Alpha Mail: blind Game

KC asks about how women perceive his blindness:

I have a question. I'm blind and a Christian, and I feel like this serves as an automatic disqualifier for 95% of the dates I've ever been on (but no women will EVER say this, especially not Christian ones in America.) Do you think my assumption is accurate? I feel like the best thing I can do is just live with it and keep going on dates (or just stay single, which seems like less work right now) but should I be doing anything to counteract this possibility?

I suspect KC is correct and his blindness is not only an auto-disqualifier for many women, but a disqualifier none of them will ever dare to tell him about for fear of how it makes them look bad.  The problem is that whereas blindness can appeal to the male instinct to protect, it detracts from the female instinct to be protected.

To counteract his socio-sexual handicap, KC would be advised to cultivate a stronger and more aggressive image.  He always should wear cool sunglasses of a kind that Hollywood villains wear, bulk up physically with weightlifting, and if he has a seeing eye dog, he should get a studded collar and harness for it.  Instead of using the conventional white stick, he should rock a black cane with a silver skull or bull's head on the handle, and in general, stylistically embrace his blindness.  Growing his hair long or shaving his head are also potentially useful options.

Many people tend to think of blind men and women as quasi-children; many would be amazed at the very idea that KC participates in discussions on the Internet.  But by aggressively blinging his blindness, KC can not only peacock but play Contrast Game.  Who wouldn't be fascinated by a blind guy who walks in with his dog as if the pair of them own the place?

Think about the difference in perception between a skinny little guy with his sightless eyes exposed, hesitantly walking along the sidewalk with his white folding stick sweeping back and forth, and a big, powerful brute wearing mirrored shades stalking confidently behind a Rottweiler in a studded leather harness and holding a cane that looks like a weapon.  The first guy makes you feel sorry for him.  The second guy makes you worry that his dog might take your hand off before he even notices you're there.  Now, which one are women more likely to respond positively towards?

Blindness is a socio-sexual handicap, but it can be overcome through aggression and confidence.  KC is a smart guy - he attends a good university - but he needs to significantly up the superficial Alpha to counteract the natural pity that women will feel for him.  Pity kills female attraction.

So, instead of accepting pity for his condition, he should use it, although not in the helpless puppy manner that most men instinctively would.  He can crack jokes about how his blindness is an advantage because every woman he sees is a supermodel. (Howard Stern is a good model here; women always responded to the way he would lower his voice and say things like: "oh, you're hot, aren't you, I can hear it in your voice.")  He can tell outrageously unbelievable stories every time he is asked about why he is blind. At no point should he ever accept sympathy from women; he should always deflect it with a wisecrack and a smile.  He should also ask a few trusted male friends if he has any physical habits that are better avoided, such as Stevie Wonder's oft-caricatured head roll.

The goal is to change the frame, so that instead of being seen as poor little blind Delta boy, he is seen as an Alpha who just happens to wear sunglasses at night.

Blindness sucks. But it's not the end of the world, it's not the biggest handicap a man can have, and it doesn't take a man out of the Game. I suspect it may not even be as big a socio-sexual handicap as being unusually short. It's just a challenge, and the man who meets it head on is only going to raise his status in the eyes of men and women alike.

How dumb do they think we are?

To reiterate:  never, ever, ever, pay any attention to women when they give you advice about what women find attractive:

Forget flash cars, expensive restaurants and lavish bouquets - the way to impress the nation’s women is to fasten on a tool belt and get drilling. High maintenance females have voted DIY skills sexier in a man than sporting prowess and cooking capabilities.  A new study has revealed women’s top turn ons - and turn offs - when it comes to a man's skill set, taking in everything from assembling furniture and unblocking drains to scoring on the football pitch or cooking up a storm in the kitchen.

Sure. That explains how Joe the Plumber stole Irina Shayk from Cristiano Ronaldo and why you can't go to a hardware store without seeing more hot girls exposing their implants to men in tool belts than you see at a rock concert.

If this doesn't undermine the perceived legitimacy of social surveys, I don't know what will.  Men, this is how hopelessly stupid women genuinely believe you to be.  "If I dangle even the merest prospect of sex in front of him, maybe he'll put my Ikea furniture together for me."

If a woman ever tries to pull the "you know what I think is really sexy" line on you, and you not only buy it, but actually perform the supposedly sexy task, you're a delta. At best.

You can't get what you won't admit you want

Captain Capitalism exposes the instilled cowardice of today's young Deltas and Gammas:

I did a seminar recently at the U of MN Duluth.  It was my "Why Gen Y is Completely, Totally and Hopelessly Screwed" seminar.  And while admittedly the seminar is not the politest or most adroit speech, when it came to the "What were you told you SHOULD like in the opposite sex" portion of the lecture, an interesting thing happened.  I asked the young men in the audience what they found attractive in a woman.  Not what they were told to like, but what they in fact did like.

Not one of them answered.

OH, they KNEW the answers, their sheepish faces and smirks gave that away, but they couldn't answer for they feared what the repercussions would be.

Observing this phenomeon right in front of me, I took the opportunity to point out something so sad, but so very true.  I said

"My god, look at how brainwashed they have you guys.  You can't even speak the truth."

I then bellowed out the truth....

This illustrates the primary difference between ALPHA and BETA. It is fear. Women can sense male fear. They can practically smell it. They don't find it attractive, in fact, it is a distinct turn-off to them. They often despise it. However, this doesn't mean women are going to come right out and say that they are attracted to men who aren't afraid of them, or at the very least, signal that they are not afraid.

Now, remember, feelings are difficult to articulate, especially to the opposite sex, so it is often necessary to translate cross-sex statements.  In this vein, we can decode what a woman means when she says the following:

Be yourself. Believe in yourself.

I find confidence attractive. I find fearlessness attractive.

So much of Game simply revolves around conquering your fear in order to behave more like the naturals who simply don't feel it for one reason or another. Whether it involves initial approaches or marital relations, fear is the sex killer.

It's understandable why so many men are afraid.  Fear has been instilled in them by 16 years or more of relentless feminist propaganda in the educational system, in the ruthless reinforcing of the female imperative by their parents, their teachers, their pastors

But it's all a lie. Bad things are not going to happen if you refuse to avoid offending and upsetting women. You are not committing to living a monk-like existence devoid of female companionship if you fail to regularly kowtow to the female imperative, in fact, in case you haven't noticed, those of us whose default position is open contempt for that imperative tend to do considerably better with them than you do. And if you have reached the point where you are so fearful that you can't even admit that you find a long mane of wavy hair or a tight, well-formed female posterior to be attractive, you can't reasonably call yourself a man.  You're nothing more than a sad, pathetic drone.

So stop being afraid.  It isn't masculine. It isn't attractive. It isn't even Christian, for that matter. Conquer your fear, and that is the first step in developing Game and moving up the socio-sexual hierarchy.

Sympathy

I think this would have been even funnier, as well as more realistic, if the fourth panel had been omitted.  Women don't feel bad for anyone but themselves when they drop a nice Delta or Gamma who treats them well in favor of a manipulative bad boy who treats them poorly.

I've never heard a woman express any genuine concern for the nice guy whose heart she's just broken, only for the pain she feels at having had to inflict pain upon the poor guy.  In general, if a woman causes pain to a third party, one is not expected to express sympathy for the third party, but rather for how bad causing that third party pain must make her feel.  Except, of course, in that the degree of the pain being caused reflects positively upon her desirability.

Good: "He'll probably never get over losing a woman as wonderful as you."
Better: "There is no way he'll ever land another woman as beautiful as you."
Best: "You definitely did the right thing.  But ending a relationship like that must be really hard for you."
Bad: "You know, dumping him out of the blue like that really hurt him badly."
Worse: "One day, he'll realize that the pain he's feeling now is a small price to pay for not having to put up with you anymore."

The curse of the eternal BETA

I find it tremendously amusing that some men find the success of pickup artistry to be more than a little disturbing.  Now, I understand the female lack of enthusiasm about the reality; one of the funnier moments of the show Castle is the pickup artist episode in which Beckett is led to declare: "I weep for my sex" upon learning that three mediocre guys are successfully using formalized Game practices to cut a wide swath through the flower of New York City's strong independent career women.  It's understandably embarrassing for women to learn how many of their educated and high-status sisters will fall for such transparently superficial and insincere tactics.

But what explains the depression of the BETA male?  It is the shattering of his worldview, and the forced realization that all of his self-perceived superiority isn't of any value at all to anyone but himself.  Nevertheless, the world is what it is, not what we wish it to be.

Alpha Mail: no excuses

BR poses a question:

Hello hello!  Traveled to Alpha Game by way of Dr. Helen.  I'm a pretty solid Beta/Delta, que sera, but looking to improve my Game.  So here's my question of the day: Can you use a woman's greater knowledge and expertise in a subject to reel her in, or is this a violation of Core Maxim XII "Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses"?

For example: Suppose you're a carpenter as a side hobby business.  You've got a commission for some cabinets from someone who doesn't know squat about interior design, they just want you "to make them look good".  You don't know squat about interior design either, but let's say you've got a woman on the line who does style herself an interior designer.  Maybe you've gone out before, but not recently.  Could you use that as an excuse to get her to have drinks with you?  "Hey, I got this project, but I'd like to get your opinion on it.  How about we get together for drinks, I'll show you some of my sketches, and you give me your thoughts on them?"

Two things occur to me.  First, there is a clear problem in that BR is thinking in terms of excuses.  His Deltatude is revealed by the way in which he is concealing both his true purpose as well as his interest in her.  This is an intrinsically BETA mindset; he doesn't appear to believe his interest is justified of its own accord or that it will be welcomed by her.

And if it isn't and it won't be, what is the point?  If she's not at least somewhat interested already, how is more exposure to that in which she clearly isn't interested going to help?  I think it is a bad idea to get back in touch with anyone, male or female, under false pretenses.

Second, encouraging women to talk about their interests and perceived strengths and skills is always a winner, if only for the fact that if she is talking, he isn't sabotaging himself.  If you're not fascinating yourself, the next best thing is to be able to convince a woman that she is fascinating.

The feelings slut

Susan Walsh lists seven reasons why women reject over-eager men.  But she probably could have quit after number one:

1. Women understand the male role as the gatekeeper of commitment, just as we are the gatekeepers of sex.

In the same way that a man may question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date, women are wary of men who are “emotionally promiscuous.” 

Certain it is I liked her, 
And boarded her i’ the wanton way of youth: 
She knew her distance and did angle for me,
Madding my eagerness with her restraint, 
As all impediments in fancy’s course 
Are motives of more fancy; and, in fine, 
Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, 
Subdued me to her rate: she got the ring;
Shakespeare, All’s Well That Ends Well

What men need to understand is that when they leap to profess their feelings at the first opportunity, they are viewed by women as being akin to the male version of the woman who doesn't hesitate to make herself sexually available on the first date.  In other words, in the same way that men feel no responsibility to reward a physical slut with a relationship after she presents them freely with her body, women feel no responsibility to reward a feelings slut with sexual relations after he presents them freely with his emotions.

From the female perspective, the highly indifferent man is the male version of the highly chaste woman.  He is a trophy worth the hunt, the virgin for whom great sacrifices are both required and merited.  To be free with ones feelings is to be sluttish and despicable.

This shows where and how Susan and other women have gotten the "male slut" concept completely backwards.  The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin".  The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures.

Rapey groks no Game

John Scalzi proves he doesn't care what people think about him by writing yet another post explaining his opinion concerning what people think about his position on the socio-sexual hierarchy and why he is not insulted by being identified as a "beta male":

 I would note as a matter of clarification that I think they are less concerned about insulting me than they are reassuring themselves that there is no possible way they could ever be beta males, whatever their definition of ‘beta male’ is. By all indications their definition is something along the lines of “a man who sees women as something other than a mute dispensary of sandwiches and boobies” and/or “a man who does not live in fear of everyone else not continually affirming his internal assessment of personal status,” gussied up in language that allows them not to have to deal with these essential facts of their own nature. But inasmuch as insulting me is part of the mechanism of reassuring themselves, I am offered the insult.

I’m not insulted because, a) I consider the source, b) I don’t mind being seen as someone who does not view women through a tangled bramble of fear, ignorance and desire, c) when I step into a room, I don’t neurotically spend my time tallying up who in the room has higher status than I do, and who doesn’t. I am a grown-up, for God’s sake. Paranoid status anxiety is tiring. Also, you know. I’m pretty happy with my life and who I am, which makes me rather less vulnerable to the presumed snipings of others, particularly those who don’t have any notable participation in my life. Yes, yes, I’m a beta male, the worst of all possible males. Fine. Moving along.

While John is a BETA by Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy, he is a delta with strong gamma tendencies in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  But Rapey McRaperson shouldn't be insulted by being identified as a low delta for the obvious reason that it isn't an insult.  It is merely an observation of his behavioral tendencies and an identification of his place on the normal human hierarchy.  And since John isn't merely comfortable with, but proud of, his passive-aggressive snarkiness, his suppliant behavior towards women, his white knighting, his discomfort with traditional masculinity and his lack of confidence in his own right to define himself, it would be all but impossible for him to consider such an accurate identification as an insult.

John is, by his own admission, happy with his life.  I think he's done very well for someone with his various handicaps.  It is not at all a bad thing for anyone that the low deltas and gammas of the world can find mates, find satisfaction in their lives, and procreate.  Civilization depends upon it.  However, it is deeply unfortunate that John is using his success to tear down civilization and support the very forces that will render future men of his rank miserable.  By constantly pushing for feminism and "equality", John is promoting a future where more men are raised in fatherless poverty like he was, only they will not get the support from the more stable elements of society to lift them out of it that he did because people like John and his readership are actively attacking those traditional elements and attempting to eliminate them, or at the very least, reduce their societal influence.  Like an ungrateful dog, John is biting the hand that fed him.

Like most men with no Game, natural or otherwise, John doesn't understand any of it.  The idea that any ALPHA fears and doesn't understand women is risible on its face.  We don't fear women in the slightest and we understand them so well that we have to overcome the instinctive habit of making use of them whenever and wherever it pleases us.  John doesn't understand that in the world he is promoting, the alphas and sigmas will maintain actual harems instead of the virtual ones we now possess, and the low deltas and gammas will be forced to go without entirely, as only omegas now do, because the elimination of the traditional strictures on female desire permits women to pursue their natural inclinations, which has never, in the entire history of Man, been to have sex with short, chubby, feminized men of low social rank.

But his biggest failure of understanding concerns the purpose of men like me and others in the androsphere.  John is again projecting his own status anxiety and other-focused mindset in asserting that anyone is attempting to bolster their own Alpha credentials by insulting him.  It is social and sexual dominance that makes a man ALPHA, not the metaphorical dunking of John's head in the Internet toilet.  Given that John is himself, contextually speaking, a lesser alpha in the SFWA community, and considering that he could no doubt exert an amount of sexual dominance over the women of that, shall we say, differently-attractive, group if he wished, he really shouldn't have too much trouble grasping the basic group dynamics involved.  Alphas need no more reassurance of their rank than to walk into a room containing women, just as John doesn't need any more reminder of his position in the SFWA than to simply show up at a science fiction convention.

Men and women alike are better off when they have an understanding of the male socio-sexual hierarchy and their current place within it, or in relation to it.  John's rank, my rank, and any other individual's rank, for that matter, is wholly irrelevant except in that they happen to provide concrete and observable examples which may help people better understand the concepts involved.

Never trust a trampire

Forget the unrest in the Arab world and the assassination of U.S. diplomats, this is real news!

Their relationship was left in tatters when she was photographed cheating on him with married film director Rupert Sanders. But Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have reportedly decided to give their romance another shot. The Twilight co-stars are said to have had a tearful heart-to-heart, with the 26-year-old actor eventually deciding to forgive his girlfriend for what he considers to be a 'stupid mistake'.

I don't actually have anything substantive to say about what may well be a fake relationship or a fake breakup between two people about whom I know very little and care even less. I just wanted to type that title. What a great word, TRAMPIRE! But if both the relationship and the breakup are real, forgiving the trampire does tend to support the principle of "situational alpha", as there can be little question that if he wasn't a famous movie actor, Pattinson would be just another delta wondering why he keeps getting overlooked for the bad boys.

Alpha Mail: where to start?

In which a delta decides he is open to the possibility that there might be something to Game and the socio-sexual hierarchy after all:

It took a long time to realize that what you all were saying it's true. One person had it right up there - this is a lot of stuff to sort through, and it wasn't going to be an overnight change considering the angle from which it came. After giving it lots of thought and consideration, this angle appears to be the correct angle and one which fits the bill having sorted the good (which is the majority) from the bad (which is the minority).

I went back through all of the above posts and noticed that yes - there is a distinct difference between PUA game and Christian "game". This was my initial problem. Christian "game" is a different game - it's just taking the Bible seriously. But in a sense, it functions as "game". There were a lot of people on here that had some really good things to say, but it took letting go of the PUA context that so many of these types of places revolve around and actually seeing that this is a matter of faith and of biblical wisdom, which can be generated a lot of times simply by seeing what happens around you.

So my question is this. I am the young gun here - perhaps a little fiery and defensive sometimes. But I want to learn. What are your recommendations for becoming a part of this community? How does one get involved to learn more? It is clear that I could benefit from learning from a steady community of stability-minded people.

Thank you all for your comments and input. You have broken my walls down. I am here to learn, as it appears the majority of the people who have commented are trustworthy and *do* have the long-term in mind.

It's always good to see that despite being subject to years of brainwashing by Church, family, and State, young men are still capable of observing the difference between the propaganda to which they've been mercilessly subjected and the way people actually behave. It's actually testimony to the power of the truth, that a single exposure to it is enough to trigger that "I KNEW something was wrong with what I was being told" reaction that we have all had at one point or another.

The important thing for Shaun to realize is that pretty much every single person on this or any other Game-related blog has been through precisely the same intellectual struggle he is going through now. As The Matrix showed in such an effective manner, reality is not necessarily comfortable, in fact, it is usually less comfortable than lying back and closing your eyes, safely cocooned in the lies.

So what to do? Where to begin? I would encourage him to read through the archives here, as well as at Dalrock's, Roissy's, and Athol's blogs. They all have their different focuses, but they are all focusing on different facets of the same observable reality. He won't get much practical advice here, since I am more interested in the abstract issues, but because of its more theoretical approach, Alpha Game often serves as a useful starting point for understanding the framework upon which one can build one's approach to intersexual relations.

Above all, I would encourage Shaun to simply keep his eyes open. Observe. Pay attention to the dichotomy between what women say and what they do. Pay attention to the lives lived by those who would attempt to advise you. If you don't want to live like they do, you probably don't want follow their advice. Because he is opinionated, it will be difficult, but this is a good time to simply watch, listen, and learn. He should give himself time to gather data and compare it against the various conceptual models on offer before leaping to any conclusions.

Jesus Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". One must understand what is true and what is not before one can decide if one's actions are in line with the Truth or not. Game is not Christianity, but because it is based in truth, it is intrinsically part of the Christian worldview. Can it be misused? Certainly. But consider: the fact that the existence of demons is an intrinsic part of the Christian worldview does not mean that Christians should worship them. In like manner, the fact that women behave in certain predictable patterns does not mean that the Christian man is justified in every potential use of those patterns.

Fictional abuse and female absolution

A hapless delta wonders what hit him:

All you good women out there, I hope to have your forgiveness if my words appear insensitive or without understanding, as my innermost intentions are actually to create and facilitate a place of peace on both sides.

This blog originally stemmed from some bad feelings. So let's just go ahead and get these out of the way from the get-go: I am someone who has suffered at the hands of either "angry" or "bad" women too many times in my lifetime for reasons that I cannot understand, which I inevitably have somehow pieced together or traced back through an attempted means of rationale to the fact that I am a man. I wish not to explain these instances on here, because many of them trace back to people close to me, both family and friends. Instead, I hope that there can be a level of trust here, and that this passing on rationale would not cause this statement to be thrown out for lack of explicit evidence - I merely seek to preserve the relationships which I have managed to put back together, or hope to put back together.

Anyway: I don't understand why there is such hatred towards me. I try to be a sensitive guy, actively seek to be a good person, and aspire to be the most wonderful husband a woman could ever have one day. Not for my sake or out of selfishness, but for hers, out of love and compassion. I have been made, on several occasions, to feel that this aspiration is wrong, through the disdain which has been expressed towards me. And I just *know* that deep down, this isn't right, to be hated for pursuing what seems good, to have a good heart....

From this whole endeavor, here's what I do understand: there are many women out there who are mistreated by men. Note that this is something that makes me want to emasculate those men. It's just messed up. And unfortunately it doesn't stop there either - they screw it up for everyone. Not only are they mistreating women, which is completely wrong, but then those women get a completely skewed view of men in general. And then, that affects me personally, as that skewed and hateful view caused by that abuse is reflected onto me, someone who tries to have a good heart.

I don't think it should be too hard for anyone to understand why women hate this guy and feel disdain for him. I mean, simply reading his pathetic, heartfelt, supplicating, self-pitying message makes me want to punch him in the face and I actually wish him well. He's not a bad-looking guy, he's in med school, he's clearly intelligent, he's sincere, he seeks genuine love and commitment, and yet the combination of that BETA smile and the pedestalization of women he betrays is enough to make any woman curl her lip in disgust.

I defy anyone who believes that Christians don't need Game to read this guy's post and still maintain that belief.

The short answer to his question is that his aspiration is wrong. Women disrespect and dislike him because he is wandering around acting like a retarded little boy who genuinely believes all women are sinless princesses riding unicorns. His perception of them as all sweetness, light, and purity is so far from what they know is their reality that he might as well have Down's Syndrome. They simply do not see him as a man, much less a man capable of giving them what they want. He wants to emasculate other men, little realizing this is because he has already emasculated himself!

Since this poor guy is a Christian, I would encourage him to read what the great men of the faith have written about women and female nature, then contemplate why, if women are collectively worthy of the pedestal upon which he wishes to place them, God places so many blatantly sexist restrictions upon the sex. The reality is that men are fallen, women are fallen, and our fallen natures are not identical but tend to manifest in different ways. The fact that a woman's fallen nature does not usually manifest in the same way as a man's does not mean that she is not fallen. This is a very common mistake made by Christian men: if she is not subject to the temptations I am, she must be better and holier than I am.

But it is not true. She is simply subject to different temptations and prone to committing different sins. The male tendency is to sin out of appetite, the female tendency is to sin out of malice.

It is particularly contemptible that this low delta attempts to blame other men for the way that women are treating him. This is truly sexist on his part, because he removes all agency from women, absolves them of responsibility for their own actions, and renders them little more than reactive puppets whose behavior is dictated by the sexually desirable men who mistreated them. But he needs to stop and consider why were they attracted to those men in the first place... and if his theory is even theoretically possible in many cases. With regards to the latter, I recommend that he read Athol Kay's post on Alpha/Beta Everywhere.

[M]y teenage daughter had a slumber party recently, and my wife (who is unaware of Game concepts) overheard the girls talking about the boys in their school. What struck me about the conversation that she relayed to me was that the girls were categorizing the boys into two groups: “Hot & Mean” and “Not-hot & Nice.” There couldn’t be a better example of the Alpha/Beta theory, as interpreted by 13 year old girls.

So here is the question: what abusive man somehow managed to damage all the 13 year-old girls so that they all happen to prefer the Hot & Mean boys to the Nice ones?

Alpha Mail: dealing with the other guy

DS asks about dealing with the competition:

I was trying to find an older post, but none of my search phrases netted what I was looking for. I was recently out with a girl and she mentioned "this guy she's dating," and none of the things were very positive. I remember a post that talked about how to handle situations like that, if I should talk bad about the guy or encourage a break up. I couldn't remember what the course of attack should be, so I tried to remain neutral. Any tips on where that post might be found, or maybe just a brief refresher?

No clue about the post, but my recommendation, assuming that her involvement with the other guy isn't a dealbreaker at this stage, is to simply ignore his existence and make it clear that you have zero interest in discussing him or anyone else interested in her. This is where Deltas and Gammas tend to make their mistake and either a) leap at the chance to sing, dance, and look like the Potentially Better Boyfriend, or b) leap into the Friend Zone by providing a shoulder upon which she can cry. If she brings the other guy up again after the first time, simply raise your eyebrows and say something like "I had no idea you were still hitting that... interesting."

That should produce some hurried denials or justifications, which will provide DS with good information concerning whether he should be bothering with her at all. It sounds to me as if she's been relegated to a horse in the other guy's stable or otherwise demoted, which is why she's simultaneously bad-mouthing him and continuing to see him. DS has to realize that he may be of lower rank than the other guy, which means he has to up her perception of his rank or she's going to prefer part-time other guy to full-time him.

If she tries to bring him up a third time, DS should simply cut contact with her. No warning, no explanation, no drama, and when she comes around looking for attention, he should tell her that he's got better options than wasting time on a flake hung up on someone else. Remember, women are attracted to male action. Cutting off contact with her may be the message she needs to drop the guy. And if not, at least he won't be wasting any more time on her.

Dogs are easy

Wives rather less so. Or so it would seem, given Cesar Millan's divorce. JB sends in a guest post:

Men are dogs, women are cats: a $400k lesson for Cesar Millan

Mexican delta (with strong alpha energy, as South American men tend to exhibit in LTRs) marries hot young thing in the old country. Moves to America. Finds success, becomes a fame-powered alpha. However, deeply invests in a basically beta (in Vox's sense) philosophy of social interaction.

Wife gets long in tooth and claw, a combination of America's noxious feminist fumes, middle age, and the carte blanche of US divorce laws. Husband makes rational concessions, moderates alphaness, and eventually goes all the way - adopting a "calm submissive" attitude towards his wife, who becomes the dominant partner. Peace within the pack is restored.

Pysch. Women are cats, not dogs.

As soon as I saw the video of Cesar Millan interacting at home with his wife, explaining his philosophy of calm submission, and read her bug-eyed, tense, fake-happy body language, I knew. It was over. Maybe she would stay with him for the gravy ride, maybe she would dump him and take him for everything; but the vag was now drier than the Sahel. Poor Cesar.

Well, things have taken the course of least resistance, and now Cesar gets to pay $400k plus $23k monthly for his obtuseness.

Shoulda bought a cat.

Christianity 1, Pop Pseudo-science 0. Calm submission is for women, not men. Men want submitted wives. Women don't. They want leaders, whether they consciously realize it or not.

Alpha Mail: cultivating assertiveness

DD asks about how he can become more assertive:

How do you go about cultivating assertiveness with women? I attract a woman, date her a few times and at some point it always comes down to either I make some sort of move (kiss her etc) or it's done. I always feel like I need to ask permission to do so...you know how that ends. I DESPISE this and want to fix it... I just have no idea how.

Let me explain by means of an analogy here. You're in a similar position to the guy who asks how to do a flip off the diving board who is afraid to jump off it. The problem is that no amount of coaching in proper diving technique is going to conquer the fear. The only way to conquer the fear is to be brave, which means doing what frightens you in the full knowledge that you're afraid. Until you have jumped off the board so many times that you become accustomed to it, your fear will prevent you from being able to pull off the flip.

Assertiveness comes naturally to some men, but not to most. So, it's usually a learned behavior, which is good news because it means that you can learn it. The first thing to do is to recognize your fear. When you start to tighten up and your heart begins to beat faster, that's a sign that you've triggered your fear. That's good, that's what you want. That's the point at which you have to simply jump off the board, trusting that the water will be there and that it won't hurt too much.

The great thing is that regardless of how it turns out, good or bad, it's almost never going to be anywhere nearly as bad as you feared. The monster in our imagination is almost always bigger than the real thing. So, test yourself. Each time you start tightening up and the fear begins to swell, do exactly the opposite of what will relieve the pressure. Every time you do this and successfully fight through the fear and act, you will reduce the amount of fear that will appear the next time. It will never disappear entirely, but it will become manageable and easily overcome.

And on a more specific note, never ask permission of a woman who doesn't have a material claim on you. She hasn't merited that right nor can you legitimately lay that responsibility on her. With women, it is almost always more effective to ask forgiveness than permission. And most of the time, since men are supposed to be the pursuers, she's waiting for you to make your move anyhow.

The training of a Delta

Deti provides an accurate summary of the propaganda to which most of the men of my generation were subjected by every authority figure, male and female alike:

Here’s how I (and a lot of men coming of age in the 1980s) were told how to “find, attract and keep commitment-minded women” by pastors, parents, teachers, Scout leaders, and persons in authority over us (men and women):

“Be nice. Be yourself. If you cannot find or keep a commitment minded woman, it is because you are not being nice enough. If girls are breaking up with you or you can’t get past one date, you are not being nice enough. You have to be nicer.

“When you go on a date, it is your DUTY to pay for EVERYTHING. You are to do what she wants. You are to ask her what she wants and then do that. You are not to do anything that she does not want to do. You are to ask her for permission before doing anything.

“With sex — DON’T. Keep your d**k in your pants. If you want to kiss her, you must ask her first. If you want to hold her hand, you must ask first. You must never, never, NEVER escalate to anything physical unless you ask first. You are not to take anything sexually. You must ask for it.”

“Sex is a Beautiful Experience for a woman. You must never do anything to ruin it for her. You must make sure she orgasms and if she is not it is YOUR FAULT. Women do not like rough, vigorous sex. They like slow, romantic sex with candles and soft music. You must always have sex the way SHE wants to have it.

“Women are always looking for husbands. You are being evaluated all the time for your suitability as a husband. You must show that you are husband material. The way you do that is through immediate investment and commitment. You must go all in immediately on a woman you like.

“You must tell her everything about yourself — your likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, plans and desires. You must not hesitate to show your emotions, that you are in touch with and understand your emotions, and that you will come to her for emotional support when you need it. Women love that. You must reveal, be an open book so you have no secrets from her. In this way she will know that it is safe for her to show her emotions, and that you have shown the requisite level of commitment to her and her alone.

“Do all this, and the women will be beating down your door to date, marry and have sex with you. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.”

Now, I was fortunate in that authority held no credibility for me ever since my first day of kindergarten, when my teacher complimented me on my "triceratops" name tag. The problem was that it was an allosaurus, and while I could have forgiven her mistaking it for a tyrannosaurus rex, as it was, it was abundantly clear that there was no chance she had anything to teach me. I'm not saying the relentless propaganda didn't have its effect on me, but then, being nice was always somewhat of a struggle anyhow. So, for me, there wasn't so much any taking of the red pill, but rather, seeing my friends gradually come around to my terrible, awful, very bad perspective on intersexual relations.

The question is, will we do better by our sons?

A portrait in BETA

Sometimes, their decisions are so obviously and incredibly stupid that you can't even feel bad for men when the situation blows up in their faces:

For reasons that I am now doubting, there was a large misunderstanding with a customer where she worked and she got fired from her job. At this point, since she had no money, I had two options: 1) let her stay with me and try to find a job in my much bigger town, or 2) let her go back to her parent's place about 500 miles away, effectively ending the relationship.

Since I felt this one had so much promise, I choose option 1). Me and a buddy of mine even went a step further and used our connections to get her a job at the call center for the company we work at. Not a great job, mind you, but much better than the one she had and good considering she didn't finish her degree. I also got her a relatively cheap car because I knew there was no way she could get back on her feet without one (we live in a decent sized town, but not big enough to have a great public transportation system)....

I know that I have more than a little bit of blame here. I made things way too easy for her and didn't really insist on her paying me for things like rent and the car, although we did have an informal agreement that she stuck to until just recently. I don't know what to do.

Seriously? I mean, seriously? Who wrote this, Alan Harper from Two-and-a-Half Men? When your situation can be accurately described as one that took place on a mediocre sitcom a few years ago, you're officially an idiot where it comes to women and should not be permitted to make any decisions about them without first asking a Game Council consisting of Roissy, Roosh, Athol, and Susan.

I can just imagine the meetings:

Roissy: [coughs] BETA! Code Red. Trash her. [closes eyes to better contemplate the sad ennui of human existence]

Roosh: No, pump her, then dump her. And then, my man, you should totally go to Uruguay. Bitches be banging in Uruguay.

Athol: Too risky. She'll run the Baby Trap on him.

Roosh: I said pump, then dump, dude. Not the other way around.

Susan: I tend to concur, except for the pumping aspect. She needs to go. But perhaps he can give her some travel money, just to make it clear that he's not a cad and there are no hard feelings. That's the decent thing to do.

Roosh: What is this "decent thing" of which you speak?

Athol: More importantly, throwing some cash should distract her and ward off the crazy. Hey, shiny!

Roissy: [suddenly sits up] Did someone say crazy? Hey, chumpmonkey, you got a picture of this chick?

In summary:

1. Don't get women jobs. They won't be grateful and it will reflect badly on you when it eventually goes bad, as it probably will. If she was reasonably employable, then she'd already have a job.

2. Don't let a woman move in with you if you're not willing to marry her. If that means Little Miss Irresponsible has to leave town, enjoy the parting scene. Just make sure it happens....

3. Don't buy a woman a car, relatively cheap or otherwise, unless you are married to her.

4. If you get a woman a job, buy her a car, and let her move in with you, then discover that she is lying to you and failing to pay you what she owes, DUMP HER IMMEDIATELY. And, as Athol recommends, do whatever you have to do, pay whatever you have to pay, to make sure she goes with a minimum of complications.

This is not rocket science. This is barely even basic self-preservation. To be honest, I'd be astonished if this woman hadn't already cheated, several times, on this chump of chumps.