We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM.This is good clarification and it's really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain BETA traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. As a general rule, anything that inspires the same "awwwww" reaction as children and puppies is something that belongs in the BETA LTR box and not the ALPHA juices like wine box.
I believe the primary reason it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between "that which I love" and "that which turns me on" is that for women, sexually turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is so delicate that it can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing a suggestion in the wrong way, crossing some invisible physical boundary, or even daring to express a modicum of unseemly delight or pleasure in her responses.(1) And, in precisely the same manner it is shut down, sexual attraction can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let's face it, none of the women whose bodies sexually responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?
This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don't know because they don't pay close attention to the process or analyze it carefully in the way that men who are interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, don't ask the prey, ask the predator.
If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by gay porn. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter of what turns her on because there are reasonably solid grounds for considering it to be unreliable. But her inability to identify what does or does not turn her on doesn't mean that she isn't conveying useful information about herself and her sexuality. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control to prevent her from giving into her less rational impulses, which means that she is likely a woman worth pursuing for LTR rather than STR.
I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions - not having sex with jerks - are perfectly in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks. The logical fallacy here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I've had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am sexually attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is sexually attracted.
(1) This may help explain why narcissists and sociopaths do inordinately well with women. They never undermine the process of a woman being sexually turned on by reacting in an unseemly manner to her responses because they could not care less about them. There are few things that shut down the female sexual response faster than a stupid BETA smile or expressing verbal satisfaction at her responses. Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.
37 comments:
I've had two women give me interesting reactions by my revealing that I've been manipulating them.
I told them because the women in question weren't prospects, but I was using them to keep in practice inre: body language and the such and getting strong IOIs anyway.
Kino works wonders in this area. Getting used to physically leading women around my vicinity has gotten my comfort levels up pretty well.
So far, the ladies in question seem to be intrigued by the revelation.
One said she had no idea I was attracted to her - but I know for certain she's a massive liar so I don't care about her answer cuz I can't know if she's being truthful. The other is an ex that I have zero intention of returning to and she seemed very turned on.
But I wonder if I can spin that into an effective seductive conversation path for valid targets?
Vox, are you referring to the NY Times articles that Roissy linked to some time ago? Also interesting was that even though women's bodies all showed a physiological response (ie they got turned on) to watching animals mating, when questioned about it, they all said they weren't aroused at all. That article should be required reading for every man.
Perhaps. I am referring to Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Response to Sexual
Activities Versus Gender of Actors in Sexual Films published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2007.
The average correlation between the self-reported response and the measured response is .68 for
men and .30 for women, although in this particular study it was .82 and .56.
Thanks for the link. The NYT article is about that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html
The NYT article itself is amusing for so being so willfully obtuse regarding female arousal. The evidence is staring them in the face, and yet they can still say things like "No one right now has a unifying theory." But there is a theory. It's called Game.
Also interesting was that even though women's bodies all showed a physiological response (ie they got turned on) to watching animals mating, when questioned about it, they all said they weren't aroused at all.
That effect in this study actually isn't very strong. The big difference is actually between the self-reported female interest in MM intercourse and the measured response. What is much more interesting, in my opinion, is that a) both straight men and women are more objectively turned on by FF than MF sex, and that gay men are TOTALLY uninterested in anything to do with women, including sex. They respond nearly as strongly to a nonsexual video of a man exercising as to MF intercourse.
How the hell do so many human beings go through life being so unaware of themselves?
I've often wondered, to take Michael's question a step farther, what it's like to be so willfully ignorant of one's own internal processes.
As a woman, I can tell you the vast majority of us do not wonder what it's like to be much more aware of one's internal processes, at least as they pertain to things sexual. Why would we? We are programmed to be passive in this regard. As pursuers, it conveys an advantage to you to understand your own inner workings and, to whatever extent possible, the inner workings of that which you pursue. The better you understand, the more likely you are to catch your prey. But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won't affect the outcome of the pursuit.
An addendum to the above: A godly woman may wish to understand her internal processes in order to subdue her lesser, animal side. If she is able to understand that certain responses are purely animal with no spiritual meaning, she may find it easier to ignore them if they are detrimental to a stable LTR.
Another reason for the apparent lack of self-awareness in women could be that when a woman is turned on, there is a certain loss in cognitive ability and thus it is genuinely impossible for her to recall or pay attention to what it is that is making her stoopid(er).
Stated more simply, that level of self-observation takes more presence of mind than the average woman possesses at the best of times.
To be fair, I think male attraction is pretty much a black box too. I mean, I know that if I put blonde hair, smooth skin, and a slim figure into the box, a boner comes out. But I don't know exactly why my black box prefers them skinny while another guy likes a big ass, or why a couple of brunettes have set the box on fire even though I'm normally not into dark hair at all. Within some basic parameters of figure and age, the rest of the attraction process is a fair bit of mystery with some surprises.
Reminds me of this:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/02/naomi-wolf-women-orgasm-neural-wiring?cat=books&type=article
"I almost fell off the edge of the exam table in my astonishment," she writes. "That's what explained vaginal versus clitoral orgasms? Neural wiring? Not culture, not upbringing, not patriarchy, not feminism, not Freud?"She continues: "I had never read that how you best reached orgasm, as a woman, was largely due to basic neural wiring."
Women seem to do with their relationships what men do with sex. Men act more interested in a LTR that they are to get a woman into bed, whereas a woman acts more sexually attracted than they are to get a dependable provider into marriage.
We rightly tell men this is wrong, but we give.women who do this the.full force of the.government to extort money.from the duped.beta while she.jumps back on the carousel.
They like to say "why buy the cow when the.milk is free" I.e why marry her when the sex is already available. It can also mean "why act like a wife when uncle Sam will force him to keep providing like a husband even if you drop him for the carousel?"
I don't know what the last American generation will do, but I know what its parents generation will be remembered for: decent robot girlfriends.
OK, now that makes a little more sense. Being giddily-turned on would seem to be detrimental to self-analysis. And I suppose that's to our mutual advantage, too.
Stickwick: that's a rather good insight you have there, especially on the predator / prey part.
Excellent point, especially when you add in resources wrung from the hapless taxpayers. They didn't have anything to do with conceiving the kid...but get to pay through the nose to raise it.
As a general rule, anything that inspires the same "awwwww" reaction as children and puppies is something that belongs in the BETA LTR box and not the ALPHA juices like wine box.
This is EXACTLY why short men turn me off. They remind me of my children. I have said this repeatedly and men just don't get it. If I can pat you on the head, you are not the one for me. Period.
LL,
Nothing wrong with that. We all have our attractions. What is wrong though is when that short guy is a a good provider and the woman spends a couple years pretending to enjoy sex and LBJ's with.him, only to quit pretending when the alimony.and.child support guarantees are locked in.
I was just pointing out that some of us are self-aware enough to know what turns us off and why. But then again, I'm older and absolutely not interested in finding someone who is some sort of subservient money-machine. I know exactly what kind of guy I dig and that's the pool I stay within while dating.
Some things are obvious enough that most women understand why they are unappealing. One of my biggest turn offs is when men wear the big shorts + baggy t-shirt + baseball cap combo, because it makes them look like big five year-olds. Other turn offs can be far more subtle and the vast majority of women have no awareness of why they are turn offs, e.g. an expression on a man's face, the way he moves, something he says, even his scent.
Was amused the other evening by my wife recounting the drama of a school principal's wife getting hired as a Teachers Assistant even though she is a bit@h. Numerous other TA's quit, exit interviews all documented her actions and behavior as the causal factor. Poor hubby (who was foolish enough to allow her to be hired at the same school he works for) left with an impossible choice.
Resulting fallout trashed his credibility as a principal, the church which oversees and charters the school now has issues, the principal's 4 children, and the church board are all paying a price.
Using insight from life and from Game blogs, I detailed to my wife what was going on, described the resulting behavior before she even told me about them, and what the most likely next steps would be. I then said that all women share this woman's traits to some degree.
My wife agreed with the last statement. I amusingly pointed out that she shared them as well, which she agreed was better managed in our relationship. LULZ about the fact that she has been educated enough on the topic to agree with that even while PMSing.
Of course, isn't it amazing how the things that wives consider sufficient grounds for celibacy and divorce never seemed to be a big deal back when her man could dump her ass with no consequences.
The more I read of the manosphere, the more I realize that women as a group really are criminally stupid. They are not now, have never been, and will never be true adults.
That's the thing, men's sexuality is external.
Beside having become an actually observant Christian so that the notion is even there, the only reason that I can actually even contemplate becoming a husband and mate to one women is because my body is broken enough that... other temptations aren't as available due to my lack of presence among them. I am usually stuck at home. If I got out more I couldn't in good conscience, consider a wife. Women are... how does that song go? Ah... So damn easy. And I am so weak.
It's weird, when you are screwing some dame, and she is telling you how she never does this, or that she shouldn't be doing this, or that she is married, engaged, has a boyfriend, or even is a lesbian, and you are like... Do you like gags, honey? Can you just shut it till I'm done? We'll... talk later. (Which, yeah, ain't ever going to happen). *sigh* Lord knows I want to do things right. He does.
About those studies that show women respond to gay porn. They aren't aware of their own physical responses. If you aren't aware of a purely physical response, it can't influence your decisions. If it does influence your decisions, you're no longer unaware. I'm speaking in the context of attraction to jerks here. If a woman observes herself and finds what men she sleeps with and which she doesn't, she'd be aware of who her sexual choice falls upon. And if she is completely unaware of her physical response to jerks, she won't notice the attraction or act on it. Thus, the gay porn thing isn't applicable. Not that it negates anything else you say.
This has to be one of the dumbest, most hamster-esque things I have seen you post, which is saying something. Raised heart and respiration rates don't affect feelings/decisions/responses? Increased adrenal and other hormonal secretion don't affect them? Deep-rooted, hardwired instincts don't affect them? Women's attraction choices and actions are 100% self-aware? Seriously? ROFLMAO
Let me explain. If a woman isn't aware of her purely physical response to jerks, she won't act. Like you won't buy anti-blood pressure medicine because you can't feel your high blood-pressure.
If she ends up in jerks' beds often enough, it cannot happen without some kind of awareness of attraction to these men. Or else how would she end up there while feeling NO apparent attraction to them? Magically?
If she responds to them more than just physically, she becoms aware of her attraction to these men. If she only responds to them physically (like she does to gay porn), not mentally, she is not aware of it and it won't make her sleep with them (and thus she will remain unaware that her body reacts to jerks). That is why I don't think the gay porn caused arousal is exactly the same as attraction to jerks/sex with them. Women KNOW when they are attracted to a jerk. They just don't think they are attracted to him because he is a jerk.
I never said NO physical reaction can ever affect decisions. I said this particular thing they measured in the study (physical arousal while no detection of it whatsoever) seems to be intangible. Other things you mentioned can actually be felt.
"They aren't aware of their own physical responses. "
"As the sexuality of the male is an adjunct to his life, it is possible for him to keep it in the physiological background, and out of his consciousness. And so a man can lay aside his sexuality and not have to reckon with it. A woman has not her sexuality limited to periods of time, nor to localised organs. And so it happens that a man can know about his sexuality, whilst a woman is unconscious of it and can in all good faith deny it, because she is nothing but sexuality, because she is sexuality itself. "
"If a woman isn't aware of her purely physical response to jerks, she won't act."
and?
"And if she is completely unaware of her physical response to jerks, she won't notice the attraction or act on it. "
"Or else how would she end up there while feeling NO apparent attraction to them? Magically?"
you haven't heard the lament of "it just happened?" "why do I go for jerks?" It is magic!
"Other things you mentioned can actually be felt."
There are studies that show women find it harder to feel changes in their physiological functions, like heart-rates as well as men. That difference isn't as stark as this one, and iirc it was mentioned in a previous paper by same authors.
"(physical arousal while no detection of it whatsoever) seems to be intangible. "
methinks Chivers would proclaim or other feminists would that women's pansexuality is being kept under the wraps by heteronormative patriarchal culture.
Action can certainly happen before consciousness, some would say it always does. Blood pressure regulation is not a behavior process, while arousal certainly is. On the other hand, it's possible that the test wasn't measuring arousal. An erection isn't always sexual, and it's been hypothesized that some vaginal reactions by women are protective reflexes.
This is the comment I was disagreeing with:
"If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by gay porn. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter of what turns her on because there are reasonably solid grounds for considering it to be unreliable"
Point is, the gay porn thing might prove women respond physically to lots of things, but it just isn't the same thing as why women would fuck jerks. Women can feel attraction to jerks, alright. It ISN'T magical. The lamentations of "It just happened!" is just a result of shame and trying to avoid responsibility afterwards. Have you heard them talk? They admit it - "this guy is no good for me, why do I like him and not this nice guy?" I heard a version of that outside the manosphere often enough to know sleeping with jerks is not like the result of strong magnetism between his cock and her vagina that she has no control over. THAT would be a real example of "it just happened".
I think gay porn example is a bad example, because jerk attraction can be felt, while gay porn attraction can't. If response to jerks was purely physical and women felt NO attraction to them, sex would only happen for the reasons of "I feel hornier than usual right now, lets grab the first man that is in my way". But that isn't likely to be the main reason for why women fuck jerks. You're excusing women's cheating too much if you really think sex just happens to them. The only reason, I think, why women don't outright know they are attracted to dark triad traits, is because they haven't examined their behavior and connected the dots. But if they did, they would see - it is all there.
"There are studies that show women find it harder to feel changes in their physiological functions, like heart-rates as well as men."
Sure, but I was talking about jerk attraction, which is clear in my original comment:
"I'm speaking in the context of attraction to jerks here."
What is much more interesting, in my opinion, is that a) both straight men and women are more objectively turned on by FF than MF
That is interesting to me too.
That matches my anecdotal evidence: most woman if they watch porn watch female-female porn. I've known very few women that like MF porn, they mostly like FF porn or sometimes even MM porn.
Experiment: Take a girl you're dating to a porn shop. Ask her what she wants... let her pick the video. I've done this in the past and the girls kept going up and down the aisles looking for porn videos with hot women that they were attracted to. Some just wanted 2 hot women, no men.
Years ago I would have thought that women would have loved watching porn of a woman being over-powered in bed by a alpha. But it is quite the opposite.
I've heard answers from them that they "don't like watching a woman being pounded by a huge cock" in MF porn but their physical response is quite opposite when you get them one on one in the bedroom and are doing the light hair pulling, domination and barking out commands.
So VD, why is it that women are more turned on by FF sex? I know that they do from my experience, I just have not heard the game theory on why.
As a side note, Ron White has an interesting take on MF porn:
MF Porn is Gay According to Comedian Ron White
"This is the comment I was disagreeing with"
ok
"Women can feel attraction to jerks, alright. It ISN'T magical."
it's nurture, so why not allow women to feel it in other ways? Paraphrasing Miss Chivers here. A female US senator came out as pansexual recently, more women expected to follow suit?
"because jerk attraction can be felt, while gay porn attraction can't."
or they are just not labeling it as lust in their minds? And what they are labeling as lust in their minds isn't purely lust? Besides, of course, the other explanation of lying. From the paper:
'For example, Wallen (2006) reported that hetero-sexual men showed greater activation of brain areas associated with sexual arousal to preferred, compared with nonpreferred, sexual stimuli, whereas heterosexual women did not show this differential activation'
They'd rather refer to it as women's sexuality is more complex, but just because something is more muddled doesn't make it more complex.
"You're excusing women's cheating too much if you really think sex just happens to them."
Why excuse women when you can shame them from birth about their rampant, bordering on bestiality, sexuality? No pets for you!
The sexual libertine otoh would ask for the exact opposite.
"Sure, but I was talking about jerk attraction, "
you were talking about things that can be felt.
"An erection isn't always sexual, and it's been hypothesized that some vaginal reactions by women are protective reflexes. "
Sure, but an erection to sexual stimuli is sexual.
It would be interesting if instead of a naked man there was a video of a man beating up another man. "Rape ist about violence/power/control" could be confirmed.
As far as that anecdote about a bunch of girls going "OMG!" to a man kissing his daughter, sounds like just another way of communicating the old "you'll make some lucky woman very happy someday!" which is a backhanded way of saying "get away from my vagina."
There are women who insist that guys being fatherly turns them on and thus they declare they are all about the beta, but I'm not buying it. There's an aspect of heavy alpha to leading the family effectively, which is the biblical idea of manhood-as-head-of-household and thus doesn't really belong in the beta column. The fat, wimpy guy picking up his hyper-princessy daughter from middle school and letting her pick the radio station is fathering his children, but is not going to get a lot of tingle points.
"There are few things that shut down the female sexual response faster than a stupid BETA smile or expressing verbal satisfaction at her responses. Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process."
Oh hell yes. One of the biggest jumps in my game came when I internalized the non-reaction demeanor, instead of reacting to inflammatory/sex-charged/shit-testy comments from women, I'd just cock an eyebrow and say "...fascinating." They ate it up bigtime. Then you throw in just enough enthusiasm to make them think you're not dead or uninterested entirely, and you've got a game on.
"you were talking about things that can be felt."
Originally I was talking about jerk attraction, But whatever, i take back the part about things that can be felt. NOW I'm talking about jerk attraction only, right? In that realm, my argument is valid.
Nice blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from
somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog shine.
Please let me know where you got your design. Thanks a lot
my weblog ... live party porn
We offer Delhi NCR Gurgaon hiprofile Call Girls for those are looking for high profile hotels Call Girls in Delhi city
and Gurgaon. Our website gallery page contains most attractive female Call girls service providers in India.
VIP Call girls in Dwarka, Young Call Girls in Gurgaon
Our VIP Young Dwarka Call Girls are best in all aspects and will give u immense pleasure and satisfaction
Model Call Girl in Delhi
Escort in Gurgaon
Call Girls in Gurgaon
Escorts in Gurgaon
Sexy Delhi Call Girls
Escort in Gurgaon
Call Girls in Dwarka
Escorts in Gurgaon
Call Girls in Delhi
Escorts in delhi
Call Girls in Paharganj
Call Girls in Paharganj
Call Girls in Dwarka
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.