Feed on
Posts
Comments

Hypergamy, Sluts And Smart Women

Feb 15th, 2012 by

A reader emailed a recent fascinating study that, AS PER USUAL♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, confirms many core Chateau concepts and related game strategies.

Although robust sex differences are abundant in men and women’s mating psychology, there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two as well. In an effort to understand where and when this overlap exists, the current study provides an exploration of within-sex variation in women’s mate preferences. We hypothesized that women’s intelligence, given an environment where women can use that intelligence to attain educational and career opportunities, would be: (1) positively related to their willingness to engage in short-term sexual relationships, (2) negatively related to their desire for qualities in a partner that indicated wealth and status, and (3) negatively related to their endorsement of traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. These predictions were supported. Results suggest that intelligence may be one important individual difference influencing women’s mate preferences.

Anti-game haters and various sore losers in life: reread the above for comprehension before commenting. You’ll save everyone a lot of scrolling effort to glide by your blockheadedness.

Let’s tackle the conclusions of this study one by one.

1. Smart, educated, careerist women (aka urban SWPLs) are more likely to want to ride the cock carousel (i.e., “engage in short-term sexual relationships”). That old game hater saw that only low self-esteem sluts and dumb skanks like to play the phallus field is the complete opposite of reality. It’s the smart, educated chicks who dig the cock and, by deduction, it’s the smart, educated chicks who will fall for short-term pickup game more than dumb chicks.

In one fell swoop, a cherished feminist and beta male shibboleth gets crushed into dust and blown away.

2. Smart, educated, careerist women are less interested in a man’s money or career status. This dovetails perfectly with the Chateau contention that female economic empowerment has led to a sexual market where soft polygamy — the clustering of financially independent women at the peak of their fertility (and beauty) around charming alpha males — is the new norm in blue state meccas. If money and occupational status mean less to smart girls, then guess what means more to them? You got it. Game. And who loses in this arrangement? Yup, boring provider beta males.

3. Smart, educated, careerist women are more likely to eschew “traditional gender roles” in romantic relationships. So it is the smart girls, not the dumb ones, who say screw it to marriage, dating, fidelity and lifelong monogamy while they are in their primes, and who are more open to fucking around, casual hook ups, cheating and, ahem, serial monogamy. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a description of a pickup artist’s paradise. Smart girls do eventually get married at higher rates than dumb, lower class girls, but the relevant factor to the typical urban beta male is how many girls in his milieu are ready for marriage and/or long term relationships *during their 20s*, when women are at their most desirable. If the rising age of first marriage is any indication, not many.

Bottom line: your typical slut is a smart, educated woman.

So what does this have to do with that noted force of nature, female hypergamy? Well, if we premise our argument with the claim that female hypergamy always exists, and is always operational and acting upon women’s mate choice mechanisms (a claim entirely consistent with observed female behavior), then, given the study conclusions above, we are presented with the possibility that smart, financially independent chicks emphasize different male attractiveness traits when choosing mates than do dumb, financially insecure chicks. What are they?

Charm. Wit. Looks. Confidence. Social savviness. Social status (as distinct from wealth or occupational status). Charisma.

Most of these male attractiveness traits favored by smart chicks, yes, even including social status, can be grouped under the game umbrella. Game makes men more charming, witty, confident, socially savvy and charismatic. It even boosts a man’s social status. (Being known as a ladykiller is chicknip.)

Looks are the one thing game can’t change, but in most men’s experiences, women’s judgment and emphasis of male looks doesn’t much vary between the lower and upper class women, or the dumb and smart women. The study does suggest, though, that economically empowered and übereducated women probably will put more emphasis on male looks than will economically insecure, less educated women.

Now you know why poor, dumb religious girls swoon (settle?) at younger ages for provider betas relatively more than well-off, smart, secular girls. And why the latter can be found hanging off the arm of your local indie band singer before doing the smart thing and marrying a beta as her expiration date looms.

The trends in female mate choice I have described in this post go a longer way than any economic or class argument I’ve read to explain the coming apart of the white race in America as detailed in Charles Murray’s new book. Anyone who wants to take a long, hard look at social trends and the phenomena of “men dropping out” needs to incorporate into his thinking the cold, merciless, unrelenting reality of female hypergamy. To do less would be… uncivilized.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Pretty Lies, Sluts, The Big City Life, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths, Vanity | Comments Off

Occupy Bitter Spinsters

Feb 14th, 2012 by

There’s nothing funnier than lonely, unloved feminists stewing in their angostura bitters. They bring out the sadist in me.

Down with couple-talism!

A reader forwarded a link to a website called Occupy Valentine’s Day, created by an ur-feminist who is the executive editor of Feministing.

[V Day] puts pressure on couples to be a certain way, it privileges one type of love (think heteronormativity!) and it makes single people feel incomplete.

Like most outcasts nursing grudges, she has a thing against normal people behaving in normal ways.

we can use Valentine’s Day to raise awareness about the limited ways we think about romance.

In the past, petulant sophists like this would be ignored and allowed to fade into obscurity. Today, they get a platform and a sympathetic media treatment.
When the degenerate is elevated to a voice of wisdom
and the customary and ordinary subverted
confusion arrests the strongest hearts
until weakness is to excellence inverted.

The goal of the OVD website, near as a sane person can tell, is a hodgepodge advocacy of the usual rainbow coalition and femcunt agenda crap, plus a general lashing out at love and anything that smacks of romantic gestures shared between a man and a woman (romantic gestures between man and man, woman and woman, and spinster and cat are perfectly fine, though).

Blog about how traditional ideas of romance perpetuate gender inequalities and hurt people of all genders

If taking my girl out to a romantic nighttime spot for heavy petting under the silver moon manages to perpetuate gender inequalities and make life miserable for the rejects who post on Occupy Valentine’s Day, I consider that a successful two-fer.

Have a sexy conversation by candlelight with your partner about structural inequity

You think this is a parody, but then you remember that feminists have no sense of humor. All real, all retarded.

Commit to never settling for anyone who is not good enough for you just because you are afraid to spend another Valentine’s Day alone

Ever notice how women with the fewest reasons to feel entitled are often the ones who most loudly proclaim their refusal to settle?

These are just a few ways we can use Valentine’s Day to raise awareness about the limited ways we think about romance.

Maxim #210: If you are using a romantic holiday as a pretext to raise awareness instead of raise erections, you are probably a fat loser.

Celebrating love is wonderful and romance can be great too. But we don’t need corporations to dictate how we should do it, a mainstream media chastising us for not doing it right or traditional ideas touted over and over by our friends and family.

Hey, I’ve got not problem with skipping out on the corporatized aspect of V-Day. I’ll be the first guy to tell men they don’t need cards and chocolate to inspire girls to feel love. Nothing kills romance faster than dreary obligation. The difference between me and this feminist loser is that I don’t make a capital case out of traditional romantic gestures as being somehow symbolic of hatred for weirdos, dweebs, fatties and fuglies who can’t get a date.

That shit is oppressive and hurts us more than helps.

You can pinpoint the exact moment in history when the West began its decline as the moment when we started caring what spiteful losers think. A little oppression and hurtfulness is a healthy society’s cleansing mechanism. Time to reoccupy the icy wastelands with society’s waste product.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, Maxims, Ridiculousness, The Id Monster, Tool Time | Comments Off

A Valentine’s Day Thought Experiment

Feb 14th, 2012 by

What’s more degrading:

a. paying a whore because you have no other way to get laid

b. sleeping with this for free:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ What’s more degrading?Paying whore because can’t get sex otherwiseFucking cigstache for freeVoteView ResultsPolldaddy.com

Posted in Beta, Guy Rules, Psy Ops, The Id Monster | Comments Off

Bachelor Pad Themes

Feb 13th, 2012 by

The look and layout of your bachelor pad when you take a woman home with you, while not a necessary tool of game, can help ease the transition from seduction to sex. There are four main design theme directions a man such as yourself can consider when kitting out a home to best reflect your ladykiller cred.

1. More masculine

Deliberately excising any estrogenic touch from your interior decorating is the way of the man who wants female visitors to know his balls are not for sale. These are the homes of the finance wizard, the international businessman and the nerd. Man caves are usually sharply geometric, monochrome, metallic, hi-fi and, except in the case of the nerd, blessedly free of clutter. Bedroom furniture is either heavy, dark, unadorned mahogany or Scandinavian. Art is minimalist and modern. Sofas are exquisitely uncomfortable, facing enormous flat screen TVs. Top shelf bottles of liquor rest on Sterling Cooper bar caddies. The masculine home is a cold, unforgiving, chillingly beautiful non-interactive space that evokes the warehouse aesthetic of early first person shooters. You are reminded of nothing less than “American Psycho” and chainsaws.

2. More feminine

Adding splashes of femininity to your bachelor pad lets women know you are comfortable living with the energy of the softer sex humming pleasantly in the background. The feminized bachelor pad is the man parlor of the artist, the real estate salesman and the homosexual. Man parlors feature rounded edges, multihued color schemes, mineral or elemental textures, lo-fi vintage sensibility, and whimsically decorative trinkets and baubles of meaninglessness. Bedroom furniture is either antique or avant-garde. Square pillows and cologne-scented candles are everywhere. Paintings of French scenes abound. The feminized man parlor is a warm, aesthetically welcoming interactive space that evokes safety, security and the familiarity of romantic moments in front of the fireplace.

3. More sexual

This is the player’s studio. His den of iniquity. A sexualized bachelor pad, whether masculinized or feminized, is littered with props that testify to a man’s preselection by women and his tomcat lifestyle. Many decorative touches are of the form of “accidental” knick-knacks left lying around — such as old photos of you with pretty girls, a stray earring, two toothbrushes in the bathroom — that send hamsters spinning at full tilt. The sexual overload is contrasted with carefully conspicuous cookbooks and “homey” artifacts that fuel the female predilection to believe there is a domesticated man within the cad just waiting to burst forth with assistance by the right woman. This is the man lounge that inspires one night stands.

4. More mysterious

Here we come to the final destination — and the most difficult to master — in bachelor pad proofing: the man manor. A woman entering the enigma of the man manor is greeted by curios of mysterious beauty and a design sensibility that evokes not so much an aesthetic, but an adventure; a life fully lived. Oddities loom over monstrous bookcases. Souvenirs act as fulcrums for each room’s decorative theme. Tattered manuscripts, not glossy magazines or SWPL weeklies, perch tantalizingly in nooks and crannies. The rooms do not reveal, as much as beg for more to be revealed. A woman, upon entering this alternate manverse, is forced to navigate the novelty, snooping reflecting on what she sees at every turn, robbed of the inertia to sit down immediately and stew in her ASD (anti-slut defenses). She is overwhelmed by curioisty, and a curious woman is shortly a horny woman. Man manors pay only the slightest lip service to design rules, but they are generally spartan in space usage (the better to showcase the quizzical artifacts of unusual heft), boldly colored with an emphasis on the darker hues, moody in affect, and nonconformist. The man designing the man manor assiduously avoids trendiness of any flavor. He does not care for social approval; he only cares about lighting up the neural synapses of his prey.

***

There is no right or wrong way to manage the look of your bachelor pad. Each of the above four themes, properly executed, will redound to a man’s advantage in the bedding of women, and some women will react more favorably to a certain theme depending on her individual aesthetic, station in life and relationship goals. However, one theme provides a bigger boudoir boost than the others. And that is the man manor. Simply put, mystery is the gift that accelerates women to sexual abandon faster, and more reliably, than masculinity, femininity or Quagmire caddishness.

I have not lived in every style of place outlined in this post, but I have known, and know, men who do live in homes representing each of the four major design philosophies. Without doubt, the best players tend to the man manor theme, sprinkled with props indicating female preselection. The biggest player I have ever known — a man whose count possibly numbers in the thousands — had a living space that could double as a museum.

Charred oak was the construction medium of his coffee table and bookcases, which were filled with travel guides, dog-eared classics of literature and lewd photography books. A cracked and gouged writing desk he claimed was one used by Edgar Allan Poe sat in his bedroom, at the end of a four poster king-sized monstrosity covered with mosquito netting. A full body female mannequin wearing a safari outfit and pearls occupied a corner of the living room. She looked on the proceedings with an expression of smug disdain. A stuffed rattlesnake reared back, coiled and angry, under a glass case.

A shelf full of dusty old baseballs supposedly gleaned from major sporting events and autographed by famous players peered out from small glass containers. (I say supposedly because I had suspicion that some of the autographs were added after the point of sale.) A crocodile head was etched with dripped wax from a giant gothic candle on its snout. A reading stand — much like the one you might see holding a Bible in a church — propped open a leather-bound notebook with scribblings in Arabic, a small bottle of india ink at its side. He claimed it was a compendium of love poems written to him by a former lover who died young. A very realistic and very creepy Hollywood quality face mask acted as a bookend. A surfboard with a shark bite-shaped chunk missing from it leaned against another corner. A black cat (real one!) with piercing green eyes sat at the edge of a banal out-of-place microfiber couch, surveying his playground.

The overall impression is that one had entered the abode of Ernest Hemingway merged with Andy Warhol.

But the coup de grace was the white wedding dress (sans train) and dark purple tuxedo displayed on mesh wire torsos in a hallway leading to the bathroom. “A love story gone tragically wrong,” he would explain. In fact, he had a story for everything in his place, and it was a rare girl who didn’t feel impelled to satisfy her curiosity. I’m convinced his digs were such extreme chick crack, that half his game was opening the front door and letting girls have a look see.

How much of his stuff was authentic, or how many of his stories true, I can’t say. Likely, most of it was BS. But what does it matter whether he traveled the world collecting strange mementos and memories or he traveled to a SWPL store two miles away to buy his stories at exorbitant prices? Girls ate it up just the same. He put effort into learning and retelling his stories, true or not, and that made girls happy, which made them want to have sex and fall in love, which made him happy. And isn’t that the essence of game?

Once you’ve entranced a woman with your living room, proceed to the bedroom finishing move; the final mysterious conceit that will cause her hamster to run straight to her vagina and start nibbling on her labia.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Spot The Alpha Male

Feb 10th, 2012 by

Trick question: both of them!

Isn’t it funny how our reflexive reaction to scenes of non-chivalrous behavior by men is to view them as intrinsically alpha? There’s something deep in our primitive subconsciousness that tells us “this cocky bastard must be the Grand Poonbah to be able to ignore polite convention and convince girls to wait on him hand and foot”.

Remember, girls are thinking the same thing. Which is why it works.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Funny/Lolblogs | Comments Off

Prosperity Is The Problem

Feb 10th, 2012 by

What, ultimately, is the cause of the decay happening in the West?

Reader carolyn writes:

[do] all young women nowadays go for the alpha exclusively, disdain the beta?

there must be women even now who size themselves up realistically. and don’t shoot for the unattainable, or more accurately, the alpha who’ll use them but never settle for them.

my own experience back when dinosaurs roamed the earth as the baby-faced ‘fattie’ (so dreaded around here) led to a fear of any overly aggressive ‘alpha’ types that came my way. i just knew intuitively it would not end well. i aspired to get a smart guy, hopefully one with a sense of humor; a _cool_ guy was out of the question. which characterized the man i married. sorry to refer to my own experience but it’s the one i know best.

my point is that there must be plenty of young women out there with a similar mindset. did all girls suddenly become stupid?

I would answer it’s not a question of exclusive vs inclusive, smart vs stupid, right vs wrong. Female hypergamy (and male preference for younger women) just IS. It’s a fact of life, and society accommodates it or corrals it depending on its goals. It’s best to think of women’s love of alphas as residing along a sexual/personality continuum (mediated by the wiring of the hindbrain), where at one end we see the thug lovers who run back to boyfriends who beat them up, and at the other end we have the wilting flowers who prefer the less volatile alpha males drawn from the pool of soft betas.

As society relaxes its controls of female sexuality — and unleashed female sexuality is the wilder and more fluid and more dangerous of the sexes — more women rush to the “thug lover” side of the hindbrain continuum, and away from any latent preference for dutiful betas. Conversely, when society strengthens its controls over female sexuality, something close to the opposite happens: women are incentivized to favor the company of beta males.

Thug loving serves a useful purpose in evolutionary terms. The sons of thugs make better protectors of the tribe, and in point of fact stupider, thuggier people outbreed smarter, empathetic people. Experiments in fruit flies have actually proven the concept of an emergent idiocracy.

Soft alpha/beta loving serves a useful purpose in civilizational terms. The sons of K selected women make better builders and maintainers of prosperous societies.

Both strategies come with their weaknesses and strengths, but it has to be said that, in most practical senses, the evolutionary goals are at odds with the civilizational goals. In simpler terms: what’s good for the individual man or woman is not necessarily, or very often, good for a prosperous society. This has been a core concept here at the Chateau since its inception.

And so a great truth about humanity is revealed that liberals mostly, and conservatives to a lesser degree, have trouble wrapping their brains around.

Jason Malloy, a drive-by commenter at blogs I occasionally read, usually has very smart things to say about the form a dystopia might take, and the factors that lead to cultural and national dissolution. When he writes, I generally give his words more than a second’s thought. And lately, his words have been echoing much of what is written here.

The larger sorting patterns [seen in rates of dysfunction between the upper and lower classes] need to be viewed through the lens of latent behavioral variation. Social pressures were already biased towards high investment reproduction. People were shamed for having premarital sex or children outside of marriage. Female economic dependency was just one more practical limit on these behaviors. However, once prosperity and secularism unraveled the cultural expectations, only internal behavioral motivators were left, and the motivations previously dampened and suppressed through practical and social limits could now express themselves.

The internal motivators tend to form a psychological and behavioral package: some people are oriented towards higher investment reproduction and this entails higher cognitive ability, long term goals about education and career, later first intercourse, fewer and more stable relationships, reproduction within secure pairbond, and mate selection biased towards reliability and parenting qualities. Other people are oriented towards lower investment reproduction and this entails lower cognitive ability, few long term goals, early first intercourse, more sex partners and less stable relationships, reproduction outside of pairbond, and mate selection biased towards “sexy��? qualities (looks, charm, creativity, athleticism). (Many of these traits are functionally related (e.g. lower IQ mostly is a major cause of higher time preference), but they are also compounded through assortative mating).

***

[Re: the upper half of women having sex before marriage but still getting married.]

As much as I appreciate [Charles] Murray’s sociological perspective, I think this is his weakness as a bio-conservative trying to piece together the trends. The upper and the lower classes aren’t sorting by cognitive ability, so much as they are by life history behavior (which also includes cognitive ability).

A conservative libertarian has a lot to grapple with here: freedom and prosperity are the real “culprits��? here, and their interaction with natural genetic variation. Not the welfare state. Not the government. Not apathetic elites. Not globalism or “stagnant wages��?. Any major reversals in these trends would seemingly require major, forceful social controls, because they are the consequences of a very pervasive kind of individualism and of freedom of thought.

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.

What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.

None of this is to say that people would, or should, prefer to live in less prosperous, backward nations. I don’t see too many Westerners clamoring to move to Zimbabwe for the quality of life. And yet, there has to be a recognition among the cognoscenti that a deeply embedded human nature exists, and that this nature — immutable, unalterable, suppressed only with great effort — when allowed to fully express or, alternately, when stifled at great psychic expense guarantees the slow unwinding of the very prosperity it desires and refuses to relinquish when it achieves.

Maxim #1,000: Prosperity contains within it the seed of its own destruction.

Could this ever not be the case? Perhaps if there were not significant differences in ability and talent between people and groups of people, differences in possession of civilizationally advantageous traits, you could say then that prosperity may become, theoretically, self-perpetuating. Feeding and growing without limit.

But evolution would not exist were that the case. Evolution would have to stop for such a social condition to manifest. Thus, we grapple with reality, whether we choose to or not. Because it grapples with us.

The prosperity America achieved will be her undoing. This isn’t idle apocalyptic talk. There is plenty of historical precedent. There are plenty of indicators that cultural and economic and lifestyle collapse are beginning their long march through the Western citizenry and institutions. The armies of disintegration have amassed and the first waves have stormed the citadel. Aided and abetted by people who don’t understand the forces at work, and who wouldn’t change direction even if they did understand. Prosperity is enervating. The will to dismantle it, temporarily, to save it, is weakened totally by the comforts it provides.

America is dying. Unless the powerful divest themselves from their voracious egos and accept that they have been steeped in a mountain of lies for 60 years, perhaps 150 years depending on your point of origin, and until that day they reverse the path they have taken this country, America’s slow, asphyxiating dying will finally, unmercifully, reach closure… in her death. Today, the Lords of Lies are our masters. Tomorrow, the truth will reign, over a rejuvenated America or a bitter wasteland. Either way, the truth will reign.

The Lords of Lies must first be defeated if the path we are on has a chance to be corrected. The only thing we know for certain is that they won’t go easily to their irrelevance.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Hope and Change, Self-aggrandizement, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Hugo Schwyzer’s Phony Feminism

Feb 9th, 2012 by

Our favorite false flag limpwrist, Hugo Schwyzer, is licking the hairy taint of feminists once more in a vomitous piece about the popularity among men of “barely legal” porn. He really tries hard to put a feminist-friendly (read: anti-male) spin on the uncomfortable reality that men naturally prefer the stimulating sight of lithe, supple, fully ripe young women.

Across the web, videos and images featuring 18- and 19-year-olds — or actresses in their twenties trying to look younger — are by every measure the most in demand. “Teen porn” is the most common genre-specific term used in Google searches, and teen-themed videos dominate the top 25 most-viewed videos on YouPorn. (Link is absolutely NSFW.) […]

Beyond Derbyshire, the most common explanation given for adult men’s particularly intense attraction to teen girls is reproduction. But on closer scrutiny that theory falls apart. Women’s fertility peaks between 22 and 26, well after their “salad days” have come to a close.

The argument that men in their 30s, 40s, and beyond are evolutionarily hardwired to lust after girls just above or below the adulthood threshold has less merit than we think.

One alternative answer has much more to do with adult men’s anxiety than with their reproductive longings. In the fantasy world of “barely legal” pornography, the teen girl is an ingénue longing for sexual initiation at the hands and body of an experienced older man. For an older man (the average male porn user is over 30) perhaps intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of his own female peers, the imagined naïveté of a much-younger woman is a source of comfort. The less experience she has, the less likely she’ll mock his clumsiness and the more likely she’ll appreciate whatever savoir-faire he does possess.

[ed: alert! feminist feelgood twaddle incoming] The reality is that only those who are wise and confident enough to challenge us can help us grow. Age isn’t just a number; that confidence and wisdom takes time to emerge. So when men eroticize the young, the tentative, and the innocent — for whatever reason — they’re possibly just eroticizing their own reluctance to accept adulthood and responsibility. In that scenario, everybody loses.

This guy can really fling the bullshit. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the subject of barely legal teens can so effortlessly BS his way into nonsensical alternate explanations for male sexual behavior that are otherwise easily explained by a naturally evolved male preference for peak fertility women with little baggage. After all, he’s gotta cover his ass for past, uh… indiscretions. As Bill Clinton understood, nothing distracts feminist attention from one’s own very unfeminist lifestyle like mouthing the platitudes feminists want to hear.

I was once a broken, bad man taking advantage of young women, but now I have seen the light! Praise the bog! Men suck! Men have issues! Men are intimidated by older women! Speaking of which, let’s you and I go for a drink after class today and discuss our mutual loathing of rape culture. I’ll pay just the tip. Heh heh heh.

First, Schwyster is wrong about women’s peak fertility. He pulled his number from Wikipedia which should be a clue to take it with a grain of salt. The age range varies in the studies I’ve seen, but basically most peg female peak fertility in the 18-24 year range. Since barely legal porn filmmakers, by law, can’t hire girls under 18, the most important premise of Schwyster’s argument falls apart before he’s even out of the gate. Instead of confirming Schwyster’s fevered pathologizing of normal male sexuality, the evidence that men prefer watching porn featuring 18-21 year old girls, who are within the peak fertility range, simply affirms the evolutionary theory that gives hives to feminists and feminist suck-ups like Schwyster.

Second, men lust for younger women because those women are less likely to be saddled with other men’s children, or to be pregnant by other men. A young woman’s implied virginity means that fucking her results in a greater chance that any kids she pops out will be that man’s kids. This is important to men, as evolutionary theory would conclude, because men, unlike women’s perfect knowledge of maternity, do not have guarantees of paternity. So men must rely on other signals, such as the youth, fidelity and relative inexperience of their lovers.

Anxiety, or that catch-all feminist trope “intimidation”, has got nothing to do with men’s preference for younger women. It’s all about the sexy biology. By way of analogy, if older men are intimidated by the “erotic and emotional demands” of their female peers, then using Schwyster’s reasoning we may assert that women, who exhibit preferences for higher status men and older men, are intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of younger men and lower status men. Of course, no one ever makes that claim. Because it’s stupid on its face. Much like Schwyster’s claim that men are intimidated by older, less fertile, less attractive women is stupid on its face. Women aren’t attracted to lower status men, just as men aren’t attracted to older women.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

PS Hugo, word of advice. You can get a lot further with better looking, mentally stable women by not sucking up to them so badly. Chicks dig unapologetic men.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Lolita, Misandry, Pretty Lies, The Pleasure Principle, Tool Time | Comments Off

Female Hypergamy Getting Acknowledged By The Mainstream

Feb 9th, 2012 by

How influential is this blog? Well, four years ago, Le Chateau Heartiste was writing about the overlooked social and sexual phenomenon of female hypergamy, and how this innate biological female predisposition has ramifications for a society’s structure and well-being. A term was coined by yer humble narrators for the changes being wrought in America and the West by the advancement of feminism, equalism and corporate globalism: the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

A recurring theme here, and one that has gone wholly underappreciated by our elites on the Left and the Right, is how insidiously the culture and the sexual market have changed since the advent of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse. As a helpful reminder, here are the four sirens I’m talking about:

  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.

As I have written, these changes are slowly, but powerfully, tectonically shifting the courtship playing field. The big winners are alpha males and the big losers are beta males.

Recently, thanks in part to the release of Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart“, there’s been a flurry of acknowledgement from the 1% bloggers that female hypergamy is real and its unleashed version may indeed be having tremendous effects on the shitty direction American society is currently heading. Ol’ Cheap Chalupas himself has been getting in on the action with a series of posts examining the issue. The comments are illuminative, particularly the ones from some rascally rogue going by the handle “CH”.

you know, it’s not like we don’t have historical precedent for this sort of sociosexual and cultural dystopia leading to civilizational collapse. the fact that female hypergamy — or other very unPC taboo subjects such as those concerning group population differences in civilizationally advantageous traits — wasn’t even on the smartypants pundit radar until, oh, right about now, should tell us how vigorously the elites in control of our discourse need to be pummeled over the head with the facts on the ground. It’s gonna be funny when, on the night before the long day of the rope, our leading light intellectuals confront the past 60 years of their cherished beliefs and realize it was all a pack of lies and wrongheadedness.

And when they do, they can look back at this blog — when no one’s watching them, of course — and tell themselves “Well, it’s not like we weren’t ridiculed warned.”

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Current Events, Girls, Hope and Change, Ugly Truths, Vanity | Comments Off

Reader Mailbag: Oh Poppa I’m In Fear For My Life Edition

Feb 8th, 2012 by

Email #1: Daddy issues and the beta son

I grew up with alot of women around me and no father, which makes it harder for me to be an ass to women but at the same time im able to detect alot of bullshit and dodge it ever so elegantly, im pretty sure there are some studies on this, maybe write something about that? lack of male figure in growing up??

This is a difficult subject simply because it’s so hard to disentangle confounding variables in any causal relationship between parental influence (or lack of influence) and the future betatude of sons. What we do know: the bastard spawn of single moms grow up with lower chances at a successful life and higher chances of dysfunction. Now whether this is primarily because biological father absence causes kids to fail at life, or because the deadweight of single moms are genetically prone to failure, or a mix of both, is open for debate. In that spirit of caution, I’ll rely on my bird’s-eye-view impressions of father-son dynamics:

– A boy who grows up in a female-centric, fatherless home is most likely to burst forth from his rotted, disfigured chrysalis a self-destructive omega male. Too much female influence will render him utterly unprepared to acknowledge real female nature. He won’t learn from his mistakes, and he’ll suffer from the bad advice of his mother and sisters. That said, there is a minority of these robbed boys who grow into thugs and ruffians, treating women like shit and learning the dangerous lesson (dangerous for society that is) that chicks dig jerks, so why not give ‘em more of what they crave. These boy usually wind up behind WaWa huffing paint.

– A boy who grows up with a cowardly beta father — the kind of father who bends to the will of the mother every time — will either learn to mimic his father’s ineptitude with women, or he will be so thoroughly repulsed by his father’s weakness that he veers in the opposite direction. My observation is that most boys with beta fathers grow into betas themselves. Nature, nurture, take your pick; result is the same.

– Boys who grow up with faithful, strong alpha fathers typically become alpha themselves, but a minority react to their fathers’ overbearing presence and unreachable standard by turning to the fap side of mincing betatude as a sort of protest lifestyle to rationalize their failing vis a vis their fathers’ success.

– Boys who grow up with asshole-ish, abusive, unfaithful alpha fathers don’t fall far from the tree when it’s their turn to navigate the mating market. However, a minority of these boys grow up totally renouncing their masculinity because they suffered under the burden of their fathers’ masculine intensity. Shrieking feminist manginas are birthed from this type of family cauldron more often than you’d think.

The reader says that growing up in a female-centric family has allowed him to detect typical female bullshit and dodge it when he sees it coming. I don’t disbelieve his personal experience, but in reality I don’t see many fatherless sons in female-run families learning the ropes about women. It seems to be more often the case that the boy immersed in a female world has the ball juice squeezed out of him, as mom and sis and aunt try to mold him into a caricature of what they think women want instead of what women really like.

***

Email #2: Realtalk

I’m going to all CPAC with my video camera. Since I take inspiration from your blog, I figured I’d ask you if there were any questions/topics you or the readers wanted me to ask the speakers attendees.

If you DO post this to the blog, please don’t use my name…but if I post the video on youtube everyone would know who I am anyway. Eh..

I’ll assume that CPAC is the acronym for “Conservative Political Action Conference”. Any readers want to take a stab at this? Could be interesting to compile a list of Chateau-influenced questions to dispense at a moment’s notice during any political conference or book signing. At the very least, it would be funny to see speakers frozen with fear trying to answer questions that deviate from the usual banal script.

How about this: “Why do you think the elites who control national discourse are so adamant about importing a second underclass?”

Or: “Alternate sexual outlets lower the incidence of rape. Isn’t this a good reason to legalize prostitution?”

Or: “Isn’t it time we get the government out of the business of subsidizing academia?”

***

Email #3: Hindbrain über alles

OK, Dr. Evolutionary Sociobiologist, WHY?

1. Because women who have had kids have fulfilled their prime directive.

2. Because men become more beta and domesticated within the comfy confines of a relationship.

3. Because older women have lower sex drives.

That should about cover it.

***

Email #4: If it was that easy, everyone would do it

I’m a 21 year old male. I have considered the possibility of starting a career in fucking girls on the side while I study. I’d get sex from at least average looking young girls (I can choose my clients) and get payed. I wouldn’t have many clients or get any serious dough, but everything is a plus.

The only negative thing I can think of is how boys and girls would react to this if they got to know. Would I ever be able to get pussy from a girl if she knew I had worked as a “man whore”?

What would be the best possible use of words to describe male prostitution? Any advice regarding this topic is appreciated.

This email recalls a study I once read in which attractive men and women approached college-aged members of the opposite sex and asked if they wanted to fuck. Something like 99.9% of the women declined, and three quarters of the men readily agreed to the terms. A starker contrast of the biological differences between the sexes would be hard to find.

Getting from “the possibility of starting a career as a paid gigolo” to “actually having a career as a paid gigolo” is a challenge not to be underestimated. If the stories are true, most gigolos are physically fit gay men who service middle-aged housewives for cash and prizes. Sound like a fun lifestyle? Yeah, I suppose it could be if you ameliorate the disgust of boffing undesirables by having a hot girlfriend waiting at home for you after a long day’s work. But if you think that your job will be mostly getting paid in regular installments by hot young chicks of your choosing for the privilege of bouncing up and down on your cock, well… let’s just say your game would have to be tighter than a virgin’s rusty starfish to pull that off.

But I’m a generous man, so for the purposes of this post, I’ll take you at your word that you can pull this fantasy lifestyle no problem and that you aren’t a troll. To answer your questions, “boys and girls” would react with equal parts envy, consternation and curiosity. That’s a good combination of reactions to elicit from peers if banging and high social status are your goals. And not only would you still be able to pull pussy if word got out about your manwhoring, but you’d pull more than ever. As long as it wasn’t discovered you were a manwhore to rich elderly widows.

The best way to describe your job as a gigolo to potential dates is like this: “I bring happiness and joy to lonely housewives who have forgotten what it’s like to be loved and adored by a man.” Pass the Kleenex.

***

Email #5: Don’t leave us hanging

Just so you know, I ended up fucking Kristanna Loken, despite the fact that she just got engaged. If you want to know the story, let me know.

Why bother asking this question when you already know the answer? Of course, the readership would like to know how you bagged Kristanna Loken.*

*Judgment of trollery suspended until response received and plausibility analyzed.

***

Email #6: Hardcore asshole texting

Here’s a text message exchange between me (41) and a gold-digging girl (27, former “9″ but now a “7″ heading downward) who I struck out with and wrote off a month ago.  How would you critique my reaction?  You can publish it; I opened this e-mail account only to send this message.

Da fuck. I laughed reading this. It reads like an exasperated parent humoring a retarded child. There’s a game lesson there.

I’m confused about something, though. Did this emailer strike out before or after this text exchange? I’m trying to figure out if this text was successful in bringing her back into the fold, or if this is why he struck out with her. It seems from the nature of the texts that they have some familiarity with each other.

Anyhow, on a scale of effectiveness, I grade this text exchange a B-. It’s adequately cocky and dismissive, but the teasing comes across a little too strong-armed, almost nasty. The asshole needs to be leavened with a little more amused humor so that he doesn’t risk pushing her away by seeming unattainable or spiteful.

Also, and this is a relevant complaint, the ending of the text exchange sounds try-hard. Pushy. He lost his flirty edge there at the end. Yeah, he’s being cocky, but he’s also pushing harder for some kind of sexual resolution, and she isn’t biting. In fact, his barely concealed motive and slight vibe of anti-flirty gloominess (“I don’t love anyone at this hour”) triggers a series of shit tests from her (“ok, sorry! goodnite!”, “ok, tell her u need a bj!”, “yeah!”) which he does not properly handle. These last replies by her are not indicative of a woman in chaser mode; she is clearly back in the chased mode, and that is not a good mode for a girl to be in if you want to bang her.

The power trajectory shifted after his “I don’t love anyone at this hour” text. A better reply to her would have been:

TARDGIRL: So u don’t love me anymore? I was dreamin bout u baby!

HIM: I bet you were.

This opens the conversation up for more flirting and a possible fuck close.

Here’s a good rule of thumb about texting girls: your replies should get shorter, not longer, as the text conversation length increases. This way, you make it seem like you are investing less into the interaction as time passes, and she is investing more. The person who invests less receives more sexual dividends. In the emailer’s case, his text replies start off short (good) and end up longer than the girl’s (bad). It leaves the impression of frantically struggling at the end for that hail mary pass at sex.

But perhaps I’m splitting hairs. As text exchanges go, this one is better than 99% of the shit that betas mire themselves in. One shouldn’t let perfection be the enemy of good. If the emailer is reading, let us know if you managed to bang this mentally challenged chick. And if she swallowed.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

Stupid SWPL Irony

Feb 8th, 2012 by

GLP has a funny post about the tendency of good SWPL libs to inject self-referential irony in their blog bios. There’s even a word for this artless form — catacosmesis. Basically, the SWPL lists things he or she values or wants stressed about their characters, and ends the personal list with some calculated triviality that’s supposed to humanize them (i.e., calm lessers who might (should!) be intimidated by their smarts and accomplishments). For instance, here’s Ezra Klein’s bio:

Blogger/columnist for Washington Post, columnist for Bloomberg View, contributor to MSNBC. Eater of food. Hater of filibuster. Lover of charts.

Beta max.

Feminists, no surprise here, love to scatter their oh-so-serious bios with references to food.

Fearless leader of Skepchick.org, podcaster for SGU, writer, ice cream enthusiast

Oh, how ironic! I’m an atheist feminist SWPL and I’m writing a bio of my SUPER SERIOUS SUPER HIGH ACHIEVER self which, you know, is so gauche!, so let me just stick this little SUPER FUNNY tidbit about my love of ice cream at the end of the sentence. There! I can almost picture my fat feminist and bitch tittied mangina readers chuckling to themselves while missing the real irony that eating a lot of ice cream is what’s making them fat and turning them into man-hating feminists!

Dear SWPL pudding pops, this is what a coolasfuck bio looks like: Let me tell you about my life….BLAM!

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Ridiculousness, Tool Time | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »