Feed on
Posts
Comments

Getting Fat Really Will Shorten Your Lifespan (And Your Sexspan)

Aug 23rd, 2011 by

Contrary to a previous study claiming that fatter people live longer than underweight people (a flawed study that was, not surprisingly, trumpeted by feminists, fatties and those who shudder at the thought of sexual market standards), a new study has concluded that fatness will shorten your lifespan:

While some past studies have shown that persons carrying a few extra pounds in their 70s live longer than their thinner counterparts, a new study that measured subjects’ weight at multiple points over a longer period of time reveals the opposite.

Research from Adventist Health Studies recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society showed that men over 75 with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 22.3 had a 3.7-year shorter life expectancy, and women over 75 with a BMI greater than 27.4 had a 2.1-year shorter life expectancy. Generally, a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered normal weight, and a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight. A BMI of 30 or more is considered obese.

A good rule of thumb to take into consideration when trawling scientific studies is that the more a study’s results contradict common sense, the likelier it is that there was some flaw in experimental procedure. It’s not OK to plump up as you get older; you should be striving to maintain your youthful weight for your whole life. Paleo eating and regular exercise of the short burst variety (weightlifting and wind sprints) will help you in your goal. For those who think this is impossible, you only have to look at modern day hunter gatherer tribes. In those, the elderly (that is, the few who avoid getting murdered or mauled to death) stay thin and sinewy right up until the end.

In related news, getting fat is much worse for a woman’s sex and love life than it is for a man’s. (Paging that idiot commenter who thought he was being smartly impartial with his heavy-handed “reminders” that women don’t like all the fat men, either. Well, the facts suggest otherwise, schnerdling.)

Men are more concerned with their partner’s body type than women but they also seem to value family more highly, according to a new survey released on Tuesday.

Nearly half of men questioned in the poll of 70,000 people said they would ditch a partner who gained weight, compared to only 20 percent of women.

Two-third of men also said they had fantasized about their partner’s friends, while only one-third of women had done so.

Ladeez, if you want to keep your man interested in you, you have to stay sexy and slender. Men, the findings (and general life observations) show that getting fatter won’t hurt your love life very much. Don’t push it, though. Few people who aren’t freak fetishists are sexually aroused by morbid obesity.

Another valuable CH lesson, free of charge!

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Hungry Hungry Hippos | Comments Off

The Fake Drink Opener

Aug 23rd, 2011 by

A reader asks into the ether whether the following opening gambit is good enough to use regularly.

I saw on a buddy of mine’s facebook status a while ago “lol at girls who thought I bought them shots of vodka when it was actually water”. Apparently he “bought” some hot girls at a bar shots of water that they assumed was vodka. He said after doing the shots, they sort of half laughed and gave him the finger and he left pretty much after doing that because he had other places to go. Now I’m pretty sure this guy’s a natural (black, over 6 ft, does tango or some crap, and can probably bench press a car) so I doubt he even cared about their opinion of him and did it for his own amusement since he probably gets laid like a rockstar. I wasn’t there to see the girls’ reaction, so I was wondering if this would be a good opener? Completely unusable dick move? What do you think about it?

On paper, (and apparently in real life if this guy’s story about his friend is accurately retold), the fake drink opener seems like it would work very well, especially on hot girls with bitch shields in bars and clubs who will be expecting free drinks from suckers. Some of the best cocky teasing is the kind where you fool a girl into thinking you will meet her expectations of betatude, and then you pull the rug out from under her. She is left reeling in the warm juices of her arousal.

But in practice, I’m not sure this would be easy to pull off. Fake drinks have to be delivered in the same glasses that would hold real liquor for the trick to work. If you ask the bartender for a round of water shots (when the girl is far enough away from you that she can’t hear your order), the bartender will likely serve you the water in tall soda glasses, usually with a straw for added humiliation. Then the girl will know it’s not a vodka shot by the shape of the glass.

But that might be hair splitting. I’m sure you could get around that if you know the bartender and he’s happy to be in on your ruse. Or you could keep used shot glasses and fill them up with water, to hand out to any unsuspecting princess.

Regardless of the utility of this opener, props go to the reader for having the right frame of mind. That is half the battle in your quest for cheap sex.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

From The Lips Of Babes

Aug 22nd, 2011 by

Women who have Cupid’s Bow lips are more likely to orgasm during sex than women with straighter lips.

A recent study by the University of the West of Scotland found that women with a prominent, sharply raised ‘tubercle’ on their top lip — commonly known as a Cupid’s bow — are 12 times more likely to reach orgasm through sex alone.

This is one of those weird phenotypical associations that, if true, probably has some prenatal hormonal basis. Maybe women exposed to high amounts of estrogen in the womb as fetuses have more feminine facial features like the upside-down-W upper lip, and feminine women feel more aroused by sex with a man. Or maybe cause and effect is different and tip-and-dip-lipped women, being more attractive to men, are simply hooking up with more alpha men and experiencing orgasm during sex more frequently as a consequence.

Btw, the Cupid’s Bow looks great as it’s stretching up and outward across the ridge of the glans.

***

Does sex reduce genetic variation?

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context – an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology – as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.

“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction – in which only one parent is needed to procreate – leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex. […]

According to Heng, the hidden advantage sex has over asexual reproduction is that it constrains macroevolution – evolution at the genome level – to allow a species’ identity to survive. In other words, it prevents “Species A” from morphing into “Species B.” Meanwhile, it also allows for microevolution – evolution at the gene level – to allow members of the species to adapt to the environment.

If sex is really about maintaining a species’ identity against assimilation with closely related species — a sort of Darwinian nationalistic response to the borg collective — then does this add weight to group selection theory? It would seem so. I’ll leave it to the reader to explore avenues arising from this line of thinking. (Just a little something to get you started: when women are ovulating, they prefer sex with men of their own race.)

***

War, what is it good for? Well, how about civilization.

“This study is part of a larger, worldwide comparative research effort to define the factors that gave rise to the first societies that developed public buildings, widespread religions and regional political systems — or basically characteristics associated with ancient states or what is colloquially known as ‘civilization,’” said Stanish, who is also a professor of anthropology at UCLA. “War, regional trade and specialized labor are the three factors that keep coming up as predecessors to civilization.”

Do you lose sleep at night when you ponder the sacrifice in blood and pain of countless ancestors, cruelty upon cruelty inflicted upon and by them until the pile of skulls reached high enough that you could retrieve with your grubby sausage fingers the iPhone perched at the top of the macabre stack?

***

Daughters have more influence over their mother’s sexual self-esteem than the other way around.

A new study by a Temple University Fox School of Business professor finds that teenage girls have a strong influence on the products their mothers buy solely for personal use, as in makeup or clothing, and that mothers have a much stronger tendency to mimic their daughters’ consumption behavior than vice versa.

The researchers analyzed whether teenage girls tend to emulate their mothers’ consumption behavior or whether mothers mimic their daughters. The study, conducted through questionnaires, sampled 343 mother-daughter pairs, with an average age of 44 for the mothers and 16 for the daughters. The researchers found that if a mother is young at heart, has high fashion consciousness and views her daughter as a style expert, she will tend to doppelgang her daughter’s consumption behavior.

Moms must know with some conscious awareness that their piping hot fresh teen daughters look a lot hotter than they do. It would only be natural for moms constantly reminded of their rapidly approaching reproductive obsolescence to ape the habits and dress of their sexual betters in hopes the magic would rub off on them. But enough of that cheery cocktail hour talk. What do daughters REALLY think of their moms?

However, even if the daughter has high interest in fashion and an older cognitive age –thinking she’s older than she is – she still is less likely to view her mother as a consumer role model and to doppelgang her.

You can hear the ouch from that sting all the way from the dressing room of your local trailer park titty bar.

***

I keep hearing from all these erudite economists and Ellis Island schmaltzfuckers in love with their open borders theories that the down economy is causing illegal migrants to return to Mexico by the truckloads. Oh really?

Number of Mexican immigrants returning home dropped during latest recession, study finds.

Fewer Mexican immigrants returned home from the United States during 2008 and 2009 than in the two years prior to the start of the recession, a finding that contradicts the notion that the economic downturn has hastened return migration to Mexico, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

I love the whir of a furious backpedal, coming soon to a libertardian blog near you. Can we just finally concede that the anti-nationhood Western elite policy of ignoring the porous borders and demonizing anyone who notices was nothing but a giant middle finger gleefully wagged in the face of middle and lower class whites? Candor is good for the soul.

***

File under: Pedestal rot. Women are wired to seek “extra-pair paternity“.

Seeking out extra-pair paternity (EPP) is a viable reproductive strategy for females in many pair-bonded species. Across human societies, women commonly engage in extra-marital affairs, suggesting this strategy may also be an important part of women’s reproductive decision-making. Here, I show that among the Himba 17 per cent of all recorded marital births are attributed by women to EPP, and EPP is associated with significant increases in women’s reproductive success. In contrast, there are no cases of EPP among children born into ‘love match’ marriages. This rate of EPP is higher than has been recorded in any other small-scale society. These results illustrate the importance of seeking EPP as a mechanism of female choice in humans, while simultaneously showing it to be highly variable and context-dependent.

For political and social cohesion reasons, it’s doubtful we’ll ever see an accurate number on rates of cuckoldry, but we will get closer as DNA testing improves and becomes more widespread. I wonder if, as this study implies, arranged marriages across the world have higher rates of cuckoldry — aka female rape — than companion marriages. A great mental energy must be spent by women reconciling their desire for monogamous romance with their compulsion to foist a bastard upon an unwitting beta.

***

“Stayover relationships” are the new marriage.

Changes in relationship formation and dissolution in the past 50 years have revealed new patterns in romantic relations among young adults. The U.S. Census indicates that young people are choosing to marry later and cohabitating more often than past generations. Now, a University of Missouri researcher has found that people in their 20s are redefining dating by engaging in “stayover relationships,” spending three or more nights together each week while maintaining the option of going to their own homes.

“Instead of following a clear path from courtship to marriage, individuals are choosing to engage in romantic ties on their own terms – without the guidance of social norms,” said Tyler Jamison, a researcher in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS). “There is a gap between the teen years and adulthood during which we don’t know much about the dating behaviors of young adults. Stayovers are the unique answer to what emerging adults are doing in their relationships.”

Jamison found that “stayover relationships” are a growing trend among college-aged couples who are committed, but not interested in cohabiting. However, little is known about the effects of stayovers on future commitment decisions or marriage.

“A key motivation is to enjoy the comforts of an intimate relationship while maintaining a high degree of personal control over one’s involvement and commitment,” said Larry Ganong, professor in HDFS. “We see this interest in personal control nationally in more single adult households, and in the growing phenomenon of ‘living apart together’ (middle-aged and older monogamous couples who maintain their own households). It may also help explain why marriage is on the decline, particularly among young adults.”

Who says stayover relationships have to be the domain of teenagers? I’m a big fan of the system. A few nights a week, no messy financial or property entanglements, and some time alone to fish for auxiliary prospects. What’s not to like? PS: Marriage as we know it will be gone in thirty years, barring some social cataclysm. It only takes a relatively small vociferous minority to shift public opinion and practices, unless there is an equal or greater pushback before the new opinion metastasizes in elite thought and manifests in all-out propaganda war. The time for that pushback is long gone.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Girls | Comments Off

Another Game Concept Confirmed: The Allure Of Male Choice

Aug 19th, 2011 by

Camelot007 writes:

I believe there is no better explanation of what women need than in this excerpt:

“And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.”

It comes from an article titled “What Do Women Want” written by Daniel Bergner and is backed by research done at Queen’s University in Ontario Canada.

The stability of a long term relationship rests mostly on the happiness of the woman. Men in lackluster LTRs are perfectly happy keeping the thing sputtering along if they are getting their sexual needs met on the sly with mistresses. But women are a different beast entirely in this matter; if a woman feels turned off or egregiously neglected by her lover, she will prefer to jettison the relationship altogether and start fresh (as fresh as an aging woman can start) rather than share her intimacy with multiple men concurrently.

And so when a man loses interest in his partner the LTR or marriage is in less trouble than when the woman loses interest in her partner. Married men would be wise to recognize this insidious imbalance in the sexual force and behave accordingly if they don’t want to get the barrel end of the divorce theft industry pointed squarely at their nads. You may not like it, but under the restrictions imposed by the corrupt state of modern marriage the onus is on men to keep their wives happy, rather than the other way around. (Yet another reason to skip out on marriage in favor of LTRs or cohabitation.)

What this research implies is that if you want to sustain the hot sex in an LTR for longer than the first few months, and by extension reduce the odds that your girlfriend will cheat or generally behave like a bitch, you need to frequently qualify her. Qualifying a woman makes her feel like she has to continue working for your affection, and thus overcomes the naturally emergent impediment common to all LTRs of anhedonic emasculation. She wants to know she has earned your interest, for only when this final piece of the puzzle is in place will you remain the mortal god she yearns to idolize.

In the turbulent bazaar of the sexual market, perception is everything. No matter how deftly a wife or long term girlfriend is able to logically convince herself that her partner’s SMV is no lower than when they first met, her altered perception of his value that accompanies LTR confinement and complacency will inevitably corrode her feelings of lust. Game can remedy this dissolution by instilling in her a renewed appreciation for her man’s desirability. A healthy reminder, if you will.

A woman loves to feel that the man she is with has illimitable choice among competitor women. A man with sexual choice is a desirable man, for he is preselected by women and will pass on his preselected genes to her sons. A man without choice in women — and, however wrongly, such can seem the case to a woman hitched to a man in a familiarizing and deballing monogamous LTR — is an undesirable man, for why should she love a man whom no other woman would deign to love? She begins to question not only whether he still finds her attractive, but more importantly whether he is himself still attractive to other women and is choosing her among a smorgasbord of pussy options. The disenchantment spiral unwinds.

A man “trapped” in an LTR can avoid, or at least temper, the disenchantment spiral by employing various game methods designed to validate his woman’s hypergamous need to be with a higher status man than herself:

1. He can instill dread.

For example, kill complacency dead by calling her from a location where girls’ screeching voices can be heard in the background.

2. He can screen her like he did when they first met.

“It’s important to me that a woman knows how to do the reverse spider monkey hanging from a pull-up bar.”

3. He can provoke competition anxiety.

“Your friend Carrie looks like she’s been hitting the yoga classes a lot. A man can tell.”

4. He can helpfully remind her of his options.

To wit: Don’t look away in misguided appeasement when that sexy waitress tosses you a flirtatious glance under your GF’s/wife’s nose. Instead, revel in the moment. Grin and wink back at her. Make it obvious that you could get a new woman in a day if your lover was to leave you.

5. He can cheat.

This is the trepanation of reviving a flagging relationship. Use with caution. Fact is, when you cheat on a woman her perception of your sexual market value skyrockets.

A woman will fight with the last fiber of her being against the encroaching discomfort that she is being settled for by a man with a lack of options. Every marriage and LTR, left to their own inertial devices, encourages this encroachment. Do her, and yourself, a favor: game the shit out of her til death, or the wall, do you part.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Girls, Relationships | Comments Off

Equality Ruins Sex

Aug 18th, 2011 by

Here’s a simple formula:

Economically empowered women + empathetic men = loss of female sex drive.

Who’da thunk it!

Well, apparently not feminists, because the latest slew of research is sure to give them a crusty old vagina hemorrhage.

Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.

And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.

This is not news to anyone who reads this blog. This research supports a critical CH maxim:

Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both by the laws of human nature.

When women make as much or more money than men, when they have equally prestigious jobs and an army of assistants, they will find that the pool of sexually desirable men dries up, and the inevitably lowered status men who are available to them are perceived as veritably castrated. Male dating inequality results, where more and more men are deemed unworthy mate prospects while the few men who still wield high status over the majority of women find their prospects enlarged.

A choice quote by a classic lawyercunt from the above article:

Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.

‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.

But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex.

‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.

‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’

Women are hardwired to prefer submission to a strong man, and the stronger the man, the more abject her surrender. See: Story of O. Women BEG for you to exert your power over them. A woman craves it like you crave stuffing her holes full of love.

Luckily for men in this epoch of economic contraction and anti-male bigotry, game will allow them to bypass the female algorithm to screen for high status men by giving women the SUBMISSION TO POWER that they so desperately need without men having to rely on any societally conventional status metrics. And women will love them for it.

For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel

a. more turned on, or

b. just as turned off as before

if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?

Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that. She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.

Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.

Ironically, while feminism has opened the pussy floodgates for alpha males, enabling them to have their fill of noncommittal sex, the uptight little ideology has simultaneously ruined the libidos of women by, in turns, masculinizing women and emasculating men. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature and expect no blowback.

According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.

They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.

But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.

What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.

Maxim #2: All successful seductions are adversarial in nature.

Even female rats exhibit the same tendencies that human females do: the love of being chased, the anticipatory flirting, the insufferable but charming coyness, the anti-slut defensive posturing, the desire to submit to a dominant male, with ass perched high in the air, undulating in expectation.

When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.

‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.

‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”

‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’

I think we can declare, with this vaj-smash CH post, that on the date of 18-8-2011, feminism died. May the gruesome corpse shortly rot into spinsterly decrepitude and spare us all the spectacle of watching me do the Snoopy happy dance and gloating “I told you so!”

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Culture, Inner Beauty, Status Is King, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

A Valid Criticism Of The Mystery Method?

Aug 17th, 2011 by

The Shocker writes:

one of the common criticisms with the Mystery Method is that it takes an adversarial approach to game- like two lawyers in a courtroom. You’re trying to come up with rebuttals based on what she says and what she does. It’s good for beginners since they can detach their identity from their performance (and suffer no ego consequences when they fail), but it’s really not that great of an approach to social interaction overall. Rock solid inner game always wins because you aren’t making assumptions about your target, you’re more agile and dynamic since it’s authentic, and ultimately is the image you’re trying to impress through Mystery’s scripts anyways. Women can tell the difference. [Ed: More precisely, women can *feel* the difference between bad game and good game.]

Chateau Heartiste is popular with inner-game types because it looks at the rules of attraction from a very high level. We’re not really looking for techniques here because we don’t need them – just a deeper understanding of the laws and strategies at play. It’s the difference between practicing chess openings from a book versus reading about game theory. Yale vs ITT Tech.

All seduction is, in a sense, adversarial. It has to be, considering that men’s and women’s reproductive goals are at odds. But it is the adversarial nature of courtship that electrifies women’s libidos. A budding seduction that lacks this tension will wither on the vine. It’s evolutionarily preordained that women will swoon for sharply charged flirty exchanges, and crumple into boredom under an onslaught of dull agreeableness.

That said, it’s true that game greenhorns too easily fall into a lawyerly pattern of badgering the witness and courtroom objections. This isn’t a fault of the specific game tactics so much as it is a problem of overthinking one’s next move at the expense of free-form conversational adaptability. Men who first take on the learning of game tend to think in rigid blocks of discrete information — must do this now, then follow up with this — instead of the better mode of thinking in fluid cascades of themes: i’ll do this, unless this other move is better. What results from thinking like the former is a man who fumbles when a woman, for example, shit tests at the “wrong” time, and he flails in his misguided effort to steer the conversation back to where he was in control.

For the beginner, it’s almost more effective to think actively about what *not to do*, than what to do. Avoiding common beta pitfalls will get you farther as a newbie than trying to perfectly apply all the little details of the Attraction-Comfort-Seduction sequence to targets of interest. As you progress, you can start to think more in terms of tightening your game instead of avoiding anti-game missteps, because at that stage you should have enough experience with women under your belt (heh) that you can, one, predict with uncanny accuracy how a woman will react to a given scenario and, two, shift on the fly.

Mystery did the world a service by breaking down the trajectory of a successful seduction and female attraction mechanisms into their component parts. The nature of making a (relatively) complex subject understandable for the masses naturally ensures that imitators and acolytes will miss the nuance. Nuance comes with practice, so don’t sweat it at first. The Mystery Method blueprint is just that — a blueprint around which to erect a work of pickup art. Don’t try to jam every preposition or unexpected riposte into its framework. Exigency happens.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

Chicks Dig Jerks: More Scientific Evidence

Aug 16th, 2011 by

The blows of excruciating truth continue raining down on feminists’ block-like skulls. A recent scientific study (via reader “Dor”) confirms a core theme of this blog that chicks really do dig jerks.

The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad [i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism] have typically been considered abnormal, pathological and inherently maladaptive. Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to themselves and others, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power, low neuroticism and extraversion, that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness, such traits may facilitate — especially for men — the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.

So what is this study telling us? What Heartiste concepts are validated?

– Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)

– Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussy.)

– Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.

– The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.

– Being disagreeable (an asshole, that is) is attractive to women.

– Being power-hungry is attractive to women.

– Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.

– In other words, being an aloof, uncaring asshole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.

– Contrary to feminist flailing to gender equalize the attractiveness of assholes by claiming that men prefer bitches, this study conclusively shows that the Dark Triad suite of asshole traits works better for men than it does for women. That is, men don’t dig bitches.

– None of the above would ever be admitted by women, so don’t bother asking them.

Women who can’t help but love men who hit them, like Rihanna, are only the bleeding edge (heh) of a general and primordial inclination by the fairer sex to swoon for emotionally callous, manipulative assholes. You may hate this assessment, but you can’t disagree with it. You’re soaking in its truth.

Those who hate the messenger (yours untruly) for shedding light on this reality often like to ask if I would be OK with some erudite guy telling men to be assholes to get chicks if my hypothetical daughter was to wind up in the arms of such an asshole (like this dude). Of course, I wouldn’t. Amoralistic biology ensures there will be competing and contradictory passions, double standards up the wazoo. What father in his right mind would want his daughter to fall for an asshole? And yet, I am not my hypothetical daughter’s pleasure center. What I would want as a hypothetical father should not stain the quest for truth.

I present the truth, suggest ways to exploit this truth, and allow the readers to ultimately decide which path to take for themselves.

One thing we know for certain: if it’s young, fresh, maximally fertile pussy you want, you can’t go wrong cranking up the assholery.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Chase, Interrupted

Aug 15th, 2011 by

My slim cut extra medium T-shirt felt sloppy on me, sitting across the table from his dark blue suit. A blood red tie slashed his white shirt down the middle, and he caressed the lip of his glass of whiskey with a manicured index finger that hasn’t seen manual labor since high school.

“You sound like you’re ready to call it quits,” he mused.

“Well, now I wouldn’t go that far.”

“How long you been together?”

I stuttered on the number. “Hm… nine months, year. Somewhere around there.”

“That’s love.”

“Yeah, she’s all right.”

He took a slow sip and eyed through the back of his glass a young blonde with an aggressively arched torso sitting at the bar. “Marriage?”

“Ha. Funny. I’m just enjoying it in its pristine condition at the moment. What about you? Any slowing down?”

“I didn’t know this was a race.”

“You know what I mean. How much longer can you play the field?”

“How much longer can you go on breathing? You see the absurdity in your question.” He flicked a mosquito off his arm sleeve. The rooftop was buzzing with liquored career girls and blues music trapped in humidity.

I exhaled words through my lips, “I admit there are times… a lot of times… when I miss the chase.”

“You can still have that.”

“No, not really. Technically, you can. But in reality the feeling is never the same.”

He leaned forward and crinkled his brow. “How so?”

“There’s no freedom in cheating. At least, not the sort of freedom that makes your brain feel like it’s on helium. Cheating is exciting, but no matter how you compartmentalize it, you’ll always have to deal with that tiny pang of guilt.”

“Sure, but it’s worth it when you consider the alternative.” He shivered from an invisible north wind. “Monogamy.”

“There’s more to it than guilt, which was never much of a disincentive for me, anyway. When you know you always have that fallback lover, that girl who will be there at home, waiting for you, the victories taste less sweet. Where’s the challenge? A well executed seduction as a free man is a very different experience than one as a taken man. Failure means more when you’re single, and so success means more as well.”

“Beautiful words. But your virtue won’t last. You’ll be back. I know you.”

He pressed forward over the table once again, and for the first time that night his tie went askew.

I studied my mischievous friend waiting for me to invite him to speak. “What?”

“You remember Adele? That girl you took back to her place from this very bar… twice… for one night stands?”

“Adele. Yeah,” I reflected.

“She had a nice place, didn’t she? Big bay window in her bedroom. You were about to fuck her, condomless, in the deep of the night, and right before penetration you looked down and admired her thatch of honey blonde pubic hair. Shards of streetlamp light shone through the window and illuminated her pubes. Her tuft glittered, you said. You were surprised that her rug was as brightly blonde as her hair.”

“All natural, too. She was a Vikingess.”

“Mmm, hm. The optical geometry of that night is scorched forever on your retinas. In old age, you’ll forget everything but moments like that. You’ll forget your kids’ names but you’ll recall with perfect clarity the night of that dance of streetlight, bed, and pubes. And the others like it.”

“I know where you’re going with this.”

His lip curled. “Do you?”

“She had a boyfriend. Which I found out about later. I met him, briefly. Shook his hand and everything just to make her uncomfortable. She didn’t know if I was crazy enough to mention our tryst. Of course, I didn’t. But I loved that spectacle. It’s not often one gets a chance to smother a woman so thoroughly with her clandestine evil.”

“Yes, there was that, but that’s not what I was going to say.”

“Oh?”

“What does it feel like, knowing that should you follow your goodness to its conclusion, you will never again enjoy the discovery of new pubic canopies? To forever shutter the windows on that bay window of your adventurer’s soul?”

“Poetic. But I love the pubes of the girl I’m with now.”

“One pube color, until you die.” With that, he and his sharp dark suit rose and glided to the bar blonde with the bitchy back. I could overhear their conversation.

You have excellent posture. Very masculine. I don’t think I’ve seen marine sergeants sit as ramrod straight as you.
Thanks. I try not to slouch.
Posture like that could be intimidating to some men. Let me guess, you love the power rush.
Doesn’t seem to be a problem for you.
I’m quaking in my boots.

I finished my drink and watched a cocktail napkin slide from one hand to another. Old-fashioned and personal. That was his style.

At home, a scribbled note greeted me on the coffee table. “I bought you OJ. Feel better!”

I fumbled around my jeans pocket, found what I was looking for, and sent a text.

interesting… meeting you, general sherman. I might call you.

I burned the tattered tissue paper in my hand with a lighter and mixed myself a screwdriver. My thumb hovered over the delete button.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Escape, The Good Life, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

The Reluctant Cockblock

Aug 9th, 2011 by

I noticed her immediately. The hottest girl in the room weaved through the crowd, walking in my direction. As she neared at a quick pace, I saw her right arm extended behind her. The awkward positioning seemed odd to me. She passed, and a fat homely girl, attached to the bombshell’s right hand, was being dragged behind like a circus elephant. Fatso was a good foot shorter than the hot babe leading her around the sweaty drinkers, and, conservatively, 4 points lower on the looks scale. She wore a miserable expression; she clearly didn’t want to be there. She was literally walking in the shadow of a superior specimen of womanhood.

While the hot-ugly friend pair is not common, you do see this social female arrangement every so often, especially in meat markets. (A group of women of varied looks, some hot and some not, is more common.) Always the hottie looks like she’s having the time of her life and her unattractive friend looks irritated, wishing she were anywhere else.

Approach these bifurcated two-sets with caution. The ugly friend won’t actively cockblock you, (she’s too subservient to her hot friend’s prerogative), but you’ll have to deal with an even bigger obstacle: the hot chick has brought her along because she intends to either

a. find the warpig a man, or

b. launch the flaming warpig from a trebuchet at any man who lingers too long.

If (a), you’ll know right away; she’ll quickly introduce the fug before you can get a word in edgewise, encourage a dance circle of the three of you, then lean into fug’s ear, say something, and skip away to the bar, leaving you and the consolation prize alone. Niceguys will generally stick around for a few minutes (or hours), thinking that is the virtuous thing to do, and hoping the hot chick will come back and shower love on them for being genial with her ugly friend. Of course, that last part never happens. Meaner guys (ahem) will bolt, raining down blows upon an already clobbered homely girl’s ego.

If (b), you’ll know by watching for any nonverbal signals the hot girl telegraphs to her ugly friend. She’ll enjoy your flirting for a little while, but then the fug, as if on cue and reading from a script, will monotonously declare she has to get up early, or somesuch excuse. Having imbibed a sufficient quotient of your attentions to achieve orbital velocity validation, the hot girl will shrug her shoulders and trot off.

How do you handle the hot girl-ugly girl two-set? The game literature is clear: you open the ugly girl first and drop a neg on the hot girl, building a faux camaraderie with the potential cockblock, thus neutralizing any compulsion she may harbor to menstruate all over your game. But the ugly girl in the two-set is usually a reluctant cockblock; she’s not interested in rescuing her friend or being a noxious cunt. She agreed to go out because she likes to inhale the second hand seduction from all the action her hot friend gets. It’s vicarious thrills. But now she’s regretting her decision. (She can’t help it; hot girls have stronger powers of persuasion than ugly girls.)

No, the real cockblock in this two-set is the hot girl. She’s tough enough to game when she’s with a group of friends, but when she’s with one ugly friend, you have got your work cut out. I’d advise avoiding these “couples” in favor of cute girls who have equally cute girl friends. Then you can rev up jealously plotlines to your heart’s content.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

“What are you thinking about?”

Aug 7th, 2011 by

It’s impossible to date a girl for any significant length of time and not hear this plaintive inquiry from her. In fact, if she likes you, you will sometimes hear it on a first date. A reader offers a quick escape:

Answer with “thoughts are sacred” and change the subject so it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to be profound. I stole that from a Fellini film. Have used it on a few different types of girls and it works like a charm. I enjoy the blog man.

Not bad. Another good reply (if she’s got enough brains to catch the wit): “My burdensome masculinity.” Or: “A ham sandwich.”

Any move to evade the question, or to answer it in a way she could never have predicted, is the correct move. The key is to understand that in matters of romance, women don’t want to be taken seriously. They want you to, with a wink and a smirk, patronize them like the be-boobed and be-hipped children they are. The worst possible answer to these seemingly innocuous female questions (which, in reality, are actually subtle shit tests) is the candid answer. For example… BAD: “I was just thinking about how much I like you.” You, with your feeble beta brain, thinks she wants to hear that, (because why would she ask?) but she doesn’t. What she wants to hear, or rather what her vagina wants to hear, is “A ham sandwich.”

Now of course there will be times when the sincere response is the right one. A long term girlfriend asks because she is A) worried you’re withdrawing from her, or B) genuinely interested in what’s on your mind. In those cases, you may, but only occasionally!, stroke her inquisitive feelers til she’s purring like a kitten.

I can hear the chorus of betaaches now. “When should we be sincere and when should we be cocky?”

Don’t sweat the small stuff. A good rule of thumb is the 3:1 cocky-to-sincere ratio. A sincere reply should be bookended by at least three cocky ripostes. This can play out over a few minutes of an energetic first meet or over a few languid days, depending on your level of intimacy with the girl. This gives her hamster juuuuuuuust enough pellets to keep him shitting regularly. Too many pellets and the overworked bugger gets the runs, his rationalizations spinning out of control into a turgid drama fest. Too few pellets and he gets constipated, backed up with negative emotion. A regular hamster is a happy hamster. And a horny hamster.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Guy Rules | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »