The Woman Question 1

what Ted Kaczynski can teach us about seducing women

Proving with facts and logic why you should go up and talk to her

You have eye contact with an attractive blonde. She smiles at you. She’s a perfect stranger, never met her before. It all happens so quickly, you don’t have time to think. You’re just passing through, you were already going somewhere - you don’t have time to talk to her, even if you had the guts to.

What does this mean. You lock eyes with a beautiful woman and she smiles. What does this mean. Whut mean. Does it mean she “likes” you? She want your fuck? Is she just being nice? is she just dumb and smiles to everyone? Is it some kind of woman thing where they are evolutionarily trained to pretend to like you? Is it wishful thinking? Are you an insane pervert? What does it all mean. Specifically: Does this mean that she wants to fuck you.

All hitherto thought regarding these matters have been attempting to answer this question, in some way or another. The question might be asked differently by different people at different times, but the core remains this: A woman smiles at me. Can I have certainty in my interpretation of this?

Anxiety and socialisation

The woman’s eye is cause for anxiety - anxiety is self-awareness, self-reflection. you become aware of yourself as being-seen, whatever you were doing before, poof, it’s gone. you’re suddenly in your head, in your body, suddenly very aware of your position in the room and the awkward movement of your limbs. Simply being seen does this, but by a beautiful woman, even more so. She makes you self conscious. This is, mechanically speaking, neurotic, or, anxious thinking. Or being, if you are so inclined.

All human socialisation big and small is a tightrope walk between too much and too little neurotic thinking. What Kaczynski has dubbed “over-socialization” makes for a useful framework here. What he calls “over-socialization”, I call being overly self conscious, having too active a super-ego. The original Over-socialisation in the kaczynskian sense is already a product of media, of screens and cameras, which to my mind is merely a woman’s eye once removed.

In fact I think we could categorize the kind of people Kaczynski would call over-socialised as being very, very worried about what women think about them. Pathologically worried about it.

If we ask an over-socialized person the question, he will answer: “No, it signifies nothing in particular. She was just being polite. It could mean anything. You can have No Certainty in Interpretation, and ALSO, it doesn’t mean she wants to fuck. No, and how dare you even think it. You should be ashamed of yourself”. And his answer would be the same if he was talking to himself.

If we ask, the last ten years of man blogging and matrix enthusiasts the same question, the answer is: “Yes absolutely BUT you might still fuck it up if you don’t perform in a very exact manner and according to a particular set of rules”. These men are also very neurotic and fearful. They seek the same thing: Certainty in interpretation. Pussy is of secondary concern. That’s why you can fuck 500 women and still be an insecure wreck.

What they have discovered though, is that if you act uncivilized, this gets the girls attention. If you act as if you don’t have a big super-ego and nagging guilt, and act as if you are a cartoony brute macho man, this somehow, sometimes, works. They don’t know why though. At least it works well enough to sound believable and sell blogs.

Mistaking the signifier and signified, all thinking have hitherto been about pussy. “how do I fuck her”. But this was never the real question. You can fuck her and still worry - did she only pretend to like me? Did she fake her affection?

What do women want? How do I make her happy? How can I have certainty in my interpretation of woman? What does it mean that she smiles to me?

Cartharsis vs becoming

What we want ultimately, is catharsis - a soothing of our neuroticism, of our own over-socialisation. Seducing a woman is only a means to this end, because of what it “signifies” - and can never be an end in itself. You’re strong, you’re manly, you have x y and z value, etc. Shut up mom I’m valuable. People value me. Etc.

The problem is not a lack of sex (incels, hypergamy, etc) - or too much sex ( in movies, pictures, media, whatever). The problem is a pathological desire to understand women. A neurotic seed has been planted in your head, that drives you to try to make sense of women, and create an ultimate theory of women - to have certainty. This anxiety is the problem. Because in every action taken in the world, your primary aim will be to soothe this anxiety - and not to make a genuine human connection. And when the day comes, as it always will, when you must choose between understanding women - hypergamy, psychology, pick up artistry, etc - and, trusting her - then you will choose the one which provides the most certainty. And not the one that provides the most happiness.

A beautiful woman looks at you and smiles

"What does this mean, I must have certainty, I must have a scientifically accurate analysis and translation for what this signifies, so I can be secure in taking action and not have to worry about getting hurt or losing face or being humiliated. Can I please, sir, can I please have my cake and eat it too.”

There is no such security. She doesn’t know whether she likes you - yet. The very act of taking the chance of being humiliated is what makes her like you. It’s flattering.

If you could have certainty, if you had absolute philosophical certainty, it would not work. If you didn’t risk losing something, then the gesture is meaningless.

The very act of thinking about it in these terms, in this scientific mindset of trying to create a logical picture, and a scientific method, is counteractive towards your own desires (to seduce her, to win her over, to have love/certainty/safety), as well as hers.

By even adopting this framework, from red pillery to the simple act of being worried “oh no I wonder what she thinks of me” - these are all the same, structurally. You are preventing both of your happiness.

The way you make her like you is by assuming she likes you - and then treating her nice. The way you “make her like you” is by having faith that she already does.

The “uncivilized man’s” answer to the question is simply “yes”. Gigachad.jpg. the initial, animal impulse, the little jolt of hormones shooting out in your blood when you catch her eye, says “YES”. Everything else is “socialisation” - self awareness, neuroticism, attempts to self-regulate. pre-emptive self-regulation. Over-socialisation is pre-emptive over-self-regulation.

You have a physical impulse that says she likes you. You have a “higher mind” that doubts your initial impulse.

In a world without language, where we were just monkeys, it would simply be a clear cut “mating signal”. This doesn’t mean it would be a sure thing. Because it will never be a sure thing. The idea that it can be a sure thing is modernist nonsense. It can only ever be a sure thing after years and years of establishing mutual trust. You don’t trust her yet - and why should you!

What does it mean? What the hell are you asking questions for. A beautiful woman just smiled to you, you fucking idiot. Just go up and talk to her!