Been busy. Still busy. I'm posting when I can. (Update: I made the title of this post shorter)
Commenters Badger Nation and Esau at HUS nail it. First, Badger Nation:
"Saj, Your comment buys into some classic pretty lies – gamers are predators, only damaged girls dig jerks, and “JBY.” Unfortunately it is empirically disproved. Sadly, women dig jerks (not all but enough to make it a viable strategy). The ‘dark triad’ works. Most betas who pick up game want to be loved by women, few are avenging narcissists (if they were they’d probably be successful with women in the first place). “Being yourself” (re-titled as “comfortable in your own skin”) doesn’t work unless “yourself” is attractive.
And we get the old “just wait it out until the girls get older and want providers!” The real problem with that is that it tells men to yoke themselves to the changing desires of women instead of being in charge of their own love lives. It’s wacked – a big chunk of men should not have to wait until ten years past puberty to have a shadow of a shot at a decent experience with a woman."
Later in the thread, Esau:
"Saj’s patent nonsense has already been addressed fairly well by Badger Nation, but I think less politeness is called for:
“rather then learning to like himself and feel confident in who he is as a person despite past success with women.”
Yeah, and next he’ll run a marathon before breakfast and then solve a Rubik’s cube blindfolded just for fun. Saj, does it occur to you what you suggest is logically impossible for a young man who is (1) honest with himself and not a self-absorbed narcissist; (2) without significant life achievements yet; (3) as yet unsuccessful with women and yet still horny as all-get-out? For an honest person, confidence proceeds from the evidence of experience; if you don’t have the latter, you can’t get the former without some kind of fakery. Period."
So, to rephrase Esau's question, why and how should you, an honest self-aware young man of no accomplishment, be confident?
Because one day, and sooner than you expect, your existence and your love and your desire are going to mean everything in the world to a girl. It's going to be the difference between her joy and her ongoing dreary frustration. Everything great about you, your character, your kindness, your virtue -- you name it -- it will all mean the world to a girl.
THAT is WHY you should be confident when you approach a girl, even if you haven't finished growing, if you haven't filled out, if your skin is still a mess, if you're still a poor student dependent on your parents, if you don't have everything figured out yet, if you don't know what you want to do yet, if you don't know yet what your talents are, if you don't yet know how you will make a living, if you compare poorly to some asshole. If you're completely invisible to her.
You will get better, in so many different ways. Without a doubt. KNOWING THAT is HOW you can be confident. She's not going to know it. It's all in your head. But that's the only place it needs to be to change your outlook, your frame on the world. You don't have to explain it to her. In fact, it's almost always counterproductive to do so. Just know it and say it to her with your eyes and body language, boldly and without apology, with subtle strength. She'll be put off balance, which is exactly where she wants to be. She'll wonder. Then you act. Approach.
If it works, you're in, my friend. If not? Disappointing, to be sure. But do you have any idea how many beautiful, wonderful women you will meet in your life? Tons. I'm telling you now, it'll be more than you can imagine. Just keep your frame strong, focusing on the above. Then act. Over and over and over and over. And again. And again. And again and again. It gets easier every time. And one day, sooner than you think, you'll hit the jackpot, and be the happiest guy alive. Happened to me.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Virginity link roundup
It's late, I'm tired and I don't have much time to post.
Athol Kay discusses virginity here.
The Man Who Was Thursday discusses virginity here. I agree with Thursday that most Church girls I've encountered (those who attend Church regularly and take their faith lives seriously) are virgins or have pretty low numbers. This is also confirmed from conversations with the wives of married buddies about Church girls generally. Robin Hanson has similar data here. These women who have held out, perfectly or imperfectly, deserve commendation and honor and respect for not jumping on the cock carousel when it would be easy to do so. Most would make good wives, although they need, like just about all of us, some improvement.
Roissy discusses virginity and marriage here.
This is not virginity related, but it's a fascinating 2005 story about when men are ready to marry. I'll try to do a longer post on this later.
In Mala Fide has a sad post here.
Athol Kay discusses virginity here.
The Man Who Was Thursday discusses virginity here. I agree with Thursday that most Church girls I've encountered (those who attend Church regularly and take their faith lives seriously) are virgins or have pretty low numbers. This is also confirmed from conversations with the wives of married buddies about Church girls generally. Robin Hanson has similar data here. These women who have held out, perfectly or imperfectly, deserve commendation and honor and respect for not jumping on the cock carousel when it would be easy to do so. Most would make good wives, although they need, like just about all of us, some improvement.
Roissy discusses virginity and marriage here.
This is not virginity related, but it's a fascinating 2005 story about when men are ready to marry. I'll try to do a longer post on this later.
In Mala Fide has a sad post here.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Missed Indicators of Interest (IoI)
Via Aunt Haley, we hear a tale of missed Indicators of Interest at Modern Savage. (which is a great blog that had gone inactive. Matt, glad you're back.)
The analysis by Aunt Haley:
"The reason women tend to be roundabout in the ways they advertise interest, though, is that they want men to pursue them. If a woman has to spell it out for the man, then she doesn’t feel like she is being pursued; she feels like she is the pursuer. She will also feel like her feminine charms alone are not enough to incite action by the man, which is humiliating. Worse, if you do end up going on a date, she will doubt your attraction to her, so expect more shit tests. In addition, by being very straightforward, she will risk being labeled desperate and try-hard by other women and possibly other men, too. ...
As a result, the only option a woman has is to drop hints and hope the man responds. If a woman suggests that you should do something together or hang out sometime, you’ve hit the motherlode. She will not suggest hanging out to a man she has no interest in. If she says something sounds like fun, that’s also an invitation to invite her to join in. If she asks when the next time you’re doing X activity is, she wants you to invite her to go along. If she asks if you need help with something, that’s also an opportunity. If she eagerly expresses interest in something you’ve just expressed interest in (as in Savage’s anecdote above), you can make a move with confidence.
Given all of the above, when a man doesn’t act on a woman’s hints, the woman usually concludes that the man is not interested in her and has a list of 99 things he’d rather be doing. Men complain that women want them to shoulder all of the risk, but for a woman, showing interest and dropping hints IS a risk."
Commenter Will S. nails it:
"I don’t entirely agree that a guy must needs be a “player” or even a “would-be” player, in order to be able to pick up IOIs, but I do agree that the Church has somehow, likely through older brothers not sharing enough with teenage and young adult brothers about female nature, created a lot of young men today who are socially clueless when it comes to interacting with young women. For whatever reason, it seems that each preceding generation of men has tended to leave it mostly up to the following generation to figure it all out for themselves, on their own. Certainly, I never had guidance in these matters from anyone in any church circles I’ve been in."
Part of the problem with your average church-going guy's ability to read women is that he has dramatically less experience compared to players. The church-going guy is more discerning, trying to figure out which girl would make a good wife for him.
The player is out there trying to sport fuck whichever girl he can. Therefore, he's approaching a higher number of girls. A higher number by a factor of ten. And every time he approaches, he learns something about women, even the times he fails. Maybe especially the times he fails. So the player's data set is much larger than Johnny Pew. So when Johnny Pew approaches a girl, from that girl's perspective, he's going to look like a clumsy bumblefuck compared to the smooth players who've approached her earlier. It's not that those players were necessarily inherently smoother, they've just macked enough girls to have worked out most of their errors.
The analysis by Aunt Haley:
"The reason women tend to be roundabout in the ways they advertise interest, though, is that they want men to pursue them. If a woman has to spell it out for the man, then she doesn’t feel like she is being pursued; she feels like she is the pursuer. She will also feel like her feminine charms alone are not enough to incite action by the man, which is humiliating. Worse, if you do end up going on a date, she will doubt your attraction to her, so expect more shit tests. In addition, by being very straightforward, she will risk being labeled desperate and try-hard by other women and possibly other men, too. ...
As a result, the only option a woman has is to drop hints and hope the man responds. If a woman suggests that you should do something together or hang out sometime, you’ve hit the motherlode. She will not suggest hanging out to a man she has no interest in. If she says something sounds like fun, that’s also an invitation to invite her to join in. If she asks when the next time you’re doing X activity is, she wants you to invite her to go along. If she asks if you need help with something, that’s also an opportunity. If she eagerly expresses interest in something you’ve just expressed interest in (as in Savage’s anecdote above), you can make a move with confidence.
Given all of the above, when a man doesn’t act on a woman’s hints, the woman usually concludes that the man is not interested in her and has a list of 99 things he’d rather be doing. Men complain that women want them to shoulder all of the risk, but for a woman, showing interest and dropping hints IS a risk."
Commenter Will S. nails it:
"I don’t entirely agree that a guy must needs be a “player” or even a “would-be” player, in order to be able to pick up IOIs, but I do agree that the Church has somehow, likely through older brothers not sharing enough with teenage and young adult brothers about female nature, created a lot of young men today who are socially clueless when it comes to interacting with young women. For whatever reason, it seems that each preceding generation of men has tended to leave it mostly up to the following generation to figure it all out for themselves, on their own. Certainly, I never had guidance in these matters from anyone in any church circles I’ve been in."
Part of the problem with your average church-going guy's ability to read women is that he has dramatically less experience compared to players. The church-going guy is more discerning, trying to figure out which girl would make a good wife for him.
The player is out there trying to sport fuck whichever girl he can. Therefore, he's approaching a higher number of girls. A higher number by a factor of ten. And every time he approaches, he learns something about women, even the times he fails. Maybe especially the times he fails. So the player's data set is much larger than Johnny Pew. So when Johnny Pew approaches a girl, from that girl's perspective, he's going to look like a clumsy bumblefuck compared to the smooth players who've approached her earlier. It's not that those players were necessarily inherently smoother, they've just macked enough girls to have worked out most of their errors.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Good news, ladies!
Study shows that fatter men last longer in bed.
"Their findings: Men with excess body fat last longer in bed. In fact, heavier men were able to make love for an average of 7.3 minutes, while slender men could count themselves lucky if they held on for a mere 108 seconds."7.3 MINUTES?!?! What kind of superhuman freaks took part in this study??
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Augustine's Advice #1 - Learn to dance
In homage to Grerp, I'm now giving numbered advice.
Guys, one of the easiest things you can do to set yourselves apart from other guys is to learn to dance. And I don't mean just booty dancing. Even if you can grind with the best of them (and I certainly can), the way to set yourself apart is by learning a fun, structured, civilized dance such as salsa dancing or swing dancing. You'd be shocked at how easy salsa is to learn. Start with the basics and gradually move up. There's gotta be a cheap place near you where this is going on or lessons are going on. If not, find some youtube clips. (Readers, if you know of any, please post them in the comments.)
Women LOVE to be lead in dance. They love to be spun. They love to be moved around. Dancing allows you to show confidence and dominance and grace. Plus it's kino escalation. Git r done.
Stop procrastinating and learn. Then, don't be afraid to bust it out at house parties or bars. You'll crush all before you.
Guys, one of the easiest things you can do to set yourselves apart from other guys is to learn to dance. And I don't mean just booty dancing. Even if you can grind with the best of them (and I certainly can), the way to set yourself apart is by learning a fun, structured, civilized dance such as salsa dancing or swing dancing. You'd be shocked at how easy salsa is to learn. Start with the basics and gradually move up. There's gotta be a cheap place near you where this is going on or lessons are going on. If not, find some youtube clips. (Readers, if you know of any, please post them in the comments.)
Women LOVE to be lead in dance. They love to be spun. They love to be moved around. Dancing allows you to show confidence and dominance and grace. Plus it's kino escalation. Git r done.
Stop procrastinating and learn. Then, don't be afraid to bust it out at house parties or bars. You'll crush all before you.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Memento Mori
Always good advice.
Roissy comments on a study showing that "Chicks who were reminded of their mortality were more attracted to soft, less masculine herb faces, and this preference was most pronounced for women at the peak of their fertility cycle....
"In short, women who thought about their own death suddenly found feminized beta providers a lot more attractive than masculine alpha cads. This preference was largest for ovulating women, who normally show the exact opposite preference when times are good and death is a faraway abstraction."
Men, life is short. It doesn't hurt to adroitly remind women of that.
Roissy comments on a study showing that "Chicks who were reminded of their mortality were more attracted to soft, less masculine herb faces, and this preference was most pronounced for women at the peak of their fertility cycle....
"In short, women who thought about their own death suddenly found feminized beta providers a lot more attractive than masculine alpha cads. This preference was largest for ovulating women, who normally show the exact opposite preference when times are good and death is a faraway abstraction."
Men, life is short. It doesn't hurt to adroitly remind women of that.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Great Alphas and Betas on Film - The New World
Today's Great Alphas and Betas on Film is The New World, by the genius Terrence Malick. It about Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 and stars Colin Farrell as Captain John Smith, Q'orianka Kilchner as Pocahontas, and Christian Bale as John Rolfe. Spoilers after the jump.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Augustine's Maxims
In homage to the man, Roissy, who styles himself as the Dark Lord, I present my own maxims. These aren't presented in weighted order. That is, they're presented as they occur to me, not in order of importance.
Augustine's Maxim #1. The presence of those who should be married and off the market has a distorting effect on the Sexual Market Place.
First, let me say that I hate referring to the Sexual Market Place as a Sexual Market Place because human beings are not commodities and humans are not for sale. That said, I get how the same impersonal forces (i.e., supply, demand, risk, reward, scarcity, premium, etc.) are often at work and so referring to it as the SMP makes a convenient shorthand.
(more later)
Update: Reformed Tomboy asks in the comment (thanks, RT), what I meant by "should be married." Put aside the word "should" for a moment, which implies a judgment. I'm interested in examining this objectively.
What I mean is, imagine some of the cumulative effects of delayed marriage on society as a whole, and on how individuals experience it, and how that's changed since our grandparents' times.
Imagine a man and a woman graduate college in 2000 at 22 and start their lives in an urban/suburban environment. In our grandparents' era, a couple of 22 year olds getting married would be pretty unremarkable, if not the norm. But these two don't get married, not to each other or to anyone else. Ten years later in 2010, they're each still looking, perhaps for a soul mate, or perhaps for just a better deal.
Now, imagine another man and woman graduating college in 2010 at 22 and starting their lives in the same urban/suburban environment. The idea of two 22 year olds getting married in 2010 seems even more remote than it did in 2000.
So now these four, and thousands of others who would, in another time, have been married and off the market, are all looking for love and marriage in the same environment. How do they experience this search? Well, men seek what they seek, and women seek what they seek. Do we even need to review these generalities? In short, men are attracted to beauty and youth, and women are attracted to tall, confident, dominant men.
So the 22 year old woman (other qualities being equal), is in a relatively stronger position than the 32 year old woman. As the population of unmarried women increases, those on the younger end of the spectrum have a relatively higher rank.
But the 22 year old man has the opposite problem. The typical 22 year old man is not as accomplished or experienced as the 32 year old man, and therefore doesn't have the confidence or the resources that the 32 year old man has acquired.
So as men pursue the male agenda, and as women pursue the female agenda, and the population of unmarried people seeking love and marriage grows and grows, the illusion of infinite choice arises. The girls graduate from college, move to the city, and are pleased at how many men are out there, at least compared to where they came from. The men in the city begin to look forward to graduation, when new graduates arrive every year.
Corollary to Maxim #1: And so the average man pays the price on the front end, and the average woman pays the price on the back end.
Augustine's Maxim #1. The presence of those who should be married and off the market has a distorting effect on the Sexual Market Place.
First, let me say that I hate referring to the Sexual Market Place as a Sexual Market Place because human beings are not commodities and humans are not for sale. That said, I get how the same impersonal forces (i.e., supply, demand, risk, reward, scarcity, premium, etc.) are often at work and so referring to it as the SMP makes a convenient shorthand.
(more later)
Update: Reformed Tomboy asks in the comment (thanks, RT), what I meant by "should be married." Put aside the word "should" for a moment, which implies a judgment. I'm interested in examining this objectively.
What I mean is, imagine some of the cumulative effects of delayed marriage on society as a whole, and on how individuals experience it, and how that's changed since our grandparents' times.
Imagine a man and a woman graduate college in 2000 at 22 and start their lives in an urban/suburban environment. In our grandparents' era, a couple of 22 year olds getting married would be pretty unremarkable, if not the norm. But these two don't get married, not to each other or to anyone else. Ten years later in 2010, they're each still looking, perhaps for a soul mate, or perhaps for just a better deal.
Now, imagine another man and woman graduating college in 2010 at 22 and starting their lives in the same urban/suburban environment. The idea of two 22 year olds getting married in 2010 seems even more remote than it did in 2000.
So now these four, and thousands of others who would, in another time, have been married and off the market, are all looking for love and marriage in the same environment. How do they experience this search? Well, men seek what they seek, and women seek what they seek. Do we even need to review these generalities? In short, men are attracted to beauty and youth, and women are attracted to tall, confident, dominant men.
So the 22 year old woman (other qualities being equal), is in a relatively stronger position than the 32 year old woman. As the population of unmarried women increases, those on the younger end of the spectrum have a relatively higher rank.
But the 22 year old man has the opposite problem. The typical 22 year old man is not as accomplished or experienced as the 32 year old man, and therefore doesn't have the confidence or the resources that the 32 year old man has acquired.
So as men pursue the male agenda, and as women pursue the female agenda, and the population of unmarried people seeking love and marriage grows and grows, the illusion of infinite choice arises. The girls graduate from college, move to the city, and are pleased at how many men are out there, at least compared to where they came from. The men in the city begin to look forward to graduation, when new graduates arrive every year.
Corollary to Maxim #1: And so the average man pays the price on the front end, and the average woman pays the price on the back end.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Always listen to Grerp - Piece of Advice #23 Debt Equals Slavery
The New York Times Your Money Column examines How Debt Can Destroy a Budding Relationship:
""Nobody likes unpleasant surprises, but when Allison Brooke Eastman’s fiancé found out four months ago just how high her student loan debt was, he had a particularly strong reaction: he broke off the engagement within three days. ...
“But it had never occurred to me that this is something that might end up being a deal-breaker." [ADC: my emphasis]
For the marriage minded, both men and women, this is a real concern. Yeah, I know, True Love Conquers All, blah, blah, blah. But this is a huge issue. There is no situation as a man or a woman where having more debt makes you more attractive. None. It can only work against you. Remember, as the lovely Grerp said, "Debt equals slavery."
Now, I'm not saying never go into debt. Just don't do it lightly. Make sure that the reason you're acquiring debt makes sense. Scrutinize the numbers before you make a decision. And, no, I'm not perfect either. This is tough to do. But going forward, this is the only way to live.
""Nobody likes unpleasant surprises, but when Allison Brooke Eastman’s fiancé found out four months ago just how high her student loan debt was, he had a particularly strong reaction: he broke off the engagement within three days. ...
But as the couple got closer to their wedding day, she took out all the paperwork and it became clear that her total debt was actually about $170,000. “He accused me of lying,” said Ms. Eastman, 31, a San Francisco X-ray technician and part-time photographer who had run up much of the balance studying for a bachelor’s degree in photography. “But if I was lying, I was lying to myself, not to him. I didn’t really want to know the full amount.” ...
“But it had never occurred to me that this is something that might end up being a deal-breaker." [ADC: my emphasis]
For the marriage minded, both men and women, this is a real concern. Yeah, I know, True Love Conquers All, blah, blah, blah. But this is a huge issue. There is no situation as a man or a woman where having more debt makes you more attractive. None. It can only work against you. Remember, as the lovely Grerp said, "Debt equals slavery."
Now, I'm not saying never go into debt. Just don't do it lightly. Make sure that the reason you're acquiring debt makes sense. Scrutinize the numbers before you make a decision. And, no, I'm not perfect either. This is tough to do. But going forward, this is the only way to live.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Friday this and that
Sister Haley takes a crack at Roissy's post on Values Compatibility And Sexual Attraction. Her take:
"He’s not wrong – if all you’re going for is attraction for a hook-up, fling, or short-term relationship. Even for a long-term relationship, differences of ideology and principles may not be enough to disrupt attraction.
Most people, however, will balk when it comes to marriage to someone with significantly different values. Roissy, as someone who professes never to marry, will never face these concerns. But most people do marry, and differences of values will almost certainly come into play for evaluating someone’s spousal potential. And this is wise and prudent, because marriage is the mingling of two lives into one, a voluntary relinquishment of freedom and personal choice. When you enter into an arrangement where (typically) finances are joined, families are joined, children are begotten, and your entire future has the other person tethered to it, differences start to matter very much."
and
"Compatibility of values is especially important when it comes to having children. Most people marry in anticipation of having a family, and some marry because their little bundle of joy is already on the way. This is where the values rubber really starts to meet the practice road. How are you going to raise your child? ... Will you take your kids to church? To which church? What traditions will you celebrate? What will you teach your children about life? About other people? About him- or herself?"
My take? Well, my Mom, Monica was a saint and my dad was a pagan. It was rough, but it all worked out in the end. Was it a successful marriage? I dunno. I'd say so. I'm here. Look, it's not ideal and I'm not an advocate for it. Especially today, when there are zero societal supports to couples to help make marriage work. But it's not automatically doomed. (Ringing endorsement, huh?)
But overall, Roissy and Haley are both right.
"He’s not wrong – if all you’re going for is attraction for a hook-up, fling, or short-term relationship. Even for a long-term relationship, differences of ideology and principles may not be enough to disrupt attraction.
Most people, however, will balk when it comes to marriage to someone with significantly different values. Roissy, as someone who professes never to marry, will never face these concerns. But most people do marry, and differences of values will almost certainly come into play for evaluating someone’s spousal potential. And this is wise and prudent, because marriage is the mingling of two lives into one, a voluntary relinquishment of freedom and personal choice. When you enter into an arrangement where (typically) finances are joined, families are joined, children are begotten, and your entire future has the other person tethered to it, differences start to matter very much."
and
"Compatibility of values is especially important when it comes to having children. Most people marry in anticipation of having a family, and some marry because their little bundle of joy is already on the way. This is where the values rubber really starts to meet the practice road. How are you going to raise your child? ... Will you take your kids to church? To which church? What traditions will you celebrate? What will you teach your children about life? About other people? About him- or herself?"
My take? Well, my Mom, Monica was a saint and my dad was a pagan. It was rough, but it all worked out in the end. Was it a successful marriage? I dunno. I'd say so. I'm here. Look, it's not ideal and I'm not an advocate for it. Especially today, when there are zero societal supports to couples to help make marriage work. But it's not automatically doomed. (Ringing endorsement, huh?)
But overall, Roissy and Haley are both right.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Great Alphas and Betas on Film - Magnolia
Today, I'm starting a series focusing on examples of Alphas and Betas on film.
We start, of course, with The Greatest Judeo-Christian Film Ever Made. That's right. Magnolia, by the genius, Paul Thomas Anderson.
Discussion and spoilers after the break.
We start, of course, with The Greatest Judeo-Christian Film Ever Made. That's right. Magnolia, by the genius, Paul Thomas Anderson.
Discussion and spoilers after the break.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Looking forward to this, whatever it is
Athol Kay mentions something in his latest post:
"Maybe I'm simplifying things a little much, but everyone needs a class in Game before they marry. I. Shall. Fix. This."
What's up Athol? Referring to your book?
"Maybe I'm simplifying things a little much, but everyone needs a class in Game before they marry. I. Shall. Fix. This."
What's up Athol? Referring to your book?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)