Feed on
Posts
Comments

Linkage Disequilibrium

Mar 16th, 2012 by

Paging Bryan “Fuck the rest of the country who wasn’t born with my genetically superior IQ, good taste, and exquisitely manicured principles” Caplan: Switzerland is not a diversity utopia.

Research group finds creating boundaries key to reducing ethnic violence

History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Libertardians: so smart ensconced in their fantasy bubbles aka homogeneous fiefdoms. Outside of them… eh, not so much. (I think at this point given the evidence of their own words it’s safe to say a significant proportion of mainstream libertarians are just sophisticated liberal anti-white bigots.)

***

Since I’m in a charitable mood, here’s a post by Caplan that pretty much nails the truth dead center. A reader writes:

I’d also note that lower class men can be pretty ornery and don’t necessarily make good employees in today’s economy, while lower class women tend to be comparatively docile and co-operative, so they are more able to get and keep jobs.

Yes. Female economic independence pushing their hypergamy into hyperdrive isn’t the only factor leading to the enervation of the working man. The modern economy is filled with jobs that are feminized in nature, and often require navigation of labyrinthine office politics that working class men with neither the inclination nor the social savvy find appealing. Men are built for focused single-tasking, and women for superficial multi-tasking. The West is currently tilted in the direction of a multi-tasking economy, for which remuneration flows disproportionately to those with the best social, political and client/customer juggling skills.

For those who scoff “adapt or die”, well, ok. But just remember that sometimes there’s a LOT of dying to go along with the adapting. Government policy can ameliorate or worsen the dying. Lately, it seems government is more interested in accomplishing the latter… for the target designated group.

***

Excellent post at the blog ‘Just Be a Man About It’, which documents evidence of female hypergamy, hookup culture, beta male supplication, alpha male aloofness, women’s love for alpha males and loathing of beta males, and sexual and relationship dynamics in a modern hunter-gatherer !Kung tribe. If you see parallels between the !Kung sexual market and your own, you are not mistaken. Just a friendly reminder that the concepts behind game and female desire, as discussed extensively here at the Chateau, are rooted in ancient biological forces that continue to shape who we are today. Take it in, and be enlightened.

(Note: Broad racial differences in mating predilection have probably evolved in the last 10,000 years. These differences do not rest on a presupposition that universal preferences don’t exist.)

***

As if sugar, refined carbs, cheaper junk food, prolonged cubicle farm sitting, and lack of walkable communities due to vibrancy weren’t enough, now there’s evidence that CO2 may be responsible for the explosion (heh) of obesity in the world over the last fifty years (via Mangan’s).

Coinciding with the sharp increase in the prevalence of human obesity over the last 50 years, weight gain has also been observed in animals. A recent study found that 24 populations of 8 different species, including laboratory animals that had been fed the same diets for decades, all displayed significant weight gain.3 This suggests that a shared environmental factor, favouring weight gain, may be involved in the regulation of energy balance. Such a factor has yet to be identified.

Even our pets are getting fatter. If pet food hasn’t changed, then something in the environment is causing Fifi to bloat up. Lack of exercise? Maybe. But cats are usually pretty good at self-regulating their weight, and they’re getting fatter too. Infectious parasite? A guy like Greg Cochrane, who has argued that homosexuality may be the result of a parasite in the mother, would be open to this argument. Proof would be if wild animals are getting fatter, too. Whatever it is, the cause(s) of the obesity epidemic is clearly environmental. Fifty years is simply not enough time for an obesity gene or genes to trickle through the general population and produce the rate of change in fatness that we observe.

The good news is that CO2-influenced levels of blood acidity can be mediated by spending less time indoors (where CO2 levels are higher) and getting more outdoors exercise. Also, you might want to limit your intake of beer. The carbonation may be responsible for the localized effect of the famed beer gut.

You know what’s the worst consequence of obesity? All those fat chicks skew the dating market. In fat America, thin chicks have bunker hardened egos because they know they’re in demand. In regions of the world were thinness is the rule and not the exception, the women have more manageable, i.e. feminine, egos. If it takes curbing global warming (a phenomenon I am not yet convinced is mostly human-caused or amenable to fixing) to make women more pleasant to be around, then sign me up for a fusion-powered DeLorean.

***

The commenter Severn delivers some righteous subversion at the Atlantic in a McArdle article about Europe’s demographic and financial woes.

Every aspiring economist should learn this on day 1 of Econ 101: Humans are not fungible. Repeat after me: humans are not fungible. Once more for the cheap seats: humans are not fungible.

Really, it would save so much energy spent bloviating in sophistic tantrums with no purpose other than to avoid confronting the goddamned obvious if the elite stopped being afraid of their own shadows. And it’d save us all a lot of money and psychic distress, too.

***

Facial symmetry experiment. Left sides and right sides of people’s faces were combined to show how different we would look if we were facially symmetrical on either our right or left sides. Below, the true portrait of a man(?) (L), his face adjusted for left side symmetry (C), and his face adjusted for right side symmetry (R).

A cursory glance at all the mock-up photos reveals something peculiar. The faces made symmetrical with one side are decidedly masculine-looking, and the faces made symmetrical with the other side are feminine. Could it be that a battle royale occurs in the womb where the masculine and feminine essences are locked in struggle for control of the destiny of the face and, presumably, the associated personality and character of the adult-to-be? Groovy, man.

***

Compare and contrast: Japan vs Haiti. Photos of Japan’s progress six months after its devastating earthquake and tsunami. Photo gallery of Haiti two years after its killer earthquake. Earthquake aid to Japan far less than aid to Haiti. A report on progress in Haiti.

Word of the day: fungible.

Related, Japan’s so-called lost decades of economic stagnation may be a myth.

***

More evidence that the modern, grain-centric diet is bad for us: white rice linked with type 2 diabetes. I’m not ready to go all-in on the paleolithic diet. Although the epidemiological momentum seems to be against grains and sugar, I’ve been reading too many conflicting studies recently for me to take a strong stand either way. For instance, here’s a study showing that red meat consumption is associated with increased risk of death (rebuttal here). Furthermore, some races may be better disposed to certain diets than other races. The bottom line is that calorie amount still matters, and calorie *type* matters as well. I split the difference by minimizing my consumption of refined grains, vegetable oils, red meat, sweets, carbonated drinks and fatty cheese and maximizing my intake of omega-3 heavy fish, (occasional) grass-fed lean beef, olive oil, dark green veggies, bitter tasting foods, nuts and whole grains.

***

Even educated chicks dig jerks. A female prison psychologist had a secret long-term relationship with a gang rapist. Yes, feminists, one of your own fell in love with a dude who rapes women for a living.

She also allegedly visited the prisoner – known as “H” – more than 20 times using her new identity, and wore an Islamic head scarf and sunglasses during her visits.

The Department of Corrective Services has been investigating the precise status of the pair’s relationship, including the possibility they have married, which remains unconfirmed.

The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the forensic psychologist first met “H” when she began counselling the long-term inmate during a sex rehab program at Parklea Prison.

He is serving 14 years and six months for the horrific and systematic pack rapes of young women in Sydney’s southwest in August 2000, lead by the depraved brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf.

Aren’t you gals the least bit embarrassed by your sex’s notorious sexual preferences? Of course you are. That’s why you never hear a feminist confront this female behavior without first resorting to some lame, contrived “patriarchy” boogeyman.

When the day comes that feminists decide to wrestle with female sexual nature honestly and openly is the day that feminism dies as an expedient ideology. It’s already dead as a coherent ideology.

Posted in Alpha, Beta, Biomechanics is God, Culture | 231 Comments »

The Sad, Bitter End

Mar 15th, 2012 by

Days of Broken Arrows sent an online dating profile* (link removed to avoid giving suicidal thoughts to subject matter) of a 46-year-old spinster who seethes with so much bitterness and spite toward men, and so much loathing for male desire, that it’s a good bet she’s had no experience at all pleasing men except in the most perfunctory manner: by spreading her legs and letting them drain their balls in her.

I found an online personal from a woman in the XX area that’s so over the top with anger I thought it would be worth a post from you. I considered asking if I could do a guest post, but would rather read your words of wisdom (or just see you paste in the copy with minimal comment to underscore its ridiculousness).
The personal is from a 46-year-old career-woman, who looks to have already hit the wall and apparently didn’t find what she was looking for so she rewrote her profile to be an (unintentionally comical) rant about men in their forties.
This confirms every post you ever ran. I’m thinking if you ran this verbatim on your blog it would become nearly as popular as that NYC woman seeking a millionaire on Craig’s List who provoked that response about “decelerating value” in 2007.

*cracks knuckles* I’ve sprinkled a few editorial comments throughout her profile, in boldface.

******

My self-summary

So this is it–I’m not looking, I honestly don’t care if I meet anyone on here anymore [ed: try not to shout so loudly how little you care]–and this is what I’ve learned about the men that I have had interactions on here with a little parting advice. [translation: a little pent-up hopelessness.]

If you are over 40 and you do not take care of yourself, unless you truly don’t care that a woman is dating you for your money, then maybe a better site for you is sugarbaby.com

Those of us that are of a certain age and reasonably successful on here are on here, want to meet someone reasonable–intelligent, successful, happy, that we’re attracted to physically and emotionally, not because we’re desperate, but usually because we’re too busy to date, or we do not wish to date through our work. We have businesses to run, we travel frequently, or we be on here because our friends and family are bugging us about being single and this is way to get them off our backs. What that means is–
1. We are not desperate–we do not need you to have a fulfilling life.
2. We are busy people–just like you–and we mean what we say, and say what we mean because we don’t have time to play silly word games or have drama like 20 somethings.
3. The silly little texting games are the fastest way to blow it. If we give you permission to call–then call–don’t text to see if its ok to call–we have a life–random texts from people we don’t know don’t cut it if we haven’t met you.
4. If we ask you not to contact us further–then don’t–unless you want to appear as a crazy person.
5. If we call you on the above..we’re not crazy, or scary..we just don’t have time to waste on people who don’t get it. We deal enough with that in our work.
6. Life gets shorter for us every day–we have no time or desire for drama, games or people who do not have their act together.
7. If we reject you after you have done any of the above, put your big boy pants on and move on.
8. We are not angry–we know what we want–we know what we’re willing to put up with. With age, the list of what we want gets a little longer, while the list of what we’re willing to put up with gets infinitely smaller because we have learned from our youth. [when in reality, the older a woman, the shorter the list of what she can get, and the longer the list of crap she has to be willing to put up with to secure a relationship.]

If you actually want to date a woman of a certain age [euphemism for older] who takes care of herself [euphemism for “managed to avoid getting grossly obese, but not the hardbody I once was”], then you need to take care of yourself too. Seriously [just in case you weren’t taking her seriously enough] –none of us want to date anyone who is overweight and out of shape–even if you have millions of dollars in the bank… [fat millionaires with hot young wives would disagree] even the hardest golddigger will use you for your money and then keep something nice on the side–usually paid for by you. [sounds more like wishful hoping.]

Seriously [i’m serious for you, cougarmama!] understand, that why you may want to relive your life and feel good about yourself from dating a 20 year old [yes, it feels pretty good to date a 20 year old] –she’s only using you for your money [men who are being used for their money still prefer it to the alternative. namely, you] , and after a while, you will be either extremely bored [it takes a much longer while for a man to get bored with a 20 year old hottie than a 46 year old harridan], or driven crazy by the immaturity factor. [whereas this online profile is full of maturity and the wisdom to know what attracts men] –unless you are a really damaged insecure man to start with. [only undamaged, secure men would look past the youth, beauty and femininity of younger women to date premenopausal crones.]

Nobody does us like us [and a tri-pronged purple saguaro]–if you don’t understand this statement, then you probably should be dating a 20 something who doesn’t know enough about herself that you will seem like magic. [yes, ladies, you have no idea what makes your ginas tingle until you hit 46 wise spinstera years.]

Don’t write to us to tell us why you’re not good enough in response to our profile, or to be witty–we don’t want our email box clogged–and you are neither as witty nor as clever as you think and the lack of self esteem is just, well…sad. [what man wouldn’t flock to such a loving specimen of womanhood!] Remember, what works well in person, plays pretty badly in print. [“bend over and take it up your flabby flat ass, you wretched ogress”?]

Trying to start a family while you are in your mid-to late forties is cruel to your potential children–unless you’re adopting older kids. [humans live longer because older men have had kids with younger women. it’s scientifically true!] Because by the time they figure out that you’re actually cool, you will be dead and you will not be able to see your grandchildren. [i’m pretty sure the first thought going through any man’s head upon bedding you is how your advanced years allow him to blast inside you free of the risk of knocking you up.]

Badmouthing your ex to us, especially when you have children, who share half the DNA of your ex, shows us that you don’t really love your kids.

We are not your honey, beautiful, sweetie, lovemuffin, or any other endearment that you write to us in an initial email. [any man writing *you* this in a first email has provided evidence that he is a loser. but, honey, these are the kinds of men you can expect to get at your age] We don’t know you, have never met you, and therefore you are not entitled to use that familiarity and if you do–you’ve blown it. [many men’s hearts are broken] You may not ever be entitled to use that term unless we get naked with you, and even then…the use of it is questionable. [to be rejected by a woman who’s almost old enough to be a grandmother in some cultures… the indignity!]

The excuse that I’m ashamed of being on the internet dating or I’m well known and incognito therefore won’t post my photos or give you my number is generally a flag that you’re cheating on someone or you have a highly inflated sense of self. [or they’re embarrassed about being seen in public with you] It’s the 21st century–get with the program, nearly everyone in the world is dating on the internet–with say the exception of 3rd world aboriginals (and 1st world aboriginals living in the Australian Outback). [dats raaaaciss!]

Don’t date someone who does not have similar lifestyle interests–if you’re in to veganism, patchouli, artistic and yoga retreats–don’t ask a hard driving businesswoman who is into scotch, cigars, steaks, golf and dealmaking out–and don’t be upset with her if she turns you down. She knows better than you that it won’t work. [“we’ve got a manjaw sighting in red sector A, sarge.” “nuke it from orbit.” “we’ll need a bigger nuke, sarge.”]

If you’re really that deeply involved and attached to your political, religious, philosophical beliefs, to the point where you should either be on Fox News or whatever the extreme liberal network equivalent–then don’t date someone who is diametrically opposed to you or anyone with any kind of common sense for that matter–all you’re doing is looking for drama and a fight. [lovemuffin, has it never occurred to you that the reason you might be dating all these diametrically opposed men is because they don’t see you as anything more than a convenient tumble in the hay and therefore not worth screening for a deeper connection?]

There is not a single woman that I know, including myself, that wants to date a man who is significantly younger than ourselves–media hype aside– [truest thing you’ve said in this whole shitshow] because frankly, we actually want to be with a man–not a boy we have to teach or that needs a manual–not a guy who’s putting notches on his belt–but a man preferably one who takes all night to do what he used to do all night. [surreptitiously watch porn while you slept?]

If you are between 25-35, even if you have millions of dollars, you actually have nothing of interest to women over 35 [aaaand, we’re back to the bullshit] –unless they have self-esteem issues, in which case, you will eventually end up with a chick in rehab, or a mental health facility, or someone you’re filing a restraining order against.

If you are over 60 trying to date a 40 something woman [a perfectly realistic goal for men of that age, since the sex ratio by then is skewed in men’s favor and women are well-known to find a lot more traits potentially attractive in men than their physiques] –Gravity takes it toll on you too..[gravity is kinder to men than women. think of women as jupiter, with its immense gravity crushing all semblance of supple ass cheeks and boobs. men looking from earth are like “fuck jupiter, i’m going to venus!”] and in a lot of cases, it is not pretty. If you did not take care of yourself..better have millions of dollars–or hire a nurse. [or be a charming, confident SOB.]

Read our profile, we took the time to write it–don’t email us an ask us to explain ourselves, our hobbies, if we took the time to explain everything about us in the profile. If you really want to get to know us, ask us out. [older women don’t have all the time in the world for flirting. they gotta get right to it.]

If you were raised by a single or divorced woman, who is pissed off at your father, work out those mommy issues before dating. We’re sorry your mom took the divorce out on you or the fact that your father didn’t know how to be a man or a father however..that’s no reason for you to take it out on us. [true. but some women are so much easier for men to take out their issues on. we call those women “low value”.]

We don’t need Brad Pitt..but we want someone with good hygiene, that can dress reasonably well–if you don’t know how to dress–go to The Gap–it’s Garanimals for grownups [jesus], we also want someone that knows how to eat with their mouth closed and that can cook at least one meal that doesn’t involve a microwave. [again, if you are a 46-year-old woman, you are going to find yourself getting a lot of attention from uncouth, slobby men. the classy men you want are busy hitting on women half your age.] We also want to be with someone that we know is not going to collapse from a heartattack walking up a flight of stairs or the half a block walk in the mall parking lot.

If you are over 40 and actually want to date a real woman, who, while she may not be Angelina Jolie, then behave like a real man, which means, no–we do not want to have long email diatribes with you. [i can’t argue with this. but i can argue that a woman presumably looking for an online partner should refrain from splattering her profile with her grievances.] We actually want to meet. If we give you our number, actually call–preferably within 24 hours of us giving you our number–sooner is better–WE GAVE YOU OUR NUMBER–CALL. [dear lord. a little introspection, sweetie. if men aren’t calling you back right away, it’s because they don’t really see you as all that worthy of a prompt phone call. how much you wanna bet 22-year-old chicks are getting called back more than they like?] If you’ve no intention of calling, then don’t ask for our number–unless you like having us think that you’re complete jerks and again proving why you are single. [or proving why you’re no longer attractive to decent men at your age] DO NOT TEXT US, TO SEE IF YOU CAN CALL. If you’re past the 24 hour mark, we pretty much know that you’re not interested. So move on.

If you are not interested, just say so–we will move on.

Writing to us in text speak is not an enticement to get us to write you back. An educated woman is not going to rite 2 u this way…[no, but a fun woman is] we don’t want to read what u rite to us. No, we do not care about perfect spelling, however, a basic grammar and sentence construction is appreciated. [you are a 46yo broad. i predict a parade of losers are in your future.]

Do not send us an email asking us how we are. We know that you really don’t care…get to the point already…If you want to meet us, make your case. [“the wall is breathing down my back!”]

Over sharing in your initial email–Big Turn OFF!.

This is not a bar–I know it may seem like it, but there’s a huge obstruction to communication–that being we’re on the internet. We do not want to text you, email you..if we are interested, we actually want to talk to you on the phone, figure out if you’re not a psycho, and then meet you. You can’t tell that by reading someone’s words. Particularly if you are a psycho–you probably write really well. [great zeus’ beard, i do believe i have been tainted.]

Same goes for the outrageous flattery and asking us why we are on here. We are on here for the same reasons you are…we are looking to meet someone to connect with or for the reasons stated above. If we had found this person, or we had flocks of men following us, or were even interested other than to appease social constructs put on us by friends and family, we wouldn’t be spending our time on an online dating site. [any woman who uses the term “social construct” in a non-satirical manner is automatically disqualified as a date prospect. follow this rule and i guarantee many years of happiness to you.]

If we are not interested, we will be honest and tell you–don’t behave like a jerk and call us names because we’re actually being kind in not wasting your time..you’re just proving that there are reasons why you are still single (or in the case of a lot of you..divorced). If you blow it with us, by doing any of the above things, and we ask you to stop communicating–we really mean that..move on–trying to get the last word –just proves my other points. [i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that it sounds like she dates a lot of clueless beta males. now why would that be…. the mind reels at the question.]

Take some decent pictures of yourself. All you really need is a genuine smile and to be dressed reasonably well. If you don’t know how to dress see my previous comment about The Gap. [jesus, again] If you think pictures of you in a tank top, or half naked is appealing then really catch a clue. Honestly, while we are visual creatures just like you–we’d rather see the half naked pictures or the tank top pictures of you after we’ve decided to get naked with you ourselves first and believe us…the mystery of you is much, much better. [the mystery of you 20 years ago is much, much better as well.]

Shaving your chest is not conducive to us wanting to get naked with you. [are you at the age where you shave yours?]

Pictures with kids that aren’t yours, or your dogs in your bed, or your cat are not attractive–they’re just weird. They tells us that you’re trying too hard to show us that you’re a nice guy. [niceguys and older women: perfect together!]

Artistic pictures–unless you are a professional, paid photographer on par with Ansel Adams, are also lame. [women get so cynical with age.]

Pictures where we can’t see your face, or you’re wearing sunglasses–again, big turn off. Just like our pictures like that do nothing for you. [the pictures with your face showing do nothing for us either.]

[incoming 463 bullet point checklist.]

Business portraits are lame too…photos that are 20 years old, we can tell. The tube socks give it away.

Action sport photos of you are also lame, because they could be anybody.

Distance photos of you where we can’t tell if its you–lame–

Don’t contact us if you haven’t taken the time to fill out your profile.

Don’t email us asking us to chat on Yahoo Messenger, Hotmail Addresses or gives that line that you’re out of town–we know you’re scamming.

We honestly don’t care about your bank account, or what you do, unless we’re gold-diggers however, if you’ve been in the same job for 10 years, with no promotion–it’s not impressive.

Coffee is lame as a first date/meeting. Lunch or Cocktail Hour is better.

Not shaving your beard is also not conducive to us wanting to get naked with you or even date you.

If you’re just on here to try and get laid, be honest. Some of us are on here just for that too.

We don’t care if you’re bald, we only care if you’re trying too hard to cover it up.

Pictures of you with your friends is not a good idea–from what I’ve seen, a lot of your friends are way better looking than you.

Pictures with other women draping off of you are also not a good idea..especially if they are really beautiful women, or dressed in scanty clothing..it makes us wonder if that’s your ex, and why are you contacting us, or that you’re really sleazy.

Hawaiin shirts, not a good idea, nor are the Mall Photos.

Pictures of you in a tux..we don’t care–and often you don’t look as good as you think you do.

Pictures of you at a baseball game, in front of a stand and repeat, at hollywood premieres, showing us how important you are, or how famous you are, how many famous people you know–Not impressive. Again, the only women who will care about that are gold diggers, actress wannabe’s. If that’s what you want to date, then great–state that in your profile. Quit writing that you want a relationship.

Pictures with you and your car, or motorcycle..or on someone elses care or motorcycle..not impressive. Neither are the travel shots in exotic places that you have only been to once in your life and are not planning on returning to.

We all like to travel. We have all been places–so what..You’re here now..so what we really want to know is what you are doing with your life right now, what do you really honestly want in a relationship and do we have a chance with you if we aren’t a supermodel? We want to be with someone who is happy with that they do, that we are physically attracted to, able to pay their bills, and have your baggage in a carryon that you can leave at the station.

Every single person wants to find someone to be with, bear that in mind the next time you are rude to someone online who takes the time to write to you and you don’t respond. All it does is hurt someone’s feelings, and show what a rude jerk you are–and demonstrates, yet again, why you are single.

If you have no intention of meeting, then don’t bother to respond to someone who reaches out to you, other than to say you’ve no intention of meeting.

Be kind in your rejection. Saying we’re not a match, or that your’e not interested is preferable to being mean to someone. [yeah, but you make it so easy.]

What I’m doing with my life: [no one gives a shit. not even the guys emailing you for an easy lay.]

I work a lot, and take time to enjoy my life–I have my own business –I’m moving from XX to XX for that business. I am a busy person. [busy busy busy! lookatme be busy! i’m so busy… oh so busy… i’m so busy and busy and siiiingle! and i pity… any girl who isn’t a careerist cunt.]

I’m really good at: [charmless effrontery]

A lot of things…I’ve had a very interesting life and have acquired a lot of skills. I grew up in a very dysfunctional house, and was told everyday that I was ugly, stupid and useless..so in compensation, I learned a lot of things to be a useful person and discovered that kindness is the most beautiful thing there is. [coulda fooled us] As such, my childhood has enriched my life in many ways because I have wonderful friends whom I have developed and kept these many years. [the enrichment will continue until morale improves.]

The first things people usually notice about me: [crows’ feet]

Some people notice that I’m polite and nice to everyone. [polite is not the word i’d use] Others notice that I have great friends and we’re always laughing. [you don’t sound amused] Some have noticed that I treat people with kindness and compassion. [here’s a hint, honey: tough love and a managerialist temperament won’t attract many men. coy femininity and a tight bod will.] Some notice how I look after my friends and how I’m always being stopped for directions and I give good ones. Some people say its my smile, others say its my eyes. Being noticed at all is a compliment…however, I’d rather just be kind, polite and nice and continue to be me, whether I’m noticed or not. [this part of her profile reads like a much younger walk-on came in and polished it up.]

Favorite books, movies, shows, music, and food: [eat, pray, love]

I haven’t owned a television since 1998, so I don’t spend a lot of time on television though when I travel, I watch a lot of Food Network.I’m an omnivore, as long as it doesn’t have bell peppers in it, I’ll eat pretty much anything.Books, let’s just say if it has writing on it, I will read it. I find that my best reads come from reading other things that reference stuff, whether in fiction or in non-fiction. It’s taken me down some fascinating paths. Sadly, I do not have the time I once did to read everything on my ever going list of books to read. Music is the same thing, I love Soundhound and Pandora Radio I hear something I like, I can find it, then discover new things. I like all types of music (ok..well..I kind of draw the line at Swedish Death Metal) thinking about it–let me re-qualify that–it has to be musical..i.e. have some sort of melody, beat–so Yoko Ono…um…not so much. Other than that, what I listen to, depends on my mood and my location.

The six things I could never do without: [browbeating young female subordinates out of envious pique]

Breathing, Eating, Drinking, A hot shower, A sense of humor, a good night’s sleep, warm clothes. [you are boring]

I spend a lot of time thinking about: [my headlong date with the wall]

Strategies for my clients. [sexxxy!] My move to XX–and the fact that I will miss XX for its weather. After 20 years here, I’ve had it with the shallowness, the BS. [translation: she’s had it with powerful men completely passing her by for younger babes.]

On a typical Friday night I am: [stroking my pussy]

I could be working/traveling or at home relaxing. It just depends on what I’ve got going on that week. [still boring]

The most private thing I’m willing to admit: [catnip. my cat’s barbed tongue. you make the connection.]

I like cats, and they like me–however, I’m extremely allergic–I think they know this. [hilar! i swear i didn’t read this line before i wrote the above editorial comment.]

I’m looking for: [a less offensive quasimodo from the shrinking pool of quasimodos currently available to a woman of my years]

  • Guys who like girls
  • Ages 38–54
  • Near me
  • Who are single
  • For new friends, long-term dating, activity partners

You should message me if: [your date with the 28-year-old bartender fell through]

You understand that I don’t have time to waste in ‘chats, emails, or texts.’ That you can get to the point. Please understand that I am not desperate, I don’t have time to play games, if you’d like to meet, we will have a phone call, determine if there’s chemistry and conversation enough to meet and then we’ll do just that, if we work out great, if not, that’s great too. [i thought you said you weren’t looking for anyone online?] I will give you the courtesy of responding to every inquiry, I would hope that you would do the same, even if its to say I’m not interested. I have my big girl panties on, I can take being told you’re not interested–though if you don’t–thank you anyway for not wasting my time. [sadly, still boring. even sadder, still grating.]

******

Phew! What a wasteland of parched human psyche. And people wonder why American men head to foreign shores to find charming, feminine women without a two-ton buttplug shoved up their asses.

You know, I was going to write some final message directed at this woman’s overactive sense of entitlement, her breathless inventory of demands, her sheer, willful delusions about her cratering sexual market value, her irritating grrlpower femcunt pose, her mouth-puckering bitterness, her ‘work first, men second’ careercunt attitude, her laughably unrealistic standards, her thermonuclear bitchery, her total abandonment of youthful romanticism and whimsy, her complete disregard for doing what it takes to entice men or to even recognize that men have desires which women, particularly aging women, must abide if they want to find love…

but then I decided this is one of those wonderful rare cases where the mask slips so entirely that you can just let the shrike speak for herself. She serves a better use as someone to be made an example of, for younger women to learn valuable life lessons.

And she’s relatively thin (from what we can glean from her pics), which makes her unpleasant attitude all the more self-destructive. Most American women have ballooned into monstrosities by their 40s, so a woman who manages to stay the same weight at 46 that she was at 26 has a leg up on her same-age competition. Perhaps this explains her entitlement. Still, thin older women would do well to keep in mind that thinness is no substitute for slender youth, and adjust their expectations accordingly. (It’s not for nothing I call 21st century America ‘Expectation Nation’.)

However, I am a magnanimous man of great, overflowing humanity, so I will give this woman some advice which could turn her life around.

Learn to settle.

PS This is why I have hardly ever bothered with online dating. Good-looking women are not on there in sufficient numbers to offset the attention whoring fix they get from the masses of betas e-groveling at their feet, and the rest are women like the one above. Tight online game can yield fruit, but I find it more personally fulfilling to just meet the girls I find attractive outside in the cool, crisp air.

Posted in Beta, Goodbye America, Hitting The Wall, Misandry, Ridiculousness, The Id Monster, Tool Time | 309 Comments »

How To Make A Girl Catatonic

Mar 14th, 2012 by

Vodka! No, just kidding. Sorta.

Approach anxiety is a common problem for men, and now a scientific study has found that it has probably bedeviled men since the dawn of time, leaving them in a temporarily quasi-retarded state when in the company of beautiful women.

Researchers have begun to explore the cognitive impairment that men experience before and after interacting with women. A 2009 study demonstrated that after a short interaction with an attractive woman, men experienced a decline in mental performance. A more recent study suggests that this cognitive impairment takes hold even when men simply anticipate interacting with a woman who they know very little about.

Another game concept confirmed by science (not like it needed to be). Evolutionarily speaking, I can’t think of a clear reason why it’s advantageous to men to become tongue-tied around pretty girls, but the study authors offer a hypothesis.

Although the studies on their own don’t offer any concrete explanations, Nauts and her colleagues think that the reason may have something to do with men being more strongly attuned to potential mating opportunities. Since all of their participants were both heterosexual and young, they might have been thinking about whether the woman might be a potential date. […]

Overall, it seems clear that whenever we face situations where we’re particularly concerned about the impression that we’re making, we may literally have difficulty thinking clearly. In the case of men, thinking about interacting with a woman is enough to make their brains go a bit fuzzy.

Sounds plausible, but it still doesn’t explain why such “male impairment” around women would evolve — or avoid being selected against — in the first place. It’s pretty well obvious from observing naturals in action that the men with the least anxiety and the nimblest tongues have the most success with women.

Nonetheless, we must abide the reality that for a lot of men, hurdling that first obstacle — approach anxiety — is half the battle to becoming a master seducer. All I can tell you is that it gets easier with practice and especially with success, for each bedding instills an unshakeable confidence that exists separate from the confidence won by success in reproductively proxy male endeavors like sports, career and physique. In the end, it simply comes down to willpower. You either will yourself to approach, or you take the easy route of making excuses for not approaching.

A number of readers have asked if there is something men can do to instill a similar state of catatonia in women. A reasonable request, since it’s easier to seduce a woman in thrall to your very presence. Being famous would certainly do the trick, but that’s out of reach for nearly everyone. Having noticeably higher value than the woman you are approaching is another way to “reverse lobotomize” her. For example, if she’s at an art gallery and you are one of the artists holding court with a small group of local aficionados. Or simple preselection — being seen enjoying the company of other girls — can induce a female version of male mate fright.

But commenter YaReally hits the nail on the head:

Confidently cutting the space between the two of you (ie – get in her face) while locking eye contact.

Very few women can form a coherent sentence in that situation.

When she meets a guy who can approach and stare her down without being nervous? Because his sense of entitlement tells him that he shouldn’t be nervous around her? He’s the guy who fucks her.

Steady, unbreakable eye contact and smooth, slow, controlled strides toward her so that she has a moment to savor her anticipation — these are the simplest and quickest ways for a man to rattle a woman with his intoxicating presence. It works because, as real life observation and science both prove, women are viscerally sexually excited by dominant and overconfident men. And nothing projects both those masculine traits better or faster than alpha body language and direct eye contact. Staring a woman down until she lowers her eyes or looks askance will trigger the submissiveness reflex, and that is a place where she secretly yearns to be.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Try holding eye contact as long as possible with random men and women. Assume a relaxed or smiling expression so that you aren’t mistaken for an angry commuter having a bad day. Start by doing it with people passing you on the sidewalk going the opposite direction, so you know an end to the discomfort is not long off. Even in those walk-by sidewalk situations, where a mere few seconds of eye lock is all that’s required of you, you’ll find it difficult to hold a stranger’s eyes for longer than a split second. The difficulty level will go up if your eye partner is a hot girl or a dominant man meeting you pupil a pupil.

After a few days of this, something almost magical happens. You notice that men break eye contact before you do, and look to the ground. Forced to look up at you (most will be shorter than you), women return your gaze hungrily, uneasily, wonderment gripping their facial expressions, and if your vision is sharp enough you can make out a nearly imperceptible parting of their lips. You begin to feel dominant. And that feeling translates into real dominance and an attitudinal shift, for above all the thing that is attractive about alpha males is their attitude.

Posted in Alpha, Game, Girls, Guy Rules, Ugly Truths | 181 Comments »

Game, Obesity And Men Dropping Out

Mar 12th, 2012 by

Over at Cheap Chalupas Central, asdf comments on an assertion by Charles Murray, regarding conclusions from his book “Coming Apart”, that falling marriage rates and rising single mom rates are due solely or mostly to men dropping out and eschewing marital responsibility:

Murray: “If you are arguing that 22-year-old men are saying to their girlfriends, ‘I just need a job and then I’ll behave responsibly…’ Well, that’s just bullshit.”

There are a lot of men this is probably true for. Men know, instinctively, that unless they make more money than their spouse the relationships can never be serious or a family formed. So if they consider their chances of getting a good job slim they will likely not try to do the other things necessary to become a family man.

asdf is spot on. I like Charles Murray. I consider him a leading light in the anti-lie movement. But like a lot of sociologists examining trends in the functioning of the sexual market, he misses or glosses over the relevance of female hypergamy. I understand why feminists would want to avoid confronting the deepest, darkest desires of the female id (aka My Secret Vagina Tingle!), but I can’t see a reason why putative iconoclasts like Murray would ignore it except as a reflection of an instinctive white knight complex that so many beta males harbor.

If women are offering men — well, really, just coolbreeze alpha males — the sex for free, then those men will revert to taking the path of least resistance. They won’t “man up”, because they won’t need to. This reading of market forces implicates women more than it does men. Women are making sexual choices, and men are responding to those choices.

It’s not entirely a female-driven decision tree. Women, particularly women in lower socioeconomic strata, are refusing marriage to jobless layabouts. Men could choose to raise their mate value by getting jobs, however undignified the work. In the past, this “manning up” brought the desired result: those jobless men would improve their marital prospects by taking on work. But the overarching change in the current culture is a one-two punch to the guts of men, especially lower SES men, that damages their ability to raise their status (i.e., their sexual market value, or SMV) via employment:

1. More jobs require advanced skills that left side of the bell curve men don’t have the innate mental capacity to learn, and more jobs require female-oriented dispositions that most working class men don’t care to learn.

2. Women have priced themselves out of their dating pool of men by becoming economically independent. A woman’s entirely natural and reasonable hypergamous instinct (hey, she’s only got so many eggs to spare) to mate with higher status men than herself dooms her to limited prospects if her own status has gone up relative to the men in her dating milieu.

Men are intuitive creatures, as well, even if not as holistically intuitive as women. Men will respond to depressed status enhancement from work by retreating from the employment field. Men will respond to women’s sexual choices by adopting the behavior of those men whom women lavish with their discounted derrieres. In some mating circles, this means men will learn game (i.e. the charismatic arts) and try to catch spillover from the maglev pussy express that roars along during women’s contraceptively-abetted prime years from the late teens to late 20s.

A feedback loop of alpha cock carouseling, single mommery, video gaming and porn watching results which will, in time, begin to infiltrate the upper classes. You can only insulate yourself from dystopian trends for so long before the uruk-hai batter down your private school walls.

In short, no sociological theory into sex, marriage and family trends is complete without a long, hard look at female hypergamy, the one biomechanical force to rule them all, and its intersection with economic realities. The science is out there; when women become financially empowered, they begin to choose men based on criteria other than their ability to provide.

But that’s not all that Murray, et al are missing. I’m here to tell Murray and others perusing his findings that there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.

Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.

This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.

So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?

You see where this is heading. It’s entirely reasonable, and expected, that a lot of men would drop out of the intensified competition for the few remaining childless slender babes in a world full of fat asses, single moms, and fat assed single moms. And even among the small contingent of sexually appealing women, they make enough in government and HR paychecks to cover expenses plus gifts for their Skittles Men. What working stiff beta provider can compete on those terms?

Men aren’t refusing to man up; they’re doing exactly what women do, and what both sexes have done since time immemorial: they’re acting in their self-interests. Incentives matter. You’d think Murray, of all people, would know this.

Women are as complicit in the current deterioration of family structure as are men; and, in fact, because of women’s natural roles as sexual gatekeepers, I’d argue that women are more complicit than men. In the arena of sexual choice and fulfillment, men are, on average, followers, and women are leaders. This is not to say that men exercise no choice; only that they exercise less choice in sexual partners than do women. A double whammy of women’s financial independence restricting their mate choices, coupled with a female SMV-destroying obesity scourge restricting men’s mate choices, has compounded to help usher forth the dysgenic shitfest we as a nation find ourselves in today.

If the reigning paradigm is unsustainable but also immune to rectification, as I suspect it is, then perhaps the only solution now is to wait out a total collapse of elite authority. Tick tock…

ps this post hate-list approved.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture, Goodbye America, Hungry Hungry Hippos, Status Is King, Ugly Truths | 430 Comments »

Is Finger Length Ratio Evidence Of A Woman’s Fidelity?

Mar 9th, 2012 by

Here’s a very thorough and illuminating study into digit ratio (a subject previously covered on this blog) that adds a new angle: the relation of female to male digit ratio by ethnicity, and what it could mean about current human evolution. The study’s findings also have some interesting implications for pickup and game, and for male and female reproductive success and health in general.

This is a Big Info post, so I suggest you read the study at the link provided to get the full impact of its conclusions. Bonus: your diligence will help keep the comments free of non sequitur-ish clutter. To keep things straight in your head, it helps to remember that low digit ratio (a shorter index finger than ring finger) corresponds to exposure to higher levels of testosterone in the womb, and a high digit ratio corresponds to higher estrogen exposure in the womb. Prenatal hormone exposure influences the development of the brain, and thus the personality and behavioral inclinations of the adult.

The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences, and reproductive success: evidence for sexually antagonistic genes? […]

We report data on the following. (a) reproductive success and 2D:4D from England, Germany, Spain, Hungary (ethnic Hungarians and Gypsy subjects), Poland, and Jamaica (women only). Significant negative associations were found between 2D:4D in men and reproductive success in the English and Spanish samples and significant positive relationships between 2D:4D in women and reproductive success in the English, German, and Hungarian samples. The English sample also showed that married women had higher 2D:4D ratios than unmarried women, suggesting male choice for a correlate of high ratio in women, and that a female 2D:4D ratio greater than male 2D:4D predicted high reproductive success within couples. Comparison of 2D:4D ratios of 62 father:child pairs gave a significant positive relationship. This suggested that genes inherited from the father had some influence on the formation of the 2D:4D ratio. Waist:hip ratio in a sample of English and Jamaican women was negatively related to 2D:4D. (b) Sex and population differences in mean 2D:4D in samples from England, Germany, Spain, Hungary (including ethnic Hungarians and Gypsy subjects), Poland, Jamaica, Finland, and South Africa (a Zulu sample). Significant sex and population differences in mean 2D:4D were apparent.

It has been known for some time that the ratio between the length of the 2nd and 4th digits (2D:4D) is a sexually dimorphic trait (Baker, 1888; George, 1930). In general, mean 2D:4D has been found to be lower in men compared to women (Phelps, 1952). The differentiation of the digits is under the control of Homeobox or Hox genes (the posterior-most Hoxd and Hoxa genes), which also control the differentiation of the testes and ovaries (Peichel et al., 1997; Herault et al., 1997).

Some people don’t like it when I use the term biomechanics in discussions of love and sex and men and women. They complain it’s reductionist, that I’m somehow violating a cosmic rule by analyzing the component parts of relationship dynamics and the sexes. I think studies like this must give them the hives, for every time one of these babies drops in the lap of intellectual debate, my reductionist worldview is further confirmed. Hey, I love poetry and starlight gazing and flutters of the heart as much as the next romantic sucker, and happily wallow in it, but I also love the truth. Especially when it has real world implications for my own life.

A correlate of maternal levels of testosterone and estrogen is waist:hip ratio (WHR). Women with low ratios have low testosterone and high estrogen, while women with high WHR have high testosterone and low estrogen (Evans et al., 1983). The WHR of women has in turn been found to correlate with the 2D:4D ratio of their children, i.e., women with low WHR have male and female children with high 2D:4D, and mothers with high WHR have low 2D:4D ratio children of both sexes (Manning et al., 1999). We argue that 2D:4D may be a marker for sexually antagonistic genes (Rice, 1996a, 1996b; Rice and Holland, 1997) that exert their effects prenatally.

I’m building up to a blockbuster hypothesis, so read the above again. Women with low WHRs, (that is, women with sexy hourglass figures) give birth to boys and girls with more feminine digit ratios — they pass their femininity on to their kids of either sex — and women with high WHRs (more boyish figures) give birth to more masculine sons and daughters. Scientists refer to this prenatal process as the actions of sexually antagonistic genes, meaning genes that are good for sons are bad for daughters, and vice versa.

On the one hand, low 2D:4D may indicate prenatal exposure to high testosterone and low estrogen levels, a situation that enhances fertility in males but reduces it in females. On the other hand, high 2D:4D ratios may correlate prenatally with low testosterone and high estrogen and be associated with low fertility in males and high [fertility] in females.

Digit ratio means something. It has real ramifications for your reproductive success, if this study is on the right track. Naturally, men and women don’t go around examining each others’ hands for mate suitability. Rather, we are attuned to more conspicuous behavioral and physical characteristics which act as a proxy for the genes that influence mate value and, by extension, digit ratio.

(Though it should be noted that there is such a thing as objectively appealing feminine and masculine hands. “Manhands” — hi Sandy! — are unattractive to most men, and strong bear claw hands on men are attractive to most women.)

I’m going to skip through a lot of tables and analysis on marriage rates, fecundity and digit ratio to get to the game-relevant meat of this study. (If you’re interested, some data I’m passing over for discussion include the results that male digit ratio had no effect on male marriage rate, but female digit ratio did have an effect — women with higher ratios (more feminine) were more likely to get married. Fecundity — large family size — was also positively correlated to high female digit ratio and low male digit ratio.)

We do not argue that the 2D:4D ratio is important mechanistically or as a display trait in mate choice. Most probably it affords us a window into prenatal hormonal conditions. […]

Our results indicate significant differences in mean 2D:4D between populations and confirm that the trait is sexually dimorphic. There was also a trend for 2D:4D to be negatively related to reproductive success in males (the English and Spanish samples) and positively in females (the English, German, and Hungarian Caucasian and Gypsy samples). There are many cultural and biological factors that intervene between fertility and reproductive success. Perhaps the most important is the fertility of the long-term partner. In an English sample we found high reproductive success in partnerships in which the male had lower 2D:4D than his partner and low reproductive success when 2D:4D was higher than that of his partner. When English and Jamaican data were pooled, there was some evidence of a weak negative association between WHR and 2D:4D in women. […]

The 2D:4D ratio is negatively related to testosterone and to sperm numbers (Manning et al., 1998). Our Finnish sample had very low male 2D:4D, and it is known that Finnish men have sperm counts that are nearly double that of men worldwide (Suominen and Vierula, 1993; Vierula et al., 1996).

Go Finns! The intra- and interethnic and interracial comparisons of 2D:4D digit ratio in men and women are the most interesting part of this study. The graph below is chock full of potential insights into ethnic differences in sexual behavior.

Poles of both sexes (on the far left) have the highest overall digit ratios in this sample, and Finnish men (far right) the lowest. Poles also show the least within-sex variance in ratios, and Finns and Hungarians the most. Intersex comparisons show that Polish women and men have nearly identical digit ratios and variance, and Finnish women are significantly more feminine relative to their male co-ethnics. Steady on, because this is leading to something.

We suggest the following model. Consider a man who has had high testosterone and low estrogen exposure in utero, i.e., he has a low 2D:4D ratio. It would be of advantage to him if his sons shared these characters. They may therefore make many grandchildren to him. However, what of his daughters? High testosterone and low estrogen could compromise the development of their reproductive system and therefore reduce their fitness. Similarly, a woman with low testosterone and high prenatal exposure to estrogen may produce fertile daughters but low-fertility sons. In such a situation, modifiers of genes controlling sex-limited prenatal testosterone and estrogen exposure may arise and spread. Eventually, we may expect complete sex dependence to characterize the expression of genes that influence prenatal hormonal levels.

The distribution of the 2D:4D ratio shows a high degree of overlap between males and females. This suggests that sex-limited expression is incomplete. Why is this so? Sex limitation is a complex adaptation, involving the evolution of sex-specific regulatory sequences (Rice, 1996a). It will therefore evolve slowly.

The fact that male-female digit ratios for many ethnic populations overlap and thus disadvantage the opposite sex children of the dominant gene expression suggests, tantalizingly, that evolution on these sex-dependent genes is in an incomplete stage. That is, we humans are a sputtering work in progress, and our current beta testing blueprint is rife with bugs and unintended algorithms. In his image, my ass.

Now we may begin the impolite hypothesizing. Are Finns, by virtue of their non-overlapping intersex digit ratios, a more evolved race than Poles? Not so fast. The study authors offer an alternative explanation to incomplete evolution.

However, other things being equal, it will eventually evolve. So do we simply need more time or are there other factors operating here? One possibility is the occurence of cycles of intragenomic conflict. Males, because they produce low-cost sperm, are able to fertilize many eggs. Females, because they produce high-cost ova, are limited to smaller numbers of offspring. In populations with polygyny or frequent extra-pair copulations (EPCs), the variance of male reproductive success is high. That is, a small proportion of successful males may fertilize a high proportion of eggs. When strict monogamy is practiced by most females, the variance in male reproductive success is similar to that of females. In such a situation, polygyny or EPCs may be a successful female strategy if there is substantial heritable variance in male fitness. If there is little such variance, female monogamy would be favored.

Suppose there are two loci controlling in utero hormonal exposure: one influencing testosterone levels and the other estrogen. A mutation arises at the testoster- one locus of a male, which increases in utero exposure. He has high testosterone levels and sperm counts, and these traits are passed on to his sons. However, because sex limitation is incomplete, his daughters have reduced fertility. The existence of such a male or small numbers of such males increases the variance in male fitness and favors a polygynous or EPC strategy in females. The high testosterone mutation will spread and with it the frequency of polygyny or EPCs. However, as the mutation becomes common, the variance in male fitness declines and females switch to increasing frequencies of monogamy. Now conditions favor the spread of a mutation at the estrogen locus, which increases in utero estrogen exposure. Alternating cycles of high prenatal testosterone and high prenatal estrogen will ccur. This is interlocus coevolution of sexually anagonistic genes. Such coevolution has the characteristics of the Red Queen process (Rice and Holland, 1997). Sexually antagonistic genes should affect fertility and, because of population cycles, may be at different frequencies in different populations. In populations with high prenatal exposure to testosterone in both males and females, there may be substantial differences in the variance in male and female reproductive success.

A negative relationship between 2D:4D and offspring number would be expected in males and a positive association in females. In addition, there will be selective pressure for the accumulation of modifiers that cause sex-limited expression. A population that is highly estrogenized in utero would have no marked difference in variance of male and female repro- ductive success, no strong correlation between 2D:4D ratio and offspring number, and little selective pressure for sex-limited expression of prenatal genes.

There is little variance in Polish male fitness, as judged by their tight gradient digit ratios. Or, to put it another way, Poland is filled with beta males and not too many omegas or alpha male cads. Poland is a place where female monogamy is favored. The fact that Polish men also have relatively high digit ratios suggests that the men are, like their women, more favorable to monogamy.

Now compare that to Finns. Finnish men have a lot of variance in digit ratio, and a very low (masculinized) overall ratio. We can then surmise that Finland is filled with a wide variety of men (relative to their population), from omegas to betas to alphas, who are, nonetheless, more masculine than men from most other ethnic backgrounds. Finnish women would be open to alpha cad flings, cheating and using betas as emotional tampons. Presumably, some Finnish men would be glad to oblige. Both sexes would be less disposed to monogamy.

That is, at least, what a digit ratio hypothesis into sexual behavior differences would tell us. Is it true?

Roosh recently wrote a post about how the Polish women in Poland were much more open to “beta male game” than American women are. He said Polish chicks loved being courted in the traditional sense, didn’t play “I’m the princess, here” games, and were inclined to long term relationships. His experience in Poland precisely matches my experience with Polish chicks. They really are sweeter, more feminine and less interested in short term flings than women from other backgrounds.

And both our experiences with Polish chicks corroborate digit ratio analysis; the high overall digit ratio and low intrasex digit ratio variance of Polish girls predisposes them to LTRs and preferring the company of more attentive, “traditional” men.

My hypothesis then, based on digit ratio analysis, is that in countries where the women have a high overall digit ratio (longer index finger than ring finger) and a low intrasex variance in digit ratio (where most women and men have pretty much the same digit ratio), monogamy will be the preferred relationship norm of the women and aloof alpha male game will need to be distilled with a heavy dose of beta provider game.

I therefore predict, based on the above ethnic comparison graph, that should Roosh go to Finland, he will have to run some seriously hardcore push-pull alpha cad game on the local Finnish women. If my digit ratio hypothesis is correct, he will find Finnish girls to be very similar to coastal city American girls, and very different from Polish girls.

Here’s hoping Roosh takes a detour to Finland and either confirms or falsifies my hypothesis. If he won’t, then maybe I will have to. In the interest of science, of course.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Foreign Girls, Ugly Truths | 214 Comments »

The Aloof Alpha Attitude Explained

Mar 8th, 2012 by

Anytime I define the central attitude of the alpha male as ‘aloof and indifferent’, a chorus of trolls confused dweebs semantics nerds sincere readers wants to know if that means they should stand in a corner manfully ignoring girls until a girl falls in love with them.

Instead of allowing myself to get sucked into a nerdgasmic duel over definitions, I’ll just quote one of the best characters from pop culture history. This is all the definition of the aloof alpha attitude you need.

The attitude dictates that you don’t care whether she comes, stays, lays, or prays. I mean whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’. Now when you got that, then you have the attitude.

AKA outcome independence. Aloof doesn’t mean silence. It means unconcern for women’s reactions. Nonchalance. Which is not the same as avoiding any romantically-charged, sexually-escalating interaction with women.

Five purple saguaros to the first commenter who can describe the ‘Five Point Plan.’

Posted in Alpha, Rules of Manhood | 210 Comments »

Punishing Single Momhood

Mar 7th, 2012 by

Commenter Libertardian sends along this link to a story about a Wisconsin Senator who introduced a bill that amounts to a massive social shaming campaign against single moms.

Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married

In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.

Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”

I approve of this bill. If socially shaming women to the point that even one of them avoids becoming a single mom by choice and burdening society will her illegitimate hellion spawn, then it has done far more good for the nation as well as the individual woman than all the trillions spent on leftist wishful thinking, non-judgmentalist programs over the past 50 years.

The facts are out there, for anyone willing to listen. Children do best with a mother and a father. The growing ranks of single moms are creating a degenerate horde of emotionally and mentally destitute orclings, and we — all of us — will pay the price, sooner rather than later. Count on it.

Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.

Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.

His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.

This guy’s policies make so much sense it’s like a cleansing blast of mountain cooled breezes through marshy, addled skulls. Godspeed, Grothman. Do not go defensively into that morning light. Stay the course.

Naturally, the lefties who run the joint are three faulty synapses from a mass epileptic seizure. Case in point: the female “””impartial Yahoo! journalist””” can’t finish writing the story without snarling about Grothman’s own childlessness as some sort of proof positive cunt whistle for the dumbass brigade.

Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents

Oh, the snark! It’s so delicious, isn’t it? Grothman has no kids! He’s unmarried! Secret decoder ring says: what the hell does he know about single moms?! After your bout of ironic SWPL chortling where you get your feelgood fix remotely lording it over the rubes in flyover country, you may want to examine the raft of logical fallacies in your thinking. Here’s a starting point: you don’t have to be burned alive by non-hateful merry pranksters to know that it’ll hurt.

Libertardian comments:

This strikes me as aiming at the effect (single motherhood) rather than the cause (i.e. society’s unshackling of female hypergamy).

You take your policy improvements where you can get them. The root cause is unshackled female hypergamy, but a policy aimed at shaming one of the symptoms — in this case, single momhood — will do some good as well. Call it the broken persons theory of social policymaking. You fix immediate problems at the margins by shaming individual bad behavior and in time the bigger, mass scaled dominoes begin to fall. At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.

Of course, some exceptions to the social shaming program will have to be made. For instance, widows with children are not single moms, and shouldn’t be lumped in under that label. The shaming should target those women who choose to have kids outside of marriage and those unmarried women who shack up with unreliable jerks and act all surprised when the jerk heads for the hills after a kid is born. In other words, shame the women who make bad choices, not the women who are stuck in unexpected bad situations through no fault of their own.

Note that a social shaming program against single moms would work regardless of the precise correlations between single momhood and dysfunctional bastards. In what I generously refer to as the Jason Malloy theory of genetically inherited Bad Lifestyle Choosing (he is the occasional web commenter who drops gems of insight in cutting edge blog comments sections) — a theory which holds that the dysfunction of single moms’ kids is due to the kids inheriting the awful genetic predispositions of their trashy parents — the effect of shaming would work at the genetic level as well as the social level. Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.

Either way you cut it — whether the dysfunction is predominantly genetic, environmental, or both — the act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization. And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | 240 Comments »

The Other Three Weeks

Mar 6th, 2012 by

Game blogs typically focus on aloof alpha game (AAG) that creates and exploits value differentials because it is the form of game that is most poorly understood by the masses of beta males and it is the game with the most untapped potential to quickly and powerfully build an attraction and bond with women, particularly the hot younger women who are most highly prized by men. But there is another aspect of game that is often left under-explored by pickup artists yet is almost as vital to fun, healthy, emotionally fulfilling relationships with women.

I speak of beta reassurance game.

There are perfectly understandable reasons why beta reassurance game (BRG: I will be using nerdy acronyms in this post because I don’t feel like typing out the full terms over and over. Get used to it.) is overlooked:

1. In the early, critical stages of seduction, women respond more viscerally to AAG than to BRG. In fact, unleashing BRG too early will hurt your chances with desirable women, who have more than their share of lickspittle betas doting on them.

2. It’s easy to lose a woman’s sexual interest with too little AAG, as opposed to BRG where too much will turn a woman off. Therefore, the pickup artist’s reaction to this reality is to place more emphasis on AAG at the expense of BRG, since there is a higher risk of not doing enough AAG than there is of doing too much BRG. (The converse — too much AAG or too little BRG — can also turn a woman off, but that dynamic is less pronounced and likelier to occur later in a relationship, after sexual access has been secured.)

3. Most men are beta males by nature, so the core concepts of BRG come to them as naturally as breathing. The concepts underlying AAG are understood by fewer men, so the market for learning AAG is bigger.

4. Most men, especially younger men, who want to do better with women are less interested in the demands of long term relationships than they are in sexual satisfaction. AAG is more applicable to getting laid than it is to the formation and maintenance of LTRs (though by no means is it unimportant to the latter!)

Anyhow, that’s a short list of the reasons why AAG dominates most game discussions. Yet, if we were to carefully plot the trajectories of dying relationships and marriages, a not inconsiderable number of them would have failed because the man distanced himself emotionally or provided insufficient reassurances of emotional fidelity to his woman. The upper crust wife who has a torrid affair with the poolboy because her rich hubby is ignoring her is a stereotype for a reason.

Therefore, it is in your interest as a man to learn and master the chivalric arts of beta provisioning game (without actually providing much materially) as religiously as you train yourself in the dark arts of AAG. A woman in love is aroused both by your dimorphic demonic alphatude and by your crazystickygluey emotional closeness and dependability. The trick is the degree to which you emphasize interchangeability and intimacy.

You say this sounds funny coming from a guy like me? Well, you obviously haven’t been reading closely enough.

In general, for most men, AAG should have primacy over BRG at all stages of pair bonding. BRG is the coin of the realm. It is devalued by debt peonage, unshackled female hypergamy and cultural propagandism. AAG is the dusty tome in the attic the keepers of the social order hope you never find. Unless you are a top 20% alpha male, your problem will likely be a risk of smothering women with too much BRG.

So consider this post directed at alpha males with intimacy (aka desire for pussy variety) issues. But beta males have problems in this area as well. Specifically, I’m thinking of the sort of spergy beta who lacks the intuitive grasp of women’s full panoply of needs, and struggles to summon spontaneous romantic gestures that help cement relationship bonds. Then there is the beta who has tasted the sweet success of seducing women into bed, and overshoots, neglecting the value of the long-term soft sell.

Because, keep in mind, there are three weeks out of every month when women don’t ovulate and get horny for alpha male seed. That’s 75% of a woman’s reproductive life (~15 years) when beta males have a shot. Looked at that way, betas running beta provider game have a leg up on alphas running nothing but aloof and indifferent cad game.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but you get the idea. BRG is as legit a form of seduction as AAG.

Yes, women are secretly turned on by men who cheat on them or who intimate that they are cheating on them, but women also like thoughtful romantic gifts, gazing at starlight together, dinners out with other couples and shopping in tandem for scented candles. It is a woman’s greatest curse and an inexperienced man’s greatest aggravation that she should have these two opposing desires within her pulling her apart at the seams. The god of biomechanics is a mischievous prankster fuck.

So, in that spirit, here follows a few off-the-cuff guidelines to refine your BRG.

– Inexpensive gifts that signal you know something about a girlfriend are far better than expensive gifts that signal nothing but how much money you’re willing to spend on her.

– Spontaneous romance beats obligated romance every time.

– Chicks dig little notes. The littler and sweeter, the better. Hide them around the house in spots she’ll eventually find them for maximum effect.

– Be nice to her cat when she’s looking.

– Chivalry is OK if you’re doing it for a long-term GF, and it doesn’t cramp your style. Take the seat in the traffic lane in restaurants. Walk streetside when out with her.

– It’s OK to buy a girl a drink on a first or second date. It’s a small act of capitulation to the dominant social memeplex that saves you unnecessary headaches. NOTE: Do NOT buy a girl you JUST met a drink. Drinks should never be used to bribe a girl’s attention.

– Leaven your cocky pickup game with vulnerability game. An anecdote about some small, inconsequential weakness, optimally drawn from your childhood, will activate her “I’m feeling a deep connection with this guy” swoon reflex. Pay heed to the handicap principle. The best alphas can afford charming admissions of quasi-weakness. Contrast is king.

– Cold reading is a critical BRG tactic. Master it.

– Strong beta provider game that doesn’t require much monetary investment or undignified appeasement includes choosing her meal for her at a restaurant, getting her into the VIP line at clubs, tactically mentioning something innocuous you remember about her (“You should like this bar. It’s decorated in your favorite color.”), holding hands (your hand on top!), planning dates with real activities that are more than just excuses to get her inebriated and sexually defenseless, and remarking that she’s “winning you over” when she does something awkward or clumsy.

– All BRG rests on a foundation of alpha self-possession. There should never be even a hint of desperation or last-minute-strategizing in BRG. It should flow as smoothly and unpretentiously as AAG.

– Spend a lot of time with her. This is really the heart and soul of BRG. More time with her means less time potentially chasing other women.

Final thought: the amount of BRG you drop should be directly proportional to the interest you have in a girl as girlfriend material. If she’s a one night stand, you hardly need more than an hour or two sitting close to her on a sofa and practicing non-evaluative listening. If she’s a wifey prospect, you’d better get good at remembering her birthday and the time, temperature and cast of moonlight on the night when you first kissed.

Posted in Game, Girls, Inner Beauty | 123 Comments »

The Menstrual Shift To Beta Males

Mar 6th, 2012 by

SUWEE protests:

Women don’t seem like they are genuinely attracted to beta males when they aren’t ovulating. At best they are just nonchalant toward them, and only seem to want a long term relationship with them for a chance to cheat with the alpha and have the chump beta raise the kid. Women seem to think like this- “Ugh im not attracted to this stupid beta but ill let him hit it once in a while if he provides for me and my bastard spawn.”

It’s best to think of alpha and beta males, and women’s mismatched desire for each, as residing along a continuum, rather than as discrete variables. When I explain that during the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males, I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating.

To put this in the simplest terms possible, a woman who is hot enough to bang greater alphas will subconsciously gravitate to lesser alphas as her ovaries power down for three weeks. A plain jane who makes herself receptive to greater betas when ovulating will subconsciously begin to warm to the attentions of lesser betas reading her poetry after her hormones stabilize post-ovulation.

So, no, SUWEE, beta males are not going to suddenly see action for three weeks with the women who aren’t ovulating. What they might see is more receptiveness — more openness — to their sloppy, guileless flirtations from those women.

As far as cuckolding goes, my advice, if you’re worried about that threat, is to cheek swab any tiny gift of god under dark of night and send it to a lab for verification. In the meantime, enjoy your two or three tepid bangs during the three weeks you are reasonably safe from the depredations of your sweet girlfriend’s behavioral modification egg assault and any interloper alpha males who might be conveniently available to her. No, you won’t ever get her to scream “choke the living shit out of me and plunge your divine cock into my tight puckered asshole as far as it’ll go until I’m bleeding tears of exquisite pain ps I saved my incredibly lubricated pussy all for you” like Olivia Munn, but at least you get to wrap up your two minute tenderly administered intimacy sessions scraping your beta peen along her dry vagina walls with twenty minute cuddleramas and a bloated chickflix queue.

Just try not to think about the torrid sexual abandon your sweet snoogumwoogums is capable of unleashing in bed, in the kitchen, in a public restroom, with a better man for that one week her womb can actually bear fruit. Those kinds of thoughts are not helpful to affordable family formation.

Posted in Beta, Biomechanics is God, Girls, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 91 Comments »

Five Minutes Of 18-Year-Old Snatch

Mar 5th, 2012 by

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

The importance of the above maxim can’t be overstated. The way to a woman’s heart is through her id.

There’s a male analogue as well.

Maxim #102: For most men, five minutes of a younger, hotter woman beats five years of older, uglier women.

Younger women are, barring a few conspicuous exceptions, better looking, better smelling and better feeling than older women. Career goals not achieved to the contrary notwithstanding, younger women are alpha females. The man who has tasted the succulent flesh of an 18 year old cutie will never again look at, or feel toward, older women with the same excitement, urgency or romanticism. He has been corrupted. His memories, lucid, almost palpable, of intimacies with younger women, will dominate. Five minutes in bed with a young babe will linger longer in his cortical penis extension than five years with an assortment of older women.

James Hooker has doomed himself. But it’s a doom that most men would welcome with open arms, if they could. His relationship — loving, tender, sexual — with an 18 year old babe means, should he find himself single again, that few women his age will satisfy him the way his current younger lover does. An older woman Hooker’s age who wants to extract commitment from him, or even a simulacra of lovingkindness, is going to have her work cut out for her. A man’s memory of an 18-year-old is a more powerful competitor to her than the attentions of real live women her own age.

Men like Hooker, men who have experience bedding younger women, and whose libidos are rocket fueled by powerful memories of young woman love, if they are single, go blankly into that dating field of cougars and cynical spinsters, depressed over the substandard offerings, forever seeking to recapture the intensely pleasurable magic of their time with their lithe lolitas. Their sheer disgust at the socially approved alternatives, and their unbreakable confidence at having inspired the love of much younger women, will help propel them back into the arms of charming coeds. They are men on a mission, and they won’t be stopped, not even by marriage.

Men like this live by one rule: if the cunnilingus feels like a chore, she’s too old.

As a one night stand with an alpha male can skew a woman’s expectations for life, so can a fling with an 18-year-old hottie skew a man’s expectations for life. But there is a critical difference in the sexes regarding expectation levels. It requires little effort for an average-looking woman to spread her legs and permit an alpha male to dump a fuck in her; for men are, on the whole, the less discriminating sex, and will rarely pass up easy lays with normal-sized women when they are offered. A woman’s ego, inflated from birth, will mistakenly regard the alpha’s fly-by-night attentions as validation of her relationship worthiness to men of his caliber. She will, in time, learn a bitter lesson.

In contrast, it requires yeoman effort, whether through the accumulation of wealth and status or through charm and dominance, for an average-looking older man to persuade an 18-year-old babe to relinquish her sex to him. This effort and resulting success is evidence that he has what it takes to consistently attract younger women and have relationships with them. When in the company of younger women, his mate value is self-evident. Thus, such a man’s expectations are more in line with reality than are the slutty woman’s expectations whose value is rightly measured not by how much cock she can hoover, but by how many high value men she can convince to stick around and fall in love with her.

Nevertheless, a continent full of average-looking, non-obese women riding the alpha cock carousel for stretches of their lives, and older men openly ignoring women their age to pursue their desire for the company of younger women, means an end to mutually nourishing beta male-slender female relationships and societally stabler older male-older female pairings. This is probably not going to turn out well for a monogamy-based modern civilization like ours, but it seems the rule that civilizations in the final spasms of decay revert to more primal norms of self-actualizing sexual and romantic fulfillment.

As always, I’ll be poolside.

Corollary to Maxim #102: A beautiful, slender older woman will be a better lay than a plain, fatter younger woman.

This corollary has more relevance today than it would have in the past, because enormous numbers of what would normally be very fuckable young babes have put themselves out of contention by getting fat and gross. Thanks to the Western obesity epidemic, there is a glimmer of hope for the yoga-toned 35-year-old who retains the feminine charms of her younger self. Chin up, ladies, and keep praying that your younger rivals gorge themselves on artisanal cupcakes and 150gram sugar-infused coffee drinks!

Posted in Alpha, Girls, Lolita, Love, Maxims, The Pleasure Principle | 323 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion