It’s that time of the week again, folks!
First up, Agnostic reports that high school and college girls are more receptive to PDA than twentysomethings:
Being under her peers’ social microscope predicts that she’d want to shove her overly affectionate boyfriend away without even thinking about it, while the power of monogamy to cloud out her thoughts about potential mates predicts that she wouldn’t care. For anyone who’s been to the park or the mall in their lives, the answer is pretty clear — monogamy is stronger than peer scrutiny. There’s no mystery why a girl would allow PDA from a handsome quarterback, but a lot of the guys who these adolescent girls are with are pretty awkward and goofy. The fact that they accept PDA from them is pretty startling, so it must be that their more monogamous behavior, compared to 20-something women, outweighs their anxiety about what their peers will think when they see some doofus wrapping his arms around her.
You would never see this among adults with jobs, for instance.
Ben Leonard has a great review of From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia:
To begin with one must understand the history of Russia. Russia sees itself as the third Rome; the first was in Italy, the second in Constantinople, and the third in Moscow. The word Czar means Caesar in Russian. Similar to Constantinople/Istanbul the third Rome sees itself as a bridge between the East and the West. The Mongols conquered and ruled Russia for some time (their descendants are the Tartars) giving Russians experience with Asiatic peoples. Russia also borders China and reaches all the way to Alaska which was formerly a part of Russia. Russia has been cut off from the West at times which made it miss the Renaissance. Since Russia lags generally lags behind Western Europe in terms of standard of living and technology it views its Western neighbors with a mixture of envy and contempt.
His post is spot on.
11minutes posts on the death of femininity in American women:
With the blur between gender lines, we lost Gentlemen and Ladies alike. Young boys get told that it is okay to cry even if you are not a girl. And young girls get raised to embrace their tomboyish side of playing in the mud, burping, cursing and farting – just like the boys.
In emasculating men, we’ve made women into dudes with vaginas. Ugh.
Cless Alvein has a two-part story “describ[ing] the average-case life trajectory of a very average young professional female in Manhattan.” From the first part:
Sarah’s full sexual history: 3 boyfriends from relationships lasting more than 6 months. Normal. No problem. She’s had flings, one of which was an earnest attempt at a relationship that nevertheless failed early and explosively, and two of which were rebound relationships with no intention of permanence. She broke off all of those flings, each in an extremely rude way. Then there are three one-night stands– her first sexual encounter, at 16, was with an unemployed man then twice her age; one was in college (sophomore year, early winter) with a frat boy; and the third was at age 26 during a grinding dry spell, when she was “too busy for relationshipsâ€. She’s never cheated, technically speaking, although her college one-nighter occurred two days after breaking up with a long-term boyfriend, and everyone found out about it. Her total number is 9.
Sarah does not consider herself a slut. Sluts, in her mind, are those actively seek casual sex, those who have it a lot more often than she does, and those who are proud and vocal about having casual sex. Sarah has a clear definition of a slut and, by her definition, she’s not one. (Author’s note: I tend to agree with Sarah: she’s not a slut. She’s a worse-than-average modern woman, but I wouldn’t describe her as a slut. She’s just badly behaved.)
Definitely worth a read.
LILGRL debuts at Girl Game with a post defining the objectives of girl game:
There are a few reasons that “Girl Game†is universally ignored as a phenomenon — the main reason being, it’s become intrinsic to the concept of “femininity.â€Â So, instead of seeing a girl as being “good at game†we see her as being ultra-feminine (and thus, well-liked by men). Of course, a girl can learn to be (or just act like she is) a paragon of femininity in the same way that a guy can learn to be (or just act like he is) an alpha. Being feminine, after all, has nothing to do with looks.
Given the worthlessness of mainstream women’s dating advice, I’m looking forward to hearing more from these ladies.
Rake tries a daytime approach and reports on the results:
Now, I HAVE approached in the daytime before. I don’t find it horribly difficult if I can come up with some sort of pretense, or somehow figure out a way to make it seem natural that I’m talking to her. Last week, for instance, I got on the elevator with a woman that works on the same floor as me, made idle chit chat on the way down and then wound up walking with her and chatting for a couple of blocks. Right at the end I noticed that she had a great big rock on her finger, so I didn’t go for the number, but it was a solid interaction. I could tell I was generating attraction from her. It worked. It was seamless and natural without any awkwardness.
Day game is going to become big in the next few years. Bet on it.
Roissy reveals that inside every good girl is a slut yearning to break free:
Yes, women like to fuck. But there is a caveat. They only like to fuck men higher than them in status. Female hypergamy doesn’t disappear; it just acclimates to changing incentive structures. Tyler Durden was hitting upon a truth when he wrote about the existence of a matrix-like secret society. A small pool of alpha males really is hogging a disproportionate amount of vaj action when that vaj is at its most desirable. The fact that most betas eventually settle down with a road-worn, heart-stomped wife in their late 20s/early 30s doesn’t disprove the reality of the secret society.
It takes game if you want to unleash the nymphomaniac in any girl.
Also from Roissy, this video featuring Ukrainian sand painting artist Kseniya Simonova:
Now that’s talent, right there.
Roosh distills pickup into nine rules:
It’s rare that the hottest girl will be the most horny—she always has a steady supply of dick that she can access. Banging her depends just as much on luck and timing than actual game. Try your hand with her every now and then, but keep in mind that screening for horniness is just as important as personality and beauty. If the girl you’re dealing with has gotten laid recently, there will be no sense of urgency and the iron will be too cool for you to get inside her pants quickly.
Working within the rules of reality is always the best way forward.
Talleyrand writes on the psychological neoteny of women:
Not only have men been selecting women for beauty, they have been selecting them for being childlike. A woman that was more childlike was more fun as a partner. The unfortunate side effect is that women as a group tend to live in the moment just as children do, without thinking about the long term impact of their choices and consequences. They are more emotional. Despite what our current society pushes about emotional health, existing like this is incredibly destructive.
As I’ve written before, a society that doesn’t beat morality into its women will be undone by their behavior.
A.J. Travis has been on fire in the past week, his most recent post informing men how to identify sluts:
1. Tattoos.
There is a reason they call them ‘tramp stamps.’ Any girl who is foolish enough to make a decision to allow a high school drop-out to inject ink under her skin, usually has no problem letting other unsavory guys inject her with less permanent liquids.
Roissy’s epic, Jezebel-invaded post on this subject is also worth a read.
Virgle Kent takes a trip to Colombia and comes back with an amusing story:
One final note. Hot girls were everywhere in Colombia, even in the airport. It was tough preparing myself for what would greet me when I landed in Atlanta for my connecting flight back to DC. One thing’s for sure: you know you’re in the A when all the flight attendants are flamboyantly gay males, dudes wearing shades on the plane at night, and more dudes making out with each other. Fat girls munching away. No cute girls in sight. I can’t wait for my next trip to South America.
*adds Colombia to list of must-visit countries*
Geoffrey Falk uses a recent murder in Kentucky to remind us that white trash proles are just as bad as NAMs:
Two guys owning a house together = gay. And two Yuppie-ish “friends†who own a house, going out for a walk together = flaming gay. At least, that’s the prole logic. Why else would four white dumbfucks have beaten the shit out of them, in a “random†crime? Just because they looked gay.
Stick that in your race realism and believe it.
Steve Sailer reports on the liberal plot to unleash Australia’s failed Stolen Generation policies on black children:
In other words, the trend is to re-enact the Australian Stolen Generation scheme. As you’ll recall, in the 1930s, half-blood children of alcoholic Aboriginal mothers were sent to boarding schools to learn how to function in white society by well-intentioned whites. This was condemned in the movie Rabbit Proof Fence, but, amusingly, the director, Philip Noyce, wound up, much like the white bad guy in his film, sending his adolescent half-blood female star to boarding school to get her away from her alcoholic family.
The evil wrought by egalitarianism will not abate any time soon.
Audacious Epigone compiles a list of countries where the U.S. dollar goes the furthest:
The ideal runaway spot is a place that is simultaneously modern and allows you to live like a king. What follows is a rank order listing of countries by exchange rate-PPP ratio as a percentile for which 2008 data and estimates are available. A value over 100% means your dollars will go further than they will in the US; a value under 100% means they won’t go as far they will at home.
Russia, the Ukraine, and Brazil are all pretty high up on the list. Huzzah!
Female Misogynist lays into feminists and the amorality of women:
So that feminist was figuring that, when a man makes her horny, she’s willing to suspend any scruples she has for him. If he wants to steal, murder, whatever, that’s fine with her, as long as her gina tingles. Therefore, since women make me horny, I should be willing to tolerate any evil behavior on their part! They lie? Make false battering and rape accusations? Use litigation to force their way into jobs they can’t do? Spawn fatherless bastards who will grow up to be violent criminals? Wreck civilization? So what, as long as I’m wet that’s fine with me! Because I want to have sex with women, I should be willing to allow them to wreak havoc to their hearts’ content!
She also gives a shout-out to The Fifth Horseman via this post of mine.
Φ watches a National Geographic special on mail order brides and gives his thoughts:
My primary emotion watching the episode was sadness. It profiled two male clients of an International Marriage Broker (IWB) seeking Russian women. We saw profiles of two men: the first, 36yo James, starting his relationship with 30yo Uliana; the second, 3rd grade schoolteacher Gary (age not provided, but I would guess 50yo), who married his Russian fiance’ Olga (I would guess 40yo) by the end of the hour. My general impression was that, personality-wise, James had a bit more going for him than Gary, but both of these men were sweet, awkward, and bereft of game. We see James’ fawningly complimenting Uliana in a desperately beta kind of way; we see Gary, at the airport to receive Olga, waiting for two hours for her to clear customs, almost in tears at the possibility that she may not have made the flight. It was easy to see why these men faced difficulty in the domestic mating market. They were, in a word, harmless, it both the good and bad senses of the word.
Really worth a read.
Ganttsquarry vents on an aspect of the Roissysphere that pisses him off:
My irritation still stands though. Every time Roissy writes one of his “Approach This Set†posts for example, the comment section has a few people ridiculously undervaluing the women in the picture.
Generally an 8 becomes a 6( or even less in a few cases), a 6 becomes a 4( or a 3), and so on. Maybe they take those 2 subtracted points and add them somewhere else. I dunno.
It’s a fair point.
Hermes challenges the Roissysphere to reconcile what he feels are two propositions that are at odds:
When an unruly dog bites the mailman, we don’t blame the dog; we blame the owner for failing to keep the dog fenced in or on a leash. The stronger the first proposition, the weaker the second, and vice versa. If it is solely up to men to control and lead women, then women can have no responsibility for the current situation. If women are to blame, on the other hand, they must possess at least as much moral agency as men, if not more.
I’ve read Hermes’ blog for close to two years, and he’s one of the bloggers who I respect the most. His argument is compelling.
Finally, the Nostalgia Critic compares the classic children’s movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory to Tim Burton’s remake. Laughs ensue.
And don’t forget The Spearhead! Great contributions from everyone this past week. If you don’t have The Spearhead on your RSS reader, you’re missing out big time.
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Steve Sailer reports on the liberal plot to unleash Australia’s failed Stolen Generation policies on black children
It is not clear that the Australian policy “failed”. It is certainly not true that this policy “failed” just because today’s liberals are all weepy and grovellingly apologetic about it. The basic concept – remove them from their dysfunctional Abo culture and raise them in a functional white culture – was sound. For the same reason, removing today’s American black kids from the ghetto and raising them in government-run (preferably military-run) boarding schools is not obviously flawed, and is worth a shot in my opinion. What could be worse than the current situation, which is allowing them to grow up in the defective ghetto culture?
Considering the final step for such behavior is putting the dog to sleep; I don’t believe that we truly ‘blame’ the owner in this circumstance. I certainly don’t feel that I should physically assault the dog’s owner, while I certainly might kill or main the dog myself. We blame the owner, as in he is legally liable, because we have no other choice in the matter.
Men blaming women will never happen, because there will always be enough non-judgmental men around that want to sleep with them. This is totally a viable tactic. A guy with a ‘Gal Pal’ whose guilt he assuages is probably going to sleep with her at some point.
The sea change that has occurred with not holding women to higher standards has happened within their peer group. Other women are no longer judgmental (at least after their teen years.) Women help each other in committing and concealing bad behavior; at best their is just zero judgment. A woman’s honor/shame ethic is almost entirely moderated by peer pressure; hence the ‘win the set’ aspect of game. You need to be screened by a girl’s friends, and display your value to her social circle and family.
This is largely irrelevant to men. Unless she is a total Janice that no one can stand, your social circle can keep their traps shut about your girlfriend. Male ethics are not very strongly reinforced by peer pressure. Our personal ethic is largely assembled and internalized from role models that may not take very active roles (or none at all) in our lives and cannot literally condemn us, but will still inform our actions. “What Would Jesus Do?”, is not a female ethical code. “What would Jane say Jesus would do?”, is however.
The Girl Game post is definitely interesting, but the comments were a bit too adversarial for my taste. As with guy-game, I think it is a given that girl-game will have more ethical and less ethical faces.
While of course we should commend women’s efforts at improving themselves in the LTR department, one need only look at such books as “The Rules” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rules to see the potential for an unethical, manipulative side. Any thoughts? How will aspiring PUA’s perceive girl-game? Should they be on the lookout for Rules-style manipulation?
Damn, no link this week. I’ll try harder.
Ferdi,
Thanks for alerting us to the new GirlGame blog. This is what I said to Aoefe’s recent “The Right Guy” post:
”
Aoefe,
With all due respect, it seems that neither you nor your fellow “Girlfriends†here really seem to understand a major point wrt your attempts to fashion a kind of “Girl Gameâ€; and that point is this:
Orginal Game was a REACTION to the vast and profound changes on the dating and mating scene in our time. Game was the logical response to said changes, a kind of evolutionary adaptation to said changed marketplace conditions. We who study Game know and understand, that marriage, and for that matter that which *used* to make a Man most eligible for it, are now wholly IRRELEVANT. As Roissy and Ferdinand both recently said, and The Fifth Horseman himself has confirmed, a Man having “Moderate Game†is worth at least $2 MIL. It is worth more than most jobs, or formal educational degrees. These things simply no longer matter to Women today as much as they once did. Period.
If “Girl Game†is to really have ANY comparable realworld utility, it must confront, in cleareyed, brutal fashion, the same vastly changed dating and mating landscape that spawned Original Game in the first place, what Roissy calls the Four Sirens:
1. The Pill & Abortion on Demand.
2. No-Fault Divorce.
3. Economic freedom for Women.
4. Heavily Female Friendly legal system.
ALL of these things have tremendously changed the way in which we date and mate in our time, Aoefe. And Original Game is, again, an attempt to deal meaningfully w/said changes in the environment. I really don’t see anyone on the “Girl Game†side of things who seem to grasp any of these things.
Simply put, as I see it, “Girl Game†is basically a kind of arms race to appeal to the very few Alphas remaining, in the classical or traditional sense. For example, both Obama and Tom Brady would be considered such, because they have something virtually all Women love in a Man-STATUS.
Well, guess what-the vast majority of Men WON’T have that, or anything near it. So, I see a tremendous number of Women attempting to wield “Girl Gameâ€, being a heck of a lot worse off than Men wielding Original Game. Why?
It all goes back to the way Men and Women are made. Most guys are in the 5-7 looks range-not leading Man looks, but OK to get the job done.
So, if they have decent to tight Game, they can consistently bed Women in their own “looks class†while also snatching up Women anywhere from one to three points above. Remember what Original Game is all about-winning the SEXUAL attraction of a Woman.
That’s relatively easy to do.
On the other hand though, “Girl Game†is hobbled from the get got, because there are very, very few Alphas around, in the ways that matter to Women-longterm success is dependant, at least in part, on longterm economic security, which most Men cannot promise today. Then there’s the status issue, which the vast majority of Men can’t offer either.
Put that together with the Four Sirens, the Mancession and the New Grrl Order, and it all makes for a very difficult environment for the vast majority of Women-who also rank in the middle of the “Looks†Bell Curve-to compete.
In other words Aoefe, the “Girl Gameâ€, has some serious flaws in it, that I don’t think any of its biggest champions have ever thought about.
Nor do I expect any suc dead reckoning on the part of my sisters because, quite frankly, I don’t think many of you are capable of that cold, analytical analysis that is evident in say, the Mystery Method, for example, or even the Kama Sutra. As I’ve said before, it’s no accident that there’s never been a real Female version of such manuals around for Women, written BY Women, because the simple reason is, THEY DON’T NEED IT. As Kim Kardashian herself proved, on video, all you need to be is beautiful-the guy can and will, do the rest.
Unfortunately, in our time though, it’s really a buyer’s market-guys with Game can and will succeed. Those without Game, or the vast majority of Women, can and will, lose.
Bigtime.
Holla back
The Obsidian”
Following up on my initial point to Aoefe, I said this:
“Nova’s speaking on the exact same point I’m speaking to-Women simply are not willing to “settle†these days. And that’s what “girl game†fails to address, because given the vast changes on the social dating scene, in order for a Woman to make it said system, she either has to be smokin’ hot, or, she has to be willing to settle for a lesser Man.
Newsflash: most Women aren’t that hot, and most Women won’t settle either-at least not while in their 20s. And I’ve seen Women hold out in their mid-30s and beyond. Usually to their detriment. Because by then, the tables turn-most guys that age ain’t too terribly interested in em, and so these ladies wind up alone.
I’m teling you, being from Black America, this is how it is most likely to play out in White America, too. “Girl Game†works best when it had the supports of “Marriage 1.0″. Nowadays, its a kind of Ponzi scheme, I hate to say it like that, but its true.
And I think the reason why Women haven’t given this any thought is because far too many are simply incapable of this kind of cold, analytical logic needed to think this through. Most Women honestly think they can “winâ€-its akin to think you can win against the house at Atlantic City or Las Vegas. It happens, but very rarely. Again: most Women won’t ever be a Giselle bagging her Tom Brady.
In an Age where Women don’t NEED Men, and when fewer and fewer Men can be a kind of Big Man on Campus, “Girl Game†really doesn’t address key themes of the Human Condition from the female side of the evo-side of the aisle. It’s simply not discussed, because so many Women still think they can win, when in truth, they will not.
Now, if-IF-Women are willing to make the needed adjustments, they can win-they can get true companions, based on mutual respect, shared interests and sexual compatibility. Few Men can and/or willing to offer longterm financial security, and most Men will not be able to deliver on the “status†needs of Women. The ecosphere has changed, and Men, if Roissy’s blog among a great many others is any indication, seems to finally gotten the memo.
Now its the Ladies’ turn.
The Obsidian”
“Nova’s speaking on the exact same point I’m speaking to-Women simply are not willing to “settle†these days. And that’s what “girl game†fails to address, because given the vast changes on the social dating scene, in order for a Woman to make it said system, she either has to be smokin’ hot, or, she has to be willing to settle for a lesser Man.”
Given the potential of guy-game in improving men’s sexual attractiveness, I think your post is not entirely fair. Let’s face it, the majority of women will find it extremely hard to get sexually attracted to anything less than what PUAs call an ‘upper beta’ man (although flukes do happen). And the prospect of ‘settling’ with someone you’re NOT sexually attracted to is not healthy for either party in the relationship.
Let women focus on the men they could settle with. My best estimate is that regardless of her looks, a woman who puts serious work into her ability to attract *and* relate to men will have *no difficulty whatsoever* settling with an “upper beta” or “lesser alpha”. So, I don’t really see where you’re coming from.
Thanks for the plug again, Ferdinand. And two years? I’m flattered… not to mention, wondering whether I should have gone into full-time politico-cultural punditry instead of medicine…
On “girl game”: The Rules, I think, is a massive failbox. This sort of “game” I can’t really see any value in. If women want to be chased by assholes looking to pump-and-dump them, they can shit-test to their heart’s content. If they want a long-term relationship with a decent man– a man with a balance between “alpha” and “beta” traits– they should stop shit-testing altogether.
Talleyrand’s point on psychological neoteny is brilliant. It’s a great dig. On the other hand, I don’t really buy it. I think a 35-year-old woman with a 15-year-old’s mind and personality was just as reviled in our evolutionary history as she would be now.
I still think the inferiority of women is purely cultural, confined to the American culture which spoils and indulges them. There’s absolutely no evidence that women are innately inferior, and they don’t seem to be so in most cultures.
The removal of the steady hand of mothers and grandmothers guiding the choices made by young women, has made them vulnerable to bad choices.
Hence, women go around in their 20s thinking that the treatment they are accustomed to will never end, and that an Alpha who sleeps with them will actually marry them (not realizing that she is one of three at any given time). They use Match.com to generate a lot of emails from men, which happen due to the 2:1 ratio there. Women falsely interpret this attention driven from an unnatural ratio as a sign of their value being higher than it is.
Then, women face their Wile E. Coyote moment. They realize their attractiveness has plunge only after it is too late to avoid the fall. They did not see it coming, as the emails from match.com were still flowing steadily as a response to photos of her that are 5 years out of date.
In the old days, grandma knew that a girl’s appeal was temporary, and made sure she got married off long before her appeal dropped. Today, women have no steady hand of yesteryear to warn them of the impending cliff. In fact, the media trys to paint a continued path in the air, in the form of shows that try to normalize cougarhood. Thus, more and more women face their Wile E. Coyote moment (age 34-37).
Anon,
You forgot something: we’re in the midst of the Mancession, and at a time when fewer Men are going on to higher education. Two major factors that will directly impact the dating scene.
This is what “Girl Gamers” totally forgot to take into account. Because they’re interested in the “lone game”, these two factors are huge, and for the most part, are potential dealbreakers, UNLESS the Woman’s considerably older-say, beyond 35. Of course, her hottest days are behind her at that point, and she’s basically in the “settling” phase.
By definition-read Mystery’s book-Guy Game, if you will, doesn’t have to be applied to the “long game”, and in fact for the most part, isn’t. It’s about busting a nut, w/the option to buy. The. End.
And when it comes to THAT, a guy doesn’t need big bucks or lambskins on the wall. He only needs what TFH called Moderate Game. And he’s set.
Given that sexual attitudes, especially among Women, are much more relaxed, along with all the other “Sirens” as Roissy calls them, it’s really a buyer’s market these days. In short, guys with Game get over like a fat rat. Guys w/o Game, and 95% of all Women, lose.
It’s really as simple as that.
The Obsidian
Last paragraph is very, very true. This is why when men talk about “reviving slut shaming”, it’s pretty silly, because men are powerless to do that. Slut shaming was something that *women* did — men may have collaborated with it in terms of avoiding sluts (or not), but the real “branding” as a slut happened when women labeled other women as sluts, not when men did. Women have simply stopped labeling each other that way, to a significant degree (some still do, but it’s much less common than it used to be), and so the social sanction on female behavior has dropped away. Contrary to feminist fantasies about “patriarchy”, that social shaming came primarily from other women, and not from men. And so until women step up and start to shame each other’s behavior again, women will continue to behave like sluts — because the only social sanction women *fear*, in truth, is that of other women. They know that they can burn through social sanction from men by providing sexual access to men (yes, men are precisely that pathetically manipulable as we know).
Women are natural gamers. I don’t think we should be upset about that — it’s the way women are, and it’s the way they have been since forever. Blogs like that one are helpful, actually, to the extent that they can be informative for men. Unlike PUA, though, most women are natural gamers, while most men are not. Women have been playing the game of snagging the best guy for a long, long time.
What we’re saying is that the number of lesser alpha ane upper beta men is still very small, and will remain very small, because most men are not going to learn Game. Obsidian, me, Roissy, Ferdinand and others can preach Game as much as we like, but it’s a raindrop in the ocean of men. Women continuing to focus on a small number of men is a recipe for disappointment, at best, for most women, simply due to the numbers involved.
Given that sexual attitudes, especially among Women, are much more relaxed, along with all the other “Sirens†as Roissy calls them, it’s really a buyer’s market these days. In short, guys with Game get over like a fat rat. Guys w/o Game, and 95% of all Women, lose.
This is the basic issue.
A marketplace where casual sex is normative plays to alpha males more than anyone else — much more than it does to women who, as they say over on the girl game blog, are looking to hook men into commitments. A marketplace that assumes sex early in relationships does not play to that desire of women, but instead plays to the desire of men, and here it’s natural alphas and other men with Game, for casual sex.
It really is *that* simple.
Women, by definition, can’t grasp the hard reality of numbers and probabilities. That is why they often are caught by surprise when their attractiveness fades in their mid-30s.
Thus, women end up experiencing a Wile E. Coyote moment, when they suddenly realize men aren’t interested in them to the same degree, and that men 15 years older are going to be the norm for her henceforth.
TFH,
“Wile E. Coyote Moment”? LOL!!! I love how you phrased it, and yup, that’s exactly what A LOT of Women face when they hit say, 35. I’m being a bit generous agewise here, because, I’m a nice guy. But no matter how you slice it, there’s only so much a gal can do to look hot. Time über alles.
The new “Girl Game” blog, if it doesn’t address some really bad structural flaws, will only windup creating A LOT of dumped, dissed Lady Losers. What they need to be talking about is how to tone down their expectations and look for things in a Man that make him good for the longhaul; strictly rolling on gina tingles, no matter how pretty they may try to dress that fact up, simply ain’t gonna get it.
The Obsidian
nova, i love you. finally someone gets it. finally.
that’s all.
I don’t think this has much to do, at all, with women and whether they can or cannot grasp the “hard reality of numbers and probabilities.” Rather, it has everything to do with the fact that women, UNLIKE MEN, go through a period, early on, in which they are EXTREMELY desirable. They then decline. By contrast, men do not go through such a stage — as they get older and gain more status, they become more desirable. So, it’s natural that women are unable to see that they’ll swiftly decline after a certain point — why would you stop to think about that when you’re in such high sexual demand?
Come on, you can’t tell me that, were men to go through such a stage-and-then-decline, men would be able to see the end of the tunnel any better.
Really? I mean, go back and think about this, hard.
Really?
Obsidian,
Yes, I want the ‘Wile E. Coyote moment’ concept to catch on.
For this particular ‘Girl Game’ blog, I am cutting them slack, since Bhetti, Sofia, and LILgirl are all 20-22, and have better values than white ‘womyn’ types. Lilgrl is engaged too. So this crowd doesn’t irk me.
But yes, women who cross the age of 28-29 really have to get with it and realize that their time is very limited at that point. Online dating sites make it very easy for a woman to overrate her prospects (due to the ratios I described, and the inherent nature of the medium, where 20 emails from guys can *seem* like a lot, but really aren’t).
The steady hand of mothers and grandmothers was important in keeping a young woman away from cads and married off to a ‘good man’, and already have kids by age 35. Now that this factor is absent, young women are extremely vulnerable to hitting their Wife E. Coyote moment. And they have themselves to blame…
Female fertility drops off a cliff by 35. White women get wrinkles by then. Colored women have skin that lasts much longer (until 45), but fertility is all but gone by 35 no matter what race the woman is.
:)
I’m flattered that you think our audience will extend so greatly past the boys of the Roissysphere.
So, it’s natural that women are unable to see that they’ll swiftly decline after a certain point
That is why mother/Gmother mentorship is more important to a woman of 20-25 than father/Gfather mentorship is for a man of the same age.
Women were shielded from their Wife E. Coyote moment by the steady hand of their mothers and grandmothers. You, Sofia, LSB, and Bhetti still probably have this service available to you, but a lot of white urban women do not.
Yes, men never get a big falloff like that (unless they go bald, and even then, there are ways to reduce the impact of that).
But women are FAR more likely to go on match.com and get their ego boosted by the male-heavy ratio there making them think that their market value is higher than it is.
Men are less prone to getting so detached from reality.
Women are natural ‘Gamers’ ONLY to men with zero Game (for which The Rules would actually work to some degree).
But a man with even a small level of internalization of MM and other aspects of Game will easily blast past most female tricks.
Just like swords were superceded by guns that were superceded by missiles.
Missiles > Guns > Swords, in the same way,
Alpha Game > Girl Game > Beta supplication
In other news, feminists and other leftards are sympathizing with Roman Polanski, who raped a 13 year old girl.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
At the same time, they encourage FALSE rape charges by women against men, that ruin the men’s lives without due process.
What insanity is this? I continue to be amazed at the level of dissonance shown here….I am speechless.
I agree with you. I do not blame women for being like this, but I do think it’s not the best for them in the long run. Totally understandable, but still self-defeating.
Not that men are not *also* self-defeating, but that is a topic for another blog post where I get at men for our own dysfunction.
No enemies on the left.
Remember, Bill “you should put some ice on that” Clinton?
Yup.
And the thing is, more than ever, its guys who will determine if things go further than a fortnight-so LilGrl, Sofie, Aoefe, etc are, pardon the pun, screwed. UNLESS, they’re willing to go back to the wisdom of Grandma, and tone down the Gina Counter and basically, settle. Otherwise, odds are that only one of them will “win” the “Girl Game”.
The rest can and will, lose.
The Obsidian
I’ve already won…so…well…sorry girls…
O –
I don’t think that “toning down the gina counter” means you have to “settle.” At all. How much casual sex do you think I’ve been privy to? I mean, SRSLY.
I’m sorry, Obsidian, but “girl game” as discussed here has *nothing to do whatsoever* with “tone down the counter and settle ASAP”.
Everyone here has known women who understand men relatively well, know how to attract them and relate to them, and have many other qualities which make them attractive as relationship partners. As a matter of fact, many men will get crushes on such women, and a large percentage of men will likely be willing to be “hooked into a commitment” with them.
The real potential for “girl game” is taking such women as their role models and striving to embody their attractive qualities, much as PUA’s do with male “naturals”. If LILGRL and her fellow ladies manage to do this, then girl game will become a billion-dollar industry and supersede “relationship advice” as we know it. This is no joke.
Anpn,
“No joke”? You can’t be serious, right? If anything, it’s one big, crueld joke, for the vast majority of Today’s Women, if they honestly think they can “Game” their way into a stompdown Alpha’s life, and stay there.
Once again, what they, and apparently you, have failed to take into account, is not only the Mancession, the Four Sirens, and most profoundly, the fundamental differences between “Girl Game” and I suppose one could call it “Original Game”-the current enviornment is perfect for one, horrid for the other. I take it you’re smart enough to know which.
Unless ladies seriously consider what the changed environment will mean for them enmasse, “Girl Game” will result in a lot of Women getting hurt. Yea, guys will get hurt too, but that’s nothing new, at the risk of sounding heartless. By no means am I-just simply noting the fact that at any given time, there are always more heartbroken guys around than gals. To say nothing of sexless.
O
LilGrl,
First, I think you got me mixed up w/Nova-what you quote above are his comments, not mine.
That said though, and even taking your own personal record into account, his point still holds-the fact that you exist in a time when LOTS of Women are going hogwild slutting it up, invariably hurts gals like you. How?
Well, the most obvious way is in terms of their willingness to get nekkid for little or nothing. Most guys-including those you would want-can and will be only too eager to take them up on the offer.
But the next effect of such a setup is that it gets harder for gals like you to really “break through” in terms of what you’re trying to do. Sure, they’ll be exceptions, and you’re one of them, thus far, from what I’ve heard. But please do not get it twisted-others can and will get screwed.
IOW, *most* of the ladies you and your team are trying to reach.
Now…
IF you all are willing to go back to what Grandma said, you’ll have a higher “success rate”. Otherwise, as it currently stands, its at best, a kind of Ponzi scheme, where by definition, only a few gals win. They rest, lose.
And lose, big.
Holla back
O
I am strongly in support of any effort by women to make themselves more attractive to men.
But that being said, there are only 2 areas that matter :
1) Appearance
2) Overall willingness to be a good woman towards the man.
Other than that, there is nothing that can move a woman to a higher rank than she currently is. A 4 is never, ever, ever going to be competitive with an 8. Period.
On the second, that is what mothers and grandmothers guided young women towards. So for a woman to learn ‘Girl Game’, she effectively has to do the opposite of everything that FeminOrcs have told her to do.
Remember, that is a woman is 34, and has slept with 15 guys, no desirable man will want to marry her. It would be like buying a 9 year old car.
Cuz –
This has never, ever been stated as a goal. The goal is to get a man who would commit to a 4 to commit to a 4 over other 4′s.
Hate to say it, but…duh.
It is good you and the others know this, because most women don’t (if they did, they would never allow themselves to become fat while still young). If women knew how much looks mattered, they would take the necessary steps to not get fat. Yet, 40-50% of women who are still young, are fat.
OK. So remember what I wrote about the wisdom of grandma about what makes a good wife, good mother, and good citizen. Centuries-old advice, which is the same in all long-surviving cultures, was mainstream until feminists forcibly purged it, to the severe detriment of the next generation of women.
The only type of girl game that can work in today’s world would be one that took guy game at face value.
That is:
He wants to get laid. You want to get laid.
Just get a room already and get it over with.
More and more men and more and more women are not wanting children. Both earn their own incomes. Both still have hormones and sexual desires though so really, where is the need for “game” when you both want the same thing?
There are no incentives for women to play good girl or hard to get anymore.
Every man who claims to honor the chaste and feminine woman has pic of a porn queen on every other page of his blog.
PDAs in high school have nothing to do with “monogamy”. These girls are just eager to show off that they finally got a boyfriend. Something they planned for since 6th grade. Doesn’t mean they also don’t have crushes on other dudes.
A study on high schoolers and “monogamy”?
Seriously?
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
Putting out easily usually doesn’t lead to a relationship. Hence, girl game.
Is there some sort of incompatibility between these concepts? Explain.