Feed on
Posts
Comments

Latest Baumeister Paper Supports CH Concept Of The Sexual Market

Nov 2nd, 2012 by

Baumeister, the primary coauthor behind the seminal 2004 paper titled “Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions”, has released online the latest addition to that work, titled “Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends“, another steely-eyed examination of the sexes that pretty much validates the core Chateau Heartiste concept of the existence of a merciless sexual market, and its primacy among all markets.

I was planning to write a sole synopsis and commentary on the recent study, but others, like Mangan (back from hiatus), have done a good job covering the essential hypotheses and conclusions in the paper, so instead I’ll post in addition, in the near future, an email from a reader who forwarded to CH his astute objections and comments to the original Baumeister paper in an email sent to the author. (I don’t know if Baumeister replied.)

(Quick aside: Mangan asks a related question regarding a prominent claim in the Baumeister paper that men supported the entrance of women into the workforce to increase men’s sexual access: “Is there a direct relationship between looser morals and more women in public life?” I would bet that there is, and that a trend toward higher female participation in the workforce, and particularly in government and similar social gatekeeper occupations, is one of the crucial indicators that a nation is beginning the downward spiral into stasis and eventual decline.)

Continuing, some choice quotes (with editor commentary) pulled from the latest Baumeister/Vohs (a woman!) paper to give you a flavor for its contents.

In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today’s campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like. [ed: yep, life has been good for those of us who know the score.] […]

Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. Men’s greater desire puts them at a disadvantage, just as when two parties are negotiating a possible sale or deal, the one who is more eager to make the deal is in a weaker position than the one who is willing to walk away without the deal. [ed: this is why practiced male aloofness is attractive to women — it signals that the man is holding a stronger market position, and that his goods are therefore valuable.] Women certainly desire sex too — but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men (Baumeister et al. 2001). [ed: culture emerges from sexually differentiated genetic roots.] We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage (see Baumeister and Twenge 2002). Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price. […]

Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men’s access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. [ed: was the sexual and feminist revolution fomented by undersexed beta males? a case can be made.] In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002). [ed: that is, they no longer had to suffer the indignity of beta provider courtship. now that they had the resources, it was open season on alpha male cock hopping. the sexual revolution appears to have backfired on beta males expecting a bigger slice of the snatch pie.]

What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man’s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.

The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. [ed: that last clause is critical. men will always take the path of least resistance to sex. it is up to women to make that path more difficult if they want to extract more concessions from men.] (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, “If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.”) If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today’s college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. [ed: what’s interesting and unspoken here is that the sexual free-for-all is chugging along nicely well beyond and outside of the college years, with the difference being that, in their 20s and 30s, a select number of fewer men (let’s call them… alpha males) are enjoying the ample premarital rewards of sexually available women.] Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture. [ed: damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps.]

The changes in gender politics since 1960 can be seen as involving a giant trade, in which both genders yielded something of lesser importance to them in order to get something they wanted more (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). As Regnerus states, partly based on our own extensive survey of research findings, men want sex, indeed more than women want it (Baumeister et al. 2001). Women, meanwhile, want not only marriage but also access to careers and preferential treatment in the workplace. [ed: women are the reproductively more valuable sex, and so it makes sense that evolution would have “gifted” women with an oversized entitlement complex and the inability to engage in self-criticism.]

The giant trade thus essentially involved men giving women not only easy access but even preferential treatment in the huge institutions that make up society, which men created. [ed: but the grand bargain did not work out as intended for the masses of beta males who acquiesced to the new girl order. while alpha males certainly saw more action from “liberated” women, the average joe did not. instead, all the average joe got in return for sacrificing his workplace status in hopes of easier sex was… a heaping helping of humiliation and wage stagnation and anti-joe animus, which continues at an accelerated pace to this day. this is a critical distinction i would like to see Baumeister address.] Today most schools, universities, corporations, scientific organizations, governments, and many other institutions have explicit policies to protect and promote women. It is standard practice to hire or promote a woman ahead of an equally qualified man. Most large organizations have policies and watchdogs that safeguard women’s interests and ensure that women gain preferential treatment over men. Parallel policies or structures to protect men’s interests are largely nonexistent and in many cases are explicitly prohibited. Legal scholars, for example, point out that any major new law is carefully scrutinized by feminist legal scholars who quickly criticize any aspect that could be problematic or disadvantageous to women, and so all new laws are women-friendly. Nobody looks out for men, and so the structural changes favoring women and disadvantaging men have accelerated (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). […]

Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near-equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality—not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men’s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women’s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small. [ed: what do you think will happen to a nation’s cultural progress when it goes out of its way to give preferential treatment to its women who, as a sex, prefer tawdry one-to-one relationships to men’s preference for the growth potential in large shallow relationships? that’s right, the economy and the culture come more and more to reflect women’s preferences. result: progress that is the hallmark of rising empires grinds to a halt.] […]

Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society’s institutions? It falls to men to create society (because women almost never create large organizations or cultural systems). It seems foolish and self-defeating for men then to meekly surrender advantageous treatment in all these institutions to women. Moreover, despite many individual exceptions, in general and on average men work harder at their jobs in these institutions than women, thereby enabling men to rise to the top ranks. As a result, women continue to earn less money and have lower status than men, which paradoxically is interpreted to mean that women’s preferential treatment should be continued and possibly increased (see review of much evidence in Baumeister2010). Modern society is not far from embracing explicit policies of “equal pay for less work,” as one of us recently proposed. Regardless of that prospect, it appears that preferential treatment of women throughout the workforce is likely to be fairly permanent. Because of women’s lesser motivation and ambition, they will likely never equal men in achievement, and their lesser attainment is politically taken as evidence of the need to continue and possibly increase preferential treatment for them. [ed: the preferences shall continue until morale improves.]

But this pattern of male behavior makes more sense if we keep in mind that getting sex is a high priority for men, especially young men. Being at a permanent disadvantage in employment and promotion prospects, as a result of affirmative action policies favoring women, is certainly a cost to young men, but perhaps not a highly salient one. What is salient is that sex is quite readily available. As Regnerus reports, even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.

Mangan makes a valid objection to this Baumeister theory that affirmative action for women increased men’s sexual access by noting that it was likely contraception and cost-of-sex-reducing technology — the Pill, abortion, and penicillin — which opened the floodgates to “free” love. I put “free” in quotes because in reality, the sexual revolution did not benefit all men equally; alpha males got the lion’s share of premarital sex from economically self-sufficient women. Beta males suffered more than usual, having to endure watching from the sidelines as alpha males cleaned up, while simultaneously being deprived of the best leverage they had in the sexual market: their promise of marital resources.

However, I do think Baumeister is onto something true, in that increased female workplace participation meant that men with reasonably high status jobs had a lot more fleshy temptresses from whom to conveniently choose, and that women must certainly have felt less restricted in their sexuality once they were meeting their own financial needs and could afford to risk happy dalliances with sexually desirable, but more non-committal, alpha males.

Again, Le Chateau was on top of all this years ago, when we proposed a sea change in the American cultural landscape heralded by the coming of the Four Five Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse:

  1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
  2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
  3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
  4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.
  5. Penicillin (reduced the cost of contracting STDs)
  6. Widely available hardcore porn.

I added numbers five and six to the list of Sexual Apocalypse Sirens, because they seem to me just as important to understanding how the sexual market changed in the last fifty or so years.

So, a crib sheet of quippy replies if you ever need it to send a feminist or manboob howling with indignation:

1. The Pill
2. No-fault divorce
3. Working women
4. Man-hating feminism
5. Penicillin
6. Porn

Toss into a social salad bowl already brimming with an influx of non-European immigrants thanks to the 1965 soft genocide act, mix thoroughly, and voila!: a huge, inexorable, relentless leftward shift in American politics, an explosion of single moms, wage stagnation, government growth, upper class childlessness, lower class dysgenics, and a creaking, slow deterioration in the foundational vigor of the nation and the gutting of the pride of her people.

Into this pot pie of portent throw in the Skittles Man, Bring the Movies Man, Nah Man, and Disappeared Again Man, for whom girls have always swooned but who now, thanks to relaxed pressure from women themselves requiring men to put a ring on it before getting any huggy or kissy, and the incentivizing of risky sexual behavior by government policy and contraceptive technology, could enjoy sex without the entanglement of marriage or gainful employment.

Game, for all the shit it gets from the usual suspects, was just a rational response to a radically altered playing field. It didn’t cause this calamity; it just profited from it.

Meanwhile, beta males are left scratching their block-like skulls, wondering what the fuck just happened.

Back to Baumeister.

Nowadays young men [ed: correction: alpha males] can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex. Nor does he have to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forego other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that. [ed: …to those men with charm in the game.]

So maybe the young men don’t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn’t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex. [ed: success isn’t as important for beta males, either, because success doesn’t provide the same sexual market leverage like it used to for them. how is a no-game-having, 9-to-5er beta male supposed to woo a lawyercunt pulling six figures?]

If men don’t need career success to get sex, then what if anything do they need success for? Some research indicates that career motivation really intensifies for men when they become fathers. Indeed, it has long been known that the transition to parenthood has opposite effects by gender. New mothers withdraw from their work and careers; new fathers embrace work and career with enhanced seriousness and motivation (for a review see Baumeister 1991). [ed: the “pay gap” explained.] […]

With regard to work, the societal changes are producing less contribution by men and more by women. These might offset, with few or no costs to society. Still, replacing male with female workers may bring some changes, insofar as the two genders approach work differently. Compared to men, women have higher rates of absenteeism, seek social rewards more than financial ones, are less ambitious, work fewer hours overall, are more prone to take extended career interruptions, and identify less with the organizations they work for. They are more risk averse, resulting in fewer entrepreneurs and inventions. (Baumeister 2010, noted an appalling gender imbalance in new patents; nobody is seriously suggesting that the U.S. Patent office systematically discriminates against women, but women simply do not apply for patents in anything close to the rate that men do.) Women are less interested in science and technology fields. They create less wealth (for themselves and others). [ed: the roman empire wept.] […]

The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009). To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality—and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.

Baumeister is a serious realtalker.

We speculate that today’s young men may be exceptionally ill prepared for a lifetime of sexual starvation that is the lot of many modern husbands. The traditional view that a wife should sexually satisfy her husband regardless of her own lack of desire has been eroded if not demolished by feminist ideology that has encouraged wives to expect husbands to wait patiently until the wife actually desires sex, with the result that marriage is a prolonged episode of sexual starvation for the husband. […] Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.

Game can save marriages from the fate of sexual starvation. At least until the wifey is no longer attractive enough to stimulate the hubby. Ah well, waddayagonnado?

Although we have noted warning signs and problems, we remain optimistic. [ed: i don’t.] Despite the obstacles and changing contingencies, men and women have always managed to find each other and work together to create a modicum of happiness for both and to create a sphere in which children can grow, thrive, and sustain the culture for another few decades. [ed: yes, men and women will always find each other. the question is, what form will that finding take? that is the issue which matters for those who seek to maximize the social good.] The coming generation will face novel challenges, but somehow we think they will muddle through and manage to reinvent family life yet again. [ed: sometimes the reinvention is not as good as the original.]

All in all, a stellar paper that lays down the hammer of hurt on the pushers of pretty lies. For this reason, I expect the liars and degenerates and serpentine sophists currently running the country into the ground to thoroughly ignore and/or distort it.

My main objections to the paper center around the fact that Baumeister/Vohs don’t explore female hypergamy and alpha male/beta male distinction in much detail, which is a shortcoming I hope the both of them will address in the future. Nonetheless, their work is essentially a huge vindication of the concepts that the proprietors at Chateau Heartiste have been elucidating since the first day this blog drove a stake through the heart of the reigning discourse and claimed a piece of this decaying culture for itself. And someday, perhaps soon, a real rain will come and wash all the lies off the streets.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Misandry, Science Validates Game, Status Is King, Ugly Truths, Vanity | Comments Off

Catalonia Singing Separate

Nov 1st, 2012 by

Cheap Chalupas notes that a prominent economist has come out in favor of Catalonian secession, and that he has done so for evil, vile, naughty, emotionally human tribal reasons. It’s an interesting post more for what it reveals about the dominant narrative of our time, and how it has infected the perspective of the pundit class to such an astonishing degree that any thought remotely transgressive of this narrative becomes the stuff of Hitlerian nightmare.

Commenter “lords of lies” left this over there:

i have yet to see or hear of a mainstream economic model that accounts for robert putnam’s findings that racial and ethnic diversity reduces intergroup and intragroup trust.

Is that true? There are no major economic models that incorporate this fundamental aspect of human nature? If so, that would be evidence for the growing irrelevance of economics as a field. Maybe that explains why no two economists can agree on anything, despite learning from the same textbooks and past greats.

I wonder what roguish, Spanish-speaking commenter gig thinks about all this.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Globalization, Hope and Change, The Good Life | Comments Off

How To Get A Girl To Send Nudes Of Herself

Nov 1st, 2012 by

A reader (warning: mid-level troll alert) asks:

best way to get a girl to send nudes?
It seems difficult to do it without being cheesy/sounding desperate.

The main problem with trying to get girls to text or message you delicious nudies of themselves is that it subjects you to the risk that you’ll be perceived a creepy perv desperate for sexual handouts. This risk is high, but not insurmountable, as the evidence of the deluge of girls sexting their privates to the four corners of alphadom attests. Personally, I don’t go in for the proactive “sext me” strategy, preferring instead to let it arise organically with girls who are already into me and have decided on their own to expose their plush wares to my viewership, but I can see why some guys would be champing at the bit to get the sext ball rolling. Once a girl has sexted you, she’s psychologically invested, and her perception will shift to her chasing you, which makes closing the deal a lot easier.

Another problem with attempting to extract nudies from girls is that it exposes (heh) you to potential legal ramifications down the road. Yeah, I know, sounds crazy. You’re thinking, “Why would I be legally culpable for a girl’s voluntary actions?” Well, folks, this is the feministed world we’re all barreling toward, and the day is not far off when women will be classed as victims even of their own freely made choices, and all consequences thereof rendered moot by state edict, to be placed upon the shoulders of men beta males.

Anyhow, my take on this issue is that there are many ways to skin this kitty, among them:

1. Reverse psychology.

“No, don’t send erotic pics of yourself. It won’t get you anywhere with me.”

2. Encouragement neg.

“I’m not sure you’re right for sex pics. Only certain girls can pull it off. You don’t seem the type.” (The vaguer your implied reason, the better.)

3. Unreconstructed asshole game.

“tits or gtfo” (note alluring lack of punctuation)

4. Casually aloof asshole game.

“It’d be cool to see your tits.” (Be cognizant that she will likely reply with indignation, and that you should be prepared to expect it and brush it off.)

5. Let’s you and her fight game.

“Damn, Ella just sent me a pic of her boobs. So many girls doing this now. It’s crazy.” (bonus preselection game!)

6. Idea implantation game.

“You ever send someone nude pics of yourself? I did once to a girl, and it accidentally went to my Mom. I think she was proud.”

7. Reverse Psychology II.

“I’m glad you’re not one of those girls who sends nude pics of herself. You don’t need that excitement.”

8. Feeding the female narcissist game.

“You look like you have a figure for photos. Have you ever modeled in the nude?” (be careful with this tactic, as it can easily cross the line to transparency.)

9. Non-judgmentalism/No Big Deal game.

“If you sent a nude pic I wouldn’t even be surprised. Girls send them all the time now. It’s nothing.”

10. Massive DHV game.

This is where you demonstrate so much high value that the girl feels an overwhelming urge to show you her naked body at the slightest hamster-nudged provocation. An example of this I found at a pickup site.

Below is an example of how I got a random girl to send naked pics of everything (va jay jay included!!) on Facebook. If you can do this to a stranger, you can easily do it to girls you know.

Note: I had an advantage in that I was working on a movie at the time which DHV‘d and made me artsy.. But I have done it without that story. This is not real life game so the modular progression is different. It goes something like you see below mixing and matching however.

Guidelines:

1. Homework – hey lazy ass, read this entire post and realize that this process may require more time and thought than you are willing to put forth. I am a sicko and love to see how far I can get girls to go over the net. Sometimes it takes longer than others. I enjoy the process either way.

2. DHV-Attraction/Comfort- DHV to the point were they want to impress and then create comfort before requesting photos.

3. Compliment – After DHV‘s tell them they are photogenic which builds their confidence makes them feel appreciated and indebted. Flatter the shit out of her by asking if she has ever done any modeling.

4. Qualify – Claim to be into photography (use photography terms: portfolio) or art and that you appreciate the feminine form.

5. Qualify – joke about not wanting to send pics of yourself (they will usually request this) for fear of them showing them off to all of their friends (indicates that you wouldn’t do this to them).

6. Neg – if they send you weak pics tell them that they are PG and you put them in your Lion King scrap book or some shit ; ) Create leverage.

7. DHV (attraction spike/non-reactive) – don’t be too pushy about it. Act like it is no big deal and subtly remind them if they forget (always at the end of the paragraph, see below).

8. Watch it! – be careful what you wish for. This one had a meaty vagina (YIKES!) Beef curtains! Run!

[ed: portions of actual messaging transcript follows. pay close attention to the punctuation and time stamp pattern. heheh.]

Jess
at 9:03am
Oh, and it’s your turn to send me some pics of yourself. (If there are any naked ones, I won’t mind. Don’t be shy.) LOL.

DF
8:21pm
Wait a minute, you sent me your PG pictures and you are asking for the full monty? You send some sexy shots first so I know that you won’t misuse my photos should we exchange

DF
9:09pm
and by sexy I mean naked of course

[…]

DF

May 22 at 6:36am
Don’t mind, I came out of a relationship just little while back and yes I do find your interest in me most flattering.

The feminine form is a thing of beauty and what can I say, some forms are more beautiful than others. You for example are one of those more beautiful forms.

Jess
10:41am
Oh, well that sucks, but not for me! LOL. And thank you, it makes me smile when you compliment me. I will send you some pics, but you have to send me some too. And please keep them to yourself, I will do the same.

DF
8:20pm
You are most welcome, glad to dimple your cheeks. I would never disregard your privacy, you have my word and a deal my dear.

Jess
9:18pm
Where are my pics? I want to see you naked baby! 
Sent via Facebook Mobile

DF
May 22 at 9:43pm
that wasn’t the deal sweetheart! You send me a topless first and then I send you one!

Jess
9:58pm
I did, I sent it to your regular email. LOL. Didn’t you check it?
Sent via Facebook Mobile

DF
9:59pm
no darlin send again!

DF
10:16pm
I got no bra pics, no topless pics no nothing just the ones that were on your facebook page

Loading…

Jess
11:03pm
I sent them to you again. Did you get it?
Sent via Facebook Mobile

DF
7:52am
No I did not. You can always set up a private __ for us were we can post pictures. It is fast and apparently easier than the old fashioned way. Figure it out girl!

Jess
8:19am
K, I tried to e-mail it one more time. Did you get anything? They were pics I scanned, so I can’t upload them into a __ account.

Jess
11:24am
But I set one up anyway. The login is __ and the password is midnight82 and I set it to private already. So you can put stuff on there if you want to and I want you to!! LOL.

DF
10:26pm
okay, those pictures are not the ones that we talked about make it happen princess

Jes
11:02pm
I emailed them to u again. Did u still not get them?
Sent via Facebook Mobile

Jes
4:11am
K, look at our account now.  You better post some on there too. I will put some more up tomorrow. It’s your turn baby!!! Tell me what you think. I hope you don’t think it’s too much. LOL. Oh, and gimme your address, I wanna send you copies of the pics I tried to e-mail you before. They’re really cute naked pics of me. LOL. MWAH!!
Sent via Facebook Mobile

Jess
May 26 at 4:08pm
You disappeared again.

***

Haha.. the pics weren’t that great. I never chatted with her again. Sometimes I just like to see how well I can persuade people. Maybe I should post the pics?

Maybe we should call this guy Disappeared Again Man, and include him in the pantheon of other infamous alpha male greats like Skittles Man, Bring The Movies Man, and Nah Man?

I can’t vouch for his specific method above for getting girls to send nekkid pics as a generalized tactic, but I can say with confidence that acting like this guy does will significantly boost the odds that you’ll persuade a girl to deliver the goods.

PS On a related note, homemade sex vids and pics of current and old flames (including you, not other men) are a hundred times more limbically stimulating than those of strangers. Try it sometime. You’ll see. Or maybe it’s just the outrageous narcissist in me.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

Five Minutes Of Alpha

Oct 31st, 2012 by

There’s a reason why Silvio Berlusconi won the first ever Chateau Alpha Male Cage Match by a whopping length + girth. This paesan is a ladykiller. Further cementing Silvio’s alpha status, Ray Sawhill (formerly of 2BLowhards) sent along this article about a former Miss Montenegro beauty queen who admitted having a two year affair with Silvio. She met him two years ago when she was 18 and he was… 73. And how does Katarina feel about the age gap?

She said: ‘In love age is not important – an extraordinary person like him could be 100 years old, it would have no effect on me, he would have still struck me.’

Any regular of this blog will not be surprised by her admission. Chicks dig power above all other male attractiveness traits. Male power truly is distilled aphrodisia. A woman will present for a powerful, charming man as quickly as a man will spring a boner for a hot, young, slender, naked babe. Of course, her statement needs a qualifier to retain accuracy: In love age is not important… if you are an alpha male with compensating attractiveness traits. Plenty of boring betas grind out their wheezy decades inspiring no love in any younger women.

And for the cynics, I have no doubt Katarina loves (note: I did not say “loved”) Silvio, to the depth of her soul. Hers is real love, not fake golddigger love one so often sees when a hot chick marries a rich beta. Women’s love circuits are wired differently than men’s; a woman’s love will erupt and ensconce an apex male like Silvio, and it will be a genuine love, in much the same way a man’s love will rush out from him unbidden for a beautiful young woman.

One of the comments from a female commenter is particularly enlightening.

The allure of a powerful man like Berlusconi is something people are quick to discount unless they’ve been in the presence of one. I had an affair with a very powerful, high-profile (unmarried) politician when he was 65 and I was 18. Age didn’t matter because he was electric. He knew everything and was energectic in a way I’d never seen in boys my age, and his appetite for life was insatiable. Decades later as a long-married wife and mother I still remember him often, and quite fondly.

Five minutes of alpha floods the female brain with pleasant memories quicker than decades of beta.* I wonder how her husband would feel knowing that, despite decades of shared marital moments and children’s first words, she still warmly recalls an affair she had with a 65 year old alpha male at the ripe peak of her attractiveness? Hallmark doesn’t make cards for remembrances like that.

You don’t have to be a prime minister to capture the hearts of younger women (although it helps). I advise aging men to keep that spark of adventure they had when they were teen striplings. Do whatever it takes to avoid the long, slow surrender — the Barcalounger betrayal of your masculine birthright — and strive to maintain a sense of wonder. A dash of immaturity goes a long way toward cultivating a youthful frame of mind, which is a necessary prerequisite to winning the hearts of young women.

So raise a glass to Silvio, a refreshing anachronism in an increasingly sterile West. If you were banging babes like this…

…at the age of 73, you’d have this…

…shit-eating grin plastered on your face, too.

*A similar, albeit attenuated, feeling occurs in men, when our fondest memories veer all the way back to our first tender kiss or first intimate penetration. This memory exerts its power in men for a different reason than women’s memories do with their alpha flings; men’s first loves are often girls in their mid to late teens (or perhaps early to mid-20s for the late bloomers) when their feminine beauty and mannerism radiates at its absolute brightest. Searing beauty leaves a scorching imprint on the male brain. However, the recollection of such memories are usually less stable and permanent for men than they are for women recalling times spent with alpha males, because men who have even a modicum of experience with women have enjoyed many, many years of prime pussy, thus diluting the impact of their earliest memories.

Women, on the other hand, will often go decades in the beta wilderness trying to recapture the feeling they had with their alpha loves, hopping from one cad cock to another. Men are simply less interchangeable as lovers for women than women are interchangeable as lovers for men. It is for this reason that a fling with an alpha male will ruin a woman for all future men. A man, in contrast, is rarely ruined for all future women when he has a fling with a hot chick, unless he suffers a status and confidence drop so precipitous that the kinds of women he attracts are two or more points lower on the beauty ranking scale than his best past lover.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Age Of Flakes

Oct 29th, 2012 by

When a girl flaked (i.e., unexpectedly cancelled or failed to show for a date, or screened your calls) on you in the not too distant past, it usually meant there was a lack of attraction or she lost what little attraction there was in the interim between meeting her and calling her the next day. Occasionally, flakes were legitimate consequences of bad logistics or real plans that she had.

But, today, with the proliferation of smart phones and dumb disrespect, flaking has become de rigeur in certain segments of the female population. The NewYorkBetaTimes is on top of the trend (h/t reader M Serious):

Not long before that, Leandra Medine, the 23-year-old fashion blogger behind Man Repeller, sat down at the SoHo restaurant Jack’s Wife Freda and waited for her three friends. As she nursed a glass of wine, she glanced down at her phone to learn, via text, that all of her friends had bailed.

Random missed connections? Not quite.

Texting and instant messaging make it easier to navigate our social lives, but they are also turning us into ill-mannered flakes. Not long ago, the only way to break a social engagement, outside of blowing off someone completely, was to do it in person or on the phone. An effusive apology was expected, or at least the appearance of contrition.

But now, when our fingers tap our way out of social obligations, the barriers to canceling have been lowered. Not feeling up for going out? Have better plans? Just type a note on the fly (“Sorry can’t make it tonight”) and hit send.

And don’t worry about giving advance notice. The later, the better. After all, bailing on dinner via text message doesn’t feel as disrespectful as standing up someone, or as embarrassing.

Social media isn’t bringing us together as its creators and cheerleaders promised it would; it’s tearing apart our humanity. Our social minds have evolved in a face-to-face medium, not a faceless ASCII ether. When you can’t see the disappointment or anger on the face of the person you’re shafting, you don’t feel bad about it. Smartphones feed the shamelessness of our culture.

And it is practically endemic among those in their 20s and younger, who were raised in the age of instant chatter.

“Texting is lazy, and it encourages and promotes flakiness,” Mr. Cohen said. “You’re not treating anything with any weight, and it turns us all into 14-year-olds. We’re all 14-year-olds in suits and high heels.”

Social media is also making emotionally stunted children out of all of us. Or, more precisely, emotionally blank aspie idiots. I wonder if the ability to read emotions from a person’s face and body language is declining in lockstep with the rise of texting and IMing? If it is, as I suspect, then salesmen with cunning social skills will be able to clean up in an environment of over-trusting spergy kiddies. Some of you will be able to see the connection to antagonistic mass diversity here.

Rachel Libeskind, a 23-year-old artist who lives in TriBeCa, is constantly navigating her social circles from her iPhone. She finds that she’ll triple- or even quadruple-book plans on weekend nights, knowing there’s only a 60 percent chance she’ll engage in any of them.

“People will text me, ‘Let’s do something this week,’ and I’ll have three or four plans laid out for the week, and on average, more than half of them fall through,” she said. “The social plans I make are always changing, always shifting.”

Girls especially love this age of electronic “micro-coordinating”, because the plethora of shallow plans make them feel wanted, loved, desired, popular, BUSY BUSY BUSY. It’s an incipient attention whore’s paradise. Until 4 out of 5 plans fall through, and she has to micro-coordinate another ten plans to get her lookatme! fix.

Players like this situation as well, because it allows them to juggle multiple women seamlessly and to cut girls off without undue chick drama.

Moreover, it’s not considered boorish when her peers abandon one another. “Because there is very little at stake in terms of having these plans, it’s not that rude,” she said. “It’s implicit because that’s how everyone is operating.”

Social media and smartphones have ensured that nothing is important, because the second something *is* important, there are real consequences for flaking on it. And no woman-child wants to deal with icky real consequences. Yuk!

“My parents always say that when you make a plan, even if your finger is falling off, even if you’re bleeding, you can’t stand people up,” said Ms. Medine, the fashion blogger. [editor: “fashion blogger”. jesus. all i want for christmas is a day of the rope… a day of the rope…] “But to me, it’s not rude. If your plans fall through, that’s fine. We live in a city where there are a million other plans waiting for you.”

This is why the modern day player has to have, as part of his seduction arsenal, professional anti-flaking techniques. If you don’t know how to handle the flakes that will inevitably occur, you are handicapped in the mating market. And you know what kind of guy thrives in the Age of Flakes? — The guy who knows how to flip the script and get women to chase *him*, so that he is the one with the option to flake.

Ms. Medine added that she would often R.S.V.P. to five events a night, knowing there’s little chance she would attend them all. “I don’t think any plan is a plan until you’re inside the restaurant looking at someone else,” she said.

Player: “I don’t think any plan is a plan until you’re inside her vagina looking into her eyes.”

Hey, what’s good for the goose…

PS You will see a photo of MIZZ Medine alongside the article, and, well… manjaw’s gonna manjaw.

Seriously, what the fuck is up with American women acting and looking like men, and American men acting and looking like manboobs? Did a silent enemy slip something into our water supply? Are my balls just astronomically bigger than the average man’s because I don’t apologize for my manhood, and I prefer feminine women?

My techie-minded prediction is that the Age of Flaking will slowly come to an end when video-texting and video calling become widely used. Once you can’t text or IM without seeing a moving face before you, the boorishness will wither with the rising shame.

“If you text a friend that you can’t make dinner because you’re feeling sick, and then a picture of you dancing on a bar shows up on someone’s Instagram feed, you just got caught,” Mr. Blasberg said. “With the rise of social media and technology, it’s harder to use little white lies to get out of things.”

Orwell was only partly right. Big Brother is everywhere, but he is as much your friend or neighbor as he is your government.

A classic CH anti-flaking technique can be found here.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Game, Girls | Comments Off

Chicks Dig Serial Killers

Oct 26th, 2012 by

What do you get when you put a creepy sexual sadist serial killer in the same room with a lot of young women?

Sparks!

Robert Ben Rhoades, the notorious Truck Stop Killer, also killed it with the ladies.

Debra Davis and Rhoades met in the early ’80s at a Houston bar called Chipkikkers. Rhoades was dressed that night as an airline pilot, and it was months before Davis found out he wasn’t one. The remarkable thing is that when she did, she didn’t dump him. But Rhoades was cunning and highly charismatic. When the FBI extradited him to Illinois, he was able to get a phone number off a waitress while shackled hand and foot and wearing an orange prison suit. This obviously doesn’t recommend the waitress’s judgment, but at least some of the credit has to go to Rhoades.

“There was just something about him. I can’t explain it.”

Beta males the world over woo women with flowers and flattery and get put on ice as a reward. A charismatic psychopath scores digits while decked out in prison chic and chained hand and foot.

Ah, women. Lift the veil of their sweetness a little too far, and…

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Girls, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Alpha Troll Of The Month

Oct 26th, 2012 by

Somewhere in Brazil, an alpha prankster (you’d need to be alpha to pull this off for as long as he did with a smirk on your face) trolled a slut walk full of unhygienic feminists hard. He rolled up and rolled his dick out in solidarity with the concept of slut pride, as seething, violent, hyper-emotional feminist cuntrags, who wouldn’t know irony if it walked up and boob-slapped them, threw stuff at him, missing 100% of the time from three feet out. Because girls can’t throw.

Awareness raised! For some reason, I have it in my mind that this guy is actually mischievous commenter “gig” moonlighting as a rapscallion. You go, gig!

Anyhow, the Youtube comments are gold, demonstrating once again that the best American comedy is to be found lurking on Youtube under anonymous troll cover. Ex:

So this is why my sandwich is still not made. Damn the March of the Sluts.

“There are only two ways of telling great humor without getting fined for sexual harassment — anonymously and posthumously.”
– Thomas Sowell

So I take it Brazil is now filled to the rafters with inane feminists who lack the awareness to perceive their hypocrisy. Yay globalization! We’ve come a long way from Blame it on Rio. I wonder if a single one of those shrieking skanks offended (shamefully aroused?) by the sight of penis blowin’ in the breeze grasps the irony that they betrayed the principle of their slut walk by reacting in judgmental horror to a guy who just wanted to empower himself and dress the way he wants. Can’t a guy stroll through a feminist coven proudly showcasing some serpent skin without being accosted, institutionally raped, and deprivileged by the matriarchy? There should be laws against women who victimize men because they can’t control themselves when they see penis. Hey hey, ho ho, penis haters got to go!

A master troll who knows his craft can smash a million pretty lies with one mighty unzip of his pants.

Let’s have a closer look at the alpha mug which drove a horde of feminists apoplectic with self-realization.

Readers sometimes ask what exactly “bemused mastery” looks like. I think this should answer their question.

The smirk of satisfaction. Don’t expect a cringing display of beta supplicating apologetics from this face. He knows he’s getting laid for his effrontery.

If you scan the crowd, you’ll see a few white knight omegaboy lasanga vegetables shitting their panties. Gotta love their utter demasculinizing uselessness out there. Lapdog mascots who will lick the boots of their cunty masters for a grateful nibble of fetid swamp snatch when the moon aligns with Uranus. But enough about Hugo Schwyzer.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Feminist Idiocy, Funny/Lolblogs, Sluts | Comments Off

Men Can’t Be Friends With (Attractive) Women: The Science

Oct 25th, 2012 by

Four years ago, this esteemed blog laid out in detail the reasons why men can’t be friends with bangable women, and under which conditions male-female friendships could plausibly form and endure.

Men and women simply cannot be friends unless certain conditions are met.

  • Mutual lack of attraction

This is easy. When there’s no loin burning to get in the way a girl buddy is like a guy buddy, except you can dump on her about your dating troubles and give your opinion of in-season colors without getting laughed at.

[…]

  • One way attraction, girl to guy

Girls find it easier to keep their sex drives in check, which is why they can retain their sanity while remaining friends with uninterested guys they are attracted to far longer than the reverse scenario. Men who are attracted to their girl buddies cannot stay friends for long without either making a sloppy move and killing the friendship or sacrificing their last ounce of dignity as they go insane from blue balls toxic shock.

[…]

  • One way attraction, player to girl

There is only one way a single man can be friends with a woman he wants to bang and that’s when his balls are so drained from fucking other women that he feels no testicular pressure to act on his desire. You’ll notice that a typical sexually satisfied alpha has lots of hot girl acquaintances he doesn’t bother gaming because the effort required is not worth the very small marginal increase in pleasure or risk of losing the girls as social proof and as friends.

[…]

  • The man is married or in a relationship

If you’re looking to be a cool friend to hot chicks without falling victim to the temptation to hit on them, you can acquire this noble virtue on the cheap by shackling your vice within the artificial prison of marriage or exclusive relationships. (Note: The opposite doesn’t work — most men will sleep with a hot married woman given the chance and in spite of the risk.) This is the foolproof method for betas to be relaxed and emotionally stable friends with attractive girls they’d love to bang. They simply tell themselves that they already have a girl waiting for them at home who they love very much or, if they don’t love her, who would be really pissed if they cheated on her, and so the pressure is off. They can therefore rationalize their asexual acquiescence to LJBFdom as a pose of moral rectitude.

[…]

  • She’s on the internet and you can’t see her in person

Pretty simple trick to be platonic with a chick when she’s a flick on your monitor and a thousand miles away.

As per usual, the Chateau was more right than it knew, and ahead of its time. Recently, a scientific study has confirmed just about every observationally sound assertion put forth in that seminal post.

[T]he possibility remains that this apparently platonic coexistence is merely a façade, an elaborate dance covering up countless sexual impulses bubbling just beneath the surface.

New research suggests that there may be some truth to this possibility—that we may think we’re capable of being “just friends” with members of the opposite sex, but the opportunity (or perceived opportunity) for “romance” is often lurking just around the corner, waiting to pounce at the most inopportune moment. […]

The results suggest large gender differences in how men and women experience opposite-sex friendships. Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa. Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them—a clearly misguided belief. In fact, men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt—basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends. Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends; because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual. As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends. […]

These results suggest that men, relative to women, have a particularly hard time being “just friends.” What makes these results particularly interesting is that they were found within particular friendships (remember, each participant was only asked about the specific, platonic, friend with whom they entered the lab). This is not just a bit of confirmation for stereotypes about sex-hungry males and naïve females; it is direct proof that two people can experience the exact same relationship in radically different ways. Men seem to see myriad opportunities for romance in their supposedly platonic opposite-sex friendships. The women in these friendships, however, seem to have a completely different orientation—one that is actually platonic.

Science ♥s Heartiste. It feels good being so right so often, but honestly a high “being right to being wrong” ratio isn’t that difficult to achieve as long as you are open to seeing reality for what it is, rather than what you wish it to be. The study’s money quote:

Taken together, these studies suggest that men and women have vastly different views of what it means to be “just friends”—and that these differing views have the potential to lead to trouble. Although women seem to be genuine in their belief that opposite-sex friendships are platonic, men seem unable to turn off their desire for something more. And even though both genders agree overall that attraction between platonic friends is more negative than positive, males are less likely than females to hold this view.

If you were to read nothing in life except this blog, you would be better equipped to successfully navigate the obstacles life throws at you than a feminist or manboob who has read 10,000 cathedral-certified gender studies textbooks at $100 a pop.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, Guy Rules, Science Validates Game, Ugly Truths, Vanity | Comments Off

What A World Ruled By Feminists Would Look Like

Oct 25th, 2012 by

Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones

A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.

After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.

We thank you for your comments and feedback.

Ego-assuaging sanitization.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Value Of Makeup Is Declining

Oct 24th, 2012 by

Like anyone would be
I am flattered by your fascination with me
Like any hot blooded woman
I have simply wanted an object to crave
– “Uninvited”

Women overestimate, and men underestimate, the impact makeup has on women’s looks. For the majority of women, expertly applied makeup adds half a point to 1 point to their facial attractiveness. A minority benefits from a generous 2 point increase to their beauty ranking. A few very ugly women see no improvement (lipstick on a pig syndrome). And a very few odd-looking catwalk models with angular, bony faces can see incredible leaps of beauty from makeup (and favorable lighting), sometimes on the order of a 4 or 5 point jump up the looks scale.

The average woman, of course, thinks that makeup conceals all her flaws (it doesn’t, particularly flaws arising from asymmetry or masculinized features, such as manjaws) and beautifies her beyond her relative beauty ranking in the general female population. The average man, who, it should be noted, has little experience bedding a lot of pretty women, thinks women won’t look very different in the morning, sans makeup. These neophyte men are often shocked by the difference dim light and eye shadow can play on their perception. Makeup may only grant a one point improvement to women, but one point is serious business on a ten point scale.

Since nearly all women use makeup on a regular or semi-regular basis, the advantage any one woman gets from makeup is that it allows her to stay in the game. Not using makeup is akin to walking into a heated mating environment with curlers in her hair and bits of tissue paper on her freshly popped zits. She’s gotta keep up with the Janeses. Unless she is part of the 1% of women with unearthly natural beauty that shines better without makeup, going out in public without her “face” on is accepting a severe handicap to her SMV.

So makeup does give women a nontrivial boost to their absolute SMV, if not their relative SMV. This matters, because absolute female beauty is more important than relative female beauty for attracting men. A plain jane in a roomful of warpigs will doubtless earn more male attention, but she still won’t be any man’s ideal mate. Men have the golden ratio embedded in their brains, and a less ugly girl is not the same as a pretty girl.

We know makeup has mating value for women, else they wouldn’t spend billions caking themselves in it. But does makeup have less value today than it did in the recent past? Think about the typical woman’s dating life 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. She lived with her parents until she got married. Long courtships were the norm. She was dropped off at home by her date before the night was out. If there was a morning after, it usually meant wedding nuptials were exchanged the day before. If there was premarital sex, it happened under conditions (read: non-cohabitating) that ensured the woman would still be made up post-coitus.

The effect of this dating system was that men would hardly ever see the women they dated *without* their makeup on. Many a man didn’t see the honest, true woman he was dating/sexing until he put a ring on it. The women of yore benefited from this system that allowed them to avoid “just being themselves” just long enough to entrap entranced men in lifelong servitude.

Fast forward to today. Morning afters happen within weeks, sometimes within hours, of meeting a woman. This means men are seeing women in all their natural glory long before any marital vows are whispered about. That hot babe you wanted to fuck so badly the night before has morphed into a moldy loaf of bread with half her face mashed into a wrinkled mess in your pillow. The illusion shattered, a relationship with this creature has suddenly seemed a lot less inviting.

The power of makeup is not what it used to be, for the simple reason that men are seeing women without their makeup sooner, and more often. This unpainted state of affairs has hit cougars and marginal girls the hardest, for whom makeup is their last salvation from a life of depressing singledom.

Is the denuded woman’s face her worst foe? A good case can be made that a culture stripped of its illusory power of makeup has contributed to falling marriage rates and delayed marriage and men in general not giving a flying fuck about impressing women. Yeah, maybe it’s not a major contributor, (female obesity would claim the corpulent crown as a major contributor), but it could play a role. The story of decivilizing cultures is partly the story of women ousted from their vaunted position in society as sublime muses for men’s hearts.

PS Occasionally a dummy feminist hater (but i repeat myself thricely!) will stroll in this happy cunting ground claiming makeup allows her to fool men that she’s hotter than she is, and to get what she wants from them, even marriage. I always respond that such a claim conveniently overlooks the reality of the morning after. You can dye, but you can’t hide…

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Dating, Girls, Pretty Lies | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »