Feed on
Posts
Comments

Men Not At Work

Dec 17th, 2014 by

Many readers forwarded this NYBetaTimes article about men dropping out of the workforce. The author listed several factors aggravating this War on Men trend.

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

Thank you, mass immigration and Wall Street wunderkinds!

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

All of these are doubtless contributing factors, but as with most Hivemind reporting on the topic of men dropping out, there is a studious avoidance to analyzing the role that women, and their marital worthiness, play in men’s choices. I will explain below.

Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

A misleading stat. Divorced women get custody of children, and men pay child support. So some number of these no-employment men living alone are indeed providing for others, just not in the way they would prefer.

A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

Women initiate 70+% of all divorces. Who’s retreating from marriage and fatherhood, again?

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas.

Yes, mass immigration and automation are certainly demoralizing to unemployed men who weren’t born with the capacity for abstract thinking and symbol manipulation, but you know what else is demoralizing to men? Fat women, single moms, and sluts looking to settle down after a lifetime cocking up.

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children.

Cost of getting a degree = runaway credentialism.
Cost of staying healthy = following the government low-fat guidelines.
Cost of hiring a nanny = embracing the DIOK (dual income, one kid) lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

Corn and porn.

So many conservative social commentators, like Ross Douthat, fail to account for feedback loops in the sexual market, and how that trickles up and affects the economic market. They have a blind spot about women, preferring to lay blame for all society’s woeful indicators at the feet of men, so that they may continue polishing the pedestal of their faire maidens.

But men react to opposite sex cues just as much as women do. Think of men as having two engines of motivation, one internal, one external. The internal engine is self-starting and self-perpetuating, and it evolved to confer upon men a shot at raising their status so that they could attract more and better women.

The external engine is context-dependent. Visual cues fuel it, and it puts out more power the more enticing visual cues are fed into it. This engine, too, is a product of evolution, but it is more easily short-circuited by negative environmental inputs that were rare in the millennia when evolution was working to perfect both engines.

Men’s (white men’s, at any rate) external engine of motivation looks around, surveys a landscape teeming with land whales, single moms, and sluts, and decides that, hey, working their asses off in a crappy, low-wage job for a shot at wifing up George Lucas’ pelican gullet is the dictionary definition of a raw deal. Throw in the growing ranks of single moms, even the thin fuckable ones, and the women who have amassed considerable premarital histories on the cock carousel and are therefore less likely to stay faithful or to avoid the divorce altar, and men’s motivation to perform for these female losers dwindles to nothing.

Now add the finishing ingredient — porn — and you have most of what you need to know about why marriage rates are falling and men are dropping out of the economy, particularly among the lower classes. (The upper classes have more stable marriages because getting married later in life circumscribes the availability of tempting extramarital options, especially for older wives. Plus, upper class women are generally thinner and hotter.)

Dropped-out men may not be consciously happy about their non-employment and increasing alienation from society, but subconsciously they are making very rational cost-benefit decisions based upon real world incentives and disincentives. In 2014 America, cheap online porn is more rewarding than an expensive fat wife, and disability insurance more rewarding than working at a paint shop for $9 an hour. Change those two inputs — make both American women and American wages more attractive — and you will begin to see men dropping back into contention.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Goodbye America, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 260 Comments »

The Pathetic Creature

Dec 17th, 2014 by

In this video, John Carmack, inventor of the first person shooter, unloads the BFG in the pinched face of a schoolmarm SJW.

A little background on the SJW:

Typical. Carmack accomplishes more before breakfast than this snout-nosed SJW has done in her lifetime.

Here’s the question to the studio audience:

Who’s the more pathetic creature?

– The insipid, hypocritical SJW, or

– The suckup, betaboy lapdog applauding (0:20-0:24) the SJW’s brave blow for gender justice?

No poll is necessary. I already know how most would answer. There’s something particularly grating about a self-castrating manlet propping the delusions of a funky cold medusa. We can laugh at the deluded naked king, but feel hate toward the cowards aiding and abetting the king’s delusion.

Posted in Beta, Tool Time, Videos | 101 Comments »

The Danger of Idleness To Women

Dec 17th, 2014 by

Commenter backchecking makes a perceptive observation about the condition of idleness and how it affects men and women differently.

******

You can destroy an engine by revving it without a load. Strange, but true, an engine can rev to 5,000 rpm under load and survive… 5,000 rpm without a load — it falls apart.

Which largely describes the female mind. Millennia of evolution have crafted a brain that can’t not be tasked.

Quite literally, idleness has been bred out. Slothful mothers don’t have offspring — or — if they do — that generation will be childless. (This category also includes mothers so neurotic that they ‘medicate’ themselves into passivity — booze, drugs, or both.)

(I’ve seen PLENTY of the latter.)

&&&&

The male is totally different critter. ‘Idleness’ for a man is often his most productive time.

The extreme examples:

Einstein famously slept (12-15 hours/day) and strolled (interminable bucolic walks) his way through life. He related that all of his best work was done while in solitude — if not in the transitory state between sleep and waking.

Newton was just as bad.

General MacArthur famously slept through the Inchon bombardment. His battleship was firing its big guns at the time!

One could go on endlessly…

Spectacular intellectual achievements require a state of relaxed composure — Zen, if you will.

This male-only tick comes from the ancient hunt. Like MacArthur, our universal ancestors had to totally shut up, stay relaxed — yet alert, to bag the really big, dangerous prey from a hide/ camouflage.

Persistence hunting does not work with mammoths, bears, aurochs. They only run towards you. { This ancient contest is echoed in Spanish bull-fighting. }

At the time of the attack, one must break loose and use maximum exertion — while at peak risk. Upon success, one can kick back and talk shop/ the hunt.

This male-only tick is replicated during the sex act. For it is the male who reaches peak intensity — never the female.

Unwittingly, every man, with every thrust, is communicating to his mate his hunting virility. This hits her limbic brain.

If you’ve witnessed enough pr0n you know that at the final stages, the female is always reduced to a quivering, dripping, bump target. (Yes, it’s not just your lovers.)

And, of course, there are endless battle accounts of men spontaneously creaming in their pants upon victory/ battle survival. Surviving a bullet festival is a highly arousing event. This aspect of battle is excised from most historical accounts — which are directed at teen males, anyway.

&&&&

This is the yin yang of humanity.

She slaves on as the heart and stomach of humanity — holding body and soul together — creating the next generation.

He risks all as the mind and vision of humanity — protecting and expanding the human space against all threats — while bringing home the bacon.

Equal, they are not.

Female culture is always drivel. For they are wired to talk to and understand babbling infants. Female social experimentation quickly devolves to having no children. Hence the complete absence of successful matriarchies.

(Though these are commonly seen in Africa: elephants, lions, …)

******

A woman with too much time on her hands is a force for destruction — to others as well as to herself. The SJWs (including the effeminate males) who now litter the internet are examples of what an easy life mooching off daddy’s money, filled with inexpensive gadgets, and delaying childbirth, if at all, well past 30 will do to the female mind. Idleness corrupts woman, much like power corrupts man. Keeping a woman barefoot and pregnant is probably the best thing for her sanity.

Posted in The Id Monster | 60 Comments »

Exposing The ‘Women Never Lie About Rape’ Myth

Dec 15th, 2014 by

A compendium of studies from the 1990s found that the Feminist Fantasy Tax is calculated based on faulty inputs.

ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct.  Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem.  The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism. […]

Begin with evidence of false accusation of rape, the crime which has become not only the metaphor for all cases of sexual misconduct but for male sexuality itself. Alan Dershowitz (1991), for example, has further harassed his students by telling them that an annual F.B.I. survey of 1600 law enforcement agencies discovered that 8% of rape charges are completely unfounded. That figure, which has held steadily over the past decade, is moreover at least twice as high as for any other felony. Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape.

Unfounded rape charges are twice as high as any other felony. More women lie about being raped than about any other criminal perpetration upon them. Why is this? One, women gain a lot from passing off a rape lie. Psychologically, they gain “re-virginization” from an awkward welling of regret after, say, a one night stand (or a UVA shattered glass ganglia rape). Socially, they gain an air lifted provision of support — financial and emotional — from family and friends. They also avoid potential social ostracism from dating badboys. Finally, some women are simply malevolent and impulsive, and utilize the expedience of a false rape accusation to slake a thirst for vengeance or to assuage a bitterness brought on by sexual market failure. (Recall from CH tomes of yore that success in the sexual market is defined differently for women than it is for men. If women don’t extract commitment from a worthy man, they have failed.)

And false rape accusations, vile as they are, are undoubtedly encouraged by rooted social and legal incentives. If the jurisprudence, academic, and media industrial complexes are biased to favor women’s accounts of lurid sexual events, then some women at the margins will be tempted to leverage that spontaneous favoritism for their own ends. This is precisely what happened in the catfishing UVA rape hoax story.

Although useful, the F.B.I. and DNA data on sex crimes result from unstructured number gathering.  More informative, therefore, are the results of a focused study of the false allegation question undertaken by a team headed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division.  Its significance derives not only from its scholarly credentials but also its time of origin, 1984/85, a period during which rape had emerged as a major issue, but before its definition included almost any form of non-consensual sex.

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations.  Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape.  That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false.  In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations.  To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation.  Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

It’s easy to lie about rape, there is sometimes incentive to do so, and the numbers back it up. Reminder: Men’s lives are ruined by false accusations of rape. Women who lie about rape know this, but they don’t care.

Needless to say, false rape fabulists also harm real victims of real rape, who must suffer under the pall of incredulity incited by their femme fatale sistren.

The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known.  Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions.  If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic.  If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed.  Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies.  They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation.  If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description.  The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false.  McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city.  He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).

Here’s a bet I’m willing to take: There are more false rape accusations than there are false paternity accusations. The big difference? Women aren’t vilified or thrown in jail for cuckolding men.

Finally, the false rape accusation money shot: The prevalence of FRAs on college campuses.

Equally revealing were addenda following Kanin’s basic report.  They reported studies in two large Midwestern state universities which covered a three-year period ending in 1988.  The finding of the combined studies was that among a total of 64 reported rapes exactly 50% were false.  Kanin found these results significant because the women in the main report tended to gather in the lower socioeconomic levels, thus raising questions about correlations of false allegation with income and educational status.  After checking figures gathered from university police departments, he therefore reported that “quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge.”  In addition, Kanin cited still another source (Jay, 1991) which supported findings of high frequency false allegations in the universities.  On the basis of these studies, Kanin felt it reasonable to conclude that “false rape accusations are not uncommon” (p.90).

Some women who file false rape allegations are mentally ill. Some women, especially college students, are doctrinaire feminists. Some women push the FRA button to blow up dull relationships or stoke jealousy and white knight-ism in third parties. But most, I’d bet, are women showing acute symptoms of Regret Rape, that condition of emotional duress primarily afflicting women who have made voluntary and consensual, if rash, decisions to sleep with men who didn’t fancy the women as much as they fancied the men. Or, similarly, these Regret Rape women consensually slept with men whom the women later retroactively deemed unworthy of their sex.

It’s time to have a serious national conversation about false rape accusations. NPR… your move.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Ugly Truths | 134 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: The Psychotic Left

Dec 14th, 2014 by

COTW winner is DavidTheGnome, who perceptively writes of the gleeful masochism with which leftoid whites immerse themselves,

I grew up in Bethesda Maryland, DC’s jewish/white liberal suburb, so I’ve been around them all my life. I’m also involved in the arts, which is probably more liberal than academia. I don’t want to throw my left leaning friends under the bus (that includes my “conservative” ones) but the more I see of this pathology, the more disturbed I am by it.

I mean, I don’t get into frothy political shouting matches with people in my social circle (although they know I’m not like them in many respects, and every now and then we go at it to a certain degree) but there’s just something profoundly dark and ignoble at the heart of what I used to consider a somewhat silly, effete and thoroughly conformist ideology.

All the hysterical posturing, the crazy eyes they get when a topic gets too close to the edge. I’ve seen genuine terror in some cases, child like saucer eyes (and these aren’t bad people, and I don’t personally know any who could sink to Coopers level) but as every year goes by they seem to get worse whenever animated by these ideas. Kerry Bolton wrote a good book “The Psychotic Left” and details some of its most prominent personalities. It’s really horrifying, but great, all his books are great.

I’m on an evo-psyche and fantasy series stint at the moment, but I wouldn’t mind reading a book that went about mining the depths of the liberal bobo heart. I suspect at the center lies some kind of ravenous, stygian chimera, vacillating between states of paralyzing fear and impotent rage. It eats culture and shits hypocrisy.

My edumacated guess: The leftoid mind, honed over millennia in NW Europe under manorial and outbreeding conditions, is today a fish out of water. Diversity — real diversity — is finally at their doorstep, and that precious altruistic mental module just doesn’t know how to comport itself in the teeth of a daily reality that defies its prescriptions, its hopes, and its preening self-righteousness. The result is a lashing out — although in this case it’s accompanied by a “lashing in” — against intruding crimethink and the tiniest deviations from their increasingly manicured ideological boundaries.

******

COTW runner-up winner is mts1, writing about the utter lack of desire that men feel for challenging women.

“An unevolved man or a boy will always want the simple girl. He doesn’t want to have to work hard for anything, especially not a relationship. He doesn’t want to be challenged or confronted.”

I am challenged and confronted every day out in the world, at work, and the commute to and from it. The only challenge and confrontation I want at home is the job of raising children, and I want a wife as a co-pilot in that, not an enemy combatant. But I come and go from MGTOW, each time trying to find someone who’d be that safe harbor where I can rest my warship’s crew, get the maintenance and repair my ship’s needs, then come morning I go to battle again for that safe harbor. This warship can take a lot, but even the USS Enterprise needed basic maintenance to make it the length of WW II. But each emergence from MGTOW ends up in “yup, touching fire still burns the hand” and so I stayed single. The incredible drive to have kids is the sole reason for leaving MGTOW from time to time. But the demanding harpies who have a number of kids by whomever, but laugh when I ask if they’d think of having more by me this time, drive me back into sweet solitude. They don’t realize I have but one sole freaking job for them, make that “down there” make me little ones, and in return you got me for life. They have 101 hoops for me to try to jump through that’ll allow them to keep me if I get 100% right; I have but one for them and they can’t do even that for me. On the other side of town, every gangbanger has a slew of baby-mommas and a line around the corner of girls dying for him to put a bun in their oven…

These entitled women think they know from “intelligent, strong woman.” My grandmothers came over from the Old Country when told to do so once their respective husbands established a nest egg in this country after working a bit where they hot-cotted it with a dozen other day laborers in a cold water flat, then graduating to a mill job. One raised 8 children (birthed 12, but 2 died stillborn and 2 by flu), the other 7. Then came the Depression. One nearly lost the house he built from a kit, the other lost his, and went to another mill city on a relative’s tip, then hailed the wife to bring the kids once that worked out. Yet blowing up the marriage was not even thought of. These were hard bonded families and the kids still had mom AND dad even if a bite of bread and a cup of watery coffee was every day’s breakfast. Then came WW II and though immigrants, every son on each side served, even to the last sole surviving sons, which was an out back then. And momma at home worrying over each son, luckily, none got the gold star. That is strength, and always finding a way to raise the kids and care for the husband and keep her own wits, that’s intelligence. Yet those “shackled, enslaved” women, I never heard a word of them being bitter, instead, their families were their lives, and they died happy and fulfilled. Today’s modern, independent, strong womyn, I wouldn’t give her a week in either grandma’s shoes without a nervous breakdown herself and a legion of Ritalin addicted trainwrecks for progeny. Strong, my ass.

Strength will take a vacation when it’s not tested. I wonder if the modren woman, should she be tested like her grandmother, would find a hidden well of strength to draw upon. Maybe that’s what pampered, tartphone-strapped women need: To be tested. Pushed forcefully out of their maudlin malaise so that they can recapture that happiness which eludes them at an accelerating pace. I leave it to the reader to draw the obvious game parallels. (And biochemical hormesis parallels.)

Posted in Comment Winners | 177 Comments »

Shocking Report: Feminist Facts Don’t Align With Actual Facts

Dec 12th, 2014 by

You can’t make it through a day it seems without coming across some inane feminist assertion about women, men, rape, pay gaps, sex, discrimination, or the patriarchy. One of their favorite fake facts is the “1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted on college campuses” incantation.

It’s bullshit on its face, but gets megaphoned through every channel of the Hivemind media because the elite and their propaganda arms are fully invested in the feminist narrative, and in the anti-male policies that feminists advocate. They are tandem malevolent forces. And the Hivemind is, if nothing else, expert in message discipline.

But the Narrative is collapsing, hard and fast. Body blows are raining down upon it. Take this actual fact, for example: The DOJ released new data on sexual assault, and it was not congenial to the feminist or anti-white frat bro religions,

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

Commenter Simon Corso, who forwarded the study, writes,

Not that anyone here needs me to tell them that feminists are full of shit, but rape statistics [are] being exaggerated by over 500% and the lie is so often repeated that it’s commonly believed.

And the 500% feminist fantasy tax may even be too low. As commenter Wrecked ‘Em notes,

When the remedy (e.g. the “affirmative consent” ridiculousity foisted on college students in California recently) is way out of whack relative to the problem (0.61% is still 2x what a lot of other studies have found), what you get is not a reduction in the problem but an increase in the unintended consequences.

The UVA article in Rolling Stone is a good example. Expect to see more collateral damage like that as the feminists double-down on the 1-in-4 theme only to watch the soap go flying out the window as they squeeze harder.

Feminists aren’t interested in reality or hard facts. That stuff is apparently too UGH PENIS for them. But that wouldn’t be a problem (after all, it’s fun to mock deliberate retards) if the elite didn’t give dumbfuck lying feminists platform after platform, day after day, year after year, to drench the public at large with the yeasty grievance pus of their psychological illness.

Hey, in related Feminist Fantasy Tax news, their cherished pay gap is predominately a function of women’s voluntary job market choices, and not discrimination. And you know that “war on women” fake but accurate rallying cry that Hivemind megaphonies like NPR and President Butt Naked ritualistically chant sun-up to sun-down? A minor corrective: If there’s a war against one particular sex, all the data say that war is being waged on men. Latest salvo: More men than ever are shafted out of the job market.

Not that any of these pleas for sanity will make a difference. The Fundamental Premise remains operative and exploited by a power elite and a battalion of screeching manjawed foot soldiers, all of whom, if judged by their actions, despise men, and non-elite white men in particular. So why do I bother? Because shivving diseased hindbrain meat is fun even as the blob zombie hordes devour the last morsels of civilization.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Hope and Change, Misandry, Ugly Truths | 203 Comments »

How To Spot A Charming Loverboy

Dec 11th, 2014 by

You know, all these warnings by women about players and their charming ways wouldn’t be necessary if women weren’t instinctively falling for their charms. Think about it. You won’t read too many articles warning women away from boring beta males. Women manage to Heisman those guys all on their own without directives from Cosmo.

Vox notifies,

Take a bow, Heartiste. Once more, science underlines Game:

The article is titled ‘How to Spot a Manipulator’, but it may as well be a truncated game guide for men.

One study tried to determine which personality traits pickup artists, men and women*, share.

The article begins by explaining,

In some ways, pickup artists use traditional tactics that fall into the category of persuasion. Whether it’s yourself or a product you’re trying to sell, you rely on methods of persuasion any time you attempt to influence someone else’s attitudes. You’re hoping that by influencing someone’s positive attitudes toward the item or person you’re promoting, you’ll change that person’s behavior.

Pickup artists have to influence people who have never met them to like them almost immediately. They rely on general strategies that others use to make a good impression, such as seeming attractive, charming, or successful. Unlike a person truly interested in getting involved in a romantic relationship, though, the pickup artist needs merely to look like someone who’s looking for love.  These qualities—being manipulative, self-centered, and insincere—are exactly those that show up in the personality constellation known as the “dark triad” of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.

The HEXACO model of personality structure informs us that Dark Triad people are low on the Honesty-Humility factor. Lemme tell you a leetle something about honesty and humility as pertains to What Women Want™: Honesty is relationship lube, not attraction lube. All else equal, no woman makes the decision to fuck a man because he’s honest. And humility is actually counterproductive to sparking a romance; chicks dig those overconfident men.

Interestingly, they went into the research assuming that, despite the stereotype, women as well as men could fit the criteria—and in fact, the study included plenty of female pickup artists based on the self-reports the team collected.

*Female “pickup artists” are really just cockteases with borderline personality disorder, as you will see this study pretty much confirms. Unlike male pickup artists who are interested in increasing the quantity, quality, or both, of their conquests, female pickup artists are mostly just interested in manipulating a lover or two for incessant ego validation and, when the men she twirls around her fingers are inexperienced betas, for material gain.

In the pilot study that began the project, Jonason and Buss asked 102 participants—all undergraduate students and two-thirds of them female—to describe their experiences with people who had “pursued short-term sexual encounters.” The 71 acts the participants described ranged from abuse (verbal or physical) to avoidance (not returning emails or phone calls). Between these extremes, those who sought to keep their interactions as uninvolved as possible engaged in behaviors such as avoiding non-sexual intimacy (such as hugging), keeping conversations superficial, failing to introduce partners to family and friends, and seeming promiscuous or blatantly announcing that they were only seeking short-term sex.

Lessee… avoiding cuddling and pillow talk… playfully teasing… remaining somewhat mysterious… refusing to relinquish too quickly to expectations of commitment.

Sounds like abundance mentality coupled with Aloof&Indifferent Game. This combo is irresistible to so many women, it’s a wonder more men didn’t evolve the ability to express it naturally. (It’s such a wonder, in fact, that I am tempted to believe there was a time, a long epoch, in our human past, when strong environmental pressures dissuaded women from cleaving to charming players or dissuaded players from openly displaying their talents.)

Male and female pickup artists were equally likely to use the tactics that would keep the relationship from evolving into a one of longer-term intimacy, as well as to seek ways to keep the relationship sexual. However, there were some gender differences: Men were more likely to use violence directed toward their partners, while women were more likely to let a partner know that they were only in the relationship for the sex.

Both sexes use what they know works.

In the all-important personality domain, pickup artists showed specific traits, including antisocial tendencies. As predicted, they were also more likely to be narcissistic. Again, though, male and female pickup artists differed in some aspects of their personality profiles: Women who acted openly promiscuous, for example, were higher in psychopathy. Men high in Machiavellianism were more likely to adopt the tactic of not integrating partners into their lives.

This is interesting. Promiscuous women are, as this study found, CRAZIER than promiscuous men. And our real world observations confirm this. It makes sense. Men are built — some rapscallions would say evolved — for promiscuity, or, at the least, for a tendency to be promiscuous when opportunities arise. Men are thus better equipped, mentally and emotionally, for no-strings-attached sex than are women.

Persuasive charming men — the kind of men women LOVE LOVE LOVE — will manage their promiscuous lifestyles by CARING ENOUGH for their lovers that they don’t lead them too deeply into highly charged emotional and commitment expectations. Heh.

Overall emotional stability also played an important role, but one that differed for men and women: Women who were most likely to engage in keeping the relationship from becoming intimate were also the least emotionally stable. And for women, but not men, self-rated promiscuity was also related to conscientiousness scores.

Again, sex-focused, relationship-averse women are emotionally unstable and self-destructively impulsive in a way that sex-focused, relationship-averse men aren’t. The sexes are different on a fundamental level. Perchance, to deal with it.

So how should women spot a charming loverboy? A short list to start them off:

Telltale behavioral signs

  1. Engaging in unkind acts such as verbal or physical abuse intended to drive you away.
  2. Avoiding physical intimacy other than sexual.
  3. Being unwilling to introduce you to the important people in their lives.
  4. Openly flirting with others in front of you.
  5. Being unavailable and nonresponsive to attempts to maintain or establish contact.

The joke, of course, is that women can spot these signs and it won’t do a lick of good. It’s like asking men to spot the signs of beautiful women so that they can avoid them for low maintenance frumps.

Telltale psychological signs

  1. (for men) Seeming to care only about what you can do for them, not how they can help you. [ed: chicks dig a sexually entitled man.]
  2. (for women) Being late, sloppy, careless, and unconcerned about meeting other people’s expectations.
  3. (for women) Seeming unstable, worried, anxious, and insecure.
  4. (for both) Being highly preoccupied with their own appearance, showing undue self-centeredness, and expressing feelings of entitlement.
  5. (for both) Showing lack of regard for other people’s feelings, not just yours, and expressing lack of remorse for actions in which they caused harm or pain to others.

The few BPD chicks I’ve dated were, without exception, perpetually late and lived in clutter boxes. I knew early on that women who had no interest in keeping up their homes (however humble square-footage-wise) and who preened constantly while simultaneously fretting about their looks (without justification) were basketcases who fucked like champion mares and who would be gone from my life, of their accord or mine, within six months. It’s funny how these female archetypes are universally recognizable. Special little snowflakes, my ass.

Posted in Game, Psy Ops, Science Validates Game, The Id Monster | 149 Comments »

White Male Pussy Of The Month: Anderson Cooper

Dec 10th, 2014 by

Anderson Cooper enjoys a gleeful moment of white ethnomasochism when he happily discovers a slave murdered one of his ancestors.

No further comment. The sickness is self-evident.

UPDATE

Ok, maybe some further comment. To head off the inevitable haters and short bus slopeheads, the “sickness” to which I refer isn’t the anti-slavery posturing; it’s the preening eagerness that Cooper brings to learning about his blood ancestor being killed by one of the slaves.

A non-pussy white man with a set of working stones, upon hearing the same news, would react more like this:

“Hm. How about that. Well, I’m conflicted. Not too happy about the slavery thing, but I’m not going to sit here and crow about one of my own blood getting brutally murdered, whether his killer was slave or not, just to act all sanctimonious for liberal whites and TV ratings. So, I’m glad they hanged his killer.”

Is it really so hard for pussy white male leftoids to MAN UP a little? Must be genetic.

Posted in Videos, White Male Pussy Of The Month | 229 Comments »

Rationalization Hamster, Meet Psychological Projection

Dec 9th, 2014 by

For those of you new to the Chateau, the rationalization hamster (original hamster — O.H. — introduced here) is a descriptive term for the typical woman’s tendency to rationalize her decisions to fulfill herself sexually such that her personal culpability in making the sex happen is removed or reduced. Since that original definition, the rationalization hamster has come to acquire a broader meaning, encapsulating all the odd little mental tricks that women (and sometimes men) do in service to their glowing self-conceptions.

Psychological projection, in its conventionally understood sense, is attributing to others feelings or motives that you yourself possess, but are uncomfortable acknowledging or unable to perceive in yourself. In dating market parlance, projection is a form of rationalization for an opposite sex’s idealized behavior. For instance, women often project onto men their own expectations and attraction triggers, fooling themselves into believing that what they desire in men is what men must desire in them, (or, similarly, that what women dislike in men must be what men dislike in women).

FYI, men, especially inexperienced beta males, project their desires onto women as well, though this particular self-deception is more commonly found in use among women, (for reasons that have been explained in previous posts, namely, the paradox that women have more to gain from their self-deception). A good example of a low N beta male projecting his desires onto women is the man who believes that women will only be intrigued by him for his looks, because that’s what he primarily desires in women.

The reason I bring this up is because I swoon with anticipation in presenting to you, CH celebrated readers, what I consider one of, if not THE, best representations of female psychological projection ever put to print. The article is titled, ‘8 Reasons Why You Should Marry The Complicated Girl’, and, if you check the authoress’s accompanying photo, the listicle was compiled by what appears to be a high testosterone woman with a glare so evil she could make the Grinch recoil in horror.

First, she begins by explaining the basis for her theory,

I am not simple. I am a challenge for any man, I will admit. As hard as I try to be the simple girl, it is just not in my nature to be one. I demand more from everyone because I see great potential.

I only want the best for myself and for my partner, so I will never just go along with some semblance of a mediocre, passionless relationship.

An unevolved man or a boy will always want the simple girl. He doesn’t want to have to work hard for anything, especially not a relationship. He doesn’t want to be challenged or confronted.

But, a real man knows that by being with a complicated girl, he will be better for it.

So, essentially, slander is the basis for her grand theory of male-female relationship dynamics. “Unevolved” men want simple (i.e., kindhearted) girls; “real” men want complicated (i.e., drama-prone) girls.

Her eight points are a gold mine of accidentally revealed preference… that is, her own revealed preference for what SHE wants in men, not what men want in women.

Marry the girl who tells you exactly what she expects and follows through.

Men who aren’t named John Scalzi despise domineering women. Women, in contrast, have shown a noted proclivity for enjoying the company of decisive men with leadership qualities.

Marry the girl who demands your respect.

Girls are respected when they earn that respect, not when they demand it. However, men who make inordinate demands on women do tend to get rewarded sexually for their impertinence.

Marry the girl who can talk politics, even if her opinions are different from yours.

Again, pure female projection. Nothing, other than obesity or a secret penis, kills a man’s incipient boner faster than a girl who is jabbering about politics on a date and is making a point of defying the man’s opinion. Women, otoh, do feel delicious yearnings for men who have strong opinions and stand their ground in the face of opposition.

Marry the girl whose eyes flicker with passion about a number of different subjects.

Translation: “Please marry me for the same reasons I want to marry you, oh passionate and learned man whose eyes flicker with life about a number of different subjects.”

Marry the girl who won’t let you get away with slacking on your talents.

Nag. Even a died-and-uncool male feminist will weary of a nag in time. But women do love a man who qualifies them as worthy partners.

Marry the girl who pushes you to be better every day.

Demanding potentate. But women do love a man who keeps them on their toes and away from the pints of ice cream. What she’s really admitting is that she wants to craft a man to be more like the type of alpha male who turns her on. This doesn’t translate into what men desire in women, though.

Marry the girl with whom you sometimes fight.

Drama queen. These kinds of girls love the pre-sex fight as much as they love the post-fight sex. Men just love the post-fight sex. Most men would be glad to jump straight to the post-fight sex without actually having the fight.

Marry the girl who is your equal or greater.

And here it is. Distilled female rationalization hamster projection. Pure femergy. Men don’t want women who are their “equal or greater”. Men want sexy, pretty, young(er) women with a feminine, more or less submissive disposition. It’s women who strongly desire an “equal or greater” lover, because women are viscerally attracted to mentally, physically, and emotionally strong men.

Post-list, the funny keeps on giving:

My dad always says the thing that attracted him most to my mom was the fact that she was smarter than him.

Gullible, thy name is desperately ego-assuaging woman.

Only a real man can say that and know it’s good for him.

Or a smart man who knows that empty flattery works on aging wives.

Don’t get me wrong; a complicated girl who is not yet mature will be a pain in the ass.

Define “mature”. (Answer: It never arrives.)

She will pick fights with you about everything, and you will always feel like a failure in her presence because you won’t know how to make her happy. But, with a little experience and wisdom, this is the girl who will become wife material.

Maybe the reason why men don’t want to commit to attention whores like herself is because they can see the writing on the wall. Just a thought?

And, once she’s at that point, you better never let her get away, or you’ll risk losing the best thing you ever had.

High blood pressure?

In some respects, this is one of the saddest, and most textbook, feminist limbic blurts I’ve read. Pained by men who have rejected her need for screed, she, like many women, refuses to look at herself squarely and instead puts all the onus on men to accept that they are really attracted to girls like her, and only men’s unevolved immaturity is holding them back from realizing this about themselves.

Yet again, a sterling display of a woman avoiding the consequences for her actions. The best thing she could do for herself — deep examination of her off-putting drama whore behavior and steps to correct it — she won’t do. Those eyes say it all:

“I am woman, hear me roar for validation.”

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Girls, Ridiculousness, The Id Monster | 262 Comments »

Reader Mailbag: The Uphill Battle

Dec 8th, 2014 by

What does an uphill battle with a girl in chat look like? A reader who shall go by the initials “CM” writes,

Attached is my first contribution for your critique and the amusement of readers of the hallowed chambers of the Château.

Here in middle sized university city UK there aren’t too many 8+ around on your average night out. My current plates consist of an English 8 (29), Indian student 6.5 (21) and Polish nurse 7 (31). Swapping out the 6.5/7 for something hotter is a proving tricky since I don’t approach in sufficient numbers. Most of the 8+ are aged 18-24. I usually let them guess my age and then correct them at their guess plus 1 (recently ranging from 23-28) – I’m 34.

This conversation was after a 5 min chat outside a cocktail bar. I was acquainted with one of her friends that used to work somewhere I shopped. I didn’t have great confidence in a further meeting since the interaction was brief and wasn’t as sexually charged as I would have wanted to get. Fighting an uphill battle?

Feel free to publish the chat but please omit my name and her photo (a solid 8 I reckon).

The girl is attractive and slender. She would be a nice addition to the Chateau seraglio.

Here’s CM’s messaging exchange.

As you can see, her shit tests come charging right out of the gate (as is the automatic reflex of pretty girls).

who and huh? Haha

CM swats it away. I’ve read this text exchange a couple of times, and it’s interesting to me because there doesn’t appear to be a moment when CM blew it. There was no “bad game” that could be blamed for killing a promising vibe. He gets some decent teases in there, and doesn’t chase too hard.

If there were a couple of missteps that I had to call out, they would be:

you’re the nerdy little beautician right?

This is a passable neg, but I have a policy against total recall in chats. Very subtly, the act of remembering a drunk woman’s job when all you have in common with her is a short conversation is, to a woman’s mind, something of a beta tell. This is especially true for young, cute women who get a lot of attention from desperadoes. She will think (or her limbic node will think for her), “This guy must really like me if he remembered something about me I don’t even remember telling him.” If you have to ask, this isn’t a good emotion to evoke in a girl who hasn’t invested anything in you.

The other misstep:

Yeh im fussy too. U live close by in?

Dragging out the “full bod massage” script flipping was probably overkill at this point, but the question about where she lives was unnecessary and, since we’re talking about a girl CM hardly knows, a risky probe. Girls are very circumspect of men who ask what could be misconstrued as stalker questions. I would’ve just suggested a venue and then let her explain, if required, why that venue is too far for her.

Maybe the other thing CM should’ve done is offer a day for a date that was a little further into the future, instead of the next day.

None of these quibbles are of major concern. (TBH, I don’t get his last message. Was that a non sequitur text game attempt?) My take is that in the hour between him suggesting tomorrow for a date and her rejection, some old flame, or new guilt, reasserted himself or itself in her life. Her rejection — I work late and long days — is an obviously implausible blowoff (what, is she working 168 hour weeks?), but I don’t see it being a consequence of CM dropping the ball somewhere. It looks more like (my best guess) fate intervened against CM, or she is the kind of girl (beautician! hah) who really responds sexually to edgier jerkboys. If the latter, CM needed to communicate that better in his messages. As is, he’s operating in Jerkboy Lite mode, and that won’t cut it for the younger hotties.

Posted in Game, Reader Mailbag | 151 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion