Why R-Selection Is Everything

Game is worth $2million in the bank – Roissy

One of the points that game denialists like to tout as ‘proof’ that game doesn’t exist is the fact that most men have been getting laid since the dawn of time, without requiring game. Sorry to burst the denialist bubble on you guys and girls, but this simply isn’t true. The truth is that in the past there was a huge inequality between men when it came to reproductive success. An inequality so large that it makes a modern sausagefest nightclub look like a winning prospect in comparison.

DNA studies have shown that at the dawn of the agricultural era, only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women that reproduced. It is suspected that this happened because the agricultural era was the first time in human history where men were able to horde resources. This meant that the most successful minority were, for the first time ever, able to have a significant advantage over the average man in attracting a mate. It would have been a simple decision for women: sleep with the right man, and you get to eat. Otherwise you starve.

The astute amongst you may have noticed that this is actually extreme K-Selection in action. K-Selection is when a man is seen as a girl by a provider. She gets together with him because he can provide resources. This is in contrast to R-Selection, where she has sex with the man purely to get his DNA; adventure sex. Although the DNA study does seem to indicate that K-Selection probably ruled 8,000 years ago, it does highlight a very important point. Whenever there is an opportunity for a minority of men to strongly distinguish themselves from the average man, there will be a huge difference in the sexual success of the winning males compared to the average males.

I’m going to hazard a guess as to why the trend of 17 women reproducing for every 1 man stopped: religion and marriage. Beta males in their attempt to compete with the Alphas for mates introduced the concept of marriage. This in effect regulated the sexual market place. Since the socially expected norm was to marry one man who’d be your only ever sexual partner, this destroyed the advantage of the harem holders. It didn’t matter how many resources they controlled, they could still only take one wife.

Fast forward thousands of years and we have feminism and the sexual revolution. Women delay marriage because the equality pushed by feminism means they want to concentrate on career in their 20s. Combine this with the effects of birth control and the ensuing sexual revolution and suddenly the sexual market place is deregulated again. As with 8,000 years ago a small minority of men can now distinguish themselves from the average men as women are now longer bound to be monogamous with a single man. This again leads to opportunities for the lucky (or possibly skill full) few to rack up epic notch counts, where as the average man is lucky if he has a lifetime notch count of 10.

The question then is how to be in the small percentage of men that monopolises the sexual market place. Whereas 8,000 years ago this was achieved by a strong ability to provide for many women, this will not work as well in the modern age. This is because unlike all those years ago, modern civilization will provide at the very least the basics to ensure the survival of a women and her offspring, regardless of how badly she fucks up. Although there are still some women who will be attracted to extreme wealth (gold diggers), once a woman’s survival is no longer at stake, a man’s provider (K-selected) ability is no longer of primary concern. All that’s left then is R-selection. In order to sleep with many women, the average man’s best bet is to throw off all trappings of K-selection and focus purely on being the R-selected badboy-esque secret lover. The guy she fucks in an ally as her boyfriend waits for her at home. The choice really is between this and sexual poverty.

In a future post I’ll talk more about R-selected game. I’ll show how the older style pick up material noticed it but failed to really understand or capitalize on it, the effects being more R-selected had on my game, how I occasionally confuse girls by accidentally giving off K-selected signals and how I want to improve and emphasize this aspect of my game in the future.

Advertisements

Changing Gears

I’ve more or less been on a complete hiatus from game for the past 5 months. This time off has given me some time to reflect on my game, with an eye to improving it. With this in mind I was recently reading some of Daygame Mastery. I was reading about the ‘Investment’ stage of the model, and Krauser has this to say:

…spending too much time in attraction means trying too hard. She intuitively feels your lack of confidence and authenticity, which is an instant turn off

Here he describes how after the initial stages of a set you almost completely drop attraction material (teasing, challenging her all the time) to have a normal conversation. To fail to do so means you fall into the trap mentioned above, and ultimately blow a promising set.

Upon reading this it struck me that there is an important aspect of game that isn’t often talked about, and one I’m missing: changing gears.

Changing gears is when you change the way you interact with the girl. The example already given is dropping the attraction stuff and moving into rapport. Another would be moving out of rapport by sexualising the conversation. If you can’t change gears at the right time, two things will happen that will burn your set.

Firstly you’ll come across as very one dimensional, and the girl will get bored. Girls don’t like one trick ponies. I run into this problem a lot with attraction material. I love teasing girls and taking the piss out of them, so I do it a lot, probably too much. There have been times when girls have been initially very attracted to me when I’ve acted this way, only for her interest to fizzle as I keep on doing it for long periods of time.

The second problem is that a change of gears is required to move the set forward. Each set has a definite end goal (cock in pussy, in case you didn’t know), and you need momentum to keep moving through the stages of the courtship ritual to reach this. As an example lets take comfort. You’re in comfort with a girl. Talking pleasantly. Building rapport. This gives you happy feelz because a (hopefully) hot is talking to you and opening up to you. This is great, but if you want to have sex with her, then you need to move out of this phase at some point by escalating. I don’t care if you really like talking to her. And she’s really nice. And you’ve got soooo much in common. You can talk to her all you want after you’ve fucked her.

I’d say the most common failures to change gears are as follows:

  1. Getting stuck in attraction. As stated I’m guilty of this. Once she’s smiling, laughing and looking at you with big eyes don’t be afraid to move on by having a normal, boring conversation.
  2. Failing to escalate. Many guys are scared of a girl seeing their sexual intent, so never go sexual on them. This is a really good way to not get laid.
  3. Being too sexual. The exact opposite of point 2. This is also something I’m guilty of. Once I go sexual I often don’t change gears back into normal conversation. If you’re constantly escalating and being sexual you just come across as a horny dog trying to hump her leg, with no interest in her as a person. A good way to get around this is just think of adding sexuality to the set in terms of spikes. You drop in sexual spikes (e.g. I like your lips, very thick and full. it looks like they were designed to give blow jobs), then move immidately on to normal conversation. This allows you to maintain sexual tension without overdoing it.

Think of a set as a balancing act. You need to show the girl a balance of different aspects of your personality. Each one of this blend of personality traits will elicit a different emotion from the girl. The meet to lay journey is an emotional one for girls, and your going to have to stimulate all the right emotions if you’re to get to your destination. You do this by changing gears.

Why Software Development is a Bad Career Choice

I’ve read a lot of advice in the manosphere recently telling young guys that they should go into a career in software development. As someone who now has 10 years of software development experience under his belt, I’m going to tell you why this could be a bad idea.

First I’ll clarify what exactly it is I mean by software development. I mean anything that involves programming some form of computer, including but not limited to:

  • Desktop application development
  • Mobile application development
  • Web development

I myself a a web developer, but the following applies to all forms of programming career.

Lets look at why people are recommending this as a career to young manosphere guys:

  • No degree needed
  • Demand for developers exceeds supply
  • Can earn large amounts of money
  • It’s the next big thing

These are all true, to some extent. Lets look at each of them in turn:

No degree needed

This is true. If you teach yourself development and put a portfolio together, you can probably get a job as a junior developer in most major cities without a degree. This is an advantage over other careers such as law or medicine where a degree is essential. This makes software development a very easy career to break into in a world where multiple degrees are increasingly required for many professional jobs.

Demand for developers exceeds supply

True to some extent. The business world is often whining about not being able to find developers. The truth is that this is fairly easy to do if your business:

  1. Isn’t located in an area of excessively high developer demand, like Silicon Valley.
  2. Offers a truly competitive salary. Many do not then wonder why they struggle to hire. I’m not even talking about offering an excessive salary, just on the good side of market rates.
  3. Offers a reasonable working environment for developers (proper tools, quiet working conditions, good management)
  4. Isn’t excessively picky in what technologies you require new hires to have. Tech changes fast. There’s hot new stuff to learn on an almost monthly basis, and there are many competing technologies out there. This means if you look for a very specific set of technologies, as opposed to looking for a good grasp of the fundamentals, you massively limit your search.

Although there is certainly a lot of work out there, the main reason for business whining about a lack of developers is in order to put pressure on the government to relax work visa laws. This will enable UK / US businesses to ship in foreign workers in order to keep the supply high, and stop salaries rising. If you think this is me being all conspiracy theory please bare in mind this is what the company I work for is currently doing. Our CEO whined to the press that it was hard to find developers and the government should do something about it. The company is now part of a government scheme that fast tracks work visas for tech workers. About 1/3rd of our developers are now on visas, and all of the new ones we are currently interviewing would be.

Can earn large amounts of money

Again, somewhat true. The accounts of guys earning $150,000 straight out of university are by no means representative. If you graduated top 10 in your class in a top 5 tech college in the US you may well make this much working for one of the big tech firms in Silicon Valley (Facebook, Google). You have to remember Silicon Valley has costs of living such that $150k isn’t much money there. Most developers in the US will earn around $80k, with a career peak of maybe $100k.

It’s the next big thing

True…

So far the points I have presented seem to disprove the title of the blog post. You can earn more than the average salary. There’s a lot of work going. There are low barriers to entry. One of my colleagues is a great example of this. He taught himself web development in his teens. Never went to university. Left school early to become a Junior Developer at 17. Now, at the ripe old age of 22 he makes £50k a year working in London as a web developer. So at a young age and no degree he makes a salary that is almost twice the UK average, and around 40% higher than the average London salary. This is very good considering many UK graduates that studied non science subjects can’t even get a job.

There we have it then. Software development is a great career. In your twenties. This is the rub about this career: you peak fast and it’s down hill from there. I’m now 32 and I’m one job hop away from reaching peak career salary. This is despite me being quite slow at moving my career forward. It’s quite possible to peak before you’ve even hit 30. If I want to progress I need to move into a purely management role. This is unlike law or medicine where you can increase your authority whilst still mainly doing your core job, rather than management, with a steady rise in salary throughout your career. So just bite the bullet and go down the management route? Not that simple. Many tech teams are managed by people from a non tech background (account managers, marketing managers etc), and as such there often isn’t much of a management track available.

Then we hit the age factor. As a 32 year old developer I’m considered old. Many would consider me too old (no, I’m not joking). The industry likes to thing of itself as young and fast moving. Unlike if I was a doctor where my greying hair would be seen as a reassuring sign of experience, in software development it’s a sign that I’m probably out of touch with technology, and not willing to work for a tiny salary and the promise of ‘stock’.

Then there’s the pace of change. Baring core software development skills, all of a developers skill set will go out of date every 5 years. Even if you hold back on learning new skills for a single year you will be behind to the extent that it could negatively impact your employability. It’s a bit like running on a treadmill at a brutal pace. You have to keep going just to keep your job, and to run even faster if you want to learn the skills to progress to higher levels. It is probably this that is the biggest cause of hitting a ceiling within 6 or 7 years of coming into the industry. Anything much beyond about 6 years of experience adds little to no extra value to an employer. Think of it this way. I started in the industry in 2005 using technology set A. By 2010 I have 5 years experience in this, enough to pretty much master it. Then in that year technology B becomes the new standard. So I start learning that. By 2015 I am now an expert in technology B, but have no more experience in it than people who entered the workforce in 2010. This leads to me being paid the same despite having an extra 5 years of experience.

If any young person reading this still wants to enter the software development industry, I suggest you take the following path. It’s the one I’m trying to move onto now, 5 years late:

  1. Get a development job
  2. Work hard outside of work keeping up with the latest technologies and refining your skills so you stay ahead of the curve.
  3. Aggressively job hop to get new skills and a higher salary.
  4. After 5 years form a company and work as a contractor rather and a salaried employer.
  5. You should be able to work 9 months of the year and still make good enough money to save tens of thousands over the next few years. Cut down your learning of tech skills to the bare minimum and spend your free time creating side businesses. Money saved can be used as capital.
  6. After the 3 years are up you should be able to transition to having your own business full time, just as you would start to hit a ceiling in the software development industry.

Shameless Profit

I was browsing the lifestyle section of the RooshV Forum the other day, casually reading up on business ideas. Most of the ideas on there seem flimsy at best, with the majority being able to net me less money than my day job, and probably with more effort involved to boot.

I did, however, found one idea interesting. You fill a storage unit close to a tornado ridden county in the US with the type of product that are at a premium in the aftermath of a tornado. You wait for tornado season, then go there and flog off all the petrol generators, plywood ect at a massive markup. I don’t live in the US so this isn’t one for me, but it seems like a good concept to make oneself a little windfall. It’s simply using a massive spike in demand relative to supply to make a healthy profit. Good business.

Then I read something that perturbed me. Doing this is actually illegal in many states. It’s an act that is known as price gouging:

Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities at a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. This rapid increase in prices occurs after a demand or supply shock: examples include price increases after hurricanes or other natural disasters.

The fact that this is illegal ignores one of the basic concepts in economics. The relationship that supply and demand has to price. I believe that price is derived from two things:

  • The value which potential buyers place on an item
  • The current level of supply of an item, relative to demand

Note that how much an item costs to produce doesn’t factor into the equation directly. I say directly because the cost of producing an item may influence price indirectly by influencing supply (items that are cheaper / easier to produce may be in more plentiful supply as people are more able to supply them). This means that there really isn’t such a thing as a ‘fair’ price. Fair implies a morality dimension to calculating prices, where non exists. People may say it’s unfair that a petrol generator costs $400 the day after a hurricane when it only costs $100 the day before. I disagree. The $100 price was based on a certain supply : demand ratio that no longer exists, hence the $100 price is no longer valid. Comparing the $400 price to the $100 is only human, as the human brain often judges the world based on comparisons, rather than absolutes. This is just a flaw in one of the human brain’s heuristic judgement mechanisms, not unfairness that should cause a law to be created.

I’m all for making shameless profit. Why am I ok with taking advantage of other people’s needs to make money? Simple. It’s how all business and employment works. Your local supermarket takes advantage of the fact you need food in order to make money from you. You take advantage of your boss’s need for a certain type of labour by being paid to provide that labour. The only time I’m against someone profiting is if they’re misrepresenting what is on sale. Take ‘advantage’ of people that lived in an area hit by a hurricane is just the same. The thing is people react emotionally to things like this, not logically.

I’ll leave you with a quick story to illustrate how most people view profit as something unfair and evil. I was in a shop near my house one day, when I saw a young man complain to the shopkeeper about the price of a bottle of coke. The shopkeeper has accidentally left the whole sale price on the bottles. Turns out if you buy 4 bottles, the price per bottle goes down to half the price that the shop are selling the cola for. The lad was saying it was unfair that the shopkeeper was charging double what he paid for them. The shopkeeper managed to calm him down buy telling him of all the costs his business incurred that had to be factored in to the price. “Oh”, the youth said. “That’s ok, thought you might have been profiting”. I find it almost unimaginable that many people don’t realise that not only do businesses try to make a profit, it is there main reason for existence. He’ll charge as much for that coke as he thinks most people will by it for. How much it cost him to buy has no bearing on what he’ll charge for it (or it shouldn’t do).

Progress Update Q1 2015

As Q1 of 2015 draws to a close I thought I’d share my progress towards my goals with you, my dedicated readership of… about 10 people.

Just a reminder as to what my goals for this year were:

  1. Complete the 30 Days of Discipline Program
  2. Get a new job that both broadens my skill set and earns me £60k ($90k) a year
  3. Bang an 8
  4. Get 6 new daygame lays
  5. Save £10k ($15k)
  6. Learn to scuba dive

In a nutshell, I haven’t done well. I completed the 30 days of discipline program. I am better off for it as it has had the effect that I get a lot more productive work done in my spare time. Banging an 8 and getting my daygame lays in is something I haven’t planned to start till next quarter, so that’s not a big deal. The same with learning to scuba dive. I will book the course on June’s payday.

I have failed to get a new job, but it hasn’t been from lack of trying. I’ll just give you some more information on this. I am currently a backend web developer. Within the next 18 months I want to quit my salaried job and go contract. This will enable me to work 8 months of the year and still earn around the same as I do now, if not more. This is pretty vital to my future plans. Trouble is there doesn’t look like the London contract market will support 8 months of backend PHP development work per year at the day rates I would require. My solution to this is diversification. I have began to cross train as a frontend developer, which will triple the number of contracts I  could reasonably apply for. I already have experience in this area, and my individual training is going well. The problem is that in my current job I’m not getting enough of the all important ‘commercial’ experience which will enable me to get contract work in this role.

To get my commercial experience I have been applying for jobs that I believe will allow me to take on a hybrid frontend / backend role. This way I leverage the value of my backend skills and get my commercial experience in frontend skills at the same time. Only trouble is that such jobs are rare. People want either backend or frontend, not a hybrid of both. Recruiters keep sending me to interviews they say are for hybrid roles, but so far only three out of the seven interviews I’ve attended have been. This means more than half my interviews have been a waste of time. I have had some interest from some of these companies, getting to the final stage of interviews with everything looking positive, but I backed out because the jobs didn’t suit my plans. Of the 3 that were hybrid roles, I didn’t get any of the jobs. One was because I did badly in the interview. The other two came down to the fact that they thought I was used to a very different workflow / working environment. Although this was true of one of the companies (really wouldn’t want to work there), it was untrue of the other, so I’m surprised they rejected me for this reason.

I have decided to put the job hunt on hold for a while, for a few reasons. Firstly, I want to give it a while for some new jobs to come on the market. Secondly I can’t keep taking time off work for interviews. Lastly, I really want to start focusing on other things. For the past few months I’ve rarely been out, either running game or socialising. My time has been spent rehearsing interview answers, reading and writing code to keep my skills sharp. I find I can only focus on one major thing at a time, so focusing on game and career are mutually exclusive to me. I’ve only got one new notch this year so far, and I want pussy. I want to crack my day game and HB8 target. I will focus on going out and day game for the second quarter of the year.

My finances haven’t gone well. I splurged at the beginning of the year, leaving me behind. I have reeled in my spending this month, and hope to get even better at this throughout the rest of the year. I just need to get in the habit of saying no to myself. The problem with my saving target is that it was based around my salary increasing from a getting a new job, which is yet to happen.

The thing that disappoints me about all of this is that I’m yet to achieve anything that requires compliance from the world. I have got a little more disciplined and I’m improving my job skills, but these are all internal things. Battles with myself. This is yet to translate into me imposing my will onto the word and getting what I want from it (this is compliance). Krauser talks about this concept of gaining compliance from the world in one of his posts. It’s very important, as no matter how much compliance you can get from yourself you can never really achieve anything significant on your own and in a vacuum. Business success, building wealth, fucking hot women. These all require compliance from the world, and this is where I’m failing.

I’m getting really despondent about this. It’s making me sad. I actually believe this is a good thing. I have an idea of how I want my life to be in the future. It is very different from the life of the 9 to 5 worker bee chode. At the moment I’m not on track to get it, and I really can’t imagine a good future for myself without it. This feels a lot how I felt when starting game. It looked like I wasn’t making any progress. I thought of my future without any success with women and it terrified me. This is what motivated me to do the work needed to fuck the 60 odd women I have in the past 5 years. I feel this same fear now about my future career, and this motivates me greatly.

“When you’re going through hell, keep going”.

Introduction to The Sigma Male Lifestyle Part 2a: The Rise of Feminism, Equalism & Socialism

The big lie that made feminism possible

One of the biggest lies of the 20th century was that women have been oppressed by men throughout the whole of human history. Even some red pill men buy into The Narrative’s assertion that once upon a time women were unfairly treated, but due to social progress this has now changed. These red pill men need some education on the true nature of gender equality in years past.

I can see why society buys the lie. It’s all about context. When you look at what women’s lives were like in the past and view it in the context of the modern western world, things do indeed look unfair. This is where the problem lies though. To truly determine if women had a bad deal in the past you have to examine what their lives were like in the context of the times they lived in. You also have to compare it to the lives of the men who lived side by side with them back then. This is rarely done. The lie is essentially a lie by omission.

In order to see the truth we need context and comparison. Let’s start by looking at the context of the current western world, as this is the context in which women’s treatment is judged.

The most important point regarding the modern western world is what drives our existence. These are the forces impacting the choices we make every single day. These are the motivations that get us out of bed every day. It is what forms the nature of our lifestyles, and as such is fundamental to understanding the modern world.

In the modern world this motivation is self actualization. The motivating factor right at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I think self actualization is somewhat of a grandiose term to describe this motivation, as for many it is more a fun seeking attitude somewhat akin to hedonism. This motivation manifests itself in various ways in modern society. Here’s a list of some example motivations that are all just concrete examples of this abstract motivation:

  • Wanting to go travelling
  • Wanting to be rich far beyond your needs
  • Wanting to sleep with lots of different women
  • Wanting to own luxury goods
  • Wanting a job that makes you happy, rather than one the pays the bills

This motivation is in stark contrast to the primary motivators in the past. If you were alive not much more than 100 years ago in the West, unless you were part of a small rich elite, your motivation came down to one thing and one thing only. Survival. Day to day life was purely focused on keeping you and your family alive. You would have no time to worry about things relating to self actualization, such as those in the list above. You may occasionally dream of such things, but they are too far from your grasp to actually motivate you. Take a coal miner living in 1800s Britain. How much time do you think he spent wondering if his job was really what he was “meant for”, or whether it fulfilled him? If he didn’t do that job his family would be starving on the street, with only charitable institutions like the church to aid them. It was down the mine or nothing, so there wasn’t much to think about.This was mainly because they didn’t have the economic conditions nor the technology that allowed their survival needs to be taken care of without any real thought on their part like we do today.

Part of the way people went about fulfilling the primary motivator of keeping themselves and their family alive and well was to adopt gender roles and divide the labour. Back then raising the kids and keeping the home was a full time job. Unless you were one of the elite who could afford to outsource domestic work, one parent simply had to be a full time homemaker. Think how long taking care of the kids and home took without the aid of:

  • Motorized transport
  • Fridge
  • Freezer
  • Advanced telecommunications
  • Vacuum cleaner
  • Microwave
  • Supermarkets
  • Ready meals
  • Washing machine
  • Cheap off the shelf clothing
  • Outsourced childcare

As I’m sure you can imagine, in times past homemaker was a full time job. It had to be, the technology wasn’t there for it to be anything but that. But weren’t women oppressed by the patriarchy and that’s why they were the homemakers instead of the men? Well, no. Back then the vast majority of all jobs were manual labour. In this job market physical strength increased your earning potential. It therefore made sense for men to be the ones to look for paid employment. You also have to realise that in this survival, as opposed to self actualization based context, women wouldn’t even think to themselves, “I wish I had a career”. It wouldn’t make sense.

There we have it. Society tells us women were oppressed by men because the men had the jobs while the women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The truth is that the world was this way out of necessity rather than oppression. I wonder why women first started complaining about wanting careers and being oppressed when white collar work in safe, clean, air conditioned environments as opposed to manual labour in dirty, dangerous environments became the norm?

In a nutshell women weren’t oppressed in the past. We just had sensible gender roles which were suitable for the context in which they existed. It was male innovation which made it possible and desirable for women to enter the workforce en masse. As soon as this happened they entered the workforce. There was a little resistance at first due to it being a change in long standing tradition, but the resistance was fairly trivial.

This misconception is what has made feminism possible. Today’s women are evaluating women’s roles in the past in the modern context, and as such coming to the wrong conclusion about them being historically oppressed. Feminism capitalizes on this feeling of victimhood and uses it to garner support for it’s cause.

Next up I’ll talk about the effect feminism has had on society, and why it’s a bad thing.

How to Pick Up Men (A Guide by Men for Girls)

I recently had the misfortune to stumble across a Vice article on Seddit entitled, “How to Pick Up Girls (A Guide by Girls for Boys)“. Much of the Seddit debate on the issue focused around whether or not men should take dating advice from girls. My personal opinion on this is very simple. The only dating ‘advice’ you take from a woman is her reaction to your attempt to sleep with her. She sleeps with her, you did something right. If she didn’t then you (maybe) did something wrong. That wasn’t why I wanted to bring the article to your attention.

The article’s tone was at best patronising towards men, at worst out right demeaning towards us. This highlighted a wider issue. This is the double standard that women think they can dole out dating advice to men like manna from heaven, but if a guy was ever to honestly try and tell girls how to better appeal to guys, they would quickly be met my raised eyebrows, exasperated looks and even cries of misogyny. It seems that women get really offended if we try and tell them how to be and act in order to get men interested. Women also seem to think that they own the whole topic of sex, and don’t like men expressing their opinions in this regard. While this isn’t a major issue by any means, it irks me enough to write this article. So without further ado, here is my article on how women can better pickup (or rather be picked up by) men, in all it’s patronising misogynistic glory. It may be written slightly tongue in cheek, but it’s all based in truth.

1. You don’t have to do much. If you put in enough effort into your appearance, the guys should come to you. If the guys you really like never hit on you, you aren’t hot enough.

2. Smile and make eye contact with guys you like. This is an invitation to approach. If you can’t even manage this because you’re shy then you need to woman up and grow some ovaries. You won’t get the quality cock by being a total wallflower.

3. Put yourself on display. Like a mannequin in a shop window. Or a slab of meat in the butchers a man has to see you in order to approach you. Make your self visible and accessible. I’ve been to many London single nights where groups of woman have sat in tables in the corner with a big bottle of wine all night, making it really logistically hard for men to approach them. They no doubt end the night wondering why no men come and talk to them…

4. Don’t be fat. This is the one way, above all others, in which modern Western women really shoot themselves in the foot. It is hard to really hard to express in words the effect that excess body fat has on a woman’s attractiveness. Given that I’ll use pictures instead. Check these fit to fat images out. She goes from maybe a 7 / 8 to a 3 over the course of 100lbs. Even after about 20lbs she’s down to a 6.

A young (18 – 29) woman who puts a little care into her hair and make up will be very very attractive to the vast majority of men. Even if she doesn’t have the prettiest face ever (as long as it’s not verging on deformed) then a slim women will be able to give most guys a raging boner. This makes picking them up trivial; they’ll come to you, do all the work and even pay for everything on dates. Given the quantity and scope of work an average man will have to do on himself to be highly attractive to most women, you girls have it easy. Just don’t be fat. You had just one job girls…

I know it can seem hard sometimes. I do sympathise. Please bear in mind that I like food so much that the pleasure I derive from eating a good donner kebab is almost comparable to the pleasure I get from fucking a good looking woman. It can be hard to resist. There comes a point though, when I look in the mirror and my torso starts to look more blob shapped than V shaped. That’s the point when I know I’m going to be on an intermittent fasting diet for the next month. You don’t have to starve yourself. You don’t even have to go to the gym. Just learn the basics of nutrition and don’t consume more than 1800 calories a day for a while. This is not an anorexic diet. As a 210lb man I’ve done this for multiple weeks with no ill effects. It just means refined sugar (candy, starbucks, etc) and fried foods are off the menu.

5. Do your squats. Well lift weights in general, not just squats. No, you won’t start to look too muscular. Unless you make weight training the sole focus of your life your high levels of estrogen will ensure you never look too muscular or manly from lifting weights. This point is similar to number 4, but takes it one step further. If you can look boner inducingly attractive by just being slim, if you add muscle tone to the mix you’re going to be nigh on irresistible to many men (unless you have a really dog ugly face).

Not many women go to the gym I go to (sign of a good gym). Out of those who do, most do just cardio, some do weights as well. I have noticed that the ones who also do weights have significantly more attractive bodies than those who don’t. I mentioned squats explicitly for a reason. I’ve dated girls who are nice and slim due to lots of running. They are attractive but their bodies still lack exactly the right shape to be mind blowing. This is where squats come in. Unless you have brazillian DNA, running will keep you slim but you’ll get a flat ass. Squats will add some (firm) mass and shame to your ass, hips and thighs. This won’t be achieved with high reps and baby weights. I’d guess you need to work your way up to around a set of 10 reps with 80kgs. You need this to build muscle mass in your glutes (ass) muscles.

6. Let the man lead. Women always moan about how they want a real man. They want a man who will take the lead, and isn’t a pushover like most Western men these days have turned into. Despite this, when a man who can actually take the lead comes along, you fight him for dominance. If he sets up a date with you at a perfectly nice bar, don’t try and argue for a different one due to some minor point like they don’t have the exact Sauvignon Blanc you like. Let him lead, and be happy under his leadership. You can’t have too people with masculine polarity in one relationship.

7. Don’t be a cunt. I’m not taking now about being quite quick to dismiss a guy you aren’t interested in when he’s hitting on you. This is fine. You are under no obligation to talk to a stranger who tries to chat you up. Feel free to be cold and blunt in this situation. Truly confident men know the score and take the hint with no animosity towards you.

I’m taking about when you’re on a date with a guy. This implies you liked him at least enough to accept when he asked you out. Given this, acting in an abrasive, and frankly cunty manner towards him makes no sense. This isn’t the majority of girls, but still can happen surprisingly frequently. You don’t have to kiss his ass, but if you talk to him in such a way which a female friend would get annoyed at you for talking to her in that way, then you’re probably being cunty. Guys want a soft feminine personality in a girl, not abrasiveness.

An example from my personal life is that a girl I was on a date with called me a ‘manchild’ because I… had my own flat instead of sharing with other people, as many in London have to do for financial reasons. It isn’t just the ass backward logic of this statement that dumbfounded me, it was the bitchiness. As I said, it’s not the majority of women who are like this, but it is a significant minority. It’s almost exclusively late 20s / early 30s career girls. Maybe you can guess what my solution to this is.