Fisking The Hamster

I happened upon a YouTube video by one DeAnna Lorraine, a self-styled dating coach giving men pathetically blue-pilled romance advice. It was titled, “Mens [sic] Attraction Tips: 5 Tests that Hot Women Give You!”

Spoiler: you get through the video and it turns out there’s only three tests. (WTF?)

She opens with a breathless statement about how “beautiful, high-quality women are very volatile, and have a very difficult screening process” and promises to tell us about them so we can “spot them and pass them.” She continually refers to a whiteboard that is both off-camera and not written to at any point in the entire video.

First comes the “true confidence test.” You see, hot women are used to confident men wanting to date them, but lots of guys fake being confident and then become needy and clingy, so a woman needs to test for weaknesses in your confidence.

Her discussion of the test? “Remain 100% confident every time you see her.”

OK…where is the TEST? A test is a behavioral syllogism, a functional statement that “she exhibits behavior X, and she’s evaluating you on response Y or Z.”

What she is describing here is a quality, not behavior – a trait rather than a test. I should have stopped watching, but a turkey shoot was in the offing.

Next is the “assertiveness test.” Word is that hot women really don’t want a guy who is a “pleaser” or “agreeable” or who arranges his schedule or preferences around hers. The hamster speaks with a forked tongue when Lorraine says “we might want that for a hookup but not as a husband or a boyfriend.” Yeah, because the guys that girls are going home with for one-nighters are the whiny simps who can talk a good beta-game into their pants.

“Make sure you’re 100% assertive – be masculine, be the leader, and stand your ground.” This video was made in 2010, so her use of the term “stand your ground” is only unintentionally funny.

This is the same shit as “confidence” above. I thought she was going to separate them in the vein of confidence is a vibe, assertiveness is a behavior, but I was mistaken. She awkwardly tries to borrow from the PUAs by asserting “men are the alphas, women are the betas” which sounds even sillier than it reads.

Number three in the tests is the “neediness/clinginess test.” Wait, I thought she said neediness/clinginess was part of the confidence test? Whatever, she’s on a roll.

I’m impressed by her brazen admission that women are intentionally playing “mind games,” flaking and “disrespecting you” to ascertain whether a man has a full schedule. If he is too accommodating to her schedule, he’s “needy” and not enough of a racounteur with am active social calendar and thus isn’t deserving of her.

She drops a classic Freudian slip wen advising men to not put up with a woman’s (again, intentional) disrespect: “Don’t put up with our shit. If we’re late for a date, or if we’re flaky or wishy-washy, stand your ground. And say sorry, I can’t meet with you this week I guess, because you just flaked and I’ve got other plans, I’ve got people to do [grins], uh, people to see, places to go…”

Sounds like some preselection is going on in her mind there, she’s assuming any guy with the balls to shrug at a flaker must have other irons in the fire.

So at least she gave us one test – one in which you are supposed to assume that she is bargaining in bad faith and punish her for it (or at least react with nonplussed nonchalance).

The comments are hilariously critical, another comment thread suggesting that more and more men are simply checking out of the “what women want from men today” discussion entirely, and are not shy about going public to say so.

ADVICE TO “JUST BE _____” IS NOT ADVICE

When I was in college a friend had a poster of Tiger Woods giving golf tips. The tips were self-satiric; one of them said “try to hit the ball at least 300 yards.”

This video recalls the same sense of “yeah, thanks for nothing.” This isn’t even bad advice – it’s not advice. There’s nothing actionable in here that a guy can commit to doing that will improve his dating results. It’s simply an appeal to an aura, to a sense of “this is the kind of FEELING we want a guy to give us deep down.”

The “call to characteristic” is a frequent marker of female dating writers, and is as ineffective as it is predictable. I’m not sure if the women giving this kind of advice are just trolling the guys because they don’t want to get serious with their criticisms of men and what really turns them on, or if they honestly don’t understand that a dude can’t just get out of bed and say “I’m going to be more confident today. I’m going to be less needy today.”

It’s like waking up and saying “I’m going to bench 50 more pounds today.” How ridiculous does that sound? Personality traits cannot be switched on overnight like a new pair of socks. Behavaiors CAN be changed quickly, it’s just a matter of doing it the right way and then doing it enough to make it a habit. That was the genius of the original PUA/seduction gurus, and the open secret of the most successful modern game writers – they break down good game into behaviors that can be learned, practiced and habituated. Whether those behaviors are walking tall, approaching, or going to the gym, they become habits that become your future.

(Studies have demonstrated, BTW, that physical behaviors can change your psychological outlook, so as much as DeAnna would be shocked, you can indeed fake it till you make it.)

BAD FRAME, BAD GAME

Why would any man take social advice from this woman? Her public speaking skills are shitty.

She keeps grinning at her own phrases like “look at me, I’m on camera!!!”She stutters and trips over her words, when it’s a damn YouTube video you can film again and again. Or you could go dual-shot (maybe using some actual visual aids), giving you the freedom to splice together different takes for the best final quality. I don’t even work in the A/V industry and I know how to make this 100% better. I feel like I’m at a Toastmasters meeting with noobs. (For those who don’t know, Toastmasters is a public-speaking skills organization that operates small clubs where people meet to practice and drill communications skills. I was in the club at one of my old jobs. TM can teach some really good core skills in the context of a sympathetic support group, but from what I’ve seen tends to top out at the start of intermediate public speaking. I certainly don’t criticize anybody who is trying to improve but your basic TMer is not ready to make YouTube videos purporting expertise in romantic social skills.)

Another credibility gap in the discussion her constant bleating of the phrase “beautiful, high-quality women.” (Also her use of the first-person “we” to presumptively include herself in that group.) The fact is that lots of beautiful women can be and are very low-quality women. Quality is not sexual market value, it is relationship value.

For me at least, the idea of a “quality woman” is one that has some sense of character going on, NOT one who is really hot. That means someone who cares about your comfort and pleasure, who’s going to build some kind of a mutual life with you, the woman who’s holding your hand as you’re wheeled into surgery – not strategizing about how to employ the best subterfuge in smoking out your true frame and cackling about how many other guys she has on order. It’s not that a quality woman won’t fitness test you or will stick around no matter what, but she’s not going to be on such a hair trigger that a failed test (not “being 100% confident”) is going to be the end of things. Her traits are those that fundamentally trend the relationship towards keeping together and not breaking apart. Someone who is only committed when the water is still and the trail is clear is not committed.

I have to say it’s very interesting to read the Jezebel-type pieces that insist a woman’s physical shape has nothing to do with her value as a person or a prospective partner, and then hear this woman reflexively equate genetic gifts with quality and what kind of man she “needs” and deserves.

An aside: for women reading this, you can take heart – if you’re a quality woman involved with a man who’s looking for a quality woman, you do not have to be the most beautiful woman he can get. You don’t even have to be beautiful, per se. (What you have to do is pass his boner test. As a caveat, this is true of a man who is in the relationship market in some way or another. If he’s in the hookup/casual market, he’s optimizing on some combination of the hottest and easiest girls he can get.)

Vox Day alluded to this in his post this weekend. “Very few alphas settle down with the most attractive woman with whom they’ve ever been, because as those men who have actually spent sufficient time with women know, the amount of time you spend looking at them or having sex with them is not going to be the majority of the time.”

LISTEN FOR WHAT IS BEING COMMUNICATED

Having pointed out all this ridiculousness, I’d be remiss not to note that there is plenty men can learn from this video. The rhetoric and the logic are terrible, but once you strip those away, she’s actually communicating some very good signal.

Her tips boil down to:

  • Be confident
  • Be assertive
  • Don’t be needy or clingy

Her tone is the unactionable and content-free “how to be a hot guy: just BE hot, in these 3 different ways.” But her material is textbook PUA game.

However, you need to listen even deeper and pick up the truths of frame she asserts:

  • Attractive women want men to be irrationally self-confident
  • Attractive women want men to overrule them and to pay little heed to their stated opinions and desires
  • Attractive women employ flakiness and intentional disrespect as fitness tests; the responses they want to see emulate the behaviors of a plate-spinning player

I didn’t write it, that’s exactly what she is saying.

Allow me to translate into instructional phrasing more familiar with the Manosphere.

When you know what to listen for, her words are very clear. It’s just not the signal she expects us to hear. She’s not training boyfriend-type men to be more attractive in that role; she’s training them to turn away from the boyfriend-type role entirely, and embrace the player-type role that she and her compatriots desperately crave. To whatever degree DeAnna and women like her actually want to have relationships, the joke is ultimately on them. (This last question was discussed in Just Four Guys’ excellent recent post “Are Men Really the Primary Gatekeepers of Commitment?“)

Women like this videographess aren’t testing men for commitment traits – his loyalty, dependability, good decision-making, long-term orientation, sense of fairness and balance, and desire to maintain a relationship. They are testing for how much does he exhibit – or at least emulate – the relationship-averse traits of the elusive and noncommittal alpha male they tingle for.

About these ads

25 Comments

Filed under media

25 responses to “Fisking The Hamster

  1. MarcoP

    Thanks for the actually sensible advice, and double thanks for making it unnecessary to watch the stupid little act.

  2. Badger, reading this made me think of the SNL Tom Brady skit advice:

    * Be handsome
    * Be attractive
    * Don’t be unattractive

    It is very interesting DeAnna spills the beans about hot women doing shit tests to test for confidence, busy schedule full of other women, and so on.

    And it’s fascinating to think of how feminism’s creep shaming and don’t stare memes are actually meant as filters to keep out average and lower men, thus assisting female hypergamy. It also sets up the society-wide don’t-approach-women shit test and by simply approaching women in a way that isn’t actively creepy that a man can get some points for bravery and be assumed a little more to be one of the few men who is used to getting women. Of course, there are many other factors at play and if the guy isn’t charismatic, confident or attractive enough then just approaching won’t score him many points and he’ll still be put in the stalker-zone by women. But it is something to remember that just approaching in a non-needy, comfortable and confident way can sometimes in and of itself make you seem just a bit more attractive.

    p.s. Thanks for the shout-out about the gatekeepers of commitment post.

  3. Oh, and anyone who hasn’t seen the SNL skit needs to immediately watch it. lol

    To drive home my point above, of how only approaching isn’t enough and a man needs to improve his attractiveness via style and charisma, the Neil Strauss on the right will probably not gain enough points by approaching to make up for not looking like the Neil Strauss on the left.

  4. earl

    Always be 100% confident…never be needy or insecure…always have A game.

    Expectations are very sky high, master. I don’t know ANY man that could always be those things.

    That’s like me telling a woman to always be 100% pretty, never be angry or in a bad mood…and always be in the mood for sex.

  5. Ray

    You are right. The joke is on them. If they crave noncommittal alpha males, then they will get what they ask for. It’s as simple as that!

    First, no man will be 100% confident in every situation of life. That’s simply impossible. No man, not even Tiger Woods, is capable of that. It’s only the impression they have from being with alpha men who view them only as objects as opposed to people. They perceive this to be confidence, when in fact that has nothing to do with actual confidence according to Websters. That’s called being used, abused, and disrespectful, not being confident.

    Second, if you have a mutually bonding relationship where you genuinely care about each other, then it is only natural to be accommodating to each others schedule. That is what happens in NORMAL relationships! Again, the alpha male players assertiveness and lack of respect for her seem to be attractive to her? Seems like she was mentally abused as a child! Lol!

    Lastly, if a woman is going to test you by being disrespectful and rude to you, then what is to stop her from doing this repeatedly over the medium or long term, even if you ‘put her in her place’ over a series of initial tests?

    Bottom Line: these type of women are fucking crazy, looney tunes of the first magnitude. Plain and simple! Thank God I don’t have to deal with women like that anymore! Lol!

    Ray

  6. Ray

    Attention all men: it is virtually impossible to make women like her happy and contented over the long term. Don’t you see: they will always find some fault with you no matter what. Women like her have fluctuating standards for men, don’t really know who they are or what they want, are gloating with hypergamy, and are highly hypocritical (what they say they want vs what they really want are diametrically opposed to each other…..i.e. she may say that penis size does not matter, but in fact she may crave a large penis).

    Women like her are useless for developing long term relationships (need I say it: perhaps only good for sex?) Although they may tell you they are looking for a long term relationship, they are incapable of doing so. They will end up with a life of unhappiness and misery and loneliness through no ones fault other than their own.

    Lastly, high quality women should be defined as women who are capable of developing long term relationships, and who will never end relationships over trivial and immaterial reasons. After all, no man is perfect. If a women genuinely cares for you, she will do things for you to make you happy without you asking or expecting it. That is a high quality woman. To the contrary, I know a lot of so called hot women who are bitchy and high maintenance. No thanks to the latter. Lol!

    Ray

  7. I swear this woman made this video just so she could qualify herself as a “High Quality Beautiful Woman”

    She’s maybe a 6.

  8. Ray

    Hey Jeremy,

    The problem with the Internet in dating today is that it distorts reality of these dumb ass women. Average looking women (or in some cases less than average looking women) are bombarded with hundreds of men online, which falsely elevates their confidence to a disproportionate and unrealistic level. This is why you see so many average or ugly looking chicks (like the one in the video) having such unrealistic and distorted views and expectations. 20 years ago, this wouldn’t have happened. I guess they’ll have to learn the hard way! Lol!

    Ray

  9. Candide

    Was going to say the same, Jeremy.

    I can spot the not so subtle brag by the still cover of the Youtube video and the title lol

  10. Stark

    I never complain about the dating market. As a man, I can learn how to act confident and in control. I can learn to act non-needy. Females OTOH, are either born hot or born not so hot. Not a damn thing they can do about it. This broad is stuck at her level of attractiveness. I have the power to act in a way to attract her, user her and then after I’ve dumped a load in her, turn off the alpha and ramp up the beta. I’d make her so sorry that she fell for my act. Life is good.

  11. Chuck Norris doesn’t even fulfill the expectations for this expiring broad

  12. earl + Ray,

    The issue with her “be 100% confident all the time” expectation is, as you say, it is totally unrealistic, and a woman who screens for that is really screening for men who are sociopathic and don’t have normally functioning emotional systems. If a woman is going to demand that, then a high-value man is certainly justified in demanding she be near perfection herself – hot, well-dressed, in shape and DTF on a regular basis.

    But try telling that to someone like DeAnna, and you’ll get a world-class hamsterization about how the guy isn’t entitled to anything.

    There’s no point bitching about it though. Logic isn’t going to change her mind or the mind of women like her. The solution is: when you identify a woman like this who wants a fantasy man with no flaws and will drop him if she finds any, you need to become totally self-centered yourself. Your only concern should be what you’re getting from dating her. Because she’s not worried about anything more than what she’s getting from you.

    Fortunately, women with unrealistic demands are easy to not take seriously.

  13. Stark,

    I have thought many times on exactly your point.

    Women’s attraction to a man is much more contextually based than male arousal. While it’s very challenging to change one’s personality, as men we have the ability to change both our behavior and the context around us, which means we can raise our stock significantly in the right scenarios.

    Women don’t have as many degrees of freedom because male arousal is so much more physically based, which depends on the genetic lottery.

    Another advantage us dudes have is that overt action is prized – we can approach, initiate and lead at every step so we can exert a lot of control over where our interactions with women are going. For women, overt action is looked down upon as “it’s the MAN’s job to do that,” with some extra rationalizations about why she shouldn’t take control of her situation. It’s part of that weird victim narrative that even feminist women want to default to when they don’t get the SMP results they want.

  14. Stark

    Exactly Badger. Now to be realistic. For this to work you have to approach. And if you approach as many women as you should you will get blown out. And it takes a hella internal state to not react to getting blown out. But give me a nap in the afternoon and then an 11PM – 2 beer buzz, and all of the sudden getting blown out can be more fun than going thru the theater of trying to score. That can be exhausting. But yeah, men have that power,

  15. “Now to be realistic. For this to work you have to approach.”

    I’m coming to believe that ~50% of game is just making approaching a habit, because you won’t

    One of the things I think makes online dating a challenge for men is that it inverts the dynamics of the approach. Men still do the majority of the approaching/message-writing, however in the real world you can count on getting at least five seconds of her time. That’s enough to deliver the opener and get her reaction, even if it’s complete non-interest. Online, unless you get a response, you have no idea if she even read your message, or how she reacted to it (disgust, boredom, exhaustion). It makes it very difficult to calibrate your online game.

  16. “Personality traits cannot be switched on overnight like a new pair of socks.”
    They can if you are a woman. It’s just a matter of clothes and makeup.

  17. Ray

    Well said Badger! I couldn’t have said it any better!

    The thing to remember about these type of women is this: testing by a woman on a ‘large scale’ is something that should only be done at the early stages of a relationship, like the first couple of months. Even then, testing should be done in a respectful and friendly manner, not in a vile, arrogant, insensitive, and dramatic fashion. Nonetheless, if a woman continues to test you in a ‘hard’ fashion (testing on a smaller scale is acceptable as the relationship continues) beyond that initial stage, then that is a red flag that she is of the aforementioned type who is looking for any fault that she can find. I had to learn this lesson the hard way! Be ready gentlemen. stand your ground to let her know you wont put up with it! Lol!

    I have a wonderful woman in my life, and this has opened my eyes tremendously! I call women of the aforementioned type ‘damaged goods’! They are damaged mentally! Lol!

    Ray

  18. earl

    “There’s no point bitching about it though.”

    I agree…but if they are going to engage in unrealistic expecations…then I want my unrealistic expectations to be fulfilled too.

    Really what it comes down to is women finding any little thing to dump a man. Rejection shouldn’t bother a guy anymore…when you have to go up against her 357 point checklist…she’s bound to find something that will scratch you off her list. Approach them all and laugh inside when she decides that you aren’t good enough for her. That’s the woman who ends up with cats or some schulb after she hits the wall.

  19. Ray

    Hi Earl,

    These type of women are emotionally and psychologically damaged in the sense that they will never (or rarely) achieve true happiness with a partner. No one man will ever provide them with their long checklist of requirements that they perceive to be necessary for happiness. Lol!

    They tend to view love with a partner as love at first sight, like they both fall into a ditch, then live happily in love forevermore. Nothing could be further from the truth! You cannot establish a lifelong commitment and loyalty to someone in a moments notice! Speed dating is bullshit. Don’t believe it for a minute.

    Furthermore, their standards are always fluctuating all over the place. One day they want a nice guy, the next they want an alpha male. One day they want a commitment, the next they don’t. One day they don’t care about penis size, the next day they are obsessed with big cocks, and so on. Yet, these same women will complain that ‘where have all the good guys gone’? What she should say is ‘ I don’t like nice guys who will make great life long partners, I only like alpha males but I can’t change them into my ideal and fantasy image and that bothers me’! Lol!

    What it boils down to is a woman’s character. Can she back up her words with actions, or does she just talk a good game? Does she set a different and more elevated group of standards for a man as compared to herself, or is she willing to live by the same standards for herself as she expects of her man? Is she a woman of principle who speaks from her heart sincerely, or are her words based on whimsical feelings that she possess at any random point in time? Does she have a stable set of core values from which she operates her life, or do her core values fluctuate over time? Does she care more about what you possess than who you are as a person? Did she grow up with a ‘positive father figure’ in her life who taught her the great virtues of men as well as how to recognize good men, or did she lack that which gave her a distorted and negative view of men as an adult? When you are doing something, be it cooking, cleaning, or whatever, does she offer her help on her own without you asking? I can go on here.

    The point is this: be perceptive; don’t be suckered in strictly by looks, words, and good sex. If, on the other hand, you want a truly high quality woman (not as described by the bimbo in the video…..lol), then these are the types of questions you need to ask yourself.

    Too much of the modern GAME focuses on what a man has to do to be more appealing to women and, thereby, increase his chances to find a lifelong mate. However, the GAME must also realize that a man can have a great game, but if he is dealing with ‘damaged goods’, then he is wasting his time. As one gets into their 40s, whatever is left on the market is mostly ‘damaged goods’ since most of the good ones are married by that time. But have faith: there are still some good women out there; just refocus your radar in a slightly different direction.

    Remember, you can’t take a woman who is ‘damaged goods’ and make her into a complete woman. That’s impossible.

    Ray

  20. You nailed it in one of your above paragraphs. True, it’s a definite plus to be attractive, but it is 1000x more important that one’s partner (sexual or otherwise) be a pleasant person. No “tests”, no determining your worth via your income, no forcing you to pay for meals/entertainment, actually caring about your feelings, and just generally being a good person. Isn’t that what most people are looking for?

  21. earl

    “However, the GAME must also realize that a man can have a great game, but if he is dealing with ‘damaged goods’, then he is wasting his time.”

    Exactly…it makes me wonder how many women I run game on that are already damaged. I assume it’s most of them.

    No skin off my back. I don’t have to deal with crazy princesses and I have more time to improve myself and be ready if a unicorn crosses my path. Win-win.

  22. Pingback: Remember That Women Get Approachee Anxiety | The Badger Hut

  23. Pingback: Traits of Needy Guys - Seduce Women Guide

  24. Ray

    Hey TarnishedSophia,

    I’m not so sure if that’s what most people are looking for anymore. I say that for two reasons:

    1) hypergamy has elevated the stakes and the corresponding risk in today’s modern Game. Both men and women play the hypergamous game, but each for different reasons. Most men who do it do so mostly for physical attributes and sex, whereas women who do it do so because ‘they are addicted to the chase’ or they are looking for other men who will come closer to meeting their long laundry list of so called requirements in their quest for happiness. In reality, no man or woman will ever be perfect, so hypergamy really is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy that will most likely NOT become reality. I call it Fools Gold! Hypergamy is almost like a religion to people: they believe that Mr or Mrs Right is out there, the one and only person who is their true soulmate, one chosen by God. In reality, there are truly many people who may make great life long partners, if people would only open their eyes and stop looking for perfection.

    2) most GAME for men focuses on how to get physically intimate with hot women, and how to change your habits to acquire more appealing attributes so as to possibly enable you to become emotionally and psychologically intimate with these same women. However, the problem with today’s game is like Wall Street: it only focuses on short term success, not long term success. Playing Game today for long term results requires a completely different mindset and skillset than the short term (most common) approach.

    In any event, you need to think of Game like you think of running a business. Your short term and medium term policys and performance must both tie into your long term policys and performance. I measure success in Game in years, not in days or weeks or months. Lol!

    Ray

    P.S. if a woman says she has been in committed relationships before, ask her first if they were exclusive and second, ask her how long those relationships were. Lol”

  25. Ah, so you discovered Deanna Lorraine. I fisked her too, once (does that make her dtf: down-to-fisk ?)*. She occasionally stumbles into the truth, but I was really put off by her terminology. Everything is all one way or the other — e.g., either you’re 100% confident, or you’re a “dud”.
    * ‘Dud to Stud in 10 Minutes’ (http://footpole.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/dud-to-stud-with-chemistry-and-kino/)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s