Feed on
Posts
Comments

Chicks Have Been Digging Jerks For A Long Time

Jan 11th, 2013 by

Reader Zombie Shane (ha!) writes:

IN THE COMMENTS, leave samples and excerpts from the GREAT BOOKZ which teach game!!

From the Cads -vs- Dads point of view, Jane Austen tried to warn her womynz about jerks like John Willoughby and George Wickham.

Yes, the classics are filled with examples of chicklove for badboys, and warnings to avoid falling under their spells. What’s interesting about this is that wiser women wouldn’t have to warn the sisterhood about jerks if women weren’t already naturally attracted to jerks. I mean, you don’t see women warning other women to avoid exhilarating romantic entanglements with boringly reliable beta males. Women do that all on their own. This is elementary logic that escapes the walnut-sized brains of feminists and manboobs.

On the flip side, in contrast to the jerk avoidance warnings, what you see are older women advising younger women to seriously consider the invisible charms of stable betaboys. Apparently, women have to be coaxed and cajoled to understand and appreciate the intangible benefits of dating betas who will treat them with respect and kindness.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Girls, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Hotter Women Equals Better Sex: Science Weighs In

Jan 11th, 2013 by

Nestled warmly in the Chateau archives, a House Lord wrote that hotter women means better sex for men. A chart was included to drive home the point:

In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:

hotness of woman               size of load               squirt distance
0                                            *                                *
1                                            *                                *
2                                            *                                *
3                                            pre-cum only         needed squeezing out
4                                            droplet                      dribble
5                                            <5 grams                  2 cm
6                                            fills bellybutton        3 inches
7                                            1 tbsp                         8 inches
8                                            2 tbsps                       1.5 feet
9                                            1/4 cup                       3 feet
10                                          gallon**                      5 yards**

*insufficient data
**extrapolation

Oh, did the feminists and their hairyrimlickers howl with pained indignation upon reading such a brutally honest account of the mechanics of male sexual desire! The satisfaction of beholding the raw, bleeding ids on display must have been, in a word, delicious.

Still, there were those who lived in cellar permahovels who could argue that, despite a mountainous accumulation of real world anecdotal evidence, science hadn’t (yet) come around to proving one way or the other that men experienced improved sexual pleasure from banging hotter women. Socially calibrated readers were forced to take their own personal experiences at face value.

Until now. In what is sure to slice clean the last dangly sinew of the reject brigade’s frayed ego, a recent scientific study has appeared which proves, AGAIN, another CH truth.

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

Previous research has indicated that men generally rate slimmer women as more sexually attractive, consistent with the increased morbidity risks associated with even mild abdominal adiposity. To assess the association of women’s waist size with a more tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness (as well as reward value for both sexes), we examined the association of women’s age and waist circumference with an index of men’s erectile function (IIEF-5 scores), frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), and sexual satisfaction in a representative sample of Czechs (699 men and 715 women) aged 35-65 years. Multivariate analyses indicated that better erectile function scores were independently associated with younger age of self and partner and women’s slimmer waist. PVI frequency was independently associated with women’s younger age and women’s slimmer waist. Sexual satisfaction was independently associated with men’s younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function, greater PVI frequency, and greater sexual satisfaction were associated with women’s slimmer waist, independently of both sexes’ ages. Possible reasons for the waist effects were discussed, including women’s abdominal body fat decreasing their own desire through neurohormonal mechanisms and decreasing their partner’s desire through evolutionarily-related decreased sexual attractiveness.

I think the abstract speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of the short bussers: The men in the study got harder, stronger, bigger boners with the physically better-looking women. The men also had more frequent sex when they were having it with younger, hotter, tighter women. And finally, the men reported more sexual satisfaction when their sexual partners were hotter, thinner women with sexy hourglass shapes.

Young, slender, hot babes are nature’s Viagra, capable of inflating even an old man’s wrinkled wurst to heights of former glory.

I mean, does it get any more devastating than this for the lying liars who freebase pretty lies? The boner doesn’t lie. The boner cannot be fooled. The boner will not suffer sophists gladly. The boner is the irrefutable, unavoidable, irreconcilable, incontestable, ecumenical truth that jabs insouciantly into the clouded eyes of the pitiable self-deceivers. It is the warrior’s pole that rises over the horizon holding aloft the banner of savage, steel-forged reality.

The sheer volume of scientific studies confirming or otherwise presenting substantial evidence for Chateau Heartiste tenets and assertions about female sexual nature, game, and the functioning of the modern dating market is what could be called an “embarrassment of riches”. But I carry my burden with stoic resolve, to preen another day.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Science Validates Game, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

What Kind Of Woman Cuckolds A Man?

Jan 10th, 2013 by

Following hot on the crooked heels of yesterday’s BOTM nomination, a new study is out which gives support to the conventional wisdom that skanks, fugs and other assorted low value women are the ones most likely to employ the cuckold strategy (or, looking at it from a different angle, the ones least likely to be concerned with the consequences of impulsively cuckolding their boyfriends or husbands).

Menstrual Cycle Changes in Mate Preferences for Cues Associated with Genetic Quality: The Moderating Role of Mate Value

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of mate value and fertility status on women’s implicit and explicit preferences for male traits associated with genetic quality. It was hypothesized that a woman low in mate value would experience greater fluctuation across her menstrual cycle in her preferences for characteristics associated with genetic quality than a woman high in mate value. Specifically, a low mate value woman during the non-fertile part of the cycle would experience a reduction in a desire for traits associated with health and reproductive success. To test the hypothesis, the college age female participants completed two measures of mate value and a self-report measure designed to gauge fertility status. Then the participants performed an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) designed to measure implicit associations with a male trait related to genetic quality and a questionnaire designed to measure their explicit responses to the same trait. As predicted, mate value moderated the relationship between fertility status and implicit preferences. […]

Inherent in Gangestad and his colleague’s reasoning about cyclic changes in [female] mate preferences is the proposition that the mixed mating [cuckold] strategy would be most adaptive for women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources. Women who can attract both high genetic quality and resource rich males for long-term relationship have less need to acquire high quality genetic material through short-term mating. For this type of woman, the costs incurred from infidelity are less likely to outweigh the genetic benefits. An individual difference that is likely to play a pivotal role in woman’s ability to attract high quality mates is mate value (Fisher, Cox, Bennett, and Garvik, 2008). Although there are a variety of different definitions of mate value, most conceptualizations suggest that mate value is determined by observable characteristics that indicate the persons quality as a sexual partner (Kirsner, Figueredo, and Jacobs, 2003) and ability to increase the reproductive success of mates (Sugiyama, 2005; Waynforth, 2001). Not surprisingly, research has already demonstrated that a woman’s mate value influences many male behaviors and emotions, e.g., mate retention behaviors (Jones, Figueredo, Dickey, and Jacobs, 2007; Miner, Starratt, and Shackelford, 2009) and jealousy (Phillips, 2010). Further, numerous studies have found a woman’s perceived attractiveness influences her mate preferences (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2012; Little and Mannion, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Vokovic et al., 2008).

It seems very probable that women who are low in mate value will have more difficulty in attracting long-term mates that possess both genetic quality and resources than women high in mate value. Hence, for low mate value females it may be adaptive to pursue a mixed strategy forming long-term relationships with lower genetic quality males and pursuing high genetic quality males for extra pair couplings. For these women, this is the best way to obtain the benefits of a long-term relationship and obtain high quality genetic material.

This is yet another study which validates scores of maxims propounded over the years by the Chateau for your reading pleasure. It’s almost as if being a layman simply observing how the world works with open eyes is as precise a method for discovering universal and lasting truths as being a credentialed scientist with a lab full of hardware drily measuring every jot and tittle of human interaction!

The study is very interesting in the details, both for what it reveals and for the inherent limitations it must work around, and I suggest you read all of it. Using a combination of explicit self-reporting and implicit association measures of attractiveness of stimuli (how desirable the men were to the women) and self-attractiveness (how desirable the women consciously and subconsciously thought themselves), the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that low mate value women — ugly, fat, crass, skanky hobags, or 3/4ths of American womanhood, in other words — are more likely to feel a desire to cheat on their beta male partners during their window of ovulation to acquire higher value male seed on the sly. Higher quality women — the cute babes PUAs target — are less likely to cheat or to feel a desire to cheat on their partners because they are the kinds of women who get what they want in a man, and are therefore more fulfilled with their romantic relationships.

(If you’re the type of person who enjoys aesthetic ornamentation on your dose of ugly truths, it helps to read this stuff while imagining a bulbous, half cyborg Cacodemon God of Biomechanics enthroned in the void firmament belching lube and smoke from his clanking flesh gears, cruelly laughing from his cosmic perch at his insignificant experimental human subjects toiling on earth below.)

As mentioned above, the study had to deal with some limitations present in the subject matter; specifically, the reliability of (explicit) self-reporting for measuring self-attractiveness, and the general reliability of implicit association tests. (Note that implicit association tests have been used to claim that white people are innately racist, conveniently forgetting the social context within which whites form their implicit associations, and the mitigating variables which influence them.)

On the first limitation, although women may be prone to overestimate their own attractiveness, it seems safe to conclude that such overestimation, because it presumably occurs in all test subjects, would still provide useful information on the relative rankings of all the women in the study. But that is of course open to debate. For instance, hotter women may be less apt to over-rate their looks, and may even downgrade them a bit to make uglier women feel better about themselves. (There are those people, too, who would assert that female beauty is subjective and thus unable to be accurately assessed, by either an observer or the subject. But those people are stupid.)

On the second limitation, although Implicit Association Tests are regarded as being less susceptible to “social desirability distortion” (i.e., peer pressure and social expectation to answer correctly), a problem arises that implicit feelings can vary based on hormonally-influenced or otherwise-influenced fluctuations in self-perception. Nonetheless, implicit association appears to be more trustworthy than explicit self-reporting, at least as regards the measuring of sexual desirability and sexual preference. As stated in the paper:

Contrary to the expectations, the study did not find the moderating effect of mate value when explicit responses were measured. Both high and low mate-value women expressed an explicit preference for muscular arms.

Why did mate value act as a moderator with implicit preferences but not with explicit preferences? One possibility is that the processes involved were operating without conscious awareness, limiting the participants’ ability to explicitly state preferences. Remember that an explicit preference is a positive or negative evaluation that is retrievable from memory and directs behavior. Whereas an implicit attitude is the product of positive or negative associations with an object (muscles) that can no longer actively be retrieved from memory. This explanation is consistent with the notion that many evolved processes operate passively without deliberate thought (Cosmides and Tooby, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 1989). Yet it is puzzling why participants would be able to explicitly state preferences influenced by the menstrual cycle but not by mate value. Another possibility for the divergence between implicit and explicit responses is that the participants’ were giving socially desirable explicit responses. The women may have believed that expressing positive attitudes towards the muscles was the expected or correct response, i.e., normal women should like muscles. Consequently, both the low and high mate value women gave positive explicit ratings of the muscular arms. On the other hand, the Implicit Association Test used to measure the women’s implicit preferences was able to detect the moderating role of mate value because the Implicit Association Test is less susceptible to this type of social desirability distortion (see Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Snowden, and Gray [2010] and Steffens [2004] for a discussion of Implicit Association Test’s resistance to response distortion).

Chateau Heartiste has been at the forefront inculcating the masses with some very valuable knowledge, primary among the oeuvre that men should never listen to what women say; instead they should watch what women do in order to learn what women really want in men. And this study, with its findings that there exists a discrepancy between what women explicitly self-report and what they implicitly feel, is another vindication of that hallowed CH principle. Recall that a woman’s brain has no fucking clue what her vagina is up to. Or, more precisely, women’s frontal lobes are not consciously aware of what their vaginas are feeling. For that, you must peer into their ids.

The sexual market works this way: on a subconscious level. In fact, it MUST work this way. It must, because it is the medium for the barter and trade of genetic material, the tiny, invisible Chief of Operations which is the ultimate beneficiary of all human motivation and goal-directed behavior. Dispiriting, sadistic, conscious awareness of the workings of the sexual market adds a level of unnecessary complexity that would not have been favored by natural or sexual selection.

So now you know… the rest of the story.

Moral of the study: Don’t marry a low value woman!

Better yet, don’t even bang a low value woman. If she gets pregnant and is unable to dupe her beta provider to stay with her and raise your illegitimate hellion, she may hit you with a paternity claim. But why would you bang low value women in the first place? If you’re that desperate or lacking in taste, porn is a more satisfying pressure release valve.

PS The study results show that high value women — aka hotter women — are not as subconsciously attracted as uglier women are, during the ovulation stage of their cycles, to bigger muscles in men. So if you are a womanizer who prefers the company of truly exquisite ladies, you don’t have to swole out to achieve your dreams. But if you like your broads a little slutty and road-worn, hit the gym hard. Probably explains why I see so many meatheads dating harsh-looking gym rats on the fast track to cougarville.

PPS This doesn’t mean muscularity, all else equal, won’t help you with the ladies. It just means that it’s one input among many which trigger female attraction modules, and it’s not as vital an input for attracting better looking, more feminine women as it is for banging out the substandard whores of pathetic cuckolds on the make for a fly-by-night injection of cad cream. Personally, I love the post-lift feeling I get, so I take some pleasure in knowing that I can exploit the flirty attentions of skanks to inspire jealousy, and improved sexual performance, in my sweeter lovers.

PPPS One other thing I would point out is that low mate value and IQ likely correlate. A beautiful woman is likelier to be smarter, and hence more conscientious and less impulsive (all these positive, K-selected personality traits correlate with IQ) than an ugly woman. So perhaps another unidentified operational factor that this study has uncovered is the notion that smarter girls grasp the negative consequences of cuckoldry better than do dumber girls, and are therefore better at resisting their temptations.

PPPPS You might also title this study “Ugly Chicks Must Settle for Beta Males, and That Makes Them Sad and Unfaithful”. Isn’t love grand!

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Funniest Graph You’ll See Today

Jan 9th, 2013 by

And a more truthful graph than the one you’ll find here.

A rascally reader adds: “They forgot to color a single arm for cute.”

ps Hi Jizzeblobs!

pps Attribution of this graph uncertain, but I think it comes from A Voice for Men.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Funny/Lolblogs | Comments Off

Beta Of The Month: When You Can’t Hide It

Jan 9th, 2013 by

You’ve got to have a strong stomach to make it through this edition of BOTM. This segment will hit a lot of buttons, as well it should. In a Slate “Dear Prudence” mailbag, a woman writes for advice from Prudie (Emily Yoffe) on how to break the news of her cheating whoreishness to her kids and neighbors.

Q. Where Do I Tell My Son His Sister Came From?: A few years ago I cheated on my husband, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. Because my husband and I had a 2-year-old son together we decided that we could keep our marriage together for his sake. The thing that really complicates things is that my husband, son, and I are white, while my lover was black, and so my daughter is mixed race. Naturally my son has begun questioning why his sister looks so different from the rest of us, and my mother-in-law took it upon herself to tell him she was adopted. I’m at a loss for what to do. For now my husband has told MIL that the topic is verboten, but we haven’t decided if we should correct her error. Until now I’ve been happy to just let people assume what they want about where my children’s origins are, but now that a story is getting around, I’m not sure what to say or how to handle it.

We’re a long ways from Normal Rockwell’s America.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the husband surrendered to his wife’s crazy-eyed demands shrunk from risking the certainty of a divorce industrial complex ass-ramming politely discussed and agreed with his wife to keep the marriage going “for the sake of the children”.

Gotta love those children — the perfect leverage for whores and the state to use against wronged men.

Femcunt: “How can you POSSIBLY think of leaving your wife and hurting your children just because she had an unfortunate and fleeting five-year dalliance with an underprivileged but incredibly confident and masculine black man who also happens to be a doctor?”

Beta Herb: “But, I thought single moms are a light unto the world, and their children are successful in every way?”

Femcunt: “Oh, that’s rich. Using white male logic on me. Check your privilege, herbling!”

Beta Herb: “I’m so sorry. Please don’t yell at me. I’m a nice guy.”

Femcunt: “Nice guys are really jerks! You would know that if you weren’t such a jerk.”

Beta Herb: “Should I just off myself?”

Femcunt: “There’s an idea.”

Please, did you expect a feminist to comprehend dual mate strategy? Or to dabble in rationality?

Is this hubby a beta for staying with his wife when it’s so obvious to anyone with eyes that the mocha child in tow is living proof the whore wife cuckolded him in the arms of a five-point buck? Yes, he is. There’s simply no way a man can retain the heft of his balls — whatever he’s carrying — or any shred of honor, sticking by the side of an unfaithful wife who so ostentatiously gelded him, a mixed-race living reminder of his emasculation total yapping at his heels. There are just some indignities a man should not ever tolerate, especially when alternatives exist, such as beating a middle-of-the-night escape to another country to avoid punitive extractive alimony and child-support payments.

But the ideal course of action for the grievously insulted beta provider hubby presumes a somewhat sane world envelops him, and will consider his case fairly. Unfortunately, thanks to the relentless moronic march of feminists and equalist filth, and their lethal infection of the media/entertainment/academia/bureacracy complexes which constitute the juggernaut known as the Western Cathedral, we are far from living in a sane world. Instead of receiving recompense from his ex-wife for cuckolding him, and full custody of his one biological child, plus the sympathy and support of his community and the state, he would likely receive for his trouble of separating himself from the bitch who metaphorically shit in his face an extorted, back-breaking retirement plan paid in full to her, plus two days per month visitation rights. And prison rape for any failure to comply with his dispossession.

Given this morbid reality, how fitting is it for us to label such a man a hopeless beta? Isn’t he just as much a victim of his circumstance and the world which is cruelly indifferent to him as he is of his own weak character? I’m loathe to come down too hard on this guy, who probably decided it was better to minimize the fallout from a really shitty situation than to seek the justice that was rightfully his from the insult of his wife’s awesome betrayal.

However, in the final analysis, he earns his BOTM nomination. The reason why is found in the wife’s decision to keep the bastard. She would not have entertained keeping the mixed-race issue if she had a modicum of respect for her husband. Instead, it is likely he is a beta male in his heart whom she despised, and that made the decision easy for her. What use is appeasing a husband you hardly respect, let alone desire or admire? Why care for the soul-ripping consequences your detestable actions will have on a husband who no longer, if he ever did, inspires your adherence to a moral calculus via the encouragement of wonderful twat tingles? She wanted this kid born, wanted this gaudy tri-hued mockery of her marriage to shoot out of her festering womb, because it was the kid of another man. A better man.

The hubby chump doesn’t even have the luxury of hiding his shame behind ego sparing lies. A white kid could plausibly be passed off as his. But a pint-sized frappuccino is a glossy mag ad situating his disgrace front and center for the entertainment of the studio audience of his life.

And every day, every goddamned minute of every day, this pitiful lackey, chained by law and habit and feebleness to the golem of his wife’s black soul, will suffer his humiliation anew. There will be no escape from the breaking wheel that cracks the bones and tears the sinew of his self-worth. No refuge from the material proof of his wife’s love for another man. No competing nightmare visceral enough to block out the constantly birthing image of his wife’s cunt stretching and ululating for another man’s dick, and her womb happily germinating the prize of another man’s seed. A prize made all the more demeaning by the context of the times, where an abortion clinic to solve untidy problems like this one exist on every street corner, and condoms are handed out like candy. This woman made her choice WHEN SO MANY OTHER CHOICES WERE READILY AVAILABLE that would have partly bandaged the immortal wound she knifed into her husband’s pride.

His world is the world of slaves. A spiked heel kicking in his nuts, forever.

What can be salvaged from this woeful cataclysm? Oh yes, there is something.

A word about the children. Sometimes, the children must suffer to right a horrible wrong. To rectify an impossible evil. And the world must make it known who, in actuality, is the cause of their suffering. Every day, the children must know it was Mommy, not Daddy, who royally fucked their lives.

For shits and giggles, I’ll post Emily Yoffe’s reply:

A: Despite continuing weekly evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that the vast majority of men who think they are the biological fathers of their children really did provide the sperm. If you get impregnated by a lover of another race, what you say to your children about this is something that needed to be discussed openly with your husband, preferably before the baby was born. Making the utterly obvious verboten is not a good strategy for anyone. I think what you need for your immediate family is a dose of the truth. But, for your children, it needs to be age appropriate. Since your daughter was born a few years ago, your son is old enough to know the basics of reproduction. He needs to be told that his sister has the same mother, but a different biological father. However, what’s really important is that both he and his sister are being raised by the same daddy. You can tell him families are made all sorts of ways, and yours is just a little bit special. If your son—and eventually your daughter—want to know why this is the case, it’s fair to tell them that it’s a complicated story, and they will probably understand it more when they’re older. Say they can talk about this subject any time, but if they can wait, you and their dad can fill in more details as they grow up. For outsiders, you don’t need to explain anything. You can just say you are blessed with two beautiful children. And your husband needs to tell his mother to stop telling the kids something that’s simply wrong.

She evinces a glimmer of sympathy for the husband, but of course her advice, such as it is, amounts to the usual pro forma feminist crap: suck it up, herbische kopf, for the good of the children.

(The only person who comes out seeming halfway decent is the mother-in-law — the husband’s mother — who wants to protect her son from shame by passing off his daughter as an adoptee. Can you blame her for this honorable lie? She acted with good intentions, even if her solution is unworkable in the long run.)

My advice to him would be: get the hell out of Dodge. And don’t look back, and never let her get her paws on one red cent of your bounty or one precious second of your time. Find yourself a better woman in another country. My alternate advice, if American law weren’t so egregiously stacked against men’s interests, would be to march into court, DNA paternity test results in hand, and punish her with the same everlasting torment she has bestowed him. Grab custody of the one kid that is yours, and send the ex-wife and her love child packing for the icy wastelands, where aging single moms with complicated spawnage have about as much success in the dating market as obese, neckbearded furries. If she winds up killing herself, or her kid graduates to juvie as a glue sniffer, all the better.

Too much? No. Cuckoldry — knowing cuckoldry, at that — is the greatest betrayal. The most horrible metadeath. It is the gleeful sham of a scheming Satan. The cosmic shiv driven deep into the chewy center of the soul. The ur-lie. The King Of All Lies. The one lie to rule them all.

There is only one other lie that comes close to the terrible power of the cuckold’s deception, and that is the fraternal betrayal of a solider against his buddy in the trenches. But that awful betrayal, bad as it is, at least does not rub salt in the wound for eighteen excruciating years.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta Of The Year Contest, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Troll Comment Of The Week

Jan 8th, 2013 by

shive1008 hams it up:

Approaching women is a Demonstration of Lower Value. It basically says, “I know you wouldn’t give a shit about me otherwise, so I’m going to have to force you to pay attention to me.” Keep at it chumps.

The man-hating troll will deny the laws of physics if it helps it concoct a fantasy universe where no action a man does redounds to his favor, save those actions that are done for the explicit advantage of feminist crones. This is how the man-hating troll is able to rationalize that approaching women — an act of resolve and daring that most men are incapable of mustering on their own — is a sign of self-doubt instead of the sign of confidence that is so obvious to anyone not clinically insane with impotent rage.

This is why there is no point logically reasoning with a man-hating troll. What purchase can be made in the warped mind of a void entity which announces, with or without conviction, that a man hitting on a woman qualifies as coercion and an admission of insecurity? It is as if the void entity has entered a parallel plane of existence where confident and assertive men sit on their thumbs patiently waiting for women to offer them sex, and enormous hamsters gobble galaxies whole. It’s best simply to viciously mock the man-haters, and showcase their everlasting torment as an example for the others.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Comment Winners, Feminist Idiocy, Tool Time | Comments Off

Declining Intimacy Vs Declining Attraction

Jan 8th, 2013 by

An anonymous reader asks:

Le Cheatau in an LTR, what are the signs of a lack of rapport vs a lack of attraction?

Declining rapport can occur while the attraction remains strong, but declining attraction rarely occurs while rapport remains strong. To put it another way, within the context of a relationship, and particularly from the woman’s vantage point, rapport cannot exist without attraction, but attraction can exist without rapport.

(Note that declining rapport can be a function of either the man’s or the woman’s withdrawal, and that the originator matters for the course of action necessary to remedy it.)

When a woman is VERY attracted to her boyfriend, it will seem to her as if there is never enough rapport between them. If rapport DOES start to decline, she will paradoxically feel MORE attracted to him. This is her biology’s way of channeling her emotions toward the pursuit of bringing him “back into the fold”. (Double entendre intended.)

If a woman is losing attraction for her boyfriend (these things happen all the time), she will also lose her desire to maintain rapport with him. When a woman has stopped making efforts at rapport, there is nothing a man can do to reinitiate rapport except through reestablishing his attractiveness to her. The attraction MUST PRECEDE the rapport. Any supplicating efforts to “force rapport” will only result in her losing more attraction for him, and the cycle becomes a negative feedback loop ending in house celibacy (for him, only).

Men think intimacy means physical closeness garnished with pillow talk, but women have a different frame of reference. Intimacy to women means pillow talk garnished with physical closeness. (A general rule that breaks down at the margins, or during the ovulatory window in a woman’s monthly fertility cycle.) Rapport is intimacy in woman-world, so when rapport declines (as measured by frequency, intensity, or both) women start to fret about the stability of their relationships. Men don’t notice as much when rapport declines, as long as the sex is still on tap; to men, less chit chat in the bedroom is a sign of progress. But the reality is that less chit chat usually follows less sex, as most women are incapable of experiencing a closing off of the one without a closing off of the other.

The take-home message for men is that a woman’s declining attraction is more crucial to guard against than is her declining rapport. Low levels of rapport can be quickly mitigated. Just talk to her more, and show a soft side. But lowered levels of attraction cannot be fixed by more rapport, a “solution” so reflexively beloved by cloying betabots that will only make the problem worse. For that, you need to amp the alpha, and re-certify your worth as a challenging man with options.

From an aerial perspective, female lack of rapport is synonymous with female lack of attraction. So when you, as a man, are looking for signs of declining rapport in your girlfriend, you are essentially looking also for signs of declining attraction. But the two deleterious female LTR states have some differences worth highlighting. This is especially true in relationships where the woman reluctantly feels a growing realization that her boyfriend, whom she nevertheless loves very much, will not be there for her over the long term, and doesn’t share her goals.

The signs you should watch for include:

Lack of Rapport

She’s stopped asking you questions. (Women in love question everything, all the time. They are never fully reassured, and their hamsters like it that way.)

She still fucks you, but doesn’t want to cuddle afterwards.

She’s stopped sharing details of her day.

She tentatively broaches topics, as if she’s afraid you won’t reciprocate and she has to test the waters first.

She’s stopped nagging you entirely, or she’s begun nagging you way too much. (There is a minimal amount of nagging in a healthy LTR. Too little, she’s lost interest in fixing your idiosyncrasies; too much, she’s lost the ability or will to connect with you emotionally and behave like a girl who values your desires as a man.)

She’s dropped you as a sounding board in favor of her male eunuch orbiters, female friends, and best gay boyfriends.

She’s stopped discussing future plans with you, preferring instead to chat about trivialities and laugh away her unease.

She perfunctorily agrees with everything you declare because she’s no longer motivated to “hash it out” or “understand each other”.

In contrast to the above, everything she declares seems crafted to be maximally antagonistic to your beliefs and values.

She punctuates every other conversation with a variant of these: “We just don’t see eye to eye anymore” and “You don’t get me like you used to”.

You decide to talk about your relationship, and she eagerly extends it to a five hour marathon discussion.

She is unusually silent during long moments of physical closeness.

She cries a lot for no particular reason.

Lack of Attraction

She’s stopped having sex with you. (A woman can feel an erosion of attraction before she stops fucking you, but the time between her heart shutting down and her vagina shutting down is typically very short.)

She’s begun flirting more with waiters, bartenders and guy friends when you go out together.

She negs you, except that her negs are more backhanded than complimentary, and not meant to put you in the mood.

She scoffs at your idle musings.

She’ll take any excuse to denigrate you.

She looks bored. Especially when you talk.

She winces when you touch her.

She no longer initiates any physical contact. You must do all the work, and it feels like more work than ever.

She’s begun showering her cat with an excessive amount of sloppy affection, while you sit on the sofa wondering if you need to purr and poop in a box to get her to love you like that.

Remember when she used to punch you affectionately? Now she punches you for real.

You try to talk about your relationship, and she hastily changes the subject.

You buy her a gift. She looks at you with pity in her eyes.

She found your browser porn history. She doesn’t care.

You start to feel like the woman in the relationship. Even worse: she’s started to feel like the man.

*****

As you can see, there’s a lot of overlap and similarity between a woman’s declining rapport and her declining attraction. The most obvious distinction is the providing or withholding of sex by her. So, really, if you want a shortcut for determining the health of your LTR, just pay attention to how often and how vigorously she puts out. You won’t be led astray feeling for the tingle of the Telltale Twat.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Relationships | Comments Off

Powerful Nonverbal Openers

Jan 7th, 2013 by

In this post, we discussed the problem of men forfeiting a big chunk their sexual market currency by repeatedly glancing around a room at every girl, hoping for reciprocal eye play, but ultimately never approaching. The SMV damage comes from two insults: One, girls are turned off by men who retreat to the safe harbor of long distance probing eye contact; two, men will experience a subtle but sure erosion of their self-confidence from abjuring action for passivity. Reader Days of Broken Arrows puts it nicely:

Looking also doesn’t work because action turns women on, not inaction. This is something they don’t teach in school and I don’t see it much in the manosphere either. I keep saying this, but I’ll repeat it. Even though they tell us we’re “equal,” men built everything you now own or work with (or in). Women’s job, biologically speaking, is to give birth. Men’s is to build society. We get turned on by things we notice about them that relate to giving birth (hips, breasts) they get turned on by knowing how we’ll help build the world.

As with any rules, there are exceptions. But my point is that having the balls to walk up to a women like you own the fucking room and deserve her time is half the battle. It’s a metaphor for why she’ll be attracted to you. Men who sit and stare are margin dwellers, not doers.

What kind of man just up and WALKS into a woman’s personal space to meet her when he hasn’t been green-lighted by hours of mutually parried eye contact? Answer: An attractive man. Chicks dig the insouciant, entitled man, despite any protestations to the contrary you may hear from the rape culture crowd.

Now, none of this is to say that pre-approach, long distance “openers” can’t work, or shouldn’t be tried. Not only can they work, but if done correctly, the nonverbal opener from a distance is powerfully alluring to women. For example, reader dannyfrom504 writes,

what’s worked for me (and i’m not a great looking guy) is to make eye contact and to stick my tongue out at her like we were in grade school. if i get a laugh or smile, i approach and ask her name.

Picture the scenario. You spot a cute girl, and look at her for a few tantalizing seconds, waiting for her to look up and return your death stare. Then, she raises her head and meets your eye. But instead of reacting the usual way most men do — quickly averting your shy gaze back down to your book which you aren’t reading — you stick your tongue out at her. For maximum funniness, you do this with a deadpan expression. Caught off-guard by this perfect demonstration of cocky male assurance, she will smile and laugh. How do I know she will smile and laugh? Because it is nearly impossible not to smile and laugh when confronted by such a strange and endearing child-like violation of social norms. You did not act like the millions of betas act, who perch in the corners of her world like potted plants. You acted like a man she is now suddenly interested in meeting. This nonverbal opener has greased the skids for a smooth follow-up approach opener.

Here’s another nonverbal opener from reader Cream:

this [sticking tongue out] is basically what I do except that I wave comically.

When a girl meets your eye, can you imagine waving your arms at her frantically, as if you were trying to flag her down from the side of the road? Or waving happily like you’re a kid who just spotted Santa Claus in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade? No? You say you can only see yourself looking away shyly, and looking back at her ten minutes later, praying she’ll toss you an absolutely unmistakeable signal of interest? That is why you fail.

Now here’s a nonverbal opener I like to do in low-key venues filled with obstacles that make instant, direct verbal approaches more problematic. If a girl meets my gaze, I’ll theatrically rub my chin, tilt my head and furrow my brow as if I’m assessing her for facial imperfections. Then I’ll drop my hand a bit from my chin, raise my eyebrows, squint, and nod slowly while doing that Robert DeNiro half-frown, half-smirk of sudden comprehension, as if I have realized she’s cute enough for further consideration. Sometimes, this charade elicits a blank stare, or even a sourpuss. But most of the time, the girl reacts positively, occasionally bordering on gleeful surprise. And if I have got a girl to smile from across the room, that just makes the approach shortly to follow that much easier to execute.

Does all this sound gay to you? Ok, Stoic Alpha Male Lumberjack, it’s way gay for you. But guess which man she’ll be thinking about the rest of the week? That’s right, the guy who stuck his tongue out at her.

If you aren’t embedding yourself in girls’ minds, you aren’t seducing them at all.

I understand that these sorts of expressive, perhaps histrionic, nonverbal openers require a certain thespian facility with manipulating one’s face and body, and a certain level of comfort with making a spectacle of oneself in potentially crowded arenas, and that many men, especially the shoe-gazing introverts, will find such contortions and stagecraft beyond their ken. If you are the sort who finds the idea of performance art intolerable, then there are other avenues for you to unleash your inner flirt. But for more extroverted or experimental men, the nonverbal “pre-opener” is like the cluster bomb of shock pulsing girls out of their tawdry, affected ennui. And you know what else? It’s fun to do!

Naturally, your acting chops will go to waste if you don’t capitalize on her freshly inspired feelings of warmth and good will toward you. You’ll need to do that follow-up, and you’ll need to have something to say. Reader immoralgables offers a suggestion for a cocky verbal opener that can be congruently squeezed into a whole slew of contexts:

A few weeks ago me and my good friend were sarging in the West Village. Him and I were chatting and plotting our next move when i noticed this one HB8 glancing at me for half a second.

I immediately dropped the convo with my wing and without hesitation went to the Hb8 and told her to stop treating me like a piece of meat and that I have feelings too, etc.

It was the first time I didn’t even think about approaching a hot girl; I just did it because I was opening girls all night so I didn’t care by that point. The reaction I got from her was awesome. She did not expect me to initiate like that and so directly.

I of course fucked up shortly thereafter but for those few minutes I knew exactly what Heartiste is talking about.

There is nothing inherently anti-game or beta about visually scanning a room to check out which girls meet your exacting standards. The problem comes when you abuse the safe effortlessness of the visual scan, and rely on it to the exclusion of more active real world interactions with women to forge an active fantasy world. This is why I suggest you get out of the habit of “checking girls out”, and get into the habit of speaking (or charming) girls up.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Women Dabbling In False Identities

Jan 4th, 2013 by

It seems the domains of vice that were once predominantly the purview of shady men have found purchase among women. A reader writes:

I have encountered a few chicks (very smart ones!) who enjoy using fake identities to make friends with men on the Internet and manipulating the information they provide. (I mean actually lying about themselves, revealing false information rather than simply declining to share true information.)  I’ve gotten good at smoking them out and leading them into inconsistencies. They never admit lying even though they’re caught dead to rights, and they often try to turn the tables by claiming to be offended at the lack of trust I show by doubting them, before running out of lame excuses and disappearing in embarrassment.

Sometimes, though, there is a genuine spark, which is unfortunate because even if under other circumstances a real relationship could happen, I won’t tolerate sock puppets and they won’t admit to behaving badly. What’s the best way to get these girls to fess up rather than run away?

(A “partners in crime” attitude is one possibility, getting her to tell about her other fake identities and helping her make them more effective, but although that appeared to work great for me once, it backfired because it made me take longer to realize she had told me a completely different set of lies, so I’d rather encourage truthfulness.)

What advantages do women accrue from crafting false identities over the internet?

1. Fat chicks can enjoy, for a spell, the attentions of high value men by posing as slender babes. Upside: An hour of ASCII attention beats zero hours of real world attention. Downside: There will be no real-life consummation, unless the fattie is psychotically blind to her revolting condition.

2. Thrill-seeking and attention-whoring chicks enjoy an exhilarating rush from the deception. Sometimes a lie is fun for the sake of it. Duping people is a power trip. As anyone who has dated a lot of sexy sirens will tell you, girls LOVE LOVE LOVE to role play. But, unfortunately for them, most men are not very interested in role playing, (real life for the average man offers enough drama as is). So what’s a girl to do? Well, she’ll take the initiative and fire up a game of one-sided role playing. Upside: More fun than talking about the weather. Downside: She’ll tend to attract lunatics who wear dresses made out of skin.

3. Daddy’s Little Abandoned Princesses Syndrome. D-LAPS girls are drawn to the idea of “starting over” with new identities because it is a psychological balm which helps suppress bitter memories of daddy’s unfathomable sayonara (often prompted by mommy’s equally unfathomable surprize divorce paper filings). These girls make a great lay because they use sex to extirpate their suppressed rage; just don’t expect them to always act in their own best interest.

4. Femme Fatales. Ah, the manipulative woman (but I repeat myself). These are the most dangerous breed of female; they lie less to assuage their egos than to separate the swooning man from his money. Or time. Or sanity. You scoff at the notion that any woman would be able to lie you out of your resources, but it happens all the time. To pick one example of the genre, there are plenty of stories of beta males scammed out of thousands of dollars by hot Russians they met online who were probably computer generated algorithms by some hack face deep in a bottle of wuuudka.

Update

Forgot an obvious group!

5. Married women with ovulatory cheatin’ in their hearts, trying to keep it on the down-low. It’s imperative that you identify these women, because you don’t want to deal with the blowback from banging a married woman with an ex-con hubby just released on parole.

If women are embracing the traditional vices of men in greater numbers than ever before, then I take that as evidence that modern Western culture exerts a masculinizing influence on its women, (whether that is genetic, environmental, or both, I leave as an exercise for the reader). When the sexual and psychological polarity of men and women reverses, you can be sure the end of high civilization is near.

So what to do about this blossoming window into the female id? The reader asks:

“What’s the best way to get these girls to fess up rather than run away?”

His suggestion of a “partner in crime” strategy is fine if you want to get to sex quickly with no long-term consideration. Liars are just like trustworthy people in one respect; both want to be with honest people. Letting a woman know you are as much of a liar as her is not the stuff that beeyootiful romances are made of.

Another option, if you’re really interested in brazenly lying women as girlfriend material (and I would have to ask why you would be?) is the non-judgmental rapport building strategy. This is accomplished not by accosting the woman about her lies, but by sympathizing with her motivation for lying.

“You know, I feel you. I get it. It’s exciting to create a new identity and just run with it, and see what it’s like to live like a different person for a little while, to live like someone you secretly wanted to be ever since you were little.”

This empathy ploy will be more effective at coaxing her to open up about her lies, and from there you can dig at the truth. The key is non-judgmentalism and connection; players like to call this an “our world” routine, which draws the woman closer to you by erecting a false antagonism between you and her together against the rest of the world. In the end, though, women who love creating false identities for the purposes of gratifying themselves at the expense of trusting beta males are best left alone, hopefully never to breed so that their kind can be expeditiously cleansed from the gene pool. Luckily, condoms allow you to get your fuck on with them *and* clear your conscience of any anxiety that you may have sired a bastard sociopath in the act. Just don’t let her throw them away for you.  Keep your eyes on the used rubber, and see the disposal process through from start to finish. (Not kidding about this last part. I could tell you stories.)

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Stop Looking At Girls From Across The Room

Jan 4th, 2013 by

If you don’t first rid yourself of bad, beta habits, acquisition of positive, alpha habits will be harder to internalize. One thing I see men do all the time is glance up from whatever they are doing to look at cute chicks across the room in hopes of eliciting reciprocal flirty eyeplay. What usually happens next is… nothing.

Girls are not going to suddenly find you irresistibly attractive because your bedroom eyes keep checking them out. They might be flattered or spooked, but rarely aroused. To spark arousal in women, you have to talk to them, with either your mouth or your body. And that means closing the distance fast.

The main problem with multiplying glances is that it tends to become a fallback zone in which to comfortably escape from making the difficult choice of opening a girl and finding out if she’s worth your attention. If you want to go years in between lays, waiting for that one killer glance which will send a girl into your arms, then this “strategy” is for you. But most men prefer their love lives are less insufferably arid.

Refraining from looking around a room multiple times at every girl is a step toward washing the feeble beta from your soul and replacing it with a more powerful alpha frame of mind. You will be tempted, of course, to check out pretty girls. Resist it, and supplant that temptation with another one: to WALK UP to pretty girls and speak to them.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »