Sunday, August 5, 2007

The allure of the jerk

I have always varied between being utterly dellusioned and totally fascinated with the psychology of dating. Especially when it comes to the jerk phenomenon, that women always SAY that they are looking for a nice, sensitive guy, but always end up with the jerk. I wondered why my other post, on smart guys and dating from David DeAngelo, got alot of response. It's a universal phemonenon.

Anyway, there's the evolutionary psychology. Girl's eggs are the prize. They have to maximize either the genetic quality of their kid, or ensure a steady supply of resources to feed herself and the newborn. Now, going back to 50,000 BC, what would ensure that a male was high status? Social dominance. And guess what? Today's jerk is the modern reincarnation of the socially dominant caveman from our pre-stone age days.

What is even more interesting, beyond the self-imposed frustration of women (who claim that all men are assholes, while they actively seek out the asshole) is the media's attempt to rationalize this behavior, or deny it.
Check out this article on today's msn
Check out this article on today's msn?



-----
For whatever reason, there are a surprising number of women who are attracted to guys who can’t commit, who can’t relate, who can’t get along with anyone, who can’t tell the truth… these guys get a lot of action.

It’s not that women really want jerks, exactly. I think it’s a matter of mistaking emotional clutter for emotional complexity
-----

Now, how does the mechanism work? Nature designed women to be more emotional and intuitive than men, because women survived by being able to understand other people and social interactions, NOT hunt. So, in order to get a woman to do something, nature had to program women to react emotionally to anything that was in their evolutionary interest. Women were selected to make emotional decisions, not logical ones. So, over the course of tens of thousands of years of evolution, nature solidified the attraction-emotion connection in women. So, how to make a woman fall for you? Stimulate her emotions.

A very long post from a blog on Indian men by some woman who got a little hyped over one guy
http://datinganindian.blogspot.com/2005/09/another-all-too-common-story-of-indian.html#comments

but one of the comments I found interesting:

---------
This is easily one of the most disturbing stories I have come across. Once again the eternal truth that "Jerks get the women while Nice Guys finish last" has been proven!!! I don't know which man, Indian or not, would be in love with one woman and at the same time sleep with another of the same name. He was a first class jerk and he got two women not including one more female arranged by his family in India. This just goes to show that if you are a good and decent man you just cannot attract a woman. Look at what has happened with this person. He kept treating her like sh*t and she kept going to him again and again. Now i am not saying that women consciously wud go after men that will cheat on them or treat them poorly but at the gut level they r attracted towards such men. It defies explanation, even women wud disprove it but now its a proven fact. I initially used to think that this whole "Nice Guys" theory was bull but now I have come across so much that I am just accepting it. Women are indeed attracted to jerks that treat them like sh*t!!!!!

----------

Just thinking about my own life. Every time I've been portrayed as a jerk, its always been that the girl was psycho on the other end. I think if more people studied evolutionary psychology without political correctness then things could go alot smoother. Whenever I'm mean, I do better. Why??????

So, nice guys, get an edge to your persona and stimulate their emotions.

Here is an excerpt from a Real Social Dynamics article by Tyler Durden, the pen name for a big pickup guru. It's available in the Real Social Dynamics community discussion board, a pretty interesting place.

-----

SO, WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?

I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.

He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.

Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.

I questioned my respect for Toecutter, and generally wondered what he could possibly be thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?

He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have their hopes and dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and that it was something that they actually WANTED.

He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to read about women's rape fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for ******s who will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the "dirty" girls that deep down they know themselves to be.

From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/******/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).

Very weird, and disturbing. I did NOT like reading this, nor do I necessarily like it now.

Basically, I interpreted that girls like DRAMA of ANY kind. They want INTENSE emotional drama. As Alphahot mentioned in a post a few threads below this one, they gravitate towards sources of extreme emotions. Scoundrels who use them and thus give them drama. And they gravitate towards it.

Of course, I was skeptical, and even after reading Nancy Friday I still maintained the view that these fantasies were anomolies, and that most women did not want this sort of thing.

Eddy also read this book, and shared my opinion. Be both generally hated it, and I recall Eddy throwing the book across the room several times.

Other PUAs who visit us comment on how scuffed up the book is, as Eddy has thrown it literally on almost every occassion he's read it, screaming "that could be my own mom!!! that could be my own mooooommmmmm!!!! ARGHHHHHH!!!"

WOMEN'S REACTIONS:

Now, when I walk into a room on campus, women start giggling and checking me out. They touch me, shit test me immediately to see if I really AM what I project, and show massive physical IOIs (face me, lean in, perk up their breasts, lick their lips, big eyes, etc etc etc).

I do NOTHING other than just walk into the room, and convey the attitude that's discussed in this post.

"I will fuck you the second you let your guard down, because I am a ****** and that's just me" is the image that I convey, and women respond instantly.

Of course, MOST women will be initially ATTRACTED, but still won't sleep with me from that feeling alone. They can’t quite justify their desire, because of social-conditioning.

So the SOLUTION: Show that they have a CHANCE to tame you, and that you have a sensitive inside somewhere deep down.. -> GET RAPPORT.

what have I learned?

Toecutter explained that women WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in order to preserve the feelings that they are deriving from the massive drama that you provide.

Anyway, Toecutter states that the girls who were "duped" by the marriage trick were in fact WELL-AWARE that it was clearly bullshit, but that they WANTED to go along with it, so that they could experience the ADVENTURE.

She WILLFULLY DECEIVES HERSELF to believe what she wants, because she likes the DRAMA and ADVENTURE.

Same goes with *******'s other long term girlfriends, who KNOW, read *KNOW*, that he is constantly with other women.

But still they CHOOSE to IGNORE it, because he provides the drama that they want.

And as a BONUS, they get to go home and spend time convincing their parents and friends how great ******* is, which gives them even MORE drama.

So that's it. I get it now. Women aren't like what I thought. Or rather, at least when it comes to SEX.

The girls that I thought were 'nice' have revealed that they've been fucked by anonymous guys, loved it, and want it again.

The girls that I thought were LOYAL to their boyfriends have called them from my bed, GUILT-FREE, lying about where they were last night like it was NOTHING.

I've found that girls break guys into categories of SEDUCERS and EMOTIONAL SUPPORTERS, and that if I don't want my girl to cheat on me, she's gonna have to get her drama from ME, and not from some asshole player.

what kind of girl do I look for when I'm ready to have children or get married?

only AFTER you hookup do you start communicating GENUINELY.

The FIRST genuine conversation happens in bed together, AFTER THE GAME IS OVER, and you find out whether or not this was just a validation-game, or if its an emotional connection.

And do *I* necessarily want the games? Nope.

I remember when I first did clubs, and I'd tease a high calibre HB. Say a 9 or 10. And she'd touch me, and say that she liked me. But as soon as I'd RECIPROCATE that, she'd LOSE INTEREST. It was a SHIT TEST, NOT genuine communication. Or was it? Was it genuinely communicating that she wanted to see if I was really the jerk she wanted me to be, and that she had to test me to find out?

Do shit tests constitute genuine communication? The girl is tricking you, to find your true nature. But then, if you pass, you genuinely will hookup with her. So is the girl genuine, or not? Not necessarily an easy question to answer.

YES, I have MANY genuine emotional connections with girls. My sister, her friends, my pivots, my relatives, my teachers. The girls that I am ALREADY with – my 3 MLTRS.

But NOT with girls that I am in the MIDST of picking up, because it is still *GAME-ON*.

Afterwards, once I have PROVEN myself to be the kind of man that she wants, I can get to know her on a more personal and genuine level. Until then, it is about SEXUAL ATTRACTION, which is NOT necessarily related to genuine communication. It CAN be, but it isn’t necessarily the case.

And why? Because there are several types of attraction, and while we may make socially based value judgements on which are more legitimate, the fact remains that they EXIST.

And of course, if genuine communication in the TRADITIONAL SENSE was the BASIS of ATTRACTION, then I suppose I’d probably be hooked up with the very fat and ugly girl from my history class, with whom I had a great conversation with last fall.

But then, the attractive girls I bed will most often BACKWARDS RATIONALIZE whatever nice things she finds out about me, and probably decide that THOSE things were CLEARLY what allowed her to be seduced by me. Of course that’s all after the fact. Contingencies.

This is how the game is played bros, at least in my personal opinion. Just the opinion of a new PUA, trying to make sense of all of this. Some of it is probably dead-on, and some of its probably inaccurate. Take it for what its worth.

-------

Read the full article, lots of interesting stuff in here.



Anyway, last night I was out and this girl was acting very upset, so I asked her why she was so upset and she said it was because her dog died. Damn, that's a bummer. Then, I made a comment about her eating meat and being hypocritical about being upset over a dog. Instead of being slapped, I actually came close to making out with her. Weird.

Then, I met a cool mexican dude on the train. Seemed like a decent guy. But damn, if this guy is not going to pay taxes or get health insurance, screw that. I want to keep the US strong. I don't want a nation of lawn mowers.

3 comments:

Peewee said...

You make links by doing the same thing you would in HTML, that is, "A HREF".
Example
Also, I have a hard time on your blog telling the difference between your own writing and when you're quoting someone else. Using indentation (the quote mark symbol on the New Post editbox) or perhaps a different font for quotes would be helpful.

Are those asterisks part of the original post or is there some sort of word censor going on?

Sorry I don't have comments on your actual post. I'm not much into dating. When you get back to politics I'll have more to say =)

TabooTruth said...

My bad for the confusion. Thanks for the tips. I think ALL issues are connected i.e. genetic/chemical determination for a variety of issues, whether its dating, economics, politics, religion, or consumerism.

byrdeye said...

"From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/******/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect)."

There is something to this. Actually, a great way to run a jealousy/validation plotline and hook a girl on you is to show interest in/start seeing another one who excels in the very area the first feels weak or insecure in. Sounds stupid, but girls just love these games & drama!