Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Pretty Girl’s Dilemma

A (possibly foreign) girl writes about a dilemma that should be familiar to any pretty woman with dreams of alpha males pledging devotion dancing in her bed,

:)

I am writing to ask you a question related to dating and marriage. Just what you wanted to and so rarely hear First, to introduce myself, I am what most men would rate as an 8, or on a really good day perhaps a 9, [ed: legit] am 26, and really only date alpha males. I can’t help it, I like the fire that can burn me. My last two boyfriends were both extremely charismatic, successful, magnetic et al and I spent a year with each before I realized they had something in common: aversion to marriage. Both were around 33, an age when many men begin to consider that stuff, in my opinion. My question is this:

As I am 26 and not going to be more attractive in five years, and I would like to get married within that time frame, how do I go about eschewing the alphas who are not interested in me for marriage? Should I start directing my attentions to the ones around 40 and up? Right now I can have my pick of most men, though it will not always remain thus, but as alphas are harder to marry than other men and commitment is what I want, should I redirect my attentions towards betas?

Of course perhaps it was just me that neither wanted to marry, but it was the reason for both breakups, and really I would rather not waste my time/energy/looks/emotions on men who just want to enjoy me for a year or two….

:)

Anyway I appreciate you taking the time to read this and if you decide to post this and answer it on your website, feel free to, but please alter my name. Thanks

A critical detail remains unanswered: Did you initiate your break-ups with the last two alpha boyfriends? If not, you are probably dating out of your league — that is, you are fucking men who don’t think you have the goods to persuade them of an early retirement from the field — and the men decided your marital ultimatum, or innuendos of marital ultimatums to come, was a cramping of their style they couldn’t tolerate. So they dumped you while the dumping was good.

If, however, you did initiate the break-ups, it suggests your exes thought well enough of you to stick it out for as long as possible, holding out the hope of nuptial rewards until you called their deceptive feints. In this scenario, you are not dating out of your league so much as you are experiencing what it’s like to be with men who have the hearts of cads, but love you nonetheless.

My advice, should you choose to accept it:

Yes, dating older men is a solution. An older alpha male begins to feel two pressing awarenesses: his posterity, and his mortality. In this psychological stew, the love of a younger, loyal woman beckoning him to surrender his bachelor freedoms is a temptation hard to resist. But, if this is not an option…

Pursue the greater beta male. Often, the only notable differences between an alpha male and a greater beta male are the former’s superior charisma and the latter’s superior commitment. If you can suffer the even-temper and placid mood of the greater beta for his gift of marital capitulation, you will live a happy life. If not, prepare for my final piece of advice…

Continue your Sisyphean quest for the magnetic alpha male who inflames your ichor yet who is also willing to abide your peculiarly female constraints on his vital energies. These men do exist, but they’re rare. Not quite phantoms, but you’ll have to hunt them down. To start, you must identify warning signs of flightiness, and hopeful auspices of lifelong devotion.

– Is he a social king? The man who holds court, holds the love of many women. Try to date men who are less extroverted. The alpha introvert is socialy savvy, but he also prefers his solitude. This desire for solitude is correlated with conscientiousness, low impulsivity, and affinity for home and hearth.

– Are his parents still together (if alive)? The faithful apple doesn’t fall far from the tree of fidelity. Don’t underestimate the influence of genes on behavior.

– Has he dated and dumped a lot of beautiful women? Red flag.

– Are you better looking than his exes? You may be the one to quell his urge to wander.

– Is he willing to wait more than three dates before having sex with you? Hopeful auspice.

– Does he go out of his way to learn things about you? He’s smitten. (Or he’s a grandmaster player.)

– Does he have a (big) dog? He’s got an incipient paternal instinct.

– Is he politically conservative? If so, he’s more likely to want to marry and raise a family.

– Are his friends womanizers? He’s sympatico with the swinging scimitar lifestyle.

– Is he an epicurean of food, drink and art? He might also be an epicurean of women.

This is a partial list to get you started. One other thing. Beware prowlers bearing charming wit. Unlike men you meet within your social circle, the lone wolf does not come favorably endorsed nor does he fear betraying your friends’ trust.

[crypto-donation-box]

HerewardMW proposes a sterling idea,

Lets actually have a prison for fat people. The perimeter wall will be five feet high and the bars three feet apart. The prison will have a gym. If you can escape you’re free to go.

What percentage of fat feminists do you think would stay locked up for life, bitching and moaning the whole time about thin privilege and the unfairness of denying them prison bars five feet apart? 99%?

Runner-up comment winner is Dirk Johanson,

I once read a novel where there was a scene where a circus fat lady on the verge of death got fucked to death in a gang-bang – she enjoyed it so much, eventually her heart gave way. Its a pretty disgusting thought to me – especially the part where the guy was describing that her shit-smell was permeating the circus tent- but for guys that are really undersexed and can’t afford a good-looking hooker, that type of thing could be a revenue-generator for the concentration camps.  After all, all that food won’t be cheap.

It’s this kind of creative free association that makes the Chateau so respectable among mainstream media outlets.

[crypto-donation-box]

Chateau Heartiste was on top of noticing and alerting the public to this trend of feminizing men a long time ago. And now ♥science♥ is providing the ammunition for CH’s mighty Guns of Pattern Recognition.

During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.

This information comes from a long-term prospective study that evaluated changes in serum testosterone on a population-wide basis.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The interesting thing we discovered was that, on average, when we measured the testosterone in the blood of a 60-year-old in 1989 it was higher than that in a different 60-year-old measured in 1995,” said Thomas Travison, PhD, of the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass. “We observed the same phenomenon over a wide range of ages.”

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers.

So American men really are becoming more physiologically pussified, emasculated, manboobed and womanish. And this hormonal change is expressing itself psychologically. Cf., John Scalzi.

The million milliliter question: Why?

“This population-level decline in testosterone concentrations in men is not explained fully by the usual suspects: increasing BMI and prevalence of obesity, certain other co-morbid conditions or decreasing incidence of smoking. Although the analysis by Travison et al did reveal significant age-related increases in adiposity and medication use and a welcome decline in smoking, the age-matched decline in testosterone concentrations persisted even after adjusting for these variables,” Shalender Bhasin, MD, of the section of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He voiced concern over the decline and its public health impact on American men.

“This magnitude of change during such a short period is disquieting,” Bhasin wrote. “Although increasing adiposity and lifestyle factors that were recorded in the [Massachusetts Male Aging Study] could not account for the secular trends in testosterone level, it is possible that other lifestyle factors, such as increasing use of tight-fitting underwear, increasing room temperatures in American homes and offices during the past three decades, decreased physical activity with increased body mass indices and decreased smoking could have contributed to the declining testosterone levels in men.”

Answer: No one really knows.

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

There are three guaranteed means available to you, the big swinging CH reader, for battling this scourge of testosterone shrinkage.

– Lift weights
– Approach and hit on cute girls
– Avoid prostrating yourself at the feet of freaks and whiny grievance whores

That’s really all there is to it. And yet, America the Raisin-balled continues bursting with fruit cup flavor, an army of marching manboobs pegging themselves on the cock of feminism, taking orders from prissy, level 99 nancyboys ashamed of the impudence and pale hue of their own peek-a-boo micropeens.

I say screw that labially-wrapped lifestyle. Live loud, live proud, live turgidly aroused. Humiliate the buttercups. Slap your claymore against their tear-stained cheeks. And enjoy the howls of their crippled pain.

[crypto-donation-box]

Hate Mail Of The Week

This one comes from “Roger Rabbit”,

So you guys have your opinions and all.  Is this like a website just for trolling? What’s with all the anger? because i cant figure out who gives enough of a shit about fat chicks, omega males, or anything else presented here to create a whole site about it.  You don’t respond to anyone that challenges you with anything more than a fuck-off or “you must be a fat chick/omega male/feminist bitch” – take your pick.  Which is fine, that’s your right as the alpha male gorilla, chest-beating idiots you are.  But it’s so ridiculous I think it’s gotta be just a place for you to troll.  Are you actually like 12?  That’s rhetorical. By the way, I’m sure you already guessed it, but I am a 520 pound white chick with a dark mustache, slimy stinky cheese growing in my fat folds because I can’t bathe properly, hairy arms, legs, & pits because – well for obvious reasons.  I’m so pathetic I let my dog lick my cunt and clean the curdled scum nestled in my fat folds while I eat cheese puffs, smoke, and look at porn of gorgeous 18 year old girls I will never look like and can never have.  As a favor to you and everyone who knows me (that’s not many people) I think I will try to end my miserable existence later on tonight.  No thanks necessary.  I can imagine your appreciation even as I type.  Thank the good lord for survival of the fittest.  Oh before I die, I’d like to leave you with this idea – why not start fat camps but when us fatties get there, you shame us and over feed us and insult us while torturing our fat-asses in the most sadistic ways you can come up with.  Almost like concentration camps.  Instead of the gas chamber, lead us to a room promising a huge buffet, then force us to eat to death.  Keep up the good work on this site, encouraging all of us disgusting low-lifes in whatever form we take to off ourselves and therein paving the way for the rise of your super breed of men and women.  Better save a few of us though, just so you’ll have someone to kick around.

You ever notice how deeply unaware the equalist losers in life appear to be to their own psychological projection? It’s similar to how the first commenter to drop the n-word in a thread about a racially-charged news story is often a leftoid saying “Yeah, you wingnuts want to off the niggers and spics, just come out and say it.”  The id revealed, indeed.

For the record, “Roger Rabbit”, fatties and other assorted misfits who know their place aren’t the primary designated targets of CH’s very special lessons. It’s the loser apologists and degenerate freak mafia claiming the equal worth of medusas, monsters and manboobs who earn the privilege of serving as voodoo dolls to poke with pins and laugh at as they twist convulsively from searing psyche pain. Twisting which you have illustrated quite spectacularly here, for the sadistic pleasure of all reading.

So, yes, CH will continue making an example of you and your ilk to serve as a warning for the others who might get it in their heads to propagandize equalist bullshit that makes the world an uglier, fatter, gloomier place.

[crypto-donation-box]

Men and women are psychologically, temperamentally, physically, and, as ♥SCIENCE♥ is now showing, perceptually different. How men and women perceive the opposite sex’s physical attractiveness varies greatly. What follows is a gem of a study that essentially vindicates the foundational elements of game and lends support to an understanding of the world that accounts for innate psychosexual differences between the sexes.

The abstract:

From an evolutionary perspective, beauty is regarded as an assessment of fitness value. The fitness value of a social partner can be influenced by both physical and nonphysical traits. It follows that the perceived beauty of a social partner can be influenced by nonphysical traits such as liking, respect, familiarity, and contribution to shared goals in addition to physical traits such as youth, waist-to-hip ratio, and bilateral symmetry. We present three studies involving the evaluation of known social partners showing that judgments of physical attractiveness are strongly influenced by nonphysical factors. Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males and there are large individual differences within each sex. In general, research on physical attractiveness based on the evaluation of purely physical traits of strangers might miss some of the most important factors influencing the perception of physical attractiveness among known associates.

Reread for comprehension.

“Females are more strongly influenced by nonphysical factors than males…”

That’s the sex difference reality that pumps lifeblood through the heart of game. This is game set match for the losing “Only looks matter” psychosexuality reality denialist dorks, aka bedroom hermits.

We’ll unpack some of this badboy because it’s just that good.

A few studies have examined the effect of nonphysical factors on the judgment of physical attractiveness. Early studies that were not inspired by evolution include Gross and Crofton’s (1977) paper ‘‘What Is Good Is Beautiful,’’ written in response to Dion, Berscheid, and Walster’s (1972) landmark paper ‘‘What Is Beautiful Is Good,’’ and Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) demonstration of a ‘‘halo effect’’ in which evaluations of one attribute of a person are generalized to influence evaluations of other attributes (see also Feingold 1992; Felson & Bohrenstedt, 1979; Owens & Ford, 1978). The famous ‘‘closing time effect’’ (Gladue & Delaney, 1990) demonstrates that simple availability can influence the perception of physical attractiveness. More recent studies inspired by evolutionary psychology show that social status (Townsend & Levy, 1990) and prosocial orientation (Jensen-Campbell, West, & Graziano, 1995) enhance perception of physical attractiveness.

The evidence in the bolded part is likely capturing the effectiveness of social status and social savviness to a man’s perceived attractiveness.

Another problem is that most studies on physical attractiveness—including the few that examine nonphysical factors—are based on the evaluation of strangers. Moreover, ac- cording to Langlois et al. (2000, p. 408), ‘‘most of the research we reviewed categorized people into two levels of attractiveness, high or low.’’ Comparing the ends of the dis- tribution exaggerates the consistency with which people rate others as physically attractive based on physical traits. These widespread methods are problematic from an evolutionary perspective. In ancestral social environments, interactions took place in small groups of people whose physical attributes were roughly average and whose nonphysical attributes were intimately known to each other. The psychological mechanisms that evolved to integrate these factors into an overall assessment of physical attractiveness might not be engaged by the artificial conditions of psychological experiments, even those that attempt to examine nonphysical factors.

This will be no news to men who routinely hit the field to meet women. Artificial psych experiments are simply inadequate at picking up those subtle nonphysical cues of social status that women find so enticing in men. That’s why there are so few lab experiments testing the real world efficacy of game; it’s just hard to replicate that feedback intensive environment and those high level psychological interactions in a lab.

We present three studies that were conducted in this spirit. The first added a twist to the method of evaluating photographs by having people evaluate the photographs of known individuals in their high school yearbooks. The second and third studies were conducted on actual groups of interacting individuals. In the second study, evaluation by group members was compared to evaluation by strangers based on photographs. In the third study, group members evaluated each other when the group was initially formed and again after a period of interaction, providing the strongest test of the effect of nonphysical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness.

This part is quoted for informational purposes. The third study looks the most interesting from a game perspective.

To summarize the results of our first study, the perception of physical attractiveness appeared to be highly influenced by knowing the people and their nonphysical traits. It was not familiarity per se that was important in most cases—otherwise familiarity would have been the most important independent variable in the multiple regressions—but what is known and how it is evaluated in terms of liking and respect.

The authors discuss causation and correlation problems, and how they solved them, which you can read at the linked study above. Bottom line: If a girl doesn’t like you or respect you, she will perceive you as uglier than you really are. Likewise, the inverse. This is why girlfriends and wives in happy relationships often feel their men are better looking now than when they first met them.

A description of two team members will make the results of [the second] study more vivid and intuitive. One of the five males was a ‘‘slacker’’ who obviously was not pulling his weight, either literally or figuratively. He was the primary object of negative gossip and social control efforts, such as teasing and inspecting his bedroom window when he failed to show up for practice. He was uniformly rated as physically ugly by team members. Another of the five males was the opposite of the slacker, working so hard that he was discussed as possibly a contender for the U.S. Olympic team. He was uniformly rated as physically attractive by team members. This large difference in perceived physical attractiveness did not exist for raters who knew nothing about the contributions of the two men to the team.

This is direct evidence that when a woman is aware of a man’s high social status, she will find him more facially attractive. But the most conclusive evidence for status-based and tractable male physical attractiveness (and conversely, intractable female physical attractiveness) comes in part three.

[In the third study], initial rating of physical attractiveness accounted for only 9.3% of the variation in final rating of physical attractiveness for females rating females, 19.2% for females rating males, and 62% for males rating females. The remaining independent variables were highly correlated with each other and with the residual variation, as in our other two studies. Liking was the next variable to be entered in all three analyses and none of the other factors explained the residual variation after the addition of liking.

First impressions are way more important to men (as a function of women’s ability to attract men) than they are to women. If a man thinks a woman is hot, he’ll pretty much still think that after he gets to know her, no matter how bad her personality. Women, in contrast, will vary a lot between their first impressions and later impressions once they get to know the man.

Our third study is methodologically the strongest by avoiding the use of photographs and employing before-and-after ratings of physical attractiveness by the same person rather than ratings by a separate stranger. Nevertheless, the results of our third study are fully consistent with our other two studies. Among people who actually know and interact with each other, the perception of physical attractiveness is based largely on traits that cannot be detected from physical appearance alone, either from photographs or from actually observing the person before forming a relationship. The effect of nonphysical factors on the perception of physical attractiveness is strongest for females rating females, females rating males, and males rating males. It is weaker but still highly significant for males rating females.

The weakest effect of nonphysical factors on physical attractiveness is among males rating females, which is evidence validating evolutionary psychology theory that men are more looks-focused and women are more holistic in their appraisals of the appeal of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, men do think women can look a little better if they are also charming and likable, which proves the CH precept that femininity can boost a woman’s SMV by a half point. (Not insignificant when you consider that SMV is measured on a 10 point scale.)

Our studies were designed to address two shortcomings in the literature on physical attractiveness: (1) a relative paucity of studies that examine the effects of both nonphysical and physical factors on the assessment of physical attractiveness and (2) a relative paucity of studies that involve people who actually know each other. All three studies demonstrate that nonphysical factors have a very potent effect on the perception of physical attractiveness, which can persist for decades in the case of the middle-aged participants of our yearbook study.

Alert the manboob media! Science ♥proves♥ that GAME WORKS, and continues working right into the later years of life.

Physical traits per se are especially important in sexual relationships because they will be partially inherited by one’s offspring. Thus, it makes sense that males are more influenced by physical features when evaluating females than when evaluating males, although the comparable asymmetry did not exist for females.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
Feminists wept.

Our studies also reveal individual differences within each sex that rival between-sex differences and that merit further study. In particular, individual differences are increasingly being studied in game theoretic terms as alternative social strategies, such as cooperation versus exploitation (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, 1998) or high-investment versus low-investment mating strategies (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). In future research it will be interesting to see if people who differ in these respects also differ in the factors that influence their perceptions of physical attractiveness.

Otherwise known as r-selection versus K-selection. Yes, it would be interesting to see which way the sexual culture is blowing. I kind of have an idea.

For example, are women from father-absent homes, who appear to adopt a reproductive strategy based on low male investment (Draper & Harpending, 1982, Ellis, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 1999), more influenced by purely physical traits in males than those from father-present homes?

Answer from my purely observational, unscientific point of view: Yes. Or: Game — aka the nonphysical aspects of attraction — works better on smart, emotionally stable chicks from intact families. Now there’s a counter-intuitive that’ll really stick in the craw of anti-game haters!

In conclusion, thinking of beauty as an assessment of fitness value leads to the prediction that nonphysical factors should have a strong effect on the perception of physical attractive- ness. In addition, naturalistic studies are needed to fully understand how physical and nonphysical factors are integrated in the perception of physical attractiveness. If we were to state our results in the form of a beauty tip, it would be, ‘‘If you want to enhance your physical attractiveness, become a valuable social partner.’

Game, the art and leisure of becoming a valuable social partner.

As you can see from this study’s results, women trick themselves as much as men “trick” women using game. Remember that the next time you hear some feminist or manboob shrieking about how game is manipulative and deceptive. A woman deceives herself just fine without any help from a pick-up artist. Of course, she’ll get the help, because that’s what she wants.

[crypto-donation-box]

Something totally random happened in Oklahoma yesterday. A white man was randomly shot and killed by three random uruk-hais randomly pointing guns out of their random ghettomobile, and randomly choosing a target upon whom to unload their random fleeting emotions which some might randomly refer to less randomly as a pointed expulsion of hate.

Here are random photos of the random killers looking like any random person would look who randomly decided to shoot a man dead in the back:

In related news, I randomly chose wine instead of kerosene to drink last weekend. I randomly wore shoes to walk outside instead of going barefoot. And I randomly avoided a dilapidated neighborhood known to be full of restless orcs. It’s this randomness of life that makes all of us feel morally superior for avoiding the notice of any non-random occurrences. Three cheers for awful, tragic randomness!

“They pulled up behind him and shot him in the back then sped away,” said Capt. Jay Evans of Duncan Police Department. “It could have been anybody — it was such a random act.”

“It could have been anybody.” Translation: “The shit is going to hit the fan if white people start noticing that it wasn’t just anybody.”

Just how confidently can this police captain claim randomness as a crime motive? Were the three joy-shooters — two nightmare beasts and one miscegenated quasimodo — completely unaware of the race of their chosen victim?

Questions to ask the Captain:

How many people did the perps pass in their car before shooting Lane?
Was Lane the first “random” target they saw that day?
Did they pass up the chance to shoot any blacks before targeting Lane for the kill?
If the shooting was random, why were pedestrians coming toward them spared? The back shot seems especially cowardly and proof of forethought rather than pure chance.
Why, if the violence was totally random, is it two blacks and one mulatto with identity issues who stand accused of the crime in a city, Duncan, OK, that is only 3% black?

Of course, these questions will never be answered. Because the truth is a shiv to the post-modern, post-Western, anti-white posterity cleansing project. The truth is that there was nothing “random” about this morbidly banal killing; three gutter fiends spotted a white man — an iconic-looking white man jogging in that iconically white way — and gleefully took aim with all the roiling envy and hate their black hearts could muster, channeled into the spear of hot metal that would reward them with a few minutes of spastic joy.

Chris Lane was polar beared, just like Matty Yglesias was polar beared in his gentrifying DC enclave, except Lane took a lethal blow while Mattyboy was lucky to endure a flying fist as the weapon of choice of his insta-haters.

Look at that photo above, Mattyboy. Look at it real close. You know it. I know it. This is degeneracy. Human regression to a primitive prototype. Hate Machine in motion. Idiocracy ascendent. Brutish subterranean vessels of rank disgorged id spit forth from the perforating bowels of a diseased culture that has embraced lies and abandoned truth.

The Cathedral isn’t simply a metaphor for the mouthpieces of the mass media; its darkness — its evil — reaches deep into schools, government, entertainment industries, and apparently even local police departments. No mind is safe from its memetic synapse-blasting. Not even the minds of those who are up to their necks in daily reminders of reality and should know better than to spout blatant reality-warping lies intended as much to humiliate the listener as to redirect rage.

In this world, our Cathedral mind prison, media organs credulously accept the word of subhuman filth who claim boredom and random target acquisition for their actions, but will spin spin the universe on its axis to twist a news story about a Hispanic guy shooting a thug in defense who was bashing his head into the ground as a morality tale of white racism against angelic minorities.

Pre-human monsters from the abyss = wide-eyed Cathedral credulity.

Niceguy Hispanic looking out for his neighbors = Cathedral doubleplussmear campaign.

When you lie down with rotting filth, you get up with bad habits of the mind. Excise this stinking corpse of a nation from your mind, it is no longer a part of you and you are no longer a part of it. Time to rebuild something new, better, true and beautiful from the smoldering ashes. People are awakening. A cataclysm stirs.

[crypto-donation-box]

How To Defeat Realtalk

A modest suggestion for the Cathedral and her foot soldiers. You know you can’t win on the facts. And you know you can’t win when there’s an army of independent broadsheeters (aka bloggers) more than willing to call you out on your lies. Not only willing, but happy to do so.

Realtalk is now a thorn in your side which will soon become a Poe-ian swinging blade pendulum whooshing over your noodle neck. You sense this, which is why you are in panic mode, squealing loudly like a cornered pig about to get mortally stuck.

So here’s how you take back the night. It’s quite simple, really. Deprive the truth-tellers of their power. Strip them of their online anonymity. Make it so that they can easily and quickly be identified by your PC Stasi and forthwith excommunicated from polite society and lawful employment. Do this while you still have a stranglehold over the collective consciousness and uncontested rule over the societal, bureaucratic and cultural apparatuses.

Gather your silent shock troops — the NSA, the CIA, PRISM, Google, Microsoft — and reveal the underground resistance that may one day explode into a full-blown revolution out of your control. But hurry!, before the enforcers that man your expensive military hardware wake up as well and point their gun turrets back at you. You know what to do. I’ve given you the keys to victory. Get cracking. Heh.

[crypto-donation-box]

The King, (that’s you, bub), strides to the castle balcony to sonorously address the ear-pricked masses below. Your heavy velvet robe flowing around you, royal bling glittering in the sun, you gaze downward, lift your arms with palms to the sky, and say,

“What do you guys think of my rule?”

Ludicrous, right? A King would never speak to his adoring flock like that. He wouldn’t ask them their opinion; he would state outright what he was planning, and expect nothing less than enthusiastic reception for his nostrums. The King would not query. He would proclaim.

This is the last in a series on the Rules of Social Savviness. Rule #1 is here and Rule #2 here.

The third rule caps what I consider the winning trifecta of social behaviors that are characteristic of the socially savvy alpha male. As illustrated in the above scenario, it strikes us strangely when a high status man asks questions. We expect such a man to declare his intention or his opinion, not wonder aloud if his intention is workable or his opinion worthwhile. This natural human impulse to regard earnest questioners as innately lower status — an impulse that is especially refined in women as a psychological mechanism for determining bangable men in their midst — can be exploited by socially savvy men to their personal benefit.

Rule #3: Don’t ask questions when you can make statements instead.

Before Team Autist shows up to bristle that this rule means a man should never ask questions even if he needs the answer to something he doesn’t know, recall that life is full to brimming with generalizable rules that must suffer the indignity of hard-to-square exceptions. Learn to deal with the dissonance.

Rule #3 is the least firm and most frustrating of the three Rules of Social Savviness for social misfits, even as it is the easiest to follow (with some practiced self-awareness). Think of Rule #3 more as a goal to strive toward rather than an ironclad dictum.

Reader Lorem Ipsum describes Rule #3 very well in a comment on this post,

One of the best things that I ever did to improve my texting was to delete all question marks, as the interrogative mood is indicative of the classic beta frame (even when used as a rhetorical device; your texts should be the written equivalent of the terse statements of a pilot wrestling with the controls of a wounded aircraft). It is at its core a submissive posture; someone else has information (power) and you implore them to share that power with you.

“Is this a trick question? I loved the spice girls”
versus:
“Trick question. I loved the spice girls”

The second is more powerful. The Alpha ALWAYS knows, even when he doesn’t.

Act as if you know, even when you don’t. Chicks dig overconfident men. Overconfidence is the heart of game.

So get in the practice of thinking before speaking. Make that split second adjustment that mentally switches your questions to statements. Avoid the question mark in any texts, chats or emails. If there is room to rephrase a question to a statement, do so. And as your tongue nimbly accommodates this improved, alpha, way of speaking, you will discover a new man emerging from the chrysalis of your beta shell. Fake it till you create it. And make no mistake, you CAN create a better man out of the man that is now you.

The Three Rules of Social Savviness

1. Don’t get defensive
2. Don’t force conversation topics
3. Don’t ask questions when you can make statements instead

Abide these rules, and your social life will improve dramatically. Half of your game will be rendered obsolete because friends charmed by your company will go out of their way to set you up with girls they know. And they’ll make damned sure the girls are cute and feminine, because you wouldn’t want to disappoint the King, would you?

UPDATE

Mangan has linked to an article about “uptalk”, which is the linguistic habit of turning every statement into a question. Quote,

[Uptalk] is the very opposite of confidence or assertiveness.

Yet again we see that the landed gentry of the human sciences have ♥vindicated♥ Chateau Heartiste concepts, providing more ammunition for advocates of game as a legitimate fast-track seduction technique. Game denialists would weep, but their bodily fluids are empty on account of having shed their last post-coital tear of relief into their couch creases.

[crypto-donation-box]

Social Savviness Rule #1 was: Don’t Get Defensive. Also known as the “If you show your soft underbelly, people will claw at it until your guts are sliding out” rule.

In this post, we will discuss the second of the three Rules of Social Savviness:

Rule #2: Don’t Force Conversation Topics.

Men have a thermal exhaust port. We are too logical. No, seriously. Logic is great for building bridges that won’t collapse and for inventing calculus, but it’s horrible as a mental facility for managing relationships or persuading women to see your point of view.

(Women have a thermal exhaust port, too: Their emotional bonding and subsequent rationalization for their feelings that blinds them to a man’s true motives.)

Logical thinking is how theories are formulated, arguments are devised, and solutions are hard-won. Men, by dint of years of exposure to their own natures, have resilient egos which can withstand blows by opposing forces and regroup for another day of adventure and creative-destruction. Unlike women who retreat to deeper delusions when their egos are struck by reality, men can, to varying degree, take an ego shock in stride and incorporate new evidence that will accrue to their personal advantage.

That male trait which is a gift in non-romantically infused contexts is a handicap when the opposing force is an alien who doesn’t play by the rules of logic. That force is female self-love, from which all absurdities of thought and peculiarities of reason flow.

So what happens when the unstoppable force of male logic meets the immovable object of female self-love? You get what we in the seduction business call a stubborn refusal to let an orphaned conversation thread die out when it isn’t being received well by female company.

We’ve all seen this happen to some hapless over-logical male: The triumphant quasi-announcement of a scintillating conversation topic nursed in a split second judgment that the gathered will be amazed by his wit and wisdom, the forthright glee with which it is presented for studio consumption, the leaking of confident airs from his demeanor as he too slowly realizes no one is reciprocating his energy or spring-boarding off his brilliance, the stuttering follow-up as one or two congregants, usually women, ricochet unpredictably into new topical territory, the prison of silence that muffles him as he surrenders to the reality that the crowd has MOVED ON.

And then, the most awkward moment, the anti-climax he will regret for months if he is young and for an hour or two if he is older and giving less fucks about life’s sadistic pop quizzes. That moment, after the conversation has fully turned and spasms of fresh vigor have been injected by girlicues following their bouncing bubbly balls, when he throws himself, bellyflop style, onto the organic rhythm of the back and forth with a last-ditch effort to impose his previous stream of concreteness. And, naturally, the reddening splash turns to reddening hue as eyes of pity shot with capillaries of contempt answer his logical insistence with an ocular writ of cease and desist.

He is humbled, and his allies in male logic abandon him as the women take the lead to rescue a souring scene. As go the tingles, so go the tumescents.

If you get what you think is a winning conversational theme in your head, be prepared to abandon it at a moment’s notice. Like De Niro* might say about seduction, don’t get attached to a topic you aren’t willing to drop in ten seconds flat, if you feel the female heat around the corner.

(*Running ref gag.)

Let threads die. Don’t attempt to revive threads at a later time. Don’t beat a fun time over the head with your genius insight that the world is fated to endure. Don’t hammer home a message when the crowd has decided it’s time to talk about something else. If you can master the art of artfully dodging your own bull-headed self-loyalty, you can learn to appreciate the percolating jazziness of verbal foreplay. It’s a talent that comes second-nature to women, but which men — especially autist spectrum men — have to work at to achieve the same level of instinctive grasp.

If you feel that headstrong voice egging on your ego to drive home a point, don’t listen to it. Avoid its tempation. Choose strife. Accept that conversations and social pressures will be chaotic, and that from this bubbling froth of flirty banter that is outside of your narrow mental alleyways and that flourishes under both your simultaneous command and acquiescence, real desire can erupt, like a solar flare.

Women measure a man’s mate worth by many more variables than just his shoes or square jaw. They measure his wit, his grace under pressure, his adaptability. Can he steer discursive switchbacks with confidence? Can he quickly disown colloquially limp lows while claiming careening conversational highs as his own? These tells of a man’s alpha nature — and yes, they are the distinguishing hallmarks of the alpha male personality — are subtle enough to be missed by other men with eight-cylinder powered logical minds, but are magnified to outsized relevance by intuitive women with a million years of evolution to guide them toward the vessel of their orgasmically up-sucked überseed.

One trick I have learned that has helped me avoid the error of forcing conversation topics is to relinquish a flowering thought at the moment when the crowd wants to hear more of it. Better to err on the side of leaving a topic stranded close to a high note rather than beating it to death past its expiration note. You are not a stand-up comedian with a captive audience and a mic; you are a man in a group of people all more or less equally competing for air time. Use the floor wisely. Your wit should be a gift, not a chore.

Next post: Rule #3!

[crypto-donation-box]

This is a three part series that will delve into the fundamental laws of the pooniverse. The pooniverse includes within its sphere of influence any social interaction, whether in pairs or groups, single sex or mixed sex. Why not have the concentric embedding go the other way around? Because the biomechanical prime directive assures that any social interaction will create perturbations in the sexual marketplace that will move players up or down the reproductive fitness scale of worth. To put it bluntly, if you talk like a nerd, you’ll turn off women. If you talk like a charming mofo, women will brighten to your presence. And in the final analysis, everything we do, we do for love. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

The Rules of Social Savviness are foundational to game, and are vital to courtships and to friendships. The closer you adhere to the Rules of Social Savviness, the better every aspect of your social life, from your work relationships to your romances to your family to your friends, will be. The further from these rules you drift, the worse you’ll feel because people won’t want to be around you.

A socially savvy man makes other men laugh and enjoy his company, and this will be noticed by women, who cannot help by dance to their natures and become aroused by the sight and sound of a savvy man holding court like a king whose words are next to God’s. These Rules are therefore universally applicable, and ultimately redound to your success as a seducer.

Rule #1: Don’t get defensive.

Some might call this rule, “Try not to come off like a grammar nazi, or like Bryan Caplan on the verge of thumping his head with his fist after finding out he undercounted the paper clips.”

The object of this rule is simple: If a person (sometimes, yes, a cute girl!) is playing around with you, or even ribbing you with a whiff of malice, don’t take the sperg stand like a defendant swearing his humanness to a jury of his peers. The jury doesn’t care. They just want to be entertained. And logical refutation is not entertaining. Nor is butthurt indignation. Nor overwrought explanation. Nor cringing insecurity. Nor whiny baby boy whininess. Nor crestfallen defeat.

Well, that last one can be entertaining, but only to sadists.

I’ll give you an example of this Rule in action from my own life. I was at a [REDACTED] and did something goofy, the details of which I can’t recall but anyhow don’t matter much to the lesson being conveyed, when a colt-ily cute-ish girl announced with uncorked bravado to the assembled her opinion of my antic:

“Eww, that’s so creepy!”

Now, mind you, she said it with an obvious hint of humor, so the crowd wouldn’t get the idea she was being a bitch or anything. But even lubed with the laxative of facetiousness, this was the sort of blurted grillgrrl judgment that can sweep the leg of a lesser man who lacked experience in the ways of sex-simmered social politesse. Fortuitously, living My life as CH and master of all that He surveys, my reply was deceptively coy and disarming:

{raising eyebrows, curling lips downward, and slowly nodding like De Niro  contemplating the infinite cosmos}:

“You bet! I’m hoping to reach level 99 creeper some day.”

Not the wittiest line I’ve ever uttered, but that’s not the point. You can say anything to defuse a caustic jab and still sound entertaining and likable, as long as you don’t sound defensive. She laughed, crowd chuckled warmly, mission accomplished, at least for that three second window. These three second missions never end.

How would the typical, clocks in his 40 hour work week, stays on the straight and narrow, supports the infrastructure of civilization, beta male react to that same girl rattling his world with a half-cocked accusation of creepiness?

I’ll tell you (because I’ve heard a million beta males stumble their way through similar scenarios). The typical beta would say:

“That’s not creepy.”

Or, “No, I was just trying to…”

Or, “No, I didn’t mean it that way…”

Or, {says nothing, smiles weakly and blushes}

You get the picture. Defensiveness is the calling card of the butthurt beta male. A girl could be drenching her panties thinking about your glowing member, but if you adopt the defensive posture and utter three predictable, ego-bruised inanities in a row, her vagina will retract like a turtle in the midday sun. If that doesn’t shut her down completely, the retreat of a disappointed crowd surely will. Works on male friends, too. Your buddies will buy you more drinks and invite you more places if you’re that cool cat who doesn’t take stuff personally and knows how to badinage like a boss.

Don’t get defensive. Once you have this rule lodged in your head, you’ll be surprised how smoothly fresh grease for conversational grist oils your gray matter gears. It’s a self-therapy ploy to push yourself to think along new vectors, and to glide along stronger, slicker neural paths. Lose the bad habits, and good habits have room to grow.

Next post: Rule #2!

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »