Feed on
Posts
Comments

How To Remain Unflustered By Female Beauty

Jan 13th, 2012 by

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

The above is from the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Readers have asked, not unreasonably, “Hey, I get it, being unperturbed by a woman’s beauty is rock solid inner game, but how am I supposed to do that?”

Good question! Unfortunately, the best answer is one that won’t help you when you need the help most. Only the accumulation of repeated beddings of beautiful women is guaranteed to instill in a man unflappable poise when in their company. Sexual experience with beautiful women strips them of their mystery and tempers their power to transfix.

This is not to say you will lose the ability to appreciate female beauty; only that a pretty face won’t be able to stupefy you into bumbling betaness anymore.

Fine, now how do you assume the right emotional state when you don’t yet have a wealth of experience handling beauties? As mentioned in the quoted passage above, refraining from the knee-jerk beta male reflex to loudly, or silently, declare this or that women to be hot, smokin’ hot, or fuckin’ insanely hot, start thinking and speaking of women in more subdued, less penilely loaded, terms; e.g., interesting, unique, endearingly comical.

This simple change of perception will help you immensely. You should even go out of your way to chide your beta buddies whenever they start yawping about some or another chick’s hotness. “Dude, chill on the compliments. She’s ok, nothing more.”

There is another technique that I have put to good use in helping me overlook a woman’s beauty. Whenever I’m approaching or talking to a hot babe, I reproduce this image in my head:

I remind myself that every woman has a penis head, aka cervix, pointing outwardly in her vagina to greet my own penis upon arrival. This visualization of hot women as storehouses for bulbous penis heads, by reducing them to their component biological parts, renders their beauty less fantastical, even a little silly. Imagine that cervical penis waiting to meet, glans-a-glans, your penis head in a romantic French kiss. A sword fight in the arena of her vagina.

I assure you, that if you plant this image in your head, you’ll never again be stunned into catatonia by a hot chick.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Study: Men And Women Are Different Species

Jan 12th, 2012 by

Science continues lavishing hungry, wet kisses all over game and core Chateau Heartiste concepts. A huge study has come out which pretty much confirms what any man who has lived a day in his life already knows: men and women are fundamentally different in many important aspects, and this has ramifications for how to bed women.

The data, pulled from 10,000 American men and women who took a questionnaire that measured 15 variations of personality traits, records that men and women feel and behave in very specific (and gendered) ways.

Men are more:
– Dominant
– Reserved
– Utilitarian
– Vigilant
– Rule-conscious
– Emotionally stable

While women are more:
– Deferential
– Warm
– Trusting
– Sensitive
– Emotionally “reactive”

Well, duh. But if you ignore, or choose to disregard, the obvious, then you will pay the price in the sexual market. Reality does not suffer fools or ideologues gladly.

Of course, yer ‘umble narrators were on top of this AMAZING REVELATION INTO SEX DIFFERENCES long time now, based on nothing more academic than simple observation of reality and direct experience with the subject matter, remarking only half-jokingly that men are more closely related to male chimps than they are to female humans, or that women are comfortable doing social activities with each other that you will never catch men doing.

Here’s another study showing that men have a higher density of synapses in the temporal neocortex — a region of the brain involved with social and emotional processes — than do women. It would be fascinating to watch a feminist try to explain how cultural conditioning causes women to have fewer neocortex synapses than men.

The verdict is in: there are biologically innate sex differences in the brain that manifest, on average, in different personality traits, different temperaments, different mannerisms, different predilections and, most relevantly to the practiced seducer, different desires.

Let us raise our steins in a toast — here’s to hoping all the world’s feminists read these studies and simultaneously blow a cervical aneurysm from rapid blood pressure rise. Chin chin!

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Ugly Truths, Vanity | Comments Off

Every Man Deserves

Jan 12th, 2012 by

Chuck Rudd over at GLPiggy has a funny post about a chick elaborating the kind of man every woman deserves. Needless to say, it’s the very Moloko Plus of female self-absorption. (What’re you offering in return, sweet cheeks? An ass the size of a barn door?) A commenter wonders where the equivalent “Every man deserves…” post is. Wonder no more!

Every man, no matter his station in life, his character, his personality or his hygiene, deserves a woman who calls him the rod of steely justice, gobbles his knob like she means it, fucks him like she never wants to let him get soft, doesn’t attention whore or bitch about making him a sammich, wipes his load when he jizzes, doesn’t make him lose interest by getting fat, instead gets in even better shape so he won’t have to keep checking out other women, is not scared to let her friends know she won’t be gossiping about him, and lets him know how much she really loves him with the only thing that matters — her welcoming orifices. Repost if you agree.

You laugh. But this kind of entitlement is par for the course on feminist blogs. Helpful tip to feminists and the modern Western woman: deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Girls, Goodbye America, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

Why, And When, Women Cheat

Jan 11th, 2012 by

Alternate title for this post:

Game and science: Deeply in love!

Once more, from one of my favorite blogs, a study which catalogs the reasons women (and men) cheat, and confirms a few core Chateau concepts as well. None of the study results will be a surprise to regular readers.

We’ll compare the study’s conclusions to claims previously made on this blog. The first one is a doozy, as it validates the very foundation of game and male-female sexual dynamics as elucidated by yours truly.

1) Women who wear the pants in the relationship are more likely to cheat:

The imbalance of power in the primary relationship has been associated with infidelity. Edwards and Booth (1976) found that wives who reported that they “get their way” more often during disagreements were also more likely to have extramarital sexual involvements.

There ya go, fellas. If you’re a beta with your girlfriend or wife, you’re increasing your odds that your “better half” will surreptitiously spread her legs for the veiny cocks of strange men. And she will orgasm with them. Oh yes, she will orgasm. Hard, powerfully and pleasurably.

There are only two paths you can take to avoid that nightmare — the path of celibacy or the path of alpha. Which one sounds more fun?

Beta males cede disagreements with women all the time. It’s their knee-jerk response anytime a vagina talks to them. But women HATE HATE HATE that mincing sycophancy. A woman CRAVES the dominance of the alpha male who won’t take her shit and who will get HIS way more often than not. Beta males, slaves to their fear of loss, cringe at the thought of sticking up for themselves against women who hold the power of pussy over them, but that is exactly what the women in their lives want them to do.

As with all infinite truths, this one was nailed Luther-like to the Chateau doors a long time ago:

This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting – wholly, completely – to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.

All healthy primary relationships have an imbalance of power. But that imbalance needs to go one-way only — in the direction of the man wielding most of the power. The further the relationship veers from that ideal — that is, the closer it gets to equality and beyond into the horrid realm of the woman being more powerful — the greater the likelihood the woman will cheat, her heart filling with incoherent, growing contempt for her pussified lover.

The feminist battle cry for women to take up paychecks and “bring home the bacon” has been nothing short of a genitalcidal campaign against the sexual and romantic desires of beta males. Women who follow the feminist agenda of empowerment are consigning themselves to a smaller dating pool, and broken marriages, because they have turned their backs on their true natures — their will to submit.

2) An imbalance in education increases the chance of cheating:

…in a large U.S. national study of dating, cohabiting, and married women, Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity; but if the husband was more educated than the wife, she was less likely to philander. Level of education relative to that of the partner appears to be more important than absolute level of education.

Education is a form of power. Women who have more education — i.e. more power — than their male lovers are more likely to cheat on them. Conversely, when the man is more educated than the woman, she does not feel the stirrings of infidelity as strongly. Male power is a female fidelity guarantee. Men would be wise to focus on somewhat less educated women than themselves for marriage prospects. Women who have marriage in mind would be wise to avoid lengthy educational commitments. Again, the Chateau was on top of this a while ago.

3) Jobs have a lot to do with whether people have an affair:

Individuals who work outside the home while their partners remain in the home also express higher rates of extramarital sexual involvement (Atkins et al., 2001), perhaps because the work environment provides the opportunity and time to get to know coworkers (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In clinical samples, 46% to 62% of individuals reported that they met their extramarital sexual partner at work (Glass, 2003; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). The likelihood of extramarital involvement is also related to the degree to which an individual’s job involves touching clients, discussing personal concerns with colleagues or clients, or working alone with co-workers (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

If you are a stay-at-home dad and your wife works outside the home as a personal trainer for rich businessmen, you may as well start ordering the paternity testing kits now and practice your nighttime cheek swabbing technique.

4) The timing of infidelity is predictable:

Among married women, the likelihood of extramarital involvement peaks in the seventh year of marriage, then declines; but among married men, the likelihood of extramarital involvement decreases over time until the eighteenth year of matrimony, after which the likelihood of extramarital involvement increases (Liu, 2000). Similarly, in a sample of couples in therapy for infidelity, sexual infidelity first occurred after an average of seven years of marriage (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Lawson and Samson (1988) reported, however, that the length of marriage prior to initial sexual infidelity is decreasing with younger cohorts. Certain developmental stages in a marriage, including pregnancy and the months following the birth of a child, are also high risk times for infidelity among males (Allen & Baucom, 2001; Brown, 1991; Whisman et al., 2007).

Don’t forget that women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating. So if you just celebrated your seven-year wedding anniversary, and it’s two weeks past your wife’s menstruation, you need to hire a private detective as a gift to yourself.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, younger marriages experience initial infidelity sooner than older marriages. The explanation is simple: younger wives are hotter than older wives, so they have more options in the sexual market. And since marriage is no escape from the sexual market, it makes perfect sense that infidelity is a more urgent risk with a younger wife.

The study also confirms some age-old wisdom that men are less trustworthy when their wives are pregnant or nursing. It’s the old “cold feet” syndrome that pushes men into the arms of mistresses who aren’t burdened with child, aka duties and responsibilities.

5) Most men that cheat claim to have a happy marriage:

…regardless of the many correlations between relationship dissatisfaction and adultery, Glass and Wright (1985) reported that among individuals engaging in infidelity, 56% of men and 34% of women rate their marriage as “happy” or “very happy.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with women cheating, but I thought it worthwhile to mention because it confirms yet another Chateau assertion: that men are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man. As the study shows, more cheating husbands than cheating wives are still in love with their spouses and thus sincere when they say that their marriages are happy.

There is a big sex difference at work behind this statistic. Men cheat because they desire a variety of pussy. Women cheat because they are unhappy with their primary partner. So for a woman, a necessary ingredient has to be that her current lover is not fulfilling her in some important way. But for a man, dissatisfaction with his current lover is not necessary as a springboard to cheat. Men are prone to cheat if the opportunity, and the guarantee of secrecy, are strong enough enticements, regardless of their love for their wives or girlfriends. That is why an unfaithful alpha husband is less likely to disrupt a marriage, while an unfaithful wife is more likely to end it all in divorce.

So, to recap, here is what you need to know to prevent your woman from cheating on you:

1. Learn game and become the alpha male that women need.

2. Do not allow your woman to wear the pants, unless it is in relation to some trivial point of contention that you let her win to demonstrate your big-heartedness.

3. Be more educated than your woman.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, spend time as a stay-at-home dad.

5. If your wife works, make sure it is in an occupation requiring little travel, where she will be confined to a sterile office surrounded by women and beta males. Any job where a massage table is involved is an example of a job you don’t want her to have.

6. Act a little more asshole-ish and unpredictable when your marriage approaches the seven year mark. Or when she’s approaching her monthly ovulation.

7. Failing all of the above, cheat first. She will smell it on you, and her love will grow in proportion to her fear of losing you.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Girls, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Sexy Quotes & Lurid Links

Jan 10th, 2012 by

Scandalized reader “halisi” unintentionally offers a great example of a feminist ashamed of what feminism is really about.

1) Feminsim is NOT anti-beauty/pro-frump! There are plenty of feminists who like to wear designer clothes, wear makeup, and/or take the time each day to make themselves look beautiful. Jessica Valenti said it best (and I’m paraphrasing here): “I like to wear makeup. I just realize that I’m only wearing it because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it.” Feminism is about finding the beauty within yourself, makeup or no.

2) Feminists aren’t anti-men/family, either. There are tons of feminists who are married with children. Tons. And not all feminists are pro-abortion, either; that’s actually one of the most contested issues in the feminist community.

3) And feminists are most definitely not against women/girls playing sports! If anything, that’s anti-feminism.

1) If feminism is not anti-beauty, why do so many self-declared feminists look like coal miners?

1a) Valenti’s “I just realize that I’m only wearing [makeup] because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it” is the dog-eared “deus ex societas” card that feminists always pull when they have run out of credible explanations for female behavior and are forced to confront the reality of innate sex differences. To demonstrate the bankruptcy of that card, try to imagine a man saying “I just realize that I’m only trying to get girls into bed because society tells me I’ll be depressed if I stay celibate.” Ridiculous on its face, yet that is exactly the level of intellectual feminist thought.

2) Marriage and kids are no amnesty from man-hating. Some of the worst ideological feminists are lantern-jawed fuzzfaced quasi-dykes married to mincing beta schlubs who confirm feminist prejudices by their mere existence, not to mention by their sycophantic suckuppery.

2a) I’m sure there is a lone feminist or two somewhere out there in the hinterland who is pro-man and anti-abortion, but she has little say in the national conversation. Feminism’s leaders and spokeshos are, almost to a bitch, man-hating termagants who loathe male desire and cheer on third trimester vacuumings. So, please, spare me your empty-headed NAFALT argument.

3) Who said feminists are anti-sport? I’m pretty sure the field hockey team in my high school was 90% incipient dyke. Of course femcunts love the idea of sports; it’s another way for them to undermine traditionally male domains. Title IX is exhibit A in how a feminist policy to force equality of the sexes inevitably tilts the playing field against boys. Schools only have so much money to spend, so boys, who by nature prefer participation in the sports battlefield in greater numbers, on average, than girls, have seen their sports programs cut to accommodate the inclusion of women’s sports programs.

No, feminism is, right down to its withered, cunty heart, a grotesque ideology mounted on a dais of lies. My goal is to mock it so ruthlessly that its practitioners and sympathizers, all of them, find it ever more difficult to pronounce in public life that they are feminists, to drive the true believers so far underground that only their raspy-throated, dusty-muffed sisters-in-arms are willing to entertain their insipid nostrums. This is total war, and in total war where the weapons are words, the goal is utter destruction through social ostracism. The icy wasteland of discredited ideologues and crackpots mumbling self-medicating catchphrases and hitting themselves in the forehead is feminism’s inevitable destination.

***

Gramps has some insight into the nature of decision-making.

As an old guy, I can say that almost every decision I made, regarding important life choices, which were comfortable and low risk, I came to regret. Those decisions I made which were stressful, and which I made under duress (choosing between several stressful alternatives) I found yielded the greatest rewards.

I can see two forces at work here. Perhaps, because we imbue stressful decisions with greater importance, we come to value the consequences from such decisions, regardless of benefit, as more rewarding. Or, this is an example of hormesis: a version of “that which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Decisions made under stress strengthen our resolve to see them through, and the more we have invested in a decision, the greater the likelihood we will value the fruits of our labor, even if those fruits aren’t very good for us.

***

Sea7 writes in response to women wearing pajamas to the classroom:

That is nasty. Contaminating the classroom with all their previous night’s clitty litter as it sloughs off the twat and sprinkles out the PJ leg hole.

Alpha pillow talk.

***

Related: How to pick up chicks who are wearing pajamas.

There are so many possible situations here, and I am so drunk, that covering them all is beyond the scope of this post.

However, in a “common dressing” scenario (of, say, lots of PJs), the neg, social, and value scoring possibilities become PUA friendly for ambitious Betas looking to move up a notch.

To wit:

PJs have flaps. Or not. The point being, ASK about them, in a teasing neg, if possible. This can lead as deep into the coal mine as you are willing to go.

PJs look good. Or not. The point being, CONTRAST them unfavorably from your target against another chick. The more public and subtle you pull this off, the better.

PJs make a statement. Or not. The point being, acknowledge (and, of course, neg) the “innocence” and “exploratory” subtext of the PJ beaver whilst working a touchy-feely move towards relief and satisfaction.

PJs rarely have shoes, and beavers CRAVE shoes. The possibilities here are potent – use them.

How I’d open a PJ-wearing girl: “Too good for Snuggies, eh?”

***

A shadowsage calling himself Porter leaves an especially illuminating comment over at Mangan’s. People in the rotting majority who think diversity is really about equality, and thus that their looming minority status will open access to all sorts of multicult racket goodies and exonerations currently only available to designated pawns victim groups, are in for a rude awakening. It is not human nature to grant one’s historical scapegoats mercy when they have been enfeebled and dragged down to one’s level, particularly when one has been invigorated by nursed grievances and desouled of the nobler virtues; just the opposite: it is human nature to pile on, to execute the finishing move until the last sworn enemy is dangling from the gallows in the public square. There is no mélangutopia awaiting us over the horizon; only hands at throats across America.

***

So single motherhood and the decline in male industriousness our author describes cannot be spirited away simply by getting men and women to the altar. ‘Outrageous’ though it may seem to a generation steeped in feminist propaganda, the natural economic basis of marriage must also be restored. White men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

F. Roger Devlin, a man who abides Chateau principles, wrote the above criticism in his review of Charles Murray’s forthcoming book “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010″. He rightly raps Murray’s mangina tendency to excuse female mating predilection while happily clobbering men over the head with the “man up” billy club, in what is otherwise sure to be a good book. Murray tackles social issues, race and class very well, but he seems to shy from taking on feminism and its bastard children.

My opinion of cultural trends now underway?: Thanks to technology, diversity and cognitive stratification, America is entering the period of The Great Culling, a process which will create not only new classes, but even new races, broadly a snarky Eloi and a medicated Morlock, and slowly, as the government cheese runs out, the losers in this culling will begin to procreate less and less, until they are discarded by the invisible crotch of evolution as failed human experiments unable to adapt to the new reality. (Note that some of the losers include childless spinsters of the high IQ elite.) The wildcard is genetic engineering, something nerds love to trumpet to assuage their feelings of hopelessness, but I doubt it will emerge in time to make a difference.

Anyhow, may 2012 be filled with postponements of the coming dystopia!

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Love, Pretty Lies, Ridiculousness, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Japan’s Glorious Stagnation

Jan 9th, 2012 by

Over at Steve Sailer’s, there’s a discussion going on about Japan’s slow economic growth and aging population not reflecting the reality of good living standards on the Japanese ground, something that you will rarely see addressed by mainstream American economists with their corporatist agendas to push. This comment by Anonymous is insightful:

It’s about “Who, whom?” as usual.

Foreign investors i.e. American hedge funds, banks, etc. don’t like Japan because Japan’s real estate and financial markets have been flat. That’s what’s meant by “lost decade”. It’s not that it’s been that bad for ordinary Japanese, what’s been “lost” is the opportunity for these foreign investors to make capital gains and extract more money out of Japan for themselves.

What the foreign investors wanted was for Japan to sell its people out and gin up its real estate and financial markets by things like immigration population growth.

A flat, low real estate and financial market is not necessarily a bad thing for your ordinary citizens. It keeps the costs down for your ordinary citizens to buy.

This applies not only between foreign investors and ordinary Japanese, but also between Wall St. and ordinary American citizens in fly-over country.

Everyone has their interests. Bankers (cue lzzlollzzlol) and realtors rely on the churn created by population growth and demographic shift (in the US’s case, stimulated by massive open borders immigration) to line their pockets beyond any reasonable value they create for society. Academics, as well, profit from the globalist program: hollowing out the status and pay of blue collar, working class jobs by advocating for the importation of millions that will not directly compete with their own elevated sinecures has helped energize a rush of fearful mediocrities into college, diluting the brand but fattening the wallets of the robber profs.

There is no doubt this strategy by the elite (or 1%ers, if you will) has been sound, from their perspective. Undercutting wage labor and inflating real estate values through diversity lending and the exploitation of the ancient human tribal instinct to agglomerate into ever-smaller cordoned enclaves of fellowmen has boosted corporate profit margins and enriched the coffers of institutional investment houses.

A good faith economist — someone who’s willing to buck received wisdom — will question the assumption that economic and population growth is an unalloyed good. Or that human capital isn’t constrained by innate preconditions, on both an individual level and a group level. Or that human behavior often manifests irrationally from an economic point of view, and can’t be “fixed” without incurring hefty costs.

Japan may be aging and they may be naughty for not throwing open their borders to tens of millions of non-Japanese to spur real estate bubbles, but from reports on the ground, it sounds like life over there is pretty good for the average Japanese. Maybe America could learn a thing or two about the benefits of lost decades.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Abandoning Friends Who Know You As You Were

Jan 9th, 2012 by

A male reader asks:

First off i would like to say thanks to you, for such an amazing blog, and such an amazing information resource. I’m a 22 yo virgin beta, but thanks to your website i decided to change.. Over the last 4 months i lost 49 pounds, so im getting the physical aspect of myself fixed. But there’s a issue i would want help on….is that im a complete total beta, and i’ve been struggling to assert myself as a “almost-alpha” or look alpha-ish. I have a very small circle of friends, mostly job friends, and my beta self is already settled with them. I wonder if the problem is me not acting like a real alpha would, or if i should look to new girls and stuff.

Loyalty to friends should not be reneged carelessly. Loyalty is, for good or ill, one of the more prominent virtues that delineates the world of men from the world of women. As a sex, women simply don’t place as much value on loyalty, so as a man you had better have a good reason for discarding it.

One of those good reasons is when friends, by dint of their familiarity with you, their own stations in life, and their expectations of your behavior, stifle your development into alpha manhood. If a bunch of job friends, man or woman, know you only as The Beta, then you’ll find it difficult to complete your transformation to a better man while in their company. Their assumptions will hold you back, their inflexibility will hamper acceptance of your new self-image, their envy will sabotage your efforts.

If your friends are betas, your progression to alphatude will be seen as a threat to group cohesion. If your friends are alphas, their instinctual hierarchical dominance displays will undermine your progress (and this need not be intentional). Being immersed in the dynamics of your social circle for so long, you will find it harder to jettison your beta baggage.

In such a circumstance where you are actively reformulating your very essence and character to be more desirable to women and persuasive with men, you are well-advised to sever attachments to friends and girls acquainted with your sad sack prior self. Their mere presence, and the beta memories you have accumulated while sharing their company, will act as ballast on your old skin, pinning you down as you try to shed it. Don’t underestimate the power of unappealing memories and the ability of friends to anchor those memories in the physical world.

To complete your journey to the alpha side, you will likely have to turn your back on the beta alliance. This means a necessary distancing from old friends, and a search for new friends who only know you as you are now, and whose conditioned expectations will thus naturally align with your goals, reinforcing your improvement.

The caveat to the above should be when your friends understand your purpose, and help you to achieve it. But a friend like that is rarer than most think. A true friend, lifting you up every step of the way, is a gift not to be squandered.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Guy Rules, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

Pajamas Feminism

Jan 9th, 2012 by

There’s a reason I argue that feminism is anti-standards, and thus, anti-beauty. If girls start taking up the feminist banner in earnest, expect to see ugliness shroud the nation like an advancing orc army spilling out of Mordor. And one sign of that ugliness is women thumbing their noses at feminine fashion. Roosh writes about feminism’s anti-beauty message: “Next thing you know, American women will appear in public wearing pajamas.”

Already too late. Recently walking through what we’ll call ‘Whole SWPLs’ on a weekend afternoon, I noticed a hipster-ish couple groping a selection of gala apples. Both the man and the woman were wearing what looked exactly like pajamas. Loose-fitting, billowy, plaid cotton pajama pants, pilling from too many washings and dryings. They had jackets on, but underneath the girl’s jacket I spied what appeared to be the matching top to her pajamas.

Maybe these were clothes designed to mimic the look of pajamas, but does it matter whether they actually tumbled out of bed and seized the day in their sleepwear, or if they put on clothes that looked like they tumbled out of bed to seize the day in their sleepwear?

That’s it. We’ve arrived. The total neglect of one’s appearance is now a fashion statement. A nation of Dudes and Dudettes. Careful man, I’m holding an iPhone here.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Girls, Ridiculousness | Comments Off

Economic Wisdom Of The Day

Jan 7th, 2012 by

Debt and changing demographics are intricately entwined.

Any economist who doesn’t include in his analysis of the causes of exhorbitant debt, stagnation, unemployment and declining happiness the unrelenting force of demographic change is doing his profession, and his readers, a disservice.

Judging by the vanishingly small number of economists who take an honest look at demographics, there appears to be a general tacit consensus among them that their field of discipline is not worth servicing well.

Here’s a related post to help clarify.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Another Game Theory Vindicated By Science

Jan 6th, 2012 by

Yet another vindication of game theory as espoused on this blog has emerged from the scientific social laboratory.

Back in this post, it was noted that to successfully navigate the comfort stage of seduction requires not only more listening than most men typically do, but an improvement in how one goes about the process of listening. You’ve got to not just listen more, but listen better, if you want to forge that all-important “connection” that women love so much.

Now a study has come out (from one of my favorite blogs) showing that you can improve your listening skills dramatically with a very common — and some would say devious — game tactic known and used by salesmen and Presidents alike. And by “game”, I am using the broader definition of the word that includes general social skills along with seduction skills. The scientific term for this game technique is called non-evaluative listening.

We can achieve real communication and avoid this evaluative tendency when we listen with understanding. This means seeing the expressed idea and attitude from the other person’s point of view, sensing how it feels to the person, achieving his or her frame of reference about the subject being discussed.

This may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. In fact, it is an extremely potent approach in psychotherapy. It is the most effective way we’ve found to alter a person’s basic personality structure and to improve the person’s relationships and communications with others. […]

We know from research that such empathic understanding—understanding with a person, not about her—is so effective that it can bring about significant changes in personality.

If you think that you listen well and yet have never seen such results, your listening probably has not been of the type I am describing. Here’s one way to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your spouse, friend, or small group of friends, stop the discussion for a moment and suggest this rule: ‘‘Before each person speaks up, he or she must first restate the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately and to that speaker’s satisfaction.’’

You see what this would mean. Before presenting your own point of view, you would first have to achieve the other speaker’s frame of reference. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But if you try it, you will find it one of the most difficult things you have ever attempted to do.

Get that? Basically, just *repeating* a person’s ideas and feelings back to her from her frame of reference makes her like you more, and makes her feel like you know her bettter.

For example, how many times have you heard Obama restate an opponent’s ideas before launching into a totally opposite conclusion that benefits his agenda? Say what you will about him, Obama is a master salesman at selling himself. And that is the crux of gaming women — you’ve gotta sell yourself by manufacturing connections with your audience that may not, in fact, logically or rationally exist. This is high level manipulation of the mind stuff.

I think you can connect the dots and see how this would apply to seduction game. When you repeat a woman’s words back to her — not necessarily verbatim, but similar enough that there’s no risk she’ll misconstrue your restatement  – you enhance the rapport you have with her. She will start thinking to herself “this guy GETS me”. You know how bad the “he doesn’t get me” rejection is? Well, that’s how good the “he GETS me” connection is.

And once you’re in that red zone of a woman’s mind, a touchdownthere is only a flea flicker away.

***

On a related note about scientific studies proving the validity of game, a few readers questioned the relevance of the study in this post to game. Specifically, they expressed doubt that male sociosexuality was a good proxy for game. Here is the important passage:

men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness (see Table 3)…

Interestingly, there is evidence that all these [male attractiveness attributes] can be accurately judged in short periods of time…

However, only sociosexuality added incremental predictive power over and above physical attributes in the current study. Unexpected was that sociosexuality emerged as a relative powerful predictor of men’s popularity to women, particularly because women largely expressed a long-term mating interest. A possible explanation is that male sociosexuality indicates a history of successful mating experience or mating skills that are attractive to women.

High male sociosexuality is essentially high male predilection to have emotionally unattached, or as the scientists call it, unrestricted sex. Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.

It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.

In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness. (I say “loose sense”, because sluttiness need not necessarily entail indiscriminate promiscuity.)

Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.

Thus, male sociosexuality is a good proxy measure for game acumen. A man with HSS is a man who likely has tight game.

And thus, the study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.

***

It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.

And a moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.

And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.

If the readers are just going to soak in the Chateau posts, follow up by playing a few hours of video games, and then hit the sack feeling like they really know women without actually putting any of the advice here to real world use, then this blog is failing in one of its missions. The time to ungrip your joystick is now. The time to get out there and strike up a conversation with the girl standing at the intersection is yesterday. You know what to do.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »