Is your love life lacking acronyms and made-up words?
In love, as in every other aspect of life (except perhaps talking to cats), it pays to increase your word power. Happily for all of us I have discovered a wondrous Red Pill Glossary on Black Dragon Blog (tagline: “Love Women While Staying Free”), which includes a wide assortment of terms that will be new even to the most advanced Alpha.
Most would-be PUAs (Pickup Artists) can tell an AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) from a DHV (Demonstration of Higher Value). But here are few other acronyms you may not have encountered:
CTF – Cheating Time Frame. The amount of time you have installed in your brain before you will cheat on a monogamous partner. …
EFA – Early Frame Announcement. The strongly conveyed but unspoken overall message to a woman non-verbally conveying who you are and why you’re there. …LSNFTE – Long Soft Next For Temporary Exclusivity.
I didn’t make this one up, seriously. What all that apprently means:
A common occurrence with Alphas in nonmonogamous relationships where a woman leaves the Alpha, who will not give her monogamy, so she can get a traditional boyfriend or husband who will.
Huh. Maybe she’s leaving you because you’re the sort of person who goes around talking about CTF and LSNFTE, OK?
TEP – Three Exchange Process. Pitching a first date to a woman on the third or fourth email exchange with her on a dating site.
WHY DO YOU NEED AN ACRONYM FOR THIS? How many spammy messages are you sending out on OK Cupid anyway?
VYW – Very Young Woman, a woman between the age of consent (usually 18) and 23. VYW have the lowest ASD of any age group, by far.
Oh, whoops, I forgot: ASD is “Anti Slut Defense,” which Mr. Black Dragon defines as:
A condition created by societal programming experienced by women wherein they attempt to avoid sex, even if they want it, so as to not look or feel like a “slut” or “inappropriate” or not like “a lady”.
I think this is his complicated way of saying that no means yes.
There are three different types of VYW’s by the way. You can look them up yourself.
Now that you’ve mastered some of the most useful acronyms, let’s give acronyms a Hard Next and move onto actual words. And made-up words.
I might as well start with Hard Next, huh?
Hard Next – A permanent breakup. Where a man leaves a woman, never contacts her again, and literally never sees her again (or at least never again in a sexual context). …
This is not to be confused with a Soft Next, which is apparently a synonym for “acting like a douchebag.”
Soft Next – When a man removes a woman from his life for a short period of time, usually three to seven days, during which he completely ignores all communication from her, because of drama she gave him. At the end of the soft next, the relationship resumes as normal.
Or she tells him to go fuck himself because he’s being an immature asshole.
The Soft Next is not to be confused with the Stinky Next, which is when a man leaves a woman after letting out a fart so noxious that he’s too embarrassed to ever speak to her again.
Ok, I made that one up. But these are all real:
Betaization – The slow process by which a woman transforms a man she’s in a relationship with from an Alpha to a beta, usually by means of drama, demands, rules, sex (giving or withholding), or threats. Betaization is a completely natural part of a woman’s biological makeup … .
Comfort Bombardment – A process by which you get a woman comfortable about you after the first date is scheduled via online dating but prior to actually meeting her in real life. Comfort Bombardment raises the odds of sex considerably and reduces the odds of flaking. …
This is also useful if you’re planning to start a cult; you can use it alongside “love bombing.”
Disney – Any thought derived from societal programming that monogamy, child rearing, or traditional marriage is pleasant and/or permanent in the modern era. …
And for the fellas:
Guy-Disney – The incorrect thought men have that somewhere out there is a girl who will love you forever, never cheat on you, never get bored with you, and never break up with you.
This is not to be confused with:
Hanna-Barbera — In which someone plays a bongo drum very quickly every time you run.
Ok, I made that one up too.
There are more, but I think we’d probably do better just to make up some of our own.
Oops syntax error. If you’re not one of them = if you’re not a PUA / MRA. Not stupid evil rapist.
@sunnysombrera: Haha! Don’t worry, I got it the first time!
So yeah, Jezebel. I don’t read it all that much simply because I don’t have enough spare time, but every now and then I find some of their articles, and I usually like them.
One of these days, I think I’ll tell that guy I don’t read Jezebel and mostly get my info on PUA on, well, PUA websites. I’m just not sure I want to deal with all the butthurt! 😛
I doubt you’ll get butthurt, you’re more likely to get “you took it out of context” / ” can’t you see they were joking?” / “you completely misunderstand” / “PUA never advocates for abuse and manipulation!” / “women do it too!” Yada yada.
Or you may get all that AND butthurt.
for some reason i am having a hard time breathing because of the lauging at hearing bongos.. and picturing the blurry circle of feet “running”.
thank you and bless you sir. your funniest stuff gets to me right on time.
grumpyoldnurse:
That’s a good one!
Hugh Jackman, of course. Complete with sideburns.
How about GoLytely and a jaguar?
@ sparky – Hugh Jackman! ::smacks self in forehead:: Painfully obvious! How did I miss that!?
Tie Domi, if we’re allowed to use professional athletes. I’ll have to think a bit more if we are limited to actors!
Here’s one – fruit lax and a porcupine!
I’m pretty sure the cheating bit is the REASON they don’t want their followers expecting to form lifelong love partnerships. Because it’s unrealistic to expect her to love you for life when you’re busy shagging everything that doesn’t run away fast enough.
The Uber Literal The Game Game–TULTGG is when you tell a woman you’re trying to sleep with that you’re using advice from The Game to do so. This has happened to me twice. TWICE.
Hard Soft Baby This Never Happens–A common occurrence in “players”
Slight turkey coma or I’d think up more.
Wait what? How does that work? They talk to you, then tell you that the things they’ve just said is things a guide told them to say? I… what?
M. Tremblay
Someone beat them to it.
http://youtu.be/ddM7kJ9xQfA
@cassandrakitty, @Michelle C Young,
When an android who (until a certain point) cannot comprehend emotions or the subtleties of interaction is more attractive to a woman then people like this, that’s a worry. Especially since Data was popular precisely because despite not having emotions he was gentle and always tried hard to please the people that were around him and never hurt them on purpose. (In fact, wasn’t there an episode where he tried to have a relationship with a somewhat fragile woman who was attracted to him because he seemed safe and gentle, and the only reason it didn’t work was because he couldn’t give her the affection she needed?)
Data was popular with women precisely because he was what these people would call beta as fuck, as far away from their perception of the ideal man as you could get.
I am reminded of an essay I read by a science fiction author, I believe Isaac Asimov. He was describing how he always believed that women liked the “big lug” type of man, and smart men were romantic underdogs.
Then one day his daughter was watching Star Trek and talking about how attractive Spock was. When he expressed surprise, because Spock is hardly a big lug, his daughter told him that what is attractive about Spock is that he’s so smart.
Star Trek: challenging men’s assumptions that they know more about women than women do since 1966
Ick. Given what I’ve heard of Asimov’s behaviour around women, I’d side-eye pretty well anything he had to say about us.
I wonder if it ever, ever occurs to these chucklefucks and their stupid ranking systems that men are individuals? We know they don’t think women are, but the notion that one man might be appealing because of his very own unique characteristics (mental, physical or in combination) seems just as hard for them to fathom.
I read another thing, that I know was by Asimov, in which he described a female character he’d written as the perfect female character, because other than when she mentioned her husband you couldn’t tell her gender at all (the story was first-person).
Because only women are married to men, and because the ideal woman is indistinguishable from a man.
So, no, even in his later years he was hardly smart about it, but in his early years apparently even less so because he had to be told in words by his own daughter that intelligence is attractive.
I read one of his Foundation stories a while back, and oy, what a dry, dreary, entirely-male thing that was.
::snort:: Just read a quote from him: “I am not a speed reader, I am a speed understander.”
No, mate, you weren’t, you hadn’t a clue about half the human population.
Foundation included a scene of menfolk talking about important political stuff while one of the family daughters literally sat at their feet and listened.
Yeah, progressive stuff there.
::hurl::
Re:Asimov – He wrote a short mystery series about a club of men who regualrly met to eat and solve mysteries, and each man would take turns bringing a guest and one of the rules was that no women were allowed, ever. In fact, in one mystery it was actually a female guest that presented the puzzle, because the guy who invited her knew she was in a bit of a bind and needed the advice of the club to solve the puzzle, and there was a big brou-haha and the ruling was that the woman was allowed to present her puzzle because she needed the advice, but was to eat in a different room and only come in after the meal to present her case.
This club was based on a real life mens-only club that Asimov belonged to. (Having said that, in one of those short stories he wrote a character that was meant to be himself and absolutely skewered himself, deliberately making the character as unbearable as possible, so he did have a sense of humour about himself too.)
Yeah, there’s actually nothing charming about saying, Look how unbearable I am! Tee hee! and doing nothing to resolve that problem. Just self-identifying a character flaw doesn’t make the flaw go away or require people to overlook or forgive it.
You’re absolutely right there. Knowing your flaws doesn’t do much if you don’t at least make some effort to be better.
Which is something PUAs don’t seem to understand. Even the ones who are trying to ‘better themselves’ by learning game aren’t really making an effort to fix their flaws (which in their minds is ‘being beta’) as they are making an effort to be able to mask those flaws enough for women to be willing to sleep with them.
*meeps quietly*
I actually really enjoy Asimov’s stories. Including Foundation and the Black Widowers. I guess it comes down to being able to enjoy stuff, even when it has questionable elements.
Also, I guess to having read a lot of stories for boys when I was growing up. All the one’s meant for girls were about horses. Or nurses, neither of which I had any interest in so read a lot of collections of Boy’s Adventure Stories and Biggles by default
*hugs her Andre Norton and Sheri Tepper books tightly in an attempt to self-validate*
I wanted to enjoy Asimov’s writing, gilshalos; he’s such a huge name in SF. But that book was just so not for me.
I haven’t read much Andre Norton but I love Catseye to bits.
I love the Foundation series and there are a few good female characters, although not in the first one. HBO has recently decided to create an adaptation of them with Jonathan Nolan as the showrunner. I do agree that the gender dynamics are not good in the series. They very much reflect the time they were written in, before second wave feminism took off. I hope the TV show changes it up and makes it both more gender and race inclusive. There’s no reason why any of the characters, even Hari Seldon couldn’t be female. The Battlestar Gallactica reboot did that by making Starbuck a woman and it worked out great. People loved Katee Sackhoff’s Starbuck.
@Fibinachi
Ugh. These two dudes were friends of friends. I supposedly had some sort of player reputation of my own (a.k.a. I was in my early twenties and single and had an active sex life), and they both tried impressing me with stories of their “skills”, for which they cited that ridiculous book. Supposedly they wanted to see which of them could bag me, so they awkwardly tried using said “skills” on me in an incredibly stilted and pedantic way. It was really sad and funny. The stupid is strong with these types.