#MeToo - What it means for you & How to move forward

[fastlife]

True, I never actually looked at it this way. Honestly, I’ve been trying to work on this for a while. I mean I don’t NEED them to desire me a crap ton, it’s just one of those things where it’s nice to have I guess (like no one NEEDS a Ferrari, but it’s just nice to have lol). I’ve always had the desire to be the best ever since I was a toddler who could barely walk and this might be another form of it’s manifestation coupled with some sort of desire for validation I guess.

How do I improve this?

A Ferrari seems like a nice thing to have until you have one and have to deal with insurance & maintenance & when you're in a hurry and people stop you at the gas station and want to talk about it. And really the only people it impresses are the people who couldn't get a Ferrari.

That’s not to say that having a Ferrari wouldn’t be fun--I wouldn’t know--or that it’s not something to aspire toward (I’m sure you’d learn a lot about life if you had to do the type of work that would put you in a position to buy one) but like most of the things we aspire towards, the idea of having a Ferrari is probably better than the actuality. The high always wears off.

I think it might be something you have to go through for yourself though--to figure out what you really want (what’s authentic to you) and what you think you want (externally-motivated desires). I know when I was 21, if someone told me I shouldn’t want girls to remember me forever or that it didn’t really matter, I would’ve just rationalized that they just said that because they couldn’t do it or didn’t know what they were talking about. Of course, I knew what life was really about lol. In fact, I had older friends who led similar lives to what I live now--and I looked down on them at the time--but they didn’t hold it against me, since I’m sure they could empathize with my current state of life--they probably were the same way at some point. They let me do my thing & were still there for me when I was left to pick up the pieces & rebuild.

I’d encourage you, if anything, to go all in in all your pursuits. Growing up is forming the best possible model of what you want your life to look like based on what you know & testing that model until it breaks. Failure is not only unavoidable, but it’s necessary. The real danger is when you’ve convinced yourself that your current model is the only model that is possibly correct & that the inability to make that model work is an indictment on you personally. That might all sound a little cryptic--but it’s the type of thing that might save your life one day.

I understand part of what these behaviors are, but what are they to you? And do you also believe that they change from person to person based on what level they’re at? And what to you is the difference between the attractiveness man and the beta male (also the alpha male and arousing male? Are these just your own definitions to describe them or is there a crossover of sorts?)

Men are notoriously bad at understanding how women feel/react toward male qualities. For instance, men conflate ’Alpha’ with everything ’good:’ ambition, financial success, strength of character, etc. But really none of those things have anything to do with raw sexual desire (though they can be leveraged toward getting sex). Then there’s the misconception that ’Beta’ men don’t get sex--when in fact the majority of men having sex or in relationships (even with really attractive girls) are beta. The difference is why girls are sleeping with a given man. And it has nothing to do with what we, as men, want to be sexually reward for.

Men can have all sorts of ’attractive’ qualities (qualities that draw people toward you) that do absolutely nothing to stimulate sexual desire. On the flip-side, men can be absolutely reprehensible from a pro-social perspective and have women (’quality’ women) doing things they would never do with ’better’ men. Take Matt Lauer--pre-sexual scandal. Let’s be real: Is he or was he ever unattractive? He’s rich, famous, has social proof, is pretty good looking (especially before he went bald), he has strong frame, he has good body language, he is super socially calibrated--almost any woman would accept a date with Matt Lauer. But would they fantasize him pinning her against a wall and choking her while whispering dirty things in her ear? Or would they fantasize about having a nice, quiet dinner in an upscale Manhattan restaurant on the river, while he looked at her with a twinkle in his eye and politely walked her home?

I’m not reinventing the wheel or creating my own arbitrary distinctions--I’m just exploring nuances that most men don’t understand. You can (and should) play both sides of the coin, but you have to understand both sides realistically to do that.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Men are notoriously bad at understanding how women feel/react toward male qualities. For instance, men conflate ’Alpha’ with everything ’good:’ ambition, financial success, strength of character, etc. But really none of those things have anything to do with raw sexual desire (though they can be leveraged toward getting sex). Then there’s the misconception that ’Beta’ men don’t get sex--when in fact the majority of men having sex or in relationships (even with really attractive girls) are beta. The difference is why girls are sleeping with a given man. And it has nothing to do with what we, as men, want to be sexually reward for.

Men can have all sorts of ’attractive’ qualities (qualities that draw people toward you) that do absolutely nothing to stimulate sexual desire. On the flip-side, men can be absolutely reprehensible from a pro-social perspective and have women (’quality’ women) doing things they would never do with ’better’ men. Take Matt Lauer--pre-sexual scandal. Let’s be real: Is he or was he ever unattractive? He’s rich, famous, has social proof, is pretty good looking (especially before he went bald), he has strong frame, he has good body language, he is super socially calibrated--almost any woman would accept a date with Matt Lauer. But would they fantasize him pinning her against a wall and choking her while whispering dirty things in her ear? Or would they fantasize about having a nice, quiet dinner in an upscale Manhattan restaurant on the river, while he looked at her with a twinkle in his eye and politely walked her home?

I’m not reinventing the wheel or creating my own arbitrary distinctions--I’m just exploring nuances that most men don’t understand. You can (and should) play both sides of the coin, but you have to understand both sides realistically to do that.

I fully understand what you mean by this. It’s like comparing Matt Lauer to Richard Ramirez (the Nightstalker got hella ladies, even a female judge who was in the courtroom listening to his case) or even one of the Boston Bombers. But what are the specific characteristics? I’m asking because I need to make sure that I’ve been enhancing the right aspects (arousing) rather than the wrong ones. Not saying I’m going to become a criminal, but there are things that make them attractive that I think I understand but am not 100% sure. Am I somewhat on the right track here?

I have another question. Pook said that when you are failing to bed a woman, you must increase masculinity (in a nutshell). How does an extremely masculine male fare against someone like you when competing against the same girl for sex? And what is the difference exactly (why would one do better than the other)?

The difference is why girls are sleeping with a given man. And it has nothing to do with what we, as men, want to be sexually reward for.

So then what is the reason?

 

[BeExcellent]

Wanted to point out a misconception lest readers believe it:

to be absolutely clear, sex is relatively enjoyable for a woman regardless if its an alpha or beta male.

Oh boy. The above is so incorrect as to be laughable. While men get a happy ending through ejaculation (which does not require much in the way of skill - enthusiasm, a vagina, and a physically attractive face/body) and can get there with high reliability, women may get aroused and then discover the guy who got them so aroused is terrible in bed.

What makes a man terrible in bed? Selfishness is the biggest offender by far. Your dark triad types are inherently selfish. They only care about their own satisfaction. That means they are FAR less likely to have the patience and listening/empathy skill set necessary to actually become a good or great lover. Great lovers are without exception well attuned to the partner's desire, desire nature, and needs. A great lover actively seeks to identify and satisfy the partner's needs. It is impossible for a selfish person to do this well.

Sex may be easy for hot women to get (and from just about whoever they want it from too) but GREAT sex is much more difficult to obtain. Great sex requires emotional engagement and intimacy. Few of these alpha types (as narrowly defined above) have the emotional bandwidth required.

there doesnt need to be a dominant, hypermasculine legitimate alpha male in every scenario in order for women to submit their sexuality. sex doesnt work that way. there would be way less humans on the planet if it did.

You see, your observation is somewhat self-explanatory. You explain the result (people are still procreating despite the relatively low percentage of dominant hypermasculine males) but you also fail to grasp that emotionally healthy men who can create deep emotional bonds actually ARE the most masculine of the males out there. That explains the gap between what you designate as "dominant, hypermasculine legitimate alpha male" and real leadership. And I understand that some women take "beta" men as partners. Some women actually LIKE these men who you call "beta". Go back to the provider ~ lover continuum I described previously.

Intimacy requires vulnerability. Vulnerability requires emotional strength.

Dark triad may appear dominant but real dominance is NOT dark triad. That is a fallacy. Dominance is strength, both emotional and physical. Physical strength is easy to quantify. Emotional strength many men here get wrong. It ISN'T walking away from every single solitary issue and nexting every girl for some silly reason. It isn't becoming brooding and mysterious and dark triad Machiavellian either. Real strength doesn't need to parade itself around. It simply IS.

Behind the player persona is weakness; is lack. Behind the player is insecurity, is the need for endless external validation, the need for self gratification, a sense of entitlement, external needs. Outcome dependent.

Can a player get women? Absolutely. But he often cannot keep the type of woman whom he most desires. That being a woman with self-esteem, self respect, emotional stability and standards. He gets the low self-esteem, insecure, crazy, neurotic types (who might be extremely hot), but who he will lose respect for sooner (usually sooner) or later...but the hot women with high self esteem? The player will attract them, because he attracts most women...but he'll not keep them. I'm dating a player now (the jury is out whether I can tolerate him long term). He is less confident than I am (and HE noticed this himself on our first night out together.) This really messes with him. He is used to women falling all over and fawning over him. Clinging to him. He is not used to the amused mastery that I carry with me into interactions. He is not used to my stability or to my ability to at once care for him and yet have the ability to walk away if that is what is best for me. He, like many players, is both intrigued and frustrated by this.

Why is that? Because a high self esteem woman is qualifying HIM, and he's not used to being measured on the merits. He's used to choosing from among adoring fans. He's used to getting by on his charm and allure (which he does have in spades.) But that also means he sees the value and self respect such a woman places on herself, and he aspires to be worthy of that value himself. You see, next to someone with ACTUAL high self esteem such a man feels inadequate, less than. This is a tough thing for a man to overcome. However if he can grow and open himself then the relation will be a transformational opportunity for him...an opportunity for him to embrace his true nature and his true dominance. Its a hurdle he's wrestling with now. I get calls in the middle of the night to check on me...(not booty calls - I get these calls when I'm away - check-in type calls. Why does he make these calls? Because he's insecure. He wonders who I'm with, if I'm with someone else - he wants to know am I "loyal" to him...he acts a bit like a jealous woman with her hamster spinning. HIS hamster is spinning. It's at once sweet and annoying...and by the way I usually answer in order to offer him reassurance so he can relax his mind)

But this is all COVERT communication. In other words he is not coming right out and saying to me "Where are you? Who are you with?" Rather it's "How was your evening? Are you tucked in and safe?" These are the context/veil to the real question which IS where am I/who am I with, but he knows better than to inquire overtly or directly. That would make him appear insecure. He appears insecure ANYWAY, which he seems not to realize I understand and this is why I am pointing it out for the reader. If he were not insecure, he would not be reaching out in the middle of the night at all, rather he'd wait until a more sensible hour. He is hinting at exclusivity (that he wants me to exhibit while he does not want to be similarly bound) and I gently refuse him (I'm still on the fence about him honestly), which he is NOT accustomed to at all. So in short he's thrown for a bit of a loop.

I'm explaining this to illustrate all the nuance that @fastlife is describing. I'm also explaining this because I wonder how many folks here actually have experience dating high self esteem women...I know @fastlife does and that @guru1000 does, and that others here do too. And I further think that either fastlife or guru would not exhibit the behaviors that I have described above based upon the content they both contribute here. Both fastlife and guru know that high self-esteem women operate differently than low self-esteem women. High self esteem women respect themselves first, and they qualify potential partners. That is the landscape.

Some men here think like bullies. Walk tough, talk tough, but cut and run when confronted with someone who stands up to the bully behavior...like for example a high self esteem woman who won't put up with the bully act (because she sees through it!). So a confrontation happens and it's NEXT!...or the woman calls his bluff and nexts the guy. And then dudes end up here going "What Happened?"

Dominance is leadership through confrontation and negotiation through confrontation. It is NOT conflict avoidance. Conflict avoidance is weak behavior. Dominance is part acknowledgement, part understanding, part resolve and part acquiescence when it serves you. Sometimes dominance is expressed in putting someone else first and when a dominant man puts someone else first he does it from a place of strength; of choice; of his own choosing. And when that happens? A woman feels very considered and very cared for (which benefits the man in question...Comprende?)

Now back to sex...if a man only cares about quantity of partners (aka his ability to seduce different women) then does it really matter whether or not the sexual experience he delivers to his partner is satisfying? No. It does not. He only needs to appear dominant, to elicit an arousal response, etc. He only needs to convincingly make promises. This is enough. He does not need to deliver the goods.

But if a man wants to have quality encounters (whether with different women or with an individual woman multiple times - or even several women multiple times -) then the sexual experience he delivers becomes VERY important because if you are selfish/terrible in bed then women are going to lose interest in you and that sense may go as far as repulsion. And that is how we get men coming here saying "she was so turned on, she was SO into me....and now she's distant/out of touch/gone cold" etc.

And she may be then considering other options besides the man who was disappointing in bed. Being a good or great lover will serve you well, but there must be a level of emotional connectivity for the woman to have a good experience it is NOT "Sex is a relatively pleasant experience no matter who she is with" Heavens no.

 

[fastlife]

both of your questions all circle back around to the same answer. so youre on the right track towards illumination.

as much as people argue about the tenets of game and the different applied techniques, it doesnt change one simple fact:

most women are all attracted to the same basic things fundamentally, inherently found in men. to reduce it even further, what theyre attracted to the most -sexually- is dominance.

and what is game at its core? psycho/social dominance.

translated to todays world, its the guys that can SOCIALLY reflect the behaviors and psychology of the capable, primitive man which translates to nothing more than social dominance.

Close. But even then I’d say that Social Dominance is more of an attractive quality: it will get girls to gather in the vicinity & make them want to know you (for various reasons), but it won’t necessarily make them want to sleep with you. There are just too many examples of leaders at work, in industry, apex alphas (by male standards), who are betas to their wives.

If we’re talking in terms of arousal, it gets a little more specific than that--arousal can occur with no form of social proof or even when the social group is dominated by another party--such as the mother hen at the bar or your boss at work (again, don’t sh1t where you eat!!!). In fact, being the social outsider makes you inherently more arousing--albeit that comes with its own set of hurdles--and it’s more effective to endear yourself to the dominant party than it is to get into competition with them.

I fully understand what you mean by this. It’s like comparing Matt Lauer to Richard Ramirez (the Nightstalker got hella ladies, even a female judge who was in the courtroom listening to his case) or even one of the Boston Bombers. But what are the specific characteristics? I’m asking because I need to make sure that I’ve been enhancing the right aspects (arousing) rather than the wrong ones. Not saying I’m going to become a criminal, but there are things that make them attractive that I think I understand but am not 100% sure. Am I somewhat on the right track here?

Closer. Criminality is highly arousing (although I wouldn’t recommend it for obvious reasons), but it is inherently unattractive. So what is arousal? It is excitement--anxiety, uncertainty, discomfort, tension, in other words--which can also be interpreted as fun and happiness or an emotional rollercoaster, but the root lymbic-system reaction/stimulus is the same.

So what qualities lead to those emotions? Antisocial behavior. Now that sounds super bad. So @fastlife you’re telling me to cultivate antisocial behavior? Ok, ok, slow down & lets take a deeper look at what I mean by antisocial. The rules of social interaction are designed to lead toward greater comfort, more certainty, less tension, etc. Fvcking someone you barely know is an inherently antisocial behavior. Women inherently know this--what is a sh1t test other than the introduction of antisocial behavior to see how you react?

So while antisocial behavior can take the form of the Dark Triad (as @MidnightCity alluded to), or even violence (as you mentioned earlier), I don’t recommend either of those paths: in fact, for your own personal happiness & fulfillment & the quality of all your relationships to anyone with a modicum of self-esteem, I highly recommend you eliminate those behaviors. But you can be antisocial in other ways. NOTE--’antisocial’ has super negative connotations, but it doesn’t have to be destructive and can even be constructive; not all ’social’ behaviors are healthy--for instance self-suppression is a pro-social behavior since the good of society & the comfort of everyone else is prioritized over personal expression. People generally enjoy themselves more when you unapologetically say whatever’s on your mind, since it gives them permission to be themselves as well.

So here are certain antiosocial behaviors worth cultivating (you’ll notice that some of them are contradictory--but it’s a toolset, different behaviors for different contexts):

• Emotional Unreactiveness--So while this might look like sociopathy, it’s not to say you can’t be sensitive to other people’s emotions. In fact, you’ll be more effective if you are aware of how other people react emotionally & calibrate accordingly--you just don’t internalize their emotions.
• Shamelessness--Shame is a super effective means of social control to ensure pro-social behavior; but it’s also a mean of suppressing arousal. The more comfortable you are with your own sexuality, the more you own it & even talk about it (though once you’re fully comfortable you won’t need to), the more readily arousal can take place uninterrupted.
• Strong Frame--Prosocial Interaction is a frame unto itself. Is your frame stronger? What happens when social pressure tries to collapse your frame?
• Unwavering Eye Contact--Again, this is a behavior that has the potential to increase tension. Use it accordingly--don’t go staring at guys or girls you don’t want to fvck, but be comfortable holding it indefinitely with the girls you do want.
• Collapsing Personal Space--Personal space is a prosocial behavior; it ensures social stability. However, sex is the total absence of personal space. Again, be sensitive of the effect this creates in different girls. Some girls get really uncomfortable & then you just step back or turn away; but most girls like the proximity (Have you ever seen how girls talk to each other? It’s constant kino). Generally, when I approach I’m immediately like 4 inches away from the girl with my hand on her lower back, staring into her eyes.
• Silence--Builds tension. Just stop talking sometimes & watch what happens.
• Tonality--Be able to project your voice. Pretend your words are leaving your mouth and sloping down toward the ground or like you’re speaking down to them from a mountain. Be comfortable being louder than anyone in the room if you need to. Issue commands. People love having an authority to submit to.
• Take up space--Again, it’s super inconsiderate to take up more than your allotted space in an environment. And it is narcissistic on some level--but people will feel more comfortable around you the more comfortable you are around yourself.
• Be Provocative--Say what’s on your mind. Tease. Say things that are politically incorrect. Sometimes you’ll offend people but generally you can get away with saying anything you feel comfortable saying. Again, this seems narcissistic--BUT narcissists care about how people respond & will argue their points or try to correct impressions (emotionally reactive in other words). Don’t. If you really sh1t the bed, apologize. But let tension build before you do. Better yet just change the topic.

The more antisocial you present yourself initially, the more leeway you have for antisocial behavior. Matt Lauer & Cosby were both socially dominant but all of their authority was derived from social correctness. If your authority stems from the rules of the social environment, then the limitations of your authority & its legitimacy do as well. Sometimes it’s productive to play into the social hiearchy--at work, for instance, or school--but always keep its rules in mind & understand that arousal would be breaking those rules & creating dissonant impressions. Why can certain celebrities say whatever they want and why do others get crucified?

How does an extremely masculine male fare against someone like you when competing against the same girl for sex? And what is the difference exactly (why would one do better than the other)?

Aggressiveness is masculine; but it’s also reactive. Generally, if you defuse violence or use social pressure against it, those men lose steam. Other guys have their frame collapse & sulk or just watch as it happens. Others still will try clown game to de-rail your interaction--but it’s pretty easy to just ignore that or turn it against them. You could also try to get the guy to engage in logic (by asking questions like you do here); arousal doesn’t exist in logic & most guys will start qualifying if you give them a carrot of validation: "Oh, that’s cool, you’re a banker. You must be really smart--so how did you get started with that? All the girls must love you" (stole that from YaReally @ TRM--but I've seen guys do it infield & it can be a very hard trap not to fall into).

But the most effective way to disarm male competition is just to be friendly & cool. If I like the guy, I won’t touch his girl. Some guys might, but it’s not worth stressing over. When I’m out with a girl, I’ll just let guys try their hand (most guys suck) & let the girl find a way to dismiss him. I’ll befriend the guy & even talk him up. Or if he gets annoying I’ll just amp up social pressure on him & the girl until one of the two can’t take it anymore, "Do you know this guy?" (with a look of disapproval)--gets both of them qualifying--or if you really want to take it out there, just pretend you’re gay & you think he’s trying to hit on you (really masculine men can’t stand that & get super uncomfortable lol).

 

[fastlife]

While I disagree with the player-shaming--it’s a rational response to the current market & can just as easily be motivated by fun or just sex drive than a need for validation or fear--I do think @BeExcellent ’s input is valuable here. Empathy is super important--especially with girls with higher self-esteem. Low self-esteem girls can be absolutely awesome people, they can be fun, they can be interesting, they can be mind-blowing in bed--but there’s always an element of vindictiveness if you play into their game (manipulation, devalidation, mutual-neediness, negativity). And you have to play into their game to keep them around longterm. But even low self-esteem girls respond to the same sexual stimuli--better to have strong boundaries & let them opt-out on their own terms (probably sooner than later, unfortunately) & let some other guy deal with the fallout. They demand emotional investment from their primary relationships, while being totally unable to reciprocate that investment. In fact, they will make you pay for that investment. Better to have their respect, which can only be done by not playing into the dysfunction & accepting the end when it comes.

Unhappy, unfulfilled people can’t stand to be around people who are happy & fulfilled longterm. And to the extent, the opposite is also true (although, high self-esteem usually enables proximity & even enjoyment without contagion). Now, the percentage of women with high self-esteem is very, very small. But it’s better to calibrate your approach to the upper end of the spectrum & let the lower end filter itself out. The idea of mutual respect or empathy sounds very blue pill--and sounds very much at odds with the antisocial behavior I wrote about above. But it’s not, really. If that empathy is rooted in unconditional self-respect & self-acceptance & self-interest & complete non-neediness. But you have to learn how to be selfish, first, and a little ruthless before your empathy or altruism has any value.

 

[BeExcellent]

you care an awful lot about what i have to say

It's a discussion. We are all discussing.

 

[The Duke]

@BeExcellent - @MidnightCity 's statement saying sex is relatively enjoyable for a woman regardless if its an alpha or beta male is an accurate statement assuming there is an emotional connection for the female. I assumed that is implied here.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

So here are certain antiosocial behaviors worth cultivating (you’ll notice that some of them are contradictory--but it’s a toolset, different behaviors for different contexts):
Emotional Unreactiveness--So while this might look like sociopathy, it’s not to say you can’t be sensitive to other people’s emotions. In fact, you’ll be more effective if you are aware of how other people react emotionally & calibrate accordingly--you just don’t internalize their emotions.

Got this down. Generally speaking, this helps them feel like you aren’t judging them or that you understand them because you’ve been through what they have or something similar.

Shamelessness--Shame is a super effective means of social control to ensure pro-social behavior; but it’s also a mean of suppressing arousal. The more comfortable you are with your own sexuality, the more you own it & even talk about it (though once you’re fully comfortable you won’t need to), the more readily arousal can take place uninterrupted.
Strong Frame--Prosocial Interaction is a frame unto itself. Is your frame stronger? What happens when social pressure tries to collapse your frame?

I grouped these two together because they follow the same general principle. You have to have pride in yourself and have some dignity (or the more common term used here, ‘self-respect’). I have to thank my father for this one lol. He tries guilt-tripping me and my family so much and in such inconceivably clever ways that at this point I can choose whether or not I want to feel guilty about doing ANYTHING wrong at all haha. And not just him, there were other situations as well. My deepest conviction is strength, and because of this I refuse to be manipulated by another person anymore, ESPECIALLY through means of shame. The only things I am wary of are it’s possible repercussions, but if someone tries to shame me or guilt me into doing something, I don't care. I refuse.

As for having a strong frame, that stems from shamelessness. I am very sure of myself and am not easily swayed just because someone wants something out of me. If they dislike me because of it, oh well. I know who I am and what I deserve. Having a strong frame is what gives you the ability to walk away, as many of the guys here say to do. I am willing to walk away from toxic people without any problem, no matter how manipulative or cunning they may be. Not only that, but at this point in my life I don't have any problem dealing with such people. In fact, I sometimes welcome them as a test of my grit and strength. They try to pick away at everything you are through any and all of your potential weaknesses, and because of that they can show me mine that I need to work on. That's why I don't see the big deal about the dreaded 'BPD' on here. It makes you tougher.

Unwavering Eye Contact--Again, this is a behavior that has the potential to increase tension. Use it accordingly--don’t go staring at guys or girls you don’t want to fvck, but be comfortable holding it indefinitely with the girls you do want.

I have this down, but still could work on this again. I used to stare at people too much so I had to force myself to look away a little bit more. I only look away if I have trouble thinking of the right words to say something because then they feel awkward with you just looking at them while you do that lol. Awkwardness is the creepy version of tension haha. I always hold eye contact if the other person is speaking though. Sometimes they get intimidated and start stammering or forget what they have to say so then they look away as they find the words, but I don't feel like this is an issue with me.

Collapsing Personal Space--Personal space is a prosocial behavior; it ensures social stability. However, sex is the total absence of personal space. Again, be sensitive of the effect this creates in different girls. Some girls get really uncomfortable & then you just step back or turn away; but most girls like the proximity (Have you ever seen how girls talk to each other? It’s constant kino). Generally, when I approach I’m immediately like 4 inches away from the girl with my hand on her lower back, staring into her eyes.

This is supposed to help with escalation as well. In other words, touching. This is what they call here 'kino'. I don't really have any problems with it much at all. But getting in super close like you do is a bit of a gamble because a lot of it is subject to her initial attraction for you so I usually only do that when I'm being playful or know for certain that they're into me, lest I get accused of sexual harassment. Whenever I do actually do it, I get good responses though.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Silence--Builds tension. Just stop talking sometimes & watch what happens.

I have ignored this aspect because I need to work on keeping conversations flowing more if anything (or maybe learn how to stop trying to do this...), but I understand it. Turning this into tension instead of awkwardness depends on your body language, particularly your facial expression and the way you look at the other person. I should work on this more.

Tonality--Be able to project your voice. Pretend your words are leaving your mouth and sloping down toward the ground or like you’re speaking down to them from a mountain. Be comfortable being louder than anyone in the room if you need to. Issue commands. People love having an authority to submit to.

Funny, I have been working on this rather recently and just yesterday a girl told me that I have a very "direct" voice. Honestly I don't know what she means and she couldn't really explain it to me either lol but it seems like I'm on the right track. I don't speak loud per se, but my voice does carry, especially when speaking in a lower tone. It's your sympathetic frequency, where the vibrations in your voice are at their harmonic motion. You have to find this for yourself, but this kid did a great job at doing it in this here under 'tone': http://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/complete-guide-to-self-improvement.43048/#post-373334

Take up space--Again, it’s super inconsiderate to take up more than your allotted space in an environment. And it is narcissistic on some level--but people will feel more comfortable around you the more comfortable you are around yourself.

I did this because of Amy Cuddy's study on body language and its effects on testosterone and cortisol (she's a Harvard graduate btw). Switching from a neutral position to a strong powerful body language increases test by 20% in 2 minutes, and ALSO lowers cortisol by 20% in the same amount of time. It's a double whammy. And its effects hold true, at least they did to me anyway. Also you should note that the opposite holds true as well; going from a neutral position to a weak and lesser body language increases cortisol by 20% and lowers test by the same amount all in just 2 minutes.

Be Provocative--Say what’s on your mind. Tease. Say things that are politically incorrect. Sometimes you’ll offend people but generally you can get away with saying anything you feel comfortable saying. Again, this seems narcissistic--BUT narcissists care about how people respond & will argue their points or try to correct impressions (emotionally reactive in other words). Don’t. If you really sh1t the bed, apologize. But let tension build before you do. Better yet just change the topic.

I already do this too. Last time at work, I made fun of my pregnant coworker saying various. Most people reading this are probably thinking 'what the absolute **** is wrong with this kid' but you probably understand that it's all within context. While I was doing that to her, she was also doing the same to me. And towards the end of my shift, another coworker (female) came up to me and said that if she ever gets pregnant that she wants me to fvck with her like that too because we all were laughing and actually had fun lol. The prego chick even turned it sexual too when she heard that and thought that the other girl meant to actually fvck her while she's pregnant and well, you can guess how it goes from there...

Aggressiveness is masculine; but it’s also reactive. Generally, if you defuse violence or use social pressure against it, those men lose steam. Other guys have their frame collapse & sulk or just watch as it happens. Others still will try clown game to de-rail your interaction--but it’s pretty easy to just ignore that or turn it against them. You could also try to get the guy to engage in logic (by asking questions like you do here); arousal doesn’t exist in logic & most guys will start qualifying if you give them a carrot of validation: "Oh, that’s cool, you’re a banker. You must be really smart--so how did you get started with that? All the girls must love you" (stole that from YaReally @ TRM--but I've seen guys do it infield & it can be a very hard trap not to fall into).

But the most effective way to disarm male competition is just to be friendly & cool. If I like the guy, I won’t touch his girl. Some guys might, but it’s not worth stressing over. When I’m out with a girl, I’ll just let guys try their hand (most guys suck) & let the girl find a way to dismiss him. I’ll befriend the guy & even talk him up. Or if he gets annoying I’ll just amp up social pressure on him & the girl until one of the two can’t take it anymore, "Do you know this guy?" (with a look of disapproval)--gets both of them qualifying--or if you really want to take it out there, just pretend you’re gay & you think he’s trying to hit on you (really masculine men can’t stand that & get super uncomfortable lol).

This is like how I usually am when situations like this happen to me. Drama never happens around me because I just stop it from happening before it's able to, or if it is already there when I enter a situation I just stop it. And like you I don't go getting jealous if a dude starts hitting on a girl I'm with, I let them fight their own battles until they look a bit distressed. Then I step in and pit things against the guy, or try befriending him if he's cool lol. I'm usually not an ass towards guys who need some social help because I feel bad for them. If they're douchebags though, nah they can go fvck themselves. But that doesn't happen all that often because I tend to be stronger within myself than most people are.

Alright, well it looks like I'm non the right track so far haha

 

[BeExcellent]

@BeExcellent - @MidnightCity 's statement saying sex is relatively enjoyable for a woman regardless if its an alpha or beta male is an accurate statement assuming there is an emotional connection for the female. I assumed that is implied here.

I took his statement to be perfunctory in nature. I did not perceive the implication of emotional connection at all, but perhaps that is what he meant. Sexuality is more complex for women than for men. That gets lost around here and is actually something important to be aware of.

 

[btownbuck2012]

The women of the #MeToo movement have just been named Time Magazine's "Person of the Year"/

Don't underestimate how deeply entrenched this nonsense is in our social fabric. Be careful out there.

 

[fastlife]

Awkwardness is the creepy version of tension haha. I always hold eye contact if the other person is speaking though. Sometimes they get intimidated and start stammering or forget what they have to say so then they look away as they find the words, but I don't feel like this is an issue with me.

Not quite. Almost every successful pickup requires a degree of awkwardness. There's simply no other way to bridge an emotional gap with someone you just met & have no shared history with & no knowledge of their likes, dislikes, etc. Embrace the awkwardness. In fact, that's something I repeat to myself several times on a night out when I'm stuck in my head.

What matters is what you do with that awkwardness--and that requires practice, the same way driving manual does. You can feel when you need to shift gears (like looking away). The fact that you even worry about being creepy shows enough social awareness that you probably won't be interpreted as creepy. And really creepiness is just outcome dependence at the expense of other people's feeling toward the situation.

But getting in super close like you do is a bit of a gamble because a lot of it is subject to her initial attraction for you so I usually only do that when I'm being playful or know for certain that they're into me, lest I get accused of sexual harassment. Whenever I do actually do it, I get good responses though.

Agreed, it is context dependent (like I probably wouldn't do that in a grocery store, but I might put my arm out for a hug or do a hand on the upper shoulder kind of thing). Or you can do the opposite & lean back or keep your body language turned away--kind of a vacuum, that creates a similar effect in the inverse. But it's much easier to step back than it is to create forward momentum when you've been static. It immediately establishes intent & that intent is what protects you from violating expectations in a way that makes girls feel creeped out or that they were harassed. The danger is when you waffle--project yourself as a friend & then when they're enjoying a friendly interaction, escalate toward sex.

@MidnightCity Agree with your clarification: Men should embrace the full spectrum of their nature & be fully comfortable with the darker aspects of that nature. Repressing certain thoughts & behaviors creates all sorts of problems down the line. BUT I think it's imperative to examine the motivation for those behaviors. Intent matters--people interpret everything you do & say thru your subcomms & react accordingly. And context matters--we live in a far more abundant world than our ancestors did. Pragmatically, it's far less costly to find people who want the same things you want than it is to manipulate people to do things that aren't aligned with their own best interests. People reciprocate--value-giving & value-taking behavior (even if the outward behavior is identical) results in very different outcomes.

 

[RangerMIke]

Do not over think this sh!t... it's not that hard.

Learn to read female body language... know when a chick wants you to make a move and when they don't. How she responds to your advances is everything. NEVER force yourself on a chick that is not interested PERIOD. NEVER fvck a chick you work with PERIOD. NEVER fvck married chicks, engaged chicks, or chicks living with their boyfriends... PERIOD.

I never try ANYTHING with a chick until she meets me on a date. All the PUA BS about putting your hands on chicks potentially will get you in trouble, anyone that has read my advice over the years knows I never recommend touching a chick until she touches you first. The problem is too many dudes get too pushy too fast... since chicks are emotional much of the PUA, Alpha Male grab @ss technique does work.... but when the moment passes... and she is lying there with a dudes cvm all over her that she doesn't 'really' like... she will feel she was raped... and you know what... as far as she is concerned you did rape her, depending on where you live... the authorities will agree with her.

Get her on a date... go for a kiss. If she kisses you back it's game on... if she doesn't move onto the next one. Continuing to try and make something happen with a chick that has low interest will get you nowhere but trouble. Chicks that want you will not make things hard... she will put herself in your orbit... will be willing to spend time alone with you... and she will let you do whatever you want in bed to make you happy.

 

[fastlife]

I never try ANYTHING with a chick until she meets me on a date. All the PUA BS about putting your hands on chicks potentially will get you in trouble, anyone that has read my advice over the years knows I never recommend touching a chick until she touches you first. The problem is too many dudes get too pushy too fast... since chicks are emotional much of the PUA, Alpha Male grab @ss technique does work.... but when the moment passes... and she is lying there with a dudes cvm all over her that she doesn't 'really' like... she will feel she was raped... and you know what... as far as she is concerned you did rape her, depending on where you live... the authorities will agree with her.

Asking a 20 y/o on a 'date' is a great way to demonstrate that you're not the type of guy she fvcks. You're welcome to try it--if you're 40+, it might add to your appeal & seem a little endearing bit of 'old man game.' If you're a younger guy, then just framing things as a 'date' (especially planned in advance) is 'creepy' & makes it seem like you're trying to marry her or something.

The only girls in that age range that insist on dates are usually severely Alpha-widowed & are trying to shift lanes towards 'knowing their worth & deserving of being treated like a lady.' Like it or not, that's the world we live in.

As far as the rest, nowhere did I advocate grabbing azz. There is a world of difference between casual touch & groping--and don't let all the hysteria in the media convince you otherwise. By 'lower back' I mean lower back; by shoulder, I mean the 'actual shoulder.' Nowhere did I advocate being pushy for sex. If at any point a woman expresses discomfort or you think she feels uncomfortable, you take a couple steps back & wait for her to reinitiate. After sex, you treat her the exact same way you did before sex--and before sex you set proper expectations. She's still a human & deserves all the consideration you'd (hopefully) show anyone else. For the record, I don't advocate hard-nexting/ghosting unless a girl really violates your boundaries or the kick out & get a cab stuff.