Remember Ice Cream Guy who jerked his ice cream cone away from his girlfriend when she reached over with a spoon to take a scoop? The good and the great were offended by this raw moment of microalphatude, but CH guests of honor knew better. This guy had his girlfriend wrapped around his finger. So wrong, he could do no wrong.
Well, Ice Cream Guy is back in the news. The couple was on TV recently as “Fans of the Week”, and the pre-game hosts were giving Jake — he of ice cream guardianship fame — a hard time. He was ribbed “when’s the wedding?”, and in true alpha style he responded, “Ohhh, shit.”
Another quickie microalphatude dropped like a daisy cutter on his Daisy, and naturally she reacted by… waaaiiit for it…
… can you guess?
…yeah that’s right, by gazing at him adoringly.
His “oh shit” reaction was spontaneous, but neophytes to game should know that alpha spontaneity comes with practicing the behaviors that distinguish alpha males. What was once canned will, over time, start to spill from your presence unbidden. Fake it till you create it.
There are other alpha male tells in this video, which the learned reader should be able to easily identify, so I won’t belabor them here. (Ok, here’s one: notice their body language. She is turned slightly toward him, leaning into his body, while his torso is pointed straight ahead, neither rejecting nor obsequiously receiving her feral affections. He is a rock, upon which she may lay her loving submission.)
The amoral tale of the tape is that you can get… and keep… a cute girl by acting like God’s gift to women, by doing the opposite of what conventional society advises, and by remaining unapologetic for your JERKBOY CHARISMA. You can even do all this while insouciantly announcing that you’re “too broke” to take your girlfriend to a basketball game. She won’t mind, because she’s in love.
Beta George Zimmerman’s wife when he was a nobody neighborhood watchman trying to do some good for his community:
Alpha George Zimmerman’s girlfriend after he killed a thuglet, endured a mass media circus, became infamous, earned an army of wannabe vigilantes, got that cold thousand yard stare from his ordeal, armed himself to the teeth, and took off on a cross-country journey while picking up a couple of speeding violations and domestic abuse charges:
Lesson #1: A significant rise in male social status and perception of badness will allow a man to trade up a full 4 to 5 SMV (sexual market value) points in girlfriend quality. Zimmerman took advantage of his increased mate market options and dumped his UG2 fat wife for a 6.5 girlfriend with admirable titties.
Lesson #2: Women with higher SMV want infamous badboys. Women with lower SMV must settle for invisible neighborhood rent-a-cops.
Lesson #3: Fat chicks who claim that their beta schlub boyfriends are proof that there are plenty of men who love fat women don’t comprehend the nature of the sexual market. Options = instability. When tragically sad beta or omega males experience a sudden rise in status or desirability, it’s Bye Bye Fatty! The very few exceptions to this rule (Hugh Jackman, possibly gay) are cleaved to fat women’s pendulous breasts like cherished infants, swaddled talismans against the suffocating encroachment of ugly, hopeless, relentless reality.
Lesson #4:
George Zimmerman’s girlfriend — who authorities said accused him of pointing a shotgun at her — no longer wants him to be prosecuted, and wants to resume their relationship, according a new motion.
A sworn statement made by the girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, was attached to a motion by Zimmerman’s lawyer seeking to modify the conditions of Zimmerman’s bond in his domestic violence case.
In the statement, Scheibe says she felt “intimidated” when police questioned her about the Nov. 18 incident that led to Zimmerman’s arrest. She adds that she “may have misspoken.”
“I want to be with George,” Scheibe says in the statement, adding later: “I do not want George Zimmerman charged. I make this decision freely, knowingly and voluntarily,” and without coercion, she says.
If a woman thinks you’re an alpha male, however flawed, she will move heaven and earth — and even deny her own words — to be with you. What’s a little shotgun-waving tiff between two lovers?
If you hang out with a mixed group of friends on regular occasions and at venues that encourage the taking of group photos, you can’t help but notice patterns in how the women organize themselves for the camera lens. This snapshot (heh) of female behavior illuminates so much more than lighting and focal preferences.
There’s always the Lens Hog, of course. She’s usually the hottest and most sociable girl. Her spot is right up front, center, and smiling like she has a huge secret about a rival she can barely contain. She stands with her hip jutting outward for maximum femininity. She is a leader partly as a function of her looks and partly because her looks have facilitated her fearless socialization, which often cows other girls to fall in line behind her.
Where it gets interesting is in how the women below the Lens Hog on the female hierarchy self-arrange for “spontaneous” group photos. The jockeying for snapshot status is nasty, brutish and short; a years’ worth of repressed emotions often gets played out in the few seconds it takes for a bunch of women to line up for a group shot.
First up is the Court Concubine. This just-short-of-pretty girl has flirted with every man in her social group, and has probably slept with at least two of them who have high fived each other over it. She’s fun, but she’s no alpha’s first choice. She will scoot right away for a position wedged in between the men standing in the back line of the photo, with her arms draped languidly over the adjacent dudes. She’s the one whose boob “accidentally” presses into some guy’s chest. (Or belly, if she’s short.) And in every photo her headlights are on, for some reason.
Next is the Queen’s Consort. She’s the second in command girl who’s almost as pretty as the Lens Hog but not as extroverted. She shadows the Lens Hog and will quickly assume a position at her side for a photo. Her smile hints at resentment. She looks like she sticks pins in a voodoo doll of her hotter friend. She screws like she’s getting back at all the Lens Hogs who robbed her of the throne, and that’s a good thing.
Then there’s the Chubby Jester. She’s sorta cute, sorta chubby, and lots o’ fun. She has the personality of a hot girl trapped in a mediocre girl’s body. She will beeline for a spot in no-woman’s-land, tucked between the front and back lines, so that her body is obscured but her face shines for the camera, looking like it sits, disembodied, atop the shoulders of the girls situated just in front of her. It’s all smoke and mirrors with this girl, but at least her smile is genuine.
The interchangeable Pawns are next. These girls are filler for the cheap seats. Neither pretty nor ugly, sociable nor shy, they dutifully attend to their posts in the wings of the photo, adding heft and preselective gravitas to the stars at the center. Many of these girls are off the market, and have grown weary of the group photo circus. They no longer care about maneuvering for status or pleasing the men or the Lens Hog; they’re just there out of a sense of obligation and to drink and say to themselves that at least they’re not like those couples who sit at home all the time schnoococoonoocuddling. They take their sweet time finding a spot in the photo line-up, which ironically makes them seem more photogenic.
In the mix you may toss the Facebook Whore. A subspecies of the classic attention whore, the Facebook Whore angles for a position that will produce a photo she can upload to Facebook that will best reveal her carefree, sexually wild social life to the asshole ex-boyfriend she still loves. She is the one with her tongue out, like Miley Cyrus having an epileptic fit. She’s not particularly well-liked by anyone, so she often winds up at the edge of the photo leaning way in, out in front of the other girls, grabbing some of the Lens Hog’s limelight. She’s a clueless photobomb. A photoboob.
The Pained Plain Jane cuts a sad figure. She hates these stressful social tests, because she knows she’s not pretty enough to compete with most of the girls but there’s no opt-out clause that would save her dignity. If she tries to ignore the group photo, her friends will think she’s being anti-social and draw attention to her pitiful solitude with cloyingly earnest solicitations. If she joins, she looks out of place, her bland features thrown into saturated relief, her smile so fake and try-hard and now permanently recorded for history. So she loiters around the periphery of the assembling and rapidly congealing group, takes a shot at a position well within the bowels of the group in hopes she’ll get lost in the jumble of faces, gets pushed aside by another girl gunning for the same spot, and eventually settles like a gimp sea turtle shuffling into a hole in the beach sand at the far reaches of the group to lay her forgotten eggs, where ironically everyone who views the photo will notice her because she’s the only girl not being embraced by anyone.
Finally, there’s the Photogeneric Fug. Ugly, knows it, has stopped pretending she’s not. She doesn’t need the excuse of a group photo opt-out clause. She just heads for the bar to munch on beer nuts and mentally formulate her next Tumblr post about cisgender privilege.
The group photo sociosexual dynamic provides plenty of opportunity for the player to exploit. For instance, take a firm hold of the shoulder of the Pained Plain Jane as she’s wandering in utter confusion and panic around the gathering crowd, and hustle her into your orbit at the center of the group. You’re now her white knight rescuer. Except little does she know you’re using her as a pawn to tease the hottie you really want. “Hey stop hogging the camera. Your big head is blocking out your friend here.” You get points for the chivalry and the neg. Caress your wallet condom, because it’s about to taste freedom tonight.
PS: There’s one other type of girl you sometimes see at group photos. She’s a rare bird, but getting less rare. Her sleazy beauty is juxtaposed against her abominable character. She’s the “group selfie” girl who will stretch out her arm and take a selfie — like Barack Kenyatta Obama recently did at Mandela’s funeral — of herself surrounded by her group of sycophants. It’s one thing to take a selfie in the privacy of your bathroom and tweet it because THIRSTY ATTENTION WHORE, or to take a selfie in public while on vacation because you’re too shy to ask for assistance; but it’s a whole other level of narcissistic indulgence to force all your friends to squat like a human halo around your awesomeness as you point that camera straight up your nostrils.
You, Group Selfie Girl, deserve exactly one pump — like Obama’s first term — and one dump — like Obama’s second term.
Are you a psychopath? A schemer? A narcissist? How about a fully flowered sadist who loved to tear the wings off insects as a kid? Congratulations! You’ll do better with women than emotionally stable, sincere, modest and kind men.
Along comes another study (just in time for Christmas!) to pry into the darkest nooks of the human sexual psyche to see what it is that allows some men to succeed with women beyond the wildest dreams of romantical herbische kopfs.
The Associations Among Dark Personalities and Sexual Tactics Across Different Scenarios.
Although malevolent individuals may be willing to use any tactic necessary to obtain sex, not all antagonistic traits will predict coercion or coaxing in all situations. A sample of 447 adult men, collected in two waves, reported their intentions to engage in coercion or coaxing of hypothetical targets. Study 1 provided three hypothetical scenarios that result in sexual rejection: (a) an expensive date, (b) a stranger, and (c) a relationship partner, and Study 2 provided the same scenarios, and three additional scenarios: (d) a rival’s partner, (e) a bet, and (f) a powerful person. A Structural Equations Model indicated that a common antagonistic factor, indicated by Social Dominance and the Dark Triad traits of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, predicted coaxing across all situations, whereas only psychopathy predicted coercion across all situations. In addition, narcissism accounted for additional variance in coaxing when rejected by an expensive date. These findings suggest that across the different scenarios, psychopathy is primarily associated with coercive tactics and the common malevolent core among the traits is associated with coaxing tactics.
Evidence piles up that women are sexually and romantically attracted to Dark Triad jerks, and that men with the Dark Triad personality traits are more aggressive (and less ethical) in their pursuit of sex with women. The two libidinous energies combine to make life a pussy paradise for assholes and a sexually arid Abaddon for niceguy beta males waiting on the sidelines for their shot at a post-prime cougarfriend with the pre-Wall jitters.
If you’re wondering what all this has to do with game and picking up women, well, when in doubt… be a jerk. Niceguys might feel better about their romantic comportment, but all that self-righteousness and a buck buys them is ten minutes of broadband-streamed fapping.
“John Smith” writes about a broken engagement that didn’t work out as he had hoped,
I met this girl 18 months ago on a party and we really hit it off. I mean she was funny, beautiful and what not and I was the total stud… BUT she was engaged… and in a long distance relationship. Now I know that these don’t last (and in the end it didn’t) so I decided to stick around and see how things evolve.
I stated my intentions in the beginning (not that lame not to) and she knew from the very beginning what I wanted from her (to fuck her brains out) and she was ok with that- in a nutshell she told me “I would fuck you too but I’m engaged you know. I’m waiting for my fiance to move here and to start living together. However you’re a cool and funny guy so I want us to be friends. Don’t expect anything from me as long as I’m engaged”.
Long story short we kept seeing each other (like once a week). I have to mention as well there were two big fights between us with like a 2-3 months pause in our relations (yeah it was a strange relationship) about some stupid shit but we made up again and kept seeing each other. Her fiance was sick with their long distance relationship so he broke with her 2 months ago.
Now here comes the conclusion: her fiance broke off with her and I made my move. I told her that I want her and that she’s an amazing woman (I really mean that… more or less) [ed: I’m sure you do, but does that help you bang her?] and we started seeing each other more often. HOWEVER I sensed that something wasn’t right… There was some distance… something between us (in a negative way) and she wouldn’t let me close (you know what I mean). So I confronted her and asked her what the fuck is going on? And she told me that “yes she wanted to fuck me back then” and “yes she tought I was a cool and sexy motherfucker” but now “after so much time together” she sees me only as a friend. She couldn’t feel any atraction to me and that’s it- there couldn’t be anything between us! (no comment here). The thing is she keeps giving me signs that she wants the D (or at least I see things that way, but people around us as well tell me that when they observe us they think she likes me). That’s why I kept seeing her.
But one night after she rejected my offer to go see a movie or something like that which envolved going out only with me and beeing more intimate (again) I got pissed off and told her that this can’t go on like this (on the phone). I told her basically that I want her as a woman not as a friend and I always wanted her that way and basically I’m not interested in this bullshit pretend friendship and that we can’t be “just” friends. She was upset of course because I’m a good friend and a cool and funny guy who takes care of her, but I was sick with that crap and that was it. (It really pissed me off that thing about “too much time has passed THE FIRE ISN’T THERE ANYMORE”- she gave the speech again I swear I imploded internally when I heard this bullshit again).
So basically I told her that things can’t go one like this- we could still see each other and what not but I won’t be as envolved with her as before because there is not motivation for me anymore. So what’s your take on this whole thing? It’s not like I’m desperate- there are plenty of fish in the sea. It’s just that she’s smoking hot I’m curious about your opinion.
I hope you’ve enjoyed your years-long stay in the friendzone, because that’s exactly where you’ve been this whole time.
A few facts about the friendzone:
1. It doesn’t matter what she says now
2. It doesn’t matter what she said in the past
3. It doesn’t matter what your friends or her friends say
4. It doesn’t matter how strongly you feel about her
5. It doesn’t matter how much of a stud you think you are
All that matters is the receptivity of her pussy to your dick. Anything less than her full frontal assault on your crotch is meaningless white noise, more distracting than illuminating.
When a girl says that the “fire isn’t there anymore”, you can bet that the fire was never there. She was using you as a temporary cock prop to feed her need for self-esteem. With her fiancé away, you filled in nicely as the asexual lump who could give her the flattery her distaff soul craved.
Once the fiancé broke it off (and that should have been a huge red flag that she was still in love with him, because girls rarely fall out of love with men who initiate the leaving protocol), the nature of your platonic relationship with her changed. You were no longer a harmless side show. Now you were a dude with a raging boner who was dribbling acidic pre-cum of spite and bitterness and desperation all over her soft cardigan. And you cemented that impression by “making your move” and coming on very sexually as soon as you thought the coast was clear. Finally, you buried any remote chance at sex by indulging in a symphony of butthurt with your little speech about not being able to “go on like this anymore”.
Big mistake. If you had any shot with this girl, you needed to do the opposite of what you did. After the engagement ended, she was expecting you to accelerate into your natural beta chaser mode. Instead, had you slowed down and pushed away and put some emotional and physical distance between the two of you, the shock and strangeness of your behavior would have stoked her curiosity. She’s known all along you wanted her — you told her! — so you needed to sow some serious doubt about your intentions and her ability to read your intentions. You needed to preemptively eject, and return later when she had hamstered up after a few weeks of circular self-analysis questioning her desirability to you.
The main lesson here is to never put yourself in these emasculating social positions that feed your powerlessness. Stop being friends with women you want to bang.
Maxim #3: Bang first, befriend later.
Follow that maxim, and so many troubles that afflict the lonely beta male evaporate.
***
This provincial reader needs game advice that doesn’t require frequent flyer miles,
Please address what a man should do if he’s not well-travelled.
Girls usually react negatively when they find out I’ve not travelled extrensively. Should I have a few go-to lies about travel experiences?
A dearth of travel experience is one of the easiest deficiencies to fix. So easy, it’s a wonder more men don’t bother putting in the minimal work to remake their worldliness. All you need to do is Wiki some basic knowledge about a few key European cities — Paris, London, Madrid, Prague, Rome, Venice, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Kiev (for a challenge) — memorize it, and regurgitate it with a little personal spin added for authenticity. Travel tidbits you should have mentally available to season a conversation to taste include a couple of famous landmarks, a local restaurant name and cuisine, the name of a popular mode of local transport, the name of a nightclub, the language spoken, and a favorite local food or drink. These are the basics. If your memory and your love of tall tales are inexhaustible, you can add smaller details like the style of dance, the local fashion sense, the attitude toward foreigners, and a couple of funny stories that involve you and some irate or smitten native (depending on the mood you’re trying to evoke in your listener).
The Wiki option is far cheaper in money and time spent than the alternative. There are other sources besides Wiki, of course. Reading up on travel hot spots and studying the travel guides for local flavor should be as much a part of your game as learning negs and qualifications.
One go-to travel lie I’ve used in the past (when I was a stripling who had yet to cut a swathe across the globopolitan landscape of ladies) is a story about riding a scooter through the cypress-lined olive groves of Tuscany and getting lost on my way to visit a pen pal who lived in a nearby town. Searchig vainly for road signs I could interpret, I stopped at the side of a road in a cloud of dust to watch a fetching Italian girl read a book under a shade tree. I motioned for her to come to me, and she approached. I asked if she spoke English. She didn’t, so we spent twenty minutes communicating by drawing our thoughts in the dirt with sticks.
At the time I told this story to an entranced American girl, it wasn’t true. It became true, more or less and give or take some honeyed details, later in life. But why wait for love until later in life? Make love when you can, because it is good. And you don’t want to be one of those men who regrets the pussy he never slammed.
***
“Dentata” (troll alert) writes,
Walking down street with a fling, we pass a guy and his girl, he says hi, my fling says hi. A few seconds later, rolling her eyes and smiling a bit, “I haatte that guy. I work with him, he’s such a twit”.
When I chick signals her dislike for a guy, it’s usually an indicator of inchoate tingles right?
Context, my quasi-trollish friend. Context. If she’s telling you that she hates a certain guy, it could just be a womanish ruse at rapport greased with the viscera of a surrogate chump. Her “hatred” is irrelevant in this scenario. She may despise her coworker or merely chafe at his annoying nerdliness or his choice of footwear. The point isn’t him, it’s you. Her giddy utterance is Krazy Glue to bond your “fling” more tightly and change its molecular structure to the polymer L-T-R.
In general, it’s a good rule of thumb that when a girl explicitly declares her “hate” for this or that man, it means something sexually sinister is lurking beneath her superego surface. Women as a sex (feminists excluded) are not disposed to air their hatred of other men so cavalierly. Be especially wary if a woman expresses “hatred” for a particular man more than once or twice. Female hatred is as often repressed sexual desire as it is authentic malevolence.
***
A reader wants to know if his good friend (hmm) executed good game,
My good friend ran into an interesting situation with a girl he picked up off street-game. According to him, he didn’t overgame in the initial interaction but he is known to be a bit gamey so take that with grain of salt. He number closes and sets up a date.
The following all happened today:
Him: ”T, NYC from a local’s eyes — Meet me at 50th n 5th @ 7th — wink if u hear meh!!”
Her: “Are you peacocking? And will you kino me? Maybe neg me, too. Because that’s what you usually do right?”
So at this point he reaches out to me and asks me how to respond. I consult some of my buddies that I game with and these were some of the choices:
Option A) ”Wow I see you read the game. I think I’m supposed to keep plowing and tell you to shut up and meet me at 7!” (That was my choice, read it from a YaReally comment that was similar awhile back)
~~~
Option B) ”I’m doing all of those things right now simultaneously n one sentence, and looking good doing them too”
~~~
Option C) ”Someone read The Game”
~~~
Option D) “I’ve got my top hat and magic tricks ready”
~~~
Option E) “Put on your sexiest underwear, since you know what to expect”
Ultimately my buddy went with option A…
Him: “Wow I see you read the game. I think I’m supposed to keep plowing and tell you to shut up and meet me at 7!”
Him: “Text me if ur late!”
Her: “You can’t communicate with girls without memorizing scripts can you”
Again, my buddy consulted me and we came up with two choices from here:
Option A) ”Oh I was actually doing this thing called ‘asking a cute girl out ona date’but if u want I’ll bring my top hat too”
~~~
Option B) ”Damn, you caught me> I’ve been typing in the Don Corleone lines from the Godfather. Maybe I should have picked a different movie.”
~~~
Ultimately my buddy went with Option A….
And then he got this:
Her: “I am sorry but this ‘date’ is not going to happen”
~~~
So yeah, he hasn’t responded to that as of this time and not sure what’s the best move. I’m sure the best move could have been early on. Maybe he was overgaming in the initial interaction or agreeing and amplifying wasn’t the way to go.
Or this girl wasn’t even worth his time and my buddy is better off for it. Ammmmmiright? (Guys?)
The way I saw it, he had 3 choices when she called out game in her first reply
1) Disregard and keep plowing 2) Agree and amplify 3) Bend to her frame
As I type this, I realize that ellipsis game may have been the best route.
“…“, “gay”, “ssshh” all would have worked instead of the lengthy responses your friend sent. But my favorite is the recently unearthed “emoji game“. A graphic of a cat sitting next to a birthday cake strikes me as the ideal mix of no-fuck-given alpha ‘tude and teasing, flirty vibe for a girl who thinks she’s gotten one over on you.
In all my years of womanizing, I’ve never come across a woman who spitefully referenced potential game tactics I may use on her as diligently and interrogatively as this girl did. This means one of three possibilities: 1. your friend is not calibrated properly and comes on too hard as an oily player, 2. this girl is a thermonuclear feminist cunt who lives for those rare moments she can pretend she’s “calling out” a player and striking a blow for the sisterhood, or 3. she’s a slut who’s been burned in the past by a succession of players and has refined antennae that will pick up the faintest player perturbations.
Your friend understood the concept of “agree & amplify”, but he lost ground in the execution. One, his replies did sound somewhat canned. I think some of those lines have been around for a decade. In NYC, there’s a chance that more than a trivial number of girls have actually heard the same lines from other men on the make. This doesn’t invalidate the idea of A&A, but it does confirm the wisdom of knowing your mark.
Two, in the application of A&A, he violated a core CH Poon Commandment V: the golden ratio. The CH principles take precedence over the particular game tactics that animate those principles. This means that a game tactic will fail if it veers too far from its founding principle. In this case, your friend sent verbose texts that sub-communicated his lower value and his chaser role, especially set side by side with the relatively terse replies the girl sent him.
Agree and amplify is a fantastic game technique, but like all techniques its delivery should be stylistically massaged to suit the degree of defensiveness of your female target. As an example of what I’m talking about, let’s revisit that first reply she sent to your friend.
Her: “Are you peacocking? And will you kino me? Maybe neg me, too. Because that’s what you usually do right?”
You: “Peacocking sounds like a perverted sex move. Slow it down Samantha.”
See what I’ve done here? I internally identified my target as a loser “sex and the city” NYC bitch with something to prove, so I pull out a harsh reply that would stall her offensive charge. I avoid any “game” talk because that is not really breaking out of her frame; I figure that mentioning game, even re-contextualized, will risk emboldening her attack. Then I not so subtly imply her attitude is sex-drenched and that is the real cause of her defensiveness. This should relax her as the burden is now on her to prove I’m a player instead of a fantasy figure from her overactive imagination.
I smell the telltale stink of the troll in this letter, but I let it go for educational purposes. Most of you men throwing yourselves into the field will not meet women like this one, so don’t worry about it. I’ve met, if my calculations are correct, approximately four women total who made some sort of direct, needling reference to game tactics. All four’s objections were quickly overcome.
However, the world is a big place, and there are bitches out there who will play this kind of “gotcha” game with men, so it helps to have a few retaliatory weapons of mass seduction at your disposal.
PS Drop the “wink if u hear meh!!” crap. It’s girly.
PPS Of the options you gave us, (A) was actually the worst of the bunch. I would have gone with (D) from the first round and neither from the second round. Speaking of which,
Her: “You can’t communicate with girls without memorizing scripts can you”
Dat_Truth_Hurts, this week’s COTW winner, illuminates,
Compare and contrast:
Women, would you rather date Paul Walker (pre-dead, of course) or a waiter that looked exactly like Paul Walker?
Men, would you rather date Scarlett Johanssen, or a waitress that looked exactly like Scarlett Johanssen?
The question is rhetorical, of course, in the socratic style of CH compare and contrasts of past. Most women would prefer to date rich celebrity Paul Walker. He wins in a cakewalk over waiter Paul Walker.
Most men would prefer to date waitress Scarlett Johanssen, because men primarily care about a woman’s looks, and Scarlett will look like Scarlett no matter how she pays her bills. If anything, a woman with high status introduces a negative force into a relationship, because her hypergamous instinct will be attuned for men higher status than herself. Men who are interested in dating Scarlett long term will be put off by the risks that come with her celebrity.
The choice for men is a bit more complicated, however. There is a nontrivial minority of men who would date celebrity Scarlett, if it were possible, not just for the great sex but for the bragging rights to their buddies. These men are likely to be the ones less interested in pursuing a deep, meaningful love bond with Scarlett.
***
Runner-up COTW winner is Sigma Male, who provides a helpful taxonomy of equalists.
Kingdom: Cathedral
Phylum: Anti-Naturalist
Class: Ethnomasochist
Order: Donkey
Family: Winged Servant
Genus: Leftoid
Species: SWPL
Sub-species: That atheist cunt who got stared at by a trembling nerd in an elevator and broadcast her near-death experience to the internerd backscratching community.
***
Runner-up #2 COTW winner is Greg Eliot, channeling a Pith Lord.
We live in awkward times… too late to vote and too early to start shooting.
Poolside never looked better.
***
COTW consolation prize goes to Fred C. Dobbs, with a brisk reminder for Asia supremacists:
So freedom, individual rights,equal opportunity, limited government and self reliance are obsolete? And thus Western society is about to yield to the Asian tigers? Huh? Our recent decline has come about due to our deviation from these founding principals, Not because Of them. Billions of Chinese would still be walking around in their identical little gray Mao work clothes had China not adopted Western values. Or worse, slaughtering their own by the tens of millions –ie see Great Leap Forward, where between 1962 -1958 a total of 45 million Chinese died due to Mao’s policy of forced resettlement and collectivization. Yup! I’d be proud of Chinese civilization too! Chinese will never realize their full potential, and will never be fully human until they are free to act and express their thoughts, ideas and creativity.
That last line is a nice sentiment, but here’s a question to ponder: what if the Chinese don’t want to be free to act and express their thoughts? As über-agriculturalists, they may have evolved to step right in the lemming line.
A shambling cloverfield has drawn up a list of pretty lies she wishes people would stop saying to her. As a big beautiful person of convexity, she has accepted her fatness, and she wants you to accept it as well. I agree. We should all accept that fat people are fat, and not mince around it. (Which would take years and grappling hooks, anyhow.) So in the spirit of her post, here are the 11 things you should always say to a fat girl to let her know you accept that she’s fat and you won’t patronize her by acting like you don’t notice her fatness.
1. You’re fat!
You are fat. It’s just a descriptor. If you’re calling yourself fat, I will gladly agree, because lying with a straight face takes energy. Hopefully my refreshing honesty will feel as good to you as it does to me.
2. You have such a fat face.
There’s a chance you have a pretty face, but I can’t tell under all that blubber. You also have a banging body hiding somewhere in there, like a tiny nested doll—it just happens that your outer body is bigger than what any normal man finds attractive on a primal, biological level. Now, do a shimmy for me so I can record it and make a funny gif called ‘Twerking Walrus’.
3. Oooh, let’s go to Lane Bryant!!!
You cannot fit into anything at Bebe. You probably can’t fit into anything at Lane Bryant either, but the only other choice is the REI camping department.
4. You need that candy bar.
It’s delicious, and how else will you sustain your massive corpulence that is the envy of no one anywhere? Open your piehole and accept the candy bar, the same way you accept your hideous visage.
5. You’d look better if you were thinner.
Why beat around the fupa? Yeah, your fat makes you unhealthy, but no one really gives a shit about your blood work or what some fat female doctor reassuringly told you to keep you coming back for more high-priced office visits. Aesthetically, you’re a mess (trust), and the only thing that will change that is losing weight. It doesn’t take a medical degree to know what vomit tastes like at the sight of you.
6. Phew, I’m so thin.
I won’t talk about being fat around a fat person when it’s obvious I’m not fat. Instead, I’ll tell it like it is (the way you like it), and express my utter relief that I don’t look anything like you. So I will talk about how great it is to be thin in your company and the implications should work themselves out.
7. That half mile of slow jogging you do isn’t going to make up for the calorie surplus you regularly run.
Yes, I know you do yoga and swim—that’s where you sit on your ass on a mat and break one bead of sweat and float in a pool like an otter that swallowed a beach ball. Yes, you have a gym membership. Very good, now you’ve found a venue to pound energy drinks and baby walk the treadmill while totally ignoring the weight room. Reward yourself later with a tub of ice cream for your hard work.
8. Nah, I don’t want to borrow your clothes.
You don’t wear clothes, you wear fabric bundles. I suppose if I want to borrow a car cover, I’ll give you a call.
9. Have you gained weight??
I mean, honestly, at your size it’s kinda hard to tell either way.
10. Dieting is for unhappy women who worry about their looks. That’s not you.
Dieting sucks and it doesn’t work the way you do it, before any hunger pangs are actually felt. It’s obvious you’ve stopped that dieting b.s. You just want to be happy and unhealthy, and one of the best ways for you to do that is to not stress so damn much about your repulsive fat folds. Is that a cheeto under your third chin? Embrace it! It’s a victory over dieting and anorexia, a small token that reminds the world what a confident, accepting fat woman looks like. Thar she crows!
11. I’m not trying to help.
When I start offering good advice you didn’t ask for, you don’t feel cared for. You feel humiliated. I don’t want to shame you, so instead I will love you as much as you claim to love yourself. I will shout to the world how gloriously fat you are, and how it doesn’t matter at all because you’re at peace with the rearview mirror you must use every time you have to wipe. I will shake your round belly and say “This belly is accepted by its owner. This belly is loved so much it gets more food than it can handle.” That’s all that matters, right? Your acceptance, my acceptance. Our acceptance. And what’s more accepting than dropping reality on your bowling ball head and not worrying if it will crush your soul?
BONUS:
12. You should be an orbiting space station model.
A new study provides further confirmation of the CH view of women’s sexual nature. (For a review of the study run through a typical Slate writer’s nancification algorithm, see here.) Executive summary: women screw around with charming cads and ignore beta providers when their financial needs are met by the state or by a rich daddy, and their emotional needs are met by a supportive culture that condones the removal of all restrictions on female sexuality.
While a great diversity of sexual norms exist around the world, ranging from strictly enforced monogamy to polyamory, according to Scelza’s new study there are two environmental contexts where women commonly choose multiple partners. The first is where women have more material support from their kin or economic independence from men more generally. This may explain why multiple mating is most common among small-scale matrilocal societies (in which women remain in their home village after marriage), such as the partible paternity societies of South America or the Mosuo of China. It may also explain why female infidelity has increased in Western societies as women have gained greater political and economic independence. (For example, Iceland was ranked first in gender equality by the World Economic Forum in 2013 at the same time that 67 percent of children were born out of wedlock, the highest rate in the Western world.) Under this scenario, women choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.
The second environmental context Scelza identified is where the sex ratio is female-biased (indicating a scarcity of men) or there is a high level of male unemployment (indicating a scarcity of men who can provide support). Women may be trying to “make the best of a bad situation and capitalizing on their youth to improve their reproductive prospects.” In such environments women tend to have higher rates of teen pregnancy as well as illegitimate births. Multiple mating may be a way of hedging their bets in an unstable environment. By pursuing an ardent sexual strategy, women are able to choose the best potential males as well as gain the support they need in order to maximize their reproductive success.
The Slate author digesting this study is another one of those borderline males suffering from cerebral Scalzi. You can tell by how dutifully he parrots feminist boilerplate in a vain effort to whitewash the real implications of the study or to redirect readers away from crimethink. “OMG I DON’T EVEN WOW JUST WOW SLUT SHAMING LET OUR WOMEN BANG TRUE SEXUAL EQUALITY WHEN WOMEN CAN SCREW AROUND LIKE MEN”.
If you can get past his vagina flapping, there are some nuggets of inference to be made. For instance, when the provisioning and support services of beta males are rendered extraneous by the economic self-sufficiency and pro-independent tankgrrl cultural agitprop afforded modern Western women, those women are more likely to chase alpha cads for fun and genetic profit. Chateau Heartiste called attention to this phenomenon years ago, and now ♥science♥ — as is its wont — has once again vindicated eagle-eyed CH observations about the machinery of the sexual market. (You gotta swim with the sharks to know how dangerous they can be.)
Or think about what a world of financially and sexually freed women pursuing an “alpha fux betas chucked” strategy looks like. Yeah, if Sub-Saharan Africa leapt to mind, you’re on the right track. A feminist utopia is not far removed in practice from the worst shit pits in the world. You take away any incentive for beta males to invest in cock carouseling post-prime women and to cooperate with shameless sluts to raise the next generation, and you are looking down the barrel of civilizational rot.
Luckily, there’s much ruin in a population group’s ingrained sexual mores. The West — still mostly white — has an evolved store of genetic imperatives that drive them to favor monogamy over promiscuity or free love “sex at dawn”-style polyamory. As Razib demurred, the problem with these sorts of studies so beloved by the degenerate freak mafia over at Slate et al., is that the “main gripe is not west vs. rest. eurasian ag. vs. rest”. In other words, be careful about international comparisons of sexual behavior; you may not like what the data imply about your beloved pet cultures.
But that Western store of monogamous feeling can run out, or become so warped from mismanagement that dysfunction blooms in the absence of once-venerated social constraints. Genetic predisposition can become overwhelmed by strong cultural forces acting in the opposite direction. Enervate the people of the West enough — acclimate their women to state largesse and shamelessness — and any desire for monogamy and paternal assurance will wilt under the pressure.
Pussboys who cheerlead for a female-led promiscuous feminist future have a blind spot regarding any blowback. It’s a “there’s no victim” party all the time for leftoids, who are incapable of considering the consequences of their childish, narcissistic acting out. Like most manginas, they lack the intellectual integrity to tackle the reality of female hypergamy, and wrongly assume that a free love paradise that impugns marriage and female chasteness will mean more sex for all men. No, what it will mean is more sex for alpha males.
No effort is given to understanding the male reaction to unfettered female sexual autonomy. Not a scintilla of curiosity how men will respond when women “choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.” Do Western women live in a vacuum? Or do they live in a world where men exercise choice and respond to incentives? Where men loathe the prospect that their girlfriends or spouses might be carrying the love child of a DJ or yoga class instructor?
That feminist-lauded “support network” with Hillary-esque “it takes a village” overtones will surely become less supportive as increasing numbers of men disillusioned with the growing ranks of cad-chasing sluts drop out, taking their sweat and their money with them, ultimately depriving the state of its ability to transfer resources from men to women. Civilization banks on getting men to invest in its continuance, and the tool it uses is monogamy and guarantees of one woman-one man. If women renege on their end of the deal… well, don’t be surprised if men renege on theirs.
The sexual market is a giant biofeedback loop. More female economic and sexual autonomy will cause perturbations throughout every facet of life. And you don’t need to cast afar to see what a free love society that caters entirely to women’s sexual prerogatives means. Just listen for the sound of gunshots in the ghetto and the silence of empty playgrounds in the suburbs.
A new study provides further confirmation of the CH view of women’s sexual nature. (For a review of the study run through a typical Slate writer’s nancification algorithm, see here.) Executive summary: women screw around with charming cads and ignore beta providers when their financial needs are met by the state or by a rich daddy, and their emotional needs are met by a supportive culture that condones the removal of all restrictions on female sexuality.
While a great diversity of sexual norms exist around the world, ranging from strictly enforced monogamy to polyamory, according to Scelza’s new study there are two environmental contexts where women commonly choose multiple partners. The first is where women have more material support from their kin or economic independence from men more generally. This may explain why multiple mating is most common among small-scale matrilocal societies (in which women remain in their home village after marriage), such as the partible paternity societies of South America or the Mosuo of China. It may also explain why female infidelity has increased in Western societies as women have gained greater political and economic independence. (For example, Iceland was ranked first in gender equality by the World Economic Forum in 2013 at the same time that 67 percent of children were born out of wedlock, the highest rate in the Western world.) Under this scenario, women choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.
The second environmental context Scelza identified is where the sex ratio is female-biased (indicating a scarcity of men) or there is a high level of male unemployment (indicating a scarcity of men who can provide support). Women may be trying to “make the best of a bad situation and capitalizing on their youth to improve their reproductive prospects.” In such environments women tend to have higher rates of teen pregnancy as well as illegitimate births. Multiple mating may be a way of hedging their bets in an unstable environment. By pursuing an ardent sexual strategy, women are able to choose the best potential males as well as gain the support they need in order to maximize their reproductive success.
The Slate author digesting this study is another one of those borderline males suffering from cerebral Scalzi. You can tell by how dutifully he parrots feminist boilerplate in a vain effort to whitewash the real implications of the study or to redirect readers away from crimethink. “OMG I DON’T EVEN WOW JUST WOW SLUT SHAMING LET OUR WOMEN BANG TRUE SEXUAL EQUALITY WHEN WOMEN CAN SCREW AROUND LIKE MEN”.
If you can get past his vagina flapping, there are some nuggets of inference to be made. For instance, when the provisioning and support services of beta males are rendered extraneous by the economic self-sufficiency and pro-independent tankgrrl cultural agitprop afforded modern Western women, those women are more likely to chase alpha cads for fun and genetic profit. Chateau Heartiste called attention to this phenomenon years ago, and now ♥science♥ — as is its wont — has once again vindicated eagle-eyed CH observations about the machinery of the sexual market. (You gotta swim with the sharks to know how dangerous they can be.)
Or think about what a world of financially and sexually freed women pursuing an “alpha fux betas chucked” strategy looks like. Yeah, if Sub-Saharan Africa leapt to mind, you’re on the right track. A feminist utopia is not far removed in practice from the worst shit pits in the world. You take away any incentive for beta males to invest in cock carouseling post-prime women and to cooperate with shameless sluts to raise the next generation, and you are looking down the barrel of civilizational rot.
Luckily, there’s much ruin in a population group’s ingrained sexual mores. The West — still mostly white — has an evolved store of genetic imperatives that drive them to favor monogamy over promiscuity or free love “sex at dawn”-style polyamory. As Razib demurred, the problem with these sorts of studies so beloved by the degenerate freak mafia over at Slate et al., is that the “main gripe is not west vs. rest. eurasian ag. vs. rest”. In other words, be careful about international comparisons of sexual behavior; you may not like what the data imply about your beloved pet cultures.
But that Western store of monogamous feeling can run out, or become so warped from mismanagement that dysfunction blooms in the absence of once-venerated social constraints. Genetic predisposition can become overwhelmed by strong cultural forces acting in the opposite direction. Enervate the people of the West enough — acclimate their women to state largesse and shamelessness — and any desire for monogamy and paternal assurance will wilt under the pressure.
Pussboys who cheerlead for a female-led promiscuous feminist future have a blind spot regarding any blowback. It’s a “there’s no victim” party all the time for leftoids, who are incapable of considering the consequences of their childish, narcissistic acting out. Like most manginas, they lack the intellectual integrity to tackle the reality of female hypergamy, and wrongly assume that a free love paradise that impugns marriage and female chasteness will mean more sex for all men. No, what it will mean is more sex for alpha males.
No effort is given to understanding the male reaction to unfettered female sexual autonomy. Not a scintilla of curiosity how men will respond when women “choose multiple partners because they have more options available to them, they can rely on their support network during transitional times, and they have greater personal autonomy.” Do Western women live in a vacuum? Or do they live in a world where men exercise choice and respond to incentives? Where men loathe the prospect that their girlfriends or spouses might be carrying the love child of a DJ or yoga class instructor?
That feminist-lauded “support network” with Hillary-esque “it takes a village” overtones will surely become less supportive as increasing numbers of men disillusioned with the growing ranks of cad-chasing sluts drop out, taking their sweat and their money with them, ultimately depriving the state of its ability to transfer resources from men to women. Civilization banks on getting men to invest in its continuance, and the tool it uses is monogamy and guarantees of one woman-one man. If women renege on their end of the deal… well, don’t be surprised if men renege on theirs.
The sexual market is a giant biofeedback loop. More female economic and sexual autonomy will cause perturbations throughout every facet of life. And you don’t need to cast afar to see what a free love society that caters entirely to women’s sexual prerogatives means. Just listen for the sound of gunshots in the ghetto and the silence of empty playgrounds in the suburbs.
Paul Walker recently offed himself in a high speed sports car race. By most accounts, he qualified as a super alpha male: famous (most important factor), good-looking, well-liked, thrill-seeking. He started dating, i.e. fucking, a 16 year old girl when he was 33. They were still a couple seven years later at the time of his death. She is said to be emotionally devastated.
No matter how you bristle at the concept of men being divisible by their sexual market value into gradations of omega, beta and alpha, you’d have to spin some sophistic legerdemain to believe Walker didn’t have way more options with women than the average man with honor and integrity up the wazoo. He may not have availed himself of all the pussy throwing itself at his feet, but he could have if he so wanted. And that’s the critical distinction.
A funny anomaly in the laws of the sexual market occurs when a man reaches the rarified heights of super alphadom. Rules governing human interaction break down and recombine into strange new polarities, nearly the inverse of the laws that regulate most biocommerce between the sexes. The dating market constraints that almost all men must abide don’t act with the same force on super alphas. These few high stakes male winners are so massively pre-selected by literally millions of women fawning over the texture and aroma of their daily dumps that the value these anointed men bring is no longer a function of their ability to attract women. The value of the super alpha male, paradoxically, resembles more the value that very physically attractive and feminine women hold: that is, it’s the value of the scarce resource trying to maintain its scarcity. It’s the value of perceived purity.
A regular reader with a lot of ideas in his head writes,
It doesn’t seem like sex was a big deal to Paul Walker. He was raised Mormon. He had a daughter.
I just don’t get the sense he planned his vacations or nights on the town based on the women he planned on meeting.
As we’re hearing girls confess, Paul Walker could have done anything he wanted to them. Who knows if he did. [ed: if i had to bet…] They’re now saying he should have been praised like Brad Pitt and we know what women thought of Brad in his prime.
Assuming he’s straight, the fewer number of girls Walker banged, the more power he had over them. Some female fans probably waited til his death to speak out because it’s too risky to give a man that looks like him that much power and ego. In that sense, by keeping his sperm to himself he has more in common with a chaste woman than 99.9% of men.
What this reader is hinting at is unattainability. A super alpha is perceived so unattainable by most women (keep in mind that super alpha males are much rarer than very beautiful women) that without some compensating behavior or signal designed to reduce the perception of his unattainability, most women will studiously ignore him to preserve their delicate egos.
An ordinary man who surrounded himself with women festooning him with adulation would incite intrigue and sexualized curiosity in other women on the outside looking in at his social harem. His flirtatious profligacy would elevate his SMV. But a famous super alpha who did the same would merely confirm what most women already suspected about him. He would be playing to type, and in an odd twist of hamsterfied feedback his predictable alpha behavior would rob him of some power over women. Perhaps at the highest levels of womanhood — the HB 9s and 10s — any desire to have a long term relationship with such a man is dampened. His sexually entitled behavior might even create limits on the willingness of more average women to indulge in alphamania.
Like the crooning boy band singer who wails in the fashion of a beta male suffering heartbreak, the famous super alpha who, purposefully or otherwise, plays against type to construct an impression that he’s more attainable (in the way that women prefer, i.e., more open to monogamous commitment) than he really is imparts to himself a degree of power over women that only mighty kings free of legal consequence enjoy. In this sense, the super alpha male is similar to the exquisitely aloof beauty: his perceived chasteness is proof of his high commitment value.
Comment Of The Week: Getting To The Id Of It
Dec 7th, 2013 by CH
Dat_Truth_Hurts, this week’s COTW winner, illuminates,
The question is rhetorical, of course, in the socratic style of CH compare and contrasts of past. Most women would prefer to date rich celebrity Paul Walker. He wins in a cakewalk over waiter Paul Walker.
Most men would prefer to date waitress Scarlett Johanssen, because men primarily care about a woman’s looks, and Scarlett will look like Scarlett no matter how she pays her bills. If anything, a woman with high status introduces a negative force into a relationship, because her hypergamous instinct will be attuned for men higher status than herself. Men who are interested in dating Scarlett long term will be put off by the risks that come with her celebrity.
The choice for men is a bit more complicated, however. There is a nontrivial minority of men who would date celebrity Scarlett, if it were possible, not just for the great sex but for the bragging rights to their buddies. These men are likely to be the ones less interested in pursuing a deep, meaningful love bond with Scarlett.
***
Runner-up COTW winner is Sigma Male, who provides a helpful taxonomy of equalists.
Sub-species: That atheist cunt who got stared at by a trembling nerd in an elevator and broadcast her near-death experience to the internerd backscratching community.
***
Runner-up #2 COTW winner is Greg Eliot, channeling a Pith Lord.
Poolside never looked better.
***
COTW consolation prize goes to Fred C. Dobbs, with a brisk reminder for Asia supremacists:
That last line is a nice sentiment, but here’s a question to ponder: what if the Chinese don’t want to be free to act and express their thoughts? As über-agriculturalists, they may have evolved to step right in the lemming line.
[crypto-donation-box]
Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off