Feed on
Posts
Comments

Pope Paul VI On Birth Control Externalities

Dec 2nd, 2012 by

Courtesy of commenter “max from australia”, a juicy quote from a former Pope which accords with Chateau Heartiste analysis of the deleterious blowback from the availability of widespread, cheap contraceptives (of the sort never before experienced by humanity until relatively recently):

Predictions from a wise Celibate bloke in a dress, Pope Paul VI, 1968 Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”)

“Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).

Pope Paul VI was close to the mark, but he forgot to mention the distaff side the equation; specifically, that as cheap contraceptives silently and subtly move men toward devaluing women, so too does the technology move women toward devaluing beta males, those bitter losers in the sexual market (note: I did not say marriage market or child market) for whom contraceptives, coupled with female economic self-sufficiency, have rendered them practically superfluous as primetime sexual partners.

The mass-produced condom and the Pill have freed men from feeling obligation for women as much as they have freed women to regularly and blithely pursue what was historically risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make.

The contraceptive is, in practice, a female hypergamy facilitator.

It’s funny for me to write this, because contraceptives have, in fact, been very very good to me. I did a back of the envelope calculation and figured that my aggregate sex life would have been truncated by 90% if contraceptives were prohibitively expensive, unreliable and hard to get. A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself. I imagine I’d have to *gasp* start promising marriage or some such claptrap to any woman I wanted to bang, just to loosen her up enough to unhook her bra.

I am on record as predicting that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse will be the cultural and technological juggernaut that hastens, if it is not the sole cause of, the death of Western civilization.

Is this revelation, this knowledge, supposed to turn me from my wicked ways? Here I am, standing at the edge of the abyss, pointing into its bowels like a histrionic jester, leading the ignorant and the deluded to peer into the void and imploring them — no, more precisely taunting them — to heed my warning of their desolate future…

and still I cavort insouciantly along its lip, secretly relieved that no one will seriously weigh my prophecies.

Pope Paul VI, apparently, was as far-seeing as I. Yet his vision of the good world, the civilized world — a vision with which I find no quarrel — would, if it were fully realized, necessarily mean a lot less fun for me. And that’s a reality I can’t abide; my own private delusion.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Mixing Signals To Dazzle Women

Nov 30th, 2012 by

Mixing your signals — aka obfuscating your intentions — is a powerful holistic technique to arouse interest in women, the class of beings who strangely desire more that which gives the least interest in satisfying their desires.

The status signals (and, really, are there any other kind of signals that matter in the least bit when a man is interacting with a woman?) that men display can be broadly categorized into body language and verbal communication.

Body language comprises a host of nonverbal mannerisms and displays, from the way a man walks, to his dress, his facial expressions, to how he moves his limbs, and even to how he stands or holds a glass. Verbal communication is the words that come out of a man’s mouth, and the way in which he says them, in hopes of creating a desirous spark in an attractive woman.

Most men focus on the words they say, because the impact of a man’s body language on women’s senses is both poorly understood and intangible relative to the impact that he thinks his words carry. Body language is therefore relegated to acting in concert with subconscious feelings of self-worth; for this reason, body language can be a man’s worst enemy if he is unaware how his mannerisms betray his hidden emotional state.

Verbal communication is thus overrated and body language underrated by men. The upshot to this formula is that men can chill a bit on the pressure to say the right thing, if they work to adjust their body language so that it does most of the talking for them.

Mixing signals is the art of telling/showing a woman one thing, while showing/telling her another. There are four permutations of body language and speech that are possible when approaching women, only two of which involve mixed signals.

1. Direct Body Language (DBL) + Direct Verbal Communication (DVC)

You make a bold statement of intention with both your body motions and your words. Example:

Walking slowly toward a woman, holding eye contact the whole way, stopping in front of her, pausing for effect, and with a low, deliberate tone of voice, saying, “I’d regret it forever if I didn’t come over and see if you are the type of woman I want to get to know better.”

2. Indirect Body Language (IBL) + Indirect Verbal Communication (IVC)

You engage a girl with a seemingly innocuous statement about some peculiarity in your shared environment, and comport yourself like you have another place to be and she just happens to be there to listen to you. Example:

Looking over your shoulder at the girl, turning your body to partially face her, one foot pointed in another direction, rocking back on your heels as you speak, glancing once or twice at some faraway object, and with a neutral tone of voice, saying “If the bookstore weren’t so full of poseurs, we might have a chance to get a book within the next hour.”

3. DBL + IVC

You make a bold statement of romantic intention with your body and facial expressions, while speaking neutrally so as to suggest you are not interested in hitting on her. Example:

Directly facing the woman, positioning yourself so that eye contact is unavoidable and escape is limited, occupying her personal space, you ask in an unthreatening, bland tone of voice, after a mood-heightening silent pause, if she can direct you to the nearest toy shop so you can buy a gift for your niece.

4. IBL + DVC

You verbally communicate your romantic interest while your body language bespeaks disinterest. Example:

Body rocking, feet positioned as if you are about to walk off, approaching at an angle with shoulders turned halfway outward, eyes surveying your environment, you open her directly with a strong sexual vibe that belies your mannerisms.

Which of these styles of interaction is best? That’s hard to say, because the style that works best depends in some measure on the skill of the womanizer. A sexually needy man who experiences bouts of nerves when cute girls are near stands a good chance of being perceived as incongruent in his words and behavior if he tries to directly open a girl while comporting himself as if he’s too cool for school. Similarly, an experienced player with rock solid confident body language who masks his intentions under a flurry of misdirecting banalities may strike a girl as a coward who is too skittish to say what’s on his mind.

However, this contextual problem aside, I believe a useful generalization about the effectiveness of the different approach styles can be made.

Eric Disco comments:

This is essentially what most guys do when they attempt to be indirect, they are indirect with their words (“How do you get to Starbucks?”) but then they are very direct with their body language–mainly eye contact and body orientation. They face her and give her lots of eye contact, looking at her continuously, as if they’ve just spotted a rare bird. From my experience, instead of combining the best of both worlds, this combines the worst.

When you’re direct, it shows balls. The drawback is that you are betraying a lot of interest, which lowers your value and makes you seem like less of a challenge. When you combine an indirect verbal opener with direct body language, you betray interest but don’t show any balls at all.

Once you’re in the interaction with her, you can start to show more interest physically, once she’s earned it. You can be more sexual with your eye contact, etc. But if you’re going to open indirect, then be indirect. Don’t betray too much interest. Act like she just happened to be there and so you said something to her. If you’re going to walk across a room/park just to talk to her, then show some balls. Go direct.

Eric is onto something. The DBL + IVC style is probably the riskiest strategy for the average man to pull off. It’s too easy to come across like a suave dude who can’t go the extra distance and just ask the girl out. I bet a lot of you good-looking guys who read this blog have this problem.

Any kind of situation which necessarily calls for a direct approach — say, walking across a park or large room in full view of your target so that she is under no illusion why you are moving in on her — would benefit from a direct style verbal opener. You can still go indirect in these circumstances, but you had better be a master at manipulating women’s expectations so that your value remains at a constant high level compared to them.

Men new to the stealthy art of seduction are best served learning pickup by employing the IBL + IVC style. This is, in fact, what most pickup artists teach their acolytes. The typical woman prefers the indirect approach from the typical man, and the inexperienced man is not going to possess the degree of self-amused state control that is required to successfully pull off direct approaches. The newb will need gradual indicators of interest from women to build up his confidence levels to a point where he is comfortable risking more on direct openers and interactions of powerful sexual intention.

Then, too, the newb can get a better grasp of gauging a woman’s “buying temperature” by adjusting his body language from indirect to direct and back to indirect, as opposed to the more difficult route of direct to indirect back to direct. It’s easier to maintain plausible deniability with the former than with the latter.

So, I’d say IBL + IVC is optimal for younger men and less experienced men. This is not a mixed signal strategy at the outset, but it can be farther along in the process when it is simpler to incorporate different verbal and nonverbal tactics.

Where it gets interesting is the IBL + DVC strategy. This can potentially be the most powerful approach technique wielded in the right hands. Such a man is perceived as having the conviction of his words, but simultaneously sending barely perceptible signals that his interest level is waning, or that he’s hard to keep engaged. Naturals tend to this style, and the classic archetype is the devil-may-care badboy who speaks of lustful things to a girl while his eyes wander around the room scanning for fresh meat.

Generally, though, mixing signals is a technique best left for experts. The risk of mood-killing incongruence is very high, and I’ve seen far too many enthusiastic men muck it up when they couldn’t sufficiently manage the inherent discrepancy between their words and their mannerisms.

YaReally makes the inarguable point that, once a certain level of inner confidence is achieved, it doesn’t really matter what kind of approach style a man uses.

The PUA community used to think you needed solid indirect openers to open. Then we found out you could go direct. […]

Now we understand that you can open with anything, as long as what you open with comes from a place of self-amusement and congruency.

When you think “How should I open this girl?” you’re essentially thinking “What can I say/do to earn this girl’s validation?” and you’re already coming from a frame of having lower value than her.

When you think “What I’m saying is gold, of course she’ll love me, I’m so awesome!” you’re essentially screening her for “Is she cool enough for me to let her hang with me?” and you’re coming from a frame of having higher value than her.

Girls generally pick up on this subconsciously, because they’ve spent their lives having to learn to quickly assess “is this person being genuine/honest with me or are they trying to get something from me?”

A lot of why “Who lies more?” worked so well was because the guys learning it felt like they found the secret invincible formula, so when they approached with it they were approaching from that “This is going to blow her mind, of course she’s going to love me” frame.

Direct worked because the guys who tried it were sick of going indirect and beating around the bush and wanted to just get their intentions out in the open so they were just saying “HEY. You’re cute, I’d kick myself if I didn’t come say hi.” and expecting it to work, so it did.

Some of you may be asking, “Doesn’t YaReally’s advice contradict the study you just posted about how indirect, innocuous openers are best?”

Good question! Superficially, yes. But you’ve got to understand that most of the men involved in these studies have no game, have never heard of game, and likely wouldn’t understand the concept of congruence if you whacked them over the head with it. These studies examine the responses of women to the behavior of the *average, no-game-having* man, and in that context, indirect is best. Since that context is most contexts, it is good advice to follow for most men. Men who have been exposed to a new way of thinking about women and seduction are better equipped to pursue different approach strategies that streamline the process and maximize their lay rates.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Indirect Vs Direct Vs Clever Openers: Which Is Best?

Nov 29th, 2012 by

A reader sent along a link to a study which attempted to clarify which kinds of approach “openers” (pickup lines or greetings) worked best on women. The science, while far from conclusive (results were based on women’s self-reported preferences, so usual caveats apply), is finally having a say in this eternal debate between direct and indirect game advocates. Funny enough, the actual study was done in the ’80s. A lot of great, illuminating stuff about human nature gets forgotten, especially when the zeitgeist is so suffocatingly PC.

Women prefer innocuous opening lines vs direct or clever lines.

Men prefer women to be direct.

Via Scott Barry Kaufman:

In the ’80s, Chris Kleinke and colleagues analyzed the effectiveness of 100  pick-up lines across a number of different settings, including bars, supermarkets, restaurants, laundromats, and beaches. They found three main categories of openers: direct gambits, which are honest and get right to the point (e.g, “I’m sort of shy, but I’d like to get to know you“), innocuous gambits, which hide a person’s true intentions (“e.g., “What do you think of this band?“), and cute/flippant gambits, which involve humor, but often in a cheesy, canned way (e.g., ”Do you have any raisins? No? Well then, how about a date?“.)* 

Both men and women agreed that cute/flippant pick-up lines were the least attractive. Women, however, preferred innocuous lines and had a greater aversion to cute/flippant lines than men, while men had a greater preference for direct opening gambits than women. This basic pattern has been found over and over again in a variety of settings, including singles bars .

Eric Barker, the guy who runs that fantastic repository of helpful science, notes that mentally tired people are less receptive to clever pickup lines. If you’re churning through garbage hour and hitting on tired girls, keep it simple. A brief comment about something in your shared environment is all it will take.

So cute (aka douchebag) lines are the worst. No surprise there. Those kinds of lines are spit more for the entertainment of a guy’s buddies watching nearby than they are for the purpose of attracting a girl.

Clever lines you aspiring William F. Buckleys might be tempted to use are wasted on tired girls, and likely on any girl with an IQ under 120, which is most of them.

Direct openers aren’t as bad as cutesy openers, but girls still prefer the indirect strategy from men.

The abiding truth that game practitioners keep coming back to (and that science often confirms) is that girls don’t want the nuts and bolts of their seduction revealed to them; they want men to just *know* what they like and give them the *feelings* of being successfully seduced, and that means men must maintain plausible deniability about their sexual intentions, even if feminists shriek that such a mating strategy amounts to “manipulation”.

[Editor: Chicks dig being manipulated!]

Direct openers may work in some niche situations, and on certain types of women, but for most women the direct approach robs them of that feeling they love of being swept up in a romantic moment that ostensibly began as a “ships passing in the night(club)” fortuitous, random meeting.

Or it could simply be that direct openers automatically and instantaneously, by transparently communicating a man’s desire, lower his value vis-á-vis the girl he is hitting on, because she knows exactly how much he values her, and this knowledge gives her all the hand in the interaction. And girls don’t really crave the having of hand in budding romantic situations, despite their claims to the contrary. If the nature of woman is to love the thrill of winning over and eventually surrendering to an aloof, dominant man, then it makes sense they would prefer their seductions are blurred with a gauzy filter of mystery, ambiguity and uncertainty.

This study would seem to validate the efficacy of Roosh’s “elderly opener” tactic, but as the CH reader averred, direct openers should be part of your arsenal even if they aren’t the most broadly effective, because there will be times when indirect openers are ridiculous and self-defeating.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Science Validates Game | Comments Off

Feminist Fallacy #3: “I use men for sex”

Nov 28th, 2012 by

Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses. Nine times out of ten, it’s the jerk who doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with the smitten dear who then tells herself afterward she was just using him for sex to comfort her bruised ego.

Need proof? Normally, I’d say, just get out of your fetid basement hovel and join the real world for a week or two, but this time I feel the spirit of science move me, so here ya go:

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

The jerks chicks dig for sex are also loved as relationship material. The bottleneck preventing women from fulfilling their desire for LTRs with assholes is not women’s long-term preference for niceguys, but the assholes’ preference for short term flings.

So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Girls Asking Generalissimo Heartiste To Rate Their Looks

Nov 28th, 2012 by

This commune of cosseted corporeal delights gets its fair share of female readers emailing the proprietors with requests (nay, more like demands) to rank them on a 1 to 10 beauty scale. Photos are included, along with promises that all info will be kept private (naturally). The proprietors abide the second request, but rarely the first, because it is quite obvious that what these women seek they already know, and are simply fishing for a little of the ol’ ultrastroking of their egos by the lead pack animal with fur of woven gold and claws stained with mortal triumph.

A recent example of the genre appeared in the Inbox of Consummation, and, as is usual in these cases, the woman in the photo is quite fetching, a solid 8. She too, asked for privacy, so I will not reveal any details here, except to say she is younger than lawyercunt age and was eager to leverage her looks for a family and babies before it was too late, evidencing a feeling of deadly urgency not often observed in women so young which she acquired, so she says, through reading this blog. She valued the opinion of the Rectory’s Grandmaster, and wished to know if a “lesser alpha” was within her purview.

Yes, you slinky pantherette, you can get a lesser alpha if you put your heart to it.

The overwhelming majority of these “rank me” emails feature women sitting comfortably above the 7 and above looks rating. I can only remember two who were otherwise; one girl was a 6 and the other was frolicking dangerously close to the soul-burning fires of a 4 or 5 rating. A lopsided number of them are 8s and higher.

Why would only good-looking women email for reassurances of their good looks? If women were really oblivious to their sexual market values, you’d expect to see a more even distribution from women at all points of the looks scale searching for unbiased third party opinions.

The premise is, of course, all wrong. Women are VERY AWARE of their SMVs, both absolute and relative, and that is why ugly women rarely ask for opinions on their looks: even the nicest niceboi would be hard-pressed to sufficiently conceal his discomfort at having to gently fib to a mastodon that she really looks like a Venus. And women are quite skilled at picking up subtexts and subcommunications and subsubmeanings within submeanings telegraphed through body language and quivering supplicating voice.

The same reason fugs avoid tempting the sizzling light of judgment is the reason hot babes welcome it: the latter love reminding themselves how hot they are by provoking reactions from men (betas) eager to feed their womanly need. Unless you are running an online presence and don’t go out of your way to meet such women IRL, you’d best follow the hallowed prescription to avoid giving attractive women the ego boosts they crave if you don’t want to be chucked into the boring manboob discount bin.

The other interesting angle to all this is the question of why, when the world is full of men with nearly universal tastes in women, do some hot women feel compelled to coax unnecessary flattery from an ASCII ghost? The answer to that, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, The Pleasure Principle, Vanity | Comments Off

Being The Right Kind Of Asshole

Nov 27th, 2012 by

Occasionally, an oh-so-sincere skeptical reader will insist that being the jerk women love doesn’t work, because he/she/it saw some guy calling a girl a bitch once, and that guy didn’t get laid.

The height of counter-argument prowess!

As this blogasmic beacon of bounteous love has written before, there is a critical distinction between being a “caring asshole” that signals to women you are desperate for their vaginas, and being an aloof “uncaring asshole” that signals to women you could do without their vaginas, which ironically makes their vaginas feel strong love.

(I will leave aside for another post examination of putative examples to the contrary, such as those supreme assholes like Chris Brown and Mexican drug lords who, full of care, beat their women to pulps yet still enjoy the undying love of their attractive targets of affliction.)

If you are having trouble dissecting the meaning of being an uncaring asshole, think upon the personality quirks that define a man who has inherited (or honed) the suite of Dark Triad traits. He is closest to the manifestation of the ideal uncaring asshole.

Reader Ripp writes:

“The Dark Triad are the component parts of the one overarching attitude that most defines and forges the successful womanizer: overconfidence.”

Agreed, academically. To qualify overconfidence:

The art of exhibiting these qualities is commonly misrepresented by being a deliberate asshole; a ‘caring asshole’. Irrational overconfidence, or ‘cockyness’, doesn’t hit the mark.

Calculated arrogance, effectively demonstrated pre-selection, a refined non-reactive attitude to shit testing and a mysterious self-serving aloofness comprises the “attitude” described above.

Uncalibrated “overconfidence” is try hard. Yielding true overconfidence at the correct moments hits the mark:

“Listen. I don’t know you…and you need to understand. I’m one charming mother fucker.”

This reader has a point. If you have to shout your overconfidence from the rooftops, you have shown the exact opposite: a lack of self-confidence.

But most Dark Triad Dudes are irrationally overconfident, if by irrational we mean that there is very little objective evidence that would buttress a case for their degree of self-regard. The reason they do well with women is because women don’t subconsciously care as much for objective measures verifying a man’s overconfidence as they care for the overconfident attitude itself. And, remember, when we’re talking about sparking vaginal tingles, it’s a woman’s subconscious you want to massage, not her conscious awareness. The subconscious is orders of magnitude more powerful than the conscious, in which the latter pretty much acts as a highly advanced rationalization machine permitting expression of the desires of the subconscious.

Again… it’s the ALPHA ATTITUDE chicks dig. You have the attitude, and you can pretty much roll with any undersized or overstuffed portfolio of objective accomplishments. If you don’t have the attitude, you will be dismayed to find that your curriculum vitae is not helping you get laid as much as the numbers you crunched told you it would help.

Naturally, it’s better to have both aligned — you’ll find it easier to maintain congruence if your objective status matches your signaling status — but if you had to choose one, choose signaling status. It’s way simpler to achieve, and more fun to apply!

I’ll give you a quick glimpse at a minute in the life of a caring asshole, so that you can better appreciate why he fails with women while his equal but different douchehead cousin cleans up with the ladies.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares too much: “Well, fuck you, nobody asked for it.”

Girl: “You just did.”

Asshole who cares too much: “I was kidding. I would never go out with a bitch like you.”

There’s no denying this guy is an asshole, and there’s no denying he would be a miserable failure with women (although, it has to be said, he’d still do better than the typical mincing betabot). So where did his assholery go wrong? For that, we need to contrast him with his uncaring asshole bro.

Girl: “I don’t give my number to guys I just met.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “My heart will go on.”

Girl: “Well, you did seem like you wanted it.”

Asshole who cares thiiiiiiis much: “That was before I got distracted by your sister.”

In every technical aspect, and according to every feminist by-law, this guy would qualify as an asshole. And, yet, there’s just something about him….

wait… phew… I channeled some woman’s hamster there for a minute. Strange experience.

The second guy knows about charm and delivery, and executes with purpose. That purpose being, to reflect, “Goddamn, I am a sexy beast. A stylish sniper of love. Excuse me whilst I make 1080p love to myself.”

He is as far from your typical niceguy as he is from your hothead asshole above who calls women bitches at the drop of a hat. But an asshole he is, and the right kind of asshole, the kind that women, the world over, will always and forevermore fall head over haunches for despite their squid-inking claims to the contrary.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Guy Rules | Comments Off

Why Apple Owns Hearts (If Not Minds)

Nov 26th, 2012 by

Half Sigma has a post up profiling buyers of Apple and Android (concluding that most Android buyers are more frugal than Apple buyers.)

Android buyers may be more frugal, but it’s not because they have less money to spend than Apple buyers. The reason Apple is the elite/SWPL/hipster smartphone and tablet and laptop of choice has to do with the preferences of women. As a commenter over there wrote:

“Maybe iphones appeal to women shoppers, but the sophisticated users I know prefer the Galaxy S III or the Nexus 4.”

Apple vs Android is less about SWPL vs prole than it is about women vs men.

Firstly, proles aren’t Android customers. Most proles don’t have service plans and are still using dumb phones. Android customers are well-paid STEM men, typically younger, and often married with small kids. They are the type of men who are out of the dating market, either through marriage or nerdery. They love tinkering with gadgets and discovering multi-use purposes for them. They are numbers people, and have a natural aversion to spending more for something than what it is worth according to dry calculations they make in their heads. In other words, the core Android base are left brain thinkers who better appreciate value and function and are autistic to the appeal of pretty packaging, ergonomics and intuitive GUIs.

Devoted Apple customers are single women and the men who hang around a lot of women, like salesmen, players, scenesters, and marketers. Apple customers also include older buyers who are intimidated by rumors of non-Apple products being harder to navigate. In other words, the core Apple base are right brain thinkers who better appreciate form and are scared of advanced techie functionality (or more precisely, techie functionality that is not sufficiently concealed under a soothing layer of bubbly icons).

Apple enjoys lavish profitability because women are the primary purchasers in any modern, slowly decaying Western society. Since form has higher status than function in such late-stage societies, and since women are the drivers of trivial status whoring competitions, Apple — which, justifiably, represents the ultimate in high status tech aesthetic — owns women’s sympathies. And from this, Apple owns a significant chunk of men and their dollars.

Posted in Culture, Fashion, Status Is King | Comments Off

Stealing Bait From Women Fishing For Compliments

Nov 26th, 2012 by

Fishing for compliments is mostly a woman thing. ON AVERAGE, of course, ON AVERAGE. Men rarely engage in the activity; even very insecure men are loathe to fish for compliments. It’s such a transparently unmanly endeavor that the noodliest manboobs wince at the thought of begging like a chick for self-esteem boosts.

The kinds of women who make it obvious that they are fishing for compliments generally fall in three main camps:

1. Hot babes who live and die by continual positive feedback on either their beauty (from aloof men they like) or their personality/smarts (from women and men who only recognize them for their beauty.)

2. Aging beauties who need reassurances in the face of their impending expiration.

3. Women in relationships who are feeling anxiety that their men are losing interest in them.

There are plenty of other types, but these three predominate. A once-hot woman nearing 35, in an unmarried relationship with an alpha male with options who checks out other women all the time, is the equivalent of fishing for sharks in a backyard pool with chunks of seal flesh as bait. She is a fisher of flattery.

Knowing this, you can capitalize on this natural womanly compulsion for your own benefit. (You can also make yourself less attractive.)

The beta male spies a woman fishing for a compliment, and he frantically chomps down, happily letting himself be reeled into the boat. She catches him, sees what a runty specimen he is, and uses him as bait to catch bigger fish. The beta male feels the hook dig deep into his side and wonders why he is suffering such torment for giving the fisher of flattery what she wanted.

The alpha male spies a woman fishing for flattery, and he circles the bait, taking small nibbles from it without ever biting down on the hook. She tries to reel him in, but he is elusive. She now wants this fish so badly she dumps the whole bucket of beta fish chum in the water hoping to lure him closer to the boat where she can net him. But he is slippery, and toys with her by gleefully breaching the water just out of her reach.

You, the reader, would like to know how to nibble at a woman fishing for compliments that does not result in your demise or her abandoning the water to fish another day. There is no one way to successfully dance with a woman seeking approval via utilization of a plump, poisoned enticement, but there are easily-remembered short cuts. One which has worked for me over the years is a simple one-word response:

“Sure.”

As in:

Woman Being Womanly: “Don’t you think this skirt is a cute look on me?”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Woman Being Womanly: “I bet I could make you forget about her.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Womanly Being Womanly: “I’m the best you’ll ever get.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

The key here is the tone of your voice; neither sarcastic nor earnest. You want that “sure” to sound closer to an ambiguously sincere reflection bordering on a taunt, slightly higher pitched, and girded with a hint of joviality.

You want her wondering what it is you’re thinking. She has dropped bait, and she’s not quite sure you’re on the hook. But neither is she sure you’ve raced away from her hook.

This works because women love two characteristics about men: unpredictability and ambiguity. The woman who can’t readily predict or decipher your reaction, or the meaning of your words, is the woman who will make her desire more predictable and less ambiguous to you. She does not want your hostility or your sycophancy, both of which are as predictable as sunrises. She wants your mystery.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

What A Future American Right Party Can Do To Win

Nov 23rd, 2012 by

Dissolve the Republicans. They are worse than useless; their “me-too”ism knee-jerk quickness to dance to the Left’s funeral dirge composed on their behalf is leading them right into a hole in the ground. A future party of the right is going to have to fight a different fight — one that cuts out the beating heart of leftoidism itself and squeezes it to a mash: the propagandizers.

Commenter Porter at Mangans’s explains how to defund (and defang) the Left’s army of indoctrinators:

Dissolve their barbell on both ends. Both the very rich and their client-class eaters skew heavily democrat. A cunning Republican (I mean this, of course, hypothetically) would very publicly offer a grand bargain that bargains only him: Punitive, confiscatory, outrageous taxation on incomes over whatever figure, combined with meaningful cuts across the welfare spectrum, including elimination of the earned income tax credit. I’ll offer cuts to your constituents in exchange for higher taxes on your sponsors. It’s simply fiscal prudence with a little extra help from the wealthiest Americans.

Free the Cable Guy. Push legislation that unbundles cable packages and offers choice to the public in what channels they wish to pay for and receive. This would end the involuntary subsidies from cable customers to the left’s fringe media projects. Let each channel be subject to market demand…and let MSNBC drown.

And this isn’t as much a rep/dem issue as it is one of stanching the bloodflow to a tick…401k retirement accounts represent a torrent of tribute to Wall Street. End it. The left loves the Community Reinvestment Act. Give them more community reinvestment. Require 401 monies to be managed by institutions local to the business or employee. Much of this would flow into CDs at smaller regional banks where subsequent lending activity would occur. Wealth remains local and decentralized while Goldman bonuses are slashed to seven figures. There are no losers.

This is the way to seriously harm, if not kill, the mind virus that is the modern Left. Forget following the oh-so-sincerely-helpful advice from Democrat quarters that fielding minority candidates and assuaging women with feelgood pablum about free birth control and dropping opposition to electorate-altering amnesty is the way to success for Republicans. Would you take advice from the executioner on how tightly to knot the rope fitted around your neck?

Yes, Republicans could be more successful if they became more like Democrats (and even that is debatable, for what good is gimmedat lite compared to the real redistribution?). But then where is the Right except existing as a dangly, vestigial Kuato providing comic relief for the behemoth Left? What is the point of having an opposing party if its success rides upon how well it can mimic its ostensible ideological enemies?

No, ignore the plaintive wails for reforming the “right”. Hit the enemy where it’ll hurt them the most, even hurt them lethally. Suck dry the money spigot that breathes dark life into the Propagandizers and Indoctrinators. Do this, “””Republicans”””, and sit back in joy as the wails of the Left echo like a cacophony of squealing pigs being buried alive in your ears.

Of course, the reps of the mainstream right won’t do this. Many of them don’t really want to win; it would interfere with their cocktail glass clinking time. And, oh god!, don’t raise taxes one iota on those über rich Democrat non-patrons! But if by some miracle the right found its balls, if the spirit of Khan suddenly moved them to action, the above recipe to regain some serious power will work… at least enough to staunch the enveloping, suffocating demographic tide for a decade or two.

And then it’s GAME OVER MAN. GAME OOOOOVER.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Escape, Goodbye America, Hope and Change | Comments Off

The Predictable Call To Accept The Wages Of Slut

Nov 22nd, 2012 by

Way back, Chateau Heartiste wrote in regards the spreading (heh) sluttification of America:

Single moms like to talk about how they do things on their own, and they “don’t need a man”. But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company’s products or in lowered salaries for its employees. It is private welfare, but welfare just the same. Now companies can choose to offer this to their heart’s content; after all, no one is forcing me to buy their products or work there and thus subsidize the lifestyles of a bunch of single moms and harried working moms. But my advice to men who want to maximize their earning potential — work for companies that don’t offer generous payoffs in an effort to recruit working moms. It is likely you will command a higher salary with more patriarchal companies. […]

When financially self-sufficient women turn away from beta providers as a source of sexual arousal, they substitute other alpha male qualities in its place. Big government is a beta provider substitute with alpha male qualities.

Fast forward to today: GLPiggy has a post up quoting a young, newly minted feminist who wishes to strip single momhood of its social stigma.

Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.

What the show doesn’t get to is that this is a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family. The potential diffusion of the family (as the New York Times recently reported, it doesn’t look like the trends will stop anytime soon) is one of the most exciting things to happen to the American social pattern since sexual liberation. It means the end of what were just decades ago universal truths: every household must be headed by a breadwinning man; only when married will a woman have social value.

I invite readers to draw the relevant connections between these two excerpts.

Meanwhile, I suggest aspiring single moms who wish to truly Go Their Own Way (SGTOW?) practice what they preach and divest themselves of all male support, in whatever form. That means: no redistribution from unrelated men to single moms, no corporate welfare in the form of maternity leave or flex time or special insurance policy discounts, no government handouts predicated on number of children, no shamelessness exacerbating EBT cards, no punitive alimony or child support payouts, no affirmative action for the children of single moms. In short, no sexless drone provider beta male largesse to save single moms from a self-inflicted life of indigent misery.

If this were to happen, and feminists were taken at their word and bequeathed a world in which all male influence was excised from their lives and they were left to fend for themselves and their bastard spawn, empowered and self-actualized, the resulting river of blood and the symphony of children’s cries reverberating through hell’s heart itself would quickly, very quickly I predict, disabuse feminist cunts of the luxury of their man and father hatred. Lie-exalting ruling class sophistry would blow away effortlessly like hay in a hurricane.

But of course feminists don’t really want men removed from their lives; they love having de facto castrated beta males foot their bills, and the bills of their unholy unclaimed consolidated stem cell packages. A massive transfer of wealth from quasi-cuckolded beta males to feckless females is the *whole point*, the UR PURPOSE, of feminism. It is giving women what they want — money and support — to do as they please, without asking of them anything in return (typically, sex and fidelity).

In the distant future, when archaeologists (or aliens who are rummaging through the wreckage of their terraforming experiment) stumble upon a lone monolithic server storing the collected wisdom of this blog, the group of excavators will hook it up, read the ancient scrolls, and stare in quiet at their feet as a depressing realization sweeps over their collective consciousness:

“someone knew. someone saw it coming.”

And from the origin point of the universe, a great guffaw will issue, and galaxies will rattle as the mightiest HAA HAWW ever to grace the cosmic firmament blasts forth from its waiting slumber.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Goodbye America, Self-aggrandizement, Sluts, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »