"Becoming Alpha"? Check your humanity at the door.

[Beware of Doug]

Somebody please convince me this blog (http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/) is some sort of childish satire.

It's a twist on "game" (aka pickup theory) that is so smugly misogynistic - hell, misanthropic - that it's like Dr. Dick Masterson (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/) without the laugh lines. The ethos is roughly as follows: alpha males are dominance robots, women are masochist fuckmeat, and sub-alpha males are human waste. And the comments are universally positive.

Not only do these sociopaths have no business coming within ten yards of a woman, I don't even want them breathing up my air.

[Max the Immortal]

In about 40 seconds I encountered the term "beta male" misused twice. I don't think I need to see any more of the site. Social animals in a hierarchic community have a certain rank. Three of these ranks have attracted special attention in ethology and been given special names: alpha, beta and omega.

A beta animal is an animal that will act as a new alpha animal if the old alpha dies. In some species of birds, the males pair up in twos when courting, the beta male aiding the alpha male. The beta male does not generally get to mate with the female birds, but if the alpha dies, he takes over the alpha's females, becoming the new alpha.

Omega (usually rendered ω-male) is an antonym used to refer to the lowest caste of the hierarchical society. An omega is subordinated to all others in the community. The omega is commonly the last allowed to eat. The author of this site seems to think that "beta male" means "omega male". Based on that and your post, I'd extrapolate that it's a misogynistic, pseudoscience-laced screed designed to appeal to embittered Nice Guys. Is that about right?

[Der Trihs]

Speaking as a man, yuck.

In about 40 seconds I encountered the term "beta male" misused twice. I don't think I need to see any more of the site. The author of this site seems to think that "beta male" means "omega male".
And he's also misusing alpha male; it's not a synonym for "bad boy". Or a synonym for "insecure jerk who has to have women call him 'master' to feel comfortable", for that matter.

[AClockworkMelon]

A bunch of AFCs, all of you.

[marshmallow]

A bunch of AFCs, all of you.

This is the Dope, so no one can be merely average. Make that WBAFC to you, mack!

Not only do these sociopaths have no business coming within ten yards of a woman, I don't even want them breathing up my air.

And the most crooked have all the money, the least moral the most adulation, people who do nothing for society get paid hundreds of millions to play children's games, and the guys with the charisma get laid whenever they want. Life is hard, wear a helmet, and realize you don't have to be a victim if you don't want to be.

That site is pretty fucked, though.

[Acid Lamp]

Wow that guy is bitter.... Damn

[EvilTOJ]

Is this real, or is it some Walter Mitty Masturbat-a-thon? I could totally see it as some poor schlub's fantasy world.

[Zeriel]

I used to have a few fraternity brothers who acted like that blog describes. All I gotta say is that I wasn't a particularly promiscuous go-getter, and I was typically getting laid more than they were.

In my experience, while a "typical" girl will pick a jerky bad-boy over a milquetoast "Nice Guy" a lot of the time, the guys who get the best consistent results are the ones who project that "alpha" image WHILE being nice guys.

[even sven]

The sad thing is, there are A LOT of guys out there like this.

And they all end up coming to western China, where there are enough girls that have low self-esteem/inexperience/daddy issues/visa aspirations/whitey fever/sick parents that need some cash that their despicable actions do indeed translate into nearly infinite sex. The bad guys win. If you want to know why I've been so bitter lately, it's because guys like this have become the only guys I know. Meanwhile I have to listen to my starry eyed students moon about their "handsome foreign teachers" while I know those same foreign teachers go directly home from class and and whack off to "www.crying-asian-college-girls-dominated.com" while their child-bride student girlfriends wash their undies.

These guys are out there. They succeed at what they do. They make me sick to my stomach and erode my faith in humanity.

[Rhythmdvl]

Ah, shit.


I can't say anything about the blog. Looks inane and trollesque. But:
It's a twist on "game" (aka pickup theory) that is so....blah blah blah.



Shit.



I lost The Game.

[Chessic Sense]

These guys are out there. They succeed at what they do. They make me sick to my stomach and erode my faith in humanity.

Problem is, most women that say this aren't out there fighting the good fight, aka laying milquetoast nice guys. So naturally, the bad boys keep winning. In these women's perfect world, it wouldn't be the bad guys getting laid, it'd be NO ONE getting laid. It's a simple fact that when you're mean to women, they want you. No one wants to ride the lamb, they want to ride the bull. If you really want to change that, go lay a geek. Frequently.

[DianaG]

It's a simple fact that when you're mean to women, they want you.
It's a simple fact that when the word "woman" is in a post of yours, 97.3% of the time that post is unbelievably stupid.

[Indistinguishable]

For what it's worth, pretty much every guy I know is nice, in the sense of not being a jerk by nature (I mean, seriously, how many people are?), and pretty much every guy I know gets laid on a regular basis, as the majority of humanity do. This idea that being "nice" stunts your ability to find a girlfriend is ridiculous; to the extent that the trope about "girls don't want nice guys" is legitimate, it's for a notion of "nice guy" which isn't actually about being nice, but about being off-puttingly pathetic in various ways. As noted above, the guys girls like the best (hell, the people people like the best) have niceness among their other attractive qualities.

[Bosstone]

It's never about whether or not you're nice. It's about whether or not you're confident. You just usually don't see asshole behavior without accompanying confidence.

[olivesmarch4th]

I don't understand why people refuse to take responsibility for their own relationships.

If you find yourself frequently encountering a certain ''type'' of woman or man, it's time to ask yourself: What about me is attracting this kind of person on such a routine basis?

If, rather than submitting yourself to some self-examination, you decide it's not only the problem of the people who wronged you, but also the problem of an entire gender, then the answer to the former question is, ''I'm an asshole.''

[DianaG]

I don't understand why people refuse to take responsibility for their own relationships.
Precisely. The constant in all your relationships is you. If none of your relationships work, it's unlikely that everyone else is the problem

[woodstockbirdybird]

I don't understand why people refuse to take responsibility for their own relationships.

If you find yourself frequently encountering a certain ''type'' of woman or man, it's time to ask yourself: What about me is attracting this kind of person on such a routine basis?

If, rather than submitting yourself to some self-examination, you decide it's not only the problem of the people who wronged you, but also the problem of an entire gender, then the answer to the former question is, ''I'm an asshole.''

This is precisely it.

Oh, and Chessic Sense, your post was unimaginably retarded.

[Condescending Robot]

Precisely. The constant in all your relationships is you. If none of your relationships work, it's unlikely that everyone else is the problem

And conversely to this: If you think that all women want jackasses, it's only because you are seeking out the type of woman who gets turned on by jackasses.

[Algorithm]

It's a simple fact that when you're mean to women, they want you.

I'm trying to believe this, I really am. But punching strangers in the face just isn't getting me laid and I don't know why.

[Anaamika]

Confidence is the key, really. FTR, my guy is kind of a geek. And a nice guy. But not a Nice Guy, because - go figure! He doesn't do everything I want, he doesn't bend over backwards to my will, he has a mind of his own. He knows where his towel is. And really that's all there is to it.

Wishy-washy so-called "Nice Guys" are not attractive, really. I've said this before, but confidence/assertiveness is not the same as rudeness or assholishness, but they can be confused. And, some girls confuse it, especially young ones or ones with low self-esteem or whatever. That doesn't mean that all women want bad boys, but as others have said, some men choose to believe this rather than look at their own behavior.

[Lobohan]

I'm trying to believe this, I really am. But punching strangers in the face just isn't getting me laid and I don't know why.Obviously you're not punching hard enough.

[The Weird One]

Problem is, most women that say this aren't out there fighting the good fight, aka laying milquetoast nice guys. So naturally, the bad boys keep winning. In these women's perfect world, it wouldn't be the bad guys getting laid, it'd be NO ONE getting laid. It's a simple fact that when you're mean to women, they want you. No one wants to ride the lamb, they want to ride the bull. If you really want to change that, go lay a geek. Frequently.
Wait, is that some subtle subtext in your post? Why yes, I believe it is. Here, let me fix it for you:
Problem is, most women that say this aren't out there fighting the good fight, aka laying [me]. So naturally, [other guys] keep [getting laid]. In these women's perfect world, [I wouldn't be so whiny and obnoxious]. It's a simple fact that [women won't fuck me]. No one wants to ride the lamb, they want to ride the bull [and then have a delicious barbeque]. If you really want to change that, go lay [me]. Frequently.

[Beware of Doug]

Mods, can we please close this down?

No one wants to address the Becoming Alpha blog and what a travesty of suck it is. I had hoped we could trash it and have a little gleeful fun with such idiocy.

Nope, not gonna happen; it's too close to well-rutted ground. No place for a fresh perspective here. We Dopers are only prepared to obsessively regurgitate what's been said over and over and over about Game and Nice Guy/Asshole syndrome and the usual...the usual...the usual.

I had, thanks to a renewed interest in dating lately, put most of the old, helpless, cyclical discourse behind me. I had no desire to join, let alone begin, Yet Another Dating Thread. Well..."Just when I thought I was out - THEY PULL ME BACK IN." Thanks for the Michael Corleone moment.

The hivemind is like the heart, I guess. It wants what it wants. Well, it can choke on what it wants as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and Chessic Sense, you win a special First Class Pitting, along with the shitheads behind Becoming Alpha. You're obviously cut from the same cloth. "Simple facts" for simple minds.

[Bosstone]

There's not much interesting discussion to be had in "Yep, they is sociopathic." "Quite." "Indubitably."

[Cat Whisperer]

That blog is stupid. We keep saying milquetoast Nice Guy here, but that's not quite it - the Nice Guys who don't get play and think it's because they're Too Nice aren't actually milquetoasts or even all that nice; someone posted a link recently to someone talking about the Nice Guy problem - they're basically guys who creep women out by not being genuine with them, but instead trying to do what they think women want them to do so they can get laid. It's still all about them; the women in this equation are interchangeable "Insert woman here," and damned if women can't actually pick up on that.

Did I mention that blog is stupid?

[Mops]

+1. So why does this idiot deserve even be accorded a Pitting?

[Cat Whisperer]

Sorry, Doug, I was composing while your post came in. I think we are discussing that blog - that guy is obviously a former Nice Guy who has gone on to not getting it* in new and spectacular ways.

*I mean not understanding things, but not getting sex works too. :)

[Beware of Doug]

That blog is stupid. We keep saying milquetoast Nice Guy here, but that's not quite it - the Nice Guys who don't get play and think it's because they're Too Nice aren't actually milquetoasts or even all that nice; someone posted a link recently to someone talking about the Nice Guy problem - they're basically guys who creep women out by not being genuine with them, but instead trying to do what they think women want them to do so they can get laid. It's still all about them; the women in this equation are interchangeable "Insert woman here," and damned if women can't actually pick up on that.The (apparently unintended) satire gets exquisite when even intelligent and sophisticated women really just want to have their heads banged into the bed board, and when any man who won't buy the bullshit is an omega loser who isn't worth the gasoline to set him on fire.

Did I mention that blog is stupid?Yes, but it can't be said often enough.

[Drunky Smurf]

Holy damn! I didn't think anyone actually read my blog.

[Slithy Tove]

The thrill of Absolute Certainty and the solace of Embitterment often eclipse the doubt of not having all the facts. Such is life.

But there's something peculiar about these Alpha-male blogs. There's no shortage of blogs whose point is, basically, "We've taken their crap long enough and it's time to let our superiority flow unrestrained!" Islamicists, Nazis, racial minorities, atheists who claim intellectual superiority to the religious, the religious who claim moral superiority to atheists, et cetera, et fucking cetera...

But these alpha males always add this to the premise: "and they love it when we do!"

There's plenty of blogs saying "Drive Israel into the sea," and argue that conciliation and accommodation are cowardice (the political version of the Nice guy Syndrome) But they never go so far as to say "Israelis just love being mortared from Gaza; they won't admit it to their girlfriends but down deep they really do."

[Beware of Doug]

You said a headful, Slithy. You put your finger on what is so enraging about these guys. They've created a closed system where there is no possibility that they might be wrong, or even less than 100 per cent naturally and rightfully the way they are. They need dignify no opposing views or trouble themselves with any ethical concerns. Theirs is a Perfect World - as pathetic as it is.

Thanks.

[Malthus]

The thrill of Absolute Certainty and the solace of Embitterment often eclipse the doubt of not having all the facts. Such is life.

But there's something peculiar about these Alpha-male blogs. There's no shortage of blogs whose point is, basically, "We've taken their crap long enough and it's time to let our superiority flow unrestrained!" Islamicists, Nazis, racial minorities, atheists who claim intellectual superiority to the religious, the religious who claim moral superiority to atheists, et cetera, et fucking cetera...

But these alpha males always add this to the premise: "and they love it when we do!"

There's plenty of blogs saying "Drive Israel into the sea," and argue that conciliation and accommodation are cowardice (the political version of the Nice guy Syndrome) But they never go so far as to say "Israelis just love being mortared from Gaza; they won't admit it to their girlfriends but down deep they really do."

Heh, some do - the "self-hating Jew" trope. :D

[Chessic Sense]

Oh, and Chessic Sense, you win a special First Class Pitting, along with the shitheads behind Becoming Alpha. You're obviously cut from the same cloth. "Simple facts" for simple minds.

What the hell are you jumping on me for? even sven is the one that said it works. I never said "women want assholes", I said that "women that sleep around want assholes". So if you're a guy that wants a women that sleeps around, you need to be an asshole. If you're a women that hates assholes and want to change the paradigm, start sleeping around.

[Slithy Tove]

I'm not easily offended, but I do object to my intelligence being insulted, and that's what the whole pseudopsychology of "Alpha/Beta/Omega" classifications mean to me, even when it's not linked to "mesomorphic/ectomorphic/endomorphic" body-typing, or phreneology, or whatever other claptrap is in vouge.

Because so often in these discussions, an even more likely indicator its stupidity than the inevitability of Hitler being mentioned, is the phrase "We're like this because of our Caveman ancestors..." being uttered in support of the theory. To which the only response is a caveman quote: "Ugh!"

I hope I wasn't the only person disappointed by this week's Dan Savage sex advice column (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4396681) that advanced the theory that monogomous women are going against the evolutionary grain, and guys like to watch porn because...our Caveman ancestors used to have gangbangs; it all makes sense now, doesn't it? (which contradicts the alpha male theory, since alpha males keep the whole harem to themselves and the other guys can just wank it, because...that's the way our Caveman ancestors did it.

[Zeriel]

What the hell are you jumping on me for? even sven is the one that said it works. I never said "women want assholes", I said that "women that sleep around want assholes". So if you're a guy that wants a women that sleeps around, you need to be an asshole. If you're a women that hates assholes and want to change the paradigm, start sleeping around.

Counterexample: me. Not an asshole. Alpha geek, at best. I do not have problems getting laid.

As to the rest of your post? Women (seem to) want confidence. That's all there is to it. I can change nothing about my personality other than my approach but take dating, especially online dating. With the same generic I'm a geeky buddhist liberal profile (about as far from asshole as possible), I always got FAR better results from "So where do you wanna go on Friday?" than I do from "Would you like to do something this weekend?" Neither is assholish, but the first is both mildly presumptuous but comes across as supremely confident (especially if I'm conveying in other ways that I'm being good-natured rather than pushy).

[mhendo]

It's a simple fact that when the word "woman" is in a post of yours, 97.3% of the time that post is unbelievably stupid.Actually, i find that when the word "the," or the word "is," or the word "and," is in a post of his, you can say pretty much the same thing.

[heatmiserfl]

What the hell are you jumping on me for? even sven is the one that said it works. I never said "women want assholes", I said that "women that sleep around want assholes". So if you're a guy that wants a women that sleeps around, you need to be an asshole. If you're a women that hates assholes and want to change the paradigm, start sleeping around.

There, see? It's the sluts who want assholes. Get with the program.

Personally, that blog made me hawt. Reminds of my relationship with a fireman. Talk about alpha male. He made me feel like shit and I loved every minute of it. Phew! *fans self*

(That relationship ended a long time ago. I married a nice guy.)

[Beware of Doug]

Counterexample: me. Not an asshole. Alpha geek, at best. I do not have problems getting laid.

As to the rest of your post? Women (seem to) want confidence. That's all there is to it. Yes, as long as you don't end up with the ones who test you over and over for greater and greater confidence. They're sexual venture capitalists, waiting for the least little flash of a human frailty to give them the cue to say goodbye and look for a bigger man.

They're the handmaidens of the shitheads I started this thread about.

[Chessic Sense]

Counterexample: me. Not an asshole. Alpha geek, at best.
...
especially online dating.

Reminds of my relationship with a fireman. Talk about alpha male. He made me feel like shit and I loved every minute of it. Phew! *fans self*

(That relationship ended a long time ago. I married a nice guy.)

Aha! That's where your errors are. You're thinking about relationships. Of course no one wants a relationship with an asshole. Only nice guys, or "alpha geeks", have healthy, stable relationships. But that's not what the douche bags in the blog are after. Those assholes just want laid.

And by asshole, I don't mean where you throw food at the woman or punch her in the face. I'm talking about setting up a "you can't have me" situation with maaaaybe a twist of "I'm out of your league." It's a forbidden fruit thing. It's a Keeping Up With the Joneses thing. It's playing hard to get. Someone else has it, so they want it. He says "You can't get it" and the woman goes "Bet I can", and hey, whaddaya know, she's right.

As for me, I'd rather have a normal sex life than be an asshole. But as even sven said, it'd work.

[RTFirefly]

Problem is, most women that say this aren't out there fighting the good fight, aka laying milquetoast nice guys. So naturally, the bad boys keep winning. Oh, please, not this again.

Excluded middle, to the nth power.

There's a continent's worth of middle ground between overbearing jerks and milquetoasty doormats, between guys who approach women as if they're doing a favor to speak to her, and guys who can't work up the guts to make the first move to begin with.

And most of the single guys in that middle ground are doing pretty well, I bet. If you're a guy who has some idea of where he wants to go in life, is trying to get there, and is actually interested in the women he meets as people and not just as sex toys, chances are you'll do well enough with women.

[Ogre]

There's a cure for what ails this guy: an ass-kicking.

[Chessic Sense]

Oh, please, not this again.

Excluded middle, to the nth power.

There's a continent's worth of middle ground between overbearing jerks and milquetoasty doormats, between guys who approach women as if they're doing a favor to speak to her, and guys who can't work up the guts to make the first move to begin with.

And most of the single guys in that middle ground are doing pretty well, I bet. If you're a guy who has some idea of where he wants to go in life, is trying to get there, and is actually interested in the women he meets as people and not just as sex toys, chances are you'll do well enough with women.

:smack:

OK, OK, OK. Just answer this one question: On your spectrum, how well are the other categories doing? That is, how often, relative to the rest of the spectrum, do the doormats and jerks get laid?

Forget about whether the middle guys are doing OK. Forget about how they'd do in relationships. Forget about whether it's OK to treat women like you're doing them a favor by talking to them. Just tell me how each part of the spectrum is doing relative to the rest.

All I'm saying is that the jerks are getting laid more. Anyone want to refute that? Anyone disagree with that?

[SteveG1]

Somebody please convince me this blog (http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/) is some sort of childish satire.

It's a twist on "game" (aka pickup theory) that is so smugly misogynistic - hell, misanthropic - that it's like Dr. Dick Masterson (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/) without the laugh lines. The ethos is roughly as follows: alpha males are dominance robots, women are masochist fuckmeat, and sub-alpha males are human waste. And the comments are universally positive.

Not only do these sociopaths have no business coming within ten yards of a woman, I don't even want them breathing up my air.

I want to see what this "masterful alpha" male looks like. My own instincts tell me this wonder boy is no where near alpha material. Anyone can be the ulitmate bad ass on the web, where anonymity is a given and no one can really call a person on their bullshit. As for the "the rest are abused males" thing, I can only imagine how many wannabe alphas had their clocks cleaned by what they thought would be an easy mark.

[RTFirefly]

Chessic Sense: let's suppose, for sake of argument, that the jerks are getting laid twice as much as all those guys in the middle who are doing well enough, thank you. So what's the takeaway?

If you're one of those many guys in the middle, and you're getting enough action, is the takeaway that you should be a jerk in order to get still more action? I don't see it: if you're already getting enough, you're probably not willing to sell your soul to get still more.

And if you're one of the milquetoasty doormats, is the takeaway that you should be a jerk in order to go directly to the top of the heap? Maybe, if you think you can pull it off.

But let's face it, milquetoasty doormats didn't get there by being adept at assholery. This is a game you're not good at, and you don't turn into an adept quickly enough to realize the benefits before you scare away the friends you've got. You've got much better odds of just figuring out who you are and trying to be that person, and letting the stuff on the sex-and-romance side of the ledger fall into place as you become someone who knows where his towel is.

[Chessic Sense]

So what's the takeaway?

The takeaway is that you shouldn't be surprised that:

their despicable actions do indeed translate into nearly infinite sex. The bad guys win.
...
These guys are out there. They succeed at what they do. They make me sick to my stomach and erode my faith in humanity.

The takeaway is that you shouldn't let it erode your faith in humanity. It's just the way the world works. I personally place very little value judgment in such a concept unless it directly affects me. However you want to place judgment is up to you.

[Autolycus]

My head feels funny. It's like, echoes from my past.... 'Nice Guy' versus nice guy..bitterness... the bitterness and hatred flow like the crimson tide.... Stop it...aaggh! STOP IT! *holds head and writhes in agony on the floor*

[Nicest of the Damned]

He has a whole post on skincare! I think this might be the guy from American Psycho.

Aside from the cooking for myself, and the importance of not eating processed foods, it is important to eat lots of fruit, and to use a night eye cream at least every night, if not several times a day.

A great way to eat a lot of fruit is through smoothies in the blender.

And eye cream really does work. This stuff matters, for everybody.


Meanwhile, my European girlfriend (exgf) takes amazing care of her skin, looks about 5-7 years younger than her age, maybe 10, and has taught me a few things as well.
His girlfriend is 10 years old? And looks 5 to 7 years younger? That must make it tough to take her to bars.

[Beware of Doug]

I think this might be the guy from American Psycho.Perfect! Especially the way his commenters, to a person, suspect absolutely nothing.

[Ludovic]

His girlfriend is 10 years old? And looks 5 to 7 years younger? That must make it tough to take her to bars.

To be fair, it could also mean that she is 15 or 17, and looks like she's 10 :)

[The Understander]

Somebody please convince me this blog (http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/) is some sort of childish satire.

It's a twist on "game" (aka pickup theory) that is so smugly misogynistic - hell, misanthropic - that it's like Dr. Dick Masterson (http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/) without the laugh lines. The ethos is roughly as follows: alpha males are dominance robots, women are masochist fuckmeat, and sub-alpha males are human waste. And the comments are universally positive.

Not only do these sociopaths have no business coming within ten yards of a woman, I don't even want them breathing up my air.

New Love Mantra
May 13, 2010 by Rivelino

to be honest
to level with people
to be genuine
to not put up a front
to be respectful of women
to show vulnerability
to be down to earth
to be considerate
to be helpful
to be giving
to be thoughtful
to be caring
to be kind
to be fair
to not seek to exploit
to not show off or brag
to not pretend to be more than you are not
to not manipulate or take advantage of
to not be boastful
to be honest
to be fair
to be a good person

The rest of this piss-poor poetry is on the page, if you care to read it.

But this is all that it took to convince me that this page is utter trollery.

Alpha-male theory, eh? Alphas, if such a classification makes sense, don't write poetry.

[Maeglin]

What brand of eye cream does he use? I learned all of my beauty tips from American Psycho.

For the technically inclined nice guys out there, consider the beer-quiche game (http://cermsem.univ-paris1.fr/davila/teaching/gradmicro2/PS2.pdf). Replace "duel" with "fuck" and swap the payoffs accordingly. If nice guys all pretended to be jerks, then jerkitude would convey that much less information to prospective jerk-preferring women. A nice guy would have to pay the costs of being a jerk and potentially lower his chances of actually getting laid.

Game theory sez, be who you are.

[Mighty_Girl]

Women (seem to) want confidence.I thought men also like confident women, or so I have been told. I am sure somebody constantly seeking approval and needing crutches to do anything would get tiresome really fast, however hot.

[Maeglin]

I also can't help but wonder if the blog is self-consciously referring to the much higher quality Seeking Alpha (http://seekingalpha.com/).

Very different subject matter.

[Der Trihs]

It's basically my understanding that women appear genetically prone to be attracted to high status men, just as men typically want to be high status. What appears much less hard wired is the definition of "high status*". So I regard abusive jerks and the women who go out with abusive jerks because they find them attractive** to be gender swapped mirror images, in essence. The men who think being a thug or jerk is the apex of manhood, and the women who agree. So if it's those particular women you want, then yes probably the only way to get them is to be (or fake being) the thug they lust after.

Or, you can just find women who have better taste in men. The sort of women whose definition of "high status, desirable male" is something like "smart", "devoted to me", "polite", or whatever qualities you have instead of being a thug. Personally, I don't want some woman who's looking for a man who pushes her around; I find women like that creepy.



* An interesting example of this; I understand that according to the psychologists one effective means of making women attracted to you, is to impress men. Even if the typical woman thinks that a man is being a fool by being a daredevil, skydiving or whatever, if she sees men acting all impressed by what he's doing, that will tend to make him attractive to her. Because after all, there's not really any better indicator of being a high status male, than having actual high status among males.

** as opposed to women who get sucked in by an abuser who pretends to be something else until he has his emotional hooks in her.

[AClockworkMelon]

I thought men also like confident women, or so I have been told. I am sure somebody constantly seeking approval and needing crutches to do anything would get tiresome really fast, however hot.I hear men say this all the time and my theory is that it's an act so that they don't look like giant douche bags. I don't want a girl who's depressed or anything, but I prefer girls with average levels of self-esteem over girls who are confident.

[Autolycus]

I likes me women like I likes me coffee, weak and smothered with cream.

[AClockworkMelon]

I likes me women like I likes me coffee, weak and smothered with cream.That's funny- I like mine like I like my coffee, too:

Black and microwaved.

[Talon Karrde]

I like my women like I like my hot chocolate! Hot!

(Did I do that right guys?)

[Kobal2]

I like my women like I like my coffee : COVERED IN BEES !

[Beware of Doug]

...bitter.

[Slithy Tove]

...brought over the border in a bag.

[The Weird One]

…roasted over a medium flame.

[Pedro]

I like it. It's just a blog. There is something inherently funny about "game" and reducing women to simple minded objects of sexual lust.

When I was a loser beta male I used to take this stuff seriously.

[Smeghead]

I like my women like I like my whiskey. 12 years old and sealed in a wooden barrel.

[EvilTOJ]

I like my women like I like my rum; 15 years old and full of coke.

[Zeriel]

I thought men also like confident women, or so I have been told. I am sure somebody constantly seeking approval and needing crutches to do anything would get tiresome really fast, however hot.

I don't need a LOT of confidence in a woman, particularly, so much as I need "self-assurance"--as you describe, I don't really want to be anyone's crutch or prop.

[Zeriel]

I like my women like I like my coffee--my wife enjoys it every morning while I sip my tea and make small talk?

[Ludovic]

...sweet, hot, and full of cream.

[heatmiserfl]

Oh yeah? Well, I like my men like I like my prime rib...:D

[Zeriel]

Oh yeah? Well, I like my men like I like my prime rib...:D

...grilled medium rare with some mushroom gravy?

[Ludovic]

Oh yeah? Well, I like my men like I like my prime rib...:D... tough, thick, and with one red eye?

[Malthus]

Oh yeah? Well, I like my men like I like my prime rib...:D

... wrapped in plastic and shoved into the fridge?

[RickJay]

Is this real, or is it some Walter Mitty Masturbat-a-thon? I could totally see it as some poor schlub's fantasy world.
Funny, but the name "Walter Mitty" ran through my head too.

The whole "Game" thing is all marketing bullshit; the book is presented as biographical but is obviously all made up. This appears to be just a blog copy. The guy's stories are ninety percent horseshit.

Of course, it absolutely is true that confident men are more successful than wimpy ones. But the real sweet spot is where Zeriel plants it; be a confident gentleman. If a man really wants to score with the super high quality ladies, that's what he has to be; confident, an alpha male, but a nice gentleman at the same time.

I'm not saying that's easy to do, but that is where it's at. And you can't learn it from any book I know to exist. "The Game" and other such stuff are aimed at schlubs. Those things appeal to losers who can't get laid.

[Malthus]

I'm not saying that's easy to do, but that is where it's at. And you can't learn it from any book I know to exist. "The Game" and other such stuff are aimed at schlubs. Those things appeal to losers who can't get laid.

Well, to be fair, only guys who can't get laid are going to be reading a "how to get laid" book in the first place - other than for amusement. ;)

To my mind, such fellows truly cross over into loser-dom when they agree to act like jerks in order to basically fool women into sleeping with them - whether or not it works (and I'm guessing it only works in a placebo manner - in that if a guy *thinks* it works, he's more likely to actually ask women out and gain a little confidence - in short, it 'works' just as well as selling 'em magic woman-attracting sugar pills. With the added disadvantage of turning the user into more of a loser and asshole than they otherwise would be, of course)

[heatmiserfl]

...grilled medium rare with some mushroom gravy?

Yes.

... tough, thick, and with one red eye?

YES!

.. wrapped in plastic and shoved into the fridge?
YES!!!

Wait, what's the fridge supposed to mean?

[RTFirefly]

The takeaway is that you shouldn't be surprised that: [even sven quote]
Dude, even sven's talking about white guys hitting on local girls in Western China. However great the success of the jerks she describes, that's a pretty exceptional environment, and success there doesn't exactly translate to a likelihood of similar success in a more prosaic setting.

[Beware of Doug]

The conversation has developed in an enlightening way, I think. This is no ordinary nice guy/slut/alpha/jerk thread.

I want to put a bug in y'all's ear, though, about confidence. Self-confidence is not confidence. If you want your conversations to go further than a phone number on a napkin, you need to show confidence in life.

You need to demonstrate that you are an effective, motivated, and worthwhile human being. You don't need to be a perfect superachiever. But you need to be involved in - and committed to - something that matters to other people. You also need to at least suggest that you are reliable, that you produce, and that you deliver.

We live in a world that is ruled by production, routine, and work. Whatever you do for a living, you need to be a professional human being. You need to show that you accept that world and don't refuse its demands. That is confidence in something outside yourself and in life, as understood in our time.

[matt_mcl]

I like my women like I like my coffee : COVERED IN BEES !

I like my men like I like my coffee: hot, sweet, and fair trade.

[Cat Whisperer]

... tough, thick, and with one red eye?
Thass hawt.
<snip>it 'works' just as well as selling 'em magic woman-attracting sugar pills. <snip>
I think I just thought of a money-making venture.

[Zeriel]

But the real sweet spot is where Zeriel plants it

That's what SHE said. :D

[Zeriel]

The conversation has developed in an enlightening way, I think. This is no ordinary nice guy/slut/alpha/jerk thread.

I want to put a bug in y'all's ear, though, about confidence. Self-confidence is not confidence. If you want your conversations to go further than a phone number on a napkin, you need to show confidence in life.

You need to demonstrate that you are an effective, motivated, and worthwhile human being. You don't need to be a perfect superachiever. But you need to be involved in - and committed to - something that matters to other people. You also need to at least suggest that you are reliable, that you produce, and that you deliver.

We live in a world that is ruled by production, routine, and work. Whatever you do for a living, you need to be a professional human being. You need to show that you accept that world and don't refuse its demands. That is confidence in something outside yourself and in life, as understood in our time.

I think you're hitting on something here--after all, how many online dating ads have we seen with "no drama", "must have car/job", etc., all of which can be summed up as "must be functional as a human being in your own right". The examples speak to a classic sense of what that means, but more important I think is finding someone who's got the same idea of what that means as you do--this is how starving artists* get dates, after all, by finding chicks who care more about "true to myself and my art" than "able to feed and house a family".

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Now, granted, a lot of the trappings of "confident in dealing with the world" require as a prerequisite "self-confident", so I can see where people might prefer phrasing it as the latter rather than the former.

*not to be confused with Starving Artist, who we can presume gets dates by talking to conservative middle-aged ladies who appreciate the finer points of riling up liberals online.

[Una Persson]

I've encountered a movement very similar to this which existed on the internet pre-web (very early 1990's) which essentially had the same beliefs - you're either an alpha male or trash, and women were commodities and second-class citizens. People who read John Norman books and think "yeah...that's the way it ought to be." The movement I knew of called itself "the Alpha Males" and had US and European chapters, and was engaged in grandiose plans to do such things as get women from the FSR to serve as, well, in effect sex slaves.

[even sven]

Dude, even sven's talking about white guys hitting on local girls in Western China. However great the success of the jerks she describes, that's a pretty exceptional environment, and success there doesn't exactly translate to a likelihood of similar success in a more prosaic setting.

I bet it works at home, too, though. It is amazingly easy to manipulate women with low self-esteem, and you can find them anywhere. What makes me feel sick and lose is that lots of people find this lifestyle somehow fulfilling and even ideal.

[Beware of Doug]

I think you're hitting on something here--after all, how many online dating ads have we seen with "no drama", "must have car/job", etc., all of which can be summed up as "must be functional as a human being in your own right". The examples speak to a classic sense of what that means, but more important I think is finding someone who's got the same idea of what that means as you do--this is how starving artists* get dates, after all, by finding chicks who care more about "true to myself and my art" than "able to feed and house a family".

Not that there's anything wrong with that.Except that as life gets more and more of a 24-7 rat race, such chicks are fewer in number, lower in intelligence, and generally fucked up in their own right.

Now, granted, a lot of the trappings of "confident in dealing with the world" require as a prerequisite "self-confident", so I can see where people might prefer phrasing it as the latter rather than the former.Self-confidence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

I said it an another thread, but perhaps it's applicable here:
The key to life is to be fully part of an inhuman world and still, somehow, remain human.

[Zeriel]

Except that as life gets more and more of a 24-7 rat race, such chicks are fewer in number, lower in intelligence, and generally fucked up in their own right.

This is so far from my experience as to be alien to me.

As for the rat race, I'd stab myself in the eye from stir-craziness if I tried to be an artist type, but yet I'm happily married to a woman who sits in her home office and writes novels or freelance as it suits her. It's not as simplistic as all that, I think.

Self-confidence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

I said it an another thread, but perhaps it's applicable here:
The key to life is to be fully part of an inhuman world and still, somehow, remain human.

I'd quibble with this, since we're talking about a human society, built by humans and operated by humans. It's almost impossible by definition for it to be inhuman.

[Bosstone]

You don't need to be a perfect superachiever. But you need to be involved in - and committed to - something that matters to other people.This is strong food for thought. It's a good summation of why I sometimes feel lacking compared to other people I see.

[Autolycus]

The key to life is to be fully part of an inhuman world and still, somehow, remain human.

Way to be a downer! You're never getting laid with that line!

[Beware of Doug]

This is not talk for date night. This is facing facts - well actually, facing beliefs society treats as facts, whether they acknowledge those beliefs or not. Which is what counts. We're trying for social interaction with people we don't know so well, and that only happens on society's playing field.

If you can't be yourself and still play the game, your life is going to be poor and lonely.

If you can't play the game and still be yourself, your life is going to be false and hollow.

[olivesmarch4th]

Way to be a downer! You're never getting laid with that line!
Says you! For some of us, a good philosophy is like foreplay. I've always been a sucker for the introspective humanitarian type.

*fans self*

[Beware of Doug]

Which prompts me to pose the fundamental ontological question....How YOU doin'? :cool:

Actually, I'm not really all that humanitarian. I'm a bloody-minded existentialist hoping against hope that there's something better.

[BigT]

The thing is, most of the people I've seen teaching this stuff really aren't anywhere near the asshole of this guy. Most of the stuff out there really isn't this bitter. Even David Deangelo--one of the guys mentioned in this blog--warns you about going too far.*

And that's what it seems to be--an insecure guy overcompensating to the point of ridiculousness. And while there are women too stupid to pick up on it, he's not desirable to most women.

sven has a different outlook on life. She thinks people who occasionally make jokes about a female stereotype are assholes. So, by her definition, there probably are a lot of assholes getting women. But guys like this? The older I get, the more rare it seems.

*I told you I used to read this stuff.

I thought men also like confident women, or so I have been told. I am sure somebody constantly seeking approval and needing crutches to do anything would get tiresome really fast, however hot.

Well, if you're that bad, maybe. But it's really not that big a deal. If anything, overly confident women tend to get labeled as pushy or aggressive. And my experience is that approval-seeking behavior can actually be endearing for men. Needing me, and not just wanting me is definitely on my list.

ETA: Gah. Once again, by the time I finish my response, the topic has changed and gotten a lot deeper. I agree that the world can be rather inhumane, but Doug's attitude sounds overly defeatist. Retaining humanity in an inhumane world is innate--except for psychopaths. But then they are considered to have a disorder.

[Malthus]

I've always been a sucker for the introspective humanitarian type.

*fans self*

"Well, I used to be a [i]vegitarian, but ... " [/Issei Sagawa]

[Autolycus]

Nietzsche was the introspective philosopher type, and he believed in being the biggest alpha male of them all. I bet he got way more pussy than Kierkegaard.

[Autolycus]

"Well, I used to be a [i]vegitarian, but ... " [/Issei Sagawa]

Only in Japan.... From the wiki: "He has also written restaurant reviews for the Japanese magazine Spa." I can imagine his comments now: 'tastes a bit like thigh.'

[Malthus]

Nietzsche was the introspective philosopher type, and he believed in being the biggest alpha male of them all. I bet he got way more pussy than Kierkegaard.

Well, Nietzsche *did* supposedly die of syphilis ... ;)

[Malthus]

Only in Japan.... From the wiki: "He has also written restaurant reviews for the Japanese magazine Spa." I can imagine his comments now: 'tastes a bit like thigh.'

:D

Who *wouldn't* be interested in restaurant reviews from a psycopathic cannibal?

[Autolycus]

Two simultaneous conversations, both unrelated to the OP? The hijack is complete. Mwahahaha!

[Green Bean]

Personally, that blog made me hawt. Reminds of my relationship with a fireman. Talk about alpha male. He made me feel like shit and I loved every minute of it. Phew! *fans self*
You know, I used to date a fireman. Very alpha and very hot. One time, in flagrante delicto, I erm...started taking control of the rhythm and pace of things. He said "Hey, who's fucking who, here!?" I said "I'm fucking YOU." He said "Oh, okay then." :)

I like my women like I like my coffee : COVERED IN BEES !I like my men like Covered in Bees!!.

[Malthus]

Two simultaneous conversations, both unrelated to the OP? The hijack is complete. Mwahahaha!

Women love men with the moxie to hijack threads.

[/closes the loop :D]

[Zeriel]

Which prompts me to pose the fundamental ontological question....How YOU doin'? :cool:

Actually, I'm not really all that humanitarian. I'm a bloody-minded existentialist hoping against hope that there's something better.

I have, in my day, known at least a dozen chicks who'd be all over that, along with a side of "I'm an existentialist, and I'm fucking cool as hell". Judging by the guy I'm thinking of, you need dark Lennon glasses and some stubble, and to hang around philosophy students and/or goths.

[Saganist]

A far better (and female) take on nice guys (http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml) and jerks.

[Beware of Doug]

I agree that the world can be rather inhumane, but Doug's attitude sounds overly defeatist. Retaining humanity in an inhumane world is innate--except for psychopaths. But then they are considered to have a disorder.Definitions: inhuman vs. inhumane (http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082272.html)

I didn't say an inhumane world. That's a world that is cruel and insensitive to suffering. Some of it (most of the collective world) is, some of it (most of the world of individuals) isn't. It's certainly not an organizing principle for all humanity.

An inhuman (no e) world is one essentially lacking in human qualities - such as kindness and pity. That, I think, is an organizing principle. A world like ours, where the forces of commerce are demanding more and tighter control over the lives of individuals in exchange for their livelihoods, is inevitably going to become progressively more inhuman. In the process, it's going to dehumanize more and more people, because that will be the price of your daily bread - of just continuing to exist.

I think that under those conditions, we may retain some innate humanity. But it is probably going to be very little - probably not enough to contribute to the quality of a common life for all of us. That, if I'm right, is going to be more and more a luxury.

What a person is going to need in the world I imagine is a way to be more and more fully two contradictory things at once. To be strong, reliable, productive, effective in the world, they are going to have to become more and more inhuman. It will require putting your own interests before those close to you, and the interests of your richers and betters before your own. It will require judicious, but deliberate, application of unkindness and pitilessness. But to be loving, to be worth loving, people will also have to remain human.

In a sense, both men and women are going to have to learn the way of the alpha. We are going to have to get a lot better at becoming machines with souls.

[The Understander]

Definitions: inhuman vs. inhumane (http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082272.html)

I didn't say an inhumane world. That's a world that is cruel and insensitive to suffering. Some of it (most of the collective world) is, some of it (most of the world of individuals) isn't. It's certainly not an organizing principle for all humanity.

An inhuman (no e) world is one essentially lacking in human qualities - such as kindness and pity. That, I think, is an organizing principle. A world like ours, where the forces of commerce are demanding more and tighter control over the lives of individuals in exchange for their livelihoods, is inevitably going to become progressively more inhuman. In the process, it's going to dehumanize more and more people, because that will be the price of your daily bread - of just continuing to exist.

I think that under those conditions, we may retain some innate humanity. But it is probably going to be very little - probably not enough to contribute to the quality of a common life for all of us. That, if I'm right, is going to be more and more a luxury.

What a person is going to need in the world I imagine is a way to be more and more fully two contradictory things at once. To be strong, reliable, productive, effective in the world, they are going to have to become more and more inhuman. It will require putting your own interests before those close to you, and the interests of your richers and betters before your own. It will require judicious, but deliberate, application of unkindness and pitilessness. But to be loving, to be worth loving, people will also have to remain human.

In a sense, both men and women are going to have to learn the way of the alpha. We are going to have to get a lot better at becoming machines with souls.

You're me from a couple years back! Listen, I don't care what anyone says, put all your money down on the Saints in 2010 and you'll never lose.

Machines with souls? Brother, it's not that critical. Live your life and talk with people about theirs. Pass some time in conversation. Occasionally, take a chance and let her know you're interested. It don't hurt none and you'll eventually find someone who's interested back. Yeah, so what I'm a starry-eyed optimist, it's worked for me, so it can work for anyone.

Also, just because you have to work for your richers (Betters? Yeah, I'll concede Donald Trump is better than me when he can grow his own hair and run a mile without an oxygen tank :p) doesn't preclude you having your own plans for what you want to do given your circumstances, or with making connections with like-minded others to make larger changes. We ain't lost yet!

[olivesmarch4th]

Actually, I'm not really all that humanitarian. I'm a bloody-minded existentialist hoping against hope that there's something better.
Same difference to me. The beautiful thing about existentialism is that even if there's nothing better, we can totally make something better.

Nietzsche was the introspective philosopher type, and he believed in being the biggest alpha male of them all. I bet he got way more pussy than Kierkegaard.
By all accounts, Nietzsche was a massively insecure, mild-mannered, socially disastrous nerd when it came to women in real life. He did not see women as equals because of abuse at the hands of his religious Aunts and his crazy anti-Semite sister. He proposed twice and was turned down both times. The only ass he ever got was in a brothel, from which he contracted syphilis, lapsed into catatonia, and died.

One of the most fascinating things about Nietzsche, to me, is how he often fought to reconcile his own life experiences with his philosophy. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise for him; writing was an act of desperation, an attempt to work out his own salvation.

...Is it getting hot in here?

[Beware of Doug]

Thanks for the starry-eyed optimism, ET. Most people don't waste it on chronic grumps.

Unfortunately, I tend to turn people away when talking with them about their lives. I assume a lot, most of it not good, and the grump in me shows through quickly. Especially when they ask about my life, when I go into Grump Warp Drive. At such times I become Nietzschean, and not in a good way.

[AClockworkMelon]

By all accounts, Nietzsche was a massively insecure, mild-mannered, socially disastrous nerd when it came to women in real life. He did not see women as equals because of abuse at the hands of his religious Aunts and his crazy anti-Semite sister. He proposed twice and was turned down both times. The only ass he ever got was in a brothel, from which he contracted syphilis, lapsed into catatonia, and died.

One of the most fascinating things about Nietzsche, to me, is how he often fought to reconcile his own life experiences with his philosophy. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise for him; writing was an act of desperation, an attempt to work out his own salvation.Are you talking about Nietzsche or the author of the blog?

[gravitycrash]

It's never about whether or not you're nice. It's about whether or not you're confident. You just usually don't see asshole behavior without accompanying confidence.

Right on man. Women hate men who are too sensitive, aka: A Huge Pussy.

It's not about being a bad boy so much as not projecting weakness on a daily basis. A man can cry but not too often. Most women in my humble experience like feeling protected and maybe being just a little bit submissive to a man even if everything else in the relationship is equal.
So women like nice. Just not too nice. It's simple! ;)

[rhubarbarin]

I like really nice and sensitive. But never passive-aggressive, and I dislike it when any human has a hard time controlling their outwardly emotions (including anger, not just sadness).

[msmith537]

There, see? It's the sluts who want assholes. Get with the program.

Personally, that blog made me hawt. Reminds of my relationship with a fireman. Talk about alpha male. He made me feel like shit and I loved every minute of it. Phew! *fans self*


Then what? You saw him eating with his hands and remembered he made like $37,000 a year?






For what it's worth, pretty much every guy I know is nice, in the sense of not being a jerk by nature (I mean, seriously, how many people are?), and pretty much every guy I know gets laid on a regular basis, as the majority of humanity do. This idea that being "nice" stunts your ability to find a girlfriend is ridiculous; to the extent that the trope about "girls don't want nice guys" is legitimate, it's for a notion of "nice guy" which isn't actually about being nice, but about being off-puttingly pathetic in various ways. As noted above, the guys girls like the best (hell, the people people like the best) have niceness among their other attractive qualities.

This.

Look, where I come from, nice guy or dick, it's pretty fucking weird if you haven't had sex by the time you graduated high school. Sure it's tough finding "The One", but most people by the time they reach their 20s, typically have at least learned how to date.


Whenever I read material like the blog the OP linked to, I think one thing - these guys are a bunch of pathetic losers trying to figure out how to pretend to be "alpha".

My philosophy? The way you "be Alpha" is to actually be the best at whatever it is you are doing. And you know what? If I'm not the best at what I'm doing, I'm perfectly content to let whoever is be the "Alpha" and try and learn from him. Because I'm confident enough to be comfortible with the fact that I don't know everything or am I awesome at everything.

Seriously. What's wrong with walking up to a woman and saying "Excuse me. I find you very attractive and I'd like to take you out so we can get to know each other better."? Is there some Jedi mind shit that's going to make you seem more attractive or awesome in her eyes?



Actually...it just occured to me that I'm really not that "nice". Not like I try to be mean to everyone, but I can be a little bit of a sarcastic dick. Maybe that's why I haven't had that much trouble with the ladies.



I like my women like I like my coffee - all up in my lap making everything wet and sticky!

[rivelino]

You all seem like a smart bunch, and "game," seen superficially, might appear crass and hateful. My posts, written from a candid, emotional, and unfiltered perspective, undoubtedly only encourage that stereotype.

However, at its best, game encourages self-improvement, personal responsibility, and a positive outlook on life. It provides hope, and it provides tools. Not every guy is blessed with the ability to fulfill his romantic dreams, and the pain of repeated sexual rejection is real, and can lead to much worse things than a venomous blog.

The problem is, too many sensitive, caring, and intelligent men are duped into thinking that these are the exact qualities women want above all others. And then we feel confused, angry, and frustrated when life repeatedly proves to us that this is not the case.

With my blog, I am simply trying to retrain my brain to think differently about how I should think, feel, and act as a man, in order to bring about greater success and happiness, not just for me, but for my romantic relationships as well.

Before any of you completely dismiss game, I strongly recommend two books which are much more enlightening, sensitive, spiritual, humanistic and well-written than my blog. They are:

No More Mr. Nice Guy: A Proven Plan for Getting What You Want in Love, Sex, and Life,by Dr. Robert Glover
http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com/

The Way of the Superior Man: A Man's Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Women, Work, and Sexual Desire, by David Deida
http://www.enlightenment.com/media/bookrevs/superiorman.html

All of you currently not in a state of perpetual romantic bliss could probably learn something from these books.

Cheers,
rivelino

[Autolycus]

You all seem like a smart bunch, and . . .

Cheers,
rivelino

If you are truly the author of the 'Becoming Alpha' blog, then let me thank you for contributing to this thread. It's a real rarity to have somebody defend their views so civilly. Also, welcome to the Straight Dope. Feel free to stick around :cool:

[rivelino]

Thank you, Autolycus. One aspect of game which I have learned a lot about, but not written enough about, is something called frame control. I actually first starting learning about it a few years back, when I began following the Democratic primaries as an Obama fan and volunteer.

Frame control is critical for debating. Any verbal argument can be won using this technique. The first rule of frame control is that you must always remain calm and assertive. This is actually a term I borrowed from Cesar Milan, as I also started getting interested in dog training a few years ago, and both go well together.

If someone wants to or attempts to debate you, and you get angry, irrational, or aggressive, you have lost the argument in the objective sense. This assumes a civilized arena, of course, not a back alley.

So if someone starts attacking my blog, I can either buy into their frame, and get defensive/aggressive; or I can simply chalk it up to a misunderstanding. If you reply to a verbal attack with a combination of magnanimity, strength, and kindness, often you will be able to diffuse the situation, and come off as the leader of the situation. An alpha leader of a group, in the natural world, is calm assertive. Thus, we instinctively react favorably when that kind of energy is emitted by a person, especially under situations of duress.

Think of the classic story of Joe Montana on the final drive of the Super Bowl, pointing out John Candy in the stands.

Frame control is not just an important part of dog training, speech & debate, and of game/pua, it is important for dealing with people overall, for life. I have found it to be very helpful at work, where there is one jerk in particular in my group who is always trying to put me down. His name is Ivan and he is a typical bully, who gets his high by making fun of others.

Frame control is also in some sense just a fancy way of talking about attitude, of the famous "is the glass half-full or half-empty" quandary. One excellent article which helped me see the power of frame control is this one, in the NY Times, about the narratives (frames) we create for our lives:

This Is Your Life (and How You Tell It)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/health/psychology/22narr.html

It essentially states that if you feel you have been successful and lucky in the past, then you will believe that you will be in the future, and your prophecy comes true. If you feel you have been given a raw deal by life, then this will also be true. Basically, your mind has the power to shape your reality, your future, and your life.

I have a saying: FRAME CREATES REALITY. It is the greatest truth I have ever discovered.

I am looking forward to discussing this inspiring and critical aspect of self-improvement in more detail. It is good to be challenged, because it makes you have to express yourself more clearly and intelligently.

Best,
rivelino

[mhendo]

However, at its best, game encourages self-improvement, personal responsibility, and a positive outlook on life. Even if that's true—and i find your argument less than convincing—the fact is that the blog linked in the OP is not game "at its best." It's game at its worst, its most reactionary, its most misogynistic, its most self-absorbed.

The style and the "substance" of the writing are either intentionally over the top, or they are a true reflection of the author's position. If the former, the posts are useless because any valid argument the author might have is lost in the sophomoric rhetoric. And if the latter, the author is a narcissistic sociopath.

[msmith537]

The style and the "substance" of the writing are either intentionally over the top, or they are a true reflection of the author's position. If the former, the posts are useless because any valid argument the author might have is lost in the sophomoric rhetoric. And if the latter, the author is a narcissistic sociopath.

That's the problem with 90% of stuff written by so-called "players" and "pick-up artists" (not like I've read that much of it). It sounds like it was written by a predatory self-loathing psychopath who was ignored by girls through his teen years and is going to get back at them by fucking as many as he can. It's never "I really like women, how can I get better at meeting (and possibly sleeping with) them?" It's always "I can believe how much of a loser I was before I learned to dominate women!"

[kimera]

The thing is, from the position of someone who studies primates, that website and nearly everyone striving to be 'alpha' in this PUA games have what it means to be an alpha male all wrong. The alpha male is a strong, confident, aggressive guy, but he also can't afford to be a jerk for several reasons:

One, the females won't tolerate it. Even in the species where males are dominant over females, females have a lot of power, especially when they can join together with other females. Among the capuchins I study, the females will team up together to fight the alpha male if he does something wrong. No matter how strong a potential alpha male is, he can't control the group if he doesn't have support of at least the influential female figures. This doesn't mean that jerks towards females don't get made alpha, just that they also have to suck up to at least certain females in order to maintain their power and occasionally the ones instrumental in their overthrow are female.

Two, the other males won't tolerate it. Like most apes and intelligent monkeys, we are a social species where power isn't captured by brute force but is formed and maintained through alliances. A single jerk can be overthrown by a group of others. In order to maintain his position as an alpha, an alpha male must have support from other males. Sometimes this goes as far as allowing the other males to have privileges he'd rather have for himself. For example, there was a chimp in a zoo who allowed the beta male (the one who's second to him) to have more matings than he took himself in order to hold onto power.

Three, violence and general jerkiness isn't necessarily a good characteristic of a leader, which is what it means to be an alpha. Often the meanest in our groups end up being beta rather than alpha. The alpha has to be socially clever and maintain friendships and social times and, while social cleverness and brute strength/meanness aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it's rare to find an individual who is maxed in both aspects. As I said before, what we often find is the alpha and his beta 'enforcer'.

Finally, I had a chance to 'meet' the individual who was the longest running alpha male in animal history with a reign of at least 19 years. He was a very socially astute kind monkey who groomed everyone (normally alphas receive grooming rather than do it themselves) and built up an army of males who were incredibly loyal to him because he was generous with his favors. He was a tough monkey to be sure, and he socially manipulated the males in his group so they never could team up together against him, but he wasn't the biggest monkey or the strongest monkey I've seen. Eventually he was overthrown, but only after a long reign, as the average capuchin lifespan is estimated to be about 40-50 years, and they don't reach sexual maturity until about 7 years.

In other words, a good primate alpha is one who is socially astute and clever and often relies on social manipulation rather than overall aggression or posturing.

[Rhythmdvl]

I'm of the opinion that this is a viral marketing stunt put out by some movie studio.

A feature film is coming out that will pit a "Game" character against a "Rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_rules)" character. The Rules character will likely have one gay friend; the Game character will have a former fratboy friend who is now married, stable, and immersed in fatherhood. The main characters meet via some threadbare contrivance and the movie follows the two as they try and woo and be wooed by each other (initially because of the challenge, eventually because a spark of romance ignites). Much comedy ensues. Amid all the high-jinks, the two will grow to realize that they just want to be loved, that their pretenses were actually alienating them from friends, family, and society in general, and that the empty rewards of the Game/Rules were actually standing in the way of their ultimate happiness.

Unfortunately for the characters, the studio signed Darren Aronofsky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180093/)to direct: the characters learn their lesson too late; with no friends or family to care for them, they ultimately end up cold and alone in a state-run, abusive nursing home.

[olivesmarch4th]

Frame control is also in some sense just a fancy way of talking about attitude, of the famous "is the glass half-full or half-empty" quandary. One excellent article which helped me see the power of frame control is this one, in the NY Times, about the narratives (frames) we create for our lives:

This Is Your Life (and How You Tell It)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/health/psychology/22narr.html

Thanks for providing a link to this interesting article. It jives well with the work of Martin Seligman (the psychologist who discovered the phenomenon of learned helplessness and author of Learned Optimism (http://www.amazon.com/Learned-Optimism-Change-Your-Mind/dp/0671019112).) I'm a huge fan of positive and cognitive psychology and feel the narrative concept is pretty central to my understanding of myself.

I agree, in part, with many things you have expressed in this thread--without question, people will tend to listen more to individuals who stay calm and rational. However, I'm at a loss trying to reconcile this apparently reasonable perspective with the vitriolic writing in your blog.

When I think critically about it, though, I do see a central theme running through both your thread posts and your blog posts. That is the need for control and social approval. Even in your polite, reasoned thread posts here in the Pit, your motivation is still status and dominance rather than connection with another human being.

This is where you and I differ. I think you will find just as much heartache down that road as you found being a doormat. We are stuck in a society that perpetuates this lie about what is valuable in life. We all fall for it from time to time, but I fear you are willing to make a religion of it.

Rather than actually being in control of your life, I think you are ceding control to what is essentially a construct in your own mind of what successful people are. As you yourself said, what you think creates your reality. You think you need status and attention to be happy and successful, therefore you do need those things. But the catch is you will never have enough of those things to satisfy you. You will spend your entire life chasing a dream you can't realize. That is the fundamental problem with an achievement-driven life. It's empty. You think you have power, but really you're just a rat in a cage, frantically pressing the bar for that next pellet. In letting someone else define happiness for you, you're submitting to someone else's rules, man. You're society's bitch.

If you really want a fulfilling personal relationship with anyone, you gotta think less in terms of achievement/conquest and more in terms of humanity. There is no game here, only people. It's your mind that makes the game. And, with all due respect, your mind is fucking you harder than any woman ever could.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>

Frame control is critical for debating. Any verbal argument can be won using this technique. The first rule of frame control is that you must always remain calm and assertive. This is actually a term I borrowed from Cesar Milan, as I also started getting interested in dog training a few years ago, and both go well together.

If someone wants to or attempts to debate you, and you get angry, irrational, or aggressive, you have lost the argument in the objective sense. This assumes a civilized arena, of course, not a back alley.I agree you aren't likely to win an argument by losing your cool, but I wouldn't agree that it's an automatic win - what if you're debating with someone who also isn't losing their cool?

So if someone starts attacking my blog, I can either buy into their frame, and get defensive/aggressive; or I can simply chalk it up to a misunderstanding.<snip>
Or you could be wrong. :) Basically, your mind has the power to shape your reality, your future, and your life.

I have a saying: FRAME CREATES REALITY. It is the greatest truth I have ever discovered.

I am looking forward to discussing this inspiring and critical aspect of self-improvement in more detail. It is good to be challenged, because it makes you have to express yourself more clearly and intelligently.

Best,
rivelinoTrue dat.

I'd like to welcome you too, by the way. It is intriguing to be able to debate with the author of something we've been discussing.

[rivelino]

Rather than actually being in control of your life, I think you are ceding control to what is essentially a construct in your own mind of what successful people are. As you yourself said, what you think creates your reality. You think you need status and attention to be happy and successful, therefore you do need those things. But the catch is you will never have enough of those things to satisfy you. You will spend your entire life chasing a dream you can't realize. In letting someone else define happiness for you, you're submitting to someone else's rules, man.

You're society's bitch.

And, with all due respect, your mind is fucking you harder than any woman ever could.

Very insightful, and I have to say that I agree with what you wrote. I have sometimes fantasized about moving out of the city and going to live in the countryside. Taking my savings to a small rural town, buying a small house with a big yard, rescuing 10 shelter dogs and just living with them for the rest of my days. Reminds me somewhat of Holden Caufield's desire to go live as a deaf-mute in a small town.

I am indeed society's bitch. I was indoctrinated at a young age to be obsessed with beautiful women. I believe it is a combination of my marketing-oriented personality, my artistic eye, and my lonely and frustrated adolescence.

I am looking for ways to combine my love of nature with my love for beautiful women. I think there is a way.

However, I think you make the same common mistake that many others do, in just saying that we should all think "in terms of humanity" and that there are no games here, only people. I wish that were true. Sadly, we humans love to play games. We love to both collaborate but also compete. And not everyone plays nice. A lot of people play dirty.

I wrote my more-detailed thoughts on this issue here:
http://alpharivelino.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/criticism-of-game/

I need to read more about Nietzsche's Will to Power. I think it explains the world.

[rivelino]

Cat Whisperer:

1. Right. If neither person loses their cool, if both remain calm and assertive, then we have a real debate going. All I said is that the first rule of frame control is don't lose your cool, or you automatically lose. I am still learning other strategies of frame control as it pertains to "winning" an argument, but I do know that a good way is to go beyond the text of the debate, and seek to frame the other person as insecure. I am talking about just in social situations, of course. The Celestine Prophecy talks about this, about calling out the other person's "drama."

2. True, I could be wrong. But as stated in the strategy above, if I say "We've just had a misunderstanding", I am trying to frame you and the other writers on this thread as having misunderstood what I wrote, and me as being the thoughtful, patient, wiser one. See how it works? I am trying to distract the general audience from the actual text of what is being debated. Of course, most people don't fall for that. But imagine I repeat this strategy ten times, and I remain patient and calm and with a subtle hint of condescension. Eventually, you might lose your cool because I am being a phony jerk. But if you lose your cool, I win the debate.

3. Thanks for the welcome. I am a big fan of Cecil Adams. Anyone who challenges conventional wisdom and seeks to find true answers is cool in my book.

[Zeriel]

I'm of the opinion that this is a viral marketing stunt put out by some movie studio.

A feature film is coming out that will pit a "Game" character against a "Rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_rules)" character. The Rules character will likely have one gay friend; the Game character will have a former fratboy friend who is now married, stable, and immersed in fatherhood. The main characters meet via some threadbare contrivance and the movie follows the two as they try and woo and be wooed by each other (initially because of the challenge, eventually because a spark of romance ignites). Much comedy ensues. Amid all the high-jinks, the two will grow to realize that they just want to be loved, that their pretenses were actually alienating them from friends, family, and society in general, and that the empty rewards of the Game/Rules were actually standing in the way of their ultimate happiness.

It's like you were there for my sophomore year of college. Except for the part where she realizes the Rules are sabotaging the relationship.

[msmith537]

The thing is, from the position of someone who studies primates, that website and nearly everyone striving to be 'alpha' in this PUA games have what it means to be an alpha male all wrong. The alpha male is a strong, confident, aggressive guy, but he also can't afford to be a jerk for several reasons:
...
In other words, a good primate alpha is one who is socially astute and clever and often relies on social manipulation rather than overall aggression or posturing.

PUA types focus on creating this facade in order to appear to be "alpha" to strangers. It's all an act engineered to manipulate people into thinking they are more than they are. As olivesmarch4th pointed out, it's not about building lasting relationships. It's about short-term conquests.

[heatmiserfl]

The thing is, from the position of someone who studies primates, that website and nearly everyone striving to be 'alpha' in this PUA games have what it means to be an alpha male all wrong. The alpha male is a strong, confident, aggressive guy, but he also can't afford to be a jerk for several reasons:

One, the females won't tolerate it. Even in the species where males are dominant over females, females have a lot of power, especially when they can join together with other females. Among the capuchins I study, the females will team up together to fight the alpha male if he does something wrong. No matter how strong a potential alpha male is, he can't control the group if he doesn't have support of at least the influential female figures. This doesn't mean that jerks towards females don't get made alpha, just that they also have to suck up to at least certain females in order to maintain their power and occasionally the ones instrumental in their overthrow are female.

Two, the other males won't tolerate it. Like most apes and intelligent monkeys, we are a social species where power isn't captured by brute force but is formed and maintained through alliances. A single jerk can be overthrown by a group of others. In order to maintain his position as an alpha, an alpha male must have support from other males. Sometimes this goes as far as allowing the other males to have privileges he'd rather have for himself. For example, there was a chimp in a zoo who allowed the beta male (the one who's second to him) to have more matings than he took himself in order to hold onto power.

Three, violence and general jerkiness isn't necessarily a good characteristic of a leader, which is what it means to be an alpha. Often the meanest in our groups end up being beta rather than alpha. The alpha has to be socially clever and maintain friendships and social times and, while social cleverness and brute strength/meanness aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it's rare to find an individual who is maxed in both aspects. As I said before, what we often find is the alpha and his beta 'enforcer'.

Finally, I had a chance to 'meet' the individual who was the longest running alpha male in animal history with a reign of at least 19 years. He was a very socially astute kind monkey who groomed everyone (normally alphas receive grooming rather than do it themselves) and built up an army of males who were incredibly loyal to him because he was generous with his favors. He was a tough monkey to be sure, and he socially manipulated the males in his group so they never could team up together against him, but he wasn't the biggest monkey or the strongest monkey I've seen. Eventually he was overthrown, but only after a long reign, as the average capuchin lifespan is estimated to be about 40-50 years, and they don't reach sexual maturity until about 7 years.

In other words, a good primate alpha is one who is socially astute and clever and often relies on social manipulation rather than overall aggression or posturing.

Enjoyable post. Thanks for sharing.

[olivesmarch4th]

Very insightful, and I have to say that I agree with what you wrote. I have sometimes fantasized about moving out of the city and going to live in the countryside. Taking my savings to a small rural town, buying a small house with a big yard, rescuing 10 shelter dogs and just living with them for the rest of my days. Reminds me somewhat of Holden Caufield's desire to go live as a deaf-mute in a small town.

<snip>

However, I think you make the same common mistake that many others do, in just saying that we should all think "in terms of humanity" and that there are no games here, only people. I wish that were true. Sadly, we humans love to play games. We love to both collaborate but also compete. And not everyone plays nice. A lot of people play dirty.
I think you, like any of us, have a choice whether you are going to transcend your conditioning or not. I was conditioned to believe all sorts of ideas about the way the world works and who I am - and I have consciously identified and rejected every single one of them because they do not serve me. Your fantasies can tell you a lot about what you value deep down inside. I'm not saying you have to move into the country (though you certainly can if you really want to), but you can use that vision as a guide for the decisions you make.

You are correct that some people do play games. I imagine if you do work at a law firm in a major city, you are surrounded by a culture of values that encourages that. It's not the only world there is. There are a lot of people out there that don't buy into it, that don't look at every social interaction as a chance to show off.

Even if you have to pay lip service to that shit at your job doesn't mean you have to put up with it in your personal life. It's exhausting enough as a professional - do you really want to deal with that at home? Don't you want a place where you can just be yourself and be vulnerable or happy or arrogant or sad or whatever it is you happen to be in that moment? Because if you try to attract a partner by denigrating and devaluing her, you're going to end up with someone who resents you and plays games too, and you won't feel safe in your own home. It will be a constant game of manipulation with no space to just exist. I cant imagine living life like that. It sounds like hell.

I think you are in the middle of this process, and I think you will work it out. Maybe you've lived most of your life as a doormat. Sometimes it's necessary for us to swing to the opposite extreme before we can find our center. I just hope you realize you are operating at an extreme, here. You seem like a philosophical-minded person, so I will recommend to you my favorite movie, I Heart Huckabees. It's a comedy about existentialism and has a little something for everyone. I think you might recognize yourself in one of the characters.

I need to read more about Nietzsche's Will to Power. I think it explains the world.
If I were you, and speaking as someone who read this book in a formal academic setting, I would work very hard to make sure you understand Will to Power in the full context of the rest of Nietzsche's body of work. Also understand that it was unfinished at the time of his mental collapse in 1889 and heavily edited by his abusive anti-Semitic sister Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche, who used the work as Nazi propaganda. There has been speculation that many sections of Will to Power weren't even written by Nietzsche.

Also keep in mind that Nietzsche was not a happy person and never really was. He was almost certainly bipolar. And, as I mentioned earlier, he got no ass he didn't pay for and died of syphilis. Which isn't to say one can't profit tremendously from his ideas -- I certainly have. But take everything he says with a grain of salt, man. He wasn't exactly a master of his own destiny.

If you want a more constructive look at the problem of suffering, try Viktor Frankl's memoir Man's Search for Meaning. He could tell you all about how badly men want to dominate and denigrate others; he lived through the Holocaust. He decided to use his experience in the service of others, working as a psychologist in the concentration camps and collecting data about how people survived the experience. The key had to do with your idea of narrative, particularly the construction of meaning. Ultimately he did achieve great professional success -- not only because he survived with his soul intact, but because he used his experiences in the interest of the greater good. This is the true alpha male, and Frankl puts the lie to the myth (and it absolutely is a myth) that you have to play games to get ahead in life.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
2. True, I could be wrong. But as stated in the strategy above, if I say "We've just had a misunderstanding", I am trying to frame you and the other writers on this thread as having misunderstood what I wrote, and me as being the thoughtful, patient, wiser one. See how it works? I am trying to distract the general audience from the actual text of what is being debated. Of course, most people don't fall for that. But imagine I repeat this strategy ten times, and I remain patient and calm and with a subtle hint of condescension. Eventually, you might lose your cool because I am being a phony jerk. But if you lose your cool, I win the debate.<snip>
If you repeated the same thing ten times, I'd walk away from you in real life, or just stop responding to you and move on online. If you think that means you won the debate, you are more than welcome to think so. :)

[AClockworkMelon]

If you repeated the same thing ten times, I'd walk away from you in real life, or just stop responding to you and move on online. If you think that means you won the debate, you are more than welcome to think so. :)Well, if his game works, it works. Only he can tell us if it does or not.

[Cat Whisperer]

If his game is making people stop interacting with him, it would work beautifully for me. Come to think of it, I would like people to go away sometimes - might have to incorporate some of his techniques. :)

[Chessic Sense]

.1. Right. If neither person loses their cool, if both remain calm and assertive, then we have a real debate going. All I said is that the first rule of frame control is don't lose your cool, or you automatically lose. I am still learning other strategies of frame control as it pertains to "winning" an argument, but I do know that a good way is to go beyond the text of the debate, and seek to frame the other person as insecure. I am talking about just in social situations, of course. The Celestine Prophecy talks about this, about calling out the other person's "drama."

2. True, I could be wrong. But as stated in the strategy above, if I say "We've just had a misunderstanding", I am trying to frame you and the other writers on this thread as having misunderstood what I wrote, and me as being the thoughtful, patient, wiser one. See how it works? I am trying to distract the general audience from the actual text of what is being debated. Of course, most people don't fall for that. But imagine I repeat this strategy ten times, and I remain patient and calm and with a subtle hint of condescension. Eventually, you might lose your cool because I am being a phony jerk. But if you lose your cool, I win the debate.If you repeated the same thing ten times, I'd walk away from you in real life, or just stop responding to you and move on online. If you think that means you won the debate, you are more than welcome to think so. :)

Precisely. 1 is almost certainly false. To win an argument, you have to get the audience to side with you. I'm just going to assert that as the definition of "winning". If your strategy is to act like an obtuse, condescending jerk, then you'll lose the audience. They'll beg your opponent to lose his cool so that they can vicariously vent their outrage. Have you ever watched a presidential debate and wished you could jump through the TV, onto the stage, to call out the "other guy" on some lie? Don't you instead with "your guy" would call him a stupid dolt to his face?

If you assume that making your opponent lose his cool will automatically win you the audience, you're wrong. He can get pissed off once you've pissed off the audience and he'll walk away with the win. You can wear a smug smirk and say you won if you want, but I guarantee you that you've just surrendered all power to the other guy.

I just don't see how you can think that pissing off people and making them walk away from you makes for good politics.

[RTFirefly]

I bet it works at home, too, though. And I bet it doesn't work nearly so well at home. What of it?

[msmith537]

I am indeed society's bitch. I was indoctrinated at a young age to be obsessed with beautiful women. I believe it is a combination of my marketing-oriented personality, my artistic eye, and my lonely and frustrated adolescence.


Or, more likely, a side effect of being born with a penis.


1. Right. If neither person loses their cool, if both remain calm and assertive, then we have a real debate going. All I said is that the first rule of frame control is don't lose your cool, or you automatically lose. I am still learning other strategies of frame control as it pertains to "winning" an argument, but I do know that a good way is to go beyond the text of the debate, and seek to frame the other person as insecure. I am talking about just in social situations, of course. The Celestine Prophecy talks about this, about calling out the other person's "drama."

2. True, I could be wrong. But as stated in the strategy above, if I say "We've just had a misunderstanding", I am trying to frame you and the other writers on this thread as having misunderstood what I wrote, and me as being the thoughtful, patient, wiser one. See how it works? I am trying to distract the general audience from the actual text of what is being debated. Of course, most people don't fall for that. But imagine I repeat this strategy ten times, and I remain patient and calm and with a subtle hint of condescension. Eventually, you might lose your cool because I am being a phony jerk. But if you lose your cool, I win the debate.


I don't follow what your actual goal is here. Real life is not a debating contest. Typically in our interactions with other people, we generally want something. A girls number, people's companionship, a job offer, a potential client to give us his business, your subordinates to perform a task as well as they can. You don't "win" anything by annoying them or inciting them to lose their cool or by being a selfish prick.

The way you "become alpha" is to present yourself to others in a way that implies the promise of fulfilling some need or desire - recognition, social acceptance, status, strong decisive direction, protection, solution to some problem they have, whatever.

[kanicbird]

They have some interesting realizations, some of which I feel described the human condition, other part not so much, but IMHO unfortunately much closer to the reality then what is commonly though of. Yes men in submission to others are basically sub human, not that they were intended to be, but that's how they are treated, and they have limited access to others, which is limited access to love.

[Vinyl Turnip]

They have some interesting realizations, some of which I feel described the human condition, other part not so much, but IMHO unfortunately much closer to the reality then what is commonly though of. Yes men in submission to others are basically sub human, not that they were intended to be, but that's how they are treated, and they have limited access to others, which is limited access to love.

Be honest--- you assemble all of your posts using those refrigerator magnets with words printed on them, don't you?

[Cat Whisperer]

That would explain a lot.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The sad thing is, there are A LOT of guys out there like this.

And they all end up coming to western China...their despicable actions do indeed translate into nearly infinite sex. The bad guys win.

Is it simply that those guys go to Western China or is it that once there, a lot of guys realize that they can be assholes and still get infinite sex? I presume that the non-asshole westerners in western China also get nearly infinite sex if they want to.

Problem is, most women that say this aren't out there fighting the good fight, aka laying milquetoast nice guys. So naturally, the bad boys keep winning. In these women's perfect world, it wouldn't be the bad guys getting laid, it'd be NO ONE getting laid. It's a simple fact that when you're mean to women, they want you. No one wants to ride the lamb, they want to ride the bull. If you really want to change that, go lay a geek. Frequently.

Most women I know are going out with pretty decent guys. Here are a few rules for getting laid:

Figure out who you are. Nothing is more attractive in a young man than knowing who you are.

Be really good at something, anything and failing that be passionate about something.

Have a lot of friends of the same gender, it makes you seem more male.

Don't let sex be the only reason you are talking to a woman, women can sense this and it puts them on the defensive.

Don't be obnoxious but don't be shy around women.

If a woman is little more than a life support system for a vagina to you, then you might as well be paying a prostitute because, you would get what you want without emotionally screwing up every woman you date.

When you are mean to SOME women, they want you. By their mid-twenties, most women don't really want to date assholes unless they are rich assholes.

It's basically my understanding that women appear genetically prone to be attracted to high status men, just as men typically want to be high status. What appears much less hard wired is the definition of "high status*". So I regard abusive jerks and the women who go out with abusive jerks because they find them attractive** to be gender swapped mirror images, in essence. The men who think being a thug or jerk is the apex of manhood, and the women who agree. So if it's those particular women you want, then yes probably the only way to get them is to be (or fake being) the thug they lust after.

Yes!

Or, you can just find women who have better taste in men. The sort of women whose definition of "high status, desirable male" is something like "smart", "devoted to me", "polite", or whatever qualities you have instead of being a thug. Personally, I don't want some woman who's looking for a man who pushes her around; I find women like that creepy.{/quote]

YES!!!

[quote]* An interesting example of this; I understand that according to the psychologists one effective means of making women attracted to you, is to impress men. Even if the typical woman thinks that a man is being a fool by being a daredevil, skydiving or whatever, if she sees men acting all impressed by what he's doing, that will tend to make him attractive to her. Because after all, there's not really any better indicator of being a high status male, than having actual high status among males.

YYYYYEEEEEESSSSS!!!

[Bosstone]

Tissue?

[Chessic Sense]

Most women I know are going out with pretty decent guys. Here are a few rules for getting laid:

Figure out who you are. Nothing is more attractive in a young man than knowing who you are.

Be really good at something, anything and failing that be passionate about something.

Have a lot of friends of the same gender, it makes you seem more male.

Don't let sex be the only reason you are talking to a woman, women can sense this and it puts them on the defensive.

Don't be obnoxious but don't be shy around women.

If a woman is little more than a life support system for a vagina to you, then you might as well be paying a prostitute because, you would get what you want without emotionally screwing up every woman you date.

When you are mean to SOME women, they want you. By their mid-twenties, most women don't really want to date assholes unless they are rich assholes.

You, too, seem to be confusing picking up women with dating. "Emotionally screwing up every woman you date"? "Don't really want to date assholes"? Who said anything about dating?