“Why meeting another’s gaze is so powerful:” the power of eye contact

Eye contact, eye contact, eye contact.

As well as sending our brains into social overdrive, research also shows that eye contact shapes our perception of the other person who meets our gaze. For instance, we generally perceive people who make more eye contact to be more intelligent, more conscientious and sincere (in Western cultures, at least), and we become more inclined to believe what they say.

Of course, too much eye contact can also make us uncomfortable – and people who stare without letting go can come across as creepy. In one study conducted at a science museum, psychologists recently tried to establish the preferred length of eye contact. They concluded that, on average, it is three seconds long (and no one preferred gazes that lasted longer than nine seconds).

Players practice it. Chicks respond to it.

Another documented effect of mutual gaze may help explain why that moment of eye contact across a room can sometimes feel so compelling. A recent study found that mutual gaze leads to a kind of partial melding of the self and other: we rate strangers with whom we’ve made eye contact as more similar to us, in terms of their personality and appearance

If she holds your eyes for those three seconds, go talk to her immediately. This chick is an example of eye contact’s power.

“He is exactly the kind of partner a liberated woman is supposed to want, and yet she despises him for it”

I’ve been saying that women are the truest red pillers… now we see an article by a chick, about books written by chicks, that are as red pill as anything comes… it’s about whether a novel can “capture the contradictions of female desire,” but it’s not hard to understand… one just has to remember that chicks are random and also that many chicks don’t want to be accountable for their decisions. Seriously, the chicks writing the novels and the chick writing the article agree with me, just not in the exact framing I use…

Their behavior mystifies them, and they discover that the selective work of authorship can relieve their confusion: if they choose some moments from their past and discard others, if they arrange these moments in just the right way, they might be able to understand themselves as logical and consistent, free of the messy task of figuring out what they want, and the even messier one of fully accepting these wants.

When guys ask women logical questions about the woman’s behavior and don’t get logical answers, that’s often because the woman herself doesn’t know. “Their behavior mystifies them.” One thing most chicks hate, however, is boredom, as we see here.

Of the intervening years, we have learned that she married and abruptly divorced a kale-loving man, a classmate in her grad-school cohort, whom she describes as “nice” and “ever so understanding.” She is mocking him. He is exactly the kind of partner a liberated woman is supposed to want, and yet she despises him for it.

Nice guys are boring. “Liberated” women want what other women want.

Years after her ur-erotic hotel-room encounter, the narrator finds herself in another hotel room, this time with a man she has picked up in the bar downstairs. Her husband is at home and thinks she is away at a job interview or visiting friends; she can’t remember. Alone with the stranger, the narrator tells him that she wants to be dominated. This time she’s articulating her desire, rather than discovering it through someone else’s, and in the act of articulation she can’t help but come face to face with her own agency. But the fantasy itself is for the opposite: “I hate making choices,” she says.

If she wants it, the husband doesn’t matter, the previous agreements don’t matter… all that matters is the moment. The impressive thing is that she says she wants to be dominated. Most women want guys to intuit that, to just know it. But “I hate making choices…” that’s why smart guys minimize the choices chicks need to make. In the old world, the anthropological hunter-gatherer world and then the agricultural world, chicks didn’t have many choices to make. They married who their families, mostly their fathers and brothers, told them to marry. Now we are surprised that a lot of chicks are unhappy to be introduced into the world of intense mating competition and that many chicks are ambivalent about the choices in front of them. Chicks live in the land of maybe, but most guys are never taught this.

Most guys don’t understand what women want during sex, or how to give it to them…

This contrast—of women raring to assert their agency in one context, then willing, even eager, to relinquish it another—captured my interest in part because of its familiarity. I’d seen it crop up recently in widely praised works both written by and featuring brazen, outspoken, and almost always middle-class white women. It’s in Sally Rooney’s “Conversations with Friends,” when Frances tries unsuccessfully to get Nick—older, married, kind—to choke and hit her during sex. And in Rooney’s “Normal People,” when Marianne discloses to gentle, sensitive Connell, her on-again-off-again boyfriend, that another man has hit her with a belt, choked her—that she asked for it, enjoyed it.

Read from the right perspective, this “feminist” article in a feminist magazine about feminist novels tells us more about real chicks than most of the man-hating feminist writing. There are some dysfunctional women who hate men and some dysfunctional men who hate women, but most of all guys need to learn to understand chicks, and then their behavior becomes clearer. Chicks are often like random-number generators, a fact that explains my interactions with many chicks the interactions so many men have with chicks.

This article is great reading for confused guys.

Women are the truest red pillers.

“GOD it feels so good to get picked up.”

“The hilarious part was that after we f**ked, she says: ‘GOD it feels so good to get picked up.’

I have gotten this kind of response too. Sometimes chicks will yield horrible blowouts or just look at you like you’re a bug, but more often the responses will be positive, and sometimes they will be ecstatic, like this chick. Remember that most chicks are passive and will not do much but try to look good and react to the man’s actions.

Even many girls in relationships will be flattered when you hit on them. Most guys today are glued to their phones and have become social idiots. Be different.

Women don’t think that women can make adult decisions and be held accountable for those decisions

Years ago I worked with and sometimes supervised a college-age intern. She was into me for what I assume to be the usual reasons… she initiated the flirting and while I flirted back, I stay somewhat reserved in work settings. While I stand by what I wrote in If you are not a pussy you will do better than most guys: ‘When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It and argue that men should be more aggressive and direct, it’s also unwise and unnecessary to fuck where you earn.

I slept with this one at the end of her time, and I didn’t actually fuck her until she was done with the internship, and as far as I know we enjoyed some good times. It was an easy, fun lay and she was also extremely petite and extremely tight. She was mobile and moved out of my geographic area, and when she got back I tried to re-engage, but she said a hard “no.”

We’d stayed Facebook friends since then and while Facebook is a waste of time I do use it occasionally… usually to set up hookups or arrange real-world meetings. A year or two ago I happened to see a post about a career milestone for this girl (although I think she’s going in the wrong direction, I’ve not been asked my opinion so I shut the fuck up about it). In the post she wrote about her career decisions and her relationship . . . with an older guy . . . who “took advantage” of her when she was younger. I’m omitting some details, but I realized she is definitely talking about me.

She wrote that I had taken advantage of her vulnerability and used age and wisdom to become intimate with her. She also wrote that I had betrayed her trust in me. She was the active participant in seducing me and I recall what she was like in bed (eager, happy, seemingly satisfied or faking it well).

Our relationship did end in a somewhat untidy way and she got lost in the shuffle because I was f**king a couple other girls at the time, and she left the area pretty quickly. One day during that time I was supposed to meet her for coffee and as I walked in I saw my #1 girl already sitting at the window! I hadn’t properly prepped either for non-monogamy, so I had to run and make some unfortunate and very lame excuses; part of the angry girl’s reaction is probably due to my own hectic schedule at the time, and I should rightfully have done a better job of setting expectations, boundaries, etc. I wasn’t as good at that as I am now, or I just hadn’t had time to.

The aggrieved tone of her post is ridiculous and she is claiming the mantle of victimhood as if that’s something to admire. That woman (and she is now really a woman, not a girl) doesn’t think that women are capable of making adult decisions for themselves. Like a lot of “feminists.” For her, anything women do that they later regret is something that happened due to “emotional vulnerability” or “manipulation” or some such other nonsense. Women like this one are arguing, without realizing it, that women are children and shouldn’t be culpable for their actions and choices. Regret something? It’s a man’s fault.

I actually disagree with that view, but I’ve heard enough women express it to stop me… and make me think… what if those women are right?

There are a handful of women in public who want women to be held to the same levels of accountability and rationality that men are. They don’t buy into the SJW worldview. They are just… rare. But a lot of other women think that women can’t be trusted to make their own sexual decisions. Feminists want to treat women like children. Sometimes I think, “Maybe feminists are right, given the female propensity to rewrite the past to fit present circumstances.” There is an epidemic of reframing consensual encounters as non-consensual, like that chick.

Here’s the other thing that I think plays into these problems… a lot of women from around the age of puberty up to age 22 or 24 don’t properly and truly understand the incredible sexual power they have over men. Or how powerfully and profoundly they excite men. Many men will go to almost any length for sex with them. This kind of power is enormous and it cannot be learned to be wielded correctly in a short period of time. Women experimenting with their sexual power are often surprised by how powerful it is. They are also sometimes surprised by the intensity of their own sexual response in the moment. But our society simultaneously tells women that they are oppressed and that men are bad guys. Enormous power + rhetoric about how she’s not responsible for herself = bad things.

Holly Madison Reveals The Hell That Is Playboy Mansion Life. Now, I don’t doubt that life in the Playboy Mansion was torpid and boring for the girls (how could it not be?). But Holly Madison got fame and a place on TV and rescued from her own inept life choices by nothing more than her beauty. After the fact, she’s pissed off about it and doubts her own ability to consent. She thinks she can’t be responsible for her own decisions… just like the former intern.

What women will think if men start taking them at their word? That women can’t be trusted to be consistent in their own decisions?

 

Passionate love and companionate love for guys

Got some feedback on this, “Short Dancer, maybe the last girl I was in intense love with (while ago now),” and it seems to be off-brand for me, based on the feedback… but the reactions have alerted me to some oversight… there are at least two kinds of love, passionate love and companionate love (may have got the terms slightly wrong but the idea is right). Passionate love is in the intensely erotic and sexualized love that often characterizes the beginning of relationships, crushes, etc. It’s intense, all-consuming, like a drug, etc. Companionate love is closer to friendship, involving kindness, compatibility, similar values, etc. These two are not completely exclusive… it’s possible to find someone highly arousing but also companionate. Or companionate but also arousing, if you like that better.

They don’t have to go together.

But they can.

I may have misjudged Short Dancer, because I thought she was more hypergamous and more interested in being an experimental s**t than she might be in reality. It’s hard to say because I don’t know a lot about what she’s really been up to, so for all I know she has a secret side guy besides her official guy. But she seems to be more interested in monogamy and a steady relationship than I thought (unless there’s something I don’t know)… but our experience together was primarily passionate. Very passionate.

Passionate love is wonderful… it’s also not very sustainable… after you’ve f**ked a woman hundreds of times, passionate love will probably begin to decline as you acclimate to her and her to you. What’s left when the overwhelming drug exhilaration goes away? Until it does, you don’t know… you probably can’t know… you’ll probably be blinded by her beauty and the feel of her p***y… a lot of the better long term relationships with kids can start with passionate love and decay into companionate love. Not impossible for that happen. But it’s also possible that most women with whom you experience passionate love, are not suitable for long-term relationships. And some women who are great for long-term relationships don’t generate the most intense sexual passion.

“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills have some overlap but a guy who wants to f**k a lot should focus on the first set of skills, not the second set. Lots of guys have neither set of skills and just take what they can get. Probably the majority of guys, in reality. Most guys writing about the game focus on pickup… as they should… it is hard to have a satisfying long-term relationship without having options and without knowing that the woman you’re with can leave and you’ll be okay. Women prefer guys who the women know can get other women. Guys are going to have lots of trouble having good long-term relationships with companionate elements unless they can pick up chicks.

I’m bringing this up because it’s possible to have a long term relationship with family and kids with a woman who goes from passionate love to more companionate love. It happens, yes. But… a lot of divorces, nasty breakups, etc. happen when someone, or two people, mistake passionate love for good long-term compatibility. Short Dancer was a great passionate love but I think the age gap and other factors made us unsustainable… beyond that, I wasn’t quite looking for that kind of thing at that time.

A lot of broken relationships are founded on passion, and male desperation. Almost all regular romantic/sexual mainstream advice focuses on companionate relationships… those are fine, but the advice is almost always half-blind. I don’t emphasize companionate relationships because the commentary on them is so readily available… but almost no mainstream advice focuses on maximizing passionate relationships… or is even comfortable with talking about them. Players are rare because we value passion and strive to create it in both men and women, while the mainstream seeks to tamp down and deny passion. I want to acknowledge passionate love… but also acknowledge companionate love, here and now. Companionate love can exist without you reader personally wanting to engage in it right now. Get lots of passionate experience first.

In many good long term relationships, passion decays gracefully into companionate love… in a lot of bad relationships, the need to chase passion predominates. One interesting question to me is whether some aspects of non-monogamy can square that circle. Not perfectly, but a little. I’ve seen people do it.

If the relationship is too companionate, especially for younger women, she’ll get bored, and we know that Boredom = death. But women vary in how easily they’re bored, how hypergamous they are, etc., and women who aren’t easily bored are better for long-term relationships. Some women are also incapable of companionate love. I have met women in their 50s and 60s who are still chasing the D like teens.

I’m in favor of being in love. Love is fun. I’m against marriage but in favor of love. You can also love a chick w/o being monogamous.

Advertisers can’t sell products with companionate love, for the most part, so we see passionate love depicted. But companionate love is a thing too.

Many players and s**ts love passionate love and will eliminate partners as the passion subsides. If you commit to a woman while you are in the throes of passionate love, you are setting yourself up to fail, and a lot of guys do this, then post online about how chicks are evil, while taking zero responsibility for their own actions and choices.

Most of the mistakes I write about, like mistaking passion for compatibility, are mistakes I’ve made.

How not to be boring on dates

You know boredom = death. You don’t know how to not be boring. “Talk Less. Listen More. Here’s How. Lessons in the art of listening, from a C.I.A. agent, a focus group moderator and more.”

Good listeners ask good questions. One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned as a journalist is that anyone can be interesting if you ask the right questions. That is, if you ask truly curious questions that don’t have the hidden agenda of fixing, saving, advising, convincing or correcting. Curious questions don’t begin with “Wouldn’t you agree…?” or “Don’t you think…?” and they definitely don’t end with “right?” The idea is to explore the other person’s point of view, not sway it.

Often it’s better to make statements than ask questions.

You also want to avoid asking people personal and appraising questions like “What do you do for a living?” or “What part of town do you live in?” or “What school did you go to?” or “Are you married?” This line of questioning is not an honest attempt to get to know who you’re talking to so much as rank them in the social hierarchy. It’s more like an interrogation and, as a former C.I.A. agent told me, interrogation will get you information, but it won’t be credible or reliable.

In social situations, peppering people with judgmental questions is likely to shift the conversation into a superficial, self-promoting elevator pitch. In other words, the kinds of conversations that make you want to leave the party early and rush home to your dog.

Instead, ask about people’s interests. Try to find out what excites or aggravates them — their daily pleasures or what keeps them up at night. Ask about the last movie they saw or for the story behind a piece of jewelry they’re wearing. Also good are expansive questions, such as, “If you could spend a month anywhere in the world, where would you go?”

Research indicates that when people who don’t know each other well ask each other these types of questions, they feel more connected than if they spent time together accomplishing a task. They are the same kinds of questions listed in the widely circulated article “36 Questions That Lead to Love” and are similar to the conversation starters suggested by the Family Dinner Project, which encourages device-free and listening-focused meals.

These are things players teach guys to do. Many guys are technical, focused on achievement, and blind to most of the emotions/feelings chicks have. Conversationally, many guys see in black and white, while chicks see in full color. Most chicks are not results-oriented, they’re feelings-oriented, so when guys try to talk about whatever they’re learning or their latest achievement, most chicks zone out. It’s even worse when the guy’s only achievement is from playing video games

There are exceptions. If a guy has learned something about dancing, acroyoga, theater, singing, etc., a lot of chicks will be interested in that. Lots of chicks are into gossip, but gossip is dangerous, if you make her think you’re not part of the secret society or are going to judge her sexually. Gossip is also irrelevant from online dates with girls who you don’t interact with socially.

Good conversationalists get that way through practice. If you’re the typical online social retard it’s going to take you a while to get there. You practice a little bit every day and after a couple years you get pretty good. Like everything else.

Socially skilled players also know when to break rapport. If she’s rambling on about her family, treating you like a girlfriend, etc., or extensively engaging in long, too-safe topics, it can be useful to break rapport, spike her sexually, etc. Every situation is different and no guy does this perfectly all the time. As usual, Krauser’s textbooks have loads of details on this subject and much more depth than I can offer. I have heard many chicks complain about boring conversations with guys and many guys complain that chicks seem bored and bitchy… rather than blaming chicks for being who they are or blaming guys for being who we are, I suggest pragmatically upping your skills, instead of complaining.

Game, intelligence, IQ, image match

The players writing about the game almost always have above-average intelligence, and it shows in their writing. This makes sense because you can’t be a total dummy and develop high-level game skills. It’s too complex to learn the skills, integrate the skills, practice the skills, and so on, for real dummbies to do this. You have to do plan and execute ideas. Some of the things you do may not bear fruit for many months or years. Diet and exercise discipline is hard. You must learn from harsh rejections and cruel women. If you are too stupid to get feedback from women, incorporate the feedback, make changes, and try again, you will fail.

We know quite a bit about food and nutrition but it takes time and energy to learn these things, which many people never do. I myself have spent thousands of dollars over the years on coaches, trainers, and physical therapy (to repair damage). These things are impractical for the ignorant or just stupid. Someone bedazzled by images and unable to learn from reading is probably not going to execute the game effectively. Someone who likes playing video games to the detriment of the rest of his life, same problem.

Don’t want to toot my own horn too much, but I have heard guys who get into this say there are fewer idiots than they expected. To be sure “smart” isn’t everything and smart-enough people can have motivated reasoning problems. Krauser, to use one sample, suffers from a lot of motivated reasoning and racism but his overall IQ can’t be so low. The racism and foolishly anti-immigrant sentiment is linked to his motivated reasoning; he often denies historical and scientific fact that conflicts with his racist, in-group views. Yet his overall IQ is evident from his writing.

Going back to the image match thing, some girls will not sleep with guys below some minimum IQ (or will do so very rarely and in exceptional circumstances, like sports heroes or very hot guys). I’ve had success with smart girls who won’t f**k stupid guys but who are pretty. They have a small market because plenty of smart guys smarten themselves out of style, social skills, and game. Think about many engineers and programmers on the autism spectrum. So I can end up pressing a lot of those girls’s buttons very quickly. Some pretty but smart girls have found me almost a relief, and they are not super common themselves but I have found myself in a lot of situations where they congregate. Dumb girls will often f**k smart guys who are also fun and flirty, so smart guys with game and go down in IQ and still touch on the smarter girls.

It can go the other way, too… for long term relationships… after you have f**ked a girl a couple hundred times, maybe a thousand times… her physical beauty is just not going to be as important as it was the first time you saw her, the first time you got her nude, etc. It won’t be unimportant but it won’t matter as much. Her capacity to say surprising things, learn new things, etc…. that can continue for her entire lifespan. Smarter girls will also understand the importance of fitness and nutrition, and they will have the ability to understand that eating the ice cream today has important consequences tomorrow. The smartest people don’t just take in, judge, and evaluation new information… they use that information effectively to make changes. Longer-term relationships work better with girls who are effective than girls who are ineffective.

Our society does a poor job teaching guys what chicks want… so guys who want to really know, have to learn for ourselves, and from other guys. This is hard for guys who are blinded by advertising, video games, etc., or guys who are just dumb.