Flaking in the Making
The two numbers I got last Friday flaked. The excuse in both cases: “I was drunk at the time.”
What pisses me off is that I bought one of those flakes a beer. After some promising interaction, she stood by me with that cutely presumptive body language, and the gay bartender gave off body language as if he thought I was or should be paying for both our drinks. I was weak and went with it. I should have broken rapport, broken the frame. I should have stayed where I was at a different spot on the bar like I had originally done. I should have trusted my instincts.
That primitive alert feeling that says you are about to get exploited, listen to that grunt of reason and obey. Those humanoids around you are not civilized even with their own families.
Flake #1 and I seemed to have had established decent rapport, but what I apparently missed was that she effectively became a different person when I failed to get the kiss. I rolled off and otherwise plowed; I should have rolled away. Was she intentionally softening me up for the kill from the beginning? If so, that could suggest that women are becoming more sophisticated at screwing over men because men are not falling for the free drink ploy of yore backed by one cute smile out of nowhere and more political and economic respect for men.
I could have tried for some spectacular text messaging game with the two flakes, but that is chasing from a position of weakness. Not the mindset I want. A man who gets laid with no strings attached is worth 100 times as much as the woman in her own mind. The ratio on the cock carousel is thus. So I have been contemplating how to escalate through the flake barrier, but then it hit me:
Flaking is proof of having been misled and having paid for the privilege.
There is a cost to flaking because a man’s attention is worth something, as are any tangible gifts. These payments by the man are for one thing, to get laid. Since second-wave feminism, giving gifts removes access to pussy, as is commonly know to takers of the red pill. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Instead of overcoming a flake defense, why not avoid it and her altogether?
My theory on flaking in this article is only a hypothesis to be tested. I am writing it to clarify to myself what I want to do in my next field tests. I hope these words can be useful to others, but think through your own experiments and conclusions.
It seems to me that flaking occurs when a man chases a women who deems the man to have relatively low value, and she is always reevaluating. The chasing man gives the woman steady and reliable rapport on credit, and that makes him a contemptible beta provider. The solution for the man then is to break rapport before the social situation becomes hostile.
Sheeple do everything they can to cover their parasitism. Detection in real time is difficult. Women are capricious and flaky all the time. It is only when we men maintain expectations that are explicitly rejected after maintaining rapport and investing in her that the flaking becomes obvious and noted, but it really happened much earlier and during an interaction that we left with false hopes.
The solution then is to break rapport first, before the trap can be set. That fundamental concept of breaking rapport came to my attention from RSD Tim in a video about his transformation program, specifically key 1 of his rosetta stone.
We get so caught up in escalation that we don’t even consider the hazard it could present. It only stands to reason that women will adapt to predictable PUA-style escalation for just casual sex. Obviously, escalation is required to make interacting with women of any value. The question then is when (which will be show to also involve with whom). I will simply give my working ideas about intersexual social dynamics and from that deduce an answer. I think it will surprise you.
How Women Do and Do Not Want To Be Conquered
Women are flaky, vapid, opportunistic cheats. Women seem to be very emotional, but I suspect that they don’t have much actual emotions. Emotion I define, per one Dr. Watson, as energy in motion, in your brain. Feelings I define as the messages of body language that we send and receive. Women are compulsive masters of feigning feelings that give the illusion of morally pure and slighted emotions, but what absolute values does a woman have beyond wanting relatively more? A woman’s apparent values are transitory and expedient, not to be trusted.
Women are hardwired to be empathetic (not sympathetic except expediently) and to navigate the social environment by attraction and repulsion. Women are attracted to men who have positive and secure emotions that are kept scarce and in demand by limited and self-serving giving. What a woman wants is to be in a prize masculine emotional field. It is the emotional gold of the rare alpha that captivates liberated women.
Women use the shit or fitness test to eliminate candidates for casual sex but really sperm provisioning. It is a test of a man’s emotional strength and security, meaning a test for high self-interest and self-reliance. The same behavior is used to destroy and liquidate a man for non-sperm resources, simply because she can speculatively and without harm to herself. The fundamental nature of women for relentless opportunistic alpha harvesting, beta harvesting, and relative rank enhancement makes them flaky. It also makes liberated women unable to be happy with what they have. Western men lack the authority to make women happy with what they have.
The preliminary point is that women are emotionally needy and men are sexually needy. If a woman surrenders her sex without an adequate emotional payment from the man, she feels slighted. If a man surrenders his rapport and emotion without an adequate sexual payment from the woman, he feels slighted. Détente for casual sex is achieved if a win-win exchange of emotions for sex is made.
I remind you this analysis is preliminary.
Based on that behavioral model, a man wants to escalate to emotional involvement if and only if the woman has decided she wants to have sex. I posit a woman’s varied snares, used to protect her vagina and acquire non-sperm resources, are always on hair trigger alert. Thus, a woman who definitely wants to have sex, as much as a woman can be definite I suppose, is wanting from the lizard brain by instincts and the instincts of wanting initiate an approach protocol for the alpha man to navigate and pass. I liken it to an air traffic controller issuing clearance and instructions for final approach and reception onto her landing strip.
Women lust to be conquered by the right man and fear to be conquered by the wrong man known as any other man. Let’s call a women who has decided she wants casual sex with a specific man a surrenderer, one who had decided to extract beta value a cheat, and a woman who is neither a surrenderer or cheat a tergiversator. All are subtypes of the (female) player because a liberated woman is necessarily a player, one who rewards the best male players with sex if she has any sexual value left.
Now this is where the analysis gets interesting. A woman demonstrates high value by getting men to buy her drinks and otherwise yield provisioning and rank value on sex credit she never intends to redeem. There is no reason we men can’t also use women at her expense to enhance our rank. A woman who does not definitely want to have sex with a man is still valuable to him as a prop to demonstrate high value.
Interacting with an adamant tergiversator or untrusted cheat can still be valuable to DHV and convert another woman to a surrenderer. The adamant tergiversator is a cheat on standby. Certainly when the beta trap is set, there is a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate high value as the animals understand it, with animal social awareness and the assumption of higher relative rank by breaking rapport that will wow onlookers.
And now you would like to know how to spot the difference between a surrenderer and a cheat. As I have written before, women only learn verbal communication earlier than men because they don’t care what ideas mean so long as they manipulate others, especially men of higher cultural value. Body language and verbal communication is the key elements to observe. A surrenderer often uses body language alone to convey interest, either without or before verbal communication used supplementary. The con woman uses words immediately and profusely. These characterizations are tentative generalities. If a woman’s interest is too good to be true, hold on to your wallet.
A man’s feelings will tell him when a woman has surrendered if he listens to the primitive part of his mind. Women expect a man to ‘just get it’. It would seem that women want men to do all the work providing a mental connection that simulates bidirectional mind reading. I suspect a surrenderer is giving clear body language instructions for final approach that can be read. Per the laws of physics, it could not happen any other way, and women are pretty damn sure it is supposed to happen.
I have had a few experiences, and only a few experiences, where I felt like the woman was an open book and I could clearly perceive the escalation path to sex. It seemed like I knew exactly what the steps would be. I don’t think I really knew exactly. I just knew we were in sync with our goals and our exchange of emotion for sex.
- Be instinctively gregarious but not clingy with others at large and work the crowd for maximum attraction in both intensity and participation,
- Break rapport tactically but especially with verbally heavy cheats to demonstrate higher value, to avoid beta snares, and to avoid giving emotional credit that leads to flaking,
- Experiment with rejecting #-closes as beta bait from women who have not surrendered, and
- Provide reliable rapport and escalate to and above the k-close only with feelings heavy surrenderers.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 11 June 2015