Promiscuous men can handle their promiscuity better than promiscuous women can handle theirs.
Compare and contrast:
This is how a man looks after twenty lovers:
This is how a woman looks after twenty lovers:
That’s the thousand cock stare. You can’t miss it. It’s derangement that penetrates right to the soul.
Not only are promiscuous men more emotionally stable and contented than promiscuous women, they are also happier spouses.
Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages – but men do no harm by playing the field, a study has found.
According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.
But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.
But, for men, the number of partners [sic] they [had] appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.
Researchers said the study showed that sex with many different partners ‘may be risky’ if the woman is in search of a high-quality marriage.
If you heed not lies and accept the truth of biological and psychological sex differences, you won’t be surprised to learn that men, the sex with a trillion sperms to please their lovers, are hardwired to spread the seminal wealth without incurring psychotraumatic blowback. Men are geared from the get-go for poosy variety (though not all men will fulfill their directive and not all are geared in fifth) and therefore have the cortical capacity to easily tolerate the comings and goings of numerous lovers without having a breakdown or fretting constantly about how well new lovers match up to old lovers. Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers.
This is why a man with a promiscuous past is not necessarily a bad bet as a marriage prospect, and also explains — along with the fact of maternity assurance — why women don’t care as much about men’s sexual histories as men care about women’s sexual histories. A man can sample the slits and furrows of outrageous fortune and survive the whirlwind of passion to mark a day in the future when he contentedly and without pathological second-guessing slips into a stabler, longer term commitment.
Women who have sampled a poo poo platter of penes accumulate emotional scars that never heal; promiscuous women have a mental storage closet filled with five minute montages of alpha male love, and these exciting, prurient memories rob the female id of something important. Call it purity or innocence or self-worth or ability to appreciate romantic idealism, the slut with ass chafing from riding the cock carousel is never the same as she was before she let herself get pummeled by dick. No uxorious beta male she settles down with in nuptial risk will have power over her senses like her past alpha lovers enjoyed. She is damaged goods.
[…] The Difference Between Promiscuous Men And Promiscuous Women […]
lzozozozolzlozlo
GBFM MAXIM #32474746
Those womenz who do not obey the one-cock rule soon endeth up with da thousand-cock stare zlozozozlzozozzozo
zllzozozzzozo zbuztzhzztzlzlzozozo
That’s fucking hilarious, I’ll give you that GBFM
lzolozlz indeed.
LOL!!! GBFM is a friggin genius! lollllllzzzzozozozzoz
Lol
lolz
Laugh every time I watch it.
bernankelzozo told her to ignore the one-cock rule
yellenzzlzoo made ignoriging it a dare
well she took them up on it, the american owmenz fool
and now da GBFM runz from her thousand cock stare
lzozozoozlolzoz
“da professional womenz ode”
SPECIAL WEDDING EDITION
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
SPECIAL EDITION WEDDING CHORUS lzozozozo
i gave it 4 free when i was younger hotter tighter
back in college when i was thirty pounds lighter
can’t hardly wait to butthext yyou in divorce court
and have you fund my favorite buttehxtual sport
gonna buy sexy lingerie with all dat alimonee
fuck & suck alpha cocks as ur beta cock is just 4 pee
tee hee hee teee heee heee l
tee hee hee teee heee heee !
i’m da modern liberated womanz
i buttehxt before and after marriage
and during it too, but not with you
but with the father of da baby in da carriage
lzozozzlozoz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats
zlzlzzozozozo
zlzoozozozozo
The ability to fully grasp the Slut Question is what sets CH apart from other game bloggers. So many PUAs get stuck in the “I can leave her better than I found her” stage, deluding themselves so that they can still feel like the good guy.
> “Women who have sampled a poo poo platter of penes accumulate EMOTIONAL SCARS that never heal”
Do not pump-n-dump the nice girls from the good families. Just don’t do it. Give them at least a chance to lead happy lives.
> “more than half… felt highly satisfied in their marriage… 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners… 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.”
On the flipside, this is almost certainly becoming a self-selecting statistic – as partner count escalates, increasingly you will be selecting for every manner of organic mental illness and biologically Calvinistic propensity for moral Darkness.
Zombie…
Nice girls don’t allow themselves to get pumped and dumped….
Evil, the nice girls come from HIGH trust environments – for them, crossing paths with the ZERO trust conman scumbag, who knows exactly which buttons to push, is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb would call a “Black Swan” event, or what Donald Rumsfeld would call an “Unknown Unknown” – it completely blindsides them.
@evilalpha
“Nice girls don’t allow themselves to get pumped and dumped….”
You’re giving women too much credit for self-agency and responsibility.
There is a reason why in traditional societies (including the West until the recent decades of decline) the men of decent families policed the behaviour and whereabouts of their young women.
So their decent young women would remain decent until marriage.
Nice girls? What’s that?
So true.
Starets,
I’m not giving women to much credit. You’re giving them too much excuse.
A 20 something woman is not actual “good girl” if she needs daddy around to keep her from dressing like a whore. She’s just a closet slut.
That might be because men that marry are ultimately almost all not happy so it works out to closer to 100% of them versus 79% for women that had more than 10 partners. Just saying…
Yeah it’s true. And you can scream it from the hilltops until you’re blue in the balls for all the good it will do.
Women have no foresight and no understanding of cause and effect. They are creatures of the now, always seeking whatever makes them feel good in the moment. Combine that with a morally bankrupt low-trust society and voila…Welcome to Sluttingshire.
It is up to men to change the behavior of women. They will never do it go their own accord, as the only way they know how to exist is pinging off of their immediate environment.
Welcome to Sluttingshire
Or Whoreville.
Hey, we could take that into book form and teach young’uns with it.
Horton Hears A Whore
All about Horton who hears a Whore in Whoreville, and what he learned…
Same is true of certain races…very non future time oriented. Very emotionally driven. Nobody should be surprised when outcomes are different.
But 5 minutes of alpha love? Just 5? Gonna erode your alphaness if that’s all you’re good for lol
>”Or Whoreville.” Whoreton hears a whore. ‘Oh Tucker Max rhymes with Goldman Sachs, eBernankify my butthextualization! Oh my God oh myGod oh my God!’
Women have no foresight and no understanding of cause and effect. They are creatures of the now, always seeking whatever makes them feel good in the moment.
Yep. Just look at the “progressive” feelgood bullshit they push for in politics. The 19th Amendment is a stake in America’s heart.
They’re (women voters) also against independence in Scotland. They’re afraid and very concerned.
And, of course, it’s never enough.
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/08/26/Erin-C-Molchany-Unfinished-business-marks-the-19th-amendment-s-anniversary/stories/201408260037
It is up to men to change the behavior of women.
Exactly. This is why the men on here who whine about society while treating women like dogshit have nothing to truly whine about. Either you’re going to fight for what you want, or you are going to ‘sit poolside.’
False choice. You claim that game is “treating women like dogshit” and even equate that with CH’s expression about poolside. The beta claim about alphas once again.
Where did I say game is “treating women like dogshit?” Nowhere. Nice try though. I said that many men on here treat women like dogshit. Attraction is amoral. If you have game, you can treat her ‘well’ or you can treat her like shit — it makes little difference, she will still be yours. Treating her like shit, however, just perpetuates many of the attitudes and behaviors that a lot of you dudes whine about. So, if you have game and treat her like shit, you really have no right to whine about a problem you’re contributing to. So please keep your projections about betas and alphas to yourself next time.
Absolutely true. It’s easier to understand the lack of consequential behavior in women when one takes into account that they want/do/say at this particular moment what they feel at this moment and it has no connection to what she was doing/saying/feeling last week or will the next week.
There are logical women out there who do fine in practical matters, but in matters of love they too become blind slaves to their estrogen induced frivolousness.
This is why criticizing feminism will have not effect. The basis of feminism is emotional: victimhood, compassion, fear, gender preference, etc. E.g. you can talk all you want how the pay gap is not real, IQ variance, there is rape culture, only less rape, it won’t matter. The emotional truth feels the same.
that part of women that keeps them from self-examination and making any change reads this study — and while it might know it’s fundamentally true — it blames men for being ok doing something they can’t do and be ok. their response isn’t ‘what should i do’ but ‘why should they get to’
same thing with birth control, salaries, even hanging out with your buddies. instead of working on themselves to get what they want, they force us to pay for their birth control, want the boss to pay equally for less time at work, and since they don’t have true friends, demean yours and imply your relationships are gay.
they don’t aspire to things, they conspire to make everyone in their lives no happier than they are. see also, facebook, frenemies, queen bee syndrome, etc etc etc. a lot of them are truly walking black holes that nothing could ever fill. even with my wiener.
True. While using logic on women (and their ‘arguments’) is often futile, there are 2 possible solutions (credit to Vox Day): crush them with brutal logic (not gentle persuasion) or simply rely on rhetoric as women are not geared for debate. They are influenced by peer pressure and strength. Overwhelming them with a formidable argument will cause them to look at you differently. It’s not the logic but the sledgehammer approach that will do it.
All men should be Atheist while all women should be Christian or Buddhist nuns
But i am Atheist!
“Should” on what moral basis does a godless fool use “should”?
On what basis does God decide what is right and wrong? Does he submit to a moral code; or does he do whatever the hell he likes and calls it “good”?
As an agnostic I’d have a few answers
1 -If there is a God then what he/she/it does and how and why is not something we mere humans can comprehend.
2- I seriously doubt there is a God but since I am a mere human I can not prove there is not one, nor that anyone can prove to me there is one.
3- and if one can prove to me there is a God I still seriously doubt such a supreme being would be involved in the minute details of our existence ; would it really go trough the trouble of answering prayers for a parking spot near the store where a video game is on sale?
It is up to men to change the behavior of women.
Why would I want to? Women serve (or maybe I should say service) me as they are. I am very thankful to Feminism for having changed women to the point that they are nothing more than disposable sex toys. If I need anything women used to provide to men, I can buy it for a reasonable price – I have a service that cleans my house, takes my laundry out where things are cleaned, starched, and ironed to perfection, little robots that vacuum all levels of my house, and I can get take-out – or pick up a woman who I’ll take to dinner than have sex with. I dare say that I am better cared for then almost all married men, and it costs me a LOT less…
The only thing I cannot buy – and women provide to me – is sex. And I can get women (girls really) young and willing – never having to do more than enjoy them and send them home when I’m done. So why would I want women to change?
> “If I need anything women used to provide to men, I can buy it for a reasonable price”
So you’re going to go out on the black market and purchase your children, like Chief Justice John Fagberts?
Patriotism?
hey, I’m not gonna argue with that. if you’re asking me why, I don’t have a good reason. one could argue that a society decays and crumbles with the dissemination of the family unit. as far as I’m concerned, the cat’s out of the bag with female nature and things can never be the same.
This jibes with observations made from the wonders of internetz pron: you can track a fresh new face as she’s nubile. And see how she turns into cream of old whore in less than a year. It’s very rare that a girl doesn’t end up looking like a pirate hooker.
No kidding. I used to enjoy watching Princess Donna and Bobbi Starr at the Armory, but I lost track of them for a few years, and then I checked in on them recently, and they both look like Amy Winehouse’s corpse lying on a slab in the morgue.
Even that new chick that I just discovered, with the perfect 10.0 tits – Faye Reagan – she’s already starting to get that look of death by heroin overdose.
wow, I was going to say Faye was one who seems to be making it to the 4 yr mark w/o increased whoreitis.
Check out her twitter picture – death by heroin overdose:
https://twitter.com/faye_reagan
Girls entering The Life have about 6-8 months before they start looking like hammered dog shit. There may be a prostitute or porno chick somewhere who *isn’t* on drugs/booze, but I’m pretty sure she’s on the endangered species list.
There’s a girl here who fell into the heavily pot-laced hot tub of one of the Playahs (money & drugs game ftw), she’s something like 22, and last time I saw her, she looked about 40, after only 6 months with the guy. She’s no hooker, btw, she’s a bartender. 6 naturally, 7+ heavily dolled up.
> “Girls entering The Life”
Maybe we should call it ‘entering The Death’.
Years ago I argued with The social pathologist aka slum lord about this and “The man who would be Thursday” . It was their position that male promiscuity was just as damaging to men in their relationships (even when pieces of the evidence were staring him in the face that it was women’s promiscuity that was a telling indicator not a mans.
“I just didn’t get it” according to them. I find it satisfying to know they were wrong
Just as the people that came up with a divorce predictor equation for Hollywood figured out that it didn’t matter who the man was or what his fame and notoriety was, it was the woman and all her attributes that predicted divorce outcomes.
It was their position that male promiscuity was just as damaging to men in their relationships (even when pieces of the evidence were staring him in the face that it was women’s promiscuity that was a telling indicator not a mans.
Stop lying, you asshole. Neither SL nor I took that position.
At 9:44 on this post:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
On the social pathologist the following remarks were made and responded to by Thursday:
The Social Pathologist said…
“I agree, if I can find them I’ll post them up. Personally, I imagine that there would be a broadly similar correlation.”
This in regards to a correlation between premartial sex partners and a successful marriage with men.
I would hazard a guess that its not going to be as strong a correlation, or even may correlate in the opposite direction.
Why? Because any man with a large number of partners is going to be choosier about a mate (if he gets married at all) and he has options. Its the guy without options that’s had little or no sex that marries the woman with a high notch count.
9:44 AM
Blogger Thursday said…
Tallyrand:
You’re dead wrong. Again.
Sociosexual orientation is also one of the strongest traits people assort by when mating: promiscuous men are much more likely to marry promiscuous women. See here.”
So you little prick eat, your words, you both took the position that a man’s promiscuity would correlate with marriage failure. You’re the liar, I got your words and the social pathologists right there.
I hope that finally people will recognize the arrogant little fraud that you are.
Experienced men won’t get in a relationship with a fat old bitch, which is damaging from the average woman’s perspective
That was my position five years ago and Thursday told me I was wrong back then and that “promiscuous men marry promiscuous women through assortive mating” and now wants to claim that he never said it, little lying scum bag.
Getting your comments edited out, feelsbadman
Interesting academic question: are women who sleep with a lot of men bad long term parners because:
A. They intensely bonded with old partners, particularly the most alpha ones, making them less able to bond with new partners; OR
B. They were defective as long term partners from the beginning, due to, for example, a innate need for constant new excitement.
My guess is it’s some of both. From the perspective of a man making decisions about who to form a long term relationship with, of course, it doesn’t really matter: just avoid sluts for LTRs. But some of us “want to know.”
I think it is mainly because they’re untrustworthy. Most of the easy women I’ve known would eventually get back to slutting around after marriage or while in a LTR.
i’m not the ultimate man-about-town or anything but almost any ex of mine, married or no, i can bring back to the sack. i doubt i’m the only guy that frames affairs with past lovers as ‘pre-existing conditions’ so i’m sure other know this too. but it works even on those with <5 total lovers.
so i think almost all of them are untrustworthy (almost all. i know a few who the thought of cheating is completely alien to them). i think a big part is just their nature. when they are 99% sure they won’t be caught, and they have even the slightest whiff of an excuse that makes it ‘not their fault’ they are ready for romance and drama at the drop of your pants.
It’s a great question. I’ve wondered this myself. From observing different types of girls I know, I think it’s mostly B, but it’s not necessarily because they have a need for new excitement. It’s because there was a hardness/toughness to them to begin with, that allowed them to sleep around without caring or attaching.
I don’t think A is a big problem, to be honest. Bonders are bonders.
Trying to distinguish between Nurture and Nature is really difficult. All of us have at least some very limited range of Freedom of the Will, and none of us are completely Blank Slates.
But as the female’s partner count escalates, you have got to be increasingly self-selecting for organic mental illness and biologically Calvinistic propensity for moral Darkness.
There is a huge mathematical problem here, though – either you’re going to need a nearly uniform distribution of Betas/Gammas having been the woman’s “other” sexual experience, or else there will be a relatively small percentage of Alphas as The Other, in which case you can see why the poor girls would be haunted by that searing burning aching memory of fleeting bliss…
Or else all of us ostensible Alphas are actually dumping our seed in the very same collection of badly mentally-ill psychiatric basket cases, and we’re just deluding ourselves into believing that there is anything truly “Alpha” about our existence.
Blue nodes are Alphas, pink nodes are sluts:
Down in the lower right corner, there are actually 63 monogamous couples. And near those 63, there is one slut [probably Goth] who spread her legs for 4 different gammas [probably Goth].
And towards the top of the image, connected to, but just to our right of the “Benzene Ring”, there is one Super-Alpha who had NINE different girlfriends in high school.
Blue nodes are Alphas, pink nodes are sluts:
Holy crap, look at that cluster. What kind of school is this?
Looking at all the high school movies, I always wonder if it’s like that anywhere or just in the movies. At my high school only about ten percent were in a relationship. For most of us, high school was about what you would be doing after high school. Which doesn’t mean we didn’t have fun at the same time, we just didn’t have that dating culture you always see in Hollywood teen movies.
“study in 1995… Midwestern school… almost all-white school, and is the only public high school in this mid-sized city, which is more than an hour away from the nearest metropolitan area.”
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/chains.htm
ZS:
The “Jefferson High School” study is quite interesting, as it appears to show that sluts are quite a bit more common than alphas. The vast majority of the males got no higher than 4 (eight guys managed to get 4 girls each). There’s only one super-alpha who had 9 girls, and another who bagged 5.
Compare with the girls who got 4 or higher. One had 6 guys, three had 5 guys, and 15 had 4 guys.
This appears to confirm that the average girl has an N higher than the average guy.
Another interesting thing: Looking at the opposite side, i.e., the N count of the sluts and alphas, the girls that alphas bang seem to most often have N = 2, whereas sluts are more likely to bang males with N = 1.
“Looking at the opposite side, i.e., the N count of the sluts and alphas,”
I meant, the N count of the sex partners of the sluts vs. the alphas.
There are two “singleton” females attached to the 9-bagger Super-Alpha. For the rest of their lives, those two girls are going to be haunted by the lingering memories of those youthful indiscretions.
> “Compare with the girls who got 4 or higher. One had 6 guys, three had 5 guys, and 15 had 4 guys.”
There was a scene in Bull Durham, where the team Gamma is about to marry the team’s groupie slut whore, and Kevin Costner’s character lectures the rest of the team that they are to NEVER tell the Gamma about her past history. But I can’t seem to find that scene on jewtube.
And this high school study simply provides another confirmation of what is already known regarding alphas and sluts. The tardcon solution of “cad shaming” would have zero effect, because if one Alpha can service nine sluts, he can add number 10 in as well.
Slut shaming would have a better effect. But it would make some grrls unhaaaaapy, they might even cry, so the tardcons can’t go that route.
PS: Don’t show this to Aunt Susie Giggles, it would make her powerful MBA trained brain hurt.
I notice that one of the sluts has a connection to 3 blue nodes and 1 pink node. didn’t see any other same-sex connections.
Zomb,
I saw that documentary on PBS many years ago.
Here is what I remember,
A 15 year old girl was caught doing what they call the sandwich ( 3 guys on one girl) by the 4 year old she was baby sitting.
The 4 year old freaked out, was very traumatized, he thought the guys were trying to kill her.
Her father was devastated to learn his sweet little angel was into having every orifice filled with cum in gang bangs.
I wonder where that girl is now? married to a man who even if he is the best lover in the world still does not have 3 cocks, thus she is bored out of her mind? or maybe she is a pron actress?
If I remember correctly what “inspired” someone to do that study was that old venerial diseases such as Syphillis that were almost gone had started re-appearing in that high school.
Of course the whole documentary is very “clean” and politically correct but even if they avoided saying it in so many words, they pretty much made it clear that girls lie about how many sexual partners they had, and they are more promiscuous than boys.
I knew teens today are far more audacious and promiscuous than we were in my day but I had no idea it was that bad.
There are two “singleton” females attached to the 9-bagger Super-Alpha. For the rest of their lives, those two girls are going to be haunted by the lingering memories of those youthful indiscretions.
It’s interesting that both the N=9 and the N=5 male have no more than two singleton females attached, but there are two N=4 males with three singleton females. Therefore, it seems that it’s not greater alphas who leave the most alpha widows — especially since there aren’t many of them to go around in the first place — but lesser alphas.
I notice that one of the sluts has a connection to 3 blue nodes and 1 pink node. didn’t see any other same-sex connections.
There are also two male fags at the top center of the diagram, one of whom had also done it with an N=3 girl (moderate slut). I’ve said before that fags are omegas who can’t get women, and this would appear to be further corroboration.
In the final analysis, we should remember also that this just covers the 6 months preceding the interview, rather than the course of several years.
> “didn’t see any other same-sex connections”
Back in 1995, in Deep Red nearly all-white Flyover Country, things were still relatively sane? They would have been graduating just as this thing called the “WWW” was moving out of research laboratories and into the mainstream.
And about three years before readers of the Drudge Report learned of the existence of a young jewess intern in the Clinton White House, named Monica Lewinsky.
Also, it’s just too darn bad the researcher didn’t put classic 1-10 scale attractiveness numbers on each of the girls. That would make the chart far more interesting than it already is.
I imagine that the girls in the large ring are, overall, hotter than those in the broken twigs and branches outside the ring, and will be most likely be in a sorority when they go to college. At the other end, those girls who sleep with several N=1 guys are fat sluts, or perhaps some weirdo type like goth or wiccan as ZS suggested.
It’s easy to answer…
Which group of girls had a Father that was a healthy influence on their youth?
To answer more directly…
Slut Behavior is a need for male attention.
Girls who did not have a Father influence are constantly looking for the male influence they didn’t have.
> “Slut Behavior is a need for male attention. Girls who did not have a Father influence are constantly looking for the male influence they didn’t have.”
That would certainly be the Blank Slate [learned behavior] explanation.
On the other hand, from the point of view of Biological Calvinism [the idea that some people are just hard-wired to be doomed], there’s probably a strong association between the shit-for-genes in the jackass who abandoned his own children and the shit-for-genes in his own whore slut daughter whom he abandoned. The poor girl – God have mercy on her soul.
Zombie Shane
And towards the top of the image, connected to, but just to our right of the “Benzene Ring”, there is one Super-Alpha who had NINE different girlfriends in high school.
””””””””””
is that just in that school or inclusive of all chicks
cause that ain’t super alpha
he he he
oh ok 6 months
yea that’s pretty busy
On the other hand, from the point of view of Biological Calvinism [the idea that some people are just hard-wired to be doomed],
I am more of a believer in the “sins of the fathers” idea.
> “I am more of a believer in the “sins of the fathers” idea.”
What if the some aspects of the “sin” come from the shit-for-genes in his contribution to the poor girl’s DNA? Compounded by his sorry ass not hanging around long enough to teach her how to deal with the nearly irresistible sexual compulsions which she will have inherited from his side of the family?
“Down in the lower right corner, there are actually 63 monogamous couples.”
Over a period of six months. Wanna bet the graphs would join up if they ran the experiment for longer?
Oh BTW: everyone in that big loop has herpes, chlamydia, and/or aids.
As I said above it is because sexually transmitted disease were on the rise, especially Syphilis which was almost erdicated since WWII that they did that study.
What if the some aspects of the “sin” come from the shit-for-genes in his contribution to the poor girl’s DNA?
The shit-for-genes is merely the consequence of coming from a sin-choked line. On the other side of the equation, there’s a reason Europeans are more civilized than other people — we’ve been Christian for far longer.
They are bad long-term partners because women are not made to sleep with a lot of men. They have a very strong instinct to find only the best man they can get and build a family with him. Sleeping with many men messes with their minds, it makes them feel sick. And of course they will blame a lot of this on men.
“They intensely bonded with old partners, particularly the most alpha ones, making them less able to bond with new partner”
That shows you have a twisted understanding of what alpha means. No disrespect intented, it is the understanding spread by betas to drag down alphas. Don’t believe it. “Alpha” means an understanding of how things work. “Beta” means trying to take shortcuts around the game one doesn’t understand. Beta doesn’t mean a better person in any way.
> “women are not made to sleep with a lot of men”
Arbiter, consider the alternative – Biological Calvinism – which says that maybe some women are hardwired to sleep with a lot of men, and that maybe they have genes which compel them irresistibly and inexorably towards sluttery.
And suppose that Freedom of the Will is not uniformly distributed amongst the general population – suppose that some of us, at the Right end of the Bell Curve, are hardwired to have an enormously broad range of Freedom of the Will, with massive reserves of willpower and resistance to temptation, whereas the Left end of the Bell Curve is populated by mind-numbed robots with a very narrow range of Freedom of the Will and almost no willpower or resistance to temptation whatsoever.
And suppose that there were a group of Evil Psychiatrists [it’s redundant to say Evil Psychiatrist, but bear with me] who knew about the absence of willpower on the Left end of the bell curve, from their study of the pathology of abnormal deviant lascivious behavior, amongst their female [nymphomaniac] patients and their male [sodomite] patients, and also from their study of their alcoholic and morphine/opium/cocaine/-addicted patients.
And then suppose that these Evil Psychiatrists – coming out of, say, a certain Oscar Mayer Wiener region of Germany – began to ponder the idea of intentionally assaulting and weakening the foundations of the ancient cultural safeguards and bulwarks which had helped to channel the Left end of the bell curve towards living [and benefitting from having lived] productive and useful and sane lives.
And the suppose that the kissing cousins of these Evil Psychiatrists worked assiduously to seize control over the movie production studios and the movie distribution channels and the [very finite number of] analog television channels and the professoriates of the universities and the writing of the K-12 elementary and secondary textbooks.
And then suppose that these Evil Psychiatrists intentionally introduced a competing theory of human behavior – a theory which they knew damned well to be false – a “Blank Slate” theory of human behavior, which taught young children and teenagers and college students that “You can grow up to be whatever and whomever you want to be!”
Whereas the exact opposite would actually be the case in reality – without the cultural bulwark of slut shaming, the hardwired nymphomaniac [and Narcissistic Personality Disorder] female would eventually end up on XHamster and RedTube, and without the Christian foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the hardwired alcoholic male would feast upon [or smoke or snort or inject] every legal and illegal mind-altering pharmaceutical agent known to mankind.
And suppose that these Oscar Mayer Wiener Evil Psychiatrists [and their kissing cousins who came to control the movie studios and the television channels and the professoriate and the K-12 textbook writing] knew damned well that in denying Biological Calvinism, and instead in promulgating a false theory of “Blank-Slate-ism”, they were unleashing the fury of the Left half of the bell curve for Freedom of the Will, and its propensity for every manner of nymphomania and sodomy and substance abuse and gambling addiction and shopping addiction and hoarding addiction and DEBT addiction and pornography addiction and video game addiction and every other manner of insanity which is unleashed upon a society with no cultural bulwarks to constrain the Left half of the bell curve.
There are many reasons why we are a society in decline but here is one more possible explanation
Having a dysfunctional society of people who over consume everything because they have little self control or better yet are addicted to something be it ,drug, alcohol, food, video games, porn, or even addicted to shopping ( think of women who own a 100 pair of shoes )etc etc is very lucrative for those with the power and money, those who sell us those things.
Those dysfunctional consumers will also over use their credit card and end up paying more interest and for longer or they will skip payments and pay penalties; more money for those with power.
Irresponsible people are also more likely to get into car accidents which raises the cost of their insurance
People with lower ability to control impulses will also be more likely to buy new things simply because, well they are new and getting new stuff gives them a high that are addicted to
There is not a lot of money to be made with frugal sensible people who are careful and reasonable.
But the more dysfunctional people are the more you can sell them stuff.
I don’t think it is a conspiracy, it is simply what human nature is when there is nothing to keep it under control.
And then suppose that there were a financial angle to all of this left-half-of-the-bell-curve insanity. Suppose that the Evil Psychiatrists and their kissing cousins controlled the pornography industry [end game for the nymphomaniacs], and the houses of usury [debt addicts], and the big department stores [shop-a-holics and hoarders]…
…and the cosmetics firms [Revlon – where sluts get their rouge], and the gambling parlors for the gambling addicts [Wynn and Adelson], and the “Nutritional Supplement” stores for the hypochondriacs [Soros], and the medical practices where the prescriptions were written for the drug addicts, and suppose that they pushed relentlessly for narcotics decriminalization [Soros and Peter Lewis].
And of course with all of this insanity being drummed up in the population at large, there would be a never-ending supply of new patients needing $250/hr psychotherapeutic sessions with the Evil Psychiatrists themselves.
The entire scheme would be like taking out a short contract – a short position – on an entire civilization.
“We will burn this mother to the ground, and we will laugh all the way to the bank while we’re doing it. Oh, and we own the bank, too. MOO HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!”
It’s much simpler than that: they make bad partners because they are….whores. Underanalyze next time.
Indeed, no need to marvel at magnets. It’s like asking why a rabid mastiff wouldn’t make a good family pet
microchimerism or “lotzacockaz”
C. Women bond with their behavior (permanent muscle memory).
If she calibrates on a cock carousel, that’s what her skills are. One-and-done calibration. In the wild, survival is dicey, so adapt and breed quickly. Men are in a weiner-take-all market until they are civilized cultural and give themselves the gift of the you-tap-it-you-own-it rule.
There’s little talk in the sphere about psychological mirroring, younger women tend to mirror their partners more frequently (for the life of me I can’t find the actual study where the assertion comes from) so women sleeping around are in effect mirroring alpha behaviour.
Prime example is girls who are into ghetto guys, they tend to pick up the worst of hood rat behaviour, tatts are another example.
It stands to reason that females simply cannot ape alpha behaviour without deleterious effects to their own innate psyche.
Good Post, but…
A) I would have used a photo of real life hound for the male. Draper diminishes your point being fictional.
B) The comments under the picture are the best part. I am surprised you did not comment on them.
The snarky, cutting remarks show the drip, drip, drip of Red Pill knowledge into the world, and the needed audacity to voice it.
The first seems the most dry and innocuous, but is the more clever. It reveals the core of what is going on here. He highlights that this is all about provisioning bucks, and the Beta is basically applying for a job on Team Tramp.
Did the menace to society that gave her her single mother status get such vetting, such demands for maturity before insemination?
Hells no, son! That was for fun. This about business! He brought the skittles, you bring the cash!
The second is straight up, lacks subtlety, but cuts to the heart all the same, and lets everyone know the score.
Warmed my heart those two gents.
They both did, indeed. Always nice to see reality out there.
The bottom image of the woman is probably fabricated. Comments like that on Fakebook get nuked immediately.
Except on OperatorAsFuck, that FB page doesn’t hold back- cold weather dick bags crying or not.
The pictures say it all.
Don Draper – looking like it’d cost you a thousand bucks to shake his hand.
Her with an empty clothes closet and pine-tree air freshener.
It is worth mentioning that if 1) the longer a woman’s sexual history, the worse off she is, AND 2) women can “gamed” in to attraction with a man then the fault would be completely removed from women for being sluts because they just followed their instinct and ultimately the fault lies with men for creating the problem of women with long sexual histories. So ultimately, some self restriction needs to be applied because unfettered, no one will end up in a happy situation since 1) men dislike women with long sexual histories AND 2) men will pursue sex with many different women. I haven’t really seen anyone discussing this.
Women have control over themselves, even in the presence of great game. YaReally and I argue about this. (But I’m right, lol.) The fault is with feminism, which has discouraged women from marrying young and, worse, encouraged women to have a SATC lifestyle before they do settle down. It’s not men’s fault for taking advantage of what women say they want, or how they act.
It is men’s fault if they misrepresent what they are looking for, and I’ll even go out on a limb to get flamed to say that I think NSA player types should stick to girls who are clearly fine with ONS or FWB, FB etc. That’s why I cringe when guys post about gaming a “good girl” through a couple dates to bang her but he’s not planning on sticking around. I think that sucks and guys who do that are officially part of the problem.
Men are the problem because they freed women.
Men USED to stick around. My dad married at 19 and is still with mom. This is fairly COMMON among the older generations. They weren’t looking to play the field, being a playboy was a sign of degeneracy and disrespect, alpha or not, women would steer clear of these guys.
Now, they mark for them. AGAIN, Frankenstein modern society is risk-free and the State is the provider. So men are now sex objects. This is so obvious as to almost defy need to state it. Black men are the worst possible mates in so many metrics yet they are placed on a pedestal…why? Imputed sexual aptitude. Physical characteristics.
Physical appearance, guys wearing feather boas to pick up chicks…wtf?? Bogart would never have done something like that, no man with class would be caught dead looking like a queer to peacock for girls.
I am ALL FOR banging “good girls” and turnin those hoez out- it’s what they have coming. Women are the prime mover now behind this momentum, so to hell with them. The latent ho in any girl should be exposed. If she wanted a commitment, she could have GOTTEN ONE. These so-called good girls voted Obama, they’re “feminists,” they support all of this BS. So tough sht if they get game run on them or “end up” getting GB’d or whatever else “just happened.”
This is one of my problems with “game” and using it; it reinforces derision for anyone who would fall for it. And this society constantly reminds us how stupid women are on a daily basis.
men are to blame- they freed women.
If women want a commitment, they should do 2 things- offer something of value for it, and insist on it.
I’m all for exposing the hoez latent in “good girls,” the stories I have heard about them giving BJs in club restrooms to black men or how they got GBd and it “just happened.” It’s a scam.
Life now is about physical appearance. The State is the provider. Men are sex objects now too, how else would the worst mates be put on a pedestal? For imputed sexual acumen, physical characteristics.
Men used to commit. A player in the old days was a man of disrepute. Nobody was wearing effing feather boas to try to peacock to women, such a man would have been beaten half to death by men with some class.
Not “officially part of the problem” == used like a man bitch. Never trust chick logic. The solution is the problem. Creative destruction. If men start to own women as a pooled commodity, they will have the patriarchal power to impose monogamy on women, again. The problem is the solution.
“I’m all for exposing the hoez latent in “good girls,” the stories I have heard about them giving BJs in club restrooms to black men or how they got GBd and it “just happened.” It’s a scam.”
This mindset is just unbelievable. You really think all girls have a secret background of gangbangs and blowing guys in club bathrooms? I think this is a big cop out. You use this BS mindset as a rationale for treating all girls like shit.
Sharing women as a pooled commodity isn’t going to restore patriarchy. Women will just opt out of sex. The only thing that’s going to restore patriarchy is removing the government as a substitute provider of women and children. We can’t opt out of basic survival.
A good girl doesn’t spread her legs after a couple of dates. She will often get to know you without ever sharing drinks. In college I tutored a girl who I found out later didn’t really need tutoring.
Consider that monogamy is more attractive or beneficial to women than it is for men, we can infer this from the above article. Men like sexual variety and are not harmed by it as much as women are. Feminists are supposedly opposed to monogamy or what is really marriage yet women stand to benefit more from it than men (not to mention married women are raped less). Additionally, I think the “red pill” community would say that women are more strongly driven by their urge to be appealing to men than they are driven to make profits and hold off on marrying. So it would have to be really backwards for women to actually follow through on feminist claims, (btw feminism makes extremely broad claims so we are cherry picking here) So the question to ask is who benefits from casual sexual relationships more? Men or women? Certainly not women given the above article and what I just said. You might even say that not all men benefit but certain men.
So ultimately, we have a situation where men are benefiting but not women. I leave out the legal issues like alimony etc, I am strictly talking about sex. Could feminism have caused such a way of life, sure, but if “red pill” values are correct, which is more likely? That women had sex with men who “gamed” them and thus they put off marriage to ride the ubiquitous cock carousel or that women en masse chose to listen to what a bunch of feminists at universities told them to do which happened be more beneficial for men’s sexual interests than women’s.
A good girl may well nor susceptible yo game. BUT – she will not let scsituation happen where the gamer can do his thing. She’ll smile nicely, politely, or coldly, depending on the man’s style and walk away.
When a girl gets drawn into an alphas game routine, she’s willingly being gamed. If she’s over 12, she knows exactly what’s going on.
So yeah, in a way, good girls can’t be gamed.
A good girl may well be susceptible to game. BUT – she …
A good girl is, prima facie, as disgusted with the thought of sex with a strange man (especially if she has a man she loves) as a man would be with homo sex.
If you’re a straight man and an ultra charming homosexual approaches you, and callibrates his game to your straightness… will you stand there and ‘resist his charm’ as you parry his lines? No, that would be gay.
What you’ll do is politely take your leave asap. Just like a good girl who is not open to being gamed by strange cock.
Welcome back Amy! Just for you:
“Women have control over themselves” – yep.
“It is men’s fault if they misrepresent what they are looking for” – nope.
Women are supposed to be very good at picking up cues – body language – reading subtext – reading tone of voice – etc etc etc. As a sex women love-love-love-love-love to beat us men over the head with our pathetic naivety and lack of subtlety. As a group you are goddesses, capable of reading our every casual thought!
Bullshit.
What’s happening is that these “lying men” are deliberately giving women the plausibly-deniable out so that she can do what she really wants to without being ostracised for being a slut afterwards. Then once dumped she can whinge and whine to her female friends and gather all their sympathy, engaging in a nice group-round of pity-me and man-bashing, before the entire group goes out to do it once more.
The “good girl” wanted to bang, it just took a couple of dates to reach the “plausible deniability” mark for her. Stop trying the blame-maim-shame game on us. You suck at it, plus its insulting that you should try to hand us that turd and tell us that it’s really soap.
Shiv. Back. Insert.
“Shiv. Back. Insert.”
Yawn. The bitter MGTOW is strong in this one.
Tip: Don’t try to play the Dark Master with me, buddy. You’re no CH. I know the difference between a benevolently wicked sadist and a frustrated angry troll.
Women have control over themselves, but like many things in life, it’s all about circumstances. A girl who is in an environment where a) she won’t be or feel judged, b) is attracted to a (or more than one even) guy, and c) few, if any people, will find out? Capable of anything. I guess that’s why this whole ‘good girl’ v ‘bad girl’ stuff is a little played: they’re all the same. The only diff is that the girl with more mileage is probably more likely to have issues that are annoying to deal with. Unsure why that’s so hard to believe.
And I have yet to find a girl who is “clearly fine” with ONS, FWB, FB, etc. I know several who say that. Girls talk a lot of shit, what’s new?
scray a woman whose circumstances are that she believes that fornicating with a) a man she’s attracted to or b) gangbanging multiple me men she’s attracted to will cause her soul to burn in hell won’t do it. likewise a faithful wife will resist all ‘circumstance’ if she’s intent on loyalty to her husband. NAWALT. women without these moral constraints may be ‘capable of anything’ but then the coal burner becomes the coal burnee – in satan’s furnace!
Believe it or not, there are no circumstances, other than complete physical incapacity, that would make me capable of being in a gangbang. It’s not something I find even remotely sexually arousing. But let’s assume for fun that I find all depraved sexual behavior arousing. What this really all boils down to is that some of you believe women have no morality whatsoever. Which is BS. There’s a difference between what I might WANT to do in a given situation, and what I WILL do. Not all of us just skip through life doing what feels good and not thinking about consequences. I feel sorry for the guys who think all girls do this. No wonder you don’t like women!
@amy- did I *say* that I thought “all” good girls had given BJs in the bathroom or had GBs? Or are you getting emotional on me? I love how when something hits close to the mark you can watch women melt down in emotionalization and righteous indignation.
No, I said ENOUGH women had that I don’t believe, especially in this area, that a girl is a good girl based on her own self-authentication. I’ve BEEN the guy in some of these cases, in da Club, and it didn’t much matter who the girl was or what her story was. She’s in “Vegas” and she wants to cut loose for the thrill of it. I see this crap all the time. Boyfriend, engaged, married, boyfriend even in the next room- it doesn’t matter.
Never let your girl go to de Club alone and never on vacation alone. She’s gonna meet a player who is looking to play (and so is she).
If a girl is a good girl, she won’t fall for this “game” shit…she will stick to her principles and not play games in return and things will be fine. If I treat women like shit it is because they are shit.
You want an illustration of cognitive dissonance? I picked up a girl in Venice and within 20 minutes had her hand down my pants right there in St. Mark’s square. And this is a girl who now back in the States told me to cancel a meet up because she isn’t looking for a “one-night stand”…I already blew a load across her face, get it?
women enter an altered mental state when they are on vacation or in de Club…I’ve seen it a zillion times. This is how they say stuff “just happened,” because to them, there isn’t any logical progression from their self-image to the girl who was on her knees in a filthy restroom with a mouthful of black cock. Women do not have principles, morals, or anything of the kind that men talk about, all their beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc., are contextual.
Anonymous-
I am not sure if you read any of my responses but yours is exactly the kind I was talking about. You are essentially saying that women enter an altered mental state from which they lose all morality and ability to make decisions and yet the players also blame them for having long sexual histories. Men do not like long sexual histories, see above, yet they also are willing to admit that women do not have control over their actions. So, the men who do these things with women are really at fault for wanting sex from women but also castigating them for loose moralities. If you really don’t want women to do such depraved things, then don’t do it with them, that is the only solution, you can’t expect women to comply with a morality you yourself say they are incapable of following. Men need to practice restraint.
‘a) a man she’s attracted to or b) gangbanging multiple me men she’s attracted to will cause her soul to burn in hell won’t do it’
lol probably not because all that amounts to is she will feel judged.
‘Believe it or not, there are no circumstances, other than complete physical incapacity, that would make me capable of being in a gangbang. ‘
So….a guy you were attracted to has never gotten you to do something you never thought you’d do? Have a hard time believing that, which is why I have a hard time believing this statement of yours is true.
Look, I’m not saying women are all cock-crazed goblins. But yeah, people are only human. Good girls, bad girls….both the same, both respond to the same things. This whole myth of ‘unicorn’ good girls is doing more harm than good.
Ultimately, no one and nothing can be blamed for ANYTHING in the deterministic universe to which we are cast. I get your point about blaming the men, but even they are mere biological machines reacting to their surroundings. There is NO FREE WILL; it’s merely an illusion that, when viewed from outside ourselves, is revealed.
Yeah, I remember freshman year Philosophy 101 courses.
I think the world is deterministic, yet being a nihilist means not using your brain. The brain takes resources and does nothing, becomes a competitive disadvantage. Nihilists are pruned, as they should be. Bugs already have the no-brains niche monopolized. We are an apex species that must evolve progressively. The paradox is that natural free will, though supernaturally deterministic, is an individual choice. The system is slated to evolve down a particular path, but where we are on that path at a given time depends on us collectively since the epoch. Presumably, supernatural determinism is outside of spacetime and therefore transcends time. Inside the belly of the beast called the universe, there is free will but all roads lead to Rome. Use your will to look out for #1, including those who share your principles and culture. Thinkers are not relieved of their duty to think until they are dead. Red pill is about recalibration. We are what we are, and must do what we do. Function follows form.
Perhaps our will just isn’t as free as we’d like. I call it Limited Will.
Saying there is no such thing as free will sounds “deep” but actually does not mean much.
And it does not change anything about anything.
When you bang your toe it still hurts and when the woman you love cheats on you it still hurts, and when you ejaculate in a very beautiful woman it feels great.
who cares that you have or you don’t have free will?
it changes nothing about the reality we live in day after day
You guys are way too academic. Fuck all that leftist Philosophy 101 crapola.
BLAMING someone else for your problems (or the problems of a group) is weakness. It’s throwing out excuses.
This is why women and pansy-assed weak men always blame others for something. They haven’t the strength to own the situation. They’re just weak as shit, incapable, using pathetic excuses to cover up their own inadequacies and shift all responsibility on to someone else.
TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for your own situations is strength. And I’m not talking about shouldering the blame for someone else either: fuck that noise. You weren’t put on this planet to be someone else’s punching bag or slave.
Now pull your heads outta your asses and deal with the real world, Mister Fucking Academic Professors.
Further: Stop “buying in” to any crap that a woman throws up. Start to be automatically suspicious and think that it’s just another snow-job. It usually is.
(AKA: Treat everything she says as being cute. That’s when you start getting your aloof mastery.)
That stare is real. It’s an emptiness you can see, like they have been robbed of their essence. Fucking creepy actually, I remember you said somewhere something about sluts having black orbs for eyes…I always remembered that.
Mouth has smile eyes do not.
good in bed.
I think “dead orbs for eyes” would be more accurate.
There may well be some correlation between the type of men who obsessively pursue poon (racking up huuuuuge numbers in the process) and men who are bad at relationships. But I don’t think it’s the actual sex that is the problem; it’s the underlying personality, the compulsiveness, that is the problem. It doesn’t apply to someone who is simply good with women and racks up 10, 20, 30 partners before settling down.
I can’t see a male partner count in the 10-20 range having any correlation with being a bad relationship bet. Females with the same count: run for the hills.
Probably the optimal state for most men is to have a steady girlfriend/wife, with one or two flings on the side each year with cute girls.
Dunno Thursday, when I looked at the data years ago, men with a high N were a greater risk for divorce but it did appear that promiscuity affected men less than women. If I had to posit a rule of thumb then risk equivalence could be expressed as;
risk woman(N)= risk man (N+3).
I didn’t do a proper statistical analysis for a variety of reasons, so don’t hold me to the figures but it is the impression that I got.
Secondly, I also agree with Bob Wallace. The guys I’ve known with very high N’s aren’t right. I’m not saying this because I want to fly the Christian flag, it’s just that in my clinical experience (for what that’s worth) the man-sluts have nearly always had psychological issues of some kind.
There’s no way in hell a guy with an n of 13 is as much of a risk as a women with an n of 10.
IIRC, in the study you cited, men with an n of 20 had the same risk as women with an n of 2.
Thursday, it’s been a while since I looked at the data, but you’re right.
The divorce risk formula is female risk(2)= male risk (20).
I’ve known guys who obsessively chased women. By middle age they were emotional catastrophes – all of them. I’m talking 100+.
Mystery is one of them. I think those type of guys have other issues like a red pill lodged in their throat.
The two main issues I have noticed are cowardice and impulsiveness – and yet there are those who think these types are “alphas.”
Jesus saves
Obsessively chasing women means that a man will spend an inordinate amount of time and energy to do so. No matter how Alpha, good looking, charming etc he is, he still has to compete with other men.
Therefore, other areas of his life are bound to suffer, particularly if he starts his pussy chasing odyssey early.
One of the ironies of life is that a strength, taken too far will often become a weakness.
The only possible relief valve is that he is already loaded with money.
Money buys you options, time, comfort and although cannot buy one happiness, can get rid of much unhapiness.
It can, if used well, also attract a ton of pussy.
The Difference Between Promiscuous Men And Promiscuous Women … Women get gaps – Men get grins.
For a long time I had the distinct impression [now backed by science] that women after a certain age with some experience under their belt were incapable of pair-bonding and love, and I avoided these females for anything other than a fuck or two.
Someone on the Goodbye America in a Photo page posted this salient observation.
uncatchable
July 28, 2014 at 11:26 am
This would be eerie if it werent so pathetic. See how her smile doesn’t reach her eyes.
Why would any man want to date a single-mother? If that were his only choice then frankly he shouldn’t bother; if it isn’t, then his judgement is defective.
I suspect that in many cases, it isn’t a matter of *wanting* to, it’s a matter of not having much choice. What do you do when virtually ALL even semi-attractive women over 16 have at least 1 kid?
Move?
Well, duh.
Working on it, son, working on it……
I’ve seen it before in person. It’s unsettling like few things are.
kill counts for 6-8s aged 17-22 are the fucking norm these days.
you guys are bitching about 10??
10 is the new 2.
Yeah, by the time a girl is 25 or so….her having less than 10 is pretty decent.
I have met girls that age who were like “hmmm, let me think” and I said “50?” and they didn’t get offended. “No I think it’s more like 35.”
You guys have no idea. I hear stories about 20s girls who were going for the century and settled down at 86. You think 30 is a lot, 30 is “last year.”
when she’d finally poop one out, it’d have the dna of half the weiners.
I agree, but let me put forward one possible explanation. It’s not the sex count, it’s how the relationship ended.
The person who got rejected from LTR/commitment after the sex will take an emotional hit to self-esteem. That person will think “what is wrong with me that I can not secure a committed mate even though he/she got sex from me?”
On average, it’s the men pursuing sex and rejecting commitment, because obviously we are supposed to be the provider and she expects to be the beneficiary. (Women do not feel the gravity of this.) Later in life we do pursue commitment, but it’s still the same one sided deal.
A player, who was in the game to get a lot of sex, will not be emotionally crippled, because he got what he wanted, he was not after commitment and all he did was rejecting the female demands for his commitment.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners, who all rejected her demands for a continued relationship, will be emotionally scarred.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners and rejected them all for better prospects might not be emotionally damaged.
Some % of a girl’s kill count will be ‘let me try and do the right thing’ beta guys who she “tried” really hard to like. Naturally, those relationships fall apart because the girl doesn’t want to commit to the guy. Those won’t have much of an impact on her — I agree.
So really you have come to the actual explanation — women fuck up, men fuck down, as we all know. Men relationship up, women relationship down. Men are fucking chicks who they are higher value than, this is why the women are fucking them — the woman is offering sex early because she knows she must. Consequently, the man suffers no loss in self-esteem because why? He is in control.
Women tend to fuck guys who are better than them, which means that the women are not in control.
I’d argue further that “game” does not change this law of nature. It just raises your value so that more girls will fuck you — but they’re only fuckable now because you’re so much higher value than them now.
Which means what? Your overall happiness evens out lol (weird but true), because once you become cooler and more higher value, you become entitled. No matter what you’re always fucking down — that’s where the smirk comes from — you know you’re better than the bitches you’re fucking. Period. The end.
“A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners and rejected them all for better prospects might not be emotionally damaged.”
Yes maybe not damaged emotionally she will still be a bitch and might find it challenging to secure commitment later.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners, who all rejected her demands for a continued relationship, will be emotionally scarred.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners and rejected them all for better prospects might not be emotionally damaged.
———————————————————————————–
If a woman makes it to 40 and has no man and no children she should be considered null and void.
This feels like a new concept. The old washed up career hag thing. In the past, it was very very common for a percentage of women to grow gracefully into “old maids.” They were the women who ran the food pantries, helped out at the church, taught school, became nuns, etc. I’m not seeing why it is such an evil life path to remain celibate and childless.
she’s void long before that. 40 is just when the reality of biology makes having a child with her own eggs a sub-10% proposition. I’ve actually encountered hoez that age who were talking like “now i’m totally ready to settle down and ready for the family and all of that.” I just laughed at and mocked them.
Feminism: shrilly declaiming that 40+ and mandatory-IVF is the natural way to procreate and sire the next generation.
@trav777 It’s really insane that women even think that having kids after 40 is possible. It’s not. At 42 a woman has a 5 % chance of falling pregnant naturally. That’s not how you plan a family. I think they really believe it’s possible, and it’s disturbing and worrying. It goes beyond feminism. There is a deniable about how biology works and how the human body functions.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners, who all rejected her demands for a continued relationship, will be emotionally scarred.
— No. She may become emotionally scarred if she doesn’t learn her lesson and keep her legs closed long enough with the next guy to know if he’s the committing type. But atleast her innately feminine drive to commit is still intact..and her count will be under control as long as that commitment mindedness remains intact and she hasn’t bought into the ‘I can fuck as many guys as I want until I am ready to settle down’ meme.
A woman, who went through a series of sexual partners and rejected them all for better prospects might not be emotionally damaged.
–This type of woman is broken before she even gets started. Her drive for excitement/validation/newness is higher than her drive for committment. Her instinctual feminine drive for a stable partner and provider is weak or non-existent. She will never be happy even if she does find a man that she pretends to commit to on some level. The ‘lucky’ man will be truly misrable.
An interesting theory. But I think you also have to consider that some girls after having a plethora of cocks, also can pull away at the slightest whiff if lack of commitment. This is Probly a function of having been through this dance before with alphas, and they eject prematurely and assume the worst. Happened to me a a girl I actually liked a lot. 19 years old, had 18 guys already. She was a pretty cool chick but def fucked up from all that. So whether she left on her own or was hyper sensitive to rejection from having ZERO idealism w relationships….her past still makes it hard for her to secure commitment. That’s what low self esteem from fucking tons of guys will do to a girl…she interprets everything without that naive sweetness of an inexperienced young girl. On the same coin, men who are reluctant to commit after youthful, “caution to the wind” displays of love get you humiliated with oneitis. Life beats us down, good to have the antidote here at ch. to some extent.
you have cause and effect wrong, people. Girls don’t get low self esteem FROM fucking tons of guys, having it is what causes them to fuck tons of guys.
Being used as a cum dumpster will make them jaded, sure, but not so jaded they won’t jump right back in the sack. “I’ve got to stop doing this to myself” is the line I heard post-coitus once.
they are completely clueless why they do what they do. they think its all just having fun. proof: throw a lil game at post carousel chicks, she will say i don’t do that anymore or some ideration of that theme. if they knew why carousel riding was bad they would not overshare by saying i don’t do that anymore. instead they would say not interested or pull away or ignore you. which is all you need to know. sluttiness is the single biggest turnoff for guys. the reason? guys know they are untrustworthy and that the chance the offspring will not be their son or as science is showing with microchimerism her dna is corrupted.
The study is more likely demonstrating selection bias and not causality. Women who could not or would not marry until they have experienced multiple sexual partners will probably be inherently different as a population from the get-go from the population of those who could/would.
Heh at the reports (AGAIN) of the Pakistanis grooming white English girls in South Yorkshire. I’m FROM a village near Rotherham, and seriously, entire sections of that Town, and the city of Sheffield near it (and many other areas), are now full Pakistani no-go areas.
They’re taught that White girls are “sluts” and “filth” and that they can do whatever they want with them, plying them with drink and drugs (easy around here). The girls easily go along with it, then find themselves being shipped over to other counties and used.
Authorities have been told so many times about this, it’s been in the papers over and over again, “lessons will be learned” each time.
Also heh:
”
“When the council discovered that The Times intended to publish information about care workers’ knowledge of Laura’s involvement with ‘Asian men’, it sought at great expense a High Court injunction barring publication.
“It dropped the legal action in June 2012 after Michael Gove, the education secretary at the time, accused the board of withholding ‘relevant and important material’. Three months later, this newspaper revealed the extent of Rotherham’s failure to protect exploited children. The council’s response was to ask the police, and then a firm of solicitors, to investigate the leak of restricted information.”
They were more bothered about finding the leak than protecting the English girls.
Also a post on the Sheffield forum shows the gangs to be even more sinister:
“While the police often failed to take action against the abusers, there were cases where concerned parents were arrested for trying to protect their own children.
The report identified two separate cases where fathers who had tracked their daughters down and were trying to remove them from houses where they were being abused, were themselves arrested.”
In 2001 a young girl who had been repeatedly raped escaped from her abuser’s clutches.
In order to send a message to her, the perpetrators smashed all the windows at her parents’ home before attacking her brother and breaking his legs.
At that point the teenager agreed to make a complaint to the police. However when she arrived at the police station she received a text message from her abuser telling her that he had her 11-year-old sister with him and adding: “your choice.
She did not proceed with the complaint and later refused to cooperate with social services.
In the report Professor Jay concluded: “The incident raised questions about how the perpetrator knew where this young woman was and what she was doing.”
The last quote is also rather chilling, I imagine that Muslims (and even their PC kafir lackeys) within the police force, social services and councils are tipping these people off so the abuse can go on.
I’ve also been reading about a young girl called Laura Wilson who after being ignored by the police and social services and left at the mercy of these gangs, went to the families of two of the men and told them about what was going on (she also had a child with one of them) and the families response? They murdered her for bringing dishonor on them. When a review of the case was published the fact that the police and social services knew she was at particular risk from ‘Asian men’ (i.e Muslims) had been blocked out with black lines and the council also tried to sue The Times when the paper printed the uncensored copy of the report.
It’s not just the Muslim groomers we are dealing with, their politically correct allies are just as sick and just as guilty. ”
This is referring to a couple of cases way back from 2001…
A few people may say “where were the fathers?”, well in most cases they were likely unknown, the “vulnerable” girls being products of drugged up single mums. However apparently a couple of fathers were present and confronted their daughter’s abusers when they found out.
The fathers were both arrested..
In all seriousness, why isn’t somebody taking a few of these guys out in the local woods and just killing them? Or at the very least beating them half to death?
If UKIP was smart, they’d run on this.
Also a post on the Sheffield forum shows the gangs to be even more sinister:
“While the police often failed to take action against the abusers, there were cases where concerned parents were arrested for trying to protect their own children.
The report identified two separate cases where fathers who had tracked their daughters down and were trying to remove them from houses where they were being abused, were themselves arrested.”
In 2001 a young girl who had been repeatedly raped escaped from her abuser’s clutches.
In order to send a message to her, the perpetrators smashed all the windows at her parents’ home before attacking her brother and breaking his legs.
”””””””
well shit at least a couple guys with balls
then arrested sounds familiar like what would happen where I live
its worldwide conspiracy no bs
“concerned parents were arrested.” Parentzzz be waaaaycis. U be waaaaaaaycis. I report u to Sue Berlowitz n Harperson n Milliband n Danny Cohen n da Labour partay to b forcefed da bagelzzzz til u die. U waaaaaaaycis wyteman.
WAAAAAAAAYCISSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!
“In all seriousness, why isn’t somebody taking a few of these guys out in the local woods and just killing them? Or at the very least beating them half to death?”
Try getting a Pakistani guy alone, ain’t going to happen. Those guys travel in groups, BIG groups. Fuck with one, and you have the whole community on you. Not a good idea when ENTIRE parts of the town are full of them, and they all know eachother.
Also as in the article, anyone who does stand up, gets the government / police against them as well. As it says a couple of fathers actually found the places where their daughters were being held and abused, the FATHERS were arrested.
the jolly hockey sticks bits need to eat a bit of shit and ask their old friends the I R A to help them out here. a few rocket launchers and m16s and some of that clinical assassination is what’s needed to cower the filthy throat-cutting Muslim scum, and send them straight back up paedophile mohommed’s shit pipe. there’s a collection hat/plate at church on Sunday right? if the price is right, you can get some top
And these are the fruits of giving up your country with nary a wimper, preferring instead to be politically correct and maintaining a stiff upper lip. Riots and burning down Parliament should have been the call of the day when you were being sold out and your borders erased. So sad to hear what has become of my grandparent’s nation, and yet, so happy they left so that I didn’t have to live through it too.
you will and are you just don’t know it yet
“And these are the fruits of giving up your country with nary a wimper”
This is a moronic blaming of the victim. The English people were betrayed by their government just like you’ve bern beyrayed by yours.
What the hell did you do when America got invaded by millions of coloreds starting under Clinton? Nothing right?
“happy they left so that I didn’t have to live through it too.”
Dude, you’re smarter than that. This is idiotic Murkan patriotard breast beating. America has been just as degraded, if not more, than England.
More on the subject: England had skinheads (until they were crushed by the state), BNP, UKIP.
What the fuck did murka have? Morons who bleat ‘freedumb’ and think George W Bush was a conservative president.
The people are pretty complicit in their own destruction. You can’t just blame the elites.
It’s unfair and by historic track record, besides-the-point, and really just glib to blame people for their government’s actions against them. It would be analogous to blaming a child for his parents’ abusive acts — true on some theoretical level, but really just indecent.
I cannot think of one historic instance where a resistance movement succeeded without a strong political and financial backing. In the UK and the rest of the West, all political factions that matter, all media, all finance are against the people.
How have the English been any more comicit in this than you’ve been complicit in Canada’s hate speech laws?
In America we’ve seen instances of citizens resistance. McVeigh was executed and Randy Weaver lost his wife and son.
This was imposed on us, we never voted for that, we never agreed to have hordes of third world savages replace us while they are raping our young women and while our hard earned tax dollar supports this genocide.
We only have a voice one day every 4 years, once elected the president/prime ministers do what the fuck they want.
I may vote for a guy who promises one thing but once he is in power and does the opposite of what he promised, how am I to blame for what happens next?
I hate to say this but I see only way this can end; in violence.
One day a large enough number of white people will be fed up and will start shooting and it will get ugly.
I will not be one of them as I do not own any firearms, hell I do not even live in the USA and here in Quebec absolutely nothing violent will ever happen, and I am getting a bit old for that shit, but the more I read about what is happening to the white race the more it is impossible for me to image any other way this will end. It will all end in violence.
Once white people realize voting is useless they will find a way to bring about the necessary changes to insure their survival and to insure they are not second rate citizens in their own nations.
One day there will be one too many riot such as the one in ferguson and one too many white person fired for being a “”‘racist””” and things will get ugly.
I read stuff at American renaissance, I read stuff at The Occidental Observer, and I read stuff at dozens of other sites and I receive news letters and emails from friends and I am surprised that with all the injustices raining on whites that it has not happened yet.
The pressure is mounting and the cover is going to blow. and it will happen in more than one place.
I can not believe we are letting hordes of savages rape our women and take our jobs and we sit there doing nothing.
and we let our media and governments tell us we are bad people for daring complaining about this genocide against the white race.
Someone somewhere is about to blow a fuse and start shooting
It will not be me, don’t worry, but this organized oppression of the white race is creating more Breiviks every day, and those guys are about to snap.
I can feel it in the content and the tone of comments at many sites (even at Yahoo news!), more and more whites are complaining about this and more and more of them are getting more and more fed up with this organized oppression of whites.
It will get worse for a while and then this will reach a tipping point and things will get ugly.
How else can things change?
Does anyone seriously believe it is possible that our governments will send millions of immigrants back home? or that they will write new laws to protect the white race?
Even if immigration was stopped completely this would not change anything.
Within 10 to 25 years a gasket will blow and this will be resolved trough violence.
Obama sent a white house delegation to the funeral of a THUG ( Michael Brown , a criminal, google it ) yet he ignored the funerals of the first general to be killed in combat since the Vietnam war.
Your President is on the enemy’s side!!! he has more respect for thugs and criminals ( trayvon could have been his son… ) than for any white person on this planet.
Eric Holder refused to prosecute the new black Panthers depite overwhelming evidence of voting fraud ( or whatever it is they did ) because they are ” his people”
And I could go on for pages and pages
It is as ugly in France, England and every white nation.
We are being fucked in the ass by our governments and by non-whites.
someday someone will do something radical to stop this insanity, that is a certainty. It is only a question of when.
Ok I’ll stop now.
If that’s not cause for a pogrom against the Muslim dogs, I don’t know what is.
such a thing would make you a Nazi, because you’d start asking yourself who was running the banks and media…nevermind when they come right out and throw it in your face like Barb Schecter did in Sweden.
The other issue with this is the biological element. Rotherham has been filled to the brim with immigrants, INTENTIONALLY: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-25741778
Not only do we have the problem of these young girls getting pregnant with immigrant babies after being gangraped, the other is that these poor girls are certainly not going to be wife / girlfriend material after all that trauma. Just how are good, white men supposed to find women to build strong families with, when they’re going to be such damaged goods?
There’s already a huge number of dysfunctional, white families in this area where the young men resort to drugs, drinking and violence, rather than building families and working. Single mums are rampant around here.
This on top of immigrants being given priority over benefits and housing (especially with their huge families of 5+, when whites struggle to manage 2 children), there’s very few “good” families left. As the government has demolished the manufacturing centre and practically everything outside London (where whites are now <49% of the population there), how are strong white families supposed to be able to build and resist this?
They’re not only breeding us out, but ensuring the men are kept down with no hope or opportunities, and the women are damaged beyond repair.
“Uxorious.” CH, teaching game and vocab.
I’ve noticed that it is the older women who’re past their prime and at the tail-end of their carousel riding who are the most jaded, the most bitter, and soulless.
Usually the age range is late 20s to mid 30s and it can often be older (though not often younger than late 20s).
The potency of these womens’ shit tests are incongruent to their SMV. The result of 1-2 decades of ‘discovering themselves’ has hardened them to an extent that they are terrible LTRs – and this just referring to their personality. When their declining beauty as well as their numerous strains of pathogens are taken into account, they are irredeemable.
Go for the chicks in their early 20s. Of course, you didn’t need me to tell you that, your biology already knows it.
One reason the shit-tests are so virulent is that they just want to get the inevitable break-up over with — they at least want the control sensation of torpedoing, self-sabotaging, their next new relationship.
I would say that they cross over to the irredeemable side when you see fluent, even joyful, clearly repetitive forms of self-sabotage. That’s when you know they live for the vicious circle instead of the virtuous one they insist they are seeking.
As I recall you posted a funny story where the whole process took less than an hour. You showed up for lunch and before it was over the woman just rudely bolted saying, “this isn’t going to work.”
What’s not going to work? Ordering dessert? Paying the bill?
Waiting for the valet to bring the car around? Help me here, bitch.
Correctomundo. And she seemed to have some unusual flexibility of mind, and clearly had awesome legs.
I have a low tolerance for drama and since learning to recognize shit-tests swat those aside with some dispatch. But this self-sabotaging appears to be a fast-cycle shit-test escalation to the truly MAD nuclear level. I’m beginning I should induce, rather than neuter, such displays. They seem to be very important to the women I date; they self-actualize in displaying zero self-restraint or self-awareness. To date I’ve let them, under the “this is not worth it” label. But maybe it’s just a new personality tic, like being divorced because “he was emotionally remote … borderline abusive … I think he has substance abuse problems.”
35-50 is the very bottom of the vitriol barrel.
Most are ok, attitude-wise, until about 25 or so, things degrade from there, the bottom drops out at 30-something, mid-50’s most of them give up and either revert to half-normal or just become hateful – but ignored – old witches.
“Dated” one of these girls for about a month a year or so ago. 29, upper middle class, well off, parents still together, but addicted to 4 or 5 substances and in the waning stages of formerly high attractiveness. The shit tests got so bad that I would literally just start laughing at the absurdity of it all – which would cause her to double down on the tests. I ended up just walking out her door one night and never calling again. She’s now 6 months pregnant out of wedlock by some poor beta who lives 400 miles away. Her house is on the way back from band practice and I never see a second car there. We live in dark times.
was on a date with a girl last night, conversation got on to what she finds attractive in guys. she says she likes when guys have ‘the attitude’…i knew exactly what she talking bout but i asked her what she meant for kicks.
like when your in a bar most guys wont come talk to you even though its obvious that they are in to me, a guy that can do that has the attitude
few minutes later i grabbed her and kissed her and she said ‘you have the attitude’ with a big smile on her face.
now thats a red pill aware girl
LOL. It think the right label is: slut. This girl is just a common carousel rider; definitely not a good girl, definitely not a LTR candidate.
Anytime I have tried to find an “exception to this rule,” I was left disappointed and mad at myself for thinking such things were possible. This is the most true thing ever said on CH, along with the wages of beta niceness being relational instability, female unhappiness, and disappointment.
Don’t mess with the formula. It works.
Women do not fix problems.
Listen to how people talk. Men talk to solve problems. Women only speak to vent & (temporarily) group-together.
So whenever an insult hits a woman, it stays there.
Otherwise, one of my favorite exemplars of The TCS is pretty-much any photo of Natalie Dormer. lulz.
Sheer perfection
LOL
Women “fix” problems by blaming the nearest man…
The thousand cock stare is also a good way of telling whether a girl is a mudshark/coalburner.
You seriously want to tell me that this single mother’s kid is white?
Doubt it.
Look for this stare on your campus, college students. I see it all the time.
Slut face is just as real a thing as gay face.
I was at a wedding with my bf a couple months ago. Even though I wasn’t in the wedding party, I was invited to the bachelorette party in Vegas. We had been hanging out with the (moderately famous) comedian w/his entourage who had a running show there, and one of the ENGAGED bridesmaids ended up spending the night in the comedian’s suite. Yes, engaged. Nice.
Anyway I told my bf all this. He didn’t know any of the bridesmaids so names meant nothing to him. We are at the wedding and I said, which one do you think is Christine (the slut)? Mind you, they’re all dressed exactly the same and he hadn’t met or interacted with any of them yet. He IMMEDIATELY picked her out. I couldn’t believe it! He said “guys have slutdar.” Lol
if i was your victim (sorry, BF) i’d have just said “all of you”.
saves time.
Hey, don’t you be talkin’ ’bout my woman dat way!
I’d say “tha blonde one”
Tiki is still bitter I didn’t contact him offsite like he asked. Clearly that makes me a slut. Lol
Yes indeed. For many, it’s simply a matter of “you know it when you see it,” but based on my experience, slut faces seem to have a much more insincere air about them, as if they’re only pretending to be into you and it’s all an act. You know, like a professional whore.
The thing that most jumps out to me is that their eyes lack the merriment and sparkle that lower-N girls have when they look at you.
Slut face is real. I’m not sure what it is. In my experience the slut is the one with a slimy, ‘moist’ look on her face, as if all the cum she’s ingested is oozing out of her pores.
LOL Tilikum, you have never had a girlfriend in your life. Fat uneducated loser.
Slut face is real. I’m not sure what it is. In my experience the slut is the one with a slimy, ‘moist’ look on her face, as if all the cum she’s ingested is oozing out of her pores.
That would certainly qualify for the woman featured in this post, indeed.
I remember going in the black club in Germany and the white bitches had this hard ass look
while at my country club they were fresh looking like happy
no happy looking bitches at black club
that’s what it was not happy gone
that’s weird like there was no fun there man
You don’t think the black club bitches talk to the white club bitches?
no not there two separate worlds
just like black club in Houston I was only white dude there another world
800 blacks
trust me, all whores exchange notes.
whores that hang together yea
but if they don’t they can’t lol
chick that wanted to go out with black dudes in Germany did not hang out with chicks who wanted to go with white guys
there wasn’t even the token black at my club
It’s a vicious circle for femmes racing and racing round the racetrack, because their ideology already promotes the idea of men as deficient, doofus, misogynist creatures. So acquiring and discarding men at high frequency rates actually serves their ideology and elevates them in status with their sex pozzie friends.
Then they wake up and have hardwired themselves to treat men as accessories, sex as entertainment, and intimacy as a threat to their Incredible Feminist Independent Lifestyle.
How will such a woman react to the constraints of monogamy? With extinction bursts of brutal, escalating, incessant fault-finding.
Per usual, what they say they want (as they are face-planting into The Wall) is not what they really want or can actually sustain. But they will be available, and you will get laid. Hint: in approximately 100.00% of cases, you might wish to take 100.00% responsibility for birth control.
succinct
another great comment among a deluge of eviscerating and veil-removing comments on this thread. having read thus far, I must say, well-done chaps. you’re really painting these hizzos into a corner, and there’s little left for them to do but spin wildly like tazmanian devils or face the wall and rationalise to themselves like the poor banshee in Blair witch project
Look at the typical beta Facebook comment following the single-mom picture:
“i’m sure they are looking for mature men. an immature man is probablt what made them a single mother.”
Translation: nothing is ever the woman’s fault. Everything is men’s fault. And let’s conveniently forget that women break up the vast majority of relationships.
Betas start out with the faulty premise that the dating scene with all its rules, and the extension of those rules into a relationship, is a bad thing that men have invented. They try to display value by declaring themselves un-gaming. They try instead to buy a woman through flattery, money, attention and favors.
The truth is that the dating scene exists because women made it so. Men would prefer to cut through the chase, women don’t. “Romance is a way to raise the cost of sex” as a wise man put it. It is a way to test who will be a good father, and who will stick around to provide for the woman and her child. That is why men are made to jump through hoops, whether by stringing a lute under a balcony or buying her a drink at a party. Game is a man’s understanding of all this, and an understanding of how to work through it in a way that doesn’t make him look like an uninteresting beta chump.
The beta, unable to do this, will then try to present the alpha men as cads, always false, tricking a woman with the promise of a relationship in order to sleep with her. It is a feminist-invented lie: In reality sex is part of the dating process. It doesn’t mean that the man has promised a relationship or that the woman expects one for sleeping with him. And the alpha doesn’t make a worse relationship partner, as the beta will pretend. In fact, he will be a better partner as he is more likely to understand that the game is never over. That you can never let go and become a couch potato, or allow the woman to do so, if you want the relationship to be a happy one.
Arbiter,
You are being way too harsh on the beta. Their crime is that they don’t understand the post 1960s dating arena, which is the consequence of allowing women to act on their lust; i.e. pure emotionalism. But the betas are actually operating by a more noble rule system. They are trying to develop an emotional connection over a longer period of time using traditional dating methods like dinners and events. They are NOT jumping into bed because they are trying to bond with the girl over time. This is not something pathetic in theory. Its actually the better way.
However, it is not a direct route to arouse a woman. And it only works if all the other men in the dating environment are playing by the same rules which today they are not. The beta game plan is designed to build solid long term relationships that will have trust and commitment. Its a good solid way to build relationships that will lead to families.
Today, it doesn’t work (or barely works) because women are emotional creatures. The “horsemen of the apocalypse” have created a short term sexual market that never existed to the extent it does now. Women thus have access to men who specialize in creating short term bursts of attraction that are not oriented around long term family building. These men are the “alphas”. So women waste time with these men before “the wall” forces them back down the path of long term relationships. But by that time they are psychologically ruined. And the betas that they passed over when younger are by now bitter. The whole system is nihilistic.
But that is the world we find ourselves in. I don’t harbor hatred of betas though. No. They deserve sympathy. Especially in light of the fact that they have been betrayed by not only their parents but by their teachers and by society at large. In essence, the Left has created a society where betas are simultaneously abused and marginalized while being plundered for the support of the entire “equalist” ideological welfare state; including the vicious “divorce-rape” industry.
Betas are not bad people. In a better age they would be happily married men with dutiful wives and loyal children. Civilization is not possible without betas. Alphas are anti-civilization. You’re view is the same one Krauser has and it is wrong IMO. Game is crucial in this day and age but it is wrong to be cruel towards betas (with the exception of Leftist white-night betas – but that is b/c they have become political equalists).
Arbiter can’t swallow it down all the way. He longs for a world long dead.
Arbiter,
You are being way too harsh on the beta. Their crime is that they don’t understand the post 1960s dating arena, which is the consequence of allowing women to act on their lust; i.e. pure emotionalism. But the betas are actually operating by a more noble rule system. They are trying to develop an emotional connection over a longer period of time using traditional dating methods like dinners and events. They are NOT jumping into bed because they are trying to bond with the girl over time. This is not something pathetic in theory. Its actually the better way.
Yeah, but if a man actually voices that opinion, refusing to put any onus on the woman, he’s definitely a gamma and should be mocked until lessons are learned.
don’t kid yourself alpha beta omega whatever
they all pay child support
except for a very very very few
stop thinking someone else has it easier than you
its life its hard for everyone
Betas are not bad people. In a better age they would be happily married men with dutiful wives and loyal children. ””””””””””””””””””’
naaa bro
in another age I would of killed them all and had the woman working for me
But the betas are actually operating by a more noble rule system. They are trying to develop an emotional connection over a longer period of time using traditional dating methods like dinners and events.
I understand what you are saying, but I’d say there are two types of betas we are talking about, then. The lower beta is the one attacking the alpha to try to score points, and he is also the one trying to present himself as being “above it all” when it comes to game.
Alphas also date. They just do it better.
Aww, poor little Tilikum still can’t think of anything to say except juvenile crap. Typical for an uneducated janitor who hates anyone who is more successful in life.
Remember his laughable post whining about how people were using scientific facts in posts – little Tili is too dumb to understand that. He claimed that his opinions are all that matters, not what actual research says. He wants a pat on the head for simply existing. Typical little socialist loser.
Single motherhood = child is victim of narcissistic/controlling mother who will not “share” her child with the father (despite it being in the interest of the child). Thus, the single mother derives pleasure from the child like a pet and infantilizes it (which is why children of single mothers are so immature). Mother lacks the ability to “share” the child either with the father or the child’s own independent identity.
Beta male = Victim of narcissistic woman seeking sadistic pleasure. Women like beta males to pester, annoy, demand and exploit. While a woman will like the “sweet sorrow” with her Alpha’s, she will live to destroy, milk, connive, cheat on and otherwise exploit her beta. The banal kindness of beta simply arouses unquenchable sadistic hunger in the female. A female can have as much pleasure dating an Alpha as a Beta; it is just a different kind of pleasure. This is why women “choose” beta males. These women could often get an Alpha of some sort, but they chose sadism and exploitation over masochism.
I agree. I see Betas as men who are unconsciously incompetent. As opposed to the consciously competent Alpha or unconsciously competent Natural.
They have no clue about the true sociosexual machinations of women, either from experience or even anecdotal (because they often travel in the same groups of unconsciously incompetent Betas).
There was that that story in the news about 6 months back about the cunt who pushed her new beta male husband off the cliff.
That is the clearest real-life metaphor I can think of when it comes to the modern hypergamous, deceitful, feels-driven, narcissistic girlpower dating world vs. 1960’s old-school, provider-driven, romantic beta love.
(Her getting 30 years in prison is not nearly long enough. FWIW, the metaphor would have been complete if she’d only been given 30 days with credit for time served, pics of her partying on her release date and offers from Playboy and a book deal soon after. Actually surprised that didn’t happen.)
Women are a tough enough nut to crack. To paraphrase Churchill, they are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The modern dating world also adds a 300 bullet point checklist, sexual history “inner circle” secret handshake.
It also requires the often-competing traits of deep introspection required to format the relationship harddrive of 20+ years and rewrite it with the new code via reading, observation and analysis, along with the simultaneous high extroversion needed to daygame approach enough women to develop first-hand experience.
Quite frankly very few men are going to fit the bill and will end up trying to force a 1960’s square peg into a 2000’s round hole (dual pun intended).
The odds of this happening are slim, even naturals are unaware of how they have this knowledge (hence unconscious competence), so yes, Betas should be met with compassion and help or at least guidance toward sights such as CH (although its RealTalk shivtext may scare many men off).
White Knights and other betas running interference are to be ridiculed, called out and left to quietly type “how to pick up chicks” into a Google search box at 3:15am, their red and black checkered pajamas stained with butthurt tears as they softly sip from their oversized coffee mug, cupped with both hands.
The current world in many ways is totally and utterly upside down and fucked up. It is up to each man to be able to flip the map over and navigate from all angles in order to get to his desired destination.
outstanding insight high t
anon , you are like a savant or something and have peered into the murky souls of the horned sirens that lamb to the slaughter males hand over their lives to. sadistic is almost flattering terminology for these life derailers
You miss the point. He is mocking the premise. Why be a “mature” sucker when you can be an “immature” winner and get the milk for free?
He is not mocking anything, he is trying to score points with the woman by claiming that her single motherhood is the men’s fault. They were “immature”. Whereas he is “mature” and therefore better. He is white knighting. This sucking up is seen all the time on Facebook.
That woman isn’t actually reading that comment. He merely responds to that advertisement.
Over analysis. In my mind, the comment was a subtle way of saying “slut” not supplication
Men may go way down on the social scale and nail a lower rankes woman just becausd she is willing and there without much effort, so when he marries the wife tends to outrank most in his history. Women on the other hand tend to put out upward. So when she marries the provider type, she’s marrying a man who ranks lower sexually than most of her history. So typical male/female sexual tendencies create a different pre/post marriage dynamic as to where their spouse ranks in comparison.
Great way to revive the time honored descriptor ‘damaged goods’
Always good for reposting:
“Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag.”
– Michel Houellebecq
Interesting quote.
Too true.
That’s what I like about Houellebecq. He is perhaps one of the very few who understands that slutting around kills love.
Brilliant: if a Man and a woman both have 20 sex partners: the odds are:::
1/20 X 1/20 = 1/400
That they will both be sexually satisfied by the one they marry.
A key that opens many locks is a master key. A lock that opens for many keys is a shitty lock.
First time I read that it made me laugh out loud, because it’s a brilliant analogy.
Adding this for those who may have a hard time putting it into words when debating the feminism-afflicted:
The womb can only hold one child at a time, and will only hold a few in a lifetime. Women in the past typically died in childbed. A man on the other hand can impregnate an almost endless line of women. Women therefore have the instinct to find only one man, the best possible man to have her few children with, because those women who have done so have had a higher chance of their children surviving. While men have the instinct to sleep with as many women as possible, because those who have done so have had more children to pass on their behavior genes.
Although, men also have the instinct to care for just a few children. Men have the instinct to go for quality as well as quantity in their offspring. Especially among peoples from cold climates where nothing grows for half the year, and you had to make an effort to bring up your offspring right or they wouldn’t survive.
That’s one way of describing the r / K reproductive strategies. Men are capable of both, and women are capable of both under some circumstances.
Most likely there’s genetic factors in both r and K strategies.
Most locks will open if you hit them.
While I agree that a woman falls apart after going on the carousel…the men side is a bit misleading
One picture is a fictional character in a tv show…the other is the real thing.
Promiscuous men that look like and act like Don Draper aren’t as common as one thinks.
In front of your naked, steamin’ eyes:
Yes, dead slut eyes can occur in men too, but it seems to take about 10x more sex partners for it to happen.
it seems to take about 10x more sex partners for it to happen
That sounds about right.
“in the end, we all resemble an old black woman”
… “in the end, we all resemble an old black woman”…
What drug are you on?
Its called truth.
Take another hit.
Never mind the fact that Don Draper isn’t a real person, but a character played by Jon Hamm who has been in a monogamous relationship for 15 years. He seems to live a pretty healthy lifestyle, and it shows.
While Earl has a point, I’m pretty sure that DLR looks the way he looks because of excessive bleaching and drug use — in that order. Don’t be blamin’ pussy for that.
This dude looks fine:
“Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers.”
Very true. After having his heart broken, a man might feel that she was “the one that got away,” but after one or two years the feeling fades and she becomes just a fond memory.
Although she might prey on a man’s mind for that year or two, if he really had a bad case of oneitis. And if she recontacts him even a year or so after that, if his oneitis was bad enough, he could fall back into it. See the author Bob Greene for a really odd case of oneitis.
Another reason to teach Game to the young men, a man with an abundance mentality is all but immune to oneitis.
no
Worsened by social media, of course. One of the best things that are part of the PUA/Manosphere teachings for beginners is to cut contact with an ex.
but after one or two years the feeling fades and she becomes just a fond memory.
Or an unpleasant mistake to learn from. At least in my own case, it drives the man to aim for girls who are just as hot, if not hotter.
It’s probably also that women who are less capable of pair bonding end up fucking more guys.
But there would come a point where many sex partners is also a red flag in a guy, only the threshold would be higher – maybe 25. Take someone like Russell Brand…or the author of this blog. Not great prospects for a woman looking for marriage. If a guy has fucked 100 women chances are he’s not keeping you around long.
At say age 25 a woman who’s been with 1 – 3 guys is probably best for an LTR, while a guy who’s been with 10 or 15 girls is probably best. A guy who’s been with less may be too beta to keep the relationship alive, and a woman who’s still a virgin at that age is probably neurotic.
At say age 25 a woman who’s been with 1 – 3 guys is probably best for an LTR,””””””’
are you dumb or thickheaded or can’t read too good
I know I deserve a virgin and 25 is an old hag
why 25? why not 80?
18 year old virgin
and that’s one of the ones I will get for long term
mmhmmm, you dun deserve tha best, sista! and any ‘these 18 year old virgins passin’ you up just dun know a good man when they see one. they intimidated by a strong man!
it ain’t gonna be no sista lol
although that would be easy
I think another contributing factor is that having a lot of easy sex is kind of like having easy access to say, cocaine, you easily become addicted.
Good people can become addicted to “bad” substances and some good girls can become addicted to sex or rather to a lot of male attention.
And once a woman has gone trough a few years of easy sex and eventually wakes up and gets rid of this “bad habit” that is when she starts having regrets.
But she comes out of this experience changed just as year or two on cocaine ( or whatever drug is popular these days ) changes a person.
Which is why it is better to not try certain things from very addictive drugs to addictive easy sex.
As I said this is only possibly one out of many factors.
the most pernicious and ‘addictive’ drive in female promiscuity is the ego-inflation of bedding bad boys. often, the sex is terrible, but she gets off on ‘taming the wild stallion’ for a few fleeting moments. the bitter-sweet moment where she ‘altruisticly’ allows the wild specimen to return to his natural habitat also swells her regard for herself. there arrive so many points along the carousel ride where she can fall in love with her own narrative
the changed and damaged goods aspect of the apres carousel rider is primarily her inflated sense of self. she now thinks she’s above most and in a certain league.the sin that has accumulated in her him receptacles also plays a part. you see similar traits in certain methn-they adore themselves and adorn themselves with tattoos. ‘do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the lawand adorn themselves and
phone playing tricks ‘ cum receptacles’ ‘certain men’… men are probably more driven by pure sex sensation alone, whereas it’s multi factoral with the sisters of eve
i agree with the concept that men are more suited to multiple sexual partners since it is our biological/evolutionary strategy for reproduction to begin with.
Having said that i think the 2 photographs posted cant be more wrong.
On one hand is Jon Hamm who is one of the most sophisticated and handsome looking men in the movie industry and you’re using him for illustrating the case against some random 30-something women who’s already past her sexual prime???!
A more true picture2picture comparison for a dude like jon hamm would be an elite sexy actress in her sexual prime…not some random post smv single mom
Don’t take everything literally, and that includes pictures. It doesn’t matter that he is an actor. If it has to be spelled out, everyone understands that no, you may not look exactly like Jon Hamm, but the point CH makes is still valid. If the pics are not a complete match to reality, consider it poetic license.
“thousand cock stare”
Hilarious.
“She died at the age of 46, not of anything sudden; she was one of the most spectacular victims of the (sexual) revolution. It would have needed the Taliban to protect her.”
Novelist Martin Amis on his late sister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6615552/Martin-Amis-the-sexual-revolution-killed-my-sister-Sally.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6615552/Martin-Amis-the-sexual-revolution-killed-my-sister-Sally.html
OT: Another gem for you, Heartiste: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735435/Town-Brazil-entirely-women-appeal-bachelors-willing-live-female-rules.html
Not sure about the thousand cock stare, but there are definite tells. I was at a wedding last weekend and shared an Airbnb with 3 friends of mine (all early 30s). As I slept (I’m married), two of them double-teamed a chick (consensus guesstimate was 23yo, looks rating about a 7.5) in the bathroom they had only met at a bar a few hours before. Would you be surprised to know she was a smoker, had a nipple piercing and a giant tattoo on her back (think 2/3 the size of the Sons of Anarchy tattoo)? Of course not. She wasn’t straight out of the trailer park either.
My 3rd friend, FWIW, was in bed drilling a 21 year old he met on the flight down.
I have some questions, CH.
Would you seduce a virgin or highly inexperienced woman? Would you accept one who fell into your arms? Do you have experience with these?
Do you have specific suggestions for game for one looking to marry a virtuous woman?
If a mature guy was looking to maximize his cute lays/effort, would you recommend SingleParentMeet or OKCupid? Do you think the single Mom’s are easy or hard and what’s the play?
Sharing this for the lozlozls…
In line to get a sandwich at lunch today there’s a early-20s smoking, smoking hot brunette right behind me. Long hair, beautiful face, and the whites of her eyes were so white she was quite remarkable to look at.
Me: Hey. (under my breath with some unintentional head tile, “hmmm”)
Her: What?
Me: You look a lot like my ex-wife. She was an actress.
This piques the girl’s attention somewhat and we chat a little bit about that. It goes back and forth a little bit. She’s generally playing slow-ball, but it’s obvious that she’s a major-leaguer who can pitch a 105 mph sh!t test, tho’ she’s pacing herself.
I know what’s coming. She won’t be able to help herself. Hot Girl Rules all but obligate her play the “I’m way too hot for you” card. Just as the artiste is finishing up with my sandwich she winds up and throws.
Her: So, what happened? Did she leave you?
Ouch. But a lot of life experience, fortified by CH knowledge, and I’m ready for it… putting on my best Rick-Perry-Mugshot sh!t-eating grin, I say casually:
Me: Naaah… she got fat.
Her: (big smile, eyes widen and look even more white, and I swear I saw her pupils dilate) You asshole!
Me: (waggles eyebrows, smiles, says nothing, takes my sandwich and walks off)
It’s the little things like this that brighten the day.
Props for reducing the odds that the girl succumbs to fat-acceptance propaganda.
I made a spork toon for a cute blonde girl. It had devil eyes in the nadir and the tines were painted with red marker to look like bloody teeth. She squealed with delight. My story is cooler bro.
Why would a bitter woman, as you describe, settle for a beta male after dozens of failed relationships? How does she seek solace in jaded disappointment?
She tortures her beta victim and elicits sadistic joy from making her victim’s life miserable. In each petty act, she finds peace for her lost lovers. This is the ultimate fate of the beta male: trapped in a depressive woman’s sadistic web.
Women are far more practical than men, which, coupled with their shorter shelf life, means they are far more likely to settle. Even if it means that she has to be with a man she despises. And yes, aging whores do despise their beta male victims, precisely because they’re not the sexy alpha bad boys they once enjoyed. The attentions they lavish on their betas are all an act.
I’m not sure if you got the memo, but modern Western women are not “practical.” That’s the whole theme of this blog.
Alpha men give women masochistic pleasure.
Beta males give women sadistic pleasure.
Women marry for pleasure. They are marry betas for a reason: to gleefully torture them.
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
Although Mad Men is written mostly by women and Jews, and it has at times neutered its alpha males like Draper and Sterling, CH’s use of a fictional character does not diminish his point.
Don Draper is a projection of how a room full of female writers picture their ideal male. He’s “their” alpha. The sometimes neutering of Draper is showrunner Matthew Weiner adding dimension, appeasing his AMC overlords, or passive-aggressiveness from pumped-and-dumped female writers. Draper is from the last generation of great men before the equalists, feminists and liberals spread their bullshit (it’s actually the greatest literary theme of the show: man vs. society).
Don Draper has a swagger and style many of us should emulate.
“Mad Men is written mostly by women and Jews”
i wish more people understood this. most don’t realize that movies/t.v. have writers/architects/agendas. showrunner means nothing to them. they must think the actors are making it all up on the spot. these people will never even think about looking behind the curtain in mass media or any aspect of their lives like private banking, fiat currency, “elections”, false flags, etc.
“The sometimes neutering of Draper is showrunner Matthew Weiner adding dimension”
weiner got his break when chase read his pilot for mad men and gave him a gig on the sopranos. try watching that “groundbreaking” series now. glorified soap opera. take away the violence and nudity and it could have aired after all my children in the 80s. lame, slow-moving, time-wasting garbage.
“Don Draper has a swagger and style many of us should emulate.”
sure, if you want to end up in handcuffs. these days telling it like it is = arrestable offense.
media programming is programming (mind control). turn it off and bang some strange.
the guy’s name is weiner!!!
black chick next door asked me can I take her and daughters with me when I leave
lol wtf
wants to get saved talkin bout the two shootings that just happened
i’m like yea sure
black people hate living near black people
but yea they don’t really see the issue with that
well she kind of gets it
she like well yea I know black people do the shooting part
but white people be robbin and doing drugs
you are white Jesus.
kind of nice having her in my corner she will bitch out anyone who tries to park in my spot he he he
other day she was yelling at someone they moved
she like I know you like to park in front of your house
I was like thanks
havnt done shit with her
its like the one chick my bitch don’t want me fucking with
so I don’t
I give her that much power
plus my bitch gonna bring me 4k come February so she earned that
nobody wants to live around blacks.
that’s the point the blacks are running from the blacks but everywhere they go there they are
and been breeding like flies in big city highrises and small towns for a long time
except flies.
Women who have sampled a poo poo platter of penes accumulate emotional scars that never heal; promiscuous women have a mental storage closet filled with five minute montages of alpha male love, and these exciting, prurient memories rob the female id of something important.
Are you sure that’s causal? (Remember, this is just a correlational study.)
It’s more likely these women were more problemed to be begin with…
[CH: it’s both. ask me how i know. (hint: cross paths with a slut a few years later and you can’t help but notice the creeping insanity and untethering from reality.]
… it’s more likely these women were more problemed to be begin with……
Yes some had problems to begin but…
Before today’s crazy age of leftism/feminism ( two heads of a same monster) most of those women who were somewhat dysfunctional to begin with would have been “saved” or at least their sluttiness could have been somewhat curbed down.
Feminism has done to women the equivalent of encouraging drunks to get drunk anytime they want and handing them the keys to the bar.
Needless to say, that is no way to reduce the number of drunks nor does it has any chance of helping drunks drink less.
Today’s women are fat, tattoed up, have children from different men, they swear like sailors, they get drunk until they fall on the floor, and this is the short list.
Whatever dysfunction a woman has to begin with, feminism puts it on steroid and brainwashes everyone into believing that this dysfunction should be celebrated.
Feminism is causing more damage to women than anything men has ever done to women.
Fictional character vs. online dating profile? SO MUCH SCIENCE!
[CH: humorless sperg alert.]
I just realized what it is really all about
taking the fun out of life
that’s what multicult does
loses the innocence million formerly unnecessary rules so ya can’t have fun
I might just have seen too much though I still have fun but like a normal dude lol
Promiscuous men can handle their promiscuity better than promiscuous women
Had a friend of mine sum it up nicely when asked why a man that has had 100 women is sought after and a woman that’s been banged by 100 men is “trash”, and he said simply, “A man can wash it off, a woman can’t wash it out.” Sums up the fundamental difference between men and women… Women internalize things so they take it with them – men don’t.
That worked well when women had few lovers (read that as one) – but when they have more they are constantly unhappy. I see it all the time – that’s why I’ll bang women I meet after I play a set, but that’s as far as it goes. I send them home to hubby, or BF – I’m done with them. She is his problem – I got what I wanted, and really, that’s all they are good for…
Women hate it when men tell it like it is, but that’s the truth. Sluts are for f**king, and that’s all they are good for… Unfortunately, today most girls end up as sluts without really knowing that is their future – most go over the mark either in high-school, or early in college… So by, say 22 – their future is pretty much set…
3 or 103 what’s the difference?
Also think about it, an unmarried girl by the age of 30 has probably easily had 30+ guys, how could she not? That’s 3 guys a year, just one every four months. That’s not necessarily someone fucking in public bathrooms or even a girl with tats and raunchy attitude. That could be a nice “sweet feminine” girl. Forget the “good girl” myth.
That’s assuming she has no monogamous LTR’s that last more than ~4 months and instantly meets a guy she finds attractive after each LTR. It’s more like, a ‘wild’ year of 3 partners — short term stuff — a few years of an LTR, a year of nothing, a year of 2 partners, another relationship, etc.
“A key that opens a thousand locks is a master key. A lock that opens to a thousand keys is a shitty lock.”
I don’t believe you are white
Rotterdam
what will happen pass bunch of laws that will only fuck up law abiding white men
the people doing the shit will continue
oh wait didn’t that shit happen in rome too
yea that’s right according to schedule
Mashable: run by homos. F them and techcrunch:
http://mashable.com/2014/08/25/sophia-vergara-emmys/
http://www.t-nation.com/living/6-reasons-men-are-bad-at-sex
if i wasn’t so lazy, i’d link them krauser’s sex god post. oh wellz.
great piece.
here’s the link for anyone who hasn’t read it yet or needs a refresher.
http://krauserpua.com/2012/12/24/how-to-be-a-sex-god/
They always cum.. they never stay.
Those Eyes. That 1000 cock stare…its so unsettling. You just ripped a hole in my cerebral cortex CH……Since 1982 Women have replaced men as the main character in this song
“End up like a dog thats been beat too much..
Till ya spend half your life justa covering up..
Born in the USA. I was Born in the USA..”
lol @ “poo poo platter of pene”
One must take into account the role of oxytocin.
In males, it helps to acheive arousal, erection, and orgasm. After orgasm, oxytocin levels in men are higher but within reasonable parameters.
In women, oxytocin also helps with arousal but after the first orgasm, oxytocin levels reach insane levels, to the point that their congnitive brain disconnects and allows the limbic system to take control.
This brutal oxytocin high causes the alpha widow phenomena. Since only alphas would cause her strong orgasms, a female with 5+ alphas inside her will no longer be able to achieve the same level of oxytocin high. In the past, people would have few sex partners and would mate for life, but in the modern western world, the alphas will pump and dump the girl and then she will be an alpha widow for life, never again able to limbically bond with a male, not even with his beta husband.
Women are intoxicated around the alpha male even after 80 years of marriage. A beautiful display of the alpha male cockiness/ playfulness in a 101 year old couple.
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-28946521
At the core of this dynamic is male confidence vs neediness. Forget the word “promiscuous” which is emotionally loaded and carries negative connotations. Substitute the word “abundance” and you can understand why this dynamic would be crystal clear.
A woman with an “abundance” of cocks…isn’t happy at all from a biological perspective. Women want and need orbiters. A woman’s “harem” consists of eunechs. A man’s harem is for access to pussy.
I recently been out with two girls, both of whom made clear to me they didn’t care if I dated or saw other girls. In one case the girl said she was just grateful for having MY attention.
If a man is needy he’s caving in, saying “yes” to every demand, letting various people walk over him.
If a woman is needy she’s just caving in to her biological nature to couple with the “right” man. Women who fight that nature look like the woman in that photo with the “thousand cock stare”…
Women who fight that nature look like the woman in that photo with the “thousand cock stare”…
I think you mean that women who give in to coupling.
But yes, you’re right… needy women become physical sluts, needy men become emotional sluts.
An alpha male builds a harem, and wifes up the hottest in his harem. An alpha female builds a suite of orbiters, and marries the most alpha of her orbiters.
In other news, Tyler Cowen just jizzed his pants:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/08/26/United-States-of-Mexico-MEX-Pres-Pe-a-Nieto-Declares-America-the-Other-Mexico
“On Monday, Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto called on other states to ‘evolve’ like California so the United States can be more like his home country.”
Evolve??? More like DE-volve.
The bright side: If the US becomes Mexico The Sequel, that means we get long-haired hotties in tight outfits as sports casters instead of bald guys in suits.
Agreed with the general sentiment of this article, but is using a fictional male the best example? Jon Hamm, the actor, is known in LA for his loyalty to one woman, despite the fact that she’s pretty a senior citizen in Hollywood circles.
Real life promiscous man? Russell Brand estimates he has sex with 80 women a month.
Yeah SUUUUURE he does.
he could very well easily like he does have worldwide fame, at one point back 10 years ago or so he used to whole himself up in a room all day and have a conveyor belt of girls coming through his door all day.
theres even a crazy natural friend of a rsds jeffy nicknamed evil stifler who fucked a new girl every day for 45 days straight and hes a total loser
At his peak, he was banging 2-3 new women a day. Shagger of the Year.
Yeah, but they were probably Jewesses or chimpanzees or whatever. Oh, golly, gotta go! I’m late for the Bund meeting!
Gross. Social proof is one thing, diseased indiscriminate manwhore is another.
don’t call yourself that
Oh, off topic, but I put some of what you guys teach to a lesson, and found out… yeah, women in their late 20’s are in fact bitches, and like one of these posts said–they literally block out things they don’t like. They hear it, twist it to their suiting, like an insane person. I didn’t believe it until I saw it
So I met some late 20’s girl online (I’m 22, she had messaged me with her number in the first email) and we went out to coffee, with the idea of being fwb’s. Cute girl, “A” cup chest but nice ass. We didn’t click, it ended with an awkward kiss, saying Wednesday we’d meet again. Saturday I text her to ask if we’re on, she doesn’t reply quickly, so I cancel and bid her farewell. She starts saying I need patience, I won’t go far without it, blah blah. I repeat my “best of luck to ya, bye” thing and she starts saying how she understands I don’t get her schedule, and then starts insulting me how she found a man that does, who’s able to please a woman (I had made jabs about how she likes being choked during sex) and getting insulting. As I’m dismissing her and saying specifically it’s not about the schedule, she literally keeps texting back and saying how I need patience with her schedule, then says her new man understands the schedule.
Anyway, we start chatting kinda as friends the next day, her acting okay again, then we get friendly and I remark it’s too bad we got off on such a bad foot. She goes, “Maybe we should hang out again… no expectations, just hang out.”
I reply back neutrally, “Maybe.” (thinking it’s probably a lousy idea, but hey, it if leads to a FWB…)
She replies back a few minutes later, getting smart aleck and, “Offer retracted, I don’t do ‘maybe’.
Me, “Ok.”
Her: Here’s some advice, kiddo, if a hot girl offers you a 2nd chance, take it. She’s throwing you a bone.”
Thinking of the dear Chateau, I say, “Thanks for the tip, I’ll remember it if I meet a hot girl, lol. ;)”
And then she immediately starts getting catty again, saying I’m a 6 and she found a hot doctor from california, then says I need to get used to rejection… and take it well…
It just is such a perfect example, older unmarried women can literally be insane. I flat out rejected/bid her fairwell her once, and she tried claiming I was impatient, blah blah. Then she offers again, I say, “Maybe.” She gets pissed I didn’t leap on it, retracts it, I just say “ok, then make a light jab after her patronizing comment.
Then she has the balls, or insanity, to claim she was rejecting me again, and I’m a 6, and she never intended to meet me again. (referring to a few days earlier when I said goodbye and she kept venting that I needed to be understanding of her schedule.)
dude, she wanted to smash but the ASD took over in the bitchy way it can sometimes…its a bitch. good stuff when a girl starts back-calibrating on ya. you were doin something right.
Yeah, women who have been too promiscuous literally start losing it… their looks, and their souls/sanity.
I had a run in with a late 20’s over-fucked girl. (I’m 22.) She’s was an excellent real life example for me of how women literally shift reality and block out things they don’t like. We met online, her messaging me with her phone number in the first message. Coffee date, didn’t go well, we agreed to meet a week later. (she said her schedule was jammed.) Long story short, I messaged her to verify Saturday… she didn’t sound enthused, so I canceled politely. (I was sincerely polite and even complimented her looks.) She started saying I lacked patience and needed to learn it. Four texts from her about patience later, I specifically say twice I wasn’t canceling because of her schedule. She keeping talking about her schedule and me being understanding for multiple more texts, then gets nasty and says how she found a new hotter guy who understands her schedule. It’s like she literally couldn’t comprehend that I was bidding her goodbye when her pussy was up for grabs, she was blocking it out.
@archerfisher (she said her schedule was jammed.) I see this now all the time with girls, especially now that I’m banging girls in their 20’s. They’re always leaving options open, canceling last minute, changing or trying to change plans.
You have to decide 1) if you want to bang them 2) be cool about it. I’ve been flaked on and met up only to find that after that meet up I dont’ want to see them and they start pursuing.
Is the flake necessarily a signal of non-interest? I’m not sure anymore. I used to think if a girl flakes…she’s not into you. Now I’m not sure. Do any of you guys have any insights into this?
I have two girls that were “so so” girls. One who canceled then I continued to pursue anyway. Met up with on the night she canceled. She blew me. She was 23. After that I wasn’t so keen for a number of reasons: she was a bit heavy. Also she displayed some weird characteristics: she told me she once “drugged” her ex bf with a laxative after finding out he cheated on her. I didn’t call her. She still calls me at least once every 2 weeks to meet up.
A few others I’ve been flaked on…I’ve ended up meeting, making out with, banging and even seeing.
They just have a options so they don’t want to make a decision yet.
It’s not that they aren’t interested they’rre just hoping for the better deal…
Depends where she is in her lane-changing exercise. A woman attempting to “finally meet The One” after previously meeting the 100, will just bounce guard-rail to guard-rail from willing playpen girl to “I have higher standards” mode. The latter emerges without warning, because she’s just spent 10-20 years have no standards whatsoever.
@wala
girls flake bc it’s a great shit test/beta orbiter rolodex play…lol…it’s like a twofer…think about it from the girl’s hindbrain’s perspective…she’s looking for the best genetics to reproduce, right? (or provisioning…) alpha fux/beta bux…
her hamster, on behalf of her hindbrain, is constantly pinging her environment for mating cues…younger, hotter (more fertile) girls more so…(yes, even during the day…lol…)
so, how does she find those genetics in the modern world?…(it used to be that she could just look for the guy with the saber tooth tiger rug…lol) now, she needs to shit test…lol…to sus out your social dominance/whether you ‘just get it’…
so, by ‘doing nothing’ (which is very efficient from her perspective) she can find out what your reaction is to a stress event…and how ‘invested’ you are… if you ‘pass’ = as much sex as you want…lol…and if you ‘fail’ (and chase her) = she gets the option to add you to her provisioning ‘stable’…(or just blow you off, if you don’t fit into her strategy at that time…that’s why you might get ‘pinged’ a couple months later…you suddenly now ‘fit’ into her provisioning rotation scheme…lol…)
now, all of this happens on the subconscious level…her hamster tells her ‘i think we should be busy at rehearsing tonight’…lol…to see how you react…
this is also why younger girls flake more…they are more interested in finding alpha studs than beta provisioning…and why older women have a different rolodex rotation…lol…
sooo, a flake = IOI…it’s just a different (subcomm) action…here’s an exercise…try to predict when she’ll flake and what excuse she will use…lol…that’s great calibration practice…lol…you’ll know how your interactions have gone up to that point, so you will develop a feel for what’s coming next…as was mentioned in a different post, the goal is conscious competence…
I took what you said (well, that and how pissed she got at being rejected) and texted her again today, very bluntly hitting her up with a couple of compliments thrown in to salve her ego, despite that she was pissed and mean last time we texted.
You were right on the money. Two texts from me and a dick pic later, I got a pic of her face down ass up and “I’m free until 2:15.” Bazinga.
@wala
just saw your question in the other thread…
a ‘request’ = compliance testing…’turn around for me’ is probably the easiest…lol…they go up from there…’let’s move to that table/couch/whatever’…’let’s hit up that other cafe/bar/lounge’…etc…it’s ‘leading’ her…which she then complies, putting you in the dominant position in the interaction…
if she has worked your event before AND you think she would be likely to comply with this request (given the recent interactions) then go for it and see what happens…lol…also tell her to do something that she would do anyway (like dress up for the event)…lol…but be sure to friend-zone her a couple days prior to the request…lol…
good luck!
The real question is why did you fail?
If you can’t fuck an older chick how the fuck are you going to fuck a younger chick?
The corollary is of course — if you can’t fuck a plain chick how the fuck are you going to fuck a hot chick?
You ever consider that her frustration arose from the fact that you didn’t know how to get her panties off quickly like all the other alphas who banged her out?
Sure you can be like ‘whatever brah, didn’t even want that old ho anyway,’ but I mean…why hook up with an older chick online if that’s the case?
because old chicks don’t have the sex-drive of younger women….it’s easier for me to fuck and 18-22 year old more than a 22-30 because my game does not involve coddling old bags with serious complex issues..
I’d give you my reasons, but they’re so dumb you’d think I was mocking you.
Anyway, I took what Walawala said, texted her today hitting her up, and two sweet “we should meet up and get naked” texts and a dick pic later, she sent me a pic of her face down ass up with “I’m free until 2:15.” So, he was right.
‘it’s easier for me to fuck and 18-22 year old more than a 22-30 ‘
Lol no. Prime women are more difficult to game than past-prime women.
‘So, he was right.’
So was I. This little birdie wanted to fly and the reason she was pissed off/unenthused had to do with your failure to get her panties off quickly. My only point with the questions was to direct -you- away from engaging in the wrong type of thinking.
You’re not ‘salving her ego,’ you’re just getting sexual with her. If all it took was some compliments and a dick pic to get her primed…that means you must have been pretty non-sexual on that coffee date (agreeing to a coffee date in and of itself is evidence of that). Not trying to mock you tho.
Every single time a man sleeps with a lot of women, he’s called a stud.
But if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, she’s called a slut, and people think this is unfair… Nah. It’s completely fair, and I’ll tell you why, alright? ‘Cause it’s fuckin’ easy to be a slut. It’s fuckin’ hard to be a stud. To be a stud you have to be witty, charming, be well-dressed, have nice shoes, and a fake job.
To be a slut you just have to be there. There are fat ugly sluts out there, there are no fat ugly studs.
— Jim Jefferies
“A key that opens a lot of locks is a valuable key. A lock that is opened by lots of keys is a poor lock.” – a wise man
There are some seriously red pilled parts of Germany, the UK, and the Scandi-countries. In general, they despise amercun toxic sludge culture.
But if you mention… ZZ Top; .. well that is something different. Language sometimes is a barrier and sometimes it is not.
[…] A good girl is, prima facie, as disgusted with the thought of sex with a strange man (especially if she has a man she loves) as a man would be with homo sex. […]
@ heartiste
I have a question.
I have seen the 1000 cock stare on a lot of female faces. But then again, I ‘ve also seen the complete absence of this look on the faces of some of the biggest whores I have ever known. How can this be?
Great post btw
[CH: what you are seeing in those rare cases are female psychopaths. although psychopathy is mostly a male affliction (if it can be called that), the disorder can affect women as well.]
I was in Berlin when the Wall came down and the whole rolling nightmare of Soviet oppression more or less gave up and tried suddenly to pretend that the whole thing was just a mis-understood joke…
To an extend rarely realized, this was the work of a couple of stoned-out rockbands.. /
Referenced on Krauser’s blog. Some interesting insights here…if you can get past all the 70’s style porn imagery. It’s hard to watch. The problem I see with this is that it becomes a mockery of the manosphere rather than helping educate guys on what they need to do to be more successful with women.
[…] Promiscuous men can handle their promiscuity better than promiscuous women can handle theirs. Compare and contrast: This is how a man looks after twenty lovers: This is how a woman looks after twenty lovers: That’s the thousand cock stare. […]
Hilarious:
Let’s say you send a tease in an email but leave out the smiley. After sending it, you realize that it could be taken as an insult. Recipient is an old flame who is known to be sensitive to such things (INFJ). She usually responds quickly, hasn’t in this case, but still less than a day has passed. What do you do?
A) Nothing, hold frame
B) Quick lighthearted joke about the tease, provide comfort
C) Something else
D) realize you have oneitis and stop obsessing
Key word “old flame”. Dude I’ve been there. The toughest part of learning and understanding game is not all the techniques and tactics…it’s knowing when to follow up and when to back the fuck off.
We as guys are taught and brought up to be “Fixers”. It’s a great motivator, but co-dependency means we’re more worried about how we’re perceived by others than how we perceive ourselves: are we the prize? or is “she”—whoever that “she” maybe–the prize?
This is one area that I struggle with and having been in your situation. Leave it. She’ll come around…they always do.
I’ve never really used emoticons (some instinct has always made me think they were lame). It’s gotten to the point where even the thought of using an emoticon in an nonironic/non-insulting context is emasculating and makes me cringe. That’s just my style of texting, though. On the flip-side, I’ve found that in general, when a girl inserts emoticons into her texts, it’s a lesser indicator of interest that shows she’s investing in the conversation.
The danger in your situation is back-pedaling. If she can’t take a joke, she doesn’t sound like she’s much fun to be around. I’d ignore the non-response and move the conversation in another direction. If she brings up your “insult” and acts butthurt, you can tease her for not having a sense of humor.
If she isn’t receptive to you now, she wasn’t interested in the first place and you’ve saved yourself $40 on drinks. Next.
I have learned the hard way not to tease because evidently my teasing is too sharp edged for email or SMS. But if I fuck up I do nothing; so if she has any residual interest she will get back to you eventually, and you can turn it around. I really don’t think you’re out anything if she doesn’t eventually respond, silence means she’s lacking curiosity, interest, etc. And adding an emoticon wouldn’t have changed that.
My humor can be pretty sharp, too. I’ve found the trick is to calibrate my texting to match their intelligence/threshold for humor. If she’s quick-witted and seems like she can take it, I give it to her. She’s craving a guy who can over-power her self-image of being a witty, sassy bitch. If she’s more of the innocent, sweet girly-girl, I clam up. Less is more in that case.
If you don’t have sex,than somebody has two…
Pure poetry.
Women who sleep around don’t start off caustic and rancid; the rotation of cocks slowly but surely does that to them, though certain fragile personality types are also prone to sleeping around. It’s a feedback loop. I think a large part of it is attenuated oxytocin receptors. Women are not emotionally equipped to deal with constant abandonment by alphas.
She then has to be extra cunty to quickly weed out the betas, because she can’t bear to settle with one after experiencing so much alpha cock, so laden with potential. An average woman snagging an alpha for commitment is like an average man banging a 10 – it stretches their mental dimensions.
For a man, going out with a game-savvy friend to a club can be one of the most fun, exhilarating laughs on the planet. If you know what you’re doing, and you’re not poisoned with bitterness, then sleeping with as many hot babes as possible on nights out, high-fiving after you both fucked two girls that night, and just treating it all like a fun challenge/hobby, leaves very little if any negative scarring. The stimulus of fresh pussy takes a long time to attenuate.
It seems that most of these promiscous women are just frustrated the alphas didn’t stick around.
This is the woman who enabled the Rotherdam sex slavery ring:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11060102/Rotherham-the-council-leaders-who-presided-over-child-abuse-scandal.html
These are precisely the sort of broken-down, used-up sluts against whom Matthew King would practice his infamous “Big Brother Game.”
The Ceausescu Reckoning — what properly awaits national leaders apprehended, tried, and convicted of genocide against their own people.
From Wikipedia:
Ceaușescu’s regime collapsed after he ordered his security forces to fire on anti-government demonstrators in the city of Timișoara on 17 December 1989. The demonstrations spread to Bucharest and became known as the Romanian Revolution, which was the only violent removal of a Communist government in the course of the so-called revolutions of 1989. Ceaușescu and his wife, Elena, fled the capital in a helicopter but were captured by the armed forces. On 25 December the couple were hastily tried and convicted by a special military tribunal on charges of genocide and sabotage of the Romanian economy in a two-hour court session. Ceaușescu and his wife were then shot by a firing squad.
As a poolside male hedonist, the objective is clear.
But if I’m trying to save civilization, regardless of how sleeping around affects me, I can’t very well help create those damaged goods, can I? Or take part in a culture that encourages the damaging?
I appreciate this ugly truth, but I don’t like the “Chasity is for Thee, but not for Me” attitude that pervades these types of posts.
Yes, I know all the counter-arguments: “It’s biology. Sperm vs. egg.” “The slut was already going to fuck someone, might as well be me.” “She was already damaged goods.”
But as a Christian I simply cannot take that as a license to fuck all the wimminz. Am I out of line here, or what?
Why are you trying to save civilization? There’s nothing left worth saving. The sooner it is destroyed the sooner it can be rebuilt.
Touché. Let’s burn this mother down!
“But as a Christian”
there’s your problem. you believe in fairy tales. your god yahweh is a fictional character created to bring polytheistic goat-fuckers out of the hills to defend the city for its owners.
“Am I out of line here, or what?”
yes. go suck a bible.
Avaunt, impious fool!
I knew about the festival orgies, but goats too? Damn…
I’d prefer to live in a healthy society. A healthy society is made up of healthy families. A healthy family is one woman and one man whose children are their own. There’s really only one way to do this, people! Any other combination of cock and vaj, and the numbers just don’t work out.
O/T:
Beta of the decade nomination:
http://www.thelocal.no/20140828/mohammed-is-most-popular-name-in-oslo
“Statistics Norway (Statistisk Sentralbyrå – SSB) has counted the population of Oslo and found that Mohammed is the most common male name in Oslo for the first time ever. Jørgen Ouren of SSB said to NRK: ‘It is very exciting.‘”
Way to go Jørgen. Hope you love your new overlords.
” My dad married at 19 and is still with mom. This is fairly COMMON among the older generations. ”
We still have a living breathing real example.
Our children will never have that real example.
That’s the most depressing thing of all
How does this not qualify as anti-White genocide under UN conventions? dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1… 2 hours ago ”””””””””””””””””
did I not say this shit was planned a really long fucking time ago
didn’t need media or studies or shit to tell me it was not natural
I don’t get it though it is worldwide
so why would the people at the top do that to the world
only so many ten bitches per 100k so less tens oh wait maybe they really only do get to fuck their old wives? I don’t know people in power don’t like fucking
jealousy
yea prob jealousy they got to work and plan and coniv ans shit and some poor alpha getting more pussy than they are so therefore they must fuck with his life
no fun of any kind lol
I mean really why would this be happening?
maybe they thought the white people would rise up and not just take it in the ass
maybe it was a test we all failed
they were like watch us do this shit watch these motherfuckers go crazy
then nothing happened
then one elite owed the other elite a dollar who bet people wouldn’t do shit
It comes back to one thing: men and women are inherently different. All the social engineering in the Homeland will not change this reality. The social experiment of sexual equality leads to disaster.
Twitter: “Is it auto-genocide tho?”
Historic precedent and international laws make no such distinction. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were convicted of genocide of their own people.
look at all the countries shit has gone to hell in recent memory
I mean I guess get ready for real cause it would take about a day for shit to hit the fan
UK lefty rag The Guardian is taking a pounding in the comments sections. The game is up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/28/rotherham-abuse-class-sex-racial-bigotry
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/guardian-view-rotherham-child-abuse-scandal
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/rotherham-abuse-report-protection-not-blame