Apandopoeia and the feisty female

Feisty Woman might as well call herself Feisty Crackwhore or Feisty Meth Head because her attacks on the androsphere's "royal elite" are so observably toothless:

Being a fool and being politically-minded and curious about these manosphere commandeers, and with innocent kindred spirit, I approached a couple of these manosphere armchair generals on Twitter and ended up cutting off my own nose to spite my own face. I had the gumption to ask these self-proclaimed manosphere gods why they tend to frown upon women who are intelligent, based on this assessment I took on a very popular manosphere blog. Before I’d gotten any type of response from the manosphere-elect royal elite, a seemingly normal, well-adjusted non-manosphere supporting gentleman chimed in first:

@Feisty_Woman @voxday @rooshv @heartiste Fear. Plain and simple. Alot of man equate intelligence with role reversal leading to emasculation
— Radio Richard (@BlazerTalon) August 7, 2013

In a nutshell, there you have it. I could very well end this blog post here because the answer is right there in blood, written in stone by a man, no less. The manosphere is indeed as I suspected, a cockroach halfway house for discarded males who are threatened by intelligence of the female variety and have an irrational fear of amassing shriveled testicles.

But I can’t end it here, people. It gets much better.

Soon after violently shaking the manosphere tree at the root, from atop leaked this gem of machismo volcanic diarrhea:

@Feisty_Woman @BlazerTalon @voxday @heartiste Girl, get off my nuts. I don't want to sleep w/ you. Your prattle has no meaning to me.
— Roosh (@rooshv) August 7, 2013

I felt obligated to give him a pass. All I could do was offer an apology out of clemency that any swipe he could take at a woman, who happened to be me in the wrong place at the right time, was motivation to feed his unfillable ego. All I could do was feel sad for him and implore that the manosphere gods send him a woman to love. One that he could sleep with to his heart and dick’s content because if he did, he wouldn’t be living out his days being such a pent up indignant sexually frustrated buffoon.

That's certainly an original approach by a female critic of Game, is it not?  We've never heard that one before. Meanwhile, Roosh has published a library of books about the vast quantities of women he has banged from the southern tip of Chile to the sunless shores of Iceland.  His mere entry into a country is now greeted with public alarm akin to the sort that the Irish monks once raised when Viking longboats were spotted off the coast. Roissy's capacity for seduction once so concerned a popular female blogger that she showed her daughter his picture and warned her not to speak to any man who even remotely resembled him on the off-chance of an encounter during a visit to his city of residence.

As for me, well, I'm a three-time Billboard top forty recording artist married to a woman who walked away from a prospective career as an international fitness model.  But all of this is beside the point. I merely mention our various socio-sexual successes in order to rub it in Feisty's face that all three of us are not only successful with women, but, as can be seen from her picture, all three of us are successful with women who are more attractive than she is.  She's far from ugly, but she's nothing more than a 7 in her middle thirties who is about to hit The Wall.

Are you familiar with the concept of onomatopoeia?  One might well describe Feisty Woman's behavior here as something similar, as what one might refer to as apandopoeia, or answering the question asked by virtue of one's behavior in the process of asking the question.

So, why do we tend to downgrade the attractiveness of women who are intelligent?  Because women who are intelligent are nearly as prone to lack honor, intellectual integrity, and genuinely intellectual interests as their less intelligent sisters, but due to their pride in their intelligence and their feelings of superiority, they are far more prone to foolishly challenge male intellectual authority in order to validate their self-perceptions and/or get their dominance buzz.  In other words, intelligent women tend to be a massive pain in the ass without providing much to compensate for their disagreeableness.

By way of evidence, let's give Feisty Woman the benefit of the IQ doubt and consider her form of self-identification.  She thinks being "feisty" makes her more attractive.  It doesn't.  Being "feisty" generally detracts from female attractiveness. To the sufficiently experienced man, a woman describing herself in this way is warning him that she is a dominance-seeker; combine that with the postulated above-average intelligence and one can see that by attacking Roosh, Roissy, and me, Feisty Woman is seeking the intellectual domination she is not currently receiving from her current male companion.

The irony is that midwitted Gamma males not only value female intelligence, they fetishize it.  Unfortunately, they simply cannot provide the intellectual dominance that intelligent women crave, as that can only be provided by those possessing both sufficiently high intelligence and socio-sexual dominance, most of whom are men who couldn't possibly care less about the nominal difference between the 132 IQ "Mensa" girl and the 85 IQ "dumb" girl.

It never seems to occur to the +1.5SD crowd that they appear to be even dumber, from the perspective of the +3SD+ crowd, than those of average intelligence do to them. From the position of the highly intelligent male, who outnumbers equally intelligent women something like 12:1, the main difference is that the "smart" girl and the "dumb" girl are both going to say stupid things that are obviously incorrect, the main difference is that the "smart" girl is going to argue and try to defend an obviously incorrect point for hours without admitting that she is wrong, usually while engaging in a long series of intellectually dishonest behaviors.

Which is precisely the sort of behavior Feisty Woman has already exhibited on Twitter.  She asked a question.  She was answered, an answer she could have found by simply perusing this blog as it is a topic I addressed previously.  And yet, she's still babbling and attacking and reinterpreting and insulting and refusing to accept the legitimacy of the answers she was provided.

This behavior tends to illustrate the observable veracity of my answer.  Female intelligence is not a deal-breaker, but neither is it an attractant for most men, least of all highly intelligent men. It is mostly a red flag, which is one reason why intelligent women are statistically more likely to find themselves alone and childless than women of more moderate intelligence.

Reactive efficiency

I went over this young delta's set of interviews with four girls who rejected him to pan the relevant information from the useless babble.  Here is what I came up with:

1. "It is a fact of life that women know within seconds of meeting a man whether or not they would have sex with them.... The first time we hung out we had sex."
2. "I guess I'd know if I'm attracted to someone from the very beginning.... It's a matter of pheromones.... It's out of your control, man."
3. "When we started talking, I definitely knew that he wasn't disqualified, which a lot of people are."
4. "You weren't ugly. You're just not my type. We just didn't click. If that doesn't happen immediately, it never does." 

Translation: a woman may not always know that she's willing to have sex with you immediately, but she immediately knows if she has disqualified you from the set of all men with whom she is willing to have sex.

Conclusion: as soon as you even suspect that a woman may have disqualified you, NEXT her and move on to the next one.  When in doubt, NEXT.  If you're not sure, NEXT. If it's a little confusing, NEXT.  If she's sending mixed signals, NEXT. If you are getting anything but genuine enthusiasm to see you, unnecessary touching, and enthusiastic physical contact, NEXT.  Do not hesitate, ever.  No more than two dates should ever be necessary to make this determination from the male perspective.

Here is why this philosophy works even if you were being overly harsh and she didn't actually disqualify you.  By rejecting her and moving on, her perception is that you disqualified her, thereby raising your status vis-a-vis her own.  Furthermore, by rejecting her, you've burned a place for yourself in her brain ; women remember men who reject them far more vividly than the other way around, because it doesn't happen anywhere nearly as often to them.

So, ironically, if a woman is not definitely and immediately interested in you, and clearly signaling that interest, your best move is to NEXT her. Your worst move is to try to qualify yourself to her; the harder you try, the less progress you are going to make.  Instead, cut contact and move on to the next possibility. If you run into her later, or if she pursues contact with you and demands to know why you didn't keep pursuing her, just tell her, quite honestly, that she didn't seem particularly interested in you. Naturally, you didn't see any point in spending time with someone who wasn't interested when you could be spending it with women who actually are interested.

You may be surprised at how much more interested she will be the second time around, so long as you maintain your frame.  And if she still isn't indicating any renewed interest, then congratulate yourself for saving time, money, and opportunity cost.

Metaphorical height

As this article from a tall Englishwoman shows, "will you date a shorter man" may be the ideal rebuke to a broad variety of female complaints concerning male preferences.  It also usefully exposes the myth of sexual equality, as men clearly have no similar disinclination for dating shorter women:

At just under 5ft 10in, I consider myself a tall woman. The average male in England is 5ft 10in, while the typical female is a mere 5ft 5ins, so you could say I’m well over average height for my gender. What’s worse, according to statistics, half the men in the country are my height or shorter. When it comes to dating, that makes the chances of finding a potential boyfriend slimmer than most – if, like me, you care about finding a man who's taller than you.... most of my female friends admit that it's still important for them to date or marry a man who is taller than them. And not only a bit taller either, a good two inches taller is required. 

The desire for a man to be taller is the most basic form of hypergamy.  And it is an important lesson for men to keep in mind; she wants you to be taller because she wants you to be more dominant than her.  But simply being taller will not suffice if you refuse to provide any other aspects of dominance in the relationship.

Think of "being taller" as a metaphor and apply it to other aspects of the relationship. If she is attracted to literal height, she will respond favorably to metaphorical height as well.

On the advice of my lawyer

Please be advised that I have no choice but to film this sexual encounter:

The hookup got hot and wild, and one of the two men whipped out his cellphone to shoot a video of the room-to-room romp with the woman they'd just met that night. The sex video may have been the only thing that saved the two from prison.

The woman accused them of rape. The video showed otherwise, police and prosecutors said. What happened that night led to the vicious beating of one of the men two days later.

Last Friday, a Sacramento Superior Court jury convicted Jasmine Levanna Kurre of felony assault likely to produce great bodily injury and of another count of felony battery. Jurors acquitted Kurre of the misdemeanor filing of a false police report and of another felony count of robbing the beating victim of his cellphone. Unfortunately for Kurre, 27, the man's friend shot the video, showing her laughing and carrying on with the two alleged rapists – hence, the lack of charges against them and the lodging of the misdemeanor false-report accusation.

"This is great stuff," Citrus Heights Police Detective Ron Pfleger told the man who shot the video, according to a transcript of his interview five days after the Feb. 17, 2011, beating of his friend, outside the assault victim's apartment. "This is exactly what you guys are hoping for."

Had it not been for the video, the chances were likely that Kurre's rape accusation against the two men would have been given more credibility by police and prosecutors. Instead, it turned the tables on Kurre, who now is looking at the possibility of four years behind bars.

Many women have asked why a woman would lie about being raped.  The answer should be quite obvious here: to cover up for the fact that she had consensual sex and direct the angry attention of her boyfriend or husband away from her and her infidelity.

Playing on hypergamy

Once you know how female tickers tick, it's not difficult to start them ticking. And it is those who are running cons of their own that are the most vulnerable to being conned:

With his wealth, glamorous lifestyle and friends in high places, Jonathan Price probably seemed too good to be true. Unfortunately for the women who fell for his charms, that’s exactly  what he was. The serial conman posed as a rich ‘sugar daddy’ to trap a string of professional women and fleece them for tens of thousands of pounds....

He now faces jail after pleading guilty to fraud totalling £180,000 – leaving three women and their parents without their life savings. Price, from Darlington, told his unsuspecting targets that he had vast sums of money in offshore accounts and was suffering from terminal cancer.  His victims included Davina Ward, 32, who runs a florist business in Bournemouth, and Sarah Giles, 39, who worked as a manager at a gun retailer in London. His third victim, a high-flying executive in her 30s who cannot be named, became his wife and was pregnant with his child when he was arrested last May.

Notice how much attractive the one woman pictured is in comparison with the fat, older con man.  The "terminal cancer" was a particularly nice touch; all three women no doubt assumed that they'd only have to grit their teeth and suffer his attentions for a year or so, after which time they'd be set for life.

It's also significant that all three women were relatively ambitious and successful.  The more materialistic a woman is, the easier it is to play her without even trying.  Intelligence is no defense, because the combination of high IQ and materialism only means that her rationalization hamster is going to be that much more capable of producing credible excuses for any perceived inconsistencies between the desired perception and the reality.

I was at a nightclub in Roppongi one night after a female friend had happened to stick a shiny woman's circular broach in my jacket lapel earlier that evening.  I have no idea why she did that; alcohol was involved.  I didn't care, I just left it there. Now, this right around the time that the Billionaire Boys Club was in the news due to the murder trial and the TV miniseries, so when a women in the club came up to me and asked what the thing in my lapel was, I said it was a BBC pin.

"BBC, like, in England?"
"No, Billionaire Boys Club.  It's just this investment thing."

The response was like getting hit by a tidal wave of pretty young women.  My two friends were just about dying with laughter, but they were top-flight wingmen; they took the ball and ran with it.  Now, keep in mind that the Billionaire Boys Club was a) a notorious Ponzi scheme, b) defunct, and c) already exposed in every possible way by the mainstream media.  No matter.  It was something that these women had vaguely heard of as having something to do with fame and money, and it amounted to setting off some sort of nuclear tingle bomb.

Lesson: a man doesn't have to be rich for women to believe that he is a rich man and respond accordingly.  Those who desperately want to believe something will believe everything that supports the desired story and ignore everything that contradicts it.  And those who say a woman "is only attracted to a man for his wealth" are failing to recognize they are expressing a tautology, because women are very sexually attracted to wealth, or rather, the perception of it.

Be careful who you call

He just might show his cards:

To what extend are bright women opting to have black babies rather that pursue education? You're claiming these are "low quality" women. That is NOT obvious.

Along with thousands of other variables, NLSY97 contains information on respondents' sexual partners, including race. What do we find when we compare white females who report black sexual partners to those who don't?

The former are fatter (mean BMI: 27.8 vs. 25.4), dumber (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 52.2 vs. 61.1).... Those with mulatto children are even fatter (mean BMI: 29), dumber (median ASVAB math/verbal percentile: 45.9).

Looking at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which followed a different cohort, results are similar. White females who have ever had a black sexual partner are fatter (mean BMI: 28.8 vs. 26.2) and less intelligent (median ADD HEALTH Picture Vocabulary Test score: 99 vs. 105).

Sometimes, appealing to science to refute the evidence of your lying eyes only serves to make the observable facts all the more uncomfortably stark.  And, as Roissy noted, "It’s fair to say the whole media industrial complex portrays the exact opposite of reality." I know, it's got to be terribly shocking to discover that Sex and the City lied and handsome black doctors don't actually tend to pair up with gawky red-headed lesbian lawyers, still less beautiful and sophisticated blondes with advanced degrees.

As the theory of Game would indicate, some people make use of race as a means of boosting their relative attractiveness just as they utilize any other personal attribute.  (Fewer, actually, than one would tend to expect.) A fat, stupid, personality-challenged white girl can use her race to attract a better-looking black man just as a tall white nerd with no Game can use his to attract a better-looking Asian woman.  It's a logical tactic given the different sexual values people put on the various races, the potential dysgenic effects on society notwithstanding.

Primeval Game

"A kind of friendliness had grown up between Fern-flower and me. Nothing too intimate: I had never dared touch her. But we had long talks. Or rather, she told me all sorts of things about her life; in my fear of giving myself away, of making her suspect my identity, I stuck always to generalities. Fern-flower told me her dreams: ‘Last night I saw this enormous Dinosaur, terrifying, breathing smoke from his nostrils. He came closer, grabbed me by the nape, and carried me off. He wanted to eat me alive. It was a terrible dream, simply terrible, but – isn’t this odd? – I wasn’t the least frightened. No, I don’t know how to say it … I liked him …’

That dream should have made me understand many things and especially one thing: that Fern-flower desired nothing more than to be assaulted. This was the moment for me to embrace her. But the Dinosaur they imagined was too different from the Dinosaur I was, and this thought made me even more different and timid. In other words, I missed a good opportunity."
- Italo Calvino, "The Dinosaurs", Cosmicomics, 1965

The basic mechanics that underlie Game are nothing new. Women have hungered to be assaulted and possessed, seduced and overcome, embraced and swept away, mastered and dominated, for the entirety of their existence.  It is a structural desire; it is a part of who they are.

However, the feminist denial of that female desire is intellectual, (in the technical sense, anyhow, as it's obviously not very intelligent), and therefore an intellectual refutation of that denial is necessary. The science-based aspects of that refutation are an important part of what is now known as Game.  But what this selection from a classic Calvino story shows, and what the critics of Game fail to grasp, is that their contentions are only opposed by some of the sharper minds of the present, but by the greatest minds of the past as well.

It also shows that the gamma male mentality has been the primary character perspective in science fiction and fantasy for a very long time; it didn't begin with Neal Stephenson and Jim Butcher.

"‘You know something? Last night I dreamed that a Dinosaur was to go past my house,’ Fern-flower said to me, ‘a magnificent Dinosaur, a Prince or a King of Dinosaurs. I made myself pretty, I put a ribbon on my head, and I leaned out of the window. I tried to attract the Dinosaur’s attention, I bowed to him, but he didn’t even seem to notice me, didn’t even deign to glance at me …’

This dream furnished me with a new key to the understanding of Fern-flower’s attitude towards me: the young creature had mistaken my shyness for disdainful pride. Now, when I recall it, I realize that all I had to do was maintain that attitude a little longer, make a show of haughty detachment, and I would have won her completely. Instead, the revelation so moved me that I threw myself at her feet, tears in my eyes, and said: ‘No, no, Fern-flower, it’s not the way you think; you’re better than any Dinosaur, a hundred times better, and I feel so inferior to you …’

Fern-flower stiffened, took a step backwards. ‘What are you saying?’ This wasn’t what she expected: she was upset, and she found the scene a bit distasteful. I understood this too late; I hastily recovered myself, but a feeling of uneasiness now weighed heavily between us."

Love vs Hypergamy

One tends to suspect that the latter will win out in this particular case:

“I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?”

The important thing to note here is not the shameless hypergamy or the expectation that looks intrinsically merit money, but rather, the fact that women can, and do, make a choice to surmount their baser motivations.  The practitioners of Game who dismiss all women as helpless biological automatons are as wrong to do so as the naysayers of Game are to deny the biological and sociological drives that men with Game exploit so successfully.

Civilizationists should not only advocate Game for men, but the rational control of the hypergamous instinct for women.  One might dismiss this pretty woman as shallow, but in truth, she is showing more self-awareness than the average woman does.  And it should also make it obvious that although women grasp the concepts of gratitude and obligation, they don't tend to view them as binding in the male sense of the terms.

Why you don't have a wife/girlfriend

1.  You are too passive.  Women respond to men who are aggressive, to men who are predators.  Waiting for "the right moment" to ask a woman out is just another way to describe being afraid to pursue.  Those who don't chase will seldom catch; stop basing your intersexual relations strategy on science fiction novels written by overweight gamma males.

2.  You overrate yourself.  If you are an overweight, balding man of average income, or a gangly, pimply student at a state university, neither supermodels nor 8+ women are going to be interested in you.  They are elite and you are not. They have much better options than you and Game is not magic.  Game will give you two points more range, not five.  You don't have standards to be lowered, you have delusions to abandon.  If you're an average man, you should pursue an average woman.

3. You are too eager or desperate.  Relax.  Not having had a wife or girlfriend hasn't killed you yet, so it's not going to kill you in the future.  Women like men with options, so don't act as if you don't have any.  You do.  You always do.

4. You pursue inappropriate women.  If you're always trying to save sluts or white knight for women with bad men, you're failing to recognize that those women are right where they want to be.  That "poor little innocent me, I'm so unlucky" spiel is something that all of those women tell everyone they come across and it's not real.  The fact that she gets cheated on by the thug with the tattooed face is no more surprising than the fact that she won't let you rescue her from him.  She doesn't want to be rescued, she just wants an audience.

5. You're holding out for someone better.  That's fine, but if you've been holding out for more than five years without finding anyone, you should probably consider the possibility that number two applies.

6. You can't decide. Look, women are like any other aspect of life.  You make your choices and you take your chances. A giant green arrow is not going to one day appear from the sky, pointing at the head of a pretty, but shy girl, accompanied by trumpets and a voice declaiming "She, my good man, is The One!"  Get advice from men and women you trust, pray about it, consider both head and heart, then roll the dice.

7. You're afraid things might go wrong.  It's true, they might. On the other hand, living life by this logic would keep you out of showers and automobiles. Life can be reasonably characterized, if one is inclined towards the pessimistic perspective, as a series of disappointments interrupted occasionally by disasters. But that is true no matter who you are.

Be the strong horse

You cannot cater to her. You must insist that she cater to you. Why? Because that's what women find attractive.

Soumaya, née Aphrodite, is one of a wave of tens of thousands of Westerners who convert to Islam every year, more than 75 percent of whom, astonishingly, are women.  Equally surprising is the fact that most of these women gravitate to conservative Islamic groups – the more misogynistic and oppressive ones – insisting all the while that they feel “liberated” and “free.”

Reading through dozens of stories of such women, one can’t help but notice the similarities among them.  All claim to have embraced Islam of their own free will; yet an overwhelming majority, like Soumaya (whose story was profiled in the Dutch newspaper Het Parool), converted only after dating (or wedding) a Muslim man, usually – interestingly enough – a Moroccan (even in countries like England, where Moroccans do not form the majority Muslim population).

Look, if a woman is willing to completely transform her life, change her name, and start wearing bedsheets simply because the man treats her like a filthy infidel bitch while she scorns the nice helpful guy who is at her beck and call, this should tell you something about how men are advised to treat women they would like to find them attractive.

Muslim men are attractive to Western women precisely because they treat them with scorn and contempt.  They may not do so for the same reason Western rock stars do, but the effect is the same.

This is a basic Game concept, but for some reason, men find it hard to believe.  Just remember: women like strong horses.  They like stallions. They don't like pack donkeys.

The hunt for weakness

Sassy, a commenter at Susan's place, makes an important observation while discussing HUS's favorite television show:

One thing of female nature that I have noticed is that when we identify a form of weakness in a man, we keep our eyes out for further clues/confirmations of that weakness. Once ShoSho learned about his rather pathetic lifestyle, she continued to identify and mull over new clues. She could no longer see him as the man she fell for initially. He became a loser in her eyes, and her attraction to him began to wane. This culminated in her cheating on him.

This is true.  I have observed similar tendencies in women myself.  So, how can a man deal with this female tendency to hunt for his weaknesses?  The beta way, of course, would be to grandly reveal them all to her at once, complete with a romantic declaration of how she helps him want to be a better man and so forth.

Likely reaction: sneering contempt and reduced sexual atttraction.

What does Game theory suggest?  Game is rather like jujitsu, as it involves utilizing a woman's instinctive tendencies to serve a man's purposes rather than her own.  Consider the neg, which causes a woman to doubt her instinctive assumption of superiority vis-a-vis a man.  In like manner,  the obvious solution to the female tendency to hunt for weaknesses once identified is to make the woman doubt her ability to correctly identify weaknesses.

How can this be done?  Easily, by presenting false weaknesses to keep her instincts occupied. Not only will she miss genuine weaknesses by looking in the wrong direction for further confirmations of something that doesn't exist, but once she has traveled down the wrong path two or three times, she will be much less sure of herself if she does happen to latch onto a genuine weakness and therefore more inclined to simply let it go without disrupting the relationship.

No doubt most men will dislike the need to anticipate, misdirect, and obfuscate when they would like nothing better than to bare their souls and be accepted for whom they truly are, warts and all.  But the paradox of intersexual relations is that in order to be truly accepted, loved, and desired by a woman, a man must always keep a part of himself hidden well away from her.

The science of alpha chasing

It would be hard to explain this seemingly contradictory female behavior sans game:

A new study reveals that the more women want sex, the more they up their standards when choosing a short-term mate. Researchers found that this is in direct contrast to statistics for men, after they study revealed that men are more likely to lower their standards the more "sexually hyperactive" they become.

This explains a phenomenon that quite rightly infuriates deltas and gammas.  When a women gets the itch she can't scratch and decides to go out and get laid, she's not going to turn to her faithful beta orbiters to help her out, she's going to go out and put out for a man from whom she can't reasonably hope for commitment.

Women always date up when it comes to matters of personal preference.  They only date down when they are pursuing material matters.  Keep this in mind if you are foolishly attempting to appeal to a woman's material instincts.

The Lolita dilemma

There has been quite the discussion raging at Susan's place, and I find I tend to disagree with her position regarding the observed "unnatural" behavior that some teenage girls exhibit towards much older men.  She quoted one of her readers and added the following:

"Also, as a former teenage girl, it seems to me that there is a lot of wishful thinking going on here. Teen girls generally aren’t attracted to balding 40 yo guys. I recall thinking 30, much less 40, was old when I was a teenager."

They sure aren’t. The claim that adolescent girls like to “try out” their sexuality with older men is both repulsive and completely false. It goes against nature in every way. 

First, middle-aged men are perfectly capable of discerning when a teenage girl is attempting to attract his attention.  Most men don't make asses of themselves in this way without at least a little encouragement.  Second,  consider one of the funnier moments of Two-and-a-Half Men. Charlie, clearly in his forties, approaches a young woman in her early twenties. He tries to chat her up, when she smiles and says: “I’m sorry, sir, I don’t have Daddy issues.”

She didn't, but the obvious implication is that many women do. Which is, in fact, true.  But the fact that teen girls are quite reasonably disgusted by unwanted advances from older men in no way negates the experience of men seeing girls practically assuming the position like a baboon in heat in order to try to attract their attention. It’s not “wishful thinking” to notice when a 17 year-old walks in the gym and makes a beeline for a particular older man, especially not when that is immediately followed by unmerciful ragging from everyone else who saw it once she is no longer around.

It is not even necessarily a matter of attraction per se.  In my experience, it is primarily about attention and bragging rights. A teen girl may be grossed out by the thought of actual sex with the middle-aged married man or the rich silver fox, but she is absolutely going to want to be the one who is capable of drawing his high status attention to herself, thereby granting her status among her peers.

As for Susan's focus group shouting OMG! and EWW! at the idea of Colin Firth or Hugh Grant, I tend to suspect that if those post-college women were to encounter the two older men at a bar, they’d be fawning all over them and trying to get their pictures taken with them to post on Facebook.  After all, Hugh Grant has appeared in the British newspapers with much younger women hanging all over him on a regular basis.  As has Bono and any number of well-known, middle-aged men.

None of this means that older men don’t behave inappropriately. They do. But teenage girls are not exactly famous for always behaving in an appropriate manner themselves.  As for the correct way to respond to a teenage girl acting inappropriately, the wisest thing to do is to simply deny them the reaction and the attention they are seeking.

The hamster quit running

Danny has an amusing post on providing a woman with a useful wakeup call:

I asked her what made her think I’d be interested in being with her. Her hamster replied-
 
“Well, you’ve always had a thing for me.”

I told her I don’t recall ever having a thing for her, and if I did it was back in 2004 (it was 2010 at the time). She seemed dumbfounded. The hamster quit running and went and took a shit in the corner. 

This woman is a CLASSIC example of a woman hitting the wall. She spent her early years in the navy, got out and focused on her career then found out they don’t hand out husbands, and her hypergamous ass wasn’t attractive to the men in her dating pool that were pulling 22 year olds.

She was invisible to men.  She was simply a “co-worker”, the competition. She was no longer the “hot girl” in the office. Men quit flirting with her lest they suffer a sexual harassment suit. She called me out of the blue. She gave me the standard, “why can’t I find a BF. “I have a great job, make great money, I’m well-educated, I’ve travelled. What’s wrong with me.” 

My answer was simply: “The problem is you need to find a GF. Men don’t give a fuck about any of the crap you listed. I’m more attracted to the chick serving me fries at my burger place than a 30-year old business women.”

That's the fact.  Looking back, it never occurred to me that I ought to keep dating the daughter of one of America's most famous Fortune 500 CEOs at the time because it would be of material advantage to me.  I dumped her for a stripper who didn't graduate from high school and was living on her own at 17.  It never even crossed my mind that I should be attracted to the daughter of an even more famous CEO simply because her daddy was wealthy and on the cover of Forbes and Fortune.

I'm not saying there aren't mercenaries and male gold diggers out there, but the point is that they are not SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to the female trappings of what is more properly considered male success.  It's rather like men wondering why women aren't attracted to how nice they look in a dress and makeup.  It doesn't matter how pretty he looks, it's not going to do anything for the average woman, in fact, it's probably going to turn her off.

Women sexually respond to money and status.  They don't just find them to be signals, they will literally get wet at the sight of sufficiently impressive cars and houses.  I've seen it happen.  There is nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that very few of them understand that men do not do so.

Not all men understand the score either, but some do.  Back in the early 90's, there was a guy who drove a Ferrari around Minneapolis with the license plate GOTUWET.  (No, that wasn't me, I drove a Porsche with 2GQ4U.)*  And the thing is, for all the eye-rolling and protestations it inspired, there is absolutely no question that it did exactly what it promised.  Not on every woman who saw it, but certainly more than were required.

I should also point out that "I'm well-traveled" is an extraordinarily unwise point for a woman to use to market herself.  The average American man tends to hear that as "I've been sexually penetrated in various European capitals by swarthy, effete foreigners.  Fake a French accent, buy me an expensive glass of wine and I'll be on my back within an hour."  Think about it; any man to whom that might theoretically appeal has probably been abroad himself and knows perfectly well how the girls in his study program were spending their evenings.

* Just kidding.  About the license plate.

Declining interest and intimacy

Roissy distinguishes between the two while providing a list of clues that your wife or girlfriend is in the process of bringing the relationship to its end.

Lack of Rapport

She’s stopped asking you questions.

She’s stopped sharing details of her day.

Everything she declares seems crafted to be maximally antagonistic to your beliefs and values.

Lack of Attraction

She’s stopped having sex with you.

She’ll take any excuse to denigrate you.

She winces when you touch her.

By the time a relationship reaches this point, most men panic and revert to full supplication mode, which only guarantees humiliation as well as increasing the chance that the relationship will collapse.  Athol Kay's program of steady self-improvement is the only real means of increasing the odds of reversing the pattern; appeals to historical commitment, past emotions, and religious principles are proven to be of little value in this regard.

Reject the lies

A reformed involuntary celibate points out the need to reject the lies that women tell men over and over and over again:

Feminism taught me a lot throughout the 80′s and 90′s. It taught me not to question women’s sexual choices. It taught me to treat them with deference and respect. It taught me not to accost them for sex aggressively, but to treat them as human beings. It taught me that i MUST control my shallow, greedy, dangerous impulses but allow a woman the right to indulge in hers. It taught me to be nice for the sake of being nice and not expecting sex in return. To give all my emotional and platonic ability and not dare ask for intimacy in return.

It taught me everything i needed to be creepy, unattractive and doormat ready.

And it was re-enforced by EVERY woman i talked to.

What i SHOULD have been told is “hit the gym, build some muscle, guys with muscles are hawt” – “get braces now, you’ll smile a lot and we love guys with big smiles” – “go see a dermatologist, we love sexy skin on a man” – “cut off your long hair, you don’t look like a rocker, you look like a hippy. crew cuts are sexy, you’d look good in one” – “learn a skill and become good in it. become confident in it. we love confidence”

What i got instead was a constant drumming of “you’re such a good guy, just wait, someone else is out there for you” – “you don’t have to change a thing, you’re a wonderful person, just keep being yourself” – “you don’t need muscles, only jerks care about having big muscles” – “there’s nothing wrong with you, you just need to be a bit more confident that’s all” – “confidence comes from the inside, not from the outside“

Patent fucking lies all of them.

"It is better to marry than burn" writes the Apostle Paul.  There are men given the gift of celibacy.  But even the Bible points out this is a gift, and one that is not given to most men.  Women cannot tell men what they find attractive because they do not know themselves.  They only know what is considered socially acceptable to find attractive.  That is why men should not listen to them concerning these matters.  It is important to understand this.  The consequences of not doing so can be brutal.

Don't take my word for it.  Find a woman who is attracted to a man you know.  Make a list of his most attractive qualities.  Ask her what she finds attractive about that man, then compare her list with yours.  In many cases, what she says she finds attractive will not be what is actually attractive about him.

Two different languages

Badger works through the difference between the male version of the "normal" man and the female version.  Ironically, the difference is actually greater than one typically sees between different languages like English and Italian:

Long story short, a “normal” guy is “an alpha who will play the beta game when I want him to.” A dude who is not deficient in some category she deems essential to her life path...Remember that despite being the ostensible “choosers” of the sexual marketplace, women view the men who pursue them as a mirror to their own value – it’s a compliment when a high-value man makes moves on you (even though he may be only angling for sex), it’s a scary proposition when a wimpy beta guy thinks you’re a good match for him because he may be right.

The lesson is this: don't be normal.  Be better than normal.  Be more of a bastard than normal.  Almost anything is better than nice and normal.  Remember, if a woman laments that she can't meet a "nice, normal guy", that is probably about the only thing you can be certain that she doesn't actually want.

What attracts women

Or rather, what male attributes attract the women who read Athol Kay.  Somehow, those who make similar "scientific" claims never seem to qualify the statement by pointing out that their conclusions are based on the answers of 14 girls studying sociology at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas or whatever.

Physical Fitness is a must and powers a lot of what follows afterward – especially feeding into Sexual Aggression. Personal and Social Dominance are quite closely related… and the bridge between the two of them is Humor, Smarts and Skills.

I'm a little surprised that Facial Attractiveness isn't in the top three.  I would have guessed 1) Fame, 2) Facial Attractiveness, and 3) Physical Fitness.  What male attributes would the women here put in their top three?

Intersexual friendship

Susan argues that it's not possible:

The reason: pure projection by both sexes. Guys want to have sex with their girl friends, and assume girls feel the same way. Girls do not want to have sex with their guy friends, and assume guys feel the same way.

This is largely true, but the logic obviously permits one exception, and it is an exception that I have personally observed.  Men of higher SMV can be friends with women of lower SMV unless they convert the female friend into a harem member.

I've had a few genuine female friends with whom I've never had any romantic involvement, three of whom were even attractive.  But in all three cases, my interest in them was either totally nonexistent or very limited.  In the one instance of the latter case, friendship was possible because her interest in me was equally limited, my being at least 100 pounds too light for her.  She was so predictable in this regard that if she was cheerful about a new prospect, I would quite literally ask her at which major football program he had played.  She would get mad, then, when pressed, reluctantly admit "Nebraska" or "USC".  She very much liked those big, corn-fed linemen.

The reality is that most men aren't truly friends with women, nor can they hope to maintain their friendships once their friend pairs off with another man.  Unless the man's SMV is much higher than the male friend's SMV, he simply can't afford to tolerate the friend lurking about and waiting for his opportunity to make a move.

Regardless, the reality is that even when male-female friendships are possible, they tend to be transient and situation-based.  I don't know a single man or woman who has maintained a lifelong friendship with a member of the opposite sex that is even remotely comparable to their lifelong same-sex friendships.

Spaghetti arms and sour grapes

Susan Walsh provides what would appear to be a counter-intuitive perspective on the appeal of male muscles:

I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out. Women like a fit body, but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday. And I am grossed out by male pecs that are like boobs – something Jason was talking about recently. Blech!  I may be an extreme case – for example, I think Nathan Harden’s skinny arm on the CD cover is sexy. I think his jutting hipbones would be sexy. But I’ve always liked the hipster look. I’m not alone – my guess is that skinny, brooding types, who are often called “bad boys” even when they are not, as in Nathan’s case – outperform PUA types by a mile.

Solipsism alert! First, straight men most certainly do not get muscled for one another. That is pure female projection. We muscle up because it feels good to be powerful rather than weak, because we tend to seek improvement and get competitive with ourselves whenever we focus on something, and because we observe that women gravitate towards the stronger, more well-developed men.  It feels great when women eye your muscles with interest and grab at your pecs, your biceps and your triceps.

I never cared about being able to bench more than my best friends.  My high-school tennis partner was the state powerlifting champion, I was never, ever, going to be able to compete with him.  But I cared a great deal about being able to bench 135, then 225, then 315.  Now, I have a naturally delicate build, but managed to put on nearly 50 pounds over the years through hitting the weights. So I have a direct basis for comparison and I can say that women, on the average, react much more strongly and much more positively to men with well-developed musculatures. Furthermore, it tends to be the hottest, fittest women who prefer the hardest men. After all, who is going to pound her harder and throw her around the bed more easily, limp-wristed Emo Boy or strong, fit, Ripped Guy.

It's not that I had any problem attracting girls when I was a slender soccer player. I’m a writer, after all, and I could probably brood for England. But then, I never once had pretty strangers in the street look me over and say “yum” either.  That being said, do some guys overdo the weight training?  Yes, absolutely. But there is a huge gap between a scrawny runner and a waddling musclehead who looks like a stuffed sausage in a suit.  Daniel Craig as James Bond on the beach is much more the norm than Arnold as Mr. Universe posing onstage.

I thought Susan's comment about finding skinny arms to be sexy to be particularly interesting, since I have heard other women declare that they find "spaghetti arms" and "sunken chests" on men to be vomit-inducing.  I have also noticed that adult women who prefer hipster men are either still attracted to the same type of juveniles that first attracted them in their early teens or fall in the 5-6 SMV category.

My hypothesis is that the human mind has an unconscious means of limiting its attraction triggers to the members of the opposite sex within an attainable SMV range. It was always astounding to me when a relatively plain woman would confess that she found one of my average male friends to be hot while genuinely exhibiting no interest whatsoever in any of my much better-looking friends. It’s a very healthy and positive spin on the sour grapes fable.

As for PUAs, no.  Hipsters do not outperform them.  If nothing else, logic would suggest that by the time a skinny brooding hipster has emo’d his way into a girl’s boudoir, the PUA will have plowed his way through six or seven women already. After all, it takes a lot more time to strike poses, simper, and wait to be noticed than damn the torpedoes and proceed full speed ahead.

"Kate Beckett" on Castle may have said it best, grammatical infelicities notwithstanding, upon realizing how many moderately attractive women had been seduced by a dead PUA whose death she was investigating.  "I weep for my gender."

Anyhow, if Susan finds skinny arms to be sexy, no doubt she'll be absolutely enraptured by this video from my old Wax Trax! labelmates, particularly by the lead singer, Milan Fras.  JA!  JA!  JA!  JAWOHL!  I don't know about the sexiness, but Milan is at least 1,000x more totally awesome than Nathan Harden.  I doubt Harden has giant pink caribous... by which I actually mean GIANT PINK CARIBOUS.