The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

What's New on Fast Seduction 101 - From The Archives - “Feminine Sexuality”

Classic post by Hitori, October 26th, 2006

<< Back to "What's New" Index

Reproduced from the searchable archibve of articles on   Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at


Girls. Sex. Widely misunderstood.

Let's explore.

I've divided this post into two sections: Inside and Outside the bedroom. That's because, in the context of being feminine and sexual, these are different worlds with different rules.

The fun part first:


I probably don't have to tell you guys that womens' sexuality can be lots of fun. At least, if I do, you're on the wrong forum.

Ideally, what it means to be sexual and feminine is that inside the bedroom everything - your whole mind, your whole body - exist only as avenues for sexual enjoyment. From the context of the bedroom, the whole WORLD exists only for sex and fun.

The world outside the bedroom, seen from this angle, is only a device of contrast - everyday rules and taboos are only relevant where they make things better, hotter.

But this kind of sexuality can ONLY exist in an environment free of judgement and consequence. Because the world outside the bedroom is fraught with perils and contradictory rules (which I'll detail later).

So, to keep sex good, the boundaries between inside and outside the bedroom must be kept in place. And women are capable of handling these, but sex takes two. What this means for men is that women will have a tendency to select for:

* Men who are discreet

* Men who seem to take sexual accountability away from women

* Men who do not judge women for their sexuality or for their desires

* Men who value women for their ability to be natural, sexual animals in the right context

* Men who are themselves able to be unashamedly sexual

You can safely consider these behaviors to be attractive - in and of themselves - to women. I am not a particular fan of the "Lover" versus "Provider" model, but in the context of that model THIS IS THE VALUE that Lovers offer; in contrast, Providers must establish their value through other channels.

This is the difference between whether you are "in" or "out" of the Secret Society.

Much of the value of this world - a world where sexuality is something to be enjoyed without shame or reserve and socially constructed images can be set aside - exists in CONTRAST to the complexities and compromises that exist outside the bedroom.

So, moving along in that direction:


At all times we are surrounded by - steeped in - a value system that shapes the way that we develop as human beings and the ways that our drives are directed.

This value system shapes what it means to be feminine and sexual outside the bedroom. Specifically, the -relevant- part of that value system holds that:

* Sexual risk-taking is a positive thing for men to do

Regardless of how individual men may feel about it, for men sexual risk-taking implies low risk and high potential for gain. Initiating sexually - from approach to escalation - is systematically regarded as a positive, masculine thing. Being sexually available is not regarded as negative or unmasculine.

* Sexual risk-taking is a negative thing for women to do

For a woman to be either too sexually receptive OR sexually assertive is negative and unfeminine. As a result, womens' sexuality outside the bedroom (what Franco would call "Yin Game" implies a system where:

* Women invite initiation without seeming to initiate

* Women screen potential partners

* Women minimize as best they can the image that they are sexually available, while simultaneously avoiding the perception that they are totally unattainable.

The system implies a sort of "sweet spot" of attainability that women are supposed to aim for - too sexually available and nothing is held in reserve, too unattainable and you're out of the game and stand to gain nothing, and don't get your needs fulfilled.

What it's important to remember, I think, is that this value system is held both internally and externally; so that women project the image that they are inside this "sweet spot" not only to men and other women, but to themselves.

A kind of "doublethink" is implied - a way of being interested without acknowledging that that interest is sexual, of increasing intimacy but never in a way that could conclusively lead anyone - even yourself - to be sure that that's what you're doing.

From a man's perspective what results, ultimately, is two layers of illusions:

Fallacies of the Game:

Observing how women maintain plausible deniability at all times, men conclude

* Women are not as sexual as men. Women are never receptive to sex.

Observing further how plausible deniability does NOT necessarily mean women aren't receptive to sex, and how all women maintain plausible deniability at all times, men with game conclude

* No matter what they do or maintain, women are ALWAYS receptive to sex.

Ultimately, neither is true; the circumstances under which a woman will give up her emotional accountability to a man - and that's what game is, at its core - are decided as much by her value system as his ability to push buttons.

So there's the truth behind the illusions: the truth about women, and sex.

However, this is not just any post. This is a post with APPENDICES. Because over the course of mulling over women and sexuality and what it means to be feminine in that context, I had some OTHER thoughts. And don't get me wrong, they're GOOD thoughts, but I didn't want to dilute the core of it, which is above.

+ Screening For Well-Adjusted Women

There's been some hoopla recently on the relationships forum about how it is that men are supposed to go about choosing well-adjusted women, and - further - whether such an animal even exists.

What seems to be behind this (if you dig a little) is one of the operating principles of ASF: That men should always treat women as though it's their nature to be purely reactive and emotional, and that women are not at fault for this - that this is just the nature of the beast. That women should be treated like creatures with no sense of equity or fairness or accountability, and that this is not an inherently negative thing.

This leads, at times, to misunderstandings and inner game» issues. So, to clarify: The reason it is beneficial to believe this is because doing so is INHERENTLY ATTRACTIVE, not because it's always exclusively true.

Because taking emotional accountability away from women IS game, and that's what thinking in this way leads you to do. As far as seeking results goes, it is BETTER to have an incomplete model that leads to results than a complete one that doesn't.


With all that in mind, what's the difference between a woman who's well-adjusted and a woman who's not?

Sexually, a healthy woman is capable of distinguishing between the inside and outside of the bedroom, and thinking and behaving in a way appropriate to each context. What this means is that sexually healthy women will - all else being equal - select for men who are able to create an emotionally safe environment for their sexuality. To the extent that such an environment exists for them, they will be able to set aside the contradictions of the world outside the bedroom and really enjoy sex, and everything that goes with it.

Likewise, sexually healthy women understand that the inside of the bedroom stops at the bedroom door... metaphorically speaking. You can have sex wherever you want, of course, go nuts.

All else being equal, outside the bedroom they'll try to remain inside that "sweet spot" of minimal sexual availability.

In terms of how generally (rather than sexually - this is an important distinction) well-adjusted a woman is, the proof - and this holds true for people generally - tends to be in the pudding. A basic social awareness of things that people say and do is what's required to figure this out, as well as the ability to read between the lines; this is what we call social calibration.

Rarely will anyone tell you outright what kind of person they are (and when they try, the image they have to share is almost always distorted), but everything is there in subtext - for instance, whether people respond better to being treated well or badly, whether they take others down a peg when given the opportunity, whether they have a history of cheating or drama or abuse, and what kind of image they project on you when they see that you are high-value.

Be aware of subtext.

Be aware of whether a woman genuinely takes other people into account with her decisions, or if she is narcissistic and concerned only with her own pleasure and her own circumstances. More basically than that, be aware of whether a woman takes care of -herself- with her decisions. Be aware of how she uses the power she has as an attractive, potentially available woman.

Be aware of how she treats you.

+ The Pussy Paradox i.e. Chick Logic WTF

As a side note, the rules of womens' sexuality outside the bedroom imply an interesting paradox, along the following lines:

If women usually maintain, even to themselves, that they're not sexually receptive, but this doesn't necessarily mean that they're -actually- not receptive (or the converse, that they -are-), then it stands to reason they have no accurate way to measure how receptive they're being.

But, practically speaking, they are at all times aiming for a certain "sweet spot" of "just sexually receptive enough, but not too receptive" which implies a need to be aware - on some level - of how receptive they're being, and whether a change in behavior is necessary.

So what standard can women use to figure out when their behavior is correct and when it needs correction?

Or, if that's too abstract, consider an analogy: if you are driving with a broken speedometer, how can you tell whether you're going the speed limit?

The answer, for women, is twofold: on the one hand, a set of totally arbitrary rules of thumb (no sex until the third date, wait two days to call, no sex until marriage, no penetration but head is okay even if you're not in love, etc), and on the other hand a strong emphasis placed on equally arbitrary points of decision (talking to guys, being alone with guys, the base system, the significance of panties-off etc).

This is the source of some truly retarded chick logic - the kind of thing I'm sure you guys are more qualified to comment on than I am.

+ The Value of Twat: Costs and Gains (Cause and Effect, and a Little Evo-Bio)

I actually dodged talking about this earlier in the post, when I asserted that Just Trust Me, Women Are Punished For Sexual Risk-Taking - but underneath all of this there's sort of a chicken-and-egg issue.

Succinctly: Women avoid sexual risk-taking, which takes twat off the table. Scarcity increases value, so that twat trades for more than cock in the scheme of things.

Simultaneously, twat trades for more than cock in the scheme of things, causing too much sexual availability - for women - to mean a loss of value. Which causes women to avoid sexual risk-taking.

Which comes first? It's unclear - each seems to reinforce the other.

But what seems likeliest to me is that a pattern of nature - not social/moral value systems - punishing women and rewarding men for sexual risk-taking is at the root of the tendency toward social systems that folow the same principles, but PRIOR to a potential evolutionary fuck-up.

Seen from this perspective, it's lucky but ultimately incidental that twat ends up with inflated value. However, whole other realms of predictable human behavior are based around converting that value into power. Or, sometimes, money.

In the context of this evo-bio stuff, though, I think it's important to distinguish between the biological and social systems that discourage women from sexual risk-taking. Because genetic selection for the reduction of a certain behavior is not actually the same thing as punishing - pre- or post-emptively - for the same behavior.

The former, biological selection, plays out with excruciating slowness; it's ruthless and absolute and chooses solely on the basis of what genetic factors predict the production of offspring who will themselves survive to produce offspring, and so on.

On the biological/evolutionary scale, the only relevant switch is flipped on the basis of whether you die before or after producing offspring who will do the same. Unfortunately, survival and reproduction are based on so many factors that there is an issue of crossed channels; your genes could predict behavior that WOULD be ideal for survival and reproduction if it weren't for them ALSO predicting that you die young of some fatal illness, for example.

Conversely, in a social/behavioral context, the system -stops- applying at the moment we die. Thus the systems of punishment and reward involved tend - in most cases - to be non-fatal, often non-physical.

There's more to say about this, but it's perilously close to off-topic, so I'll move back to the core of the issue.

What non-physical measures of punishment and reward exist, in the context of womens' sexuality? Why do women stick to the script?

Why, good and bad feelings!

A woman feels good, wonderful feelings in an environment where she can indulge her sexuality without fear of consequence. Many women also feel good feelings on the basis of how they use the value and power they are granted because twat sells for more than cock. And let's not forget the value of self-respect.

So that's the carrot; what's the stick?

Women feel bad feelings when they are socially censured by their peers for acting in an inappropriate, unfeminine way - for being too sexually receptive or aggressive. More than that, though, I would argue that the true -driving force- of how bad feelings keep the social status quo is cognitive dissonance.

+ Cognitive Dissonance, Women, and Sex (Invoking ASD, and the Dangers Thereof)

When someone's behavior isn't within bounds they consider to be acceptable, they experience a clash of frame - or, to move away from community jargon, cognitive dissonance.

Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance, especially in the context of women and sex.

The thing to remember about this - sort of the safety hatch on ASD, if you will - is that from the frame that women are coming from you can only make bad sexual decisions ( i.e. take risks) as long as -you- are the one -making- the decisions.

This is why taking emotional accountability away from women -is- game.

The -other- thing to remember about cognitive dissonance and women and sex is that it -actively inhibits- BT.

On the surface, it would seem to some ASFers that cognitive dissonance might be a useful tool for discouraging women from certain kinds of behavior - or, to put it more simply, that making a woman feel slutty for past transgressions is a good, legit way to prevent her from doing the same things in the future, or just to strike out at her when you get angry.

This is bad juju. Here's why:

When I say "Inside the Bedroom", what I -really- mean is "women in ANY context where they are sexually receptive." Now, you may remember back at the beginning of the post, where I said two things about womens' sexuality that are about to be extremely relevant:

1. Womens' sexuality can only exist to the extent that they feel they are in an environment without judgement or consequence

2. Being nonjudgemental of womens' sexuality is an inherently attractive trait.

To which I will add, now -

3. A man who is reactive to womens' behavior, in a negative way, is not a real man

Considered in light of these assertions, here's how it plays out when you deliberately inflict ASD:

* A woman loses confidence that she can be freely sexual with you, as the boundaries between inside and outside the bedroom are damaged

* A woman's ability to get her BT up for you and around you is damaged

* A woman's conviction that you are an attractive man is -reduced- - if she has slept with you already she's likely to end up with buyer's remorse, the consequences of which have been well-explored on this forum. If she has not slept with you, she's less likely to than she would have otherwise been.

* And, ultimately, from the sensibilities of well-adjusted people with game, it's kind of a shitty thing to do. I mean, if game is taking away emotional accountability... What does it mean when you give it back afterwards?

Bad form.

Bad juju.

+ Cognitive Dissonance and Co-Opting Masculine Models

I think it's important - as I mentioned in the Evo-bio section - to distinguish between genetic selection for a trait and a social system that punishes for non-compliance with it. Ultimately, the -reason- I think it's important is because the distinction raises the question of how fast social value systems - as opposed to biological tendencies - can change.

In particular, the availability and widespread use of birth control, the sexual revolution, the womens' movement, and - earlier still - the availability of decent health care have inspired what amount to a series of social experiments.

All this reduced reproductive risk resulted in attempts by well-meaning folks to change the whole structure of our shared value system; so far, though, the only change that's been accomplished (from what I can see) - is a shift in just where the "sweet spot" of availability lies. This results in - or more likely, results FROM - swift changes in the arbitrary rules that dictate how receptive is too receptive.

So the very rules and distinctions that most guys think of as stupid and arbitrary - because they are - are also, ultimately, the reason we can switch rails from a "No Sex Till Marriage" system to a "No Sex Till The Third Date" system.

Anyway, this changing "sweet spot" of availability results in a perception that women are truly and totally sexually liberated. In turn, this encourages women - mostly younger women - to experiment with being sexually assertive. Incidentally, men say that they want this, but tend not to respond to it.


Because, while the fantasy of a sexually liberated, aggressive women is appealing to many men (and some women), the reality doesn't fit inside our shared value system. So, for men and women both, it sets off "What is wrong here?" alarm bells. Under these circumstances, cognitive dissonance kicks in and can damage the feeling of emotional safety that healthy sexuality requires - reducing womens' ability to get BT up and have good sex, and mens' ability to appreciate women.

This is the kind of contradiction that leads to the ASF rule: Pay attention to what they respond to, not what they say they want. But from the other side.

Ironic, isn't it?

 Learn The Skills StoreStore
Become a High Status Male