Feed on
Posts
Comments

Women Prefer Dominant Men. You Don’t Say!

Jul 14th, 2011 by

Straight from the laboratory, yet another study confirms a core game concept (namely, the concept of demonstrating higher value than the woman you are trying to seduce):

Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige.

In many human societies, high male social status associates with higher fertility, but the means by which status increases lifetime fitness have not been systematically investigated. We analyse the pathways by which male status begets reproductive success in a small-scale, Amerindian society. Men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation, i.e. dominant men, have higher intra-marital fertility for their age, and men with more community-wide influence, i.e. prestigious men, exhibit both higher intra-marital fertility and lower offspring mortality. Both forms of status elicit support from allies and deference from competitors, but high status men are not provisioned more than their peers. Prestigious but not dominant men marry wives who first give birth at earlier ages, which multivariate analysis suggests is the strongest pathway between status and fitness in this population. Furthermore, men are motivated to pursue status because of fitness gains both within and outside of marital unions: dominant and prestigious men have more in-pair surviving offspring as well as more extra-marital affairs.

Chicks dig male power, and power is a catch-all word encompassing the variety of dominance displaying avenues that men pursue to attract women. Large men who can beat other men in fights are dominant. Captains of industry are dominant. Men who demonstrate artistic talent that wins accolades from others are dominant. Musicians who wow audiences are dominant. Preachers who captivate whole congregations are dominant. Men with enough social savvy to win friends and influence people are dominant. Men who are deferred to for their expertise are dominant.

And, yes, men who can seduce by displaying the characteristics of dominant men are irresistibly sexy to women.

In game, many factors contribute to dominance displaying. The oft-misunderstood neg is best seen as a tool to rapidly express male dominance by switching the approval seeking algorithm from the man to the woman. DHVs (demonstrations of higher value) are subtly embedded assertions within a conversational framework that suggestively influence a woman to believe the man she is talking with is a dominant alpha male. Compliance tests (eg: getting a woman to hold your hat for you while you go to the bathroom) are displays of dominance that rely on the natural human instinct to perceive those in whom we have invested our time and attention as high status people. (After all, who in their right mind would spend energy on a low status person? Right?) Flirty teasing is a form of dominance in that the use of it implies you are so high status that you don’t care if your teasing offends and turns a girl off.

Men who lack dominance do the opposite of all the game tactics described in the above paragraph. They are self-deprecating and loath to assert themselves or hint at their accomplishments. They will never neg, preferring instead to compliment women. They will never ask a woman they’ve just met to do anything for them. And they drone, instead of tease. So if you find yourself acting like a low status man, stop, and immediately force yourself to do the opposite. Think of Opposite George. It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Girls are subconsciously hard-wired to respond with sexual interest to men of higher value than themselves, and to men of higher value than other men in their milieu. In other words, women are attracted to dominant men, and dominance is relative to social conditions. A penniless singer in a crappy indie band can get as much play as a high-powered lawyer, because their social circles are distinct and they don’t directly compete, either man to man or by proxy through the girls who follow them around. A janitor who has better game than a stockbroker will take the girl home more often because his skill at instantly communicating his dominance trumps the broker’s higher occupational status in any venue outside of the office environment or expensive restaurants where the broker’s fatter income really shines.

Dominance that results in gina tingles can be achieved through two strategies. Dominance over other men (DoM) or dominance over women (DoF). There is much overlap between these strategies, though the overlap tends to go in the direction from DoM ==> DoF. That is, men who are dominant over other men are usually dominant over women, while men who show dominance over women (think of every smooth-talking seducer in the literary classics) are a little less likely to be dominant over other men, though still more likely than the average beta bear.

There are notable exceptions, which have been discussed in posts like this one and this one. A man can be a wealthy CEO and still be a piss-poor nincompoop with women, while another man can sweet talk the hottest chicks out of their pants but have no interest or talent in running companies or leading groups of men to victory.

If it’s quick sex you want, then the DoF strategy should be your primary focus. The investment required to be dominant over men is significantly more costly than the investment required to display attraction-inducing dominance over women. Game is primarily a DoF-centered strategy (though there are important game concepts dealing with AMOGs — alpha male other guys), but the mastery of game will eventually redound to mastery over other men, because success will women will fill you with confidence that will carry over into all areas of your life.

The DoF strategy may seem separate and distinct to the DoM strategy, but that is an artifact of the particular skillset brought to bear on the issue of seducing women, and the time compression that DoF operates within. Cockiness, aloofness, negs, DHVs, teasing, hoops, takeaways and venue bouncing — all of them displays of dominance over the women you are picking up — are simultaneously subcommunications of dominance over other men as well. A woman who gets aroused at your neg and subconsciously replaces her suitor assessment mental algorithm with a “self-assessment” mental algorithm (as one astute commenter put it) is turned on by your deft composure in the presence of her beauty as well as the tacit implication that your self-interested, cocky confidence is powerful circumstantial evidence that you also possess a facility with dominating other men.

However you seek it, know this: the pussy must always be subordinate to the cock. If it isn’t, she’ll let you know with an icy cold stare, a backturn, a polite dismissal or, worst, another man’s baby.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Bar Girl, Ten Years Later

Jul 8th, 2011 by

Reader whorefinder remembers a tragic story from his past.

Story time: you’ve all heard of Coyote Ugly, the bar in New York City? Many of you who are above 25 remember there was movie about it, which, unfortunately, turned out to be a beta-male-chick-flick as opposed to the semi-porno it should have been. Such a waste…

Anyway, I live in NYC, and have frequented the bar many times over the last 10 years or so. And this is the sad story.

You see, there’s a redheaded bartender who’s worked there since I started going. We’ve chatted a few times over the years, but nothing more–like a good bartender, she remembers my face when I come in, but she wouldn’t know me from Adam if I walked by on the street.

Now, we’re the same age. I started going around age 22, which was, coincidentally, the same year she started working there.

Back then, I couldn’t buy a date. A beta at heart, I marveled at the hot women at Coyote Ugly (hot in a roadhouse skank way) shaking their asses all over the place. The redhead, at the time, was in her physical prime. While not the best looking, her body was banging: slim, curvy, and elastic. She gave off that crazy-fuck vibe like something else. Danced like a motherfucker, looked like a poor man’s angel.

Now I know she was a skank, because each time I moseyed in, I saw a new guy with her. He’d sit down the end of the bar, bored, but occasionally, when no one was looking, she’d give him a kiss. In my early-to-mid 20’s, sad to say, I closed out Coyote Ugly and other bars way too often, and yet still went home alone to punch the clown. And the redhead would, monthly, be leaving with a new dude to get fucked by.

As I grew, matured, and, most importantly, developed game, I actually started to have success with women, and places like Coyote Ugly and strip clubs became distant memories for me, only to be visited for nostalgia, boredom, or shits-and-giggles when buddies are in town. I can pick up a hotter woman now much easier than spending $60-$100 to watch a whorish one be a cocktease to me and feed me bullshit. This is what game does—changes your perspective on everything, makes you disdain what you once would have given an arm for.

Those times I did roll into Coyote Ugly, the redhead would invariably be around. I found out from a bouncer she eventually became the bar manager, hence her hanging around even if not working behind the bar. But her look changed, too.

Years of hard drinking (Coyote girls often drink with the guys, although they invariably will get you to drink way more than them to push up your bill) and smoking outside gave her deposits of fat on her once-pristine body. Years of having a new cock every night left her face haggard, old, and tired, even when she faked a smile. Years of bad food from late night shit shops left her unable to speedplow through dance routines on the bar she once cut like a young farmer in summer. Years of screaming to the bar to “make some noise” and one too many bummed nicotine sticks left her voice low, deep, and gravelly—like the welfare queens you might hear on COPS.

She knew it, too. When she began, she dressed in a bikini top and short, short shorts almost every time I saw her (or ass-tight leather pants). Then, as she withered, she dressed more conservatively (at least for a wannabe roadhouse bar)—longer shorts and looser pants, to the point her tops were more “Jersey Girl out in the 1980’s” than Coyote Ugly. She took to wearing a short sleeve button down when going out for a smoke and then “forgetting” to take it off behind the bar. She wasn’t in denial—just trying to hide Father Time’s and Mother Bad Decision’s abusive marks.

I went in there the other night with a 25 year old Russian hottie I’m banging, for the first time in a year. And saw the redhead. Now 31, her face is permanently jowly from the screaming, nicotine, fatty food, and cocks. She’s well on her way to obesity, and doesn’t even bartend any more, even as a fill in—just a manager. Her once strawberry red hair, which was light and airy, is now stringy, greasy, and worn from one too many guys yanking on it. She even has stretch marks—apparently, she had a kid.

When I walked in with hottie, she was sitting at the edge of the bar, encouraging the new girls to act as she did once, when spring was in her step. She looked up at me and her eyes flickered two painful emotions: recognition of my face, and shame. She was shamed by me, a man who once probably openly salivated at her but was too shy to do anything about it, standing there, now confident, brazen, and cocksure, arm around the waist of a girl ten times hotter than her—and also knowing that I remembered her when she could stop a clock. Now, the only thing that stops for her is a bus.

Long story. I think I’ll cross post at my site.

Somewhere in the readership, a trashy, loudmouthed, has-been skank who spent one too many years walking the trail of pecker tears just cried at her reflection in the mirror.

Cautionary tale, ladies. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Hitting The Wall, The Big City Life, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Phrenology Is Legit: Wide-Faced Men Are Untrustworthy

Jul 8th, 2011 by

Think you can’t judge a person’s character by the shape of his skull? Think again:

Researchers spanning many scientific domains, including primatology, evolutionary biology and psychology, have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for morality. While researchers have identified social and cognitive adaptations that support ethical behaviour, a consensus has emerged that genetically determined physical traits are not reliable signals of unethical intentions or actions. Challenging this view, we show that genetically determined physical traits can serve as reliable predictors of unethical behaviour if they are also associated with positive signals in intersex and intrasex selection. Specifically, we identify a key physical attribute, the facial width-to-height ratio, which predicts unethical behaviour in men. Across two studies, we demonstrate that men with wider faces (relative to facial height) are more likely to explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation, and are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain. Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power. Our results demonstrate that static physical attributes can indeed serve as reliable cues of immoral action, and provide additional support for the view that evolutionary forces shape ethical judgement and behaviour.

So, you really want to limit your dealings with guys who look like this:

This whole subject — that character traits and behaviors can be predicted by physical features — is pregnant with deliciously unsavory thoughtcrime. Do women get more viscerally aroused by wide-faced, beady-eyed men because of women’s attraction to the male dark triad of personality traits? Are long-faced, large-eyed men, presumably more trustworthy, more likely to ascend the corporate ladder? Do wide male faces differ in frequency among population groups? Are people with sloping foreheads really stupider than people with high foreheads? If the genes responsible for making wide male faces and beady eyes also predispose those men to unethical or criminal behavior, what does that say about free will? Criminal culpability? And why, in the first place, would wide faces evolve to be associated with a badboy personality? Why not long faces?

And can we make predictions of women’s behavior based on their facial structure? This blog previously examined the connection between women’s looks and their behavior, and the hysterical screeching it caused amongst the feminists suggests that this avenue of inquiry will not be one any scientist concerned about his reputation or tenure track will want to vigorously pursue.

Luckily the Chateau is here to talk about the things everyone else REALLY wants to talk about, but is afraid to do so.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Winning Back Pissed Off Ex-Girlfriend

Jul 8th, 2011 by

A reader asks:

How do you win back an ex girlfriend when she’s pissed off and not speaking to you?

You win her back by not trying to win her back.

I know that sounds cryptic, but it’s true. As soon as you make an effort to “win back” an angry ex, she’ll resent your obsequious groveling (which is what most “winning back” strategies that men employ amount to).

However, I will say this, it’s better to have a pissed off ex than an indifferent ex. Indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love. An angry ex can be gamed into a hatefuck, but an indifferent ex is already hopping on fresh cock. You are yesterday’s news.

So how do you “not-win back” an angry ex? See here. Executive summary: Avoid at all costs any post-breakup “talks”. Cut off all contact for two or three weeks, when she will be at the peak of missing you. At about that time you have a couple of options. Either call to say hi in your most nonsexual, friendly tone, and end the conversation before she does, or send a non sequitur text and she if she bites.

A lot of times, angry exes will come back to you on their accord if you just lay off them. Is she angry because you cheated on her or because you acted like a beta one too many times? If the former, she’ll rush back, vaginally itching to forgive you. If the latter, she’s already forgotten you.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Guy Rules | Comments Off

Comment Of The Week

Jul 7th, 2011 by

From esteemed commenter Rollo Tomassi:

The ugly secret to a successful and healthy LTR/Marriage that women both hate and need in spades can be summed up in two words:

Competition Anxiety

This one element inspires the hottest sex, the closest sense of appreciation, and the greatest ambient threat that women need to base their self-worth on by association with their committed lover. Every item on this list can, by degrees, be mitigated by maintaining an ever-present, subconscious awareness that you are a sought after commodity.

Every element of Game still plays a critical role in an LTR; it only differs in it’s application. Every divorce I know of was the result of anxiety being replaced by comfort.

This is exactly right. You want to rejuvenate a flagging LTR or (heaven forbid) marriage? Make her sweat a bit. Flirt with other women. Make sure your girlfriend or wife sees you or hears of you holding company with enraptured female admirers. The Chateau wrote a post about instilling dread in your lover to keep the love red hot. It was, naturally, criticized by the sputtering Jizzebel contingent, the limp-noodled betas and the apoplectic standard bearers of conventional lies. A heady, bracing truth has that effect on losers and weirdos.

Comfort and contentment may be pleasurable goals in the short term, but over the long term they sabotage any relationship. Take your comfort in small doses, and keep it spiced with the anxiety of loss. Her inflamed vulva will thank you.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off

Style’s Attraction Amplifier

Jul 7th, 2011 by

I occasionally like to give props to pickup artists when they have great ideas. There’s a reason Style — homely and short as he is — was nonetheless renowned as a successful ladies’ man. Here’s his idea for a great throwaway line that generates instant attraction or intrigue in a woman. (Scroll through the marketing BS to get to the video toward the end.)

Basically, you walk through a group of women (or a mixed group), make eye contact with the girl you like, and as you’re walking by her say “I’m taken”. I suppose then you can either wait for a reaction and linger to see if she bites, or you can continue walking past and meet up with her later after she’s had time to become curious about you.

Some haters will object, because that is the curse of their stunted little minds. “But if you sleep with her after you told her you’re taken, isn’t that lying? Anyhow, she’ll ignore you because she thinks you’re in a relationship.”

Get off this blog! Seduction is the masterful weaving of gossamer lies — manufactured drama purposefully designed to excite the female sensory system, in which both you and her are active and aware participants in the game. The logic of telling a girl you are already taken would no doubt escape those who refuse to, or can’t, face female sexual nature head on without head asploding, but the truth is that women are attracted to men other women love. Please go back and study the fundamentals. Start with female preselection. Educate yourself. A man in the company of women, or perceived to enjoy the company of women, is infinitely more attractive to other women than a man alone or with other men. The fact that such a man is “off-limits” is only a threadbare legalistic hurdle to a woman’s hamster. If she likes you, you can later spin “I’m taken” any way you want and she’ll buy it… because she wants to buy it.

The elegance of Style’s attraction amplifier is what is left unspoken. It assumes the sale, without requiring too much in the way of clunky verbiage. As the brazenly, irrationally confident man about town, you want to act as if every woman you meet is already sold on you. You come “pre-approved”. “I’m taken” insinuates that your target was interested in you and that it is understandable why she was so. It will follow like flowering labia follow tingles that she will thus become interested in you.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game | Comments Off

The Hazards Of Long Term Relationships

Jul 6th, 2011 by

It’s no hard sell to convince most people of the benefits of long term relationships. The intimacy, the shared experiences, the knowing winks and nods in crowded rooms, the quasi-telepathic unspoken understanding, and the cosmically unfathomable depth of love that seems to stop time — there is no better feeling in the world than sex with a woman you love who loves you back with equal fervor. The moment you slip into your lover and simultaneously lock eyes with her is an unparalleled intensity of pleasure that no one night stand, fling or fuck buddy, however passionate, can match.

But it is not an unalloyed good. With the tremendous good comes the risk of treacherous bad, always conniving and usurping to corrode your love and the presumed impregnable strength of your relationship. You must be on guard against these foul subverters at all times if you want to avoid the saddest fate of avoidable heartbreak.

LTRs will make you and her fat and lazy.

The same feeling of comfort and contentment that long term relationships gives to lovers mischievously robs them of the things that helped bring them together in the first place. Satisfaction quickly morphs into self-satisfaction, and the double-edged sword of comfortable monogamy turns its poison-dipped blade on its wielders. Food becomes central to your shared life, sustenance for the heart as well as the body. The powerfully endorphic love you share blinds both of you to encroaching dilapidation — a few pounds here, an aloof demurral to exercise there, an apathetic dismissal of a suggestion for a night on the town — and pretty soon she’s getting fat and sloppy and you’re getting boring. Your dick shrivels, her pussy desiccates. Soon, even the love follows the same tragic descent.

Prevention is simple, if laborious. Mentally frame any relationship as a continual process of falling in love, and every night together as a first date. This will, of course, be easier to do if you have inspiration. Such inspiration comes primarily in the form of your girl keeping herself as hot as she was when she passively wooed you that night you approached her. A woman, as the sex naturally inclined to embracing the herd mentality, will quickly fall in line with a stringent exercise and eating program if you make yourself an example to her. You do this not only by flaunting your self-discipline and your masculine physique, but by allowing other women to flirt with you and to engage the women around you with a charming effrontery that dances along the line between seductive impudence and naive chatter. Pepper conversations with subtle references to your exercise progress and the high you get from feeling and looking so good. Don’t be afraid to be a little cocky.

As the man, you have to lead in this department. If you let yourself go, physically and mentally, she will either follow suit or she will lap you around the race track, in preparation for the day, coming soon, when she cheats on you or leaves you for the man worthy of her 0.7 waist-hip ratio and 21 BMI. Either result is death for the LTR that means anything. You stop wanting to have sex with her or she stops wanting to have sex with you.

LTRs make Jack and Jill dull lovers.

Creativity is the KY that lubes the limbic system. You remember how clever you sounded when you started dating her, and how much effort she put into dressing sexily and acting womanly? The things in our control that make us sexy are a function of our creativity. Over time, your cleverness atrophies from disuse, and her careful consideration of dress and feminine manners dissipates. You become a machine beeping trivialities and trite observations, and she becomes a billowy sweatshirt-wearing task master. You and her are in love, and love eventually subdues the pressure to impress.

A little bit of pressure keeps a relationship fun and fueled on its own momentum. Stay desirable to women besides your lover, and she will be sure to keep herself maximally attractive to you. Don’t fall into dispiriting patterns like taking vacation in the same locales, eating at the same restaurants, buying the same styles year in and year out, gossiping about the same bullshit that 7 billion other dullards gossip about. Again, as the man, you must lead here. Start with the sex. Instead of the usual routine kiss on the cheek when you come home from work, sidle up behind her when she’s in the kitchen, hike her skirt and fuck her from behind. Fuck her in the park. Fuck her on a boat. Fuck her at the top of a ferris wheel. One night of crazy fucking like this is worth ten years of couples therapy.

LTRs will make you and her codependent.

The lament is universal, a staple of sitcoms. “I don’t see my buddy anymore now that he’s got the ol’ ball and chain.” Love is dangerous in one important respect — it will divert a man from his mission(s) in life. His attention now solely focused on his lover, the hobbies, ambitions, social circle and side projects that made him so attractive to her begin to wither under the onslaught of the time-consuming LTR. Like a centrifuge, his self-made identity spins and jettisons away from him, to be replaced by the newly forged identity within the LTR.

Now you can’t do anything without her, and she you. In the beginning, this is a necessary process to build the level of trust and bonding that distinguishes the LTR from any run of the mill fling. But it morphs into a hermetic pair-bond cocoon, a soft escapable prison that shields from the outside world more than it protects. Increasingly consanguineous, the LTR alienates friends and slackens ambitions.

You will have to learn to make time for friends or hobbies in a way you never did as a single man, when friends just appeared and stuff happened. Try to recapture the spontaneity of the single life, and don’t sweat it when your lover wants to do the same with her own friends. Time apart with separate social groups, doing different things, is a battle cry asserting individuality and independence. A woman as much admires and desires the independent man as she fears and envies him. You will never see a brighter twinkle in a lover’s eyes than when, coming home from a night out with your buddies, you regale her with tales of manly impropriety, but then, just when her heartbeat has reached a fevered cadence, you offhandedly muse that you thought about her during the night.

LTRs are monogamous.

Monogamy. The word rouses yearning and trepidation in the male mind at once. A romantic blessing! Or is it a prison? Back and forth it goes, until the typical man resolves the issue by refusing to choose, allowing the choice to be made for him by dwindling options and headstrong harpies.

There is no doubt that men are programmed down to the cilia in their cells to desire sex with a multiplicity of attractive, fertile women. Variety is the spice of life, spread the seed, hogamus higamus etc. Some men have stronger urges to variety than other men, but in all men it is there in lesser or greater degree. The LTR, filled with the bounty of love, nevertheless thwarts a man’s genetic script to seed the wombs of many seed-able women.

For men with low compunction to promiscuity (provider betas), the monogamous relationship is a sweetheart deal: they give up something they weren’t all that gung-ho to pursue anyhow, for something that brings them much joy. Men with a raging libido and a wandering eye (caddish alphas) more or less suffer indignities under the LTR regime, and their predatory lust must be either squelched or sated, the former apt to inflict psychological and testicular distress while the latter a sure destruction of the intimate love that cannot tolerate infidelity except in the most feral societies.

The problem, all too familiar to readers of this blog, arises from the fact that the LTR-pursuing betas are less likely to tingle the ginas of LTR-loving women than the lustful alphas who must be dragged kicking and screaming into monogamous obligation. What a cruel joke nature has played on us all! To tempt men and women with a prize they both want, but to establish a set of playing rules that subverts the very prize to be won, and handicaps the players most invested in the game.

Many PUAs and gurus claim that this circle can be squared; that is, that the skilled seducer can have his cake and eat it, too. He can enjoy the love expressed in an LTR while getting some action on the side.

I have heard these stories, and even seen it play out in real life. But my opinion remains negative on the enterprise. For the overwhelmingly majority of men, from high to low station, game to gameless, it is an unrealistic and mostly unattainable trick to lock in a lover for the long haul while openly satisfying his sexual need for variety. Sooner or later, it will come to a head; the LTR will evaporate into divorce or loveless airs as the repeated insult of open infidelity scours his lover’s emotional bond, or the mistresses will remain discreet behind a wall of lies and resigned toleration by the put-upon woman, the way the French do it.

Naturally, the more alpha a man is, the greater his chances to pull off this pseudo-polygamous hat trick, owing primarily to the fact that women are quicker to forgive the vices of an alpha lover than a beta lover. But even alpha has its limits, and a woman who was once enthralled by her lover’s sexy but risky enticements will someday age both psychologically and chronologically, lose her estrogenic steam, and collapse under the weight of the betrayals. A man can love more than one woman at once, but a woman cannot love more than one man at once. She, at best, can only sex more than one man concurrently. She, ultimately, finds the fullness of her love manifest in the singular, unshared love of one man to whom she is faithfully devoted.

And so for this last part I have no answer. You, as a man, will have to choose what is more important to you: transcendent, unpolluted love, or visceral sexual pleasure. You may attempt to hide your mistresses, and that may work for a while, but it may also not work, and you will have to live with the little lies of omission for as long as you and your lover are together. Some men, particularly the ones most desired by women, are devoid of the moral sense, or sustain a cartoonish, wilted version of it, and can live side by side with lies and not give it a moment’s doubt or self-reflection.

You can also try your hand at an open relationship, wherein your lover knows you seek novel pussy on the side and you, presumably, allow her to do the same with novel cock. But realistically, most men will not be able to abide a lover’s infidelity, no matter how contractually agreed upon. The thought alone of a girlfriend or wife fucking another man, however many mistresses that man himself may indulge, will drive him to a fever. Men by nature and given a free choice would collect concubines and prefer those lovers guarded by eunuchs, not by virile male competitors.

Finally, there is the long shot of the one-way open relationship, aka the royal harem. She remains sexually and emotionally loyal to you, while you get to screw around whenever the feeling hits you. No lies, no subterfuge; everything is out in the open. In my experience, this can be done if your game is incredibly tight, BUT…

It won’t work forever. It won’t even work for a year. A few months is closer to the reality, and odds are it will end in a huge flame-out rather than a genial handshake. Some top PUAs love to crow about their ability to tie down girls into one-way open LTRs, and I have no reason to speculate about their honesty, but I do doubt many of these master seducers are pulling anything like this for more than a few months at a time. (Exceptions exist, but seriously, how long did Stephane Hemon’s threesome LTR last?) Women are certainly capable of swooning unreasonably for a truly charismatic alpha male, and agreeing to arrangements against their interests which in regards to any lesser man would strike women as laughable propositions, but to play kept woman in a real harem rather than a de facto harem shrouded in the mists of plausible deniability, exciting and drama-fueled as it is, is a contrivance guaranteed to end badly when the intoxication of labial lust wears off.

No matter how hot, young and vivacious your LTR lover is, your eye will someday wander, because it is in your nature as a man to want to fuck every sweet piece of ass who crosses your line of vision. To accommodate this visceral desire, you can abdicate the pursuit of LTRs and stay a single poon hound, you can enjoy an LTR while shooting for strange under cover of night, or you can make peace with your urges and learn to abide them unsatisfied as part of the LTR deal. Many men — most men, in fact — accept the latter, and do so without too much regret. The trade-offs, it seems, are worth it.

The choice is less a moral one than a practical one, inasmuch as animal desires supposedly bequeathed us by god can’t be said to have moral underpinnings. What do you prioritize? What gives you the greatest happiness? There’s your answer.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Love, Relationships, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

An Old Chateau Concept Confirmed By Science

Jun 30th, 2011 by

Years ago, the writers of this blog made the bold and controversial assertion that female economic empowerment and growing government largesse were helping to fuel the desire of women to ride the alpha cock carousel in their 20s, only to settle down with a beta provider later in life when their sexual peak had been passed.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

This blog = perceptive. Prophetic, even. Now science has come around to the Chateau point of view with a new study that shows women with money problems prefer softer, beta men who would make good resource provider candidates.

Those [women] primed to worry about their finances showed the least interest in the macho men, the Royal Society journal Biology Letters reports.

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

This would allow women ‘to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as pathogen outbreak or a famine’, they said.

Or to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as the introduction of the Pill, feminism and economic self-sufficiency.

So here we have scientific evidence proving a core Chateau concept that women who are materially comfortable — as many women became after their assault on the workforce and colleges beginning in the 1970s — are less likely to seek out beta providers and more likely to indulge their hypergamous drives and sex it up with studly alpha cads; that is, until Father Time cruelly etches the first of his brandings on delicate, feminine faces. This would go a long way to explaining why age of first marriage has been steadily climbing since 1970; more years devoted to schooling to make the middle class money, yes, but also more years to slut it up with the high status alphas women truly desire but don’t need for material resource procurement.

Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.

Also of note: Women who worried about health problems were attracted to the masculine studs. So if you are an alpha male with game and a goal to bed as many women as possible before kicking off, your best bet is to target hypochondriac careerist chicks.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

Best,

Yours in politically incorrect but bracingly truthful dating advice.

[crypto-donation-box]

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

Comment Of The Week

Jun 29th, 2011 by

From Miley_Cyrax:

Bitches love them r-selected Zergs.

On a related note, here’s another massive StarCraft nerd with a hot girlfriend. She’s a beauty queen, Miss Oregon.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Comment Winners | Comments Off

Diversity + Proximity = War

Jun 29th, 2011 by

In the clearest illustration yet of this infamous Chateau maxim, a new study is out showing how increased diversity in the form of bordered territory is leading to more war.

Wars steadily increase for over a century, fed by more borders and cheaper conflict.

New research by the University of Warwick and Humboldt University shows that the frequency of wars between states increased steadily from 1870 to 2001 by 2% a year on average. The research argues that conflict is being fed by economic growth and the proliferation of new borders.

We may think the world enjoyed periods of relative freedom from war between the Cold War and 9/11 but the new research by Professor Mark Harrison from at the University of Warwick’s the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and Professor Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University, shows that the number of conflicts between pairs of states rose steadily from 6 per year on average between 1870 and 1913 to 17 per year in the period of the two World Wars, 31 per year in the Cold War, and 36 per year in the 1990s.

Professor Mark Harrison from the University of Warwick said: “The number of conflicts has been rising on a stable trend. Because of two world wars, the pattern is obviously disturbed between 1914 and 1945 but remarkably, after 1945 the frequency of wars resumed its upward course on pretty much the same path as before 1913.”

One of the key drivers is the number of countries, which has risen dramatically – from 47 in 1870 to 187 in 2001.

People like to form into competing groups. This natural impulse is encoded in every human being’s DNA. It is a deeply embedded encoding, and can’t be excised. It can only be controlled by authoritarian measures, i.e. ultimately at the point of a gun. More 20th century borders is likely the manifestation of these ancient desires seeking to congeal into ever smaller, and thus more closely related, human tribes, and now being free to do so. It should be no surprise to a realist of human nature that more borders would lead to more war.

Naturally, the hopelessly naive among you might ask, “Why not just dissolve borders like we are doing here in the USA? Fewer borders should mean less war, right?” Incorrect. What instead will happen — and what we are seeing happening today in the USA — is a chaotic scramble — a BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE — to form de facto borders within the essentially borderless nation. (The modern USA is the closest approximation we have to an essentially borderless nation ruled by a legitimate government. There is no way to explain the unsupervised migration of 50 million Mexicans in 30 years that starts with the premise that we have a working border mechanism in place.)

De facto internal borders are based on race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, and social status, just as hard borders. La Raza is an internal border. The Congressional Black Caucus is an internal border. Journalism is an internal border (80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats). Cosmopolitan elites are an internal border. Schools are an internal border (ever notice how students congregate in a lunchroom cafeteria? How about the quickness with which urban white elites set off for the decidedly less diverse suburbs when the kids reach schooling age?). J-Date is an internal border. NASCAR is an internal border. Libertardian blogs are an internal border. Gay Pride and Puerto Rican Day parades are internal borders. Gerrymandered districts are internal borders. Neighborhoods are internal borders. Of course, one notable group has no recognized internal border at all. And we know what happens to undefended, borderless lands: they get overrun.

Active wars of bloodshed might not be the result of such internal border-making (though don’t count your ammo before it’s fired), but all the political machinations and propaganda of hot wars are there in spades in our relatively bloodless diversity wars. The only thing missing is the stack of dead, uniformed bodies. “Uniformed” being the operative word here.

A country as (formerly) gifted with human capital as the USA can live with a little bit of diversity. But like every other nation on earth, beholden as we all are to our Darwinian overlord, it can’t live with a lot of it. We’ll soon find that out.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Current Events, Globalization, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »