“Morality is cowardice.” Nietzsche, Peterson, Krauser & Daygame
Here’s a little theory and philosophy for the day:
“Morality is cowardice.”
I am listening to a lecture by Jordan Peterson. This guy — and by that I mean Peterson, not Nietzsche — is on fire right now. An incredible example of a sophisticated thinker, deeply embedded in academia, and yet wielding truth like a sword as he helps to vanquish PC Culture.
As students of game, we might take interest in him because of his deep understanding of myths and archetypes (how we present ourselves as sex-worthy men). As well as his sane and accurate read of the role of biology in mating and dating (no Dorothy, men and women are not “equal”). From those disciplines and others, he often says things that remind me of game.
Let’s get back to the quote from Nietzsche:
“What he meant by that was that, most of what people claim to be moral virtue, is merely their fear to do anything that they would actually like to do that society would deem inappropriate. Has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.”
— Jordan Peterson
If you look, you can see bluepill guys and game denialists in that quote.
You can also see the would-be daygamer that won’t approach… because he can’t handle that people might actually see him do what he truly wants to be able to do.
Many men willfully deny the potential impact of game on a man’s mating and dating opportunities. Those men must deny the tools that game offers, because they lacks the courage to make those tools effective. As we know, awareness of the structure/possibilities of something like daygame is not enough…
You have to be willing to go out and face rejection. Here we are onto the aspect of “cowardice” in the Nietzsche quote.
For many men, their fragile egos cannot begin to (eh-hem) “approach” the kind of rejection a player must face. To avoid the pain of rejection, a man will cut himself off from the truth of game entirely. He (and his ego) are safer when he sticks to Disney’s rules for how a man ought to behave.
It’s no surprise that he is also quick jump on the anti-player bandwagon. Either through doubts about the tactics themselves. Or at a larger level, questioning the “morality” of game in general. This is the White Knight.
He moralizes game to be wrong and players to be “bad men.” And that is ironic… as we are “bad men,” but none of this is wrong at all. Depends on where you want to spend your time as a man in the sexual marketplace.
“What they do is say, ‘I’m moral’, not ‘I’m cowardly.'”
— Jordan Peterson
Affection, entertainment, and pussy (and other rewards of game) sound enticing… but rejection… “so painful”… must not get rejected, not ever!… so… game… hmmm… hmmm… hmmmmmmm… game is evil!… it’s bad!… that’s why I don’t do it! Yes. whew Yes, that’s it. Must respect women. Must not game! Game is bad!!!
(I feel like RSD Julian as I type this ^ parody… I can see him playing the “moral man” for lolz.)
“Good men” avoid game because it’s bad. But as the Nietzsche quote illustrates, there is a lot of rationale there that is in place to help a man avoid looking at his own cowardice. His false-morality is at work to protect him from rejection. And to relieve him of the burden of work required of the player’s journey.
I’ll make this personal, and talk about my interest in very young girls… 18+. I couldn’t believe it, for years, as Tom and Krauser had stories of girls in that age group. I’ve mentioned this a lot as I get more experience with that demographic. And I had a lot of rationale for why “those girls were too young for me” over the last year (although it’s fading away). I have even judged Tom and Krauser, at some level, something like thinking of them as being “bad predators.” And there was certainly some cowardice in my attitude.
I still feel that cowardice on the streets sometimes… as I weasel out of sets… but I no longer think of this as having anything to do with morality.
Back to daygame… Krauser has a different angle on morality:
“Almost every daygamer wants to be the Nice Guy. He’s absorbed too many Disney fairytales and has turned to daygame to get the Good Girls and not those Nightclub Sluts. He’s kidding himself. The sexual market rules are always in effect. So drop your Disney fantasy. Daygame is dirty and animalistic.”
That’s right. Thank you, Krauser… once again. Daygame is dirty. The false-morality of cowardice again, the false-nobility, has no place to hide in our “dirty” understanding of the sexual marketplace.
Certainly, some aspects of game can be applied to tame, bluepill courtship and relationships… I did that myself. And yet there is clearly something to embrace in what Krauser is saying. We know how the sausage is made. The bad men of game know it is dirty, indeed.
“The dirty” isn’t an unpleasant cast-off of an otherwise “clean” process. The dirty isn’t a distasteful side dish. It’s the main course, in many ways.
What do women want?
Very often, what we find is that “bad men” are the best seducers. The best. Bad men aren’t on the moral fringes of the marketplace, they are on the throne, in the center.
One reason for that is that women want bad, dangerous men.
Meanwhile bluepill rhetoric plays on about the nice guy. The RomCom caricature of a man. This isn’t just about a natural percentage of beta’s in the population, it’s about explicit instructions from the culture to be more “nice”… which is to be more beta, in many ways.
“The insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness. Which is absurd. Women don’t even like harmless men, they hate them. They like to claw them apart.”
— Jordan Peterson
Some of these quotes from Peterson are from a different lecture, but the overall theme is retained… there is a relationship between the cultural message of the neutered nice guy and the common occurrence of moral cowardice in men.
And that line about women hating harmless men is a great comment about the psychology of women. Peterson, very much on point.
“What women want are dangerous men who are civilized. And they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.”
— Jordan Peterson
I first heard this line of thinking from Lance Mason, years ago, in his Zero Drama Dating product (one of the best products I’ve ever studied). Both Lance Mason and Peterson are talking about romance novels and female psychology.
And they are right. It’s part of my current relationship to seduction that I train each girl to see me as bad and dangerous… in a pleasing way. That’s the mix of dangerous and civilized. Or what I was talking about a lot when I was in Japan — “comfortable, yes, yes, but also exciting.”
So again… this “moral” man, the “nice guy,” we know he is off-track. Not only does his cowardice hold him back in the sense of entitlement, from approaching, from escalating, but his morality is a failed strategy itself. Make no mistake, the White Knights are horny, and their morality is in fact a type of sexual strategy, but a misguided and impotent one.
“The structure of Beauty and the Beast… that the female pornographic fantasy was: Wild guy, somewhat careless about the wants and desires of others, attractive to everyone (therefore high status), tamed by the magic of a single women and brought into a relationship with her.”
— Jordan Peterson
“Wild guy.” Yes. “Careless about the wants and desires of others.” That is a great line.
That carelessness is the part that stands out for me. That is one part “social freedom” and one part “stealing another guys lunch” (another Krauser-ism). That “not caring” is part of what the nice guy misses in his analysis of his role as a man. He thinks his constant-care, the “morality on his sleeve” is viable strategy with women. He confuses that nonsense with moral superiority… the poor fool.
Peterson’s is correct above when he says, “Women don’t even like harmless men, they hate them. They like to claw them apart.” We see this more in nightgame than daygame. In nightgame, girls will brutally reject the “too nice” man that somehow manages to try on an approach. In daygame the rejection of the nice guy is more subdued… she just won’t stop. She’s just not interested. She not only won’t return the ping text… she doesn’t even remember reading it.
Where is that wildness? That courage which is the antithesis of cowardice. Where is the careless bad boy?
This next quote from Peterson was also from his talk about Nietzsche:
“Part of the reason, for example, why people are so attracted to ‘bad guy stories’… you know criminals and serial killers, and all those sorts of people… vampires and that whole destructive force… is because those characters aren’t fearful. They are just what people would be like if they weren’t afraid.”
— Jordan Peterson
This is what the nice guy can’t face. He would be a player too, if he were not afraid. It is part of our thrill as men of game that we have conquered that fear in ourselves, or at least we can keep it bay while we hunt.
And part of what rocks a girl as you approach on the sidewalk is that you, Mighty Daygamer, are not afraid. And it shows. And she can feel it. You both know it, and that acknowledgment between you is hot.
She says, “Are you…?” And the look in your eyes says, “Damn right.” And thus begins the magic the daygamer offers that girl.
So let’s forget about the nice guy. She already has. Let’s talk about us. Bad boys… and the player’s lifestyle:
“How do you turn that into a game that can be played in a sustainable manner across large stretches of time without disrupting your entire life.”
— Jordan Peterson
That is a great point. I am dealing with this a lot in my life right now. I talked about how I often stop masturbating, to give myself more “intent.” And it works. Sheer libido makes me more focused on the street. But that super-charged intent makes it hard to focus on the rest of my life.
“There is a tension between chasing women and accomplishing other things in life. For all their seductive pleasures, women are dream killers.”
— Krauser, Adventure Sex
That sounds a bit dramatic, but I feel this comment in my life. There is a danger that my focus on game will lead me off the path of my larger purpose. I have talked about being “out of balance” before, particularly when I was in Japan. I spent so much time on the street… looking for trouble.
“Because that’s what you’re like. You’re gonna need trouble.”
— Jordan Peterson
Here Peterson gives us a great metaphor of the appeal and essence of the chaos that is women, and chasing women, and that lifestyle. And the chaos in the life of a man that is busy spinning plates. He’s not talking about our game in that quote, but “trouble” works well for what we’re after.
He is right that as a player, I “need trouble.” And I miss it when it’s in short supply.
“What I like doing the most: tracking, stalking and giving chase to prey.”
— Daygame in Shitsville
Daygame in Shitsville left this comment on my blog this month, and of course I loved it. Many daygamers will feel a hit when they read that line. Yes. Even a sniff of the spirit of his comment makes me want to hit the streets.
When I talk about tornadoes, and about the inherent “instability” that I cultivate when I try to work-up a proper Girl Tornado, I am talking about trouble. I’m so beyond false-morality, I’m actually hunting for trouble. When I’m frustrated, or envious of field reports like Roy Walker is giving us, it’s because I want that kind of trouble.
“If you’re an adventurous sort of person and you like to cause trouble… you better figure out how to cause quite a lot of trouble within the confines of your life in a way that doesn’t disrupt the entire structure.”
— Jordan Peterson
When Peterson says “doesn’t disrupt the entire structure,” he is not talking about game either (although, what a perfect story for our tribe). I think he is referring to the structure of your own life, which I talked about above. But let’s take his comment and use it as a lens for the larger society for a moment.
The lack of men that will properly enter and commit to the fraternity of players and seducers will remain small.
I’ll say that another way:
The “moral cowardice” of most men serves the greater civilization, as it keeps the total number of active players down to a reasonable percentage of the population.
Even if men didn’t have other valid priorities, most men don’t have the stones to do this… and never well. And consequently, most men will have zero-to-limited success in dating and mating. And marriage works as a counter-balance, to give them some public-cover for their lack of skill (each man gets a woman, often after she hits the wall… and even if she is getting some more on the side). She has her provider and she gets that little something “extra” from the player. And the player gets the lion’s share of women… and women in their prime.
It’s a careful balance of betas, women, and lions. That beta “morality” is part of the plan. A grand design.
Some of the more conservative men in the manosphere ask questions like: What if all men could run proper game? What would that mean for families? For stability? For our ability to focus and do the day-in, day-out work of keeping the ship afloat? How do we keep game from inspiring so much “trouble” it “disrupts the entire structure?”
Those are fair questions.
Our personal lives need good shepherding (and I know I have to keep an eye on that), but the grand design is eternally balanced. That ratio is in no danger of being upset by game.
Even in the years around 2005, as popularity of the book The Game started a wildfire that infected and inspired many us, this was still a narrow band of men. So many of us can trace our roots back to the stories of Mystery and Tyler Durden. And there was undoubtedly a wave of would-be courageous heroes inspired by that time… but it really had no impact on the larger culture. It’s not supposed to.
As I work my way through my thoughts on this topic I realize it’s clear I’m not at all upset at the “moral cowardice” of so many of my brothers. More for me, right? It’s just another thing to “see.” Part of the “real” education.
Most men will never get past their fear. I’m not judging them. In fact, I personally coach some friends of mine (and strangers, sometimes) to help them swallow the redpill and tease them into “the light.” But the grand design will keep most men in the position of beta. It’s better that way, for everyone involved.
“There are precious few R-selected men in the world so they act as aggregators. Twenty women may each have only one indiscretion but they all happen with the same man.”
And Krauser brings us home. It’s that grand design. I will post someday soon about my current formulation of the sexual marketplace… but it will be along the lines of what we’ve heard experienced men say before. And what Krauser is saying above.
While we players will need to be wise about how we balance the gluttony of our own pursuit with our greater purpose as men…. the overall grand design will be fine.
And the moral cowardice is fine, too, I suppose. Depends on what you want out of life.
Beta’s will use “morality” to help insulate them from the pain of a lack of sexual access… and the completely opposite pain of rejection.
Women will use a dual mating strategy, secrecy, and social manipulation to make sure they have access to resources, are safe within what appears to be a respectable position in the tribe. These same “respectable” girls will fuck R- selected bad men like us on the side, to complete the 2nd goal of their strategy — which is good, thrilling sex.
And the player will binge on the opportunities that are created by his discipline, his courage and his applied knowledge of game.
A bad man and a happy girl. Three is a crowd, and the overly “moral coward” need not apply. It’s better that way.
Always disagree with these ideas.
Peterson for example, I’ve been trying to understand why he’s appealing but he lacks logic when building his ideas – case example he says women want dangerous men but then white knights. Then he’s full of shit:
“How do you turn that into a game that can be played in a sustainable manner across large stretches of time without disrupting your entire life.”
He’s a male celebrity so he’s being pinged by groupies all the time, so he knows how to. Success, dominance, visibility on a field, plus his constant take downs of other men and taking the lead, makes him the women in that intellectual(ish) tribe will screen and bang first.
Krauser, I find the K/R selection model flawed to describe and predict the marketplace. Case point, women are looking for ‘good, strong, better’ offspring, not ‘cheap and quantity’. The men who can bang many women do so because they have the ‘better’ stuff, not the ‘cheaper’ stuff. Ask women.
Nietzsche, he was like a 4chan edgelord of his time. Bombastic lines that need to be deconstructed by someone intelligent, like Peterson who was able to reverse engineer it:
“morality is cowardice” translates to “obeying societal norms because you’re afraid is not related morality”. Which taken to a logical conclusion would mean that “true morality is not rooted in fear” and that’s why Nietszshe sucks
“Morality is cowardice” means “true morality is not rooted in fear”, but the first way of putting it is clickbait o trigger an emotional response, and will be taken literal by anyone who wants to exploit that sequence of words, example “everyone would be a criminal if they were not cowards, so Im not a criminal, Im brave” – while the true meaning “true morality is not rooted in fear” escapes the ego so it’s less juicy, more boring, less applicable, so instead of arguing I’ll just give it back to him:
“Nietszshe is cowardice”
>> Case point, women are looking for ‘good, strong, better’ offspring, not ‘cheap and quantity’. The men who can bang many women do so because they have the ‘better’ stuff, not the ‘cheaper’ stuff. Ask women.
Women want: 1.) Resources/protection for them and their kids… 2.) good standing in the tripe, in part, so they don’t lose the resources/protection, and 3.) Sex and personal fulfillment (as long as the doesn’t fuck up #2).
Men that “bang” need to be made clear… what does that mean?
Does “bang” mean “married?” And that (for most men), means sex maybe 1X per month? Or 1X every 6 mths?? I think this is what the “resources/protection” path offers a man long term. Longterm is not about sex. So yeah, he gets to bang her… somewhat regularly, through courtship… and then… less and less. I don’t really consider that path “men than bang.”
So sometimes the “good, strong, better” is about alpha and sex only. Those men definitely bang. It could be the pool boy. Assuming she has resources/protection handled… then sex/fulfillment are next. The right pool boy can do that… he offers a type of good/strong/better.
DISCLAIMER: I don’t know anything about Nietzsche. I wanted to play with that quote, so I did. I am no expert… in anything, but my own thoughts. Regarding my own thoughts… I’m a genius!
>> Which taken to a logical conclusion would mean that “true morality is not rooted in fear”
>> “Morality is cowardice” means “true morality is not rooted in fear”, but the first way of putting it is clickbait to trigger an emotional response, and will be taken literal by anyone who wants to exploit that sequence of words
I somewhat agree… and I am using that quote (and even Nietzsche’s name) as clickbait to some degree. But I like where Peterson takes that line, and I like where I took the discussion… and I think argument plays out well.
>> “Nietszshe is cowardice”
>> “everyone would be a criminal if they were not cowards, so Im not a criminal, Im brave” – while the true meaning “true morality is not rooted in fear” escapes the ego so it’s less juicy, more boring, less applicable, so instead of arguing I’ll just give it back to him:
In the case of the argument above, I think the “shallow” level of Nietzsche’s quote and the BS-spin that a White Knight might put on his own cowardice work well together (BTW, Peterson never mentions White Knights… I added that).
>> “true morality is not rooted in fear”
That is exactly right. But the White Knight or moral coward is hiding his fear behind a moral argument. I wouldn’t call it lie, as I’m not sure the moral coward knows he’s a moral coward. That same white night could understand your line “true morality is not rooted in fear” but in this case would hide from that truth… for all the reasons I laid out in my post.
As for the bit about “criminals and serial killers and vampires…” Peterson is into archetypes. In no way is he suggesting that we should get over our fear, become literal criminals… and then score chicks.
He is pointing to the mythical attraction of the bad boy. I’m not actually a bartender… but i dress like one (black jeans, black tshirt) because I know it’s a better role than office boy… I am deliberately avoid the provider role. I know “the bartender” in many ways has more appeal to women than office boy, so I play that role… something like that.
>> good, strong, better’
>> not the ‘cheaper’ stuff
Right. And in THEORY (a broken, dumbass theory) the office guy should get more chicks than the bartender… but he does not. Office guy might be married… but that’s not the goal I’m after. The bartender offers a DIFFERENT KIND of “good/strong/better,” one of the flavors women want (the SEXUAL flavor)… so he gets women. Office guy offers a different flavor, so he gets a woman, maybe, as he offers a different flavor (boring provider and financial protector and future alimony payer… women want that too).
They both offer good/strong/better… but different flavors. Which one do I want to fill?
The criminal line is perfect… as most men that game can’t believe they can “get away with it.” I still feel that way. There is nothing illegal about what we’re doing. But there is a lot of pressure not to do it (internal/external), so the “bad boy” that does it anyway is a fitting label for what is going.
Especially if he feels like a bad boy, and internalizes his role. Then his swagger is that of a bad boy… which will create real appeal.
And that bad boy label overlaps well with what we know women want… bad boys are sexy.
When I look at the sexual marketplace I always remember how ants do it, and the tragedy of it.
A few female winged princesses are released, and thousands upon thousands of males are released
shortly afterwards to chase them.
All the males fly knowing that they have to chase this princess down, that’s their only mission and function, they have to “find the one” and put it all into her. Any mistake means they fail. Not being the fastest means they die. Touching the floor means losing their wings and die. So it’s a long race, flying through the unknown, being prey of other animals, in the dark, in ignorance, but with a powerful push and drive to find “the one”.
Almost every one of them just dies without succeeding. Having that drive and doing “everything right” is not enough. Most just die.
Then one brave male ant finds the princess and they make love. In his mind, probably he thinks he was saved. He found salvation. He landed home. Everything will be fine now. Or maybe he thinks “was this it?”. Regardless, he also loses his wings and dies. All male ants die. All within a day of being born.
So the whole thing was nature’s screening mechanism, by no means perfect, to kill the weak and transfer the more fit genes to the princess. The more fit genes for this particular configuration of nature, for that day, for that hour, for that instant. All male ants die, to fine tune to that specific day and hour. Just so the more fine tuned can pass their genes to the females and produce the next iteration.
That’s where “you can’t do this thing in a sustainable way without disrupting your whole life” falls in a void. “Do the right thing and be moral” falls in another void. What all males are doing is following the same blind, but very pushy, drive to go there and find “the one”. Finding the “one” makes the man channel the strength needed to actually become a better – more fit – male. The blindness and push and the ‘improvement’ required to win the race towards the princess that is yet unknown puts her on a pedestal, as in “I must improve myself and make me the most fit one in order to win over other men and get access to the princess and be saved” which is how the princess becomes a symbol of “everything that is good” and idealized – even before you *actually* met any woman.
But then females are in a difference race with different goals. They are racing for their lives, they wont bang the thousand ants, they need the good genes, and are aligned with nature, who will kill all of them. All the princess ant needs is the most fit male she can get. If she thinks she’s got one, and a better one comes nearby she’ll switch and trade up. “It’s all for the better”. It’s all playing the rules of the game. The male who got discarded will then lose the wings and die – but so will “the winner”, shortly after. While all the other thousand males also die in solitude, banging against things, meandering around aimlessly waiting for death to come, eaten by other ants, chased by cats. “what’s the meaning of all of this”.
The game is bigger than them.
Then this – the screening never ends!
“That’s where “you can’t do this thing in a sustainable way without disrupting your whole life” falls in a void.
It falls in a void because your whole life is nothing but the pursue of pussy. Your betterment as a man, your journey, is nothing but a long screening process.
“Do the right thing and be moral” falls in another void.”
Falls in a void because the moral of the story is that you reproduce or fail. The loser of the game disappears from the pool along with his morals.
The men who are trying to “do the right thing” and “white knight” even guys like Peterson dictating rules for the tribe – are still in a screening process, trying to display and showcase value to make themselves attractive to women.
The betas / men who are “acting cowardly” – it’s not that they fear the rejection of the tribe by acting out, they fear the rejection of women. They are following morals to make themselves more attractive to women. Peterson says “women likes bad men” but then proceeds to white knight and shame men because deep down his surface level knowledge he still thinks the white knight is what passes the test, being a protector of women, being the good guy. When he says “women want bad men but they want civilized men” he’s selling his own brand to women “Im dangerous, and civilized, and I will even take your side and defend you, and shame all these other men”.
Men’s instinct is to tell women why they should have sex with them. It’s all a sale. Peterson is selling.
If you stop selling (you’d have to go full omega for that, or zen) and you look at what women in general are going for you’ll find a different story. Often “the fit man” and “civilized” are against each other in the screening spectrum, find out what women tend to prefer.
>> When I look at the sexual marketplace I always remember how ants do it, and the tragedy of it.
>> Almost every one of them just dies without succeeding. Having that drive and doing “everything right” is not enough. Most just die.
Arrrrrg. Wow. Yeah. Fuck.
>> That’s where “you can’t do this thing in a sustainable way without disrupting your whole life” falls in a void. “Do the right thing and be moral” falls in another void.
>> But then females are in a difference race with different goals
>> they need the good genes, and are aligned with nature
Wow… I’ve never heard it said quite like that…
That women’s goals are aligned with nature’s goals… and men are more like “spammers,” throwing spaghetti against the wall… hoping it sticks.
>> “what’s the meaning of all of this”.
>> The game is bigger than them.
Yeah. Krauser is talking about the “end of his journey.” Meaning was “100 lays” until he got that done. Now he has to pick a new “meaning.”
I had a great insta-date yesterday. I am still buzzing from that date. Meaning for me, right now, is about that buzz. That’s it.
loved the post, now to read what yohami didn’t like about it…
Yes. To quote Norman Mailer: “There is nothing safe about sex. There never was, there never will be”. I guess ‘safe’ and ‘moral’ could be interchangeable in this particular case. I view the conquering of women similar to the acquisition of power (not in general, but yes on this particular regard); morality can be a significant self-imposed hindrance to success. Especially considering that females are truly amoral creatures – which is fine, it is what it is.
And back to the quote on “chasing prey”, though I feel flattered to be quoted, let’s not forget this is only a romantic metaphor describing the process of taking the initiative. The comparison falls flat in that women actually love the chase and we’re not taking something from them for our exclusive personal gain (i.e.: their lives for us to be fed, Hannibal Lecter notwithstanding). In fact, we are giving them a very rare and precious gift in these times: they get to be approached by a masculine, attractive and confident man. They may or may not fancy us, but in most cases what I get back from them – if it’s not a pure, raw sexual vibe – is gratitude (sometimes a strange though not distasteful mixture of the two). I have been literally congratulated by unavailable women that nonetheless understand what’s going on and are noticeably glad there’s a guy out there doing this stuff. Plus, we get to turn the tables eventually and become the chased ones ;-) I can’t think of a more satisfying part in the whole courtship process.
I’ve been watching a lot of Peterson videos, I get his appeal now. This is one of the best I’ve seen from him
He’s still full of shit in some ideas – like that the money you get from above lower class doesn’t improve your life, and that liberty and happiness don’t correlate, and stuff like that. But he’s a good ranter and smarter than most people
Nietzsche – I read him a lot a long time ago. The reason he is famous is the same reason Kant is famous and so many others like anyone from the positivism movement or even Marx: Their works were useful in the divorce between Church and State, they provided many one-liners that push the right buttons. Most of them are just nonsense, but useful to fight against the nonsense coming from religious dogma. The line you got from Nietzsche has the context of being anti-christian for example. But he didn’t understand the Christ symbol properly.
Ants and marketplace.
Humans differ from the story I wrote here in that we’re mammals and we form sedentary groups. In our case, the tribes have a male center, a male leader, and they are surrounded by a harem of females procreating with that strong male, and surrounding them there’s a circle of beta males and young kids keeping the tribe safe. So the alpha male in the center of the tribe is THE ONE all the females want and will copulate with, and any other male who wants to copulate has to go fight that guy or rape.
Then in our case the tribe is made of millions of people, so it breaks down vertically, horizontally, randomly, based on many different criteria and many things that balance each other, so we have millions of very small tribes that share the same people – groups of friends, groups of work, groups of ethnicity, commonalities, language etc. Each tribe organizes again in the same way, alpha guy surrounded by women who want to and will copulate with him, surrounded by beta males. Then groups can have more than one alpha, and alphas can be ranked different at a different time depending on what’s going on.
Horses do something interesting, the females are always walking directly towards the alpha and if he cedes he loses his alpha status. Chickens do a pecking order abusing each other until it’s clear who is the strongest and who’s the weaker. Sea lions do pretty much what I described above. Dogs have several sub groups inside of a group. Monkeys have a mix where they have several alphas and then some form relationships with beta monkeys. Lions are pretty much king + harem + kids. And so on. There’s variation.
When the groups are settled like that the princesses don’t run on the dark like with ants. They settle down and try to consolidate their status on the tribe, trying to be as close to the alpha as possible and as much in charge or resources as possible. So there’s a lot of chit chat with other females and political plays. The alpha is decided by consensus, so they share with each other how much they like X guy and if the friends are not also turned on by them, the alpha can lose the status. And it changes when a new male enters the room, the pecking order is reset, even if only for a moment.
So yeah for the men in the periphery the race is similar to the ants – throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. For the men in the inner side of the tribe it’s more similar to game of thrones. The more women in your life the more game of thrones it is. But all this to say that the betas and lower chase women, from the periphery of the tribe, and the women run towards the center of the tribe, chasing value and kissing up to each other, trying to catch and fighting for the attention, semen, cock and resources of the king who’s at the middle, the alpha in the room.
That’d be me.
>> But all this to say that the betas and lower chase women, from the periphery of the tribe, and the women run towards the center of the tribe, chasing value and kissing up to each other, trying to catch and fighting for the attention, semen, cock and resources of the king who’s at the middle, the alpha in the room.
Yeah. That first line is really a good one…
>> betas and lower chase women, from the periphery of the tribe, and the women run towards the center of the tribe
That’s really well said. I’m working that language into my model.
>> That’d be me.
Yohami, once again, demonstrates he has no self-esteem issues. : ]
Furthermore… in relation to what you’ve said in a previous piece about exploring our depravities as men, I’ve got to say I am really turned on with actual physical (token, nonetheless) resistance at the moment of sex and finally overcoming it by sheer force – with her final surrender and acceptance of my physical dominance. Yohami may disapprove, but I hold the belief that deep inside women have this fantasy of being “raped”. I find that without this resistance sex is rather tasteless. Okay, it can be great, both of my Venezuelans have never resisted me (the first one was married, so only showed a bit of trepidation initially). I’ve found I rather enjoy caveman sex, and I am more likely to get hooked on a girl that actually resists me, but then gets incredibly turned on with her fantasy of being raped fulfilled. These girls tend fall for me once I’ve overcome their squirming and kicking, and they’re usually of an unusual beauty and career women. I have a thing for women that overtly test me all the time, and quickly grow weary of the more compliant, submissive ones. Not sure if it’s a weakness on my part, or utter insanity.
For context – how do you get to a point where she’s squirming and kicking? do you get into their houses with rope, a knife, and chloroform?
Nah, if I used chloroform they wouldn’t be kicking at all… would take all the fun away. These girls come along every once in a while and are almost invariably crazy and hot Porteñas. Last one became my gf for about six months, two years ago or so. First date, she shit-tested the hell out of me and I was non reactive to her trying to derail the train. Then came the “it’s on” look in her eye. Took her home, and when she said: “had a great time, going to sleep now”, I asked her to let me use the loo – plausible deniability. She was reluctant first, then told me “ok, but you’re leaving as soon as you’re done”… Went for it and when I came out she was at her balcony staring at the horizon, instead of impatiently waiting to kick me out. So I went over, started to kiss her, she got horny, bit my neck and started to lightly push me away and pull me towards her and claw at me, in intervals. Long story short, we ended up wrestling almost naked on her bed (I was naked, she had only her panties on), couldn’t pass her resistance that night – she had been gagging for it, but clearly a strong case of front/hindbrain conflict – though we were both enjoying the tussle. I slept over, woke up in the morning, and finally fucked her after a bit more of token struggle. Huge turn on for both of us!
Got it. Yep, that’s Buenos Aires.
>> clearly a strong case of front/hindbrain conflict – though we were both enjoying the tussle. I slept over, woke up in the morning, and finally fucked her after a bit more of token struggle. Huge turn on for both of us!
One of the things I love about game — and the few of us talking here, and men like us talking elsewhere — these stories aren’t available any where else.
They don’t teach men lessons like you proved in this story… “ask to use the loo,” then escalate on her on the balcony, wrestle naked… still no sex that night… sleep over… fuck her in the morning.
I’m a big believer that a bit of actual sleep together is a “silent negotiation” of both hindbrainds that makes sex smooth/fluid as you wake up. I think your bodies “prepare each other” as you sleep, you connect on body-chemical level, and as you wake up (middle of the night, after a nap, the next morning… whatever), you’re both ready.
>> I’ve got to say I am really turned on with actual physical (token, nonetheless) resistance at the moment of sex and finally overcoming it by sheer force – with her final surrender and acceptance of my physical dominance
I think this is a very real comment. I’m with you in many ways… and for the record THIS IS AN ADULT CONVERSATION, and assumes we all have an understanding of “real” boundaries.
Before I go on in praise of what you’re saying Captain Argentina (calling you Shitsville never feels right)…
I loved Yohami’s point this month that seduction not about overcoming a girls actual resistance.
>> What no man should be doing is pushing past a girls resistance point as a strategy for getting laid.
This is obvious, but I want to emphasize again that I learned from this line… one of those lines I heard in my head several times in the days after I read it.
That line, combined with me really starting to get what “come here” means (that she actually does come to you), was a big lesson for me of how alpha’s actually get submission.
I’m not using this yet in my game… but it’s on my mind.
Great lessons Yohami.
Great comments, man.
>> Yohami may disapprove, but I hold the belief that deep inside women have this fantasy of being “raped”.
This is proven over and over again, across time and space. This is thrilling for a woman. Comes up in every candid telling of women’s fantasies. They want to be “taken.”
The word women often us in the West is “I want to be ravished.” That’s a term of romance. Look that term up to get the full picture of the kind of romance women want.
>> I find that without this resistance sex is rather tasteless.
I think this is real, and part of “good sex” for a lot of men AND a lot of women.
I personally… just love the surrender. I’m not a super dominant guy, but my routine in bed is dominant enough, that most girls “surrender” immediately after they’ve been in bed with me a few times. They know what is coming, so they they start to squeal, they get turned on, and they surrender. I love that.
This is still the “rape fantasy,” but this is later in that “same story,” where she’s been “locked in your sex dungeon” long enough that she knows how it is. You’re still taking her, but she has no illusions of getting away any more… big turn-on, but less struggle.
>> I’ve found I rather enjoy caveman sex, and I am more likely to get hooked on a girl that actually resists me, but then gets incredibly turned on with her fantasy of being raped fulfilled.
Yeah, and to your point… when Siren and I were in bed two weeks ago, she was purposely resisting me. It was mild, but turning her head as I tried to kiss her. It was a show… she was egging me on.
So I had to pin her down. Force each kiss on her. I was barely turned on when we started. As she made me “take her,” she was obviously very turned on, and the process of taking her brought me up to full passion. Good deal.
I get what you’re saying.
>> These girls tend fall for me once I’ve overcome their squirming and kicking,
This is the part that makes the conversation “whole” for me… yes. I think you’re correct here, and this is partly where I really identify with the rest of your story. You saying this makes me trust all of this much more.
If you’re “taking them” correctly, they do fall for you. They love it. And that puts the “violence” in context. It is violence, but the flavor of violence they seek out.
I’m actually perfectly fine w/ the “pump and dump” type of guys, and what they are doing with game. No judgment. That’s not what I want, but I don’t care if that’s what they do. And we know girls that “pump and dump” men as well. It’s normal, but not what I am after.
I love being the “dangerous, bad man.” I love the pinning them down and taking them. But if they aren’t longing for more of it… I’m doing it wrong.
If girls are “falling for you” as you do this, you’re doing it exactly right, by my standards.
Yes to that. That is obviously a “good experience” for her, and for you as well.
>>> YOHAMI: “Got it. Yep, that’s Buenos Aires.”
I hear in Russia it’s way worse.
Actually, I am comparatively timid. I have a friend who specializes in “high pressure game”, but he does night game exclusively. He couldn’t do daygame if his life depended on it, but he can do some awesome shit I could never even attempt to do. I’ve seen him stealthily steal girls from under the boyfriend’s nose; or otherwise literally carry girls on his shoulder, kicking and screaming all trhough the dance floor and, when the bouncers looked at him funny he would say: “My sister… she had too many drinks tonights, pay her no mind at all”. Then, once he was about to take the girl inside the only cab available at the time, and some other girls where ahead of him in the queue, so he said with that night’s victim in his arm: “open way, sick girl here! She’s about to pass out”. And off they went to his lair.
And it works for him… ok, not all the time. Sure, he loses a lot of the girls. But those who he manages to fuck end up being addicted to him. Once he told me a girl refused to suck his cock, and started to openly challenge him, saying something like: “I’m not going to suck your cock on demand, who the fuck do you think you are?!” So he gave her a good smack and threw her out – not really, just sent her outside to chill out for a bit. She became teary-eyed and said: “I can’t believe this… it’s the first time someone does this to me”. Apparently, it was an awesome lay afterwards. He is one dark fucker, my pal. That is his style -definitely not mine – but I got to learn the “loo move” from him. Actually, he even tells the girl to let him in “for a snack”, goes inside her place, opens the fridge, helps himself and then fucks the soul out of her.
The super pushy and super drama back and forth is integral part of the argentinean dance. The girl is supposed to be super sexual and teasy, to make the guy come really hard and get obsessive about her, then she pushes him away and demeans him very hard, then she chases more and more and she keeps resisting while teasing more, then she finally gives him pussy, then he really treats her like a whore piece of shit, then he cheats on her, then she loses her shit and … fucking histeria :-D
It’s not the only game but it permeates Argentina. Again I stopped banging argentinean girls because of this. When I landed there I was in beta mode and wanting to please, so I didn’t have idea of what was going on. There I was exposed to:
– A guy who would sit in the front of his building, on a corner, and stand up and say hi and introduce himself to every cute girl that would walk by. Talk 30 seconds, sit again. So daygame sans the chase, he banged 15 girls a month.
– Another guy who was always smoking weed on his apartment, chatting girl girls. After talking to some girl for half a day one new would come to his place, take a shower, smoke weed and bang them then leave. All “chat and weed game”. Banged 2 girls a week.
– Another guy who would go to a bar or pub and hit HARD on every girl, in an obsessive aggressive manner. He’d push on every girl on the bar in a succession, get rejected, go to the next one, eventually go back to the first and start again. By 3 am he’d have done that with everyone a few times, and one of the girls would turn on to be crazy about him pushing him back and forth till they were a couple for the night. This happened every saturday, he always got laid.
– A guy who would to the same but waiting until 4 am to hit on drunk girls that could barely walk. Everyone hated that one.
– Girls. Girls that would sit on my lap and start twerking when I was having a drink. Girls that would touch my arm and start ‘testing me’ out of the blue. Girls that would turn any conversation we were having into something sexual. Girls who would tease then push back. Girls who would get all chasey and really want something then discard. Girls who’d want me to cheat with them and would get very disappointed, very, when I told them that Im not a cheater “what’s wrong with that guy”. Girls asking me to rape them. Girls in all shapes of crazy. Buenos Aires is beta hell, you can’t be a “good boy” and do the right thing and be rewarded. On the other hand once I started switching to alpha it redpilled the shit out of me quite fast.
The vibe of Baires doesn’t match me, so I had to learn to create my own circle of people so I could set the vibe and the rules of interaction. Then I found how the behavior of girls completely changed when you’re the male in the center instead of the male running after them. These same crazy girls have more than one game, and the same for the sane ones, thought there aren’t that many over there. Once I switched to ‘dating’ girls from abroad I rarely came back.
“I hear in Russia it’s way worse.”
>>>”The super pushy and super drama back and forth is integral part of the argentinean dance. The girl is supposed to be super sexual and teasy, to make the guy come really hard and get obsessive about her, then she pushes him away and demeans him very hard, then she chases more and more and she keeps resisting while teasing more, then she finally gives him pussy, then he really treats her like a whore piece of shit, then he cheats on her, then she loses her shit and … fucking histeria :-D
… Girls. Girls that would sit on my lap and start twerking when I was having a drink. Girls that would touch my arm and start ‘testing me’ out of the blue. Girls that would turn any conversation we were having into something sexual. Girls who would tease then push back. Girls who would get all chasey and really want something then discard. Girls who’d want me to cheat with them and would get very disappointed, very, when I told them that Im not a cheater “what’s wrong with that guy”. Girls asking me to rape them. Girls in all shapes of crazy. Buenos Aires is beta hell, you can’t be a “good boy” and do the right thing and be rewarded.”
LOL XD. Never came across a more accurate description of the reality here. Had to stop to have a good laugh.
>>> ““I hear in Russia it’s way worse.”
As per Tom Torero and Nick Krauser. Along with Ukraine, they’re supposed to be the countries where women shit test the men the hardest. Makes sense, since the most beautiful women in the whole world live there, all throughout (ok, personal bias here). I could not say for sure, since I’ve never been to either of the two… But all the drama that goes down behind closed doors here apparently is for public display over there. I’ve heard Tom talk about a couple punching each other on the streets and the guy grabbing the woman by the hair and forcing her to the floor. And making out just a few moments after that. I could safely say that here it’s not that extreme.
I think what some men who are critical of game say: is that they are afraid of hurting a girl’s feelings. I am myself a good-looking guy, with a level head. The only problem is that I would have to tell the girl that I am not looking for a long-term relationship, I am only looking for casual sex. I can imagine that it is more difficult finding a girl willing to be a pump-and-dump if you say it to her before sex.
I can imagine day gaming trying to find a girlfriend. But it seems like to get good at game you must go through a couple of pump and dumps before getting the dream girl. In my eyes, it seems cruel for example fucking an 18-year-old virgin only for the notch count.
For every girl you fuck, the less sensitive to pair bonding you get. If one has fucked a hundred girls it would be more difficult to settle down and have a family because one has simply seen too much. There is one statistic that says that the more men a girl has been with before she marries, the higher chance of the girl divorcing. This is because the girl is less sensitive to pair bonding when she has been with loads of men. I think the same thing applies to men – albeit not to the SAME extent AS women. It seems like it is better to find a wholesome girl, when you are in your twenties – instead of pumping and dumping lots of girls non-stop.
What do you think? There is only this that stops me from trying out daygaming. The whole morality thing – hurting girl’s feelings in order to get better at game.
I am norwegian, I’m sorry for any errors.
Hey Sindre. Thanks for the comment.
>> The only problem is that I would have to tell the girl that I am not looking for a long-term relationship, I am only looking for casual sex. I can imagine that it is more difficult finding a girl willing to be a pump-and-dump if you say it to her before sex.
You are reminding me of a lesson I heard this guy David X say one time. I can’t remember his exactly words, but if he heard you say this, he would yell at your (he’s pretty crazy) and then… he would correctly point out that you’re having a conversation, in your head, that you don’t have to have, because the situation you’re thinking of… hasn’t happened yet.
Notice what you’re doing: You’re saying your can even experiment, because you know all these things are going to happen. You have no proof. So you won’t even start, even though you have no proof… because you already know.
I say this in a friendly way. Again, that guy David X said it, about someone else… because as men, we do this all the time.
>> I can imagine that it is more difficult finding a girl willing to be a pump-and-dump if you say it to her before sex.
First of all… if you want “causal sex,” there are many versions of that. And pump/dump is just one flavor. So, you might open your creativity about what your options are. Sex/dating is not “black/white.”
As men, we can create the experience we want, much of the time.
Notice how many times you told yourself “no” in your comment. We do this all the time.
We will be in a better place, psychologically, when we learn to say “yes.”
I could say a lot more about your comment, but for now, I’ll make it personal…
>> I can imagine that it is more difficult finding a girl willing to be a pump-and-dump if you say it to her before sex.
I am dating two, really great girls. Both attractive, talented arts. Siren and Miss Thicke (I talk about them a lot, see my other posts). I have been seeing Siren, 1X per week, since Dec (except for when I was in Japan). I have been seeing Miss Thick, about 1X per week, for the last month. I am having sex with both of them… and dating other girls as well.
Neither one have asked me anything, about a “relationship,” or boyfriend/girlfriend… nothing. They’ve never asked. Maybe they will… but for now, they are both very happy girls. The “rules” of the relationship have never come up.
I point this out… as I am having “causal sex,” but notice it isn’t “pump/dump.” I don’t consider them my GF(s)… but I didn’t “pump and dump” them either. And I am totally okay with having sex once, and never again. But I happen to like them, and they have a great time with me, so I (for now) I can just date them.
I don’t explain any of this, to any girl I’m dating… I just date them. Period. I show them a good time. I have a good time. The “rules” don’t come up… I’m certainly not going to bring them up.
To restate my points:
— You can be creative about what kind of relationship(s) you want to have with girls
— As the man, you can decide… it can be up to you (especially if you lead)
— You do not have to agree on the “rules” (certainly not in advance)
— You can have casual sex, and not “pump/dump”
— It’s up to you, it’s up to you, it’s up to you
Life is an experiment. As you realize your own power (by proving life to yourself, not guessing), you can see how many options a powerful man can actually have.
But you will not learn this, sitting on the sidelines, moralizing.
I do NOT want to be a “spectator” in life. I want to know, really know, from my own experience.
It sounds to me, like you have a lot of questions (“What if??”). I think you have a chance to find out.
Go find out!
Most men have no fucking idea about sex/dating. None. They never experiment.
I am working hard, I study a lot, I run a lot of game, I have a lot of women in my life, and new women all the time… and I barely know what I am talking about.
But I am going to to “find out.” I have already found out quite a lot. I’m happy and excited about what else I will learn… even though this isn’t easy. It’s a fun “game” to play.
Don’t wonder. Go find out. It is hard work, but a grand adventure.
Do it. And do as much as you want… it’s up to you.
“I am having “causal sex””
Happy accident. CAUSAL sex is a fitting concept.
sindre’s issue is beta frame. In beta frame what you have to offer to a girl is not your sperm (sex) but your commitment and resources, and sex is something you take from the girl, you never really deserve it, so you have to keep yourself kissing up to her for it even after having committed everything to her.
So “Im only going to take the sex from you and Im not going to give you any of my money and security” translates to “you are not worthy” which paired with sex-taking makes it a form of abuse. Which is why beta is convinced alphas and players are bad men. But he doesn’t respect you! I can treat you better! come here I’ve got chocolates, flowers and a backrub? want some dick now?
>> sindre’s issue is beta frame. In beta frame what you have to offer to a girl is not your sperm (sex) but your commitment and resources, and sex is something you take from the girl
There can be more than one angle at that psychologically.
The angle I am after is not his self-worth… but the idea that 1.) what she wants is a range of things. So don’t decide for her. Girls are different, want different things, so don’t predict.
And 2.) doesn’t matter what she wants… what do you want. Who’s life is this?? It’s yours.
The latter is one of my favorite concepts in teaching game right now. Men do not own that they are talking about their own lives… so the story should be about them. It’s not about her. Quit talking about “her.” What do YOU want?
Most men are always thinking of how they will react to what she wants. Or what they think a girl like her is supposed to want… which is even worse.
This is right at the heart of the RSD “be at the cause, not at the effect.” That means, start with what you want. Make that the agenda, and then see if that works…
If you’re new to game (and have a head full of bluepill ideas):
1. Start thinking about what you want. Not a “safe” respectable (to be a good man and make her happy!) version of what you want, but what you really want. And not what you think guys want to hear that you want (to bang models, bro! blondes with big tits!! Strippers! Champagne and strippers!!!). But something simple, but that is truly yours.
2. Try to make it happen. If it’s too weird, or you’re not ready for it… it won’t work. So adjust your plan until you can make it work.
3. Once you can make what you want work… start thinking of the next thing you want… and make that work.
This is how you climb out of where you are today. Doesn’t matter if you’re confused about your own worth or about what the girl wants… if you experiment, listen to other men in game (who have already woken up) and keep going, you’ll find the truth.
This is how you destroy bluepill ideas. You prove to yourself that you can get what you want… and that you can give the girl a good experience as you get what you want (again, it’s about what you want FIRST, her good experience is part of that, but her experience comes second) and slowly… slowly… your world opens up into a redpill understanding.
I like that. Also pay attention to the circular thing.
You putting yourself first means you’re the value.