Feed on
Posts
Comments

Why Don’t Fathers Teach Their Sons Well?

Dec 12th, 2012 by

How many of the men reading this have fathers who give (or gave) them realtalk about women? How many had heart to hearts with Pops about what women really desire in men? Reader Zombie Shane writes:

I have a theory about “The Natural”.

It’s kinda the White Peoples’ version of Amy Chua and the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

And here’s the theory: I think that some Dads CHEAT and teach their sons all the secrets at a very young age.

Kinda like what Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel used to do with that fat obnoxious kid on The Man Show.

Can you imagine how much more poontang you would have scored in the early years if your Dad had taught you the forbidden secrets?

But instead your Dad forces you to be self-taught and to learn all the lessons for yourself.

Yeah, long-term, it’s a much better character-building exercise to absorb all the “hard knocks”, and to learn from experience, but wow, can you imagine if you had had the “White-Peoples-Amy-Chua-Dad” in, say, Middle School?

Being an 8th-Grader and hitting on all that fine-assed perky young just-barely-pubescent poontang?

Shit damn, man, shit damn.

Actually, on second thought [thinking about all that jailbait tail], maybe I should thank my Dad for keeping me out of prison [or at least out of Reform School] at that age…

The fact that you had a dad around to raise you is a leading indicator he is a beta male who himself didn’t know the secrets to women. That’s my theory for why more fathers don’t teach their sons the truth about women: they don’t know it themselves!

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a beta male for a father. If you like civilization you can thank beta male fathers.

Another theory that perhaps explains why so many fathers neglect their duty to impart the lessons of love to their sons is that they feel embarrassed talking about these topics. Even the most cold-blooded womanizers would squirm a little when the time came for them to teach what they’ve learned to their sons. And it’s easy to understand why: when you know women inside and out, you can’t help but be aware of their unsavory natures. Any talk with your son is going to necessarily implicate his mother.

Finally, there are some fathers who are so alpha that they actually view their sons as competition. To them, revealing the secret of snatch is like fraternizing with the enemy. These aging Lotharios wistfully long for the days when pubescent poose clung to them like dryer lint. In some dark recess of their minds, they harbor an envy for their sons which motivates them to conceal their knowledge.

Ultimately, though, I think the best explanations for the dearth of fatherly wisdom regarding female nature is that there are too few fathers experienced in the ways of women to know what to teach, and there are too many fathers protective of their children’s mothers who fear the risk that dangerous knowledge would tarnish by association the esteem with which the children hold their mothers (and sisters).

There is also the theory — and I throw this out here for completeness — that fathers are somehow genetically or psychologically predisposed to encourage their sons to attain resources and status to win the attentions of high value women, and that this mitigates against them teaching their sons the dark arts of seduction which would enable them to short circuit the laborious process that is the conventional method for attracting women.

As regards the origin of Naturals, the greatest influence on them is likely to have been their peers rather than their fathers. Or, if they have been influenced by their fathers, to have been influenced *despite* their fathers’ reticence to share their wisdom. I suspect Naturals benefit from three advantages, in varying degrees of imprint, that most men don’t have:

1. Fathers and friends who teach them the effective (note: I did not say morally righteous) alpha attitude through their own behavior with women.

2. Favorable genetic traits in whatever ratio, which may include sociopathy, narcissism, lack of empathy, mesomorphy, good looks, high sociosexuality, intelligence, artistry, humor.

3. Fortuitous successful early encounters with girls that set the budding Naturals on a path of alluring self-assurance.

So… if your father was an unapologetic cheater, you see vaginas in every Rorschach test, and you got your first knob job at the ripe age of seven, chances are good you are a Natural with women. Chances are also good you would not be able to teach other men what you know, because you only know it intuitively.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Guy Rules, Self-aggrandizement, The Good Life | Comments Off

The Natural’s Dilemma

Dec 11th, 2012 by

The Natural — the man who has a seemingly otherworldly ability to entrance women. The Natural — not the CEO, nor the jet fighter, nor the doctor — is the man most men secretly admire and wish they had some of his mysterious mojo.

But in reality he does not possess any magical abilities out of reach of ordinary men. The Natural is similar to the self-taught pickup artist, with the critical distinction being that the former assimilated the lessons of love earlier in life. His masterstrokes paint the canvas of women effortlessly because he has been in training since he first noticed that girls and boys are different. If you break down the game of Naturals, you’ll learn that their maneuvers and tactics and strategies, far from being indefinable essences that only a very few lucky can lay claim to, are in fact identical to the blueprints of learned game.

Neither is the Natural necessarily good-looking. Many Naturals, perhaps most of them, are nondescript in the looks department. But because there is good reason to think a lot of them have inherited the Dark Triad suite of personality traits, they are skilled at presenting themselves in a way that projects their sex appeal, or invents it whole cloth, if need be.

No, what the Natural has that mere mortals don’t is this: UNSTOPPABLE CONFIDENCE. They had the ALPHA ATTITUDE at a young enough age that it became ingrained to such an extent they rarely yield to the temptation to doubt their appeal to women.

But the Externally Validated Natural who has spent a lifetime leaning on his looks/social connections/fame to get laid has a dilemma. As a reader puts it:

I’ve said it many times before, the most pathetic thing in the world is a natural who has lost his mojo.

The very blessing that makes The Natural an early adopter ladykiller is the curse that hobbles him later in life when challenges arise that introduce cracks to his impenetrable edifice of entitlement. You see, the Externally Validated Natural has not bothered to learn the crimson arts. He has not mastered the state control that is necessary when inevitable dry spells occur, or when glances from women are fewer and farther between, or when uppity women with visions of mcmansion upgrades dancing in their heads give him shit he is not accustomed to receiving. He has never studied how to remain aloof and indifferent in the face of female fickleness because he has rarely experienced what life is like as a beta male who must battle to be loved, rather than watching love fall in his lap like autumn leaves.

The Natural who understands on a more than superficial level the nature of women, and who has a working familiarity with game concepts, is a force ten charmer. Most Naturals don’t; they do the right things without knowing how or why they do them. When success eludes them and the expected warmth from women is missing, they are left with nothing, no storehouse of knowledge or pride of past successes achieved through self-aware hard work, to pull them up from a dangerous downward spiral into the betatude they never quite understood either.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules, The Id Monster | Comments Off

The Natural’s Dilemma

Dec 11th, 2012 by

The Natural — the man who has a seemingly otherworldly ability to entrance women. The Natural — not the CEO, nor the jet fighter, nor the doctor — is the man most men secretly admire and wish they had some of his mysterious mojo.

But in reality he does not possess any magical abilities out of reach of ordinary men. The Natural is similar to the self-taught pickup artist, with the critical distinction being that the former assimilated the lessons of love earlier in life. His masterstrokes paint the canvas of women effortlessly because he has been in training since he first noticed that girls and boys are different. If you break down the game of Naturals, you’ll learn that their maneuvers and tactics and strategies, far from being indefinable essences that only a very few lucky can lay claim to, are in fact identical to the blueprints of learned game.

Neither is the Natural necessarily good-looking. Many Naturals, perhaps most of them, are nondescript in the looks department. But because there is good reason to think a lot of them have inherited the Dark Triad suite of personality traits, they are skilled at presenting themselves in a way that projects their sex appeal, or invents it whole cloth, if need be.

No, what the Natural has that mere mortals don’t is this: UNSTOPPABLE CONFIDENCE. They had the ALPHA ATTITUDE at a young enough age that it became ingrained to such an extent they rarely yield to the temptation to doubt their appeal to women.

But the Externally Validated Natural who has spent a lifetime leaning on his looks/social connections/fame to get laid has a dilemma. As a reader puts it:

I’ve said it many times before, the most pathetic thing in the world is a natural who has lost his mojo.

The very blessing that makes The Natural an early adopter ladykiller is the curse that hobbles him later in life when challenges arise that introduce cracks to his impenetrable edifice of entitlement. You see, the Externally Validated Natural has not bothered to learn the crimson arts. He has not mastered the state control that is necessary when inevitable dry spells occur, or when glances from women are fewer and farther between, or when uppity women with visions of mcmansion upgrades dancing in their heads give him shit he is not accustomed to receiving. He has never studied how to remain aloof and indifferent in the face of female fickleness because he has rarely experienced what life is like as a beta male who must battle to be loved, rather than watching love fall in his lap like autumn leaves.

The Natural who understands on a more than superficial level the nature of women, and who has a working familiarity with game concepts, is a force ten charmer. Most Naturals don’t; they do the right things without knowing how or why they do them. When success eludes them and the expected warmth from women is missing, they are left with nothing, no storehouse of knowledge or pride of past successes achieved through self-aware hard work, to pull them up from a dangerous downward spiral into the betatude they never quite understood either.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Fat Women And Fat Men Aren’t Equally Repulsive

Dec 10th, 2012 by

Marriage is more satisfying when the wife is thinner than her husband.

[M]en who had a higher Body Mass Index than their wives (calculated from a person’s height and weight) were a little happier at the outset than those who had the same or a lower BMI. This advantage was maintained throughout the period.

What is more it appears it’s not just the husband who is happier if his wife is thinner.

How heavy the husband was didn’t play a role in happiness at the start of the study for the wives.

However, by the end of year four, the wives whose BMI was lower than that of their husbands were significantly happier than those who had the same BMI, or a higher one.

These finds held true even when other factors such as depression and income level were ruled out.

The researchers from the University of Tennessee speculated that physical attractiveness was a more important quality in a partner to younger men.

This is yet more evidence that physical appearance in a potential mate is less important a criterion for women than it is for men. Fat chicks suffer a graver penalty in the sexual marketplace than do fat men. And slender babes who fulfill the sexual polarity directive — that is, women who are more naturally feminine and relish their roles as such within relationships — are happier than women who look and act more like their men.

Is there anything feminism ISN’T wrong about?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Hungry Hungry Hippos, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Fallacious “War On Women”

Dec 7th, 2012 by

A commenter over at TakiMag left what I think is the most pithy analysis of the “war on women” that I have read anywhere.

There is no “war on women.” There’s a war on MEN.

The so-called “war on women” exists because it is the nature of woman to portray herself as the victim at the very moment when she is in fact the aggressor.

So good.

I propose that the entire cultural apparatus that supports the fake phony fraudulent “war on women”, and the shrieking loudmouths spreading its vile message of lies, are nominated for Rationalization Hamster of the Month.

zoom zoom!

This is also a good post to remind readers of the CH definition of feminism:

A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Feminist Idiocy, Goodbye America, Hamster of the Month Contest, Misandry | Comments Off

Reader Mailbag: Macropenis Edition

Dec 7th, 2012 by

Trimegistus asks:

I’d like to hear your thoughts on why women seem to be more open to situational bisexuality than men — the old joke about “all women are lesbians after six drinks” comes to mind. What advantage does that offer them, either in the evolutionary or sexual marketplace?

I have a religious/intuitive answer to that, and a scientific/rational answer.

Re/I answer: Women are the more physically fetching sex; soft, curvaceous, neotenous, vulnerable. Therefore their touch is desired by other women as well as men, and the disgust reflex that usually accompanies thoughts of same-sex intimacy in both sexes (gays excluded) is subdued in women. The subconscious imperative to protect her eggs clashes with her yearning for physical pleasure, and in many women this can be conveniently resolved by enjoying the closeness of other women, a treat which bypasses the usual assortment of threats that accompany intimacy with new men (pregnancy, rape, abandonment, violence, or, heaven forbid!, insensitivity).

S/Ra answer: Female bisexuality is an in-group adaptation that firms up (heh) social bonds and increases the likelihood that a woman’s children or future children will be able to enjoy the group’s resources.

I’m sure there are plenty of other explanations, so have at it you beautiful star-nosed moles!

******

A reader who shall remain anonymous asked:

I am a 22 year old that experiences success with women in my age bracket/social class (swpl types) partly thanks to your blog which connected the dots for me.

I am presently borderline obsessed with a 30 something tattooed bartender. She’s a prole but relatively intelligent/oozes sex appeal… Basically I must have her.

I can tell she thinks I’m cute but my typical game doesn’t work on her and I don’t think she takes me serious sexually. Also, I only see her when she works, not in social settings.

I understand this type of woman isn’t your cup of tea but I’m obsessed and would love any tips from outsiders.

Not my cup of tea? Minus a few years, I love the uncredentialed but sassy smart drink-slingers with sex appeal. They’re my only weakness.

You have an uphill climb to bed this girl. Women generally don’t like the idea of dating considerably younger men than themselves, and even sexual flings can be off the table if the guy is too much younger, as might be the case with you and your bartender dream girl. If she doesn’t know already, I suggest you lie to her about your age.

Other than taking steps to minimize the age difference, you should game this girl like you would any service worker who was closer to your age. Which means, you have to avoid being seen as her “customer”. That’s the dynamic that will kill your chances to bed her more than anything else. At the same time, you can’t just be some random weekender goofus off the street; you have to become a regular, preferably during the week when she’s got more time to chat.

You square this circle by making yourself more familiar to her but by not buying too much and never overtipping her. Weeknights and weekend afternoons (assuming that’s in her schedule) are going to be your time to shine. On weekend nights, if you go to her bar, be sure to be seen by her in the company of other women. If her bar is a hot spot, this will be easy to do. Just open a nearby set and have some fun. Preselection is king.

I’ll say it again: PRESELECTION IS KING. It doesn’t mean you have to be making out with a hard 10 in front of the bartender. A successfully pinged preselection radar could be as simple as talking to a girl sitting next to you at the bar while Sex Appeal pours beer and watches you out of the corner of her eye.

Next, you really want to get the bartender out of her work zone. The bar is like a force field, or a giant roadblock, effectively rendering you an outsider to her world. You need to extract her from her padded bubble girl bar area. Something to do is befriend a bartender and the staff and join them in the back room after hours for a smoke or airplane shots. It’s much easier to game her then when she’s stripped of her bartender power. Bartending is a huge contextual status boost to men and women, and a girl who has that power will be harder to game. Remember, half of game is creating and projecting a status differential between you and the girl.

Besides the aforementioned after hours option, you should try to get her out on a casual date when you know she will be less harried — drinks at another bar after she’s finished her shift, or afternoon coffee before her shift. The coffee chat before a shift is a good option because she won’t feel the pressure of a “formal” date, since she knows she’s heading to work in a short while anyhow. If my experience is any guide, bartender chicks really hate conventional “expectations” dates. They prefer extremely casual, maximally plausibly deniable, meet ups. Or hook ups, if she’s really into you.

Avoid at all costs hanging around the bar like a needy puppy dog waiting for scraps of attention from your bartender girl. There is nothing more unattractive than for a woman to see you still at the same spot, waiting for her return, after she has gone off to do something useful with her life. If you like your seat and want to stay at the bar, make sure there are other girls in the vicinity with whom you can interact. Otherwise, say a few words to the bartender, and then take off. Meet up with her later in the night.

When you get into long-ish convos with the bartender, don’t talk with her about her job. You’ll only feed her perception of power over you, and that is what is known in the real world as anti-game. You want to minimize the looming presence of the mahogany bar blockade separating you and her as much as possible.

There is a tacit Rule of Bartending (and Stripping): Don’t fraternize with the customers. If you close the deal with her, keep it on the DL. I knew a guy dating a bartender who would be cold as ice to him when he showed up at the bar to say hello. It drove him nuts. I had to explain that she’s doing that to preserve her status within her industry. If he just had some patience and understanding, she would reward him with plenty of ass when they were alone together.

******

A reader wants to know what qualifies as the ideal relationship timeline.

I’ve been curious to know what, in your mind, an ideal LTR timeline would look like, i.e., major events, milestones, when the first fight should be, when to instill dread, etc. That would be an interesting post.

Ideal LTR timeline:

First date – sex.
One month mark – sex.
Six month mark – sex.
One year mark – pretend exclusivity sex.
Two year mark – videotaped sex.
Five year mark — bon voyage sex and a trade-in for the experience of first date sex again.

I kid! I kid!

Or do I?

Here’s a more conventional LTR timeline that I would consider ideal, assuming the unending sex and convenient trade-in option above was not available to you:

Third date – first sex.
Fourth date – first sober sex.
Fifth date – first facial (hers, not yours, unless you are a manboob).
Two week mark – first prompt reply to her text.
Three week mark – first “real” date (e.g., a dinner, a movie, a charity event, a show at the local indie club, a walk through a quaint town).
Three week plus one hour mark – first pang of jealousy when you see her talking to the DJ.
One month mark – first home-cooked meal that you make for her at your place.
Two month mark – first intentional public exposure to her friends.
Three month mark – first intentional public exposure to your friends.
Three and a half month mark – first minor fight.
Three and a half months plus one hour mark – first minor make-up sex.
Four month mark – first major date (possibly requiring significant cash outlay). Examples: a play, a sporting event, a beach trip, a bed and breakfast.
Five month mark – first little romantic gift.
Six month mark – first “I love you”. From her, you poindexter!
Six and a half month mark – first “Right back atcha” to her “I love you”.
Seven month mark – first “I love you, too” from you to her. Don’t say it more than once. Scarcity is the glow of clits.
Eight month mark – first tentative talk of exclusivity not requiring a signed affidavit from you.
Nine month mark – first talk of impending anniversaries and nostalgia for that “first time you met”.
Nine and a half month mark – first anal. Explain that it’s time for her to prove her love more deeply.
Ten month mark – first major fight that ends when you walk out the door to sounds of her muffled cries.
Ten months plus one day mark – first mind-blowing make-up sex. Break a chandelier.
Ten and a half month mark – first bigger romantic gift.
Ten and three-quarters month mark – first application of instilled dread. Call late “from the office”; make sure sounds of laughing girls can be overheard in background.
Eleven month mark – first flirting with the waitress in front of her.
Eleven and a half month mark – first major fight that ends with you and her talking it out on the couch. Prepare for hours of boredom.
One year mark – first serious talk about exclusivity. Getting harder to dodge now.
One year and one month mark – first talk about meeting her parents.
One year and two month mark – second talk about meeting her parents.
One year and two months plus one hour mark – first talk about why she hasn’t met your family.
One year and three month mark – first faked orgasm.
One year and four month mark – first meeting with her family.
One year and five month mark – first major fight that neither of you are all that interested to resolve.
One year and six month mark – first “recapture the glory” fancy date followed by public sex in an alley.
One year and seven month mark – first talk of marriage.
One year and seven months plus one hour mark – first thoughts of suicide or expatriation.
One year and eight month mark – first infidelity (ideally yours, not hers).
One year and nine month mark – first caught cheating.
One year and ten month mark – first serious, imploring talk of threesome (two girls, one guy, unless you are a manboob).
Two year mark – first time you let it slip to the hot co-worker that you have a girlfriend.
Two years and one month mark – proposal! to move in together!
Two years and one month plus one hour mark – prank retraction!
Two years and one month plus one hour and five minutes – frantic consolation that retraction was a joke.
Two years and two month mark – first soul-shaking thought that this might be the last vagina you ever plunder.
Two years and three month mark – marriage! WHAAAAAAATTTT?!?!??! Unmarried cohabitation! That’s more like it.
Two and a half years mark – first secretive make-out with her lonely friend who just got dumped by a fighter pilot.
Three year mark – marriage!
Four year mark – marriage?!? still?!?!
Five year mark – first kid.
Six year mark – first interest in living in the suburbs.
Seven year mark – first time you find this blog.
Seven year and one hour mark – first bottomless pit of regret.
Fifteen year mark – first gray pube. On her. You die a little inside.

******

A reader with 99.9% certainty of troll origins wonders:

i have a big penis. women love it when i pull it out and dangle it in their faces, but it hurts [them] when we have sex. what do i need to do to make it less painful? what should i tell women who are afraid of damage?

I once hit the cervix of a petite asian woman. She squealed from a sudden jolt of pain, and I felt a little bad, although, I felt more pride than guilt. Luckily, there was no damage, and we joked about it afterwards. I would recommend a penis reduction, sir. Just lop off a few inches, like taking the crown off a giant sequoia. You’ll lose all sensation but isn’t that worth the peace of mind you’ll have knowing you are empowering women’s cervixes and sticking it, however feebly, to the patriarchy?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

Spot The Fatty

Dec 6th, 2012 by

Courtesy of a contribution from GLPiggy’s comment section, here’s a photo of an office Christmas party circa 1925. Can you spot the fatties in this picture?

she's in there, squeezed between all the thin women

You’ve gotta strain a bit to find her (second row, seated, in front of tree), because she’s squeezed between a roomful of thin women (and thin men for that matter).

That’s right folks, there is exactly ONE bona fide fatty in this office party from 1925. One.

Now let’s look at the typical American office party circa 2012.

pfffft

Where is everybody? The dark side of the fat chick’s moon?

Most of the women in the 1925 pic are dogs (except that cute one sitting next to the desk in the striped blouse and flirty smile), but at least they’re thin. Can the same be said for the modern American office party? Not if the overweight and obese percentages are any indication. You’re more likely, based on the numbers, to have to navigate around 70% of your female co-workers to get to the 30% who aren’t biodiesel dirigibles.

And people wonder why the (white) fertility rate is dropping like a stone. Would you want to have regular sex with a shambling mound? Stick around to help her raise the fat brat? Didn’t think so.

In the spirit of the holiday season, her’e some dietary advice from the NIH:

fatty is as fatty does

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, Goodbye America, Hungry Hungry Hippos | Comments Off

Evidence That Peacocking Works

Dec 5th, 2012 by

Peacocking — the art of wearing outrageous ensembles and eye-catching baubles — is much-maligned, both within and without the seduction community. Nowadays, when people hear the word “peacocking”, they scoff as their minds race to images of pickup artist Mystery and his gigantic furry hats, eye liner, jumbled bracelets, and Victorian long coats.

sure he looks ridiculous, but are you banging girls this hot?

sure he looks ridiculous, but are you banging girls this hot?

CH is on record as agnostic on the effectiveness of peacocking, at least as the term is conventionally understood. My impression is that there is a high risk that an improperly balanced effort to peacock will more harm than help a man’s pickup cause.

But in point of fact, I do peacock, if not nearly to the extent that pre-fatherhood Mystery did. My clothes won’t make me an automatic focal point at social events, but neither does my style ape the drabness of herbwear. I prefer styling myself with hints and suggestions of a free spirit residing within.

Into the cacophony of ridicule hurled by naysayers at men dressing like fops comes scientific evidence, albeit indirect, that peacocking will make a man more attractive to women.

Recent research has found that people with so-called “dark” personality traits are more physically attractive than others. […]

Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube of Washington University in St. Louis were interested in looking at the relationship between physical attractiveness and people’s tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. They wanted to find out whether these three traits, referred to as the “dark triad,” are associated with a greater ability to successfully enhance one’s physical appearance.

To test this idea, they invited 111 college students (64 percent women) into their laboratory. Each student was photographed soon after they arrived.  Then, after taking this initial photograph, each student asked to change out of their own clothes and put on a pair of gray sweatpants and a t-shirt.  Women were instructed to remove any makeup, and anyone with long hair was asked to pull it back into a ponytail. The students were then photographed in this more natural state. Holtzman and Strube showed both sets of photographs to a group of strangers who rated them in terms of physical attractiveness. By comparing the attractiveness ratings of the dressed-down and dressed-up students, the researchers were able to determine how much each student was able to make themselves more appealing through flashy clothes, makeup, accessories, etc.

Next Holtzman and Strube assessed the students’ personalities and their tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. They asked the students to rate themselves and to provide email addresses for a few of their friends so that the researchers could ask them to provide ratings as well. This combination of self and peer ratings was used to calculate a final set personality scores for each student. Furthermore, the students’ ratings on narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism were combined into create a composite “dark triad” score.

The dark triad score was positively correlated with their “dressed-up” attractiveness – a finding that mirrors previous findings. However, the dark triad score was not related to ratings of physical attractiveness in the dressed-down photos. In other words, people with dark personality traits are not seen as more physically attractive than others when you take away their freedom to wear their own clothes and makeup. People with dark personalities seem to be better at making themselves physically appealing.

The findings reinforce previous research showing that narcissists are more popular than others, literally at first sight.

People who are best at making the most of what they’ve got — a talent which can be accurately described as peacocking when applied to physical presentation — are very attractive to the opposite sex. Take away their ability to peacock, and suddenly they are not so attractive anymore, at least as measured by the pre-interactive appearance they radiate during first impressions. And those people who possess the “dark triad” personality suite are the most skilled peacockers and manipulators of others’ perceptions of them.

Keep a few points in mind about this study.

1. The researchers examined the physical aspect of people with and without dark triad personalities. This study says nothing about the charismatic pull that dark triads have over others beyond their physical appearance; what might otherwise be called dark triad game. Other studies have found that dark triads exert great attractive influence on others based on the strength of their charm and narcissistic self-regard as well.

2. The facial good looks or lack thereof of the study participants were irrelevant to its conclusions. Those dark triad students were the same, as far as facial bone structure is concerned, in both their self-constructed and “natural” photos. So it was not their facial shape that made the difference in people’s opinions of their attractiveness between their peacocked and natural photos. It was how they chose to dress and present themselves that made the difference in perceptions. The “only looks matter” trolls will have to search elsewhere to find a tool to massage their prostates.

3. This study is good news for average-looking men: you can bump up your raw physical attractiveness to women by adopting a more avant-garde style of dress and comporting yourself with the mannerisms of a sociopathic megalomaniac. And my personal observations confirms this: I know a few gnarly-looking men who are catnip to women because they dress like creations from a fantasy novel aimed at women. Even my perception of their objective looks is fooled.

Remember that a man’s “looks” encompasses far more variables than does a woman’s looks. Women get significant boosts to their beauty rating from wearing makeup, an augmentation which directly alters their facial countenance, but men get boosts from an assortment of lifestyle changes, including dress, body language and facial expression. This is because women rate a man’s “appearance” using a more holistic algorithm than that used by men when they are rating a woman’s appearance.

Before any of you haters, trolls, or robotic spergs comment here, I suggest you read this post. If it is clear to me you have not read that linked post, you will be summarily cast into the hellfire of Mount Dork. You’d probably enjoy that, wouldn’t you?

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Fashion, Game, Science Validates Game | Comments Off

The Female Snarl And The Male Smirk

Dec 4th, 2012 by

The female snarl has become a topic of conversation, which is not surprising because American women in general are becoming less feminine and more churlish. When in the past women would gently demur the solicitations of beta and omega males, today they prefer the unrefined art of snarling like a hyena over a fresh kill, the kill being their overworked vaginas. Meanwhile, alpha males witness them snarling ungenerously and think, “Marriage material? Nope. Pump and dump material? Yes!”

don't bother me. i'm pooping a purple saguaro.

don’t bother me. i’m pooping a purple saguaro.

The author of the linked article posits that the frequency with which women snarl correlates to their age and the sexual market threat level of the targets of their disapproval.

A woman arguably snarls between five to twenty times a day. The frequency is directly related to maturity. The more immature, the more the snarl appears. High school, consistently snarling. College, frequently. Twenties, sporadically. Thirties, only when they see a younger woman. There have probably been a couple snarls while reading this.

Ha haa. I’d add that the snarl is increasing among all female age groups, though younger women do use it more profligately, and with good reason: there are more beta males lasciviously eyeing their goods for penile plunder. What’s a hot babe to do? She has to fend them off by the hundreds, and a fat cockblock won’t be there for her every time. So the snarl is unfurled like a banner of bitchiness.

Why do women overuse the snarl to such potent effect? Simple: they don’t get called out on it by their designated targets. Most beta males wilt like flowers in the high noon summer heat when they get blasted with the snarl shockwave. “Oh, sweet fancy moses, excuse me for so presumptuously intruding upon your oxygen supply. I shall slink away now and hope my penis has reemerged from under my pubic bone when I return hope to fap the night away.”

The thing is, the female snarl is exceedingly easy to call out without resorting to butthurt confrontation.

“Nice face.”

“Are you pooping?”

“Sniffing for grubs?”

“You look like my hamster! Wait, don’t stop doing that. It’s great!”

“Finally got a whiff of my sex panther cologne, eh?”

Or, you could answer the female snarl with the male equivalent:

i'm sorry, are you supposed to mean something to me?

i’m sorry, are you supposed to mean something to me?

Ah, the alpha male smirk. As penetrative of women’s self-entitled bitch shields as their snarl is of beta males’ self-confidence. The perfectly timed smirk is the best comeback plus more. It instantly patronizes, condescends and belittles, without so much as revealing an iota of spite or care that might be used by a woman to anchor another bitchy barrage.

A fantastically egregious bitch — let’s say, a chubster wearing too much makeup and muffin top who thinks every man wants her and deserves her worst shit tests — requires a bit more… encouragement… to reform her ill-suited attitude. In such circumstances, the smirk won’t pack the necessary wallop. You’ll need something edgier.

i see you're wearing flip-flops

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, Guy Rules, Inner Beauty, Ridiculousness | Comments Off

Economic Game Theory Support For Male Relationship Coyness

Dec 3rd, 2012 by

A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.

Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.

The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we’re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.

In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn’t and he’s looking for commitment or he’s not. Therefore, he’s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.

game theory game graph

Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There’s no apparent upside to guy D.

That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man’s dating outlook?

  • guy A: he’s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
  • guy B: he is incapable of commitment
  • guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
  • guy D: he’s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I’m not in his league)

Guy B is an interesting case, but I don’t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he’s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can’t get it from guy B. That said, he’s better than desperate guy A.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It’s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don’t chase game.

  • guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don’t chase game
  • guy D: indirect only; don’t chase game only

If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you’ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don’t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.

You can also simulate a “seek no commitment” outlook by treating the woman poorly.

An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.

You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.

If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.

And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.

If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.

If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women’s senses and so fulfilling to women’s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.

Best case scenario for men who can’t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it’s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being “too nice”.

So far, so good. But… I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman’s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to “chase” an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don’t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.

I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Relationships, The Id Monster | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »