Wednesday, 9 January 2008

MASF relationship doctrine codified

MASF is the premier forum online for PU. The guys on there really do know their shit. Here's a post by one of the guru's Kwagmyre trying to codify current relationship doctrine. Kwag's had some pretty down times, where his wife who he had oneitis for cheated on him. He recovered from a severe betaisation (will post his two betaisation solved posts later), however wasnt able to save his marriage. He's picked up from it remarkably well and is MLTRing like theres no tomorrow. He now feels that if he wanted he could get his wife back, but like any self respecting PUA with better options is continuing to play the game on his terms.

Here's his post:
Chicks love drama, and need regular injections of it into their lives. If you do not provide them with it, they will create it.

Likewise, chicks are emotion junkies (this is why they love drama, it feeds the emotional needs machine). To a chick, feeling ANY emotions, even bad ones, is better than feeling no emotions at all. This is exactly why a woman will leave a man who loves and cares for her, but is supplicative and does not excite her, for one who is cruel to her either emotionally, or physically, and beats her. In a chick’s mind, some emotion is better than none at all.

Women are incapable of understanding logic (within the context of romance and seduction, not in day-to-day type stuff). If a woman has learned to view you as a lover, then everything you say and do gets processed through her emotional filter. And this is a good thing! However, if you then attempt to subsequently communicate with her through logic, then she will literally not understand you. A woman who is attracted to you will not understand why, something she had previously attached emotions, is now speaking in logic. To put this another way: If you wind up in a logical convo with a chick you are in a relationship with, ABOUT the relationship, it means you fucked up. Get the conversation off the logical track as soon as you realize this.

Further, because chicks are creatures of emotion, and not logic, they have no “integrity to action”. They base decisions upon how they FEEL about something, rather than about how that thing truly is. This is the basis for “chick logic”, and it goes something like this: If a chick makes a promise to you, to do something, because she “felt” good about it at the time, and then later reneges on that promise, because she no longer “feels” good about it, then she will not keep her promise. Chicks simply do not see this behavior as dishonorable or incongruent – they simply changed their mind, as they believe they have every right to do. Contrast this with a man, a creature of logic, who will keep a promise to do a thing, even if he does NOT want to do it. This is because men base their decision in logic, and thus see things in an A+B=C kind of a frame. So, if a man promises to do a thing, then he will do it, simply because he promised – to a man, doing a thing he promised, even if he does not want to, will cause him less internal conflict, than it will with a woman, due to his decision-making paradigm. It is interesting to note that, in a sense, both sexes make their decisions the same way – they choose the path of least resistance, the one the minimizes their internal conflicts. They simply have different mechanisms for regulating those internal conflicts.

Shit tests are constant, and are NOT A BAD THING! They are a GOOD thing. Women only shit-test men they are attracted to, and who they perceive as a potential lover. They do not shit-test men who are not prospects, since that would defeat the purpose of the shit test (to see if he is man enough to be her lover). Conversely, a complete lack of shit-tests, generally means a loss of attraction, and is a bad sign. So, rather it is best to interpret shit tests, as IOI’s, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE, since women, by definition, do not “test” men they are not “interested” in.

You must pass shit tests. No one passes all of them, but if you fail a series, and/or, simply acquiesce to them in order to “keep the peace”, then you will head down the road to the process known as “betaisation”.

Betaisation could simply be defined as what happens when the man loses the position of leader in the relationship. To be clear, this is always bad. This is never attractive to women. And this will always lead to problems within the relationship, since women are not capable of being attracted to men who will surrender the position of emotional leadership to a woman. And to be clear: No woman “wants” a betaised man. A woman wants a man who can pass her shit tests, and NOT become betaised, and therefore continue to prove his dominant status to her. This makes her feel secure, and safe with him – which is, and will always be, a woman’s #1 need.

Once betaisation has occurred within a relationship, the only way you can salvage it, is by being willing to destroy it.

Women will viciously resist “de-betaisation” attempts. This is also a good thing! What this means is that, the woman is testing, to see if your attempts at regaining control are genuine, or merely a fa├žade. To a woman, the literal survival of herself and her offspring is at stake here, on an unconscious level (even if she doesn’t have offspring yet). So, behaviorally, for her, the stakes could not be higher. She may even threaten to end the relationship, which is why you must be willing to destroy it, in order to save it (as above). If she senses any weakness or hesitancy during this phase, she will blow you out, and the only way to maintain this frame, is both to mean it, and to own it. No matter what.

Women have no sense of fairness, equity, or reciprocity. A woman, is a creature that is designed to procreate and produce and protect offspring. Therefore, the only concern a woman has is for her own welfare (as it relates to the care of her offspring), and for the offspring themselves (even if they are unborn yet). The only thing a woman will sacrifice her welfare for (and will do so every time), is her offspring. A woman will NOT sacrifice her welfare for a man, unless she can somehow relate it back to the welfare of her offspring as well. IOW, a woman will take care of herself, and her children. The only person who will take care of a man, is himself. If this sounds harsh, consider this; the very moment a man relies on a woman to provide for, and take care of his needs (including his sexual needs), is the very moment her attraction for him will begin to wane. This is exactly why women find neediness in men so unattractive. To display neediness, in any form, is to invite failure and/or betaisation.

The Alligator eats the Chihuahua. Why? Because it’s an Alligator, and that’s what it does. It doesn’t eat the Chihuahua out of a sense of malice, or malevolence. It is simply following its own evolutionary program that has been bred into it as a survival instinct over millions of years. Likewise with women. Women don’t shit test, break their word, betaise men, cheat on men, or anything else, out of a sense of malevolence. They simply do it, because, that’s what they do. Therefore, there is no room for misogyny in the doctrine. It is a waste of useful energy. Such attitudes as “all chicks should be treated like ho’s, because they cheat on you the moment you turn your back”, are coming from a needs-based frame, wherein the poster is wishing about how things could be, rather than as they really are.

The techniques and attitudes espoused in the current doctrine are designed to minimize what we socially perceive to be the negative consquenses, and maximize what we perceive to be the positive actions, by doing things designed to influence» them on a subconscious level. At the core, ALL humans “manipulate” one another to their own ends in relationships – children manipulate their parents, bosses manipulate subordinates, wives manipulate husbands, PUA’s manipulate targets. To rail against the idea of manipulation in human relationships is to rail against the very survival and evolution of the human race.

As women respond better to techniques designed to influence» them on a subconscious level, rather than a conscious level, so likewise do they respond better to SUBcommunication, rather than direct communication. It is nearly always better, in matters of realationships, to lead a woman to a conclusion, or even better yet, DEMONSTRATE a conclusion, rather than state it. Examples:

STATING a conclusion (bad):

“I am a high-value man, and I can go find other women to fuck if you do not please me sexually.”

LEADING a conclusion (better):

Guy: “The cashier was making fun of my purchase at the grocery store – Beer, Bacon, and Cookies. She said ‘this is an interesting combination’”.
hB: “Oh really, was she hitting on you?”
guy: “Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that, I thought she was just being friendly and making conversation.. But she WAS playful… hmmm, maybe you have a point.”

DEMONSTRATING a conclusion (best):

Guy: (Goes with wife to her cousin’s wedding, ignores wife, dances with the hotties)
Wife: (next day): “Well, you were certainly having fun with everyone last night but me!”

(all the above are real-life examples)

The game never ends. There is no such thing as entering into a relationship to “retire” from the game. It just takes on a different form, one that is not signifigantly different from regular PU/sarging. But the game itself never ends, anymore than you stop being a man, or your woman stops being a woman. If you are a man, and a woman, who are in a relationship, where you are having sex with one another, then “the game” is in play, by definition.

(credit: Kwagmyre - MASF forum)

1 comment:

SirLouen said...

Really great post and blog.

But background on black with white letters is really shit for reading... I can't read more than 3 paragraphs without being tired.

Consider change.