in this post and this post i laid out a basic framework for a set of traits that approximate the idea of “alpha”, as pertaining to long-term relationships, graded from -10 to 10. as some readers pointed out, however, the term “alpha” has been bandied about so much that it inevitably causes confusion — so here’s another way to think about it: the idea of “alpha”, as proposed in this series, is strongly correlated with the notion of “yang” in the yin/yang dynamic, as articulated in chinese philosophy.

here are the eight such traits that have already been discussed.
alpha/yang trait 1: sexual dominance
alpha/yang trait 2: sexual aggression
alpha/yang trait 3: control the conversation
alpha/yang trait 4: all interaction is sexually charged
alpha/yang trait 5: authority
alpha/yang trait 6: independence
alpha/yang trait 7: dismissiveness
alpha/yang trait 8: comfort in own skin / ability to cause others to adapt

…and below i’ll discuss one more:
ALPHA/YANG TRAIT 9: INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN
-10 = in the event that other women are in sight, his every movement and gesture is an exaggerated, purposeful effort to look away from them — even if his woman is hundreds of miles away
-5 = completely ignores the sexual presence of other women if his own woman is present, as if neutered; can’t or won’t flirt or return flirtation, even completely innocently
0 = glances appreciatively at other women, but won’t interact with them, if his woman is present; may flirt briefly and innocently with other women in his woman’s absence, but with no intention of following through or progressing to the point of non-negligible sexual tension
+5 = engages and flirts playfully with other women, and has little shame about returning their flirtations, in his woman’s presence; normally keeps the tension playful and brief, but may occasionally escalate to the point where his woman feels disregarded or even purposely snubbed (a feeling that usually dissipates somewhat quickly). flirts aggressively with other women in her absence; normally able to control himself in such situations; never drives the final steps of an extracurricular dalliance himself, but may occasionally fall into the web of a particularly seductive interloper if their flirtation escalates too far
+10 = in social situations where other desirable women are present, uses his own woman almost solely a prop to attract more playmates, whether she’s ultimately to be included in those activities or not; in her absence, continues to seduce women as usual, mentioning his own woman/women only in order to evoke preselection and stir up other women’s jealous desires; brings other women home regularly, even if he lives with his woman/women, with no apology — just an invitation to join, or a harsh temporary dismissal — if she walks in on them in flagrante

and then there were nine.

what so often goes unnoticed, especially in discussions about shorter-term pickups (for which cutting one’s losses is hardly a big deal), is the notion that all yang and no yin makes jack a sociopathic boy. a successful relationship requires a viable balance of alpha (yang) and beta (yin) traits.

notice: “balance”.
the use of this word is not an accident. in fact, a greater degree of alpha (yang) should be paired with a likewise GREATER degree of beta (yin), and vice versa, in almost direct contravention of just about everything else that is stated in this little corner of the knowledge jungle.

to this end, then, a brief and slipshod attempt to define a few of the key beta (yin) traits.

BETA/YIN TRAIT 1: GENERAL AFFECTION
-10 = he doesn’t ever want to touch her with his own hands, look her in the face, or sit/stand directly facing her
-5 = he occasionally takes her hand, gives her small kisses, or touches her, usually at times dictated by standards of manners or decorum; no spontaneous displays of affection in public; very little eye contact, always brief when it does occur
0 = some spontaneous displays of affection in public, but usually in tritely “romantic” situations; any amorous gestures outside of such contexts occur only after several units of alcohol; more common, but still brief, eye contact
+5 = frequent bursts of public affection, often completely unexpected (and often unexpectedly passionate); prolonged eye contact on a regular basis; frequent touching in almost all situations that are not physically/situationally awkward
+10 = constant public displays of affection, regardless of whether she telegraphs awkwardness; staring into her eyes almost constantly, like a hungry dog latching onto a guest at a cookout; hands and/or arms in almost constant contact with her, even when physically or situationally awkward

note that “eye contact”, in the above, refers to the tender, loving form of eye contact — not to be confused with the “sexual predator stare” or with the stare of an angry disciplinarian / disappointed master

BETA/YIN TRAIT 2: MATERIAL PROVISION
-10 = he won’t give her a red cent (note that this is NOT the same as “he takes from her”)
-5 = he grudgingly pays the bare minimum
0 = he pays for things in accordance with his means, and well within his comfort zone; he doesn’t splurge on her unless HE also wants whatever he’s splurging on (e.g. plastic surgery, lingerie, slutty clothes, vacations that HE wants to go on)
+5 = he pays for her things slightly beyond his normal comfort zone — as much, or more than, for any of his previous women — but still well within his means
+10 = he buys her not only everything she wants, but also everything she says she wants and everything he thinks she might want, spending well above his actual means

two VERY important considerations for this slider.
1)
note that the above criteria are relative, not absolute, in two ways: (a) relative to the man’s means, and (b) relative to his comfort zone.
both of these are crucial.
the first is obvious — a weekend getaway in a $300/night hotel suite is clearly different to a middle-class man than to a rich man — but the second is underappreciated, especially in the PUA community.
specifically, if a man is dropping sizable amounts of cash, there’s a world of difference between doing so in an aloof, casual, unconcerned way, such that he is obviously calling the shots and her role as the beneficiary is almost incidental, and doing so in a conscious effort to please her or buy her affection. when men spend money on women, it should be mostly in the former way: she should not be the primary focus — even, ironically, when he’s buying things for her. if this sounds like a contradiction in terms — and i know it will, to any of you PUA types out there who follow ironclad rules and firm spending ceilings — consider the way in which a successful pimp or drug lord might pay for breast implants for one of his women. even though she’s clearly the recipient, she’s not the focus. he’s the focus, and she’s well aware that, if she weren’t there, he’d do the same for another, equally desirable woman without a second thought.
see the difference?
2)
the meaning of “splurge”, “bare minimum”, etc. is highly dependent upon the couple’s income disparity and/or living situation. the “bare minimum” for a sole breadwinner husband would be well within the range of “splurging” for a man who makes less than the woman does.

the next two traits generally sum up “empathy”, in terms of what is perceptible to the woman (since that’s all that matters here).

BETA/YIN TRAIT 3: INFLUENCE OF HER POINT OF VIEW
-10 = he never acts on her opinions/desires in any way; he favors his own random instincts even in matters he couldn’t care less about, or in her specialties about which he knows nothing
-5 = he rarely acts on her opinions/desires — almost never, excepting areas that are critically important to her and/or about which she has superior specialized knowledge; when he does, he does so at least somewhat grudgingly, and “keeps a scorecard”
0 = he normally acts according to whichever of their desires/opinions is stronger regarding the matter at hand; two equally strong opinions lead to endless dialogue/deliberation
+5 = he lets her guide most mundane decisions, but still takes the lead in matters about which he feels very strongly (note that this latter category intersects, but is not quite the same as, “matters he thinks are important”)
+10 = “yes, dear, whatever you say”; can hardly dress himself or choose menu items without her input; calls or texts for her constant input in the most mundane, unimportant matters

BETA/YIN TRAIT 4: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HER POINT OF VIEW
-10 = completely oblivious to everything coming out of her mouth (note this is NOT the same as ignoring everything, which is a more stereotypically alpha trait)
-5 = sorry, what was that again?
0 = same level of acknowledgment that he’d give to same-status peers/friends
+5 = visibly interested in what she says, to a greater degree than with his same-status peers/friends, especially if she telegraphs via body language and intonation that it’s important to her
+10 = waits with bated breath on her every word, as though he were a goody-two-shoes grade-school student trying to earn a 100% participation grade

notice that neither of the above traits is equivalent to understanding her point of view, which is neither an alpha (yang) trait nor a beta (yin) trait. it all depends on what you do with that understanding.

BETA/YIN TRAIT 5: SEXUAL PASSION/AFFECTION
-10 = won’t even touch her with his own bare flesh (including his hands and unprotected cock); zero foreplay of any type (even verbal); won’t fuck her in face-to-face positions
-5 = sexes her mechanically, distantly, in a way roughly equivalent to how a prostitute would “service” a client (a run-of-the-mill prostitute, not one of the gifted dissimulators who can out-earn her looks fivefold by effectively faking passion and involvement); gets his rocks off and gets it over with; little or no eye contact
0 = kisses her, but not too deeply; touches her enough not to be a robot, but not really into emotional territory; too handsy/attentive for a woman who’s not in the mood, but would seem distant if she’s turned on; intermittent and brief eye contact
+5 = hands all over her body, including places neglected by most or all of her previous lovers; frequent deep kisses; prolonged eye contact, especially during orgasms
+10 = constant, cloyingly sweet eye contact; almost continuous attempts at kissing, even when extremely physically awkward; hands conducting relentless exhaustive searches of her body, treating even neutral zones like elbows and shins as though they were ultimate erogenous zones

BETA/YIN TRAIT 6: BUTTERING HER UP
-10 = familiarity has bred utter contempt; any feedback he gives her, ever, is wholly derisive and critical; he tells her she’s worthless deadweight, a constant force of friction slowing him down
-5 = he criticizes her more than he praises her; most of his compliments appear to come through clenched teeth, sounding insincere (in the “i don’t really mean it” way, not the cloying/overwrought way) or just rubbing her the wrong way; he comes off as resentful and passive-aggressive; negative comments come out of his mouth with a palpable “tip of the iceberg” feeling, as though he’s holding it all back to be civil
0 = balance of positive and negative feedback; occasional heartfelt compliments, though most positive feedback is somewhat mechanical, objective, and/or qualified; most negative feedback is objective and constructive, though he’ll occasionally get snippy with her in heated arguments or say something that comes off much worse than he’d intended
+5 = he follows the schoolteacher’s recipe of 3-5 positives for every one negative/constructive comment; his compliments are heartfelt and are decently well aimed at her feminine sensibilities; he occasionally gives honest criticism, but frames such criticism in extremely euphemistic, sugarcoated terms; takes the high road in arguments, never hitting below the belt unless she has seriously wronged him
+10 = he worships her as though she were a goddess, with total deference; no negative comments ever cross his lips; he apologizes and accepts blame for her wrongs, even her cold-blooded betrayals, reasoning that he just wasn’t being a good enough boy for her

note the fact — revolutionary to some — that this trait is not the opposite of dismissiveness (alpha trait 7). it’s perfectly possible follow the above schoolteacher’s recipe while remaining imperious and dismissive, but that takes a master’s touch.

BETA/YIN TRAIT 7: LOOKING THE OTHER WAY
-10 = he’ll go on a violent, uncontrolled rampage at the mere thought that she might look at another man — just look, even as just people-watching
-5 = he’s uncomfortable with her having any sort of contact, however brief, with other men, whether socially or professionally, even in large groups; if she has male friends, even harmless, neutered, sexually undesirable ones, he’s worried when she’s in their company
0 = he wouldn’t stand for her socializing with ex-boyfriends or ex-lovers under any circumstances, or with other high-status men one-on-one; if she has a night out with her girlfriends, he’ll check in with her and will be mildly distrustful; otherwise he trusts her around miscellaneous male company. he will accept. though grudgingly, a limited amount of her playful flirting with other men, but will call her on it if it is excessive, seems to be leading somewhere, or is blatantly dismissive of him
+5 = he has no problems with her socializing with other men, except those with whom he knows she’s had memorable sexual experiences; he doesn’t mind, and may even enjoy, her playful flirtation with other men, even when it’s somewhat sexually charged; he may forgive her cheating, once, provided she is never the sexual aggressor and has done nothing to engineer the situation
+10 = he encourages her to flirt with, fuck, and even have relationships with other men, on her own and of her own volition, sometimes right in front of his face

BETA/YIN TRAIT 8: EXPRESSIONS OF APPRECIATION (note that this is not the same thing as trait 6)
-10 = never utters a single word of appreciation, even if she saves his life or bails him out of jail
-5 = forced, trite, insincere mumblings of “i love you” at the conclusion of telephone calls or in other such rote situations, often with the same sort of internally seething resentment experienced by a seventh-grader whose mother insists on kissing him goodbye at the dropoff point on the first day of school
0 = mostly genuine expressions of “i love you”, “you look beautiful”, etc., but mostly in conventionally scripted situations (“you look beautiful” before sex, “i love you” after sex, either/both at formal events together, etc.); other forms of appreciation as immediate feedback (“i really like the way you _________ just now”)
+5 = “i love you” meaningfully and spontaneously, often at completely unexpected times and/or amid bustling public backdrops; “you’re hot” / “you look beautiful” / etc. whether she’s dressed to the nines or just to the one-thirds, mostly out of genuine appreciation but sometimes to lift her spirits on her bad days, but never to cloying excess; occasional spontaneous forms of random appreciation (“you know what i like about you? _________”)
+10 = “i love you”, “i’d kill myself without you”, “i’m nothing without you”, etc., frequently, randomly, and awkwardly, to extreme excess in both repetition and dramatic intensity; “you’re a goddess”, “you’re beautiful”, etc., to equivalent excess, even if she’s gotten disgustingly fat, slovenly, or skeletally skinny; cloying appreciation of other personality traits that she doesn’t even actually have (“you’re so good with the kids” when you had to pull them out of the pool, narrowly preventing them from drowning, because her drugs knocked her out)

BETA/YIN TRAIT 9: RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS
-10 = he’s never done anything nice for anyone in his life
-5 = he’ll do ostensibly nice things for people, but only when he calculates (or miscalculates) that he’ll achieve some sort of personal gain in return, either as quid pro quo or by ingratiating himself to them — and sometimes not even then
0 = he’ll occasionally do things for his woman, and for close family and friends, without expecting equal reciprocation, but won’t inconvenience himself too much unless the situation is practically a matter of life and death; he’ll notice if there’s too much quid and not enough pro quo, and will cut ties with people who are all take and no give
+5 = he’ll consistently go out of his way for his woman, sometimes (but not usually) more than would be merited by the situation; he’ll give the shirt off his back for his best friends, and can be counted on for help by other friends in a bind; he’ll occasionally perform good turns for random strangers
+10 = he’s publicly demonstrative about doing “favors” for anyone and everyone in sight, whether they actually want/need his help or not, and regardless of their relationship, if any, with him; ironically, he is so helpful to random strangers that he diminishes the apparent value of his actually heartfelt favors to friends, family, and woman/women

there they are.
nine alpha/yang traits.
nine beta/yin traits.

and now, here’s the formula for a successful ltr, which is surprisingly and elegantly simple.

* calibrate the degree of alpha (yang) that your woman requires.
for high-drama, high-estrogen BPD sexual-dynamo femmes fatales, this number may be as high as +10.
for soft-spoken, modest, retiring church mice, this number may be as low as +4.
underestimate at your own risk.

* be as consistent as possible across the nine alpha (yang) traits.
as mentioned in previous postings, this rule will have exceptions in the cases of women for whom traumatic (or otherwise momentous) life events have knocked one or two of them off caliber.

* set the yin/beta traits at approximately 3/5 of the alpha/yang levels.
there’s the formula.
3/5.
that simple ratio expresses the essence of “contrast game” in three keystrokes.
it explains why the good deeds of alpha assholes count for so much more than the good doings of do-gooders.
it explains why overwrought, poetic expressions of breathless love are the stuff of women’s fantasies when they come from otherwise impassive, guarded, stoic, dominant sociopaths, and why the same words, spoken in the same way, become stalker nightmares from the mouth of a milquetoast.
it explains the resonance frequency of the push/pull dynamic.
it explains how you can make her feel, deep in her heart of hearts, that you know her better than she herself could, and that you satisfy her every urge, but still that she doesn’t control you in the least.

for the aforementioned high-drama, high-estrogen BPD sexual-dynamo femmes fatales, that’s +10 and +6 — welcome to bipolar manic-depressive high-drama highlowhighlowhighlowrollercoasterheavenhell.
for some of us, that’s the only thing that makes us feel alive. most such drama feeders are women; the lucky few men who can harness the storm, and who thrive on doing so, will have control of an endless parade of women who ruin more “stable” men’s lives for kicks.

for women who are traditional marriage material, it’s more like +5 and +3.

3/5.

as for money, status, worldly power, economic inequities, and fame, those are neither alpha nor beta traits, neither yin nor yang; they are simply wild cards that will allow relationships to survive longer with improperly tuned sliders. more on that later.

finally, the alpha traits should mostly be consistent, but the beta traits should not be consistent.
you should briefly tweak the beta traits in the negative direction, sometimes sharply (here the mixing board is an excellent literal analogy, in terms of throwing sliders to mix beats), to throw a little bit of syncopation into the relationship.
tweaking alpha sliders sharply in the positive direction can provide the same sort of syncopated beat, but most guys couldn’t much pull that off.

discuss.

some of the boys twist the old, battered doorknob violently, as though they were breaking the neck of an intruder.
others’ hands begin to shake, slightly, imperceptibly, then audibly, betraying the hollowness of the bravado that sustains them on the street.
their ways of opening the door are as colorful and revelatory as they are varied, each slightly exaggerated in the way so characteristic of teenagers.
every day they try on new identities, new comportments, new ways of apprehending the world, with all the grace and aplomb of a teenager stepping on the gas for the first time.
the cocky one torques the doorknob just as he’ll slam on the pedal in a couple of years, pressing his passengers into the seats and mistaking their trepidatious bewilderment for awe.
the hesitant one tries to twist the doorknob softly, hoping to slink unnoticed into the gym, but the rusty old knob and plate announce his presence in their unmistakable basso profundo — just as the car will jump and buck under his unsteady foot three years hence.

they are as energetic and dynamic as they are errant and unschooled.
they are full of piss and vinegar, but the piss is, more often than not, splattered all over the toilet seat, sprayed across the walls, and trickling onto the floor.

i was one of them, once, not long ago.
unlike many of my peers who view them with suspicious eyes, i have not forgotten.
and so i am here.

gentlemen, meet our newest fighter.

the bright california sunshine is no match for the dank, musty air of the gym, and is swallowed into a thick and impenetrable veil of darkness — a darkness so thick that it can be felt.
with it are swallowed pretentions, pretexts, bluffs, and fronts.
as the boy’s eyes adjust to the relative darkness, he finds that he has left flash, sound, and fury outside, and that this is it.

sandoval!

the boy snaps to attention with a mixture of respect and angst. by using his surname, i evoke in his mind’s eye vivid images of both the coaches and teachers who have helped him grow, more often than not against his will, and the officers, judges, and bailiffs that have shoved him through california’s one-size-fits-none juvenile legal system.

go stand in the doorway.
one foot in, one foot out.

even god only helps those who help themselves. and i am certainly no god.

if you are willing to be knocked down, defeated, bested, broken, and beaten, and you will keep getting up and fighting, then step inside.
if you step inside, you’re family.
if you find yourself with nowhere to go, and nowhere to turn, you have a new home.
anytime.

if you would rather not be knocked down, defeated, bested, broken, or beaten, then step back outside, and close the door.

which way are you going to step?

the boy stares me down, waiting, testing me, looking for the punch line.

i wait.

our eyes linger on each other. were i his age, even half this much direct eye contact, with neither side deferring even momentarily, would already have instigated a fight.

never taking his burning gaze from my eyes, he gathers up the last bits of his bravado, takes a slow, deliberate step inside the doorway, grasps the battered old handle from the inside, and shoves the door shut.

i reach out and grasp his hand. coming from a world where straight handshakes are often laced with straight razors, the boy is hesitant at first — he breaks the stare, a gesture of deference i’ve no need to point out explicitly — but then he slams on the proverbial pedal, meeting my eyes with renewed vigor as he clasps my hand and wrist in an overwrought, but gentlemantly, grip.

welcome.

for the next two years, neither boxing nor life was good to the boy; both dealt him countless numbers of knockouts.
once, he decided he was just done; he threw his gloves into the floor, tears streaming down his cheeks, and stormed to within inches of the door.
and then he stopped.
and looked at the door.
sandoval!
which way are you going to step?

he turned around.

he met the stares of the other boys, who had all once been in his place.
some dared him.
some encouraged him.
some dismissed him.
some scowled at him like disappointed fathers.

he picked up his gloves.
and his heart.

one more round.

what keeps us coming back, in situations when our rational calculus tells us that the costs have begun to outweigh the benefits?
what keeps us fighting through fatigue, ennui, conflict, injury, heartbreak, disillusionment, anomie, and betrayal?

many things, to be sure.
but, often, rites of passage — symbols of commitment, which in times of trouble can pull more weight than can commitment itself — are the carbon-steel rebar that keeps the whole structure from crashing down around us.

for those men who deserve to be called men, word is bond.
and actions speak even louder than words, so ritual actions are superglue.
when words and actions are combined to create ritual, men become bonded for life.

which way are you going to step?
with these words, the door comes alive with persuasive force that few boys can resist, no matter how intractable they are in other areas of life.
they won’t leave, unless they are bloodied, beaten, disillusioned and broken. and, often, not even then.

do you promise to be to her a loving and loyal husband, to cherish and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, to be faithful only to her as long as you both shall live?
with these vows, the man’s wedding band comes alive, with the same persuasive force.
he won’t leave unless his life is sucked out in its entirety. and, often, not even then.

and so it is, too, with women — put through, and schooled with, the proper symbols and rites of passage, they will cleave to their relationships with intense ardor.

the fatal mistake, though, is to attribute to women the same degree of agency so often shown by men who take vows and undergo rituals — to assume that women’s minds will construct the same schema of loyalty, devotion, and duty around those rituals as will men.
ain’t gonna happen.
as with so much else in matters of love, it’s best when men lead, and women follow — when men move women, and women are moved by men.

the same is true for rites of passage.
women can be as compelled by ritual to stay in their relationships as can men, but they won’t by themselves transmute word into bond, or actions into superglue. that has to be done for them, by their man.

take the wedding bands again.
to a man, the wedding band speaks in its own voice, animated by the matrimonial ritual; he internalizes the symbolic significance, and therefore transmutes word into bond all by himself. hence why he doesn’t need to be reminded, and why constant “reminders” from his woman are at best nagging, at worst domineering behavior, and always pernicious in their effects on the relationship.
to a woman, the wedding band doesn’t have a voice of its own — it will only speak in her man’s voice. its symbolic power will only be actuated if he instills it in her, if he transmutes word into bond for her, as though leading her through the steps of a dance.
it’s his job, when he grasps her left hand, to meet her eyes, stare her down, and tell her, this ring means that you’re mine.
i own you. you’re my property.
over and over.
again and again.
until he has successfully transmuted word into bond, without her even noticing, and she now hears his voice emanating from that ring.
you’re mine.

and you don’t need a wife, or wedding bands, to make this work.
any symbol will do.
a cheap bracelet or ring that you bought her at the beach.
a necklace or bracelet that claims her as yours, which you can lock onto her body and keep the key if necessary.
a tattoo that she gets for you, in a location that others may or may not see.
the way you look into her eyes, making both of your jaded hearts burn with passion, with love, when you fuck her.

women end relationships more often than men do, but only because men don’t bother to ignite them.

the following was promised here, and is an outgrowth of some discussion on the sibling of daedalus blog.

the notion that purity, or chastity, is among the best cards a woman can hold when she’s on the make is as old as the corresponding notion of monogamy itself. put bluntly, the operative principle is that women should hold themselves out as virginal madonnas** — an idea that has been shaped and cultivated by religious tradition, but that stems from the realities of paternity and is thus probably as old as human biology itself.

however, like all other simple models, this one is an oversimplification.
it attempts to model all pegs, however round or square, as round — i.e., it describes apparent purity as the best possible image for any woman searching for a long-term relationship.

more to the point of the current discussion, though, the model also attempts to model all holes as round — i.e., it assumes that all men would prefer sexual purity over “sluttiness” in a long-term partner, an assumption that is simply not true. so, in the interest of clarification, as well as to stimulate discussion, i propose the following visual model:
imagine an x-y coordinate system.
the x-axis is the man’s desire for control over a woman; the y-axis is the man’s ideal on the madonna/whore axis.
let’s arbitrarily designate
negative x = men who, either by design or by inability to do otherwise, allow the woman and her desires to control the relationship (approximately, roissy’s betas)
positive x = men with both the desire and the ability to control women (approximately, roissy’s alphas)
negative y = men whose ideal woman is a perfect madonna (very sexually inhibited)
positive y = men whose ideal woman is a perfect slut (very sexually uninhibited)

the definitions on the y-axis (the madonna/whore axis) are somewhat simplistic, in that they conflate a woman’s public and private behavior. in particular, many men will object to this axis altogether, claiming that their ideal woman is a perfect madonna in the street and a perfect slut — magically, only for them, never for any other man — in the bedroom.
while i agree that a single axis is a bit on the simple side, i don’t buy this objection, for at least two reasons.
first, it’s quixotic to deny the strong correlation between public and private behavior. most highly sexual women — whether available or happily committed (or, in certain arrangements, both) — constantly radiate their sensuality to every observant eye and ear, to such an extent that their every movement, utterance, and gesture is irresistibly, drivingly provocative. conversely, women known for their public modesty, retiring personalities, and aversion to the spotlight are unlikely to be tigresses whose stripes are, curiously, visible only within the confines of their (long-term partner’s) bedroom. put another way, it’s easy to identify a slut — and you don’t even need long checklists. you just need your eyes, your ears, and your ability to read between the lines. the above holds true even for previously cold fish who have become “sluttier” within the context of a single long-term relationship; the differences are palpable, and redound to every dusty corner of their actions, attitudes, and body language in the presence of the opposite sex.
second, the objection is simply a cop-out, a knee-jerk response designed to avoid difficult, realistic, and unpleasantly honest consideration of certain tradeoffs. most men would like to relax with a boyish insouciance in their imaginary world, in which they’ll one day find the aforementioned public madonna/private slut/unicorn, but that attitude is as naïve and starry-eyed as that of the woman who hopes to land a suave, sexually dominant alpha with beta eyes that focus exclusively on her. the reality is that You Can’t Have It Both Ways; the y-axis is a nice, uncomplicated way of modeling this sobering fact.

most PUA types will do everything in their power to convince themselves and the world that they are in the fourth quadrant.
according to some chapters of the roissysphere canon, a woman’s value — even the remaining fraction of her very soul — decreases in direct relation to her sexual experience. also, the stated preference (note the significance of the word “stated”) for “good girls” is deeply entrenched in upper- and upper-middle-class culture, another obstacle in the path of honesty for men in the first and second quadrants.

almost no second-quadrant men will report their preference honestly; likewise, many men who belong in the first quadrant — especially those from the upper social classes, unless they are uncommonly introspective, self-aware, and unshackled by class shibboleths — will mistakenly place themselves in the fourth.
the problem here — a problem that is very underappreciated indeed, given men’s oft-undeserved reputation for frankness in this area — is that most men simply aren’t terribly aware of their preferences along the y-axis.
specifically:
with a few exceptions for those truly to the left on the bell curve of self-awareness, both men and women are generally aware of their physical preferences in the opposite sex, although both also routinely underappreciate the role played by social conditioning in the same. however — and this is a big “however” — when it comes to the alpha/beta and madonna/whore dichotomies, the score is quite different: most men are absolutely clueless in regard to their true preferences along the madonna/whore continuum.
this difference, which is obvious and universal, tends to be explained — incorrectly — as a special case of “women’s intuition”. occam’s razor begs to differ, though: it’s simply a matter of experience. to wit, almost all decently desirable women are approached (though perhaps not boldly, in the case of less obviously sexual women) by various and sundry men, with a frequency unattainable by any man short of mtv’s latest darling. from the overall data produced by these approaches (and from whatever intercourse results), the women — even the ones with lower-than-average self-awareness — will eventually construct some sort of first-order approximation of their alpha/beta preferences. the vast majority of men, though, have a sample size so small that they simply can’t build up enough direct experience to suss out their own madonna/whore preferences, a situation rife with tragicomedy when these men choose long-term exclusive partners. worse yet, what works in fantasy often fails spectacularly in reality, so men who have constructed their preferences hypothetically rather than empirically are often in for some rude surprises when their perfect madonna leads them to perfect ennui, or when their perfect slut leads them to uncontrollable jealousy.
imagine a porn-drenched virgin asked about his favorite sexual positions. he would almost certainly just list the positions in his favorite adult distractions, in decreasing order of the frequency with which they appear in the films; he couldn’t be expected to know what will actually feel good firsthand (heh, hand). it’s just as ridiculous to expect most men to have any sort of honest understanding of their preferences along the madonna/whore continuum. as if that weren’t bad enough, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that almost all men who are “natural alphas” are also extremely low in self-awareness, as there is an inveterate correlation among reckless confidence, social dominance, and lack of introspection. so, in an irony worthy of kierkegaard, the few men blessed with large sample sizes tend to be the very same men who are least equipped to analyze those samples.

so, men, which quadrant are you in?
if you’ve had enough women, you’re probably in the first quadrant by now, or at least closer to it than you’d like to think.

**with a lowercase “m”, since a certain performance artist has sullied the capitalized version.

make me feel like a woman.
six words.

she had been waiting for me.

she lay languorously on her back, her lush, dark tresses released from their professional coiffure and cascading with calculated carelessness across the king-size pillow.
a solitary shaft of soft green neon light penetrated the curtains to her right, limning every curve of her sensuous, fertile physique. as she splayed her arms overhead in a languid, catlike stretch, her beautifully crafted breasts strained against her flimsy camisole, drawing it away from her stomach; the neon light played across the toned contours of her torso, painting them with a mesmerizing, sinewy chiaroscuro.

my gaze alit on her breasts and then meandered lazily downward along the shadowy neon outline of her stomach.
between the lines.
i finally became lost in the hazy sfumato between her legs.
her hips thrust further forward in an instinctive, primal response to my shameless staring; her legs spread just far enough for her sheer panties to divulge the outline of her clit piercing.
“naughty girl.”
i glanced knowingly into her eyes, meeting her lubricious stare with a wry, disarming smile.

her whole body softened, surrendering to the intensity of my piercing gaze, as she drew shortened breath through her softly parted lips.
she fixed me with a prurient glare, her eyes enlivened by defiant expectation as she dared me.
entreated me.
challenged me.
implored me.

six words.

make me…

take control of me.
unapologetically.
unhesitatingly.

take the lead.
push me.
make me dance.

subdue me.
overwhelm me.
wrest my stubborn will from me, and enslave me.

one chance.
no missteps.

do whatever you want to me.
as long as you do it now.

i’m a bitch.
tonight, make me your bitch.

…feel…

fuck me.
make my mind, heart, and soul shake as hard as my body.
destroy my illusion of control.
tear away the patina of routine and ennui, and make me breathless again.

read my mind.
ignore everything i say.
take everything from me.

exceed my impossible expectations.
rewrite my memories.
rewrite my fantasies.

be an irresistible, dynamic force.
make me lose myself.
make me forget everything.
burn away the dirty fingerprints on my heart.

make me feel alive.

i’m a slut.
tonight, make me your slut.

…like…

shove me out of reality and into fantasy.
look into my eyes, just long enough for me to see myself as you see me.
stare into me with your icy, black gaze.
pull me into your world with a selfish gravity stronger than my own.

beat me at my own game.
destroy my smug self-importance.
set me alight, and burn me to the ground.
take the ashes in your hands and arrange them however you want.
then blow them away.

make me fall in love.
then push me away.
make me into somebody else.
then send me back to my world.
make me feel again.
then break my heart.

i’m a woman.
tonight, make me your little girl.

…a woman.

know me.
read me.
best me.
lead me.

tame me.
fuck me.
choke me.
hit me.

degrade me.

break me.

own me.

i’m a madonna.
tonight, make me your whore.

men describe, women infuse.
men lead, women follow.
men know, women feel.
men extrapolate, women intuit.
men create, women become.
men demand, women insinuate.
men persuade, women seduce.
men bulldoze, women erode.
men plant, women nurture.
men push, women pull.
men catalyze, women react.
men act, women inspire.

what good is either, without the other?

make me feel like a woman.

six words.
one challenge.

can you read between the lines?

beauty?
to me it is a word without sense because I do not know where its meaning comes from nor where it leads to.

~ Pablo Picasso

feminists and their ilk are infamous for asserting that beauty is socially constructed.

if taken literally, that statement is ridiculous; it’s clear that female beauty is, to first approximation, an objectively measurable quality.
whr, bmi, frankfort line, rule of fifths, nasofacial angle, etc. — no single one of these parameters captures female beauty by itself, but they can be combined into predictive formulas that are uncannily accurate, and cross-culturally robust, in predicting men’s ratings of female beauty.

however, it’s equally foolish to assert that none of men’s conception of female beauty is socially constructed.

like most claims that make up feminist cant, “beauty is a social construct” is a whole cumulus cloud of lies that has condensed around a tiny grain of actual truth. since most of my readers are well aware of the lies, it’s worth articulating the grain of truth.

specifically:
it’s obvious that, to first approximation, there is a universal standard of female beauty.
however, when i see people trying to parse the differences out to the first and second decimal places — “she’s a 9.3, she’s a 9.4” etc. — i know i’m seeing people for whom one of the following is true:
(1) they are nerds that live in their basements, nitpicking everything to death as a proxy for living it;
(2) they share the same solipsism that they are so quick to point out in women, attributing the exact niceties of their own highly granular scale to other men;
or, ironically,
(3) they are highly social and spend all their time in, and with people from, a very narrowly defined social milieu.

#1 and #2 need no explanation, but #3 runs deep. it’s one of those forces of which most people are unaware; that unawareness is precisely the source of its power.

the graduations at the highest level of the female beauty scale — even the ones that can be measured or approximated scientifically — are heavily influenced by social factors.
anyone who has actually met people from different races and different walks of life, firsthand, would know this.

there are two primary mechanisms.

1. Preselection

PUA types have expatiated on the role of preselection in amplifying a man’s attractiveness to women, but, as is so often the case in the dance of the sexes, one partner’s footwork is mirrored by the other’s.

the more socially aware a man, the more likely is his idea of female beauty to be conflated with preselection.

gedanken experiment, for the men out there:
let’s say you can have exactly one of the following as your mate of the moment, with whom you’ll be seen by your whole social circle as well as by surrounding strangers. what you’ll get to do with her, and to her, is left as an exercise for the reader, but everyone will see her on your arm:
1) gisele bundchen;
2) a random woman who is the exact ideal of the type you like to fuck. (if you say this is gisele, you are almost certainly either lying or incredibly self-unaware.)

in this experiment, most men would pick gisele — even at the cost of the extra hardness of their hard-on.
in this experiment, ALL men with extensive upper- and upper-middle-class social circles would pick gisele, even if they’d rather be fucking the other woman.
why?
one reason is preselection.
these men know, perhaps unconsciously, that being seen with a supermodel — the very quintessence of feminine beauty and desirability from a female standpoint — will up, or re-up, their status with other women. in other words, the arm candy may not be optimal from the men’s own standpoint, but it certainly is from the standpoint of other arm candy.
the man walking around with a willowy, sylphlike model is not as sexually entranced as the man walking around with a voluptuous vamp who oozes molten sexuality, but it’s a pyrrhic loss; consciously or not, he’s bartering a certain quantity of pure carnal obsession for a greater degree of power over other women, who see the apotheosis of beauty (as seen by female beholders) on his arm and fantasize themselves into her place.
it takes an uncanny level of self-awareness, a level most men simply don’t have, to tease this confounding variable out of one’s evaluation of beauty.

the power of this particular confounding variable is particularly strong when it is not attenuated by the blistering heat of prior carnal fulfillment.
most men have never known the joy of fucking the body, soul, and mind a woman who is, at least for the moment, a pure sex object; the quickening, the sudden restoration of meaning to an otherwise hollow existence, that can only come from the violently cathartic release of our true, irrational, passionate, reptilian inner nature with a partner who is far from perfect. or, indeed, if she is “perfect”, the concomitant pleasure of smashing that superficial perfection with an relentless salvo of wanton, irrepressible salaciousness — smearing her carefully applied foundation of makeup, pretense, and resistance with dirty, passionate hands powerful enough to strip away her outer layers and reveal the gloriously imperfect whore beneath.

for men who haven’t had that experience, and are thus unable to penetrate the deepest, dirtiest corners of a woman’s soul in a single, languorous, cryogenic yet burning glance, preselection is a powerful force indeed.
for those of us who have, the gentle piccolo of preselection and objective visual beauty is forever drowned out by the throbbing, tympanic beat of sexual compulsion.

2. Class Indicators

men’s notions of the zenith of beauty are also strongly influenced by social class.

the more socially successful a man, the more likely is his idea of female beauty to be shaped by the social class in which he has achieved that success.

the willowy, lissome body that would launch a thousand amex black cards would have little currency on rockaway ave., brownsville, while upper-class ideals are too narrow for the thick, curvaceous lodestars of fertility that awaken the lyrical muses of ghetto poets.
just as literal hunger awakens men’s tastes for more voluptuous women, so it goes for entire cultures.
no man is an island.
when a man is surrounded, at work and at play, by a homogeneous fraternity of buddies and colleagues who are unknowingly entrusted with enforcing the unwritten rules of their social class, he will begin to internalize those rules. with each barb, each innocent tease about his taste in women, he turns ever so slightly and imperceptibly away from his own desires, tightening the ties that at once bind, unify, and divide.

quick: think of all the men you know whose tastes in women are “freaky” or “unconventional”. (if you don’t know any such men, get out more. if you can’t stand the thought of doing that, talk to an escort or pimp sometime about the wide variety of men’s lusts, and about the surprisingly unconventional “beauty” for which high-powered men will pay good money.)
generally, the more “freaky” the tastes, the more socially unaware or reclusive the man.
why?
the relentless prodding of conformity that inevitably accompanies social success has had no opportunity to do its work on these men; so neglected, they are left honest.

only for us few, proud, blessed outsiders do beauty and sexual irresistibility ever converge.
and therefore, only we outsiders, for whom social constructions have disappeared and objective beauty has been engulfed by the greater force of primal impulses, can truly penetrate the deepest beauty of all — the beauty that is not skin deep, nor in the eye of the beholder, but in the flash-point of the explosion for which our own hands are the catalyst.

in this post, we deconstruct the what and how of the phrase “just be yourself”, and draw some powerful conclusions about relationship game.

the WHAT:
this is quite simple.
when women tell a man “just be yourself”, what they mean is “just be congruent.”
yep. that’s it.
that’s all they mean.

now, the HOW:
this is where we’re going to need another analogy.
so far we’ve got the elastic band, which represents the sum of a woman’s experience. however, it would be inapposite to try to incorporate the man’s personality into the same image.
while there is certainly a correlation in most normal relationships — i.e., men who are more objectively “alpha” tend to stretch the woman’s experience to a greater extent — the two are not the same. much more importantly, we need an analogy that quantifies the idea of congruence.

not true to its own selfi thought really hard for a long time — almost thirty seconds — and came up with the notion of using a mixing board, with various sliders that can be pushed anywhere from -10 to 10, to represent the male personality.

here’s the way it works:
* there are alpha traits, and there are beta traits. a beta trait is NOT just the inverse of an alpha trait.
note the final sentence above: yes, kids, that’s right, alpha and beta are actually two separate concepts. in the context of a long-term relationship, as we will soon see, it’s quite possible for a man to be both an alpha and a beta. (most PUA sites are justified in ignoring this distinction, since alpha and beta traits become mutually exclusive if the timeframe is short enough.)

* there are no binaries. each trait lies on a continuum.
this one is a mindfuck for lots and lots and lots and lots of people.
in particular, most people think of these things in terms of binaries — one/zero, on/off, etc. — because binaries are soft, warm, fuzzy, and easy to understand. this is the reason why children’s literature never develops characters beyond good guys and bad guys, and it’s also the reason why kids are taught the words hot and cold before learning more finely differentiated terms, such as tepid, warm, cool, and frigid.
note, however, the terms “children’s literature” and “kids” in the above sentence. these terms are not an accident; they are there because, when it comes to human personality traits, binary thinking is juvenile thinking.

here are a few examples of alpha sliders, with approximate reference points.

ALPHA TRAIT: CONTROL THE CONVERSATION
-10 = he doesn’t talk until she lets him
-5 = she interrupts him regularly; he doesn’t interrupt her unless he’s being unusually emotional, in which case he feels apologetic for interrupting
0 = symmetric conversational pattern
+5 = he interrupts her regularly; she rarely interrupts him, in which case he will simply finish his thought anyway, ignoring what she says until he’s done talking
+10 = she doesn’t talk until he lets her

ALPHA TRAIT: ALL INTERACTION IS SEXUAL
-10 = she won’t even let him get near her
-5 = she only feels amorous on special occasions; he occasionally attempts to initiate, but will immediately back off if she rebuffs him
0 = somewhat regular sex, but almost never before “more important things” are taken care of; the couple’s general vibe when they are doing random things together is “platonic” or “playfully affectionate”
+5 = frequent sex that occasionally overtakes “more important things”; he will start to ignore her if she doesn’t give him enough physical attention
+10 = he completely ignores her unless he’s fucking her

ALPHA TRAIT: AUTHORITY
-10 = he does whatever she tells him, whenever she tells him, sometimes even before she tells him
-5 = she clearly runs the show, but he is occasionally in charge of things she doesn’t really understand
0 = fifty-fifty equalist relationship
+5 = he clearly runs the show, but she is occasionally in charge of things he doesn’t care about or doesn’t feel like doing
+10 = he runs everything; she has no say in anything

ALPHA TRAIT: INDEPENDENCE
-10 = she sets, controls, and enforces his schedule
-5 = he regularly lets her know where he is and what he’s doing, even when he’s doing relatively unimportant things, and will inconvenience himself to accommodate her schedule
0 = he doesn’t bore her with details, but lets her know his general schedule, any important events, and any significant changes; he is willing to adjust his timeline if he thinks her stuff is important enough
+5 = she only has a general idea of what he’s doing, unless she is directly involved; he isn’t willing to change his schedule for her unless the matter is extremely urgent
+10 = she never has any idea where he is, unless he’s standing directly in front of her; he makes plans as though she doesn’t even exist

those are four of them. note that these traits and scales are, for all practical purposes, universal; they are largely the same in any imaginable situation.

there are also beta sliders — for instance, affection, material provision, and attention. these are more complicated than the alpha sliders, because they are context-dependent.
for instance, the “material provision” scale is drastically different for a married man whose wife is mostly or exclusively home with their three small children than it is for a swinging single guy who’s dating one of his colleagues.
so, we’ll leave the discussion of those for later.

i’ve got good news and bad news.

the bad news is that there are lots of sliders, a situation that is completely as expected; no one ever said human personalities were supposed to be simple.

the good news is that a full understanding of the sliders, and an understanding of how to tweak them, will make it really easy to understand and manipulate certain aspects of your relationship.

here’s the key:

you are CONGRUENT, in women’s eyes, if all of the alpha sliders are set to the same number.

do the following exercise:

* read ALL the rows marked -10, and form an image of the type of man who would earn such scores.
this guy would obviously be a pathetic shell of a man.
but he would be consistent, through and through — i.e., he would “be himself”.

* now do the same for the rows marked -5, 0, +5, and +10.
check for consistency.
these men are all “being themselves”.

women have no ability to detect whether the sliders are at their default settings, so “be yourself” DOES NOT mean that you have to be who you have always been.

women are only capable of telling whether the sliders are set to the same value AS EACH OTHER. if they are, then you are “being yourself”.
even if this self differs from previous selves.

and now we will answer three questions, just to demonstrate the power of this sort of approach.

1. what does “just be yourself” mean?

answer: this means that women will freak the fuck out if you have vastly differing scores on any two of the alpha sliders. (remember that there are a lot more than four of them!)

2. what is “better relationship game”?

the answer to this is really simple: better relationship game means moving ALL of the alpha sliders up, by the same amount, at the same time.
notice what i said: the ANSWER is simple. i did not say that the PROCESS was simple; there are a shitload of sliders, and you have to push all of them up at the same time.

exercise:
go back and read all the 0’s again.
now read all the +5’s.
now imagine a man going gradually from all 0’s to all +5’s.
that, folks, is “better relationship game”.

3. why are most men so bad at improving their relationship game?
the answer to this one is also really simple: most men think that a large positive change in one of the alpha traits is equivalent to a set of small changes in several of them — e.g., that upping just one of the sliders by, say, 5 points will produce the same result as will upping five of them by 1 point each.
this reasoning is eminently understandable, but completely incorrect.
in fact, if you adjust only one of the sliders at a time, by a massive enough amount, you will sacrifice that all-important quality of CONGRUENCE.
and then, women will freak the fuck out.

exercise:
go read all the 0’s again, and imagine a man with those traits.

now imagine the following:
wifey/gf says “you’re being really rude lately” –> what this really means: dude pushed the “control the conversation” slider up to +5, but left all the others at 0
wifey/gf says “you’re too much of a horndog” –> what this really means: dude pushed the “all interaction is sexual” slider up to +5, but left all the others at 0
wifey/gf says “you’re being too bossy, i don’t like it” –> what this really means: dude pushed the authority slider up to +5, but left all the others at 0
wifey/gf says “you’re too distant” –> what this really means: dude pushed the independence slider up to +5, but left all the others at 0

finally, i’ll leave you with some shit that will shake your understanding of relationships to its very core:
now, make all four of the foregoing changes at once.
dude is now a rude, bossy horndog who is too distant…
…and wifey/gf loves every minute of it.

trailer for future program:
note that the optimal settings are not +10/+10/+10/+10.
it is quite possible to be too alpha.

this program has been a production of narciso enterprises.

in what distant deeps or skies
burnt the fire in thine eyes?

and what shoulder, and what art?
could twist the sinews of thy heart?

— william blake

ladies and gentlemen, the topic of today’s interdisciplinary studies class is applied physics.

refractive index:
the extent to which a material bends the rays of illumination passing through its boundary.
the higher a material’s refractive index, the greater the distortion.

total internal reflection:
a phenomenon in which no light is allowed to escape from the interior of a material, due to (a) the material’s high refractive index and (b) the oblique angle at which light hits the material’s surface.

today’s lesson:
the refractive index of the soul is greater than that of the eye.

as wise minds have realized since antiquity, the refractive index of the soul is so high that few can shine the light of introspection at the proper angle to see anything resembling a true picture.
the eye, however, renders much more accurate images.

the result:
most of us are generally aware of our physical “type”.
however, most of us — especially the young and innocent, whatever their age and level of experience — will have no clue whether a particular context or situation will press our arousal buttons.
until…
it just happens.

the refractive index of the soul is high indeed.


total internal reflectionthere is a grim equivalence between the woman who, despite her plaintive lamentations of being repeatedly used and abused, continues to seek badder and badder bad boys, and the man who, despite his vocal denunciation of mercenary sluts, continues to seek provocatively-dressed and -made-up women whose every word, gesture, and subtext is designed to lull men’s instincts with the Soma of concentrated, aggressive sexuality before moving in for the coup de grâce.

we just don’t learn.

projected from the wrong angle, the light will never reach our consciousness.

total internal reflection.

moreover, many of our most primal situational triggers are strictly prohibited in polite society. in fact, one could form a reasonably accurate definition of “polite society” just from knowing which drives must be starved, suppressed, and shunted into more materially productive endeavors.

the result?
if and when one of these situations rears its beautifully ugly head, its raw reptilian appeal will be doubled by the sweet taste of forbidden fruit, and compounded further by deafening cognitive dissonance.

non cogito, ergo sum.
descartes was wrong.
the more our rationality is shattered, the more we feel alive.

now, we’ll get even more interdisciplinary, and discuss inequalities.

men are primarily aroused by concrete visual and behavioral stimuli, which are easily understood and identified.
women are primarily aroused by situational, contextual, and subtextual stimuli, which are refracted beyond recognition for all but the most coldly perceptive among us.

therefore, women’s relative powerlessness in resisting skilled seduction is real.
and actionable.
and capable of being exploited.

Sample Problem 1
if one gold-digger can dig gold from ten men, and one blessed seducer can dig gold from ten such gold-diggers, then this seducer shall receive __________

Answer
a hundredfold now in this time

also, equalists, read the following and weep:
there is limited justification here for the claims of women caught in affairs and infidelities that “it just happened” and that they are thus less complicit in their transgressions than are men.
specifically:
if a woman is subconsciously and primally seduced by a new and exciting situation, context, or subtext — of whose appeal she is really, truly, and fully unaware at the outset — then, much to the chagrin of her long-term partner, her claims of being helpless, passive prey are the naked truth.

things really do “just happen”.

this is not to excuse the ultimate conduct of such women: “is” and “ought” are not the same, nor are explanation and justification.
however, it must be accepted that women, much more than men, will find themselves in situations that stealthily build up unconscious, unexpected arousal. indeed, in less than the time required for that reptilian arousal to diffuse to the cortex, a well-executed seduction can reach fever pitch, insurmountable by any earthly means.

Exercise 1
the policy implications of the above, concerning men’s and women’s differential freedom of movement and association, are left as an exercise for the reader, but i will be helpful enough to point out that herein lies full justification for assigning much stricter curfews, rules, and punishments to daughters than to sons — and likewise for wives vis-à-vis husbands.

Exercise 2
likewise left as an exercise for the reader is the role of non-earthly means — such as ardent, irrational religious faith — in countering women’s otherwise irresistible arousal.
hi gorbachev!