Archive for the ‘puzzle’ Category

Optimism, pessism: What is the synthesis?

January 8, 2012







Both Anthony Robbins and Alain de Botton explore how we can maintain emotional stability. Robbins stresses the importance of a positive vision, of instrumental optimism. De Botton stresses the importance of managing expectations, of instrumental pessimism. Both arguments ring true. But this insight begs the question of when to use each.

What’s the synthesis?

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.

You like a slut?

August 22, 2010

Slut is a term used to shame women who have a lot of sex.

Why would having a lot of sex be a bad thing? And why should it be particularly bad for a woman?
Poetry of Flesh has an interesting first-person perspective.

Progressives embrace the idea that men and women alike should be sexually free. It’s everyone’s right, right?

We’re tempted, thus, to redefine slut as “sexually passionate and promiscuous woman”, and to counteract the stigma by using the term with positive connotations: “She’s wonderful — such a slut.”

While the political plan of destigmatizing the term has some appeal, there is little indication that the stigma will be overcome  anytime soon in mainstream culture. The stigma is deep-seated and strangely powerful. More so, than that of, say, ‘gay’, today.

Beyond the intellectual considerations of a political discussion, we may ask ourselves how we feel about sluts. How do we feel about having a slut as a girlfriend, wife, or daughter?

Personally, I’d say my ideal is a woman who is very sexually passionate, but also highly selective. A woman who has experience, but no compulsion to jump random strangers. Hammer has some interesting thoughts along related lines on sluts versus hedonists and sexual-liberator game.

Baumeister and Twenge (2002) argue that slut shaming occurs mainly among females to keep the price of sex high. Their argument makes sense. Dumping willing vaginas on the market should be bad for women (except those very vaginas) and good for men: (1) Men get more sex. (2) Men get more power (as the sexual deprivation that enslaves many men is alleviated).

Nevertheless, slut shaming is widespread among men as well. And surprisingly, given that sluts give sex, especially in the sphere of game.

Personally, I won’t game a girl, lay her, and then disrespect her for being easy. I feel that that’s fucked up and prefer less conflicted relationships with women. I’ve had long-term girlfriends that slept with me on the first date. They are no less trustworthy (and not even necessarily sluttier) in my experience than girls who play chaste.

Male slut shaming may have a lot to do with sexual insecurity (“Can I compete with the others?”) and vagina envy (“Why is she getting laid more than I?”). But can we dismiss it so easily?

Here‘s a recent example from Roissy’s blog. The slut shaming on Roissy’s blog and elsewhere is part of an agenda to curb female power.

The general evolutionary-psychology argument about the discontents of today’s sexual market is compelling:

Females are attracted to powerful males. Merely equal males are never sexually attractive. This already creates a real problem for the progressive ideal of equal societal power: Equality of societal power means that most men are not attractive to females. They can get to have sex only to the degree that culture enforces monogamy, such that males and females are matched in pairs, and few are left out.

This is where  sexual liberation comes in to compound the problem. Sexual liberation means a free sexual market, unconfined by monogamy. And in a free sexual market, female sexual preference dominates. The reason for this is greater female selectivity reflecting the biological scarcity of eggs and abundance of sperm: Only a small proportion of the males is needed to keep all women constantly pregnant.

Ironically, the result of a sexual market dominated by female sexual preference is soft polygamy: few alpha males monopolize access to sex with most females. A female may suffer from her chosen alpha’s promiscuity, but not enough to settle for a male she could have to herself.

The chosen alphas reflect female sexual preference, for power, along with dark-triad traits (narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Like the males’ promiscuity, these particular preferred traits may cause suffering for the women liberated enough to follow their sexual preference. Beyond these preferred traits, the alphas are special for their position at the center of a crowd of women. Nothing attracts a crowd of women like a crowd of women.

Indeed most men, today, are sexually frustrated to varying degrees. It’s not surprising that they are angry and aggressive. Something has to change to integrate them better. I’m just not sure that shaming sluts and reinstating 50’s-type morality will do the trick at this point.

In the interest of both genders, we cannot let sex be controlled entirely by the female brain’s sex module.

Game is one response. But will it suffice?

Does anyone have a serious answer to this?

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.

Rubbing up against your manhood: a slightly different perspective on female shittesting

August 7, 2010

Sexual girls will test you from the very first moment. For example, she may look you in the eye and keep eye contact in order to try and make you uncomfortable. Look away first, and you’ve failed the test.

Alternatively, she may ask you an innocent-seeming question. Answer her seriously (whatever your answer may be), and you’ve failed the test.

Naive men are surprised and confused by this over and over again. Why is she doing this?

One accurate answer is: to test your masculine mettle. It’s called a shittest. If you’ve looked away first or naively answered her question, she is done with you.

Why is looking away bad? Because it suggests that you are more nervous than her. This means you are weaker than her, and hence you are sexually repulsive to her.

Why is answering her question bad? And doesn’t it depend on the answer?

Check here at 2 min 10 s, for an example:

Should he have given a different answer (truthful or not), so as to impress her?

No. Whatever answer he gives, he’s failed her shittest. Whether his answer is honest or not is beside the point. Whether his answer is impressive or not is also beside the point. The fact that she asks and he answers establishes that he will let himself be led by her. This means he is weaker than her, and hence sexually repulsive to her.

How to pass the test? Don’t answer. Dominate by silence. Change the subject. Mock her. Ask a different question. Just don’t jump through her hoop.

It may be hard to believe, but how you handle her shittests is de facto more important to her than all your objective qualities. Your personality, your work, your brilliance, your looks, your social connections, your societal status, your wealth: all these things matter to women to some extent. And some of them, like status, matter more than others, like looks. However, failing her shittests will render all your objective qualities irrelevant by comparison.

Disentangling the contributions of different factors to her sexual response is complicated by the fact that the factors are dependent. For example, to the extent that your looks lend you status and confidence, they do (indirectly) make you attractive. Another example: your passing or failing of her shittests may reflect your general level of confidence; so one could argue that the tests are effective at probing a deeper quality.

However, female sexual preference is fundamentally superficial, and arguably more so than the male sexual preference for beauty. A confident man with excellent genes, good looks, high intelligence, and high societal status, may fail shittests simply because he is too honest and trustworthy. And this weakness will trump all of his deeper strengths. He will not get laid, let alone loved by her. Similarly, a careful man of solid judgment will tend to project less confidence than a bold man who, like George W Bush, will judge incorrectly and then refuse to admit his error. And the latter will get laid and loved.

Feeling your manhood: testing versus just enjoying

The concept of shittest suggests a probing and information-gathering function. Once you’ve passed a sequence of such tests, your manhood should be accepted (or rejected), and the shittesting should end. However, to the extent that the relationship remains sexual in nature, her shittesting, though it might become milder, may never end.

This is because what we call a shittest is not just a test. It is rubbing up against your manhood, and it serves not only to test but also to feel and just enjoy your manhood.

Just like squeezing a new girl’s tits and ass is equal parts testing and enjoying their physical quality, her shittesting is equal parts testing and enjoying your manhood. And both activities are equally objectifying in a sexual way.

Do you stop squeezing her tits, once you know they are good? Not entirely: because you just enjoy it. And so she will not entirely stop shittesting, even when she knows who you are: because she just enjoys feeling your manhood.

Recall that porn is about physical encounters that reveal the female object’s physical beauty. And romance novels, the female equivalent of porn, are about story, dialogue, emotion, in short: dramatic interactions that reveal the male object’s dominance and power.

Similarly, the female equivalent of rubbing up against your sex is not touching your prick, but creating dramatic interactions that reveal your dominance and power.

Being rubbed up against without one’s consent can be an unsettling and degrading experience, whether it is the physical (male) or psychological (female) variant.

Either type of rubbing up against the other sex is a natural sexual response. However, the male variant is shamed (in the absence of consent), while the female variant is widely accepted. This seems all the more unfair when we consider that manhandling a woman is generally unharmful to the woman’s health, while the stress that female shittesting creates for men over their lifespan is substantial and likely contributes to men’s lower life expectancy.

However, a few of us learn to enjoy the abuse, like a massage, and to playfully assert the dominance she so craves to feel.

When she endlessly repeats the same question about you…

August 7, 2010

I open a girl at a bar.

Me: “Your drink looks poisonous.”
She: “It’s my favorite.”
Me: “It will kill you.”
She: “I hear an accent. Where are you from?”
Me: “Where are you from?”
She: “I’m from here. Where are you from?”
Me: [pause] “Abroad.”
She: “I can tell as much. What country?”
Me: [pause] “A dark land.”
She: “Tell me.”
Me: [mock serious pose]
She: “Where are you from?”

I smile and leave her hanging to go back to my friends.
Ten minutes later, close to the dancefloor, she reopens.

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: [calm, friendly, questioning expression]

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: “You should be dancing.”

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: “Is it important to you?”

She: “I just want to know. Where are you from?”

She repeated that exact same question another five, or so, times. The exact repetition almost appeared as an attempt at pretending the question had not been asked and left unanswered previously. Asking it freshly, as though out of the blue, might trigger a reflex to truthfully answer, she might have felt. Or perhaps she was just planning to wear me out.

I never told her.

Different situation: 21-year-old HB8, third date (not counting two meetings in groups), and she is still resisting the kiss, playing good girl.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Old!”
She: “How old?”

Me: “Imagine a number, and I’ll read your mind and tell you if you’re right.”
She: [annoyed look]
Me: “Close your eyes and imagine a number.”
She closes her eyes. I wait a couple of seconds, then break out laughing: “Ha, ha, ha, I’m much older than that.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [calm, friendly expression]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [mock serious pose]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [amused chuckle]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I am a vampire. I’m hundreds of years old.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I don’t remember exactly. I was born so very long ago.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Please say it again. It’s sexy.”

She’s shocked and also amused, turns away for a moment in frustration.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [Taking out iphone to film her say it.]

She: “No, you can’t film.”
Me: “It’s so funny and sweet. Just want to capture the moment, please say it again one more time.”

She: “I don’t like you.”
Me: “Yes, I know you like me.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I like your passion.”

She: “What passion?”
Me: “Your sexual passion, which makes you want to know.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [no response]

She: “Why don’t you answer? Is it a problem?”
Me: “You want to know why I don’t tell you?”
She: “Yes!”
Me: “I like that you feel this passionate curiosity. It is a very beautiful thing. It’s my gift to you.”

She: “How old are you? Show me your ID card?”
Me: “I’m sorry officer, I left my card at home.”

She: “I’m going to find out eventually anyway!”

She steps closer, touches me, faces very close now.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Actually I have my ID card here in my pocket. But it’s fake. If you were police, I’d show it to you. But to you, I am honest, so I won’t show it.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [gazing straight into her eyes with brashness and amusement]

Passionate kiss!

The exact repetition of the same question, again and again and again, is an interesting phenomenon. These girls were both young. More mature women perhaps would stop themselves. However, I suspect there is a lesson here that applies not only to young girls.

What makes her repeat the question?

Of course, she really wants to know. Perhaps she wants to wear me out through repetition. That’s probably part of it. Perhaps she wants to trigger the beta male’s reflex to truthfully answer any question. So her motive is to find out as much as to shittest me.

But more importantly, she feels the heat rising between her legs with each denial of an answer. And she is simply addicted to repeating that experience.

Priceless advice: refrigerator game

July 13, 2010

The Wutzwerg – Klaus Kinski

May 31, 2010

I recently had a conversation with a friend about Klaus Kinski, the actor. My friend had some interesting thoughts…

Klaus Kinski, the “Wutzwerg” (“angerdwarf”) as my friend calls him, through his frequent explosive rages, rose rapidly in his youth to become a sexual superalpha. High on all three traits of the dark triad – narcissism, machiavellism, and psychopathy (he was once diagnosed with schizophrenia), he was naturally irresistible to women.

In the hierarchy of men, however, these same traits limited his ascent. Despite being a world-class actor and natural star of great international appeal, he never had the level of success commensurate to his talent. With his rage, extreme narcissism, and violent – even homicidal – tendencies, he was seen as too much of a risk factor for movie productions.

While many men appeal to women by first gaining status among men, the unique quality and intensity of Klaus Kinski’s assholery, my friend argued, led him first to rise among women, and then to fail among men.

To illustrate the exemplary assholery of his relations to women, a quote: “As soon as I fuck a girl or she’s sucked me off, I want to leave her immediately. If one sucks me over for so long that I let her sleep with me and she wants to cuddle up to me, I kick her away.”

This led our conversation to the question whether we should consider the qualities preferred by female sexuality as generally positive and desirable – beyond the sexual domain. Klaus Kinski’s story would suggest that the answer is no.

Evolution built the human brain. But let’s not trust its wild brilliance too much: It is perfectly liable also to give the females of a species a preference for males with rapist tendencies (as rapists’ offspring may more effectively spread their genes in the generations to follow – by rape). Evolution can be brilliant, but it is also blind, and it has no regard whatsoever for our preferences, be they ethical, political, or personal.

Decisiveness, determination, and success itself are qualities we value, which are also sexually preferred by women. A measure of assholery, while socially undesirable and unsurprisingly widely shamed, can contribute to success. But let’s not whitewash the evolutionary program. While we should accept the sexual preferences of the opposite sex as biological fact and as nobody’s fault, we need not accept them as norms or as our own preferences.

There are many positive qualities that have little or no weight, or even negative weight, in the female attraction formula. Good looks are a plus of small weight. Intelligence is a bit of a handicap. Lovingness is a major handicap, especially if it appears compulsory and prevents any demonstration of the ability to be a true asshole.

Game is a playful way of accepting that women have these sexual preferences and of appealing to them without enslaving oneself to them and limiting oneself the way Kinski did.

Klaus Kinski died in 1991. “How did he die?” I asked my friend. “Well,” he answered, “what do you expect? He exploded in anger. Like Rumpelstiltskin, he tore himself up. He just essentially self-combusted. Heart-attack, I think they called it.”

Dating dynamics

May 31, 2010

This appallingly simple algorithm accounts for a surprisingly large portion of the variance of dating developments.