Archive for March, 2012
This is for you technologists – programmers, systems guys, database dudes, and any other guy who deals with technology where predictable output results based on consistent input. Human beings are not computers. This goes especially for women. Yes, there are some generally consistent behaviors a man can expect from a women based on consistent input. But you will never get completely consistent output, ever.
I find it almost alarming when technologists start trying Charisma and quickly get frustrated because the results were not as predictable as they wanted. After all, technologists spend their working hours on technology that yields predictable results. Frankly, technologists usually suck at Charisma. Such failure is based on three fundamental reasons:
1. The confidence sub-routine is not functioning properly.
2. Social skills have not been developed.
3. Way too focused on predictable outcomes.
A dynamic social interaction with a woman (verbal conversation) is not a football game. There are no huddles, time-outs, or commercial breaks. Such an interaction is fluid and relatively unpredictable. Consider the basketball game as a better analogy. There are general strategies but the specific tactics at any given moment must change immediately for a team to be successful. After each play in football, everything stops, tactics are considered, plays are selected, and then the game resumes. Charisma doesn’t work like that. Imagine a basketball game where the teams huddle after each basket. It couldn’t work.
Fluid and successful social interactions amongst humans requires good social skills. If a man doesn’t communicate well in a general dynamic social interaction, he’s going to fail even with basic Charisma when dealing with women. This is where social skills become so vital. Technologists too often fail with social skills because of the sometimes unpredictable nature of human social interaction. In human beings, a certain degree of unpredictability is a feature, not a bug. Get used to it.
In order to de-program from the rigid consistency of technology, a technologist should completely re-adjust his thinking regarding dynamic social interactions with women. Don’t work on a specific outcome (she gives me her phone number), don’t work on a generalized outcome (she’s comfortable talking to me), forget outcomes entirely (who is she, again?). This will be extremely difficult for you techies, I know this. I have worked with techies every day for years.
In general, technologists should make a strong effort to get out from behind the computer monitor and actually interact with live human beings, regardless of gender and age. Humans are social creatures because we had to be in order to survive. Be social, be successful.
In one simple declaration, a piece of my blog anonymity almost came to an end:
You’re the Private Man.
It was bound to happen eventually. I won’t go into lurid details but one of my blog’s readers just happened to be sitting two bar-stools down at a local watering hole, my dog sitting on the stool between us. He was a friendly British guy and we were talking about dogs and some other inconsequential stuff. That’s when he hit me with that phrase.
I was absolutely stunned. I was so stunned that I forgot a good deal of the conversation we had. The beer didn’t help. Hopefully the reader can fill me in when I run into him again.
We talked a bit and I immediately got rather paranoid. Did this guy search me out? Did he have some ulterior motive? The Southern Poverty Law Center has only recently given the Manosphere some attention, after all (no linkage from me). We talked more. Nope, he’s just yet another Manosphere reader quite familiar with Manosphere blogs.
He promised to keep my identity and blog a secret from anyone in the village where I live. Thanks, reader, I do appreciate it. But dammit, I forgot his name! The next day, I asked the bartender if the British fellow was a regular and she told me that yes, this guy lives here and frequents that particular bar. His sitting next to me was indeed a coincidence.
It’s hard to say that having readers in my small village is significant to me or the Manosphere. Perhaps my blog’s reach is wider than I had previously thought. Or, perhaps my village attracts the type of guy who would gravitate to the Manosphere and the subjects covered by all the blogs here.
I am going to be quite circumspect about posting any more personal information about me, however. Because of Julie, I’ve already hidden one post and have decided against posting another one that’s already written. She knows that I blog but I won’t tell her how to find it. It’s not much of an issue, yet.
Carry on with your bad selves.
While it should be obvious, it’s worth reinforcing…
- Women are the gatekeepers to sexuality
- Men are the gatekeepers to commitment
- A woman needs to respect a man
- A man needs to impress a woman
- Women have choices
- Men have obligations
- The feminine attracts the masculine
- The masculine attracts the feminine
- Women create life
- Men sustain life
- Women work
- Men work harder
- Women preen and plot
- Men just plot
- Women respond emotionally
- Men respond logically
- Women love conditionally
- Men love unconditionally
- Women are told to “never settle”
- Men are told to “settle down”
- Women often age like milk
- Men often age like wine
- Women follow
- Men lead
- Women shop
- Men buy
I know the standard response… “generalize much?”. Of course I do, we’re not all special snowflakes.
This excellent email arrived recently:
I’ve been reading your blog regularly since its inception and enjoy your posts. We are kindred spirits, what with you approaching 50 [I'm now 50 - ed.] and myself having spent almost 54 years on this ball of dust we call home. I’ve noticed, in my study of charisma/game, that on first blush it appears to be a young man’s sport. In fact, on some forums it would appear the “players” regard themselves as over the hill after the ripe old age of 35. But as you and I both know, inside of every young buck is an older gentleman who will eventually get out. And, as we also know, some men of a certain age refuse to accept anything less than a willing woman of a significantly lesser age. This begs the question: how low can an older guy go?
The reader’s email goes on to describe his preferences in women and his relationship expectations (no LTR, just “dating”). He also describes himself because he knows he must bring something to the table. In summary, he’s tall, fit, dresses well, and [insert drum roll]… he’s an emergency room doctor.
That’s right, he’s a physician.
He also sent a couple of photos that shows he’s not a bad-looking gentleman, full head of grayish hair and nothing terrible about his face.
The conventional wisdom states that a guy should never chase women younger than half his age plus seven years. Here’s some unconventional wisdom: A guy should pursue any adult woman whom he can catch, regardless of age. When a middle-age gent is seen with a much younger and attractive woman, it says to the world he has value to [insert drum roll]… younger and attractive women. Sure, women his own age will heap derision on him and his “dates” (Fiona, please pick up the white courtesy phone), but that is not relevant to his romantic life. Nothing says social proof more than a young, attractive woman on a man’s arm.
On the surface, this guy has all the qualifications to be a true silver fox with younger women. If he has real Charisma, he could certainly be successfully pursuing women in their late 20s. His Charisma must be really, really tight – from appearance to personal interactions with everyone. His confidence must be totally bullet proof. Most important of all, he must be completely and utterly outcome independent with women. His demeanor and frame must be based on knowing that there is a complete female abundance at his beck and call.
As a doctor, he’ll get a fair share of gold-diggers but as he’s not looking for a long-term relationship, he just has to be careful about batshit crazy girls. All the women he “dates” will likely think they can score a commitment from him. Men are the gatekeepers to commitment. Given his profession, a scorned batshit crazy woman could truly wreak havoc on his life.
For the record, Charisma is not just a young man’s game. It must be applied to any man who wants to have successful relationships with women in his life, regardless of age.
When a woman is really into a man, she will compliment him. Receiving a compliment from a woman is a great thing, especially if the attraction and comfort is mutual. Receiving compliments can also be a bit problematic because how does a man with confidence and Charisma respond and still maintain solid, confident frame? The compliment must be, at the very least, acknowledged. A “thank you” works just fine but it’s a seriously missed opportunity to establish or maintain confident frame.
Returning the compliment is usually considered good form (“you’re cool, too”) but it smacks of supplication. I’m not going to get all cynical and say that compliments to a man are just a cheap tactic for a woman to receive a compliment in return. A woman deeply attracted to a man will give honest compliments and expect nothing in return. However, watch out for a woman fishing for compliments, that’s a shit test.
One answer to the compliment response lies at the opposite end of the spectrum when a woman delivers a mild or rather non-serious insult. Standard Charisma dictates the “agree and amplify” in this situation.
“Oh, you’re such a jerk” says a woman to man she finds attractive but won’t let herself admit it.
My standard response is to agree and amplify with this come-back:
“I know I am. My father was a jerk, my grandfather was a jerk, but his father was a complete ass.”
It usually works.
The same tactic can be applied to a compliment.
A woman says, “You’re really cool.”
An agree and amplify response would be, “I know I am. My father was cool, my grandfather was cool, but his father was awesome.”
There is a whole range of funny and confident responses:
- Just cool? I’m super extraordinarily cool!
- Cool is my middle name
- Chuck Norris learned his coolness from me
All these responses are quite cocky. They are also so over-the-top as to be humorous. That’s good. Women are attracted to confident, funny men. Receiving a compliment is one of the best verbal indicators of interest from a woman. The agree and amplify response serves to maintain attraction, even if comfort is well established.
There are other possible responses that aren’t so over the top but still work to establish or maintain frame:
- It took you this long to notice?
- The coolness medication must be working. I need to thank my doctor.
- What, I’m not hot? [That'll confuse 'em nicely]
Follow up the compliment response with a physical sign of affection. A good kiss is perfect.
There is an important consideration. These responses must be delivered effortlessly. An enormous part of having good Charisma is being able to understand and act/react to the rhythm and flow of a conversation. For a man not versed in the art of good conversation and voice control, such responses may absolutely blow up in his face with clumsy awkwardness. A man not so verbally adroit or confident should use the standard “Thank you” or some variation thereof.
I was chatting online with Danny the other day. I mentioned to him that each time I hear a woman talk about a guy involved with a much younger woman, I always support the guy in the situation. “How old?… I want to be like that guy.” That sets the tone of the conversation and my frame.
Danny took it a few steps forward:
I SLAMMED a 43-year-old woman a few weeks ago. she overheard me teaching Red Pill stuff to a 22-year-old dude and chimed in, “son, please tell me you aren’t buying into his bullshit.”
I asked her how many cats she had and she gave me a MEAN look. I showed the guy a pic of a stripper, “she 23.”
His eyes got wide and the woman said, “boy, you have no idea what I could do to you.”
I BLASTED her, “yeah, i’m trading in my caddy for a geo metro.” Even the bartender was cracking up. She had no reply.
I told her, “the sad thing is, you’re actually pretty, but that attitude of yours is gonna keep you and 10 cats VERY single.”
Danny nuked her hamster.
I propose a new Manosphere phrase: “Nuking the hamster”. This is when a man has to directly confront a woman’s rationalization hamster and knock it out off its wheel with carefully constructed words and phrases. It’s an insult, to be sure. But it’s an insult that wields Red Pill wisdom and is not just some random put-down.
Nuking the hamster can be very direct:
“You’re not attractive enough to expect George Clooney to interrupt his schedule.”
“Yo, Princess, get over yourself, you don’t deserve Prince Charming.”
It can also be much more subtle:
“How many cats do you have?”
Nuking the hamster will very likely end the conversation. The response will likely be anger, annoyance at the very least. Nuking the hamster is not Charisma, it is certainly impolite and strictly reserved for hopeless women who simply refuse to understand that they must bring something to the dating/relationship table.
I was hanging out at my local wine bar recently. Two of the female regulars were with me. Both are single and generally making a mild attempt at finding a fellow. One, a fat blond about 45; the other, a slight above average brunette about 53 or so. For the record, I have no interest in either.
They were bitching about men and how no men were interested in them. I didn’t say anything. I didn’t have to. They were busy digging themselves deeper into a hole, their respective rationalization hamsters working the shovels. The man-shaming and self-validating was epic to behold. They told each other that men were so stupid not to find them attractive.
As I know these women reasonably well, they did finally turn to me to go along with their crap and validate their attractiveness. Um, no. Instead, I dispensed some direct Red Pill dating wisdom. I kept it simple. “The feminine attracts the masculine.” Hilarity did not ensue.
The fat blond immediately took the straw man logical fallacy. “You mean men want young, skinny, shallow women!” The other one simply gave up. “I guess I’ll never find a man because I can’t wear anything but jeans and sweatshirts.” I didn’t engage any more because these two women knew they hit the wall and knew exactly what I was talking about.
The fat blond then started a fierce soliloquy about men and how shallow they were and how women of a certain age should be desired just as much as young women, yadda yadda yadda. I just looked at her as she went on. Suddenly, in the midst of her minor tirade about the shallow nature of men and how it’s not necessary to be so feminine, she paused. What she did next made me laugh.
She stood up, fixed her hair, and then re-applied her very red lipstick.
After sitting back down, she kept on going with her verbosity. I couldn’t help but smile. I stopped her and politely told her that I was going outside for a smoke.
Consider it, in the middle of her speech railing against the notion that the feminine attracts the masculine, she made an effort to appear more feminine.
Her words were quite clear. Her actions, however, told the truth.
Carry on with your bad selves.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of my fellow Manosphere bloggers, I am going to give a method to women for determining if a man is a player or not. This only applies when a women meets a man out in the real world – bar, party, event, even on the street. Yes, it’s a test and Manosphere guys loathe these kinds of tests.
Here is the scenario…
A man starts a conversation with a woman who is single. It’s an innocuous chat but the woman is feeling an attraction for the guy. She can’t quite figure out why but there’s just something about this guy that sparks her interest. Perhaps it’s his witty comments, his confidence, his posture, his looks, even the tone of his voice. With the subtlety that only a woman can master, she notices that there is no wedding on his finger.
The conversation continues and gets just a bit more personal. They find out what each person does for a living, how many kids they each have, where they each were born. The man then asks for the woman’s phone number or suggests that they go have a drink. The woman is secretly thrilled yet shows nothing. She should be thinking “This guy started the conversation, What if he’s a player? Maybe he’s one of these pick-up artists who just wants a sexual encounter and nothing more?”
To any woman who finds herself in this situation (and who doesn’t just want a sexual encounter), here’s what she must ask, verbatim:
“What if I told you I was seeing someone?”
A man of good character will back off. He might apologize. He might just say “too bad”. He might even compliment the hypothetical boyfriend as “lucky fellow.” Regardless, he’s respecting the woman’s current, if mythical, relationship. This guy is a keeper.
The next phrase the woman must state is equally important:
“Well, I didn’t say I was seeing someone so here’s my phone number… What’s your number?”
If a woman finds a keeper, she has to make sure he’s not going to run away. Getting his number is crucial and sends the strongest of interest indicators.
In response to that question, the player will simply not care. He will continue on, not respecting that the woman might be seeing someone or is even in a relationship. “I’d still like your phone number.”, “Come on, it’s only a drink”. Players don’t understand boundaries.
Let’s go back to the original test question. It’s worded like that because it only implies she’s seeing someone and the woman can quickly backpeddle only slightly once the guy has passed the test. The “I have a boyfriend” test is too strong and a good guy will be put off when the woman tries to backpeddle from such a direct lie. Women of good character don’t lie so blatantly, good guys can recognize this.
Human reproductive behavior is remarkably predictable given consistent inputs. To not generalize or stereotype would be intellectually foolhardy and would ultimately result in epic dating and relationship fail. The rampant and stubborn political correctness of “we’re all special snowflakes” is a ruinous approach when dealing with women. For the most part, we’re not exceptions, we’re usually the rule.
“Snowflaking” is the process by which a woman treats herself as the exception, not the rule. This concept is the first cousin to Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT). Here’s the most difficult piece of Red Pill wisdom for women (and some men): “Yes, you are like that.” The response is invariably quick and consistent with shrieks of denial, the inevitable insults, and the other emotional reactions that actually show the actual accuracy of the statement. The rationalization hamster feeds well on special snowflakes and taking away its primary diet is terrifying to women.
There are two arguments against Red Pill wisdom, neither of them work. The first is the cry of “misogynist!” That’s just ad hominem bullshit and easily ignored or deflected. The other argument against Red Pill wisdom is the cry of social unacceptability. Social acceptability is just another term for political correctness. It’s also called blue pill wisdom and it’s not working. Here’s just a summary of what blue pill wisdom has caused:
High divorce rates
Declining happiness in women
Involuntary celibacy for some men
Unhappy relationships for too many men
The list can go on and on because the conventional dating and relationship “wisdom” of politically correct conventional wisdom is so awful.
A large part of the whole Red Pill experience is to understand painful truths and act accordingly based on those truths, not some pie in the sky ideals based on political correctness. I want men to fulfill their relationship goals, I don’t want to reinforce ridiculous social expectations that will only result in men being frustrated and unhappy.
Note: This post is an expansion of a comment I made in the previous blog post. That post yielded numerous excellent comments.