Red Pill in Reality, Part 2

(Part 1 is here.)

(1) Red Pill in Reality, Nice Guys Versus Jerks edition: They met on a dating app. Then he robbed a bank on their first date and forced her to be the getaway driver.

So boss. So very, very boss.

And you thought your worst first date story was bad.

A Massachusetts woman became an unexpected getaway driver after a man she met on a dating app robbed a bank on their first date.
Christopher Castillo, the unnamed woman’s would-be Robin Hood, plead guilty this week to armed robbery and three counts of assault and battery on a police officer — all committed on their first date on December 5, 2016 — according to the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office.
Castillo was sentenced to three years in state prison for the robbery, plus two years in the Bristol County House of Corrections for violently struggling against and spitting on police who tried to subdue him, according to the district attorney’s office.
The woman wasn’t charged — the “worst date ever” story was enough punishment.
It all started, the woman told police, when she picked up Castillo from his parents’ home in Chepachet, Rhode Island, and drove him 30 minutes east toward North Attleboro, Massachusetts. She said he drank wine in the passenger seat of her Nissan Maxima (which is also illegal, but he wasn’t charged for that one).
The two had never met in person before that fateful day in 2016, she told police. So why would she think anything was wrong when he told her to pull over as they approached a bank?
He got out of her car and left her there alone for a few minutes. Then, suddenly, he came running back, sweating with sunglasses, a hat, a gun and $1,000 cash in hand, the woman said.
“F**king go,” he told her.
She “panicked,” she told police, so she did as she was told.

(2) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster edition:

I don’t think I’ll ever forget the time an attractive woman said, in all seriousness, that she was different because she was really only attracted to tall, good-looking alpha males, who had a little bit, although not too much, of an edge to them. Yeah, that’s totally different from every other woman on the planet….

LOL. In a similar spirit to this.

(3) Red Pill in Reality, Social Proof edition:

Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably.

From a social proof standpoint, it’s better to be unattached than to be attached to an unattractive woman.

(4) At Alf’s blog: Leftists dude’s girlfriend wonders why their sex is bad.

Spoiler alert: Because he’s an equalist:

His girlfriend of some years, who is also an aspiring social media content creator, has published a documentary: ‘my sex is broken‘, in which she, no joke, no irony, explores the grand mystery of why sex with her boyfriend just isn’t so good… a very honest analysis about the general dissatisfaction among feminist women.

‘Honest’ being a relative term: a woman is permanently in denial about what makes her love a man. And so it is with this documentary, which is essentially her ‘honestly’ wondering why her sex is bad, without ever getting to the crux of the question: that she doesn’t really love her boyfriend. The documentary is one big shit-test towards her boyfriend, a shit-test the boyfriend can’t pass, because being the emancipated left-wing prog that he is, he principally refuses to stop her from doing stupid shit. One can imagine their conversations: ‘babe I’m not sure this documentary is a good idea.’
‘But honey I just need to express myself! These are my feelings, I feel like I must do this. You support me right?’
‘… Right.’

Poor guy.

(5) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster Redux.

Two articles: (A) A sane one, from McCall’s magazine, 1958, “129 Ways to Get a Husband.”
and
(B) A lame attempt to fisk it in 2018, with wince-inducing results. Surprise! The author of this “Imma strong woman I don’t need no man!” piece writes a column for Psychology Today called Living Single, which says it all. (There’s a photo of her at the link if you’re curious. Summary: No surprises there.)

While the original article has some strange pieces of advice, most of it is reasonable.

A couple of mystifying/amusing ones:
#42, “If you’re at a resort have the bell boy page you.” What? How is that going to lead to romance? They don’t explain.
And #103: “Learn to play poker.” Um… Why?

But it’s also full of good advice to women, e.g.,
#52: “Wear high heels most of the time – they’re sexier!” Damn right! We need to pass a law about this.
And #60: “Go on a diet if you need to.” Duh.

What’s sad is the sour-grapes advice from the author of the 2018 piece. Any young woman who follows this advice is dooming herself to a life of childlessness and addiction to wine and anti-depressants.

E.g. the original article says,

18. Tell your friends that you are interested in getting married. Don’t keep it a secret.

To which the 2018 “Imma strong woman!” doofus responds,

“Tell your friends you have no interest whatsoever in getting married! Don’t keep it a secret. Tell your mother. Tell all your other relatives. Tell all the random people you meet on the street. Declare it on social media.”

The most tragic response is to this:

12. Become a nurse or airline stewardess – they have very high marriage rates.

Doofus responds,

“Become a person who thinks for herself. They have very high rates of living the life that works for them, rather than the life everyone tells them they should want.”

This is idiotic. First of all, women are not constantly told that they should get married in our culture; they’re constantly told that they should not get married, by the bitter old feminists who have taken over our popular culture.

Second, and more importantly, the advice is tragically misguided— most people, men and women, want to pair up, and in any case refusing to do something because it’s the conventional wisdom is just as stupid as doing something because it’s the conventional wisdom. They are two sides of the same idiotic coin, paying attention to the crowd.

(6) Red Pill in Reality, Electroshock Therapy for the Blue-Pilled edition.

A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex… While men still search for significantly more porn than women, search rates for these more extreme types of sexual content are at least twice as common among women than men.

Those statistics make for fairly surprising reading, but are the facts Dr Seth Stephens- Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, discovered when he was given complete access to PornHub’s search and views data for his upcoming book. “If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women,” he writes.

(7) Red Pill in Reality, Empathy by Brute Force edition.
(Via John C. Wright)

A woman named Ann Akana goes bi and develops sympathy for guys. My favorite part starts at the 1:45 mark: She and another “bi” chick are returning from a date and the other one says, at the door to her apartment, “Do you wanna come in and make out?” Akana says “Yes,” and they go inside and proceed to do nothing but talk for hours, to her great frustration. Why? Because each one was expecting the other one to make the first move, obviously. Based on a lifetime of habit, each one was thinking, “I’m the girl, so the other person should make the first physical move.” Neither one apparently had the wit to realize the other one was thinking the same thing. Duh! One would think this incredibly obvious, but I guess not to everyone. Akana goes home at 3:00 am, after no sexyfun.

She gets a lot of flak in the comments about other episodes she talks about, but I think it’s unwarranted. At least she’s open-minded enough to sympathize with guys when, e.g., she’s expected to pay for a date with a girl.

Miscellany 18: Love in the Time of Corona

(1)

Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way you stand a far better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous, marks the difference—the only difference in their eyes—between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate.

Altered Carbon, Chapter 15

Well, they don’t always liquidate “little people,” no. But they do ignore them. They treat “little people” with contempt, with the smug disregard of someone whom it is safe to attack, someone who cannot fight back. We have to show them that if they provoke us—let alone attack us—they will suffer.

(2) Holy shit, even Scientific American acknowledges that sex differences are real and important:

Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously, by Scott Barry Kaufman, December 12, 2019.
Sub-heading: New approaches are shedding light on the magnitude of sex differences in personality, and the results are so strong and pervasive that they can no longer be ignored.

In a particularly devastating result for the “nurture” crowd,

“While there was cross-cultural variation in the effect, there was a general trend for more developed, individualistic countries with higher food availability, less pathogen prevalence, and higher gender equality to show the largest sex differences in global personality.”

[Emphasis in original.]

(3) Aidan Maclear on antinatalism:

“I must bulli, because there is no rational argument to be made with an antinatalist. It is as viscerally and obviously sick as a cult promoting suicide. You do not reason, you hit with stick.”

(4) Writer at the leftist Mother Jones belatedly notices the obvious, worries that “racism” rhetoric may have become counterproductive for the left:

With the exception of actual neo-Nazis and a few others, there isn’t anyone in America who’s trying to promote the idea that whites are inherently superior to blacks or Latinos. Conversely, there are loads of Americans who display signs of overt racism—or unconscious bias or racial insensitivity or resentment over loss of status—in varying degrees.

This isn’t just pedantic. It matters. It’s bad enough that liberals toss around charges of racism with more abandon than we should, but it’s far worse if we start calling every sign of racial animus—big or small, accidental or deliberate—white supremacy. I can hardly imagine a better way of proving to the non-liberal community that we’re all a bunch of out-of-touch nutbars who are going to label everyone and everything we don’t like as racist.

Ya think?! A decade or so too late on that one, dude.

(5) One Charlie Jane Anders is a tranny sci-fi author (So brave! See #7 below) who wrote a novel called The City in the Middle of the Night. The second paragraph:

As the two of us walk back toward campus, a brace of dark quince leaves, hung on doorways in some recent celebration, wafts past our feet. Their nine dried stems scuttle like tiny legs.

“Brace” means “pair.”

But the really awesome part is the dedication. It starts like this:

For my mom, who taught me about colonialism…

LOL. You really cannot satirize lefties any more.

(6) I don’t know what color pill this is, but it sure as hell isn’t blue:

“Sleeping with the enemy: An essay on mixed identity in the context of violent conflict.” Ralph Hartley, University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Social Identities, March 2010.

Abstract:
When competition between groups becomes violent the female of a mixed marriage and her offspring are often vulnerable to violence by not only the group from which her male partner is assigned but also to violent acts by members of the group with which she is identified. When the goal of an adversary is to eliminate manifestations of identity the role of the individual within a society, including children and other non-combatants, is of little consequence. Using the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda as a focus this essay takes a bio-social and cultural comparative approach in exploring the situational factors underlying genocidal behavior wherein the woman in a mixed conjugal union and her offspring are disproportionately vulnerable to violence. The possible co-evolvement of individual behaviors with group-level institutions is considered as worthy of more focused attention in an attempt to understand the intense vulnerability of some women and children in environments of lethal conflict.

Via http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/04/mailvox-what-about-meeeee.html

The lesson as I think it applies to the current western world: White women who think that they are making themselves safe by marrying non-white men – because they’re staying on the leading edge of current SJW political moves – may be… misguided. They and their children may find that out, sadly, when our political situation goes from warming up to boiling over.

(7) Speaking of pills of various hues, Elon Musk tweets “Take the red pill” to his 34 million followers. Sweet. Ivanka Trump responds “Taken!” in re-tweeting it. The usual “I’m so offended” crowd says “I’m so offended.”

Bonus: in the Guardian link we learn that there’s something called “the Brave Space Alliance, an LGBTQ support centre led by black and transgender people.” Yes, they call themselves “brave.” I guess they don’t want to wait for us tell them, “So brave! Thank you for this.” However, I think you guys are too modest. You know how Wile E. Coyote upgrades himself from “genius” to “supergenius”? You guys should upgrade yourselves from “brave” to “superbrave.” Don’t let any bigots tell you otherwise!

Blue Pill in Music

Captain Save-A-Ho in popular music:

I’ll quote only the most relevant passages from the lyrics for copyright reasons.

Angel in Blue – The J. Geils Band

A table top dancer
She would smile on cue
Oh those lips of an angel
Angel in blue

She’d been dancin for ages
Through cities of bars
She was kickin’ the habit
Of scoring in cars
She’d been drained of her spirit
All caged up in this zoo
A wild cat angel
Angel in blue

And as she stared out into nowhere
I thought yes I thought she might break down and cry
Oh when I whispered I thought I could love her
She just said, “Baby don’t even bother to try”

And the bees they had stung her
The birds they had flown
There were guys she could number
But none had she known
And she never had dreams
So they never came true
Oh my fade away angel
Angel in blue

The Geils band is somewhat redeemed by the fact that their sax/harmonica player gave himself the excellent stage name “Magic Dick.” You just have to respect that.

Little Red Corvette – Prince

I guess I should of known
By the way you parked your car sideways
That it wouldn’t last
See you’re the kinda person
That believes in makin’ out once
Love ’em and leave ’em fast

I guess I must be dumb
‘Cause you had a pocket full of horses
Trojan and some of them used [FUCKING GROSS]
But it was Saturday night
I guess that makes it all right
And you said what have I got to lose?
And honey I said

Little red Corvette
Baby you’re much too fast
Little red Corvette
You need a love that’s gonna last

I guess I should of closed my eyes
When you drove me to the place
Where your horses run free
‘Cause I felt a little ill
When I saw all the pictures
Of the jockeys that were there before me…

Little red Corvette
Baby you’re much too fast, yes you are
Little red Corvette
You need to find a love that’s gonna last

And the number one “Captain Save-A-Ho” song is…

Roxanne, by The Police, the literal Captain Save-A-Ho song:

Roxanne
You don’t have to put on the red light
Those days are over
You don’t have to sell your body to the night

Roxanne
You don’t have to wear that dress tonight
Walk the streets for money
You don’t care if it’s wrong or if it’s right

Roxanne
You don’t have to put on the red light

I loved you since I knew ya
I wouldn’t talk down to ya
I have to tell you just how I feel
I won’t share you with another boy [DUDE, YOU ARE SO WRONG ABOUT THAT.]
I know my mind is made up
So put away your make-up
Told you once, I won’t tell you again it’s a bad way

Roxanne
You don’t have to put on the red light

Sex and Some Game Theory

MatingCats

Recently at Jim’s blog there was a perceptive comment about approach anxiety and the evolutionary reasons for it. (Surprisingly, this came from the same commenter who made a bizarre comment in my last post, one “Ertz.”) The good comment and Jim’s response are worth quoting at length (some formatting added):


Ertz:

The potential for dating and flirting anxieties/shyness/inhibitions should be evolutionary deeply rooted in men, because it’s a life and death issue:

Successful reproduction is, of course, an existential problem, as the threat of genetic extermination looms large – but men tend to have more than half a century of time to get it done.
I see two immediate threats that must have programmed men’s instincts in the ancestral environment with great caution:

1. Trying to mate with fertile women is guaranteed to arouse the ire of other men – those at the top in hierarchy who claim a monopoly on the women,
and the lower ranked men who are driven by competition/envy.
So, just going publicly for the women and trying to mate with them (just being physically near them may cause aggression – openly or hidden – from other men) is an aggression against the interests of all other men – and met with counter-aggression.
Those guys who just tried to mate openly and publicly and not having inhibitions about it , without having the necessary social status, have probably been driven into extinction directly (killing, injury) or – through the works of envy, social sabotage etc. – indirectly.
Men who fear dating/flirting with women would then not really fear the women or the dating situation, but the revenge of other men.

2. Females’ mate choice copying makes sexually successful men significantly more attractive to women – but the opposite is also true: Sexually unsuccessful men become vastly more unattractive, even sexually disgusting, to women.
(Women’s gossip seems to be a socio-sexual “intelligence agency” that exists to identify sexually successful and loser men by gathering and sharing information about who has had sex with whom, which men failed, who has won and who has lost in competitions etc. – to enable women to mate with the sexually successful men and avoid mating with the losers – and it has to be gossip – sharing of secrets – because sharing this information openly would incite envy and aggression and mate guarding and anti-cuckolding instincts in men.)
If this were not the case, men could just go from woman to woman publicly and ask each one for sex, until one consents. This not happening, it produces a strong emotional inhibition in men – it feels terribly wrong to try it, embarrassing, painful:
Because the sexual attractiveness of a man to all women is diminished with every rejection he suffers that other women learn of (almost guaranteed by the female gossiping instinct), being rejected by just one woman has a terrible cost in fitness for a man with all other women.

All this should result in approach anxiety being programmed into men,
in taking sexual advances very, very seriously, because it is very risky, dangerous, costs-incurring for men to fail.
This might explain why so many men try to spy on their sexual target to learn more about her [Wait, what?], try to engineer an ideal first meeting situation that is somewhat under their control and provides advantage, try to meet the girl not in a public situation but in a one-on-one private one (so others cannot directly observe and spread information about his rejection [if he’s rejected]), to improve the odds for success, try to be slow and indirect about it, delaying a long time before they act.

Jim’s response is worth quoting in full:

The female instinct is to arrange to be socially isolated with her target – preferably in a situation where, in the ancestral environment, he could rape her.

Pulling works, but women want to be pursued. Hitting on a woman demonstrates confidence and high status, and hitting on a woman in public is demonstration of being top alpha. On the other hand women want to be pursued to validate their attractiveness, and being pursued gives her what she wants, and she then loses interest (because in the ancestral environment, if you did not then drag her off to your lair and ravish her, you were obviously not the top alpha.)

Observe cats in operation. The tomcat pulls, by taking a prominent position and yowling, thus demonstrating that no other tomcat can drive him off and he can drive all the other tomcats off. The female then approaches, and then gives the tomcat a hard time This hard time may, and frequently does, escalate to the tomcat violently “raping” her, except that it is not exactly rape type rape, since the female cat clawed her way through the mosquito netting to get to the tomcat, and proceeded to hang out with him.

You have to chase, but you have to get the chick to give you the opportunity to chase, so you have to pull, but you have to pull and chase in a way that does not give her the validation she is hungry for. Don’t give her validation until she does what chicks always want to do, gets on her own with you. Hence “make me a coffee”. You are likely to get more than coffee, but, like the female cat after ripping her way through the mosquito netting, she is going to give you a hard time with the coffee.

If you are worried about other men seeing you approach a chick, you are emitting beta tells. If you are worried about the chick’s rejection, you are not only emitting beta tells, but you are approaching her in a way that gives her validation for free. But, of course, you are rightly worried about these things. If you approach a whole lot of chicks, you are diminishing your status, and handing out a whole lot of free validation.

You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words. There is a narrow path between one error and the opposite error, and it is hard to tell if you are on the path until after you have fallen off the path to one side or the other. But you also have to stroll briskly and confidently along the path.


NOTES:

Jim’s cat example is a good illustration of the non-conscious nature of much female sexual behavior. Cats don’t even have language, let alone Sex Ed class, so it’s not like the female cat knew what was going to happen (if she’s never been mounted) when she clawed through the mosquito netting to get to the tomcat. She doesn’t even know that there is such a thing as sex. At that point she has no idea that such a thing as a penis even exists, and a few minutes later is startled to find this strange organ the male cat has being shoved into her.

Is the female cat’s behavior intended to get her raped? Yes and no. No, if you mean consciously intended by the female cat. Yes, if you mean “intended” by evolution in an adaptive sense.

Question a la mode: When women in western nations vote for political parties that admit a flood of rapey foreigners, do those women vote that way “in order to get raped”?

On another topic, Jim wrote, “You have to chase, but you have to get the chick to give you the opportunity to chase, so you have to pull, but you have to pull and chase in a way that does not give her the validation she is hungry for. Don’t give her validation until she does what chicks always want to do, gets on her own with you.”

This is, indeed, the entire point of Game in a nutshell. Before you know Game you find – at least I did when I was younger – that the female sex largely divides into two camps, those who want you but whom you don’t want, and those whom you want but whom don’t want you. I had chicks want me and even fall in love with me (pats self on back) but somehow by some strange coincidence it was always girls I wasn’t interested in.

No, it’s not some horrific coincidence: The second group doesn’t want you precisely because you want them. Really, it’s a wonder that the human race managed to propagate itself before Game taught men techniques for pursuing without pursuing. (Partly we managed to survive because female mate choice was limited in ways that rendered this Catch-22 less important.) Mystery’s notion is that you should make her think she could have you, maybe, if she works hard enough. Robert Heinlein, in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, put optimal seduction strategy in the mouth of a female character; I’ll reverse the gender of the quote: “My strategy for seducing a woman is to let her chase me, while running away very slowly.”

Circling back to Jim: “You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words.”

Seduction is game theory played against opponents (women) who are utterly ruthless and not entirely aware of their own motives and desires.

Seduction is both an art and a science. It is not like submitting an answer to a math problem in school. It is like stirring fluid in a pot. Boldly approaching a woman is alpha because it shows you’re not afraid of other men getting aggressive with you about it. But it’s also risky, since being blown out hurts your chances with other women. Yet the most alpha thing you can do is act like that doesn’t bother you. And to an extent you can exhort yourself into not being bothered by it, or being bothered less.

Aidan MacLear has said that if you use Game, “you are ghey.” Well… compared to memorizing a bunch of negs, etc., it would be better to get lots of pussy by being the top warlord of your tribe and letting women see you lop off the heads of several enemy men with a sword in combat. That’s what women are adapted for. But given that the modern world doesn’t work that way – and that the vast majority of men aren’t going to be the top warlord – we’re forced to do things differently.

Leftist chick self-flagellates because she doesn’t find her dress-wearing boyfriend sexy

Female author at The Guardian: My boyfriend’s wedding dress unveiled my own shortcomings over masculinity.
(Via Ace: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/386163.php)

This is a hilarious work of Stalinist self-criticism. A chick whose brain is colonized by the leftist mind-virus gropes toward rediscovering what any sane, normal human being could have told her: A man in a dress is ridiculous. But she rejects the obvious truth and rebukes herself for being insufficiently woke. This is what leftism does to people’s minds.

I’ve excepted it here; comments in bold.


I’m quick to blame men for their toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

My gaze scanned the racks of clothing and stopped abruptly on something I’d never expected to see: my boyfriend was clutching a wedding dress – that he wanted to buy for himself.

“Emily!” he cried with victorious glee. “I’ve found the one!”

Ian thrust the white garment into the air like a trophy. Its lace sleeves sashayed from the tapered bodice and fluffy tulle grazed the tiles of the thrift store floor.

“Oh, wow,” I managed to spit out. LOL.

We were searching for dresses to wear during the annual Mother’s Day Climb up Mount St. Helens, a tradition in which everyone scaling the volcano sports flowing garments.

I knew Ian would be among the most outrageous on the mountain. My boyfriend is aggressively fun and a flair fanatic, Uh-oh which I find wildly attractive on most occasions. Stop lying.

But I found myself unexpectedly uneasy with his new fondness for feminine frocks – a reaction that challenged the progressive ideals I’d prided myself on for decades. Yes! Admit your guilt, fascist! I’d long thought I was contributing to a progressive shift in how we define masculinity, finally allowing men to be emotional and vulnerable, or to ask for help, or to hug their male friends … or to wear dresses.

Men are perfectly capable of asking for help. If I ever need to know how to field strip an AK-47, I’ll ask a guy friend. If I ever want to know about trendy hair styles, NO, that was to see if you’re paying attention! Like that scene in In and Out where Kevin Kline is tricked into saying “What a fabulous window treatment!”

As far as hugging male friends, you’re allowed to do that under certain circumstances – the most obvious one being that you’re on a professional sports team and you just won the playoffs. Then your team is expected to embrace each other, while popping champagne and dumping a barrel of Gatorade onto your coach. You can also do it in other circumstances if you do it right. If you don’t have an intuitive sense of where the line is, just err on the side of no hugs, duh.

While I’m on the subject, Dave Barry: “When is it okay to kiss another male? When he is your brother and you are Al Pacino and this is the only really sportsmanlike way to let him know that, for business reasons, you have to have him killed.” (The Kiss of Death.) And I’m kinda leery of that. Can’t you just have him canceled without going through the bourgeois formalities?

Ian giggled. “Isn’t it beautiful?” His chest hair battled the sheer neckline. God, this is gross. I imagined him skiing down Mount St Helens in it, the lengthy rag concealing his chiseled calves and hardened quadriceps, and strained to find it an appealing vision.

This was not the first time I’d found myself a little uncomfortable with the sight of Ian in women’s wear. I hate to repeat myself, but: LOL. It’s not an unusual sight to spot him sporting a skirt, dress, or sarong at a party, picnic, or trailhead. Acknowledge the obvious, honey. He uses his unconventional apparel as a display of his individuality and a reflection of his fondness for fun. What’s a three-letter synonym for “fun” or “festive”? Starts with “G”. I adore both of those qualities, but I was realizing I was less fond of seeing them exhibited through floral numbers or tight sequined garments or wedding dresses.

While it was attraction-at-first sight with Ian, his closet full of feminine gear TALK ABOUT BURYING THE LEDE! put a tiny dent in his desirability from the very beginning… there was a disconnect between what I thought I was OK with a man wearing, and what I actually found appealing on his body.

Honey, your vagina does not want a man in a dress. Your vagina is smarter than your brain. I don’t often say this to women, but: Go with your vagina.

On the first weekend we hooked up, I had to yank a green sparkly dress over his head to unclothe him.

You need to be much, much LESS open-minded.

“That was the first time I’ve undressed a man – from a dress!” I shrieked the next morning. “Oh girl, what an exciting milestone! Congratulations!” hollered Eli, an effervescent gay man who dons many dresses himself.

Intellectually, I enjoyed that Ian was rejecting gender norms and expectations. But physically, my desire didn’t match. Those feelings illuminated some unanticipated boundaries of where I define attractiveness in men and when I still crave traditional masculinity.

You might ask yourself why traditional masculinity is traditional.

My ex-boyfriend had the emotional depth of a paper airplane and couldn’t engage with the deep pain I was enduring – or any other emotion, period. Dweeby, and probably not true, but a typical chick statement, so we’ll make allowances. When I started hanging out with Ian and he immediately wanted to talk about feelings, it was a gulp of ice-cold lemonade on a 98-degree day. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. I’d been craving this vulnerability and openness from the men I dated. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. Conversations like that one drew me to him, as did his emotional openness, his fondness for communication, and his public displays of affection for close male friends. Dweeby but WAIT, FUCKING WHAT!? Unless your boyfriend is a mob boss who’s having rat-finks iced, this signals a problem.

My boyfriend’s wedding dress Honey, pause and reflect here: Your relationship involves sequences of words like “My boyfriend’s wedding dress.” pushed me to perform a scrupulous inventory of my deepest ideas about masculinity and helped me identify my shortfalls as a woman who wants to help rewrite gender norms. As I went through this exercise, I chatted with a handful of girlfriends about it, who could all identify their own small hang-ups with masculinity: their need for men who are bigger and taller than they are, or who are better than them at sports, or who don’t cry in front of them. LOL.

As we interrogated our feelings about masculinity, we recognized gaps between our ideals and reality. I’m quick to blame men for perpetuating toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

Yeah, you’re an enabler.

Mother’s Day dawned sunny and crisp in the Washington Cascades. It was a beautiful day for a wedding dress. Depends who’s wearing it.

After we reached the summit, Ian plunged down the frozen slope, his long, white train flowing behind him, whipping from side-to-side like a lacy windsock.

“Do you find your boyfriend as attractive as I do?” whispered Eli, as we watched Ian in his flowing skirt, his laughing smile nearly detectable through the back of his floral sunhat. You can’t make this shit up.

My eyes chased my boyfriend down the mountain, my sensitive, silly, affectionate, emotional, vulnerable boyfriend – skiing in his wedding dress.

“I do,” I promised[, lying my ass off.]


Someone needs to tell this woman that the thing she suspects about her boyfriend is, in fact, true.

Bonus: Sidebar at the Guardian article: “Masculinity is a trap – which is why more men should wear skirts.” The haute reaches of the left really are just trolling their own followers now to see how much they can get away with before the followers are like, “Wait a minute.”

Red Pill in Reality

(1) Dozens of prison letters sent to Chris Watts in which women and men profess their love for the triple murderer and send sexy photos https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6512995/DOZENS-prison-letters-sent-Chris-Watts-women-men-profess-love-murderer.html

The Daily Mail says that both men and women sent admiring letters to the killer, but somehow they don’t manage to quote any from men.

A majority of the letters were from women, and many of these included photos that the sender purported to be of them as well as promises to send more images or add money to Watts’ commissary account.

The article also notes that “Some of his mail is not supportive with many telling him they hope he’s raped and attacked behind bars over the sick murders.” It’s nice that some people have appropriate reactions to a man who murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. (Jesus!) But: How many nice guys get bikini photos from hot babes (see the link) trying to establish a relationship?

(2) Shocker: Mattress girl is attracted to masculine man

https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/did-emma-sulkowicz-mattress-performance-get-redpilled.html

During the summer of 2018, [Columbia mattress girl Emma] Sulkowicz tells me, she was single for the first time in years. Swiping through Tinder, a man she found “distasteful” super-liked her. “It smelled like Connecticut,” she says of his profile. “He was very blond, law school, cut jawline, trapezoidal body figure, tweed suit kind of vibe, but something inside of me made me swipe right, I don’t know.”

That “but” is hilarious. Do women not understand themselves, or do they think we don’t understand them?

They began messaging, and she found him witty. “He was actually way more fun to talk to than any other person I matched with.”

(3) ‘Mad Men’ actress Christina Hendricks files for divorce from her husband of 10 years, actor Geoffrey Arend

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/mad-men-actress-christina-hendricks-files-divorce-67724531

This is a classic case of what happens when the women’s career situation puts her at a significantly higher status level than her man’s:

Hendricks was nominated for Emmy Awards for six straight years for AMC’s “Mad Men,” and now stars in the NBC crime drama “Good Girls.” Arend starred on the CBS drama “Madam Secretary” [some show that no one watches].

Also, look at the photo at the link. Their attractiveness differential is heavily in favor of Hendricks. Here’s another pic of her:

ChristinaHendricks
She kinda has psycho eyes, but a man who isn’t red-pilled might not even notice that.

Such an attractiveness differential is not a problem normally because the man’s looks aren’t as important to his sexual market value as a woman’s. His frame and social status are much more important. But of course that’s the problem here. He’s both uglier than her and now in terms of social status is lower on the totem pole than her. Bets on who initiated the divorce?

Note the headline: “Christina Hendricks files for divorce…”

Humor bonus:

The two announced their separation in a statement in October, saying they had an incredible time together, but are now on separate paths though they “will always work together to raise our two beautiful dogs.”

LOL.

(4) Very much related to the above: Top jobs lead to divorce for women, but not for men

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/top-jobs-lead-to-divorce-for-women-but-not-for-men

(Via Ben Gadwin at https://twitter.com/sovereignfamily/status/1211534825519116289)

Combining an enriching career and a loving relationship is a goal for many people. But for women, this goal still presents higher hurdles, even in the most gender-equal countries in the world. Our research on Sweden finds that women pay a high price for their career success. Being promoted to a top job in politics or business leads to a dramatic increase in the divorce rate for women, but not for men.

The article proceeds to not mention at all who is initiating the divorces which, apparently, fall out of the sky and land on these poor, helpless women. I don’t know about Sweden, but in the U.S., about seventy-five percent of divorces are initiated by women. In other words, this is classic female hypergamy. A wife’s status rises relative to her husband’s ➞ she initiates divorce.

The article acknowledges this, several paragraphs down:

We get closer to understanding the reasons for women’s divorces by zooming in on which relationships are more likely to end after the promotion. This detective work leads to suggestive evidence about couple formation. Heterosexual women — both those that aim for a top job and those who do not — often enter relationships with men who are older and earn more money than they do. Men, in contrast, often have younger wives with lower-paying jobs. The tendency for women to “marry up” means that their own promotion to a top job could create particular frictions at home. The economic and status balance that the couple used to have gets out of balance.

All they tell us about the data is:

In the Swedish data, divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin and where the wife took a larger share of the parental leave. The situation looks entirely different in more gender-equal couples. For women with a smaller gap in age to their spouse, and who split parental leave more equally with their partner, divorce is not affected by the wife’s promotion.

Let’s re-play a part of that passage: “divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin…” I suspect that’s proxying the wife simply being younger, period. That is, she has more sexual marketplace options.

(5) October 2019: Men with psychopathic traits are more attractive to women, study suggests

https://www.foxla.com/news/men-with-psychopathic-traits-are-more-attractive-to-women-study-suggests

Not that we didn’t already know this, but…

“Psychopathic men have a personality style that makes them appear attractive to women in dating encounters. This may be because they are extra confident or feel at ease or know exactly what to say to get the attention of women,” Brazil told PsyPost.

(But how do they know what to say to get the attention of women?)

The researchers asked 46 male students at a Canadian university to participate in a video-recorded, mock dating scenario with a female research assistant. The assistant began the conversation by asking the participant what he liked to do on a first date or what he thought was important in a relationship.

The male participants also completed assessments of psychopathy, social intelligence and sociosexuality.

Afterward, the researchers had 108 women view the dating videos and rate each man on general attractiveness, sexual attractiveness and confidence, and leave voice messages.

Brazil and Forth found that men who scored higher on the psychopathy assessment were also rated more desirable by women.

The researchers concluded that their results “suggest that psychopathy in men may enable them to ‘enact’ the desirable qualities women prefer in social and dating encounters,” according to Psychology Today.

However, the researchers said these traits likely only help men on a short-term basis.

“Another important caveat to consider is that even though psychopathy may have these benefits of attracting others, there are enormous costs and risks to being psychopathic that helps clarify why not more people are psychopathic,” Brazil explained to PsyPost.

It is true that there must be costs as well as benefits of psychopathy, or all men would be psychopaths. Also, the benefit to being a psychopath certainly is a decreasing function of the number of psychopaths in the social environment. If every man were a psychopath, women would be aware of psychopathic mating strategies like casual lying and wouldn’t trust anything men said. But if they don’t trust men’s statements, then lying conveys no advantage. If the proportion of psychopaths is small, and most men a woman encounters are honest most of the time, then she’ll be trusting, so lying will be believed and will be advantageous. Similarly, psychopaths tend to “have an inflated sense of importance,” as the article notes, which can present to women as self-confidence (at least in the short run). But if all men had an inflated sense of importance, it would contain no mating advantage in terms of standing out from the average.

One angle on Game: It gives normal men an advantage over psychopaths, since normal men are able to form normal emotional attachments, which is good for long-term mating strategies, while also teaching men to use certain behaviors that woman are attracted to in a short-run sense (self-importance, etc.), which can be effective short-run mating strategies.

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.


Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.


So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.

A Woman Fumbles with Female Sexuality

CatalystAd
The authoress of the excerpted post wants you to believe that women would find this guy attractive because he seems like a stable Dad type.

This chick tries to figure out a certain aspect of female sexuality, the attracted-to-irresponsible-cads thing. I quote from her post (editing for brevity) and add a some comments. An interesting aspect of it is that she seems to be honestly trying to figure herself out, but she fails disastrously. It’s amazing how opaque evolution has made women to themselves.

Or maybe she’s just lying. As always on these topics, it’s hard to tell; the distinction between female deception of men, and female self-deception, is fuzzy.

Fuckers Vs. Raisers

One day in a stereotypical medieval town, a bard comes through.

This is a very sexy bard, violet-eyed, good with a lute, and experienced in the ways of women. During his short stay he sleeps with four of the village wenches, and then bounces off to a new village, to seduce more wenches. Years later, a new child with violet eyes is running around. Life goes on.

There are two sexual strategies for men – Fucking and Raising. Fuckers, like our friend the Bard, do the ol’ fuck-and-run. Move frequently, shoot seed everywhere, and hope that this results in violet-eyed toddlers getting raised by other men. Raisers, by contrast, shoot seed into comparatively few women and end up raising the children they produce.

My question then is why are women attracted to Fuckers? Is there any female advantage to this?

Your scenario itself answers this: If you have a caddish violet-eyed son by this man, that son will run around all over the world spraying his, and therefore your, genes around. It’s not a mystery.

Having a child by a Fucker is dangerous – if she doesn’t have a Raiser lined up, then she’s on her own, and historically this is Very Bad News. If she does have a Raiser and he finds out the child isn’t his, again – Very Bad News.

Sure, it has potential downsides, but it also has potential upsides.

So when the Bard fingers his lute, why do all the women around him sigh?

I think their sighs don’t have anything to do with the fact he’s a Fucker – I think it’s because his traits, if they were present in a Raiser, would be ideal. He’s presenting confidence, skill, and high social standing. If a Raiser like that moved into town, all of the women would be trying to wife themselves at him like crazy. The Bard also is a potential Raiser in the women’s eyes, and he probably has to emphasize that idea in order to get her to sleep with him.

Sorry, no. Common experience refutes this idea. Here’s a question for you ladies: What would be your reaction to each of the following statements by the bard? The context is that you’ve been talking to him one-on-one after his performance at the tavern, for about half an hour, and so far you think he’s sooooooo dreamy! Statement #1: “I’m basically looking for a wife. I’m a solid guy, and I want a family.” Statement #2: You ask him if he has a girlfriend, and he gives a knowing smirk and says, “I’m not really the boyfriend type.” The question for you ladies – no lying! – is, Which statement would get your pussy wet? WAIT, STOP! I didn’t ask, Which statement do you think SHOULD get you wet, but Which statement would actually, in reality, get you wet? Never mind; don’t bother answering; every man who studies women objectively already knows the answer.
I have more to say about this at the end of this post.

This is maybe where the trope of “guy tells girl he loves her in order to sleep with her” comes from. [That is in fact the exact opposite of what works in seducing a woman.] Women don’t want to fuck Fuckers [This statement is an outrageous falsehood], but they will fuck Fuckers disguised as Raisers.

Okay I am done writing now but I don’t know how to do a closing paragraph. I don’t really want to learn.


LOL, I like her last two sentences.

Anyway, on Fuckers vs. Raisers, where she says that what a woman really wants is a raiser, and that fuckers only get sex by presenting themselves as raisers: This is blatantly false. I was in five or six bands in high school and college. Yes, this is great for your sex life. But while it’s good for getting laid in any situation, where it works like a nuclear dynamite LSD supernova is when you’re never going to be in that town again, and the girl knows it. It’s a whole ’nother fucking dimension when you’re playing a one-night-only gig. You have to beat the pussy off with a bat in those circumstances.

No girl in those situations was ever under any delusions that I was going to stick around later than the next morning at latest. But they threw themselves at me.

If you haven’t taken the red pill yet, grok that women are sexual creatures. Whenever they act like they’re “offended” that “women are sexualized,” etc., They. Are. Lying. Their. Asses. Off. They are lying. They’re lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying.

Women in reality are much closer to women in porn than is commonly admitted by women, or understood by men.

As is so frequently the case, this post is a fantastic lesson in female delusionality about themselves. “I don’t want a fucker,” she tells herself. “I want a raiser!” Sure, if she’s had a couple of kids by a thug who jetted and now needs a sucker to help support them. But that’s not what she wants sexually. There’s a reason she had a couple of kids by the fly-by-night thug, and NO it wasn’t that she was deceived into thinking he was a raiser. If that were true she would have had the kids by an actual raiser. Funny how most of the time in those situations, the father is a fucker. So she was deceived, was she? Fuckers are better at presenting themselves as raisers than actual raisers are? LOL, no.

Why Women Should Love Game

KissAmongTheStacks
What makes this photo hot? You already know, of course, but I’ll say it at the end of this post anyway.

Game constitutes the advent of a New Era. You have to spell New Era with capitals because it is a fundamental change in the nature of society. It is the return after a long hiatus of the age when men understood women just as well as women understood men.

Women have always known that men want young, beautiful pussy.

Now men know that women don’t want nice; they want alpha.

It is natural that women feel threatened by this development. It was an enormous advantage to women when they understood men but men did not understand them. By spreading the lie that women preferred beta behaviors (they expressed it more politely than that), women were able to accomplish two very valuable things for themselves:

(1) They were able to trick the betas into revealing themselves, so the women could avoid them and only have sex with alphas.

(2) They were able to get many things from supplicating betas: Free drinks, free car rides, free help moving furniture, the appalling emotional tampon aspect of their relationships with their beta male “friends,” etc.

So it is understandable that as women see this era slipping away, they will experience the anger and denial that often accompany loss. It is also natural that women will try to fight a holding action by engaging in intellectual counterwarfare to try to confuse the issue: “That only works on a small fraction of women with low self-esteem,” “That only works when women are young; it doesn’t work after college,” etc.

Yes, these reactions are natural, but actually women should be glad for the advent of game.

Why?

Because game constitutes the return of the Great Game.

The Great Game was the game of flirting and coyness, subtlety and indirection, pursuing and fleeing, and yes, some deception and lying, that was commonly understood in centuries past.

From now on, ladies, you’ll have worthy opponents in this game.

Finally! Think of it! As the new knowledge spreads, more and more men will actually be adept at the Great Dance. It’s possible that someday soon, the majority of men will know how to play the game! Think of the excitement! Think of the thrill of the chase and the counter-chase! Think of…

…THE DRAMA!

For ladies, there will be drama. The worst soap opera won’t hold a candle to your romance and sex life when much of the male sex has absorbed the lessons of game. What happens when most men, or even just a quarter of them, act like aloof, indifferent assholes? Oh my, the drama! Oh my, the heightened heart rate! Oh my, the damp panties! (Heh. Weren’t expecting me to say that last one, were you? You should have expected it: men who know Game know you.)

Remember how it was 15 or even 10 years ago? Men would do crazy things like offering to buy you drinks. Apparently some chicks could actually prompt a man by saying, “Want to buy me a drink?” and some would say, “Sure! What will you have?” (WTF?) If you’ve ever done this, ladies, that wasn’t really the answer you were hoping for, even if you told yourself it was. If men supplicate to you in ways like this (many men still do, even today), really you feel draining boredom and contempt for them.

Game is teaching men not to act like this. As the knowledge spreads, if you act like you expect a man to e.g., buy you a drink, more and more of them will snort and say “As if!” Think of the fun! Worthy opponents. All. Over. The. Place.

There are of course men who can’t or won’t see the truth of all this, for whatever reasons. But they out-select themselves from relevance in the sexual marketplace.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “But I liked the world in which most men could be manipulated with ease.” Yes, you did in a way, but it was your laziness that liked it. Admit it: the feelings of bored contempt you had for most men were not enjoyable. From now on, you’ll be tested, stretched. Too many men will be playing at too high a level for you to be a relationship couch potato. You will have to stretch your abilities and your knowledge of the opposite sex to the utmost in this new world. You think you don’t want such a world—your laziness resists—but really you yearn for it.

Everything we know about you, ladies, makes it obvious that you yearn for it. The general effectiveness of Game… the grouchiness and pissiness of women dealing with betas… their animated happiness when they’re interacting with alphas… the way a girl’s eyes sparkle sometimes when a man negs her.

Once you’re pulled off the couch and forced to test yourself, to get some exercise…

…you’ll realize you’ve never felt more alive.


In the photo: It’s the way their hands are.

Notes for Inexperienced Men on Making a Move on a Girl

Some thoughts prompted by Aidan Maclear’s Game test
https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/test-of-your-game-human-zoology-edition/
His answer key is here:
https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/test-of-your-game-answer-key/

The first question:

1) Imagine that you’re a very young man, still first year of college or the summer after highschool, and you’re not exactly bad with women, not an incel, not a virgin, but you know nothing of the dark arts, have swallowed the blue pill, so your true potential is held back. An attractive female friend who you had considered out-of-your-league invites you over to her house at night to hang out. You’re thinking “damn, she was into me after all, I’m getting some tonight”. But when you get there, she’s treating you like an asexual platonic friend, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two of you are all alone in her house. You don’t feel any sexual tension from her end, i.e. she hasn’t shit tested you at all, and there’s no flirting going on, but nonetheless you push the thought of her tight curvy little ass out of your mind and have a fun time hanging out, drinking a little liquor, and watching movies. Later, you realize that the night is winding down without any progress, and if you want to fuck her, you need to do something soon. She’s sitting on the couch next to you, close enough that you smell her intoxicating scent, but not touching you. What do you do?

Some of Maclear’s commenters have misapprehensions about this situation, essentially seeing it as an almost-lost cause that requires some sort of desperate long shot. No, no, no!

One commenter said the correct answer to this (multiple-choice) question is
(d), since she’s out of your league.
Answer d is basically Just go for it, which is the correct answer, but this commenter’s reason for it is all wrong: However much sense a girl being “out of your league” might make in some contexts (a complicated topic), it doesn’t make sense when she has invited you over (at night, no less) with just the two of you there.

Another commenter:
1d) Direct action seems the only chance.
The situation is not at all so dire as to be melodramatically talking about “the only chance.”

Another commenter:
1: c, reality is you blew it but it’s worth a try.
No, no, no, no, no! This is very wrong! Pathologically wrong! Forgive me, if you chance to read this, but this view of things suggests you’re not very experienced with women.

The reality, based on experience:

1. When a girl deliberately maneuvers herself into being alone with you, she wants you to make a move.

2. Whatever you did earlier to make her attracted to you was the important part. Her wanting to fool around with you has little or nothing to do with how you make the move. She decided she wanted to screw you in the preceding hours, or weeks, or whatever.

3. Due to point 2, you have way more leeway than you might think in how you make the move, by which I mean the first overt physical move. (When I was single it was almost always going for the first kiss, though maybe single men these days just start by grabbing the girl’s clit, for all I know.) Your timing can be bad, your pass can be clunky, you can even screw up by talking about making a pass at her before you actually do it, and she’ll still enthusiastically go along with your move.

I’ve made all of these mistakes when I was young, and it only sort of mattered once. It was the talking one, where I asked a girl I liked (I was 14) “Can I kiss you?” She said “No.” That was that, but only for the moment: years later I had my cock in her mouth, so it wasn’t a lethal mistake in the long run. When I was in college I made similar mistakes on two separate occasions, and both times I got laid anyway. In both cases the girl had invited herself to my dorm room late at night. One of those times I actually said something like “Did you come here so we could fool around?” Now this is bad, for two reasons: One, it’s clunky and socially graceless; why not just make a move instead of talking about it? Two, being this explicit runs the risk of activating her anti-slut defense. She shrugged off my lack of smoothness and fucked me anyway.

I got laid the other time too, because that’s why each of those chicks had invited herself to my dorm room late at night in the freakin’ first place.

4. One time a girl invited me to her apartment for the weekend. That evening after dinner, before there had been any fooling around, we were lying/sitting on her bed talking when I just randomly, with no particular context, went for the kiss. We started making out. Later, after blowing me, she told me that my timing had surprised her. But that made no difference. Why do you think she’d invited me to her pad in the first place?

5. Some inexperienced men worry about the details of making that first move. People, this is the least important part of it. It’s actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance. It’s almost trivial, really. Generating attraction, before that, is when all the important questions about you are answered in her mind.

Actually, let me qualify the statement “making that first move is actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance.” I remember that it could be somewhat adrenalin-y when I was really young, like 12 or 14, and not very experienced. A young man has to just decide to go for it, just make yourself do it. It’s part of being a man (as opposed to merely a male human).

By the time I was in my twenties, I had a saying that the only thing that made my pulse rate rise from 71 beats per minute to 72 was making a move when I wasn’t sure how the girl would respond. It’s pure fun, once you’re experienced.

Making an overt move also is good even if she’s not actually into you, since games girls play that revolve around their being coy little flirts who aren’t really interested in you can be destroyed by simply going for the first kiss: A girl who’s not attracted to you won’t go let you jam your tongue down her throat. Then you can move on, avoiding a further waste of time.

One more thing: What about if you really thought she was attracted you, and you’re attracted to her, but your move is rejected? IMPORTANT TRUTH: This is not remotely as bad as you think it will be, if it has never happened to you before. Say you go in for the first kiss, she leans back and says, “What are you doing?” or “I just think of you as a friend” or whatever. It’s nothing. You’ll just handle it. You’ll just be like, “Oh, OK. Well, I’m gonna go hang out with my buddies at the bar.” Or whatever.

One of the most liberating things that ever happened to me was the first time I had a move shot down. I was disappointed, but not flustered. I was like, “THAT’s what I was thinking would be a big deal all that time? That’s nothing!” That’s when I started making more passes, and fooling around with more girls, because I realized that having a pass rejected is no big deal at all.

Also: When you look back on it later, you’ll regret the passes you might have made but didn’t, not the passes you made that got shot down.

Though now there’s the Title IX/Affirmative Consent stuff, which makes it harder for men. If you’re a college man in an “affirmative consent” state like California or New York, it may be more complicated for you. Or not. My advice would simply be to vet the girl before you make a move. Remember, the vast majority of women are not psychotic feminists; they’re not looking for an excuse to cry “Rape!” Weed out the crazies before it ever gets to the “making a move” stage.

Summarizing:

Having a move rejected is not a big deal. You’ll just handle it. Don’t let that possibility stop you.

In making a move, most of the stuff that matters is in whatever generates attraction before you’re ever in a position (alone with her) to make a move. How you make a move is much less important. Women who want to have sex with you are incredibly forgiving if your pass isn’t perfect.