Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Mind Of The Manboob: Hugo Schwyzer Case Study

Jan 17th, 2013 by

What deranged psychology motivates the defecatory self-flagellating of masculinity-hating manboobs like Hugo Schwyzer? At first glance, they seem broken souls driven to assume guilt for imagined evils committed by the group to which they ostensibly belong. They side with freaks who hate their kind. They mouth empty-headed platitudes and brazen lies with such alacrity one wonders if they can any longer distinguish reality from fantasy. They relish the whip coming down on their backs and the backs of those remotely like them with sick masochistic zeal.

Hugo Schwyzer is a cartoonish copypaste of the manboob archetype. He’s such a vile and transparent emissary for the reject crowd, that you really have to wonder if it’s all an act. I imagine there are at least a few sufficiently brain damaged co-eds who lap up his runny shit to make it all worth it. I bet he’s still leveraging his prof power dynamic to score illicit tail on the down low. It would explain his behavioral similarity to closeted gays who rail against homosexuality.

Or maybe he’s a True Believer. If that’s so, he’s an even bigger pud than I peg him for. At least one can understand, if not condone, a fraudulent shucking and jiving act to off-pitch feminist tunes in order to dupe dumbo conformist leftoids still in the bloom of youth to give up the goods. But a guy who dances like this with his junk tucked between his legs because he actually enjoys two-stepping like a spaz eunuch? It beggars comprehension.

So we must delve deep into the neural swamp of the self-annihilator, on a journey of adventure to darkest manboobery, to examine up close the stunted, sniveling, fetal id crouched like Gollum at the center of their twisted psyches. For to understand one’s enemies is to hone the precision of one’s ridicule aimed at them. You can plunge the soulshiv into the outer folds of the prefrontal all day long, but the delusional crackpot will merely incorporate legions of á la main ego-assuaging dendrites to rapidly bridge the wound in response. The killing blow comes at last when you have located Smaug’s lone, unjeweled breastplate — revealing an open pathway to the core leprotic force animating the multitude of ego layers — and held the gom jabbar wickedly, tantalizingly, against the defenseless, quivering, pustular infant monster within. Only then, will you have hit the mother of all nerves.

Chuck, over at GLPiggy, offers a diagnosis of Schwyzer’s underlying manboob illness.

Hugo Schwyzer’s latest piece is typical.  What you first have to understand about anything that Schwyzer writes is that he’s attempting to alleviate his own guilt by painting every transgression of white men against others as a systemic issue in which we are all complicit.

Schwyzer has done a lot of screwy things in his life so he believes that it is now his job to throw all other white men under the bus.  He avoids trying to deal empathically with white men by harping on “white male privilege”.

Guilt alleviation. The one emotional compulsion, above all others, that appears to guide and channel the self-annihilator’s moral preening, if not his moral compass. Schwyzer has had, as he has himself admitted, a number of “improper” affairs with his female students — affairs of the sort that would send the typical self-identifying feminist into a tailspin of scattershot histrionics about the “white male power structure” if done by any man other than a mewling manboob who effusively apologizes for his pleasure as penitence to his femcunt overladies. But Schwyzer retains just enough charm and traitorous gusto to keep his erstwhile feminist foes safely within his orbit of self-congratulatory sympathy.

But does Schwyzer really feel guilt for his naughty sexcapades? I’ve known quite a few womanizers in my life, and one thing I can say about them is that none were genuinely guilt-ridden over their scores of intimacies. None felt any pressing need to convince the world that their peripatetic love, or the behavior of men who do the same, was exploitative badness. They are healthy men at peace with their natural, masculine desire. Sure, they may occasionally pretend to introspection when in the company of finger waggers or glaring wives, but one could tell that was all for show. There was enough wink wink, nudge nudge to remind of their sanity.

So, no, I don’t believe that Hugs Shyster feels guilt, real guilt, for his past (and probably present). Most self-annhilating whites (and it is mostly whites who suffer from the appalling condition) don’t act out of guilt; they act out of a crass, surging impulse to step on their closest co-ethnic competitors in order to lift themselves up. Narcissism of small differences, and all that. They are, before all else, status whores, even if they don’t realize it themselves. And the status points that count will change depending on the context one finds oneself, or the context in which one deliberately inserts oneself. In Schwyzer’s case, he has been, and is, surrounded on all sides by clucking man-haters, women who loathe male desire in all its permutations save the one which can be wholly choreographed by feminist puppeteering.

The irony of it all is that Schwyzer has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to apologize or repent for, whether to himself or to others. His leverage of his occupation’s high social status and situational dominance to seduce young women by giving them what they want is no less part and parcel of the natural evolved order of romantic interlude than the woman who keeps herself trim and dresses sexily to capture the appreciation of the high value men she desires. You can argue that Schwyzer imprudently crossed an ethical line peculiar to academia, but what you can’t argue is that he acted immorally, strangely, misogynistically, or with patriarchal hate in his heart toward those women who welcomed his wooing.

But if suppressed guilt is the real motivation (and I concede that the possibility exists in the most egregious cases of manboobery, such as that evidenced by Schwyzer), then Chuck is right to identify the mechanism as an ego-salving one which attempts to shirk the blame off to an entire group as indicative of a “systemic issue” instead of manfully accepting sole blame for one’s individual failings (as one sees them). But the full-blown narcissist will have nothing to do with taking responsiblity for his actions when a whole world of patriarchal privilege and cultural constructivism is out there which will take the blame for him.

A second theory of manboob mind is that the proselytizing self-annihilator (and by extension, group-annihilator) suffers from a case of pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is likely an acute manifestation of biologically inherited leftoidism. While there is no proof to date that political bias is genetic in origin, evidence is mounting in favor of the hypothesis. Pathological altruism is a mental illness that possesses psychological dimensions not unlike Stockholm Syndrome, which compels the afflicted to heal the world’s hurt, and to demand inclusion for the world’s monsters and failures, no matter what cost to oneself (or, more likely, to one’s taxpaying compatriots). It is liberal universalist perfectionism run amok, and it eventually devolves, as it must, to subverting normality and truth and beauty and to sanctifying deviancy and lies and ugliness. (And genocide, if you look at the historical record.)

The motivation of those who hold themselves Messiahs to the Monsters can often be murky to the untrained eye, but the motivation of those who are actual monsters is clearer. The designs of the latter to institute not just the social acceptance, but the social desirability, of degenerates and degeneracy stems from a survival instinct. To be cast to the metaphorical icy wastelands is metadeath, and in the ancestral state of nature the casting out would have meant real death. But what to make of monster apologists like Hugo Schwyzer who, superficially at least, don’t immediately provoke disgust in people? What motivates them? If the pathological altruist theory of manboobery is correct, then “normals” who suffer from it are motivated by the warm, dopaminergic good feelings they receive from “fighting oppressors” and “lifting the oppressed”. It’s a savior complex that earns brownie points the more self-indicting its message. This is similar in function to how the handicap principle operates.

Which leads to the third theory of manboobery: subversive status whoring.

Ultimately, if evolutionary biologists are correct, pathological altruism (PA) will subordinate to the genetic imperative for status accrual, for all human traits are merely more or less successful evolutionary experiments cobbled together under ecological pressures to maximize survival and reproduction. PA might have been socially adaptive in small hunter-gatherer tribes, but in the modern context of atomized city dwelling that pushes millions of humans shoulder to shoulder, PA becomes more individually adaptive while also becoming more societally maladaptive. Now we are right back to the original speculation that manboobs are, in their own bizarre fashion, raising their status within their postmodern milieu via the mechanisms of narcissistic martyrdom and shared blame redistribution to the entire group in which they putatively belong. PA is, in a sense, a sneaky fucker strategy, a cheater’s ploy, which relies for its success on the existence of a strong, commanding overculture to parasitize. Once that culture is gone and the gutter filth are in charge, there is no longer any gain from letting your freak flag, or your freak-enabler flag, fly.

The manboob with PA disorder may sincerely believe in his good intentions, but he is actually a servant carrying out ancient genetically-coded algorithms that will redound to the benefit of his personal social status and, hence, his reproductive fitness. You scoff at “reproductive fitness”, but in fact this tact appears to have worked for Schwyzer, who, if his claims are to be believed, has enjoyed an ample supply of nubile, young, gullible feminist libtard majors.

We come to the fourth theory of manboob mind, and perhaps the most cynical of the theories: That manboobs like Schwyzer don’t believe a word of the crap they brownly vomit; that their bleatings are a minstrel show for the tiny niche of ideological sympathizers who fortuitously happen to be decked in the plumage of alluring boob and ass that all men, even revolting manboobs, want to defile. (Almost) every male endeavor has its female groupies, and manboobery is no exception, (except when the manboob is so physically deformed or dispositionally neutered he cannot even hope for gnarled table scraps left behind by greater manboobs than he).

The feigned male feminist act doesn’t even have to find fruit among its intended audience for it to be a successful mating strategy. Schwyzer could get no play from the Jizzebel crowd, but it won’t matter as long as attractive women closer to his social circle observe the laurels he receives from thousands of anonymously obese feminist skanks thankful for his words which soothe their scorched feelings of self-worth. All he has to do is humblebrag a little, shit on the “right” sorts of men, and sit back as innate female desire for preselected men works its magic. For all we know, Schwyzer may be a stone cold dominating quasi-rapist in bed with women, once he is free to drop the “this is what a feminist looks like” charade. And how much you want to bet the women he fucks — or fucked, I hear he’s married — are slender, height-weight proportionate, facially attractive women on the fertile side of the wall? Lindy West wept.

A corollary to the fourth theory of manboob mind — the theory that manboobery is a cynical ploy to attract niche female attention — is the notion that manboobs deliberately scheme to rearrange the contours of the sexual market so that their types have more access to women. It’s a strategy to clear the field of competitor males. It’s obviously not possible to literally clear the field of other men (unless you imprison them or kill them), but it is possible, through silver-tongued verbal calisthenics, to build insular social contexts that delineate and ostracize outsiders from insiders, and attract women simpatico to one’s message, much like the growth of a religious cult. The key to this mate competition strategy is to execute it with sincere-sounding passion, creating emotional states that coax the girls to be more open to the manboob’s wiles. An actively promoted, pro-femcunt system allows manboobs like Schwyzer to successfully compete with other men, whereas in a sane, anti-feminist, anti-sophist culture he would be at a distinct disadvantage competing against manlier men who eschew the mincing dishonor of passive-aggressive subterfuge.

Finally, we come to the fifth theory of manboob mind, and one I include for purposes of thoroughness rather than insight, as it shares obvious common threads with the previous four theories: Manboobs are simply bigoted against those not like them, which amounts to being bigoted against their betters, and will tirelessly do or say whatever is necessary, no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical, to bring down those they irrationally hate. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why a guy like Hugo Schwyzer would reflexively perceive the majority white male contingent as the Other.

In summary, here are the five primary theories of manboob mind, in no particular order of probability or explanatory power:

1. Guilt complex
2. Pathological altruism
3. Status whoring
4. Mate competition strategy
5. Raw bigotry

These theories don’t have to be distinct entities; they can overlap, and they probably do. A status whoring manboob on the make for chubby feminist love might harbor guilt for some strange perversion he committed in his past. A bigoted hater might also be a pathological altruist who goes livid when the subject turns to inequality, and if you think those two emotional states are contradictory, well you just don’t know the leftoid mind very well. Let’s say internal consistency is not their strong suit.

It wouldn’t be CH if we didn’t punctuate a SERIOUS post with a goofy coda, so to head off those jesters salivating to bombard the comment section with theories they deem to be the most obvious explanations, yes, manboobs like Schwyzer may just be acting out revenge fantasies birthed in the crucible of some punch to the jaw they took by a frat bro when they were striplings making their way through a man’s world. You could call that theory of manboobery, “Punchuated Equilibrium”. Those slights of youth have amazing staying power to warp the adult mind. Hate for normal, healthy men can germinate in such seething soil. You’d not be far from the mark to guess that a lot of the more monstrous manboobs nurse grudges from some rejection they suffered by a girl who never reciprocated their LJBFery in the way the manboobs hoped. But instead of turn against normal women or themselves, they shifted their hate beams to those men the girls liked.

As a theory of manboob mind, I don’t buy this tact. For every skulking manboob with a distant humiliation fueling his misandry, there are a thousand men who suffered similar high school slights who never went the egregious manboob route. Something else, some other psychological misfire, has to gird the ancient grudge, to give the grudge its unusual outsized power. And that is where you have to dig deeper, to the transgendered id, where the murmuring heart of the manboob pumps sewage through his buttplug-shaped cerebellum.

PS Schwyzer and his ilk might just be garden-variety closeted gays, which I know will be the preferred theory of a lot of tradcon types who have a hard time fathoming the queer workings of the manboob mind. But that’s a dismissive assertion that’s hard to subscribe to when there are years of evidence, past and current, that the Hugo manboob under the microscope has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the sexual company of women. We don’t live in an age where gay men need a parade of beards to function in society.

PPS Feel free to include your theories for the existence of nauseating manboobs in the comments. If there’s a better theory out there than the five presented here, we’d all like to hear it.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Hamster of the Month Contest, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King, The Id Monster, Tool Time | 335 Comments »

Women Prefer Taken Men

Jan 16th, 2013 by

Ah women… saintly creatures. The fairer sex. Daddies’ little princesses. And also more likely than men to be homewreckers.

Do women prefer men who are attached?

“Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not,” says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren’t bothered whether their target was already attached or not.

This shouldn’t be news to veteran readers of CH. We of the illuminati already knew, from years toiling in the field, getting our dicks dirty, that women:

1. love to CHASE CHASE CHASE aloof men who aren’t readily available

2. love preselected men other women love, and

3. love the drama that necessarily accompanies stealing a validated man from his girlfriend or wife.

Really, if feminists were smart (asking a lot, I know), they’d realize their worst enemies aren’t laser-guided ego-targeting truth bombers like yours truly, but other women who will claw, scratch and passive-aggressively sabotage their way over the messed tresses of their sexual market competitors. Politically, women may be a united front, but privately they are at each other’s throats. And they attack with their knives sheathed, plausible deniability and rationalizing hamsters their greatest allies in this total war of gene delivery vessels, which makes them all the more potent adversaries.

Posted in Game, Girls, Ugly Truths | 136 Comments »

The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!

Jan 15th, 2013 by

CH has been at the forefront of noting a trend among Western, particularly American, women toward masculinization. This “manning up” by secularized post-industrial women is prominent in both their physical features (fatter, manjaw-ier, bigger framed) and their personalities (bitchier, more entitled, less fecund, more prone to binge drinking). A theory was put forward that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, among other downstream effects they have caused, have pushed women away from their essential femininity, via exact mechanisms poorly understood as yet.

Genetic alteration does not seem a likely candidate, because it is mathematically impossible for alleles coding for manlier women to sweep through a large population in a couple of generations, unless some cataclysmic event were to wipe out the majority of people. Adaptation to cultural stimuli is likelier, though that leaves us wondering how it is culture can physically change the shape of women’s jaws to resemble Christmas nutcrackers. Some sort of biological insult, like a toxin or estrogen in the water or BPAs or high fructose fattening syrup, could be the culprit. Or maybe it’s an epigenetic phenomena — the response by protein-coding enzymes to environmental stressors, such as that of becoming financially self-sufficient, being surrounded by supplicating beta males, and riding the alpha cock carousel until closing time.

Some of you naturally will ask, “But are your personal suspicions supported by the evidence? Are American women really getting more masculine?” A fair question! And for that, we may turn to… science! (She pleasured me with science… ) A reader writes:

As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.

This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html

In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!

Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)

This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.

Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.

One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.

One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.

By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community.

“Power posing influencing behavioural outcome.” Now where have I come across that idea before? Hmm….. lemme think…. oh yeah!
YET AGAIN, science proves a core game concept. How about that? ♥♥♥♥♥♥

This reader’s inference — that the social expectations of feminism and the accumulated effect of grrlpower SWPL parents who push their daughters in the same direction as their sons induces physical as well as behavioral changes in girls and boys through hormonal mechanisms that tend toward androgynizing the population — deserves serious investigation. It’s time to pull out the calipers and assays and begin measuring the geometry of jaws and testosterone levels in Western women by generation and over lifetimes. If it is true that power posing influences not just behavioral but physical outcome, then we can boldly assert that

FEMINISM MAKES WOMEN MANLIER.

And that, my friends, will finally and once and for all, kill the rancid ideology deader than dead, because no woman in her right mind wants to be manlier. This bizarre epoch will come to be seen as a time when women were led so far astray that they became, socially and biologically, men. And men, for their part, became manboobs.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Girls, Science Validates Game | 139 Comments »

No One Is Entitled To Commitment

Jan 14th, 2013 by

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up ”a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Funny/Lolblogs, Misandry, Ugly Truths | 307 Comments »

Chicks Have Been Digging Jerks For A Long Time

Jan 11th, 2013 by

Reader Zombie Shane (ha!) writes:

IN THE COMMENTS, leave samples and excerpts from the GREAT BOOKZ which teach game!!

From the Cads -vs- Dads point of view, Jane Austen tried to warn her womynz about jerks like John Willoughby and George Wickham.

Yes, the classics are filled with examples of chicklove for badboys, and warnings to avoid falling under their spells. What’s interesting about this is that wiser women wouldn’t have to warn the sisterhood about jerks if women weren’t already naturally attracted to jerks. I mean, you don’t see women warning other women to avoid exhilarating romantic entanglements with boringly reliable beta males. Women do that all on their own. This is elementary logic that escapes the walnut-sized brains of feminists and manboobs.

On the flip side, in contrast to the jerk avoidance warnings, what you see are older women advising younger women to seriously consider the invisible charms of stable betaboys. Apparently, women have to be coaxed and cajoled to understand and appreciate the intangible benefits of dating betas who will treat them with respect and kindness.

Posted in Alpha, Girls, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 218 Comments »

Hotter Women Equals Better Sex: Science Weighs In

Jan 11th, 2013 by

Nestled warmly in the Chateau archives, a House Lord wrote that hotter women means better sex for men. A chart was included to drive home the point:

In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:

hotness of woman               size of load               squirt distance
0                                            *                                *
1                                            *                                *
2                                            *                                *
3                                            pre-cum only         needed squeezing out
4                                            droplet                      dribble
5                                            <5 grams                  2 cm
6                                            fills bellybutton        3 inches
7                                            1 tbsp                         8 inches
8                                            2 tbsps                       1.5 feet
9                                            1/4 cup                       3 feet
10                                          gallon**                      5 yards**

*insufficient data
**extrapolation

Oh, did the feminists and their hairyrimlickers howl with pained indignation upon reading such a brutally honest account of the mechanics of male sexual desire! The satisfaction of beholding the raw, bleeding ids on display must have been, in a word, delicious.

Still, there were those who lived in cellar permahovels who could argue that, despite a mountainous accumulation of real world anecdotal evidence, science hadn’t (yet) come around to proving one way or the other that men experienced improved sexual pleasure from banging hotter women. Socially calibrated readers were forced to take their own personal experiences at face value.

Until now. In what is sure to slice clean the last dangly sinew of the reject brigade’s frayed ego, a recent scientific study has appeared which proves, AGAIN, another CH truth.

Slimmer Women’s Waist is Associated with Better Erectile Function in Men Independent of Age.

Previous research has indicated that men generally rate slimmer women as more sexually attractive, consistent with the increased morbidity risks associated with even mild abdominal adiposity. To assess the association of women’s waist size with a more tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness (as well as reward value for both sexes), we examined the association of women’s age and waist circumference with an index of men’s erectile function (IIEF-5 scores), frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), and sexual satisfaction in a representative sample of Czechs (699 men and 715 women) aged 35-65 years. Multivariate analyses indicated that better erectile function scores were independently associated with younger age of self and partner and women’s slimmer waist. PVI frequency was independently associated with women’s younger age and women’s slimmer waist. Sexual satisfaction was independently associated with men’s younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function, greater PVI frequency, and greater sexual satisfaction were associated with women’s slimmer waist, independently of both sexes’ ages. Possible reasons for the waist effects were discussed, including women’s abdominal body fat decreasing their own desire through neurohormonal mechanisms and decreasing their partner’s desire through evolutionarily-related decreased sexual attractiveness.

I think the abstract speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of the short bussers: The men in the study got harder, stronger, bigger boners with the physically better-looking women. The men also had more frequent sex when they were having it with younger, hotter, tighter women. And finally, the men reported more sexual satisfaction when their sexual partners were hotter, thinner women with sexy hourglass shapes.

Young, slender, hot babes are nature’s Viagra, capable of inflating even an old man’s wrinkled wurst to heights of former glory.

I mean, does it get any more devastating than this for the lying liars who freebase pretty lies? The boner doesn’t lie. The boner cannot be fooled. The boner will not suffer sophists gladly. The boner is the irrefutable, unavoidable, irreconcilable, incontestable, ecumenical truth that jabs insouciantly into the clouded eyes of the pitiable self-deceivers. It is the warrior’s pole that rises over the horizon holding aloft the banner of savage, steel-forged reality.

The sheer volume of scientific studies confirming or otherwise presenting substantial evidence for Chateau Heartiste tenets and assertions about female sexual nature, game, and the functioning of the modern dating market is what could be called an “embarrassment of riches”. But I carry my burden with stoic resolve, to preen another day.

Posted in Science Validates Game, The Pleasure Principle, Ugly Truths | 228 Comments »

What Kind Of Woman Cuckolds A Man?

Jan 10th, 2013 by

Following hot on the crooked heels of yesterday’s BOTM nomination, a new study is out which gives support to the conventional wisdom that skanks, fugs and other assorted low value women are the ones most likely to employ the cuckold strategy (or, looking at it from a different angle, the ones least likely to be concerned with the consequences of impulsively cuckolding their boyfriends or husbands).

Menstrual Cycle Changes in Mate Preferences for Cues Associated with Genetic Quality: The Moderating Role of Mate Value

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of mate value and fertility status on women’s implicit and explicit preferences for male traits associated with genetic quality. It was hypothesized that a woman low in mate value would experience greater fluctuation across her menstrual cycle in her preferences for characteristics associated with genetic quality than a woman high in mate value. Specifically, a low mate value woman during the non-fertile part of the cycle would experience a reduction in a desire for traits associated with health and reproductive success. To test the hypothesis, the college age female participants completed two measures of mate value and a self-report measure designed to gauge fertility status. Then the participants performed an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) designed to measure implicit associations with a male trait related to genetic quality and a questionnaire designed to measure their explicit responses to the same trait. As predicted, mate value moderated the relationship between fertility status and implicit preferences. […]

Inherent in Gangestad and his colleague’s reasoning about cyclic changes in [female] mate preferences is the proposition that the mixed mating [cuckold] strategy would be most adaptive for women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources. Women who can attract both high genetic quality and resource rich males for long-term relationship have less need to acquire high quality genetic material through short-term mating. For this type of woman, the costs incurred from infidelity are less likely to outweigh the genetic benefits. An individual difference that is likely to play a pivotal role in woman’s ability to attract high quality mates is mate value (Fisher, Cox, Bennett, and Garvik, 2008). Although there are a variety of different definitions of mate value, most conceptualizations suggest that mate value is determined by observable characteristics that indicate the persons quality as a sexual partner (Kirsner, Figueredo, and Jacobs, 2003) and ability to increase the reproductive success of mates (Sugiyama, 2005; Waynforth, 2001). Not surprisingly, research has already demonstrated that a woman’s mate value influences many male behaviors and emotions, e.g., mate retention behaviors (Jones, Figueredo, Dickey, and Jacobs, 2007; Miner, Starratt, and Shackelford, 2009) and jealousy (Phillips, 2010). Further, numerous studies have found a woman’s perceived attractiveness influences her mate preferences (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2012; Little and Mannion, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Vokovic et al., 2008).

It seems very probable that women who are low in mate value will have more difficulty in attracting long-term mates that possess both genetic quality and resources than women high in mate value. Hence, for low mate value females it may be adaptive to pursue a mixed strategy forming long-term relationships with lower genetic quality males and pursuing high genetic quality males for extra pair couplings. For these women, this is the best way to obtain the benefits of a long-term relationship and obtain high quality genetic material.

This is yet another study which validates scores of maxims propounded over the years by the Chateau for your reading pleasure. It’s almost as if being a layman simply observing how the world works with open eyes is as precise a method for discovering universal and lasting truths as being a credentialed scientist with a lab full of hardware drily measuring every jot and tittle of human interaction!

The study is very interesting in the details, both for what it reveals and for the inherent limitations it must work around, and I suggest you read all of it. Using a combination of explicit self-reporting and implicit association measures of attractiveness of stimuli (how desirable the men were to the women) and self-attractiveness (how desirable the women consciously and subconsciously thought themselves), the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that low mate value women — ugly, fat, crass, skanky hobags, or 3/4ths of American womanhood, in other words — are more likely to feel a desire to cheat on their beta male partners during their window of ovulation to acquire higher value male seed on the sly. Higher quality women — the cute babes PUAs target — are less likely to cheat or to feel a desire to cheat on their partners because they are the kinds of women who get what they want in a man, and are therefore more fulfilled with their romantic relationships.

(If you’re the type of person who enjoys aesthetic ornamentation on your dose of ugly truths, it helps to read this stuff while imagining a bulbous, half cyborg Cacodemon God of Biomechanics enthroned in the void firmament belching lube and smoke from his clanking flesh gears, cruelly laughing from his cosmic perch at his insignificant experimental human subjects toiling on earth below.)

As mentioned above, the study had to deal with some limitations present in the subject matter; specifically, the reliability of (explicit) self-reporting for measuring self-attractiveness, and the general reliability of implicit association tests. (Note that implicit association tests have been used to claim that white people are innately racist, conveniently forgetting the social context within which whites form their implicit associations, and the mitigating variables which influence them.)

On the first limitation, although women may be prone to overestimate their own attractiveness, it seems safe to conclude that such overestimation, because it presumably occurs in all test subjects, would still provide useful information on the relative rankings of all the women in the study. But that is of course open to debate. For instance, hotter women may be less apt to over-rate their looks, and may even downgrade them a bit to make uglier women feel better about themselves. (There are those people, too, who would assert that female beauty is subjective and thus unable to be accurately assessed, by either an observer or the subject. But those people are stupid.)

On the second limitation, although Implicit Association Tests are regarded as being less susceptible to “social desirability distortion” (i.e., peer pressure and social expectation to answer correctly), a problem arises that implicit feelings can vary based on hormonally-influenced or otherwise-influenced fluctuations in self-perception. Nonetheless, implicit association appears to be more trustworthy than explicit self-reporting, at least as regards the measuring of sexual desirability and sexual preference. As stated in the paper:

Contrary to the expectations, the study did not find the moderating effect of mate value when explicit responses were measured. Both high and low mate-value women expressed an explicit preference for muscular arms.

Why did mate value act as a moderator with implicit preferences but not with explicit preferences? One possibility is that the processes involved were operating without conscious awareness, limiting the participants’ ability to explicitly state preferences. Remember that an explicit preference is a positive or negative evaluation that is retrievable from memory and directs behavior. Whereas an implicit attitude is the product of positive or negative associations with an object (muscles) that can no longer actively be retrieved from memory. This explanation is consistent with the notion that many evolved processes operate passively without deliberate thought (Cosmides and Tooby, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 1989). Yet it is puzzling why participants would be able to explicitly state preferences influenced by the menstrual cycle but not by mate value. Another possibility for the divergence between implicit and explicit responses is that the participants’ were giving socially desirable explicit responses. The women may have believed that expressing positive attitudes towards the muscles was the expected or correct response, i.e., normal women should like muscles. Consequently, both the low and high mate value women gave positive explicit ratings of the muscular arms. On the other hand, the Implicit Association Test used to measure the women’s implicit preferences was able to detect the moderating role of mate value because the Implicit Association Test is less susceptible to this type of social desirability distortion (see Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Snowden, and Gray [2010] and Steffens [2004] for a discussion of Implicit Association Test’s resistance to response distortion).

Chateau Heartiste has been at the forefront inculcating the masses with some very valuable knowledge, primary among the oeuvre that men should never listen to what women say; instead they should watch what women do in order to learn what women really want in men. And this study, with its findings that there exists a discrepancy between what women explicitly self-report and what they implicitly feel, is another vindication of that hallowed CH principle. Recall that a woman’s brain has no fucking clue what her vagina is up to. Or, more precisely, women’s frontal lobes are not consciously aware of what their vaginas are feeling. For that, you must peer into their ids.

The sexual market works this way: on a subconscious level. In fact, it MUST work this way. It must, because it is the medium for the barter and trade of genetic material, the tiny, invisible Chief of Operations which is the ultimate beneficiary of all human motivation and goal-directed behavior. Dispiriting, sadistic, conscious awareness of the workings of the sexual market adds a level of unnecessary complexity that would not have been favored by natural or sexual selection.

So now you know… the rest of the story.

Moral of the study: Don’t marry a low value woman!

Better yet, don’t even bang a low value woman. If she gets pregnant and is unable to dupe her beta provider to stay with her and raise your illegitimate hellion, she may hit you with a paternity claim. But why would you bang low value women in the first place? If you’re that desperate or lacking in taste, porn is a more satisfying pressure release valve.

PS The study results show that high value women — aka hotter women — are not as subconsciously attracted as uglier women are, during the ovulation stage of their cycles, to bigger muscles in men. So if you are a womanizer who prefers the company of truly exquisite ladies, you don’t have to swole out to achieve your dreams. But if you like your broads a little slutty and road-worn, hit the gym hard. Probably explains why I see so many meatheads dating harsh-looking gym rats on the fast track to cougarville.

PPS This doesn’t mean muscularity, all else equal, won’t help you with the ladies. It just means that it’s one input among many which trigger female attraction modules, and it’s not as vital an input for attracting better looking, more feminine women as it is for banging out the substandard whores of pathetic cuckolds on the make for a fly-by-night injection of cad cream. Personally, I love the post-lift feeling I get, so I take some pleasure in knowing that I can exploit the flirty attentions of skanks to inspire jealousy, and improved sexual performance, in my sweeter lovers.

PPPS One other thing I would point out is that low mate value and IQ likely correlate. A beautiful woman is likelier to be smarter, and hence more conscientious and less impulsive (all these positive, K-selected personality traits correlate with IQ) than an ugly woman. So perhaps another unidentified operational factor that this study has uncovered is the notion that smarter girls grasp the negative consequences of cuckoldry better than do dumber girls, and are therefore better at resisting their temptations.

PPPPS You might also title this study “Ugly Chicks Must Settle for Beta Males, and That Makes Them Sad and Unfaithful”. Isn’t love grand!

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 259 Comments »

The Funniest Graph You’ll See Today

Jan 9th, 2013 by

MIght be a conservative estimate

And a more truthful graph than the one you’ll find here.

A rascally reader adds: “They forgot to color a single arm for cute.”

ps Hi Jizzeblobs!

pps Attribution of this graph uncertain, but I think it comes from A Voice for Men.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Funny/Lolblogs | 25 Comments »

Beta Of The Month: When You Can’t Hide It

Jan 9th, 2013 by

You’ve got to have a strong stomach to make it through this edition of BOTM. This segment will hit a lot of buttons, as well it should. In a Slate “Dear Prudence” mailbag, a woman writes for advice from Prudie (Emily Yoffe) on how to break the news of her cheating whoreishness to her kids and neighbors.

Q. Where Do I Tell My Son His Sister Came From?: A few years ago I cheated on my husband, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. Because my husband and I had a 2-year-old son together we decided that we could keep our marriage together for his sake. The thing that really complicates things is that my husband, son, and I are white, while my lover was black, and so my daughter is mixed race. Naturally my son has begun questioning why his sister looks so different from the rest of us, and my mother-in-law took it upon herself to tell him she was adopted. I’m at a loss for what to do. For now my husband has told MIL that the topic is verboten, but we haven’t decided if we should correct her error. Until now I’ve been happy to just let people assume what they want about where my children’s origins are, but now that a story is getting around, I’m not sure what to say or how to handle it.

We’re a long ways from Normal Rockwell’s America.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the husband surrendered to his wife’s crazy-eyed demands shrunk from risking the certainty of a divorce industrial complex ass-ramming politely discussed and agreed with his wife to keep the marriage going “for the sake of the children”.

Gotta love those children — the perfect leverage for whores and the state to use against wronged men.

Femcunt: “How can you POSSIBLY think of leaving your wife and hurting your children just because she had an unfortunate and fleeting five-year dalliance with an underprivileged but incredibly confident and masculine black man who also happens to be a doctor?”

Beta Herb: “But, I thought single moms are a light unto the world, and their children are successful in every way?”

Femcunt: “Oh, that’s rich. Using white male logic on me. Check your privilege, herbling!”

Beta Herb: “I’m so sorry. Please don’t yell at me. I’m a nice guy.”

Femcunt: “Nice guys are really jerks! You would know that if you weren’t such a jerk.”

Beta Herb: “Should I just off myself?”

Femcunt: “There’s an idea.”

Please, did you expect a feminist to comprehend dual mate strategy? Or to dabble in rationality?

Is this hubby a beta for staying with his wife when it’s so obvious to anyone with eyes that the mocha child in tow is living proof the whore wife cuckolded him in the arms of a five-point buck? Yes, he is. There’s simply no way a man can retain the heft of his balls — whatever he’s carrying — or any shred of honor, sticking by the side of an unfaithful wife who so ostentatiously gelded him, a mixed-race living reminder of his emasculation total yapping at his heels. There are just some indignities a man should not ever tolerate, especially when alternatives exist, such as beating a middle-of-the-night escape to another country to avoid punitive extractive alimony and child-support payments.

But the ideal course of action for the grievously insulted beta provider hubby presumes a somewhat sane world envelops him, and will consider his case fairly. Unfortunately, thanks to the relentless moronic march of feminists and equalist filth, and their lethal infection of the media/entertainment/academia/bureacracy complexes which constitute the juggernaut known as the Western Cathedral, we are far from living in a sane world. Instead of receiving recompense from his ex-wife for cuckolding him, and full custody of his one biological child, plus the sympathy and support of his community and the state, he would likely receive for his trouble of separating himself from the bitch who metaphorically shit in his face an extorted, back-breaking retirement plan paid in full to her, plus two days per month visitation rights. And prison rape for any failure to comply with his dispossession.

Given this morbid reality, how fitting is it for us to label such a man a hopeless beta? Isn’t he just as much a victim of his circumstance and the world which is cruelly indifferent to him as he is of his own weak character? I’m loathe to come down too hard on this guy, who probably decided it was better to minimize the fallout from a really shitty situation than to seek the justice that was rightfully his from the insult of his wife’s awesome betrayal.

However, in the final analysis, he earns his BOTM nomination. The reason why is found in the wife’s decision to keep the bastard. She would not have entertained keeping the mixed-race issue if she had a modicum of respect for her husband. Instead, it is likely he is a beta male in his heart whom she despised, and that made the decision easy for her. What use is appeasing a husband you hardly respect, let alone desire or admire? Why care for the soul-ripping consequences your detestable actions will have on a husband who no longer, if he ever did, inspires your adherence to a moral calculus via the encouragement of wonderful twat tingles? She wanted this kid born, wanted this gaudy tri-hued mockery of her marriage to shoot out of her festering womb, because it was the kid of another man. A better man.

The hubby chump doesn’t even have the luxury of hiding his shame behind ego sparing lies. A white kid could plausibly be passed off as his. But a pint-sized frappuccino is a glossy mag ad situating his disgrace front and center for the entertainment of the studio audience of his life.

And every day, every goddamned minute of every day, this pitiful lackey, chained by law and habit and feebleness to the golem of his wife’s black soul, will suffer his humiliation anew. There will be no escape from the breaking wheel that cracks the bones and tears the sinew of his self-worth. No refuge from the material proof of his wife’s love for another man. No competing nightmare visceral enough to block out the constantly birthing image of his wife’s cunt stretching and ululating for another man’s dick, and her womb happily germinating the prize of another man’s seed. A prize made all the more demeaning by the context of the times, where an abortion clinic to solve untidy problems like this one exist on every street corner, and condoms are handed out like candy. This woman made her choice WHEN SO MANY OTHER CHOICES WERE READILY AVAILABLE that would have partly bandaged the immortal wound she knifed into her husband’s pride.

His world is the world of slaves. A spiked heel kicking in his nuts, forever.

What can be salvaged from this woeful cataclysm? Oh yes, there is something.

A word about the children. Sometimes, the children must suffer to right a horrible wrong. To rectify an impossible evil. And the world must make it known who, in actuality, is the cause of their suffering. Every day, the children must know it was Mommy, not Daddy, who royally fucked their lives.

For shits and giggles, I’ll post Emily Yoffe’s reply:

A: Despite continuing weekly evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that the vast majority of men who think they are the biological fathers of their children really did provide the sperm. If you get impregnated by a lover of another race, what you say to your children about this is something that needed to be discussed openly with your husband, preferably before the baby was born. Making the utterly obvious verboten is not a good strategy for anyone. I think what you need for your immediate family is a dose of the truth. But, for your children, it needs to be age appropriate. Since your daughter was born a few years ago, your son is old enough to know the basics of reproduction. He needs to be told that his sister has the same mother, but a different biological father. However, what’s really important is that both he and his sister are being raised by the same daddy. You can tell him families are made all sorts of ways, and yours is just a little bit special. If your son—and eventually your daughter—want to know why this is the case, it’s fair to tell them that it’s a complicated story, and they will probably understand it more when they’re older. Say they can talk about this subject any time, but if they can wait, you and their dad can fill in more details as they grow up. For outsiders, you don’t need to explain anything. You can just say you are blessed with two beautiful children. And your husband needs to tell his mother to stop telling the kids something that’s simply wrong.

She evinces a glimmer of sympathy for the husband, but of course her advice, such as it is, amounts to the usual pro forma feminist crap: suck it up, herbische kopf, for the good of the children.

(The only person who comes out seeming halfway decent is the mother-in-law — the husband’s mother — who wants to protect her son from shame by passing off his daughter as an adoptee. Can you blame her for this honorable lie? She acted with good intentions, even if her solution is unworkable in the long run.)

My advice to him would be: get the hell out of Dodge. And don’t look back, and never let her get her paws on one red cent of your bounty or one precious second of your time. Find yourself a better woman in another country. My alternate advice, if American law weren’t so egregiously stacked against men’s interests, would be to march into court, DNA paternity test results in hand, and punish her with the same everlasting torment she has bestowed him. Grab custody of the one kid that is yours, and send the ex-wife and her love child packing for the icy wastelands, where aging single moms with complicated spawnage have about as much success in the dating market as obese, neckbearded furries. If she winds up killing herself, or her kid graduates to juvie as a glue sniffer, all the better.

Too much? No. Cuckoldry — knowing cuckoldry, at that — is the greatest betrayal. The most horrible metadeath. It is the gleeful sham of a scheming Satan. The cosmic shiv driven deep into the chewy center of the soul. The ur-lie. The King Of All Lies. The one lie to rule them all.

There is only one other lie that comes close to the terrible power of the cuckold’s deception, and that is the fraternal betrayal of a solider against his buddy in the trenches. But that awful betrayal, bad as it is, at least does not rub salt in the wound for eighteen excruciating years.

Posted in Beta Of The Year Contest, Marriage Is For Chumps, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 630 Comments »

Declining Intimacy Vs Declining Attraction

Jan 8th, 2013 by

An anonymous reader asks:

Le Cheatau in an LTR, what are the signs of a lack of rapport vs a lack of attraction?

Declining rapport can occur while the attraction remains strong, but declining attraction rarely occurs while rapport remains strong. To put it another way, within the context of a relationship, and particularly from the woman’s vantage point, rapport cannot exist without attraction, but attraction can exist without rapport.

(Note that declining rapport can be a function of either the man’s or the woman’s withdrawal, and that the originator matters for the course of action necessary to remedy it.)

When a woman is VERY attracted to her boyfriend, it will seem to her as if there is never enough rapport between them. If rapport DOES start to decline, she will paradoxically feel MORE attracted to him. This is her biology’s way of channeling her emotions toward the pursuit of bringing him “back into the fold”. (Double entendre intended.)

If a woman is losing attraction for her boyfriend (these things happen all the time), she will also lose her desire to maintain rapport with him. When a woman has stopped making efforts at rapport, there is nothing a man can do to reinitiate rapport except through reestablishing his attractiveness to her. The attraction MUST PRECEDE the rapport. Any supplicating efforts to “force rapport” will only result in her losing more attraction for him, and the cycle becomes a negative feedback loop ending in house celibacy (for him, only).

Men think intimacy means physical closeness garnished with pillow talk, but women have a different frame of reference. Intimacy to women means pillow talk garnished with physical closeness. (A general rule that breaks down at the margins, or during the ovulatory window in a woman’s monthly fertility cycle.) Rapport is intimacy in woman-world, so when rapport declines (as measured by frequency, intensity, or both) women start to fret about the stability of their relationships. Men don’t notice as much when rapport declines, as long as the sex is still on tap; to men, less chit chat in the bedroom is a sign of progress. But the reality is that less chit chat usually follows less sex, as most women are incapable of experiencing a closing off of the one without a closing off of the other.

The take-home message for men is that a woman’s declining attraction is more crucial to guard against than is her declining rapport. Low levels of rapport can be quickly mitigated. Just talk to her more, and show a soft side. But lowered levels of attraction cannot be fixed by more rapport, a “solution” so reflexively beloved by cloying betabots that will only make the problem worse. For that, you need to amp the alpha, and re-certify your worth as a challenging man with options.

From an aerial perspective, female lack of rapport is synonymous with female lack of attraction. So when you, as a man, are looking for signs of declining rapport in your girlfriend, you are essentially looking also for signs of declining attraction. But the two deleterious female LTR states have some differences worth highlighting. This is especially true in relationships where the woman reluctantly feels a growing realization that her boyfriend, whom she nevertheless loves very much, will not be there for her over the long term, and doesn’t share her goals.

The signs you should watch for include:

Lack of Rapport

She’s stopped asking you questions. (Women in love question everything, all the time. They are never fully reassured, and their hamsters like it that way.)

She still fucks you, but doesn’t want to cuddle afterwards.

She’s stopped sharing details of her day.

She tentatively broaches topics, as if she’s afraid you won’t reciprocate and she has to test the waters first.

She’s stopped nagging you entirely, or she’s begun nagging you way too much. (There is a minimal amount of nagging in a healthy LTR. Too little, she’s lost interest in fixing your idiosyncrasies; too much, she’s lost the ability or will to connect with you emotionally and behave like a girl who values your desires as a man.)

She’s dropped you as a sounding board in favor of her male eunuch orbiters, female friends, and best gay boyfriends.

She’s stopped discussing future plans with you, preferring instead to chat about trivialities and laugh away her unease.

She perfunctorily agrees with everything you declare because she’s no longer motivated to “hash it out” or “understand each other”.

In contrast to the above, everything she declares seems crafted to be maximally antagonistic to your beliefs and values.

She punctuates every other conversation with a variant of these: “We just don’t see eye to eye anymore” and “You don’t get me like you used to”.

You decide to talk about your relationship, and she eagerly extends it to a five hour marathon discussion.

She is unusually silent during long moments of physical closeness.

She cries a lot for no particular reason.

Lack of Attraction

She’s stopped having sex with you. (A woman can feel an erosion of attraction before she stops fucking you, but the time between her heart shutting down and her vagina shutting down is typically very short.)

She’s begun flirting more with waiters, bartenders and guy friends when you go out together.

She negs you, except that her negs are more backhanded than complimentary, and not meant to put you in the mood.

She scoffs at your idle musings.

She’ll take any excuse to denigrate you.

She looks bored. Especially when you talk.

She winces when you touch her.

She no longer initiates any physical contact. You must do all the work, and it feels like more work than ever.

She’s begun showering her cat with an excessive amount of sloppy affection, while you sit on the sofa wondering if you need to purr and poop in a box to get her to love you like that.

Remember when she used to punch you affectionately? Now she punches you for real.

You try to talk about your relationship, and she hastily changes the subject.

You buy her a gift. She looks at you with pity in her eyes.

She found your browser porn history. She doesn’t care.

You start to feel like the woman in the relationship. Even worse: she’s started to feel like the man.

*****

As you can see, there’s a lot of overlap and similarity between a woman’s declining rapport and her declining attraction. The most obvious distinction is the providing or withholding of sex by her. So, really, if you want a shortcut for determining the health of your LTR, just pay attention to how often and how vigorously she puts out. You won’t be led astray feeling for the tingle of the Telltale Twat.

Posted in Relationships | 116 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion