Friday, August 8, 2014

How To Pick Up Women, Part 2

Succeeding How To Pick Up Women.

We're going to go on with this series, but first, I wanted to bring Tupac back one more time to slap Aurini right out of his matching sweater-vest/bra combo. Lyrics under vid. With that done, we'll go into the second and third components of the analysis, as promised:
Secondly, we're going to discuss how this phenomenon of "how to pick up women" is not exclusive to women, nor to this time period on Earth. The "Game" people live in this strange temporal vortex where they both think that they're forging ahead in undiscovered territory, yet simultaneously rediscovering 1950s-style manliness techniques from the good times before feminism. They're doing neither, and when we look at this area, we'll get something that, if you're already smart enough to understand what "Game" is, provides more value to this discussion. The reason these "Game" dunces are worth paying so much attention to is that they fractally exemplify other insulated communities of narcissistic gluttons, and we'll see some crossovers to economics, political science, and other dangerous isms.

Thirdly, once we've established how internally broken the whole "Game" thing is, and how it really has nothing to do with "women" and nothing to say about chromosomes or hormones or whatever, we'll look at what it does speak to.

White Boi Game Overview

The Alpha/Game/PUA cultural movement rests its conclusions on biological differences between men and women. Yes, there are such differences, and yes, a portion of their foundational biology arguments are correct, or sort of correct (We'll go into that later, just in case there's anyone left who doesn't yet hate this one). For the time being, we're going to look at the "proofs" of the correctness of their theory.

Now, these are not scientific proofs we're talking about. They are a hodgepodge of personal anecdotes, "everybody knows"-style observations, and the occasional artificial environment psychology test, like the one discussed at the beginning of Part 1 of this series. All these things lead them to conclude that women are hypergamous, i.e., driven by a primary need to marry for status. All of their pickup stuff--the whole "Game" and "red pill" and "Alpha" crap that they are talking about--is based on learning how to manifest behaviors that will make women draw conclusions about them, which conclusions will be more likely to lead to the provisioning of desired behaviors, say, sex or a relationship commitment. In short, they think the biological fundamentals of womankind cause them to want "Alpha" men, for excitement at certain ages, followed by "Beta" men, for money and security at certain ages.

However un-scientifically demonstrated and un-proven their dating advice, much of it is correct. Unlike the sex tips in Cosmopolitan, the general theme of "Game" was practical, and worked well for a long period of time (until, arguably, it became so popular that bar- and club-hopping women began reading the same drivel as men, and began to engage in an arms race of trying to out-figure-out who was saying what and why). The central tenet of "Game" is to appear to be this exciting "Alpha" guy, by acting confident, which for a man really means, "act like an aloof asshole who doesn't really care much about women so that women think you are so cool that you could get other women at will, which will make them think you are better than they are and make them want to sleep with you." And there are all sorts of cute little things you can do and say to achieve that.

There are millions of anecdotal arguments to be had about whether or not that kind of behavior gets a guy more women than otherwise. Thankfully, we don't have to have them, because other source material validates "Game" more effectively than any of these guys' stories about banging a new co-ed every month (which co-eds, of course, were completely ignoring the nice guys on campus who tried to be sensitive and caring and appeal to their emotions).

Before we talk about what PUA behaviors really are, and why and how they work, we'll completely and utterly demolish the biological argument.

Not Exclusive To Women

The PUA people, as mentioned before, rest their arguments on biology. Based on a man's and a woman's essential characteristics, yada yada, acting like an asshole gets you pussy. Surprise surprise, though--PUA techniques work just as well on men, women, and everything else in between. What do they work on?

Twinks. What's a twink? A (theoretically) attractive, slender, generally younger and smaller, probably-shaved gay man, who may or may not be effeminate. The same kind of dynamic that develops between western men and women in corporate socializing spots also applies to western men and men. If you're not much into this, think about stereotypical "tops" and "bottoms" in gay male relationships.

Twinks get to do all the stuff that women do in bars. They get let in easier. They can be loud and boisterous without getting thrown out. They have to be approached--they don't do the approaching themselves. They hang out in clusters, dangling on their skinny friends' arms and torsos and waiting for larger or more muscular gay men to hit on them (for a really over-simplified example, think of "bears" as an opposite of "twinks"). They get bought drinks, respond to flirting with giggles and effeminate gestures if they like it, or use freeze-outs if they don't.

Aaaaand, just like the standard conception of western club-going women, they're "sluts." They sleep around, gossip, break relationships for dramatic reasons...and you get the best responses from them by appearing to be "of higher value." Being aloof, a little condescending, and talking about your high-paying job gets you farther, with twinks, than telling them how much you feel you could "care" about them.

The same pattern holds on internet dating sites, where (with certain age-based limitations, of course, just like in M/F dating scenarios) twinks are expected to post alluring or racy pictures of themselves, after which they'll get hundreds of interested messages from "tops," while the tops create an account and get no one interested in them, because everyone (even some of the twinks) is pursuing the other twinks.

Why is this? Is it because twinks are low testosterone, almost women-like creatures? No, not really--plenty of them can dress up in their work clothes and you'd never know, and testosterone/estrogen testing (and other crap like that) has shown such erratic correlations, or no correlations at all, between brain chemistry and stages of gayness that the predestination people are now theorizing about chemicals in-utero, which hasn't been tested well yet (and would be lavishly impossible to properly do anyway, as it would involve random samplings, unnecessary needles, and the grown-up subjects being 100% honest with themselves and with researchers about their private and potentially subconscious thoughts).

Traps. (Passable transvestites who don't necessarily provide full disclosure ahead of time) Without low-T. Pre-hormones. Pre-op or no-op. Nothing different but clothes and makeup and mannerisms: same dynamic.

Transsexuals, too. Transsexuals don't all (or most) enjoy being called "traps," but the same patterns as in M/F picking-up occur. More traditionally attractive and/or subservient-minded transsexuals can advertise identity, then expect to be approached and won over by the bourgeois-Game-community's equivalent genderqueer and/or just-playing class of partner--be it a straight man taking his first dive into the forbidden, or just another crossdresser who felt like being in a different role that night. The dynamic runs from the gay bar to the hiking club to the online dating site.

Mimicking Women

There's an argument there that all of these people are just mimicking women. I.e., "Women are biologically predestined to behave this way, therefore, little gay dudes trying to score will mimic women to capitalize on social preconceptions of idealized behavior." Cute, but here are three definitive arguments that take that argument to the mat and pound it bloody:

Broke Straight Boys.

Bait Bus.

Gay Porn Bus.

That's right: muscles. Hairy chests. Receding hairlines. Thick brows, heavy chins, broad shoulders, and solid noses. Sometimes even fortyish. The dynamic hits the bourgeois "players" right in the crotch, as so many brawny dudes--so many testosterone-laden, weight-lifting, financially-successful men--have the same "assertive" and "dominating" fantasies about the non-feminine aspects. The Alpha players in this game use similar tricks to lure marks in to get what they want. Twinks and traps can be accused of imitating women, but the gay actors who pretend to be straight to get taken advantage of for the fantasies of other men are revealing this to be a systematic pattern of behavior which has absolutely nothing to do with biological male/female differences.

Depending on the social petri dish, bounded by availability, the same dynamic settles in. Take prison, for example--how many hotties do you find in the male lifers block? And yet, American prisons and their associated horror stories, and their "bitch"-making sexual dynamics, even when people are trying desperately not to be a bitch. Still happens, and similar versions of posturing produce similar social adjustments.

Masochists. The straight, pudgy, balding, high-testosterone men who want to be dominated by a woman fall into similar dynamics. The person they want to be dominated by is not coming up to them, being cheerful and caring, and talking about how it is their utmost desire to appeal to the man's fantasies. Instead, the good dominatrix is commanding and aloof--giving off an aura that she could care less, which the masochist finds appealing. Similar patterns spill over into other BSDM play, regardless of sex or orientation. Again, the role the person adopts--buyer or seller, top or bottom--defines the behaviors expected on either side. Not chromosome. Not hormone. Not education level.

(There's certainly a class aspect, but like the way we play with classes, it's filling an underlying emotional pattern that exerts a stronger pull than the details of the ritual which expresses the pattern.)


Hypergamy is about women marrying into higher social classes, right? So does it really need to be said that it could only exist in a society which establishes social classes? As the vernacular response goes, "Duh."

All of the pickup artistry in the world is merely a rephrasing of the same crap that drives the rest of inner American society: marketing. Formalized lying, bullying, tricking, implying, condescending: all of these things, which teach us how to trick someone into buying our product at a higher price, are finding their sociosexual expression in "Game." That's why it works. That's why westerners are so heavily programmed to be led around by it--even if they're wealthy, powerful, 48-year-old Alpha fathers, who have banged dozens of cheerleaders and secretaries, but who want to catch the attentions of a rude, distant dominatrix.

The techniques that these PUA guys are using to get women work--they work on women and men, both, depending on who's playing buyer and who's playing seller. They work the same as product and political marketing work on everyone, men and women.

Car Dealership

Approach. Say something quick and witty. Ask a question that will get a "yes" response to accustom the person to saying yes. Mention how well your model is selling these days. By careful, yet insistent increments, focus the conversation on first looking at cars, then test driving, then going somewhere together to talk closing the deal. If she walks, get right back up and try again. Approach. Say something quick and...

As in the case of capitalism, bourgeois players are the whiniest people of all, demanding that social marketplaces with certain conditions be set up, and that they then be rewarded for playing by rules--completely arbitrary, artificial rules imposed by an authority that takes individualist competition as the given nature of the universe. Women are not actually hypergamous by their biological natures. Absent these societies, women would be (actually, not vocally) interested in men who were hot, or caring, or supportive, or thoughtful--not men who were aloof. Not men who pointed out something negative about them to make them feel a need to "prove" themselves, or by men who appeared disinterested (because, in theory, they had so many other fuckable prospects that they didn't need to focus on the one they approached). In the Ayn Rand fantasy of these hypercapitalist loons, the sexual dynamics between men and women in a club in Toronto, 2014 A.D., are the same as between men and women in Serengeti, 2014 B.C. Just like capitalists (just like themselves, since the same errors lead down that road), they beg the question, establish a highly complex set of rules that takes years to assimilate, take those rules for granted, then extrapolate information from the results and conclude that it was always thus. And like most capitalists, they are unoriginal thieves, which is why they stole a better-branded term for their movement, transposed Randian schtick (sic) into their many new books, then took pride in their creation.

Image. Popularity. Appears to be busy and have a lot of other friends. Think about the President, a.k.a. the Marketer-in-Chief. He sweeps into the room in a nine thousand dollar suit, he says a few forceful, direct things, then he answers a few questions, and then he gets the hell out of there. "Fireside Chats" are long past--we are most moved by people who are too busy for us. People who tell us that they have secret information, which we're not smart enough to understand, so they'll just make the decisions for us, okay? And so, we bomb Serbia and swallow chemo pills and sign here and initial here, because it's not the business of our pretty little heads to understand all the big, tough things that make the world work.

Put the politics aside, though. Go back to things like car dealerships. Salesmen know--business classes openly teach--that posturing and image are more important than the product itself. Even when it's only a washing machine, that pivotal moment where someone decides to go home with you depends more on the salesman watching you, and the crap he said, than the dollars and functionality involved. The image of the company's "reliability," driven by self-interested ads, consistently overpowers actual data, to the point that no data need even be collected so long as enough is spent on advertising. If something has a funky name, it becomes a more popular search engine than something with better programming. If something is thought of as "rich" or "pervasive" or "aloof," it works. People consistently give business to companies that put them on 30 minute holds to speak to a powerless customer-service rep in India, for the same reason that 19-year-old bourgeois American club-hopping women get excited by beefy 32-year-old jerks in sports coats who appear to be popular, and who will dick her a few times and then delete her number and search for someone new, rather than one of their classmates who would be enchanted by the idea of bringing her chocolates every day forever. It does happen, to the delight of the pickup guys, just like young men get mocked about their independence in order to coerce them into signing a sales order for a manly truck that they don't need (and which will make them feel sick for 7 months before it gets repossessed when their payments fail).

Mr. Plow:
Homer imagines plowing through the crowd. Back in reality, Homer realizes he can't afford to buy it, but the salesman tells him he could use the plow itself to make money by plowing driveways.

Homer: Well, I really should discuss this with my wife.
Salesman: [scoffs] Your wife? [cracks an imaginary whip]
Homer: What, you think I'm going to buy a $20,000 truck just because you make that noise?
Salesman: [does it again] [and again] [and again]
Homer: [on his knees] I'll take it!

For hundreds of years, we've been raised on the sense of powerlessness, taught that giant, impassive, cruel, uncaring entities are, in fact, our saviors--and constantly cozened to by peacocking corporate mascots, who press home the message of "buy" while simultaneously demonstrating, through their behavior, that they really couldn't care less about the entire world, including us. It effects everyone, which is why these "alpha" guys buy so many penis-lengthening products, muscle supplements, testosterone creams, and books about how to pick up women: the guys selling that kind of idea on the internet are well-positioned, by their rude posturing, to make real money off of the same hopeful teenagers that are buying other capitalist stuff.

Welcome back to evolution. If this stuff is all the result of the natural selection of random genetic mutations, then this is the best way things can be. We're in the playground of Pangloss, where women really are conniving, hypergamous bitches who need to be tricked into bed, then managed for the long term if you don't dump them, just like ignorant citizens who need to be tricked into voting and then managed for the long term if you don't dump them. The strategy is correct, just like marketing is "correct," in that it works on people already infected by this western wonderland of lying and killing. It's incorrect in that it's a recent artificial construct by a bunch of very sick people who think their current playtime rules are the Way Things Are.


  1. Some of the early anthropologists have some good work on mating relationships in primitive tribes, and typically they involved some version of guys having to impress the ladies and their families by excelling in some socially worthy pursuit as whole persons.

    Not too different, and not too bad, is the patriarchal reaction found in the bibile etc. which still insists that women should dispense their favours upon those who are worthy. (Relationships between the sexes were already going downhill with the first civilizations)

    Subtle, but nevertheless huge difference from the contemporary situation - "i'v got money and power, bitch" (i.e. I don't have to be an excellent human anymore, I'll just buy).

    1. Money and power aren't actually what the Alpha thing is about. There are plenty of comparatively wealthy guys who completely fail, just because they fail to "demonstrate high value." (The PUA dudes talk about how even Bill Gates had to work hard to get Melinda.)

      When they say "Alpha," they mean Alpha in an actions sense, rather than in a social-power sense. A guy who acts properly, and makes $44K a year, gets more pussy than a guy who is caring and thoughtful, and who makes $350K a year. So it's not really a power dynamic, but the illusion of a power dynamic. Female targets in this "Game," like voters in political scenarios, are not rational actors in the pursuit of self interest, but instead, moved by emotional considerations and a shamed-in need to prove themselves.

  2. So, why not just rely on hookers instead then? The cost would be approximately the same, and would not require any of this, it seems exhausting, scheming.

    Some of the PUA techniques contain a kernel of truth. A guy that appears too thoughtful might, in fact, not have his act together. This is of course arbitrary, and being maladjusted to a sick system is no vice, but I can see why even a thoughtful, sane woman would stay away, and err on the side of the seemingly more secure dude.

    There was one PhD dissertation that made the plausible, though unproveable, claim that the reason why the rates of reporting of domestic violence in some countries are low is that these also tend to be countries with poor social security safety net and poor quality of services. In such countries women adjust to these problems by pursuing more brutal men than what ladies in safer countries would choose. Of course, the same ruthlessness that may enable a guy to better survive in a screwed up country is also a predictor of higher likelihood of domestic violence. So, basically, the claim goes, a woman in such a situation is more likely to think carefully if the domestic violence incident is worth reporting (considering this would also mean the likely loss of the security or illusion thereof that the same brutality provides in such a context)

    1. Escorts will make the point--potentially affected by self-interest, but still correct--that it's much cheaper to use them than to "keep" a woman. If the goal is just sex and/or some kind of validating "companionship," then the both short-term and long-term math wins out on the side of professionals. Dating costs and gifts in the short term are cheaper than escorts, but if you factor in time consumption, escorts are a small win. In the long term, escorts are a massive win--buying a few hours a week is cheaper than housing, feeding, insuring, and otherwise maintaining a "full-time" sexual companion, who is then not required to make him/herself appealing or available to you, anyway.

      Reading people based on their openness is "true" inside this sick fantasy, but wrong everywhere else. Yeah, guys who text too fast or seem too eager are more likely to be more "in need" of companionship--but another of the things making the "Alpha" designation so stupid is that emotionally needy guys may be built 26 year old doctors making a lot of money and destined to retire at 50 as multi-millionaires, still running triathlons or lifting heavy weights at the gym.

      And women will reject those guys based on social convention, while instead inviting in 33 year old office workers who make $47K a year and are destined for a life of struggling to keep things afloat in-between Social Security checks, beer bellies and chips.

      These PUA guys like to call themselves "Alphas," even when they would get beaten up by, outearned, and outsmarted in every other way by plenty of men whom they are more successful than in the realm of getting dates. It even helps out these guys if they are infertile!

      Unlike, say, the strongest gorilla in the jungle, this version of "Alpha" has nothing to do with either old-fashioned or modern survivability. It is, rather, a refuge solely for lying and conning, which can survive only in a diseased society like this one--a society based on lies, rather than strength or survivability.

  3. This sound presentation also makes some assumptions about women that are not necessarily true. What about the "Madame Bovary" problem?

    What if many women find the life with the successful, buff, bourgeois doctor so stupefyingly depressing, that are willing to hang out with the PUA jerk just for a chance of some troubled intensity - even if it is all a complete lie and illusion? So, the nice guys still have a real problem by being the other side of the same oppressive coin.

    1. Yes, it's a "most" generality. Some people might still like to be treated brusquely just because that's their preference. What we view as "excitement" is things against our self-interest, because our culture is so emotionally distant, boring, and stifling. So, in pursuit of thrills, we go to the casino and blow a lot of money, or relate poorly, or buy an expensive car we know we'll regret, or go somewhere dangerous, et cetera.

      In a different society, where we were generally engaged, the bulk of us wouldn't need to do negative things to fill those voids.

    2. Side example--I know a guy who has a high-paying, soulless corporate job, who looks enviously at men on State highway crews, because he thinks it looks so nice to be out in the open air. Even after explaining all it to him, he still feels that way.

      Car exhaust, smog, weather, minuscule pay, physical injury, hearing loss, frequent seasonal work stoppage--still, he has these fantasies of quitting his job and "joining a road crew." Barring other social constraints, he might actually do it.

      Now, being on a road crew is often miserable, damaging work, but the "being outside" and "sense of freedom" remain appealing concepts to some people stuck in cubicle hell.

      Absent the cubicle hell, the fancy to walk around operating scrapers all day would vanish immediately in most people.

  4. Looking for the Ultimate Dating Website? Join and find your perfect match.

    1. Hello, archaeologists of the future. Yes, it was hell.