Feed on
Posts
Comments

Reader Mailbag: Fast Times Edition

Apr 19th, 2011 by

Email #1 is from a high school student who calls himself Inexperienced Gamer:

I found your blog a few months back and I loved it.  If any site has given me good advice, this is it.

I saw your ‘first experience with game‘ post a few weeks ago and it kind of struck a chord with me.  There’s this girl I went to school with a very long time ago, after which I left the school.  Now we’re in high school again, and she’s definitely raised her market value.

It’s clear that she’s into me, but I’m not in any of her classes (no chance, I’m AP) and any cross-curricular activities.  My question is, how can I approach (in a setting like this that isn’t, say, a nightclub or bar) without coming off as too forward?

First, I love it that Chateau-popularized concepts like “sexual market value” are infiltrating the high school halls. We’ve come a long way from passing notes and innocently day-dreaming about kissing the cute girl who sits in the front row.

Second, what is this “too forward” crap? You’ve gotta bust a move to get the girl. They aren’t just going to float into your lap. Man, I can remember my earliest years as a stripling seducer when I let a few juicy high school chicks go because I frittered away time thinking about how to arrange the perfect rendezvous with heavenly lights and trumpeting angels heralding my approach instead of walking up and talking.

AP classes tells me you are at the stage where you pride yourself on being smarter than most of your fellow students. You’re probably a little nerdy. Cold approaching fills you with apprehension. Amiright? Well, you’ll have to get over that. If you don’t share classes or activities, you’ve got options to meet her between classes or at the local hangout spot after school. Do you skate or anything like that? Do stuff outdoors where there’s a good chance she’ll stroll by with her friends. From there, it’s just a matter of accusing her of being a skateboard groupie. Find out what groups she’s in and arrange it so that you’re somewhere in the vicinity. It helps if she sees you chatting with other girls.

Your options are limitless. Don’t overthink it. Most important thing is to JUST SAY SOMETHING. Nod in her direction and say “Hey, come here.” There is a 99.9% chance she’ll come. Whatever you do, don’t fall back on the crutch of texting to hint at your feelings. That’s weak sauce.

***

Email #2:

Big time fan of the truths exposed on this website, I’m currently facing an interesting challenge and could use the advice of a super-alpha in negotiating new territory.

This may seem superfluous, but I feel a quick synopsis of back story will help. I began with natural alpha qualities, but devolved to full on beta-dom after my parents had an ugly divorce and my highschool girlfriend dumped me (for being too beta). I exiled myself across the country for two years, and was contemplating ending it all when all old friend contacted me out of the blue to tell me about Roosh’s book Bang. I realized all of my problems resulted from being a Beta and having extremely poor inner game. I returned home and began living with my estranged alpha father (think Charlie Sheen light) and began revamping my personality while returning to my old practices of tearing through women and not caring of what other think of me.

Recently I found a woman who is different, and with the increasing levels of disclosure I feel as though more and more of the old beta is coming out inadvertently regardless of how conscious I am of it. While I commonly make her go get me a beer after sex, respond to requests to put the seat down with “fuck off”, and the only PDA I show is the occasional hug or hard slap on the ass I feel like I’m slipping. Outside of behaviors like these combined with approaching more women on nights off and being extremely aloof what can one do to continue as a true alpha? How exactly does one balance the beta and the alpha when in a relationship?

I appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter.

A good woman will test a man’s alpha resolve. Intense romantic feelings will play havoc with your game if you don’t know how to manage your emotions. (Most younger guys don’t.) If you remind yourself of this, you’ll get better at catching yourself when you slip into beta behavior.

Some of your actions seem a little over the top, however. Almost like caricatures of alpha behavior. Telling a girl to “fuck off” when she asks you to put down the toilet seat is unnecessarily harsh, unless I’m misreading the tone in which you say it. Remember: amused mastery is the zen-like state you should aim for. Better to tease her when the toilet seat issue comes up with something like “Would you like a frilly toilet seat cover to go with that request, your highness?”

But you may be dating a hardcore asshole lover, in which case a regularly scheduled “fuck off” is entirely appropriate and useful. On the other hand, you may be trolling all of us with your email. For the moment, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Once a relationship is solidified (usually after three months) you can afford some beta slippage. Girls do need to see signs of tenderness and commitment from men they are dating, after all. This is especially true if she’s acting like she’s in an exclusive relationship with you. So stop worrying and just don’t do anything egregious, like drop on bended knee.

***

Email #3:

what’s the best reply to this shit test
“you just wanna get me drunk so you can take advantage of me.”

I replied with “yeah, i heard you’re easy”

Not a good reply. That’s a good way to trigger her anti-slut defenses. Better:

“My advantage… or yours?”

***

Email #4 is from “Joe”:

I was born a beta. Several months ago, I discovered ‘game’ and your blog – since then I’ve made a conscious effort to become alpha. (I’m definitely not the finished article yet, but I’ll get there.)

If you wouldn’t mind helping a brother out, I’d really appreciate your advice on something. Here’s the backstory…

Sarah (HB8) and I have been friends for 18 months (we attend the same university in [redacted]). After seeing me apply what you teach on your blog, she started to like me. When she told me she liked me, I pretended I wasn’t sure about dating her (acting aloof)… then, a few days later, I arranged a date. This was back in November.

During the Christmas break (4 weeks), we only saw each other once… it was New Years and she couldn’t keep her hands off me. However, when I next saw her she acted very cold, and we broke-up shortly after.

Anyway, we hooked-up again in February and have been seeing each other ever since.

Now the Easter holidays have started and I won’t see her for another 3 weeks. In order to keep her sexually interested (unlike last time),what would your advice be with regarding to texting and calling her over the holidays?

Looking back, I acted too beta over the Christmas holidays, which is party why she was cold towards me. (For every two texts she sent me, I was sending three. And just thinking about some of the cheesey stuff I texted her makes me cringe inside!)

If it helps you, attached to this email is 3 weeks worth of text messages between me and Sarah. (I know there’s room for improvement. Reading through, it’s clear I still need to beat the shit out of the beta in me. But, hopefully, there’s enough alpha to show I’m learning from you and your blog.)

If you want to use some of my texts on the blog, you can – just edit the wording so the texts convey the same message without being a word-for-word replica.

You can be brutally honest in your feedback.

Thanks for any advice you can offer me,

– Joe.

P.S. She’s a 20-year-old virgin. We’ve done ‘everything but’ and last time we hooked-up, she was ready for sex… very stupidly, I had no condoms in my jacket. When we start fully sleeping together (hopefully next time I see her), she’ll probably fall in love with me and I want to give her the gift of being the best, most-alpha boyfriend she ever has.

Sudden cold shoulders are caused by one of four things, in descending order of likelihood:

1. She met someone else.

2. She thinks you’ve become beta.

3. You made her feel slutty, and the time apart exacerbated the awkwardness.

4. She’s weirdly religious.

In your case, you mention that you acted beta over the Christmas holidays, so let’s assume that was the case. You’re back together and she’s going away for another three weeks. You want to know how to prevent a repeat of the break-up drama that happened after the New Years make-out.

I suspect you are correct about your betaness, because I read through the text exchanges you had with this chick, and it’s clear to me you made yourself too available to her. Your texts are too long-winded, filled with too many Xs and Os, and too many emoticons. You nearly always end the text exchange instead of letting a little mystery linger by allowing her to have the last text.

This is a girl who’s already broken up with you once, and you two have only been dating since February. Plus, (and most relevantly), YOU HAVEN’T BANGED HER YET. Therefore, it’s too soon to litter her inbox with winks and kissy-kissy XXs at the end of every text you send her. It smacks of clinginess. Give her room to miss you, to think about you. I wouldn’t even bother texting her more than a couple of times over the holidays. Let her fret a bit about what you may be doing with your free time away from her. When you do text her, keep it much shorter than you’ve been doing. Don’t be curt, but don’t be effusive either. A short, snappy joke, or a sly sexual reference is all you need. When she responds, try to refrain from replying, unless you must.

She may be a genuinely nice girl who loves you in all your glorious betatude, but that’s not the way to bet. Check yourself, governor.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Reader Mailbag | Comments Off

What Betas Can Learn From Women’s Rape Fantasies

Apr 18th, 2011 by

In this post, it was revealed that a lot of women, the majority in fact, have erotic, and *sincere*, rape fantasies. Despite the claim made by feminists that fantasy is wholly different and disconnected from reality — an empty assertion easily explained by feminists’ need to handwave away any disturbing look into the female psyche — the more truthful explanation is that fantasy is a reflection of reality and hints at some deep, immutable desire. If feminists are correct that fantasy is different from reality, we would hear of women fantasizing about tender lovemaking with cubicle-dwelling beta herbs. But that is not the case.

The scientific evidence presents soul-shaking implications: many women harbor a secret desire to experience rape under the right conditions. What those specific conditions are will vary from woman to woman, (typically, an alpha male is involved), but the fundamental act of rape itself — nonconsensual and forceful — appears to be a turn-on for the majority of women. As the study showed, in their rape fantasies women were really refusing the man sex. It was not a token no. That was the basis for the fantasy. The pleasure comes from being overwhelmed by a man who pushes his way past her nonconsensuality. I know, it’s hard to believe, but there it is.

Women don’t like to admit to this little factoid about the inner workings of their ids, because they worry that the dissemination of such knowledge would hinder the prime directive to extract as much princessifying pedestalization from awed men as they can manage. Just as relevant: most women aren’t even consciously aware, nor do they spend much time thinking about, what exactly it is that motivates their sexual desire. They prefer, instead, to swaddle themselves in a cloak of pretty lies, for the best deceptions begin with self-deception.

Rape fantasies provide a shocking look into the craggiest crevices of women’s brains and what they truly desire when it’s just them and their private thoughts. What does this mean for the average well-meaning beta male, (who let it be known comprises the majority of male-dom)? Well, for one, perhaps a lot more betas would do better with women if they were more assertive about physically pushing for sex.

Before the IQ-compromised cunt-brigade and their thimble-phallused uptight white knighters storm in to shriek like menstruating banshees, it should be obvious to any person reading in good faith that being more assertive about physically pushing for sex does not mean rape. It is possible to push for sex, physically or otherwise, without crossing any non-consensual lines. Anyone who’s lived a day in his or her life knows that seductive escalation of the kind that women love will often blur the distinction between formal consent (sign here, here and here to proceed further down my panty line) and wary surrender (no, no, noooo…. yeeeeees).

Rape fantasies tell us that women want to surrender sexually to a man of tenacious and powerful will. Women crave the feeling of “being taken”, and no cautious beta asking politely if he may peer down her blouse or apologizing when she coyly reprimands him for sliding his hand under her bra during a make-out is going to hit that “being taken” button.

There are two ways to fuck up the fuck close: you can seem too eager, or you can seem too tentative. Most men, despite what women’s studies dyke professors tell you, fall into the latter category. They don’t push for sex early enough, or forcefully enough. Any token resistance by the girl is immediately capitulated to, and any move to up the ante is a humiliating exercise in trepidation and apologia.

In sum, the problem betas have is that they TAKE WOMEN’S SYMBOLIC RESISTANCE AT FACE VALUE.

Of course that is going to be a tingle killer.

Instead, betas need to do more of these:

– going for the kiss unannounced.

– issuing bedroom commands.

– never waiting for obvious signals.

– always escalating (but remember: two steps forward, one step back) to more nudity, more touching, and more erotic touching.

– not taking the first “no” for an answer. (Wait until the fifth or sixth “no”, and only then if the “no” is uttered with an unmistakeable tone of genuine recalcitrance.)

– moving seemlessly from bar to bedroom.

– never apologizing for miscues or misreadings of her acquiescence.

– initiating sex in unlikely places.

– getting comfortable with spanking, hair pulling and gentle neck choking.

– reappraising their date evaluation process so that a fingerbang rather than a peck on the cheek becomes the marker of a successful first date ending with a girl who didn’t want to go all the way right away.

– putting it in without the condom. (As Roosh has correctly noted, most women nowadays are more than willing to raw dog a new man after two dates. Likely this has to do with the emerging scientific evidence that absorbed semen boosts a girl’s mood.)

***

This is just a partial list. There are many more overly-cautious missteps that gelded betas commit which sabotage the trajectory of their stillborn seductions.

Now some of you may be asking, “Hey, what about that line Mystery advocated using? The one that goes ‘Would you like to kiss me?’, and if she says no you are supposed to reply ‘I didn’t say you *could*… you just had that look on your face.’ Isn’t that in contradiction to what you wrote above?”

It’s a clever little routine, and will probably work in most situations, but I have found through experience that it’s totally unnecessary. If you are winning a girl over with your game, you can silently go for the kiss without any warm-up or witty fanfare. I have rarely had a girl refuse a bold, unspoken kiss move.

Some others may then ask “What if she turns and gives me the cheek?”

Hey, it’s been known to happen, usually to guys who sloppily telegraphed their horniness, and thus their lower value. If you get her cheek, simply IGNORE IT. Proceed as if nothing happened, and reengage for the kiss later in the date. Under no circumstance should you acknowledge her cheek turn. Do not ironically mutter “Aww, shucks”, or make light of it with a flippant “That was awkward”, or crudely laugh it off with a “So that’s how it’s gonna be?”. Just move on like you hadn’t even tried to kiss her.

Any acknowledgement by you of her coyness, whether she delivers it in cheek turn form or some other false modesty-amplifying manifestation, will be received by her id central command as evidence that she is higher value than you. That is a side effect of female coyness, besides its primary function as a signal of purity.

Maxim #99: Female coyness is a purity signaler as well as an ego-boosting mechanism designed to reaffirm a woman’s sexual market value at the expense of lowering the man’s sexual market value.

Corollary to Maxim #99: Female coyness serves a secondary benefit as an anti-game strategy to make a high value man seem more attainable to a lower value woman, or to offer low value women plausible deniability for failing to attract the interest of high value men.

Letting her know that her coyness affected you is a major surrender of dating hand. Once a girl has successfully thwarted a kiss or sex attempt, and more importantly gotten recognition of her thwarting from you, she has hand. She starts to think that you are not worth her company, or she silently muses that she can do better, because you want it more than she does.

You do not want a girl to have hand if sex within this century is your goal. One of the golden rules of seduction is that half of the battle of bedding hot girls (hot is the operative word here) is lowering their value, and, yes, their self-esteem, below yours.

Maxim #100: The urgency and strength of a woman’s desire for a man is directly proportional to the degree to which he is perceived higher in value than her.

If you absolutely must say something after getting a cheek turn, there is one line you can say to a girl which works well:

“Aw, how cute. It’s like we’re twelve-years-old again.”

The beauty of this line is in the subtext: you are insinuating she is not sophisticated enough to handle her out-of-control emotions around you. Also, by using the word “we’re” instead of “you’re”, you avoid sounding accusatory. Girls like it when you pretend to non-judgementalism.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Psy Ops, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

A Bedroom Finishing Move

Apr 14th, 2011 by

A lot of game material focuses on early game (attraction) and mid-game (trust), but comparatively little attention is paid to end-game (seduction). This is the phase of game where the girl has nearly convinced herself to sleep with you but needs you to pass one or two last-ditch, critical alpha tests before she can will herself to sex. It is at this stage that many men fuck up royally, activating her anti-slut defense because they sped up within sight of the finish line and pushed too hard, or they disappointed her by resting on their laurels like an asexual lump and pushed too little.

Blowing it during end-game is the worst, because you have invested the most at that point. You’ve taken her on a date or two, you’ve held long conversations with her, and you’ve plotted and strategized — imagine the frustration to have her within ejaculating distance of your bed only to see sex vanish with a poof as she grabs her purse and tells you what a nice time she had.

There are tactics for overcoming last minute resistance — take-aways, freeze-outs, preemptive coyness, preselection bachelor pad props — and all of them are good, but one very powerful bedroom finishing move often goes underappreciated:

Choreographed sexual leading.

Reader Dirk gave a good example of sexual leading:

My policy that chicks have to be naked to get into my bedroom has all sorts of benefits. Psychologically, it’s a take-away to tell a girl she can’t go in the bedroom, and I’ve had amateurs over for the first time immediately strip and go inside, which immediately led to sex. Even if they’ve been there before, it keeps the focus in the bedroom on sex. It’s also a dominance thing, since they are usually totally naked before I even have my shirt off, and often I am still fully clothed when they are already totally naked. To [pique] their interest, I keep the door slightly ajar, lights off, but with lava lamp on. I’ll also go in and out a couple of times to adjust the music and sometimes porn, since I run both off the computer in my bedroom, but I close the door after myself when I go in and out so the chick can’t follow me in to the bedroom while still dressed. If she does, its a good time to announce my policy. My policy announcement usually just starts, “you can’t go in there”. If she doesn’t responded with a “why not?” after a few seconds, I will then explain that “women aren’t allowed in there with clothes.” Of course, that line is a DHV. I live in a 1 BR apartment, so there’s not a lot of real estate to explore, so they almost always get curious about seeing the BR.

Last year, I had one chick over for the first time and I told her to strip outside my apartment building. She then walked 3 flights of stairs naked, walking past several of my neighbors’ doorways. She loved it so much, she insisted on walking back out to the car naked in broad daylight.

This is gold. Does requiring a chick to disrobe before entering your bedroom make any logical sense? Of course not. But since when do chicks caught up in the excitement of a possible seduction care about logic? Seduction is, first and foremost, about emotion. Your words are just a silky thin facade to cloak the subtext of sexual anticipation. She hears you say “You have to be naked to go in my bedroom” and she doesn’t say to herself “Why? Is he running an experiment that requires a fibre-free environment?”; instead, she *feels* to herself “Wow, that’s kind of hot. I’m getting wet.”

Dirk’s ruse is all about sexual overtones and displaying higher value through tacit preselection and leading the interaction. Women want to be led by men, and never is this more apparent, and more true, than two steps from your bedroom. Women particularly love when men tell them what to do sexually. It hits all the female buttons that crave submission to a dominant man. She will love you for making her a follower, and resent you for allowing her to lead.

Ordering a girl to change positions — note, I said *ordering*, not politely asking — is one of the hottest things you can do for a woman in bed. Have you ever noticed how a woman’s vocalizations will change and grow louder when you tell her to turn over and raise her ass to meet you? Doggy style is so sexually arousing for women because it is the most SUBMISSIVE sexual posture she can put herself in. She is completely vulnerable in that position. No intimacy, no eye contact, no visual cues — just her ass and your hand grabbing her hair as you thrust.

Dirk’s bedroom directions remind me of the dynamic at play between photographer and subject. There is a reason why women famously love photographers, filmmakers and other similar artists — women can’t get enough of being directed to do certain actions by men, particularly when those actions have a sexual flavor.

A couple had stopped on the boardwalk to ask me and my date to take their picture with their camera. I grabbed the camera and had them stand in a spot that I felt would result in a better shot. As they stood there goofily smiling, I told the woman to move this way and to drop her hand. She complied. I then motioned for both of them to take off their caps. Again, compliance. Still dissatisfied, I asked the women to tilt her head a bit toward him. She got flustered so I stepped closer and slowly brought my hand up near to her face and gestured the direction I wanted her to move. She smiled and her cheeks blushed a rosy hue.

After the shot, she thanked me profusely, saying it was good that they found a professional to take their picture. She let her eyes linger on me a split second longer than was appropriate for a brief meeting with a random stranger. I’ve seen that look before: it’s the look of a woman who is pleasantly surprised at the feelings evoked by the moment just passed.

Good end-game: Order, direct, challenge. Tantalize a girl with sexy role play. Make your move sooner rather than later, but always make it on your terms, never hers. She has to know you are a sexual beast with passion that could dwarf hers, but a beast who nevertheless won’t hesitate to roam for more available prey should the current quarry prove intractable.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, The Pleasure Principle | Comments Off

Science Confirms Another Game Concept: Older Women Need Less Game

Apr 13th, 2011 by

Quite a while back there was a post at this Den of Delicious Sadism blog which explained how game changes depending on the age bracket of the woman you are trying to pick up. A few choice quotes from that post:

The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking. Some consequences result from this.

NEG HARDER. The 23-27 year old will require harder negging than any other age group of women, even the hotter 18 year olds. She needs her ego punctured before her pussy will open for you. […]

The [31-34 year olds] are the kind of women who have sexual flings with college guys, because they can psychologically box those men in as “purely for fun” adventures. But the men the 31-34 year old women really want are the older, established men who will give them a marriage proposal and a family. This is why it is counterintuitively harder to game the older woman who still retains a vestige of her youthful attractiveness: she wants and expects so much more than the younger woman.

Game required: Strong body language, masculine dominance, sharp suits and shoes, easy on the negs and palm reading, emphasis on the comfort stage, lots of travel stories, disqualify yourself from sex on the first date, vulnerability game, avoidance of the beta provider zone. […]

The [36-38 year olds] are at peace with their spinsterhood and their failure in the dating market. A woman in this age bracket will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.

That post got a lot of feedback from commenters and emailers who saw in it a deep and profound truth reflected in their own life experiences. Haters, naturally, were livid with pent-up frustration that the mirror would be so impudently turned in their direction, but they at least could retire to their twin-sized beds and cans of cat food tumbling out of the pantry, soothed with the knowledge that no scientific study as yet had proved the bold claims made in that post. They felt they could glide through another day safely ensconced in their comforting lies.

N o t  a n y m o r e.

Reader quetal left a link to a very revealing study in the comments which, like other studies before it, confirms much of what is written here at the Chateau:

Tailor Your Approach to Your Audience: Data collected by Virtual Dating Assistants revealed that while women of all ages respond well to humor, women in their early 30s and above responded well to longer, more thoughtful emails that expressed genuine interest. Women in their 20s rejected these more serious emails, preferring even some slight cockiness – or what some dating coaches call the “Cocky & Funny” approach. In fact, one particular email that is long (over 150 words), expresses interest, draws commonalities (it’s always customized), demonstrates humor as well as a sense of ambition and adventure received a 9.7% response rate from women in their 20s, a 20.5% response rate from 30-somethings, and a 50.3% [response rate] from women 40 and above. This email, according to Scott, was sent to over a thousand women of different ages, so it’s pretty clear, based on these numbers alone, that a one-size-fits-all approach to online dating is a bad one.

Pwned.

You’ll notice that the study’s results square perfectly with the Chateau’s post quoted at the top. Older women on the downslope of their sexual desirability need less game and more signals of commitment to get them in bed than younger women in their sexual primes. Or, to put it more succinctly, younger, hotter, tighter women love assholes while older, uglier, looser women gravitate to beta providers.

The reason for this age difference in women’s reactions to game is clear: Older women have less sexual marketability and are thus more likely to be pumped and dumped by a high value man. Ensuring that the man sticks around is priority number one, so older women look for signs of herbly romantic interest of the kind that you might see a humanities department professor wallow in while stroking his weak-chin-hiding white beard. One of these signs is the long-winded thoughtful email with perfect punctuation. Younger women, in contrast, are playing with pocket aces, and can afford to indulge their animal desires for the aloof, alpha jerk of their dreams.

Now, as a man, which age group of women are you more interested in? Yeah, that’s what I thought. So… turn on your jerk light. Let it shine wherever you go. Let it make a jerky glow. For all the chicks to see.

This blog frequently gets lady commenters proclaiming to the high heavens that they would never date an asshole. After a leetle prying, it is usually revealed that these howling anti-game termagants are north of the Matron-Vixen line. And that they aren’t, how shall we say?, attractive representatives of their gender.

Of course older women don’t go for assholes as much as they used to when they were younger and hotter — their rapidly closing window of options means they can’t afford the risk of satisfying their carnal need for aloof jerks who are likely to leave them as soon as a younger prospect shows up. Younger women have these worries, too, but given their many years ahead of serviceability they don’t feel them as acutely, which explains why you often see the hottest chicks on the arms of the biggest assholes.

So if you want to bang broads teetering on the edge of witherdom with kids and marriage and college funds dancing in their dreams, go easy on the cocky and funny and the negs. The older woman’s ego has taken enough of a bruising from the encroachment of reality; your negs will only push her into self-flagellating withdrawal or indignant lashing out. She needs to know she still has the kind of looks that can turn heads, so your cloying flattery will work wonders on her.

On the other hand, if you want to date hot girls in their 20s and, for a lucky few of them, early 30s, you have to give ‘em a bit of the ol’ ultrabadness. It’s the moral thing to do, if women’s pleasure is your business.

Executive Summary: Young women are harder lays. They require game and a cocky attitude. Older women are easier lays. They require flowers, compliments and cuddles. Don’t take dating advice from women. This goes double for women over 30.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls, Hitting The Wall, Rules of Manhood, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Spin Spin, Hamster!

Apr 12th, 2011 by

I know this guy who cleans up with women, compared to the typical man. I’ve seen him in action and girls get that twinkle in their eyes within five minutes talking with him. He’s shown me pics of lovers in states of half dress on his bed. Here’s the catch: the guy is short. Not a little under average; he’s a short man who would lose line of sight in a crowd of women.

I listen to this guy carefully because he’s living proof that game can overcome severe sexual market handicaps. He’s decent looking, but not enough to compensate for his diminutive height. He dresses well — sort of a cross between Euro cafe and biker chic — and exudes confidence in the field. (Whether he has this confidence at home is open to question, but regardless he knows to turn it on when it’s go time.)

Based on the obvious and superficial qualities — the ones we can see at a glance — you would expect him to do a little bit better than the average short man, which is still not very good. You wouldn’t expect him to get the numbers of cute chicks he does. His secret is something readers of this blog should understand by now: his game is airtight. Solid gold. He looks girls piercingly in the eye when he picks them up, he doesn’t care if they’re sitting or standing, his body language projects dominance despite his height, and he negs better than any player I know. (As a short man, he has to get out front with the negs, or he’ll get blown out too quickly.) He is borderline asshole with just the merest hint of vulnerability, which is exactly how the women like it. He is charming and suave — traits he says he learned over the years hanging out with alpha men who do well with women. If his shortness bothers him, he doesn’t show it. He has never put himself down or whined about the unfairness of it all, as long as I’ve known him.

He says after his experience with game, he decided to switch careers into sales, and has cleaned up professionally, too. I asked him once how he got started with game.

“Online dating.”

“You’re kidding. You don’t seem like the online dating sort.”

“At first, it was a disaster. I didn’t fib about my height. I didn’t want chicks meeting me for dates thinking I was six inches taller. My game wasn’t polished then, so I didn’t have the confidence in my skills that I could turn a bad date around.”

“So you put your real height in your profile?”

“Yup. Pics, too. Result: No bites. Girls have tons of qualifications for what they want in men, and height is near the top.”

“So you gave up on online dating?”

“Nope. I rearranged my profile to emphasize my pickiness. Right out of the gate I was disqualifying girls hard. I’ve gotta say that I was never a bigger asshole than online.”

“So it started working.”

“Not as much as I wanted, but that wasn’t the point. I knew as long as girls could quickly screen men online for failing their cliched checklists they would screen me out with a click. The beauty of it though was that I was beginning to get interest from girls who *specifically* wrote that they wanted taller men in their profiles. I banged a few of them and this was after they said they wouldn’t normally date men shorter than themselves, but I was ‘different’.”

“Once you took it to the field, it must have gotten a lot tougher, what with the competition and all.”

“The field was easier! The same game I ran online worked ten times better when I could walk up to a chick and talk to her face to face. Most men don’t even bother approaching. You approach, and you’ve leapfrogged 90% of your competition. All those qualifications that girls list in their online profiles just disappear when they’re talking to a smooth bastard. Forget that stuff girls say they want in men. 6 foot, high paying career, jock, Ivy educated, blah blah blah… it’s all bullshit they hang onto because it’s easy to quantify in their heads and makes sense to their parents. They don’t know what they want. They just react to men who turn them on, but there’s no way you can get them to describe what it is about those men that makes them stand out. Ask a girl what she likes in men, and she’ll rattle off some stupid list she read in Cosmo, and then she’ll go home to her bartender boyfriend while her phone is lighting up with calls from all those nice guys with good jobs who are politely asking to take her out on expensive dates.”

***

A woman’s 463 bullet point checklist is suddenly rendered null and void when she is in the company of a man with game/charisma. The qualifications she lists in her OkCupid profile or wherever are meant to be read as “hamster can change policy without prior notice.” If you have good game, you will chuckle to yourself over the many women whose qualifications you did not meet, but who slept with you anyway. The hamster can rationalize away everything from money to education to, yes, even shortness when it is being seduced by a captivating predator.

Maxim #463: Do not underestimate the rapidity with which a woman will jettison her conventional mate criteria when exposed to the attentions of a charismatic man.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

The Four Types Of Female Reactions To High Value Men

Apr 8th, 2011 by

When you are a socially adept charmer drawing attention to yourself by being alive and interesting, you will notice that girls around you react to your presence in one of four different ways. These four ways of reaction are so common that they are likely universal in nature; that is, they are reflections of core human psychology. If you run game — i.e. if you act charismatically — with any regularity, you will cause girls in your vicinity to alter their behavior. They do this unconsciously as their undistracted state is interrupted by your presence, and you can predict with some accuracy how receptive each type of girl will be to your game.

Type I: Acknowledgers

This type of girl will raise an eyebrow, smile, crane her neck with curiosity, nod, or mutter a curt hello when a high value man is within her orbit of perception, and she is within his. She doesn’t want to seem too interested, but she is so intrigued that she can’t help but acknowledge in however fleeting or subtle a manner the man who has punctured her daily dullness. She wants to feel like she is a part of his world and that she is as perceptive as the other women at recognizing his value, so she acknowledges him to affirm her in-crowd cred. But her acknowledgement is brief and off-hand, so that she may retain the fiction that her value is higher than his until proven otherwise. Sometimes, she acknowledges simply because she feels peer pressure to do so. Acknowledgers are rarely seen alone, because they have a strong need to “fit in”. If they are alone, they tend to acknowledge less and withdraw more into an introverted shell. Acknowledgers are natural followers.

Game receptiveness: High. Acknowledgers are uncomfortable with their growing sexual attraction because it is so strong and makes them feel vulnerable. They will follow your lead wherever you take them. They are ripe, low-hanging fruit for the picking, heavy with the juice of wanton womanhood.

Type II: Engagers

Engagers are girls who will jump into an alpha male’s world with gusto, tap dancing and singing the whole way. They are attention whores at heart who will latch onto the social savvy express train of similarly extroverted men. When they see a man having fun, being impossibly cool, or holding court with other women, they find excuses to introduce themselves to him, or they position themselves within proximity of his senses so that the transition from their world to his is not awkward. Engagers smile a lot and are rarely at a loss for words. They like to give high fives. Their bodies talk as much as their mouths do. Engagers are no less sociable when alone.

Game receptiveness: Low to high. Engagers are often cockteases, but of those that aren’t, same night lays are possible. You will need to disqualify Engagers hard. They like to chase.

Type III: Pretenders

A girl who has noticed an alpha male but acts to conceal her curiosity is a Pretender. Usually, these types of girls have a prideful but sometimes fragile ego, and an inclination to abhor attention whores and social competitors. They are loathe to express their interest in a man before has has done the same. You will recognize Pretenders by their furtive glances and quick look-aways when you catch their eyes. Pretenders love to shit test once engaged, and to act all high and mighty in the belief that no person is as interesting as themselves. They are as conceited as Engagers, but without the Engagers’ natural curiosity and love of experiencing new things. Pretenders want to meet alpha males, but want the plausible deniability that studied indifference brings.

Game receptiveness: Medium. Pretenders are interested, but they are going to make you work for their attention. They succumb most easily to perceptive men who call them out on their pretending, and who butter them up with lines such as “I have an intuition about you…”. They are excellent comfort stage candidates. Pretenders are expert at deploying proximity alerts.

Type IV: Hostiles

Hostiles are the type of girls who will studiously avoid acknowledging high value men or women. They are the put-upon quasi-goths and the bristly lawyercunts of the woman underworld. Hostiles are identified by their abrasive and distant personalities, and while an inordinate number of them are ugly or fat, quite a few are drop dead gorgeous hotties whose standards are so high they go out of their way to act unapproachable so that no man gets the idea in head to breach her perimeter defense. Hostiles have swollen egos they protect at all costs and cannot tolerate someone else, even an alpha male, captivating spectators. She takes this as a personal affront. Mind you, she isn’t an attention whore; she just doesn’t like it when her bubble of superiority is pricked by an intriguing man. Hostiles hate to feel vulnerable, and thus encase themselves in an adamantine shell of disregard when they feel the slightest tingle of attraction in a man’s presence. You can identify hostiles by the sternness of their expressions, the stiffness of their backs, and the stridency of their walking, as well as their transparent and clumsy attempts at ignoring you by staring at a wall twenty yards away, or at a UFO in the sky.

Game receptiveness: Low, to sky high. Most men will find hostiles not worth the effort to game. They are so cold up-front that many will be intimidated by the approach. But hostiles fall hard to aloof asshole game. A jerk who can remember what she says about her job is like manna from heaven to the hostile.

***

You’ll observe the four types above (HEAP: Hostiles, Engagers, Acknowledgers, Pretenders) in many situations in life. For instance, I was sitting outdoors on a stoop with friends (mixed group) which faced a busy sidewalk bustling with pedestrians. We were drinking red wine and listening to Motown. We all looked a little too precious, and that was enough peacocking to draw attention to ourselves. The same types of girls you see in clubs, bars, supermarkets, at the beach and at art classes could be seen walking down the sidewalk reacting to us enjoying our leisure on that stoop. This applies to the men who walked by our little gathering, too. Some would acknowledge us with a nod or a smile and a slight slowing in their step, a little bit embarrassed with themselves. Others would engage us by stopping and making a comment. (One girl shouted “Oh, so lovely!”) Others, the Pretenders, would glance over then quickly avert their eyes lest they be seen affirming our high social value. Finally, there were the Hostiles — these were mostly men, but some women as well, who would briskly walk by without a break in their stride or a turn in our direction. Looking closely, we could see some of them grimacing.

If you are a close observer of human nature, you will see these four types of behavior manifest in people at work and home and everywhere else you go. HEAP is probably a representation of people as they move along the introversion-extroversion scale, intersected with the sexual/social status scale. An introverted, ugly girl will usually be a Hostile while an extroverted pretty girl will be an Engager. Exceptions exist, but as a general guideline to how women will react to your peacocking and your social stardom, the HEAP system is fairly reliable.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Girls | Comments Off

Sluts March For Right To Be Easy Lays

Apr 7th, 2011 by

Why is it that the chicks who most loudly proclaim their sluttiness are ugly fatsos? For example, here are a couple pics from a Canadian (natch) protest by sluts who are offended that some policeman had the gall to suggest women bear some responsibility for not dressing in whorish outfits if they want to avoid catching the attention of potential rapists:

Sez it all, really. Girls who are least attractive to men are the ones most eager to put out, and to advertise their efficiency of putting out. When you don’t have a pretty face or a nice figure, all you’ve got to snag some male attention is the wet hole smothered between your thunder thighs.

Ostensibly, this march was about giving women the right to dress like sluts even though bad men with rape-y intentions roam the world. There’s no need to invoke blaming-the-victim like a kneejerk wind-up cuntbot every time someone notes the obvious connection between action and reaction. Young women dressed in revealing clothing walking around late at night in shady hoods are more likely to get raped than old women dressed conservatively who are at home after 10pm. While rapists are to blame for their crime and should be strung up by their balls, women bear some responsibility for minimizing the odds that they will inspire a rapist to do the dirty deed. But of course women, paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in ‘As Good As It Gets’, wish to be blessedly free of the fun-killing constraints of reason and accountability.

As we all know by now from reading this blog, rape is about sex primarily, and only secondarily about power, if it is about the latter at all. The boner doesn’t lie. A man has to be sexually aroused to commit rape. If it were about power, as the feminists like to claim, Donald Trump would pop wood every time he closed a deal, and Warren Buffett would jizz in his pants when his portfolio fattened. Judging by Buffett’s success, that would be a lot of jizz. As far as I can tell, no photos of Buffett exist with telltale jizz stains on his crotch.

Women do need to be aware of their surroundings and the danger that men (particularly men of a certain caste), with their higher propensity to violence and sexual aggression, pose. This used to be common sense among womanhood for centuries. It is only in the past two generations that a bunch of put-upon dyke-lite broads in academia and the media have inculcated the opposite message in young women that they can do no wrong, have no obligation of personal responsibility, and should live in a world that caters to their need to behave however they see fit, free of consequence.

Since it is a guarantee that some egregiously dumbass readers here will misinterpret the very clear line of thought laid out above, an analogy should help fix their muddled thinking. I make it a point to not blithely walk around at 2am in majority black, Latino, or otherwise poverty-stricken neighborhoods of whatever color, even if it would inconvenience me to practice this avoidance. I know, from simple observation and the collected wisdom of the masses, that doing so would increase my odds of getting mugged or killed. If I were mugged or killed, the perpetrators would bear full responsibility for their crime. I would hope they got the chair, pronto. Better still, bullets to the knees, followed by execution to the back of the head. And yet, I recognize that I can make smart or stupid decisions with regards to my safety, and that these decisions are solely within my power to effect.

Women, you, too, need to reaffirm the wisdom of your ancestors, your grandmothers, and your great-grandmothers. Men are different from you. They do not think like you on some important matters, they do not feel like you when the throb of sexual urgency pulses, and they do not behave like you when their emotions gear up for action. You need to act accordingly. This is not “blaming the victim”. This is a call to accept reality for what it is. Denying reality means reality will automatically work against you. And when that happens, no street march in the world is gonna save you.

***

On a related note to the slut march for freedom to pursue ridiculously easy feats of derring-do, here is an article in the New York Beta Times (All the beta that’s fit to cringe) which bolsters the Chateau maxim that women, not men, are the biggest misogynists.

One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend.

Both were in eighth grade.

They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it.

“Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.”

In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital, Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her photo and forwarded it.

Poor Margarite enshrined her love in a jpeg, and what was her punishment? The torments of her fellow sisters. A fusillade of female slut-shaming so cruel and unrelenting, Margarite was driven to living like a recluse. A quote from the Chateau post linked just above:

Who deploys these words in vengeful anger and spiteful slander? Not men. For example, when men use the word “slut” it’s usually with their male buddies as an exercise in identifying the women most likely to put out on the first date. Men will almost never call a woman a slut to her face unless it’s a bitter, jilted ex-boyfriend looking to score points, nor will they tell the woman’s girlfriends that she is a slut. Why kill the loose goose that lays the golden lays?

Women use them against other women. It’s women whispering gossip and innuendo in the ears of whatever female node on their social network is willing to listen, subconsciously calculating that the souldiss will find its way to the intended target. Why do they do this? Because sluts, whores, and skanks make it harder for other girls to use sex as a bargaining chip to extract commitment from quality men and keep it once it is made. Sluts are traitors to the sisterhood, undermining the prime directive and making it more difficult for the commitment whores to get what they want.

The butt-ugly sluts in the Canadian march for slut rights should take heed: your worst traitors to the cause aren’t sensible policemen or those engaged in so-called anarchic thinking. It’s other women. Some of them even feminists.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Sluts, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

“Are You Seeing Anyone?”

Apr 6th, 2011 by

A reader emails:

Really loved the “it’s complicated” post, and have found lots of versatile use for it in my life. Thinking about it though, I think it’s most effective with women new to you as opposed to women you have history with. I also don’t think it should be used as a text response. Some of my ex’s will hit me up out of the blue via text, usually playful messages, but sometimes with the direct inquiry “are you seeing anyone?” that only a woman (or clueless beta orbiter) would ask. While “it’s complicated” would now be my default response to a new girl at a bar if she asked the same, I think it sounds too defensive and pandering to an ex, as though you’re trying to hide something from someone who already knows you very well. [Ed: Agreed.] I also think it doesn’t have the same effectiveness if used as a text reply to anyone.

I went with this exchange recently:

aspirational ex-girlfriend: Are you seeing anyone?
(next morning) me: you workin for tmz now?

Good answer. Cocky and funny, jes like da ladeez like it. She also appreciates the haphazard attention to punctuation.

“Are you seeing anyone?” is a common enough question from interested women that the proper handling of it deserves its own post. (Rumor has it there are a lot of sniveling gameless betas who ask women this question when they first meet them. Pitiable creatures.)

If an ex-girlfriend, former fuckbuddy or platonic female friend who you think wants to revisit the good times with you, (or who simply wants to segue from friendship to sex), asks if you are seeing anyone, and you have decided that “it’s complicated” is not the best response, there are alternatives at your disposal.

1. Sincerity

“I’ve been dating someone for a bit, but I can’t say for sure she is the one.”

2. Lying

“No.”*

3. Evasion/Reframing

See: the reader’s reply above. Few women will follow-up an expertly delivered evasion with cunty lawyerly argumentation. This is because women who ask such questions don’t really want to know the unvarnished answer. The question is asked only to give them plausible deniability should they find themselves bedding a taken man.

4. Circumspection

“I’m dating around.”

This is my favorite answer, regardless of its accuracy. First, it shuts down further inquiry. Second, it leaves things open to interpretation.

5. Challenge

“I’m not tied down yet.”

6. Agree & Amplify

“One?”

7. Aloofness

“Nothing serious.”

Also a personal favorite. Girls like to think the guys they desire have no worries about meeting and banging women, or about settling down.

*”No” is not the ideal reply. Because of the power of preselection, you run a better chance of losing her interest if she thinks you are completely single than you do if she thinks you are getting pussy regularly. So even if you aren’t seeing anyone, you should massage your answer so that ambiguity is introduced to the dialectic. Women aren’t put off a man’s scent if he is seeing someone; if anything, they become more like a bloodhound on his trail. The only exception is when the man sings odes of love and devotion to his woman. Competitor women will generally** back off if they see that the man they want is truly, deeply in love with someone else.

**Before the fairy dust, pie in the sky, swoon brigade gets all gushy at this optimistic outlook on the female gender, let me remind the studio audience that I have observed, and experienced, plenty of exceptions to this rule.

Replies that you should avoid:

“Define ‘seeing’.”

Too goofy. Chicks don’t dig the goof.

“Not sure.”

Too indecisive. Chicks don’t dig vacillators.

“Well, I’m fucking someone, if that’s what you mean.”

Too visual and sexual. Chicks don’t dig braggarts.

“I’m married.”

Too final. Chicks need a window of opportunity.

“Aren’t you the nosy one?”

Too slippery and awkward. What are you hiding?

“Wouldn’t you like to know.”

Too abrasive. If she’s an ex who knows you well, this albeit funny line will close off further exploration.

“Why do you ask?”

Too defensive. Also, why would you step on her hamster right as its revving up for a glorious rationalization to sleep with you?

Commenters are available during business hours to help you with further suggestions.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Game, Girls | Comments Off

The Subtle Heartbreak Of Female Aging

Apr 5th, 2011 by

One of the most famous photographs in history is the “Afghan Mona Lisa”, a pic taken by a National Geographic photographer in the 1980s of a 12 or 13 year old Afghan girl on the cusp of womanhood. In the pic, you can see her nascent, striking beauty beginning to assert itself. Many years later, that girl, now a grown woman, was tracked down and another photograph of her at approximate age 30 was taken. Here are the two pics side by side:

Tragedy. Beauty is but a flicker in the quickly brightening and fading light of a woman’s lifetime. If you think women don’t feel stress competing in the dating market, look at this photo for a helpful reminder of the Damocles Sword of sexual expiration that dangles over the head of every woman. Unlike men whose urgency centers on relieving the pressure valve in their gonads, women are inextricably bound to a powerful, implacable emotional urgency centered on the need to capitalize on their beauty before time runs out. Women have made a pact with the devil — in return for the promise of exquisite beauty, their window to this world of lavish male attention is woefully brief.

But the reason for this post and the inclusion of the photo above is to draw your eye to the nearly imperceptible changes in a woman’s face as she ages a mere 15 years. These changes — so subtle in their alterations — can produce an effect upon the male eye and penis such that she is rendered sexually invisible to him, if not outright repulsive. A tiny droop here, a blotch there, a shadow cast at the wrong aspect — minute changes to facial composition that one would be hard-pressed to pinpoint and elucidate will nevertheless, taken on the whole, turn a woman from a glorious sexual and feminine creature to a sorry bag of undifferentiated human flesh.

For example, let’s closely examine what exactly has changed between the 13-year old Afghan girl and her 30 year old self that she should now look like a witch instead of a blossoming beauty. This will be harder than you think.

– The lips are generally the same shape, but now the corners droop ever so slightly, as can be seen by the diagonal shadow extending from lip to jowl.

– Her skin, while free of acne and disfigurements, has become blotchy. Various hues of crimson compete for real estate on her cheeks and chin.

– Her nose, while still mostly the same shape and size, has acquired a barely perceptible downward tilt and a bonier countenance, cursing her with the aforementioned witchy visage.

– Her eyes have gotten relatively beadier, though this diminution is so tiny as to be measured in units smaller than millimeters. Yet the male brain and eyes, wired and honed to lacerating, and cruel, perfection by millions of years of evolution ensuring that only the most fertile women stake claim to his resource and emotional investments, has no trouble at all judging the tiniest millimeter differences in female facial composition for sexual worthiness.

– Her eyebrows, a little bushier, though again the change is small. But small changes make all the difference.

– The orbs of her eyes themselves have dulled, the glimmer of youthful vitality and emerging sexuality faded after a twinkle in time of only 15 years.

– Her chin has become bulbous. It has added perhaps no more than a half centimeter in the horizontal from her former chin size.

– She has grown incipient jowls, but we cannot tell this from any fat accumulation, which appears minor at best. Rather, we can tell by the “greater than”-shaped shadow that runs jagged from her cheekbone to her jawline.

– There is an ever-so-slight band of darkness under her eyes. The fat pockets that puff out the underlids of the orbital sockets are typically the first to waste away from the ravages of aging.

***

This was a brutal assessment, and the goal was to demonstrate that aging takes its toll on women in ways so subtle, and yet so deleterious and frighteningly fast, that the signs can be easily missed by a woman who has become accustomed to male attention in her late teens and early 20s, and in fact has become inured to the degradation in her sexual value by staring at her face every day in the mirror.

Naturally, some of you will say that Afghanistan is a tough place, and any woman living there would age faster than her pampered Western counterpart. You would be correct, as far as that goes. But the same unstoppable forces — like a tide of horrors — that have ruined the gift of this Afghan woman’s face to the world are at work ruining the faces of millions of Western women blowing away their prime years on mimosas and cock hopping. The only difference are the high tech cosmetics and treatments available in the West that helps stem the tide for a few years.

But that is all it is: a few years. A lucky American woman blessed with good genes and healthy living might be able to put off the withering Afghanistization of her face for perhaps five, or maybe even ten, extra years, holding the witch at bay until age 35-40. Sadly, for most American women, the malignant obesity epidemic has guaranteed that they will lose their beauty long before it is fairly taken from them, if they ever had it at all.

Men, when you remind yourselves of the unimaginable torment that women must experience as their number one asset abandons them with a fury to the cold, uncaring apathetic eyes of the sexual market…

be thankful that you are a man.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Hitting The Wall, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

Number Of White California Residents Plummets As Majority Status Slips Away

Apr 1st, 2011 by

The number of whites residing in California plummeted by more than 11 percent during the past decade, with whites losing their majority status in the state for the first time in its history.

According to census statistics released Thursday, barely 42 percent of California’s population was white in 2010 — a remarkable shift in a place whose motto is “Eureka!” for the exclamation made by the millions of white Europeans who settled, civilized and industrialized the state.

The white population dropped by more than 1 million over the decade. At the same time, the Hispanic population skyrocketed by more than 500%, almost a third higher than a decade earlier. […]

In a state that prides itself on being a hub of white European culture and politics, a majority of residents have been Hispanic since whites began moving to other states en masse after the 1965 Immigration Act. By 1980, seven out of 10 Californians were white. […]

The demographic change is the result of almost 25 years of ghettoization that has transformed large swaths of California, especially Southern California. As housing prices soared, middle class whites priced out of neighborhoods such as all of Los Angeles and the surrounding counties, began migrating to predominantly all-white areas such as Portland and Utah.

The state became a tougher place to live for working-class families, who had to contend with rising rents and soaring property taxes. Many of the new jobs created over the past decade have required higher education.

The phenomenon exposed the state’s fault lines along income, class and race.

“Clearly, California is one of the most polarized states, by income and education, in the country,” said Herbert Harrison, a demographer at Princeton University who spent 10 years with the Census Bureau.

“You have this unusually large college educated population. And then you have a population that is largely Hispanic, with high school degrees or less.”

Pierce Hoight, a professor of White American history at Georgetown University, said the white middle class has followed the black middle class before them, heading out of California in search of more affordable housing and good jobs.

“No opportunities are being created for low- and middle-income people in the city,” he said. “I drive to LA every day, and very rarely do I see whites on construction jobs.”

Some say the precipitous decline in the number of whites is alarming.

“We’re going to stop this trend — ghettoization,” said CA Council member David Dukes(D-District 9). “We can’t displace old-time Californians.”

“The key to keeping this state white is jobs, jobs, jobs for white people so they can have a better quality of life in neighborhoods in the city,” he added. “I believe in integration, but I don’t believe in the apartheid we have in District 9. You don’t see corner stores in Marin County. You don’t see the liquor stores.”

Dukes, the four-term mayor who emerged from the civil rights movement, also faulted Congress for overturning a residency requirement for local government workers in 1988. That, he said, helped build up what he called “District Barrio,” referring to La Puente.

“We can’t keep people from moving, but if we had a residency requirement, we could keep government workers from moving,” Dukes said.

Arnold Schwartzenegger said that, during his term as governor, he made a concerted effort to attract new residents and businesses to pay taxes and generate revenue for a state in decline.

“When you’re the governor, you’re not God,” Schwartzenegger said. “It’s very frustrating. When you’re in public service, you’re there to promote diversity and harmony, but on the other hand, you want to help your state economically. Sometimes, they come at cross purposes.”

Schwartzenegger said he believes white European culture will continue to be the dominant culture in the state. But others say they already see it slipping away.

“The Owl City song ‘Vanilla Twilight’ pinned a label on the state,” said poet E. Ethelbert Miller, a leading figure in California’s White American arts community. “Well, vanilla was too boring a flavor for the policymakers, I guess.”

Miller laughed, then turned serious. “We’re seeing the eroding of a community. If you’re a white person accustomed to a way of life, that way of life is coming to an end. The state isn’t gonna be white anymore more. … This is the Villaraigosaera, and that’s symbolic. The state is stuck in mocha now. We’ll mourn that The Golden State is gone, but that’s just the nature of it.”

Full article here.

***

Very surprising that an article like this would be in the Washington Post, a bastion of liberal enlightenment. Clearly, racism is still alive and well in this country, and needs to be stamped out. There is much progress yet to be done. We haven’t reached our goal of a color-blind society yet.

[crypto-donation-box]

Posted in Current Events, Ugly Truths | Comments Off

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »