Feed on
Posts
Comments

EBook Review: 60 Years Of Challenge

Jan 29th, 2013 by

60 Years of Challenge is the nom de plume of a pick-up artist (or, in more conventional language, a womanizer). He wrote an ebook detailing his game principles and techniques, and CH was given a PDF copy to review. The ebook is a couple years old, and 60 now has new material on his website, (warning: you’ll have to wade through the usual cheesy marketing stuff, but to 60′s credit it’s not as obnoxious or long-winded as most PUA advertisement pages). The older ebook contains the core of his pick-up philosophy and game material, but it may not be purchasable any longer, so readers who want 60′s wisdom will have to buy from the link posted above.

I’ll touch on the themes of 60′s book and highlight where he’s strongest and most differentiates himself from other pick-up teachers, and where I think his material comes up short.

60′s primary contention, and the philosophy that guides his game strategy, is that men should be gunning for the fast lay, not because it’s “cool”, but because it’s easier than taking the slow road. Consequently, most of his approaches are basically direct, but without being sexually overt.

“Hey…I want to meet you”

I deliver this with a seductive but very serious voice. Very humble. The more scared you are the more genuine you should be. Beat fear with love. I put out my hand to introduce myself, she takes it and we start talking. I don’t let go of her hand and she doesn’t pull away. Time stops. I know it’s probably on. Even still I move really close to her quickly. Better to move close now, than wait until later on when it’s more obvious.

He’s a big proponent of steady, unwavering physical escalation, particularly when the moment is open for it. (Escalation is a recurring problem for most betas.)

60 correctly identifies an issue a lot of men have: the tendency to elicit sexual interest but then fall back on lazy, self-congratulatory attitudes before the deal has been closed. He calls this tendency “sexual tension masturbation”.

Sexual tension masturbation (STM) is when you think you have something going with a girl with your eye contact, vibe and all your little visualizations and other fantasy bullshit. Look man sexual tension is great, but if you don’t solidify the connection physically (ie. mutual caressing) it all gets forgotten about. It was all in your head. […]

Don’t use the power of sexual tension as an excuse not to start conversations or make overt physical escalations. You guys know who you are. The ones who say they “only open women with eye contact” (when actually they are scared to open) and “escalate with vibe” (obviously they’re really just scared to show overt interest).

60 agrees with CH that a sexual frame is critical to success with women. (When you visualize women as sexual creatures before anything else, your subtle shift in mannerism around women cues them to reciprocate the favor.)

I’m always aware of my cock. It’s my emotional gage. I’m not hard. Why am I not hard? Ok we can fix that. While she talks I start picturing her blowing me face down on my bed while I palm her ass with one hand. Again, being in a sexual state is important, but if you are only going to pick one crucial moment per night to be in a sexual state, it’s right now! I am now operating from a desire for sex (need 1) vs. affection (need 2). A second ago I was daydreaming about getting coffee and snuggling up with her in bed with a good book. Nothing wrong with that except that women don’t snuggle with guys they don’t have a sexual connection with. I have to get the sex before I can be the guy enjoying coffee in bed.

Core psychological difference between alpha and beta males:
Alphas pursue hot, dirty sex, and accept that relationships could be a consequence of a successful pursuit.
Betas pursue loving, affectionate relationships, and accept that sex could be a part of a successful pursuit.

Men are better looking when they are listening with seductive intensity than when they are talking or smiling stupidly. Plus, listening to a girl yap on and on weave elaborate worlds of fantasy and flourish will put her in a sexually receptive state.

For most guys using their seductive face (lips, sleepy eyes) makes them way better looking than their social face (big smile, open eyes).

You might not consider yourself good looking but few guys making a seductive face will be considerd bad looking by women.

If you’re an ugly guy, all I can say to you is: what choice do you have? Sit at home and fap morosely? You may as well put yourself out there and demonstrate the boldness that women love. Even a 1 out of 100 close rate beats a 0 out of 0 close rate.

60′s approach strategy is to focus on girls who come into or near your zone of influence. That is, don’t hunt high and low for girls to talk to; rather, focus your attention on girls who enter the area you are sitting or standing. This is sound advice for beginners still getting over stage fright and turned off by the contortions involved in executing the “approach machine” mentality. Plus, girls who have veered into your orbit, whether they are consciously aware or not, have signaled some interest, and are thus easier to open. He suggests that men who can’t think of anything to say use the easiest non-verbal opener in the world: the cheers. Few women will resist a raised glass. Other wordless openers include the handshake hold, the light body bump, and the spin.

There is some standard stuff here about not being afraid to blow it. Men paradoxically do worse in the beginning of the night because that’s when they give more of a fuck about meeting and attracting girls. As the night, and the misfires, wear on, that fear gets supplanted by a fuck-it attitude that is more attractive to girls. That fuck-it attitude needs to be your attitude *all the time*. You have to be always on, or, more precisely, always off. So get your rejections out of the way early in the night so you can enjoy the rest of the night in a more relaxed state of mind.

60 also reveals a little trick for tongue-tied men that has worked for me on occasion: Tell girls that you have trouble saying something.

I will tell people that I’m having an anxiety attack and I need to take a little break. I really don’t give a fuck what they think about it. Not surprisingly this has cut down the frequency of my panic attacks dramatically.

The act of airing your anxieties — a form of beta vulnerability game that is charming in small, self-aware (and self-controlled) doses — is catnip to chicks. Telling a girl that you are “having trouble saying something really cool and interesting at the moment, so just sit tight and magic will happen if you’re patient” is guaranteed to put a smile on almost any girl’s face. Note that there is a subtle qualification test for the girl buried in that opener.

1st Time: Assume Failure

The first time I make an overt “it’s on” escalation (O-IOE) like putting out my hand or grabbing her hand I just assume it’s not going to work. I figure she is probably going to pull her hand away quickly or simply not comply. Same thing if I go for a kiss instead. I fully expect her to turn away on the first try.

But I don’t care if she turns her cheek because the point of the first escalation wasn’t for it to succeed. It was only to show her that I am confident and go for what I want. Escalation is attractive. If I create an it’s on moment on the first try I consider it a bonus.

Chicks dig boldness. Escalating is bold. (MGTOWs wept.)

60 goes into a lot of detail about demonstrating to girls that you can handle social tension, or what we hear at CH refer to as grace under pressure. Shit tests are tension tests; the girl wants to know if you’ll fold like a cheap lawn chair. If you do, you are not a worthy alpha male who will protect her and her tribe from marauders. As 60 says, you don’t want to break the tension; you want to ride it out until *she* breaks the tension. Then you have acquired for yourself seduction hand. For example:

Hey, I want to grab a drink with you on Wednesday.

~ I can’t. I have to work late

This is the point where most guys can’t deal with the awkwardness and just assume this means she isn’t interested. As such, they immediately blab out something stupid to break the tension ie. “oh, that sucks”. Instead stay completely silent. Don’t let her off the hook. Give her a few moments to come back with her own idea.

~ I’m free on Thursday night.

~ We can go to my place.

If you always feel the need to break the awkward silence and let her off the hook, you will never give her a chance to think up a solution. […]

This moment of silence also makes it clear that you know exactly what her little game is all about. She is trying to string you along while still keeping your male attention and you’re not going to put up with it. This moment of silence exposes her. Let the truth about her interest level be heard. She’s been busted without having to verbally call her out, which is lame.

I like 60′s seduction style, because it follows a tenet of “less is more” for verbal interaction, while simultaneously pursuing a “more is more” attitude toward physical interaction. It’s the sort of game that will appeal to men who aren’t naturally socially hyperactive and who instead prefer a laid-back, mystery man approach with heavy emphasis on body language cues and nuanced facial expressions.

Reframe Ignoring

You can also reframe it if a woman is ignoring your texts. Yes, you can even reframe silence. Is she ignoring you or is she flirting with you? It’s up to you to decide.

all of a sudden you’re shy? you are such a flirt

It’s the way you interpret her testing and resistance that will dictate your response. It helps to be delusionally confident.

Now where have I heard this before?

Set Stealers

Sometimes one of your friends will come over and indirectly try to hit on the girl you are talking to. Other times random guys will try to steal your set.

He means well but maybe your buddy is very talkative and thinks he is good with women. The key here is to stay quiet and keeping holding eye-contact with your target (the listener) while he is busy doing the talking and entertaining.

Do not look or turn your body towards him. Don’t comment on anything he says. This will just give him more attention and power.

This technique is very powerful because you are communicating with her on the non-verbal level while he is still stuck on the verbal level.

You can even start using eye-coding her like

“isn’t it cute. he is trying so hard”

You guys are secretly tooling him. He will never be able to recover from that.

AMOG management. (AMOG = alpha male of the group, or alpha male other guy). So true. Have you ever noticed how blatantly — to the point of rudeness — naturals will do this? They will turn their backs, literally, on any AMOG, even if he is a friend, if the guy tries to horn in on the action. And, like a jungle cat, the natural’s eyes will never unlock from his prey’s eyes. Do these things, and you can learn to be a natural.

You are Ugly

She thinks I am ugly. Tell me something I don’t know.

I know you were hoping you might be at least decent looking. Dude, you’re ugly.

And the sooner you realize and admit you are ugly the better. The great news is you don’t have to be traditionally “good looking” to attract women.

If you want to be considered “good looking” in woman’s eyes, you have to have the confidence to not care that you are ugly.

Confidence is sexy. And a big part of being confident is realizing you are not good looking, but you don’t give a fuck. Women will definitely pick up on this attitude.

The only way to be confident is to actually have male model looks or admit that you are ugly. So if you aren’t a male model, then you are ugly. Say it. I am ugly. Like most guys you are probably average looking. But you can’t be average looking and still be worrying about looks. That is a formula for disaster.

Let it go man

Even if you are decent looking and have confidence with some women, there will always be even hotter girls who you feel are out of your league based on your looks. You are never going to be better looking than a woman. Let women worry about looking good and smelling nice. Stop playing the looks game. Stop the insanity. You are ugly. You are short, fat, bald, and you smell. And it doesn’t matter.

Most of us can’t attract women with our looks.

What attracts women to you is the “I don’t give a fuck” attitude.

Wise words, and right in line with CH teachings. (And with science!)

But 60, despite his solid advice, doesn’t much like opening girls. He prefers, as do I, using the opener as a screen for girls who are interested, and getting to the seduction part of the pick-up sooner rather than later. Because the quicker you get to actually seducing women, the closer you get to the lays, and the more hot sex you ultimately squeeze out of your short window of opportunity here on earth.

My whole goal for opening is to make it as quick and efficient as possible. That’s why I recommend non-verbal opening. aka as physical opening. I want to ping as many cute girls as I can in the shortest amount of time.

I want to get to the fun part. Seducing. I would rather be having an interesting conversation or just listening while seducing a girl with my eyes than be approaching.

I really enjoy seducing cute women that have at least some interest in me. Even though I hate opening, finding them is my motivation. Because for every nine frumps there is always one really cute and interesting girl that I have a lot of fun hanging out with that night.

Outright, prompt rejection is actually not the worst thing that can happen to you. The worst is the “low interest” girl; she will put in juuuust enough effort to keep you around, but not much more to help move the interaction to a sexual crescendo. At least with the girls who rudely reject you, you can move on right away to better prospects; the cockteasers can keep you invested in a shit stock if you don’t have the experience to know when to sell.

What is a magic number

A magic number is how many women you have to contact before you find one who has interest in you based solely on your presence.

Attractive Presence / 1st Impression

– confident approach
– confident body language & posture
– confident eye contact
– looks: clothes, grooming, body
– smile, vibe, glow

What is your magic number

A guy with no confidence, bad posture and no style and could have a magic number as high as 100. Meaning he would have contact 100 women to get one good lead. This is an extreme example but still even with a few minor tweaks to his presence he could easily reduce that number to 1 in 50.

Why its good to know your magic number

What if you knew with 100% certainty that if you approached ten women you would go home with one of them. I think you would be really excited to start approaching ten women.

60 spends most of his ebook taking about how to transform a lukewarm girl into a boiling cauldron of twat tingles. His belief is that opening is more about screening out completely uninterested girls (the “red light” girls) and game is more about the skill to convert those girls who have shown some minimal interest (minimal interest in girl-code is MUCH more encrypted than would be minimal interest expressed by the typical man) into lovers.

I know why he does this: the initial meet, and any accompanying instant attraction levels, are subject to a degree of randomness that the later comfort and seduction stages are not. Any individual girl could be taken, PMSing, upset, thinking about some other dude, mad at being dragged out by her friends, or simply MHC incompatible, and most efforts to attract her on your part will be pissing into the wind. While there is plenty of game material on how to CREATE attraction, 60 prefers to emphasize the game techniques that come into play once a girl has been screened for a tiny hint of interest (or, more precisely, screened for an absence of unresponsiveness). Strangely, although approach game is more exposed to forces of randomness, everything after the approach and initial meet is exposed to more opportunities to FUCK IT UP royally. A girl who is sticking around for a few minutes to get a feel for your alpha maleness is also going to become a harsher judge of any missteps you make. Game helps men avoid those missteps and guide transiently invested girls into stronger, more sexually charged commitments.

No Tension

I know some guys still think this ambiguity is a good thing. It’s better if she is wondering about your intentions, right? Actually not really. That’s because there is almost NO tension when you start a conversation this way. It’s way too comfortable for her right from the start. Most times after your initial comment and subsequent thread runs its course , the interaction fizzles out. On the other hand using very direct openers (ie. you are absolutely stunning!) can also be hit or miss.

As such, I usually choose the middle ground. For example, my favorite way to start a conversation is ”Hey, you looked interesting. I figured I would come over and introduce myself.” This line is delivered seductively but slightly aloof. Yes I want to meet her but I’m not completly won over yet. This opener obviously creates some tension but it’s not so over the top that it’s awkward. It doesn’t box you in. You can still be a challenge and she still has to qualify. In fact, by adding that she “looked interesting” most women will want to stay consistent with that and try to live up to your initial perception of them. In other words, qualify to you.

Quick Tip

I know it can be hard for some guys to build-up enough confidence to walk over and simply introduce themselves to a woman. And some guys just can’t do it at all. They feel much more comfortable with the comment, question or opinion format. So for them I recommend making their situational comment and then stating their intention.

Example

indirect – situational comment: looks like you are really enjoying that book, is that something I should be reading?

her: actually it’s really funny! I can’t stop laughing.

direct – state intention: well you looked interesting, so I thought I would come over and introduce myself.

I’m an advocate for showing ambiguity, but 60 makes a good point that too much ambiguity will be misread by girls as friendship offers, or worse, as cowardly avoidance of one’s real intentions. 60 is really a student of the indirect-direct opener school. His directness is less sexual than it is plausibly deniable, and he even advises that a direct opener can be used on the heels of an indirect opener if you are the kind of guy who likes to catch women off-guard (or you’re justifiably squeamish about being perceived as too flattering of girls). I believe the indirect-direct opener is Krauser’s method of operation as well.

I’m still not a fan of saying your name before you’ve gotten the girl’s name, (your name should be a reward for her name or, better yet, should remain mysteriously hidden as long as possible), so I would avoid openers that use the phrase “introduce myself”. Substitute with “say ‘hi’” instead.

60 has something to say to those guys (usually trolls) who wonder if practiced aloofness and stating one’s intentions, however ambiguously, are mutually exclusive:

If you think letting women know that you wanted to meet them gives them the upper hand, think again. Remember, contacting women on dating sites doesn’t stop guys from being challenging or qualifying them. Even though she assumes they must be interested. These guys are taking advantage of the built-in excitement that comes when someone (anyone) is interested in you. People like people who like them.

When you stay completely vague about why you came over to talk, women won’t register the interaction as anything to be excited about. She can relax. They stop listening and lose interest. They play with their phones and start looking around. That’s because she really does think you are just “being social” or you were just making a comment. Even if she eventually realizes you probably came over to talk to her, she isn’t going to give you any points for having confidence. She will think you were scared so you made up an excuse. By this point it’s too late anyway. She is too comfortable with you.

I wouldn’t go as far as 60 in his assertion that indirect game will bore women and friendzone yourself; in the right hands, Straussian opinion opener game can work well, as long as one knows when to ratchet the tension. The problem with indirect, “social” game is that there is a risk it will be used as a crutch by men to avoid more intimate escalation.

It is way more important to open a woman within three seconds than to wait until you can think of something clever to say. In fact, it doesn’t really matter what you say.

You can say I love tigers, this is my song or simply hello. Just as long as you say it within three seconds.

The most important thing is that you don’t procrastinate and sike yourself out. And eventually creep her out. You will get more points for having the confidence to approach quickly than you would if you came up with something really good to say, but waited.

Amen, bro. No argument here.

60 thinks that humbleness rather than cockiness is the preferred method of bantering female shit tests.

Hey do you guys think it’s OK for a girl to Twitter about her date while she is still on the date?

They are nice but out of nowhere her friend says: “Is this your excuse to come and and talk to us?”

Now I know some guys would think it’s the perfect time for a cocky comeback. Don’t Break Rapport

Actually you guys looked fun so I wanted to come introduce myself.

Do not let her bait you to break rapport. Do not give her an excuse to reject you. Your confident approach already has her attracted. Women don’t test guys they aren’t attracted to.

I disagree with this last assertion. Women will often test men they aren’t YET attracted to, in order to determine just how attractive a man is. There might be an initial, asexual curiosity by her, but full-blown attraction in women can take a few minutes to really metastasize. Nevertheless, 60′s advice is solid; cockiness can be overplayed, especially if you are already perceived as a confident man.

A general rule is the less attractive she is the more humble you need to be.

This is just a reiteration of the CH maxim that the hotter the chick, the tighter your game will need to be.

Clown Zone

Keep in mind that although a social opener is low risk, the more clownish your opener is the harder it will be to switch to a seductive vibe later.

This is my main beef with the older Tyler Durden style of game. High energy, borderline spastic openers and mass social proofing is anathema to men who either prefer or are naturally more skilled at creating lower energy seductive vibes, aka brooding introverts. A player would have to be exceptionally skilled indeed to ably switch from one state to the other without seeming incongruent.

Anti-Manifesto

It is my belief that it’s not so much as you need to do or say “special” things to CREATE attraction as much as you just need to NOT do the small things that reduce the sexual tension that is already there. And eventually kill it forever.

– talking
– laughing
– reacting
– fidgeting
– bailing her out
– supplicating facial expressions […]

In the end it always seems to come down to who wins the little tension battles:

Eye Contact: who is going to look away first
Introduction: who pulls their hand away first
Silence: who gives in and talks first
Resistance: who tries to diffuse the awkward moment first
Who breaks down and needs to have a talk about “what is going on” first.

Yes, game is as much avoidance of anti-seduction behaviors as it is execution of pro-seduction behaviors. In fact, the former is a prerequisite for the latter; you have to rid yourself of the bad before the good can find purchase.

I’ll quote the following from 60 because it is SO important for newbs to understand:

Escalation & Resistance

Anytime you get verbal or physical resistance there will be even more tension in the air. This is good news. Resistance is great! But if you react to the resistance verbally (ie. trying to diffuse the awkwardness by making a joke) you will kill that tension. The same thing happens if you look sad and become pouty. If you don’t react to her resistance it never becomes real. It’s not official. It’s like it never happened. Being unreactive and keeping composed lets you be very persistent without coming across needy.

What do I hear there? Ah yes, the female rationalization hamster! You need to befriend that hamster and to make it spin for you instead of against you. Non-reactiveness is a surefire social technique for putting that furball to work in your service.

Risk Creepy

As I have discussed before you want to embrace awkwardness and risk creepy. You want her breathing heavy and get her heart beating faster. That’s because these symptoms mimic the signs of her being attracted. This tension is a good thing. You want it to be a bit awkward. You don’t want things to feel too comfortable.

Better to be creepy than invisible.

The Hard Truth

For some guys using fast escalation will be the only way they can ever create attraction with really hot women. The confidence displayed by fast escalation overcomes all of their shortcomings in other areas. You are wasting your time if you are using anything else.

60 emphasizes fast escalation, physical but also to a lesser extent verbal, and with good reason: You really can short-circuit a girl’s latent objections to sex by escalating fast and taking her out of her head. Remember, women WANT and LOVE to submit to a strong man. And escalation is a manifestation of strength.

Guys just want things to end good

So they can have their little story about how they got a hot girls number or flirted with a really attractive woman. It’s an ego thing. They didn’t escalate because they didn’t want things to end bad. But it always ends bad. Every single time.

Follow everything to its conclusion. Every set. Every number. Every prospect. Every time. Unless you get the girl it will always end bad. And at some point it will eventually end bad with her as well. And that’s OK. […]

Make sure it always ends bad.

Raise your hands, all you guys who chatted up a girl, got her smiling, and then bailed on asking for the number or a date because you froze and decided that her smile was good enough for you. Follow through to failure. You will never have success if you’re afraid to court failure.

There’s a big chunk of the middle section of the ebook that deals with tension management, eye contact, inner game, shit tests, seductive listening, qualification, kino (combining “accidental” and deliberate touches), compliance, persistence, anti-slut defenses, isolation, last minute resistance (“Don’t wait for resistance. Resist yourself.”) and rapport (he’s not a huge fan of intentionally breaking rapport to build tension), which I will skip over because most of the readers are already familiar with these topics, and 60′s contribution is not radically different from the information in other pick-up resources. It’s still very good, though, and 60 is a clear, insightful writer whose material would sit well on the top shelf along with other renowned game manuals.

60 Years of Challenge is a great resource if you are looking for information on powerful post-approach, early- and mid-stage game techniques, body and facial language, and non-verbal escalation. Physical, non-verbal escalation plays such a big part of 60′s game philosophy that it’s a wonder the autistic feminist hen cluckers haven’t latched onto his tome as a field manual for instituting rape culture. But the player is right and the feminists are wrong (there’s news): girls love the feeling of “being taken” by a dominant man, and part of that feeling requires of girls that they put forth tokens of resistance.

60 is a little weak in the areas of creating raw attraction and relationship management, but there are plenty of other pick-up resources out there that cover those territories extensively. He stresses that cocky/funny teasing is counterproductive in many cases, which is where he markedly differs from his pick-up peers. He asserts that silence and a seductive stare create more delicious sexual tension than a witty comeback. (It is on this subject where I think his advice becomes too narrow in scope. There is certainly a place for playful teasing.). His theoretical musings on male-female psychosocial differences (or sameness) are superficial (he’s a member of the slut apologist club). Also, some of his advice contradicts itself, but that is a quibble when viewed against the mostly coherent whole, and to be expected when a good part of his ebook is a patchwork of his drive-by internet forum postings.

Disagreements aside, my overall style is sympatico with 60′s, and I suspect 60 and I would get along quite well in the field as wingman partners in grime.

Rating: 3.5 out of 4 engorged labia.

PS Here’s a parting quote from 60, directed at the mewling MGTOWs and huffy tradcons:

The game is not fair

I repeat. This game is not fucking fair. The best guy for her doesn’t win. The most attractive guy doesn’t automatically get to be the one to have sex with her.

The guy she likes best and the guy she ends up having sex with can be two totally different people.

It’s the guy who is persistent that gets the girl. It’s the guy who laughs off her tests and token resistance and keeps escalating that gets the girl. In the end he doesn’t even remember any of the resistance he got.

PPS I like this final thought from 60:

Visualize yourself as having a combination of the following. A seduction triple threat.

• The social skills of Vince Vaughn in Swingers
• The seductive power of George Clooney
• The sexual drive of Tommy Lee on tour with Motley Crue

Pick your own characters or role models

Your goal is to become congruent with these 3 characters and be able to switch smoothly from one to the other without worrying that it’s strange.

You can’t go wrong imbuing yourself with the personality traits of the cocky socializer, the confident seducer, and the carnal sex machine. To be anything less would be… beta.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Book Reviews, Game | Comments Off

Fat Kills… Marriages Dead

Jan 25th, 2013 by

CH, what is best in life?

To mock your enemies, see them driven to hysterics before you, and to hear the mooing of the fatties.

That is good!

You’re damn right that is good. This post will continue a proud tradition.

***

If someone told me, “Hey, did you know fat women married to in-shape men have worse marriages?”, I would reply “Who doesn’t know that? A man married to a fat sow will be unhappy, and if he has options he’ll start looking elsewhere. Common sense.”

Well, unfortunately for those who are inclined to give the masses the benefit of the doubt, the world isn’t filled with sane people who trust their lying eyes or who grasp rudimentary logic. The world, especially the Western world currently 5,000 feet from terminal velocity impact, is filled with delusional dregs, ego-assuaging equalists, fantasy world feminists, and puling porkers. Great fun if you’re a psyche-smashing sadist; not so much fun for normal people living in post-sanity secular societies who inevitably wind up footing the bills for these loudmouthed  losers.

Hot on the heels of, oh… ballpark estimate… one million previous CH posts about the penalties fat chicks suffer in the dating market and the personal health market (and now, the marriage durability market and happiness market), comes a new study which finds that fat wives of healthy-weight husbands have worse marriages.

Using dyadic models, we found that mixed-weight couples, specifically couples including overweight women and healthy weight men, reported greater conflict both generally and on a daily basis, compared to matched-weight couples; however, general conflict was reduced with greater perceived support from the partner. Mixed-weight couples who reported eating together more frequently also reported greater general conflict. These findings suggest that mixed-weight couples may experience more conflict than matched-weight couples, but perceived support from the partner can buffer this conflict. This research suggests that interpersonal dynamics associated with mixed-weight status might be important for romantic partners’ relational and personal health.

The researchers veer a bit into PC territory in their conclusion, so it will require a truly malevolent force to spell out the take-home lessons of this study in flashing neon lights that no one, not even hare-brained hogs, can possibly misinterpret.

Lesson Number One

Men are repulsed by the sight and feel (and smell) of fat chicks. All further lessons flow from this basic premise.

Lesson Number Two

A man with options to do so will choose a slender babe over a fat chick, EVERY TIME. (Rare exceptions prove the rule. Or: Don’t count on miracles, fatties.)

Lesson Number Three

A man married to a woman who has bloated into Hogzilla proportions will become increasingly unhappy, frustrated and resentful, and will express his displeasure with his fat wife in both passive and active ways.

Lesson Number Four

A fat wife is more harmful than is a fat husband to marital health and happiness. Fatness exacts a bigger toll on a woman’s sexual market value (and, therefore, marital market value) than it does on a man’s sexual and marital market value. Men are more visually oriented than women, and a fat man can compensate for his fatness by being attractive in other ways that women love. Fat women cannot compensate for their fatness except by losing weight and slimming down to a sexy, hourglass shape.

Lesson Number Five

Fat wives increase the odds of spousal adultery and marital dissolution. A wife who lets herself go on piles of cakes and cheesy poofs is primarily responsible for any infidelity her husband commits. Harsh, but true.

Lesson Number Six

A husband will be more likely to love, cherish and support his wife if she is thin. Life is conditional. Stop crying, and deal with it.

Lesson Number Seven

The cure for marital unhappiness and a lowering of the high risk of divorce among fat wife-healthy man couples is the fat wife losing weight until she has regained her attractive, slender, feminine shape. Marriage counselors will invariably bleat tired platitudes about “interpersonal dynamics”, “increasing perceived support”, and “unresolved masculinity issues”, and none of their solutions will work except to line their filthy pockets and turn wives against their husbands. They are worse than useless, because they lead women away from the one tried-and-true solution that *will* fix their marriages: losing weight.

Any questions? Or would you stubborn fatties and fatty apologists prefer the whistling lash upon your stuccoed hides a few more hundred thousand times?

I can already hear the trolls and transparently bad-faith skeptics.

“So fat women should marry fat men. Then all will be good!”

All will be good if you don’t mind living like the walking dead.

Mutually fat couples have no reason to rejoice. While thin husbands are more apt to distance themselves from fat wives, emotionally and sexually, fat husbands feel just as much frustration and resentment. Fat dudes are just as disgusted by fat chicks as are thin dudes. The difference is that fat husbands are less able to act out their frustrations without risking divorce rape and subsequent involuntary celibacy. A man who is forced by his lack of options to settle for a low quality woman will quickly acclimate himself to his dour circumstances, or suffer daily blows to his ego no man could withstand for long without the assistance of soothing psychological contrivances. The Acclimated Man (a subspecies of The Manipulated Man) will then become a simulacrum of the fox who cried sour grapes because he couldn’t grab the juicy fruit dangling just out of reach.

“I’m a thin woman reading CH for the rapturous tingles it inspires in my vaginal core, and all my (carefully screened) girl friends are thin, so how bad could this problem be?”

The Walking Fed

See here for an animated map going back to 1985. Gripping (gimping?) stuff.

“Fatness is genetic. Fat chicks can’t do anything about it.”

Bullshit on stilts. See above graph. There’s no way fat crappery can increase that much in a population of hundreds of millions in the span of 25 years by genetic selection alone. The best the “fat gene” crowd can argue is that most humans are wired to put on excess weight in an environment of plentiful sugar-rich, high glycemic index carb food and sedentary lifestyles. That isn’t the same as saying fat people have fat genes rendering them immune to efforts at long-term weight loss. What it means is that fatsos have to stop eating pastries and pasta, and start getting off their double wide asses and moving their limbs more than they do when reaching like an obese infant for a cookie on the kitchen countertop. The worst of them could begin their training by discarding the Walmart scooters for walking.

No fat gene hypothesis is needed to explain the growing army of lardbuckets and the shitty marriages they leave in their battle cruiser wakes. The answer is staring everyone in the face. The reason there are so many fat chicks in the world, and particularly in America, is because THEY CHOOSE THE PLEASURES OF FOOD AND IDLENESS OVER THE PLEASURES OF PLEASING MEN. That’s it, fatties. You choose… poorly. And you *will* pay the consequences. Forever. Or at least until you push away from the table.

“Thin, attractive wives sometimes suffer spousal infidelity and emotional coldness, too. So how can you say fat is the problem?”

This is the mirror image of the MGTOW false dichotomy fallacy (“If you hit on women, you are a beta because you have to put in effort to meet them.”) Feminists often employ this tactical fallacy when confronted by bleedingly obvious facts of human nature that remind them of their low status in the sexual value hierarchy. Just as MGTOWs, handicapped by their shut-in, stunted understanding of the innate differences between men and women, can’t fathom how a man can be both alpha and happy to approach and seduce women he desires, so too do feminists and their ilk betray a studied lack of comprehension about the effects that women’s degree of desirability has on men’s motivations.

A feminist sees a slender girl get cheated on by her asshole boyfriend, and the feminist’s stretch garment, Möbius strip mind promptly infers that being thin and sexy offers no more protection from infidelity than does being fat and gross. The feminist does not explore other, more likely, possibilities, such as the idea that hot babes are more likely to hook up with alpha males who have more temptations to suppress, or that the thin wife who suffered her husband’s infidelity probably would have suffered a lot more of his infidelities, and a lot earlier in the marriage, had she been overweight instead.

“But I read somewhere that fat people live longer than thin people?”

Not so fast. One dubious meta-analysis that contradicts literally thousands of individual studies showing the deleterious effects of fatness on health should not inspire confidence that being fat is A-Ok. However, let’s assume for the purposes of troll patronizing that overweight people really do “””live””” longer than thin people. Suffice to say, such extended longevity would come at a cost. There are the healthcare expenditures to treat all the illnesses that arise from being fat, of course. Then there’s the fact that most people would prefer a quality life as a thin person that ends, at last, rather peacefully in deep sleep, rather than a stricken life as a fatso waddling out an extra year or two on one diabetic foot and aching joints, wheezing and puffing and pants-pissing recklessly because any visible signs of graspable genitalia were lost long ago.

There is furthermore the obvious point that none of this feeble protesting about the supposed lack of health consequences of fatness has anything to do with the topic under discussion, which is that fat women repulse and drive away their husbands. Even if fat women are the healthiest people in the world and will all live to 110, that doesn’t change the fact that they are aesthetically repulsive to nearly all men. Thin people outcompete fat people in the dating market in the ways that matter because people, all kinds of people at all kinds of weights, prefer to gaze upon the lithe contours of slender bodies (for women) or V-shaped fit bodies (for men) rather than the undulating rolls of blubber on fat people. If fat craps don’t want to lose weight for their health, then they should lose weight for the better impression they’ll leave with others, and especially with those of the opposite sex whom they desire as romantic possibilities.

“Shaming fat women won’t work.”

Oh, really?

A leading health academic has called for fat people to be ‘shamed and beat upon socially’ in order to halt the obesity crisis.

In a controversial article, Daniel Callahan, the 82-year-old president emeritus of The Hastings Center a New York think-tank specializing in health policy ethics, calls for increased stigmatization of obese people to try spur weight-loss across America.

The senior research scholar says fat people should be treated like smokers who have become increasingly demonized in recent years and thus ‘nudged’ by negative attitudes of those around them into giving up the unhealthy habit. […]

‘The obvious target would be the large number of people who are unaware that they are overweight,’ he writes in the paper printed in the center’s first periodical volume of the year.

‘They need, to use an old phrase, a shock of recognition. Only a carefully calibrated effort of public social pressure is likely to awaken them to the reality of their condition.

Get this hero a free copy of the forthcoming CH book!

Shaming works. If it worked on smokers and “””racists”””, it will work on fatties. Shaming isn’t the sole solution to the obesity epidemic, but it is a powerful weapon against the marching manatees. Shaming fat women to lose weight will bring increased happiness to the world, and that’s a utilitarian argument men can spring to life for!

The shaming stick coupled with the encouragement carrot is a potent combo. Be genuinely helpful and complimentary to women who are sincerely making efforts to lose weight. Remind her, in nuanced language as necessary, that a reward of feeling better about herself and having a more exciting (read: more pleasurably orgasmic) dating life await her on the other side where thin women take their desirability for granted. But the carrot should always follow the stick, like you might give a dog a treat only after it has done what you commanded of it. Too little shame, and the carrot becomes an excuse to avoid the hard choices, or to delude oneself that no improvement is needed.

Let’s end on a positive, uplifting note of encouragement: Shame on you, fatties! Shame! Shame! Look at yourselves. You’re all a bunch of triple decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwiches wrapped in a casing of subhuman sausage flesh. Blue whales sonically laugh at you. Your smegma hiding stomach folds have spawned a new species of armored crevice mice who nibble on your mouth droppings. Your pets eagerly await the feast that will accompany your untimely sofa-bound death. You are the reason a cottage industry of ass-wiping implements exists. The sight of your dumpy hind quarters can reduce a porn star’s viagra- and yohimbe-fueled hard-on to an inverted micropenis in less than a second. Whole villages of gnomes have been found ‘twixt your enormous buttocks. When you pinch a loaf, sewage treatment plants go code red. Your clitorii can fill hot dog buns. Your manboobs can spray milk from ten yards. You sicken me. You sicken everyone. Admit it, you even sicken yourselves. For shaaaaaaaaaaaame.

PS Since lower class women are fatter than upper class women, (smart ladies know what matters in the big picture), it behooves all men of taste who care about preserving pleasing female forms to engage in noblesse oblige, before the habits of the lessers percolate upward and become the habits of the betters, or what zee French call noblesse obese. There used to be a grand Iron Junk tradition where higher class men would scavenge lower class women for their pretty secretaries and nurses, because upper class women tend also to be battle-axes and egregious status whores. And the lower class women, for their part, loved that system. What cute, economically depressed girl wouldn’t relish an opportunity for love with a charming Gatsbian? But now, these men have nowhere to turn for tender female company; the lower classes have become untouchable, in the strictest sense of the word. So this is why the CH anti-fatass campaign is both pro-man *and* pro-woman… and pro-egalitarian! Making lower class women attractive again will help break down class divisions. Never let it be said the Oracles of the House of Heartiste aren’t generous of heart and willing to share their bounty with the rabble.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Marriage Is For Chumps, Misandry, Science Validates Game, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Dissident Of The Month

Jan 23rd, 2013 by

The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king’s command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true.

Via Audacious Epigone.

Before clicking the link, can you guess which stout-hearted, free thinker said the above? Was it Galileo? Solzhenitsyn? Perhaps some lesser known Medieval monk? What brave soul grips the sword and presses the shield against the rampaging bloodlust of the stupid, deceitful, witch-burning mob?

Hint: It wasn’t Lena Dunham. Nor Hugo Schwyzer. Nor Rich Lowry. It certainly wasn’t a typical SWPL plucked from the soft ensconcing of SWPLdom.

This one person and a few lonely allies is supposed to fill the Cathedral with fright? You scoff. But it only takes 10% of a population, committed to an idea, to change the course of history. Raise your shield, for your enemies are not as invincible as they seem, even now when they hurl themselves at you tooth, claw… and underbelly.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Hope and Change | Comments Off

Why Ask Why? Shun The Stale Seven Questions

Jan 23rd, 2013 by

Here’s a little trick for beginners to improve their rapport skills with women: don’t ask them questions. Specifically, don’t ask them the following anticipated questions:

What’s your name?
What do you do?
Where do you live?
Where are you from?
What school did you go to?
Where do you work?
How do you like it here?

When you meet a girl, and she’s a tight-lipped sort who won’t volunteer much to help a conversation gain traction, you will feel a powerful compulsion to ask these kinds of filler questions. When you feel that urge, STOP yourself mentally, keep your trap shut, and spend a second or two thinking up some other kind of question to ask her, if you must ask something. It doesn’t matter what question you substitute in the place of the Stale Seven above, as long as it is different and, therefore, unexpected. You could ask “How would you calculate the hypotenuse of a right triangle if your life depended on it?” and you would get better reactions from girls than asking some boring question she’s heard a thousand times this week (if she’s cute).

If it helps your willpower, imagine the claw grip of CH wielding a blackboard pointer and rapping it briskly against your knuckles when you think impure thoughts about the Stale Seven. Such a visualization will coax an idle grin from you, which will in turn arouse the curiosity of your mark. And once a girl is curious about you, her labia begin to flower like a Desert Lily after an August deluge.

Willing yourself to shun the Stale Seven is more than a game tactic to attract women; it’s on-the-go practice for becoming a better conversationalist, a skill that can apply to any situation involving a second human being. When you force a pattern interrupt on yourself, you sharpen your focus and hone your mind to think differently. To think more seductively. Many men complain they can never “think of anything to say” to women, but a big reason for their comatose tongues rests in the fact that their minds still operate under the guidelines of old, intransigent ways. They haven’t yet actively pushed their brains out of the comfort zone. Other people can push you out of your comfort zone, but so can you alone, through deliberate concentration on sidestepping lazy traps your mind lays for you. That first time you catch yourself midway through the word “Where…” on the way to completing the “Where are you from?” banality, you will feel something akin to a happy mental rush. “Yes!” you will mentally intone, “I stopped myself from muttering a beta male triviality! This means I have the power to mold myself into a more interesting man.”

A little victory, to be sure, but those little victories add up, until one day you’re twirling a girl round and round the dance floor of your mind.

Now that we know how to be less predictable around women, we can move on to step two: being more of a challenge. This step typically encompasses a lot of material, so for now we’ll discuss one particular method that will instantly imbue you with the churlish aura of alphatude that women crave as much as you crave a firm ass and supple breasts.

Ask, “Why?”. Why ask why? Reader dannyfrom504 explains:

Girls don’t need to be interesting. Most guys will validate them based on looks alone.

You want to mess up a cute girls head, ask her WHY when she states an opinion. Most dudes just go along with her to try to build [sic] repoir. Be different and ask her to justify her opinion.

You’ll stand out and bring major tingles.

You ask why because it is the one category of question that most men don’t ask of women. When was the last time you heard a beta male asking a girl why she thought this way, or why she thinks that way, or why she likes to be a heartbreaker, or why she she can’t sit still, or why she has to be the center of attention? When was the last time you *didn’t* see a beta male dutifully nodding his head like a hired lackey to every inanity spilled from a pretty girl’s mouth?

< kenyan > Now let me be clear. < /kenyan > You ask why not out of spite, or disapproval. You ask it sincerely, because it’s delightfully shocking to women to hear it, and it’s a challenge most women can’t resist. You ask because you want to know. Or, more likely, you don’t really want to know, but you fake interest till you make interest. Asking “why?” will immediately and in no uncertain terms set you apart from the horde of indistinguishable men an attractive woman interacts with every day. It’s bold, it’s ballsy, and it’s exciting to women. And excitement = sexytime.

Furthermore, “why?” is a great short-cut for getting women to open up and reveal a bit about themselves. This is known in pick-up parlance as “value eliciting”. Once you key in on a woman’s values, you can feed them back to her as if they were also your own, and construct a feeling of connection that is so important to women as a prelude to any sexual relinquishment.

Some of you dreadfully fearful minimen will ask “What if she replies ‘Why do you care?’“. First, you would be lucky to cross paths with more than 1 out of 50 women who would answer in that bitchy manner. But, for the sake of argument, here’s what you say if that does happen to you: “Charming.” Brevity cues the glow of clits.

You need to know two things about female psychology before you know anything else. Women HATE HATE HATE boring men. And women REALLY HATE HATE HATE supplicating yes-men.

Women are attracted — yes, primally, sexually attracted — to interesting men, and to challenging men.

Don’t be boring. Don’t be a suck-up. If you accomplish those two miracles and wonders, you are halfway to sleeping with the kinds of women you’ve always dreamed of defiling. If you have questioned your ability to borrow and then alchemize the alpha attitude for yourself, know that avoiding classic (and easily avoidable) beta male manbooby traps like asking boring, autonomically retrievable questions, and nodding like a puppet to every throwaway musing a woman utters, is 9/10ths of the effort needed to shed your crusty, beta chrysalis.

So keep those toes a-tapping, gentlemen, because you are not like the rest.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

The Modern Sexual Market In A Picture

Jan 21st, 2013 by

Met online? Check.

Beta herbling? Check.

Chubby American woman on the wrong side of 30? Check.

Pretentious SWPL photo? Check.

Rode the cock carousel until age limit was reached? Check.

Two people settling for each other when options have run out? Check.

From this article, a treasure trove of dating tawdriness and romantic bleakness confirming many CH maxims.

I was 30 years old, just out of a long-term relationship and no longer interested in playing the field. It was time to settle down with the right man, get married and start a family. At the urging of several friends (and my worried mother), a strategy was settled upon: I joined Match.com and JDate, a website for Jewish singles.

What followed was a series of bad dates worthy of a romantic comedy: stupid sexual remarks, too much alcohol consumed (by them). A surprising number of men high-fived me, for reasons that remain unclear.

You can read the rest at the link, if you have the stomach for it. Warning: it’s bad. Here’s a taste:

I quickly realized that the popular women seemed to know something I didn’t; they were clearly attracting the sort of smart, attractive professionals who had been ignoring my profile. Being hypercompetitive, I wasn’t about to let some bubblegum-popping blonde steal the neurotic Jewish doctor of my mother’s dreams.

Here’s some advice, ladies, straight from the lords of the Chateau, and you don’t even have to reverse engineer online dating by making dummy JDate profiles and Excel spreadsheets to benefit from this advice:

1. Don’t get fat.

2. Don’t be ugly.

3. Don’t act like a man or a bitter feminist.

3. Don’t wait until you’re over 30, rode hard and tossed away wet, to start looking for a serious partner worthy of marrying.

See how simple that is? 1,2,3,4. Voila, love! But I suppose the simplicity is the problem for you girls. There’s no way to hamsterize the advice into something palatable to your egos.

PS As a bonus, here’s some CH advice for the men:

1. Don’t be a beta.

2. Don’t act like a woman or a manboob.

3. Learn game, bust a move and date the women you really desire before you’re forced to settle for the above.

Yours in Yahweh,

CH

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Dating, Hitting The Wall, Marriage Is For Chumps, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Boring Women

Jan 18th, 2013 by

A reader asks,

What advice would you give when one finds himself on a first date with a fuckable woman (7ish) who is incredibly boring? Boring in the sense she has little to say, and only responds passively to a variety of stimuli. I had two such dates three days apart and found myself starting to beta-ize myself (still somewhat new) to establish some connection and procure what I was after (finishing 1 for 2, though the 1 was not what dreams are made of). I know this is not the answer.

To be fair, I am not particularly funny, but I am a psychologist and skilled at opening (which can work for and against me as the frame is set).

Is she acting bored, or is she genuinely boring? The distinction is important. Exciting women can be brought to bored lows in the company of boring men. A woman who passively responds to stimuli could have in her possession such a wealth of experience with men that it takes a lot to get her invested in any one particular date. (This is a problem if you date sluts.) If that’s happening, the problem is fixed by challenging those women. You can spark a girl right up by teasing her, or by doing something unpredictable.

If the girl is actually a boring person, then two possibilities about her person come to mind: one, she’s not very bright (stupid girls don’t often have interesting things to say, nor are they adept at moving conversations along) or two, she’s introverted, and would have a lot to say if you know how to motivate her to open up.

Men typically repsond to boring (and bored) women by trying extra hard to perk them up. This is the beta male strategy, and it almost always fails, (at least on the timelines we’re interested in), because VALUE is lost when it looks like you have to work to entertain a girl. So we know what you have to avoid: you must avoid the impression that you’re trying to get her to liven up.

If the girl is boring because she’s stupid, go caveman. Dispense with the chit-chat and grab her for the bumpngrind. Dumb girls respond well to primitive courtship displays.

If the girl is boring because she’s shy, you say to her that you know what it’s like, but you have hope for her because you’ve learned from experience that shy girls usually have a lot of interesting things to say once they feel comfortable enough to share it. Tell her to take her time blossoming like a flower, because once the floodgates open you don’t want to drown in it all at once. You refer the slow pour.

If the girl is bored because you’re too beta for her, well… read the archives. Time to amp up the teasing, cocky/funny, mild insults, venue bouncing, agreement and amplification, etc etc. Draw situational women into your orbit to build jealousy plot lines. Flirt with the waitress in full view of your date.

If the girl is boring because she has nothing to say (regardless of her level of smarts), you need to improve your rapport game. Start by learning the “love test routine” and get this chick glowing with girly excitement!

Bonus pointer: Refrain from calling out a girl for being boring. This tactic hardly ever works when you’re already on a date with her. IF you do want to hit her with that, try to dress it up as a backhanded compliment, eg: “It’s so nice to be with a girl for once who is Ok with just sitting next to you quietly and not feeling like she has to say something amazing every five seconds.” That’ll get her hamster spinning furiously.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

The Mind Of The Manboob: Hugo Schwyzer Case Study

Jan 17th, 2013 by

What deranged psychology motivates the defecatory self-flagellating of masculinity-hating manboobs like Hugo Schwyzer? At first glance, they seem broken souls driven to assume guilt for imagined evils committed by the group to which they ostensibly belong. They side with freaks who hate their kind. They mouth empty-headed platitudes and brazen lies with such alacrity one wonders if they can any longer distinguish reality from fantasy. They relish the whip coming down on their backs and the backs of those remotely like them with sick masochistic zeal.

Hugo Schwyzer is a cartoonish copypaste of the manboob archetype. He’s such a vile and transparent emissary for the reject crowd, that you really have to wonder if it’s all an act. I imagine there are at least a few sufficiently brain damaged co-eds who lap up his runny shit to make it all worth it. I bet he’s still leveraging his prof power dynamic to score illicit tail on the down low. It would explain his behavioral similarity to closeted gays who rail against homosexuality.

Or maybe he’s a True Believer. If that’s so, he’s an even bigger pud than I peg him for. At least one can understand, if not condone, a fraudulent shucking and jiving act to off-pitch feminist tunes in order to dupe dumbo conformist leftoids still in the bloom of youth to give up the goods. But a guy who dances like this with his junk tucked between his legs because he actually enjoys two-stepping like a spaz eunuch? It beggars comprehension.

So we must delve deep into the neural swamp of the self-annihilator, on a journey of adventure to darkest manboobery, to examine up close the stunted, sniveling, fetal id crouched like Gollum at the center of their twisted psyches. For to understand one’s enemies is to hone the precision of one’s ridicule aimed at them. You can plunge the soulshiv into the outer folds of the prefrontal all day long, but the delusional crackpot will merely incorporate legions of á la main ego-assuaging dendrites to rapidly bridge the wound in response. The killing blow comes at last when you have located Smaug’s lone, unjeweled breastplate — revealing an open pathway to the core leprotic force animating the multitude of ego layers — and held the gom jabbar wickedly, tantalizingly, against the defenseless, quivering, pustular infant monster within. Only then, will you have hit the mother of all nerves.

Chuck, over at GLPiggy, offers a diagnosis of Schwyzer’s underlying manboob illness.

Hugo Schwyzer’s latest piece is typical.  What you first have to understand about anything that Schwyzer writes is that he’s attempting to alleviate his own guilt by painting every transgression of white men against others as a systemic issue in which we are all complicit.

Schwyzer has done a lot of screwy things in his life so he believes that it is now his job to throw all other white men under the bus.  He avoids trying to deal empathically with white men by harping on “white male privilege”.

Guilt alleviation. The one emotional compulsion, above all others, that appears to guide and channel the self-annihilator’s moral preening, if not his moral compass. Schwyzer has had, as he has himself admitted, a number of “improper” affairs with his female students — affairs of the sort that would send the typical self-identifying feminist into a tailspin of scattershot histrionics about the “white male power structure” if done by any man other than a mewling manboob who effusively apologizes for his pleasure as penitence to his femcunt overladies. But Schwyzer retains just enough charm and traitorous gusto to keep his erstwhile feminist foes safely within his orbit of self-congratulatory sympathy.

But does Schwyzer really feel guilt for his naughty sexcapades? I’ve known quite a few womanizers in my life, and one thing I can say about them is that none were genuinely guilt-ridden over their scores of intimacies. None felt any pressing need to convince the world that their peripatetic love, or the behavior of men who do the same, was exploitative badness. They are healthy men at peace with their natural, masculine desire. Sure, they may occasionally pretend to introspection when in the company of finger waggers or glaring wives, but one could tell that was all for show. There was enough wink wink, nudge nudge to remind of their sanity.

So, no, I don’t believe that Hugs Shyster feels guilt, real guilt, for his past (and probably present). Most self-annhilating whites (and it is mostly whites who suffer from the appalling condition) don’t act out of guilt; they act out of a crass, surging impulse to step on their closest co-ethnic competitors in order to lift themselves up. Narcissism of small differences, and all that. They are, before all else, status whores, even if they don’t realize it themselves. And the status points that count will change depending on the context one finds oneself, or the context in which one deliberately inserts oneself. In Schwyzer’s case, he has been, and is, surrounded on all sides by clucking man-haters, women who loathe male desire in all its permutations save the one which can be wholly choreographed by feminist puppeteering.

The irony of it all is that Schwyzer has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to apologize or repent for, whether to himself or to others. His leverage of his occupation’s high social status and situational dominance to seduce young women by giving them what they want is no less part and parcel of the natural evolved order of romantic interlude than the woman who keeps herself trim and dresses sexily to capture the appreciation of the high value men she desires. You can argue that Schwyzer imprudently crossed an ethical line peculiar to academia, but what you can’t argue is that he acted immorally, strangely, misogynistically, or with patriarchal hate in his heart toward those women who welcomed his wooing.

But if suppressed guilt is the real motivation (and I concede that the possibility exists in the most egregious cases of manboobery, such as that evidenced by Schwyzer), then Chuck is right to identify the mechanism as an ego-salving one which attempts to shirk the blame off to an entire group as indicative of a “systemic issue” instead of manfully accepting sole blame for one’s individual failings (as one sees them). But the full-blown narcissist will have nothing to do with taking responsiblity for his actions when a whole world of patriarchal privilege and cultural constructivism is out there which will take the blame for him.

A second theory of manboob mind is that the proselytizing self-annihilator (and by extension, group-annihilator) suffers from a case of pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is likely an acute manifestation of biologically inherited leftoidism. While there is no proof to date that political bias is genetic in origin, evidence is mounting in favor of the hypothesis. Pathological altruism is a mental illness that possesses psychological dimensions not unlike Stockholm Syndrome, which compels the afflicted to heal the world’s hurt, and to demand inclusion for the world’s monsters and failures, no matter what cost to oneself (or, more likely, to one’s taxpaying compatriots). It is liberal universalist perfectionism run amok, and it eventually devolves, as it must, to subverting normality and truth and beauty and to sanctifying deviancy and lies and ugliness. (And genocide, if you look at the historical record.)

The motivation of those who hold themselves Messiahs to the Monsters can often be murky to the untrained eye, but the motivation of those who are actual monsters is clearer. The designs of the latter to institute not just the social acceptance, but the social desirability, of degenerates and degeneracy stems from a survival instinct. To be cast to the metaphorical icy wastelands is metadeath, and in the ancestral state of nature the casting out would have meant real death. But what to make of monster apologists like Hugo Schwyzer who, superficially at least, don’t immediately provoke disgust in people? What motivates them? If the pathological altruist theory of manboobery is correct, then “normals” who suffer from it are motivated by the warm, dopaminergic good feelings they receive from “fighting oppressors” and “lifting the oppressed”. It’s a savior complex that earns brownie points the more self-indicting its message. This is similar in function to how the handicap principle operates.

Which leads to the third theory of manboobery: subversive status whoring.

Ultimately, if evolutionary biologists are correct, pathological altruism (PA) will subordinate to the genetic imperative for status accrual, for all human traits are merely more or less successful evolutionary experiments cobbled together under ecological pressures to maximize survival and reproduction. PA might have been socially adaptive in small hunter-gatherer tribes, but in the modern context of atomized city dwelling that pushes millions of humans shoulder to shoulder, PA becomes more individually adaptive while also becoming more societally maladaptive. Now we are right back to the original speculation that manboobs are, in their own bizarre fashion, raising their status within their postmodern milieu via the mechanisms of narcissistic martyrdom and shared blame redistribution to the entire group in which they putatively belong. PA is, in a sense, a sneaky fucker strategy, a cheater’s ploy, which relies for its success on the existence of a strong, commanding overculture to parasitize. Once that culture is gone and the gutter filth are in charge, there is no longer any gain from letting your freak flag, or your freak-enabler flag, fly.

The manboob with PA disorder may sincerely believe in his good intentions, but he is actually a servant carrying out ancient genetically-coded algorithms that will redound to the benefit of his personal social status and, hence, his reproductive fitness. You scoff at “reproductive fitness”, but in fact this tact appears to have worked for Schwyzer, who, if his claims are to be believed, has enjoyed an ample supply of nubile, young, gullible feminist libtard majors.

We come to the fourth theory of manboob mind, and perhaps the most cynical of the theories: That manboobs like Schwyzer don’t believe a word of the crap they brownly vomit; that their bleatings are a minstrel show for the tiny niche of ideological sympathizers who fortuitously happen to be decked in the plumage of alluring boob and ass that all men, even revolting manboobs, want to defile. (Almost) every male endeavor has its female groupies, and manboobery is no exception, (except when the manboob is so physically deformed or dispositionally neutered he cannot even hope for gnarled table scraps left behind by greater manboobs than he).

The feigned male feminist act doesn’t even have to find fruit among its intended audience for it to be a successful mating strategy. Schwyzer could get no play from the Jizzebel crowd, but it won’t matter as long as attractive women closer to his social circle observe the laurels he receives from thousands of anonymously obese feminist skanks thankful for his words which soothe their scorched feelings of self-worth. All he has to do is humblebrag a little, shit on the “right” sorts of men, and sit back as innate female desire for preselected men works its magic. For all we know, Schwyzer may be a stone cold dominating quasi-rapist in bed with women, once he is free to drop the “this is what a feminist looks like” charade. And how much you want to bet the women he fucks — or fucked, I hear he’s married — are slender, height-weight proportionate, facially attractive women on the fertile side of the wall? Lindy West wept.

A corollary to the fourth theory of manboob mind — the theory that manboobery is a cynical ploy to attract niche female attention — is the notion that manboobs deliberately scheme to rearrange the contours of the sexual market so that their types have more access to women. It’s a strategy to clear the field of competitor males. It’s obviously not possible to literally clear the field of other men (unless you imprison them or kill them), but it is possible, through silver-tongued verbal calisthenics, to build insular social contexts that delineate and ostracize outsiders from insiders, and attract women simpatico to one’s message, much like the growth of a religious cult. The key to this mate competition strategy is to execute it with sincere-sounding passion, creating emotional states that coax the girls to be more open to the manboob’s wiles. An actively promoted, pro-femcunt system allows manboobs like Schwyzer to successfully compete with other men, whereas in a sane, anti-feminist, anti-sophist culture he would be at a distinct disadvantage competing against manlier men who eschew the mincing dishonor of passive-aggressive subterfuge.

Finally, we come to the fifth theory of manboob mind, and one I include for purposes of thoroughness rather than insight, as it shares obvious common threads with the previous four theories: Manboobs are simply bigoted against those not like them, which amounts to being bigoted against their betters, and will tirelessly do or say whatever is necessary, no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical, to bring down those they irrationally hate. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why a guy like Hugo Schwyzer would reflexively perceive the majority white male contingent as the Other.

In summary, here are the five primary theories of manboob mind, in no particular order of probability or explanatory power:

1. Guilt complex
2. Pathological altruism
3. Status whoring
4. Mate competition strategy
5. Raw bigotry

These theories don’t have to be distinct entities; they can overlap, and they probably do. A status whoring manboob on the make for chubby feminist love might harbor guilt for some strange perversion he committed in his past. A bigoted hater might also be a pathological altruist who goes livid when the subject turns to inequality, and if you think those two emotional states are contradictory, well you just don’t know the leftoid mind very well. Let’s say internal consistency is not their strong suit.

It wouldn’t be CH if we didn’t punctuate a SERIOUS post with a goofy coda, so to head off those jesters salivating to bombard the comment section with theories they deem to be the most obvious explanations, yes, manboobs like Schwyzer may just be acting out revenge fantasies birthed in the crucible of some punch to the jaw they took by a frat bro when they were striplings making their way through a man’s world. You could call that theory of manboobery, “Punchuated Equilibrium”. Those slights of youth have amazing staying power to warp the adult mind. Hate for normal, healthy men can germinate in such seething soil. You’d not be far from the mark to guess that a lot of the more monstrous manboobs nurse grudges from some rejection they suffered by a girl who never reciprocated their LJBFery in the way the manboobs hoped. But instead of turn against normal women or themselves, they shifted their hate beams to those men the girls liked.

As a theory of manboob mind, I don’t buy this tact. For every skulking manboob with a distant humiliation fueling his misandry, there are a thousand men who suffered similar high school slights who never went the egregious manboob route. Something else, some other psychological misfire, has to gird the ancient grudge, to give the grudge its unusual outsized power. And that is where you have to dig deeper, to the transgendered id, where the murmuring heart of the manboob pumps sewage through his buttplug-shaped cerebellum.

PS Schwyzer and his ilk might just be garden-variety closeted gays, which I know will be the preferred theory of a lot of tradcon types who have a hard time fathoming the queer workings of the manboob mind. But that’s a dismissive assertion that’s hard to subscribe to when there are years of evidence, past and current, that the Hugo manboob under the microscope has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the sexual company of women. We don’t live in an age where gay men need a parade of beards to function in society.

PPS Feel free to include your theories for the existence of nauseating manboobs in the comments. If there’s a better theory out there than the five presented here, we’d all like to hear it.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Hamster of the Month Contest, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King, The Id Monster, Tool Time | Comments Off

Women Prefer Taken Men

Jan 16th, 2013 by

Ah women… saintly creatures. The fairer sex. Daddies’ little princesses. And also more likely than men to be homewreckers.

Do women prefer men who are attached?

“Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not,” says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren’t bothered whether their target was already attached or not.

This shouldn’t be news to veteran readers of CH. We of the illuminati already knew, from years toiling in the field, getting our dicks dirty, that women:

1. love to CHASE CHASE CHASE aloof men who aren’t readily available

2. love preselected men other women love, and

3. love the drama that necessarily accompanies stealing a validated man from his girlfriend or wife.

Really, if feminists were smart (asking a lot, I know), they’d realize their worst enemies aren’t laser-guided ego-targeting truth bombers like yours truly, but other women who will claw, scratch and passive-aggressively sabotage their way over the messed tresses of their sexual market competitors. Politically, women may be a united front, but privately they are at each other’s throats. And they attack with their knives sheathed, plausible deniability and rationalizing hamsters their greatest allies in this total war of gene delivery vessels, which makes them all the more potent adversaries.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!

Jan 15th, 2013 by

CH has been at the forefront of noting a trend among Western, particularly American, women toward masculinization. This “manning up” by secularized post-industrial women is prominent in both their physical features (fatter, manjaw-ier, bigger framed) and their personalities (bitchier, more entitled, less fecund, more prone to binge drinking). A theory was put forward that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, among other downstream effects they have caused, have pushed women away from their essential femininity, via exact mechanisms poorly understood as yet.

Genetic alteration does not seem a likely candidate, because it is mathematically impossible for alleles coding for manlier women to sweep through a large population in a couple of generations, unless some cataclysmic event were to wipe out the majority of people. Adaptation to cultural stimuli is likelier, though that leaves us wondering how it is culture can physically change the shape of women’s jaws to resemble Christmas nutcrackers. Some sort of biological insult, like a toxin or estrogen in the water or BPAs or high fructose fattening syrup, could be the culprit. Or maybe it’s an epigenetic phenomena — the response by protein-coding enzymes to environmental stressors, such as that of becoming financially self-sufficient, being surrounded by supplicating beta males, and riding the alpha cock carousel until closing time.

Some of you naturally will ask, “But are your personal suspicions supported by the evidence? Are American women really getting more masculine?” A fair question! And for that, we may turn to… science! (She pleasured me with science… ) A reader writes:

As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.

This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html

In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!

Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)

This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.

Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.

One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.

One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.

By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community.

“Power posing influencing behavioural outcome.” Now where have I come across that idea before? Hmm….. lemme think…. oh yeah!
YET AGAIN, science proves a core game concept. How about that? ♥♥♥♥♥♥

This reader’s inference — that the social expectations of feminism and the accumulated effect of grrlpower SWPL parents who push their daughters in the same direction as their sons induces physical as well as behavioral changes in girls and boys through hormonal mechanisms that tend toward androgynizing the population — deserves serious investigation. It’s time to pull out the calipers and assays and begin measuring the geometry of jaws and testosterone levels in Western women by generation and over lifetimes. If it is true that power posing influences not just behavioral but physical outcome, then we can boldly assert that

FEMINISM MAKES WOMEN MANLIER.

And that, my friends, will finally and once and for all, kill the rancid ideology deader than dead, because no woman in her right mind wants to be manlier. This bizarre epoch will come to be seen as a time when women were led so far astray that they became, socially and biologically, men. And men, for their part, became manboobs.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Girls, Science Validates Game | Comments Off

No One Is Entitled To Commitment

Jan 14th, 2013 by

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up ”a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Funny/Lolblogs, Misandry, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »