Science names the Hamster

"Reverse Frontostriatal Connectivity" is the neurobiological term for the Rationalization Hamster:

Women and men differed in the brain mechanisms that enabled self-controlled decisions. During self-control men showed a stronger decrease in some limbic regions than women. An increased frontostriatal coupling helped men to control immediate reward desiring. Women showed the reverse frontostriatal connectivity during a ‘desire-reason dilemma’.

Translation: Men use reason to override their feelings. Women use feelings to override their reason.

This would help expain why it is difficult to utilize logic to convince a woman of anything. The more you succeed in convincing her, the more she will be inclined to amp up her feelings in order to counteract that success. Applying logic to the science, this suggests a more successful strategy would be to simply skip the logical process entirely and go straight to making an appeal to her emotions.

Sound familiar?

Alpha Mail: can Game save this marriage?

A married delta asks about a marriage on the rocks as a result of his desire to play Good Samaritan:

A girl became very interested in me after seeing my band perform, partly because I looked just like some guy that she never got over. She began sending me facebook messages that I politely replied to, just chit chat. Then it became apparent that she was a really hurt and broken person and she thought I was the only one in the world that could help her. My first response to this was to try to get her to meet with my wife for prayer, but she insisted that nobody else know about her issues. I shared truth with her, met with her in a public place, not behind closed doors, and prayed with her. I was hoping that she'd be changed and then stop insisting I keep this stuff secret so I could share it with my wife. I didn't like hiding it.

I invited her out to a show my wife would be at so they could meet. Then I invited her to church so they could spend more time together, and even out to eat after church. I was hoping this girl would open up to my wife so the truth could come out. When that didn't happen quick enough for me, I went ahead and told my wife. She was devastated. She acts like it's the same as me cheating on her. She has physically assaulted me twice. (Not that I'm in any danger of course, just giving you an idea of how angry she is.) I did become close to this girl and had a lot of compassion for her, but I never even had an impure thought about her.

I'm early 40s, my wife is early 50s, we've been married around 20 years. I'm a little overweight, my wife is at least 60 pounds overweight. The girl is 26 and very attractive. But instead of my wife taking the angle that I could have had this younger prettier girl and didn't, she takes the angle that I betrayed her horribly and our marriage can't be saved bar some kind of miracle. When I point out the fact that I was trying to get them together, she says that was just so I could be closer to the girl.

I feel absolutely horrible about this now. I want to just hold my wife and cry, even though I never cry. So yeah, it's pretty bad. And yes, I know, I did a real stupid thing. But I don't think it should cost me my marriage. Can game help this?

First, let me point out that even basic Game would have prevented this problem in the first place. What we have here is a classic "damsel in distress" scenario and a man creating unnecessary marital problems by first taking a woman's story at face value (Game error 1), then white-knighting (Game error 2), and then backing down and cowering before his wife's fear-fueled outrage at his white-knighting on behalf of a younger and more attractive woman. (Game error 3).

Second, let's look at the root of the problem. His wife is 10 years older, overweight, and post-Wall. She's understandably threatened by this younger interloper, with whom she cannot compete and who she correctly views as harboring at least some interest in her husband. However, she's handling the situation in precisely the wrong manner, trying to beat him into submission by physical and psychological violence instead of appealing to either reason or his better nature.

Now, I don't know why he wants to save this marriage based on his description of the situation, but everyone's mileage varies and I certainly respect his desire to do so. Can Game save it? I think it's at least possible. So let's apply the principles:

1. Break off all contact with the young woman. He's not the Broken Girl Doctor.

2. Read the wife the riot act. His silly mistake in trying to help the young woman, whether it was made in pure Christian innocence or a subconscious flirtation with temptation, doesn't justify her behavior in any way. He didn't betray her and her attempts to pretend that he did are nothing more than the dishonest machinations of a control freak attempting to gain hand. Tell her if she threatens divorce, you'll go ahead and file, if she indulges in any further violence, you'll press charges and then file for divorce.

3. Stop apologizing and cowering. The Bible demands that we repent. But if the other person refuses to accept genuine repentence, it is no longer your problem.

4. Accept the consequences like a man, wherever they lead. He has to accept that if the wife is a drama queen and control freak, nothing he does is going to fix the situation because she has absolutely no interest in it being fixed. And let's face it, there are worse fates than being rid of an old, unpleasant, overweight woman attempting to dictate your life to you.

That being said, there is still some hope for the man and his marriage. He's not entirely weak. For example, he noted "she wanted me to sleep on the couch the other night and I refused. She slept on the couch." And there are a few salient lessons for other men to be learned here:

1. Get the fuck off Facebook. Seriously. Nothing good ever comes of it.

2. Don't white knight. Ever. You are responsible for helping your wife and your daughters. Maybe your mother and your sisters as well in some circumstances, depending upon the situation. That's it. The rest of the 3 billion+ female population is neither your problem nor your responsibility. The key metric: if you wouldn't do it for an ugly old man, you don't do it for a pretty young girl.

3. Don't fall for the Girl with a Broken Wing act. I mean, come on now! Women use it more often, and usually with more success, than players use the "Broken-hearted Boy" role.

4. Don't cower before a woman. Ever. Even if that is what she is demanding in full shriek, she will hate and despise you for it ever after. This doesn't mean you can't apologize for your actions or admit that she is right when she is correct, but it is better to physically emasculate yourself than permit her to do it metaphorically.

5. Agree and amplify. If she threatens to leave, show her the door.

Girls Night Out isn't the end of the world

Rollo provides sound advice on responding to a Girls Night Out request:

Let her go.

“You do know what happens when your girlfriend ‘gets drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..’?!!”

Yes, I’ve been the guy who nailed your girlfriend.

“You do know that ‘taken’ girls just want to live vicariously through their single girlfriends?”

I’ve written volumes about it.

This is a very common shit test. Don’t even pause to think about it and do NOT let her perceive for a second that you’re even contemplating it. Be matter-of-fact and tell her you’ll see her when she gets back. Don’t tell her to call you, and don’t you call her. If she calls be concise and ask her if she’s enjoying herself, nothing more – no details, nothing. Let her be as forthcoming as she wants and never for a minute give her the impression you’re suspicious or posessive. This is the surest way to pass this test.

When and if she asks about what you’ve been doing, tell her you’ve been busy with work/school, your family, etc., (i.e. something unavoidably responsible). Do NOT say you’re out with the boys in some lame effort to counter her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are doing anything as a reprisal to her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are pacing around the house waiting for her to call or sulking.

I have to admit, it has never occurred to me for a second to kick up a fuss about Spacebunny's request to go out with a girlfriend or three. While I prefer the pleasure of her company, I also enjoy the silence around the house on those evenings and usually get a fair amount of writing done. If you are a man who doesn't enjoy doing whatever the hell you want without being interrupted, you are probably too far down the socio-sexual hierarchy to hang on to your woman if an Alpha or even a Beta takes a fancy to her anyhow. Rollo is also correct to advise avoiding trying to "make her jealous back", which is why "not much" is always the correct response to any questions about how you spent your time.

NB: "Not much" is the correct description of any male activity that ranges from "I spent the evening rearranging my collection of Intellivision cartridges in order of release" to "I spent the evening snorting coke and banging a pair of Victoria's Secret models". Remember, women are solipsistic. They don't actually care what you do, except insofar as it relates to them.

Relationships are about trust, in the end, and what provides a sound foundation for a real relationship is the amount of trust one partner is willing to grant the other. Just as the coward dies a thousand deaths and the brave man only one, the man who is willing to implicitly trust his wife or girlfriend will only be betrayed once, if ever. The man who lives an eternity of agonies worrying about what his wife or girlfriend is doing every moment she is out of his view lives through scores, perhaps even hundreds, of hypothetical betrayals, until his BETA behavior finally drives her to commit an actual one.

Indeed, one of the big differences between the ALPHA attitude and the BETA attitude is that the ALPHA always assumes his wife will be faithful to him. Why wouldn't she be, when she knows that betrayal will not only mean the end of the relationship, but probably her short-term replacement in a matter of weeks, if not days? She knows that losing her is not the end of the ALPHA's world, because she is a part of his world, not its entirety. He's got his mission. He's got his hobbies. He's got his intellectual interests. Ironically, because the BETA makes his woman his whole world, he significantly increases the likelihood that he has also immanentized his eschaton.

Rollo is entirely correct to advise the young man not to "ask her anything about that evening in a playful manner". That is pure Gamma behavior; cloaking deadly serious concerns under a facade of playfulness. Women see right through that sort of false nonchalance and Indifference Game goes too easily awry to be utilized by any man who is not at least in part genuinely indifferent.

Now, none of this means that one should regard weekly barhopping or a girls' trip to Barbados with equanimity. It is perfectly reasonable for a woman to go out to dinner once or twice a month with her friends. It is not, on the other hand, perfectly reasonable for her to live an active social life without you or to engage in sex tourism. But if she wants to do those things, then you've already got a serious problem on your hands. And, of course, it should go without saying that the correct response to a Girl's Night Out demand is to end the relationship.

The Desire Dynamic is key, as a woman who wants to cheat will. Do you think you're going to stop her by hovering and mate-guarding? Then think about how young Muslim girls are known to go out and have sex with Arabic thugs even though they know they're closely watched and will be drowned in the family pool if they're caught.

Alpha Mail: where to start?

In which a delta decides he is open to the possibility that there might be something to Game and the socio-sexual hierarchy after all:

It took a long time to realize that what you all were saying it's true. One person had it right up there - this is a lot of stuff to sort through, and it wasn't going to be an overnight change considering the angle from which it came. After giving it lots of thought and consideration, this angle appears to be the correct angle and one which fits the bill having sorted the good (which is the majority) from the bad (which is the minority).

I went back through all of the above posts and noticed that yes - there is a distinct difference between PUA game and Christian "game". This was my initial problem. Christian "game" is a different game - it's just taking the Bible seriously. But in a sense, it functions as "game". There were a lot of people on here that had some really good things to say, but it took letting go of the PUA context that so many of these types of places revolve around and actually seeing that this is a matter of faith and of biblical wisdom, which can be generated a lot of times simply by seeing what happens around you.

So my question is this. I am the young gun here - perhaps a little fiery and defensive sometimes. But I want to learn. What are your recommendations for becoming a part of this community? How does one get involved to learn more? It is clear that I could benefit from learning from a steady community of stability-minded people.

Thank you all for your comments and input. You have broken my walls down. I am here to learn, as it appears the majority of the people who have commented are trustworthy and *do* have the long-term in mind.

It's always good to see that despite being subject to years of brainwashing by Church, family, and State, young men are still capable of observing the difference between the propaganda to which they've been mercilessly subjected and the way people actually behave. It's actually testimony to the power of the truth, that a single exposure to it is enough to trigger that "I KNEW something was wrong with what I was being told" reaction that we have all had at one point or another.

The important thing for Shaun to realize is that pretty much every single person on this or any other Game-related blog has been through precisely the same intellectual struggle he is going through now. As The Matrix showed in such an effective manner, reality is not necessarily comfortable, in fact, it is usually less comfortable than lying back and closing your eyes, safely cocooned in the lies.

So what to do? Where to begin? I would encourage him to read through the archives here, as well as at Dalrock's, Roissy's, and Athol's blogs. They all have their different focuses, but they are all focusing on different facets of the same observable reality. He won't get much practical advice here, since I am more interested in the abstract issues, but because of its more theoretical approach, Alpha Game often serves as a useful starting point for understanding the framework upon which one can build one's approach to intersexual relations.

Above all, I would encourage Shaun to simply keep his eyes open. Observe. Pay attention to the dichotomy between what women say and what they do. Pay attention to the lives lived by those who would attempt to advise you. If you don't want to live like they do, you probably don't want follow their advice. Because he is opinionated, it will be difficult, but this is a good time to simply watch, listen, and learn. He should give himself time to gather data and compare it against the various conceptual models on offer before leaping to any conclusions.

Jesus Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". One must understand what is true and what is not before one can decide if one's actions are in line with the Truth or not. Game is not Christianity, but because it is based in truth, it is intrinsically part of the Christian worldview. Can it be misused? Certainly. But consider: the fact that the existence of demons is an intrinsic part of the Christian worldview does not mean that Christians should worship them. In like manner, the fact that women behave in certain predictable patterns does not mean that the Christian man is justified in every potential use of those patterns.

Divorce is worse than death

Knowing how uninterested most children are in their parents' lives, I tended to consider the idea of divorce somehow benefiting them because they didn't have to witness their parents fight to be a dubious concept. But I had absolutely no idea that divorce could have this sort of negative consequence:

We were surprised to find that although the death of a parent during one’s childhood was usually difficult, it had no measurable impact on life-span mortality risk. The children adapted and moved on with their lives.

That was the end of the good news. Although losing one’s parent to divorce might seem better than losing a parent through death, we found the opposite. The long-term health effects of parental divorce were often devastating— it was indeed a risky circumstance that changed the pathways of many of the young Terman participants. Children from divorced families died almost five years earlier on average than children from intact families. Parental divorce, not parental death, was the risk. In fact, parental divorce during childhood was the single strongest social predictor of early death, many years into the future.

I wonder how long it will take before some woman cites this study in order to justify her husband's murder. "I only wanted a divorce, but I had to kill him for the good of the children instead." In light of the usual family "court" metric and the infamous "he made me wear sexy shoes so I had to shoot him in the back while he was sleeping" murdermanslaughter, one tends to doubt she'd even get probation.

Anyhow, it's worth keeping in mind for those who find themselves in a difficult marriage. One of the things that has to go into the equation is that if one leaves, one is running the risk of taking five years off the children's lives. I also wonder how many fathers and mothers who initiated divorce would have refrained from doing so if they understood the price their children would eventually pay for it.

Fictional abuse and female absolution

A hapless delta wonders what hit him:

All you good women out there, I hope to have your forgiveness if my words appear insensitive or without understanding, as my innermost intentions are actually to create and facilitate a place of peace on both sides.

This blog originally stemmed from some bad feelings. So let's just go ahead and get these out of the way from the get-go: I am someone who has suffered at the hands of either "angry" or "bad" women too many times in my lifetime for reasons that I cannot understand, which I inevitably have somehow pieced together or traced back through an attempted means of rationale to the fact that I am a man. I wish not to explain these instances on here, because many of them trace back to people close to me, both family and friends. Instead, I hope that there can be a level of trust here, and that this passing on rationale would not cause this statement to be thrown out for lack of explicit evidence - I merely seek to preserve the relationships which I have managed to put back together, or hope to put back together.

Anyway: I don't understand why there is such hatred towards me. I try to be a sensitive guy, actively seek to be a good person, and aspire to be the most wonderful husband a woman could ever have one day. Not for my sake or out of selfishness, but for hers, out of love and compassion. I have been made, on several occasions, to feel that this aspiration is wrong, through the disdain which has been expressed towards me. And I just *know* that deep down, this isn't right, to be hated for pursuing what seems good, to have a good heart....

From this whole endeavor, here's what I do understand: there are many women out there who are mistreated by men. Note that this is something that makes me want to emasculate those men. It's just messed up. And unfortunately it doesn't stop there either - they screw it up for everyone. Not only are they mistreating women, which is completely wrong, but then those women get a completely skewed view of men in general. And then, that affects me personally, as that skewed and hateful view caused by that abuse is reflected onto me, someone who tries to have a good heart.

I don't think it should be too hard for anyone to understand why women hate this guy and feel disdain for him. I mean, simply reading his pathetic, heartfelt, supplicating, self-pitying message makes me want to punch him in the face and I actually wish him well. He's not a bad-looking guy, he's in med school, he's clearly intelligent, he's sincere, he seeks genuine love and commitment, and yet the combination of that BETA smile and the pedestalization of women he betrays is enough to make any woman curl her lip in disgust.

I defy anyone who believes that Christians don't need Game to read this guy's post and still maintain that belief.

The short answer to his question is that his aspiration is wrong. Women disrespect and dislike him because he is wandering around acting like a retarded little boy who genuinely believes all women are sinless princesses riding unicorns. His perception of them as all sweetness, light, and purity is so far from what they know is their reality that he might as well have Down's Syndrome. They simply do not see him as a man, much less a man capable of giving them what they want. He wants to emasculate other men, little realizing this is because he has already emasculated himself!

Since this poor guy is a Christian, I would encourage him to read what the great men of the faith have written about women and female nature, then contemplate why, if women are collectively worthy of the pedestal upon which he wishes to place them, God places so many blatantly sexist restrictions upon the sex. The reality is that men are fallen, women are fallen, and our fallen natures are not identical but tend to manifest in different ways. The fact that a woman's fallen nature does not usually manifest in the same way as a man's does not mean that she is not fallen. This is a very common mistake made by Christian men: if she is not subject to the temptations I am, she must be better and holier than I am.

But it is not true. She is simply subject to different temptations and prone to committing different sins. The male tendency is to sin out of appetite, the female tendency is to sin out of malice.

It is particularly contemptible that this low delta attempts to blame other men for the way that women are treating him. This is truly sexist on his part, because he removes all agency from women, absolves them of responsibility for their own actions, and renders them little more than reactive puppets whose behavior is dictated by the sexually desirable men who mistreated them. But he needs to stop and consider why were they attracted to those men in the first place... and if his theory is even theoretically possible in many cases. With regards to the latter, I recommend that he read Athol Kay's post on Alpha/Beta Everywhere.

[M]y teenage daughter had a slumber party recently, and my wife (who is unaware of Game concepts) overheard the girls talking about the boys in their school. What struck me about the conversation that she relayed to me was that the girls were categorizing the boys into two groups: “Hot & Mean” and “Not-hot & Nice.” There couldn’t be a better example of the Alpha/Beta theory, as interpreted by 13 year old girls.

So here is the question: what abusive man somehow managed to damage all the 13 year-old girls so that they all happen to prefer the Hot & Mean boys to the Nice ones?

On cooking

"A response to any fat girl who claims she can cook better than your skinny girlfriend."

That may be true, but you see, with her I'll actually get the chance to eat some of it.

When some women discover that Spacebunny is a very good cook and an excellent baker despite having the body of a slender fitness model, there is a brief spark of shock in their eyes which rapidly fades into a hollow look of despair. I tend to find this amusing. It is probably a character flaw.

But in fairness to them, I will admit that I was a little surprised to learn that she was such a good cook too. Okay, a lot surprised. But these Turtle Cake Brownies with the caramel drizzled on top are seriously something else. Throw in a glass of cold milk and they're like chocolate-caramel crack. I think they're illegal in something like 37 countries as well as New York City.