NB: On having written this I realised this could potentially be more useful for women than men. If you are female and read here, do let us know your thoughts on it.
***
On the post on Balls , I explained why women like Catherine will self-deceive, and drop their knickers for a man that they will either:
- supposedly tell us in the cold light of day, is obviously a bad guy and they couldn’t possibly ever do such a thing, (but when it happens they will) or,
- Backwards (after the fact) and forwards (future project) rationalise their emotions as to why it’s “okay” for them to do so, based on X, Y, and Z, none of which X, Y, or Z are in fact really relevant, and at times are not even present or remotely true.
Women generally tend to be publicly incredulous of such men having an effect on them, but privately they do know that it can indeed happen to them.
But there are also male skeptics who just assume such situations are just fairy tales that only happen in porn movies (which they are intimately familiar with). Even then, the porn film scenario “irks” them because they see it as “unrealistic”.
Now, if you are one of those kinds of men that has had this sort of thing happen to him on a fairly regular basis, or a woman that has succumbed to this sort of instant attraction, you know full well it’s a real thing that happens.
If you’re also a logical human being, you will similarly understand that just because it happens doesn’t mean it’s necessarily common (though it can be relatively common for those whom are of this type).
This is easily understood and accepted in pretty much any other field.
If I told you that you’d likely die trying to race the same car and match the speed Ayrton Senna did at any of the circuits where he did not die, you would probably accept that there is a fair chance that is true.
In the realm of sports, intellectual endeavours, art, and pretty much any other field, most people are ready to accept their limitations and recognise that a small percentage of men are far more capable than them.
When it comes to sexual chemistry and the ability to become intimate quickly, or be found almost irresistibly attractive, to a woman, especially a woman that most think would not behave in such a fashion, for some reason, a rather larger group of men and women both become far more dubious.
Perhaps it’s because many people lie about their sexual conquests, or prowess, perhaps it’s because the average man is really not very enticing at all and in fact, less and less so as time passes, and so women find it difficult to imagine such men still exist. And men themselves continue to be ever more feminised so they can’t imagine themselves being those kind of guys, much less actually be them.
But whatever the case is, the types that are most stridently against believing such power exists in some men are entrenched feminist women (i.e. usually the embittered and unfuckable ones, because no one wants them, and it is in fact true for them that short of an actual miracle, no one will ever glance in their general direction with the kind of animal attraction we are describing here). The other type that will tend to not believe this are Gamma males, Omegas, and a large chunk of Deltas.
The more aware Omegas may appreciate that such events happen, but they rightly realise it will likely never happen to them specifically. Most Deltas, will also imagine this is all part of some Hollywood fantasy and women either don’t behave like that, or no men really elicit that kind of response in women. Some Deltas that have seen it happen before their eyes because they may be on friendly terms with some guy that does have this presence, will tend to be like the more aware Omegas “Yes it can happen, Mr. X cleans up and women love him, but it’s because [insert rationalisation here, accurate or not as it may be (usually not too accurate)]”.
And then there are the really bitter ones. These are guys that may even look decent, have money, wear good clothes and have manicured hands. In other words, they are guys that have spent time and effort to make themselves into what the world tells you that you need to been order to be a “catch” any woman will want.
And they still fail.
There are two types, the Elliot Rodger incels, who eventually probably do become a mass shooter risk, because they drank the Kool-aid of “what women want” but continue to have utterly pestilentially-radioactive personalities, and aside possibly paying for it, they will not get laid at all. And may in fact even be rejected by professional prostitutes, because they may well sense the intrinsic hatred such men end up feeling toward women in general.
The other type is the kind that actually does get laid fairly regularly, but ultimately remains incapable of forming lasting or meaningful relationships. This type can be confusing because there is a tendency to assume all fukbois are equivalent, but as with anything, if you pay attention there are subdivisions. Broadly speaking (ladies, pay attention) there are three types of fuckbois, and they can be a bit confusing to differentiate, if you are a young innocent. They are:
- The Pigs. This guy just genuinely likes women. Most women. Possibly all women. And the idea of limiting himself to just one woman… well, it’s like chocolate mints… you can’t eat just one! These in turn become one of two type in time. Either they get eventually sated of the female form and its generalities and will tend to settle with a woman that is interesting enough to keep them from becoming bored, and they can then become actually physically loyal to her. Not because they lack opportunities, but because they find that challenge to be perhaps more interesting, or the character-forming exercise of it more entertaining and worthwhile. Occasionally it might even be to some sudden religious conversion of the Road to Damascus type. The other type remains a pig all his life, including into old age. They do not hate women, but they also don’t really consider them too much. Beyond the pleasure, temporary feelings of intimacy and closeness they can get from them, possibly children (usually sons) that they may feel are worthwhile, they are unlikely to ever stop seeing other women on the side. They are addicted to the chase, the new conquest, the next number on their belt, and so on.
- The Porcupine. This guy is still a pig (porcupines are basically small pigs, by the way) but either because he has some level of self-loathing, mommy issues, or whatever, despite his success with bedding women, he tends to really quite dislike women. And in fact, the easier a woman lets him take her to bed, the less he respects her. Personally I have never related to these guys at all. I think they are badly flawed. The way I always saw it was that if a woman gave herself quickly to me, it just meant she obviously had either good taste and knew her own mind, or was a bit slutty and still mostly knew her own mind. And either one was perfectly acceptable to me, even for a potential long term prospect. After all, if I had no respect for a woman at all, why would I want to have sex with her?! It just made no sense to me. Now, given I had more than my share of one-night stands, when I say “respect” it doesn’t mean I necessarily thought the woman was a good long term prospect, etc. maybe she was just sexy and slutty in a way I found interesting. That day. But the point is, I wasn’t going to judge her for something I was myself indulging in, whatever it was. I think my primary problem with this kind of guy is their hypocrisy. In my experience these guys end up eventually marrying some relatively innocent (but soon to become jaded) woman that they will continue to cheat on. I suppose it’s possible a few become better later and improve, but as far as my personal knowledge of such guys goes, even if they try to become “good guys” eventually their deep dissatisfaction with what they fantasise they are “owed” clashes with reality enough that they screwed up their possible relationships. They also tend to generally be “jokingly” negative about women. And while many men in the fuckboi category can do this, the viciousness of the porcupine is far more genuine than the good natured ribbing that a simple Pig may come up with. It is also at least partially true that the Porcupines, similarly to the Fake Man (see below) often do not manage to get involved with the very type of woman they crave, and especially the type that may be truly devoted. Their deep-seated disdain for women reaches some kind of threshold that those women actually capable of the kind of devotion these men long for, gets triggered by and they tend to avoid them, even if not as obviously or sometimes successfully as most women will dodge a pure Gamma from interacting with them.
-
The Fake Man. Irrespective of the fact these guys MAY (not will, but MAY) be successful with women, there are two things to keep in mind.
- Primarily the women that they will be successful with are like them: superficial and shallow. Believers in the worldly aspects of what “success” is or is not.
- The type of woman they really would like to be besotted with them will usually hardly give them the time of day, but if they do happen to become fooled enough to end up in bed with them, it will absolutely not last, and in fact is likely to end rather bitterly and badly.
This last, the Fake Man, is the one that will disbelieve other men get the kind of instant and instinctive attraction, especially from the type of women that they pine for secretly, more than anyone else, including the feminist woman. And if and when they see such an interaction take place, or are presented with inescapable proof of it (say the woman in question admitting to the event that got her to now be with a Mr. X) between what they assume is an “inferior” man and a woman they were hoping to attract until a second earlier, rather than re-evaluate their skewed view of reality, they will act like a deranged feminist and try to deny reality instead. Suddenly the very woman of their dreams is now obviously a dirty and faithless whore and their bitterness at women in general only increases.
Which brings up to the four or five things that actually attract women. Regardless of what women say, it is these things (listed in order of importance – but see below):
- Balls. As explained before in a previous post (see link at the start of this post) this is a mix of courage, self-reliance, competence, self-confidence based on objective ability, and ability to be physically dangerous. Balls, trumps pretty much everything else. If you can only have one attribute, this is the one to have. Even women who do not put this as the first item on the list (consciously or unconsciously) can and will react to it. These are the supposedly focussed gold-diggers, or loyal trad wives, that nevertheless find themselves bent over their own kitchen counter with a stranger inside them, even though it threatens their entire life situation, and them having gone for it, with little to no understanding of why or how that happened afterwards.
- Money. There is no denying that the ability to provide a very comfortable lifestyle is attractive, and some women prioritise this. I personally had a romantic interest that due to specifics I will not go into for the sake of her privacy, had decided that a secure financial future was more important than the instinctive passion she may have had with me. Given her specific situation, I can’t say I in any way blamed her. In fact, even at the time, I figured she made the right choice. The intensity we might have had could run out in due course, or be unreliable. The guy she decided to be with was always going to be well-off and would always be wrapped around her finger, as she was several points out of his league. On the other hand, I also knew a married woman that had made that same choice years earlier, that was absolutely ready to leave her multi-millionaire husband if I had been willing to enter into a lasting relationship with her; which I was not. So, all other things being equal, money is not the top of the pyramid people think it is. In fact, I only place it here as second because the average modern human imagines things in a very materialistic way, and even then, balls trump money. If we were to measure things at a purely soul level of things, money would be last on the list.
- Looks. It helps if you have the chiselled look of a comic book superhero, but while these are favourable to get your foot in the door, so to speak, they don’t count anywhere near as much with women as they do with men.
- Honour/Reliability. This is a tough one, because from a female perspective, a man that is absolutely of his word is on one hand very attractive, because she can rely on him to do as he says. This is also a positive because if he can be relied upon, he can be relied upon to be manipulated as she is able to do. On the down side, if she CAN manipulate him easily she will lose respect for him and that is NOT attractive. Yet, if he is fully independent of her because of his sense of integrity, that is a worry for her since she (being female) knows what a duplicitous creature she is, and a rigidly moral man, can become a burden, tiring, or even dangerous, depending on how “flexible” she is with the truth. But a man that will keep his own line, while clearly demarcating her limits for her, and also those for the rest of the world, where she can see the limits he has for her trump the rest of the world (but not his own morals)…well… that is indeed catnip to women. If we measure things at what I described above as a soul level, then this fits in at number 2, but generally women today have somewhat lost the ability to judge a man on this basis and it takes them being at least somewhat already involved to correctly evaluate this aspect of their character.
- Fame/Status. I have placed this last, even though in many ways it is “first” for women, because in the first place, fame itself is ephemeral and fickle, and while status can be more long-lasting, it is really not that interesting a feature once you become intimately familiar for a period. It is the first of the “good qualities” that a woman will get used to the fastest, and consequently no longer be smitten by it. Status can of course also be long-lasting, but it says very little and often what it does say is not very positive, of the person itself, and their character or deeper drives. Maybe every woman wants to bed Bradd Pitt, but… once you find out what he’s really like behind closed doors, the public persona can even become a nauseating net negative due to the sheer contrast of the illusion when compared to the far more humbling reality. In the other way of measuring this fits just above money, but only temporarily before sliding to the bottom pretty fast.
Anyway, the point is that items 1 and 4 are the important ones. And they are the two things you simply can’t buy. You either have them or you don’t. And the type 3 “fuckbois”, that is, the Fake Men , just don’t really have these things. Which is why regardless of if married or not, they will continue to be bitter and hate men with a passion that can get genuine devotion from a woman, even while they deny such things are possible. And later, at home, they will cry into their pillow about why THEY don’t get that level of passion, and almost worship, that they see women give to men they deem must be “losers” because they don’t wear a 20k wristwatch.
I am not sure what such men are in the SSH category described by Vox Day, as some can appear to be genuinely superficially successful with women, but are inevitably clearly bitter and unfulfilled with their conquests, and remain envious at a visceral level of men who casually attract devotion from women without even much effort.
Externally they may present as Alphas, or Sigmas, sometimes as Bravos (to a more powerful/rich/more “successful” man in a position of authority over them) but honestly, in my estimation such men are absolute gammas.
Take a Jeff Bezos, in terms of money he has enough that it trumps all sorts of things when compared to almost all men, but take a Clint Eastwood in his prime, or even just a Charles Bronson, and put him next to a Jeff Bezos in his prime, and there is no honest woman on Earth that will say they have the same possibility of “feels” for Jeff that they would for a Clint or a Charles (you young ones will have to google these old (or dead) guys, I don’t know if there are equivalent types in the millennial actors of today). A Yul Brynner for example could hardly be said to be conventionally attractive, yet he had that presence, which a fake like Ben Affleck simply doesn’t have. And yet you can tell Ben sees himself as “the man”. But scratch the surface and there is only a neurotic guy that would seethe until his ears smoke at a Yul Brynner walking in the room and instantly having women of all types take note, even the ones that “don’t think that bald guy is attractive at all”.
Anyway, this rather detailed descriptor of some male equivalents of the embittered feminists have been labelled as pseudo-incels because even if they do get laid, it’s never really satisfying. Not for them, and not for the poor women who get fooled enough to do so. And especially not viable for the long term.
I hope it’s of some use to some of you.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
