compiled by

YaReally Archive


Why It’s Good To Shame Single Moms

Original Link

via Heartiste

x@y.com
on November 28, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Original Link

This is the first blog post I totally disagree with. The fact is nobody knows the personal history involved when a single woman winds up alone. It could be abusive violence, mental illness, drugs, military death, cheating spouse etc.. of the boyfriend/father that lead to the situation. If you don’t know the facts yet judge someone based on some vague generalizing notion from statistics rather than your core instincts, then that is completely anti-alpha male behaviour.


  • Sidewinder
    on November 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Original Link

    Dude…Look, there are exceptions to every rule. There are those bizarre circumstances where she decided to keep the baby and thought he was going to stick around and then at the last minute the bio dad bolts… But you obviously have not spent time hanging around single moms. Find some. They hang out together often, so you will see the mentality on full display. This mentality has absolutely no sense of responsibility or self-accountability, believes that money and gov’t entitlements grow on trees, and that nobody should judge them because “families come in all shapes and sizes.”

    This post is obviously speaking to the broad societal trend, and not each and every case. If you can’t set aside your “every case is different” objection, then you can’t really discuss any broad social phenomenon of any kind . Believe me, CH is completely on point on this issue. I’ve seen this up close.


    • Ripp
      on November 30, 2011 at 6:36 am
      Original Link

      Agree.

      Like many other posts at CH, it’s in the aggregate where CH is correct.



Social Media And Female Self-Esteem

Original Link

via Heartiste

Ripp
on November 23, 2011 at 4:12 am
Original Link

Don’t care that I’m sounding like a broken record: as usual, CH is 100% accurate with this post.

“If you want to know why so many women so readily whore for attention, the answer is simple: because they can.”

For the aspiring players out there: if you think that FB is a good tool for your game, or you put a lot of energy into trying to make your FB “cool” or DHV spike your game, straight up: your game is weak.

Facebook is mostly for entertainment, and there is some value in networking with friends.

I laugh when guys try to tell me they Facebook close some chic at a party or bar and that they hook up with the chics later. So lame. I just call them out and ask “ok show me a chic you’ve recently nailed on your FB, ok now show me your txt thread in your phone.” Silence, frustrated facial expression. Exactly.

It’s also pathetic when guys (always beta) post shit sucking “you look pretty” bullshit comments on some chics FB thinking it’ll help them hook up.

I only add women to my FB if 1) I never intend to game them or 2) after sexual line has crossed, or 3) there is association value with a chic I’m gaming. In rare occasions if I’m out of town. But I always try for #close, never FB.

In fact I’ll even go as far as to say if you are pulling lots of ass, adding women to FB will make things more difficult in immediate and periphery social circles as chics will post your whereabouts and troll your page and stir gossip. Further, I’ve had to use the block feature for certain FB friends (bartenders,servers) so they’d stop hating on my ass.

Her: “Ripp do you have FB?”
Ripp: “no, let’s stay in touch though. You’re an area code (XXX)…”
Her: “XXX-XXXX”



Women’s Shifting Perceptions Of Male Looks

Original Link

via Heartiste

RedLeg
on November 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Original Link

Your quoted study about online profiles reminded me; Heartiste, would you be able to suggest ways to convey confidence in writing? Are there written phrases which carry the same weight/significance as specific verbal/nonverbal cues do in person?

Since much of dating/game now takes place at least in some form online (for some people, if schedule is an issue, it can take place entirely online), it’s importance only grows.


  • Ripp
    on November 22, 2011 at 3:16 am
    Original Link

    A couple of suggestions:

    -Write your profile as if you are speaking to your date in front of your face.
    -Don’t tell them about yourself, show them about yourself
    Ex:
    Don’t write: I’m a [profession] and enjoy my work, been doing it for x years. My boss is hard to work with, but that’s ok.
    Write: The other day at the office my boss spilled coffee on the printer, I’m glad I’m good at [profession] otherwise the company would go under without me. (Something to that effect)
    -Be vague and somewhat peculiar
    -don’t reference politics, religion, work, sexual stuff, your accomplishments, your material items at all
    -invite them to write you “I’d be interested to get to know you a little better.”

    A woman will focus more on your profile and again, how it makes her FEEL. And your objective is to illicit interest, curiosity enough to initiate a brief conversation via email. Some women will be more compliant and actually have attraction for you at the get go, however you can also kill that attraction with one stupid sentance.

    I do well with online game, but honestly I prefer cold approach once I became better at it.

    Good luck man.



Ripp
on November 22, 2011 at 2:55 am
Original Link

My daily field activities support this post.

Woman are EMOTIONALLY driven, and a man that can trigger positive emotions in her (gina tingles, laughter etc) and sometimes negative emotions (insecurities, for example) through communication will build enough ATTRACTION value in her mind that is associated with the man, and this ‘perception’ will render the man “good looking”, or whatever adjective du jour the woman decides to use. Likewise this also explains why super good looking men can betafy themselves and blow themselves out of a possible lay opportunity, regardless of model/movie star DNA.

I recently did my own social experiment. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and he took several hundred shots for me in his studio. I picked the best dozen, put them on my phone. For about a month I was actively approaching women (friends, fuck buddies, exes that hate me, exes that like me, other guys GFs, lots of strangers, drunk chics, older women, younger women etc.)

I would show them the pictures in my phone (this was also a great opening or attraction building routine) and preface that I’m looking to have some printed and wanted their opinion. Now depending on my relationship with the woman and how she “felt” about me, drove the overall comments regarding the ‘hottness’ or ‘attractiveness’ of her perception.

For example, if I opened a total stranger with this and didn’t have a good rapport built with attraction routines, the results of their comments were always marginally less complimentary than if I had built some rapport with them, then showed the pics. This also held true across the board for any pre-existing relationships.

Further, when using online dating sites with the same pictures, if I made a negative remark about the women in an email, it would be met by a nasty attack on my appearance. In contrast if there was positive rapport built, I’d be met with very nice things said about my pictures.

The SMV of all of the women surveyed varied from 6s to 9s. I also found that the better looking women were more kind in general.

Now contrast this with men:
“She’s a total [idiot,bitch,cunt,airhead,brokeass,boring dud,etc] but she’s hot and I’d still fuck her.”

Another observation, look at the popular PUAs: These are very average looking men, they just now how to ninja the hind brain attraction, they’ve got GAME.



Dealing With Nasty Bitches

Original Link

via Heartiste

Harland
on November 20, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Original Link

So, what’s the intonation?

Oh, so you’re one of those.”

“Oh, so you’re one of those.”

“Oh, so you’re one of those.”

“Oh, so you’re one of those.” (flat intonation)

Those are four different sentences with four different meanings. And people say that English isn’t a tonal language like Mandarin…


  • Ripp
    on November 21, 2011 at 2:55 am
    Original Link

    I’d use flat, as that would be most congruent with the entirety of the frame IMO.

    Disagree that english isn’t a tonal language. All languages are tonal, as it’s a psycological fact that your voice tone comprises ~35% of the total communication frame (body language ~55%, words ~10%).

    This information is all over psycology and NLP books. I’ve see small variances in the #s above but the point remains: tonal is a good portion of the communication pie, and thus how it is applied matters.

    Think of the response “fine”

    Now how many different meanings can you say “fine” with by changing just your voice tonality. Exactly…



Ripp
on November 21, 2011 at 2:43 am
Original Link

I feel like I wrote this post. I just dealt with this last week and I respond exactly as described:

“Spoken without anger, with a completely neutral facial expression, the beauty of this line becomes apparent. It gets under her skin without diminishing your social grace, it chastens her in front of onlookers, and it forces her into your frame.”

This is literally 90% of it as non-verbal communication (your body language, voice tonality and components thereof) is your frame and the words are ~10%.

From what I see in the field this is more of an advanced reaction as most men can’t handle this. This type of response demands very tight control of your own body language and an almost “forced calmness”.

For example this attractive soft 8, young, ~21yrs, launched a pretty cunty volley of shit test insults regarding my accesories I was wearing at the time. I was already talking to her over the back of my shoulder blade, with no eye contact. Immediately after her shit test insult my reaction was awesome:

[Pregant pause]
[Slight turned torso to face her, but left legs almost 180 degrees in opposite]
[Lightly pinched her squised tummy blubber (she was sitting down on bar stool) ]
Calmly whispered as I locked focus on her eyes “lay off the cheeseburgers”
[Smoothly rolled off]

She jumps up “FUCK YOU!!!” in a shrieking voice whilst rocking the table, startling her beta guy friend in unison with a screeching back of her stool.

I was so smooth and fluid with my mechanics that I was already one leg around the corner with a full back turned toward her.

She looked like an idiot. About 5min later the bartender came out to the pation where I was on her smoke break and asked what happened, I told her what I said and she laughed her ass off.

One more thing: If I feel a scud missile of shit test insulting coming on I usually pick out a facial feature or body feature the target will be insecure of, and that is my situational response. However I never launch unless she strikes first. But my frame is always the same as above, just the words are interchangeable.

Gentlemen this works, even in a mixed set because you can whisper this to her.



A Quantifiable, Objective Standard Of Beauty

Original Link

via Heartiste

Lawyer_Loser
on November 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Original Link

> Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a 7 in my book. Seen here without pro lighting and Photoshopping.

Wow, that looks like a different person

[Heartiste: In general, makeup and lighting won't do much for women beyond an extra half point to one point boost in attractiveness. But there are some fashion supermodels who, for whatever reason, break that rule such that they will look weird au naturel and smoking hot in full get-up. I suspect this is because fashionistas are chosen by gay men for their striking countenance and ability to grab the attention of the camera. I doubt you'd see such radical differences in looks between made-up and natural Playboy centerfolds, for instance. (PB centerfolds are chosen specifically for their attractiveness to straight men.)]


  • Matador
    on November 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    Original Link

    You guys need to stop judging chicks with make-up and flattering lights. Only her looks in the morning count.


    • Ripp
      on November 19, 2011 at 5:30 am
      Original Link

      Plus 1.



Study Proves The Validity Of Game

Original Link

via Heartiste

SomeonWhoDisagrees
on November 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Original Link

The problem with those studies is that they always take average and above men as samples, then declare that looks in men play little or no role. I’ve tried game and all it did was destroy my confidence when women laughed out loud at my attempts and told me that that I’m too ugly to be making passes at girls.
Sure, “sociosexuality” is important, but only to those who pass the initial looks test.


  • (R)evoluzione
    on November 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    Original Link

    You can improve your looks by being fashionable, style-conscious, having a good haircut, and doing what you can to improve your health.

    Make sure your teeth are reasonably white and straight. I had a chipped tooth in the front, and it made a massive difference for me to get it repaired.

    Get as healthy as you can. Lift heavy weights, eat a paleo diet, get at least 20 minutes of sun in mid-day. You WILL improve, if that is your desire.

    Also, don’t focus too much on memorized lines. Get Roosh’s ‘Day Bang,” and learn indirect game.


    • SomeonWhoDisagrees
      on November 17, 2011 at 7:48 pm
      Original Link

      I’m already doing all that. I just happen to have a torso deformity and a very ugly face. Exercise and generally taking care of myself has improved my life significantly, but I goddamn tired of trying different clothes and different hairstyles – nothing looks good on me. And all this reflects on my lack of sex life or rather lack of thereof – many women who have rejected me cited my looks as the main reason. Quite a few have said outright that they think a man with an appearance like mine has no chance.


      • YaReally
        on November 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
        Original Link

        A good looking guy has 20+ years of expecting good reactions from people.

        An ugly guy has 20+ years of not expecting good reactions from people.

        The type of reaction you expect radiates through your sub-communications and girls are experts at reading sub-communications. Even if you’re telling yourself “this will go well my new haircut is awesome!” if parts of your internal core will still post stuff like “I have an ugly face” (even if you just consider that a logical observation on your part) it will come thru in your vibe.

        You know what guys who are naturally amazing with girls have going on in their head? “I am awesome. Awesome awesome awesome. Fuck I look good today! Oh shit I tripped but that was badass how I landed! Everything i do is awesome and im the Best! That chick wants me why else would she be in the same room as me, duh! Cause I’m awesome. 51% on my exam! I passed, I’m so awesome and I didnt even study which makes me more awesome!!”

        Like its delusional which sounds retarded to normal sane logical guys. But they honestly can’t comprehend a girl not wanting them or that they aren’t 10/10 for any reason regardless of how ugly anyone else would think they are because their entire internal belief system is based around positive self talk and trust.

        It’s not the best way to live, it can be obnoxious to be around people like that, but that’s how their mind works and it gets them attraction from girls. Your mind doesn’t work that way yet, but down the road it can. It’s just not going to come easy or fast for you compared to, say, an average looking guy who’s not ugly but not a supermodel so he doesn’t have a lot of reference experience going either way. That guy will have a much easier time because while he doesn’t have much good experience he also doesn’t have much negative experience to replace in his head.

        It takes a long time and a lot of internal work and external experience before new beliefs take over that 20+ years of old beliefs. And you don’t just suddenly start getting positive reference experiences, you get more bad reactions with only the occasional glimpse here and there of “not horrible” reactions. It’s a rough journey if you’re starting out ugly and could take years, like 5-10, before you can really solidly replace those old beliefs.

        Look into stuff by David DeAngelo, Brad Branson, Tyler Durden’s current stuff (there’s lots of videos on YouTube of him), Tony Robbins (the king of positive internal beliefs). These guys tend to focus more on rewiring your thinking vs giving you lines to say to make girls giggle. Once you handle your internal shit, that’s the time to get back into the giggly Mystery Method stuff.


        • Ripp
          on November 18, 2011 at 10:57 am
          Original Link

          To: SomeoneWhoDisagrees

          Read over YaReally’s comments again very carefully. He’s spot on.

          Bro, without sugar coating it: your inner game is fucked up. Even just starting with your name “SomeoneWhoDisagrees”.

          I know a guy in a wheelchair who is a paraplegic. He pulls ass. And good looking younger women at that. He’s very alpha. Every time I see him out we *fist bump* and shoot the shit about pussy and how we’d like to wear t

          generalization based on afew



YaReally
on November 17, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Original Link

Every time you post a scientific study backing up stuff PUAs have already known for years I get the same feeling reading the studies that I’d get watching cavemen banging rocks together. “Come on guys, you can do it, you’re almost there, look it’s fire! See? Sparks make fire!! Good job guys, one day you’ll figure out how to make cars and TVs, what a day THAT will be for you!”

Everything in game is verifiable by simply going out frequently and trying, experiencing, and observing it in action right in front of you.

Tyler Durden from RSD put it best in this cocky audio seminar he gave way back before The Game came out:

http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/realsocialdynamics.com_audio.mp3

“What about the notion that you don’t want to stand out too much? You don’t want to be too good looking or too ugly.”

“Why? Where’d you read that?”

“Psyche books or something…”

“Lemme tell you something, the guys who write those books don’t get laid. Mark my words, the work I’ve done on attraction will probably be examined by the academic community eventually. These guys that studied attraction for years and years will not be able to wrap their heads around the shit that I can do. How are they gonna’ wrap their heads around watching me roll up, breaking all their principles, and still getting girls? They’re not gonna’ be able to explain it.

You know who writes this shit? Nerds. Who don’t get laid. How many academic reports do you read of guys that laid 100 girls in 3 years? Seriously. It’s not something you read on MSN.com’s “10 funky ways to attract your partner”. If these guys are getting laid, it’s not because of their theories.”


  • Ripp
    on November 18, 2011 at 11:16 am
    Original Link

    Have to give props to YaReally. Solid commenter and 100% accurate.

    I go out every night. And simply just being out in the field and continuously practicing game is all the evidence you will need to confirm that it works.

    But I also enjoy that CH secures the bunker with scientific data further reinforcing the logical argument. It amuses me to berate haters and ugly women with facts.



Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Original Link

via Heartiste

Ripp
on November 17, 2011 at 4:32 am
Original Link

I come from the PUA/Seduction aspect here at CH. While I love the top down scientific approach to confirming that women are less principled than men, it’s not needed when you see it every day in the field while gaming women.

Let’s talk about the principle of loyalty. A quality that is only deserving and upheld by true, honorable men to other honorable men. Since women are inherently driven by emotion, they are incapable of such an admirable principle. Loyalty for a woman will erode as quickly as her emotional state changes to serve her needs. Whether it be a close girlfriend, a BF, a husband…whatever.

Oh, I know what you’re thinking: “but my wife is loyal to me!” Perhaps. And if she is she’s most likely fat, ugly, old, pregnant, nursing, too busy raising kids = no longer has options.

Because if she (the westernized woman) does have options I guarantee you she is not principled enough to deny her emotional need for the attention and validation of her physical appearance by multiple men at a given time frame. And eventually when hubby or BF squanders the last bit of attraction she had for him, her principle of loyalty bound by her “words of commitment” couldn’t be forgotten faster than the synapses in her brain fire electron neuro-transmissions compelling her to serve the need for the ultimate level of validation, by another man.

But it sounds so evil. It can’t be like this. Women are principled. Women can be loyal. Eventually, they can. But only after they have no choice but to be.

But Ripp, show me the study, the scientific data that supports this.


  • Ripp
    on November 17, 2011 at 4:35 am
    Original Link

    Don’t need to. I’m the guy that BFs and husbands hate to think about it.



Feminists Are Afraid Of Evolutionary Psychology, And With Good Reason

Original Link

via Heartiste

Mats
on November 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Original Link

Usually you are right on target, but using bogus science (evolutionary psychology) against feminism is a dead end.

Whatever story you can make up using evolutionary “psychology”, one can make another one which can’t be refuted by the empirical evidence. It’s not science

Psychology in living humans is subjective and politicized enough (think 1973, APA, homossexuality). Now imagine making a case based on the shaky foundations of the theory of evolution.

We can’t go back in time to observe apes evolving into humans, either, so according to feminist logic that must mean the theory of evolution is wrong.

The theory of evolution isn’t wrong because no one ever saw the common ancestor from which men and apes come evolving into homo sapiens. There are many facts that are not directly observed but are infered correctly and confirmed by the evidence.

The theory of evolution is wrong because 1) the mecanism is clearly deficient (natural selection + random mutation + millions of years are insuficient), 2) there is no clear lineage, 3) it contradicts other theories better suported by the observable evidence.

When you build a case against liberal ideologies using the theory of evolution you are already giving them a head start.

Scientists gather evidence for historical biological processes by analyzing what is available to them in the present environment, and then draw inferences from the data.

Exacly. But nowhere the data suports the theory of evolution as initially proposed by Darwin, and latter on modificed to incorporate Mendellian genetics.

Science has gathered enough evidence to make the theory of evolution nothing more than victorian myths. So using the bastard child of evolution (evolutionary psychology) is, quite frankly, a dead end.


  • Ripp
    on November 16, 2011 at 2:50 am
    Original Link

    When you fuck your fugly wife, do you stare at a picture of Joel Osteen?



The Difference Between A Cheating Alpha And A Cheating Beta

Original Link

via Heartiste

Ripp
on November 15, 2011 at 1:01 am
Original Link

100% agreed. Many of my own, and close friends experiences suport this.

Even when “casually dating” and the women randomly cross paths and find out they’re both dating you: attraction spikes, and both wonder “is he not satisfied by me?” “Is he more into her? Why?”