Feed on
Posts
Comments

Judging Sluts

Nov 9th, 2012 by

The Man Who Was… comments:

It’s hard for men to hold two contradictory attitudes towards sluttiness at once, so PUA advice to just be non-judgmental is better if your only goal is getting laid.

Some readers are under the mistaken impression that my posts about slutty women and the deleterious effects they have on society and marital/LTR stability must mean that I conduct my dating life with a stern judgmental attitude toward women and with the goal of flushing out sluts from my pool of prospects.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I will conceal my true feelings when concealing them is personally advantageous. No way no how am I getting the play I do if I decide to accost every girl I date for a spreadsheet of her sexual history. Real life doesn’t work that way. I want to disable women’s anti-slut defenses, not power them up. I don’t know about you, but when I date, my idea of a successful close is the opposite of the girl clamping her legs shut.

Now, if I am in the market for a long-term girlfriend, I will, post haste, covertly judge my dates for their sexual modesty, and screen out those women who strike me as being world class cock consumers. This, too, is to my personal advantage, for the chronic slut is a potential cheating risk, not to mention a barrel of drama queen laughs that gets tiresome sooner rather than later.

Commenter YaReally is correct to say that adopting a pose of non-judgmentalism as regards women’s sexuality is practically a sine qua non for womanizers. I have yet to meet an experienced player who harshly condemned women (to their faces) for any perceived sluttery. And, let’s face it, when you’re an unmarried guy just looking for a piece of tail, you’re more apt to light up with happy anticipation than power down with clucking disapproval when you learn that the girl you are talking to is handicapped in the sexual self-control department.

“She’s good to go!” isn’t a male rallying cry for nothing.

All that said, I find it off-putting when players try to spin certain obviously self-serving game strategies into self-righteous moral crusades. Some famous PUAs are particularly susceptible to this (cough Neil Strauss cough). Encouraging women to be comfortable with expressing, and surrendering, their sexuality as part of a designed pickup strategy is not equivalent to some grandiose philosophy about the life-giving blessings that sluts bring to the cosmic symphony. Sluts are, in fact, anti-civilization; so if you like being surrounded by the good things in life, and living in a prosperous nation, you would not want too many women to embrace the cock-hopping credo.

Which brings me to the crux of this post. A campaign to relieve women of their sexual coyness and take up the slut banner would, given enough converts, actually work against the goals of players. You see, the sexual non-judgmentalism player pose only works when there is a dominant social current that encourages the opposite. The “secret society” and “you and me against the world, baby” subliminal connection that bonds a woman to the player and tempts her to unleash the loin needs an over-arching force to push against, or it withers from its own growing conventionality and dullness. There is no giddy feeling of taboo breaking when every other girl is happy to give it up for pennies to the dollar, and every other man is spouting the same tired non-judgmentalism schtick.

So, paradoxically, players ought to pray that the greater society keeps their lasses on a leash, else they might see their prey decide that laying down with lions is not as much fun as it used to be.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Self-aggrandizement, Sluts | Comments Off

What Is The Point Of Telling Ugly Truths?

Nov 9th, 2012 by

The subject of this post is the new plaintive wail you lately hear spilling from the schoolmarmish pursed lips of liberals and status quo-ers who are suddenly becoming very uncomfortable with the torrent of discomfiting truths penetrating the airwaves, and especially with the truthbomb throwers like the proprietors of this blog who actually sport a working sack and don’t give a flying fuck what offense the perpetually fake phony fraudulent grievance constituency takes when their cocktail party discourse is crashed by mischievous pricks.

“What is the point of telling ugly truths? Don’t you know it will hurt people? What good can come from it?”

The value of truth is self-evident. The pursuit of it needs no explanation. The fact that a growing chorus of institutional(ized) ruling elite is starting to think that some truths are best left locked in an attic chest bodes ill for the future of freedom of speech in America. I predict within ten years legislatures and courts across this land will impose restrictions on the First Amendment. And the Founding Fathers, having already rolled a million times in their graves, will roll one last time, and the earth will swallow whole the America we once knew, but which will be no more.

You think I’m joking, or that I’m posing in martyr garb. Ok, think that. Then get back to me in ten years, and we’ll see if you still have the confidence of your snarky smirk.

But I am in a magnanimous mood. Some ask the question from genuine motives. They sincerely don’t, or can’t, see the value in exposing pretty lies and ugly truths. And they want to know, “Where’s the Benefit?” One such topic of discussion which often elicits this bristled reaction is honest discussion about average human population groups differences (along numerous metrics). I understand the urge to silence, or cavalierly dismiss, open discussion of this topic. The human ego is the most powerful force in the universe, more powerful even than the female tingle. We are constructed of origin material that impels us to wrap our senses of self-worth in the neuronal equivalent of three foot steel-reinforced concrete bunkers, and to associate, no matter how unjustifiably, attacks against our tribe as judgments on ourselves.

I get it.

And… you know what? I don’t care.

Not anymore.

Not when the opposite of the truth — the filthy, acrid lies we here have been choking on for fifty years or more in this country — has been, and continues to be, used as a cudgel to bludgeon the skulls of the favored whipping boys and to take a huge steaming dump on reality.

It is an affront to my lying eyes. It is Orwellian in philosophy and practice. It is a humiliation, a personal slap in the face, to parade this stinking carcass of bullshit in front of me as if it is the Word of God and I should swallow it whole, for my own good you see.

I say fuck you to all of that. And I dream of the day when the rope will be knotted and the lampposts freshly lacquered for the vengeance upon my enemies, my betrayers, that is so sweet. So sweet.

Ahem.. oh yeah where was I… just had a caffeine moment… phew.

Anyhow, some persons of what I judge to have good hearts, ask if any good can come from discussing AICH BEE DEE. They ask what, if anything, would change if the ugliest truths were accepted by the ruling class? What is the practical benefit of hurting some people’s feelings? The reader Thursday emailed what I think is a very good reply to this question, and so I reprint it here:

Some practical applications of HBD:

1. Immigration restriction.  You need a certain number of high IQ people to keep a First World society going.
2. An end to affirmative action.  Minority underperformance is not due to racism, so affirmative action is grossly unfair.
3. Discouraging dysgenics, i.e. not subsidizing single motherhood through welfare, regardless of disparate impact on minorities.  See #1.
4. Shutting down movements to let minority prisoners out into society.  (I’m open to other equally effective methods of controlling crime, but they should be applied to all, not just minorities.)
5. An end to blaming white racism for all the problems of the world.
5a. This may seem like mostly a minor annoyance.  But really intellectual hygeine is reason enough to get rid of it. Forcing people to believe lies is generally corrupting.
5b. It prevents people from thinking seriously about solving the problems among low IQ groups.  You can’t solve a problem unless you think clearly about its cause.

You could make a case for some of these things without recourse to HBD, but we all know how effective that has been. For example, you can’t just talk about IQ without talking about HBD.  The disparities between high and low IQ racial groups just are there and are used to discredit the idea of IQ in general.  These days you really have to quote chapter and verse with hard data to show you aren’t racist.

As for inferior, well that is a judgment call.  In some important ways, blacks may be superior to whites and not just in regards to sports and celebrity.  T. is Haitian and I’d note that Haitian art is just way better than anything done in America in the past 50 years or so.

Whites have created liberal modernity and it is not without its significant downsides, spiritual, artistic and even intellectual.

Of course, blacks and many of these other groups don’t seem very good at creating and maintaining a crime free, high tech society.  Though I’d note that high levels of black crime and social dysfunction are at least partially a response to living in certain societies.  I’ve visited St. Lucia, which is a very black place, and, up until the recent influx of tourodollars, it had been mostly crime free and is still relatively so.  Blacks in the South up until the 1960s were relatively peaceful and well ordered too. But modernity + blacks seems to equal lots of crime and social dysfunction.

This is just a taste of the good — GOOD — social benefits that would come from listening to the truth instead of running from it or trying to shut it down. IQ is but one measure of a man’s character, and but one ingredient contributing to a culture’s prideful sense of self and trust in fellow-man. The truth covers much more extensive territory than just the particulars of abstract thinking ability. Any lie-pusher who attempts to reduce the debate to a disingenuous IQ war is engaging in deliberate obfuscation of the myriad other truths which pulse through the veins and capillaries of the human panoply of difference.

The consequences of lies matter. They matter more than most are willing to admit.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Judging Sluts

Nov 9th, 2012 by

The Man Who Was… comments:

It’s hard for men to hold two contradictory attitudes towards sluttiness at once, so PUA advice to just be non-judgmental is better if your only goal is getting laid.

Some readers are under the mistaken impression that my posts about slutty women and the deleterious effects they have on society and marital/LTR stability must mean that I conduct my dating life with a stern judgmental attitude toward women and with the goal of flushing out sluts from my pool of prospects.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I will conceal my true feelings when concealing them is personally advantageous. No way no how am I getting the play I do if I decide to accost every girl I date for a spreadsheet of her sexual history. Real life doesn’t work that way. I want to disable women’s anti-slut defenses, not power them up. I don’t know about you, but when I date, my idea of a successful close is the opposite of the girl clamping her legs shut.

Now, if I am in the market for a long-term girlfriend, I will, post haste, covertly judge my dates for their sexual modesty, and screen out those women who strike me as being world class cock consumers. This, too, is to my personal advantage, for the chronic slut is a potential cheating risk, not to mention a barrel of drama queen laughs that gets tiresome sooner rather than later.

Commenter YaReally is correct to say that adopting a pose of non-judgmentalism as regards women’s sexuality is practically a sine qua non for womanizers. I have yet to meet an experienced player who harshly condemned women (to their faces) for any perceived sluttery. And, let’s face it, when you’re an unmarried guy just looking for a piece of tail, you’re more apt to light up with happy anticipation than power down with clucking disapproval when you learn that the girl you are talking to is handicapped in the sexual self-control department.

“She’s good to go!” isn’t a male rallying cry for nothing.

All that said, I find it off-putting when players try to spin certain obviously self-serving game strategies into self-righteous moral crusades. Some famous PUAs are particularly susceptible to this (cough Neil Strauss cough). Encouraging women to be comfortable with expressing, and surrendering, their sexuality as part of a designed pickup strategy is not equivalent to some grandiose philosophy about the life-giving blessings that sluts bring to the cosmic symphony. Sluts are, in fact, anti-civilization; so if you like being surrounded by the good things in life, and living in a prosperous nation, you would not want too many women to embrace the cock-hopping credo.

Which brings me to the crux of this post. A campaign to relieve women of their sexual coyness and take up the slut banner would, given enough converts, actually work against the goals of players. You see, the sexual non-judgmentalism player pose only works when there is a dominant social current that encourages the opposite. The “secret society” and “you and me against the world, baby” subliminal connection that bonds a woman to the player and tempts her to unleash the loin needs an over-arching force to push against, or it withers from its own growing conventionality and dullness. There is no giddy feeling of taboo breaking when every other girl is happy to give it up for pennies to the dollar, and every other man is spouting the same tired non-judgmentalism schtick.

So, paradoxically, players ought to pray that the greater society keeps their lasses on a leash, else they might see their prey decide that laying down with lions is not as much fun as it used to be.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Self-aggrandizement, Sluts | Comments Off

Thanks, Suffrage!

Nov 8th, 2012 by

New meme over the starboard bow, courtesy of yours truly.

In case you didn’t get the message, the meme is a celebration of female suffrage and the wondrous blessings it has bestowed upon the United States of America. Thank you, ladies, for bringing freedom, freedom, and even more freedom to the most forgotten among us, and for shitting shining your light of moral rectitude on the poor benighted souls who wallow in ignorance. America is a better nation today for the collected contributions of your wisdom.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Girls, Goodbye America, Ridiculousness | Comments Off

Reformed Beta Of The Month

Nov 8th, 2012 by

Le Chateau has highlighted great and gruesome stories of alphas and betas, but what about those beta males who transcend, through sheer force of will, the prison of their supplicating souls? More than a learning tool or a life lesson, these enlightened post-betas are inspirations. The 80% or so of men who qualify as beta males need a role model like them; someone who can show them the way. There is a better life if they would just take it, and the reformed beta is proof that you don’t have to be born an alpha to have the good things in life and experience the flush of power that the alpha male takes for granted.

My prudish husband has left me because I lied about my sex life

When I met my husband 40 years ago I knew he was ‘the one.’ He had firm opinions on sex before marriage (outdated even then) and was a virgin.

As I got to know him, it became clear that he’d never consider marrying somebody with ‘history.’ He thought sex special and wouldn’t want to imagine his wife having it with others.

But, by 22, I’d been having sex for four years. Madly in love and wanting him to marry me, I lied.

He was bound to realise I wasn’t a virgin, so I made up a story that I’d been in a long engagement, giving up my virginity under pressure only a month before my wedding day, then reluctantly had sex twice with my fiancé, who then dumped me, leaving me devastated and ashamed.

He was very understanding and proposed soon after. We married and moved to his home town — a relief, as I’d worried we might bump into a friend who might speak out of turn.

We had two children and a very happy and successful marriage. But a few weeks ago, an old friend contacted me over the internet, and I invited her round.

My husband left us to talk and went off to the garden. Inevitably we talked of the past.

After she left, I found my husband looking devastated. He said he’d gone into the conservatory to read and heard everything.

He said he felt utterly betrayed, as he had a right to expect honesty, but our entire marriage had been based on a fundamental lie.

I said we’d had a wonderful 40 years, so what could it matter what I did before I met him?

He moved in to the spare room and avoided me. A week later he moved to a bedsit and told me he wanted a divorce.

Nothing would change his mind. Our adult children have tried, but he is absolutely fixed.

Men who want to find a woman for a long-term relationship or marriage (a codified LTR) are put off by histories of a slutty past. The woman who has given herself freely to men before him proves that old GBFM aphorism that it makes no sense for a man to pay for the pussy that was handed over no strings attached to other men when it was younger, hotter, tighter. You don’t seriously invest in a rode hard and tossed away wet pussy; instead, you ride it harder and wear it out a little more, then look for fresher pussy that doesn’t need its 60,000 cockas maintenance as soon as you sign the dotted line.

My method may be glib, intended to inflict maximum emotional pain for make benefit of my personal amusement, but the foundation upon which the glibness rests is true. Men have evolved intricate mental algorithms that subconsciously push them to devalue women with extensive sexual histories as long-term partners. The reason for this is obivous: the slut is a bigger infidelity risk, and thus a bigger cuckolding risk, than the chaste woman. Science has proven this, in yet another example of the lab coat crowd catching up with conventional wisdom and common sense observation.

Therefore, when a long-loyal husband finds out his wife rode the cock carousel, even if discovered to have occurred in a prior life of hers, his respect for her drops a notch. His love for her shrinks three sizes. His honed beta ability and predilection to put her on a pedestal and adore her suffers a grievous diminishment. She has, in a word, become a less worthy woman in his eyes. And, likewise, in the eyes of all men, because men, like women, share universal preferences for certain types of mates.

So good for this reformed beta for walking away from his once-whore wife. In the big picture, the sin she committed may be small, but sometimes it takes horrible and swift retribution by a man to violently shake a woman, and women in her sphere of influence, from comfortable delusions and easy expectations regarding the self-imposition of controls on their behavior. All it takes is a relatively few betas to toss a stone cold rock in the world of women and the ripples will eddy and swirl through the masses. The beta male has suddenly become uncontrollable, unpredictable, untamable! This is the stuff of revolution, and it will set women on the path to happiness more powerfully than a million grrlpower tomes, feminist blogs or fat acceptance hugboxes.

The haters are apoplectic. Their splutter is the stuff of delicious slo-mo videos. “But but but,” they will protest, “I can be slutty and still land a man! Any man who leaves me because I’m a slut doesn’t deserve me!”

Deservin’s got nothin’ to do with it, honey. It’s biomechanical turtles all the way down.

But I’ll throw the haters a bone, here. Yes, it’s true that a slut, assuming she is sufficiently physically attractive, can cajole a man into a relationship. Men are, before all else, born slaves to a pretty female face, and it takes effort to break those chains forged of unalloyed pulchritude. Many men do indeed slavishly pursue sluts simply because those sluts are hot with perfect apple bottoms.

But “sufficiently attractive” is the key word. The higher value the man, the more beautiful the slut has to be to ensnare him in a relationship. High value men, aka alphas, have options in the mating market that beta males don’t; these men, when they aren’t just plowing through sluts for fun and penile profit, will generally balk at dating sluts in favor of settling down with more modest, and less sexually experienced, women.

There is, then, a tacit assumption that the sorts of men the feminist sluts are pulling aren’t exactly the top of the alpha male heap. They are likely beta males, maybe some of them greater omegas with cute undulating manboobs and receding chins, who are so desperate for sex and female love that they can readily suppress their distaste for sluts if it means having a girl on their arms.

Maxim #56: The more limited a person’s options in the sexual market, the laxer his or her mate standards.

(For those interested in the science behind this, I believe there is a study floating around internetland which purports to show that very beautiful women with extensive sexual histories don’t suffer too much of a hit to their marriage marketability, because the betas who marry them are quick to forgive their slutty ways. In short, very hot women are so intoxicating that many men will assume the higher risk of getting cuckolded by them for the chance to enjoy a few years of glorious, incomparably pleasurable sex.)

In stark contrast, have you ever seen what an alpha male does to plain-looking sluts? It isn’t pretty. To call it pump and dump would be a euphemism. Think more along the lines of “facelessly screw and scatter to the wind”.

These realities of the sexual market aren’t often instantly apprehensible. You can go a few years only subconsciously picking up cues that your behavior is hurting your mate value. But in the aggregate of many lifetimes, and over each lifetime, the god of biomechanics imposes his relentless, merciless, unavoidable will. And you will bend the knee to him, sooner or later. You have no choice.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Beta, Biomechanics is God, Escape, Self-aggrandizement, Sluts | Comments Off

Cultural Eugenics: A Theory

Nov 8th, 2012 by

The top and bottom against the middle. White status whoring with minority pawns. SWPL hypocrisy. Anti-white anti-racists. Two Americas. Jesusland.

You’ve heard all these before. The Orwellian prognosis of a political culture steeped in a mountain of lies and suppressed crimethink. Astute observers of the American scene can’t help but notice that something foul is afoot, and they’ve given it a contour: the white ruling class has it in for the white working class.

The WRC is working diligently to make life as difficult as possible for the WWC. The white elite are successfully putting their hate for “those other whites” into policy form, the result being open borders, quotas, AA, outsourcing, emasculating indoctrination, Section 8, credentialism, etc. These policies hurt the WWC much more than the blowback hurts the WRC because the latter has the money and foresight to live in carved-out enclaves full of upper class and upper middle class whites like themselves. But they speak out of both sides of their mouths, for they do not want the WWC to know that the elite don’t really practice what they preach.

I have a theory that I believe has even more explanatory power than irrational ruling class hatred for working class co-ethnics. I call it “cultural eugenics”, and it basically states that, within the ruling minority — in this case, the WRC — there percolates a subconscious mental algorithm, shaped by ancient genetic imperative, which compels the WRC (the alpha males of the national pack) to “filter” or “select” whites lower on the status hierarchy for the ability to navigate the WRC’s cruelly labyrinthine cultural obstacles. It is similar in function to how a small hunter-gatherer tribe has rites of passage for its adolescent males, and how the tribe will viciously ridicule members who fail at a task or embarrass themselves in some manner. The purpose is not to kill them off, but to make them stronger. More like the alphas of the tribe.

The WRC doesn’t intend to do this culling specifically; it is an organic phenomena that arises out of a social milieu in which clearly delineated status hierarchies are becoming even more starkly delineated. The book “Albion’s Seed” goes into detail how these status hierarchies were always a part of America going back to her colonization, because they reflect pathways laid down hundreds of years ago by different tribes of Englishmen.

So in a way you could argue that, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps with awareness, the WRC has had, until now, the WWC’s best interests in heart — to make them better whites. The problem has become that racial diversity — one of the “betterment sufferings” the WRC has deployed to ostensibly strengthen the moral character of the WWC — has severed the comity and the trust and the simple visibility between the white classes, and made the task of scaling the WRC’s obstacles that much harder for the WWC to accomplish. A grave malaise, even an emotional regression, has settled in on the minds of the lower status whites, and instead of fight for their place at the white table and look with pride upon their co-ethnics who have succeeded (pride, because there was historically an implied understanding that the WRC life could be theirs with devotion to self-improvement), they have reverted to aping the crass lifestyle of those indigents who surround them and who are their most visible alpha males of the pack.

In sum, the white ruling class lost its sense of shared destiny and obligation, and the white working class lost its kindred alpha male to emulate. The cultural eugenic program has morphed from one to lift the weakest tribe members and humble the strongest tribe members, to one in which the strong tribe members have decided to kill off or banish to the wastelands the weaker tribe members.

This is not a recipe for national greatness. Or even survival.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Intermittent Love

Nov 7th, 2012 by

Providing evidence ♥♥♥YET AGAIN♥♥♥ for another Chateau Heartiste maxim, a study has come out which finds that women love men who parcel their displays of love unpredictably (h/t: reader George).

I Heart Unpredictable Love

TO love is to suffer; to be happy is to love. So must one suffer to be happy? This syllogism won’t win any prizes in logic, but it accurately describes a curious paradox of human behavior: the allure of unpredictable romantic partners. […]

This kind of amorous attachment is like gambling — except that the currency is affection and sex. The key is that the reward is unanticipated, which makes it particularly powerful and alluring to our brains.

To understand why, consider what happens in the brain when people are given rewards under two different conditions: predicted and unpredicted. The psychiatrist Gregory Berns did just that in a study in which subjects were given fruit juice and water, both naturally pleasurable rewards, while scanning their brains with an M.R.I. During part of each session, subjects received water and fruit juice at random intervals; during another part, the water and juice were administered every 10 seconds.

Professor Berns discovered that the water and juice elicited greater activation in the brain’s reward circuit when the reward was unanticipated than when it was delivered in a predictable fashion. The pattern held true whether the reward was water or fruit juice — even though most subjects claimed a clear preference.

When the reward circuit fires, it also tells the brain something like, “Pay attention and remember this experience because it’s important.” This circuit releases dopamine when stimulated, which, if it reaches a critical level, conveys a sense of pleasure.

Intermittent rewards are far more powerful a bonding agent than predictable rewards. This is why aloof and inscrutable men are so intoxicating to women — they are like the unanticipated glasses of water and juice. You want to keep a woman on her toes by showering her with your loving lovingness in a very haphazard fashion, what pickup artists like to call hot/cold/hot/cold. The more astute readers will notice that the hot/cold/hot/cold routine is frequently and instinctively deployed by women when they are in the early stages of dating a new man, and need to test him for alpha male congruence. You, as the hopeful womanizer, should know from reading this blog that adopting the psychological tricks of women for your own nefarious ends is quite a potent weapon in the battlefield known as the sexual market.

This blog long ago discussed the relevance of intermittently rewarding women for good behavior and promptly punishing women for bad behavior.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

The article about the study goes on to discuss why people are attracted to intermittent rewards.

The reason this happens is simple. The brain’s reward circuit has evolved over millions of years to enable us to recognize and extract various rewards from our environment that are critical to our survival, like food and a suitable sexual mate. Unlike predictable stimuli, unanticipated stimuli can tell us things about the world that we don’t yet know. And because they serve as a signal that a big reward might be close by, it is advantageous that novel stimuli command our attention.

Which brings us to inconstant love. It turns out that human love and attachment are, like the fruit juice in Professor Berns’s experiment, natural reinforcers that can activate your reward pathway. The anthropologist Helen Fisher studied a group of 17 people in the grip of intense romantic love and found that an image of their beloved strongly activated the reward circuit.

If you are involved with someone who is unpredictably loving, you might not like it very much — but your reward circuit is sure going to notice the capricious behavior and give you information that might conflict with what you believe consciously is in your best interest.

Indeed, you may not even be aware of your own reward circuit’s activity. One of the curious things that Professor Berns found was that most of his subjects couldn’t tell the difference between the predictable or unpredictable condition in which the reward was given.

Since unpredictable rewards cause more dopamine release than predictable ones and more dopamine means more pleasure, one implication of this study is that people experience more pleasure with unpredictable rewards than with predictable ones — but they may not be consciously aware of this fact.

Poon Commandment VI… CONFIRMED. By science! Oh, and by real-world experience.

By the way, the fact that people aren’t consciously aware of the pleasure-giving power of intermittent love goes a long way to explaining why women can’t adequately tap into their true desires and explain them without resorting to pretty lie generating hamsterisms. They simply might not be cognizant of the primal emotional machinations fueling their tingles.

Not just that, but there was essentially no relationship between the subjects’ stated preferences and the observed activity in their reward circuit. This suggests that our reward pathways may not only be activated without our recognition, but perhaps even in ways that are contrary to what we think we prefer.

Did science unintentionally uncover more evidence for the existence of the rationalization hamster? Why yes, yes I believe it did! Proof that you should watch what women do, not listen to what they say, about matters of love.

These data might explain, in part, the paradox of people who complain constantly about their unreliable lovers, but keep coming back to them, time and again.

Science discovers that chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. Feminists disengage from scissoring to console each other with an uninterrupted stream of feelgood bullshit.

Science: 1. Game: 1. Chateau Heartiste: 1. Love: 1. Game denialists and haters and feminists: 0.

I feed your unfathomably bitter tears to my Galactus-sized ego. Yum.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats

Nov 6th, 2012 by

I left this comment over at GL Piggy’s, on a post about election predictions. I think it is worth reprinting here (with additional commentary) because of its timeliness.

PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”

There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)

1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly (and more sane from a societal perspective), and we see this reflected in the polls.

2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an Obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!

The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.

3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services I can redirect my way with an assist from the white knight contingent”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled, as befits their higher reproductive worth. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics is more generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.

Alert the media! The stereotypes are true! Sanitization Protocol… activated.

In effect, Big Government is at once the alpha male tribal leader and the beta provider sucker who happily assumes the cuckold role as step-father to the single mom’s cadbaggage.

Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a warpling issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.

As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of the idea of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data points to a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.

Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.

Barring total collapse, I don’t see this trend:

…ending anytime soon. (Nice battering ram arms, Fluke.) So you may as well recline poolside, while the pool is still filled with water and chlorinated.

PS My election prediction:

It’s a toss-up, so I won’t bother picking a winner. I predict the popular vote and electoral college vote will split, with all that entails (yay, riots!)

I will confidently predict that most of the demographic vote ratios will remain roughly the same as they have for the past few election cycles.

Single white women will vote 60-40 Obama.
Single moms will vote 75-25 Obama.
Blacks will vote 98-2 Obama.
Hispanics of Amerindian ancestry will vote 65-35 Obama.
Asian-Americans will vote 70-30 Obama.
Ruling class elites will vote 70-30 Obama.
Libertarians will vote 70-30 Obama (such independent free-thinkers, those libertarians!).
Self-professed feminists will prove their non-conformist bona fides by voting 100-0 Obama.
Single beta males will vote 55-45 Romney (still beta, still white knighting).
Married white men will vote 80-20 Romney (this shift will be bigger than polls are currently projecting).
Married white women will vote 55-45 Romney.
Pickup artists will not vote. They got better things to do.

A lot of white men and white married couples are going to break for Romney, but the social and racial and familial demographics of the country are moving with such force in the opposite direction that the white man vote, no matter how consolidated, is going to eventually get swamped by the undertow and rendered irrelevant for many, many election cycles to come (assuming there will continue to be a country in existence that is capable of holding elections). When the white man “wakes up” to this fact, I predict secession movements will sprout up all around the country, descaling the nation to more socially and tribally congenial entities. But most of us reading this will be dead by that time. And it will be too late, regardless. In the meantime, expect populism to rise again, and tariffs to become the talk of the townhall. A billion Chinese is a lot of surplus cheap labor to churn through before wages equilibrate. There will be blood in the interim.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Girls, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Text Game Is Now Big Business

Nov 6th, 2012 by

A reader needs some game advice from everyone here about how he handled a girl through text game.

Dude seriously…there’s some fucked up situation i’m in that i need help. I’ve been getting into game this year, and constantly hitting on girls. I think this year was the first one that i ever started hitting on chicks…and surprisingly things actually started happening..

I think i read here or somewhere else the validity of text game, and since im still getting the hang of chatting with chicks, i’ve been using SMS as my main flirting tool.

So deal is, i managed to flirt and get chicks willing to hangout, but when i need to close the deal, i’m lacking. Does their brain fucking reset? And they forget all the shit they were saying on texts and stuff?

Young women get a lot of attention, both tangible and intangible, from men, so yes, their brains do, in effect, “reset” if you let your alpha allure lapse.

From what i’ve gather so far, little teasing and banther does work well here in Brazil if you can land it in the right times. So i’ve been teasing this girls about her bitchy/tries to tell me what to do, attitude.

Heres one text exchange, which led me into believing she was into me, only to see her walk away go hang out with her fucking beta bff..

;)

Me: cats on fire ( i was busy at work so i just sent something, she was bugging me, sent like 4 messages)
Her: hmm ok then sexy, see you kisses kisses
Me: ur making this too easy, i might want more
Her: Just in person now
Me: is that a teasing attempt? Ill just get more if i want too
Her: hahaha

Count the number of words in her texts and in yours. Who’s writing more? Who’s putting in more effort? Who comes across as the aloof partner in this exchange with no investment in the interaction?

In short, you are failing the Jumbotron test.

So thats it and i think,…hmm its on she wants it…then i arrive to the club we are gonna meet…its her friends bday

Her: hey where are you?

I didnt bother answering…i assumed she was already in and then shitstorm happens.. she is with this friend…of her….and shes a fucking bitchy one…it was a easy tell. So i get a little bit nervous…my early game still lacks…and we started chatting

Her: Hey you….you’re drinking already
Me: What? This? How this thing get here?
She giggles and replies: but i thought you would take care of me if i got drunk?
Me: I’m pretty busy today, club is so full

This is a pretty good reply by you to her white knight bait shit test, but was she looking for more from you?

Then she started asking me if i knew the people that came with them, and i didnt gave much attention.. I tried some touching, grabbing her hand and she responded warmly, but i didn’t think she was ready to be kissed, her friend was standing there like a pole.

A girl’s anti-slut defenses are powered up higher when her friends are within view.

So from there the conversation dies off..not worthy mentioning… she tells me she will talk to her friend, the birthday guy, and that she will be back..

I remembered that i should not wait like a fucktard for one single girl, so i run off and go hit on other chicks…

No need to mention she never went back talking to me..and that when she saw me dancing and grinding on other girls (i made sure she would see mee with this hot blonde “friend” i met there ) she didn’t really show any signs of bother.

Preselection by other women can fail to work if 1. your primary target is not at all interested in you or 2. your primary target thinks you are unattainable and has decided to give up pursuing you. From what you have written of events that night, it’s hard for me to tell which dynamic is applicable, but I suspect the latter. If that’s the case, then you made a mistake not trying to move her to a quieter part of the club for more intimate talk.

So things is…where the fuck am i wrong? Is it text game that isn’t good enough?

Your text game was ok. Not great, but not incompetent enough to seriously hurt your appeal to her.

If they show signals that they would be ok with your tongue down their throat should u just fucking do it when you actually meet?

A lot of girls will tease and taunt men by acting slutty and verbalizing how much dirty stuff they would do. This is classic beta bait, meant to entrap and flush out beta males who would eagerly pounce on such bait by taking it at face value. If this is the case, you’re best answer to smelly beta bait is to playfully chide a girl to keep herself under control, you are not so easy.

On the other hand, if she was expressing serious intent (and if her tongue was down your throat, that’s serious intent), then the time for teasing is over and the time for bouncing her to your place is begun.

Like basic hi, staring and just go for it ? Hyperfast kissing culture in brazil might have something to do with it ?

I have heard that kissing on the first meeting doesn’t mean as much in Brazil as it does in America. So maybe if you are tonguing down some chick you should still behave as if she must chase you because you are the prize. That’s a pickle, because it would be tough for most men to avoid the temptation to assume hungry kissing is not a strong indicator of interest. You could get around this problem by gently pushing a girl away when she wants to kiss, and telling her that you “like to save kissing for when it matters”.

Can you actually game girls mostly by text ? I get kind of shy around them in person so im still getting the hang of it…

Practice your alpha aloofness through text, until the lessons are internalized, and then take that mentality out into the field. Eventually, you will have to face your demons and talk to girls in the face.

I know the text is a ramble, but if you could help me i would be really glad

Be a little less curtly unattainable and a little more engaged with her. To my eyes, it reads like you were very cognizant of giving off too much needy beta vibe, at the cost of just relaxing around her and teasing her for fun and poussy profit. I think she was looking for you to drive the conversation deeper, to banter with her more; but instead you stayed in “make her chase me” mode, and she drifted away. The aloofness that women find so intriguing must be balanced with active intent to close the deal, or at least with some small degree of displaying burgeoning interest in her. All aloof, all the time makes Juan a dull boy.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Alpha Male Of The Month

Nov 5th, 2012 by

A book review of Frank Langella’s memoir “Dropped Names” offers a glimpse of the charmed life that unapologetic womanizing alpha males lead. Reading these bios of iconic historical players, greats of a golden era of gash before feminism sucked the color out of life, one begins to notice patterns in their attitudes and their behavior. Of course, there is the unrestrained sexuality — there are strong hints that Langella was bisexual, or at least enjoyed the spectacle of flirtatiously taunting gay men, and he was no stranger to bedding past-their-prime aging starlets — which provides the energy that fuels their conquests, but there is also a particular suite of personality traits that they all hold in common. The Dark Triad features prominently among these men, but so too does a knack for pleasing women by telling them what they crave hearing. Alpha males are simply better than other men at helping women experience good feelings through verbal communication.

Regarding that ability to instill good feelings, here’s Langella on an older Rita Hayworth:

He waxes philosophical about his on-set affair with Rita Hayworth when he was 34. It was her last film. She was 20 years older and suffering from alcoholism and early Alzheimer’s, yet, “in the candle’s light and fire’s glow,” Hayworth “once again becomes the Goddess.”

What the book reviewer misses (predictably, since this is the NewYorkBetaTimes) is that older women lap up flattery more hungrily because they hear, and feel, so much less of it than they did when they were younger, hotter, tighter. But that quibble aside, the impression you get of Langella is that he knew when, and how, to serenade women with words. The Woman is nature’s inborn narcissist; she loves to feel loved because at heart she feels worthy of all the world’s love. She has a vagina, after all. And who but a narcissistic man — the equal in narcissism to Hollywood starlets — could know how to properly satisfy that female need?

But the book’s stylistic imperfections add to the sense that you’re reading the uncensored diary of an indefatigably social and curious man, a modern-entertainment-industry Samuel Pepys. Narcissistic? Sure. [Langella] grants that he was especially “selfish and obstreperous” in his youth. But he’s inspiringly game.

And here we see in Langella that common suite of personality characteristics that one finds in others like him. An executive summary of the alpha male beloved by women might look something like this:

1. Be social.
2. Be curious.
3. Be narcissistic.
4. Be the mirror that reflects what women want to believe about themselves.
5. Be selfish and unpredictable.
6. Be sexually nonjudgmental.

The best players of past and present are ever-searching for new experiences, their curiosity unquenchable. They love themselves, and women are nothing if not viscerally intrigued by overconfident men. They follow their own rules, and women love rule-breakers. They are selfish, and women, despite what they say to the contrary, adore the company of self-oriented men. They are sexually unburdened, knowing as they do that an attitude that might burden a woman with doubts about her actions and cause her to dwell too laboriously on the potential consequences is a road leading away from sex.

And, perhaps most importantly, they speak the language of women.

Many acolytes to game focus their attention, justifiably, on techniques like negs (backhanded compliments) and qualifications (implying women fall short of one’s expectations). This is a good thing, because it’s in these areas that most men fail badly. But the flip side to challenging a woman’s ego is caressing her ego so that she feels free to relax around you and give her love without regret.

When Elizabeth Taylor says, “Come on up, baby, and put me to sleep,” who is he to resist? (He does make her chase him first.)

The alpha male is no stranger to flattering women; he’s just better at contextualizing it. His compliments and sweet nothings don’t hang like dead weight in a vacuum like so many beta males are apt to do with their cloying attempts to woo women. He knows that women can’t appreciate flattery from a man unless and until it is bracketed by a powerfully alluring self-regard and seasoned with a hint of manly condescension.

By his cheerful debauchery, Langella reveals something certain commentators have obscured: sluts are the best — hungry for experience and generous with themselves in its pursuit. He talks about how joyful it was in his 20s to “throw some scripts, jeans and a few packs of condoms into a bag,” and head out to do plays and bed theater ­apprentices.

Sluts are indeed the best for the peripatetic alpha male hopping from bed to bed. But sluts are far from the best for the beta males married to them, or dating them. One thing the player community must acknowledge — and I direct this in a most general way — is that the encouragement of sluttiness, and the lack of judgment of same, while certainly good for overcoming anti-slut defenses and cajoling women into surrendering their most precious asset, is not so good for society as a whole, nor for the state of male-female relations in the aggregate. The male aversion to committing long-term to inveterate sluts exists for a good reason: sluts really are a worse deal for men who have evolved to subconsciously desire paternity guarantees. Men really do value relatively chaste women more as resources in whom to lavishly invest their time and energy. Players should therefore take care to qualify their pro-slut sentiment as the sex-maximizing tactic it is, rather than some sort of high-minded philosophical stance they often like to pretend it is.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that it’s a prerequisite to suspend one’s subconscious slut judgment and actively encourage in women the jettisoning of any and all incipient shame if the lifestyle of the glamorous cad is your goal.

There is so much happy sexuality in this book that reading it is like being flirted with for a whole party by the hottest person in the room. It’s no wonder Langella was invited everywhere.

If you can successfully couple an attitude of happy sexuality with bemused mastery and outcome independent self-possession, you too can live a Life of Langella.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »