Feed on
Posts
Comments

Comment Of The Week

Dec 5th, 2011 by

Jaquan writes:

I dont agree with that IQ shit. Im from the hood and very smart in math and physics my favourite subject. Trust me tho homie when it comes to getting hotties im a monster and I respect all your games cuz im a player too and I learned alot from you these last few days. Being smart is a part of so you can mindfuck girls mathematically and keep them coming like a black hole in the universe lol. Just pointing out that science oriented guys got game too especially us from the hood. Shout out to the slimes. Harlem all day.

You laugh but the guy has a point. Combine intelligence with street smarts and thuglife attitude and you may as well sign your paperwork “Thee Most Honourable Sultan of Snatch, Ph.D. in Harem Studies, Pimp, Daddy & Daddy, BigLove Firm, LLCmeswoopyourho”.

Posted in Comment Winners | 47 Comments »

Romney Is The Only (Viable) Republican Candidate

Dec 4th, 2011 by

Randall Parker offers the clearest reason why Mitt Romney will wind up being anointed the Republican candidate for President.

Romney’s the best bet for the Republicans. He’s got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He’s not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.

Note, the key qualifier is “viable”. Personally, I would vote for Ron Paul barring the emergence of a candidate who was strong on the only issue that really matters in 2012 for the U.S.: namely, immigration and the national question. But Paul is not a viable Republican candidate.

UPDATE: Ron Paul has moved into second place in the Iowa Poll. This race is wide open, folks.

If the middle-class economy really nosedives in 2012, Paul may be able to overcome elite antagonism to his candidacy and win the Republican primary.

I agree that the circumstantial evidence points to Gingrich having an intellect tilted too far in the direction of razzle-dazzle verbal fluency at the expense of critical thinking skills, but his standing in the polls is another reminder that it is in the nature of people to overvalue smooth talkers and to undervalue analytical thinkers. This cognitive bias likely has roots deep in our ancestral environment.

You need look no further than the dating market to see the same bias on full display. All else equal, who is getting the chicks? The math whiz or the silver-tongued salesman? Hell, even if you rig the comparison so that all else is not equal by, say, boosting the math whiz’s SMV with double the income and a two point advantage in looks over the salesman, the good money still bets on the latter to take the girl home and sully her cultivated purity.

Since this is a political post…

2012 prediction: the Eurozone experiment in forced financial busing implodes, taking the U.S. with it. Unemployment rises above 10%. A dark horse third-party candidate emerges sometime in April, stealing votes from both parties. Obama gently persuades Biden to retire and makes Hillary his VP. (Less likely: Obama quits the race and hands his candidacy over to Hillary.) Single women flock to his reelection bid in even greater numbers than they did in 2008, while white men vote in anti-Democrat numbers never before seen in U.S. politics. Racial and class polarization metastasizes. Obama and/or HIllary win, setting the stage for the final dissolution of the U.S. into a Balkanized banana republic. Feminists and equalists continue being stupid. Human nature continues flummoxing economists. No Child Left Behind continues leaving children behind. Mexico’s economy continues improving because their unskilled peasantry was offloaded on the U.S. for twenty years. Cheap chalupas remain more expensive than advertised because of negative externalities.

Women’s desire for alpha males stays, as always, unchanged.

Posted in Culture, Current Events, Goodbye America | 264 Comments »

Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

Dec 2nd, 2011 by

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Guy Rules, Vanity | 204 Comments »

Reader Mailbag: Surfeit Of Flushed Nethers Edition

Dec 1st, 2011 by

This was a good selection of reader questions, mostly because the questions were short and to the point. Lesson: If you want your question featured in CH’s ‘Reader Mailbag’, you’ll have a better shot if it’s tidily under one paragraph in length. (No run-on sentences, please.)

Email #1

Can you talk about circumcision and your thoughts on its effects on the male brain?  My theory is that circumcised men jerk off less and are therefore more productive whereas guys with foreskins have an easy time jerking off (never need to use lube).  I’d love your thoughts on this and possible correlating the decline of America to the decline of American male circumcision.

Circumcision is a barbaric practice, a close cousin of clitoridectomy. Civilized peoples should outlaw it. Instead, it continues to be de rigueur in large swaths of the population. The arguments for it are nonsensical.

1. “It doesn’t affect sexual pleasure”

Yes, it does. The foreskin is loaded with nerve endings and is ranked the most pleasurable part of the penis by men who still have it intact. Removal of the foreskin even reduces women’s sexual pleasure during intercourse.

2. “Circumcision reduces the chance of infection, particularly AIDS”

The persistence of this myth is belied by the available evidence. Even among gay men, for whom circumcision is most recommended as a protection against AIDS and other STDs, the evidence is scant that circumcision provides a protective benefit. Think about this from an evolutionary perspective for a second: if intact foreskin was a high risk for infection, how did it ever evolve? Clearly, the foreskin is not the bogieman some faint-hearted doctors would have you believe.

3. “Women think an uncircumcised penis looks ugly”

First, what women think of the aesthetics of the penis is all over the map. I have heard a thousand different opinions on this subject from women. Second, what does it matter what chicks think of your dong’s look? I’m sure some African tribal chieftains somewhere think girls’ vaginas look ugly with all that labia and clit in the way, so they cut it off. Does that make it right?

The reader does introduce a compelling puzzle. Circumcision likely reduces the sensitivity of the penis head (glans) because the head is exposed to the elements and other sorts of friction on a continual basis, which it would not be if it were sheathed behind foreskin. So it’s interesting to muse whether circumcised men masturbate less than intact men who are more sensitive to every movement their penises make. If so, it could be plausibly argued, as this reader does, that circumcised men divert more of their energies to non-sexual productive pursuits that benefit society.

We’ll call this the Chateau Heartiste® Theory of Circumcision and Civilizational Progress™.

Email #2

I was wondering what your views are about guys that are below average height? How do they overcome the heightist attitude 99% of all women have. One is automatically disqualified as an attractive guy or romantic interest because of shorter stature.

I am 5″8 myself. This might not sound really short, but I live in the Netherlands. The average male height here is over six feet.

Thanks, love your posts.

How do short guys overcome women’s bias for taller men? Hit on shorter women than themselves.

I’m not really kidding. Target selection is an important part of pickup. Screening girls for likelihood of falling under your charms is smart game. If you find yourself surrounded by tall men, go somewhere else.

Of course, it goes without saying that even a handicap like shortness can be overcome with game, but it will be harder for you than it would be for a taller man. Not that I should have to regale you with anecdotes to prove my point, but one of the greatest players I’ve ever known was an unusually short man topping out at around 5’4″. One of his keys to success? He avoided nightclubs where tall men would tower over him, and focused on online pickups. Also, perfect your alpha body language; little things can go a long way to influencing women to overlook your shortness.

By the way, 5’8″ is not that short in the USA. I believe the average male height here is 5’9″, so you would not be working from any major disadvantage if you moved out of the Netherlands. But the Dutch are the tallest people in the world, so your height will be relatively runty there. I suggest a trip to a Congolese pygmy tribe to boost your ego and jumpstart your game. I hope you like chicks who can helicopter and rest a case of beer on their buttocks while standing.

Email #3

Dear Chateau,

With deep and abiding respect, I humbly ask for some help. I am overweight and poor. I think it is the overweight that gets to women more. I simply cannot get a date. I do not have women in my social circle currently, and dating sites are dead to me. I do not wish to be burdened with another man’s devil spawn, so I stay away from the single moms. I am 26 and still a virgin. If you can help me in any other way than berating my sorry ass on your website please let me know. I would be willing to pay you for your time and effort, as much as my paltry salary allows.

Salut,

Lonely Chubby Man

Dear LCM,

Good news! Your fatness is hurting your love life more than your poverty, but luckily, slimming down is easier than cashing up. I’ll keep it simple: squat, deadlift, bench and work your core three times per week, 30 minutes each session. Run wind sprints every other day in the park until you are out of breath. Reduce your grain and sugar intake by 70%. Substitute with more meat, fish, nuts, berries and vegetables. You should also consider avoiding beer. For the love of god, stay the fuck away from soda.

Nest step: read Le Chateau archives. You will find plenty of game advice, as well as links to other game resources, here. Learning game is as important as, maybe more important than, carving the fat from your obese frame.

Do these two things and I guarantee you will see improvement in your interactions with girls. If you can’t, or won’t, follow these recommendations, then get comfortable living out your years in grinding celibacy. Your willpower depends a lot on how much you truly value getting your dick wet. You’d be surprised how many men value food, sloth, laziness and self-pitying despair more than sexual pleasure with cute chicks.

26 is still young. You have plenty of time to right your ship. Remind yourself of this every day. Better yet, imagine a CH proprietor barking it to you like a constipated drill sergeant. Live one-on-ones are generally avoided by the staff, but if the price is right…

Email #4 (wall of text alert)

Hello, Thanks for your insight on game. Been reading the site the last few weeks. Im 21 girlfriend 20. I went alpha on my girlfriend, agreed and amplified all her shit tests when she wanted to ‘talk’ about how we’d been shaky lately. She got mad saying i dont care about her and that she was going to give a new guy a chance.

One of her texts: “As much as i want you i realize I really dont need you. The beautiful difference bw wants and needs. I’m striving to get over you. It’ll be a challenge but someone will treasure me”. She went on texting me things like this, i replied with lol and told her to send me a sexy picture, basically ignoring her long texts. She then texted “Ask ur other girlfriends for a pic. I’m sure theres a waiting list. Im going to actually give this new guy a chance. This is me being honest. I know you dont give a fuck but no need to hide it.”

i replied with another lol and said i was waiting on the picture. She didnt reply 3 days later(my birthday) she texts me “happy birthday!”. I dont respond, she calls a few hours later saying she wasnt sure if i got her text and wished me happy birthday. I said aloofly ok thanks. She nervously said ok thats all and i hang up.

Then that night she texts me some bs about my mom being funny on facebook “Your mom is soo funny”. I havent replied to it… Overall i think she reacted to my new non caring behavior by threatening me with all her long emotional texts to see if i would bitch up and say sorry like i have for the past 2 years. Im a tall good looking guy and handled our relationship well until recently when i stumbled across this site and realized why she began to withdraw from me a little. Personally i think shes waiting for me to come around and say sorry and try to get in her new graces but i really dont know how to take it from here. How should i reply to these texts? Also i remember reading that when a girl professes how much shes over you and wants to move on shes never been more into you…

So with that said, if ive been playing it right, she’ll come around and say shes made a mistake and that she wants things to be like before and what not. In which case id act aloof, and that its no big deal. Maybe even milk it a little and make her feel real bad. But im thinking it may take a few more days because shes not use to this uncaring reaction out of me. Once she realizes im serious she’ll hopefully be back. What do you think?

How long have you been seeing your “girlfriend”. If she’s saying she wants to “give a new guy a chance” after only two weeks with you, then I think you are dealing with a crazy attention whore slut you’d be better off excising from your life. You can bet pretty good money that when a chick says she wants to give a new guy a chance, she’s already giving a new guy a chance.

I consider words like that from a girlfriend to be either incredibly transparent, blunt force shit tests, or confessions of infidelity. In your case, based on follow-up emails and texts she sent you, it sounds like she’s shit testing and fishing for a jealous reaction from you. She needs to see indicators of commitment (IOC), which you are not giving her.

Her reactions to your aloof alpha game tell me that your replies were on the money. She’s chasing you, and that’s always the better relationship dynamic than the other way around. She doesn’t want to show her hand, though, so she lamely tried to conceal her interest and growing urgency by contacting you through plausibly deniable third parties, as she did when she referenced your mother and, to a lesser extent, your birthday.

(Question for the betas reading: Be honest, how may of you guys tried to reestablish contact with exes by sending them little reminders on their birthdays? Yeah, you tooled yourselves. I hope your dick shrinks when you think on those low points in your lives.)

HOWEVER, I do think you overplayed your hand a bit. All aloof, all the time, makes Jack an unreachable boy. A woman needs to see *some* desire from her man. There’s no need for you to apologize for anything, or to even mention this whole sorry episode in any capacity. Just reach out to her and meet her like you did when times were good. Make some token efforts at beta vulnerability. Deep conversations, eye gazing, a surprise purchase of some small bauble… it doesn’t take much to allay a girl’s fears that you are irrevocably drifting away from her.

Making *her* feel bad for the growing distance is a particularly powerful technique that I would advise only experts at female emotional tinkering should attempt. If you can do that without angering her, go for it. Example: “I’ve been thinking about us lately… (pause)… and your attitude has really made me wonder… (pause)… I dunno, I guess I needed some time to think by myself.”

I’m sure she realizes you’re serious, so you should ease up on the aloofness now. Begin taking the lead again. Let us know how it goes.

Email #5 (from a girl)

I’ve followed your blog for about a year now, and having observed my guy friends and evaluated my own life up till now, I can say that I agree with about 98% of your writing. but I feel like there’s a bit of a conundrum for your average 6/7s; you say alphas are attracted to femininity and girls who “don’t play games”. but 6/7s are often overlooked if the only qualities they possess are such.

also, of course, understandably no guy wants to be chased, as it is fundamentally unfeminine for a girl to chase a man… BUT, for a 6/7 is it possible that initiating the flirting (even with sexual overtones) would actually be productive by subtly seeming more open? I kind of got this from your Betty (9) vs Rachel (7) post.

so do you think 6/7s should initially be more flirty than their hotter friends to at least attract attention, and if not, how do you propose they (attempt to) set themselves above hotter women?

First of all, guys *do* like to be chased. The caveat is that they like it in small doses early on (just enough to let him know that his efforts are not wasted), and in larger doses as a relationship develops (so that his anxieties that you might be a cuckold risk are laid to rest). You are correct, though, in assuming that a girl who chases too much will be undervalued by men as a potential girlfriend and overvalued as a potential one night stand.

6s and 7s pass the cute threshold. If you are a 6 or a 7, you can easily get a solid beta boyfriend as long as your standards aren’t ridiculously inflated and you have the wisdom to know that settling is usually a better option than resigning yourself to pump and dump singleness. Too many women with their useless libtard degrees, $45K HR jobs and muffin tops think they are hot shit who shouldn’t ever have to settle, and these are the kinds of women who end up at 39 like Katie Bolick wondering why they are childless and ignored by the men who used to dump inglorious fucks in them when they were younger hotter tighter.

Good news! You do not sound like one of those women. The very fact that you write here seeking advice suggests that you have a head on your shoulders.

Flirting is a fine art that some women naturally excel at, while other women need to learn from their elders and peers. A 6/7 will be overshadowed by hotter girls, which she can combat in one of three ways:

1. Flirting more openly, as you said

2. Being nicer and more approachable than the hotter girls

3. Studiously avoiding those places where hot women congregate

Number 3 is self-explanatory. Classrooms and house parties are your friend. Nightclubs are not, unless you want an NSA hookup.

Friendly girls with kind demeanors will attract betas like flies to honey. (I would drop the idea that you are going to snag an alpha male for any long term commitment. You should focus on those betas who show sparks of alpha playfulness.) A beta is typically intimidated by 8s and 9s, and put off by their shit tests, so he will gravitate to women more within his purview who don’t give him a hard time. A friendly, non-shit testing 7 with a slender figure is like the holy grail to 70% of the world’s men.

Coyness is a form of flirting, and men love it. But the line between coyness and conspicuous sluttiness is easier to cross than you might think. If you are going to go the “sex it up” route to attract male attention, you had better know what you’re doing. A skirt too short or an eye play too lascivious, and you will get beset by alphas who only see you as a low cost, investment free sexual experiment waiting to happen.

Licking the lips, finger tracing a cocktail glass, crossing and uncrossing legs, smiling a lot, playing with your hair, bright red lipstick, sexy hipster stockings, saying “hi” first, good posture that thrusts the tits outward, high heels that hoist the ass upward, innocent touches on his forearm when he says something interesting… all these flirty expressions are tools of the trade that women over millennia have wielded to capture men’s interest.

I could go on but a full compendium of flirty tricks of the female trade would require a separate post. Bottom line: You aren’t going to outcompete 8s and 9s for alpha male commitment, but you can outcompete 6s and 7s for greater beta commitment. And, if the stars are aligned, you might even best the occasional 8 who has her eyes set on a beta male. A lot of greater betas with options will choose the less stressful, less hot girl for long term love because they don’t have the game nor the guts to keep a hotter girl than they are accustomed to in line.

Posted in Reader Mailbag | 176 Comments »

Does Game Work Less Well On Masculine Women?

Nov 30th, 2011 by

A reader left a link to a very interesting study of digit ratio and how it affects women’s mating and nesting behavior.

The current study assessed digit ratio (2D:4D) and mate guarding in 101 dating couples. Low 2D:4D men (indicating higher prenatal testosterone exposure) were more likely to state that they threatened male competitors and used more threats and physical aggression toward their female partners. Men were particularly likely to use threats and physical aggression toward partners who cheated in the current relationship. In addition, women resisted mate guarding by men with high 2D:4D, particularly when women cheated on their partner. High 2D:4D women were more possessive toward their partner. This is consistent with ideas regarding the effects of sexual selection on mate guarding.

Digit ratio studies seem to come out every week now, with similar conclusions that the amount of testosterone or estrogen we are exposed to in our mothers’ wombs has real world consequences for how we act as adults when searching for a mate and settling into relationships. It is strange but true that you can tell quite a bit about a person’s character — barring exceptions, of course — by simply eyeballing the ratio between his or her ring finger and index finger. Cultural conditioning, my ass.

Studies like this one are anathema to feminists (for the obvious reasons), but they should give practitioners of the crimson art of game pause, too. For if digit ratio alters women’s behavior toward men and her fidelity within relationships, then game will have to adapt to those realities.

Examine, for instance, the second conclusion in that study abstract above. Women resist mate guarding by high digit ratio (i.e., feminized) men; in layman’s terms, women give feminine men more shit when those men act possessively. More masculine men, therefore, can better get away with possessively jealous behavior. A well-versed student at Le Château Institute for Advanced Poon Studies would slyly remark that it makes perfect sense when you consider that women would be more likely to want to step out on a feminized beta male to get impregnated during the ovulation part of her cycle by an alpha male. A very jealous beta boyfriend would throw an annoying monkey wrench in her subconscious plans.

Also note that the female resistance to mate guarding by the male is *stronger* when she has already cheated. Gentlemen, if you have discovered cheating by your girlfriend or wife, kick her out immedaitely after throwing her shit on the sidewalk. Ignore her desperate entreaties to the contrary; it is already too late to save your relationship or marriage.

In addition, the study found that high digit ratio (i.e., highly feminine) women are more possessive of their boyfriends. Why would this be so? Presumably, feminine women would have more options on the dating market, so they would have less reason to be possessive within a relationship. But you have to look at both sides of the couple equation. Feminine women likely partner with masculine men — sexual polarity is the most potent attractant in the known universe, besting even black hole gravitational pull — and these are the kind of men who have more opportunity to cheat when the cheatin’s good.

Similarly, it would not surprise me to learn that feminine betas often wind up with masculine women who take charge of the development of the relationship. The problem that presents itself to these betas is that masculine women are going to find it harder to keep strange cock out of their panties when the ovulation bell rings.

What does this have to do with game? Well, we know that feminine men will have a harder time keeping their women in line, and feminine women will be easier to game into strict relationship fidelity. Possessiveness often gets a bad rap in the cultural mainstream, but ask yourself this: Would you rather deal with an overly attentive girlfriend easily aroused to jealousy, or a stand-offish “girlfriend” with a wandering eye? Which girl will give you better, and more frequent, sex?

From experience, I can tell you that girlfriend possessiveness, while annoying at times and dangerously apt to blossom into full-blown stalker-itis if improperly managed, is far more amenable to game and psychological ploys designed to minimize its worst aspects than girlfriend aloofness.

A masculine, aloof girlfriend is the beta boyfriend’s second worst nightmare (his first is involuntary celibacy). This type of girl will chew him up and spit him out, twice on Sundays, and this goes double for betas without a clue. A beta with tight game — which, by definition, will bump him into lesser alpha territory — can keep a masculine, low digit ratio girlfriend’s faithless instincts in check, but it will cost him regular peace of mind. He may decide she is worth the aggravation if she’s hot enough.

Alpha males have to deal with possessive, feminine girlfriends more than beta males do, so their perspective on that specific manifestation of female behavior may be skewed toward less tolerance for it. This is why you will often hear natural players complaining bitterly about clingy girlfriends who cramp their alleycat style, the gender opposite of masculine women who seethe with contempt for their clingy, beta boyfriends.

As a follower of the tenets of game, you have to take two critical presumptions into account when you venture into the field.

1. As a man, do you tend to the less aggressive or more aggressive end of the male behavior spectrum? Your digit ratio will give you a clue as to which way you lean. If more aggressive (lower ratio), you may want to shoot for women with lower ratios as well, since they will be less possessive of your time and attention, freeing you up to fool around. If you are less aggressive by temperament, you will want to screen for feminine women with higher digit ratios, as these types of women will be more easily gamed into loyal relationship material.

2. Are you looking for a fling or a girlfriend? If the former, target low digit ratio girls. If the latter, go with high digit ratio girls.

Returning to the title of this post, I surmise that masculine, low digit ratio women are harder to game because they are less possessive and more prone to cheat than feminine women. A lack of possessiveness means that a whole suite of game strategies that deal specifically with arousing jealousy and instilling a fear of loss will not work as well on women who don’t get jealous very easily by nature. Similarly, game tactics which inspire love, and, hence, loyalty, in women will be less effective on masculine women with stronger drives to cheat and slut it up.

My experience confirms this hypothesis. Think of masculine women as quasi-men. How well does game work on men? Not very well. It stands to reason that game will have less impact on women who have the psychology of men.

Luckily, most men prefer the company of more feminine women, particularly for LTRs. If she’s a fling, then it doesn’t much matter if she craves random cock once a month, or likes to scratch her belly while watching football.

This is not to say that game is useless on masculine women. In fact, many early game tactics work better on women with oversized clits. A masculine woman is probably a pro at brushing off betas, and it’s a good bet she has the broad but shallow ego of a man. As a result, negs will work particularly well on her kind, and the happy surprise of being on the receiving end of brazenly cocky game will catapult her straight past the comfort zone and into your bed.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Girls | 135 Comments »

The IQ War Smears

Nov 30th, 2011 by

Via GLPiggy, there’s a big dust-up over IQ and ethnicity again (these things seem to come in cycles, about once every two years), with Andrew “really, it’s not a stereotype that I own a beagle” Sullivan on the side of common sense and hard facts this time, and the denialist tools over at Gawker and, well, just about every other mainstream internet outlet smearing him and guys like Charles Murray as white supremacists.

You can’t make this shit up. Oh wait, yes, you can, because this debate is a fucking broken record at this point. The Left has their creationism, and even if they live their lives as if they don’t believe in it, you will never get them to admit they worship a false idol. Best just to mock and taunt them.

I give this topic little attention because, one, it doesn’t interest me as much as pussy does and, two, the bad faith arguments of the denialists are so egregious and their smear tactics so transparent it’s like trying to reason with a psychopath. You’re wasting your breath and giving him more chances to stick a knife in your back when you’re not looking. The way to handle psychopaths is to isolate and ostracize them, not try to engage them.

Some of them are reachable through triangulation, but why bother? For every one denialist who comes around to a distilled and palatable version of the truth, twenty more verbal prestidigitators pop up like crazed prairie dogs to fill the emoting vacuum left behind by the convert’s exit.

Lest we forget, there’s a reason why emotions run so hot on this issue. Not only does it cut straight to the beating heart of equalist ideology — the predominant ideology, arguably, of the last 150 years in the West — but the ramifications of the subject under debate are huge. The tepid bleatings of putatively diplomatic commentators like this one on Ta-Nehisi’s forum serve as a prime example of what I’m talking about:

Andrew never said that blacks are “inferior” to whites or that whites are “inferior” to Asians. He simply pointed out the fact that Asians, on average, perform better than whites on a certain kind of test, and whites perform better, on average, than blacks on a certain kind of test.

This dismissive hand-waving about “a certain kind of test” reveals more than it conceals. It is meant to assuage egos and smooth the airwaves for sensible, rational discussion on the topic. But egalitarians and the SWPL industrial complex know that these softening words cannot contain the horrible, unrelenting, monstrous truth that stalks every cooing syllable. IQ is FUCKING HUGELY IMPORTANT to your chance to live a happy, successful life filled with wonder and glee and gadgets and crime-free neighborhoods in a modern, technofantastical, information-highwayed, cognitively stratifying first world Western nation.

The enemies of truth know this, and that is why they tirelessly work to shut down any talk about it, and to smear and slander and shun those who would deign to lift the veil of lies for a peek underneath.

Their reasons are obvious, and understandable. But they are still lords of lies. And their time is almost up.

Posted in Current Events, Self-aggrandizement, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 262 Comments »

Dominance Plays

Nov 29th, 2011 by

I was at a club peering down at the dance floor from a bird’s-eye view on a second story walkway. Laser lights painted the room and I tried to avoid direct retinal shots. Whenever you see balconies and laser lights, and the floor is thumping underneath your feet, you’ll know you have entered a portal to another world — the Douchebag Zone.

A large man bulldozed through the crowd. As he passed me, he put his hand on my lower back, grazing the upper butt cheek, to guide me, roughly, out of his way, as he grunted “coming through” in that tone that suggests he really doesn’t care if you’ll pardon his intrusion. Instinctively, I jammed his arm away with a quick swipe of my elbow. He turned around mid-stride and our eyes locked in steely gazes, but nothing came of it. Too many people were in the way for confrontation to develop.

I’m certain that had I been most any other man, I would not have thought twice about a d-bag pushing his way through the crowd and physically nudging me aside with contact on a vulnerable part of my body. But game has changed me. Intricate knowledge of human social dynamics has made me acutely aware of other men’s alpha body language. Where most either blissfully ignore or are unaware of dominance plays by competitor males, my burden curses me with heightened perception of the smallest slights (and the tiniest flirtations). A touch here, a shove there, a distracted look when I’m talking… every mannerism and status signal is a cue that an alpha dominance maneuver is in motion, and I need to make moves to avoid being victimized by the subtle pull of rank.

Some of you are confident that awareness is better than ignorance. But are you sure? If happiness is the measure of a life well-lived, who is happier? The mindlessly naive or the savvily vigilant?

Ultimately, we all want (in the loosest definition of the word) to secure the best mate(s) possible in our short time on this earth. Awareness of reality helps us achieve that goal much better than contented ignorance. But it comes at a cost.

Posted in Alpha, Biomechanics is God, Guy Rules | 170 Comments »

Why It’s Good To Shame Single Moms

Nov 28th, 2011 by

With all the data pointing to an entrenchment of epidemic-like proportions of single momhood in the U.S., it’s helpful to remind ourselves why this is so bad not only for the health of the nation and its posterity, but for the well-being of the children who suffer under a regime of single moms. As we are neck-deep in an era of selfishness, it’s no surprise that the scourge of single momhood leads the vanguard of cultural dissolution. At 70+% among black Americans, 50+% among Hispanics, and 30% among whites, we are heading for a future of grown-up bastard spawn bringing all their neuroses and dysfunction to bear on the social contract, which is already frayed beyond rescue.

Of course, middle-upper and upper class whites think they are immune to the tidal wave of illegitimacy, and so far they can take cold comfort in the fact that their rates are considerably lower than those of their lessers (you’ll never get them to admit they have lessers, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they *believe exactly that*.) However, strong social forces can work both up and down the class and race ladder, and it is entirely plausible that a dystopian event horizon, like widespread illegitimacy, that bellies up the lower and middle classes will eventually consume the upper classes as well, either directly by the osmosis of bad habits or indirectly by the levying of trust-destroying and community-fracturing Danegeld.

One of those helpful reminders of the shitty hand that single momhood deals to their innocent bastards comes to us in an Australian study of boys raised without a father.

Adolescent boys are more prone to delinquency if they do not have a father figure in their lives, a University of Melbourne study has found, while adolescent girls seem unaffected by the presence or absence of fathers in their lives.

The study, undertaken by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Faculty of Business and Economics, found that the presence of a father figure during adolescence was most likely to have a preventive effect on whether male youths engage in risk-taking and deviant behaviour.

While active involvement and interaction between fathers and youths was found to be beneficial, it did not explain the positive benefits of children who grow up with fathers in the household.

“The sense of security generated by the presence of a male role model in a youth’s life has protective effects for a child, regardless of the degree of interaction between the child and father,” Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, Director of the Melbourne Institute said.

“Fathers provide children with male role models and can influence children’s preferences, values and attitudes, while giving them a sense of security and boosting their self-esteem. They also increase the degree of adult supervision at home, which may lead to a direct reduction of delinquent behaviour.” […]

“Our study included residential and non-residential, biological fathers and residential stepfathers and their influence on adolescent behaviours,” Professor Cobb-Clark said.

“We find that adolescent boys engage in more delinquency without a father figure in their lives. Adolescent girls‟ behaviours are less closely linked to this, which may be attributed to the inherent levels of risk-taking that vary between males and females.”

Additionally, higher family incomes were found to have little effects on solving the problems associated with youth delinquency.

Boys of single moms are more likely to end up huffing paint under overpasses. Way to go, single moms.

Interestingly, the study claims girls do not suffer as much from missing fathers, but the metric used in the study was degree of delinquency, which would naturally favor girls since they are the sex less predisposed to criminal behavior, regardless of parental environment. Studies that have expanded the measured variables to include other dysfunctional behaviors find clear links between fatherlessness and sluttiness in teen girls. Mothers nurture, fathers guide. Both are required to fully form the child into a self-possessed adult.

The Chateau has often asserted that both the carrot and the stick are necessary to influence human behavior, given innate genetic constraints. Shame is a powerful motivator of behavior, and a concerted effort by the wider culture and all its propaganda organs to shame single moms and women at risk for single mommery into avoiding the degenerate life of the single mom with bastard sprog in tow will redound to the benefit of not just individual women and children, but to society as a whole. This campaign of shame should include in its sights those desperate beta and omega males who willingly date and shack up with single moms and by doing so breathe sustaining gusts of validity into a depraved lifestyle that would otherwise fail in a state of nature where men had more choice and exercised more care in their choosing of partners.

(People who scoff at the Chateau recommendation that game will help society right itself in the long run need look no further than the benefits that can accrue to everyone when beta males have more sexual freedom to shun the dregs of womanhood and heed their true desires more faithfully.)

Unsurprisingly, the avatars of noblesse oblige are inculcating the opposite message — a message of destruction, decay and death. Smart but stupid: I can’t think of a more fitting motto for our current elite.

Posted in Goodbye America, Ugly Truths | 206 Comments »

The Real Reason Women Fake Orgasms

Nov 24th, 2011 by

It’s long been a staple of feminist “humor”: women fake orgasms because men are crappy lovers and women feel a need to stroke men’s egos. The tacit assumption is that men who can’t get the job done in bed are losers, or, in the nomenclature of the illuminati: betas. The telling of this snark by covens of fat feminists is usually followed immediately by hearty blasts of man-jawed cackling.

(I’m doing my part to energize the meme that feminists are masculinized women. Bonus: it’s true!)

But the truth, it turns out, is something close to the opposite of the conventional wisdom. The types of men with whom women most often fake orgasms are ALPHAS.

A female reader sends along the following study:

The current study tested the hypothesis that women pretend orgasm as part of a broader strategy of mate retention. We obtained self-report data from 453 heterosexual women (M age, 21.8 years) in a long-term relationship (M length, 32.8 months) drawn from universities and surrounding communities in the southeastern United States. The results indicated that (1) women who perceived higher risk of partner infidelity were more likely to report pretending orgasm, (2) women who reported greater likelihood of pretending orgasm also reported performing more mate retention behaviors, and (3) women’s perceptions of partner infidelity risk mediated the relationship between pretending orgasm and the performance of cost-inflicting mate retention behaviors, such as Intersexual Negative Inducements (“Flirted with someone in front of my partner”) and Intrasexual Negative Inducements (“Yelled at a woman who looked at my partner”). Thus, pretending orgasm may be part of a broader strategy of mate retention performed by women who perceive higher risk of partner infidelity.

Source: “Do Women Pretend Orgasm to Retain a Mate?” from Archives of Sexual Behavior

So basically, women who fear straying by their (implicit) alpha boyfriends are likely to fake orgasms, as well as engage in a host of other mate retention behaviors intended to keep their prized studs within the pen. Hmm, why does this remind me of that infamous CH post extolling the virtues of keeping your woman in a state of low-level dread.

Beta males almost never inspire a fear of straying, so women who sleep with betas don’t feel much need to psychologically manipulate them into greater commitment. Women subconsciously intuit, rightly, that they are going to get that commitment from betas no matter what. This is a more impressive act of callousness when you realize that women naturally experience less orgasmic release with beta lovers than they do with alpha lovers. So there are way more opportunities for women to fake orgasms with betas which they don’t bother taking because they don’t give a shit about assuaging beta males’ egos. Imagine a woman lying inert like a dead fish under a beta male, forever.

Some may ask, if alphas are so arousing to women, why do women have to occasionally fake orgasms with them? Well, physiologically, women simply don’t have the convenient placement of equipment, or the mental shutdown module, that would facilitate easy orgasm, the way that men do. There are going to be those times when a woman finds it difficult to cum, no matter how enamored of her lover she is. Men should know this and stop fretting all the time about fully satisfying women. Women don’t respect that kind of unmanly concern, anyhow. You’ll get a lot more mileage out of your flings and relationships with the attitude that your orgasm comes first. Chicks dig the self-centered man.

It’s helpful to note that men also occasionally fake orgasms, though not nearly as frequently as women fake them. I’ve done it a few times when I was especially tired, or my sack was completely drained from prior sessions. Some men fake it when they realize, to their horror, they’ve drunkenly taken a war pig back to bed with them.

So why fake? Because women HAVE A FUCKING COW when you don ‘t cum.

Seriously, try it sometime. Hold back on your money shot. Act like you’re finished copulating without jizzing. Then watch in wonder as your girl has a complete mental breakdown. Chicks HATE HATE HATE when their boyfriends or lovers don’t cum with them. She will take it personally, like her vagina has just been rejected by a giant godhead boner in the sky who deemed it unsuitable as a delivery system for male pleasure.

Not orgasming with a woman with fuck with her head. And no surprise, either; it doesn’t take much for a man to cum once he’s hard, so a woman who fails at that task must have a truly defective vagina or a body that won’t stop quitting. Sometimes that’s true, but more often it’s just the case that the man is beat and de-juiced.

Don’t try explaining that sensible logic to women. You’ll save a lot of heartache by faking it instead. Of course, this gets a bit more problematic if you’re raw dogging and the telltale signs of satisfied meaty intrusion aren’t dripping out of her.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted in Alpha, Girls, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | 168 Comments »

Social Media And Female Self-Esteem

Nov 22nd, 2011 by

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Feminists and their suckups have been very effective at shifting cultural opinion in the direction of believing that women suffer from low self-esteem at the hands of an antagonistic patriarchy. And they have managed this propaganda feat while simultaneously trumpeting the world-changing force of grrlpower. Remarkable squaring of the circle! Feminists are, if nothing else, skilled at resolving seemingly insurmountable contradictions in thought. Their hamsters are juiced to the cheeks on roid pellets and spinning that wheel faster than ever.

The truth, as is always the case when closely examining feminist doctrine, is the complete opposite.

If you are a man, imagine experiencing life through the fish-eye lens of the woman in the left-hand side of that Facebook graphic above. The lens distorts reality so that you are the impossibly enlarged center of your frame and everything around you recedes to warped insignificance. This is an even better analogy for the life of the typical attractive young woman than the metaphor of living in a fishbowl.

Try to picture this life, except with the sex roles reversed. Every one of your trivial observations or random thoughts gets “upvoted”, literally and metaphorically, by throngs of admirers, mostly female but some male too. Your lauded accomplishments amount to sharing cute puppy pics. Say something stupid? No one will call you out on it. Make a lame joke? Everyone laughs uproariously. Post a drunken photo of yourself? Hundreds of chicks “like this” and cheer in unison, “you go, guy!”. Tell no one in particular that you are sad, and you’re having a bad day? Hundreds more line up to offer uplifting messages of support.

You get the idea. Now, what do you think experiencing life like that will do to your self-esteem? If you answered, “my self-esteem would fly through the roof”, you win. Again.

The notion that American women endure the travails of low self-esteem is unmitigated bullshit; mythmaking of the highest caliber. American women, and really most women in post-industrial countries on the downslope into cultural decay, have the opposite psychological condition: TOO MUCH self-esteem.

Social network mediums like Facebook and Twitter have contributed to the bloating of the American female ego by giving her access to the admiration of ARMIES of would-be suitors (the equivalent of a handful of suitors in pre-internet fame times), and to an emotional support system that numbers in the hundreds, even thousands, over the relatively tiny social circle her grandmother was grateful to have in her day.

Today, it is insidiously easy for a woman in her peak attractiveness years to attention whore. If you want to know why so many women so readily whore for attention, the answer is simple: because they can. Cute puppy pic —> cascade of high fives. Who wouldn’t avail themselves of that quick ego fix?

In contrast, most men must still attention whore the old-fashioned way: by earning real achievement and marketing it to as wide a receptive audience as possible. A man doesn’t have the luxury of posting puppy pics to get his ego thrills. He needs to actively market himself and/or his accomplishments, and to sell himself in such a way that he is received in a positive light by his audience. Game is a revolution in thought because it allows men to circumvent the traditional avenues of male attention whoring; namely, occupational status and ostentatious materialism.

In some limited ways, social media serve men’s interests as well. The task of preselection becomes a lot easier. One pic of you doing shit with a cute chick is worth ten overactive hamsters. Plus, if you have a band, it’s now a lot simpler to expand the pool of potential groupies. Nevertheless, critical differences in how social media affect men’s and women’s psychology exist; few men will experience the instant ego rush from online exposure that so many girls in their prime fertility years do.

I occasionally get emails from older men taking issue with one or another core game concept. Usually, they are along the lines of “When I was dating, I didn’t need to neg women. It wasn’t that complicated.” Well, that may or may not be true (rose-colored glasses come to mind, as does the suspicion that a lot of old-time players have conveniently forgotten how much game they used to spit), but the fact is that the prevalence of social media and its effects on women’s egos has demanded the use of self-esteem lowering seduction tactics like negs and disqualifications.

Maxim #22: A woman with inflated self-esteem is a woman who will erroneously believe she is too good to date men normally in her league, unless steps are taken to bring her self-esteem back in line with reality.

Corollary to Maxim #22: A dating market lopsided with unrealistically high self-esteem women will shrink the pool of men available to date and marry, with the consequence that women remain single longer than they would otherwise.

Corollary to the corollary to Maxim #22: The most effective measure society can undertake to increase the incidence of marriage and the quality of married life is to stop artificially propping up women’s self-esteems.

It’s no coincidence that social media — and the Generation Masturbation it spawned — and the modern permutation of game co-evolved at roughly the same point in history. Future anthropologists will study this era as one in which the sexual market operated in near complete freedom, with all artificial constraints tempering female sexual prerogative removed, and many of the impositions on the full expression of male sexuality removed as well. The consequences of this society-wide experiment are beginning to manifest, and so far the social landscape coming into focus — despite being a boon to cultural renegades like myself — doesn’t bode well for maintaining a healthy, prosperous nation.

*downvote*

Posted in Culture, Girls, Globalization, Guy Rules, Pretty Lies, Ugly Truths | 221 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion