A Rare Moment of Sympathy for the Perenially Vulnerable Feminist

I’ve practiced game with varying levels of consistency for over 10 years, since I discovered mASF at the age of 16. As a casual reader can probably tell, I oscillate between absolute extremes of rational, critical “man thinking” and a high level of intuitive, spontaneous social intelligence. It’s difficult to operate on both levels at the same time, so I go through long periods of each and probably write more from the former side than the latter. I can confidently say, however, that there is an absolute peak of seduction, and that it arises from applied intuition more than any set of rules.

During my game phases, I’ve run the full gamut – I’ve laid through MM, laid through Corvette and Cozy, internalized a million “inner game” belief systems, and kept a harem at beck and call through Roissyite Dark Triad manipulation. The times when I was happiest and most successful, however – when I could walk down the street and girls would open me, when the female gender seemed to have an innate curiosity about who I was, and I knew down to my core that I was a high-value playboy and not a desperate keyboard jockey tricking women into my bed- were when I applied intuition in a way that actually offered something real to the girls I dealt with.

Not “value” or “attention” or “my time, which is priceless because I’m so alpha I shouldn’t even be talking to you.” When I say applied intuition, I mean paying close attention in conversation to glean major personality traits from minor suggestions in the girls I spoke with. Why does she apologize for herself? Why is she stand-offish? Why does she need attention? There are millions of players in every generation, but the greatest seducers in history share a single trait – the ability to figure out what a woman needs and give it to her. Casanova, Don Juan, D’Anunzio, Clinton, they all had it. A woman will forgive anything in a man she loves, and the greater the gift he gives her, the more she will love him. If there are a million men in a room, 90% will offer her money, and 10% will offer her status, and almost nobody will fulfill her. This is the man she will never leave. This is what you need to do.

This is nowhere near the task it sounds like. You can tell how forthcoming someone is with details of their private life. You can sense when someone has dealt with rejection in their life. You can sense when someone never had a man to turn to. Everyone has a subconscious assumption of how much people like or dislike them — whether strangers are friends or threats.  Go through enough girls, go through enough people, and you begin to sense their dreams and longings. Some need control more than others, and you can tell them it’s okay to chill the fuck out. Some need affection, and you can give it to them. Most people are living in a world where they aren’t treated the way they think they deserve to be. All they’re looking for is someone who understands them.

Think about how hard it is to do all the shit people do for women, and how easy it is to understand another person if you put in an ounce of effort. If you’re good enough to deduce a girl’s vulnerabilities, you’re good enough to give her the cure – and that’s called being a lover. I hear people talk about lovers and providers, and they don’t know shit about love. The average man capitulates to a woman’s demands, the average PUA refuses, and the lover sees them for what they are: insecurities and a point of access. A window into their soul that you can slide through, where nobody else has.

The story of history is already written: civilization will not survive feminism, and the savage new order will create social upheaval and psychologically ravaged citizens. Feminists are wrong, but they are wrong for a reason. It is a psychological defense mechanism against the painful realities of life after the nuclear family. It is no secret to anyone with a three digit I.Q. that feminists are created in the absence of strong father figures, and I’ve detailed below the anxiety, insecurity, and desperate need for validation internalized by children thus raised. How long can you go without someone to turn to? Sooner or later you’re going to pick up the axe yourself.

In a world without fathers, men don’t learn how to lead. More importantly, though, women don’t learn how to follow. They learn how to grow into an emotionally oppressive mother, though, and how to fear the loss of control. How to distrust independent men, and do whatever they can to limit male autonomy. Lurking beneath this impulse is the fear of rejection and the steadfast belief that nobody will validate them unless they validate themselves. Or as I’ve said elsewhere, “Most of the women who say ‘I don’t need a man’ were never really given the option in the first place.”

So try to impose your set of rules on whoever you want to, governing the behaviors of society at large. But all these behaviors arise from legitimate feelings, and even if you passed the laws, won the court cases, got custody, whatever – the feminists would still feel the way they feel now, and that means the problem’s still there. The basic facts remain: you can only seek approval so many times from one man before finally telling him to fuck off, and 40 years ago, America’s women made a decision to do just that. If you want women to be comfortable seeking validation from you, you’ve got to be willing to validate. Understand it as rationalization, understand the feelings behind it, ignore the symptoms and treat the disease. Look her in the eye and say, “Shut up, Daddy’s here.”

Traits That Inflame The Ovulating Woman: A Bullet Point List of How To Act

Dry science in this post – scroll down to the Conclusions if you need immediate results:

Differences in both genetics and environment call for changes in personal mating strategy. Minor variations are as numerous as the number of men on Earth, but the broadest categories divide them into strategies of the short and long term. The former strategy broadly includes low paternity investment, high rate, r-selection approaches, in which sex is committed casually with little involvement in child-rearing; the latter refers to high paternity certainty, low rate, k-selection strategies in which the potential benefits of sex are more carefully scrutinized before engagement and children are more heavily invested in after conception. Different cultures encourage or forbid certain strategies, but there is a huge degree of variability between the preferences of individuals.

Where women differ significantly from men is in the fact that their mate preferences change cyclically. Not all mammals menstruate, but all have an estrus cycle of hormonal fluctuation, whereby a woman’s mating strategy changes at different times of the month. Enough has been written about that in the past, much of it oversimplified into a man-o-model wherein women seek alphas to mate with and betas to exploit. The reality is a bit more complex. Suffice it to say, it is fair to posit that women ordinarily seek long-term mates under ordinary circumstances and revert to a short-term strategy when menstruating.

Gangestad has done a great deal of good work on this phenomenon, much of it with his colleague Randy Thornhill. In the denser material, they confirm your suspicions that fertile women are, in fact, attracted to the scent of men with low functional asymmetry. Low FA (a symmetrical body) has been proven elsewhere as the telltale sign of developmental stability, which is itself a barometer of how diligent one is about rebuffing genetic and environmental stress during development.

That fertile women are more interested in low FA during times of fertility certainly proves their interest in obtaining good sperm. Whether this equates to a concurrent interest in alpha-like behavior, as it is defined by the sphere, is up for debate. Fortunately, Gangestad offers up a study that evaluates the interests of fertile females based on behavior, and not just scent, in Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle.

CONCLUSIONS:

In general, their findings are supportive of the manosphere ideology. At the period of highest “conception risk”, the women were significantly more likely to choose a short-term mate who exhibited Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness. Here is a list of the traits selected for and against in the female quest for SP/DIC:

Social Presence is:

Composure (Appearing laid back and unflappable)
Appearance of Athleticism (Including specifically mentioning athleticism)
Maintaining Eye Contact

NOT Self-Deprecation (Displayed self-deprecation and contradicted oneself)
NOT Downward Gaze
NOT Nice Guy Self-Presentation (Assert niceness, claim communality with interviewer, and ensure a good time)

Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness is:

Derogation of Competitors (Talking about self and putting down competitors)
Direct Intrasexual Competition (Asserting superiority and using direct approaches)
Lack of Laughing

NOT “Just Being Self”
NOT Mentioning A Nice Personality (Emphasize a good personality and being a nice guy, treating women well, and being romantic)

Science has spoken. All in all, the manosphere is largely correct in their assessment of the personality type needed to attract ovulating women. It is important to note that the study only tested the relative attractiveness of Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness during ovulation, and did not actually publish any data on what women are interested in the rest of the month – for the remaining three weeks, women were neutral towards SP/DIC, though they were more interested in SP/DIC men as short-term than long-term mates throughout the month. This begs the question of whether other behaviors experience spikes in preference during periods of non-ovulation, and whether those behaviors coincide with those selected against in the study. This is food for thought for anyone interested in relationships that last longer than 6 days – i.e. anything other than a ONS. Nonetheless, we are now all aware of how to conduct ourselves should we desire oceans of ovulating women interested only in a mutually-assured pump and dump.

I’ll probably post stories or quotes from my personal life that illustrate the behavior contained herein shortly.