Feed on
Posts
Comments

The dude who runs the Evo and Proud blog has an interesting post about earlier male maturation rates indicating that females may be favoring cads over dads as mates.

There is thus plenty of genetic variation for selection to act on. No need to wait for new mutations. But why would there be natural selection for earlier male puberty?

One reason is that early puberty is genetically linked to other sexual characteristics. In particular, a class of X-linked androgen receptor alleles is linked in males to aggression, impulsivity, sexual compulsivity, and lifetime number of sex partners and in females to paternal divorce, father absence, and early menarche (Comings et al., 2002). It is likely that these alleles also influence male pubertal timing, but research on this point is lacking—apparently because it is difficult to find a marker for pubertal maturation among boys that is as salient as age at menarche among girls (Ge et al., 2007). Early male puberty thus seems to be part of a “package,” or more precisely a reproductive strategy, that affects the way men go about finding a mate. Natural selection may favor one strategy or another, depending on the current cultural environment.

Is natural selection now favoring the “cads” over the “dads”? That might be what’s happening. As sexual relationships become less stable and shorter-term, women will ignore men who are oriented towards stable, long-term relationships.

I am on record as hypothesizing that two major sexual market shifts are pushing boys to earlier puberty: 1. Diversity and 2. Unrestrained female hypergamy.

Diversity of different groups of boys who mature at different rates would tend to favor the selection of boys with alleles for earlier maturity rates, given a sexual market that benefits sexually aggressive cads. Or, late-maturing k-selected boys will conform to the norm for r-selected early-maturing boys instead of the other way around, given a lack of cultural or circumstantial constraints on female sexual choice.

Female hypergamy — women’s desire to mate with the highest status men they can get, given what their looks and willingness to put out can afford them — is the complementary force that pushes evolution to select for earlier maturing, and thus more caddish, boys.

If earlier puberty among boys is real, no matter the cause, and is indicative of women favoring cads over dad, then core philosophical underpinnings and cultural analysis of the dating market found at Le Chateau Heartiste are validated in some measure.

You’ll notice I titled this post “Are the cads outbanging the dads?” That was deliberate, because there remain questions about whether cads are actually breeding more or less than dads. Outbanging is different than outbreeding. A woman could casually ignore potential beta dads throughout her teens and 20s (her prime years) for a sterile ride on the cock carousel with alpha males, only to settle down later with a beta male and bear him 1.8 children. Cheap and easy contraceptives thwart the natural procreation advantage that alpha males would normally have over beta males in the state of nature, so it is very possible that alpha males could be winning the Banging Sweepstakes while losing the Breeding Sweepstakes.

Evidence that cad outbanging and supercharged female hypergamy is occurring resides in the later age of first marriage rates, and the lower overall marriage rate, as well as the higher STD rates among women.

And there is evidence for cad outbreeding as well. Serial monogamy — which is a form of soft polygyny — is on the rise, and men who have had more than one partner have more children than men married to one woman.

On the other side of the debate are the GSS (General Social Survey) gurus who marshal self-reported evidence that dads are winning the breeding wars over cads.

I remain skeptical of the GSS data, but give it its due. My contention has never been that cads are having more children, but rather that cads are having more premarital sex than dads with higher quality (read: better looking) women when those women are in their sexual primes. This, not the discrepancy in fertility rates between alpha and beta males, is the contraceptively-aided shock wave that is roiling the sexual market and upending organic rules thousands, perhaps millions, of years old.

A society of both cad ascendence and civilization is unsustainable and incompatible. One or the other will go, and the pendulum with either swing back to dads or civilization will regress to accommodate the rise of women choosing cads. All social and economic indicators (particularly the debt overhang), and my personal experience in the bowels of the dating market, lead me to be pessimistic about a happy resolution to this building tension. Hopefully, I’m wrong, but in the meantime I’ll do what is necessary to secure my pleasure.

Beta males who get stuck in the friend zone (“LJBFed”) with women are rightly mocked for their self-defeating clinginess and the burden of their blue balls. But the strategy — if it can be called that — to befriend girls that one would like to fuck must have some utility for some men some of the time, or it wouldn’t exist in the state of nature. And, if one observes women through the years, there are those beta male orbiters who do manage, through sheer force of persistence or ungodly patience for a stroke of luck to come their way, a tender five seconds of intimacy with their female friends which the girls immediately regret afterward.

So you might say the undercover beta male orbiter strategy is extremely long-term, with no guarantee of sexual closure. It’s a painfully slow and laborious process for extracting sexual favors from girls, so why then do some egregiously betas do it? Well, because for these kinds of weak men the pain of the subversive orbiter strategy is less painful than the pain of outright rejection from busting a move that would destroy all their hopes and the delicious uncertainty that acts as mental lube for their masturbatory daydreaming.

However, if approaching and hitting on girls with sexual intention is simply out of your realm of possibility, then there are ways to conduct your undercover orbiter strategy that will maximize your odds of a bang with the torment of your dreams. I lay them out here.

– Always talk about the girls you are dating, fucking, or seeking same from to your girl “friend”. Do so in a way that does not seem try-hard; that is, offer it up like an afterthought to some other topic that triggers the segue.

– Limit your friendzone time to drinking, shows, art exhibits, and house parties. Try to avoid shopping or other quintessentially girlie or best gay boyfriend activities. The object is to do friendly things with her that mimic real dates, while avoiding doing those things with her that strengthen her impression of you as “one of the girls” (who happens to have a penis, if the rumors are true).

– Immediately and without qualification change the subject when your girl “friend” begins talking about a guy she likes, or the dudes she’s fucking or wants to fuck. Once you go down that road, there’s no turning back from eternal LJBF hell. She will never see you as a sexual creature if you are willing to listen to her sob stories about other men plowing her clean.

– Don’t make a production of her wistful musings about other guys, though. Don’t change the subject by exclaiming your refusal to listen to her dating life; doing that opens her to suspicions that you really like her, and if your Undercover Orbiter strategy is to work, you can’t put yourself in a position of needy weakness. Better to change subjects by simply changing them, as if you didn’t even hear her comment about the serial killer she really wants to boff who offed her twin sister.

– You’re going to want to invoke feelings of latent jealousy as much as possible. A girl “friend” that you are orbiting may not consciously perceive you as a potential lover, but when she sees you holding court with other girls, or flirting with one of her friends, her instincts will kick in and she won’t be able to control a growing desire for your preselected malehood.

– Use her as a target for practicing your teasing skills. A platonic girl friend (but you know better, don’t you, tiger) presents an excellent opportunity for honing your cocky teasing skills. And a welcome bonus is that she may start to want you after all your gentle insulting.

– Once in a while, she’s going to unload that “I fucked a hot dude last night” conversation bomb. Do not react negatively, even though you will feel intense burning jealousy mixed with disgust. In fact, do not react at all. Raise an eyebrow, and say something along the lines of, “Tell me more when the wedding date is set.” The idea is to ridicule her idea of a fulfilling dating life. More good replies: “Your parents would be proud”, “Hey, congratulations, you magnificent slut!” (say this with a shit-eating grin), “This is news?”

– Your one advantage, if you can call it that, is that you are the guy who is “there for her” when times are tough and she needs a shoulder to cry on. Occasionally, like when Jupiter aligns with Uranus and her oxytocin levels are off the charts, a girl will feel strong intimate feelings for the emotionally available and sensitive beta male. That’s when you leap in. You’ve been laying the groundwork for months, perhaps years, and now it’s time to cash in your “terrific guy” chips for a shot at her weepy vulva. Bust your move by gently stroking the back of her hand for hours. Progress to giving her many more hours of cunnilingus when you’ve gotten an unambiguous green light for bedroom intimacy. (Your green light will need to be unambiguous, because pushing hard for sex over her coy protestations will strike her as terribly incongruent with your personality, and she will recoil.) Finally, be prepared for waves of regret to wrack her mind in the morning, or even as soon as when the tip of your penis grazes her labia. Allow that she will need this time to regret her actions, and take the necessary precautions to avoid a feminism-inspired legal imbroglio by wiring your place with audio and video recorders the day before she arrives. You can never be too safe.

– Finally, preemptively dump her after the first time you bang her. Yes, that’s right, unceremoniously dump the girl of your dreams, your White Womb. As her confirmed beta orbiter, there is little chance she will want more sex with you after her moment of weakness (that’s what she will think it is), let alone a relationship, if you do not take steps to push her in that direction. And pushing her in that direction means pushing her away from you. There’s nothing more infuriating, and hence, more alluring, to a woman than a man who has inexplicably made himself less available to her after sex. Especially when that man has spent so much time prior being the guy she could count on. This is script-flipping on steroids. You must make her stop seeing you as her reliable, sensitive, asexual friend, and that means you need to start becoming less reliable, less sensitive, and more sexual. A preemptive dumping is just the strong medicine a girl “friend” needs to being the healing of her “regretiness”. Don’t do it the very next morning, but don’t wait too long either. You have to get the jump on her before she hits you with the “I don’t want to ruin our friendship” sermon. Timing is critical. You want to be the bearer of that message before she is.

– If you are slow to act, and she manages to “dump” you first, you have a counter maneuver. Agree with her. “Yes, this was a mistake. We need to stop so we can remain friends.” (Never mind the bizarre logic of this statement; with women, emotions are what matter.) Then, in the days immediately following, see her once, and then cut off all contact for a few weeks (or months, as the circumstances require). Cutting off contact means taking a full day or two to reply to her texts or vmails or IMs, and not making a big deal about it when she inquires why you are being distant. Act as if she is the one imagining things are wrong between you two.

– This is hamster manipulation of the highest order. You are the one instigating the Distancing Protocol, while blaming her for perceiving something that’s “all in her head”. This contradictory tactic spares you from leaving an impression of butthurtness, and keeps her in a constant state of self-doubt. From such fertile psychological ground sprouts the chaser-chasee inversion algorithm, a seduction ploy that is the special sauce which underlies every womanizer’s exotic power over their prey.

Sometimes, in moments of deep reflection, I wonder… just what delusional depths can the typical American woman plumb? I thought I’ve seen it all… attack lawyers bitching off the shoulder of sensitive niceguys… I watched cockblocks glower in the bar near the target babe. All those delusions will be spun in time, like hamsters on wheels. Time to self-deceive.

But now I see there is more out there. A bigger, better, faster hamster. A rodent so enormous on a wheel spinning so violently it creates its own black hole of irrationality, sucking in logic, reason and common sense to an event horizon doom.

Behold: The Hamster of Hamsters. The Mother of All Rodents. The MOAR you know… the more you despair that America is in the grips of a virulent, and wholly undeserved, narcissism determined to sink the nation ship with the utmost alacrity.

The beast hungers:

In that sense, vanity is yet another stick with which people are beaten — because women are told, constantly and without any real deviation from the message, that they have to look a certain way to be worthwhile, to be of value. To be REAL, in some sense.

This is, of course, utter bullshit. Because any woman who identifies as a woman is a real woman. There’s a lot of different ways that can look and they are all valid.

“Because any woman who identifies as a woman is a real woman.” Is this the ur-tautology? Or just the usual gibberish from the usual losers unable to cope with the revelations from clear thinking?

Leaving aside for the moment any presumption this particular breed of hamster vessel knows what she means by the word “valid”, it is absolute falsehood that all women have value no matter what they look like. A morbidly obese land whale has almost zero romantic value to nearly all men. A woman who is so disgustingly fat she ceases to retain even the merest shimmer of womanly shape is a female of very low physical value.

Her post seems melancholy to me in some ways, caught and struggling in the web of the social expectations that are thrust upon women.

Expectations exist because we are biological machines with biologically-based desires that react to specific body types. When those body types deviate from the desirous norm, we recoil as if we have seen a monstrous creature of the nightmare world.

if you are fat and you accept your body as it is, you are often bombarded with “Your fat!” (they never get the “you’re” right)  [ed: female humor] in email and comments and sometimes in person, as though you need the reminder because you’ve risen above your station.

If you accept your fatness, then you wouldn’t be bothered by people calling you fat. Is Donald Trump bothered when people say to him “You’re rich!”?

One of the best things I ever did for myself was to consciously make an effort not to judge people’s bodies.

Here comes the patented feminist self-contradiction within two sentences…

I do not care if your hipbones stick out.

But you noticed, didn’t you, Judgy McJudgemytwoextrabeefpattiesonasesameseedbunfueledwideloadass? The “hipbones stick out” descriptive excess is classic fatgirl speak for healthy weight, slender women, hidden under an obfuscating layer of plausible deniability that she “does not care” about those skinny girls and their jutting hipbones. Fat shits just love their propaganda that the world is about to be overrun with thin women on the verge of mortal anorexia.

Your body is awesome.

Yes it is.

I do not care how many chins you are packing.

Men do. And that’s what matters.

Your body is awesome.

No it’s not.

So is mine.

I’ll be the judge of that.

Awesome, indeed. Awesomely rotund.

“So is mine.”

It’s like listening to a small child argue. The mind on display here is underdeveloped like a child’s, but at least children have the excuse that their brains are still a work in progress. This is an adult woman talking like this. Acting out like a petulant brat that reality is what she says it is, and so there!

“There’s no place like my body. There’s no place like my body. There’s no place like my body. Yay, I’m happy with myself again!”

If you wish for it hard enough… well, you’re still a fat crap.

My vanity — when I am not compromised by my own intrinsic self-doubt (two days before my period, like CLOCKWORK) — is of the traditional form. My vanity is in thinking that I am absolutely worth being looked at, absolutely worth being seen. Absolutely worth thinking of myself as talented.

Correction: You’re not worth being looked at, you’re not worth being seen, and goshdarnit, you’re absolutely not worth thinking of yourself as an alternative and equally worthy female form. And this fact will not change no matter how much you lie to yourself otherwise. It will never change until you change the fact itself, by losing weight and slimming down to a reasonable facsimile of a sexy woman. In your case, the fact itself looks to weigh about 100 unnecessary pounds.

Vanity is distasteful in people who at least can claim some justification for feeling vain; we may not like it but we understand. In contrast, vanity is farcical delusion in people who don’t possess a scintilla of real world evidence to justify their bloated self-regard. The vanity untethered from reality is a joke; it’s Generation Lookatme! on uppers, their heaving bulk held aloft by a helium-filled entitlement complex. The best thing for society would be to have these BubbleBoars disabused of their fanciful self-delusions. Of course, it might take more than a few stabs with the soulkilling shiv until they get the message. There’s a lot of ego blubber to cut through.

I wouldn’t call that inflated. I wouldn’t call that undue. I’d call that actually having a pretty good grasp on being confident that I am, in fact, a worthwhile human being.

A person’s actual worth is inversely proportional to the efforts she takes to convince herself of her worth.

Other than the death fatness and the blue hair, I’m actually pretty conventional in my appearance, according to the social beauty imperative: I am white, I have a clear complexion (mostly), I have thick curly hair on my head but little body hair. I have an hourglassy shape.

You’d have to be sober-ish to think she’s hourglassy. Hey, I thought all body types are worthwhile? She shouldn’t preen about her clear complexion and hourglassy shape. Is there something wrong with hirsute women?

I am still going to advocate for everyone being at least a little vain though. Because “pretty” should not be the sole criterion for “worth being seen.” Because “pretty” is actually kind of a bullshit narrow construct.

The hamster has gone suborbital.

In fact, when people who do not fit into the effing oppressive beauty standard that is going on in America are vain as hell, I love it.

“I am a beautiful, healthy woman. Fuck you, dad!”

I think it’s powerful and subversive and political and awesome.

No, it’s just retarded and transparent and silly and self-defeating.

Because fuck those folks who think you don’t deserve to be seen.

The problem is that there’s too much of you to see.

It’s worth clarifying as well — not only is no one required to participate in beauty culture,

No one is required to participate in breathing oxygen, either, but there are consequences if you choose non-participation.

you are still awesome and worth being seen [for the degenerate freak show you are] if you reject beauty culture entirely.

ftfy.

If vanity is about excessive pride in our appearance, well, let’s just say I’ll be damned before I look in a mirror and hate what I see just to avoid being vain.

Interesting reasoning. I didn’t know the opposite of vanity was self-hatred.

My only caveat regarding the awesomeness of vanity? Your intense and concentrated awesomeness does not mean other people are not also awesome.

I bet she doesn’t think Todd Akin is awesome.

Jane and the xoEditors actually have a whole new project in the works that will celebrate all things VAIN. It’s pretty hella exciting.

I used to think that setting these insipid behemoths straight would require nothing more than ignoring them. The sexual market is cruelly indifferent to one’s constructed vanity, and fat shits would find in short order how unloved they were by men with options. But now, I dunno… cold indifference doesn’t seem to be doing the trick. Pointing and ridiculing is the next step in the campaign against raging American female egotism, and if that doesn’t work, well, there’s always diabetes, chopped feet, and early death.

Why do I put crazed egomaniacs like this woman on the breaking wheel? What’s the point of being so mean to someone who is probably nice to puppies when she isn’t eating them? I do it to set an example for the others. To push back against evil ideologies that infect innocent minds. And make no mistake, this woman’s message is evil. If other women who had not yet ruined their bodies by blowing up to her repulsive dimensions took her words to heart, they might feel entitled to let themselves go, figuring that their body is beautiful no matter what it looks like, and shame on you for saying differently.

And then the world would be a little bit sadder, a lotta bit uglier, and a hella lot fatter. And that would be decidedly un-awesome.

A common anti-male prerogative hater tactic is to concern troll womanizers about their life trajectories. It usually takes this form:

“What are you going to do? Spend your best years banging one woman after another, and then wind up old and alone? Don’t you want healthy kids?”

Those players who want kids have nothing to worry about. Men produce viable seed well into their dotage, and can theoretically create a lasting legacy with one final, righteous spurt from their deathbeds that sends them to valhalla with a smile on their faces.

Women cannot do this. Once a woman’s eggs are gone, (late 30s to 40s for most women), she is out of the reproduction business altogether. For her, any more sex will strictly and necessarily be for pleasure and intimacy purposes. Or bribery to get her husband to fix the water heater.

But why take my word for it? The science is out and it shows that men benefit from older fatherhood in ways that women will never benefit from older motherhood.

1. A recent study has shown that men who exercise regularly improve the quality of their sperm, counteracting the effects of aging.

[A] new study shows exercise could make sperm quality better; improving a man’s reproductive health.

Diana Vaamonde, a researcher at the University of Cordoba and lead author of the study said in a press release, “We have analysed qualitative semen parameters like the ejaculated volume, sperm count, mobility and sperm morphology.”

For the study the men were also tested for hormone levels that included follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T/C ratio that the researchers explain provides a better picture of the environment needed for sperm creation, in addition to giving a picture of the general health of the 31 men included in the study.

The results showed men who exercise more had faster swimming sperm that was more perfectly formed, compared to their sedentary counterparts. Exercising appears to create a more favorable environment for sperm creation that comes from healthy hormone levels.

The good news is the researchers say it only takes moderate exercise to keep your sperm in good shape.

According to the CDC, it’s possible to change a man’s sperm with healthy lifestyle changes.

As far as we know, there is no amount of exercise in the world that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 1, older moms 0.

2. Another study find that older men who eat healthy have less age-related damage to their sperm.

As far as we know, there is no amount of healthy eating that will return a woman’s lost eggs to her womb.

Score: Older dads 2, older moms 0.

3. A study which acts like a shiv to the feminist careerist heart finds that the risk of autism goes up considerably more in the children of older mothers in all age ranges than it does in the children of older fathers.

The older a mother is when she gives birth, the higher her child’s risk of autism, new data show.

A smaller effect also is seen for the age of the father, but only when the child is born to a father over age 40 and a mother under age 30.

As far as we know, there is no amount of feminist delusion that will make an older woman’s eggs relatively as healthy as an older man’s sperm.

Score: Older dads 3, older moms 0.

4. Finally, a Stanford study finds that it is evolutionarily good when older men have kids with younger women. May-December romances weed out life-shortening mutations and promote health and longevity in the human population.

Old Men Chasing Young Women: A Good Thing

It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species, according to new findings by researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Evolutionary theory says that individuals should die of old age when their reproductive lives are complete, generally by age 55 in humans, according to demographer Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate in biological sciences at Stanford. But the fatherhood of a small number of older men is enough to postpone the date with death because natural selection fights life-shortening mutations until the species is finished reproducing.

“Rod Stewart and David Letterman having babies in their 50s and 60s provide no benefit for their personal survival, but the pattern [of reproducing at a later age] has an effect on the population as a whole,” Puleston said. “It’s advantageous to the species if these people stick around. By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes.” […]

In the paper, the researchers analyzed “a general two-sex model to show that selection favors survival for as long as men reproduce.” The scientists presented a “range of data showing that males much older than 50 years have substantial realized fertility through matings with younger females, a pattern that was likely typical among early humans.” As a result, Puleston said, older male fertility helps to select against damaging cell mutations in humans who have passed the age of female menopause, consequently eliminating the “wall of death.”

“Our analysis shows that old-age male fertility allows evolution to breach Hamilton’s wall of death and predicts a gradual rise in mortality after the age of female menopause without relying on ‘grandmother’ effects or economic optimality,” the researchers say in the paper.

So older fathers are gifting us all more years of life on this chortling roil. When you say your prayers this Sunday, be sure to include an hallelujah for dirty old men.

Score: Older dads 1 billion, older moms 50 cats.

I wonder if this means that aging cougars settling for younger, desperate beta males — as seems to be the trend lately in the West — is shortening the human lifespan? Cougars? Yuck. Dashing gentlemen? Yay!

I’m enjoying life right now sans sprog, but I anticipate that when I get older there is an outside chance I will feel a pull toward creating from my dark matter-infused slamseed a few heirs to suckle at my much younger lover’s milky white teats. While I have never been concerned with any possibility of setback in that hypothetical department, it’s nice to know the science affirms my life choices as not only practicable, but also moral.

Also, as an anecdote, I know a couple of older fathers — married to women ten years or more younger than themselves — whose sons are the most well-adjusted, confident, and happy boys I have ever had the pleasure to impart with my shadowy wisdom to meet. Sue me for extrapolating from personal observation, but it’s my impression that the most stable and loving families with the happiest and most grounded kids are those where dad is older than mom. Selection effect for older, high status alpha males by younger women? Perhaps. Or maybe older dads, wielding a history of knowledge and a wider perspective that younger dads don’t yet possess, simply bring more gravitas to family affairs, and therefore naturally and organically induce respect and admiration from their kids.

***

I expect this post to really chafe the hides of a few flabby-rumped cunts and their manboobed apologists. There will be much Q_Q and gnashing of labia. And it will be good.

One time, I recorded myself singing a song I wrote for a girl. I used a hand-held recorder, so the quality wasn’t good. You can hear a dog barking in the background and rain falling outside on the patio. We eventually broke up from intractable circumstances, but keep in friendly contact occasionally, and she tells me that to this day my recording is the only item of love she has from any man that she refuses to discard.

Cost of this gift to me: zero dollars.

Psychological value of this gift to both me and her: priceless.

Ability to leverage this gift against future girlfriends who know about it: infinity priceless.

The alpha male gifts that women love are never what Kay Jewelers, Zales or VisaMastercard tell you they are. The gifts women love the most are not those gifts that by virtue (or vice) of their cost demonstrate the extent of your beta provider resource pool. No, the gifts women love the most are those gifts that demonstrate the personality traits of the alpha male, a man with romance in his heart despite carrying the burden of multitudinous options with women in his groin.

Thought Experiment

There is a subgenre of anti-game, putatively trad-con haters who like to assert that having kids is the defining feature, and motivating impulse, of the alpha male. But try this thought experiment.

Imagine you have two choices to pass on your genes and create a lasting legacy. One involves repeated visits to a respected sperm bank to masturbate into a cup. The other involves repeated copulations with your wife and second wife (for the sake of simplicity) that result in both women getting knocked up multiple times over the course of many years. In the latter instance, you voluntarily have no further contact with your kids once they are born.

The two choices are guaranteed to fill the gene pool with five cherubic apples of your eye.

The choice which leaves you more satisfied, more personally fulfilled and brimming with positive feelings of high self-worth, is

a. creating a legacy through a sperm bank, or

b. creating a legacy through sex with your wives?

Remember, hypothetically both choices result in the same number and same quality of offspring issuing from your seeding shaft. If the old skoolers who claim that children are the crux and the crucible of alpha maleness are right, either choice should result in very strong feelings of self-regard and confidence, two undeniably intrinsic traits of the alpha male with which no one but a deranged feminist (but I repeat myself) would object.

And yet, I predict there are very few men who would consider choice (a) as ego-affirming and confidence-inspiring as choice (b). In fact, I bet a lot of donating men leave sperm banks feeling oddly morose.

The reason for my prediction is that the anti-game trad-cons are incorrect in their assessment of what constitutes alpha maleness. It is not the children or the genetic legacy per se that swells men’s souls with alpha sweetness; it is the sex with feminine, willing women which does the trick.

The sex is the prime directive and the origin source of alpha male nourishment. Sex is the trick that evolution concocted to make sure we don’t let ourselves die out. Not kids. Not lovingly-swapped soiled diapers. Not videotape of bursting birth canals shared with creeped-out relatives. The sex is first and foremost, it is primal, it is the cosmic chorus. And it is only relatively recently by evolutionary standards that this ancient sleight of reproductive selection is finally meeting its match in the plunderdome of non-procreative recreation, the prime directive thwarted by an ocean of condoms, IUDs, Norplants, and Pills.

This is why a man who fucks his way through hundreds of maximally fertile women but leaves no legacy thanks to the convenience of modern prophylactic tech is leagues more alpha male than the man who fills his 35-year-old wife’s womb with babymeat, and is certainly more alpha male than the man who sires a whole Duggars’ worth of kids at the local sperm depository.

UPDATE

A clarifying example is needed to focus minds. Picture a fat, acne-ridden, manboobed, greasy, bald, boring, stupid, charmless underprole man who manages to capture the elephantine devotion of a morbidly obese underprole woman. They marry, and, owing to their religious beliefs (or stupidity) neither one uses birth control. Over time, she grunts out twenty of his fat babies (yeah, I know, hard to believe, but this hypothetical is not so far removed from our current idiocratic reality). This man has certainly made his mark on the world. His tribe is impressive, larger than the families built by some sultans and certainly larger than that of most accomplished Western men. He presides with haughty patriarchal pride over a brood that would be the envy of any trad-con harboring dreams of winning fertility wars with the third world. He belches insouciantly at your child-free hedonistic existence, knowing that the future belongs to his progeny. He has ensured his legacy. His waddling kids adore him and respect his ability to unearth cheesy poofs in the folds of mommy’s fupa.

And, yet, would any of you anti-game trad-cons call this man an alpha male? With a straight face? Drop him in the middle of a nightclub, or heck, even in a Whole Foods aisle full of slightly old-country looking SWPL chicks, and the girls would run away, repulsed by the sight of him. He wouldn’t be able to get laid at a lesbian porn star convention full of scheming, mustachioed feminists itching to cry “regret rape!” for street cred. Such a specimen of malehood can only settle for the lowest females of the low. The very bottomed out dregs of vaginadom. He is the patriarch trad-cons extol as exemplary of the powerful alpha male who leads his posterity to the promised land, and yet he would be kryptonite to any feminine woman worth having. Were it not for the grotesqueries among womankind willing to wallow in the sty with him for a chance at producing more pighumans in God’s image, he would struggle to get action beyond the feeble offerings on tap from the friction of his overhanging stomach slapping against his foul pud.

There’s your alpha male, trad-cons. Choke on him. And then think twice about drawing parallels between fecundity and real, true, authentic alpha maleness. You know, the kind of alpha maleness so eloquently and succinctly described right here in these blog pages.

tl;dr  It’s not difficult convincing a C.H.U.D. with a vagina to pop out a fetid stream of your sewer spawn. What’s difficult is winning the love of a hot babe(s) who is a valuable commodity in the sexual market. Any kid-popping is just icing on the cake after you’ve accomplished that.

Adam Lanza, the school shooter, shot his divorced and single mom — the mother who raised him — four times in the head before embarking on his journey of mental disassociation from reality. Her face must surely have been rendered a mash of unrecognizable pulp.

Four times. Point blank. In the head. You don’t do that unless you possess some serious unresolved rage against the mother. This kid hated his mom with a passion, and we can only guess why now that he’s dead. But clues abound.

First, older moms are more likely to spawn autistic kids. Most autistitards are harmless, but some with severe handicaps to relate as normal human beings are powderkegs in an increasingly atomized society that they find impossible to manage or even comprehend.

Second, the mom was divorced. Children of divorced parents and female-headed homes are at much higher risk for delinquency, jail, and violent crime. Lanza’s pop was paying his ex-wife a tidy some of money (which she did not earn, let’s not forget) to keep her spendthrift ass afloat. We can surmise that the mom was so fucking crazy that the father had no choice but to get away from her, or that he was SO BETA she pulled the trigger on the divorce and cast Adam’s father to the modern equivalent of the icy wastelands. Single moms be warned: If your kid thinks you gave his dad a raw deal, he is going to resent you for life. Maybe a few of those kids of divorced moms lack the normal social outlets to release that building resentment, and it comes out all at once in a violent episode.

As the child of a divorced, single mom, Adam Lanza had the deck stacked against him.

Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you’d have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother’s education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

This isn’t entirely a story about genes, either. Single momhood has skyrocketed in the last forty years, and there is no allele that can account for that. Such a rise in a short time is driven by cultural and social pressures.

The answer to the Adam Lanzas of the world is not gun confiscation, that fool’s panacea so beloved by the cathedral leftoids who would like nothing more than a completely defanged white middle class and working class. (Hint: Adam acquired his guns illegally.) The answer is not easy, but it is within sight. A multifactorial approach that re-institutionalizes the primacy of the two-parent biological nuclear family and the social nee genetic cohesion of the nation, and which discourages late-in-life strugglepreggers by aging SWPL moms is some of the harsh, potent medicine that will begin to fix the ailing body politic.

I won’t be holding my breath for any member in good standing of the snarkerati to grapple with this medicine in any meaningful way. Which is why I remain, respectfully, toes a-dippin’, poolside.

At a social gathering with friends and lovers, I witnessed an attempted pickup unfold between an alpha male and a cute girl. We were a merged group of three girls and two men, including myself, and everyone there was known to me in more than a passing fashion. (I use the term “alpha male” as shorthand to describe the constellation of personality traits he possessed which gave him an advantage in the mating market. He is not a particularly good-looking man, but I suspect most girls would say he is at least not hard on the eyes.)

The girls with me knew that said alpha male was single and looking, (ladies, we’re ALWAYS looking), and pow-wowed with each other to find a third girl they knew to be single as well for a possible alpha male-cute girl love copulation. Apparently, not only do girls want alpha males for themselves, they also want them for their friends. It’s that primeval female harem-managing mentality rising to the fore.

One of the girls briefly absconded to another room and returned with a girl friend in tow who she wished to introduce to the alpha male. (I love using these terms because I know how much it chafes the asses of the right sorts of people.) The third girl was in transit to another subgroup, and her slightly puzzled look suggested that she did not know why she was being pulled over. After a round of hellos, I watched and listened, from as sly a vantage point as I could muster under the circumstances, the conversation that ensued between the alpha male and the cute girl summoned to unwittingly participate in his machinations.

She looked him over as he began speaking, and I could tell there lacked any sort of insta-spark of delight at his physical countenance. Nevertheless, a man does not become an alpha male by abandoning all women who don’t instantly take a shine to his looks. For the first minute or two, she would periodically glance at the girl friend to my side with that “why don’t you join in on this conversation so that I can impatiently slip away like a thief in the night” eye squeeze that women are so naturally adept at executing.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to a certain, subtle SWPL rejection where all feelings are spared in the most sadistic manner possible: the vibe turned in his favor. I can’t tell you the exact moment of redemption, but I can say that the energy between them got a boost in the second or two after he dropped what can only be charitably described as a couched insult.

“Well at least you’re still in your heels. Most girls like you are trading in for flats at this hour.”

Her head snapped back. She was at full attention. Gone was the exasperated sideways glance for a rescuer, replaced by flushed indignation that is the telltale mark of blood pipelined directly between the hamster and the vagina. A few hollow protests to the contrary notwithstanding, she fell quickly into his orbit and they were off to the races. He had pricked her safe and secure but ultimately flimsy bitch bubble, and she could not be happier for it.

Now some of you readers are sure to lay the credit for his success on that convo-refueling neg which slices and dices bland boring expectations like a ginsu. You’d only be partly right in your assumptions. You see, the neg was really just a culmination of something else, some other ineffable quality, that alpha males have in mass quantities: persistence.

Not that cringing, awkward, pushy, socially uncalibrated persistence that a few oddly aggressive beta and omega males employ, but the calm, controlled, almost serene persistence that doesn’t spook girls and which signals a strong, dominant masculinity that women crave. It might be more precise to call it “steadiness” rather than persistence.

The alpha male at this function knew she wasn’t immediately into him. The way he handled this “setback” wasn’t to slink away like a defeated herb, or pump up the volume in a desperate last gasp maneuver to capture her attention. He wasn’t implicitly apologetic for the convo lull (as if it was his responsibility to keep everyone entertained), nor was he giving any outward sign that he felt any pressure to perform.

He simply stayed rooted at his spot, never wavered in his eye contact, maintained a neutral vocal cadence, and never stupidly smiled to occupy dead air as so many less confident men are wont to do. He just kept… listening. And talking. And raising a single eyebrow. And leading the topic of discussion. And refraining from showing any discomfort with her feints to escape his company.

And that was how he won her. Slow and steady and persistent and unshakeable. His body language and unperturbed social grace was the foundation upon which she was able to lean for evidence of alpha maleness. The neg was only icing on his seductive cake. The best time to drop a neg is when it is least expected, not when it is obviously a craven effort to “win over” an intransigent girl. For him, the neg was an adjunct that complimented his entire game repertoire.

The alpha male is both aloof and persistent. His aloofness is more a vague impression that flows from his attitude, and his persistence is a dagger that sneaks up on women and chips away at their coyness. When you can finally grasp that seeming contradiction and apply it in real social interactions, your game will have matured immeasurably.

Never listen to man-haters aka feminists who claim that women don’t like persistent men. They do. Women love persistent men who are persistent from a position of want, not need. Women don’t love the idea of persistence because they associate it, perhaps justifiably, with overly aggressive meatheads throwing themselves at random vaginas during garbage hour. But now you know that there is better way to be persistent. And that you are doing honor to your alpha male ancestors by pursuing that scared little bunny to the farthest corners of the warren, instead of turning tail the first time the bunny hops away a few feet from your swiping paws.

I-dawg writes:

Good stuff, man. I can’t tell you how much easier your blog and a rough knowledge of Game in general has made my dating life. Here’s a question for you though: how do you handle a steady girlfriend who wants to hang out with one of her now-married Ex’s (and his wife) from ‘back in the day’? It doesn’t sit right with me, but she keeps pestering me about it. Unfortunately, my stripper-ex has moved 1000 miles away and gotten married herself, so I can’t just agree-and-amplify by hanging out with her.

First, it’s almost always bad news when a girlfriend wants to “hang out” with an ex “from back in the day”, regardless of her ex’s current relationship status. You may as well start visualizing his cock sliding in and out of her right now.

You can take this to the bank: A girlfriend who want to hang out with an ex does so for only two reasons.

1. She wants to fuck her ex.

2. She is manipulating you for fun and profit.

Either way, it’s a red flag that your relationship is sailing for rocky shoals.

Don’t think for a minute that just because your GF candidly tells you of her idea to see her ex means that she isn’t thinking of fucking him. Quite the opposite; girls will usually drop bombs like that to alleviate the guilt they feel from harboring illicit thoughts of infidelity. It’s a major hamster rationalization that sounds something like this in their pretty little heads:

HAMSTER VESSEL: I can’t stop thinking about my ex.

HAMSTER: If you do something about it, it won’t be your fault if you warn your boyfriend first.

HAMSTER VESSEL: If I warn him, he’ll dump me! Or act clingy and beta and that is a huge turn-off I can’t abide if I want to marry and divorce him someday.

HAMSTER: What are you worried about? You’re just thinking about hanging out with your ex.

HAMSTER VESSEL: Yeah, hanging out! It’s his fault if he gets insecure about that.

HAMSTER: Now you’re getting it. And, hey, while your talking to me, can you pass me an aspirin? This spinning is giving me a headache.

My advice, friend, is to test the waters for which emotion is motivating her actionable offense against you. Is she really daydreaming about her ex, or is there something amiss in your relationship that is causing her to lash out like a mischievous impette? If the former, you should dump her first so that you can glide out of her life with that all-powerful hand which will give you a confidence boost for future pickups. If the latter, you have the luxury of deciding whether you want to play along and devise tactics which will reel her back into your orbit, or fuck with her head before delivering the sayonara shiv.

To determine where she is coming from, I suggest initiating the “instill dread” protocol. Do you detect whiffs of jealousy? Does she seem bothered by your flirting with her sister? Do your “late nights” at work get her worked up? Or does she seem blasé about your machinations? You could also call her bluff, but, as you said, counter her oh-so-innocent offer with your own suggestion for you to see your ex. “Funny you say that… my ex is in town and she emailed me to get together for lunch. I suppose we’re both cool with this, then?” Watch for facial tics that reveal she isn’t cool with that bargain.

The nuclear option is to straight up deliver an ultimatum. “If you see your ex, our relationship is over. These terms are non-negotiable.” If she’s bluffing, she’ll recant her suggestion. If not, she’ll act annoyed and say something like “we’ll talk again when you’ve calmed down.” If she was thinking about leaving you anyhow, she’ll just use your ultimatum as the excuse that she needs to dump you free of guilt.

Many men will be tempted to confront an unruly girlfriend who asserts her desire to see her ex-boyfriend. Confrontation is the useful strategy in some cases, but it’s not what I consider a go-to option. Confrontation can just as likely blow up in your face as smooth over problems. Cavalierly ignoring a manipulative girlfriend can be useful in measured doses, but as a strategy tends to diminishing returns the longer she knows you or the deeper any problems — like her roaring cuntery — fester.

The best strategy is structured, and builds upon itself as the circumstances warrant: start with a calculated amusement and teasing, coupled with a distant and condescending regard of her offer, followed by active steps to screen her motivations, and then finally a bold statement of your intolerance for her shit if it need come to that.

Whatever you do, don’t do beta. That means, no “aww, honey, let’s talk about this”, no “do you not love me?”, no “what did I do wrong?”, no “what do I need to do to make it better between us?”, no “why do you want to see your ex?”, no “do you still love him?”, no begging, no pleading, no supplicating, no butthurtness, no white knighting (“i’ll kill the guy!”), no manboobery (“but i thought he was a jerk to you last time you dated?”), no uber-manboobery (“i’m a card-carrying feminist! isn’t that what you wanted??!?”), and no promises to love her fitter, happier, more productively.

Comment Of The Week

Reader BC gives some historical perspective to the alimony issue. (“Historical whaaa? I’m a feminist, I know not of such things. Please to dress it up in snark so that I can properly menstruate in the comments section at Jizzebel.”)

In Olde Timey days — like, medieval England, we’re talking about — a husband gained ownership of all his wife’s property (her dowry) when they married, and did not relinquish it when they divorced. Since women didn’t work [ed: in a cubicle] back then, the result was that a divorce would frequently leave the woman totally destitute. Alimony was a way to avoid that: a divorced man kept the dowry, but incurred an obligation to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise support his ex-wife until she remarried or died.

Two things upended the applecart. First, we started dividing marital assets at divorce. That’s a subject about which entire books could be (and have been) written, but the key point is that ex-wives ceased to be penniless; they took (oftentimes substantial) assets with them when they left a marriage. Second, women fully entered the workforce as primary wage-earners in their own right, and there ceased to be any good reason why they couldn’t support themselves.

Together, those two developments have pretty thoroughly undermined the policy rationale for alimony, and in a sane world it would have become a historical footnote occasionally pressed into service to avoid injustice in truly extraordinary cases. Instead, the American family law system in which I toil has been marinating in femcunt ideology since the sixties, and while there are a few scattered efforts at reform, the result is that alimony largely persists — not as necessary spousal support, but to make it more financially convenient for women to abandon the beta providers they swore to love, honor, and obey.

One thing you have to understand about the divorce industrial complex if you want to know how and why things traveled this far down the circles of post-nuptial hell: The spiteful degenerates who advocated for no-fault divorce and punitive alimony and child support, and the blood-sucking parasites who inevitably followed in their wake, never had fairness in mind. What they wanted, ultimately, was the reconstruction of society to extend and enshrine total female freedom of access and removal of accountability in the marital and sexual markets, while restricting and regulating as much as possible male access to the sexual market, particularly beta male access, and placing upon men responsibility for the consequences of both men’s and women’s actions within those markets.

And that is why I declare a guy like this a justifiable American hero who, if the West were ever to regain its sanity, would have a monument erected in his honor. Or at least a Truck Nutz dedicated in his name.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion