Archive for January, 2009

Need reduction (male ~, female ~)

January 28, 2009

Desire: a need to be reduced, a thorn pricking us. How to relieve ourselves of it? Two ways: to yield to it (the best way according to Oscar Wilde) or to remove or destroy its cause. The latter method requires of a man to walk away (remove) or turn into a psychopath (destroy). A woman, by contrast, can diminish the cause by a mere shift of perspective in her mind, by throwing a test at or befriending what had been the object of her desire.

If you’re a man, imagine you could walk the party, snap your fingers at each hottie and thus turn her into a fattie on the spot. This is what it’s like to be a sexy woman, throwing tests at guys that look attractive. And then, occasionally, you snap – and snap again… and it doesn’t work.

It’s interesting to note that all three variants of need reduction ((1) yield to desire, (2) remove object, (3) destroy object) in men are sexually attractive to women. Having many sexual options and walking away (or better yet pushing her off) are deeply sexy to women, and so is psychopathy. This is because need in a man is sexually repulsive, and because all these behaviors are proactive and exude power.

Conversely, the same tendencies do not affect female attractiveness to males. She’s no more sexy for sleeping around; he’s just sad it’s not with him. Or for leaving; he’s just sad to see her go. And she is no more sexy for shit testing, either; it’s just wrecking his nerves — though many women, mistakenly using their own responses as a model for predicting the male’s, feel it enhances their appeal.

Why do women flake? And how should we respond?

January 27, 2009

Women who know too little about us can be annoyingly flaky: canceling plans for a date, usually on the basis of some excuse whose truth is difficult to assess. This experience is shared among many men.

The logistical annoyance of flaking is often aggravated by feelings of rejection. Among naive men, responses range from self-humiliation by an overly eager acceptance of her excuse (“Sure, no problem at all. Hope your friend recovers. I will call you next week and perhaps I can take you out then??”), to moralizing (“Why do you cancel at the last minute? How would you feel if I did that to you?”), and on to aggressive comebacks (“Fuck off, I don’t like flakes.”). All of these responses exhibit a deep misunderstanding of women.

Within the pick-up community, suggestions of how to deal with flaking range from prevention, to a zero-tolerance policy (including matter-of-factly calling her on her bad behavior), to mixed and more playful strategies, and on to an aggressive shifting of the balance of power at the level of society as a whole. A great story of classical flaking with lots of suggestions from commenters as to the best possible response is here.

Why do women flake?

A woman will flake for a combination of two reasons:

(1) She does not know that you have high value to her.

(2) She needs to test your value as a man.

Her uncertainty about your value (1) makes seeing you an option for her, rather than something she definitely wants to do. This may annoy you. After all her agreeing to see you suggested otherwise. You may experience a sense of rejection, as her flaking suggests that you are less important to her than she is to you.

And then again you may wonder if her excuse might simply be true. You may feel that your response should depend on whether her excuse is true or just something she made up. However, we will see below that such thinking is misguided.

First, we need to remember that the reason for her flaking is not that she knows you have low value (in that case you would not be interesting to her to even play games with). The reason is that she does not yet know that you have high value to her.

Her value to you and other men is largely defined by her looks. Thus, her value is obvious and an instant reality in your relations with her. Your value, on the other hand, is not greatly dependent on your looks, but rather on the masculine quality of your mind and actions and on your social status. So unless you have a reputation preceding you (celebrity or local hero status), your value will become a reality in your relations with her only slowly: as she gets to know you.

If we understand this, we no longer take her flaking as rejection: it indicates merely that she knows too little about us. For example, she may have thought you were cute when she met you. But she may not know whether you can take control of her and make her feel exciting and interesting things.

Since she doesn’t know your value (1), she may flake just because she doesn’t feel enough motivation (sexual attraction or a more general form of interest) to follow through on the date. Moreover, not knowing your value (1) may additionally produce a need in her to test your value (2).

Flaking can serve as a test because it will elicit a response from you and that response will define your value as a man and thus her level of attraction to you…

How should we respond to her flaking?

To even ask yourself whether her excuse is true or not is misguided. Most likely it is not true. But whether it is true or not, it functions as a test either way: your response will define her attraction to you.

If you show you assume it’s true, you’re beta: naive.

If you show you assume it’s not true, you’re beta: insecure.

What’s beta in either case is caring whether it’s true.

To see it as an indication of disinterest and to be disappointed or mad is misguided as well. A highly attractive man lives in sexual abundance – making her flaking irrelevant. If you let on that her flaking is not irrelevant, she will feel that you are not highly attractive.

Most likely she’s lying. But if you feel you need to call her on it, it shows your disappointment, thus her weight in your life, thus that you are a lightweight compared to her, thus that you are not worthy of her. She will not be attracted anymore.

She may feel that it’s possible that you are very hot indeed and still flake: because she wants to see if you really are. So my assumption is this: The greater the challenge she presents to me, the hotter she imagines me to be (but she needs to make sure). From this perspective what she is doing is actually a compliment.

The key: demonstrate that her flaking has no weight for you.

One option: no response at all. She will be frustrated because of the lack of effect of her flaking and will likely contact you again to meet up. Otherwise you can contact her — perhaps two weeks later — completely ignoring the incident. (Plans are options, you accepted she was busy, so were you. Say sorry you forgot to txt back, if she asks.)

Second option: text back: “sure. guess what i just saw: [unrelated observation of mutual interest]”

The idea here is: you got her message. It has no weight for you. It has no effect on your mood or on your attitude toward her. Some random observation of mutual interest that you might have shared under other circumstances as well captures your attention more than your date with her.

In sum, positive or negative attention will reinforce her flaking behavior. Option (1) is to not grace her message with a response at all, then continue contacts later as if nothing had happened (but with some plausible rationale: you were busy otherwise anyway). Option (2): skip to another topic, thus explicitly displaying how little weight her flaking has on you.

With either option, she will be disappointed about the lack of success of her attempt to rock you. And she will be more attracted to you for exactly that reason.

Arrogance

January 22, 2009

Arrogance is a guy’s miniskirt. (You have to be able to wear it — but the effect is amazing.)

Romance novels beat Hollywood chick flicks as reflections of female sexuality

January 13, 2009

If you want to learn about female sexual preferences, read romance novels, don’t watch Hollywood chick flicks! Romance novels are written and read by women. They are the female version of hardcore porn – more honest to female desire.

Chick flicks do not reflect female sexual preferences nearly as directly: they are marketed to men as well as women. They are even more mainstream and watched by men and women together. Hollywood is too invested in the culture to let something as threatening to the social fabric as female sexuality dominate the scripts. Hollywood movies therefore are limited by political correctness. They are like the bad dating advice you get from mainstream sources: designed to mislead you about female preferences. This is not a conspiracy, just our culture defending its ways. Some script writers may believe their own distortions; others know what will work in the system. The heroine must not be depicted to crave her own submission. The hero must be demonstrated to win by being nice (and strong perhaps – a nod to reality).

Hollywood constantly tries to strike half-assed compromises: between how we’d like it to be and how it should be and how it is. Reality is not completely absent, of course – a small dose is required, lest the experience fail to compel. And as if that didn’t confuse things enough, they also strike a compromise between pleasing the female audience and pleasing the male audience, while nurturing, in both sexes, the illusions that cement the status quo.

While romance novels hold a lot of clues, they are not completely honest to female desire, either (again, like hardcore porn to male desire). They, too, go through too many filters: self-censoring, marketing selection, and a need to protect societal norms. So, romance novels beat Hollywood chick flicks, but better yet is the internet:

http://beautifulanddepraved.blogspot.com/

http://debauchette.com/

http://www.girlwithaonetrackmind.blogspot.com/

In defense of honest sluts and whores

January 10, 2009

In recent years, discussions of female sexual psychology have revealed truths that put our love of women to the test and are at a strong tension with the political ideal of gender equality. The pickup community has empirically explored female sexuality and how best to stoke female sexual passion. However, the revelation of the truth about female sexual passion has brought with it a strong aversive reaction among men against the very sexual passion they so desire to elicit and experience: If she is sexually passionate, men ask, how can I be sure that I am the only object of her passion and the biological father of the children I may come to raise?

These reasonable concerns have led some men to argue that female passion should be shamed (even as it is enjoyed by them) so as to ensure control of sexual commitment and biological fatherhood. The key concept to such societal control of female sexuality is the concept of “slut”, which denotes a sexually passionate and typically promiscuous woman, who is to be considered undesirable for a serious relationship.

I do agree that there is female behavior that is socially destructive and thus deserves to be shamed for the common good. However, I do not support the shaming of sluts or of female promiscuity. It seems to me to be both unfair to women and ultimately undesirable for men. Instead of shaming the sexual passion or promiscuity, I think it is simply dishonesty that deserves to be shamed. On this basis, I propose the following typology of women.

 

(1) The whore

Definition of whore: A person (typically a woman) who uses her sexual power over people to obtain nonsexual benefits, including money, gifts, and ego validation.

(1a) The honest whore

An honest whore is a whore who obtains nonsexual benefits through her sexual power over people in an honest exchange of goods. The typical example is the professional prostitute. Although this profession is probably as old as mankind and crucial to social peace, the honest whore is not well respected in polite society. This is a great injustice and hypocrisy, because honest whores, whether they are professionals or amateurs, actually make an indispensable and highly honorable contribution. They deserve our highest respect as human beings and as professionals.

(1b) The dishonest whore

A dishonest whore is a whore who obtains nonsexual benefits through her sexual power over people in a dishonest fashion, i.e. by misleading her target. The typical example of a dishonest whore is the widely respected “good girl” who goes on more than two dates with a male who is sexually interested in her, without having sex with him, while nurturing his belief in the possibility of sex, and accepting the male’s financial (typically drinks, dinners, or gifts) and/or emotional investment. This type of “good girl” deserves no respect at all. Her behavior is driven by material greed and/or an insatiable need to boost her ego at men’s expense. She deserves disrespect and social punishment – as this may be the only way to contain the substantial emotional and financial damage she causes.

Note that the dishonest whore may or may not be promiscuous and may or may not be a slut simultaneously (definition below). In fact, she may be a virgin, denying herself the pleasure of indulging her own sexual impulses, and doing damage to herself and others. Her virginity does not make her any less of a whore, if she abuses her sexual power in her dealings with largely defenseless men.

 

(2) The Slut

Definition of slut: a sexually passionate woman, who indulges her sexual impulses if they are sufficiently strong.

(2a) The honest slut

An honest slut is a passionate woman in touch with and honest about her sexuality. She will have sex with a man who is extremely attractive to her. However, her honesty prevents her from misrepresenting her current sexual contacts to a man who is sexually interested and/or emotionally invested in her. She might not volunteer information that might incriminate her by society’s hypocritical standards to people who have no right to know about her private life. But she will not grossly misrepresent her current sex life to a man seriously interested in her. Honesty is easier to achieve for choosy sluts, who have high self-esteem and are not addicted to sex for validation, simply because they are less promiscuous, i.e. their behavior is closer to the hypocritical ideal of virginity.

Note that a slut may or may not be promiscuous. In principle, a slut may simultaneously be a virgin: if she has not yet met the man to tempt her sufficiently, either because she is very young, or because she has exceedingly high standards.

The ideal woman is the honest slut who is also genuinely loving. She combines sexual passion, honesty, and true caring and empathy for people she likes. This is the woman qualified to bear my children.

(2b) The dishonest slut

A dishonest slut is a sexually passionate woman, who does not manage to be both passionate and honest at the same time: Faced with society’s judgments, and with male insecurity and need for control, she breaks down and lies about her behavior. Perhaps she has low-self esteem and needs excessive sex for validation. Perhaps she simply has low standards. In either case, she could be an honest slut, if she did not feel the need to hide her behavior. A truly sexually secure man may elicit honesty in a slut who is usually dishonest, because he does not judge or feel threatened by her sexual passion or promiscuity. In general, however, the dishonest slut feels the need to misrepresent her current sexual contacts in front of men who are sexually interested and/or emotionally investing in her. Note that the dishonest slut could be a virgin in principle. She is a slut to the extent that she is sexually passionate and dishonest to the extent that she misrepresents her sexuality to her suitors.

 

Five independent dimensions

Note that I view sexual passion (sluttiness), use of sexual power for nonsexual benefits (whorishness), promiscuity, honesty, and lovingness as independent variables. All combinations are possible and actually occur. Sexual passion and lovingness are beautiful qualities that deserve to be cultivated; lack thereof is regrettable, but nobody’s fault. Use of sexual power for nonsexual benefits is a reality to be accepted. Promiscuity is neither good nor bad. Honesty is a highly desirable acquired social skill; dishonesty deserves to be shamed so as to promote acquisition of honesty.

 

 

The sexually-successful-son hypothesis

January 3, 2009

A well-known hypothesis in evolutionary theory is the sexy-son hypothesis (Weatherhead & Robertson 1979). It states that a female will sexually prefer males who are sexy, because this preference ensures sexier male offspring, which in turn will propagate the female’s genes more effectively.

An intriguing circularity

The hypothesis is clearly circular: It explains female sexual preference as a preference for sexy males (whose sons will be more likely to be sexy). But whatever males conform to female preferences are by definition sexy. So the hypothesis can be restated as follows:

Females prefer males that females prefer.

Perhaps this circularity should not be seen as a logical flaw, but as reflecting the causal loops inherent to these processes. In particular, females will prefer males that other females prefer.

Objective-trait preference versus female-judgment-copying

Any objective-trait preference (say a female preference for dark hair) is consistent with the sexy-son hypothesis, as long as the preference is widespread in the female population. (Dark hair is an objective physical trait. If most females find dark hair sexy, then finding dark hair sexy will be evolutionarily advantageous to a particular female.)

However, the sexy-son hypothesis is also consistent with a more generalized female preference mechanism: beyond any innate preferences for particular objective traits, the female may have a preference for any trait at all that she perceives to be preferred by other females. This is the female-judgment-copying variant of the sexy-son hypothesis.

At the level of group selection, such an abstract and flexible sexual preference mechanism may rapidly promote the genes of a group of males who suddenly achieved some cultural success (e.g. developed a tool or technique), because it would enable female preferences to self-organize and unify within a single generation in favor of the males in question.

It is imaginable that an initial nonsexual preference becomes sexualized in a self-organized manner: For example, a particular female may choose a male based on a nonsexual judgment (e.g. cultural achievement). Another female perceiving this may then become sexually attracted to the male or his most salient qualities.

Females may prefer natural or cultural male traits

The preferred traits could be natural or cultural, whether females have innate preferences for certain objective traits or a tendency to copy other females’ preferences. However, a tendency to copy the judgments of other females (or of conspecifics in general) may offer the more straightforward account for sudden strong sexual preferences among females for males with certain cultural distinctions (celebrities, rock stars, as well as members of respected groups).

Should the sexy-son hypothesis be replaced by a sexually-successful-son hypothesis?

What ultimately matters to the propagation of the female’s genes is not whether her offspring will be perceived as sexy, but whether her offspring will be sexually successful.

Consider a son who is not sexy in any conventional sense but seductive nevertheless: He is quite likely to successfully propagate the female’s genes. Next, consider a sexy son with no sex drive: He is not likely to help propagate the female’s genes. Next, consider an unsexy son with strong rapist tendencies: He is more likely to propagate the female’s genes.

Strong sex drive and even rapist tendencies may lead to a more effective propagation of the female’s genes, so a female sexual preference for these traits may be evolutionarily successful.

This suggests that the sexy-son hypothesis should be replaced by a sexually-successful-son hypothesis and may explain the widely noted female preferences for male promiscuity and male physical dominance during sex.