compiled by

YaReally Archive

Women Want To Be With Men Less Physically Attractive Than They Are

Original Link

via Heartiste

on June 1, 2012 at 2:25 am
Original Link

“A minority of women — I’d estimate 10-15% of the fertile female population — place excess emphasis on men’s looks, almost on a par with the emphasis that men place on women’s looks. These women tend to be more masculinized than the typical woman. They aren’t necessarily unattractive, but they are less feminine than their curvier sisters. They usually have small tits and narrow hips, although their asses can retain their juiciness.”


Always hard to quantify; ~15% or less seems right. These women will typically be open to sexual frames very early in comfort building stages. They’ll discuss dick size, sex stories and go through a qualitative rant of their hypergamous admissions and sexual triumphs…just like a man would. Take note, this is the seduction artists’ opening to escalate quickly into heavy sexual frames and invoke arousal state.

These women are *not* LTR material and usually exhibit demanding, masculine personality types. Still however I find they’ll submit to a more dominant man for sex, most of the time. If they have a stubborn willingness to always be the frame dominator and your objective is sex it may serve to sparingly yield to her cuntery; in a reverse manipulation type of strategy.

I tell ya though, I love a hot ass, but any one of man hands, man feet, narrow hips, small tits, hairy arms and/or the inklings of a manjaw coupled with a masculine personality makes me want to shit in a bucket and dump it on her head.

Dan Fletcher
on June 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Original Link

“False psychological projection of their own sexual attraction mechanism onto women blinds them to this reality.”

Cannot be emphasized enough. Tons of guys get caught up on this and it can be a difficult mindset to break. I still find myself slipping into this way of thinking from time to time despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

  • Ripp
    on June 3, 2012 at 5:19 am
    Original Link


    The more a man can embrace that his attitude trumps his looks, the better he will be at executing game.

Hot Women Are Harder To Fool

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Original Link

no purpose; its existence is its own reward

uh, no. Its purpose is to advance the genetic fitness of the species, generation after generation. the competing aims of each sex is part of the design: men to spread the seed as widely as possible, women to admit only the highest-quality DNA.

  • Anon
    on May 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    Original Link

    “Its purpose is to advance the genetic fitness of the species”

    And that’s where you missed the point. Nature ain’t got no purpose. except if you believe in a super monkey boss in the sky.

    • Ripp
      on May 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm
      Original Link

      “super monkey boss in the sky”
      lol. but wait! which super monkey boss? Please specify.

on May 16, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Original Link

This is absolutely true. The knock-outs, as stated by H many times, know the score of the “game” because they’re controlling the scoreboard.

Add intelligence to that desirable WHR, and you’ve got … well, basically you’ve got my wife. From what I understand, she’d destroyed many PUAs on a daily basis before I met her. 95% of the stuff that guys pull here would 1) first make her laugh and then 2) trigger a blistering retort.

Yours truly managed to make it into her bunker using my height, wit, and zero-bullshit strategy: I nuked the entire idea of game. I told her that I wasn’t like any other guy she may or may not have strung along (can’t remember the acronym for this separating technique) because I had many options. Implication: I’m in control. She liked that. There was never any cooling off period either: I kept the pressure on, saying stuff like, I’m coming over Thursday whether you like it or not, you’d better be ready, those heels are embarrassing, go change, you’re talking way too much, etc.

All semi-playful, of course, and she fell hard (as had I, of course). Later on, compromise becomes necessary in an LTR, but you gotta play it benignly alpha-tyrannical at first for the hotties to respect you.

All this occurred before I discovered CH, but full props anyways. The concepts he discusses here really do work: in less than a month (I learned later), my wife had decided that I was “the one”.

So, happily ever after. Of course, if you scoff at LTRs and would rather plunder the pussies of endless strangers, that’s a different litter of kittens, and you should ignore this comment.

  • Ripp
    on May 16, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    Original Link

    “From what I understand, she’d destroyed many PUAs on a daily basis before I met her.”
    And you believed her? For her to identify a PUA (seduction artist, aloof alpha asshole, CH follower, whatever) by recognizing scripted routines or methods is more telling of a clumsy PU attempt, as opposed to her keenness on identifying an expert PUA. When game principles are executed well by a skilled seducer it’s not recognized by the subject. That’s the whole idea. And even the most skilled still admittedly fumble on attempts with beautiful women.

    “I nuked the entire idea of game”
    But did you?

    I told her that I wasn’t like any other guy she may or may not have strung along (can’t remember the acronym for this separating technique) because I had many options.
    DHV: Pre-selection routine.

    I kept the pressure on, saying stuff like, I’m coming over Thursday whether you like it or not, you’d better be ready, those heels are embarrassing, go change, you’re talking way too much, etc.
    DHV: Alpha dominant behavior, tell-assertive, neg, meet closing

    but you gotta play it benignly alpha-tyrannical at first for the hotties to respect you

    I’m not patronizing you man, if you got your lady and are happy- more power to ya. The description of the conversation with your wife *confirms* game principles. You didn’t nuke it.

    Referencing the post along the lines of describing your wife’s ability to “destroy many PUAs” is more appropriately characterized as a general characteristic in women’s evolutionary biology. All else equal, women are equipped with a better sensory system for discerning emotional state from others. Coupled with your wife’s high SMV (gave her lots of practice) I’m sure she was able to spot clunky nervous PU attempts with ease. This improved female capability (over men) comes from their biological design for child rearing. Being able to communicate with infants that can’t talk or communicate themselves is what human evolution needed while the men were out killing, building and ruling. And fucking. Heh.

    I’ll make another post referencing more info.

  • Jason
    on May 16, 2012 at 7:00 pm
    Original Link

    Thanks, you two, that was my bad. I should’ve written that “I gave her the impression that I was nuking the idea of game”.

    Cuz obviously I did use game, and it worked. (Even though I told her “I hate playing games”. And I really did avoid the wait-four-days-before-calling kind of scarcity technique.)

    Still, I never studied PUA culture, except for reading the last month of posts here, so I don’t know the terminology. What’s “tell-assertive” and “meet closing”?

    • Ripp
      on May 16, 2012 at 7:33 pm
      Original Link

      Cool, glad you didn’t take it in the negative.

      Social science term, basically means to TELL for an action, instead of being a bitch and asking. Like “meet me at 8pm be ready heels/skirt” vs “hey do you want to hang out later at 8pm? and would it be ok if you wear heels and a skirt?” Alphas tell. betas ask.

      Meet closing:
      setting a date. I call them “meets” because “dates” imply I’m going to spend money on her. I don’t want her to get the wrong idea. :)

      check out my other post about male and female brains. its help understand why women have personal relationships with furniture, cats, iPads and shit.

    • Ripp
      on May 17, 2012 at 1:58 am
      Original Link

      “Eliminate the interrogative from your syntax.”
      Yes. A fundamental concept is to take any ‘beta’ question you would ask and convert it into a statement. More specifically using your example above, a ‘cold read.’

      “so, where do you work?”

      “You look like a greeter from walmart.” (with playful and assertive non verbal as you describe.)
      That’ll get a much better response than the boring dry beta line above.

      What I’ve found in learning under more skilled than I, and also coaching those who are learning is that most men have some elements of natural game already existing before the discover the knowledgesphere.

      There are some good posts in CH archives re LTR management that you’ll probably benefit from, if you haven’t already found them.

Professor Ashur
on May 16, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Original Link

So it is gullibility rather than limited options that cause so many of the medium-quality women to try to lever up out of their league?

I’ll admit that it is easier to imagine that behavior that is against their self-interest is due to naivete rather than wanton recklessness or calculated risk-taking.

  • Ripp
    on May 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    Original Link

    Professor: female hypergamy is your answer.
on May 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Original Link

My girlfriend is either a “9” or “10”, depending on what you think intelligence does for a woman’s level of attractiveness.

The way I got her was (fundamentally) by being myself. I “act” confident because i am confident, i lead people because i like doing it, and I am “dominant” because i like being an accomplished person in my fields of interest.

The bottom line, though, was that i was born as nothing, and learned to genuinely be all of these things. Maybe you guys should start working on who you really are, instead of working on convincing people of someone who you are not.

  • Ripp
    on May 17, 2012 at 2:17 am
    Original Link

    Understand your objection, however the implication that GAME is simply being “someone who you are not” is a hasty generalization.

    ‘Inner game’ as it is known, is precisely what you describe. Part of game is learning to establish your identity. And further to the point is that some men need a re-wiring of their identity to flesh out elements that are not useful for seduction; and strengthen ones that are.

    An example is an introverted, over-analytic type person that speaks slowly and more mono-tone. An accountant or engineer profession usually fits this personality type. This type of person can still become a charming, charismatic mother fucker, but he needs to understand that his default communication style and preferred trade aren’t vagina tinglers.

    On the other side there are plenty of loud mouthed jock dude ‘pseudo alpha’ guys that may appear they get lots of women but have no game:

    Game is more complicated than “convincing people of someone who you are not.”

on May 16, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Original Link

“We found that women with low WHRs excel at identifying emotional states of other people and show a cognitive style that favors empathizing over systemizing.”

Men and women are equal! Except their biological design is different, they’re brains are wired differently and they think differently. Proven. Validated.

Women, and especially women of higher SMV are well refined in reading the emotional states of other humans. Especially infants and children, as this is how humanity procreated for centuries. Women plopped out kids, raised them, hung around the tribe, gossiped and cleaned shit. Men built shit, killed shit, protected the tribe and fucked the women. This fact plays right into the fundamentals of game and a core reason why game is an advanced set of skills that most men are too weak to achieve. Learning to ninja through the hot woman’s emotional bullshit radar is game, and its not easy.

Women that have low WHR, have higher SMV, higher estrogen (feminine qualities), attract more men and thus are more refined in harnessing their emotional beta radar to weed out beta men. And they do.

Here is the beauty of the equation: Because men have the underlying tools to build, we naturally harbor our intelligence for problem solving complicated systems that are of critical importance: GETTING PUSSY. Or, simulating the act of procreation, for the layman. Whereas women harbor their intelligence to sponge attention from multiple sources when faced with problems. Ya know, yammer on about how “they feel.”

And there you have it.

To address the recent decades of feminist doctrine that has empowered women’s crusade of hypergamous slutitude, intelligent alpha men developed systems to counter it. Game. And part of game is learning non-verbal communication: how to read it, how to control it and how to execute the most attractive communication frames to slay the hot pussy dragon. In essence, controlling your emotions and controlling the emotions of others.

Men, don’t be discouraged by the hot woman’s beta radar. We have the advantage. Systematic intelligence beats empathetic intelligence. A system can be created to learn empathetic cognitive skills. Learn game. Bang hotter women.

on May 16, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Original Link

on May 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Original Link

Does it actually have to do with genes or does it have to do with the fact that hotter chicks are forced into 10000000x more social interactions than ugly chicks?

A dude fresh out of prison can probably recognize angry emotions in people better than a guy who sits on his computer all day.

A hot girl is forced into so many social interactions that she has to learn to read people to avoid negative consequences. She has to tell which of the 10 guys knocking on her door is legit while the uggo doesn’t.

My social calibration and ability to read people and feel the vibe of an interaction is all light-years ahead of most people. But I sharpened those skills by spending a lot of time in the field, when I started out as a computer nerd recluse I couldn’t see the things that are flashing neon lights to me now. I imagine it’s the same for hot girls as soon as they start hitting puberty and even before then in a lot of cases.

  • Joost
    on May 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    Original Link

    Darn. Thought I was the first to reply to this, but yes. I wonder the same. Occam’s razor comes to mind, making me prefer the simpler explanation that attractive women get more training in seduction interactions and are therefore better at them.

    Though when all is said, the information that prettier women are more able to see through bullshit is still pretty useful. Shame that women below your league also seem to realize that they’re just being played for a quick release.

    • Ripp
      on May 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm
      Original Link

      “This is why we stress not to act different around 10s.”

      Agreed. The process is the same. And game is tailored for high SMV women.

      At the psychoanalytic level the challenge is in controlling your emotional state triggered by a subjects high SMV. A gorgeous woman will trigger more, and more intense cock&ball tingles -> leading to higher probability of nervous/anxious emotions -> beta -> hot chic radar detects beta -> snubs you off.

      Again, of course, the *only* way to ninja through the hot chic beta-radar undetected is consistent and extensive field application. Start banging lower SMV women and work your way up the ladder.

      And interesting to note as one gets better with game, it’s possible to blow opportunities with lower SMV women; because you raise your value too high. With a lower SMV subject the right amount of BPG is needed or she’ll get too nervous and feel uncomfortable. Not always but it does occur.

  • Ripp
    on May 17, 2012 at 2:31 am
    Original Link

    Interesting point, I believe it’s both:

    A genetic predisposition to inherit a low WHR means that the subject will be more attractive to men. Science has validated this:

    Since men are more attracted to this genetic trait over a higher WHR given a choice of the 2, than it is reasonable to conclude that the lower WHR will get more suitors attempting vaginal breach.

    And the lower WHR subject gets more chances to refine her beta-tard radar.

    I imagine it’s the same for hot girls as soon as they start hitting puberty and even before then in a lot of cases

    …but we got game and we’ll ninja through that shit and ring that vagina buzzer: bing bing bing bing brring brrbrbrbrinng brbringgg

Alpha Assessment: The Name Game

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Original Link

Good breakdown of an important concept.

It sneaks up from the other end of the spectrum too…staying on sexual topics too long, too early in the interaction. You get talking about something dirty and show you’re a sexual guy, awesome…but then you get hooked on that topic and stay on it too long because your brain is saying “wow she admitted she likes doggy style! What else can I ask her about this topic? This is great!!” Next thing you know she thinks talking about sex with a girl is so rare an event in your life that you have to cling to that topic as long as possible out of fear it’ll never happen to you again.

The cause is the same (reaction/validation/approval-seeking). So naturally the solution is the same: switch it up so you’re unpredictable, like doing push/pull. If you’re flirting it up without pushing toward sex like the guy in this article, make sure to end it and push toward sex. If you’re talking sex stuff and pushing toward sex, make sure to pull back and chill and let the sexual tension build.

Learn to calibrate that balance and your pickup skills become an art-form.

Also this changes once you’ve gotten past a certain point in the relationship with her (like fucking her).

Her 1st signal for him to switch gears was giving her real name (“okay game’s over lets be real now”). 2nd signal was her asking how he likes to be called (“seriously, let’s get down to business”). Her 3rd (frustrated) signal was the “do you remember…?” bit. She was trying to change threads for him.

He actually initiated the “game’s over now” gear shift with his “anyway, how do you like to be called?” (key word was “anyway”) but I don’t think he realized he did that because then, incongruently, he resumed the old gear. That’s why she was basically like “wait what? I thought we were moving on here…?”. He basically went backwards in the pickup without realizing it, but she could sense it.

It’s no big deal, she wants to fuck his brains out going by the chemistry here. He should just change threads entirely in his next convo as if none of that last bit happened or was awkward, VS trying to dig out of this situ with the perfect response. If your parachute has a hole in it, it might be best to just cut the ropes on it and pull out a new one instead of trying to patch the hole in mid-air.

  • walawala
    on May 15, 2012 at 8:24 pm
    Original Link

    Two things here….

    1. Aureo says she has a bf, so this interaction as cocky-funny as it was runs the risk of turning him into “that funny guy” like Chandler on Friends who everyone likes but no one wants to bang. The interaction itself isn’t the problem.

    When she asked “So how do you like to be called?”

    He could have answered in two ways:

    1) “About once a week” and smiled…she would have had to think about it….then he could use his real name.

    2) This is a good opportunity and I’ve used this technique for “vulnerability game”. After all the cocky-funny banter, when she asks you your name, you can say “John…but my mother always called me Johnny…” The injection of the “mother” part will do one of two things: move the conversation towards “comfort” showing he’s a real guy and demonstrating the “vulnerability” aspect to contrast all the shtick he’s been so good at maintaining.

    But the fact she has a boyfriend means he’s got to limit contact…make her start missing him.

    • Ripp
      on May 16, 2012 at 3:37 am
      Original Link

      good suggestions.

  • Ripp
    on May 16, 2012 at 3:27 am
    Original Link

    YaReally, excellent reply and added analysis.

    “Learn to calibrate that balance and your pickup skills become an art-form.”

    Seduction is grounded in science; but applied as an art form. It’s an advanced skill set and the calibration will come by reflecting on these types of experiences, refining, then re-applying. Reflect. Refine. Re-Apply.

    It’s challenging to break down a physical conversation into text forum and convey all dimensions of meaning, but CH and YaReally masterfully underscore that unpredictability is missing, and the talk track is too linear. This is common in mid-level students, but an important indicator for coaches to indetify and address for further development.

    The short fix is to be: playful/serious/playful/serious

    In more detail the idea is to weave or navigate through her mind with multiple parallel threads of varying topics that interchange playful and neutral content. Unpredictable, non-linear. Like multiple sine waves intersecting at different points on a spectral graph.

    Serious doesn’t mean dramatic and logical necessarily, its all relative to the contrasting content. But as CH describes, “get real with her for a moment.” Of course kino plowing and non verbal are huge components to doing this effectively, but that’ll saturate the reply with too much info.

    Overlooked and understated by seduction artists (and always ignored and disregarded by mental masturbating sexless PU posers) is that this conversational skill set is how you illicit her values, invoke emotion and scan for cues to escalate. You take the subject from COMFORT to SEXUAL COMFORT and escalate to arousal and so forth. It’s 90% of the process, and critically important.

    This conversational art form is how the seducer can FORGE the ‘connection’ that women yearn for during their mate selection process.

    Expanding on YaReally’s comment at the end. Great tactic. Sometimes (lots of times) a frame isn’t working, or could be working better. The inexperienced artist will intensify the shitty frame and basically add more holes in the parachute. The more experienced guy will simply: create a new frame and see how the subject responds. A suggestion I like: all of sudden get a puzzled look, point and make a confusing statement about a clothing article: “cool braclet. i didnt realize walmart sold those.” (playful)

on May 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Original Link

It is a common mistake most guys make for sure. Especially when they’re new to this. Seeing girls react positively for the first time becomes a drug as it’s a response they’ve likely to not have received before in their beta days.

The trick to understanding the dynamic of the interaction is in firstly understanding what the purpose of banter and flirting is. It’s simply to spark attraction from a girl and to goad her into reacting emotionally.

The minute you feel that hook from her. It becomes vital to then go straight into rapport and connection building. Developing deep rapport, sexual tension and eventually sex.

The ultimate goal in any interaction between the 2 of you is to basically connect. On a subliminal level, the flirting is basically you aligning herself in her reality and way of talking, then slowly but surely getting her into your frame.

Once you’ve reeled her in, it’s then plain sailing.

  • Ripp
    on May 16, 2012 at 3:31 am
    Original Link


    Except for last part: still work to do after hook point. She isn’t going to set the sail for you.

The Silent Virginity

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Original Link

“Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge.”

And the stake of brutal truth is wedged through the heart of the vaginal hamster treading on the rationalization wheel.

Nothing short of amusing to hear women complain about the “double standard” and perceived unfairness that men are valued for successful promiscuity and women are devalued for it.

Women that are marginally attractive or above can achieve frequent sex from men for merely ‘existing.’ Skill is required for marginally attractive men (and above) to achieve the same frequent sex from women.

Expanding from above:
Ladies, the challenge for you isn’t achieving semen in or on you, but making a man whom you are sexually attracted to, also sexually ‘commit’ to you. And don’t mistake ‘commit’ with attention whoring from beta men; which also requires no skill.

The Flaw In The Alpha Male Procreator Theory

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 9, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Original Link

As I said before Heartiste, you havin’ a little Heartiste as a legacy is much better than an online archive. Don’t care how you do it, but you should have a little dude.

  • King A (Matthew King)
    on May 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    Original Link

    Give him a break. He is reverse-engineering a justification for his life choices with a limited intellectual toolbox. As if such a justification is necessary, or as if we care. It’s precious.

    He may yet mature into the serenity of age, which allows a fellow to make confident arguments without claiming his every decision represents the apogee of human volition and behavior. It’s a kind of debilitating superiority complex that he keeps doubling down on. In pursuit of that gambling strategy, all bets of maturity are off.

    The stubborn old are the ugliest specimens of humanity there are. Fortunately (and unfortunately) he isn’t old yet. I’ll be here when his scintilla sparks, if it ever does. I am here for those of you already scintillating, as he was there for you in a prior stage of development. Because I’m a real bro like that.


    • Ripp
      on May 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm
      Original Link

      “The stubborn old are the ugliest specimens of humanity there are.”
      Queen B, we know; With just ASCII characters you couldn’t be a better example.

      Activity time must be over at the retirement home today.

King A (Matthew King)
on May 9, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Original Link

Your definition of alpha is selective and fluid and begs the question.

State the alpha male’s telos plainly in your words. To live longest and fuck the most without leaving a genetic legacy?

In ethology, and in every other instance of your use of evolutionary psychology, the driving force is the perpetuation of the gene coincidental to any specific instance of relative benefit (such as sexual pleasure) for the individual carriers. The beast isn’t exerting its will, its genes are. Alpha wolf is just along for the exciting ride.

Except now you subtract the telos of the gene and replace it with what? Individual instances of finite, contracepted pleasure. The unwitting slaves to the gene-master’s will have subverted the original ultimate purpose with a rubber. The former slaves are alpha in characteristic but not in result. So which is it? Are the genes still in control, or have the slaves successfully revolted to establish new ends?

Further, how long can alpha “winners” perpetuate themselves if prophylactics are now a condition of their winning in your selection scheme? You seem to be fixated on one anomalous period in evolutionary history — the one you happen to be living in, where the effect of contraception has not yet genetically imprinted itself onto instinct — rather than the ultimate results of that evolution. Which makes a kind of selfish sense since you’ll be dead and won’t care. But your conclusions are peculiar to this time and speak nothing about the day after tomorrow.

I hold no brief for theories of patriarchal alphadom, they sound like an MRA rear-guard fixation to justify family and fidelity. They misapply the terminology of the savage pack to the dynamics of mediated civilization. It’s a simple error in extrapolation. The same as your own error: to think of us as nothing more sophisticated than wolves with condoms. At bottom, this is true. And in fact, we discount the influence of our instincts far too much in this weak piping time of peace. But man is the animal with the ability to transcend and manage his instincts. Indeed, contraception is the very product of that unique human quality.

Whatever you say. But you’re not consistent with your own pretenses.


  • Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)
    on May 9, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    Original Link

    lzozozozo hey KINGB king i hear what you are sayin!!!

    civilization with the advent of he heroic stories such as the iliad and odyssey, such as exodus and virgil’s aeneid, defined the alpha as the good, the chivalrous, and the just man. men of character and integrity excelled at work and in life, and civil society was set up so as to afford them a loving, honorable, none-buttcocked wife. following gina and butt tingles, which cosmo and bernakenes legal team encouragages todayz womenz to do, was frowned upon. men honored god, women honored men, and children honored their parents. today men honor buttehxhing sectrive tapings of buttehx, short douchebagd, women honor gina and butt tinges, and the children are aborted.

    the feminist alpha is the buttcoking, short buttcocker who lies about his heigh and succtehethht.

    the classical alpha is moses, odysseus, achilles, and virgil–the pious virgil who fought for honor, goodness, and glory, who fled his burning troy carrying his father on his back, alongside his religious totems, and went on to found rome. when odysseus returns on home, he kills all the arrogant buttcocker douchebags trying to woo his loyal wife penelope, and then has his son round up all their whores and string them up in the backyard, “cleaning house.” today, the arrogant buttcocker douchebags–the short men who lie about tehir hight and succeteh and tape buttocking is=n secrete, are sold to teh world as alphas.

    but the true alphas of western civilization have ever been defined by the hallmark of western civilization that has spearheaded all science, religion, and freedom–the classical, honorable soul.

    lzozlozolzozolzloz dat was my first sentsstence in ten years iwth no typsozoso!!!!!!! lzozozl Halalaauaajujahah!!!!

    • Ripp
      on May 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm
      Original Link

      great books for men rhymes with mother hen


  • Anonymous
    on May 9, 2012 at 4:10 pm
    Original Link

    Pleasant words but in no way you’ve managed to debunk this blog’s definition.
    I like the wordcraft but the sophistry is tiresome.

    • Ripp
      on May 9, 2012 at 5:21 pm
      Original Link

      In the comments section linked above you can read some entertaining re-runs re hashing similar issues: Traditionalists, anti-gamers and the usual assortment of sour grapers; naturally the ones who refute the truths are also the ones who have no practical experience or success with consistently bedding attractive women. Without surprise they’re Omega and Beta men that rationalize their life’s lack of sexual satisfaction.

      Creating stories by disparaging what is unattainable is a pure example of cognitive dissonance.

      The humbled man, as Queen B describes himself, would admit he is Omega.

    • Ripp
      on May 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm
      Original Link

      Poor queen B, he seems upset again. Miss your meds today? Always the same qualification chain response; writing 6 paragraphs attempting to mask the fact he’s a sexless history nerd.

      “Those of us who have experience detect the tone and demeanor of other experienced people”
      Experienced at reading history books and making shit up in your head?
      Makes sense why nobody identifies with your ramblings…except other sexless history nerds.

      Queen B it’s clear you disagree with CH’s post regarding the definition of Alpha. Fair enough. Yet when you pour out you’re unfiltered cerebral QWERTY masturbation sessions and mix in disparaging remarks about the author you’ve already dismissed yourself via the first sentance:

      …usual assortment of sour grapers…

      Mildly amusing for me to shine a flashlight on your reply and await your elderly rant. [smirk, yawn].

      Have para-transit take you to the park or something. Get outside and talk to people for a change.

on May 9, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Original Link

alpha is now such a mainstream term that it’s lost most of its meaning. i’d define alpha as an attitude. the ability to sex many women is a side effect of said attitude.

  • Ripp
    on May 9, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    Original Link

    “…define alpha as an attitude. the ability to sex many women is a side effect of said attitude.”


    Men can quarrel with hair splitting argument and banter forever to try and define Alpha. It’s an attitude; it’s a behavioral stimulus & response matrix that attracts and seduces beautiful women.

    Another way to help define Alpha attitude is to look at behaviors that are not Alpha:

on May 9, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Original Link

Not sure what is so hard about the simple concept that life style is not limited by the female selection process. Men in the west still can hardly pull off real polygamy while in other parts of the world they can. Has nothing to do with the alphatude but also with conditions and sentiment. It takes hard work to be with multiple women. If he can bed attractive women when he chooses, he is alpha.

  • Ripp
    on May 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    Original Link


    “It takes hard work to be with multiple women.”
    I would omit the ‘hard’ qualifier, or…maybe it should be underlined.

    Grossly overlooked by younger and novice seduction artists, Beta and Omega men, is that there is a work component to maintain a robust rotation of sexual options with attractive women.

    If he can bed attractive women when he chooses, he is alpha.

    • Ripp
      on May 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm
      Original Link

      Carefully read the opening paragraph and therein lies your answer.

      Achieving mastery in business, martial arts, wicker basket weaving- or all three does not by itself attract and seduce beautiful women; not alpha.

      A masterful seduction artist who consistently beds beautiful women, is alpha. And it is likely (but not dependent upon) this alpha has other traits he is exceptional at: wicker basket weaving, making money, jujitsu, pooping, etc.

      Given current times and referencing the link above I have to disagree with John Dark: It’s likely that a skilled fighter may give off an alpha-like scent and on its own this provides more OPPORTUNITIES with attractive women, then say, a basket weaver. Yet the fighter skill set doesn’t automatically = competence with bedding beautiful women.

      Caveat: A FAMOUS fighter. And his FAME, is his seduction and will yield tons of puss.

      “Ripp thinks”
      Ripp knows.

Female Regret Neutralizer Lines: The Winners

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Original Link

A lot of guys are focus on having a witty response, like it’ll turn into an episode of Gilmore Girls and the witty zing they throw will have her go “wow that was so clever okay let’s fuck again!!!!”

The reason the first response is the best is because it follows game principles. It doesn’t deny or apologize for anything, he owns the accusation completely unashamed. It doesn’t trigger her ASD because he’s fully taking the blame for what happened (“you were irresistible” = it’s your fault, you slut, you should feel bad about cheating because you were irresistible and made this happen…this would be a decent response to a girl who doesn’t have a BF and is only worried that you think she’s a slut but this scenario is different).

It also cuts the thread ASAP instead of falling into her frame and getting into a “witty” back and forth exchange. Whereas “What?” forces her to write “Fucking” which is just going down a shitty unproductive back-and-forth path where she has to dwell on what she did and what you want her to do again. “What?” is like saying “want to come up to fuck?” instead of “want to come up and watch a DVD?”

Then the follow up comment of “ok” “right” “cool” etc shows abundance and gets her hamster wondering why he isn’t biting and it also doesn’t set up any frame on his end that will fuck him up again…she can read into it whatever she wants like “okay its safe to hang out again” and he can just escalate when he sees her again (he never said “agreed no more fucking”) whereas if he’s all “you want my cock” she can’t meet up again cause she’d have to admit to herself she’s being a slut and willingly walking into a cheating situ instead of being able to say it “just happened” or “it was his fault not mine”

There’s lots of “clever” little zings that sound good on a blog but let’s not throw out the principles of game. They’re tried and tested by a ton of guys. We’re supposed to be aiming darts at the bulls-eye here not closing our eyes and tossing in the general direction of the board.

  • chi-town
    on May 8, 2012 at 5:00 pm
    Original Link

    There is a time and a place for witty responses which are inherently ambiguous, irreverent and punctuated. That is what you want during shit tests. You hold silly shit tests in thinly veiled contempt that is beneath you. That is the principle behind it. Wit is the tool to be used in social competition which is exactly what she is initiating during a shit test. When she says you are not having sex again, she is essentially implying you are not worthy.

    ok is great until you start saying ok after every shit test. You don’t want a big witty exchange either because that unravels the purpose which is to diminish the event. Wit is supposed to be an elevated cut to the chase where too many will undo all its designed to do. Something witty and then “ok” is more than ok.

    I would not go with “cool” at all. You have just accepted her terms.

    If she asks you about your grandma in the hospital, its no place for it. As soon as she warms to your frame, then wit may be quietly put away.

    • Ripp
      on May 9, 2012 at 3:42 am
      Original Link

      YaReally, excellent thread and analysis.

      “His ONLY goal at this point is to get her to meet up in person again so he can isolate and fuck her a couple more times to cement their fuckbuddy situ.”

      The above statement should have been emphasized more in the original post by CH, IMO. Obviously implied, however it should be clarified that the objective is to swing her back into txt/voice rotation and re-build compliance to another successful meet with her.

      The objective is NOT to blow up the account, instill a pang of a negative emotion in her, or get a good laugh by illiciting angry responses from her (which can be very amusing if desired).

      Bringing this up again only because I’ve had so much success with it in this exact situation, is giving her a calculated NO RESPONSE.

      Then reopening in 2 to 3 days with a random txt frame not acknowleding any of the past- almost as if you may have not recieved the IHAB txt, you don’t remember hanging out etc. Fact is it’s so aloof she’ll be confused- and confusion can work to your advantage.

      When women send these types of [IHAB/don’t txt me/I’m seeing someone] disqualification attempts (after sexual line) they’re in an emotional state of some sort. They’re goal is to recieve a beta response from you to assuage their ego about the situation.

      IMO: no response is of equal value towards the objective as a below response:
      “guilty as charged” (haven’t tried yet)
      “u ok”

      The sub-communication is similar with all of them: Unaffected, aloof, peculiar, confusing. And further it should be noted that she is going to associate your txt with your personality and the connection you built with her during comfort process: So in general I conclude that a one word response of most words will have similar effect regardless and will have more to do with her hypergamous past slutitude, situation with BF (if true), sexual experience with you, her other options, logisitics between you and her, her emotional stability (or lack of), social situation with you (if exists).

      Or, better stated: if you are able to meet and fuck again, the deciding factor won’t be whether you chose to txt “right” instead of “ok”. But most importantly the learning value here is that in this particular situation: A beta string of TXTs that the original post discusses WILL BLOW YOU OUT for good.

on May 7, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Original Link

More and more I think the best reply here is none of the above — as in, no response to her “didn’t stop you going there 3 times.” Just silence for a day or two, and then something on the order of “bring da movies.” She’s giving you shit, ignore it.

  • Ripp
    on May 9, 2012 at 3:46 am
    Original Link


Another Game Concept Vindicated By Science: Kino Escalation

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Original Link

When I first learned of game and began conscious kino escalation one important thing happened, it was the subcommunciation that this was not a “friend” chat. Kino immediately subcommunicates a sexual vibe. It has to be subtle—a forearm touch….then build up to hug and more.

But women love to be touched. The AFC, pre-game me was afraid of this. Now it’s de-rigeur for any woman I’m gaming.

The ones I don’t game don’t get kino.

  • Carl Sagan
    on May 4, 2012 at 5:16 pm
    Original Link

    lol work up to the hug?

    If you are going a date with a chick you should be hugging her when you greet her (doesn’t matter if it’s the first time). Also, anytime you walk into a place (coffee shop, bar, etc.) your hand should be on the small of her back.

    Are most guys just not doing these things?

    • Ripp
      on May 5, 2012 at 9:35 am
      Original Link

      Carl Troll: Thanks for the Fisher Price, my first coffee date advice.

      Now try cold approach and execute your own advice. Hint: That means approach an attractive woman whom you are a stranger to.

The Liars’ Progression

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 3, 2012 at 4:14 am
Original Link

CH you could have also phrased this post as:
“How man created religion”

Stage 10: Fear
The unthinking masses always fear what is unkown or not understood. The rulers lie to exploit these fears to sustain control.

Religion is clearly the most prevalent example of the Liar Progression’s successful application. Many historical examples.

The Santa Claus naughty vs. nice progressive lie also has influence with children wanting presents…until about age 9.

  • No one has ever talked like Him
    on May 3, 2012 at 6:35 am
    Original Link

    And that’s about as deep as the typical atheist goes, “mommy told me about Santa and she was lying, therefore God doesn’t exist.” you’d be surprised how often otherwise mature adults will use this as some kind of knock-down-stop-thought refutation of our entire religious tradition.

    “Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting its been found hard and not tried” GK Chesterton (Great writer of 20thC)

    “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders we are not going to be judged.” Czesław Miłosz (Nobel laureate)

    And for Heartiste “Quid est veritas?”

    [heartiste: short answer: not lies.
    slightly longer answer: observable reality.]

    • Ripp
      on May 3, 2012 at 8:41 pm
      Original Link

      You still fear what you don’t understand, and it’s OK. It’s your right to feel secure in your delusion.

      [Santa Claus] is an analogy, smart guy. Let’s interchange this variable with:
      -Horus of Egypt
      -Easter Bunny
      -The Great Pumpkin

      Perhaps now that every second of observable life can be recorded, uploaded and proliferated globally in a matter of minutes Jesus could do something better than show up on a dog’s ass:

    • Ripp
      on May 4, 2012 at 3:28 pm
      Original Link

      “You have the internet”
      So do you. Try reading some primary source information from empirical evidence and derive conclusions for yourself. Instead of believing word of mouth mythology from 2000 years ago.

      “simple rebuttal of your silly apology for unbelief above”
      Simple, and fiercely effective. Only those with psychological challenges and emotional disorders apologize to imaginary creatures.

      “So hate God if you will”
      I have no emotional value associated with the concept. However it’s mildly entertaining observing the mass delusions the concept has created in man. Thank you for the quick chuckle on this Friday. The Jesus delusional members are almost as entertaining as the L. Ron Hubbard clan.

      Each year as data becomes more accessible to the younger generations the God delusion becomes marginalized:

      Your kind is on a path to extinction.

      [heartiste: be careful what you wish for. the lower masses loosed from god’s grip may be a tidal wave of blood and destruction that any god substitute would be ill-equipped to contain.]

    • Ripp
      on May 5, 2012 at 5:35 am
      Original Link

      Heartiste, it’s not a wish. And history shows that tidal waves of blood and destruction are part of what the god-deluded masses do.

      As for the god-troll blogger:
      Poor guy, so upset. Such deep rooted emotional trauma associated with your ramblings.

      Sexually satisfied men don’t get so worked up about make believe stories.

      Sorry little man, you really need to get over being made fun of in grade school.

    • Ripp
      on May 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm
      Original Link

      “…an intellectual tradition stretching back five thousand years”
      Cute label for your opinion. Believing one unsubstantiated word of mouth story over another (Islam, for example) is hardly intellectual. The intellect of man within the evolution of technology, process and communication far supersedes accepting make believe. Although I support your right to believe as you wish.”

      “I am not even trying to argue that we’re correct. I am talking sheer probability.”
      Rationalized opinion for supporting your belief: Probability is rooted in numerical calculations to predict an event. I’d be interested to read a pier reviewed white paper about the probability that the Jesus story is the correct one as opposed to all of the other stories. The most interesting part of this Q Gospel (heh) would be the mathematical formula. Source?

      “…your snarky observations seriously”
      You must mean: Observable, pier reviewed and confirmed scientific data as opposed to your intellectual tradition, I mean, one of the many obsolescent make believe stories.

      “There is no shame acknowledging that you haven’t studied the matter adequately to give an opinion”
      Likewise. Funny you mention this, Queen B. As you’ve given your ‘opinion’ about seduction arts countless times yet you have never applied anything, have no field experience or success with the subject matter. The cardinal difference between reading history books and actual performance based skill sets, like seduction, is that reading is much easier.

      “All you’re doing is telling us how rickety the foundation of your thinking is, how little we should pay attention to your secondary and tertiary conclusions because your articulation of fundamentals is so cartoonish and easily dismissed.”

    • Ripp
      on May 9, 2012 at 4:29 pm
      Original Link

      “There is a reason I didn’t address you, son. I was speaking with the fellow who couldn’t quite articulate”
      Reread your reply: You were addressing me, and it’s clear you are now.

      “There is no reason for his frustration.”
      But there is, it’s called: delusional projection.

      I requested a pier reviewed source to support your premise that the Jesus fable is correct out of your sheer probability statement; And you reference the bible as a pier reviewed source.

      Circular reasoning is on the very low end of the fallacy counter argument menu.

      Queen B, your increasing dementia is amusing. After bingo this afternoon I suggest wheeling down the corridor to get your meds reviewed.

How Not To Frame A Text Exchange With A Sexually Regretful Girl

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 2, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Original Link

Good analysis, CH. My comments below:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”

(90mins later) Me: I hope not. that stubble hurt

ok response. cocky/funny, light neg.

(13 mins later)Her: Well I wasn’t plannin on havin sex my bad

text book ASD and self-assuaged notion to relieve herself of responsibility
unsure if the reader purposely ignored, but this plays to his advantage

(28 mins later)Her: Didn’t stop you from goin there three times
self qualification and shit test. as CH mentions, this is her dangling the carrot for another opportunity. at this point, his best response would be NO RESPONSE followed by 2 to 3 days of silence.

IMO, this is the best method for another lay opportunity:

Her: “IHABF we are not doing that again text”

(3 days later) Ripp: “stop thinking about me and get back to work”


The point at which she sent the initial IHABF TXT her rationalization & ASD hamster is sprinting in full force. She’s yearning for a response to satisfy her feelings by raising her value. Trying to tell the guy: “I’m a hot piece of ass and this wasn’t my fault, and it’s not going to happen again.” She wants him to confirm this; then lower his value by him trying to maneuver around her frame. Best response is [NO RESPONSE]. By not responding for at least 2 to 3 days you communicate: “I don’t give a shit. In fact I care so little I’m not even concerned with whatever happened.” This will drive her hamster to launch into orbit. This also tests her emotions. If given silence she may reopen with another TXT for another attempt to illicit a response. Then you know there is some emotionally investment.

Further after you send the cocky/funny “stop thinking about me and get back to work” 3 days later, she might respond right away with the same type of ASD frame. In which case, you ignore, again.

She also may swing back into TXT orbit and respond playfully. In which case you keep her at a low rotation TXT orbit for the next few weeks and NEVER acknowledge you even had sex with her. This peculiarity will intrigue her. She’ll have no validation of really anything that happened between you two. And she’ll have to commit to a meet to get any. Keeps you in control.

Mid-level seduction artists often overlook the power of calculated silence in TXT game. If there is one thing women stew over it’s [NO RESPONSE]. Because every BETA shit head responds to her every TXT.

A Devious Reply To “I Have A Boyfriend”

Original Link

via Heartiste

on May 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Original Link

“have probably triggered her anti-slut defense”

That’s exactly what’s going on.

In addition to “right” as a response I also like “and”. However no response is just as good.

…then reopen 3 days to 3 weeks later with a random thread.