Feed on
Posts
Comments

Quality Vs Quantity, Formula Version

May 22nd, 2012 by

Ah, that perennial conundrum. That gavel of masculine judgment. Does the quality or the quantity, or both, of women that a man beds determine his alpha mojo? The hosts have graciously elaborated on this topic in the past, which should have been the final word, but not all of the world’s 7 billion people have yet stayed a night at the Chateau to wake in the morning infused with the knowledge of the Celestials.

Any guy who claims to have game but picks up hundreds of circus freaks a year will be a laughingstock. And the boastful guy with few notches who claims to know everything about women because he’s been dating his cute high school sweetheart his whole life will similarly be mocked.

To put it in logical terms easily grasped by the aspies among us (first number in each series refers to penis-in-vagina notch count unless otherwise noted; second number refers to female attractiveness rating on a 0-10 scale):

Stiff autumn breeze <more alpha than> 100 0s

Unlubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 hundred 1s <more alpha than> 200 0s

Couch crease <more alpha than> 100 2s <more alpha than> 200 1s <more alpha than> 300 0s

Lubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 3s <more alpha than> 200 2s <more alpha than> 300 1s <more alpha than> 400 0s

Barely legal porn-assisted masturbation <more alpha than> 100 2s <but less alpha than> 100 3s over a two month time span

Handjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 10 3s

Blowjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 15 3s

Chandelier swinging, titty fucking, throat gagging, motorized defiling, publicly violating, video recorded facialized money shotting, post-coital sammich making, never see her again sex with a 4 <more alpha than> 50 missionary style 3s

Fleeting glance from a 10 <more alpha than> 100 1s

Handjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 1,000 1s

Blowjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 10,000 1s

Sex with a 10 <more alpha than> 100,000 1s

Anal sex with a 10 <more alpha than> Infinity 1s

100 5s <more alpha than> 100 4s <more alpha than> 500 3s

50 6s <more alpha than> 100 5s

40 7s <more alpha than> 100 6s

30 8s <more alpha than> 100 7s

10 9s <more alpha than> 100 8s

1 10 <more alpha than> 3 9s

LTR with a 10 <more alpha than> one night of sex with a 10 <more alpha than> LTR with an 7

One night of sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Rotating harem of multiple LTRs with 100 5s and 6s <more alpha than> One night stands with 1,000 4s

LTR with a 0 <more alpha than> Nothing

Serial LTRs with 5 10s <more alpha than> One night stands with 100 9s <more alpha than> Lifelong monogamous LTR with an 8

Unmarried, cohabiting, child-free, sex-gorged LTR with an 8 <more alpha than> Once-a-month married sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Once-a-day married sex with a 7

Unmarried, commitment-free, responsibility-absolved, sex-on-demand with a cast of 1,000s of faithful 10s wearing kneepads and schooled in the culinary arts <more alpha than> The universe

***

So, if you have ass-banged one 10 in your life, you have equivalent bragging rights to the guy who has banged every 1 in the world.

If you have effortlessly banged 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who has gotten one (freely given) blowjob from a 10. If you needed to expend huge effort to bang those 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who stuck it in a couch crease for quick relief.

If you have inspired a 6 to want a relationship with you, you have more alpha bragging rights than the guy who has inspired 10 4s to spread their legs for him.

Where it gets blurry is in the plain middle of the beauty arc. A guy who banged one 6 technically will be more alpha than the guy who banged two 5s, but at those fine gradations, who’s really keeping tabs? That’s where the Template will influence the grading curve and make distinctions harder to delineate.

Ultimately, the essence of alpha maledom all comes down to inspiring beautiful women to, first and foremost, desire your poundage, and then to desire your continual poundage, and finally to desire your love. If you can seduce a hot babe into bed multiple times, then seduce her into love, and then do this same thing with many hot babes over the course of your life, you are an alpha male, no matter what else you have or have not accomplished in your life. Many will balk at this, but that doesn’t change its truth.

Posted in Alpha, Biomechanics is God, Funny/Lolblogs, Girls, Guy Rules | 274 Comments »

Interview With Daygamer Nick Krauser

May 21st, 2012 by

Regular readers who follow my (admittedly, attenuated) take on the PUA scene know that I consider Krauser to be one of the few bona fide pickup artists out there. It’s why I have his blog linked on the right under “Game”.

Krauser adheres to an “indirect-direct” daytime approach style that suits my personality well, so I’m perhaps a bit partial in my praise. Daygamers who use different approach techniques shouldn’t feel put off; remember, the core concepts behind most of the game styles are essentially the same, with the exceptions being the distinctions inherent in day vs night game, club vs everywhere else game, and native vs foreign game. Even those exceptions, as stark as their differences may seem to newbies, share a lot of critical game principles. Female hypergamy — the cosmic force that underpins much of the game technology geared to leveraging it in a man’s favor — is a universal phenomenon, after all. So if I praise one PUA school of thought you can consider it tangential praise of other PUA schools of thought.

This is not to say there don’t exist shysters out there whose sole intent is to make a buck off the woes of desperate losers in love. But Krauser (and a few others) strike me as the real deal, so I don’t have a problem promoting them. In that vein, here’s a trailer to an interview of Krauser by a group called London Real.

The full one-hour interview is here.

Also, as I’ve said before whenever I feature a PUA or a game instructor, if any reader has real life experience learning from or hanging out with these guys, whether those experiences are good or bad, feel free to discuss it in the comments, or email me for a possible future post. Don’t bother trolling. I have expert-level skills at sniffing out trolls and petty haters.

Posted in Game, Videos | 87 Comments »

Fast-Tracking Familiarity

May 21st, 2012 by

Something that gets lost in discussions about seducing women is the speed aspect of the endeavor. Pickup used to be called speed seduction for a reason: it was a human social technology specifically designed to maximize the arousal of women and minimize the time and resource investment needed to bed them.

(For those smart alecks who say “Just be Brad Pitt and you won’t have to do anything to pick up women!”, kindly remind yourselves that famous men usually had to spend many years devoted to their craft before they hit the fame jackpot.)

I knew a guy who was a natural with women — i.e., he had imbued game concepts from an early enough age that the alpha way to act around women came second-nature to him, and his interactions glimmered with unrehearsed élan. Anyhow, something I noticed he often did with women was playfully fuck around with their names. (He never offered his name until he first learned a girl’s name.)

For example, if the girl told him her name was Ann, he would riff a stream of dorky permutations on her name in a deadpan manner.

“annster” “wham bam thank you ann” “ANNdle with care” “this ann is your ann, this ann is my ann”

You need a minimal degree of creativity to pull this off, but the result usually gets the girl smiling. More importantly, it signaled to girls that 1. he didn’t give a shit what they thought about his humor and 2. he was the sort of guy a girl could be instantly friendly toward without feeling awkward.

And really, a big component of successful seductions is the ability to quickly make a girl feel comfortable in your presence — to fast-track familiarity. And the way to do this is to put a girl at ease that you won’t make the mistake of deep-sixing a conversation with social clumsiness borne of low confidence and inexperience spending time with women.

Other FTF tactics he would use included the “Marry, Fuck, Kill” and “If you had to choose…” games, which he would launch into without any proper segue at all.

(“If you had to choose…” is my favorite because it’s awesome at getting girls to reveal their values. “If you had to choose between waking up next to Jonah Hill or waking up next to Charlize Theron, which would you choose?”)

I once asked him half-seriously his secret to picking up women. He said, “I cut them off.” By that, he meant he would cut off their conversation to inject whatever stupid shit happened to pop into his head (and which, coincidentally, would move the discussion in a more fruitful sexual direction). “But isn’t that rude?” “Nah, not to girls. Guys would think it was rude, but guys aren’t girls.”

Words to live by.

Seduction is the art and science (the artence) of shifting a girl’s perception of you from faceless beta null entity to damn-this-dark-triad-jerk-would-fit-nicely-between-my-legs. The words you choose and the demeanor you adopt go a long way to helping, or hindering, your pickup efficiency.

Posted in Game | 89 Comments »

Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science

May 18th, 2012 by

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.’”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

Posted in Alpha, Biomechanics is God, Dating, Feminist Idiocy, Game, Girls, Ugly Truths | 349 Comments »

Women Are Equally As Shallow As Men

May 18th, 2012 by

SFG remarks:

Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.

Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.

This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.

Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.

In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.

Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.

Posted in Inner Beauty, Misandry, Pretty Lies, Ugly Truths | 13 Comments »

How Much Do Your Smarts Matter To Women?

May 17th, 2012 by

This question comes up regularly at Le Chateau. You’ve got two schools of thought. The first insists that smarts, like any other positive attribute, can only raise a man’s dating market value because women are hypergamous and appreciate a smarter man than themselves. The other school says that women are put off by men who are too much smarter than themselves, and that experience shows women fall for lunkhead jerks all the time, perhaps because these types of men are less introspective and more unthinkingly assertive about hitting on women.

The science I’ve read on this subject has been all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that having some smarts is a net plus to a man’s desirability.

Where do I come down on this perennial issue? I stick by the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog. A better-than-average IQ is beneficial, but the benefits to picking up women begin to dissipate past a certain degree of brainpower, because very high IQ seems to be associated with a lack of social savviness and other off-putting personality quirks. If you know a lot of Ivy grads in the sciences and maths (a group of smarties if there ever were) then you can’t help but notice how awkward they can be in social settings with women who are more likely to represent the meaty part of the IQ bell curve.

Anyhow, both schools of thought have a point. Chicks are more viscerally turned on by raw male power and alpha attitude than they are by male smarts, but because chicks are wired to seek men who are higher status than themselves on as many metrics as possible (except looks; no pretty girl likes to be upstaged by her man in the looks department) they will generally be turned off by men who are dumber than they are.

This isn’t just theoretical musing. I say this from a position of real world observation. I’ll use a short anecdote as example: I was once hanging out with some girls in my group of friends when one of them got hit on by a very good-looking guy. She had previously noticed him and was tittering about him with her girlfriends when he approached, so she was already emotionally lubed to accept his entreaty.

Having a ringside seat to this blossoming courtship, I happily eavesdropped on the proceedings from a half-concealed vantage among the crowd. It didn’t take long for the whole thing to implode in entertaining failure. The flash point was when she used a two-dollar word and he replied in a way that proved he didn’t know what the word meant. Lemme tell ya, you never saw a woman’s flirty face turn sour so fast.

Afterwards, she confided that his apparent dumbness made him seem so much less good-looking to her.

So maybe this is the best way to view male smarts from the perspective of pickup success: all else equal, it’s better to be smarter than the girl you are hitting on than dumber than her. Sounds obvious, but I think this simple point gets missed. Girls may not be immediately turned on by men who are smarter than them, but you can bet girls are immediately turned off by men who prove themselves dumber than them. Men’s smarts then, act as a threshold test of fuckability for girls; too much won’t necessarily help or hurt you, but too little (relative to the girl) will definitely hurt.

The above is not a maxim, because I find that it applies primarily to overeducated girls in the cities. Less educated and less intelligent girls, who, it should be reminded, occupy the bulk of womanhood, are neither as impressed by male smarts nor as turned off by male stupidity as are their smarter sisters. Mostly this is because the mediocre mamacitas are not going to be throwing around two-dollar words that test the verbal acumen of the men they meet. Secondarily, dumber girls don’t have the cortical horsepower to quickly ascertain male dumbness the way smarter girls do; therefore, other sexy male traits, like dominance, loom larger in the dumb girl’s head.

But no matter how smart you are, if you aren’t using your smarts to light up a woman’s limbic lust center, you may as well drop your pretense to genius and try to speak to her on her level; no man ever incited tingles in a girl by solving quadratic equations or philosophizing deeply about deep stuff. After all, the reason women are drawn to male smarts is not smarts per se, but the promise of resources and power that typically accrue to the smart man. It’s proxies all the way down.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Self-aggrandizement, Status Is King | 327 Comments »

Hot Women Are Harder To Fool

May 16th, 2012 by

Put away your illusions about smart, ugly girls and dizzy, hot blondes. If you want to know which type of girl will be better at cutting through your cadtastic bullshit, it’s the hot babes for the sixth sense win.

Women in contrast, often have low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR); i.e., narrow waists and broad hips that approximate an hour-glass configuration. Women with low WHR’s are rated as more attractive, healthier, and more fertile. They also tend to have more attractive voices, lose their virginity sooner, and have more sex partners. WHR has also been linked with general cognitive performance. In the present study we expand upon previous research examining the role of WHR in cognition. We hypothesized that more feminine body types, as indexed by a low WHR, would be associated with cognitive measures of the female “brain type,” such as mental state attribution and empathy because both may depend upon the activational effects of estrogens at puberty. We found that women with low WHRs excel at identifying emotional states of other people and show a cognitive style that favors empathizing over systemizing. […]

It is interesting to note that our findings suggest lower WHR females, who are more likely to be targeted for dishonest courtship, may be better at identifying disingenuous claims of commitment.

Executive summary: You can string along an ugly chick a lot longer than you can a hot chick. But then, why would you want to?

Sex differences are the result of eons of social interactions between men and women with differing reproductive goals. Gene variants have evolved to equip men and women with the armaments they need to successfully navigate the mating market. Men have evolved penetrative bunker busters; women have evolved deeper bunkers. It’s an arms race with no end in sight, and no purpose; its existence is its own reward.

These sex-based gene variants aren’t uniform; “girly” genes are found less numerously in masculine women, and “manly” genes are found less frequently in feminine men. There is a general psychosocial sex dichotomy that is blurred at the edges, where the girly and manly gene clusters are not as clearly delineated. Thus you find, as this study concludes, that manjawed freaks like feminists are more likely than neotenous beauties are to fall for a player’s empty promises. Maybe that’s why feminists are so adamant about inserting the state into sexual affairs: they need a smarter surrogate to protect them from their own naivete.

It makes perfect sense that hot chicks would be better at sniffing out pump and dumpers from buy and holders, because they have inherited traits from their ancestral sisters that protect them from the kinds of men who are very good at seducing women at the lowest price point possible; men who, it stands to reason, would want to seduce only the hottest women, and a splendid variety of hot women, at that.

This study should also give pause to those game haters who believe players only target ugly chicks. If that were the case, the ugly girls would have evolved defensive mechanisms against the plunderings of players. But the fugs remain naive and easily manipulable, because, analogous to beta males and their rose-colored views of beautiful women, they rarely get the chance to experience the worst, or the best, sides of desirable men.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, The Pleasure Principle | 105 Comments »

Alpha Assessment: The Name Game

May 15th, 2012 by

Reader Aureo wants to know if this conversation he had with a girl he likes has cleared or obstructed the path to sex with her.

I want to bang this girl [ed: don’t we all!], but she just got a boyfriend so the antislut shields are up. Yet I know she likes me, so it’s only a matter of good logistics.

I once forgot her name and called her something else, and since then, every time we see each other, we make up a different (and normally dramatic) name, and laugh.

This is a conversation we just had, in which she subtly shoved me off:

Me: Danielle Marie Delacroix! (fake names we say)
Her: Mr. Alexander von Luparius the Third!
Me: *long weird name*
Her: Yeah, but you can call me Diane (her real name) ^^
Me: I don’t like that name that much ^^
H: ¬¬ i suppose we must do something about it, they dont call me “hard fists” for anything!
M: Ill beat you up like no one has!
H: haha I was just telling you mi nickname, as a curious fact.. haha
M: ok ok, I thought you were threatening me, still our issue remains.
H: we can talk it, we can spare some lives, some broken bones and stuff.
M: not to mention a few destroyed building and a public riot. Anyway, how do you like to be called?
H: haha elementary my dear Watson: Diane, and you? how do you like to be called?
M: so I lived deceived ALL this time?
H: yeah, all this time, but yes, sorry cowboy
M: It’ll be time to make up names for another person, then.
H: do you remember how all this came up?
M: yeah, I called you Valerie or something.
H: yes
M: so?
H: so nothing
M: so nothing what

then the conversation died.
how did I do?

You didn’t specify, but I’ll assume this was a face-to-face, three dimensional conversation you had with the girl, rather than email or text. So we’ll proceed from that premise.

First, I like the fake name game. That’s a great way to reframe a social faux pas like forgetting a girl’s name, and it incorporates a pared-down form of role-playing which is catnip to girls.

Second, your flirtation skills are very good. You know how to keep a convo rolling with light, witty banter. But all light all witty banter soon makes Jack an unsexy, entertainment monkey. Flirty talk is like starring in a sitcom: you gotta shoot for going out on top, otherwise all anyone will remember about you is your crappy last couple of seasons where you spent your episodes trying too hard to recapture your old glory.

Do you know where you blew it? Right after she asked “how do you like to be called?”, and you replied by continuing along the playful path you were already skipping happily down. Her personal question about your name (a major IOI from a girl, don’t forget) was your cue to get real with her for a minute. Girls love flirting, but they love it even more when a man knows how and when to segue from innocuous flirting to charged sexual energy. Had you dropped the jokes and your smile, replaced them with a steady gaze and serious expression, you would have stood a better chance at moving your conversation onto more fertile ground.

A lot of guys make your mistake; they get excited when they see the positive reaction and laughs that their playfulness elicits in a girl, and they do as men do — if some playfulness is good, then more must be better! But girls don’t think like men. Girls love unpredictability, they love being kept on their toes, and so they love a man who can turn on a dime from cocky to sexual tension.

Always keep the end goal in mind when you are flirting with a girl. Your end goal is not the elicitation of fleeting laughs or light forearm touches. It is penis in vagina. PRIMORDIAL PENIS IN COSMIC VAGINA. Never forget that. Temper your pride and your excitement at managing to keep a girl interested in a conversation with you; that giddy excitement will obscure the path to your ultimate goal by diverting you from the sequence of moves you must make, as the man, to seduce a woman into bed.

The next time you are playfully engaging a girl you want to screw, I want you to ask yourself “Is my penis in this girl’s vagina? No? Then there is more work to be done. More need to lead. No rest for the turgid.” Flirt on, flirt off, young Danielson.

Posted in Alpha, Game | 103 Comments »

I Was Right: Study Shows Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look

May 14th, 2012 by

This post, where I speculated, based on nothing more than my personal, clear-eyed observations, that conservatives and liberals have a “look” which I, and most people, can identify with a quick glance, spurred plenty of discussion, most of it taking me to the shed for lack of scientific rigor. Liberals seemed greatly displeased that I insinuated the male of their kind seems always on the verge of bursting into tears. (Note I also said that liberals look smarter than conservatives. But the implication of their weakness hit home a little harder than the flattery of their intelligence.)

As if on cue, here’s a study that basically proves my contention, jot and tittle.

Here we found that individuals’ political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats.

Game. Set. Snatch.

Some of you may ask, “What is it like, oh Lord and Savior of Powerful Malehood, to be burdened so heavily with objective rightness?”

I tell you now, it is a burden I would not place on my worst enemy, for the sweet thrust of psychologically impaling my haters is one I want to savor all to myself. Thou shalt not interrupt the Master when He is mid-Holy Skullfuck.

The coda to the study higlights an often overlooked (understandably, if you are a blank slater) aspect of human nature.

These data suggest that perceivers’ beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others’ political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.

In other words, pattern recognition is a valuable aid to anyone navigating the chaos of the real world, their denials they engage in such nefarious human-like activity to the contrary notwithstanding.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Hope and Change, Ugly Truths | 82 Comments »

Why Are Feminists Against The Male Pill?

May 14th, 2012 by

How often have you heard feminists bitch and moan about the responsibility that women must bear for using birth control? You’d think the womb whiners would be happy that a male Pill was tested and found effective, ready to market. But, no. That would be thinking rationally, and feminists are allergic to reason and logic. Here’s a video of a Brazilian endocrinologist who recalls the time he was at a conference discussing the male Pill when a gaggle of feminists led by the ugly Betty Friedan (his words, accurate nevertheless) shouted him down with chants of “No male pill!”.

So why would feminists be against a male Pill? According to the doc, their answer is that they don’t want the decision to have a child or not taken away from women. In other words, they believe that men having decision-making power over their own reproduction is tantamount to taking that reproductive power away from women. The male Pill, in a twisted feminist’s mind, is akin to outlawing abortion or the female Pill.

I’ve said it before, but it always bears repeating because the message isn’t getting out fast and far enough: feminists don’t give a rat’s ass about “equality” or phantoms of inequality; all they care about is power. Feminism is a power grab, plain and simple. It is war by politics, its artillery ideological zeal and the veneer of intellectual sophistry. Feminists want the ability and unanswerable freedom to have a kid or not have a kid completely at their own whim, regardless of the man’s feelings on the matter and with no concern for his opinion or his presupposed legal rights. A male Pill robs women of the option to ensnare men in gotcha pregnancies, and that is a dilution of female power that feminists just won’t tolerate.

The motivating impulse of feminists, besides the ugliness of its fiercest advocates, is hatred for male sexuality. Feminists loathe male desire. Their envy of men’s relative sexual freedom, men’s libidinous vitality, and men’s broader psychological landscape manifests as an abhorrence of the peculiar characteristics that distinguish the male sex, in drive and personality, from the female sex. Feminists routinely lie in service to their hatred, a hatred which is unquenchable.

Feminine women are not like this. Feminine women love men for who they are, love to bathe in the energy of male sexuality, and love the innate advantages that men bring to the division of love and labor between the sexes. Feminine women are not feminist women. It’s good to remind the good women of that truth, and to beat the soulless ugly machine feminists, male feminists included, over the head with that same truth.

Posted in Feminist Idiocy, Misandry, Self-aggrandizement | 221 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion