Archive for the ‘laconic insights’ Category

Defining ‘nerd’

December 21, 2010

A nerd is someone who is focused on developing an explicit understanding of some content, rather than an intuitive feel for social dynamics. Because of the focus on content, a nerd will tend to miss the undercurrents of emotion and power in social interactions. A nerd can appear lost or out of touch, as a result of lacking a feel for what the interaction means to the power tectonics of the relationship with the other party.

Nerds are easily led. They tend to answer questions with naive accuracy.

The female sexual response is her emotional state multiplied by his perceived power. A male nerd is the prototypical anti-seducer because he doesn’t either create an emotional state or project power.

A woman of any sexual vibrancy will instinctually test for his tendency to be led within seconds of the the initial contact. If a tendency to be led is confirmed, she will be lastingly sexually turned off by the man. She might instantly turn cold, or she might remain warm, but in a merely friendly and asexual manner.

Whereas nerdiness is unsexy in males, it can be cute in females. Nerdiness emasculates, and so a man loses sexual appeal, whereas a woman might appear more feminine when her instinctual power play is tempered.

A male nerd can be sexy in a social environment like academia, which rewards his insights with status. A male nerd can also be sexy in conversation through direct intellectual domination of a female nerd who shares a deep interest in the same topics. This requires a subtle balance, as she needs to be intellectually inferior, but intelligent enough to feel her own inferiority. (If she is intellectually superior to him, she will be sexually turned off.)

Defining ‘nerd’ is a very nerdy thing to do. Although such a definition (and this entire blog) is about social dynamics (the nerd’s weak point, and arguably an unnerdy topic), it’s aimed at developing and explicit understanding, rather than an intuitive feel for it (thus nerdy).

Nerdiness becomes a problem, when you can’t switch it off. If you can be a nerd, but you can also play the game of social interaction with a bit of a streetwise feel for the underlying power dynamics, then you’ll be alright.

Humor: sexy.

December 15, 2010

When women say they’re attracted to men who can make them laugh, they’re telling the truth. This statement is within the small intersection of what is true about female sexual preference and what is socially acceptable. So women feel good saying this.

Humor is attractive because it is a demonstration of a good life, of control, and of social power and dominance over her and other people. Humor, like a tickle attack among lovers or siblings, is very dominant, but in a positive and socially acceptable way.

You and your role

December 12, 2010

It’s a fallacy that if you’re playing a role then it’s not you.

You are playing a role in every social interaction. Typically, it’s a role dictated by real or perceived expectations of others. Ideally, it’s a role scripted by you to serve your needs.

The question is not: Is it me or is it a role?

The question is: Does the role I am playing give me the power to express myself?

Clothes make men. And so do roles. You should confuse yourself with your role no more than you should confuse yourself with your clothes.

What role do you want to play?


Ass pinching = shit testing

September 21, 2010

Men like to pinch the asses of attractive female strangers. It’s natural. It feels good.

I’ve discussed in detail that female shit testing is really rubbing up against your manhood. Ass pinching, then, is the male equivalent of light variants of female shit testing. As such, it should be considered equally acceptable.

Both practices serve the same twin purposes: Testing before investing, and then also: just enjoying the other’s sexual quality. When we are slightly attracted to a stranger, these testing behaviors are hard to resist. Whatever the result of the test, it’s win-win for the testing party:

  • If he or she fails the test, then we’ve enjoyed whatever little desirable female or male quality the other party had to offer, and more importantly, we now know that we need not pursue.
  • If he or she passes the test, then we have escalated the interaction and know that we are going to take things to the next stage.

(A related argument is here.)

Like shit testing, ass pinching is a compliment. It means: I’m considering you.

Both ass pinching and shit testing are objectifying and, thus, slightly demeaning. That’s ok as long as it’s playful.

In the interest of gender equality, if shit testing is allowed then so must be ass pinching.

Perhaps ass pinching should be more acceptable than shit testing: After all ass pinching is healthy for women (a micro-massage), whereas shit testing stresses most men and reduces their life expectancy by a couple of years.

Ass pinching should be the average male’s goto response to a shit test. View the shit test as permission to pinch her ass. The only problem: You might not know that what she just said or did was a shit test. But then pinching without permission is sexier anyway.

Loving asshole

September 5, 2010

When a woman calls you an “asshole”, there is always an undertone of desire. And when a woman calls you “loving”, it often means that she is less sexually attracted to you and, thus, less in love with you. It’s fucked up, but that’s how it is.

We tend to think of lovingness and assholery as polar opposites.

This one-dimensional conception is useful as a rough first approximation. A man’s place on this continuum allows us to predict with surprising statistical accuracy the collective female sexual response he elicits. I suspect that the amount of behavioral variance this naive theory predicts is greater than for most textbook psychological theories.

However, lovingness and assholery are not actually opposite poles, but independent dimensions. And a man’s lovingness is by no means necessarily sexually repulsive to women.

The main problem with lovingness is that it tends to reduce dominance and to place excessive power in her hands. It is really these consequences that are deeply unsexy, not lovingness per se. If you can be loving without being a pushover, active sexual repulsion will be prevented. If you can be loving in a dominant way and on your own terms, it is actually attractive.

The ideal seducer is the loving asshole; he is simultaneously very loving and very asshole.

Mere mortal men struggle to combine these qualities. They simply cannot fathom how to amp up the assholery without losing their lovingness or vice versa. We will need to explore in depth how to achieve this later on. For inspiration, consider loving acts performed unexpectedly or against her will, combined with a gruff refusal to follow her explicit wishes. In conversation, an attitude of loving condescension is quite magical in its effect on women.

There is a class of shittest, in which the woman presents you with an apparently binary choice between loving and asshole. Choose loving, and you will have cut the sexual tension like a taut rubberband. You will feel it in her very next response. The goto solution is to choose asshole. She will be mad, but – though she will try to pretend otherwise – the game is on.

It takes genius to parry such shittests as a true loving asshole. It must not be just a playful response: A joke would be too weak. And it must be a single act of loving assholery, not one act of each: An asshole act followed by a loving act, or vice versa, is even worse than just a loving act. Not only will the sexual tension be out the window, but her respect for you as well.

The assholery must be a fart in her face, truly offensive, with the lovingness felt in its wake, as she comes to her senses and appreciates what has just happened.

Nobody said it was easy.

As a working hypothesis, I propose that how much you get laid follows this function of your lovingness and your assholery.

If lovingness is not inherently unsexy, we can ask whether assholery is inherently sexy. It might be just the consequences or concomitants of assholery – such as dominance, excitement, and sexual escalation – that cause the female sexual response. However, I like the concept of assholery, because it captures, without extenuation, the tendency to recklessly impose one’s will. This tendency springs from a combination of a strong will and a callous disregard for the other’s preferences. There is something uniquely delicious about this to the sexual beast inside her.

Embrace the situation

August 25, 2010

Embrace the situation in its full complexity. Feel: the ambiguity intrigues me. When you see an interesting woman, embrace everything within you that attracts you to her and everything that deters you and at the same time perceive the social scene as a whole. If you then gravitate toward her, fully conscious and open to the complexity within and without you, you will be humble, free, and confident. The hubris of pretending that the dynamics can be predicted or controlled will fade from your mind. Let go of that control. Let prediction wither as perception blooms. Entrust yourself to the dynamics and let your boundary become permeable, to the inflow (prediction withering as perception blooms) and to the outflow of information (conscious control withering as spontaneous expression blooms). Breaking these barriers will put a twinkle in your eye. She will not be able to resist you.

Honest grandmother

August 24, 2010

“Women are an unpredictable race. They always want the unattainable. You need to proceed strategically: remain unattainable. No one can take that right from you.”

– My grandmother’s words (I remember the exact phrasing because I wrote it down immediately after the conversation)

Sex to her: like dancing to me

August 21, 2010

I love dancing – with women – as part of the game. It’s a metaphor for sex.

But when she is mine sexually, my motivation to dance with her and my enjoyment of it diminishes.

Is dancing just a means to the end of seduction for me then?

No. I genuinely enjoy it for the experience itself – but it is irresistible to me only in the context of seduction.

Sex to a woman is like dancing to me. She loves sex. But when a man is thoroughly hers, her enjoyment of sex with him diminishes somewhat. Is sex just a means to the end of conquering a man to her then? No. She genuinely loves it – but it is irresistible to her only in the context of seducing a man to fall in love with her.

Equality and power dynamics

August 19, 2010

“I want our relationship to be equal.”

Sounds good. But what does it mean?

What if one of the two is afraid to lose the other and starts accepting patterns that hurt him or her?

Let’s say it’s a closed relationship and no one is cheating. However, she adores him too much and ends up working to please him all the time, while he is cruelly ignoring her. (That could be a happy relationship, if she is masochistic — as many women are. Or it could be an unhappy situation for her, if she has less of a taste for his cruelty.)

Or vice versa: perhaps he is constantly giving her love and attention and this makes her lose interest in him sexually. (That could not be a happy relationship for most men.)

Unfair situations arise because one has more power than the other.

Can the more powerful person mend this?

We would like to say: Yes, the more powerful person can shape the relationship. The more powerpul person should not abuse his or her power.

But the answer is: No, the more powerful person cannot fundamentally change the balance of power.

One can strive to be honest and not to abuse one’s power. But in sexual relationships if you have power, you have it. And whatever you do won’t change that. You can’t hand over the gun.

You cannot give the other the freedom to do what they want if what they want is to please you. Freedom cannot be given, it can only be taken.

And you also can’t make yourself feel like doing things you don’t feel like doing. You can pretend within narrow limits of minor favors. But the other doesn’t want favors, they want you to want to — and controlling that is simply beyond your powers.

Can the less powerful person mend the imbalance? Only to a limited degree: One can strive to hold one’s own, correcting the balance. But if you don’t have power, it’s hard to hold your own indefinitely.

Either one could end the relationship. The one to whom it is unfair should end it, right? But perhaps he or she doesn’t have better options. So ending it would be sacrificing a measure of happiness for the abstract ideal of equality.

Or the one who is more powerful could end it. But perhaps he or she is enjoying it, despite (or because of) the unfair form that it takes.

In reality, the unfair relationship just reflects a larger unfairness of life: that the two don’t have equal options. Should the one with better options be required to give them up and be less happy than they could be?

I say no. After all, it would mean that the more powerful one is asked to accept a relationship that he or she would be better off without.

Is any perceived unfairness always just a reflection of the relative options of the two?

I don’t think so. There are situations where people fuck others over by making them underestimate their power, by making them helpless and dependent, so that they feel they don’t have other options, when actually they do. For example, if the other died unexpectedly, they might find themselves better off after a short while. Some men do this to women; some women do it to men. It’s dishonest.

While it sounds good to say both should strive for equality, it’s unclear what that really means.

Does equality mean both are allowed to do the same things, like sleep with other people?

Ideally yes, but then perhaps one has more options to do such things, and so, despite the symmetric rule, it’s not actually symmetric.

Or perhaps both have equal options, but one has no interest in sleeping around. And so, again, it’s not actually symmetric. Or perhaps, both have equal options and equal interest, but one is hurt every time the other does it and the other doesn’t care comparably. And so, again, it’s not actually symmetric.

Or should equality be taken to mean both get equal love?

That seems closer to a meaningful definition of equality. But then this likely means somewhat different things to each.

For example for an average man, getting love might essentially mean sex. And for an average woman getting love might essentially mean attention.

If there’s a script in which attention precedes sex, women can take men’s attention and not give any sex.
And if there’s a script in which sex precedes attention, men can fuck women and not give any attention.

When each gives something they’d rather keep to take something they want, that’s prostitution. It comes in two varieties, an honest and a dishonest one: the bordello and marriage (or monogamous relationship), respectively.

I want none of that at all, no prostitution of any type.

I want sex with people who want sex with me and friendship with people who want friendship with me. And ideally these should be the same people, but that complicates things. And ideally both the fucking and the friendship should be deep and thorough, and this further complicates things.

Doing both at maximal intensity with a single person is perhaps the deepest and most satisfying experience. But it is also most complicated and least likely to occur, let alone last.

The symmetry this non-prostitution sex-love or fuck-friend ideal suggests is only present at an abstract level. For the sex to be hot, there must be a strong sexual polarity.

Women are generally turned off by men who don’t have power — while men can love women who don’t have power. Conversely men are generally turned off by women who don’t have beauty — while women can love men who don’t have beauty. ‘Opposites attract’ — and opposites are by definition maximally unequal. But then also ‘birds of a feather, flock together’: similar interests on top of sexual polarity make the perfect mix of contrast (for sex) and concord (for friendship).

Because of the major gender differences, a relationship that is both happy and fair in terms of love given and received is often not a symmetric one. For example, the man may need more power (unequal) and the woman may need more beauty (unequal) for an exchange of equal love.

And then with age, beauty fades and power rises — to a point, before it drops. So the woman may have more options in her twenties; the man may have more options in his forties. This is why relationships, where the man is older (unequal) may be better matched in terms of sexual options (more equal).

If both are equal in genetic attractiveness and age and in their twenties, the woman may run away (singing ‘I’m like a bird’), because she has many exciting options. Perhaps around thirty there’s a period of equality (of sexual power for age-matched partners equally ranked among their peers). But this equality of sexual power is short-lived: In their forties, the man may run away, because now he may have more exciting options.

Let’s say I had five girlfriends who love me and I them — five open relationships, because I am honest. We tell our friends that it’s
symmetric and open. But perhaps one of them only wants to sleep with me — it’s not unheard of. So actually it’s only symmetric in theory. Is it unfair?

Maybe. She might suffer because I’m sleeping around. But then maybe she doesn’t mind that as much as leaving me for a different guy. And maybe if I became monogamous, she would be less enticed by me.

So, in summary, we can have symmetric rules (that meet our friends’ approval), but still an unfair relationship — even one where one misleads and fucks the other over. Or we can have major inequalities (appalling to all our friends), but still overall a fair and honest relationship, in which both are as happy as they can be.

It is very superficial things (looks, power) that make us fall. But the consequences are not superficial. The love is real, and the sex is good.

Two out of three

August 18, 2010

The female sex module selects men by their personality, preferring traits of the dark triad: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

I’ve got one of them in abundance by nature.

And machiavellianism I just fake to manipulate her.

Two out of three, I do alright.