Feed on
Posts
Comments

Study: Gay Marriage Is A Farce

Mar 8th, 2015 by

Back in October, CH wrote, based on social circle confessionals, that gay marriage is a farce.

I’ll let you in on a leetle secret…

Every gay marriage that was talked about was an open relationship.

Not a one of these gays who were married, or planned to get married, held any pretense of practicing monogamy. When the topic of promiscuous married gays came up, the only surprise was the blasé avowal of the fact. The gay men announced their intention to defile the tacit monogamous stricture of marriage with such nonchalance that it would astound them to learn anyone thought they might behave otherwise.

CH didn’t know at the time that the New York Beta Times had already implicitly agreed with the Heartistian premise that gay marriage is a farce.

Many successful gay marriages share an open secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Gay marriage was never primarily about expanding the marital franchise to “historically oppressed groups” in the interest of faaiiiiiirness or haaaaaaaarm reduction, as RAWMUSCLGLUTES Andrew Sullivan perpetually insisted through his fog of roidpouting. Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.

Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Gays and lesbians… just like you and me. Except not at all like you and me. And that’s a truth the equalists dearly want to hide from view.

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Ugly Truths, Vanity | 137 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: American Dalit

Mar 7th, 2015 by

COTW winner Mike writes,

Off topic, but I just finished watching Eastwood’s “American Sniper”. The fact that we live in a society which teaches our kids to idolize rappers and drug dealers, and yet I’d never even heard of this guy until today, depresses the shit out of me. It’s guys like THAT that we should be holding up to our kids as the ideal.

If anyone wants to know what a true Alpha looks like, that dude was it. From what I could see, his only flaw was that he was willing to go overseas and risk his life for a country that would have happily thrown him under the bus if he would have come back and said something to offend a fat, spoiled, worthless SJW feminist.

That kiss-off disclaimer at the end is the shiv that twists deepest. From what I know, Kyle was an honorable man… and that was his flaw. He was duty-bound to a corrupt elite and government that, not to mince words, hated his guts, and hates the guts of those like him.

One insurgent tactic to hit the enemy where it hurts is to turn the affections of the natural constituency of the US military — all those competent white men from the more vigorous remnants of the culture — against the idea that service to the traitors within is anything remotely honorable or brave. It is, quite the contrary, stupid. It’s very stupid to fight for effete pussyboys, grotesque feminists, and diversity quota ingrates sitting in cushy offices who work tirelessly day and night to put the heads of white men like Kyle on plates.

Posted in Comment Winners | 248 Comments »

The Seductive Value Of Emotional Range

Mar 6th, 2015 by

little 15
why does she have to defend
her feelings inside
why pretend
she’s not had a life
a life of near misses
now all that she wants
is three little wishes
she wants to see with your eyes
she wants to smile with your smile
she wants a nice surprise
every once in a while

Women have slicker emotional fluidity than men, but their highs aren’t as high nor their lows as low as the passions that men are capable of feeling. Few women will ever feel with the same intensity the exhilarating rush of power that a man feels when he is victorious in struggle. Few women will experience the lustful, insistent, romantic yearning that surges outward from every corpuscle of a young man’s being when the merest flicker of a pretty girl grazes his retina.

To rectify this sin-inducing passion deficit, the devil gave women, as substitution for intensity of emotion, frequency of emotion. Whereas a man can easily make it through a day without needing his emotional state roused to action, women slowly rot from the inside if their inner emotional joyride rusts unused for too long. Women are not built for stoicism; an imposed stoicism drives them mad, a self-imposed stoicism madder still.

When a woman isn’t receiving her recommended gaily allowance of emotional stimulation, she will try to “fill the tank” by seeking out a man who can make her feel alive or, if no man like that is available, by manufacturing drama in the hopes of dragging others across the event horizon into into her black hole of anxiety.

This sex differential in emotional consonance has a major implication for the sexual market. Women, in general the more passive sex, will be more attracted to men who are skilled at frothing a woman’s broad (but shallow) well of emotions and, from that foundation, creating an emotional connection. As the “receiving” sex, women will naturally gravitate to men who best represent the prerogative of the “injecting” sex. (Fainting dames are welcome to describe men as the “infusing sex”.)

Like all things romance, there are inherent and unresolvable contradictions in the system which a wise player abides. Yes, women are drawn to “the oak”, the man who can keep his cool when her’s is heating up, who lets her frolic under his protective branches. But all stoicism all the time makes Jack a dull boy. Women also want to feel what a man feels, because women know, instinctively, that men boil with an active volcano of white hot passion women can only dream of feeling for themselves. So women, as the sex with the greater need for constant emotional stimulation, will work hard to coax that passion out of men, and when it comes to soak it up like the rays of the sun.

Unfortunately, this is the subroutine of courtship which fails too many men. I’ve seen it happen to older men and to socially maladjusted nerds, the two largest groups with a propensity to stifle their expressiveness, or an incapacity to summon it in the proper dosage. The older Lothario, through a combination of his own negligence and a fatefully slow passion contraction, will lean on manly stoicism less as a seduction tactic than as a necessity to compensate for gimped emotional range.

The spergy nerd has a different problem. His emotional range is bifurcated. Most of the time he’s a monotonic drone, but sufficiently pressured by social contingencies will explode in a cluster bomb of random emotional shrapnel, thereby codifying the social ostracism that always stalks him.

Older men and nerds aren’t the only kinds of men with a constricted emotional range. For example, men suffering from PTSD can lose the ability to feel emotion, or to signal emotion to others. To a normal woman, a man incapable of the occasional burst of passionate feeling must seem an alien to her female mind. Intriguing to her for a while, yes, but absent some human dimension her intrigue will soon enough wither to revulsion.

A lack of emotional range is a serious handicap in the mating trenches for men who don’t have palpable or tacitly acknowledged social power to leverage in exchange for pussy. If this describes you, it’s time to learn how to express yourself. But not haphazardly. There’s still a stern science to this sloppy art.

Here are a few pointers for improving your emotional range:

– Learn to be more facially expressive. Raised eyebrows, comically widened or narrowed eyes, winks, hyperbolic brow furrows, etc. You don’t have to be Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura, but you do want to be more than a blank sheet of flesh with eating and breathing inputs.

– Use your full body. Accentuate your words with hand gestures. Backturn when she misbehaves. Become skilled in the art of slithering close to a woman. Play the “stop repeating me game”, except wordlessly, with your body mimicking hers. It goes without saying that you don’t want to be a spaz. Control of your body mechanics to whatever purpose you put your physicality is key. Be bodily loose, but also be capable of shutting it down at a moment’s reflection. Girls like to know a man is both excitable and self-calming.

– Use a fuller vocal range. Vocal variability is attractive to women.

– Try to “shock” a woman into attraction by polarizing her. There will be more on this in a future post. (Yes, it is possible to trigger attraction in a disinterested female stranger with nothing more than your body language and your words. This is one of the great advantages of being a man.)

– If you have the time and inclination, take an acting or improv class.

– Get well-acquainted with the classic game concepts of push-pull, hot-cold-hot-cold. Bring her up, bring her down, Take her high, take her low. Tell her a happy story about cute puppies, then tell her a sad story about dead cats. Be sexual with her, then be cold. Appease her, then befuddle her. Emotional range doesn’t mean going to one extreme and staying there; it means exploiting the whole spectrum of emotions.

– Storytelling succeeds in the details. Your stories don’t need a plot or a point if they are told with loving details that light up her imagination. In practice, this means more references to the senses: textures, colors, aromas, etc.

– Sing. In the middle of a pickup, I might just sing aloud a thought or two, Is it ridiculous? Yes. Does it entrance women? Yes.

– If you feel happy, or sad, or angered during the time you’re talking with a girl, express those emotions a degree more fiercely than you would in an office setting.

– To nerds: Your best option for self-improvement will be observing men who are good at emotional expression in the field. You have an elevated power of observation, so put it to use. There will be fits and starts, but after a few flame-outs with women you’ll get the hang of it.

– To weary, cynical men: Biomechanical feedback loops are a real thing. Time and/or experience may have robbed you of your expressiveness, but you can, to borrow a nerd expression, reinstall the OS by forcing a reboot. Making pointed efforts to expand your emotional range and expressiveness will invigorate any natural and instinctive habits of the emotional centers of your mind which have atrophied over time. “Fake it till you intake it” works.

– Finally, a cheap and easy method to project emotional range is sarcasm. Sarcastic remarks tend to recruit facial and bodily cooperation for some reason. Just don’t overdo it. Too much sarcasm will incriminate you as the kind of soul-seared man with massive ego-protecting shields. A girl has to feel like she’s cracking through your shell to the “real you”, and sarcasm works against that progression.

Posted in Game, Rules of Manhood | 151 Comments »

BPD Women

Mar 5th, 2015 by

A favored hatemachine lever recently latched onto by an assortment of bitterboys and ignoramuses is the assertion that the world is full of women with borderline personality disorder, and these BPD women are the ones that “PUAs” are bedding, (due to some confluence of psychological factors intrinsic to BPD).

It’s time for perspective. And truthfulness.

2% of the general population have BPD symptoms. 75% of that 2% are women.

This female BPD rate is about on par with the percentage of lesbian homosexuals in the population. Perhaps even lower.

So the “EASY BPD TARGETS” smear by inchoate anti-charisma haters is bullshit. The odds that only BPD women, and never psychologically sound women, consensually share the romantic company of free-lovin’ jerkboy charmers are very very low. The odds that jerkboy charmers are equally adept at charming the panties off psychologically sound women are much higher.

And this fact really sticks in the craw of a certain sect of mythologizers.

Posted in Girls, Psy Ops | 218 Comments »

Reader Feedback: The State Of The Union

Mar 4th, 2015 by

It’s always preenfeed to receive positive feedback from guests of Le Chateau. An anonymous reader regales:

Field report – the state of the union

I don’t post a lot because the tools you have all given me lead me to be a pretty busy guy. This one I had to write up because it was something different and something telling.

A few months ago I made a post for no strings hookup. One of responses was from a woman in another state. She was very flattering toward me for my pic but more for my post; it was gruff, short, direct, specific and used non-pc language to ward off men from responding. We exchanged a few emails where she explained she felt unfulfilled by the nightlife in her city. I said, “hey, in another life…take it easy” she said she might visit someday; I threw cold water on it, not looking to put any long term thoughts in her head.

…A few months later, I get an email that she is coming to my city and has purchased plane tickets. I told her she had better have her own place to stay and explained my time with her would be limited to 1 meetup. she wanted to press on…

This weekend she was here. I had the longest, most enjoyably depraved bout of sex in my life. Checked a lot of boxes. Not going to get into the nitty gritty but she was a goddamn maneater…and I tamed the tiger.

When I met up with her (in public), I spent about 30 minutes feeling her out to make sure she wasn’t boil-a-bunny crazy. What followed was a sad indictment of the current state of beta males. She complained about the men and the women in her city. The men were soft, overweight, sedentary betas. They couldn’t handle her sex drive, directness, or need for a strong man. She said she had stopped dating for x number of months prior to coming out to meet me because the guys just weren’t worth it. The women were all fat, entitled, bossy in a “born on third base and think they hit a home run” way, and of course, SJWs. If a table next to you is too loud, the shhhhh police show up. Basically, liberal feminists run amok. *Shudder*

She was attractive, fit, and petite, as far as looks go. Not long term material but good enough for a one night stand. Plus she was extremely direct and specific about what she liked sexually. It didn’t take much time to decide to head to a bed.

When it was all said and done, she had perma-smile. Multiple o’s. But heres the kicker: she basically worshipped me. I have never had this happen before. Very different. It was like I was Conan the destroyer and she was a girl in my harem. She moved over me catlike, she played with my chest hair, kissed and caressed every part of my body, basically acted like a cat when you give it catnip lol. I have had stuff similar to this happen before (laying on my chest, playing with chest hair, some girlish fawning, the ol’ pillow talk). This was unequivocally beyond that. I could have done anything to her and she would have done anything I said (trust me, I verified). She would have been happy to do this shit all day and night, apparently. It was strange, unfamiliar and extremely hot. It was the most manly I have ever felt; the confidence is dripping off of me currently.

All it cost me was $20.00. I took her to 2 well known food places but nowhere touristy. She flew to another state and all she got was marathon sex and a fast food. Didn’t give her a place to stay or act as chauffeur.
Heres what I did:

1. Shut the fuck up. Didn’t talk at all while driving or waiting for food. Answered her questions with brevity. Asked few questions but good ones (some from the list posted a few weeks ago on this site – the ones from the NYT).
2. Brought the wood. I think this more than anything is what made her believe my alpha state. Giving a chick mind blowing orgasms makes their hamster pretty much forget/justify anything they don’t like about you lol.
3. Body language in public. I let her caress/be lovey-dovey in bed after sex. But in public it was like she was a stranger. This of course made her want to constantly touch me/show other women she was with me. I would slightly shift or move away from her, enough to train her that she cant, aside from the occasional hand carass (her to me).
4. Wasn’t afraid to argue/disagree with her. She kept trying to get me to see things from her perspective. If it made sense to me, I would give her slight agreement. If it didn’t, I called bullshit.
5. Set up (false haha) time constraints. Made her freak out, kept trying to buy more time with me lol.
6. Was fun & playful, especially in bed. My roommate said all he heard all night was moaning then giggling, then moaning then giggling etc.

This post was not to brag, believe it or not. I felt it was my obligation to write this because CH is doing more for men than anyone else and this story provides anecdotal proof that following red pill truths and the 16 commandants of poon leads to real world success. Proof that there are unsatisfied women who will literally fly to another state for a taste of alpha. Thank you fuckers, I love you all.

You’re welcome.

One thing I would mention about these women who possess an outsized craving for absolute submission from themselves and absolute mastery from their lovers: Be cognizant that some women who readily embrace overheated sexual or romantic attachment early on can be major pains in the ass later, should you decide to invest more substantially in them. Watch for warning signs from her, like intemperate griping and complaining about all the men in her life who “didn’t measure up”. You’ll need a strong and swift pimp hand to tame these kinds of women. This caveat aside, it’s better for the health of a possible future relationship to fall deeply into passionate lovemaking sooner rather than later, and hotter rather than cooler.

Posted in Love, Vanity | 171 Comments »

Baby Got Swayback

Mar 4th, 2015 by

There’s a new(ly identified) attractiveness standard by which women are relentlessly judged for sexual, romantic, and yes, marital worth: The swayback. Reader Experienced Father passes along the relevant study.

This paper reports independent studies supporting the proposal that human standards of attractiveness reflect the output of psychological adaptations to detect fitness-relevant traits. We tested novel a priori hypotheses based on an adaptive problem uniquely faced by ancestral hominin females: a forward-shifted center of mass during pregnancy. The hominin female spine possesses evolved morphology to deal with this adaptive challenge: wedging in the third-to-last lumbar vertebra. Among ancestral women, vertebral wedging would have minimized the net fitness threats posed by hypolordosis and hyperlordosis, thereby creating selective pressures on men to prefer such women as mates. On this basis, we hypothesized that men possess evolved mate preferences for women with this theoretically optimal angle of lumbar curvature. […]

Men again tended to prefer women exhibiting cues to a degree of vertebral wedging closer to optimum. This included preferring women whose lumbar curvature specifically reflected vertebral wedging rather than buttock mass. These findings reveal novel, theoretically anchored, and previously undiscovered standards of attractiveness.

The optimal swayback looks like the middle female silhouette:

The woman with no swayback too closely resembles a prepubescent boy. The woman with excessive swayback looks like a scoliotic whore who spent too may nights leaning into the open car windows of johns. The woman in the middle is juuuuuust tight.

It’s theorized that women with a 45 degree curvature of the lower spine are best adapted for squatting on their haunches and foraging for food. Over time, men would’ve come to prefer this female body shape because it indicated better fitness at the job of gathering nuts, berries, and other huthold objects.

I don’t know if this study controlled for race, but I bet one that does would find that the male preference for swayback is more cross-racially universal than is the male preference for bloated booty, which black men favor more.

Anyhow, more lab confirmation of the CH formulations based on real-world observations that biomechanics is god, love is a tender effusion stimulated in men by small adjustments in the geometric contours of the female face and body, and feminists are butthurt loons.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, The Pleasure Principle | 154 Comments »

The Female Ovulatory Sexual Preference Cycle Holds: A Study In Flawed Meta-Analyses

Mar 3rd, 2015 by

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Feminist Idiocy, Science Validates Game, Ugly Truths | 109 Comments »

The Wickedest Links

Mar 2nd, 2015 by

1. A gene for brain size is discovered and it’s only found in humans… and in Neanderthals. If you think we’re getting very close to a total refutation of the 20th Century liberal equalist faith, you’re right.

2. More evidence (in a roundabout way) that the Game concept of “faking it till you create it” is a potent seduction-improvement strategy.

3. Another CH principle is affirmed by ¡SCIENCE!: Playfulness is twat crack. (this rhyming dyad works best if you pronounce “twat” with a brit clip.)

4. This is a legitimate fear conservatives have about the risk of neuroscience being used to absolve violent criminals of any responsibility for their crimes. (“He dindu nuffin yerhonor, because he’s a slave to his neural wiring.”) The CH take: If genes are found which dispose to violent criminality, nothing should change in the realm of jurisprudence. The balance of faaaaaaaiiirness favors removing dangerous animals from public circulation.

5. If all it takes are small DNA changes to separate chimps from humans, how much smaller is the degree of DNA change necessary to separate the human races? Preemptive heh.

6. Are paleo eaters prepared to go all the way?

7. Processed agribusiness foods are really fucking bad for you, news at 11.

8. Feminists like to crow about older fathers passing on more DNA mutations to their children (an overblown concern troll and a reproductive “hit” that pales in comparison to the Wall-smashing fertility terminus that affects all women). Apropos the impotent ragepouting of feminists against older fathers, here’s a study which found that there were DNA mutations in the children of *teenage* fathers.

9. Beta male manlets trapped in feminist-friendly egalitarian marriages are unhappy with the extra household chores they are browbeaten into doing in exchange for once-a-year birthday blowjobs.

10. House of Cards, Season 3: Who Bitch This Is? (h/t furiousferrett) (meme source)

11. How many of these warnings have come true?

12. “More likely America will be finished as a single nation.” A constitutional crisis, and a resulting collapse, loom.

Bonus link:

13. Women don’t care about your job. What women care about is an emotional connection. (Score another one for game.)

Posted in Love | 171 Comments »

Agree & Amplify For More Sex, Deeper Love

Feb 28th, 2015 by

Commenter 7darktriad3 writes about his ONE POON-HUNTING TRICK that turns around recalcitrant girls,

Not strictly redirection but I’ve found a great way of yielding high % of numbers when you get this type of response:

You: Send me your number
Her: But I hardly know you etc
You: Your right we should stay Tinder BFF and chat on here forever and ever
Her: Hehe I guess your right – ######

Essential Game Techniques 101 should be required coursework for all middle school boys.

Posted in Game | 167 Comments »

One Reason Younger Women Like Older Men

Feb 27th, 2015 by

Commenter nash2z writes,

[The sexual marketplace] is beginning to favor the much older man/younger woman pairing.

I will illustrate. I am a 52 year old white man, and am currently dating a 21 year old white woman, and a 24 year old white woman; simultaneously. I met both online, thru a dating site. I’ve gathered from both that their attraction to me (I do look a few years younger and can pass for mid-forties, and this is a prerequisite I believe) is in their expectations that I am more old school masculine than the younger men they can choose from in their pool. But there’s another reason I’ve picked up as well – and that is the expectation that the older man is not part of the pump-n-dump crowd (little do they know) of which the predominance as of late has been making these women feel cheated out of what they consider to be quality relationships. What they are looking for, in response to what they have been enduring their entire sexual lives, are for men to consider them in a more serious LTR light – never mind that they don’t deserve it. Putting off a muted version of this vibe while at the same time reminding them of the overall beta-flavor of their respective man-circles has done wonders not only to score with these two women, but in my favorable responses from other under 25 female prey when approached.

Could we be seeing the response from women to game – in the wider acceptance of the older man/younger woman pairing. Time will tell.

Effeminizing Millennials works to the sexual market advantage of older, more masculine men who haven’t yet learned of the wonders of the brony, male feminist, and transsexual anime lifestyles. But nash2z hits on another explanation that may be more pertinent: There are some younger women who crave a rock solid relationship. Whatever the objective reality, I would bet that older men do give off a “I’m capable of, and willing to, form an adult relationship with a woman who meets my stringent criteria for a worthwhile lifelong mate” vibe.

By filtering for these kinds of younger women tired of the dating scene, the older man can increase his meet-to-lay-to-love ratio. Beyond this implication, it’s a hypothetical exercise whether the acceptance and utilization of game by cad hopefuls will drive significant numbers of women into the arms of older (or younger) men who signal their readiness for more serious commitment.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Rules of Manhood | 364 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion