Feed on
Posts
Comments

Facebook Is SMV Time Compression Info

Dec 9th, 2011 by

Rollo Tomassi writes:

Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for creating the single greatest time-comparative engine men have ever known. I’m not a big fan of Face Book from a male standpoint, but if it has any redeeming aspect it’s that it provably shows men, in stark contrast, how women’s SMV declines. This is driven home all the better because the subject women are usually ones he’s known personally for a few years.

I entered my 20s in the early 90s, well before the internet went mainstream. I can vividly remember the women I was banging then and the ones who wouldn’t have a thing to do with me. Now I see them 20 years later thanks to social media and every single one is just ravaged by time and lifestyle. I’ve accepted friend requests from women whose memory from 20+ years ago are ones of flirtatious, beautiful lust-inspiring youth, all to be shattered when I see photos of them in their late 30s and early 40s. Then I pray to God and thank Him for sparing me from being yoked to cows like that in spite of my consuming desire at the time to get with them.

Take a minute to digest this: we are really the first generation of men to have such a convenient comparative tool. There was a time when a man could get with (or not) some girl he fancied and never see her again. Young men hear all the time how inconsequential the women they pine for really are in the grand scheme of things. Now the older men giving him advice have a tool to prove and emphasize that advice, and women have cause to lament the ugly, provable truth.

It used to be that you had to extrapolate the deterioration of a hot girl’s looks by seeing her mother, preferably side by side. (The mother-daughter couples I see at the mall are testament to the chasm of difference in attractiveness. In a mere twenty years, the majority of women go from deliciously fuckable to sexually worthless. Rampant obesity worsens the decline, as most American women don’t hit their fattest, blobbiest years until after their 30s.)

Even then, the extrapolation was never anything more than an academic exercise. After all, it is easy to compartmentalize the mother from the daughter. Men could logically tell themselves this is what their lovers would look like in short order, but it didn’t have the visceral impact that actually seeing *an older version* of their young lovers would have.

Looking at old photos of exes was always a dreamy nostalgia trip, because men have rarely had access to newer, updated photos of exes or high school and college crushes: you left a girl or she left you, and that was that. You never saw her again, unless you really went out of your way. So your memories remained untainted by fresher biosystem information.

But now Facebook gives us that instant-comparison tool, and holy shit on a breakfast platter, is it effective, and disheartening. As Rollo said, there is now, for the first time in human history, a whole generation (or two) of men who have millions of saved photos of their younger lovers, not to mention sweet memories of them, side by side with instantly accessed photos of those same lovers five, ten, even twenty years later, thanks to the proliferation of social media and female attention whoring. And as the Facebook culture becomes entrenched, this “time-comparative engine” will only become more widespread, and eye-opening to millions of men.

There could be no more powerful way to inculcate to a man new to the game the first principle that women are largely interchangeable in the dating market than by handing him the keys to Facebook and the dangerous secrets locked within. The female aging process of past lovers compressed into seconds will shatter the hardest pedestals and deflate the headiest romantic idealism. There is no poem in the world that can fully express that disenchanting feeling.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Hitting The Wall, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Mexico’s Marriage Contracts

Dec 8th, 2011 by

Not too many innovations come out of Mexico’s ruling white elite, but this legislation seems to fit the bill.

The left-leaning assembly is studying a new initiative to introduce temporary marriage licenses that would expire after two years if the couple so desires.

The proposal, intended to reduce the bureaucratic costs and emotional toll of divorce, has garnered as many fans as foes: Some see it as a pragmatic alternative, while others, including the Roman Catholic Church, see it as an attack on family values. It comes as Mexico grapples with its own culture war in the world’s second-largest Catholic country. […]

To its authors, the proposal reflects social changes in Mexico City, where they say most divorces occur in the first two years. If after two years, couples decide to [stay married] until “death do us part,” they can renew their licenses. If not, the proposal specifies how children and property are handled.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” Leonel Luna, the assemblyman who co-wrote the bill, told Reuters. “You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce.”

Divorce is now woven into the cultural fabric of most modern and modernizing nations. It’s entrenched, and while rates seem to be leveling off in the US, there is no indication that lifelong marital vows are making a comeback. In fact, the lower, and later, rates of first marriage are  likely the primary cause of the leveling of the divorce rate: with fewer couples getting hitched, and fewer still getting hitched at a young age when options are highest and instability is greatest, there are fewer bad marriages coming to fruition and boosting the divorce rate. Selection bias.

The marriage contract is a last-ditch attempt to address the ill effects of the divorce culture, and it may be a lifesaver for Western men who have been getting the ass ramming end of divorce court since the 1970s. Wifey drifting away and implicitly threatening you with theft of your house and half your savings? Just opt out when the two year contract hits its renewal date. Marriage still going strong (i.e., wifey still gobbling your knob)? Renew, baby! For another two.

I even wonder whether children would suffer any more under a marriage contract system than the no-fault, female rape-y one we have now. If you’ve got a couple of kids and you’re on your second marital renewal at four years, is the amicable opting out of the marriage any worse than the rending of a surprise divorce? Naysayers may argue that marriage contracts encourage abandonment, but I dunno about that. It’s a good bet that societal shaming mechanisms would organically come into place that limit the ease with which spouses turn to leaving contracts. And it’s kind of like abortion: when you know you have that option to end the marriage after two years, you are probably more likely to be relaxed (read: more alpha, sexier) with your partner and therefore more inclined to do the exact opposite of behaving in a way that the contract system is designed to mitigate.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Globalization, Marriage Is For Chumps | Comments Off

Supply Your Own Caption

Dec 7th, 2011 by

From this story:

I’ll start.

“King Kong swats at a cheap tipper.”

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Goodbye America, Hungry Hungry Hippos | Comments Off

Feminist Self-Owned On Male Porn Star Theory

Dec 7th, 2011 by

Slate, that bastion of feminist mental gymnastics, has an article about some male porn star who appeals to women because he supposedly embodies nonthreatening boyishness.

In the winter issue of Good Magazine, Amanda Hess has a fascinating profile of James Deen, a young, handsome porn star who is becoming famous for actually appealing to women. Due to his boyish, slightly skate-punk aesthetic, naturally toned body, and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars, Deen has garnered a following of devoted young women in an industry that in most cases ignores them entirely. Hess explains that Deen’s school-boy charm is what makes him approachable—and sexy—to his female fans:

Deen has carved out a niche in the porn industry by looking like the one guy who doesn’t belong there. Scroll through L.A.’s top porn agency sites and you’ll find hundreds of pouty women ready to drop to their knees, but just a few dozen men available to have sex with them. These guys all have a familiar look—neck chains, frosted tips, unreasonable biceps, tribal tattoos. Deen looks like he was plucked from a particularly intellectual frat house.

Hess goes on to discuss why there aren’t more guys like Deen in the male porn-star stable, and her findings tell us just as much about male viewers’ hang-ups as they do about women’s erotic preferences. Part of the problem is that men (who largely control the porn industry) imagine that women want everything big—“Big arms. Big abs. Big dicks,” as Hess puts it—when what they really want is something a little less overwrought. One of Hess’ subjects described her attraction to Deen thusly:  “He was almost like a guy that you would just hang out with at Hebrew school.”

What a robust theory from sex-positive feministland! A hardcore male porn star women love because he’s a caring, emotionally available niceguy. Except it isn’t true.

A number of commenters familiar with the field pointed out the factual problems with Hess’ theory.

You’ve got to be kidding. This guy, while lacking in tribal tattoos, makes up for it in being like every other incredibly raunchy porn star. As a normal heterosexual male, I’ve seen him in tons of porn (as there’s really only like 5 male porn stars, as the article says, and there [sic] in everything), and, past looks, he is in no way some sensual lovemaking hebrew camp dude. He does not stare longingly into their eyes and whispers in their ears. He chokes women, slaps them, does pretty degrading things to them. He fits perfectly into the stereotype of porn as a male-centric, women-as-objects display of power. If women actually watch him, If a women who did not like porn watched one of his, they would in no way find it any different, save the frosted tips, ect. This artice is really silly.

***

Do a google search or xvideos search for “pornstar punishment” with “James Deen” and you can see for yourself how well he “emotionally connects” with the women while he chokes them and slaps them. The article seems kind of funny after seeing that. Poorly researched.

Hilarity. Another crackpot feminist theory bites the dusty muff. It seems the truth is as it always was, particularly of women who love to watch male-oriented porn: chicks dig jerks, especially jerks who choke and slap them during “lovemaking”.

Why do feminists run like rats from a spotlight beam whenever they are confronted with the reality of female sexual nature and women’s preference to surrender to dominant men? What is it about that fact that sends them into paroxysms of nonsensical deconstructivism babble?

Steve Sailer has pithily remarked that the goal of feminist writers is to rearrange the world so that, come the revolution, ugly feminists will be desired by men. I have a corollary to that theory.

Feminists loathe the objectification of women because they know they don’t measure up as objects of desire.

The natural female desire to submit to a powerful man is especially galling to feminists, because it strikes at the heart of their conceit: that women can, and more importantly, *want* to scale the heights of achievement just like men do, and the only thing stopping them is misogyny and the patriarchy. If feminists were forced to acknowledge that most women have no such inclination, that in fact they prefer to support with their love and affection a worthy alpha male, they would have to face the unpleasant truth that they are a minority of masculinized freaks out of touch with the majority of their own sex. Outcasts are always fighting to make the rest of the world seem deluded and tyrannical.

That Slate article has another doozy of a theory about why there aren’t more James Deens in male-centric visual porn.

But the real obstacle to the proliferation of female-friendly male porn stars is, oddly, a rather nasty and subtle strain of homophobia, revealed in the following double-bind:

The straight male performer must be attractive enough to serve as a prop, but not so attractive that he becomes the object of desire.

Hess is spot on. Men need to see a penis in straight porn (presumably to stand in for their own), but not one that is attached to a guy who might be threateningly attractive, not to mention plausibly appealing to the woman involved. Maybe this insistence on a male blank slate (a kind of reverse objectification, when you think about it) makes it easier to project oneself onto the disembodied penis, but it also protects men from the potentially scary experience of being turned on by both partners of a heterosexual encounter—which, yes, does involve another dude. In other words, the bland interchangeability of the “unreasonable” looking men allows them to avoid confronting the terrifying specter of homosexuality.

Yup, homophobia is the reason why there aren’t feminist-approved male role models in porn.

Folks, you can’t make this shit up. Unless you’re a graduate of Columbia University.

Gay fabulosity is most likely biological in origin, so straight men are not going to be turned on by the penises pounding away in porn or the men attached to those penises, no matter how nonthreatening they look. Straight men watch porn because the sight of a hot babe’s body in the throes of sex, and the visual of various female orifices getting penetrated, is arousing. Straight men don’t like to see the faces of the male porn stars because it’s distracting from the action, and BONER KILLING.

The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all organs, even had a story about a study which proved that the sight of penises or men engaged in gay sex has no effect on the penile responses of straight male viewers. But I guess to the gatekeepers of the homophobia grievance flame, such inconvenient truths are mere speed bumps in the road to an ego-ensconcing distortion of reality.

I wonder if people realize that three quarters of mainstream internet websites would disappear overnight if a law mandated that no more than half of their content could be feelgood, made-up shit.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Girls, Pretty Lies, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Handsome Man-Ugly Woman Couple Syndrome

Dec 6th, 2011 by

I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.

What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.

Speaker: Any questions?

Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…

Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…

Speaker: Yes?

Handsome Husbandry: [his question-asking hand lingering in mid-air, other hand stuffed in pocket] What did [X] bring to the event that caused [Y] to happen? It seems like.. it seems as if…

As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.

The wife, meanwhile, assumed the posture and countenance of the alpha male. (Never trust a power vacuum to be left unfilled by man or woman.) She looked straight ahead when her husband was simultaneously asking his question of the group leader and craning his neck to her for approval, and she never once softened her expression into a sympathetic, let alone loving, smile at him. (Some men go through life never knowing the exquisite pleasure of a woman’s appreciative gaze of admiration.) There was no unspoken, feminine job well done crease of the eyes on her porcine face. Just stone cold indifference, spiced with a hint of contempt.

Yep, like I said… CRYSTAL CLEAR.

It’s illuminating to compare our reactions to different mismatched couples. Think about what you say to yourself when you see the following pairings (remember that you have nothing to go on except what they look like):

Handsome man with beautiful woman

All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. You would be surprised, were you to talk to him, if he wasn’t charming and a bit arrogant. You do not doubt the woman’s judgment.

Ugly man with ugly woman

All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.

Ugly man with beautiful woman

Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.

Handsome man with ugly woman

Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.

***

The last mismatched pairing is the subject of this post because it so powerfully illustrates a fundamental tenet of game: a man’s looks are of limited utility as a measure of his alphaness and, hence, his attractiveness to women.

When we see couples out and about we usually resort to sizing them up based on immediately discernible criteria like looks and style. This judgmental shorthand works well on women for whom looks are their most salient sexual currency, but shows its limitations as a method of discerning a man’s dating market value, as exemplified by the couple in the story above.

This is why most people have a tendency to assume the best about ugly men who pair up with beautiful women, and assume the worst about handsome men with ugly women. There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.

Contrast that instant appraisal we all have of the men in mismatched pairings with how we think about the women in such relationships. A beautiful woman with an ugly man does not have beta characteristics; she is simply drawn to other attractive attributes in him which we are not as privy to as his looks. (E.g., He must be a rich/famous/funny/charming dude!) An ugly woman with a handsome man does not have positive compensating alpha female attributes; she is simply settling for a beta who happens to look good. (E.g., What’s wrong with him?)

In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.

And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.

Maxim #59: We tend to defer to looks as a judgment of a man’s sexual market value because that is what is most easily observable given situational and time constraints, but a man’s looks are only one male attractiveness trait among many that account for his desirability to women.

Corollary to Maxim #59: A woman’s sexual market value is more accurately judged solely by instant appraisal of her looks.

The next time you see a handsome man with an ugly woman, before you scratch your head in confusion remind yourself that you are not seeing the whole picture. A beta male’s soul is not always judged by his cover.

Then parade your hot girlfriend in front of him and his pigwoman. Hopefully, it will ignite a spark of manly fortitude, and his sack will grow three sizes that day.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Alpha, Beta, Biomechanics is God, Dating, Guy Rules, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Comment Of The Week

Dec 5th, 2011 by

Jaquan writes:

I dont agree with that IQ shit. Im from the hood and very smart in math and physics my favourite subject. Trust me tho homie when it comes to getting hotties im a monster and I respect all your games cuz im a player too and I learned alot from you these last few days. Being smart is a part of so you can mindfuck girls mathematically and keep them coming like a black hole in the universe lol. Just pointing out that science oriented guys got game too especially us from the hood. Shout out to the slimes. Harlem all day.

You laugh but the guy has a point. Combine intelligence with street smarts and thuglife attitude and you may as well sign your paperwork “Thee Most Honourable Sultan of Snatch, Ph.D. in Harem Studies, Pimp, Daddy & Daddy, BigLove Firm, LLCmeswoopyourho”.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off

Pre-Sex Offers That Sound Too Good To Be True

Dec 5th, 2011 by

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous asked:

I met a 8.5 girl online (physically I’m a 6.5).  She’s extremely aloof, ignores half my texts.  Likely never LTR material. We’ve made out, nothing more.  Her interest waxes and wanes.  She planned a trip to Central America without me, leaving very soon, casually invited me.  I’ve never really traveled abroad.  I’m fast-tracking my passport and scuba certification.  I offered a nice hotel, she insisted on hostels to “meet people.”  I don’t want to feel like a novice or tag-along.  How do I prepare fast so that I can lead, demonstrate value, enjoy the trip, and build heat between us?

Short Answer: Don’t go.

This reminds me of a similar story I once heard from a friend. He, too, had sorta, kinda hooked up with a hot chick, except he did it in person while on vacation. They shared a make-out, but nothing more. After returning home to their respective countries, she invited him to visit her in her hometown. He opened his wallet, boarded a plane, took a cab from the airport to her place, crashed on her couch, and came back home two weeks later angry, bitter and pissed about ever having gone. She hadn’t put out at all. He wasted money and vacation time on illusory pussy.

He thought by taking her up on her offer of a two week vacation in her backyard she was basically offering sexy funtime. A sensible conclusion for any man to draw, but unfortunately girls are anything but sensible creatures. Unless you are the Don Juan of game, any “innocent” meeting (in her mind) that hints at a contrived pretext for sex will put a woman on guard. Not to mention, a man totally betas himself by going out of his way to spend money and fly to meet a woman on her turf in the tacit expectation of sex.

For these reasons I suggest you don’t bother going if banging her is your primary goal. She will smell that and make the path to her pussy arduous and labyrinthine indeed. Your trip will be miserable, as a result. If, on the other hand, you can honestly tell yourself that banging her would just be a welcome complement to a trip in which your primary focus is scuba diving and hitting on chicks in hostels, then by all means take her up on her offer as a TRAVEL COMPANION. But beware the danger in assuming she will be anything more than a platonic tour buddy.

Now if you had already had sex with her multiple times, I’d advise the opposite: clearly she was smitten by your bedroom prowess and offered the trip to monopolize more of your lovin’.

As for the travel preparedness details, don’t worry so much about that. Attitude is key. Go with a devil-may-care air of whimsy and enjoy your time in a foreign land with someone who will buy you tropical drinks. If you’re worried about seeming like a tag-along, make sure you have reservations to do some things on your own. Read up on the place, so you aren’t stuck in a situation where she’s telling you about all the good restaurants, clubs and beaches. If you have to leave her behind once in a while to do something you like but she doesn’t, do it. You have to act like this is as much your vacation as it is hers.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Beta, Escape, Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Self-aggrandizement | Comments Off

Romney Is The Only (Viable) Republican Candidate

Dec 4th, 2011 by

Randall Parker offers the clearest reason why Mitt Romney will wind up being anointed the Republican candidate for President.

Romney’s the best bet for the Republicans. He’s got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He’s not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.

Note, the key qualifier is “viable”. Personally, I would vote for Ron Paul barring the emergence of a candidate who was strong on the only issue that really matters in 2012 for the U.S.: namely, immigration and the national question. But Paul is not a viable Republican candidate.

UPDATE: Ron Paul has moved into second place in the Iowa Poll. This race is wide open, folks.

If the middle-class economy really nosedives in 2012, Paul may be able to overcome elite antagonism to his candidacy and win the Republican primary.

I agree that the circumstantial evidence points to Gingrich having an intellect tilted too far in the direction of razzle-dazzle verbal fluency at the expense of critical thinking skills, but his standing in the polls is another reminder that it is in the nature of people to overvalue smooth talkers and to undervalue analytical thinkers. This cognitive bias likely has roots deep in our ancestral environment.

You need look no further than the dating market to see the same bias on full display. All else equal, who is getting the chicks? The math whiz or the silver-tongued salesman? Hell, even if you rig the comparison so that all else is not equal by, say, boosting the math whiz’s SMV with double the income and a two point advantage in looks over the salesman, the good money still bets on the latter to take the girl home and sully her cultivated purity.

Since this is a political post…

2012 prediction: the Eurozone experiment in forced financial busing implodes, taking the U.S. with it. Unemployment rises above 10%. A dark horse third-party candidate emerges sometime in April, stealing votes from both parties. Obama gently persuades Biden to retire and makes Hillary his VP. (Less likely: Obama quits the race and hands his candidacy over to Hillary.) Single women flock to his reelection bid in even greater numbers than they did in 2008, while white men vote in anti-Democrat numbers never before seen in U.S. politics. Racial and class polarization metastasizes. Obama and/or HIllary win, setting the stage for the final dissolution of the U.S. into a Balkanized banana republic. Feminists and equalists continue being stupid. Human nature continues flummoxing economists. No Child Left Behind continues leaving children behind. Mexico’s economy continues improving because their unskilled peasantry was offloaded on the U.S. for twenty years. Cheap chalupas remain more expensive than advertised because of negative externalities.

Women’s desire for alpha males stays, as always, unchanged.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Goodbye America | Comments Off

Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

Dec 2nd, 2011 by

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Guy Rules, Vanity | Comments Off

Reader Mailbag: Surfeit Of Flushed Nethers Edition

Dec 1st, 2011 by

This was a good selection of reader questions, mostly because the questions were short and to the point. Lesson: If you want your question featured in CH’s ‘Reader Mailbag’, you’ll have a better shot if it’s tidily under one paragraph in length. (No run-on sentences, please.)

Email #1

Can you talk about circumcision and your thoughts on its effects on the male brain?  My theory is that circumcised men jerk off less and are therefore more productive whereas guys with foreskins have an easy time jerking off (never need to use lube).  I’d love your thoughts on this and possible correlating the decline of America to the decline of American male circumcision.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice, a close cousin of clitoridectomy. Civilized peoples should outlaw it. Instead, it continues to be de rigueur in large swaths of the population. The arguments for it are nonsensical.

1. “It doesn’t affect sexual pleasure”

Yes, it does. The foreskin is loaded with nerve endings and is ranked the most pleasurable part of the penis by men who still have it intact. Removal of the foreskin even reduces women’s sexual pleasure during intercourse.

2. “Circumcision reduces the chance of infection, particularly AIDS”

The persistence of this myth is belied by the available evidence. Even among gay men, for whom circumcision is most recommended as a protection against AIDS and other STDs, the evidence is scant that circumcision provides a protective benefit. Think about this from an evolutionary perspective for a second: if intact foreskin was a high risk for infection, how did it ever evolve? Clearly, the foreskin is not the bogieman some faint-hearted doctors would have you believe.

3. “Women think an uncircumcised penis looks ugly”

First, what women think of the aesthetics of the penis is all over the map. I have heard a thousand different opinions on this subject from women. Second, what does it matter what chicks think of your dong’s look? I’m sure some African tribal chieftains somewhere think girls’ vaginas look ugly with all that labia and clit in the way, so they cut it off. Does that make it right?

The reader does introduce a compelling puzzle. Circumcision likely reduces the sensitivity of the penis head (glans) because the head is exposed to the elements and other sorts of friction on a continual basis, which it would not be if it were sheathed behind foreskin. So it’s interesting to muse whether circumcised men masturbate less than intact men who are more sensitive to every movement their penises make. If so, it could be plausibly argued, as this reader does, that circumcised men divert more of their energies to non-sexual productive pursuits that benefit society.

We’ll call this the Chateau Heartiste® Theory of Circumcision and Civilizational Progress™.

Email #2

I was wondering what your views are about guys that are below average height? How do they overcome the heightist attitude 99% of all women have. One is automatically disqualified as an attractive guy or romantic interest because of shorter stature.

I am 5″8 myself. This might not sound really short, but I live in the Netherlands. The average male height here is over six feet.

Thanks, love your posts.

How do short guys overcome women’s bias for taller men? Hit on shorter women than themselves.

I’m not really kidding. Target selection is an important part of pickup. Screening girls for likelihood of falling under your charms is smart game. If you find yourself surrounded by tall men, go somewhere else.

Of course, it goes without saying that even a handicap like shortness can be overcome with game, but it will be harder for you than it would be for a taller man. Not that I should have to regale you with anecdotes to prove my point, but one of the greatest players I’ve ever known was an unusually short man topping out at around 5’4″. One of his keys to success? He avoided nightclubs where tall men would tower over him, and focused on online pickups. Also, perfect your alpha body language; little things can go a long way to influencing women to overlook your shortness.

By the way, 5’8″ is not that short in the USA. I believe the average male height here is 5’9″, so you would not be working from any major disadvantage if you moved out of the Netherlands. But the Dutch are the tallest people in the world, so your height will be relatively runty there. I suggest a trip to a Congolese pygmy tribe to boost your ego and jumpstart your game. I hope you like chicks who can helicopter and rest a case of beer on their buttocks while standing.

Email #3

Dear Chateau,

With deep and abiding respect, I humbly ask for some help. I am overweight and poor. I think it is the overweight that gets to women more. I simply cannot get a date. I do not have women in my social circle currently, and dating sites are dead to me. I do not wish to be burdened with another man’s devil spawn, so I stay away from the single moms. I am 26 and still a virgin. If you can help me in any other way than berating my sorry ass on your website please let me know. I would be willing to pay you for your time and effort, as much as my paltry salary allows.

Salut,

Lonely Chubby Man

Dear LCM,

Good news! Your fatness is hurting your love life more than your poverty, but luckily, slimming down is easier than cashing up. I’ll keep it simple: squat, deadlift, bench and work your core three times per week, 30 minutes each session. Run wind sprints every other day in the park until you are out of breath. Reduce your grain and sugar intake by 70%. Substitute with more meat, fish, nuts, berries and vegetables. You should also consider avoiding beer. For the love of god, stay the fuck away from soda.

Nest step: read Le Chateau archives. You will find plenty of game advice, as well as links to other game resources, here. Learning game is as important as, maybe more important than, carving the fat from your obese frame.

Do these two things and I guarantee you will see improvement in your interactions with girls. If you can’t, or won’t, follow these recommendations, then get comfortable living out your years in grinding celibacy. Your willpower depends a lot on how much you truly value getting your dick wet. You’d be surprised how many men value food, sloth, laziness and self-pitying despair more than sexual pleasure with cute chicks.

26 is still young. You have plenty of time to right your ship. Remind yourself of this every day. Better yet, imagine a CH proprietor barking it to you like a constipated drill sergeant. Live one-on-ones are generally avoided by the staff, but if the price is right…

Email #4 (wall of text alert)

Hello, Thanks for your insight on game. Been reading the site the last few weeks. Im 21 girlfriend 20. I went alpha on my girlfriend, agreed and amplified all her shit tests when she wanted to ‘talk’ about how we’d been shaky lately. She got mad saying i dont care about her and that she was going to give a new guy a chance.

One of her texts: “As much as i want you i realize I really dont need you. The beautiful difference bw wants and needs. I’m striving to get over you. It’ll be a challenge but someone will treasure me”. She went on texting me things like this, i replied with lol and told her to send me a sexy picture, basically ignoring her long texts. She then texted “Ask ur other girlfriends for a pic. I’m sure theres a waiting list. Im going to actually give this new guy a chance. This is me being honest. I know you dont give a fuck but no need to hide it.”

i replied with another lol and said i was waiting on the picture. She didnt reply 3 days later(my birthday) she texts me “happy birthday!”. I dont respond, she calls a few hours later saying she wasnt sure if i got her text and wished me happy birthday. I said aloofly ok thanks. She nervously said ok thats all and i hang up.

Then that night she texts me some bs about my mom being funny on facebook “Your mom is soo funny”. I havent replied to it… Overall i think she reacted to my new non caring behavior by threatening me with all her long emotional texts to see if i would bitch up and say sorry like i have for the past 2 years. Im a tall good looking guy and handled our relationship well until recently when i stumbled across this site and realized why she began to withdraw from me a little. Personally i think shes waiting for me to come around and say sorry and try to get in her new graces but i really dont know how to take it from here. How should i reply to these texts? Also i remember reading that when a girl professes how much shes over you and wants to move on shes never been more into you…

So with that said, if ive been playing it right, she’ll come around and say shes made a mistake and that she wants things to be like before and what not. In which case id act aloof, and that its no big deal. Maybe even milk it a little and make her feel real bad. But im thinking it may take a few more days because shes not use to this uncaring reaction out of me. Once she realizes im serious she’ll hopefully be back. What do you think?

How long have you been seeing your “girlfriend”. If she’s saying she wants to “give a new guy a chance” after only two weeks with you, then I think you are dealing with a crazy attention whore slut you’d be better off excising from your life. You can bet pretty good money that when a chick says she wants to give a new guy a chance, she’s already giving a new guy a chance.

I consider words like that from a girlfriend to be either incredibly transparent, blunt force shit tests, or confessions of infidelity. In your case, based on follow-up emails and texts she sent you, it sounds like she’s shit testing and fishing for a jealous reaction from you. She needs to see indicators of commitment (IOC), which you are not giving her.

Her reactions to your aloof alpha game tell me that your replies were on the money. She’s chasing you, and that’s always the better relationship dynamic than the other way around. She doesn’t want to show her hand, though, so she lamely tried to conceal her interest and growing urgency by contacting you through plausibly deniable third parties, as she did when she referenced your mother and, to a lesser extent, your birthday.

(Question for the betas reading: Be honest, how may of you guys tried to reestablish contact with exes by sending them little reminders on their birthdays? Yeah, you tooled yourselves. I hope your dick shrinks when you think on those low points in your lives.)

HOWEVER, I do think you overplayed your hand a bit. All aloof, all the time, makes Jack an unreachable boy. A woman needs to see *some* desire from her man. There’s no need for you to apologize for anything, or to even mention this whole sorry episode in any capacity. Just reach out to her and meet her like you did when times were good. Make some token efforts at beta vulnerability. Deep conversations, eye gazing, a surprise purchase of some small bauble… it doesn’t take much to allay a girl’s fears that you are irrevocably drifting away from her.

Making *her* feel bad for the growing distance is a particularly powerful technique that I would advise only experts at female emotional tinkering should attempt. If you can do that without angering her, go for it. Example: “I’ve been thinking about us lately… (pause)… and your attitude has really made me wonder… (pause)… I dunno, I guess I needed some time to think by myself.”

I’m sure she realizes you’re serious, so you should ease up on the aloofness now. Begin taking the lead again. Let us know how it goes.

Email #5 (from a girl)

I’ve followed your blog for about a year now, and having observed my guy friends and evaluated my own life up till now, I can say that I agree with about 98% of your writing. but I feel like there’s a bit of a conundrum for your average 6/7s; you say alphas are attracted to femininity and girls who “don’t play games”. but 6/7s are often overlooked if the only qualities they possess are such.

also, of course, understandably no guy wants to be chased, as it is fundamentally unfeminine for a girl to chase a man… BUT, for a 6/7 is it possible that initiating the flirting (even with sexual overtones) would actually be productive by subtly seeming more open? I kind of got this from your Betty (9) vs Rachel (7) post.

so do you think 6/7s should initially be more flirty than their hotter friends to at least attract attention, and if not, how do you propose they (attempt to) set themselves above hotter women?

First of all, guys *do* like to be chased. The caveat is that they like it in small doses early on (just enough to let him know that his efforts are not wasted), and in larger doses as a relationship develops (so that his anxieties that you might be a cuckold risk are laid to rest). You are correct, though, in assuming that a girl who chases too much will be undervalued by men as a potential girlfriend and overvalued as a potential one night stand.

6s and 7s pass the cute threshold. If you are a 6 or a 7, you can easily get a solid beta boyfriend as long as your standards aren’t ridiculously inflated and you have the wisdom to know that settling is usually a better option than resigning yourself to pump and dump singleness. Too many women with their useless libtard degrees, $45K HR jobs and muffin tops think they are hot shit who shouldn’t ever have to settle, and these are the kinds of women who end up at 39 like Katie Bolick wondering why they are childless and ignored by the men who used to dump inglorious fucks in them when they were younger hotter tighter.

Good news! You do not sound like one of those women. The very fact that you write here seeking advice suggests that you have a head on your shoulders.

Flirting is a fine art that some women naturally excel at, while other women need to learn from their elders and peers. A 6/7 will be overshadowed by hotter girls, which she can combat in one of three ways:

1. Flirting more openly, as you said

2. Being nicer and more approachable than the hotter girls

3. Studiously avoiding those places where hot women congregate

Number 3 is self-explanatory. Classrooms and house parties are your friend. Nightclubs are not, unless you want an NSA hookup.

Friendly girls with kind demeanors will attract betas like flies to honey. (I would drop the idea that you are going to snag an alpha male for any long term commitment. You should focus on those betas who show sparks of alpha playfulness.) A beta is typically intimidated by 8s and 9s, and put off by their shit tests, so he will gravitate to women more within his purview who don’t give him a hard time. A friendly, non-shit testing 7 with a slender figure is like the holy grail to 70% of the world’s men.

Coyness is a form of flirting, and men love it. But the line between coyness and conspicuous sluttiness is easier to cross than you might think. If you are going to go the “sex it up” route to attract male attention, you had better know what you’re doing. A skirt too short or an eye play too lascivious, and you will get beset by alphas who only see you as a low cost, investment free sexual experiment waiting to happen.

Licking the lips, finger tracing a cocktail glass, crossing and uncrossing legs, smiling a lot, playing with your hair, bright red lipstick, sexy hipster stockings, saying “hi” first, good posture that thrusts the tits outward, high heels that hoist the ass upward, innocent touches on his forearm when he says something interesting… all these flirty expressions are tools of the trade that women over millennia have wielded to capture men’s interest.

I could go on but a full compendium of flirty tricks of the female trade would require a separate post. Bottom line: You aren’t going to outcompete 8s and 9s for alpha male commitment, but you can outcompete 6s and 7s for greater beta commitment. And, if the stars are aligned, you might even best the occasional 8 who has her eyes set on a beta male. A lot of greater betas with options will choose the less stressful, less hot girl for long term love because they don’t have the game nor the guts to keep a hotter girl than they are accustomed to in line.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »