Comfort And Charisma

My readers and commenters have much wisdom. In a couple of comments on a recent post about my hit and miss relationship experience (link below), LostSailor expanded quite nicely on the concept of emotional comfort in the context of Charisma. His two comments are long but well worth the read. My further remarks are below his comments.

TPM, if your heart is truly harder than diamonds, you wouldn’t just be dumping women, you’d be dumping them in the Everglades. Someone with a heart harder than diamonds is either a sociopath, a psychopath, or both. I think you are neither.

But it’s clear that both your history and your Charisma have outfitted your heart with a fine set of plate armor over chain mail. Whether you want to leave openings for women is up to you, but if you want to keep knocking boots with these women for more than a month or so, regardless of whether there is a real LTR in the offing, you’ll have to stop failing at Step 7.

The key is that women need to “sense” some emotional vulnerability, whether there is actual emotional vulnerability there or not is irrelevant. It is possible to exude Charisma through every pore and still maintain a window of vulnerability into the heart, though it be guarded by Cerberus itself.

When we’ve got a woman firmly in the glare of the spotlight of our Charisma, she’s going to be constantly off-kilter. Of course we want the hamster to keep his pace, but at some point she needs reassurance–or comfort–that she’s engaged your emotions, too. Without this, the hamster is going to spin in a dark direction. But even here, the hamster is your friend and ally. Even if you don’t want an LTR, and just want to keep the river of lovin’ flowing on your terms, you need to engage the hamster by throwing in just the right amount of vulnerability.

The classics are, for example, talk briefly about your childhood trauma in losing a dog, which is why you’re so attached to Lucy. Or allude to the heartache you had with an ex after a breakup and how your current squeeze reassures you (most effective post-coitus). These are moments that feed her hamster tasty kibble that will make it your friend. What’s that line from the Sheryl Crow song (the ex played it a lot): “Lie to me, I promise I’ll believe…” (Come to think of it, that whole song is about a woman begging, pleading to be gamed.)

Of course, as you know Athol recommends, that in a LTR, a mixture of Alpha Charisma must be leavened by some Beta vulnerability. This works for dating, too. Think of how much yeast is used to leaven a loaf.

I’ve been using it more and more effectively, and this year the dating success has been increasing. I’m not necessarily looking for the LTR, but the multi-night romps are becoming more frequent. The true Vulnerability Game vibe is, “yes, I can be sensitive, but only on my terms.” Perhaps a better term would be Charismatic Comfort….

That’s an excellent term, “Charismatic Comfort”. The downside is all the emotional energy required to maintain such a balance. Such an expenditure of energy leads to this dark question, “Are women even worth it any more?” I know quite a few Manosphereans who will answer that question with a resounding “No!”

LostSailor continues with a follow up comment:

To amplify a little bit, I’m just extrapolating from some of the harder Red Pill/Roissy/PUA material. Being over 50, and the man that I am, I know I’m not going to pull off some of the more hard-core tactics. But I’m trying to internalize some of the concepts without giving up my soul. The whole “comfort” thing, I’ve come to realize, is a very delicate balance. You can go the whole “Dark Triad” path and learn how to give that comfort just to keep the sex flowing with no intention of following up on it. Once you learn how to do it, it’s very easy, but it’s also essentially lying and lying in a way that can destroy a woman’s emotional trust.

Real players don’t care about that. But I remember a book back in the 70s or 80s about “how to pick up girls” that used the phrase “leave them better than you found them for the next guy.” Well, screw that. These days, the next guy can look out for himself.

Back in the day, if you asked me about feminism and women’s rights, I probably would have said “Sure, I’m a feminist. I agree about all that stuff.” And I would have meant it; equal rights for women and all that, sure, fine. What I’ve come to realize since taking the Red Pill is that while equal rights on a human level are fine, Feminism® is about rights without responsibilities. And the backlash is several generations of men who will play that back at women. I’ve made my own moral choice that even if I just want to sleep with a woman, I want to manage the relationship such that when the end inevitably comes, it won’t shatter her.

Maybe I’m channeling Munson [link below] in a way. I’ve tasted the kind of love and relationship that he talked about and I lost it. I’m confronted with a dating environment that is what it is. I like female company and I like to get laid. Sue me. But I also don’t want to be heartless and leave a trail of broken women in my wake.

Charismatic Comfort is a tightrope. I’m still working it out, but it is a way to quickly build a much deeper rapport and a tool for managing a relationship (which is why post-coitus is prime-time for working emotional openness, she’s at her most primed to internalize little shows of vulnerability), including a breakup. Being outcome independent, if a woman ends it with me, I know that there are more fish in the sea. If I break it off, I want to do at least try to do so in a way that, while it might leave her sad, doesn’t leave her angry and jaded.

In PUA speak, it’s about maintaining frame and congruence, but carried all the way through to the end of a relationship. That’s why I termed it “sensitivity, but on my terms.” Women can understand that, and you can use the hamster even in a breakup. It’s about being Charismatic, without being a real asshole.

“…sensitivity, but on my terms.” That’s the great take-away phrase. I am not always the dumpee when I date women. Sometimes, I do the dumping because of any number of reasons. One of those reasons is that I have taken the attitude that I am the one inviting her into my life, not vice versa. Badger had supremely good blog post on that particular subject(link below).

The Dating To Relationship Dilemma

Munson’s Page

Beta Guide: Inviting Her Into Your Life (Badger)

About these ads
  1. #1 by Badger on July 3, 2012 - 10:23 AM

    Thanks for the link, friend. Creating that sense of emotional presence, that there is something there just out of her reach, is game gold, and better than giving off the image you don’t have anything there at all.

  2. #2 by LostSailor on July 3, 2012 - 10:43 AM

    Aw, shucks, PM…

  3. #3 by Hope on July 3, 2012 - 7:39 PM

    This may be a naive question but.. why do you have to pretend to have “emotional presence”.. I don’t understand why that has to be an act? Can’t you just genuinely emotionally connect with a woman? Surely that’s a really rewarding, beautiful thing and one of the things that makes life rich – to share your inner life with someone else? If not with the woman you are lying next to .. then who? Of course you will be exhausted by the emotional balance required to maintain “charismatic comfort” .. because it’s inauthentic. Is it not possible to try doing away with all the strategies and if you feel like opening up to a woman, then do just do it? I feel like when you are strategising when and how to show emotional vulnerability .. you have lost sight of the fact that you are with another human being (it doesn’t even matter if they are a man or a woman) who probably shares all the same fears that you do. Woman are worth it.. but like men, not all are cut from the same cloth. Showing genuine emotional vulnerability is almost a litmus test to see if she is worthy of you – if she recoils or acts weird – then why would you want her heart? The thought of human beings strategising when they should be tough/hardened and when they should strategically show some heart scares me .. it’s robotic and cold and exhausting for one man to uphold.

    • #4 by theprivateman on July 3, 2012 - 7:52 PM

      Men are not women.

      A man who too much shares his inner life with a woman is a man who loses any respect from that woman.

      “Showing genuine emotional vulnerability is almost a litmus test to see if she is worthy of you – if she recoils or acts weird – then why would you want her heart?”

      This much I will agree with. Yet if a man shows too much emotional vulnerability too soon means that he has committed the grave sin of “oneitis” and that’s instant loss of respect for him. Women easily intuit (forebrain, rarely… hindbrain, always).

      “…it’s robotic and cold and exhausting for one man to uphold.”

      And doing so is the cold, calculating part of Charisma and women absolutely adore that. They flock to it like moths to flame. They hurl themselves at men who practice this. The most powerful and Charismatic word in a man’s vocabulary is “no”.

      Gentlemen, always remember that you are the gatekeeper to commitment.

      • #5 by Hope on July 3, 2012 - 10:35 PM

        How soon are we talking here though? Because the way I see it, the same goes for women. Surely it’s a turn off if she’s pouring her heart out to you within the first week of knowing you. I’ll agree that women find it a turn off if a guy reveals a lot about his inner life straight off the bat but only because we want to work to deserve your respect and trust. If you are laying it all out there straight away .. then it’s assumed you do that with every woman, consequently we are no one special (and granted, maybe we are just a warm body to you but that’s where we turn-off). I totally disagree with your idea that women find authentic emotional vulnerability innately unattractive – this is what bonds you with another human being. It’s part of trusting and opening up and experiencing something unique and special with another person. I’m sure there are women, shallow women, who flock to cold, calculating and charismatic men .. but I very much doubt they are the kind of women that you would want to trust with your heart. Women yearn to know what goes on inside of you.. but I guess your task is to make sure you know whether or not she is deserving of your trust. It’s not a desire killer – actually its the exact opposite, it brings you closer together so the sex is deeper, more powerful and mind-blowing. If you continue to be cold with a woman, that’s when the desire dries up .. because women are feeling-based and it will be like a stonewall exists between you. And no one wants to have sex with a stonewall.

      • #6 by theprivateman on July 3, 2012 - 10:58 PM

        Surely it’s a turn off if she’s pouring her heart out to you within the first week of knowing you.

        Nope, it means she’s attracted. A man should know this and use it to his advantage, whether pursuing a long-term relationship or a short-term fling. This is Manosphere territory, the man’s needs will always be supported and encouraged. A woman’s needs and wants are secondary, tertiary, and quaternary.

        I’ll agree that women find it a turn off if a guy reveals a lot about his inner life straight off the bat but only because we want to work to deserve your respect and trust.

        Bingo!!!! The converse to “the feminine is attracted to the masculine” is “the feminine is repelled by the feminine”. So, earn our trust by being feminine.

        I totally disagree with your idea that women find authentic emotional vulnerability innately unattractive – this is what bonds you with another human being. It’s part of trusting and opening up and experiencing something unique and special with another person.

        Disagree all you want. Biomechanics is a cruel mistress.

        Women yearn to know what goes on inside of you.. but I guess your task is to make sure you know whether or not she is deserving of your trust.

        They yearn that in order to find a weakness to exploit so that her own needs are met before his through her emotional manipulation of him. This is the wickedly ugly element of Dating 2.0. It takes quite a long time for man to open up so much as to make himself vulnerable to potential emotional exploitation. If he does it too soon… the man will leave the relationship building on his own volition or kicked out by the woman.

        It’s not a desire killer – actually its the exact opposite, it brings you closer together so the sex is deeper, more powerful and mind-blowing.

        It is a major desire killer for her. You know the basic concepts of Charisma (game). Regarding sex, it’s deeper, more powerful, and mind-blowing for her, not him. This is the Red Pill wisdom and part of it is cold and calculating. When a man has orgasms with a woman, he is getting what he wants. If she gets the same, it’s a secondary consideration for the man. Related, during sex, a woman wants to be dominated. She wants to be taken, not “made love to” unless they have both already bonded. And that bond can be easily wiped away by a woman who is younger, hotter, and more feminine. Unless, of course, the first woman maintains her femininity and tends to her man’s needs. Such a thing is not a social expectation. In fact, tending to a man’s needs is considered a bad thing.

      • #7 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 10:47 AM

        I totally disagree with your idea that women find authentic emotional vulnerability innately unattractive
        True.
        Women hate emotional vulnerability from guys they aren’t attracted to.

    • #8 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 10:40 AM

      I know you’re already married, Hope.
      So the question I’d like to ask you is … why don’t you ask unmarried women why they string guys along?
      “Is it not possible to try doing away with all the strategies and if you feel like opening up to a woman, then do just do it?”
      Women open up to the strategies of players, and actively seek them out.
      So the idea that you have, of telling normal guys to have no strategies, seems to be to make the players stand out and be more attractive to women.
      That’s fine too.
      Because women have to live by the consequences of their actions,
      and that consequence is that normal guys will go for younger women and not provide a safety cushion for women who previously rode on the cock carousel.
      Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

    • #9 by LostSailor on July 4, 2012 - 1:08 PM

      I don’t understand why that has to be an act?…Of course you will be exhausted by the emotional balance required to maintain “charismatic comfort” .. because it’s inauthentic….you have lost sight of the fact that you are with another human being

      Who said it has to be an “act” or “inauthentic”? Actually we’re well aware that we are with another human being, and the strategies of Charisma are simply an acknowledgment of time-honored rules of attraction. Charismatic Comfort is just concept of knowing when and how to open up emotionally with a woman in a way that not only maintains attraction but enhances it. It may seem cold and calculating, but such is the state of male-female relationships in modern, post-feminist culture.

      The common complaint against Game is that it is manipulative, inauthentic, and unfair to women. While it can be such for some guys, it doesn’t have to be. One of the reasons, I think, that TPM prefers Charisma to Game (and I completely agree) is that Charisma is actually a process of becoming a better man, internalizing the useful traits and ways of thinking of being attractive to women such that they become completely authentic. If done right, the result is happier relationships for both men and women, which is a good for all.

      The truth is that most men have no clue how to do this, or have forgotten it if they once knew it. The post-feminist culture has told them to “just be themselves” and to be “in touch with their emotions” and they will be successful in relationships. Unfortunately, it’s not really true. The concepts of Charisma are simply tools for building happy relationships, assuming that’s what a man wants.

      • #10 by just visiting on July 4, 2012 - 3:47 PM

        Who said it has to be an “act” or “inauthentic”?
        Well…..you did when you said, “The key is that women need to “sense” some emotional vulnerability, whether there is actual emotional vulnerability there or not is irrelevant. ”
        This is what’s tripping the women up. This is different than maintaining frame or knowing how and when to open up to a woman emotionally. This is making the investment hers alone.

        Imagine if you will, that you’ve been dating a young woman who is reluctant to sexually escalate. She’s religious and a virgin, and you think this may be the real deal. The plates fall away, and after several weeks or months of dinners and dates that you have paid for, you find out she lied. Not a virgin. (Yep, players would still be spinning plates, but to make the analogy equivalent, we’re going to suppose that she’s the one and only.) You’d be pissed.

        This is why the women are asking how long. It would be like paying for dinners and dates and getting strung along. (With all of the emotional courage and risk on one side.)

        The women aren’t against charisma or game tactics. Especially in the initial stages. (Or relationship game in the later stages.)But in an LTR, play acting emotion and vulnerability is dark triad stuff.

      • #11 by LostSailor on July 4, 2012 - 9:26 PM

        Actually, I never said it “had to be” an act or inauthentic. I’ve acknowledged that it certainly can be at time and with some guys, but never said it has to be. It depends on the man. Some men open up emotionally easier than others. For most men, I think, it usually happens much further into a relationship than it does for women.

        Dating 2.0 is often like combat dating. Women are looking for reasons to reject a guy, whether consciously or not. In order to create and maintain attraction long enough, a man must be careful about how, when, and how often to “open up.” Some men can do it naturally, some need to train themselves. This is why knowing how to apply Charismatic Comfort is important.

        I agree that especially in an LTR, faking emotion and vulnerability is definitely dark triad stuff. But the guys who are practitioners of the true dark triad aren’t likely to get into a lot of serious LTRs. You say that women are making the initial investment alone, which I don’t think is true. Men and women make different investments in the early stages of dating and relationships. I, for one, am extremely reluctant to make the investment of emotional vulnerability until I’m sure that the relationship is going somewhere and that my partner is also invested in making it work. Men, too, get their hearts broken often by making this investment inexpertly and too early, since it can often kill attraction.

      • #12 by just visiting on July 5, 2012 - 2:09 PM

        Thank you for a well thought out reply. I suppose that I figured that if two people were considering a LTR, they’d already tested the vulnerability waters and were satisfied with the results.

  4. #13 by Candide on July 3, 2012 - 8:15 PM

    I use it as a long term shit test I give to women (or friends for that matter). Tell her about a weak spot (nothing major) you *used* to have (but now have overcome or have it under control). It will be authentic, because the vulnerability is/was real, but knowledge of it can’t be used to hurt you (don’t let her know that either). See what she does with it.

    The odd that it will soon be used against you (or passed around through gossiping) is sky high. Sometimes it will be years or decades later, as I’ve seen among older couples.

    That’s how I do “trust, but verify”.

  5. #14 by Hope on July 3, 2012 - 11:50 PM

    “Nope, it means she’s attracted.”

    Actually I don’t think it does .. it means that she is insecure and an over sharer. No woman worth her salt lays all her cards on the table straight away .. ESPECIALLY if she is frothing over a man. If anything, the more attracted you are, the more nervous you are to share your inner life – what if he doesn’t like me? etc. If you don’t care what he thinks of you, i.e. you don’t want him to tear your clothes off .. then a woman will jabber on and tell the poor guy everything about herself. If anything, it’s a sign of being relegated to the dreaded “friend zone”.

    “They yearn that in order to find a weakness to exploit so that her own needs are met before his through her emotional manipulation of him. This is the wickedly ugly element of Dating 2.0. .”

    Wow.. that is wickedly ugly. Again, I believe this only applies if you are chasing immature, insecure, selfish and decidedly cruel women. What kind of horrible person tries to get a man to open up so she can “exploit a weakness”? I’m genuinely sorry if that has been your experience .. yuck.

    “It takes quite a long time for man to open up so much as to make himself vulnerable to potential emotional exploitation. If he does it too soon… the man will leave the relationship building on his own volition or kicked out by the woman.”

    Why wil he leave by his own volition? Fear of being in too deep? Vulnerability is a necessary part of life – you cannot go through this world with your heart wrapped in cotton wool. It’s a dead, cold world doing that. It’s okay that it takes a man a long time to open up – I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, especially if you are surrounded by women who enjoy exploiting weaknesses! But, I guess my fundamental point is that life is richer and more beautiful if you trust in people, let your guard down and let people love you – because I don’t see how love can get in if you don’t soften and show some vulnerability. Then again, I am a woman and this is the Manosphere – so I understand those kinds of experiences may not be what you are looking for at all.

    “Regarding sex, it’s deeper, more powerful, and mind-blowing for her, not him.”

    So what makes sex deeper, more powerful and mind-blowing for a man if it’s not emotional connection? What else is there?

    “When a man has orgasms with a woman, he is getting what he wants. If she gets the same, it’s a secondary consideration for the man.”

    I thought sex was a two-way thing .. where ideally both parties are enjoy themselves equally? Surely that’s hotter and more satisfying.. Again, I think our entire world-views appear to be different. I see sex and love as a way of giving – as in, what can I give to this person .. whereas, you seem to want to find out what you can take?

    “during sex, a woman wants to be dominated. She wants to be taken, not “made love to” unless they have both already bonded.”

    Yes, absolutely a woman wants to be dominated – 100 times yes. But does that mean that she doesn’t want to know whats inside of your heart? Absolutely not – the two are not mutually exclusive.

    “And that bond can be easily wiped away by a woman who is younger, hotter, and more feminine.”

    Again, I think our world views are entirely disparate. All the things you mention in this sentence are skin-deep. I don’t think you are shallow, based on all your other writing – I think you have a rich inner life and a good heart (even if it has been a little hardened) .. but I don’t think searching for something younger and hotter is a recipe for happiness. Feminine for me falls into a different category – this I can and do understand as probably the single most important thing for a woman can do to maintain her attractiveness to her man.

    I understand that perhaps you have had some bad experiences that show that women do not like emotional vulnerability… but for what its worth I think those women were most probably not worthy of you.

    • #15 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 10:42 AM

      A woman can be wickedly ugly and cruel to men she does not find attractive.
      Which would be most men.
      It’s not the idea of the man “meeting the wrong women” as much as “women think most men, aren’t worth respecting”.

  6. #16 by katmandutu on July 4, 2012 - 1:39 AM

    Co- sign what Hope says, in her comments above.

    ”It’s not a desire killer – actually its the exact opposite, it brings you closer together so the sex is deeper, more powerful and mind-blowing. If you continue to be cold with a woman, that’s when the desire dries up .. because women are feeling-based and it will be like a stonewall exists between you. And no one wants to have sex with a stonewall.”

    That’s exactly how it is for my husband and I as well, and we have been happily married for 16 years.

    We have talked about this before. Neither one of us has ever had thoughts of having sex with another person, such is our deep spiritual and physical bond.

    Such deep bonds are rarely broken.

    I can understand, therefore how Tom Munson felt about his wife and marriage. And from reading all of his stuff I am sure that in all those years of marriage he was not tempted to stray.

    • #17 by LostSailor on July 4, 2012 - 12:41 PM

      You’re not wrong, you’re just talking about a completely different situation. In a long-term relationship or marriage a mix of Charisma and emotional openness is indeed vital. But too much of one or the other is indeed a desire killer. Unless carefully tended, those deep bonds can wither. I know this from personal experience.

      Munson wasn’t wrong, either, especially in his characterization of the hook-up culture leading to soul-deadening relationships. But in the context of Dating 2.0, getting to a long-term relationship where those deep bonds can grow is a battlefield. Learning Charisma is a process to prepare a man to succeed, and it’s a delicate balancing act. If a LTR is his goal, he first has to attract women and navigate and manage the first stages of the relationship. TPM is right that biomechanics is a cruel mistress, and maintaining attraction is what Charisma is all about; emotional openness is part of that, but it’s not the whole picture.

    • #18 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 4:27 PM

  7. #19 by just visiting on July 4, 2012 - 10:10 AM

    @ Hope
    Yes! I think you’ve just said everything most women have wanted to say, but are too cautious to say in the manosphere.
    I wonder though if our way of thinking is more of an introverted trait. I suspect game was developed by introverted men for extroverted women.

    • #20 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 10:45 AM

      Game wasn’t “developed”, it was merely “explained”.
      The idea that people fall in love by accident is one of the great myths.
      I always found it amazing how cheerleaders would wind up married to football stars.
      Or how models end up with investment bankers.
      I mean, what are the odds?
      They must have so much in common!.
      That’s why I laugh when I hear women say that older men and younger women have nothing in common.
      I take it for what it is, a cockblock strategy to keep men around for themselves.

      • #21 by just visiting on July 4, 2012 - 11:41 AM

        Love doesn’t happen by accident. And it doesn’t cultivate itself. That’s why you can’t have a long term relationship based on pick up rules. Even Athol acknowledges this. Certain aspects change. Beta traits really do have to enter the equation in ballance to alpha.

      • #22 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 11:43 AM

        That’s true BUT you’d rather be with the guy other women want, that have him as a last resort.
        Besides, how bad can those guys be if women give them sex and fantasise about them while having sex with their husbands?

      • #23 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 11:48 AM

        Love doesn’t happen by accident.
        And yet so many women discover they’ve married the “wrong” man.
        That seems like an accident.

      • #24 by just visiting on July 4, 2012 - 12:25 PM

        Again love requires cultivation. If you expect a relationship to just run itself or both people aren’t trying, the weeds take over the garden.

        ZLX1’s comment below is gold.

      • #25 by ZLX1 on July 4, 2012 - 12:30 PM

        Game wasn’t “developed”, it was merely “explained”.

        True dat.

      • #26 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 4:25 PM

        @Just visiting:
        The moment a relationship becomes “work” … there is a clear gulf of what can be delivered vs. what is possible.
        Bringing the factory to love … also means there should be a commensurate return of investment from the other party.
        Or do you say that people can do whatever they want, and nobody is responsible for anyone elses’ feelings, and that nobody owes anyone anything?
        ‘Cause that means, 0 commitment, TOTAL douchebag domination.
        Works fine for me either way – since I believe women should make their choices AND OWN THE CONSEQUENCES.
        Don’t blame men for being “a-holes” if the only men you “allow” to approach you … are the “a-holes”. :)

      • #27 by just visiting on July 4, 2012 - 5:06 PM

        It’s why it’s called a commitment and not a vacation. It takes work. Though a healthy marriage has a good share of fun too. And there will be gulfs from time to time over the decades. People do not always grow and mature at the same time.

        Value for value is the ideal and what should be maintained. In reality, there will be times when one person is giving more than the other. If it goes on too long, the marriage can suffer or end.

        P ray said:
        Or do you say that people can do whatever they want, and nobody is responsible for anyone elses’ feelings, and that nobody owes anyone anything?

        No. I’ve never made this a position of mine when it comes to marriage or long term commitments. I can see an argument for it in the short term, but it’s not how I choose to live.

        P ray said
        Don’t blame men for being “a-holes” if the only men you “allow” to approach you … are the “a-holes”. :)

        Lol.agreed.

  8. #28 by ZLX1 on July 4, 2012 - 12:02 PM

    You know how Badger has the post about where men put women onto essentially two ladders?

    Women do the same thing but they have three categories:

    1. Friend.

    Someone who tends to her emotional needs and her need to vent drama, gossip, will listen to her hamster talk. For reference: her gay friends, manginas, sexually frustrated white knights, beta orbiters.

    2. Dude I want to bang.

    Self explanatory, but for the slow, this is a guy who she will blow in the parking lot of the bar after 30 minutes of meeting him. For reference: see every character in every woman’s romance novel or the dude in every Lifetime movie network movie that she cheats on her beta husband with.

    3. Daddy/Provider Type.

    A man that is able to provide the woman with the security that she needs: financial, reliable presence, Ward Cleaver type.

    So…

    Depending on how you approach and initially interact with the woman she will quickly put you in one of the above categories. Just like you put a woman in a category of “Not bangable”, “I would bang her but not take her home to mom/slut” and “Potential LTR/Girlfriend” category. It’s not ‘mean’ of her or unfair, it’s survival instinct.

    If you come off all beta and wanting to do favors for a chick you aren’t sleeping with or want to expose your soft emotional underbelly too soon – you go in the friend category. You and the gay guys she hangs out with. The dreaded LJBF. Escape is tough.

    If you apply Charisma/Game from the outset you put yourself in the “Dude I want to bang” category. Better to be here at the start if you like getting laid. She still might not sleep with you but you aren’t sending her any mixed signals that you are interested in her sexually. If she likes you and responds, great. If not, on to the next.

    If you spend cash on her, try to impress her with your job and house, and your Ward Cleaver good Dad potential, She puts you in the Dad/Provider category. [Classic Beta Provider Game] She will still sleep with you, eventually, as long as you don’t F it up by talking too much or going too soft (see friend category above), it’s just going to take longer because of the fact that you have provider potential she wants to prove to you she’s a “good girl”. So sorry, no BJ in the parking lot on the first night, no super hot monkey sex, but you’ll get to finger-bang her on date 4 and sleep with her by date 6 or 7 as long as she thinks you’re going to commit.

    Now – the clincher:

    If you can be all three things to a woman – you are her dream dude. This is the kind of dude she fantasizes about and wishes will one day sweep her off of her feet. Just like you have your fantasies of meeting the 10 (to you), that is totally into you sexually, doesn’t nag you, is fun and pleasant, nurturing and is loyal. (Did you catch that ladies? To a man, loyalty displayed by a woman is a very desirable quality – remember that one girls – it can up your sex rank a point or two in his eyes in LTR terms.)

    It’s tough though, because we’re only human. Some of us are better at one of the above areas than the other areas. Usually if you’re here reading these things it’s because you were smart enough to recognize that you’ve probably got the friend and provider thing down pat and need help with the Charisma aspect. No shame in that. We all have our areas to work on, me included.

    There is a tenet of game, and I think I fully understand the logic of it now: “You don’t give a lot of emotional stuff or do favors for chicks you aren’t sleeping with.”

    Why? Because as long as you stick to that rule you keep yourself in play in the “Dude I want to bang” category. After (not before) you’ve got her sexually interested in you and you’ve firmly established that dimension of the relationship by actually closing the deal, I believe you can then feel free to start to introduce the “Friend” and “Provider” elements as you desire. Though not too much too soon. If you feel like you want to deliver those other elements of yourself beyond Charisma to her, you’ll have that girlfriend you want or a wife if you want one.

    It would also be helpful if you truly did have those other elements of yourself to give. Meaning, you know how to be a good friend to someone, are a pleasant person to be around and you have your shit together at work. Whatever it is you do. You can fake it till you make it with Charisma as you learn and get better, it’s kind of hard to fake, for very long, being a genuinely good person if you are a piece of shit. It’s kind of hard to keep up appearances for long of a lifestyle you can’t afford. They call that “Fronting” I believe. If you have some work to do here, do the work, but again I think most guys here are probably a good bunch of guys and in the smarter part of the bell curve and probably do okay at whatever your vocation is.

    Now then…

    If you read over at Athol’s blog, how do so many men get into trouble in their marriages and why is he always telling them to up the Alpha? It is because many of them met the woman and initially had themselves in the “Dude I want to bang” category. Then as the relationship progressed they got out of balance and upped the “Friend” and “Provider” dimension and decreased the “Bang” dimension. Mistake. I’ve made it myself.

    See what I’m talking about in relation to my previous comments about being a man in balance? Being in balance allows you to give of yourself from those categories and to calibrate as needed. Relationships are always in flux and the hamster, it doth spin in it’s wheel. When you are in balance you are going to be able to get that “complete” experience with a woman that you are looking for, without fear that it’s about to go horribly wrong at any moment.

    Only the sluttiest of sluts or a complete fool of a woman would ruin a relationship with a man who was adequately giving in all three categories. Notice I didn’t say perfectly giving, I said adequately. You don’t have to be perfect 100% of the time. The time when you most need to be as close to perfect as possible is in delivering Charisma from the initial meeting of her up through first time having sex with her.

    I related how in my last relationship I was firmly in the “Bang” category with her but, because of my own internal conflicts at the time and to be honest, general post divorce anger, I refused to do any “Friend” or “Provider” category stuff. I was so out of balance that it made the woman a nervous wreck for feeling insecure being with me. She HAD to break up with me. I agree with her decision.

    As I said, now I’m working on balance but I will ALWAYS start and frame any interaction with a new woman I am interested in from the “Bang” category. Once I have that going, If I choose to make her more than a bang, I can choose to give her the “Friend” and “Provider” aspects in measured doses. I give a little and see how she treats the gift. If she is callous with it, disregards it, or tramples upon it, I know I have picked the wrong woman and I know sooner rather than later and before I have invested too much of the expensive stuff.

    Expensive as in expensive to me emotionally (Friend) or financially (Provider). You don’t go “All In!” after the first night of sex and emotionally break the dam the morning after or invite her to move in with you the first week- hehe. That’s for your own good guys, and also, it’s kind of weird and will creep her out.

    Doing it this way I think gives me the best opportunity at the complete emotional experience I would be looking for, and coincidentally gives her the complete relationship experience she looks for. It also allows me to make sure over a reasonable period of time that the woman I am investing with like this is worth it, and that there is the real trick isn’t it lads?

    Happy 4th!

    • #29 by ZLX1 on July 4, 2012 - 1:31 PM

      Just wanted to add a footnote:

      Where being the kind of man women consider a “Dream Dude” can go off the rails is if she has an unwarranted sense of entitlement. When I say “Dream Dude” that is only a figure of speech and I am presupposing that you and the woman in question are matching yourselves up on relatively equal SMV values, whatever it is at the time. That would be looks and personality/character traits on the woman’s part and for the men the combination of looks, career, Charisma, etc. that determine his overall market value. Such that both parties are on pretty equal footing in terms of value.

      Here is the problem we see today:

      Let’s say a woman has a two year degree from community college, works as a receptionist at a dental office and is a 6-7 on the good ole 1-10 scale. Not fat, but not fitness model material either. Has few homemaking skills, etc. She’s cute but…

      She thinks she “deserves” a rich handsome dentist for a husband that looks like Brad Pitt, well fellas, good news, the problem isn’t you. Her expectations of what she is entitled to are way out of whack versus her SMV. This is the chick that is easy pickings for poon slaying by those with Charisma. The chick who acts like a total bitch if a regular guy dares approach her. One day she will resign herself to her beta husband fate but it will take about 10 years of cock hopping before it sinks in.

      This is an issue LOTS of guys encounter in today’s Dating 2.0 market and what NMH alludes to below that is frustrating to men and I think makes guys have a negative attitude towards a lot of women. Average guys are essentially told by average women [or below average] that they [the men] are just not good enough and she’s holding out for “better” because Cosmo magazine and the CNN said she deserves it. Hypergamy, which is a good and natural instinct, run wild and given full media and social support.

      Well, when “better” [the guys who just want to bust nuts in her for fun] won’t commit after all those years, she comes back around to those ‘average’ guys (who were truly good matches for her to start with) and instead of having hat in hand and a mild sense of shame for treating them so poorly, she acts like she is doing them a favor for “lowering” her standards and “settling” for them. Really? Who is settling for who in this case? What was it MENTU said over on his U-MAN blog the other day? Something along the lines of “I’m not looking to marry her up, I’m just waiting for my turn.”

      Now, I’m not talking about some whacky case where a guy looks like fucking Rumpelstiltskin and approaches Kate Beckinsale and then is butt hurt she won’t fall in love with him. [If a man like that can do that, he better start a blog or make a video series] I’m saying cases where a guy and a girl, that if you saw them side by side, you’d think “They’d make a cute couple.” But because of women’s behavior and the narcissistic entitlement promoted all over the media, that guy doesn’t stand a chance in Hell unless he gets some red pill quick, or the woman is one of those extraordinarily rare creatures raised not to be an entitled princess.

      Thus game/charisma began to be explained among men to each other as P Ray said above.

      People used to pair off, or be matched up by parents and family with someone suitable and of relatively equal SMV. Now, since there is no societal pressure to do so and racking up huge numbers of cock notches for girls is “liberating” there really is no control element that drives home to people (women) that there is a big difference between their “bang” market value and their LTR market value, and every random bang they add to their tally just keeps on decreasing their LTR value. Women know this though in their hearts, that’s why they will lie about it (their number) until their graves.

      Dating 2.0 Win!

      Now we men have a somewhat similar issue “Hey man why can’t I get that supermodel?” “How come I can’t get a girl like that?” “Why is she with that asshole?”

      Go look in the mirror at your gut hanging over your belt, check your bank balances, look at your torn up ill fitting clothes, your breath stinks, most importantly: ask other people how you are perceived in social situations, think about how you interact with other people, and especially women. Any moments that you remember, things you did or said that make you wince? There is your answer. Work on it and fix it. Fortunately you are a man and almost all of your weak areas like that can be corrected with time and effort to the degree that you wish to devote to it. You don’t really pay a time penalty.

      We’re all a little “entitled” to some degree or another. Some of that is healthy, it makes us strive for good things. It’s only unhealthy when we fail to recognize what we ourselves must do or improve in order to EARN those good things or obtain the next level of success or value. Men understand this better than women.

      Right now, at this very moment, there is an upper limit to the value of woman that I can attract and have sex with. There is an upper limit to the value of woman that I can convince to LTR with me. That upper limit can only be expanded if I choose to put in the work to increase my value first, and thus my value proposition to potential buyers in the market. Simple economics.

      I meet very few men in business and in my social life who think the world owes them anything they haven’t earned. I do meet quite a few women that think that way. It is tiresome. Those women go on the “I would bang them but not take them home to mom” ladder. Which unfortunately is a lot of the women I meet. They want to sell me hamburger at Filet Mignon prices to quote Dalrock.

      Oh and, these aren’t toothless bar skanks and trailer park princesses that the women commentators in the Manosphere always think that we men are referring to when we talk about women who act like this. Nope. These are the career gals with Masters degrees, etc. etc. Allegedly the upper crusts. The ones that every man should be pining for. Hehe. My ass.

      • #30 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 4:19 PM

        Masters’ Degrees in navel gazing more like.
        Take them out of “Encorpera” and see whether they can survive without handouts from “Big Daddy Gubmint”.
        If they had a masters’ degree in something that could actually support themselves (i.e. not PR, not Psychology, not Law … do you observe that all 3 of those require employment via a company?) … they’d be more attractive.
        Being able to survive without handouts, affirmative action or being the diversity hire, is a very compelling quality indeed.

      • #31 by deti on July 5, 2012 - 1:23 PM

        Good stuff ZLX.

        And that dental office receptionist with the associate’s degree, HB 6-7 with no domestic skills?

        All men need to look at this example because she’s typical of the kinds of women you’ll meet.

        She has a little education but not enough to give her skills that she couldn’t get with life experience. She works a low paying, low skills cubicle job. She doesn’t really have any skills, she doesn’t really know how to do anything, she’s never been expected to do anything, she’s never done anything noteworthy, and she’s not very interesting. She’s cute but won’t win any beauty pageants. Nondescript in pretty much every way except one: she is a woman. But to her and her friends, that’s enough.

        Notice this: The only thing she really has going for her, all she can really offer you, is her body and her gender.

        Every man should ask himself: What can you offer me? What do you have to offer me? Why should I invest time, money and resources in you?

        And then proceed accordingly.

      • #32 by Angeline on July 5, 2012 - 7:03 PM

        Gold. Pure gold, these two posts. Thank you Z for putting into such clear words the three legs ideas we both, men and women, need to offer each other. I want to print these two comments out, so I can study on ‘em more. They put into words the nebulous, at the tip of my fingers gut feelings I have had about all this before I ever heard about “Game”.

    • #33 by Anaïs on July 8, 2012 - 3:11 AM

      The triad: Bang-able, friend, provider is brilliant. How about women? What are our Venn diagram attributes?

  9. #34 by NMH on July 4, 2012 - 12:08 PM

    Hope’s comments make me laugh. I would have believed that stuff she says years ago…and that’s one of the major reasons why I was dateless.

    There are a lot of men out there (like me) who are unsure with themselves. They hold truth as the only really thing that matters in life, and so they often look at themselves and see by some metric, say by comparing themselves to some absolute standard (eg the Bible) or by a relative standard (to other people), that they are flawed. No matter how hard they try, they may never achieve the charm, money, strength, intelligence, ect., that they want.

    Years ago I would say this “truth” about myself to women and I thought it would be attractive to them because of I was being honest yet humble. Wrong, this truth drives off women because it sounds like the man is weak.

    If you are an unflawed man, or if you can convence yourself that you are unflawed, then you can be yourself, live in the truth, and get love/affection from women.

    However, if you are a flawed man (like me), you have a choice. Be honest and alone, or live a lie around women and get affection.

    • #35 by P Ray on July 4, 2012 - 4:31 PM

      More men are becoming the men most women want.
      I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
      After all … women know within seconds if they want to have sex with a guy.
      And sex is perfectly natural.

      “live a lie around women and get affection.”
      If they choose to believe a lie, is it your fault?
      Have they convicted anyone of saying Santa Claus isn’t real?

  10. #36 by Candide on July 5, 2012 - 1:48 AM

    Vulnerability game works when the guy is higher value than the girl and she knows it. Roissy covered it before. You need it to keep her.

    I don’t know about just visiting, but it describes Hope and her husband. Plain geeky Asian girl and tall decent looking but geeky white guy. This is in fact quite a popular combo. Good on them, but it is a strategy for a particular niche.

    Other guys using this game (or Charisma, whatever you wordsmiths like to call it) on the girls out there in Dating 2.0’s SMP with overinflated self-evaluation will get slaughtered.

    • #37 by P Ray on July 5, 2012 - 3:18 AM

      It will be nice to see how her marriage progresses.
      I believe fear that he has more options that her, will keep her loyal (it probably was what made her attracted to him in the first place).

    • #38 by P Ray on July 5, 2012 - 3:24 AM

      Forgot to add: Sydney will be the home of the worlds’ biggest brothel soon.
      So good to see women working for themselves, to escape patriarchal oppression! :)

    • #39 by just visiting on July 5, 2012 - 1:58 PM

      Perhaps in dating, but in an LTR something has to give. And no, not Asian. Looks wise I was higher than my ex, but he had a lot of masculinity. Though, Hope and I do share one thing in common. Hard core alpha father’s.

      • #40 by P Ray on July 6, 2012 - 3:54 PM

        Would they have remained employed in the information age? :)

  11. #41 by katmandutu on July 5, 2012 - 2:14 AM

    “but it describes Hope and her husband. Plain geeky Asian girl and tall decent looking but geeky white guy”

    I dunno. I think Hope is quite pretty and anything but plain.. (she is too modest about her looks!) I have seen a pic of her and Hubby on her blog. Yes, Hubby is tall and “decent” looking.

    • #42 by Candide on July 5, 2012 - 9:02 PM

      She has high MMV but average SMV. It’s only because of the obesity epidemic in the Anglosphere that plain but slim girls stand out. There are hundreds of millions of girls like her (SMV wise) in Asia.

      Also, tall white guys have sky high automatic status with geeky Asian girls. As that type of guy, you’d have tons of room for screwing up. Like I said, it’s a niche.

      Outside of that niche, a guy will get slaughtered with Hope’s advices. She is a good woman and good marriage materials, but I wouldn’t blindly follow what she says.

  12. #43 by Hope on July 5, 2012 - 9:19 PM

    Sorry for the confusion .. This isn’t the Hope who you guys seem to know so well. This Hope is 25 and not married. So whilst our opinions might be similar, my personal circumstances are very distinct from hers.

    • #44 by fi on July 6, 2012 - 3:40 AM

      Hope. You are waSting your time trying to get these guys to reconsider their (often weird) views about women – they believe what they believe, and if their approach to dealing with a woman doesn’t work, well they never question it, they simply blame something else for their failure.If this evidence of their own failure to have a successful LTR with a woman doesn’t make them question their behaviour and attitude, I’m afraid you won’t either. What is clear is that the weirder the views expressed here, the less that individual must have to do with any real live women. You’re not the first woman to have tried it nor will you be the last. Read the pages for enightenement in the event you meet any blokes like this. And it’s interesting insight into how important they still feel getting a woman is. But best avoid trying to give advice they won’t take as despite all the evidence to the contrary, they know better than you or I what women think, value and want. They really do. Even though they can’t get any, or when they do they don’t hang around in real life.

      • #45 by NMH on July 6, 2012 - 5:44 AM

        pure 100% unadulterated projection.

      • #46 by theprivateman on July 6, 2012 - 7:29 AM

        Oh, Fi… such the ad hominems. “Even though they can’t get any?” You should should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such low caliber logic.

      • #47 by LostSailor on July 6, 2012 - 7:51 AM

        Sometime truth is hard to accept, fi. I had a hard time accepting it at first. But when I started seeing the truth play out in everyday life, honesty demanded that I face and accept it. I think you know it’s all true, but can’t accept it yet. The presumption in your posts about what our lives are like is a tell. One truth is if you meet any blokes like us, you won’t recognize it; you’ll just be charmed…

      • #48 by fi on July 6, 2012 - 9:54 AM

        Well…you know, I find the arrogance on here about what I, as a woman, think like and value in a man off putting. And that straight away runs counter to dating 2 or whatever you call it whereby you believe the arrogance is what women want. And what may work on a girl of 19 will not work on an older grown up one. Just like a boy and man aren’t the same and don’t want the same things. And what attracts a woman to a man in the first instance has to be backed up with additional qualities to make them hang around, if there’s nothing more (or negative qualities appear) than of course the woman will go. You know that women don’t think like men or value the same things or run relationships the same way that men do, but you’re trying to understand them in relation to men. Which is why the phrase ‘no second chances’ would never be uttered by a woman. Either she has seen enough to decide to get out, or she wants to discuss whether the ‘issue’ could be resolved or lived with, or she’s given up eventually after several chances. Women’s egos aren’t tied up in the same way and unless a man she liked and cared about treated her really badly then if he came back after leaving, and she still liked him, she’d probably try it again.

      • #49 by LostSailor on July 6, 2012 - 10:59 AM

        Congratulations, fi! You’ve finally recognized that men and women think and act differently. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing that you have one, so it’s good to see you taking that first step.

        The next step is not mistaking confidence for arrogance. I know it’s off-putting to realize that thousands of men are using the internet to educate each other about the biomechanics of attraction and how women react to confident masculinity. I’ve found that it’s the more feminist women who react with the most anger to this because they see any support of masculinity as an attack, such is the fragile belief in the power of sisterhood. Relax. It’s not an attack, just a re-balancing of the Force.

        It’s an uncomfortable truth that the rules of attraction work the same whether a woman is 19 or 39 or 59. But, remember, the truth shall set you free.

        Women’s egos aren’t tied up in the same way and unless a man she liked and cared about treated her really badly then if he came back after leaving, and she still liked him, she’d probably try it again.

        Oh, but fi, they are, they are. Let’s unpack this statement and zero in on the key phrase. “she liked and cared about…and she still liked him….” True that a woman that is still attracted to a man may give him a second chance (and exact a price for it as well). But it is also true that there is nothing more ego-driven than a woman who has fallen out of attraction with a man, and nothing more cruel. For a woman who has fallen out of attraction, not only are there no second chances, there aren’t even second glances.

      • #50 by P Ray on July 6, 2012 - 3:36 PM

        @fi:
        Here’s a little something to think about.
        (Richard’s Rebuttal): If women weren’t attracted to violent men, or men who hated women,

        then all the violence in domestic/intimate partner relationships,
        would be the fault of women.
        (If you could take a picture before your head explodes, it would be much appreciated) :)

    • #51 by fi on July 6, 2012 - 11:45 AM

      You see that’s why you aren’t successful, even if in the short term you appear to be. You just won’t listen to what women say and you don’t respect them.

      And why on earth would anybody, male or female, give a second chance to someone they’re not attracted to?

      • #52 by LostSailor on July 6, 2012 - 12:40 PM

        Quite presumptuous, aren’t we, fi? You have absolutely no idea whether I’m successful or not. I listen to what women say; whether I agree with it or not is a different matter. But I place much more weight on a woman’s behavior than I do what she says. I also respect women who are deserving of respect. Your understanding of attraction seems fairly shallow, judging by how often you miss the point.

      • #53 by theprivateman on July 6, 2012 - 1:06 PM

        She’s likely responding to me because I have revealed the most about myself in regards to the woman who has recently walked away from me. What I haven’t revealed much about are the women who did want a more serious relationship with me and I have been the one doing the walking away.

        I have also not revealed at all are the drive-by “relationships” of mine that involved some fun sex, a few laughs, and a quick departure after a day or no more than a week. As my goal is something more long-term, stories of such fleeting liaisons would be too much about titillation and less about learning, wisdom, and introspection.

        LIke you, LostSailor, I pay little heed to the words of women when they talk about dating and relationships. Rather, it’s the actions of women which tell the real, truthful story. I really do think it galls many women when the menfolk sneak off into the woods (the Internet) to discuss these type of issues and share stories and wisdom. Every now and again, something the men say causes female hackles to rise and they feel compelled to chime in with denial and some shame directed at the men.

      • #54 by fi on July 6, 2012 - 2:01 PM

        PM – I wasn’t referring to you, as you seem quite thoughtful and nice. I like reading you and always find what you say insightful. Really.

      • #55 by P Ray on July 6, 2012 - 3:39 PM

        Them nice and respectful men …
        always seem to clean up AFTER the woman has chosen to be with men who disrespected her, when she had youth, beauty and fertility to offer.
        Those guys are so lucky! :)

      • #56 by ZLX1 on July 6, 2012 - 7:49 PM

        Fi,

        I can assure that “Charisma” as we term it, works on older women. I don’t date 19 year olds, yet. Lolz. I date women in their thirties. I can say honestly that I am sometimes shocked by how effectively it does work to push those attraction buttons and generate a rather predictable response. Now I predicate saying that under the consideration that the woman does find me attractive in some manner to start with and she does have some inclination to interact with me.

        If so, game or whatever we wish to call it, facilitates those interactions, particularly the very early ones such as meeting as strangers for the first time in a social situation, and it amps up the attraction she feels for me. I use the word attraction very carefully here. I am not confusing it with any feelings of emotional closeness, fondness, love, or what have you. I’m strictly talking about attraction, the generation and maintenance thereof. It works.

        It’s not enough by itself to sustain a long term relationship, IMO, but it’s a dandy way to start.

        If a woman just doesn’t find me attractive to start with, it’s not a miracle pill. Sometimes you’re just not someone’s type.

        Now, If a woman is lukewarm on me to start with, it might give me a shot at dating her by displaying my confidence, charm and humor, and most importantly avoiding obvious gaffes and foot in mouth moments. These are the kinds of things you’re Uncle, Father or older brother used to tell you, “Don’t say that kind of stuff to girls…” “Don’t stand like that, you look nervous when you do…” “You look like a slob dressed like that…” “Dude you need to get back to working out…” “I would handle this situation like that…”, “Here’s how you ask for a raise…”, etc.

        You women offer “girl game” advice to each other and you know it. Your sisters, aunts, mothers and friends and Cosmo magazine spend endless amounts of time and energy discussing men, how to flirt with them, how to do naughty things with them without being mistaken for a “bad girl”, how to dress attractive for them, how to do your makeup, how to plan your dream wedding, etc. You even write books about it like “The Rules” for example. Written by a woman for women interested in playing the game.

        So, what?

        We share information on our side of the aisle on how to work on our weak areas, get the self confidence up if it is lacking, and ways to make yourself truly a better man. Not just in regards to women and sex. You’ll notice quite often, if you pay attention, that much of the advice we give to each other, when not speaking of a particular dating or woman conundrum, are exhortations to improve yourself as man, for your own satisfaction.

        Maybe I’m crazy Fi, but I think women tend to appreciate men like that, but I could be way off here, am I? I think women like guys who actually give a shit about themselves, take care of themselves, have some pride and self confidence, who are good at doing guys things, try to live productive lives, are socially adept and fun to be around. Women don’t like it when we act like that? Hmm. I guess I have it all wrong.

        I use game to enhance my life, and my interactions with women and I believe that when it is used in an ethical manner (oh brother) it is actually an enhancement to the woman’s life, especially in the context of a long term relationship or marriage. It’s called “keeping the spark alive.” I use it from the context of gaining understanding of how interactions between men and women operate, on the ground, in the trenches, and how I can improve my interactions, but I test it against the reality I see around me and the reality of my interactions.

        It’s not arrogance on display. It’s confidence, but even with all my confidence, charming small talk, manners, good grooming, etc. There are some women that just aren’t going to like me “that way.” That’s totally fine, the lady always has a choice Fi and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

        I feel no more fake using “Charisma” than I feel fake when I go to a fine dining restaurant and use proper etiquette and table manners. Both of them are learned social behaviors, taught to you by others, for the benefit of yourself and those around you. Just because you learned a set of behaviors that are appropriate to a certain social situation and you put them into practice doesn’t mean you are fake or full of shit.

        Just because you are a man that has an interest in these things doesn’t automatically mean you are looking to go around hate fucking women, breaking hearts and leaving people emotional wrecks. Though, there are some who do those things. Their choice.

        On the other hand, there are quite a few men in the manosphere that would be really happy if they could learn how to manage their marriage so that their wife would be sweet to them and sexual with them again. There are quite a few young guys looking to navigate getting and understanding their first serious girlfriend. There are older men like myself, coming out of mid and long term marriages who are like WTF? happened to dating, so we’re appreciative that other men take the time to give us an update on what we’ve missed the last ten years or so. You can’t just lump everyone into one pile and scream “ARROGANT PIGS!” People aren’t that black and white Fi.

        My personal take on the Manosphere (specifically this niche of it) is that I look at it as a sounding board for men to interact with each in an effort to improve ourselves as individuals, in real day to day life terms, not just pretending, but really taking an interest in ourselves to suss out our weak areas and fix them with constructive feedback from other guys.

        What’s wrong with that Fi? Nothing, that’s what. It’s the same thing we used to do talking to our friends at the gentleman’s club and the pubs. Oh, and getting the sex, affection and relationships we might desire as a side benefit to all this doesn’t hurt either. You wouldn’t deny us that would you Fi? Or say that we are somehow depraved or “weird” because we like and want those things?

        After more than decade with the same woman, I was back in the dating market. It certainly had changed to the point of being pretty unrecognizable. The old dating behaviors or courting behaviors my father had taught me, and which were perfectly appropriate way back in the day when I was wooing my ex-wife, were ridiculously out of touch with the way the culture had changed. It was like showing up for battle with a bow and arrow and everyone else had tactical nukes.

        Your attacks stating that we don’t get women or can’t get them is very typical and really just beneath you Fi. It’s the same kind of generic insult a woman will use when she says a guy is “creepy.” You’re not stupid Fi, even when you say stupid things like that.

        I can get women. I had them as a teenager, I had them in college, I had them in the Army. I had a wife after and I have the sons eating all the food in my house right now to prove that I know where ze Penis is placed. I have women in my life now, and I will be so bold as to guarantee you that it will always be so until they bury me, and even then I can guarantee you that there will be women weeping for me at my grave.

        Some will weep for memories of my schlong placed in their va-jay-jay, some will weep that the man who gave them sons has passed, some will weep because they can no longer enjoy my witty conversations and dry humor, some will weep because they will miss the giddy excitement they felt when I would take them on surprise adventures with me, others will weep because they know that no other man will plunder their poon like I once did. Others will weep because I took them off of my insurance policy and didn’t leave the hateful bitch nuthin’. A-hoy!

        So here we are Fi. We learn, we share, we offer each other advice, call each other out when needed, etc. Sorry love, you stepped inside the men’s clubhouse, don’t be shocked by what you hear. Don’t get too angry or upset, though I’m certain you’re probably very cute when you’re angry and you crinkle up your nose and furrow your brow ever so slightly…

        ZLX1

      • #57 by zlx1 on July 6, 2012 - 7:58 PM

        Here you go Fi, just pay attention to the words. Don’t take life and love so seriously all the time:

  1. What I’m Reading « I Left The Matrix
  2. Linkage Is Good For You, 7-8-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,423 other followers

%d bloggers like this: