Feed on
Posts
Comments

How To Handle Girls Making Sexual Taunts

Feb 17th, 2015 by

Commenter walawala, emboldened by his coolasfuck game victory, drops another pitch-perfect, two-word rub against the female rationalization hamster grain.

A girl I’m banging regularly recently had her birthday. I sent her a photo I’d taken of her smoking…and looking ridiculous

Her: Please don’t masturbate to that

Me: Try harder

Volley returned deep to the corner, with a little bit of english.

The sexual taunt is a staple of sassy ingenues. It’s a power move to regain courtship hand. (In this day and age, sex usually precedes courtship, like putting the tart before the borscht.) Women instinctively know all their power, and hence their ability to satisfy their needs, resides in their sexuality. Some women know this so well that they use their sex as a weapon or a diagnostic, to procure good feels or to test for stress fractures in their sexual dominance.

It pleases a woman very much to ply supplication to, or acknowledgement of, her sexual power from a man who is banging her, because a (pre-married) woman also instinctively fears, and not without some rationale, abandonment or a disillusioned lover after her gully has been sullied. This fear is heightened when she chooses sexy players to bed her, implicitly grasping the SMV-adjusted risk-reward equation that governs the fulfillment of her lust.

“Please don’t masturbate to that” could be read, then, as “please validate the continued power of my allure” or, more mischievously, as “let’s see if you’re a rock-ribbed alpha who can deflect my punches or a lily-livered beta who folds like a cheap lawn chair under pressure”.

None of this analysis matters except as an academic exercise, or a parlor trick to rattle pesky party girls. All you need to know, as a budding player, is how to reply to a woman’s sexual taunts. Walawala gave a great example of a reply that hits the right notes. It’s that same formula CH guests have come to know and love: Disqualify the girl, present yourself as a challenge to be won over by her, and leave the door slightly ajar to your attainability. In essence… FLIP THE SCRIPT.

This is by no means the only effective response to a woman’s sexual taunt. Agree&Amplify works well, too.

“Please don’t masturbate to that”

“Too late. I’m jizzing as we speak. Round 5!”

So does ASSUME THE SALE.

“Please don’t masturbate to that”

“Can’t get your mind off my penis, eh?”

I hope this post has been sufficiently provocative to twist the knickers of both feminists and white knights. Those two! I always knew there was something between them.

Posted in Game | 186 Comments »

Are Liberals Funnier Than Conservatives?

Feb 16th, 2015 by

An Atlantic leftoid* wrote a smug, insular column, “Waiting for the Conservative Jon Leibowitz”, rhetorically asking why there’s no conservative equivalent to The Daily Show or Colbert. The article reads like a gloat about how liberals “get it” and conservatives don’t get it, “it” being the nuanced (read: intellectual) forms of humor.

Over the years, Stewart and his cohort mastered the very difficult task of sorting through all the news quickly and turning it around into biting, relevant satire that worked both for television and the Internet.

Now, as Stewart prepares to leave the show, the brand of comedy he helped invent is stronger than ever. Stephen Colbert is getting ready to bring his deadpan smirk to The Late Show. Bill Maher is continuing to provoke pundits and politicians with his blunt punch lines. John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight is about to celebrate the end of a wildly popular first year. Stewart has yet to announce his post-Daily Show plans, but even if he retires, the genre seems more than capable of carrying on without him.

The insularity of the article is betrayed by the author’s assumption that liberal-dominated fake news shows represent the pinnacle of achievement in humor. The implicit belief is that conservative “failure” in this domain is indicative of an inherent conservative inability to appreciate or master the finer arts of funny, such as irony and satire.

Whenever I read masturbatory liberal articles like this one, I cross-check the article’s biases with my personal experience to see if there’s a match; if there is, I give the liberal the benefit of the doubt that it’s onto something. (It rarely is.) If not, I don’t immediately write off the liberal conclusion, but I don’t give it much merit either. In the real world, where all that matters is how much I laugh, I’ve been friends with quite a few liberal and conservative funnymen (and a smattering of funnywomen). But the funniest guys I’ve known were all far right of center rascally SOBs. Online, the situation is similar. I think the Christian sadists at MPC are funny as hell, and no one can accuse them of being Leibowitz lackeys.

Could it be that American political satire is biased toward liberals in the same way that American political talk radio is biased toward conservatives? Dannagal Young, an assistant professor of communications at the University of Delaware, was looking into the lack of conservative comedians when she noticed studies that found liberals and conservatives seemed to have different aesthetic tastes. Conservatives seemed to prefer stories with clear-cut endings. Liberals, on the other hand, had more tolerance for a story like public radio’s Serial, which ends with some uncertainty and ambiguity.

Yes, how those leftoids love ambiguity and nuance. You can see it in how they assiduously avoid unambiguously pigeonholing, for instance, rednecks.

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Young began to wonder whether this might explain why liberals were attracted in greater numbers to TV shows that employ irony. Stephen Colbert, for example, may say that he’s looking forward to the sunny weather that global warming will bring, and the audience members know this isn’t what he really means. But they have to wonder: Is he making fun of the kind of conservative who would say something so egregious? Or is he making fun of arrogant liberals who think that conservatives hold such extreme views?

Liberal audiences love liberal showmen who vigorously pump their priors. I doubt there’s a single SWPL viewer who doesn’t know that Colbert is on its side.

As Young noticed, this is a kind of ambiguity that liberals tend to find more satisfying and culturally familiar than conservatives do. In fact, a study out of Ohio State University found that a surprising number of conservatives who were shown Colbert clips were oblivious to the fact that he was joking.

Good lord. How often are liberal SJWs oblivious to the humor in racially-tinted jokes? Maybe people just don’t find jokes funny when they’re targeted at firmly held beliefs.

In contrast, conservative talk radio humor tends to rely less on irony than straightforward indignation and hyperbole.

I haven’t heard a shortage of liberals engaging in indignation and hyperbole.

When Rush Limbaugh took down Georgetown student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke in 2012, he called her a “slut” in order to drive home his point about state-mandated birth control. After the liberal blogosphere erupted with derision, Limbaugh responded with more jokes, asking that Fluke post videos of her sex online so taxpayers could see what they were paying for. (After a few days, he offered a public apology, insisting that he “did not mean a personal attack” on Fluke.)

Here we detect the primary driver of conservative retreat, if it exists, from political satire: Conservatives are constrained by the reigning leftoid Hivemind orthodoxies. Conservatives with audiences larger than three people have a limited ability to skewer liberal shibboleths without getting into serious career-ending trouble. Limbaugh’s backpedaling slut smear apology is Exhibit S. Has a leftoid on any of these fake news shows ever had to grovel before the inquisition for maliciously slandering a right-wing representative? No. They have license to smear their right-wing targets, something that non-leftoids cannot do to with the same gusto to sanctified liberal targets like Sandra Fluke.

Conservatives will never win at this game until they begin the process of chipping away at the bedrock of the Narrative. This means AGREEING & AMPLIFYING when the usual liberal accusations are cavalierly leveled. For example, once accused of slut shaming, Limbaugh should’ve had whole skit about Fluke mentally calculating the number of cocks she could raw dog on a $10 supply of pills. (zank you, i’ll be in all zee veek.)

If non-leftoids had the same freedom to parody cherished liberal icons — race, sex, eskimos, SWPLs, new atheists — with the same venom, I bet you’d see plenty of right-wing Daily Shows pop up. Right now, that freedom isn’t there, so mainstream righties have to stick with the liberal script, which in practice means essentially agreeing with the fundamentals of liberal progressivism while making feeble feints against the rapidity of that progress to which they have already tacitly acceded as inevitable.

Despite these societal biases against a conservative satirical uprising, I still think there could be an innate disposition in liberals that favors ambiguity and uncertainty. I think this because women also love ambiguity and uncertainty, particularly in the realm of romance, and we know women are more liberal than men. We also know liberal men are more womanly than conservative men (and this jibes with personal observation), so it’s not much of a logical leap to deduce that liberals in general are on the whole more womanly and thus more frightened of harsh moral dividing lines and of the judgment of peers.

*I invented the term of art “leftoid” because it captures the anti-human nature of the liberal vision, and the robotic incantations with which liberals autonomically resort to defending their faith when attacked by apostates.

PS Here’s a fantastically brutal judgment of Jon Leibowitz in the Post. Money shot:

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!)

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

That’s it right there. Leibowitz and his ilk succeed because the entirety of the media industrial complex share the same targets of hate. That’s why he gets so much positive ink, and why he’s catapulted into icon status, however pinched and domed the arena in which he rules.

The leftoid machine is a hate machine, and but for the pretense of objectivity that constrains “journalists” they’d all be taking up pitchforks and driving their hated enemies — core white Americans — into the flames, cackling like maniacs the whole time.

Posted in Culture, Funny/Lolblogs, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 305 Comments »

Steve, And His Readers, Swallow The Crimson Pill

Feb 15th, 2015 by

What do women really want?, Steve Sailer asks. One of his readers, a possible CH mole, supplies an answer that’s closer to the truth than a thousand Ross Douthat NYBTimes columns on sex and love.

What do women want? Let’s look at their sexual fantasies. In my long years, I’ve known large numbers of women with drawers and e-readers full of “romance novels”. The story lines and characterizations are generally all the same. They are the Cinderella story recast:

There are one and more women between Cinderella and the Prince, who is handsome, charming, and has lots of money, status, and power. Cinderella acts to remove the female competition between her and the Prince so that she can take her rightful place as the Princess of the realm. The story line is generally consumed by scenes of females going at each other as they compete for the Alpha Male. The “bodice ripping” at the end of the chapters are thinly veiled rape fantasies. The Prince eventually finds Cinderella so “hot” that he cannot control himself. His lack of control excites her … because, it represents her final victory over the female competition who are unable to drive the Prince to sexual frenzy.

The CH tentacles reach everywhere.

I’m gladdened that Steve and some of his readers are coming around to the Heartistian worldview. I’d imagine it was a tough road to illumination for them, given the demographic quadrant I’ll safely assume most of them occupy — traditionalist conservatives who believe in marriage and kids and not screwing around (much). These are well-meaning folk, but their limited breadth of experience in the mating trenches constrains their observational power.

In a similarly themed iSteve post, a few feminists dug their heads out of the sand to assert the opposite of the available evidence.

Just because people read something fictional it does not mean that they do actually want to experience that in real life.

This is a common “””argument””” from those who can’t bear the retinal scorching from viewing female sexual nature head on, and it’s bullshit. If fantasy were not a reflection of true desire, then we wouldn’t see a near-universal preference among women for a particular type of sexual fantasy. We would instead see a million women have a million different fantasies completely severed from any actual feelings of lustful desire, and shlock like Twilight or 50 Shades which conform very closely to one or two specific female fantasy archetypes wouldn’t sell hundreds of millions of copy.

Or, to put it more poetically, a random female fantasy generator disconnected from real world desire should turn up at least a few instances of women fantasizing about being taken by Bob the beta accountant. Yet, in all the pulp romance ever written, scarcely any pursue that theme.

PS In completely unrelated news, female prison guards keep having sex with inmates. That genderless feminist utopia is really working out as intended. Heh.

PPS Smart urbane chicks are into the 50 Shades crap too. This isn’t a prolefemme phenomenon.

PPPS A young CH once spent a few weeks perusing pulp romance books for inside info about what turns on women. He figured, if girls were reading this stuff by the truckload, there must be something in there that could give a man an edge over other men in the hunt for shiny, glossy poosy. He was right.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Ugly Truths, Vanity | 176 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: Balancing Comfort With Anxiety

Feb 15th, 2015 by

Commenter blart observes that a girlfriend who has lost interest in keeping up her appearance is probably a girlfriend who has lost interest in her boyfriend:

Many of the girls I’ve gone out with always dressed hot, wore heels, make up for me. When we broke up…they went back to their old frumpy easy-going ways.

Girls like the feeling of working for something or someone…it’s in their nature to do so. Game is the key to unlocking that desire to submit.

this is an important point. a lot of girls get lazy and do the frumpy thing while they are with a guy. they try to say it’s just that they have gotten comfortable and feel accepted and loved by their men. but comfort like that is really just a sign that she’s not concerned with pleasing you anymore. she’s not afraid to lose you and she doesn’t care about your needs or desires.

you don’t want a girl so insecure that she’s freaked out with fear of losing you every day. that’s a nightmare so you have to give them some comfort. but when a girl stops making an effort to look good for you, she is in the power position. she’s either trying to discourage you from making sexual advances because you turn her off or she just doesn’t respect you or see you as a high value man who she needs to work to please. that’s a bad situation either way.

Comfort + Anxiety. Comanxiety. Cuminsideofme? YES.

The art of seduction is about bringing balance to the force. Too much anxiety will corrode a relationship just as assuredly as too much comfort, although the precipitating chemical reactions are different. (CH suggestion: If you must choose between cultivating anxiety or comfort, choose anxiety. The sex will be hotter, at least for the short, dramatic time you have left together. Plus, it’s easier to pull a girlfriend back from the anxiety brink than it is to push her out of a slippers-and-sweatpants sexless comfort bubble.)

Stay alert to those relationship red flags which indicate a woman’s fading love and peripatetic lust. Yes, women want to achieve maximum gravitational comfort within relationships, but women are also strangely their own worst enemies in their quest for eternal love and happiness. Women will work instinctively and incessantly toward neutering and domesticating boyfriends and enlarging their LTR comfort zone until, perplexed and full of resentment, they have lost all desire for their men. It’s up to men to guide women away from the equivalent of lesbian bed death, and they do this by taking the lead in and out of the bedroom, wielding psychological tools that would make Alinsky blush.

Love is a protracted psy ops campaign with generous benefits.

I should point out the exception to Blart’s Rule about the threatening portent of girlfriends abandoning self-beautification efforts. Be equally wary when your woman has a sudden and inexplicable surge of interest in dolling herself up. She might be signaling a desire to reintroduce herself to the wilds of the dating market.

I know this sounds like contradictory advice, but there are critical distinctions. Lust-curdling comfort zone laziness is a pattern that emerges slowly in a woman. You have time to recognize it and take actions to thwart its progression. Lust-activating makeovers that aren’t a direct response to your seductive wiles are severe relationship weather bulletins. This is usually a rapid change that will appear in a woman without much forewarning, sometimes overnight, and seemingly unconnected to any pattern in your own behavior. If you’re a typical boyfriend blob, and your girl starts the day with lipstick smeared in vibrant cherry eddies across her plump lips, something she hadn’t done during the previous two years, you’ve got competition lurking in the shadows of her snapper.

Posted in Comment Winners, Girls, Relationships | 91 Comments »

Here’s To You, Mrs. Robinson…. But Not Yet

Feb 14th, 2015 by

Reader Mitch Cumstein tells thee of his saga, of his days of thigh adventure!

When I was 17, I worked for this magazine as a summer job. They hired this 30-something lady to be the face of the company in its adverts. Striking for her age. HB9. No one at work dared flirt with her, because she was “married”. However, I knew she was game when I realized 1. Her husband reeked of beta and 2. She accepted every invite to hang after work at the bars. She even rallied the troops most of the time, which is a dead giveaway.

Anyway, another coworker was getting married and HB9 RSVPd with no plus one (another sign), her husband was out of town (another) and she invited us all to come over and drink at her house after the wedding (!!!).

I was 17…the office loved me and I could see she was seeing the affection everyone had for me. People sneaking me drinks, etc. It was an “honorable little brother” type love, and she took notice. She tried chiding me at her house. “Those dance moves you had on the dance floor were inappropriate…” Agreed and amplified (“yup”, “were they? i was too caught up in the rhythm to notice”). I remember she asked, “What do all these coworkers see in you anyway?” And I was buzzed enough to say, “I’d show you, but I probably wouldn’t be invited to your husband’s birthday party if I did.” Her tongue was planted firmly in her cheek. Within five minutes, we were making out and I was fingering her.

She clears everyone out of the house. I tell everyone to go on ahead, I’m going back to get my jacket. When I opened the door, she was standing there, ass naked. She walked into her room and I followed. When we got there, I stopped. Most men would’ve gone ahead, but I realized: THIS IS TOO EASY. It was low-hanging fruit. So I kissed her on the head and made my exit.

The next morning, I get a call on my phone from her. Except when I answer, it’s her husband. He tells me to meet him outside a pizzeria a mile from my house. I go and he’s standing there, pretending to be stoic.

Him: You son of a bitch…
Me: Present.
Him: You are scum…
Me: Yup.
Him: Don’t you have anything to say for yourself?
Me: Well…I didn’t fuck your wife…but the next guy will.

That one hit him like a sledge hammer. It was too true to deny. I guess they’d moved around a lot together, which is why they came to our town in the first place. My friends tell me he didn’t kick my ass because I was 17 and he’d be embarrassed to explain it all if he had to, but I disagree. He actually thanked me before taking off. “Thank you for being so honest,” was what he said. He was THAT beta. They were divorced within a year.

The next day at work, I was stocking sodas and the HB9 dropped a gift bag at my feet with a smile. Inside it were my sunglasses. I left them in his bedroom and that’s how he found out. It wasn’t even that she told him out of guilt; the guy found a pair of sunglasses in his room and had her dead to rights.

The takeaway: you grow up thinking married women are hard to snag, but in reality, they’re easier. It’s because most are lonely. Have relations with them or don’t, but if you do…don’t forget your sunglasses.

Bored wives are cheating wives, in heart if not in pussy. And where a woman’s heart goes, her hole is sure to follow.

Women complain that they have to keep up their looks so their husband’s eyes don’t stray, but they fail to recognize the tougher job men must undertake to keep the interest of their wives…. omnipresent charm and sexiness, to be called upon at will and dispensed in precise degrees of need as with a chemist’s skilled titration hand. The legally entangled husband’s job is made tough by the nature of women’s demands, which are psychological outgrowths of the fundamental premise. The job is tougher still in a social environment which has unleashed and sanctioned the most primitive animal instincts of women, and which offers women endless opportunities for financial and emotional exploit through the feminism-directed man-loathing divorce industrial complex.

PS I understand that there will be the usual readers who disbelieve this story. CH is not interested in the after-school job of parsing lines of code in reader-submitted anecdotes for evidence of fantasy, but we can tell you from experience that stories similar to Mitch Cumstein’s are common enough to warrant testimonial status, even if the specific, and probably poorly recalled, dialogue snippets are reconstituted in stilted or hubristic form.

Having stated the above disclaimer, I have to ask Cumstein… why would you agree to meet the husband of your near-hit illicit liaison? Teenage naivete?

PPS If your girlfriend or wife travels without you, the chances she’ll misbehave go way up.

Posted in Escape, Girls, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle | 160 Comments »

The View From The Other Man

Feb 13th, 2015 by

In the “Picking up married women” post, I commented that an indeterminate number of happily married women will go out of their way to avoid the temptation to infidelity, and will extend this courtesy to their boyfriends and husbands.

Some happily married women (read: married women still sexually aroused by their husbands) avoid the company of sexually appetitive men or of high status men capable of stimulating the sexual appetites of women. Often, this avoidance is achieved simply by not going to places where a lot of single huntsmen congregate. And, married women will try to introduce the temptation-resisting wonders of avoidance to their husbands, by preventing them from being too frequently in the company of young single ladies. Moving to the suburbs helps a lot with this avoidance program.

Commenter Euro Death Knot astutely notes the corollary to the above observation, and illustrates it from personal anecdotes as the “other man” having an affair with a cheating wife:

The converse of this principle is that a married woman traveling alone is a strong indication of potential interest.

I first learned this long ago when I was a college kid who knew nothing and was traveling on my own in Europe. I spent a night in a youth hostel in the Netherlands and approached an attractive German woman (5+ years older than I was) who was taking a vacation bike trip on her own across Holland. While I had taken only one year of German and her English was just a bit better than my German, it was easily less than 2 hours from me saying hi until I was finger fucking her and she was giving me a hand job, all of this in an open-air loft above the hostel’s dining room with some people milling below us.

It was only the next day when we met up to take the same train to Köln (her to go home and me to crash for a few days with a girl I had approached, made out with and address-closed in a park in München who was studying and living in Köln) that I paid attention to the fact that the ring she was wearing was on her ring finger and I realized that she was married. She told me that her husband traveled a lot and she felt that he had been sleeping around.

I can still see in my mind’s eye how affectionately she embraced her husband who was waiting for her at the train station (never mind that she had pulled out my cock again on the train ride). A couple of years ago I Googled her and discovered that decades later she’s still married (with the same name and close to the same address so presumably to the same man) and has three grown children.

If a wife is traveling alone without her husband, there’s often a reason.

Three lessons:

1. A wife or girlfriend who does not make pained efforts to avoid circumstances rife with illicit sexual invitation is by default a woman seeking them out.

2. The average woman is very good at hiding her infidelity from suspicion. Much better, from what I’ve seen, than the concealment the average man is capable of summoning when guilt is ripping at the soul. I conclude that men feel guilt and loyalty more palpably than do women. The exception to this rule is the accomplished cad, whose years of deception and nurtured sociopathy have honed in him a jewel thief’s skill at evading detection.

3. Even with the best intentions, a taken woman is still human, and an abundance of charming men in her social or work environment will test her limits of self-abnegation, much like a convention of 19-year-old lingerie models with daddy issues will test a devoted husband’s and father’s vows. It’s no coincidence that female infidelity rose at the same time as female participation in the workforce, and hence female exposure to alpha male movers and shakers, increased.

My suggestion: If you want a guarantee that your beloved won’t stray, get her off the cock grid. Rural Montana perhaps. Facsimiles of cock grid escape used to be simpler undertakings, but that all changed with [X], [EX], and [XXX].

The next best option? Game.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 139 Comments »

The Game Of Rapidly Induced Love: Speed Seduction

Feb 12th, 2015 by

More major Hivemind organs are beginning to accept, or at least grapple with, some core concepts of Game and how men and women interact in the flesh when they aren’t being prodded to chant equalist talking points. The New York Beta Times and even that den of shrikers, Jizzebel, have in their own way, and likely without knowing it, come round to the Proposition long espoused at Chateau Heartiste that romantic love is a glorious biomechanistic function which can be induced with certain premeditated seduction techniques, and that these techniques are especially effective on women who are the sex with an innate holistic appreciation of potential mate quality.

YaReally did such a bang-up job providing the backdrop to this post that I’ll just repost his comment here:

Jezebel admits that PUA works.

…without realizing it. lol The experiment they describe is just smoothly building comfort/rapport and the exercise ends with 4 min of deep eye-contact which is just running standard laser-eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Z4Nq0OrrM

“Catron calls this accelerated intimacy”

Ya, she’d BETTER call it that…because if she called it PUA or Game, Jezebel would shit a brick lol

It’s cute when normal society finally manages to spark a fire with rocks when they actively refuse to use the lighters PUA has offered for years lol

Posting this mainly to link the actual questions they use ’cause there’s a lot of good comfort/rapport building questions in here to swipe.

For reference, here are the 36 Questions that you should ask a woman, in order of increasing intimacy, with the goal of making her fall in love and desiring sex with you:

******

Set I

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

Set II

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

Set III

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling … “

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share … “

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

******

Many of the above questions designed to create a rapid emotional bond with women will be familiar to long-time guests of CH. In fact, they are the EXACT SAME questions discussed in this six-year-old post.

YaReally continues,

Note that they go from silly/fun/light to deep/personal, just like building comfort/rapport should (really you build rapport and then transition into comfort). The first questions are more rapport based. Also there’s a lot of “us VS them” questions (assuming the two of you are together already and reinforcing that), and future projection (assuming the two of you will be together).

There’s also showing vulnerability but it comes AFTER the rapport stuff. The first Set of questions has no vulnerability but the third set has tons of vulnerability. A lot of this creates an emotional rollercoaster done in order too…like what’s your favorite memory (emotional high), what’s your worst memory (emotional low), and back up again after a few more questions.

Really this is rock solid in terms of the results it should give, though it would be weird to execute it in it’s full design in any way other than as a game/experiment. But you could take a handful of these questions and add them to your cheat sheet of comfort/rapport building questions and drop them into a conversation congruently and to the girl it would fell like, as Jezebel says, “and anyone who has met someone and moved fast knows what this feels like: It’s when you want to know someone so quickly and so thoroughly and so urgently that you wish you could do it via osmosis. You want to give of yourself and be given to, equally.” which in logical man-speak means “PUA fucking works, duh.”

“Which makes it worth noting: The experiment sounds like some kind of trick or shortcut to love, but if both parties are well intentioned and in agreement to try it, who is to say what sort of time it should really take to scale this terrain? We all move at our own speed.”

Will have to quote this the next time some feminist is crying that PUA is an evil trick that doesn’t work. lol

lol indeed. I’d also add a ‘heh’.

Also the description of laser eyes was interesting as it’s something I’ve been focusing on over the last year:

“After completing the questions, Catron and her date do the four minute unnervingly deep stare that ends the experiment, which at first involved a lot of nervous smiling, but then got a little more comfortable. She writes:

I know the eyes are the windows to the soul or whatever, but the real crux of the moment was not just that I was really seeing someone, but that I was seeing someone really seeing me. Once I embraced the terror of this realization and gave it time to subside, I arrived somewhere unexpected.

I felt brave, and in a state of wonder. Part of that wonder was at my own vulnerability and part was the weird kind of wonder you get from saying a word over and over until it loses its meaning and becomes what it actually is: an assemblage of sounds.”

Again it’s gay woman-fluff speak, but translated into something you can apply it describes why slowing down your speaking and leaving long lingering silences while you hold the laser eye-contact Liam describes in that video works…the first few seconds (I find it’s around 10-20 seconds) the girl is off in la-la land and then her brain realizes “oh wait, we’re really looking at each other here…” and her words trail off and your conversation switches more to subcommunications instead of surface level communication.

But casual glances or talking so fast you don’t leave tension in the air etc. won’t pass that point where it’s “nervous smiles” and entering that vulnerable “sense of wonder” stage that holding it and leaving silences creates.

Drive with Ryan Gosling is a good movie to check out for laser eye-contact…him and the chick do a lot of sub-communication shit just staring at each other. It’s exaggerated in that movie, but that’s along the right track.

Biggest key that Drive doesn’t do and this experiment doesn’t add is closing the distance during laser eyes. If you lock eyes and slowly close the distance so you get closer to the girl, it sends butterflies in her stomach into overdrive and you can turn that into attraction/sexual tension.

Gambler demos it here at 33:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unuqF4uklE&t=33m35s

She doesn’t fully crack until he takes that last step and closes the space.

This really deep rapport/comfort stuff is what Mystery Method was built around and it’s the reason that Mystery was getting girls to “fall in love” with him, not just want to fuck him. Old school MM game was more about creating multiple-LTRs where the girl felt like you had a special connection she’s never felt with anyone else before etc. than just getting enough attraction for a one-night stand. There were reports of girls breaking down crying when Mystery/Tyler/etc. wouldn’t take their number, which sounds like bullshit until you’ve run this really deep comfort/rapport game a bunch and seen how earth-shattering it is to girls to experience it (especially hot bar chicks who are used to more shallow interactions with people) and taken it away from them suddenly and seen how they flip out and chase lol

I agree with this observation. Men (aka inexperienced betas) underestimate just how few women, and how infrequently those women, get to experience the attention of a man who really knows how to properly seduce and challenge small-talk emotional blockades. A woman who is a gifted recipient of a man’s seductive expertise can fall in love harder and faster than she ever thought possible.

This is also why people I meet feel like they’ve known me for years when we’ve only just met, because I know how to smoothly build comfort/rapport with strangers.

If you’re finding girls don’t stick around for more than one or two lays, or if you want to get into mLTRs, [ed: multiple long-term relationships, for the iSteve readers] experiment with this stuff. But also be aware that if you want casual relationships, you don’t want to use too much of this or she’ll get too attached and drop the Ultimatum sooner than she would’ve if you hadn’t built so much comfort/rapport.

And seriously, go study Mystery Method. Skip the feather boas and black nails, but study everything else. It’s lengthy and dense but it’s the ultimate foundation of understanding this shit.

Mystery Method, first edition, is a compendium of truths about the sexual marketplace and women’s romantic natures that will never go out of style. As Ya said, don’t be put off by some of the outlandish self-promoting of the original playas (OPs). They hit the field and in so doing hit upon deep abiding realities about women and their call-and-response behavior to particular courtship tactics.

Read this post carefully and think about the implications of the message contained in it. ‘Yes, you can inspire a woman to feel love for you by following this flowchart of pretested questions and nonverbal communication, just as the game aficionados have asserted for years’ is not the kind of lesson that will warm the tender hearts of rom-com saturated women or trad-con saturated men. A thousand bromides about the mystery of love and “just being yourself” will need to be jettisoned, to make way for a better understanding of the human universe.

To ask so much of them is practically an exercise in cruelty. You can tell this by the enraged and uncomprehending reaction they have when their polite beliefs confront stone cold reality.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Dating, Game, Love, Science Validates Game, Vanity | 197 Comments »

Fifty Shades Of Jerkboy

Feb 11th, 2015 by

First Things peers into the playroom of women’s minds and discovers that women really LOVE LOVE LOVE dominant alpha males and are BORED BORED BORED by beta males, when they aren’t HATE HATE HATING them. Has First Things been visiting the Chateau? Yes.

[W]hat are fans of the Fifty Shades series seeking?

One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.

For the past forty years, there’s been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate the sexual differences between men and women. The sought-after utopia is the “truly equal world” envisioned by Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg, in which “women [run] half our countries and companies and men [run] half our homes.” According to this view (and contrary to the scientific data), the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs: the culture is to blame for women being feminine and men being masculine.

The funny thing about “Fifty Shades” is that I doubt the female author set out to subvert “genderlessness”. Rather, she set out to write a book with themes that she knew would be arousing for women to read, because those themes are arousing to her. It’s female hindbrains all the way down (to the vaj).

A reader responds with an optimistic take:

Chicks dig assholes, sure.

But women are aroused by male strength, even when the man is not an asshole.

If people want a moral regeneration of the USA then the key is to restore masculine strength as a virtue to be cultivated and admired.

Good luck with that. Every Western culture vector is pointing to more androgynes of either sex. Have you seen a manboobed new atheist or an iron-jawed feminist lately? They’re everywhere. Have you seen them get raked over the coals by the Hivemind, as a lesson for the others? I haven’t. Rehabilitating these sexless wonders will be like squeezing healthy sperm from a brony. Their anti-human abasement is enabled and encouraged by the megaphonies.

This is possible but will be difficult.  On the positive side, there is a pent up demand there that dares not speak its name.

Exalting masculine strength NECESSARILY means discrediting feminism and trannyism and all the other degenerate freak mafia -isms. The former cannot COEXIST with any of the latter.

(And the PLAYA, echoing St. Augustine, says, yes, ok, sure, some day, but not too soon, maybe in a decade or two, in time for me to retire in safety and comfort, but not yet, the women have to stay loose for a while  … .)

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 206 Comments »

Picking Up Married Women

Feb 10th, 2015 by

This post is presented “as is”, with neither editorial condemnation nor endorsement. Read at your own risk.

There are scores of CH posts in the archives dealing with game for married men: How to (re)seduce your wife, and how to seduce applicants for mistresshood. But there aren’t many posts about picking up married women. An odd oversight, or a tribute to a latent moral code in the heart of CH?

Nevertheless, we feel it is important to give it all to the reader: The light, the dark, and the chaotic. To shy from forbidden topics would be a refutation of everything the Heartiste abides.

Will writes,

this is what I do if they are married or have BFs (you’d be surprised how many girls wear fake rings to weed out the weak.)

Anyway, the line is simple

Alpha-In-Training:” so, let’s grab a drink sometime.”

Cougar: “Oh! That’s so sweet, but I’m engaged, see my ring?”

AiT: “Hey, it’s just coffee”
::hands her the phone with the ‘New Contact’ screen already open::

C: “I shouldn’t…”

AiT: “How about this, I’ll shoot you a text and you can think it over.”

Works like a charm.
The above does two things. It demonstrates that you are persistent and get what you want. Secondly, she has plausible deniability. You’ve given her jiminy cricket a way to justify her giving out her number.
It sails right past any objections in a smooth manner.

The “it’s just coffee” and “I’ll shoot you a text and you can decide.” win 80% of the time.

I’m of the belief, perhaps optimistic, that a married woman truly, deeply in love with her husband cannot be seduced to betrayal. If I’m right, the problem remains: Just how many married women truly, deeply love their husbands? In this diversifying, slut parading, trust-cratering society we call a nation, vows of fidelity seem quaint. How many wives would you trust to uphold their end of a marital contract when every signal and every noise encourages female empowerment through perfidy?

Will is basically correct about the two premises that must be established when picking up married women. One, you’ve got to foresee and neutralize objections. This is obvious. Married women aren’t going to jump to pressure tactics. It’s too easy for them to lean on the crutch of their back-at-home hubbies when the heat comes between their legs. This means, in practice, giving her hamster a lotta room to spin. You’ll be courtly aloof, but with white hot sexual intent communicated all the same.

Two, all you need is her number. Unless she’s aggressively seeking an excuse to cheat, an insta-date isn’t likely an option. Secure her digits, then text her once later, maybe even a few days later, so that the temptation to sin simmers in her.

The happily married woman can’t be “taken with extreme prejudice” like the single woman. She will need to feel like she’s exercising some control over the proceedings, and she will need to feel like she can walk at any time.

On a related subject, a buddy I knew sometimes wore a fake wedding ring when he departed for the hunt. The first time he did this, I told him it was counterproductive. Surely, most girls will balk at getting hit on by a married man? He smiled, and said, “I have a line with this ring. ‘Oh, I’m not married. I just wear this ring to scare away stalker girls.’ Or I say, ‘It keeps away unwanted attention.’ It really messes with their heads. It’s like when hot girls sometimes wear fake wedding rings so they don’t get bothered by guys all the time. I’m telling them the same thing, except with the sexes reversed.”

magistro meo, mi amice…

Posted in Game, Marriage Is For Chumps, Sluts, The Id Monster, The Pleasure Principle | 249 Comments »

The Profit-Propaganda Curve

Feb 9th, 2015 by

The 2015 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (swolefeed) will feature a fatty fat as one of its “””models”””. (Granted, she’s only in an ad, which should tell you something about the difficulty of wedging fat chicks into what is essentially masturbation material for men.) This kowtowing to the fatty fat acceptance movement is a first for a major glossy that primarily serves the tastes of normal straight men.

Given the obvious fact that almost no normal straight men are interested in looking at the near-naked bodies of ugly or “big-boned” women, it’s a strange editorial choice by SI. Why would SI risk losing customers?

SI, like most contemporary media organs, is likely staffed floor to rafters with leftoids. The Hivemind Narrative — read: equalist, multikult, anti-normal white man — is so entrancing to leftoids that they’ll leave money on the table to proselytize it.

Homo economicus is dead, long live homo hamstericus! Now that the myth of a purely economically rational man is rapidly getting discredited by realtalkers, we can better analyze the seeming counterproductive behavior of megaphones like SI.

The patented CH Profit-Propaganda curve explains SI’s actions.

As you can see, at very low profit margin, most business will engage in no propaganda beyond that which is required to sell their product. Struggling entrepreneurs simply can’t risk a loss of revenue on a quixotic quest to ideologically reeducate their customers.

As we climb the P-P curve, we see that the worst propaganda is streamed with unmatched intensity and devotion by businesses with profit margins sufficiently robust to absorb losses of antagonized customers put off by its anti-human message. Here we find the media, government, and academia.

At the very highest profitability — finance, medicine, etc — we find the propaganda machine winding down. Once a business reaches the level of Fuck You money, its interest in abiding prevailing Hivmind norms wanes. But not totally. Although the very richest don’t spend a lot of the energy on *direct* propaganda, they do spend a lot on *indirect* Hivemind propaganda, such as contributing to charities and lobbying government on their No Non-White Boy Left Behind policy ideas.

The P-P curve is explained in part by the fact that leftoids congregate in fields that are naturally efficient at brainwashing, and most of these fields are — scratch that, have been — comfortably profitable.

Another reason for the shape of the curve is the mentality of people working for businesses that have come into non-struggle money; that is, they work for companies that have “made it”. Once a business has “made it”, the pent-up ideological energy of the apparatchiks working there is released in a bukkake of hope and change. Give a leftoid a little bit of stripper cash, and she can’t help but blow the wad on clothes and cocaine. A little bit of Hivemind-enabling money can be a dangerous thing.

At the extremes of profit are the captains of industry who are far more interested in turning a buck or a billion than in chipping away at their rotund bottom line with Party propaganda.

Finally, the obscenely rich are fairly well-insulated from the clownshirt SJW and race huckster shakedowns. And the striver businesses — the mom and pops — aren’t rich enough to catch the interest of Hivemind zealots. But middling profitable companies are ripe targets, with pockets just deep enough to justify paying the Danegelding instead of telling the diversity whores to fuck off and thereby assuming the risk of a public or, worse, legal lynching by a loudly one-sided megaphone.

Related: How to fight the propaganda machine.

Posted in Culture, Psy Ops, The Id Monster | 231 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion