonna polish itself.

When women in the west had “dread” back in the 1950s they all had bodies like Jen Selter (without the Darkness). Now with 3 levels of Cradle to Grave Beta Bux from:
1) The Welfare state
2) Divorce rape
3) AFC’s [ed: average frustrated chumps]
They all look like Oprah.

Think about this as a measure of the collapse !!! Your Grandpa was banging a 20 year old virgin with a smoking body (as hot as Jen Selter by today’s standards) and they both spent the best years of their lives devoted to one another. (instead of their IPhones and our “Tinder” lifestyles)

Although this comment has a high glibness rating, it contains more than a kernel of truth. Dread game on a societal scale keeps women in line, always working hard to please men lest they be cast to the icy wastelands with the rest of the anti-feminine rejects. The opposite of Dread Game — Coddle Game — relaxes selective pressures on women to stay feminine and thin and agreeable. And so what you see now in the decadent, coddling West is what we get: Ballbusting fat feminist cunts and careerist androgynes.

The four fine gentlemen in this photo are North Carolina State University undergrads who have invented a prototype nail polish that, when dipped in a drink, will change color if it detects the presence of “date rape” drugs.

“Date rape”, of course, is a feminist bogeyman that has no basis in reality. Actual rape is currently riding a 40-year decline. “””Date rape””” is more precisely described as regret rape — the female emotional desire to retroactively reclassify a consensual one night stand with a cool alpha jerk (or a one month stand with a boring beta male) as rape. The female hysteria over it shows no signs of letting up, and hints at a culture of hookups and male escape from the marriage market that is beginning to eat away at women’s sanity.

If anything is close to the truth, it’s the idea that there’s a rape fantasy culture gripping the overheated psyches of American women.

Naturally, given these inarguable realities debunking the myth of a rape culture, in ride the four white knights above on their Prius steeds to save women from stealth armies of caucasian frat bros slipping mickies in their appletinis.

But poz never did give nothing to the manboob
that he didn’t, didn’t already have
and facts never swayed the reason of the white knight
Or the blue balls of Sir Beta Male

The really interesting story, though, is the photo itself. Can you spot the beta male of the bunch?

Trick question. All four qualify.

Whether intentional or subconscious, these four M’lady’s have outed themselves as self-abnegating beta males. That standing posture — with hands clasped in front of their crotches — is the international symbol of beta maleness. It bespeaks a deep shame of their vestigial masculinity. They cover their junk and hide it from the world, in case some ugly State U cunt is triggered by a micro microaggression. Shocked by the impudence of their twitching members, they beat them down and shroud them in hand-woven burqas. Perhaps one or two of these anti-men walk with their butts out a little so any hint of groinal protuberance is pruned, like an unwelcome sapling that has dared to reach for sunlight over an expanse of lawn sod with feminist armpit hair.

It’s a self-emasculating inversion of the alpha male directive to command space as if at the behest of one’s conquering penis king. A repudiation of the sexy and masculine posture wherein one stands with arms and hands at one’s side, vital life-giving fulcrum bawdily pushed forward in supreme dominion, tempting coy minxes with illicit pleasures.

The shame exhibited is so blatant, one wonders if this is a new kind of beta male game — Prostration Game — where the goal is complete submission to the feminist imperative in hopes of eliciting a contemptuous pity fuck. If so, this is a game with a very short shelf life, as even avowed feminists cannot help but be repulsed by sniveling supplicants.

The masculinization of Western women and the de-masculinization of Western men is both initially the impetus, and eventually the destruction, of proud and prosperous white European civilizations. Guess which arc of the cycle America lumply squats on now.

There was a “Go-Topless Day” in NY this past Sunday. Two hundred (mostly) women and four hundred boobs marched in protest of those wrong kinds of white people in those horribly backward flyover states who force women to wear burqas over their nipples when out in public.

Hey I am all for women — but only cute women — having the freedom to display their naked bodies in public, as long as those women accept that men have the freedom to leer at their naked bodies and Instagram photos of their titties for Dad back home. But I’m thinking these weirdo cult feminists wouldn’t be down with that part of the individual freedom deal. Equal rights, yo.

Always with these slut parades there are mixed in with the occasional cuties an insane asylum of grotesqueries and/or subversives who provide fodder for normal people to point and jeer. This time it was a couple of men with huge, pendulous manboobs demanding the right to swing their milktits in little Johnny’s face. At least, I think they’re men, but who can tell for sure. Freaks have a knack for looking like they’re stuck in the pupal stage morphing from one species to another.

There’s one manboob, all the way to the right.

Here he is with his buddy, in a clearer shot.

Let your manboobs out, freedom fighter! Why weren’t their nips pixelated? Two dirigibles sporting flapjack mammaries is less offensive to the taste than female boobs? If the goal here is to uphold norms of journalistic conduct, these two gelatinous blobs should’ve been blurred head to toe.

“Slut pride” is synonymous with “civilization perishing”. By the time your culture gets to the point where women are proud for doing something that their grandmothers were proud of NOT doing, you should have your post-collapse plans squared away.

A proud Chateau acolyte writes,

After reading the Toddler game article I decided to try some little kid game.

One of my plates [ed: "plates" = concurrent lovers or would-be lovers] was going to Africa for a month doing non-ebola humanitarian work so I decided to give her a gift before she left. Using crayons I drew two crude stick figures and wrote “u R cool hAV fuN iN AfriKA” accompanied by “I stayed up past my bed time making this for you.

She started beaming and even teared up a little. She told me that she would nail it to the door of her hut so that she could always see it when she was home.

Total cost to me was less than $1.

If you must mate guard, this is the cool alpha male way to do it. Low investment, high humor, and a physical anchor that will remind her of you every day she’s in that grass hut. If Toddler Game can defeat mandingo-hunting EatPraySlut “””humanitarian work”””, it is powerful game indeed. Its power rests in the attitude it conveys to women: Charming aloofness and happy recklessness. However, reader, I would caution you to consider the worst possibility, and to have an escape route ready should you sense on her return that your woman did what comes naturally to women who spend months overseas with noble savages.

NB: Alpha males rarely spend more than a few bucks on gifts for their girls. If you spend $$$ on jewelry, etc for a girl, you are beta and you fail.

******

Update: A comment from Count Rockula who applied a dollop of CH game to his text convo with a coy girl.

Here’s a classic Heartiste reply that saved me… little background here. I had been banging this 23 year old who I met one night at a party. She took me to another party one night, where I met one of her friends, a hot blonde 8, who I shared eyes with on several occasions. Chatted her up, found out she was moving in a month to another state, but never got her number. Few weeks later, I see her out at a bar. Got her number (“Oh man, I was hoping you would ask me for it!”) and texted her a few days later…
She knew I was banging her friend, and I knew I would at some point in the interaction have to deal with a shit test regarding that. Thanks to the words from an older blog posted here, I passed with flying colors…

After some prelim banter…

Me: So What night we meeting for a drink? Wednesday or Thursday?

Her: Is that allowed ? Aren’t you like dating Sara?

Me: Yeah, Sara and I hang out sometimes, but no, I’m not dating anyone

Me: But hey, if you have a hang up about that it’s cool, I get it

Her: Haha no, I don’t wanna hang out

Me: lol

…..15 minutes later…

Her: I’m out of work at 8 Wednesday. Planned on seeing Kayla

Her: Time is getting slim because my flights Saturday

Her: Meet at (X Venue) Friday night?

This blog and its community are life changers…keep it up everyone.

That was beautiful, man. A master class of text game from beginning to end. There is a time for “lol”, and that was it. Poetry.

British women (and American women moreso) really have been getting beefier over the past few generations.

[T]he average modern woman would seem like a giant to her great-great-grandmother, because in the past 80 years all measurements of the female body have increased dramatically.Yet it’s nothing to do with genetics – simply a result of the way we live.

Marilyn Monroe was not the “curvy” woman feminists love to hold up as a fat apologist icon. She was thinner and daintier than today’s modern woman in every conceivable way.

So how have diet and lifestyle conspired to have such a rapid effect on evolution?

Environmental shocks.

1920s

AVERAGE STATISTICS: 31-20-32

Despite widespread poverty, the Twenties’ diet was in some ways healthy. Convenience food did not exist and meals, which involved much peeling and chopping of vegetables, were higher in carbohydrates.

A typical breakfast consisted of porridge or bread and butter. Lunch – the main meal of the day – might have been meat pie with cabbage and potatoes, followed by apple pie and custard. Tea would have been lighter – perhaps a pork pie or scrambled eggs – with a snack of bread and cheese at bedtime.

In the Twenties, people burned up their calories with physical activity from dawn to dusk. In streets largely free of traffic, children skipped and played hopscotch and tag. Sports were a highly-valued part of the school curriculum, with compulsory PE for all.

Almost everybody walked or cycled to work, and for the many women who worked in the industrial areas of the North, there was a daily grind of physical labour at the factory.

The housewife did not need a personal trainer to keep the surplus pounds at bay. In a world before vacuum cleaners and washing machines, housework kept her trim. There was coal to be fetched, grates to be blacked, floors to be scrubbed, carpets to be beaten – as well as the Monday wash with washboard and mangle.

Moving onto the next generation:

1940s

AVERAGE STATISTICS: 33-21-33

[...] Again, it was their highly energetic lifestyle that kept Forties women slim. There was no petrol for cars, and people cycled or walked for miles every day. Girls thought little of walking ten miles home after a Saturday night dance.

With their men off fighting, fashion changed. The curvy feminine look to cheer returning heroes became the order of the day, with fitted suits and belted flowery dresses to show off the waist, and the Flapper’s flattening bodice giving way to the circle-stitched bra.

And Lena’s getting laaaaarrger!!

1960s

AVERAGE STATISTICS: 34-24-35

[...] Our lifestyles became less energetic too. Housewives cleaned their homes at the push of a button as washing machines and vacuum cleaners become the norm, while children fell victim to the Left-wing educationists’ decree that competitive sport was ‘divisive’ and state schools saw their playing fields sold off for housing. Before much longer, experts would be talking of the unimaginable – rising rates of obesity in childhood.

The first steps were made on the road towards the classic modern English pear shape, as, for the first time, the bottom of the hourglass figure became bigger than the top.

We’re gonna need a bigger buffet.

1980s

AVERAGE STATISTICS: 35-24-37

By the time the Eighties came along, British woman was well on the way to an irretrievable pear-shape, with her hips measuring two inches more than her bust.

Snacking, eating at one’s desk, in front of the TV and even on public transport became increasingly common, and the habit of three meals a day was jettisoned. The new-style snacks were high in fats and sugars, and even apparently ‘healthy’ foods, such as breakfast cereals and yoghurts, are high in ‘hidden’ calories.

Physical outdoor games for children started to look very uncool in comparison to a video or computer game, and exercise experts reported that Eighties children were dangerously unfit compared to their grandparents.

Nuke the jabba from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

2001

By the year 2000, the pearshape has become even more marked, with the average waistsize having ballooned four inches in 20 years.

Feminist concern trolls wonder why men are “dropping out” of the marriage market. Well, you don’t need a degree in human physiology to spot a blubbery, boner-killing trend.

Promiscuous men can handle their promiscuity better than promiscuous women can handle theirs.

Compare and contrast:

This is how a man looks after twenty lovers:

This is how a woman looks after twenty lovers:

That’s the thousand cock stare. You can’t miss it. It’s derangement that penetrates right to the soul.

Not only are promiscuous men more emotionally stable and contented than promiscuous women, they are also happier spouses.

Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages – but men do no harm by playing the field, a study has found.

According to  new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.

But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.

But, for men, the number of partners [sic] they [had] appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.

Researchers said the study showed that sex with many different partners ‘may be risky’ if the woman is in search of a high-quality marriage.

If you heed not lies and accept the truth of biological and psychological sex differences, you won’t be surprised to learn that men, the sex with a trillion sperms to please their lovers, are hardwired to spread the seminal wealth without incurring psychotraumatic blowback. Men are geared from the get-go for poosy variety (though not all men will fulfill their directive and not all are geared in fifth) and therefore have the cortical capacity to easily tolerate the comings and goings of numerous lovers without having a breakdown or fretting constantly about how well new lovers match up to old lovers. Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers.

This is why a man with a promiscuous past is not necessarily a bad bet as a marriage prospect, and also explains — along with the fact of maternity assurance — why women don’t care as much about men’s sexual histories as men care about women’s sexual histories. A man can sample the slits and furrows of outrageous fortune and survive the whirlwind of passion to mark a day in the future when he contentedly and without pathological second-guessing slips into a stabler, longer term commitment.

Women who have sampled a poo poo platter of penes accumulate emotional scars that never heal; promiscuous women have a mental storage closet filled with five minute montages of alpha male love, and these exciting, prurient memories rob the female id of something important. Call it purity or innocence or self-worth or ability to appreciate romantic idealism, the slut with ass chafing from riding the cock carousel is never the same as she was before she let herself get pummeled by dick. No uxorious beta male she settles down with in nuptial risk will have power over her senses like her past alpha lovers enjoyed. She is damaged goods.

Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They exist because people make observations and notice patterns, and then draw generalizable conclusions based on what they see and experience. The accurate observations gain traction and become conventional wisdom, until such time the Krimethink Kommissar orders a media brainwashing blitz and the stereotypes are pushed into people’s subconscious world, where they are extracted by white coats in exercises designed to demoralize the enemy, such as implicit bias tests, and through open-source proxies like neighborhood demographics.

Add another widely-held but covertly-discussed stereotype: Not only are avowed feminists ugly and unhappy, they’re manly too!

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and dominance: A possible explanation for the feminist paradox.

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e. those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

(From the results section):

In summary, the feminist activist sample had a significantly smaller (i.e., masculinized) 2D:4D ratio than the general female samples. The size of this difference corresponds approximately to a 30 percent difference in prenatal testosterone/estradiol ratio, which was the index found to have the strongest association with 2D:4D (Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Knickmeyer, & Manning, 2004). Directiveness self-ratings also exhibit a large and highly significant difference in the predicted direction. It is notable that the feminist activist sample 2D:4D was also more masculinized than those of the male comparison samples, except for the left hand in the aggregate sample (see Table 2).

As commenter chris, who forwarded this study, shivvily exclaimed:

Biology and ideology are intimately entwined. It should surprise no one who isn’t deliberately self-deluding that screechingly insane man-hating feminists are ugly, biologically masculine women who resent their sexual market invisibility to men and crave to rearrange society to accommodate their freakish unfeminine testosterone-drenched psychologies. To take a feminist seriously is to elevate the deviant to the normal. It’s akin to unloading thousands of liberty-loving Somalis onto Minnesota because you fervently believe they are just like Northwest Europeans in temperament and will assimilate any day now… oh wait.

Not coincidentally, the best allies feminists have got are plush, beboobed, effete male feminists who perhaps suffered a toxic dose of mom’s ovary juice while in the womb. We already have evidence that lardassery lowers a man’s serum testosterone, so given the current obesity plague ravaging the aesthetics of Western nations it makes sense that fat male feminists would suckle at the flapjack teats of domineering femcunts belched from the bowels of the Jezbuzzalon beast.

Talk about a sickly stew: Aggro feminists + mendacious manboobs. All the degenerate freak mafia ugly in the world compacted into a dense turd by the Hivemind megaphone for maximum truth-suppression and gimp ego masturbation.

The occasional concern troll will stop by here and ask “Why do you give feminists such a hard time? It’s not like they’ll listen.”

Ah, but the goal is not to reform lumpencronetariat feminist grotesques. They are laboratory pets from whom to excite howls of limbic pain with both the chainsaw and the scalpel. Amplified through the stone halls and domed atria of the Chateau, their pain serves as a lesson and a warning for the others.

Normal, pretty, feminine women may not know it, but they too are targets of feminist malignancy. Cursed with her unchangeable outer and inner ugliness, the self-declaratory feminist wagging her masculine 2D:4D fingers finds succor cutting her distant competition off at the knees. We are all Harrison Bergeron now, except for the dyke-y pigs making the rules.

That strategy will fail, as long as CH stands a citadel above the fetid swamp engulfing the West. Divide and conquer. Victory comes when the sick and demented are isolated and ostracized from the healthy and normal, the cultural immune system returned to full functioning, and the icy wastelands where spiteful misfits go to drown in tears of their unfathomable sadness are once again open for business.

eofahapi asks,

are you going to write about the Rotherham thing? It needs a voice that is not delusional like the “Not all Muslims are like that” blah blah blah.

There are two camps of thinking. One says Rotherham is the logical outcome of extreme white ethnomasochism, which is itself a manifestation of pathological altruism, a reflexive mental condition that evolved over millennia of outbreeding. In this take, self-loathing, holier-than-thou whites in positions of power (and less powerful whites refusing to demand accountability from their leaders) are so wedded to their equalist ideology that they will allow the rapes of 1,400 white women and girls by brown skinned goatherders to continue ad infinitum until they are called to the carpet by the preponderance of evidence (and by samizdat rebels releasing uncomfortable facts). This theory presupposes that the ethnomasochist ego is so tender and fragile it cannot withstand confrontation with ugly truths about the reality of race and diversity, so the ego acts to preserve itself with PC social rules that create a bubble of self-soothing pabulum which permits them to go on confident that their worldview isn’t discredited. Since ethnomasochists thrive on external validation from other ethnomasochists, what happens is that their status signaling apparatuses get warped into self-abnegating paeans to the lie that whites are the root of all evil.

The second theory is that the anti-white elite whites aren’t at all ethnomasochists, but are instead a burgeoning new (or orthogonally ancient) race of whites — and here I use the term race in its figurative as well as genetic senses — who don’t perceive themselves at all as part of a broader white identity that must be preserved against barbarian attack. If this theory is correct, the sacrifice of 1,400 white women to brown predations will hardly move them emotionally. They won’t feel sympathy because they don’t feel any kinship, and so for them to sweep the evil of non-whites committed against non-elite whites under the rug is practically a procedural formality with little consequence. If anything, they would welcome such third world predators as allies in their own psychological war against “less enlightened” whites.

Which theory is true, or more true, is debatable. What isn’t is that these traitors need to swing from the gallows soon, before their sickness infects us all and dooms us to extinction.

***

eofahapi also wonders about the nature of feminists,

Because we know that there are differences in male and female brains, if a woman had hyper testosterone, would she really be feminist? I am skeptical, because feminists tend to be not the most logic people. Feminism is a very emotion based movement, and if you try to challenge one with logic it usually becomes heated ad hominens.

Feminists appear to be burdened with the worst of each sex: The aggressive posturing of men combined with the emotional irrationality of women. Not unlike misbehaving children. And what do you do with misbehaving children? You set boundaries and punish them when they act up.

Slap a ho!

I keed I keed. But you should do the verbal equivalent of a firm pimp slap. A reader emails,

Here’s a topic you haven’t covered directly: how do you handle a girl who reprimands you? You had a post on handling bad behavior that was focused more on text game and flakiness, but here is the situation I ran into:

I met a gruff but attractive 20-yo EE girl when visiting western Europe (I’m 30). We took a cab and in this country it’s not common to tip the driver, or they round up to the nearest euro. I paid and the guy was taking his sweet time returning my change (~2 euro). The girl sternly rebuked me for not letting him keep the change as she felt the amount was small. Now set aside that I don’t appreciate being called cheap when I’m the one paying for the taxi ride, and that she may or may not have been correct, how should I have handled this?

I just ignored her which I think is not the best way to deal with her lecturing me like a child. But even in retrospect I can’t figure out anything much better. Thoughts?

She sounds like an ingrate cunt. Be that as it may, she could still be fuckable. So you want to know how you could have maintained an alpha male frame under her withering impugning of your manhood. (Calling a man cheap is like calling a woman ugly. The thermal exhaust ports are different in men and women.)

Glad you came here! First, a question. Did the girl scold you in front of the taxi driver? Because that’s worse than if she had saved a time later to express her displeasure. Dressing you down in the driver’s company means she wanted to enlist an ally to her cause. This is unacceptable behavior, even from a hottie.

If she did it in front of the driver, the best lesson is one that steals her script and “volunteers” the driver as an unwilling third party to ostracize and embarrass her. Instead of addressing her, you turn to the driver and say with mock revelation,

“Hey, dude, she wants to give you an extra 5 euro. I think she likes you!”

Boom. Script flipped. Frame dynamited. Now she’s sitting there flustered and wondering how the hell she got into this mess and why it’s suddenly feeling so hot. Humor and insouciance is social judo; you have used the thrust of her parry against her.

Rule number one when dealing with women attempting a coup d’cast out: Convert her potential allies before she does.

All women are predisposed to win social battles by enlisting the aid of neutral parties. Women “win” when they have won the sympathies of the herd. To defeat this female prerogative, you must prevent her from acquiring those allies. And that means getting to them first. No matter the details of the dispute, when the herd is turned against a woman, she will surrender her beachhead faster than the Rotherham council of elders surrendered their district to Pakistani sex slave groomers. (Never too soon at CH.)

A similar dynamic is in evidence when you turn the crowd against an “AMOG”, and there are a slew of Youtube videos showing Tyler from RSD doing just this. Spergs have a hard time understanding this law of human nature: You never win heat-of-the-moment hierarchical maneuverings with appeals to logic; you win with appeals to the crowd’s emotional perceptions.

BUT, if she waited till later to chide you privately, then you have to take a different tack. Ignoring her isn’t going to cut the mustard when she’s ego-stabbed you front and square. You’ll need a strategy I call Allay & Flay.

The formula is simple: She reprimands you, you initially posture as if her point is worthy of consideration, and then you unsheathe your shiv.

HER: “Why didn’t you let the taxi driver keep the change?”

LUCIFER’S IDOL: “Hm. Good question…. [pregnant pause]… Next time I’ll leave more. I like it when a girl keeps tabs on my money.”

The key here is the reframe. You’ve moved the topic from your cheapness to her obsession with your money. This is an attack few women will successfully counter. She’ll fold into the defensive crouch like a cheap lawn chair. “I don’t keep tabs on your money!” “What are you trying to say?!” “Are you calling me a golddigger?!”

To any of these butthurt replies, a mighty hammer blow of righteousness will close the subject.

“How about this. From now on, if I’m making the financial decisions you keep your opinion to yourself. If you don’t like it…”

Then you motion to the open air with your outstretched arm. Or to the door if you’re indoors.

You have to mean it, otherwise she’ll sense your tentativeness and eat you alive. A firm frame that strongly communicates a take-her-or-leave-her attitude will either rid you of a nagging headache, or earn you an enamored lover.

Commenter Max from Australia ponders an elegant mathematical formula of marital satisfaction.

If a Man and a woman both have 20 sex partners: the odds are:::

1/20 X 1/20 = 1/400

That they will both be sexually satisfied by the one they marry.

Close, but no didgeridoo!

The concept is correct. The more past partners each spouse has, the less likely they will be sexually satisfied with their one remaining lifetime spouse.

The problem with this formula is that the variables aren’t equivalent. As we know, women with a lot of past lovers are less able to be happy in marriage. Men with a lot of past lovers are better able to leave their past in the past and not get hung up on nitpicking deficiencies in their current lovers.

So a man with 20 partners is more like a woman with 4 past partners. And a woman with 20 past partners is more like a man with 100 past partners.

The sexual history-sexual satisfaction equation would then be:

1/5(1/n{man}) partners X 1/n{woman} partners = odds of mutual sexual satisfaction within a marriage.

The greater odds of a formerly promiscuous man being happy in a marriage must be balanced against the lower odds of a formerly promiscuous woman being happy in a marriage. The woman becomes the bounding variable, but the overall odds of mutual marital happiness go down a little with the man’s total former partner count. A woman with 100 past lovers has only a 1% chance of marital happiness by herself, but the chance of mutual marital happiness decreases to 0.1% if the man has had only two prior lovers.

My probability math is a little rusty, so I welcome commenters to adjust this SH-SS equation to more accurately reflect the underlying sociosexual realities.

Mark the Concern Troll writes,

It’s hard for a guy to see things from the viewpoint of a hot girl. Do a little experiment. Go to a strip club. While you are there you will see many girls you aren’t interested in trying ineptly to be fake friendly to you and feigning an interest in you. It will be obvious to you they are only interested in extracting money from you and you will be mildly amused but you will also wonder what they are thinking in imagining that they can succeed and wondering why they don’t just get a regular job and a boyfriend. After awhile you will get tired of them all approaching you and leave. Hot girls see most guys the same way as you saw the strippers at that strip club. Instead of trying to extract money, though, the guys are trying to extract sex and add another notch to their bedpost. The hot girl looks at them and is mildly amused but also wonders why they don’t spend their time pursuing a career and getting a girlfriend instead of hanging out at bars spouting lines they learned at some game blog. Now if you want to call me a “concern troll” go on ahead. I don’t care.

The problem with this analogy is that most men stick around to pay strippers to keep displaying their naked bodies. Men do this because they like to look at slim, naked women. Men who frequent strip clubs rarely leave feeling “annoyed”, unless the strippers who hit them up for cashmoney were fat whales or grandmas. Most men leave strip clubs feeling “aroused”.

So it is with hot girls getting hit on by men. If the man knows what he is doing, the hot girl will feel flattered, happy, and aroused. If the man is inept, the hot girl will feel annoyed.

However, buried in the crack of Mark’s game denialist butthurt is a dingleberry of truth. To seduce hot girls, it helps to know the mind of a hot girl. And that means getting in her peep toes and taking a look at the sexual market through her eyes.

Hot girls don’t get hit on as often as merely cute girls, but that doesn’t mean they don’t notice the head swivels and leery eye rape from throngs of across-the-way admirers. So, hot girls intuitively know their SMV, even if they only perceive it in the vaguest sense. Hot girls, like most girls, also instinctively know that most friendly men approach them with sex not far from their thoughts. Yes, even male feminists. Women may not be able to verbalize this without resorting to scads of hamster droppings rationalizing male attention as something else, but they feel it in their bones.

Hot girls know as well that tiny hors d’oevres of reciprocal friendliness will encourage many men to lunge for the booty buffet.

For all these reasons, hot girls have defensive shields (bitch shields) that enable them to make it through the day without having to deal with the come-ons from hundreds of amorous men. The strength of the bitch shield is directly proportional to the hotness of the girl X the frequency with which she gets hit on. (The most fortified bitch shields are therefore found on 7s and 8s.)

A hot girl’s working assumption, like the male patron’s working assumption in the strip club, is that she/he will get propositioned for sex/money. Now that you know what the world looks like through a hot girl’s eyes, you can better tailor your approach. As with the skilled stripper or escort who makes her customer feel like he’s truly wanted for more than his money, so to must you make the hot girl feel like she’s desired for more than her sex. This, in practice, means that indirect approaches on hot girls should theoretically work better than direct solicitations, and there should be a general progression in your game that, initially, obliquely convinces the hot girl she is not a sexual interest and, later, convinces her that she shares a deep emotional and intellectual connection with you.

Seduction, in this manner, is two steps forward, one step back, with a plume of smoke and mirrors tossed in for effect. And it has to be as long as hot girls are your primary desire targets.