Feed on
Posts
Comments

Five Minutes Of Alpha

Oct 31st, 2011 by

There’s a reason why Silvio Berlusconi won the first ever Chateau Alpha Male Cage Match by a whopping length + girth. This paesan is a ladykiller. Further cementing Silvio’s alpha status, Ray Sawhill (formerly of 2BLowhards) sent along this article about a former Miss Montenegro beauty queen who admitted having a two year affair with Silvio. She met him two years ago when she was 18 and he was… 73. And how does Katarina feel about the age gap?

She said: ‘In love age is not important – an extraordinary person like him could be 100 years old, it would have no effect on me, he would have still struck me.’

Any regular of this blog will not be surprised by her admission. Chicks dig power above all other male attractiveness traits. Male power truly is distilled aphrodisia. A woman will present for a powerful, charming man as quickly as a man will spring a boner for a hot, young, slender, naked babe. Of course, her statement needs a qualifier to retain accuracy: In love age is not important… if you are an alpha male with compensating attractiveness traits. Plenty of boring betas grind out their wheezy decades inspiring no love in any younger women.

And for the cynics, I have no doubt Katarina loves (note: I did not say “loved”) Silvio, to the depth of her soul. Hers is real love, not fake golddigger love one so often sees when a hot chick marries a rich beta. Women’s love circuits are wired differently than men’s; a woman’s love will erupt and ensconce an apex male like Silvio, and it will be a genuine love, in much the same way a man’s love will rush out from him unbidden for a beautiful young woman.

One of the comments from a female commenter is particularly enlightening.

The allure of a powerful man like Berlusconi is something people are quick to discount unless they’ve been in the presence of one. I had an affair with a very powerful, high-profile (unmarried) politician when he was 65 and I was 18. Age didn’t matter because he was electric. He knew everything and was energectic in a way I’d never seen in boys my age, and his appetite for life was insatiable. Decades later as a long-married wife and mother I still remember him often, and quite fondly.

Five minutes of alpha floods the female brain with pleasant memories quicker than decades of beta.* I wonder how her husband would feel knowing that, despite decades of shared marital moments and children’s first words, she still warmly recalls an affair she had with a 65 year old alpha male at the ripe peak of her attractiveness? Hallmark doesn’t make cards for remembrances like that.

You don’t have to be a prime minister to capture the hearts of younger women (although it helps). I advise aging men to keep that spark of adventure they had when they were teen striplings. Do whatever it takes to avoid the long, slow surrender — the Barcalounger betrayal of your masculine birthright — and strive to maintain a sense of wonder. A dash of immaturity goes a long way toward cultivating a youthful frame of mind, which is a necessary prerequisite to winning the hearts of young women.

So raise a glass to Silvio, a refreshing anachronism in an increasingly sterile West. If you were banging babes like this…

…at the age of 73, you’d have this…

…shit-eating grin plastered on your face, too.

*A similar, albeit attenuated, feeling occurs in men, when our fondest memories veer all the way back to our first tender kiss or first intimate penetration. This memory exerts its power in men for a different reason than women’s memories do with their alpha flings; men’s first loves are often girls in their mid to late teens (or perhaps early to mid-20s for the late bloomers) when their feminine beauty and mannerism radiates at its absolute brightest. Searing beauty leaves a scorching imprint on the male brain. However, the recollection of such memories are usually less stable and permanent for men than they are for women recalling times spent with alpha males, because men who have even a modicum of experience with women have enjoyed many, many years of prime pussy, thus diluting the impact of their earliest memories.

Women, on the other hand, will often go decades in the beta wilderness trying to recapture the feeling they had with their alpha loves, hopping from one cad cock to another. Men are simply less interchangeable as lovers for women than women are interchangeable as lovers for men. It is for this reason that a fling with an alpha male will ruin a woman for all future men. A man, in contrast, is rarely ruined for all future women when he has a fling with a hot chick, unless he suffers a status and confidence drop so precipitous that the kinds of women he attracts are two or more points lower on the beauty ranking scale than his best past lover.

Posted in Alpha, Ugly Truths | 210 Comments »

Another Conservative Traditionalist Gets It Wrong About Men And Women

Oct 28th, 2011 by

Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, correctly identifies and laments the declining fortunes of men…

The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.

…but then reverts to blind, deaf and dumb traditionalist form by laying the blame for men’s ailments at the feet of… I know the suspense is killing you!… men.

If you don’t believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I’ve heard too many young women asking, “Where are the decent single men?” There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind. […]

Man’s response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men? […]

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.

Oh, those precious, pedestalized princesses, incorruptible vessels of Mother Mary love, doing what’s right and suffering the slings and arrows of men’s failings in reward. What’s a haloed lady to do when her heart is open to the love of a good man and all she gets is a parade of losers in her bed? The burdens of her gilded womb she will bear in martyrdom.

The bubble boy boundaries of the conservative imagination are never more evident than in its grappling with the sociosexual differences between men and women and the workings of the dating market. An appalling lack of understanding, of even a tangential blow with the truth about female nature, suggests that traditionalists and their offspring — Promise Keepers, Iron Johns, (some) MRAs, evangelists, etc. — have an allergic reaction to plumbing the depths of the human sexual soul, a revulsion likely concocted in a cauldron of sheltered life experiences and morbid fear of their own temptations.

Someone, anyone, has to pull the wool from their eyes, because their ignorance compounds a problem they rightly see as anathema to civilized prosperity. Their haste to lay the fault at the feet of men and to wholly absolve women of any responsibility gives the id monster free reign to lay waste to their utopian ideal. This is because it is the shackling or the unleashing of the female id, not the male id, that ultimately controls the destiny of a society.

So, a sincere plea to Bennett and his ilk: Get your heads out of the sand. You can start by repeating the following to yourself every morning in the mirror:

What’s wrong with men? Nothing that isn’t also wrong with women.

Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.

Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage.

Men don’t play the field because they “avoid responsibility”. Men play the field because they can; because women, in their zeal to delay marriage until their careers have been established, to hop a parade of alpha cock during their roaring twenties, and to reward the players over the providers with their prime sexual access, have opened the field to men.

Men don’t “treat women as toys”. Men get the sex while the getting’s good because women allow — nay, PREFER — themselves to be toyed with by the kinds of men who are good at it.

In other words, Mr. Bennett, women GET EXACTLY THE KINDS OF MEN they deserve. Even more dispiriting to your conception of the universe, women get the men they WANT.

Women are the gatekeepers and the hadron collider tubes of sexuality. This has never changed, and likely never will as long as our biology remains rooted in the material world. The shape and direction of man is primarily an effect, not a cause, of the pathway laid out by women. The ancients you revere knew this, which is why they found it perfectly natural to restrict female power where they could.

For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction.

Nice sentiment. But guidance and advice are worse than useless when they lead astray. Your advice should be customized to the reality you live in, not the comforting unreality you wish were real.

Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children,

Stone cold experience.

and what do we teach them?

To accept the darkness.

We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.

The lunacy of thinking the culture is ultimately well-intentioned and all it needs is a proper scolding is the mindset of the fool, or a pity whore. What good is a “clear and achievable notion of manhood” if such a notion is unvalued by women? How achievable is this notion in a culture dictated by a cognoelite that has no use for it?

The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement.

If conservatives are serious about restoring a traditional concept of manhood to the modern man, I have a few suggestions for them.

1. Industriousness will only be a worthwhile pursuit for men if they can extract some real status out of it to satisfy their guiding compulsion to attract women. This means removing women from the workplace, where female career growth acts indirectly to undermine male provider and leadership status, and directly through the feminization of the workplace.

2. Marriage will only be a worthwhile goal for men when divorce laws are gutted and reinvented to stop massively favoring women at the expense of men. No-fault divorce should be abolished. Child support changed so that men and women have automatic equal share of custody if the man wants it. Alimony abolished so that we never again see a callous situation where the ex-husband is writing checks to an ex-wife who initiated divorce and is now banging a new lover. Women who initiate divorce for any reason other than provable physical abuse should be kicked out of the house and made to get by living in an apartment.

3. Religion is dead in the water. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has been bitten, and no one who matters in the developed nations can take it seriously again until they and their shrinking descendants have been purged from the human pool. But if you want a fighting chance to return religion to some honorable place in society, and to have men return to the fold, the constant, sanctimonious drumbeat of chiding men to behave must stop, and be replaced with sermons that take into account the fallen nature of women. Remember, women WANT to be led. They won’t abandon the church if their natures are examined candidly and honestly, and without fear.

Now naturally, few conservatives will take up this call to arms. Have you heard any of them discussing the possibility of rearranging contractual marriage, the workplace, and religion to make it easier for men to ascend to a gloried position in society? Have you heard any discuss the natural disposition women have toward men of higher status, and that catering to this disposition will result in healthier relationships? I haven’t. That’s because most conservatives are pussies. “From a pussy, ye shall stay a pussy” would be an accurate conservative credo.

Since none of the above recommendations will ever see the light of day, let alone become the law of the land, the Chateau counsel to forge a new creation by learning game remains unchallenged in its effectiveness and its nobility. The map men navigate has changed; their status and their honor now issue from a wickedly precise understanding of women’s sexual natures, an acceptance of the new culture that pervades, and a fearlessness in exploiting what was bequeathed them to personal advantage.

The answers conservatives do have are laughable. Bill Bennett gives his:

We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, “Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married.” It’s time for men to man up.

Yes, men, man up. That’s the ticket. When she cuckolds you, man up. When she rejects your gentlemanly kindness for an aloof badboy, man up. When she unceremoniously files for divorce because she got bored of your beta personality after she went off the pill, man up. When she takes the house, car, dog and half to fund her live-in boyfriend’s porn habit, man up. When she writes love letters to terrorists and serial killers on death row because her honorable hubby doesn’t amuse her anymore, man up. When she boffs the first douchebag DJ who comes along but makes a courteous accountant wait three months for sex, man up. When she devours pulp romance novels and vacuous feminized trash that desensitizes her to the value of real life men she can reasonably hope to attract, man up. When she gets aroused by a backhanded compliment but remains unmoved by a sincere compliment, man up. When she cries to HR about what she thinks was an inappropriate flirtation, man up. When she “forgets” to take the Pill and puts you on the hook for the 18 year enslavement, man up. When she gets multiple degrees that price her out of the mating market, man up. When she gets legal protections and favors that aren’t given to men, man up. When her every misdeed and misbehavior and poor choice is excused, man the fuck up.

Wow. What man wouldn’t want to sign up for this program?

Men will man up when women man down. The one must follow the other. The polarity cannot be reversed.

Posted in Culture, Goodbye America, Misandry, Ugly Truths | 293 Comments »

Is It Better To Insinuate You’ve Dated Strippers Or Lawyers?

Oct 27th, 2011 by

Pickup artists practice something called “DHV (demonstrating higher value) spikes”, which means slyly inserting into a conversation with a girl a mention of your time sharing the company of a hot woman in the past (or present). The girl listening to this will subconsciously register you as having high value yourself, and her ‘female preselection’ algorithm will be triggered. (It is a well-known and commonly observed phenomenon that women are more attracted to men whom other women are attracted to. This is because male mate value is more complicated and difficult to assess than female mate value, so women use shortcuts to determine the worth of men; one of those shortcuts women use is to judge a man by how many other women have already found him worthy of love.)

DHVs of course can involve other kinds of status-enhancing subjects, but the reference to other women is typically the most common, and most effective.

Now obviously DHVing is best done through actions (e.g., walking into a club with two girls on your arms) rather than through words, but if you have nothing else readily available, telling a story imbued with DHV spikes is a legitimate game tactic, and one that will succeed if you do it right. But most men fuck it up, because it is so VERY EASY to tell a DHV story that sounds like try-hard bragging rather than incidental self-promotion. The key to successful DHV storytelling lies in the delivery — a story too grandiose or incongruent, or a DHV spike too clumsily invoked, will ping her BS meter, especially if she’s a smart urban yuppie chick. DHVs must sound almost like accidental blurts that get in the way of your story goals. The object of the game is like advertising; you want to subliminally embed your value in her brain, and you don’t do that by screaming how great your product is from the rooftop.

On that note, what is the best way to verbally demonstrate your prowess with women without sounding like an approval-seeking beta? Two commenters provide their experiences.

(r)evoluzione writes:

I’ve found that telling women that I date dancers is a big DHV. Often there’s some confusion around what being a ‘dancer’ is. And often a lot of overlap in dance styles.

Case in point: One girl I’ve been seeing recently is a modern dancer as well as a burlesque dancer. Burlesque dancers are about 2″ of fabric away from being strippers–they wear pasties over their nipples. They often have a lot more sultry sexuality built into their acts as well. Whereas strippers can be sexy, but are often just trashy.

Another girl, same deal–modern, burlesque, in addition to having a past history as a stripper. In general, I’ve noticed very positive reactions when casually mentioning this dating history when the subject comes up. Though those girls who see themselves as ‘good girls,’ will often get simultaneously aroused and fearful. Also, a quick mention is all it takes, mention it then change the subject, don’t belabor the point. Let that hamster run!

Matador writes:

Mystery was consistently referring to dating strippers when he wanted to display preselection and high value.
I never used the routine because I’m a little bit dubious. The current feminist propaganda made cases of chronic projection very widespread. As repeatedly said in this venerable chateau, women are attracted to confident, successful men, so they assume that men want (and should be attracted to) the same qualities in women.
So why then miss that opportunity and keep referring to trashy strippers instead of lawyers (i know, i know…), doctors or CEOs?

I tend to do just that and It works fine. The key of course (especially with low achieving chicks) is not to make it sound like a big deal. And feign during comfort building that you’re interested in something more meaningful and profound.

Maybe, I’m KJing here but making shit up about dating strippers would be a good strategy to game lawyers, doctors and CEOs.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mystery is indirectly assuming that women are projecting to strippers the alpha male qualities that they crave (desired by many, only one is chosen)… even though strippers are viewed by men as filthy cumdumpsters.

Gosh, there is some serious reeducation work that needs to be done. Keep preaching, brother.

It’s a good question: Is it better to advertise your preselection by referring to your time with strippers, dancers and models (the kinds of women who are the classic archetypes of the hot n’ sexy good-to-go chicks willing to please a man) or by referring to your time spent with educated, socially accomplished girls like lawyers, doctors and grad students?

To answer the question we need to recall what it is that women truly find arousing in men, and this requires a return to fundamentals in sex differences. I’ll focus on Matador’s objection to DHV stripper stories as evidence of male psychological projection. Does a DHV reference to a stripper indicate that a man is projecting his own desire for female looks and sexual receptivity onto the desires of the woman he is trying to impress?

Well, no, not very much at any rate. Projection is a real human cognitive bias, but it has limits in its applicability. A man projecting his sexual desire onto women would fuss over his OWN looks, because he assumes that women are as entranced by male looks as men are by women’s looks. There is NO projection in a man telling a story that references good-looking women because his sexual desire is not being projected back onto HIMSELF.

For example, women project their desire for high status men by sometimes assuming men are turned on by high status, educated women, when the truth couldn’t be more different, but when push comes to shove, women still BEHAVE as if they know, on some deep primitive level, that men are aroused by looks before all else. This is why we see even educated (aka brainwashed) women continuing the age-old practices of wearing makeup and dressing provocatively and desperately trying to reverse the tick of the clock. They can assert in Jizzabel columns all they want that “real men” prefer educated plain janes to hot bimbos, but their actions belie their words.

The reason stripper DHVs work on nearly all women to a greater or lesser degree is because, contrary to the erroneous belief that women wouldn’t be impressed by what men are impressed by, a stripper is REAL WORLD evidence that the man who dated her has preselection value, i.e. reproductive fitness. Strippers are perceived, (whether the perception is valid is irrelevant), as hot girls who are out of reach of the average man. A man who has fucked a stripper must therefore bring something very special to the table; namely, his irresistibility.

Would a lawyercunt be turned off by a man who admits to having dated strippers? Class issues do occasionally intrude. An upper class lawyerchick might think a man who dates strippers embodies class distinctions too great to bridge. The allure of a man who can get a bitchy hot stripper might be outweighed by her devaluing of the same man as someone who mingles with the wrong crowd.

I think this objection is overblown, but it is real.

One school of thought says that you want to DHV using the kinds of women and/or subject matter that presupposes familiarity with your target’s social milieu and personal life experiences. So if you are picking up a stripper, it helps to let her know (through allusion) that you have experience dating strippers. If you are hitting on a lawyer, the same theory applies. Let her know you have dated other lawyers. Women like to feel that the men they date are on or above (but not too far above) their level.

Another school of thought claims just the opposite: that you want to DHV a stripper with stories about dating lawyers, and vice versa. This thinking rests on Matador’s hypothesis that projecting what women like or respect back onto them is better game than hitting their preselection buttons for men who attract the attentions of hot women. A stripper will deem a lawyerchick to be well above her in social status (if not necessarily looks status) and will therefore be inclined to view a man who has dated lawyers more favorably than a man who has dated socially lower classes of women. Conversely, a lawyerchick will be more sexually attuned to a man who has claimed prowess with conventionally hot girls like strippers than with stick-in-the-mud lesbian-faced lawyers like the kind she probably sees every day at the firm.

So, do you DHV with strippers or lawyers? My glib answer: neither. Or both. You don’t need to choose. You can cover both bases. I’ll give an example of what I’m talking about with a DHV spike within stories I have told many times in my life to smart and sassy SWPL chicks.

TheStudULuv: [Preceding convo eliminated for brevity] Everyone in this town dates a degree. I swear, you talk to guys around here and they think the number of letters after their name makes them interesting people.

Girl: God I know. I can’t tell you how many boring MBAs I’ve met. Philosophy grads are kinda interesting though.

TheStudULuv: True. That’s because they’re crazy. Maybe it’s all relative. I broke my rule to not date lawyers with my last girlfriend, and I’m glad I did, because she was a welcome relief after the stripper.

Girl: [pauses to digest the news] That’s quite a contrast.

TheStudULuv: [Frowning and looking down at my drink] Sometimes the stereotypes are true. I shoulda listened to my mother.

I changed the subject quickly after that. The seed of intrigue had been planted. There is no need to hammer home a DHV. Just sit back and let it do its work.

But that’s not the best DHV spike at your disposal. No, I’ve discovered something even more powerful than devious insinuations involving strippers and lawyers — the YOUNGER WOMAN. If you seduce women in the mid-20s to mid-30s age range, a subtle implication of having enjoyed the company of younger women will send their hamsters into an epileptic seizure. Framing it similar to the convo above, like it’s something you are almost ashamed of, is all the plausible happenstance you need.

YOU: Dating younger women is not all it’s assumed to be. They get a little too possessive for my taste.

I’ve used this line verbatim on girls when the conversational direction allowed it, and it has never backfired in an obvious way. While it’s hard to judge the effectiveness of DHV spikes (because most of their power works on the girl’s subconscious thought processes, which remain hidden from you until they are revealed in her body language or IOIs), I have observed the nearly imperceptible widening of eyes that occurs when girls hear this from me. It is AWESOMELY powerful catnip to late 20s career women. Some girls will even ask just how young my ex was, because they are beginning to presume my unattainability and want reassurances that they aren’t too old for me.

As the commenters above mentioned, DHV spikes like these should be delivered as if they were afterthoughts. It helps to act a little bit embarrassed about your DHV as well. These are all master class techniques that neutralize the chance your target will interpret your DHV as a painfully value-lowering brag, and proficiency with them will only come from practice and continual feedback.

Posted in Game, Girls | 117 Comments »

The Battle Of The Sexes, Abridged

Oct 26th, 2011 by

Polygyny advantages alpha males and beta females.

Monogamy advantages beta males and alpha females.

Guess which system advantages civilization?

Maybe that question is too broad. Which mating system — in either the hard or soft forms — benefits the individual? The managerial globalists? The cognoelite? The lumpenproles? Figure out how each group benefits and you’ll know which system is ascendent, and which is actively and passively undermined.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Globalization, Ugly Truths | 227 Comments »

Feminist Gets Pumped And Dumped By PUA

Oct 25th, 2011 by

A masochistic reader (you’d have to be in love with your own pain to read any of the yeasty discharges fouling up Jizzabel) sent along this turgid confessional from a feminist who got banged out by a player four hours after they met for a first date drink. Her account of the date leaves the distinct impression that she was played by a guy who knows game very well. Let’s examine the techniques he employed to snare his prey.

I went on a date a month ago with a boy I met on an online dating site. “Met” meaning he’d sent me a few witty messages and his pictures were decent enough to warrant an IRL pass.

No long-winded phone calls making his interest in her obvious. Just a few witty (translated from the femspeak: terse/cocky/funny/asshole-ish) emails which implied his non-neediness and her interchangeability. So far, he’s off to a good start.

He was a strong conversationalist. We talked politics and he impressed me with a nuanced understanding of the debt ceiling debate. He knew about the Arab Spring.

How does the old saw go? Treat a lady like a broad and a broad like a lady. Mr. PUA knew he was dealing with the typical urban feminist slut who would swoon over a man who flattered her intelligence. So sprinkle in a few ledes he read in the NYBetaTimes about the Arab Spirng and , voila!, instant charma.

We discussed the unexpected but peculiarly gratifying direction our late 20s had taken both of us.

Again, translated from the femspeak: She was glad he assuaged her ego with comforting euphemisms about being an unmarried childless woman in her late 20s.

He made me laugh.

“He made me tingle.”

One drink turned into two,

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker!

two neighborhood bars into three,

This is the standard game tactic known as “bouncing”, or “time distortion”. By taking a girl to a number of places on a single night, you leave her with the impression that she’s known you longer than she has. It’s very effective at building comfort, as we will see.

and when he kissed me in the street, I was elated.

When a PUA gets a street kiss, that’s a green light to go for a same night lay. Women don’t make out in public places unless they are really into the thought of sex with you.

He wanted to see me again, he said. I agreed, the enthusiasm audible in my voice.

Audible enthusiasm is also a SNL green light. Also, note how he doesn’t set up a day and time to meet again. He just says he wants to see her again. Make your intentions known, but make them known vaguely, without promise, so that they could plausibly be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by women. Chicks dig ambiguity even more than they dig ambivalence.

As he walked me to the train, he asked me if I would come over for a nightcap. Just one. He offered to pay for a cab to take me home afterwards, as I had to work early.

Always escalate, until you have hit her limit. Push, push, push. It’s what women — even, maybe especially, feminists — secretly crave from men, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. There’s no worse feeling than having a pussy in the hand, only to see it disappear because you pulled back at the last moment out of some quaint deference to dating etiquette or mangina virtue. Or fear.

I — like many women I know — harbor a quiet but persistent internal voice that cries, “If you like him, don’t go!” The voice that says men don’t respect women who sleep with them too quickly. The voice that says despite the fact that you’re turned on, you’re a grown-ass adult and goddamn it you want to, as the female you should be the one to decline, to demur, to hold off for another night.

I’d never understood the reasoning behind that voice.

Silly feminist. The reasoning is simple, if you would free your mind of its stifling propaganda shackles. Men really do devalue women who put out too quickly. Sexual evolution has granted men the insight to recognize that slutty women are likely to continue being just as slutty after committing to them, and that is bad news for men who want to know their children are really theirs, and who want to avoid the divorce raping that inevitably follows when a wife pursues the feral eat, pray, love self-actualization life trajectory. Those pesky little feelings that swarm around your cortical ham, if you would stop drowning them out with femcunt agitprop, are early warning signals to behave in a more stereotypically feminine manner lest you harm your reproductive fitness.

I suspected I was internalizing cultural judgments about “easy” women.

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

The traditional refrain, “don’t buy the cow if you can get the milk for free,” which implies women should withhold sex to ensnare a partner, insulted me.

What’s a horny slut with daddy issues to do? Listen, lady, either embrace your sluttiness and stop kvetching to the cunty choir, or keep your legs closed. You can’t have your cock and keep it, too.

Years of dissecting dating mishaps with my friends taught me that if you want a relationship or even just the potential of one, it’s best to wait.

Betting is now open on how many cocks she has satisfied. We’ll start with 30.

In my mind, the waiting period was for no other reason but to increase the odds of a relationship. It was like dating lore passed on between friends. We don’t know why it works but it does.

It’s amazing that women have to relearn this common sense in their late 20s, after a decade or more of cock carouseling. Was there a wholesale abdication of parenting in the last two generations? A massively successful brainwashing campaign? Rhetorical.

Nevertheless, it’s best if women don’t start making men wait, because I was getting used to the easy peasy sex. Feminism has been very, very good indeed for men who want to play the field, and have the skills to do so. A return to patriarchal norms would really cramp my style.

But the way my date kissed me up against the brick wall outside the subway stop was enough to convince me my internal voice was an antiquated Debbie downer, squawking nonsense irrelevant for the modern woman.

Pushing a woman up against the wall to kiss her and grope her unleashes powerful, primitive, quasi-rape-y forces of submission within her. It’s one of my go-to moves.

I went to his house. We headed straight to the bedroom. Sex — intense, unexpected, rough and satisfying. Afterwards, as promised, he called me a cab.

By 3 a.m. I was home. And utterly freaked out.

I think it would bother women to know that men NEVER feel the urge to freak out after a one night stand. Not even the weepy beta males. Nope, slipping into sleep with a huge grin plastered on our faces is closer to what happens.

I hashed this over with multiple friends during the next few days. One suggested I just forget about the guy and be happy I’d had good sex.

The group Samantha.

Another brought up respect — if he wanted a real relationship with me, he would have proceeded with more respect for my body.

The group fatty.

I received a single lackluster text from him a few days later.

And that kid went ha haaaw! Who couldn’t see this coming? Apparently, her.

She should be thankful she got to experience a night of pleasure from a man who knows how much women crave being gamed. But women being what they are, (bless their overstimulated hearts), the fleeting waves of pleasure quickly gave way to self-absorption and tedious reinterpretation. The rationalizations that follow are some of the best frenetic hamster spinnings you will read in a long time.

Still distraught over the experience, I told [my mom] the bare-bones version of the story: I slept with someone four hours after meeting them and now I felt shitty and I couldn’t identify why.

I wanted to know what she — a world-experienced, non-judgmental woman — thought about sleeping with someone you’re interested in dating so soon? What she said was the best argument I have ever heard for waiting to have sex.

When you first meet someone, she said, you don’t actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them. […]

The mirage is sexy. But herein lies the danger. The potential for a schism to exist between the mirage and reality is huge. The probability of being disappointed is gigantic. That disappointment is compounded when intimacy is involved. You sleep with a stranger. You feel like you know them. But you likely don’t at all.

This may not be an epiphany for other people. But it was for me. After that night, I felt shitty not because I’d been “slutty,” whatever that means, but because I felt foolish.

I slept with an idea of a man. I slept with how that man made me feel. But that man didn’t exist, except in my mind. When I realized this, I felt… blah blah blah

Zzzz… zzz… *snort*… zz… huh, wha… oh, hai there. Must’ve dozed off. Wow, yeah, totally see what you’re saying. Totes. I bet you’ve learned a valuable lesson from all these experiences.

I’m still going out with guys and getting tipsy

Well, you know what I (sometimes) say… be true to yourself! Whatever that means.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Dating, Funny/Lolblogs, Game, Girls, The Big City Life, Tool Time | 267 Comments »

More Science Confirming Game Concepts: Long-Term Relationships Can Bring Out The Worst In Couples

Oct 24th, 2011 by

Digging through the archives of the Chateau Heartiste library, we find a post about the hazards of LTRs and marriage.

Now you can’t do anything without her, and she you. In the beginning, this is a necessary process to build the level of trust and bonding that distinguishes the LTR from any run of the mill fling. But it morphs into a hermetic pair-bond cocoon, a soft escapable prison that shields from the outside world more than it protects. Increasingly consanguineous, the LTR alienates friends and slackens ambitions.

Scary stuff. Science has something to say about the deleterious effects of marriage on the female body, as well:

•Women in their teens and early 20s who continued to date but didn’t cohabitate gained an average of 15 pounds over five years; their male counterparts added about 24 pounds.

•Newly married women in that age group packed on 24 pounds in five years; newly married men gained 30 pounds.

That degree of gain wasn’t seen in couples who were living together but not married. Women gained 3 pounds more than their single peers — 18 pounds — and men gained 24 pounds.

When you see photos of the groom stuffing the bride’s mouth full of wedding cake as she licks down every last ounce of sloppy creamed filling, you may as well be watching the groom disposing of his sex and love life down her maw. But as we all know, men get very, very stupid about marrying the first semi-decent pussy who comes along.

The latest from the scientific front presents more CH-confirming evidence that LTRs and marriage have negative consequences for their practitioners.

For better or for worse, in sickness and in health – there’s a long line of research that associates marriage with reducing unhealthy habits such as smoking, and promoting better health habits such as regular checkups. However, new research is emerging that suggests married straight couples and cohabiting gay and lesbian couples in long-term intimate relationships may pick up each other’s unhealthy habits as well. […]

Corinne Reczek, a UC assistant professor of sociology, reports three distinct findings into how unhealthy habits were promoted through these long-term, intimate relationships: through the direct bad influence of one partner, through health habit synchronicity and through the notion of personal responsibility.

Reczek reports that gay, lesbian and straight couples all described the “bad influence” theme, while in straight partnerships, men were nearly always viewed as the “bad influence.” [ed: there go women again, abdicating all reason and accountability.]

[…] “Third, respondents utilized a discourse of personal responsibility to describe how even when they observe their partner partaking in an unhealthy habit, they do not attempt to change the habit, indicating that they were complicit in sustaining their partner’s unhealthy habits. The final theme was described primarily by straight men and women,” says Reczek.

So if your partner has unhealthy habits, (smoking, drinking to excess, overeating, underexercising, staying up late to watch Modern Family recordings or Jon Stewart smugly sing to the SWPL choir), you will likely pick up those bad habits. And thus we see how the fat acceptance movement gets its steam — osmotic inevitability. (In related news, according to the Red Cross, there are more obese than there are hungry in the world. We’ve entered the era of globulization.)

Of particular interest in the above study is the evidence that women, and presumably their lapdog betabitchboys, placed the blame for being a bad influence squarely on the men’s shoulders. It’s obvious to those in the know that this blame-shifting is complete bullshit, since (just to pick an easily discernible example at random) there are innumerable couples where the woman has gotten fat while the man stayed slim. Nothing will kill a man’s desire to please his woman in every way faster than the disfigurement of her body caused by bloating up from bellying up to the buffet.

Is there an enterprise in existence where women will blame themselves for something bad they did? To ask the question is to laugh at female absurdity. The rationalization hamster is a cosmic force on par with dark matter; you can’t see the little bugger, but goddamn is he everywhere, redirecting galactic phenomena at will.

Also interesting is the last line quoted above from the study. Partners are complicit in sustaining their SO’s bad habits because they don’t call them out on it. I think we can figure out who is most responsible for this dereliction of duty: sackless beta males who are afraid of the divorce raping and/or sex withholding they will assuredly receive if they displease their queen sovereigns by timidly mentioning in squeaky-voiced passing their increasing girth. Women, for their part, don’t attempt to change their partners’ bad habits for a different reason: they don’t have a clue how to articulate what is wrong with their beta boyfriends and hubbies.

This post, and others like it, is a helpful reminder to the “marriage is best” crowd that marriage — and, similarly, LTRs — hold special dangers for the man who allows himself to become ensnared. An LTR is a beautiful thing with the right woman and undertaken with the right alpha attitude, but it isn’t a panacea for all psychological, emotional or sexual needs, and it isn’t without its own problems that men who serially date don’t experience. When you commit to a woman with the intent of remaining monogamous, you acquire new obstacles to navigate and problems to avoid. Failure to recognize those LTR-inherent deficiencies and counteract them will lead to exile in betaville, where begging for blowjobs once per year and praying you don’t get reamed in court if she gets bored become part of the wonderful fabric of life.

As with everything you venture to explore, do it with your eyes open. Otherwise, you may as well hand your decision-making process over to a committee of cog-molding industrialists and ball-chopping feminists.

Posted in Hungry Hungry Hippos, Marriage Is For Chumps, Relationships, The Good Life, Ugly Truths | 89 Comments »

Sometimes The Best Game Is Silence

Oct 24th, 2011 by

“Hey, CH. CH!”

Wheeling around and flipping my sunglasses onto the top of my head, I studied the location from where the voice originated. A cute, bob-haired girl stood with a herbster (combination hipster + herb) off to one side. She was smiling. I recognized her, after a moment of assessment. She was a former fling.

“How are you?”

Caught by surprise, I had nothing witty, engaging, or charming to say. I looked her over, ballet sandals to nympho hairstyle, and all I could muster by way of brain activity was a memory of watching her smoke in bed after I had ejaculated inside her.

“I’m good.” Bereft of follow-up, I stood quietly and self-assuredly, staring her right in the eyes, as three bloated seconds ticked by.

Finally she broke the impasse. “This is Jerry.”

I nodded at Jerry, who seemed to be a boyfriend of some sort, but his body language telegraphed eunuch house guard rather than intimate. I found it strange that the first substantive words of her conversation after “hi” were an introduction to some man I never met and couldn’t have cared less about.

“Well, nice to see you. Bye,” she chirped, and teetered off like a child being called home just as a pink flush was revealing itself on her cheeks.

There are moments with ex-flings when you know sparks are inevitable. But these sparks are enfeebled by shared history and time apart, or distasteful circumstances. In that moment, I had nothing to say. Nothing worthwhile at any rate. One can’t be on top of their game all the time. When gamelock happens, your best course of action is to refrain from saying much of anything. Silent game is all you need, then, and it beats bad game. A few exceedingly sparse words, a nod, a slow hand gesture or a couple of seconds of manufactured anticipation, and you leave a girl wanting to know more about what you’ve been up to than she ever did when you were a blabbermouth.

It’ll sound rude to an outside observer. But to her, it’s the most pleasant intrigue she can hope for.

Posted in Game | 50 Comments »

Ex-Stripper Describes Her “Girl Game”

Oct 21st, 2011 by

I’ve noticed a trend in the MSM. Men invent something controversial, get little mainstream press, women follow up with their watered-down version, get tons of mainstream press. In this case, an aging ex-stripper has landed on the front page of the New York Post where she discusses girl game: the female version of getting “what you want” from men, which in femspeak means getting love, money, attention and resources with, presumably, the ultimate goal being marriage. (Although you have to wonder about the kind of man who would be willing to pony up big bucks for a useless rock and ceremony to geld himself by marrying a road-worn and tossed away wet ex-stripper single mom with enough cock notches on her vagina wall to make it look like a gynecological cave painting.)

I don’t much write about girl game — aka The Rules — because it is, for the most part, ineffective relative to the thermonuclear game that girls already have at their disposal; namely, their youth and beauty. An ugly girl can run all the “girl game” she wants; it won’t make a lick of difference to her prospects. Conversely, a hot girl will often get what she wants without any girl game. In fact, girl game can actually hurt her chances with the alpha males she loves because those are the kinds of guys least affected, and most turned-off, by girl game machinations. Only in the middle where the average over-25 plain janes congregate can girl game help at the farthest margins, and then only by helping them snag betas who are more likely to fall for it.

With that in mind, let’s examine this whore’s recipe for dating bliss. First, here’s a look at her:

Not bad, not good. She has the tell-tale post-op tranny face that bespeaks a lifetime of pumping and getting dumped. That lifestyle tends to masculinize women. I wouldn’t pay her for a lap dance, but I would bang her for free. Once. With a kevlar condom.

So what does this broad “Diane Passage” have to say about girl game?

1. Show your confidence at all times — especially when you feel it the least. No one will ever know if this is true, but if you believe it, others will, too. A friend of mine who was a dancer at a club once gave me the advice to always enter a room “proud as a peacock” — stand up straight and move confidently. She worked in Las Vegas, where it’s highly competitive for any type of dancer or entertainer. She was a pretty girl, but average in comparison to other women. But wherever she walked — whether it was a club, casino or a grocery store — all eyes were on her.

Classic case of female projection. Women love confidence in men, so they think men must love the same in women. Nope. Confidence in women is neutral to their dating market value at best, and actively off-putting at worst. Most likely, this “confident”, “stands tall” Las Vegas girl she talks about has a big rack, and guys were staring at her jutting tits that she was thrusting outward.

Very shy girls who are pretty will arouse a deep, instinctive authoritarian desire in men to protect and sexually serve. Women don’t need to be loudmouths or assertive if they are cute. It helps, in fact, if they are a little effacing and deferential. A woman with *clinically* low self-esteem, (as distinct from nearly all women who are told they have low self-esteem but in actuality are full of themselves), can temper a man’s lust by slouching, mumbling and denigrating herself. Why? Because men will think she’s not interested.

2. I can create my own outcome and accomplish any goal. I like to set goals for anything — serious or ridiculous. I started doing this when I worked at the club; I’d set weekly income goals to help me stay focused and not get onto a downward spiral (which is typical for exotic dancers). Along the way I set fun goals — attending certain concerts, parties, etc. My most ridiculous goal? Hooking up with a certain male porn star. A friend of mine offered to buy the star for me for one night, but I declined. It’ll be far more satisfying to accomplish my goal on my own. Whether your goals are serious, fun or both — never think you can’t have it all!

New age, feelgood pablum. Worse than useless. This will encourage ugly, old and fat girls to avoid putting in the necessary work to make themselves more attractive to men. Newsflash, ladies: No, you can’t have it all. You can have what your best assets will bring you by maximizing their impact and minimizing the impact of your worst liabilities. Some liabilities, of course, are not mitigable. PS: Getting a male porn star to fuck you is not an accomplishment. Getting him to love you and commit to you is.

3. Slow and steady wins the race. While goals are important, you shouldn’t set unrealistic time limits to achieve them. People do crazy things under deadlines. An acquaintance of mine stalked a man because she was obsessed with getting married before the age of 35. Last year, she fell head over heels on one of her first dates. On Facebook, she saw he was looking forward to a sushi dinner at his favorite restaurant. My friend knew where to find him, because he’d mentioned the same restaurant on their date! So early in the evening, she planted herself at a table with a good view of the place. He showed up . . . with another date. This woman is seemingly sane otherwise. If she dropped the marriage deadline and just had fun dating, I bet she’d end up meeting her goal — without stalking!

This advice isn’t half bad as a way to avoid the worst mistakes women make. Women can quickly kill a sexy, fun vibe and drive an alpha man away by revealing their desperation on a first date. Or even during the first year of dating. (Beta men will stick around and suffer her desperation because they, too, are desperate.) As women don’t want to feel like sex objects, men don’t want to feel like commitment objects.

4. Every girl should know the basics of fishing and dog training. Several years ago, my son [ed: bastard spawn soon to be huffing paint under an overpass] took an interest in fishing. I had to learn, too, so I could help him with it. Little did I know that my basic fishing knowledge would end up serving me well in the world of romance! When dating, I like to try a fun and sporty approach. As the person who’s fishing, I’m able to lead my “fish,” so I have the advantage of getting what I want. My bait: smile, hair, makeup, clothing, stilettos and either legs or cleavage (never both at the same time). [ed: no, because that would be slutty. it’s not like he’ll think you’re a skank when he hears about your stripper past and bastard sprog] My hook: a flirty, mysterious demeanor. When I “reel” a man in, that means I’m getting to know him. He always has the option to free himself from my “hook.” And I always have the option to throw him back into the dating sea. If I decide to keep my “fish,” then I switch to boundary-setting mode. I’ve trained a dog, raised a son and have been married twice to men who wanted nothing more than to make me happy [ed: if she’s been married twice and is currently an unmarried single mom, then they weren’t very interested in making her happy. nor was she interested in making them happy. and single women should take advice from her?]. I know how not to let a male dominate me. The one consistent thing for all types of men: consistent enforcement of boundaries and giving rewards when they deserve them.

It sounds like she ripped this nominal idea straight from the Chateau archives. Anyhow, what she is saying here is nothing new. She’s just repackaging the time-tested advice to women to look as good as possible to capture a man’s interest by trying to make it sound edgier with the comparison to dog training and fishing. And enforcement of boundaries? What does that even mean? Her boundaries have obviously been rodgered to complete permeability.

5. My wallet does not exist. It might sound like an outdated cliché, but if you’re a woman, you should never reach into your wallet while you’re in the presence of a man. Even if you’ve been married for years. Not only must a man pay for the main components of a date (dinner, etc.), but they must also take care of taxi fare, coat check and bathroom attendant tips. The woman who believes in this mantra is not a gold-digger or obligated to “return the favor.” The few times I’ve gone “dutch” on dates, it usually results in the man feeling emasculated because of it — or it means the guy has some sort of money hang-up. Can an emasculated guy or someone with issues give you what you want? Not for me!

How sweet. An old-fashioned stripper single mom. The worst of every world. Now here’s some real talk for the single women reading: the only men you’ll get by playing the role of whore golddigger are betas with few other options and rich men with harems and zero game, wit or charm. Don’t bet on the latter unless you’re smoking hot.

6. My presence is a gift. Know your value — and not in dollar amounts. Relationships are work — and work has value. Do the rewards of your relationship satisfy you? What do you want from your partner? I broke up with a guy (who my friends and I nicknamed “The Whiny Baby”) because he was too high-maintenance, emotionally. This wouldn’t have been a problem if he could have just provided a bit of emotional support in return. [ed: translation: he treated her like the worthless aging stripper single mom she is] I told him that, and he briefly turned into a decent boyfriend until becoming a whiny baby. I decided my time was too valuable and he had to go.

This reads like he dumped her and she’s rationalizing it as her decision. Allow me to clarify. Your presence is only a gift if you’re pleasing to look at. It is less of a gift if you think you look as good at 35 as you did at 25, and you are saddled with kid baggage from another man. (This is starting to sound like a broken record. But it needs to be said, over and over, apparently.)

7. Allow your man to believe he is in charge. Men like to play the dominant role in relationships, so why not encourage the fantasy? This summer, I was with a man who was sensitive about women using him for his money. He watched me like a hawk, so my usual tactics were no good. But he was open to spending extravagantly at charity events, fine restaurants and so on. So I invited him to my friends’ events and establishments — where he was free to spend money — and I remained quiet and pretty, as he required me to be.

She’s contradicting herself. Above she says she does not allow men to dominate her. Here, she says she encourages men to dominate her. Oh, but of course she couches it in terms of “letting him feel like” he is dominating her. Hair-splitting. He’s either making the decisions, giving her orders and demanding she look pretty and remain quiet, or he’s not. Leave it to a single mom stripper to vomit whatever ill-conceived toddler babbling happens to scoot across her gyrating frontal lobe.

Not that there isn’t some substance to the advice to placate a man’s desire to dominate. A woman who constantly battles a man for dominance is an unloved woman. Men don’t respond on a visceral level to those kinds of women. And it works the other direction, too: men who renege on their duty to dominate are often pushed around and unloved by the women in their lives.

8. As a woman, it’s my right to act bitchy on occasion. When a man first approaches me, I’m icy cold and dismissive. The weak men leave. The ones who are up for a challenge stick around and show their charm and wit, and may land a date. Refer to mantra No. 4 (dog training) — along with boundaries, give rewards when due — leading to mantra No. 6 (value). A woman’s time, smile and interest are valuable and can be rewarded to the man who deserves her attention. Being icy or lukewarm at first also maintains an element of mystery. In addition, refer to mantra No. 5 (woman never pays). A man does not deserve a woman’s phone number without buying her and her friend(s) a drink, not to mention paying their entire bar tab.

Any man who buys a girl *and* her yakking yenta friends drinks, and pays their entire bar tab, just to get her precious, gold-plated number, is, by definition, an emasculated, hopeless beta who has the masturbation stamina of ten men. I doubt very much this skank ho would respect, let alone desire, such a man.

Mostly, what she writes here in point #8 is a rewording of the conventional wisdom that a woman who puts out too easily will harm her chance to get men to commit to her. (Leave aside her admonition to be bitchy. That’s not advice. It’s just a recognition that hot chicks will shit test men to discern their alphaness.) There is some truth in the CW. Beta and alpha men alike subconsciously downgrade loose women from potential girlfriend material to funtime sluts. But a woman has to carefully walk that tightrope; too much coyness, playing hard-to-get and bitchiness, and the alpha males of her dreams will quickly find sweeter and moister pastures. Too little, and they will relegate her to fuckbuddy status. And herein lies the main problem with “girl game”:

Girl game is effective at manipulating exactly the kinds of men women desire the least.

Horny, desperate betas — not sexually satisfied alphas — are the ones who will allow themselves to be toyed with by scheming girls. If those are the men you want, ladies, you can’t go wrong listening to the dating advice of a washed-up wednesday night stripper single mom.

Luckily for us men, game — real game — is just what the best looking girls crave.

Posted in Current Events, Game, Girls, Hitting The Wall, Psy Ops, Self-aggrandizement | 66 Comments »

Comment Of The Week: The Natural State Of Woman Is Submission

Oct 20th, 2011 by

King A and I have disagreed before, but I have to tip my hat to a well-executed comment.

When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.

The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.

We forget just how primal the female need for submission is because we are surrounded by women who have been ruthlessly denatured since birth. Even so, the impulse cannot be completely eradicated by artificial, totalitarian means any more than the Soviets could eradicate dissent forever.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. — Horace

How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.

Man fucks wo-man.

Every cultural institution that does not proceed from this truth is a lie. Our sex is the most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of all. Even our language reflects this inescapable reality through gender. It is impossible to imagine the human apart from la différence.

Vive la différence, you tinkering, vivisecting, social engineers! You life’s losers, you resenters, you poisoners of the punch bowl! You philosophesses with weak-chinned daddies! What kind of world is this! You have insisted our sisters become everything but what their entire being is geared for, because you once personally dreamt of possessing a cock.

We will fuck our way back to inequality. It will be a while, and it won’t be pretty.

Just remember this, you sisters awakening out of your dogmatic slumber, slowly scrubbing out the last greasy traces of penis envy: you are demigoddesses.

You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures. You really don’t want to be us, the cheaper of the two sexual commodities by a factor of billions to one (lifetime gamete production).

You are hothouse flowers. You are our most precious of all objects, we protect you with everything we have, to the very last, with our very bodies if we must. We kill and we die for you. We launch a thousand ships because your beauty makes us weep. You and the kids get the lifeboat, we drown like men. You are the mothers of our children, the vessels of our immortality. It’s not a bad place to be. We need some small, official recompense for sacrificing all that we are to keep you there. Is it really so important you get to vote for county commissioner in next month’s primary?

Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there. Let’s work to get you back there. But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples so that the women after you might once again be allowed to act like women.

The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.

In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers. We have given her the keys to the house, the office and the ivory tower, and like a child she has wrecked them all, daring discipline. Her guiding hand has abandoned her. Game is one of those guiding hands, and plays a part in returning balance to the force.

As for putting women on a pedestal… well, they were never meant to be there. It was a mistake putting them there in the first place. It has led us down the road to where we are today, much like the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust.

Posted in Comment Winners, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 282 Comments »

How The Pill Will Change Your Game

Oct 19th, 2011 by

In response to my request for information about the Pill and how it influences female mate choice, Chase Amante writes:

Hey brother,

Just browsing your blog and saw this. I’ve done some research on this before; have a very recent blog post up on it now, referencing a trio of studies on attraction and the pill (including one just published by the Royal Society on the 12th).

The post’s here:

http://www.girlschase.com/content/whats-best-way-pick-girls-get-ones-looking-you

If you want to head over to the abstracts yourself, they’re here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/10/rspb.2011.1647.abstract

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/3/203.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X05002564

Fascinating stuff when you dig into it.

Best,
Chase

So now we have our answer. Basically, what all these studies boil down to is the following: Women on the Pill are put in an artificial state of non-ovulation, which influences their mate choice selection criteria so that they prefer soft, herbly beta provider males throughout their entire monthly cycle and into perpetuity. In other words, women are being brainwashed by the Pill.

The studies are filled with data that support the obvious conclusions we can draw from the central thesis.

– When women in LTRs or marriages go off the pill they will suddenly find their beta boyfriends, whom they met while under the influence of the Pill, very unattractive, for reasons which they cannot articulate except in the loosest female terms like “we grew apart”, or “I just don’t feel it anymore”, or “he stopped being attentive to me”. Surprise divorcerape follows. Corollary: Men whose GFs or wives go off the Pill need to be EXTRA WARY of possible infidelity.

– Women who don’t take the Pill will be more receptive to same night lays with high value men (that is, men who display “social presence and direct intrasexual competitiveness”) during the ovulatory week of their cycle. Game will help you identify these women and quickly lead them to sex.

– Committed women on the Pill will be less likely to cheat on their boyfriends.

– Committed women not on the Pill will be more likely to cheat during their fertility windows.

– Women not on the Pill will go out more to social venues when they are ovulating, driven by a mysterious vajlust to meet men.

– Women on the Pill tend to become Netflix kinds of girls.

– Women not on the Pill will flirt more with men during ovulation. Boyfriends of these women will jealously mate guard until the ovulatory threat has passed.

– Women on the Pill will be less receptive to cocky/asshole alpha game, if they are in committed relationships. But they may be more receptive to beta provider vulnerability game.

– Women in relationships with betas or lower value men will be more dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill. Women in relationships with alphas or higher status men will be less likely to be dissatisfied with them should they go off the Pill.

– Average looking women not on the Pill will get a chance to experience the thrill of a jealous boyfriend when they are ovulating. Hot women will be with alphas who never get jealous. Ugly women will continue to be ignored.

– Women on the Pill will be more (sexually) appreciative of a beta’s resource investment. Women not on the Pill will be turned off by betas attempting to buy their love.

– A woman on the Pill will likely have longer relationships with the men she dates. This is probably because she will wind up dating betas who like to cuddle and look at baby pictures with her. A woman not on the Pill will have shorter relationships because she will date alpha cads who can’t be tied down for very long.

– Perhaps most interestingly, and a corollary to the above, a woman on the Pill when she met her partner, who then goes off the Pill, will be MORE likely to initiate a separation/divorce should one happen, even when the chance of a separation is lower for her than it is for a woman who met her partner while not on the Pill. What this means for men is that women on the Pill who then go off it while in an LTR won’t agitate for a break-up; instead, they’ll cuckold the poor beta bastards, resorting to dumping them only when they can’t take their supplication anymore. Women NOT on the Pill will simply choose to leave the relationship to hop aboard the cock carousel for another spin. So in one sense, at least, women who don’t take the Pill are more moral than women on the Pill, as the former would choose to end an asexual relationship or marriage over keeping it alive on a resuscitator and cuckolding on the sly.

So what does all this mean for men? How will it change the application of game?

– If you’re a niceguy beta with zero game, your best shot at sex is finding a girl on the Pill during the nonfertile phase of her monthly cycle who is single and owns at least two cats and two fat friends who constantly remind her by their presence how awful it is to be alone.

– The worst prospect for a niceguy beta is an ovulating hot chick not on the Pill who is just out of a relationship with man who became too beta for her. You may as well tuck your junk between your legs, because that is how seriously she will entertain your courtship attempt.

– As C. Amante mentioned in his post, hot ovulating chicks who are natural (sans Pill) will make pilgrimages to clubs, bars and Las Vegas to meet new men as if they were sex Meccas, and they will do so with or without a cluck of hens in tow. A hot chick alone in a bar on a weeknight is virtually guaranteed to be ovulating and hungry for cock. You want to target these spots for increased odds of quick, easy sex.

– It is impossible to efficiently sort out natural girls from Pill girls during the daytime, so day gamers will have to judge which girls are ovulating and horny according to other criteria. Subconsciously recognized odors may help. So will watching her body language for signs that betray unobstructed ovulation, such as hair twirling, leg crossing and uncrossing, heel dangling, and self-caressing.

– As Amante also noted, a chick who is really flirting with you during the day time is a virtual lock to be ovulating and off the Pill.

– If you think a girl is not on the Pill and is ovulating, you want to physically escalate sooner rather than later. Such a girl will become bored with a man who doesn’t make an early move on her.

– A girl on the Pill will be a breeze to talk with if you are a game-less beta, because she won’t bother with any of that messy flirting, teasing or shit testing that so vexes betas. Her non-ovulatory state ensures that she will be a pleasant chat partner who likes talking about puppies and food, and who thinks penises are icky.

– A girl who is not on the Pill and is ovulating will want sex fast, and she will want it hot, so she will shit test you hard in hopes of quickly uncovering whether you are an alpha worth fucking or a beta worth rejecting. If you talk about puppies with her, she will laugh in your face.

Maxim #20: The meaner a girl is with you, the likelier she wants to fuck you.

Corollary to maxim #20: The nicer a girl is with you, the likelier she thinks you’d make a great eunuch friend.

Things are really going to get interesting once there’s an oral contraceptive for men. Or is that, too, part of the masterplan to emasculate the Western male?

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, Girls | 180 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion