Yes, women really do lie

In which a feminist belatedly discovers that women do lie... albeit only at the cost of her son facing criminal charges:

Despite no evidence, despite the fact that she is obviously a troubled woman, despite other attempts by her in the past to accuse people of hurting her in some way, despite her own admissions of wanting to sue others still, despite my son’s spotless record and the support of myriad women who have known him for years, the state has chosen to pursue this “case.”

If you think that women don’t lie to get back at men, how naive can you be? Yet we live in a culture of “women don’t lie,” a culture fostered by women’s groups since the 70s. A culture I helped create and support. A philosophy I believed.... But who is going to protect our sons? We who were on the front lines in the 70s when things were bad for women, we have raised good sons. Men we are proud of. Who will stand up for them?

I am now appalled to think that I was one of these women who thought that women don’t lie…and where there smoke there’s always a fire. Despite having raised a beautiful son, I was a sexist. Then I started doing research. There have been studies done since the 80s citing the percentage of rape allegations that are false. Some studies say as high as 60%. People who have been dealing with this for years have tried to tell us that women do lie. But we haven’t wanted to hear.

It's always fascinating how few women can understand the larger societal realities until it comes to affect them personally in some manner. This woman spent literal decades working to advance the very thinking that has placed her son in jeopardy, and only now is she suddenly open to the possibility that a woman might, on occasion, be less than perfectly honest.

As every player knows, women lie with brutal abandon, usually starting with themselves. Not that men don't lie, they most certainly do. But they are significantly less likely to lie to themselves. The female tendency to self-deception is one of the single most important aspects of Game to accept and master, as a failure to understand it will usually lead to significant relationship difficulties that are otherwise easily avoided. And for the would-be ALPHA, learning how to make use of that tendency is a highly useful skill.

It may sound strange to point out what most men probably believe to be obvious, but most men prone to pedestalizing either women in general or a specific woman, (which is to say deltas and gammas) genuinely believe that women are intrinsically honest by nature. It is their very innocence that leads them to become the most inveterate women haters when that innocence blows up in their faces. Whereas the ALPHA knows that women uniformly lie with some degree of predictability, is amused by it and even makes use of it on occasion, the BETA usually believes that women don't lie until the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the female actions he has observed become too great for the former to survive.

Ignoring What People Say

I recently realized that I get almost as much intellectual pleasure from only playing the game as I do winning. I have observed that many people are content to find one strategy that works and stick with that. This of course is reasonable; if it works why change it? But, while I do enjoy the female attention I get, I also like the challenge I face when I am in a group where I am at the bottom of the ladder. I could be content to confine myself to the groups where success comes easily, and make no mistake I like those groups and their attention, but when I am at the bottom of the ladder I start to wonder how I could climb it.

This is an attitude that seems to bother some people. When I begin to experiment with the rules to determine the way up, people react. It makes them uncomfortable. Often they will give advice. More often they will mock me. The advice is regularly useless, and the mocking stings. We are hard wired to try to fit in and when someone points out my lack of skill I can not help but feel bad. It is price I pay for growth. What intrigues me through, is the advice. I know people mean well by it but I am often surprised at how bad the advice is. There is a strange sense of incongruity about advice from someone who, despite his ability to attract women, cannot maintain a stable relationship. Or relationship advice from someone who has no relationship.

Before I learned game it was not hard to observer the disconnect between what people said to do and what they did. They could not articulate why what they did worked. As a result I simply stopped listening to anyone. It was a frustrating waste of time. I could not attract women or be social on any level, but nothing anyone said worked either. This is still the case. Ignoring what people say has become a way of life. I used to wonder how I could fit in and get accepted and I wished someone would show me. Now I wonder how much I get away with; how well I can play. If I had a single strategy I would be locked in to its limitations. I now have the theory behind most strategies. The acceptance part is now, thankfully, trivial (something I never thought I would say). The limits of what I can do in the game are far more interesting. Now I just want to play.

Omega Game

Those who try to imitate the ALPHAs of the world underestimate the charms of the other end of the bell curve:

I mean, who needs sex, right?

In song form:

Of course a real OMEGA would never get married in the first place.

Don't Be Evil: A Case For Enlightened Self-Interest

Since publishing Robinson's letter last week at HUS, a firestorm of sorts has erupted in the Comments section. The hotly debated issue is nothing new: What are the ethical considerations a man should observe when seducing women? I've written plenty in the past about players, jerks, douchebags and practitioners of what some call Dark Game. Mostly I've seen my role as one of warning women about the tactics that these men use, and also admonishing women that there's no such thing as "don't ask, don't tell" in relationships. If you don't ask, and he doesn't lie, it's on you.

Still, I've commented from time to time on behavior that I've found especially exploitative and repellent, even when the woman participates by allowing herself to be treated poorly. Examples include:

• Physical violence
• Lying
• Cheating
• Inconsistent sending of signals in an LTR, i.e. push-pull, that leave a woman uncertain and anxious about your affection
• Using insults to demean a woman's appearance in the guise of "playful teasing"

I've gotten a fair amount of pushback over time on this from many of the guys. Men who I respect and feel great fondness for argue with some force that chicks dig jerks, so it makes sense to comply. Others have said that with all the terrible experiences that good guys have had at the hands of callous women, it's only fair that some women should suffer too.

Women do terrible things to guys as well:

• Lying
• Cheating
• Nuclear rejections, with gratuitous cruelty
• Taking advantage of men by getting them to spend money
• LJBF with insensitivity, while continuing to milk a friend for attention and affirmation
• Rewarding the worst character traits in men, while rejecting guys for being too "nice"

I've been giving this a great deal of thought, and have realized that regardless of where I draw the line on what's OK and what's not, that's my personal boundary. Yours may be different, and that's a question that each one of us has to wrestle with. I'm sure there are behaviors in these lists that all would agree are heinous, and others where there would be very little agreement, especially between the sexes.

So I've decided to approach this another way, through the lens of self-development, which is really what HUS is about, and also what Game is about. Each of us must decide, with total commitment, how we will interact with and respond to others. We will be imperfect, but we should have a considered philosophy about this. Ultimately, you answer to yourself, and to those whose lives you touch.

This question is as old as mankind itself. The Golden Rule was first documented in ancient Egypt, 2040 BCE. Hippocrates wrote an oath for students of medicine that included the promise to "do no harm." And today Google's unofficial corporate motto is "Don't Be Evil," conceived at a time when the company felt that its competitors were exploiting users to maximize short-term profits.

Yesterday while waiting for my car to be serviced, I finally starting reading Stuart Diamond's book Getting More: How to Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. I heard him speak a month ago about the book, which is based on his very popular course at Wharton. Reading, I was immediately struck by how applicable the principles were to the SMP, especially in light of the current discussion.

After all, mating is a series of transactions, a meeting of the supply and demand curves at the micro level. A woman who has consensual sex has made a deal, even if it's with the devil. Each party negotiates the terms of any encounter, and is solely responsible for his or her terms and subsequent agreement.

Diamond's approach is the first innovation in negotiation strategy since win-win in the 90s. He believes that approach leaves too much on the table, and that focusing on making an emotional connection between the parties increases the size of the pie, resulting in both parties getting more of what they want. Self-interest is not objectionable, it's natural - the key is finding a balance between the two parties.

Diamond on What Negotiation Is:

"Done right, there is no difference between negotiation, persuasion, communication, or selling. They should all have the same process. That is, they should start with goals, focus on people, and be situational."

The Process, in order of preference:

Terrible: Forcing people to do what you will them to do.

A bit better: Getting people to think what you want them to think.

Still better: Getting people to perceive what you want them to perceive.

Best, and self-enforcing: Getting people to feel what you want them to feel.

Diamond on Goals:

"You negotiate to meet your goals. Everything else is subservient to that. The goals are what you are trying to accomplish. Don't try to establish a relationship unless it brings you closer to your goals.

The point of negotiation is to get what you want. Why should you negotiate to create a relationship if it won't help you meet your goals? Why should you try for a win-win if others [try to hurt you]?

Don't get distracted and clouded with other stuff - being nice, being tough, being emotional, etc. Never take your eyes off the goal. It's what you have at the end of the process that you don't have now."

Diamond on Power:

"Getting More is not a manifesto to gain power over people in order to force your will on them...First, the minute you use raw power over someone the relationship is usually over. People don't want relationships with those who try to force them to do things against their will. Second, it sends the wrong message - one of tension, struggle and conflict. This is less profitable because people use their energy to defend themselves instead of building something. Third, the raw use of power prompts retribution, whether now or later."

"The use of power in negotiation is fraught with risk. Seeing a negotiation in terms of gaining power over the other side sets up a conflict situation. If they perceive you as trying to grab power over them, they may well have an emotional response - as in "I don't care if I undermine the negotiation, I'm going to get even with you.

I can't say it enough: [Power] should be used selectively and constructively so that extreme reactions are not provoked. You should be sensitive to the needs of everyone along the way."

"If they have a lot more raw power than you do, they can beat you up. In such a case, you should ask them, just because they can beat you up, should they?...If you can beat up employees, will they work less hard for you?"

Diamond on Framing:

"Framing will often change the balance of power in a negotiation, no matter how big or powerful the other party. It should be used carefully and in a positive way...You don't have to accept the other person's standards and framing. A big part of framing is "reframing." You start with how they phrase something, and then you find a different way to interpret it, so that they get insight - and hopefully will meet your goals.

It is much more persuasive to let others make the decision, instead of telling them what the decision should be. You want to lead them where you want them to go, through framing and by being incremental."

Diamond on Trust:

"Trust is a major people issue. The benefits of trust are huge: faster deals, more deals, bigger results. Not having it is costly...Trust is the feeling of security that the other person will protect you. With some trust, another person will help you until it's too risky for them or a better opportunity comes along. With a lot of trust, the other party will help you even if it harms them. It is very important to understand the trust dynamic.

The major component of trust is honesty - being straight with people. Trust does not mean that both sides agree with each other, or are always pleasant to each other. It does mean, however, that the parties believe each other.

The opposite of course, is dishonesty, or lying...That includes telling the truth in such a way that you omit facts and create a false impression. It can be clever manipulation of emotions. It can be the distorting of information or bluffing. It's anything that doesn't pass the smell test."

There's nothing wrong with self-interest, or with putting your needs first. Diamond is no touchy-feely romantic. He's a pragmatist who gets results.

He has laid out a very strong argument for self-interest enlightened with emotional intelligence in relationship with the other person. It's better than win/win - it's get more/get more.

Rapebait

I find myself wondering if the brilliant women who came up with the notion of slut-walking against rape also advocate dangling red meat in front of large predators in cages.

Remember the cop in Toronto who said that women who don’t want to be sexually assaulted shouldn’t “dress like sluts“?  Well, activists in Toronto and elsewhere are fighting back! Toronto has organized the SlutWalk this Sunday. Come out for the march and stand up for every women who’s ever been told if only her hemline were longer, she might not have been raped. There is no justification for sexual assault – ever – and it’s time to stop slut-shaming and victim-blaming.

I find the clueless, histrionic response to the Toronto cop's perfectly sensible remarks to be both amusing and all too predictable.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, many women absolutely hate the idea that their decisions and actions have any consequences and feminists have been actively fighting reality in this manner for literal decades.  They were complaining about this when Camille Paglia was pointing out that it is just as stupid to get drunk and go to a man's room in a frat house as it is to leave your purse unattended in Central Park more than 20 years ago.

Now, a woman doesn't deserved to get raped simply because she is a slut.  That would be tantamount to saying that all women deserve to be raped, since all women have at least a modicum of slut in them; Athol Kay even goes so far as to say that a woman's ability to unlock and slake her inner slut within her marriage is an important aspect of a happy and successful marriage. I tend to find sluts fairly likeable, for the most part, especially those who are sluts because they enjoy riding the alpha carousel as opposed to those who are merely ideologically slutty due to their incoherent feminism. And yet, I don't shed any more tears over a slut getting raped than I do over a gambler winding up broke. It's not inevitable, but the odds are what they are.

The reason the slut-walk is ludicrously counter-productive is because encouraging more women to dress and act in a provocative manner in public places is literally asking for more rape and sexual assault.  The slut-walkers are daring men to respond to their provocations, and there can be no question that the predatory part of the male population will be quite pleased to do so at the earliest opportunity.  Just as you don't teach a tiger to stop devouring steak by continuously waving a bloody t-bone in front of it, you can't encourage rapists not to rape by appealing to their visual senses.  Even animals understand that an effective way to avoid becoming prey is to not look like prey, so it is remarkable that feminists have managed to functionally lobotomize themselves to such an extent that they are now operating below the level of lower animal intelligence.

The amusingly ironic aspect of this is the way the slut walk flies in the face of feminist rape ideology.  After all, if rape is a matter of power, and not sex as the feminists insist, then both the way a woman dresses and the slut-walking are entirely irrelevant.  But then, Canada is a relatively free country and if young women wish to make themselves rapebait, then we should neither be bothered by their actions or the potential consequences of those actions.  In any event, it is less a woman's appearance than her behavior that increases the likelihood that she will be sexually assaulted.  A woman who wears nothing but fishnet bikinis but doesn't go unaccompanied to strange men's dwellings or stay out past midnight is much less likely to be raped than a girl who dresses tastefully, but is willing to party with strangers.

The Necessity of a Systematic Approach

Up to this point my approach to learning game has been haphazard. I had no plan, nothing that resembled a strategy. I would read about a technique and give it a shot at my first opportunity. This meant that I learned, and achieved some success, but other than a rough description of the techniques I used, I could not say exactly what I did to achieve that success. I am like a beginning musician who knows that certain chords sound good played together but would be hard-pressed to use them to create a new song.

As a rank beginner my game is barely out of junior high. Most people begin their education in game in high school. As a deeply introverted person I did not take that opportunity when it was present. While everyone else was making the effort to attract members of the opposite sex, I was hiding in the library, doing my best impression of a chameleon. As a result I never entered the sexual arms race. Everyone around me got a education in game by simply making the effort, while I did and learned nothing. At this point I have a lot of catching up to do. I do have an advantage in that I have everything spelled out for me, and the wits to know to use it, but without a systematic approach, I will not learn more or any faster than a teenager guessing his way through high-school.

Realizing the need for a plan is the result of reading Athol Kay's great book: The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011, specifically his description of the MAP. If a married man should be willing to put that level of effort into change to keep his woman, I should be willing to put the same level of effort into getting one. As an aside, I cannot speak highly enough of Athol's book. I have heard a great deal of marital advice, and I have read a number of books on the subject. I feel confident in saying that Kay's book is among the best. Due to his book I will be doing a great deal more to apply game starting yesterday.

So, since I get a great deal of motivation from accountability, here are the first points from my personal MAP:

1. Diet/Exercise: Yesterday I began a weight lifting program designed to quickly increase muscle size through high protein intake and high intensity work outs. Since I have never done any significant amount of lifting this is more of an experiment, but I expect good things.

2. Consistent Approaches: Starting this week I will go out three times a week and approach at least four girls each time.

As I add goals and make progress I will post about any insights or achievements. I hope to get to the point that a date is no long considered a great success. Regardless of what happens I expect it will be interesting.

The Complex Algorithm of Female Attraction

Ogi Ogas, a computational neuroscientist, and author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts infuriated the feminist community recently when he described feminism as toxic to sexual arousal. A predictable and natural enough response, I must admit.

Over the weekend, he penned The Online World of Female Desire at the Wall St. Journal, which is more closely aligned with the material in his upcoming book. Ogas and a colleague analyzed a billion web searches for sexual content.

Looking at online activity has the advantage of examining the use of a precious resource: time. Whether someone ultimately pays for content, there's little doubt that both men and women are investing significant time on arousal, though in very different ways.

"All across the planet, what most women seek out, in growing numbers, are not explicit scenes of sexual activity but character-driven stories of romantic relationships."

This isn't news, exactly. Everyone knows that women are the consumers of rom coms, chick flicks, chick lit, and romance novels. Ogas goes into the science, i.e., "the unconscious evaluation" of how attraction and arousal work in women, calling it "the source of feminine intuition."

"Using investigative skills, the female brain evaluates all available evidence regarding a potential mate's social, emotional and physical qualities to make an all-important decision: Is he Mr. Right or Mr. Wrong?...Though the female brain carefully processes many stimuli simultaneously, it is experienced only as a general feeling of favorability or suspicion toward a potential partner. This feminine intuition is designed to solve a woman's unique challenge of determining whether a man is committed, kind and capable of protecting a family."

Ogas examines female erotica to understand how the female brain differs in this respect from "the much simpler male brain." For example, women account for 2% of online porn subscriptions, but 90% of romance novel purchases. He points out that in all romance novels, a "gradual elucidation of the hero's inner character leads to an emotional epiphany between the hero and heroine." Sex never is gratuitous or merely pleasurable - it always leads to long-term commitment, even when, in this modern age, it occurs beforehand.

Recently, female fan fiction as exploded on the internet, where women write their own stories about beloved franchises: Harry Potter and Twilight, for example. The most popular site is FanFiction.net, which gets more than 1.5 million visitors a month.

Ogas boils down the differences between the online sexytime of men and women:

1. They search for different things.

• Men search primarily for racy pictures of famous women they find attractive.
• Women search for details on celebrities' personal lives. If they search for sexual content, it is more likely to be erotica in which their favorite character stars.

2. They consume pornography differently.

• Men almost always consume pornography alone.
• Women prefer to discuss stories in "probing detail," exploring the emotional arc, the characters, and the "nuances of the relationships."

Of course, there are exceptions. Ogas estimates that between 25-33% of the visitors to pornography sites are women.

Our data suggest that these women probably have a higher sex drive than other women and that they are more socially aggressive and more comfortable taking risks.

This is a reference to some women having high testosterone, the hormone that influences sex drive. In other words, a high testosterone woman can have sex like a man because she is more like a man.

For most women, the evaluation of a mate's social, emotional and physical qualities "must be completed before mind and body are united in sexual harmony."

It follows, therefore, that a woman who is not high testosterone but attempts to "have sex like a man" anyway is living in a state of disharmony, one where her mind and her body are at war with one another. This is characterized by doubts, feelings of guilt, rejection or loneliness after casual sex.

Anne Campbell, a researcher at Durham University in England, conducted a One-Night Stand study with 1743 subjects. Although she found that the many of women were regretful immediately afterwards, and reported feeling used (46%), the real eye opener was the motives of the women engaging in no-strings sex:

"Women were not hooking up in an effort to secure a long-term beau, but because they felt flattered by the overnight proposition.

They were mistaken...men lower their standards when it comes to one-night stands, so the presumed flattery is a fantasy or close to it.

Often [women] said things like, 'I felt so flattered, so happy that he found me attractive. It was so nice to be wanted. What women don't seem to see is that men drop their standards massively for a one-night stand. No woman should be flattered because a man wants to have sex with her once."

Every woman comes equipped to deduce a great deal of information about a man to determine whether she is attracted to him. For her intuition to give her the green light, she must like his smell and the taste of his saliva, both of which clue her in to his level of DNA dissimilarity, an essential component of successful mating. She must also like his demeanor, his emotional affect and his social persona. For most women, one-night stands short-circuit the process.

This is the checklist that matters. Women must respect and heed their intuition in mating. And men should understand that there is much to the process that is truly not personal. If your DNA resembles her own family's, you're not going to give her butterflies. As an acting coach once said to me, "You are not for all markets."

Ultimately, sex and even love are pure science. We cannot control it, but we can find greater satisfaction, even peace, by embracing it. We certainly can't cheat it.