Feed on
Posts
Comments

If you waste ten minutes of your life scanning relationship or dating advice from female columnists, one theme you’ll often read is the belief that compliments and flattery are the way to a woman’s heart. Naturally, as it goes with 99% of the “””wisdom””” of your feminist elders, this advice is a crock. Any man who has interacted with live women in anything other than a submissive capacity will quickly learn from experience the self-defeating consequences of attempting to court women with compliments.

Reader Joe Sixpack forwards an example of the awful advice you’ll ingest from Hivemind drones, and of the glimmering shards of Realtalk that are beginning to pierce the veil of vapidity,

A Game element leaks out, of all places, a Yahoo! message board comment:

This was regarding an article that said, “Here’s a wakeup call for you: Women spend an average of 55 minutes getting ready every morning — frittering away the equivalent of 6.4 hours a week, or 335 hours a year, on looks alone, a new survey finds. ”

There is a good way to reduce these numbers. Men, tell your woman that she is pretty. I once dated a guy who told me on a regular basis how pretty I was, how much he loved my eyes, how I was the smartest girl he had ever dated, ect. Who cares if he didn’t mean all of it, it made me feel good. I started wearing a little less makeup and found simpler ways to do my hair just so I could get over to his house early before work. He still said the same things. Sadly the whole thing started to go downhill after his daughter called me mom. Now I’m married to a man who never tells me I’m pretty, smart, ect. I put on loads of makeup and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention with no success. I have decided to use up my makeup and only replace the ones I really care for. Maybe he will notice when I’m no longer trying to dress like the playboy playmates he claims he wants.

So, the one beta guy tells her how hot/smart/etc. she is all the time. The result? She turns frumpy and obviously is no longer with him.

She is now married to a man who never tells her such things. The result? She puts on “loads of make up and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention” and dresses “like the playboy playmates he claims he wants”.

[Ed note: Link no longer works.]

You can sometimes pry nuggets of truth from women, but it requires a facility with comprehending subtext. Women will drop clues revealing their true feelings stuffed between over-sized cushions of egoistic pabulum.

Do you want to persuade your girlfriend or wife to keep up her looks? (And if you’re a non-gay man with T readings above 0.1 ng, you will.) Then keep her on her toes.

Maxim #101: Compliments breed complacency. Critique breeds conciliation. A woman will never work as hard for a man’s approval as when his approval is most elusive.

I know this guy whose pickup technique is to go up to a woman and, with a little bit of excitement in his voice, ask “Can I have your autograph? You’re [Katy Perry], right?” He would pick a celebrity who, from ten miles away, could be said to slightly resemble his lust interest.

She would invariably answer, no, she wasn’t, and he would tell her the resemblance was uncanny. If the girl was very pretty, he would be sure to choose a female celebrity who wasn’t so pretty to compare her to, say Rene Zellweger or Ellen Page.

I saw him in action a couple of times. I wouldn’t recommend his game to anyone. It’s stupid game. Goofy and supplicating. The girls laughed in that “who is this clown?” way, I think he got one’s number, but don’t know if they reconnected.

When I asked him why he spit such horrible game, he said that at the end of the day it was his absurd gambit the girls would recall. With mockery, I retorted.

Yet, if your choice is stupid game or nothing game — staring from afar as the girlworld passes you by — then you should choose stupid game. Every time. Because stupid game man is getting more numbers, and more dates, than nothing game man. Boldness bereft of any charm is still boldness. And girls respond to boldness the way men respond to beauty… stunned, aroused, compliant.

Regular readers who are familiar with the long-running CH series cheekily titled “Chicks dig jerks” will fall deeply in love (or hate) with this study, which just touched down like an F5 tingle in the Provencal lap of the Chateau Lordship.

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

Did you hear that thpppft? That was every prostrate manlet, peeved tradcon, and jizzebel gorgon loading their diapers in unison.

It’s as if ❤SCIENCE❤ thumped the great brass triskelion knocker on the oak doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, and uttered upon entrance, “I’m home”.

You’ll excuse me if I allow myself this moment of grandiosity. In keeping with the tenor, it’s well-deserved.

The concordance of this study with observations put forth over the years here at CH, and with the near-daily drumbeat of news stories about women falling hard for all sorts of badboys who flout convention, the law, and others’ well-being, should give the shibbolethians who nurse an ego-wounded hatred for CH pause. The hammer blows they have been taking to the noggin must surely be leaving an impression by now.

But if morale isn’t yet up to snuff, I guess the beatings will have to continue!

criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships.

Single mommery has exploded in the last two generations. If that isn’t a sign of low parental investment and low commitment to reproductive relationships, what is? Exposure?

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

laughing all the way to the end.

Paging Audacity of huge

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.

It takes two to tango. And badboys tango with a lot of willing dance partners (women who inexplicably lose their attentiveness to contraception use when beguiled by badboys). That part about criminal offenders being more likely to get remarried is telling; if an asshole has a little bit of a soft spot for (ceremonial) monogamy, he’ll have an easier time finding a second wife than the niceguy who got eatpraydumped by his bored wife. It appears that Swedish women (the most evolved of white women, wags may note), when they are presented with badboys from a broken marriage, can’t wait to offer themselves as second chance redemption to such misunderstood paragons of maleness.

Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

There’s a rumor spread from certain sectors of female astonishment that men with significant sexual histories turn off women.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country

Where have the enlightened CH readers come across a variant of this formulation before?

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

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

It’s clarifying to think of women as having two core sexual natures that can shift at the margins in the direction of favoring the expression of one or the other, and thus influencing mating behavior, in response to rapid and sweeping environmental cues. Scientifically, these core sexual strategies are known as r- and K-selection, the former epitomized in nature by the fast-breeding, fast-dying small mammal (mouse) and the latter by the slow-breeding, slow-dying large mammal (elephant).

For practical everyday purposes, the human female desire template is largely immutable. Feminist delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, you aren’t going to realign female nature to conform more closely with male sexual nature, (say, by making casual sex less emotionally impacting on women). However, if you had the power to perform an unethical experiment and rearrange society in the trajectory it has taken organically (or perhaps conspiratorially) in the West these past 100 years, you would begin to perceive changes, subtle at first and building to pandemic scale, in the choices and courtship rituals that women abide. You may, for example, start to see women pulling away from beta male providers and indulging more frequently their latent lust for exciting badboys.

What this study above is saying, and what CH has been saying for years based on real world experience in the urban wench trenches, is that criminality — in its milder, accessible form, jerkboy charisma — is quickly becoming a favored male trait by women, who are choosing these men using the only instrument that matters: their vaginas. When life is easy and contraceptives flow like the River Orinoco, women get bored and seek the orgasmic release of aloof, reckless, throwback assholes. Women in modern industrialized nations come to desire the sexiness over the security.

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks.

I’ll leave it to the reader to infer the nuances of meaning from this maxim. Hint: “muh dik” is not an escape hatch.

This transformation in female mate choice doesn’t have to be huge to have a deleterious effect on civilized prosperity. In fact, changes at the margins can be enough to send the entire system careening into a tailspin. Like an advantageous allele, you move the badboy-loving needle from 1% to 2% and some serious consequences will accrue in a few generations’ time.

Now, I didn’t have a team of PhDs to confirm my hunches for me. All I had was my senses and my time in the company of the modern civilized American woman. I could see it all around me, what was happening. I had stories from my ancestors to compare my own experiences, and the contrast was striking. I figured change was going down, and a theory emerged.

and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

In the land of the deferential beta male, the rule-breaking alpha is king.

Permit yer ‘umble Poonstradamus another theory-of-everything prophecy: This *could* end well.

I’ll explain. As of now, the situation looks bleak. Criminals and cads monopolizing the prime sex years of Western women. Beta males being left with the used-up hags as recompense. r-selection creating perverse incentives that divide men from women, family from community, people from nation. A surge of bastards set to steamroll over the culture in the coming decades. Crushing debt loads piling up as once-dutiful citizens, aided and abetted by diversity, move toward a pragmatic philosophy of looking out for number one and shredding the safety net for filaments of silver.

Alpha fux, beta bux is credit-rolling bacchanalia, a temporary condition which must find its denouement in the ruin of a civilization abandoned by its watchmen and looted by its jackals.

How could this possibly end well?

Note the study participants: Swedes. People from a nation which is the pinnacle, or nadir, of feminized manboobery. This is a nation that is asphyxiating under the weight of its own feminist crackpottery. Perhaps, in a moment of hope, we can see the outline of a future Sweden where harder, sterner men — the issue of all those womb-widening orgasmic shrieks of delight squeezed from the firm choking grips of badboys — resume their place at the genetic table. Sweden’s jerkboy-chasing women may be, unwittingly, judging their emasculated beta males unfit for further propagation, and populating a future reborn Sweden with psychopath protectors of their way of life.

The Vikings (or Moors) may rise again.

***

This post went way beyond what I intended it to be — just another shiv in the crusty hides of deluded freaks. As much as I love to tune my twelve-string to their wails of pain, there is a benefit in all these “chicks dig jerks” posts for the common man who wants more, and better, love in his life. Think of the series as a field book to navigate modern womanhood. Dependability, humor, taking girls on interesting dates, paying their way… these things don’t cut it anymore. You need edge. You need aura. You need an asshole attitude.

You don’t need to commit crimes (although it can only help). You do need to be a little less deferential, and a little more inconsiderate, to the civilized Western woman if you want to make a positive impression on her.

You can already see signs, if you’re willing to look, of a trend among men toward maximizing their alpha traits (often at the expense of their beta traits) so that they are better equipped to leverage the modern mating market. It’s no coincidence that interest in testosterone replacement is sweeping through online discourse.

Our civilization is getting plundered, and women are first to the treasure chest with their grubby hands. You can lament this turn of affairs and withdraw from a fulfilling sex and love life, or you can do what is necessary to enjoy the rewards of women’s love that your civilization-building great-grandfather enjoyed when the wild sex compulsions of his time’s women were wisely constrained by better men.

You won’t stop this juggernaut of decivilization. It’s too big and moving too fast. Like the fate of empires that have come and gone before, it has to finish its preordained path of destruction. Something good may rise from the flattened earth, but in the meantime, poolside is the only sensible choice.

I know, I know, after an evening in your smoking jacket reading Jezebel and John Scalzi with blurry eyes and tending to your rickets, you wonder how anyone could think men and women aren’t exactly alike except for that bothersome business of the genitalia.

Well, my hermetically sealed friend, you can listen to CH telling you like it is from field experience, or you can get the same revelations from ❤SCIENCE❤.

Sex differences in personality are believed to be comparatively small. However, research in this area has suffered from significant methodological limitations. We advance a set of guidelines for overcoming those limitations: (a) measure personality with a higher resolution than that afforded by the Big Five; (b) estimate sex differences on latent factors; and (c) assess global sex differences with multivariate effect sizes. We then apply these guidelines to a large, representative adult sample, and obtain what is presently the best estimate of global sex differences in personality.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.

Significance

The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.

Sex-based personality differences are large and widespread, and result from competing evolutionary pressures placed on men and women.

In addition to their direct influences on mating processes, personality traits correlate with many other sexually selected behaviors, such as status-seeking and risk-taking (see e.g., [20], [34], [35]). Thus, in an evolutionary perspective, personality traits are definitely not neutral with respect to sexual selection. Instead, there are grounds to expect robust and wide-ranging sex differences in this area, resulting in strongly sexually differentiated patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior – as if there were “two human natures”, as effectively put by Davies and Shackelford [15].

Two human natures (you could argue for a lot more if you include racial differences in personality). This is the reason game works as a concept and as a practical guide. Women are very different, emotionally and psychologically, than are men, and game is a system which leverages this sex-specific personality contrast. Think about it: If men and women were completely alike, whatever worked for women in the dating market would also work equally well for men. But two minutes in the jungle are all you need to notice that the working strategies men and women employ to find and attract mates are very different.

The study is worth reading in full, especially the authors’ methodology of breaking down the Big Five personality traits into smaller components, and the importance of measuring latent variables.

So where do men and women most differ in personality traits?

In univariate terms, the largest differences between the sexes were found in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension (higher in females), and Emotional stability, Dominance, Rule-consciousness, and Vigilance (higher in males). These effects subsume the classic sex differences in instrumentality/expressiveness or dominance/nurturance.

Feminists and equalists will try to ignore, suppress, or distort findings about sex differences like those in this study, because the notion that there is an archetypical female personality and an archetypical male personality that is biological in construct is a stake through the heart of everything they desperately want to believe about human sexual nature and the impolite and inegalitarian forms it often takes.

How is an ugly feminist supposed to exhort normal women to “lean in” when normal women don’t have any desire nor disposition nor, for that matter, talent to do so? It is a pickle.

Wordless Lamborghini Game

Vitaly rents a Lamborghini and picks up girls without saying a word.

I laughed. Some of you cried. Is it staged? Maybe. Is it plausible? Yes. And did you see the cameo appearance?

zoom zoom!

If you have a son about to enter manhood, and you want to impart a quick lesson in women, you won’t go wrong having him watch this video.

“Are you a player?”

This deceptively innocuous female query deserves its own post, because it’s something you’ll hear more than once if you a) have any sort of charming vibe or b) you live in an area where the cock carousel, and hence the broken pussies, ride high.

You want to know how to respond to this super shit test from a girl. First, judge the context and the delivery. Did you just meet her? Is she in a flirty mood? Is she a sassy girl who loves to “get one over” men?

Or, is she genuinely curious about you? Is she comfortable sitting down with you to talk, away from supervision? Do the number of hair tosses and the shine in her eyes betray a surging interest for more intimacy?

If the former (she wants reassurance you are socially skilled around women and have a plethora of mate options), there are many ways to defuse the “Are you a player?” shit test. You can’t go wrong with a rudimentary “agree & amplify”.

“Are you a player?”

“The truth comes out. Did you know you’re number 100 today? Congratulations! Let’s go find you that door prize.”

If the latter (she wants to be assuaged you aren’t going to fuck and fly), humility (feigned, if necessary) is the order of the day.

“Are you a player?”

“If holding out for the right girl makes me a player, then I guess I am. But I don’t really feel like one.”

On this subject, a reader asks,

I met this girl on eH, solid 8.5 and on the first date she put this on me:

her: are you a player?
me: define player
her: date a lot of women
me: define a lot

her: more than 6 a month
me: it depends if the month has 31 days or not
her: clever answer

However, nothing changed – I can tell in her eyes she though I was a “player”.  Also by the actions – at the end, we had a good make out, but she refused to come to my place:

me: you should come to my place
her: lol, that would be too early, what would you think about me if I came to your place on our first date
me: I don’t judge people; if a woman is ready then she’s ready.

Later the night I got the “you’re a great guy, but…” text, to which I replied with “lol” and deleted her number.

I’ve been following CH for 3 years now, and again, CH sirs, I ask, how do you actually pass the test for real, and not just for that moment?

Thanks and keep up the good word.

Since this was a first date (and not a first meet), she probably asked the question because she was beginning to feel like a conquest to you. She needed some sign from you that she was more than a passing fancy. Therefore, getting cutesy was not the best response. Playing the “define” game is fun at first, but will quickly grow tiresome because it sounds like you’re hiding something.

You didn’t allay her slut fears, so you got what a lot of “too smooth for his own good” players get: A make-out that validated the girl, followed by a preemptive, pre-sex rejection that salvaged her ego and allowed her to preserve a belief in her propriety. You ran into a classic anti-slut defense wall, and your words reinforced the bricks.

The cocksure attitude of player profligacy that will attract women has a shelf life. You can’t keep it up and expect the same results on date three that you had during minute two. At some point, she’ll want the presence of the “real you”, especially if she in any way considers you a possible long-term lover, and if she doesn’t get the real you that fun vibe which sparked her first tingles will fade until it’s replaced by doubt and emotional withdrawal.

If you have to deal with the “Are you a player?” question a lot from girls, it means you’re projecting a seductive personality too early and too strong in the interaction. You need to tone it down a little, and disqualify girls. For instance, “It’s too bad you’re a brunette, otherwise I’d be flirting with you.”

The Value Of Game

If you’re a single man plowing the field, which result would be more aggravating and distressing?

– You see an attractive girl on the sidewalk, say hi to her, but don’t get her number.

vs

– You see an attractive girl, say hi to her, get her number, but she flakes at the last minute before your scheduled date.

How about this scenario?

– You meet an attractive girl, say hi to her, but don’t get her number.

vs

– You meet an attractive girl, say hi to her, talk, get her number, go on three dates during which you drop $100 in drinks and more in lost time, energy and economic opportunity, and miss out on sex because she decided it wasn’t “working out” sometime between the end of the third date and your hoped-for fourth date fireworks.

***

If men are honest with themselves, they will nearly unanimously answer that result #2 in each of the above scenarios would be far more distressing and emotionally draining than the relatively minor setback of result #1 (not getting a number after saying hi).

Game — or if you haughtily prefer, “practiced charisma” — is the most effective defense against the morale exhausting defeat of result #2, and similar outcomes. This is where game shines, where it really flexes its muscle: In that tentative courtship dance between the first twinkle in her eye and the last moan from her throat.

Game won’t get you number closes from every hot girl you see on the street, but it will increase your number-to-lay ratio considerably, saving you time and effort that would otherwise be wasted if you didn’t have the know-how and skills to successfully seduce a girl from mild curiosity to inflamed passion.

When we calculate the value of game, we must include all these variables, not just the percentage of meetings that you turn into number closes. The value of game to you, besides making you more instantly attractive, is also all the flakes that never happened, all the dates that never ended without a sexual culmination, all the relationships that never broke up on her terms.

You might say the value of all that is incalculable.

Feminism Is For Ugly Women

An article by a Mzzz Pamela Clark has been making the memetic rounds. It’s titled “35 Practical Steps Men Can Take to Guarantee Involuntary Celibacy Support Feminism”. It is as vapid as you’d think it would be, just going by the lede. Excerpt:

12. Pay attention to and challenge informal instances of gender role enforcement.

For example, if you are at a family function or dinner party, pay attention to whether it is mostly/only women who are doing food preparation/cleaning/childcare while men are socializing and relaxing. If it is, change the dynamic and implore other men to do the same.

If you want to make yourself utterly sexually repellent to women who count, and a pariah among your cool male friends, sure go ahead and follow her advice.

The spectacle of these feminists one-upping each others’ stupidity and flights of fantastical voyage from reality seems to be exponentially increasing in absurdity and frequency lately. Why?

The answer is simple. Feminism is the limbic pain of ugly women getting amplified through the internet bullhorn.

Here’s a pic of the female who wrote the above article. WNB with John Scalzi’s thimblepeen.

When ugly bitter women meet the ASCII soapbox, Freudian hilarity ensues. You can set your watch to the accuracy of the CH feminism formulation. Nine times out of ten, when you see a photo of the female who wrote this or that feminist treatise aka foray into poopytalk, she will be fat, ugly, or an incomplete gender morph.

And that is the structural Götterdämmerung from which there is no semantic escape.

There’s a lot of chatter among the cuntocracy about how men aren’t “manning up” and doing their duty to marry off all the single ladies. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason for this male abdication of the sacred institution of marriage is the poor quality of the women on offer.

Just how bad is the marriageable American female market? Jay in DC writes,

‘Hot 99.5′ is basically the hippest and most relevant DC radio station in that it has the youngest listener demographic.

They are currently holding a contest for “new brides” to post their hottest photo to win the contest (1,000 dollar prize). Now granted, more intelligent chicks are probably NOT going to put their pic out there. But there are about 100 submissions up there already so this is a pretty good cross-section of not only DC, but really the US.

Behold men, and look upon your ruination. Betas WILL marry anything. ANYTHING, and this is what keeps the perpetual cycle of disgusting fat entitled average americunts reproducing.

I really advise you take the 15 minutes or so to REALLY look at every photo. This is our future. Out of those 100 photos there are FIVE women I would date, a few more I would fuck, and 3 I would marry if they had the classic femininity to go with their looks.

That is a SAD ASS RATIO. 97 to 3 in a pretty good statistical sample are marriageable? Welcome to the USSA.

http://www.hot995.com/contests/summer-bridal-showdown/297456/Vote/photoDetail/402513

p.s. Don’t bother posting comments, they will be shot down in seconds, just enjoy the grotesquery that is these women in bridal gowns.

Browsing the blushing attention whores, I’d have to concur with Jay’s assessment; the majority of the American East Coast brides are beastly. Beauty and the beast, inverted.

Beta males won’t marry anything. That is a stretch. Ugly, older, masculine, and fatter women DO pay marriage marketplace costs that you won’t be able to readily discern in their smiling wedding day photos. The hidden nature of the cost does not preclude its exorbitance.

And what is that exorbitant cost? Settling. It’s all of the better men with whom the post-prime, pre-Wall, porky-princess American bride had to give up hope of fettering to a marital contract. As age, size and attitude veer away from the feminine ideal beloved by the vast majority of men, women will find it harder — sometimes impossibly harder — to land the man of their dreams. They will have to settle for second, third, or even 30th best if they want to be married at all.

And so what you don’t see in those blushing blimp pics are the men they truly wanted who pumped and dumped them, or ignored them for their prettier friends. What you also don’t see are the hapless losers who vowed last-ditch lifelong monogamy to a land whale in exchange for avoiding the walking death of incel, as their hearts privately sank away in forlorn regret.

That is the individual, human dynamic. What about the big picture? Interesting — in the horrible sense of the word — things happen when the supply of attractive women drastically shrinks in proportion to the supply of megafauna, feminists, careerist shrikes, manjaws, and bitter spinsters. When the marriage market essentially become an outpost of Wal-Mart (Wall-Mart!) — cheap, throwaway, high fructose corn syrup goods — men experience what could be described as an exogenous “restriction of range” problem when they set out to find marriageable women.

Instead of a normally functioning sexual market where men are presented with many options among marriageable women of varying degrees of attractiveness (who nonetheless meet the men’s threshold for long-term commitment worthiness), what transpires in a shit market like what we have now is a massive limitation in men’s acceptably attractive mate choices and a replacement with a dichotomous mate choice system. In a dichotomous mate choice system, beta males no longer have the luxury of choosing between, say, a feminine slender 6 and a tomboyish slender 7. Now they’re restricted to choosing between involuntary celibacy and marriage to a ghastly apparition.

Unfortunately for the progress of the human species, the male sex drive is so strong that more than a few hard-up betas and omegas will choose the sad, dreary marriage to a circus sideshow over the soul-crushing solitude of sexlessness.

Beauty is truth. CH is among the greats in asserting the truism of this plea for an aesthetic sensibility, and for good reason. When ugliness of body is the norm, ugliness of character and, ultimately, of nation is sure to follow.

Related:

obesity-map-GIF-j

Your romantic fortunes (or misfortunes) will make much more sense, and become less a product of chance, once you understand that women are burdened with a split personality, each one desiring a different sort of man. A woman’s compulsive attraction for both male sexiness and male security explains a lot about her seemingly lunatic behavior.

In fact, almost everything women do, in and out of the reproductive sphere, can be profitably viewed through the lens of their “Sexiness/Security Schism” (SSS). And a schism it is, because rarely do the two ur-traits occur at equal strength in the same man.

Game has to take into account the existence of the female SSS, and that’s why many game tactics appear, to the neophyte, contradictory or bafflingly contextual. A clear demonstration of this refracted female sexual psychology is the shit test. A single shit test can have radically different meanings depending on the balance of sexiness and security that a girl perceives in a man, and on the ratio of each she desires at that moment.

ImmoralGables forwards an insightful piece of game advice that hits upon the female sexiness/security schism:

Listen up playas. There are two kinds of shit tests you need to know about (credit to RSD Todd)

1) Value Shit Test – “Why are you talking to me?”
This is where you show why you are entitled, that you’re a man, that you’re not perturbed by her beauty, that you’re have solid frame that can’t be flayed. This is a good time to agree and amplify or just ignore and keep plowing

2) Comfort Shit Test – “Why are you talking to me?”
This is where you assuage her concerns that you’re just using her because she has a vagina. Now you can go the route of providing non-physical reasons as to why she’s attractive, “You’re quirky, I like that.” But RSD Todd showed a really good one that doesn’t step into her frame “Wow, that’s a really modest thing of you to say. Why would a girl like you think that?”

When a woman is seeking sexiness, her unrehearsed interrogation will take the form of value filters. The value shit test is a test for male aloofness, state control, abundance, coolness, and social acumen. When a woman is seeking security, she’ll prod for signals of attainability and seriousness. The comfort shit test is lethal to newbies because they don’t recognize it before it’s too late, and because this shit test can sound *exactly* like a value shit test. But the context in which it is delivered is everything.

What works to neutralize value shit tests won’t for comfort shit tests. For this reason, Agree and Amplify is not a good response to the latter. All that will accomplish is boxing yourself into the “entertainment monkey” cad caricature she can have fun with and then safely and without regret disengage from once the act bores her. The best Comfort Shit Test response alleviates a girl’s insecurity while strengthening emotional closeness.

Another example of a deceptively similar Value/Comfort shit test:

“I bet you’re a player.”

If you get this early on, it’s a value shit test. She secretly wants you to be a player who is loved by women. That’s male mate value. Your reply should adhere to the amused mastery format: “That’s what your mom said too. Strange.”

If she says this during a one-on-one moment of deep rapport, long after she’s dropped numerous indicators of romantic interest, then it’s a comfort shit test. Now would NOT be the time to escalate flirty tension. You want to release the tension, e.g., “I’m looking for someone I click with. I don’t think I’m different than you in that regard.”

Value shit tests tend to happen a lot with higher SMV girls who perceive themselves (at least initially) as out of your league. Comfort shit tests happen with lower SMV girls who fear you’ll use them for short-term sexual gratification, or with high SMV girls who experience a downward shift in their self-perception from the expert application of your SMV equalizing game.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion