in this previous post i took out the scalpel of common sense, tempered by diverse experiences, and began a reckless attempt at debridement of the deeply scarred tissue of modern long-term relationships.
in that post, i introduced the following ideas:
* alpha and beta are not opposites, nor are they negative spaces, like yin and yang. they are entirely separate clusters of behavioral traits. (in extremely compressed timeframes they can take on some aspects of opposition, which is why the PUA community is so obsessed with contrasting them, but in longer timeframes it’s ridiculous to continue the charade of contrast.)
* the traits are not binary; each can be represented by a continuum, to which i’ve arbitrarily put the numbers -10 to 10. (if you really hate negative numbers, then add ten, divide the result by two, and, hey presto, you have an 0-10 scale. i’m nothing if not helpful.)
* i introduced scales for the following alpha traits:
alpha trait 3: control the conversation
alpha trait 4: all interaction is sexually charged
alpha trait 5: authority
alpha trait 6: independence
yes, #1 and #2 are missing; see below.
* i discussed the meaning of such terms, as widely bandied about as they are vague, as “congruent”, “just be yourself”, and “better relationship game”.
—
coming attractions:
in this post, i will describe a few more of the alpha traits, giving a more complete picture of “alpha”. in a few days, i’ll post a pretty comprehensive discussion of the beta traits (which are, more or less, completely orthogonal to these alpha traits).
then, i’ll attempt to sketch an outline of the optimal relationship between the two, upon which the genesis of such previously mysterious facts as “alphas get sooooo much more credit for random acts of kindness!” will suddenly become crystal clear.
stay tuned.
back to your regularly scheduled programming.
remember the warning in the first edition of “to whatever self be true”: you will be treated as a fraud, a hollow, fake alpha, if you do not have reasonably consistent values on ALL of these scales.
this statement has possible exceptions in terms of scales #1 and #2 below, which may be strongly skewed by a woman’s prior experience with molestation, sexual abuse, and other such permanent beshitment. otherwise, if you’re looking to “improve your game”, you’re looking at the intimidating, but not insurmountable, task of moving all of these sliders very slowly up the board, so that no two of them are more than a couple of points out of sync.
ever.
—
ALPHA TRAIT 1: SEXUAL DOMINANCE
-10 = he doesn’t make a move without her explicit approval, and even then is still walking on eggshells, thinking nothing of his own pleasure amid his fear of displeasing his mistress
-5 = he has some sexual agency and will take some sexual initiative, but is still relentlessly concerned with “technique” and “how to please her”, as though these two things were purely biomechanical functions; he will literally take direction from her, or, in the absence of such direction, will pester her, explicitly or implicitly, with “does that feel good?”; he won’t initate sexual contact, except in contexts where it’s traditionally expected (e.g. after a candlelit dinner or a large purchase) or at her urging
0 = he likes to get his rocks off, and will thus occasionally initiate bouts of frenzied, strangely energetic fucking in a mostly vain attempt to simulate the intense friction of his tightly closed hand; he’s above literally having to take instruction from her, but he’s still the sexual equivalent of a supplicating sycophant, overly concerned with trying to elicit “her pleasure” in a forced, mechanical way that doesn’t take account of her psychological need for dominance; he often gets her decently close to orgasm with the frenzied ersatz-masturbation-fucking, but then ruins the vibe completely by switching back into “pleaser” mode; he’s still not spontaneous in initating sex, although liquid courage, PUA materials, and friends’ prodding now push him to occasional sexual spontaneity (inevitably with hilariously awkward results with which she can later regale her girlfriends)
+5 = he takes control in the bedroom, clearly dominating her both physically and psychologically; however, he is still concerned with such things as giving her orgasms; any degrading dirty talk of his, however intense, is still mostly rooted in fantasy and restricted to the bedroom
+10 = he views the woman as just another inanimate, non-sentient aid in the process of masturbation (although a particularly effective, addictive, and alluring one), and will gladly tell her so, whether during sex or not; rather than assuming that her pleasure will correlate with his, he simply doesn’t care about her pleasure — or, more probably, the thought of “her pleasure” has never occurred to him at all, as anything other than a mythical abstraction
ALPHA TRAIT 2: SEXUAL AGGRESSION
-10 = he has internalized dworkin’s portrayal of sex, in which even the act of thrusting itself is unacceptable male hegemony; he is only comfortable as the passive partner in a sexual relationship
-5 = he doesn’t like to “fuck” so much as he likes to “make love”; he can be very passionate in his lovemaking, but channels this passion in the same way one might channel a passion for painting and handling fabergé eggs
0 = occasional physically aggressive sex, but which is manifested in the awkward, unconvincing way seen in the “domination” genre of mainstream porn (not niche porn, in which there’s sometimes genuine brutality); he’s testing her (and his) limits, but is clearly not much in character while doing so
+5 = handles her the way one would handle a rebellious animal, with lots of spanking, hair-pulling, and general roughness; he generally draws the line at face-slapping, bruising, or gagging, although he may fantasize about doing all these things to her; if he does cross these lines — especially at her explicit or implicit urging — he is deeply ambivalent about doing so
+10 = he can’t even stay hard unless he’s physically hurting her in some way; whether it’s choking her, backhanding her, throwing her around, or just bruising her cervix, the pure catharsis of thrashing and subduing her is the only sexual pleasure that remains alive for him
the above are #1 and #2 because they are the two from which all else flows, in male-female relationships. more on this later.
ALPHA TRAIT 7: DISMISSIVENESS
-10 = he responds very seriously and literally to everything she says, as though answering questions on a very demanding professor’s final exam — even when she is being very obviously sarcastic, lighthearted, ironic, or irrationally emotional
-5 = he responds very seriously and literally to almost everything she says, but, if she is very clearly telegraphing sarcasm/lightheartedness/irony, he’ll sometimes fire back an unexpected volley of his own attempted humor; many of these attempts come off the wrong way, making her feel insulted and destroying the vibe
0 = he’s playfully dismissive/ironic/kidding about as often as she is, sometimes unintentionally mirroring her own humor to a jarring extent; he jokes with her often but in a guarded way, always watching his mouth in the same way he would when joking around with the politically correct HR folks in the office
+5 = the classic PUA “cocky/funny” angle; he’s arrogant and dismissive to an extent that would be unacceptable if he were deadpan and straight-faced, but, when tempered by well-timed humor, is pleasantly disarming; he’s not arrogant enough to be generally known as a jerk, except by people who have an axe to grind against him
+10 = he responds to her only with condescending, degrading (although often hilarious, to others at least) nonsense answers, when he deigns to give such answers at all; he treats her as he’d treat an annoying gadfly, regardless of what she’s saying or doing
ALPHA TRAIT 8: COMFORT IN OWN SKIN / ABILITY TO CAUSE OTHERS TO ADAPT
-10 = has no identity of his own; is a sycophantic suck-up yes-man in absolutely any social or professional circle; is afraid to disagree with any expressed opinions, no matter how ridiculous, preferring to nod vigorously in agreement with absolutely everything (even baldfaced contradictions); adapts every aspect of his behavior, speech, comportment, clothing, decorum, and possessions to keep up with the joneses, smiths, browns, ochoas, jenkinses, chus, wangs, nguyens, puyols, kowalskis, chukwus, panganibans, and thundercloudsittingbulls; at home / in relationships, has no opinions or thoughts other than those downloaded from his woman
-5 = has at least some base identity and base set of beliefs, at any one given point; does not, however, generate such identity/beliefs from within, or from empirical experience or emotional identification. instead, simply follows the prevailing trend of whatever social milieu he finds himself in. he may have some degree of contrast or complexity to his character or identity, but only in ways that have long since achieved the imprimatur of the mainstream; his behavior, speech, comportment, clothing, decorum, and possessions are largely a function of his social milieu, although he will exhibit interesting quirks; will largely act on his woman’s belief and value systems, even when he feels ambivalent about doing so
0 = his identity and beliefs are still very visibly shaped by his environment/social milieu/woman, but he has enough interesting contrasts and quirks to no longer be instantly forgettable as an individual; he is comfortable enough to violate community norms, in mostly minor, nonthreatening ways, but only once he has built up some level of status/”cred” in the community; will still conform his behavior to his surrounding environment, except in narrow niches in which he is clearly superior to those around him
+5 = his core personality, belief system, behavior, comportment, clothing, decorum, and possessions are mostly invariant even upon radical changes in his surroundings, social circle, or professional milieu; he is at least circumspect enough to avoid standing out enough to be a target (whether of physical violence, censure, or social ridicule), but, past that, is not afraid to stand out, and so usually does; often ignores major unwritten rules as well as minor formal rules, trying to “beat the system”
+10 = he is absolutely unaware of, or completely unconcerned with, the strictures, customs, or taboos of any milieu, circle, or environment, no matter how treacherous; he is absolutely himself, all the time, even when that makes him the obvious target of violence, ridicule, or ostracism; he’s exactly the same person in the biker bar, in church, at the office, and at grandma’s hospice, and so doesn’t fit in terribly well at any of these; he doesn’t believe in any notion of external rules, whether unwritten, formal, legal, or otherwise, and so can only be restrained by physical force; he doesn’t change any aspect of his speech, behavior, clothing, possessions, or comportment, no matter what the cost; le monde, c’est lui
and now you’ve got eight of them.
this list is still not comprehensive, nor is it supposed to be; readers, if i’ve missed anything — i wrote this post very quickly, and without any chemical inspiration — feel free to fill in the holes.
next up, the beta part of the equation.
enjoy!
2010/07/08 at 15:28
So great to see a new post. I really liked the faberge egg thing.
2010/07/08 at 16:58
Very observant.
Seems like the name for all this in my personal nomenclature these days is “Mixing Board Game.” Game is a DJ.
2010/07/08 at 17:58
Keep on keeping on johnny five. School these pups on what alpha really is. I’ve known a couple myself, none of which wore it on their sleeve. They wore it most with when they were silent, when they decided to show anger, when they starred at me, when they pressed against me and when they told me to sit on their face.
I would love to pull apart several paragraphs here…there’s just so much depth and information in your posts. I shall have to return to do so later today…
2010/07/09 at 01:38
What about the “leader of men” alpha traits? Where and how do these fit in to your scheme of things here?
2010/07/09 at 01:40
Also, traits #1 and #2 throw some more light on why a lot of PUA type dudes might lose their relationships with demanding girls after successfully picking them up and even successfully getting ONS’s with them.
Maybe they’re really good at pickup, but then they just can’t hold the illusion together once the bedroom door shuts.
2010/07/09 at 05:38
anouk, what’s got into you recently? You have been opening up in a major way.
2010/07/09 at 06:33
Just two points.
Because they are separate, I will deal with them in different comments.
Firstly, this makes very clear that becoming alpha does not happen overnight. PUA may allow a guy to give the impression of some of these traits, but only some.
I would suspect though, that success in PUA may lead to greater congruency between the traits. Roissy’s blog persona, for instance, was less congruent at the start than subsequently.
If course, as you pointed out in your earlier post, PUA success brings its own problems from point of view of LTRs, in particular by limiting the range of persons within whom an LTR is likely to work.
The characteristics that I would suggest are most likely to be incongruent are:-
1 and 2 (which tend to go together), I would suspect most women have experience of male incongruency in these, and the incongruency is probably downward incongruency (in the past, the incongruency here seems to have gone in the other direction, judging from all the historical references about men as beasts in the bedroom, most modern women find these highly amusing)
8, which is probably the single characteristic most likely to be incongruent, particularly among self-made PUA alphas, the opinion of others in the PUA community seems to be incredibly important, I have always been struck by the dissonance here, particularly evident in “the Game”.
I suppose the one trait where I would have difficulty with complete congruency would be dismissiveness, not so much that I couldn’t see its appeal in the short-term but simply that it would get boring in the long-term to be constantly dismissed.
2010/07/09 at 06:38
Sorry, the trait where I would have difficulty with complete congruency is not actually the dismissiveness one at all but rather control the conversation, which you dealt with on a previous thread. I think I would need this to be maybe a point or two lower than the others, I would get fed up with being told to shut up all the time.
2010/07/09 at 06:43
The other comment I mentioned I had is actually for a different thread so I will put it up there instead.
I think you are right about congruency and your divisions within the traits are reasonably accurate as far as I am concerned.
2010/07/09 at 06:59
Narcisco,
In an attempt to manage what I dearly hope is a serious LTR, I am applying this in an experimental fashion. This is what I usually do best: Experiment.
I’m somewhat invested in the result, though. But I think you have an excellent social and personality matrix model.
Keep elaborating it and articulate it.
Please assist the Johnny if you can, too. SD and Anouk. As females your input is not always irrelevant.
2010/07/09 at 07:21
Gorb, if I had a sig line I’d be tempted to quote you there.
– Koanic
—————————
“As females your input is not always irrelevant.” Gorb
2010/07/09 at 07:35
I had the same thought as anony#4 when reading this: it’s *primarily* being at the top of the heap socially – power, fame, money, style, charisma – that females are primed to respond to, as in the baboon pack. 10k years of evolution have crafted our instincts (of both sexes) pretty clearly. this is usually (but not always) equivalent to “leader of men” idea: a guy that men and women both are naturally drawn to, trust, and follow.
a coupla related points follow:
1) alpha in this top-of-the-heap sense is clearly a social thing, prominence as perceived and deferred to by a group. it involves a whole range of social skills (other than brute force, since we are not gorillas).
2) all of your alpha indicators, except perhaps #5 (authority), are non-social or anti-social in nature. Sort of alpha-sociopath indicators.
3) if evo-psych is right, the two have to be squared (or one of the frames is at least partially wrong). the “dark triad” is sort of where most of your traits point – narcissism, manipulation, sociopathy (i.e., lack of empathy, an inability to believe that other people are real or are deserving of respect).
4) i don’t dispute that women are attracted to men like this, literally like the proverbial moths to a flame. but over the longer term, they don’t fit in; neither in LTRs, nor any workplace or social hierarchy. They’re just assholes, and eventually exposed as such, certainly in the social/group sense. (but not, usually, before passing on their genes at least a few times.)
5) so your missing alpha element seems to be social skills, empathy, ability to understand, motivate, love, support, and guide other people. admittedly on your scale that doesn’t seem to fit in or rank too highly. maybe you have it in mind as a beta indicator, who knows.
6) your thinking seems to be oriented toward extreme archetypes, uber-masculine or uber-feminine, and toward sex roles in particular. men think sexually and are direct and uncomplicated about it, but i believe women are more complex. sure, once their inner sexual beast is unleashed, this frame applies; but getting there involves a whole host of social, psychological, and other factors. sometimes sociopathy or manipulation or narcissism sweep all before them; often they don’t.
7) not criticising, you are awesome, just adding grist to the mill. maybe this stuff is a second-order correction to the frame you are methodically laying out.
2010/07/09 at 07:46
Maurice
I think Johnny did point out on another thread that very few women would be abls to put up with a man who was congruent on all or even most of +10 on a long-term basis, there are quite a few men who are +10 sexually but they probably are not completely congruent and the women they end up with are those for whom the sexual traits are out of synch (johnny also outlined this in this post).
I think in general terms most women would find men who are under 0 in most traits unattractive no matter how successful (I would go so far as to say anything below 2 or 3 is probably unattractive, with possible variations in some traits, some women really do like the faberge egg thing). As far as I am concerned though, anything over +5 would be a bit too much. Of course, it is hard to evaluate one’s preferences completely objectively.
I don’t think we can really judge johnny’s theory in full though until he integrates the beta traits, they may possibly include success or is it just that success intensifies the alpha traits by increasing confidence, I have never quite been able to make up my mind on this.
2010/07/09 at 07:51
I would also emphasise that despite what the Roissysphere may think, there is a difference as far as women are concerned between feeling attraction & acting on it, particularly when entering into LTRs (it is the type of women men often select for LTRs who are best able to make and carry through this distinction)
Maintaining the LTR if attraction is not that great is a different story, this may be why so many LTRs break down due to the woman being dissatisfied.
2010/07/09 at 08:05
@SD#13- what I was getting at is that there seem to be some entire scales missing – empathy, social skills, etc. — not anything to do with sliding from -10 to +10 along the existing ones, which crowd toward sociopathy.
2010/07/09 at 08:45
I had assumed they were the beta traits, Maurice (beta not being meant in any pejorative sense here). We’ll have to wait and see.
2010/07/09 at 08:51
@SD#16 – yes but “alpha” according to evo-psych is the head of the pack, a social construct seemingly outside of and mostly different from j5’s scales. alpha not beta. true, we’ll see where he’s going, but i wanted to throw that idea in the mix to see how it all squares up.
2010/07/09 at 12:01
maurice #12
I had the same thought as anony#4 when reading this: it’s *primarily* being at the top of the heap socially – power, fame, money, style, charisma – that females are primed to respond to, as in the baboon pack. 10k years of evolution have crafted our instincts (of both sexes) pretty clearly. this is usually (but not always) equivalent to “leader of men” idea: a guy that men and women both are naturally drawn to, trust, and follow.
power, fame, and money i’ll deal with in a later post — those would weaken the thrust of the current series. note that the 8 traits discussed here are traits on which a man can work directly for improvement, and, for novices, can also be regarded as “fake it ’til you make it” traits — traits that will be marred by affectation at first, but that will begin to seep into one’s core personality with enough reinforcement. in other words, they are positive and actionable.
power, money, and fame can be spurious affectations, but these three (especially the last) are absolutely not “fake it ’til you make it” traits — they can only be faked in a short, accelerated, classic-PUA collapsed timeframe. therefore, even though they obviously have some bearing on ltr’s — a topic i’ll discuss later — they aren’t appropriately cast as “sliders”, since they are not proximately actionable.
it’s mostly for the same reason that i spend a great deal of time coaching young boxers on the virtues of stance, punching technique, boxing technique (the literal “boxing” part, i.e., floating like a butterfly), diet, and raw stamina, and proportionately less time on things like lung capacity, height, and horizontal reach (the rough equivalents of money/fame/power, in this analogy).
re: leader of men, that’s not the point of this series — the point here is to develop a theory that’s germane to relationships with women.
the relationship between leader-of-men attributes and “alpha” (re females) is not unlike that between sprinting and distance running: from basic to intermediate levels they will improve together, from intermediate to advanced levels they must be trained separately, and at elite levels continued improvement in one of the two will be inimical to the other.
2010/07/09 at 12:08
maurice #15
what I was getting at is that there seem to be some entire scales missing – empathy, social skills, etc. — not anything to do with sliding from -10 to +10 along the existing ones, which crowd toward sociopathy.
your beta sliders will be out in a few minutes, sir.
and, obviously, yes, all +10’s on these alpha traits is pure sociopathy. and it’ll get you laid like gangbusters.
the formula for the most successful ltr’s is a function not only of alpha traits, but also of beta traits, and of the ideal degree by which the former overshadows the latter. in an LTR that is LT enough, power, money, and especially fame play a much smaller role than the PUAsphere, with its inability to see past the next sunrise, would like to think.
stay tuned.
stay tuned.
2010/07/09 at 12:20
M #17
@SD#16 – yes but “alpha” according to evo-psych is the head of the pack, a social construct seemingly outside of and mostly different from j5′s scales
yeah yeah yeah. i bet this sort of pedantry works wonders with the babes — lord knows, the new age chicks luv me when i shut down their discussions of “energy” with sexy lines like, “if it ain’t measured in kilojoules, it ain’t energy. byatch.”
for real, though — i’m assuming that you guys are smart enough to understand what i’m talking about, and “alpha” is a convenient, familiar label.
plus, i’m just no good at making up terms of my own — i dug through the whole bag of words i though were cool in sixth grade, and “zenith of the ziggurat” was the best i could do.
so i think we’ll stick with alpha, at least for now.
2010/07/09 at 12:37
maurice #12 — more
2) all of your alpha indicators, except perhaps #5 (authority), are non-social or anti-social in nature
you damn well bet they are, at least at the top extreme (+10).
on the other hand, you’re making the mistake of characterizing the whole scale according to one extreme, which makes about as much sense as evaluating all weight loss through the lens of anorexia.
plenty, if not most, “sociopathic” traits become positive social skills if they are dialed down a bit. read the 0’s and +5’s, interpolate, and then see whether you think “sociopathy” still describes the full complexity of the spectra that are described here.
4 i don’t dispute that women are attracted to men like this, literally like the proverbial moths to a flame. but over the longer term, they don’t fit in; neither in LTRs, nor any workplace or social hierarchy
yup. we’ll get there.
5 so your missing alpha element seems to be social skills, empathy, ability to understand, motivate, love, support, and guide other people.
“social skills” is covered more thoroughly than you seem to let on, though by no means exhaustively, by the 0-5 positions here and on the forthcoming beta scales. don’t overemphasize the +10’s.
all of the others are beta traits, as sd pointed out, with the exception of “motivation”.
“motivate other people” is a big red-herring-shaped decoy here, since “people” come in two sexes that are “motivated” in vastly different ways. motivating women is partially an organic outgrowth of the proper degree of alpha and beta traits (again, stay tuned), and also partially a function of ritual reinforcement (see the “energy of activation” post, if you’ve not already).
as for the less directly relevant but not entirely unimportant factor of motivating men, see comment 18, and keep in mind that all these scales, and resultant discussions, are centered around the problem of maintaining relationships with women.
2010/07/09 at 12:40
sd #13
you are a damn good teacher’s assistant.
what a good bitch you are indeed (as shown in your gravatar, of course — where is your mind at? my eyes are up here, not down there).
2010/07/09 at 13:16
Thank you Johnny, you are very sweet & your comments always lift my spirits.
I see you’ve put your principles into practice & are studiously avoiding the gender-neutral term “dog”, which like most gender-neutral terms is not very flattering to the woman. I’m not sure bitch is much more flattering but at least it is definitely feminine.
2010/07/09 at 13:38
Leadership attributes…understanding it’s not the main focus here, I’ll assert that several of these characteristics are indeed relevant to leadership ability, especially authority, control of conversation, independence, and comfort in own skin. Successful leaders are usually NOT at the upper end of the scales, but in the positive 3-5 range on most characteristics. Someone who insisted on fully controlling all conversations and refused to let others speak, for instance, would be unlikely to become a leader (except for inheritance or other special circumstance) or to remain one for long. This is almost certainly true of earlier/tribal societies also—I bet Sitting Bull could listen as well as he could speak.
2010/07/09 at 15:07
ehvreny.com – 8 dimensions of alpha compatibility!
I like this framework a lot. One thing: the author talks about the need to up the level on all sliders simultaneously, which sounds like it would be pretty hard, but I bet many guys are already mostly consistent except for a few glaring incongruities. For myself, I’m already at +5 to +7 on 6 of the 8 sliders, and I’m pretty happy with those levels, so I’m just focusing on raising the other two.
2010/07/09 at 15:19
the relationship between leader-of-men attributes and “alpha” (re females) is not unlike that between sprinting and distance running: from basic to intermediate levels they will improve together, from intermediate to advanced levels they must be trained separately, and at elite levels continued improvement in one of the two will be inimical to the other.
This kind of insight is why I come here. Although I am not sure how “elite” you have to get for improvement in these two areas to be oppositional. I would guess the 99.9th percentile or higher. I remember how Lance Armstrong likes to complain that he can’t do rock-climbing or running or other types of exercise he would otherwise enjoy because he can’t afford an ounce of muscle development not directly related to biking.
2010/07/09 at 16:35
Nice example poly.
2010/07/09 at 17:04
Maurice-
“@SD#13- what I was getting at is that there seem to be some entire scales missing – empathy, social skills, etc. — not anything to do with sliding from -10 to +10 along the existing ones, which crowd toward sociopathy.”
–I had assumed the unlisted, so-called beta traits too. I was hinting at the hybrid of the alpha/beta behavior in that the alphas were on a toned-down version of the scale, or away from the +10 side. Meaning, the best men are neither extreme, as would be known by most I would imagine.
How does a man hold his power and how does he act on it? –Those are questions of the female mind that ultimately decide material for long-terms. It then becomes about style and as SD notes, it becomes subjective.
I’d admit to taking more shit from a guy who I had strong sexual chemistry with even while in a healthy state of mind. His alpha dials were set high and I was young enough to absorb all he threw at me. I had no choice, I wasn’t skilled enough at the time ( I was 19-24) to do much otherwise. He was also a Scorpio, which in my book brings a whole lotta naturally alpha tendencies. It didn’t much occur to him to not demand things at times.
2010/07/09 at 17:12
Polymath-
Just that I have had two significant relationships with alpha males to pull from and share. Much of what I have learned comes from doing and real life expereince. Minus any butthexing, threesomes, or open relationships yet. Those could be in my future, with those limits tested by some other man. How about you? Any chance you’ll share what a marriage has gone through in sexual cycles? You have written in the past that you and your wife have a robust sex life and credit adjusting your own sliders. How so?
2010/07/09 at 18:48
anouk,
Yes, but recently you have been more explicit. Interesting to see you imagining a situation of not minding your lover being with another woman as long as she is beautiful and you get to watch. That attitude is rare and VERY hot.
Not able right now to write too much about my marital life. Three things made a big difference: taking full possession of my wife’s body (acting at all times like it is my personal plaything), inner game, and redirection (being much more willing to flirt with and appreciate other women, and bringing that energy home). Incredible changes; my wife is baffled and amazed and feeling sexier than she ever has even when we were newlyweds.
2010/07/09 at 18:59
I am not kidding, this is no lie, 5 seconds after that last post I had to close the window because my wife was coming over — she took my glasses off, sat on my lap, and demanded to be groped.
Last month we went to a resort for a 3-day getaway from the kids, 2nd honeymoon, she said it was the best vacation of her life and has been on a new level of satisfaction since then.
LTR maintenance game really works. We have gone from one extreme to the other in just a couple of years. (To the embarassment of our 18-year-old daughter who is the only one of our kids mature and perceptive enough to have figured this out.)
I would say that most of my sliders are around +5.
2010/07/09 at 21:43
@narciso#20- it seems I did the same thing here with “alpha” as a few posts ago with “congruence” – took the established PUA meaning of the word and mixed it up into (or sought clarification of) your definitions. so as previously, disregard. However, since words on a screen are all we have in this exercise, and since these words have meanings and overtones outside your carefully crafted models, a little clarification can’t have been harmful.
silders sounds like bar food. i usually go for the fried calamari.
2010/07/09 at 22:27
@Maurice 32
I love tapas myself.
2010/07/11 at 05:06
[…] Narciso Babaero: energy of activation and to whatever self be true, part 2 […]
2010/07/11 at 11:02
[…] Johnny Five – “Energy of Activation“, “To Whatever Self be True, Part 2” […]
2010/07/11 at 14:22
[…] ltr, perception is reality, relationships, sexuality | Leave a Comment in this post and this post i laid out a basic framework for a set of traits that approximate the idea of “alpha”, […]
2016/06/03 at 08:49
[…] tip do DA for these links, 1 2 3, from which I took the following […]