The Woman Being Pleased Is Not The Same As The Woman Being Attracted

Reader email…
“I saw you made this comment in response to someone else:
“You’re confusing the woman being pleased with the woman being attracted.”
I think that’s worth expanding on. I know that for me, personally, I’ll often try to NOT piss her off, assuming she’ll be more open to sex if she’s “happy” with me…but then, maybe that’s the problem.”
Hi there…
…in part I was teasing my friend Susan Walsh. I was amused that she was clutching her pearls and telling me off about flirting when she writes about hooking up. Her blog makes me feel like an old fuddy-duddy sometimes. Even more amusing was the commenter that started somewhat slut-shaming a female friend that brought me a bagel. I the Lord of Play have used my ultra super powers of pussy control and finessed myself a free bagel. That’s right people, I had a bagel with everything and I am shameless in my enjoyment of it. Hmmmmm morally-compromised-bagel-of-the-dark-side… DROOL!
So… anyway yes – this can be a problem. In general the short term gain of submitting to her is that she is pleased by her small victory and whatever that gains her. But women are attracted to dominant men that aren’t weak. So over the long term you can destroy her sexual interest in you. Which leads to her greater and greater disdain for you and she becomes harder and harder to please.
As an example. If we were kids at school and I said to you, “please give me your lunch, it would make me happy if you gave me your lunch” it’s a clearly unreasonable request, but if you comply and hand over your lunch, we’ve established that I can make unreasonable demands on you and get them met. Fast forward a few weeks I’m going to want your lunch and $5. Fast forward a few years it’s going to be your lunch whenever I feel like it, $20 whenever I feel like it, and hold these drugs for me. You could be as nice to me as you want, I really wouldn’t give a damn what you thought you wanted. You’d simply be acting docile and submissive in order to not be abused. If my goal is to have you act docile submissive 24/7 then you’d be doing exactly what I wanted anyway. So there would be no actual need to provide you with whatever the reward you sought was.
Nice guys fold on their wives making unreasonable requests all the time and just carry out her commands. They hope sex will be forth coming, but it rarely does as she has no need to dole any out. They are already whimpering to fulfill her every wish anyway, giving them sex would only make them less motivated to do so. That just might satiate them and make them less productive. Acting like the Genie of the Lamp and granting her wishes does please her in the short term, but it does not attract her over the long term.
In some ways women make absolutely no sense on this issue, but it’s not a requirement to understand why they act as they do. Bumping back on her unreasonable demands is easily testable and generally provides an increase in her sexual interest in you. I don’t know exactly how a TV works either, but I know how to turn one on.
She’ll be pissed in the short term of course. :-)


  1. gameforomegas says:

    I think this is a matter of assuming women think like men. Men typically cooperate on the basis of reciprocity, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But male-female relationships are not a matter of exchanging like for like. Or, not all the time.

  2. Power corrupts, and we would expect kings, tribal leaders, and other power mongers throughout human history to have been capricious, rude, unfair, and demanding bastards. So it would be understandable if women didn't enjoy the company of those men. However, just as a woman's biology doesn't give a damn if childbirth is painful (it's the way to get offspring into the world, so do it!), her biology doesn't give a damn if her feelings get hurt or if she has to endure a thousand other minor miseries if it also means she can mate with the man on top (it's the best way to ensure your offspring's survival, so do it!).

    Athol's maxim that "what's sexy is what's good for making and raising babies" applies here. The weird result is that women can actively dislike you and still be turned on by you. Remember this the next time you're fretting about saying no to one of her requests.

  3. I don't know exactly how a TV works either, but I know how to turn one on.


    This dovetails with one of my theories of dating. Effort is endearing, but it's not sexy or fun.

  4. No wonder men used to beat the crap out of their wives in the old days. Men are weak now because the culture is always pressing down on them, in the media, in social situations, and in the law. Just as in a relationship a woman will be impetuous and demanding of things that are bad in the long run, so have women been in society. They have gained power and "equality", but to what end? They don't know how to use this power, and it's no use trying to learn. Men and woman are made for different roles, why can't we be content with that?

  5. Anon 7:51 just remember that in the good old days good portions of young men were slaughtered in wars routinely. Something like only 40% of men ever managed to have children historically. When one thinks of the past, one tends to think of oneself as a knight and not a peasant. I would not want to live in the past.

    The way foward is not the way back.

  6. SerenaDante says:


  7. What is the way forward? Gaming your wife? Why is it always men that need to change? Wait – I'll answer the question myself – because we are weak and we are willing to compromise for sex. Instead of standing up to women and demanding some measure of self-awareness from them, we are trying to adapt, even as their behavior gets progressively worse. This is only going to lead to a situation where men are going to be competing on 'game' instead of the traditional power-status role. I.e a situation where men are competing for the attention of women, which is exactly what they want. More of the same. At least previously, competence had some social value, whereas game is purely decorative. Just like all these ghetto criminals with a swagger and a gold chain – competing for pussy and producing nothing.

  8. Anon – You appeared to be floating the idea of beating the crap out of women as a solution. We can't regress back to that as a solution. Men have always competed for the attention of women and a culture that allows some violence to be directed at women usually allows limitless violence directed at men.

    Oh I agree that pick up game is largely all for show and fairly pointless in trying to create a marriage. The big fuzzy hat is just of no use in a marriage. Marriage game is quite different.

  9. I'm floating the idea of speaking your mind. You don't have to beat a woman to make yourself clear, but you do have to make yourself clear. And that means having boundaries. The problem is that nowadays women are conditioned to think that they don't have to put up with that kind of 'nonsense' and in a sense they are right – they can always go find some other poor sap that will put up with their bs. That's what is wrong with 'game' – instead of telling a woman that you won't put up with her shit tests we're trying to learn how to pass them. That's why men are weak, and it's getting worse. Notice that if you tell a woman that you're 'gaming' her she has no problem with it – she knows instinctively that if you're going to the enormous trouble of trying to run the right tactics to pass her fickle bs that she has the power, and it's just a game. But if you cut her off in a show of strength and make it clear that you won't support any nonsense these masculine modern women can't put up with that – they feel violated – and they are violated – the assumption of being the one in power is threatened. A woman who admires her man doesn't go these lengths. Women who are testing their men have doubts about them. Modern women have doubts about their men because we have given them a position of power.

  10. Anon – so it sounds like you're in agreement with my post then. You just sound so negative that I thought you were disagreeing with me.

    As far as game is concerned, the right way to pass a womans test of an unreasonable request is to refuse the request and withdraw some of your attention from her. You're misunderstanding what game is.

  11. In the factual sense I agree with your post, women want dominant strength. But in principle and attitude I disagree. We men should not be studying women as if we were studying some rare species of beetle, trying to get it to do acrobatics. We should be studying how to be the best men we can be, and ultimately that is also what women want. I think the whole approach of game is wrong-footed. But it's also necessary, because we've gotten ourselves in such a quagmire that we aren't sure of our own roles anymore.

  12. Knowledge is power. All things being equal a man that understands women will be a better man than a man that doesn't. He will certainly be better with women than a man that doesn't.

    Ultimately all game is just having good social skills. So I fail to see the problem in learning them.

  13. David Collard says:

    Game is easy. Supplicating is hard. Trying to keep Sweetie happy all the time is impossible. Letting her work it out herself is easy.

    I did a bit of harmless social "game" last night, at my wife's birthday party. I had women eating out of my hand. My wife said that I had received favourable comments, and I think my sister-in-law fancies me. I am not going to do anything with my new "powers". I will use them, as they say, for good. Besides I gamed my wife into the sex I wanted this morning.

    Life is better for men with game. People, men and women, who object to men regaining a bit of power are simply unfriendly to my sex.

  14. Ultimately game is about learning how to act as an ideal man, which none of us are. That's not the whole story of course, game uses a lot of short cuts and short-circuits and it compromises on the ideal to get a short-term goal. But I disagree that it's a form of power. It's a compromise in the face of unreasonable demands by spoiled women. In that sense it's not a power but a stop-gap. And you can see that in it's genesis – it wasn't passed down by noble men from mount olympus, it was passed on and improved by grunts on the ground floor doing the dirty work by trial and error – and taken up by desperate men trying to wrestle with the realities of the modern dating scene. The realities of which are aggressive women with unreasonable expectations and outsized egos.

  15. It's a practical solution to a fundamental problem. A problem that is compounded by the fact that women are unwilling (and unable) to adjust. Their attitudes are hard-wired and have been amplified to an extreme.. And at the same time we can't do anything about it. All we can do is try to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps in fleeting effort to meet their expectations.

  16. I think in the future women will be complaining to their men that their 'game' is not doing it for them – while all the time knowing that it's just a technique to stimulate their biological programming. Game will become abstracted to the point where only the technique matters – not what the techniques are supposed to symbolize, and women themselves will know it.

  17. David Collard says:

    No, game works at a visceral level, like men's attraction to female body characteristics. Intellectualising will not get rid of its power. All game is really is a return to common sense ideas about what women will find attractive. It is NOT that women don't like kindness and politeness and good humour from men; but these are elite goods. What they need first is to feel a basic attraction, and that requires manliness (the fact that people now snigger at this word, just shows how effective the false propaganda has been). The idea of the gentleman was that he wore a kid glove over his hard fist. Not that he had nothing but the kid glove.

    You need to help it along. In the same way as a woman au naturel is not necessarily at her most attractive, and must put on lipstick and so on to enhance her appeal; a man must make some artificial effort to apply "game". I find, as a married man, that my first instinct is still to appease my wife. I need to screw up my courage and consciously choose not to always do so. Game requires courage; and men don't always have an endless supply of this. Appeasement can seem like a good short term strategy; but it is often a long term disaster.

  18. David is right – because game is really about learning social skills and social dominance, women will always respond to it. It's like great boobs on a woman will always pull a mans attention.

    In any case the blog is not about changing the way all men and all women interact as a society. It's about getting individual guys laid and saving individual marriages. Sociological complaining about what is fair or the way things should be serves no purpose here.

    I'm getting an endless stream of feedback saying what I'm teaching here works. So here we are.

  19. I agree, game is about learning to hit the biological buttons that arouse women – social dominance, even by men who are not otherwise in a position of social dominance. It's analogy in women is physical augmentation – breast implants. A woman who is not naturally busty gets implants to stimulate the biological impulse in men that finds large breasts sexually arousing. If you don't know they are implants there is no problem – which is why there is such a big deal over poorly done boob jobs. But what happens when you do know? Consciously knowing that the thing that is arousing you is artificial creates a strange conflict between your conscious self and your biological self.

    Actually the situation is the same in both cases. The media keeps feeding us the image of the sexually physically perfect women, which has raised the expectations of men to unreasonable levels. At the same time it's raised the expectations of women to the same levels by trumpeting the lifestyles of the rich and famous in every form of popular culture. So the everyday man and woman who doesn't fit that image has to artificially augment himself – men with game and women with plastic surgery, make up, mini skirts and everything else.

  20. Short term fakery of either sex eventually gets found out. Once the illusion is over the benefit of the fakery is lost or even becomes a negative.

    Some elements of learning game though result in long term actual positive changes in the man that learns it. It's akin to a woman that loses 40 pounds and can actually wear the mini-skirt finally rather than a boob job.

  21. True, there is a lot in 'game' that points in the right direction. It points to the right place, the right attitude, socially, that a man should be coming from. But there is an over-emphasis on being a 'player' – and there is a reason for that. The reason is that you need something to substitute for real social dominance – money, power, fame – which the average joe doesn't have and which the average girl would like to think she deserves. So these guys build a 'harem' of women to leverage the jealousy between them into an advantage and to moderate the effect of their fickleness. But the point is that it's not changing anything fundamental. The fantastic expectations among many of these girls remain.

    It's like a girl who loses weight and looks as good as she naturally can. If a guy still expects her to look like a celebrity or a porn star she is going to have to compensate through artificial means. Game is helpful but the fundamental problems still need to be addressed.

  22. Badger Nation says:

    "That's what is wrong with 'game' – instead of telling a woman that you won't put up with her shit tests we're trying to learn how to pass them."

    Anon, I think you are missing the fact that a shit test is a trick question. Passing it and "telling her you won't put up with it" are one and the same…you display that you are NOT going to play her supplication game. And she loves you more for it.

    However, one big lesson game has given me is that left-brain logic cannot be used in the presence of a woman. That's not to say women are stupid or anything like that…they can use their left brains when they need to. It's that women rate men (and other women) on social factors. We men tend to rate other men by metrics, like job position, demonstrated intelligence, 40 yard dash times, you get the idea.

    So you can't tell a woman "I know you are shit testing me, stop doing it or I will withdraw." You have to SHOW her this through some social maneuvering – creative refusal, agree and amplify, DHV or something like that.

  23. @Anonymous:

    The general tenor of your posts is that game for your wife is a stopgap attempt to rebalance a relationship that is culturally (in the West) and legally asymmetric with power and control tilted to the woman in a marriage.

    That is completely true. Marriage is, in a very real sense, the "Anti-Game", in that it compels men to pay attention to a specific woman, or else.

    Game by no means equals social dominance. It is only a tool to prevent your wife (in this instance) from stripping you of assets and children and exercising her option on a share of your future income.

    You want real game – discard the path to marriage, which is a path to subordination to your wife. Keep your girlfriend sexually satisfied and looking beautiful. She will outshine the wives of your friends who will in large part eventually focus on the earnout portion of their marriage licenses….

  24. Badger Nation says:

    "That's what is wrong with 'game' – instead of telling a woman that you won't put up with her shit tests we're trying to learn how to pass them."

    I think what you are missing is that a shit test is a trick question…passing it and "not putting up with it" are one and the same.

    "David is right – because game is really about learning social skills and social dominance, women will always respond to it."

    Let's emphasize again that Mystery Method/Style-type game is really very restricted PUA tactics, a tiny subset of the applications of game. Dressing like a tool and sputtering some routines works in a certain environment – a man who can take those lessons and generalize will have much social success.

    It was natural that PUA would get the first and most enthusiastic attention from customers – get enough sex-starved guys on the Internet talking and you're bound to get a critical mass. But that's changing – now that we have MMSL and other blogs we are no longer "budding" off of PUA game, we're developing a whole nother toolbox using the same principles. Meanwhile we have dark philosophers like Roissy linking game to broad truths about humanity, society and the future.

  25. It's all about social dominance really. I think as the morals of society become more deplorable, more and more people will feel uncomfortable with the prevailing opinions. This is really a big part of the reason that decent men are 'betas' now. You are stuck between a rock and hard place. When degeneracy is the order of the day and groupthink is the bulwark against moral decency good men find it harder and harder to be open, as good 'game' dictates. Something has to give. So you have people like Roissy, who one could image was a good 'beta' at some point turning to the dark side, and all the others following in his footsteps. The problem is pervasive and cultural, economic and political. Game is just a small adjustment that we, the beaten down, have to make. The thing that complicates and multiplies the anguish is that women don't have a natural sense for justice. They see only the winner/loser dichotomy. So the object is always to keep your head above water, but the water is turning fetid, who the hell wants to swim in this anymore.

  26. @Badger Nation

    What I'm not missing is that men are having to relearn things that should come naturally if the proper roles of men and women are held up. In every beta's life there was a point when supplication became a plausible strategy, one should go back and analyze why.

  27. David Collard says:

    The basic problem is expressed by the views of Anon on another thread here. She is shocked, shocked, that a man might see himself as head of the house and expect his wife to comply with his wishes.

    Then people wonder why most men are no longer sexy to most women. You cannot emasculate men and then expect to have happy marriages.

  28. @ Anonymous who said,

    What is the way forward? Gaming your wife? Why is it always men that need to change?

    I think this question is best answered by the simple "sperm is cheap; eggs are dear" argument. In life's genetic race, the onus is biologically put on men to devise ever more refined ways of demonstrating their "fitness" in order to gain their way into women's panties. The genes of those who don't will simply fail to show up among the next generation.

    I think it's also safe to say this situation will remain "game-on" for the foreseeable future. Men have known and written about game for hundreds (thousands?) of years already with negligible negative effect on its efficacy. See Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew or Lord Byron's To Woman and Reply to some Verses of J.M.B. Pigot, Esq., on the Cruelty of his Mistress.

    Granted, the present popularity of the man with the fuzzy top-hat will eventually fade. Perhaps even the term, "shit test" or "game" itself will fall from the lexicon in the future. But observant men everywhere (who themselves are the genetic descendants of observant men before them) will continue to generate gina tingles via the same attraction switches–whether or not it's labeled with the term "game" per se.

    Besides, witness the many women who are fully aware they themselves are being flirted-up/gamed right while it's happening. What do they do? Do they run away out the door? No. They lap it up anyway!

    But I do think that the more astute man, the man who, in a sense, "internalizes" game, realizes that "game" or "alphaness" is in fact his more natural behavior. (And the facade is more accurately viewed as the social programming that attempts to stamp this out!) An alpha-awareness colors his attitude, his work; it influences far more than just his sexual interactions with women. To just apply game on Friday or Saturday night does indeed sound a bit like jumping through hoops set up by women.

  29. David Collard says:


    Nice. The Taming of the Shrew is an excellent example of game, IIRC. Luckily the play is so famous that the feminists cannot have it banned or suppressed. I also agree that most men have natural "game", some more than others. But it can indeed be artificially suppressed by social pressure. From an outside perspective, American men are terribly enthralled to feminism. Clearly the brainwashing has worked on a lot of men.

    BTW, I have written some of this up at my blog.

  30. Badger Nation says:

    "What I'm not missing is that men are having to relearn things that should come naturally if the proper roles of men and women are held up."

    I don't disagree with you there; as a matter of fact, that's one of the key theses in my analysis of modern gender relations. Back "in the day," male dominance was a presumed part of society; thus even beta men were taught and encouraged to develop it.

    Thus, they probably had more alpha developed than today's feminized men, for whom only the strongest natural alpha can maintain his frame
    in the face of decades of one-sided brainwashing/teaching towards the feminine.

    And as Athol notes, a successful man needs alpha and beta. Hardcore whiteknighting betas are hopeless, but just a bit of alpha can make your average beta a lot stronger and more attractive.

  31. David Collard says:

    A husband definitely needs both alpha and beta. It is no bad thing to mix it up a bit. If she is giving you little household instructions, in the manner of wives, comply with some and ignore others. For example. Mess with her pretty little head.

  32. Lost in the flurry of posts about whether game is any good or not (congratulations, you are now popular enough that you are getting the uninitiated directly), is the fact that this post is full of awesome. One of your best yet. Incidentally, I guess you need a kind of faq to point newbies to for the future, in q&a form might be best. (Q- "but, but, what about MY feelings?, A- well, newbie, your feelings don't matter because we're dealing with evolutionary realities here…).

  33. Lamont Cranston says:

    I’ve been really startled by the results of being more dominant in my marriage. I occasionally get funny looks or the outright “I’m offended” stare. And it doesn’t get me laid immediately. But my taking charge more and making more decisions has clearly made me more attractive over all, even if she thinks she doesn’t like me giving orders.

    That and thirteen straight weeks at the gym.

  34. Lamont Cranston says:

    “If she is giving you little household instructions, in the manner of wives, comply with some and ignore others. For example. Mess with her pretty little head.”

    Heh. I don’t use dryer sheets. Makes her nuts. “The static makes the clothes stick together!”

    “So? Pull them apart.”

Speak Your Mind