Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Alpha Mail: Game and the self-denying woman

Thalia explains why men should prefer butterballs:
The most feminine attributes, softness and sweetness, are not found in hard-toned bodies. Women who have single digit body-fat percentage are not nurturing by nature. They are tautly disciplined and their first response is "No!"

It seems kind of silly that you Gamesters go on and on about feminine natures, and the way women "should be," but the physical profile you select is exceptionally high in testosterone! Taking normal distributions into account, those rail thin women could have more testosterone than many men! You guys got it SOOOOOOO backwards.
First, let me admit that Thalia is absolutely right with regards to her initial observation. Gym bunnies with their slender, beautiful bodies are quite often literal hard-asses. They tend to be rigid, disciplined, less submissive and more difficult than the average woman. And it's true, they are without question the champions of the instinctive "No!" This instinct to deny others is a necessary consequence of their ability to deny themselves.

But where Thalia's logic runs off the rails is that this makes them any less desirable. Her erroneous assumption that "softness and sweetness" trumps "slender, hot body" for men. This isn't to say that men don't value softness and sweetness, we absolutely do. Ideally, men would prefer a beautiful hardbody with a sweet disposition. But if a man faces a choice between a soft, sweet warpig and a slender, hot, pain-in-the-ass, well, the latter is going to win every single time. And the higher status the man, the more confident he is of meeting the challenge presented.

This is, in fact, precisely where Game comes into play. It is Game that permits a man to increase his sexual market value as well and gives him the tools to prevent the slender, hot, pain-in-the-ass from freely indulging in her waspish instincts and help her stay in touch with her softer, sweeter, more feminine side.

When John Adams wrote about "the tyranny of the petticoat" back in the late eighteenth century, he was referring directly to the female tendency to rule with cruelty. Game permits a man to reject the female rule to which so many men now find themselves subject, and therefore allows him to pursue the more dangerous, more desirable women without fear.


Anonymous said...

1. Fat women don't give a shit about their appearance. There's nothing feminine about that.

2. Young women can be slender and soft and feminine. That's their value. It sure ain't their conversation.

It's only older women who have to be bony dyke jocks to stay slender. No woman at 40 looks 20, and when they spend 20 hours a week trying, they look like leathery testosterone-addled freaks. But still, I agree, it's much better than fat.

A woman's best bet as she gets older is to take care of herself and age gracefully. If she needs to compete with 20-year-olds in the SMP when she's 40, she FUBAR'd her life long since.

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

One problem: Most people don't change, and they certainly can't be made to change. They have to want to change. All the incentives in the world are useless if they don't want to, even conditioning tactics like Game.

The question is, how long do you need, in order to know whether you can manipulate Miss Hot PITA Bitch into becoming Sweet Susie Homemaker?

JCclimber said...

Their best bet is to just never, ever, ever, get fat. Getting pregnant is NOT a get out of diet free card.
You can be fit while pregnant, and quickly lose the weight after birth. Except in the breast-feeding areas, which no one usually minds being a little bigger.

If you have gained weight, well, better to lose it with eating less and exercising more, even if you get a bit leathery.

Keep the weight off. Parents are utter fools who let their children gain too much weight.

And I found Thalia's comment to be hilarious. Spin, hamster, spin!

JCclimber said...

Mrs P,
the change is very rapid. The permanent change comes about if her man stays alpha. Unless she is, at core, mostly evil and likes being that way.

VD said...

The question is, how long do you need, in order to know whether you can manipulate Miss Hot PITA Bitch into becoming Sweet Susie Homemaker?

Anywhere from 30 minutes to three dates. It's all about how they handle having their challenges and tests met successfully.

Any woman is capable of being a complete bitch. And any woman is capable of being a sweet and submissive wife. The entire point of Game is based on the dynamic nature of women.

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

JC, most people are evil and want to be comfortable about it. Why else do we need salvation? Why else is "judging" considered the worst thing you can do nowadays?

Also, Vox, I get the direction of your point, and I recognize that Game usually works and why it works. I'm going to read back over the archives to see if you've said what I'm thinking is missing here, and then come back if you hadn't. MPAI is my concern, in brief.

Heuristics said...

Slightly off topic but should be interesting for most (all?) people on this blog I think.

About a year ago on norwegian tv a comedian (he has a sociology degree) created a tv show where he investigated what scientific basis the gender research community in norway has for claiming that the typical feminist stuff is true. It was painfully obvious to everyone that watched the show that not only do they have no foundation they are actively hostile to actual scientific research in the area. As a result of this show and the public debate it generated a few weeks ago the norwegian government stopped all funding for gender research in norway (this is the type of research that has in sweden created gender neutral kindergartens where boys are not allowed to play with mechanical toys for they, according to them, reinforces gender stereotypes).

If you want to watch this show with english subtitles (you do, it is HIGHLY amusing, especially from a game perspective since it confirms much of what has been said on game). It is available here:

If you are asked for a password it is 'hjernevask'

Part 1 – ”The Gender Equality Paradox”
Part 2 – ”The Parental Effect”
Part 3 – ”Gay/straight”
Part 4 – ”Violence”
Part 5 – ”Sex”
Part 6 – ”Race”
Part 7 – ”Nature or Nurture”

here is a link (in norwegian, sorry, couldnt find an english one) to back up my claim that gender researched has now been shut down in norway due to this show.


As a swede I could only hope they showed this on swedish tv, but there is no way in hell that is ever going to happen.

VD said...

Great stuff, Heuristics. It merits its own post later this week.

RVT said...

Thalia is little confused. Sweetness is valued as a personality trait, rather than a physical attribute. A sweet woman is full of estrogen, not candy.

Anonymous said...

It should be noted that most skinny women do not have single digit bodyfat percentages. A man with 8-10% body fat looks ripped. A woman with 8-10% stops looking feminine at all.

I saw a chart showing that most Sports Illustrated models fell around the 16-19% mark. I don't know if this is entirely accurate, but I'm inclined to think so given my observations.

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

@Thalia: "It seems kind of silly that you Gamesters go on and on about feminine natures, and the way women 'should be.'"

This is exactly the opposite of Game. It is the gamma, the man devoid of success with women, who think and behave in accordance of what they think "should be."

Game, on the other hand, focuses on the "what is" and the "what works." There isn't a lot in Game about flowers and romance... things that "should be." There is more about aloofness, shit tests, and the female nature that is to be blunt not as pure as Gammas would believe.

Google "be a skittles man" on Heartiste. It talks about how husbands who provide expensive weddings and are good to their wives beg for once a month quickies, whereas bastards get all the sex they want for the bargain basement price of a bag of skittles. Game promotes the skittles man, not because it "should be" but because it simply is so.

Brad Andrews said...

Huh? The point is that women need to be like that to make it worth a man focusing on her. That is very different from the idea that women "should be" a certain way and waiting for them to act consistent with that belief.


I would note that my wife has a very slender build and will almost certainly always have that, though she is not as thin as she was at 25, nor do I desire or push for that. The point is not to be a bean pole, but to not be the cantaloupe.

debbs said...

This gym rat vs soft and sweet is such a false dichotomy. Women who don't work out today are much fatter than women who didn't work out in the past.

For example, at 21 I had a 19 BMI - which according to discussions here would be considered on the slim side. But, that was in fact about average for the time - a size 6 to 8. Thirty years later, I have a BMI of 22.5 and wear a size 2 to 4 while the average size is now a 12. If anything, I am less toned today than I was then and the BMI increase would be more indicative of fat than muscle gain. Yet I'm two full sizes less rather than two full sizes more? And I wear what's considered a smaller than average size? Hmmmm.....

30 years ago, female gym rats were a rarity. The hard bodied look was not desired. Women that were not elite athletes generally did not lift weights or attempt muscle gain beyond toning. We did aerobics class if anything - aka dancing and socializing. Mostly though, we ate better quality food and got more activity throughout the day. There wasn't much on TV and we didn't have the internet so, for entertainment, we did stuff. These factors resulted in a much smaller version of soft and sweet and it's all still doable today. Take a walk or a run. Ride a bike. Rollerblade. Whatever's fun. It doesn't require being a "literal hard-ass."

SarahsDaughter said...

Off Topic but just had to share.
This guy exists, I graduated with him (so he's about 37 years old), no surprise he's single again, and, he's not gay. Here's his FB status for today:
"well boys and girls. i am done with school for six weeks. i am going to try something new for a male and see what comes of it. you ready!!! i am going to sell patrylite candles. PLEASE PLEASE if you want to host a show send me a message. if you want to buy some and not host a show send me a message. thanks"

Heuristics said...

Vox, thanks, a new post would be fine :)

Thalia said...

What an enormous leap of logic!! Where did you get "butterball" out of my comment? Please, let's keep a rational conversation away from personal remarks and hamster rationalizations. Ya'll get nasty and spiteful behind your "Anonymous" avatars.

Are you saying that in the SMP you would go after HB 9.5 even though she was narcissistic, high maintenance, spendy, not-so-smart, and a bitch? Is that true for the long term as well as short term?

VD said...

Are you saying that in the SMP you would go after HB 9.5 even though she was narcissistic, high maintenance, spendy, not-so-smart, and a bitch? Is that true for the long term as well as short term?

No, I really don't even notice women below HB 8.0 in the attraction sense. Narcissistic, not-so-smart, and a bitch isn't a problem for me. But high-maintenance, no. That's a deal-breaker.

What do you have against people with normal intelligence anyhow? There is literally nothing wrong with being less-than-brilliant.

Anonymous said...

The faster you spin that hamster wheel, Thalia, the bigger and better strawmen you can make.

Thalia said...

I challenge Anonymous to stay on topic.

You sound like a slogan-slinging ventriloquist dummy.

Stop using the word "hamster" as an argument-clincher.

Are you waiting for one of the Big Boys to give you a pat on the back?

Toby said...

The boner don't lie.

No matter how sweet and feminine she acts, it won't matter if we don't want her.

And when we want her, bitchiness and the tendency to be difficult are just obstacles for us to deal with to reach our goal.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing those videos Heuristics, I've watched the first one so far and it was very interesting.

Anonymous said...

"I challenge Anonymous to stay on topic."

Dear clueless Thalomide, your false dichotomy strawman about proper women shapes and subsequent rationalizations -are- the topic. Or didn't you bother to read the post that spawned these comments.

But hey, spin that wheel! You go currrrrrvy grrrl!

debbs said...

"And when we want her, bitchiness and the tendency to be difficult are just obstacles for us to deal with to reach our goal."

Restated from a woman's point of view - if want a guy that likes a challenge, be a challenge.

Post a Comment