Where pretty lies perish.
Aug 30th, 2011 by Heartiste
Me, during an evening of sitting on pea green, chocolate brown and beige boutique furniture, drinking $14/four-pack beer, and ricocheting rapid-fire witticisms about supper clubs, pop culture icons and travel mishaps with a mixed group of men, women and gay non-math-oriented professionals carousing through the twilight of our nation’s greatness:
Me, during a night of rolling solo in a dimly lit bar chatting up girls:
You’ve gotta struggle a little to feel like a free man.
Aug 25th, 2011 by Heartiste
A girl buddy tells me some guy hit on her as she was leaving the gym that afternoon. She describes how he did it.
“So he comes up to me and asks me if I like horses. And then he starts talking about this girl he knew in fifth grade who ran around on a playground making horse noises? And I’m like, ooookay. He’s talking about horses and he’s all over the place. I can’t really figure out what he’s trying to say. Then he tells me I look like this girl. Weird, right?”
I ask, “Was there a love connection?”
“Haa, I don’t think so. I kept walking.”
I hear this, and it hits me: that’s Brad P’s horse opener. Hilarious. I wonder if the streets are filled with aspiring PUAs dropping routines, or if this was a rare occurrence. I didn’t mention to her that I knew about the horse routine.
The whole episode got me to thinking about pickup routines. A lot of the routines sparkle on paper (or on a monitor) but when you are out there in the real world, interacting like a human being, they sound clumsy and ridiculous coming out of your mouth.
Which brings me to a very simple formula I use for determining whether a pickup tactic would work. When I read about it, I think “Can I see myself saying that?” I imagine a real life scenario — let’s say, an approach at the supermarket by the deli meats — and I picture myself saying the exact words in a routine to a cute girl. If I can’t even imagine that happening without cringing a little on the inside, then I know it’s useless as an opener. But if I could picture myself saying it without losing any coolness points, I know it’s a winner.
No slight to Brad P, who is a smart guy and knows a lot about pickup and women, but the horse opener is one I could never see a normal man saying to a woman in most typical circumstances without looking and feeling weird, to both himself and to his target. I understand the goal of getting a girl’s interest by shocking her with something out of the ordinary, but the majority of men — normal guys who aren’t street magicians and who work 9-5 jobs — will not be able to talk about horses and playgrounds with a girl they just met without feeling like an idiot or a clown.
If an opener or routine doesn’t strike you as something you could hear a normal, cool man saying, then use it with caution. You have to be particularly talented, composed and articulate to attract a girl running a (relatively) long-winded routine like the horse opener. Most naturals who do well with women usually keep their first, introductory words short and sweet. The shorter and more normal-sounding an opener (without being banal), the likelier the average guy will succeed with it.
This is not to say that Brad P’s horse opener can’t work. In special circumstances, say at a bar or event where you have a quasi-captive audience who can sit through a lengthy routine without scuttling away for the bus or a taxi, the horse opener can shine. And, in Brad P’s defense, I could tell the girl in the above conversation was kind of intrigued by the guy, even though there was no number exchange. What probably killed his chances was his delivery, which sounded atrocious if the girl’s retelling was accurate.
This is the crux of why short and sweet openers are the way to go. If you’re new to the game, it’ll be a lot less intimidating to approach girls if you have a stock two or three openers no longer than a handful of words in length each. Memorizing long, complicated routines that require precision comedic timing is going to dishearten newbies when girls react to them with confusion, and eventually turn them into spiteful haters who write anti-PUA sites.
A good example of the kind of short n’ sweet n’ normal-sounding opener I’m talking about is one of Roosh’s day game openers, which, paraphrasing, goes something like “Where’s the nearest pet store?” It’s kind of an interesting question to ask a girl, because most single men aren’t looking for a pet store, especially if they live in the city. She’ll answer, and then you have your window of opportunity to jump into a funny routine about your cat Fluffy needing gourmet food, or something. And, more importantly, there’s little chance that even an aspie nerd will stutter or mumble while saying this opener.
Here is a list of the key ingredients of a solid opener, in descending order of importance:
1. Can you see yourself saying it? If yes, go to (2). If no, ask yourself if it would work in specific scenarios, and try it out.
2. Is it short and grammatically simple enough to memorize without struggling to remember the words in the heat of the moment? If yes, go to (3). If no, ask yourself if you are sufficiently verbally fluent and mentally dextrous to pull it off, then try it out.
3. Is it normal-sounding? If yes, use with impunity on all types of girls, including lawyers. If no, try it out on indie chicks with lots of tattoos.
Reader “Me” muses:
I’m not so sure that banging a non-white girl hurts your chances at all with quality white women. I would think that being attractive to different races/cultures could only boost your chances.
There will be no studies referenced in this post, because, let’s face it, the watery-eyed milquetoasts who run the labs would never sign off on a study examining the effect on perceptions of male attractiveness by women toward same-race men who are dating, or have dated, outside their race. Instead, I will rely on personal experience to buttress Me’s assumption.
There is no doubt, based on what I have observed, that white women will find you more alluring if you have dated outside your race. This opinion, or feeling, will be shared by flings, girlfriends, and wives. In fact, having a spotted checkered wondrously diverse dating history of occasionally banging 6s and 7s outside your race will make you seem just as, if not more, attractive than if you had dated 8s and 9s strictly within your race. The reason for this rests with that subconscious calculation — the whirring and beeping of the female limbic system — which automatically infers that a man who can bed cute girls of a different race (or, to a lesser degree, a different nationality) must be a mighty force of irresistible masculinity, indeed.
Women, and white women in particular*, being the more racist of the sexes as measured by mating preference, incorrectly presume that the obstacles the typical man faces in his pursuit of pussy are multiplied when the object of his lust is a different race. (The truth of the matter is that the difficulty of bedding the rainbow tapestry of womanhood varies depending on the specific race of the parties and the point on the masculinity/femininity nexus along which both reside.) And so women earnestly believe that a man who can overcome those race-based obstacles must have something going for him.
So too, there is the competition anxiety that a man who has sampled the world’s banquet of bush provokes in supercharged SWPLy women. On the one hand, these lily-white women live and breathe the PC zeitgeist that steers them along the pinched paths of multicult slavishness. But on the other, is the fear and envy of the pulse of raw sexual energy that good white women in their craggiest neural crevices believe that non-white women possess in spades more than they do. The cognitive dissonance drives them simply batty with sexual inferiority complexes. (Maria Shriver must have been going insane with self-reappraisal when she found out Arnold liked the Latina ass.)
I have seen it with my own eyes, and experienced it with my own glorious ego. When I casually mentioned a black lover I once had to a (non-black) girlfriend, her eyes went wide with cautious wonder, and she poked for more information, which I recounted with feigned reluctance, each tidbit of juiciness (yes, her ass defied gravity, no, she wasn’t ghetto) prompting from her expressions of amazement and half-hearted pleas to stop. She was clearly intrigued, and yet also ferociously jealous, that I had stepped across the line in the jungle to savor what was to her the rawest sexual taboo. From then forward, every time we passed a black girl on the street, I would peripherally notice my lover’s eyes darting once to the black girl, and then once back at me to gauge my reaction. This, gentlemen, is how you keep a woman on her toes in a relationship, working perpetually for your favor.
Black girls aren’t the only sore spot to the white woman. Heaven forbid the white man who has had a delicately feminine Asian girlfriend sweeping down the corridors of his past, should his white girlfriend know of it! Nothing inspires white (heh) hot jealousy in a white woman with greater fury than the Asian ex-girlfriend. This innate jealousy will explode into a supernova if you have an Asian mistress. A buddy once made the mistake of (accurately) reminding his put-upon white girlfriend that his Asian ex and she were more alike than she thought. The comparison drove her wild with sputtering indignation, for she had spent the better part of their relationship in feral cattiness denigrating his poor Asian ex whenever the subject came up. A woman does not heap that kind of fulsome hate upon those she feels are no threat to her sexual market value.
But you can bet the bank that my buddy got hand the day his girlfriend saw the pic of his cute Asian ex. His value had jumped, and would stay there barring severe beta regression.
This peculiar female presumption to imagine the best — aka lustiest — about men who date outside their race holds great benefit for the man wishing to leverage it into personal advantage. Letting it be known, in as plausibly extemporaneous a manner as possible, that you have a few black girls, Asian girls and, whoa stop the presses!, Indian girls in your timeline of ass-tapping is like catnip to the white woman’s theater of the hindmind. You can save a lot of money on travel expenses cultivating your international man of mystery pose by cheaply bedding down in your neighborhood with some flava flav every once in a while.
Preselection knows no racial boundaries. If the women you bang are cute and well-kept, the addition of a racial component will intensify a girlfriend’s jealousy instinct, which is the high voltage electricity that fuels the tingle capacitor. The greater variety of good-looking women you have ravished, the stronger will be a current fling’s libidinous intrigue.
The ONLY variable that influences a woman’s preselection algorithm for gauging male attractiveness is the beauty or ugliness of the women a man has banged. This is one of those unpalatable measuring sticks by which women judge your worth as a man — through the eyes of the women you have previously seduced. If those exes are a miss parade of has-beens, fatties and fugs, a girl will downgrade your SMV to a point lower than if you had never dated any women. If your exes are consistently cute, a girl will feel a strange compulsion to adore you.
Class factors little in the female preselection equation. If anything, class can have an inverse effect on a woman’s perception of your sexual value relative to her own. An upper middle-class SWPL chick will be inclined to question her own worth a lot more if she knows you have stepped out with some sexy hot lower class non-white chick. She’s going to wonder if she lacks the necessary spice you need to stay sexually motivated. She’ll think maybe her stiffly geometric WASP hips aren’t soulful enough to keep you glued.
Since women’s sexuality is biologically more valuable than men’s, it’s in your interest as a man to cultivate a tincture of such self-doubt in your lovers. Men who knee-jerk pedestalize women have no idea how difficult they are making the game. To pedestalize a woman is to hoist her above the penthouse in which she already reposes.
A quality white woman will be productively jealous if she knows you have had sex with girls of different races. This reaction of hers may be compounded if your exes are from distinct classes or milieus. But there is a limit to the female interest that your interracial loving will inspire. A history with trashy ghetto queens or snaggle-toothed FOBs is not gonna redound positively on you.
Before I forget, there is one more race-based preselection factor (besides objective beauty) that will shape how a woman perceives your sexual status: If you have dated NOTHING BUT girls of different races, you will be viewed with a jaundiced eye as a man who doesn’t have what it takes to win over women of his own race. Men who date other-race women to the exclusion of women of their own race are generally, and usually correctly, seen as sexual fetishists. A banal fetish for other races reveals more than it intends, and women of your own race are apt to discount you as a low value man whose limited options forced him downmarket.
It’s a simple thing to avoid this negative appraisal: restrict your outside-race dating to 40% or fewer of your sum total of lovers. Just enough to rev the ol’ hamster, but not so much that you forfeit the same-race game entirely. Of course, if you are fed up with SWPL vessels brimming with apparatchik drivel, you could flip the bird to all that and find true joy and happiness in the pleasures of hybrid vigor.
A list of lovers by race, in descending order of arousing jealousy and attraction in white women:
An extremely beautiful Russian woman. (A hot Russian/Ukrainian 10 is the worldwide gold standard.)
Asian woman. (The more petite, the better. You really want to throw that BMI discrepancy into stark relief.)
Indian woman. (So strange and exclusive, and so bothersome to the white girl ego!)
Middle Eastern woman. (White girl thinks belly dancer.)
Non-ghetto, slender black woman. (Jungle love, it’s driving me crazy.)
Non-sausagy Hispanic woman. (Selma Hayek, not Consuela.)
Eskimo woman. (Points for adventurousness.)
Aboriginal woman. (What were you thinking?)
*I imagine the forces at work in the white woman’s mind when contemplating a man’s multi-racial dating history are similar to what transpires in a black, Hispanic or Asian woman’s mind. I think we’ve all heard the stories of black women becoming absolutely incensed when a black man takes up with a white woman.
Aug 23rd, 2011 by Heartiste
A reader asks into the ether whether the following opening gambit is good enough to use regularly.
I saw on a buddy of mine’s facebook status a while ago “lol at girls who thought I bought them shots of vodka when it was actually water”. Apparently he “bought” some hot girls at a bar shots of water that they assumed was vodka. He said after doing the shots, they sort of half laughed and gave him the finger and he left pretty much after doing that because he had other places to go. Now I’m pretty sure this guy’s a natural (black, over 6 ft, does tango or some crap, and can probably bench press a car) so I doubt he even cared about their opinion of him and did it for his own amusement since he probably gets laid like a rockstar. I wasn’t there to see the girls’ reaction, so I was wondering if this would be a good opener? Completely unusable dick move? What do you think about it?
On paper, (and apparently in real life if this guy’s story about his friend is accurately retold), the fake drink opener seems like it would work very well, especially on hot girls with bitch shields in bars and clubs who will be expecting free drinks from suckers. Some of the best cocky teasing is the kind where you fool a girl into thinking you will meet her expectations of betatude, and then you pull the rug out from under her. She is left reeling in the warm juices of her arousal.
But in practice, I’m not sure this would be easy to pull off. Fake drinks have to be delivered in the same glasses that would hold real liquor for the trick to work. If you ask the bartender for a round of water shots (when the girl is far enough away from you that she can’t hear your order), the bartender will likely serve you the water in tall soda glasses, usually with a straw for added humiliation. Then the girl will know it’s not a vodka shot by the shape of the glass.
But that might be hair splitting. I’m sure you could get around that if you know the bartender and he’s happy to be in on your ruse. Or you could keep used shot glasses and fill them up with water, to hand out to any unsuspecting princess.
Regardless of the utility of this opener, props go to the reader for having the right frame of mind. That is half the battle in your quest for cheap sex.
Aug 23rd, 2011 by Heartiste
Contrary to a previous study claiming that fatter people live longer than underweight people (a flawed study that was, not surprisingly, trumpeted by feminists, fatties and those who shudder at the thought of sexual market standards), a new study has concluded that fatness will shorten your lifespan:
While some past studies have shown that persons carrying a few extra pounds in their 70s live longer than their thinner counterparts, a new study that measured subjects’ weight at multiple points over a longer period of time reveals the opposite.
Research from Adventist Health Studies recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society showed that men over 75 with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 22.3 had a 3.7-year shorter life expectancy, and women over 75 with a BMI greater than 27.4 had a 2.1-year shorter life expectancy. Generally, a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered normal weight, and a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight. A BMI of 30 or more is considered obese.
A good rule of thumb to take into consideration when trawling scientific studies is that the more a study’s results contradict common sense, the likelier it is that there was some flaw in experimental procedure. It’s not OK to plump up as you get older; you should be striving to maintain your youthful weight for your whole life. Paleo eating and regular exercise of the short burst variety (weightlifting and wind sprints) will help you in your goal. For those who think this is impossible, you only have to look at modern day hunter gatherer tribes. In those, the elderly (that is, the few who avoid getting murdered or mauled to death) stay thin and sinewy right up until the end.
In related news, getting fat is much worse for a woman’s sex and love life than it is for a man’s. (Paging that idiot commenter who thought he was being smartly impartial with his heavy-handed “reminders” that women don’t like all the fat men, either. Well, the facts suggest otherwise, schnerdling.)
Men are more concerned with their partner’s body type than women but they also seem to value family more highly, according to a new survey released on Tuesday.
Nearly half of men questioned in the poll of 70,000 people said they would ditch a partner who gained weight, compared to only 20 percent of women.
Two-third of men also said they had fantasized about their partner’s friends, while only one-third of women had done so.
Ladeez, if you want to keep your man interested in you, you have to stay sexy and slender. Men, the findings (and general life observations) show that getting fatter won’t hurt your love life very much. Don’t push it, though. Few people who aren’t freak fetishists are sexually aroused by morbid obesity.
Another valuable CH lesson, free of charge!
Aug 22nd, 2011 by Heartiste
Women who have Cupid’s Bow lips are more likely to orgasm during sex than women with straighter lips.
A recent study by the University of the West of Scotland found that women with a prominent, sharply raised ‘tubercle’ on their top lip — commonly known as a Cupid’s bow — are 12 times more likely to reach orgasm through sex alone.
This is one of those weird phenotypical associations that, if true, probably has some prenatal hormonal basis. Maybe women exposed to high amounts of estrogen in the womb as fetuses have more feminine facial features like the upside-down-W upper lip, and feminine women feel more aroused by sex with a man. Or maybe cause and effect is different and tip-and-dip-lipped women, being more attractive to men, are simply hooking up with more alpha men and experiencing orgasm during sex more frequently as a consequence.
Btw, the Cupid’s Bow looks great as it’s stretching up and outward across the ridge of the glans.
***
Does sex reduce genetic variation?
Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context – an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology – as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.
“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction – in which only one parent is needed to procreate – leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex. […]
According to Heng, the hidden advantage sex has over asexual reproduction is that it constrains macroevolution – evolution at the genome level – to allow a species’ identity to survive. In other words, it prevents “Species A” from morphing into “Species B.” Meanwhile, it also allows for microevolution – evolution at the gene level – to allow members of the species to adapt to the environment.
If sex is really about maintaining a species’ identity against assimilation with closely related species — a sort of Darwinian nationalistic response to the borg collective — then does this add weight to group selection theory? It would seem so. I’ll leave it to the reader to explore avenues arising from this line of thinking. (Just a little something to get you started: when women are ovulating, they prefer sex with men of their own race.)
***
War, what is it good for? Well, how about civilization.
“This study is part of a larger, worldwide comparative research effort to define the factors that gave rise to the first societies that developed public buildings, widespread religions and regional political systems — or basically characteristics associated with ancient states or what is colloquially known as ‘civilization,’” said Stanish, who is also a professor of anthropology at UCLA. “War, regional trade and specialized labor are the three factors that keep coming up as predecessors to civilization.”
Do you lose sleep at night when you ponder the sacrifice in blood and pain of countless ancestors, cruelty upon cruelty inflicted upon and by them until the pile of skulls reached high enough that you could retrieve with your grubby sausage fingers the iPhone perched at the top of the macabre stack?
***
Daughters have more influence over their mother’s sexual self-esteem than the other way around.
A new study by a Temple University Fox School of Business professor finds that teenage girls have a strong influence on the products their mothers buy solely for personal use, as in makeup or clothing, and that mothers have a much stronger tendency to mimic their daughters’ consumption behavior than vice versa.
The researchers analyzed whether teenage girls tend to emulate their mothers’ consumption behavior or whether mothers mimic their daughters. The study, conducted through questionnaires, sampled 343 mother-daughter pairs, with an average age of 44 for the mothers and 16 for the daughters. The researchers found that if a mother is young at heart, has high fashion consciousness and views her daughter as a style expert, she will tend to doppelgang her daughter’s consumption behavior.
Moms must know with some conscious awareness that their piping hot fresh teen daughters look a lot hotter than they do. It would only be natural for moms constantly reminded of their rapidly approaching reproductive obsolescence to ape the habits and dress of their sexual betters in hopes the magic would rub off on them. But enough of that cheery cocktail hour talk. What do daughters REALLY think of their moms?
However, even if the daughter has high interest in fashion and an older cognitive age –thinking she’s older than she is – she still is less likely to view her mother as a consumer role model and to doppelgang her.
You can hear the ouch from that sting all the way from the dressing room of your local trailer park titty bar.
***
I keep hearing from all these erudite economists and Ellis Island schmaltzfuckers in love with their open borders theories that the down economy is causing illegal migrants to return to Mexico by the truckloads. Oh really?
Number of Mexican immigrants returning home dropped during latest recession, study finds.
Fewer Mexican immigrants returned home from the United States during 2008 and 2009 than in the two years prior to the start of the recession, a finding that contradicts the notion that the economic downturn has hastened return migration to Mexico, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
I love the whir of a furious backpedal, coming soon to a libertardian blog near you. Can we just finally concede that the anti-nationhood Western elite policy of ignoring the porous borders and demonizing anyone who notices was nothing but a giant middle finger gleefully wagged in the face of middle and lower class whites? Candor is good for the soul.
***
File under: Pedestal rot. Women are wired to seek “extra-pair paternity“.
Seeking out extra-pair paternity (EPP) is a viable reproductive strategy for females in many pair-bonded species. Across human societies, women commonly engage in extra-marital affairs, suggesting this strategy may also be an important part of women’s reproductive decision-making. Here, I show that among the Himba 17 per cent of all recorded marital births are attributed by women to EPP, and EPP is associated with significant increases in women’s reproductive success. In contrast, there are no cases of EPP among children born into ‘love match’ marriages. This rate of EPP is higher than has been recorded in any other small-scale society. These results illustrate the importance of seeking EPP as a mechanism of female choice in humans, while simultaneously showing it to be highly variable and context-dependent.
For political and social cohesion reasons, it’s doubtful we’ll ever see an accurate number on rates of cuckoldry, but we will get closer as DNA testing improves and becomes more widespread. I wonder if, as this study implies, arranged marriages across the world have higher rates of cuckoldry — aka female rape — than companion marriages. A great mental energy must be spent by women reconciling their desire for monogamous romance with their compulsion to foist a bastard upon an unwitting beta.
***
“Stayover relationships” are the new marriage.
Changes in relationship formation and dissolution in the past 50 years have revealed new patterns in romantic relations among young adults. The U.S. Census indicates that young people are choosing to marry later and cohabitating more often than past generations. Now, a University of Missouri researcher has found that people in their 20s are redefining dating by engaging in “stayover relationships,” spending three or more nights together each week while maintaining the option of going to their own homes.
“Instead of following a clear path from courtship to marriage, individuals are choosing to engage in romantic ties on their own terms – without the guidance of social norms,” said Tyler Jamison, a researcher in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS). “There is a gap between the teen years and adulthood during which we don’t know much about the dating behaviors of young adults. Stayovers are the unique answer to what emerging adults are doing in their relationships.”
Jamison found that “stayover relationships” are a growing trend among college-aged couples who are committed, but not interested in cohabiting. However, little is known about the effects of stayovers on future commitment decisions or marriage.
“A key motivation is to enjoy the comforts of an intimate relationship while maintaining a high degree of personal control over one’s involvement and commitment,” said Larry Ganong, professor in HDFS. “We see this interest in personal control nationally in more single adult households, and in the growing phenomenon of ‘living apart together’ (middle-aged and older monogamous couples who maintain their own households). It may also help explain why marriage is on the decline, particularly among young adults.”
Who says stayover relationships have to be the domain of teenagers? I’m a big fan of the system. A few nights a week, no messy financial or property entanglements, and some time alone to fish for auxiliary prospects. What’s not to like? PS: Marriage as we know it will be gone in thirty years, barring some social cataclysm. It only takes a relatively small vociferous minority to shift public opinion and practices, unless there is an equal or greater pushback before the new opinion metastasizes in elite thought and manifests in all-out propaganda war. The time for that pushback is long gone.
Aug 19th, 2011 by Heartiste
Camelot007 writes:
I believe there is no better explanation of what women need than in this excerpt:
“And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.”
It comes from an article titled “What Do Women Want” written by Daniel Bergner and is backed by research done at Queen’s University in Ontario Canada.
The stability of a long term relationship rests mostly on the happiness of the woman. Men in lackluster LTRs are perfectly happy keeping the thing sputtering along if they are getting their sexual needs met on the sly with mistresses. But women are a different beast entirely in this matter; if a woman feels turned off or egregiously neglected by her lover, she will prefer to jettison the relationship altogether and start fresh (as fresh as an aging woman can start) rather than share her intimacy with multiple men concurrently.
And so when a man loses interest in his partner the LTR or marriage is in less trouble than when the woman loses interest in her partner. Married men would be wise to recognize this insidious imbalance in the sexual force and behave accordingly if they don’t want to get the barrel end of the divorce theft industry pointed squarely at their nads. You may not like it, but under the restrictions imposed by the corrupt state of modern marriage the onus is on men to keep their wives happy, rather than the other way around. (Yet another reason to skip out on marriage in favor of LTRs or cohabitation.)
What this research implies is that if you want to sustain the hot sex in an LTR for longer than the first few months, and by extension reduce the odds that your girlfriend will cheat or generally behave like a bitch, you need to frequently qualify her. Qualifying a woman makes her feel like she has to continue working for your affection, and thus overcomes the naturally emergent impediment common to all LTRs of anhedonic emasculation. She wants to know she has earned your interest, for only when this final piece of the puzzle is in place will you remain the mortal god she yearns to idolize.
In the turbulent bazaar of the sexual market, perception is everything. No matter how deftly a wife or long term girlfriend is able to logically convince herself that her partner’s SMV is no lower than when they first met, her altered perception of his value that accompanies LTR confinement and complacency will inevitably corrode her feelings of lust. Game can remedy this dissolution by instilling in her a renewed appreciation for her man’s desirability. A healthy reminder, if you will.
A woman loves to feel that the man she is with has illimitable choice among competitor women. A man with sexual choice is a desirable man, for he is preselected by women and will pass on his preselected genes to her sons. A man without choice in women — and, however wrongly, such can seem the case to a woman hitched to a man in a familiarizing and deballing monogamous LTR — is an undesirable man, for why should she love a man whom no other woman would deign to love? She begins to question not only whether he still finds her attractive, but more importantly whether he is himself still attractive to other women and is choosing her among a smorgasbord of pussy options. The disenchantment spiral unwinds.
A man “trapped” in an LTR can avoid, or at least temper, the disenchantment spiral by employing various game methods designed to validate his woman’s hypergamous need to be with a higher status man than herself:
1. He can instill dread.
For example, kill complacency dead by calling her from a location where girls’ screeching voices can be heard in the background.
2. He can screen her like he did when they first met.
“It’s important to me that a woman knows how to do the reverse spider monkey hanging from a pull-up bar.”
3. He can provoke competition anxiety.
“Your friend Carrie looks like she’s been hitting the yoga classes a lot. A man can tell.”
4. He can helpfully remind her of his options.
To wit: Don’t look away in misguided appeasement when that sexy waitress tosses you a flirtatious glance under your GF’s/wife’s nose. Instead, revel in the moment. Grin and wink back at her. Make it obvious that you could get a new woman in a day if your lover was to leave you.
5. He can cheat.
This is the trepanation of reviving a flagging relationship. Use with caution. Fact is, when you cheat on a woman her perception of your sexual market value skyrockets.
A woman will fight with the last fiber of her being against the encroaching discomfort that she is being settled for by a man with a lack of options. Every marriage and LTR, left to their own inertial devices, encourages this encroachment. Do her, and yourself, a favor: game the shit out of her til death, or the wall, do you part.
Aug 18th, 2011 by Heartiste
Here’s a simple formula:
Economically empowered women + empathetic men = loss of female sex drive.
Who’da thunk it!
Well, apparently not feminists, because the latest slew of research is sure to give them a crusty old vagina hemorrhage.
Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.
And that gender equality, far from liberating women sexually, actually inhibits desire.
This is not news to anyone who reads this blog. This research supports a critical CH maxim:
Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both by the laws of human nature.
When women make as much or more money than men, when they have equally prestigious jobs and an army of assistants, they will find that the pool of sexually desirable men dries up, and the inevitably lowered status men who are available to them are perceived as veritably castrated. Male dating inequality results, where more and more men are deemed unworthy mate prospects while the few men who still wield high status over the majority of women find their prospects enlarged.
A choice quote by a classic lawyercunt from the above article:
Corporate lawyer Amy, 38, goes to work in killer heels and a pencil skirt, commands a mega-salary and has a team of assistants at her beck and call.
‘At work, I’m always the one in control and I admit that I like it that way. It’s exciting and it’s sexy being an Alpha woman,’ she says.
But when it comes to her partner Max, who is also a lawyer, albeit with a less high-profile job, she often finds herself feeling confused about who calls the shots — especially when it comes to sex.
‘When I get home, I no longer want to be the power broker, the one who’s always in charge and in control. I need to be wooed and seduced, and to feel that Max has power over me,’ she says.
‘Sometimes he fulfils the role, but sometimes he doesn’t and I feel disappointed. It does make me wonder why I’m reluctant to take the initiative in bed when I’m confident and in charge at work.’
Women are hardwired to prefer submission to a strong man, and the stronger the man, the more abject her surrender. See: Story of O. Women BEG for you to exert your power over them. A woman craves it like you crave stuffing her holes full of love.
Luckily for men in this epoch of economic contraction and anti-male bigotry, game will allow them to bypass the female algorithm to screen for high status men by giving women the SUBMISSION TO POWER that they so desperately need without men having to rely on any societally conventional status metrics. And women will love them for it.
For the haters and doubters who latch onto the whiny cry Fake! every time this rule of game is rubbed in their faces, ask yourself a simple question. Would Amy, the corporate lawyercunt in the story, feel
a. more turned on, or
b. just as turned off as before
if her lower rung lawyer lover started gaming her using the principles espoused on sites like this one?
Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that. She would love every last second of it, and her nag-to-blowjob ratio would quickly reverse.
Feminism, to put it as bluntly as these two do, is bad for sex, and is the prime reason why increasing numbers of women are seeking help for problems associated with low libido.
Ironically, while feminism has opened the pussy floodgates for alpha males, enabling them to have their fill of noncommittal sex, the uptight little ideology has simultaneously ruined the libidos of women by, in turns, masculinizing women and emasculating men. You just can’t fuck with the primal forces of nature and expect no blowback.
According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.
They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.
But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.
What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.
Maxim #2: All successful seductions are adversarial in nature.
Even female rats exhibit the same tendencies that human females do: the love of being chased, the anticipatory flirting, the insufferable but charming coyness, the anti-slut defensive posturing, the desire to submit to a dominant male, with ass perched high in the air, undulating in expectation.
When I put this proposition to my friend Katie, 42, who runs a successful event planning business and is married to Geoff (who gave up a job with the police force that he hated and is doing a stint as house-husband, looking after their sons, aged three and six), she blushed with embarrassment.
‘It seems so disloyal to admit this because Geoff is so lovely in every way. He’s brilliant with the children, he does all the shopping and cooking, but the truth is I’m just not turned on any more,’ she says.
‘He knows how tired I am at the end of the day, and though he’s just being considerate, instead of asking me if I’m in the mood for sex, I long for him to be a bit masterful and say: “I want you. And I want you now.”
‘On the few occasions when we do make love, the only way I can get excited is by having a lurid fantasy about being taken by force by a man in uniform.’
I think we can declare, with this vaj-smash CH post, that on the date of 18-8-2011, feminism died. May the gruesome corpse shortly rot into spinsterly decrepitude and spare us all the spectacle of watching me do the Snoopy happy dance and gloating “I told you so!”
Aug 17th, 2011 by Heartiste
The Shocker writes:
one of the common criticisms with the Mystery Method is that it takes an adversarial approach to game- like two lawyers in a courtroom. You’re trying to come up with rebuttals based on what she says and what she does. It’s good for beginners since they can detach their identity from their performance (and suffer no ego consequences when they fail), but it’s really not that great of an approach to social interaction overall. Rock solid inner game always wins because you aren’t making assumptions about your target, you’re more agile and dynamic since it’s authentic, and ultimately is the image you’re trying to impress through Mystery’s scripts anyways. Women can tell the difference. [Ed: More precisely, women can *feel* the difference between bad game and good game.]
Chateau Heartiste is popular with inner-game types because it looks at the rules of attraction from a very high level. We’re not really looking for techniques here because we don’t need them – just a deeper understanding of the laws and strategies at play. It’s the difference between practicing chess openings from a book versus reading about game theory. Yale vs ITT Tech.
All seduction is, in a sense, adversarial. It has to be, considering that men’s and women’s reproductive goals are at odds. But it is the adversarial nature of courtship that electrifies women’s libidos. A budding seduction that lacks this tension will wither on the vine. It’s evolutionarily preordained that women will swoon for sharply charged flirty exchanges, and crumple into boredom under an onslaught of dull agreeableness.
That said, it’s true that game greenhorns too easily fall into a lawyerly pattern of badgering the witness and courtroom objections. This isn’t a fault of the specific game tactics so much as it is a problem of overthinking one’s next move at the expense of free-form conversational adaptability. Men who first take on the learning of game tend to think in rigid blocks of discrete information — must do this now, then follow up with this — instead of the better mode of thinking in fluid cascades of themes: i’ll do this, unless this other move is better. What results from thinking like the former is a man who fumbles when a woman, for example, shit tests at the “wrong” time, and he flails in his misguided effort to steer the conversation back to where he was in control.
For the beginner, it’s almost more effective to think actively about what *not to do*, than what to do. Avoiding common beta pitfalls will get you farther as a newbie than trying to perfectly apply all the little details of the Attraction-Comfort-Seduction sequence to targets of interest. As you progress, you can start to think more in terms of tightening your game instead of avoiding anti-game missteps, because at that stage you should have enough experience with women under your belt (heh) that you can, one, predict with uncanny accuracy how a woman will react to a given scenario and, two, shift on the fly.
Mystery did the world a service by breaking down the trajectory of a successful seduction and female attraction mechanisms into their component parts. The nature of making a (relatively) complex subject understandable for the masses naturally ensures that imitators and acolytes will miss the nuance. Nuance comes with practice, so don’t sweat it at first. The Mystery Method blueprint is just that — a blueprint around which to erect a work of pickup art. Don’t try to jam every preposition or unexpected riposte into its framework. Exigency happens.
Aug 16th, 2011 by Heartiste
The blows of excruciating truth continue raining down on feminists’ block-like skulls. A recent scientific study (via reader “Dor”) confirms a core theme of this blog that chicks really do dig jerks.
The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad [i.e. narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism] have typically been considered abnormal, pathological and inherently maladaptive. Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to themselves and others, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power, low neuroticism and extraversion, that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness, such traits may facilitate — especially for men — the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.
So what is this study telling us? What Heartiste concepts are validated?
– Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)
– Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussy.)
– Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.
– The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.
– Being disagreeable (an asshole, that is) is attractive to women.
– Being power-hungry is attractive to women.
– Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.
– In other words, being an aloof, uncaring asshole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.
– Contrary to feminist flailing to gender equalize the attractiveness of assholes by claiming that men prefer bitches, this study conclusively shows that the Dark Triad suite of asshole traits works better for men than it does for women. That is, men don’t dig bitches.
– None of the above would ever be admitted by women, so don’t bother asking them.
Women who can’t help but love men who hit them, like Rihanna, are only the bleeding edge (heh) of a general and primordial inclination by the fairer sex to swoon for emotionally callous, manipulative assholes. You may hate this assessment, but you can’t disagree with it. You’re soaking in its truth.
Those who hate the messenger (yours untruly) for shedding light on this reality often like to ask if I would be OK with some erudite guy telling men to be assholes to get chicks if my hypothetical daughter was to wind up in the arms of such an asshole (like this dude). Of course, I wouldn’t. Amoralistic biology ensures there will be competing and contradictory passions, double standards up the wazoo. What father in his right mind would want his daughter to fall for an asshole? And yet, I am not my hypothetical daughter’s pleasure center. What I would want as a hypothetical father should not stain the quest for truth.
I present the truth, suggest ways to exploit this truth, and allow the readers to ultimately decide which path to take for themselves.
One thing we know for certain: if it’s young, fresh, maximally fertile pussy you want, you can’t go wrong cranking up the assholery.
Stuff like this is why I can't get very offended by Iran's Rooftop Therapy school of psychology.
I look at that 1920 map, and Southern segregation becomes completely understandable.
I look at that 2020 map, and national separation becomes completely necessary.
The national and collective interest must always supercede the private and individual interests. We're still paying the price of a Faustian bargain made centuries ago.
Fourth, the fact that White Americans are not composed of any single European nation, but are a blend of all White nationalities, with the Germanic element predominating, means that an ideology grounded in a pan-European "Aryan" racial mythos will always find more appeal here than any form of nationalism rooted in the old 19th-century European nation-states.
A related theory I've had about how ethnic White immigration during the late 19th to early 20th centuries shaped founding stock White America's racial consciousness is that the success of incorporating ethnic Whites into the dominant WASP culture may have conditioned White Americans to believe they could incorporate nonwhites just as easily.
It was not an easy assimilation, though. Italians and Irish brought their racial habits with them, and it caused troubles here. But they were close enough, genetically and racially, to the Anglo-Germanic core that incorporation, largely helped along by ethnic intermarriage and mixed-ethnicity children, was successful, after fits and starts.
The problem with that success merging White ethnics with Anglo-America is that it opened a Pandora's Lox of hubris and recklessness. The newly emerged broadly White core of America, stripped of its ethnic boundaries, came to believe that, based on past successes assimilating the White ethnics, there would be no difficulty doing the same with nonwhite immigrants.
And the economic boom that coincided with the years following the ingestion of White ethnics likewise conditioned White Americans to think that nonwhite immigration would provide similar economic benefits to the country.
Our success assimilating White ethnics, ironically became our failure to assimilate nonwhites.
One is the fact that, as a former colonial power, race and racial conflict is central to the lived experience of all Americans. As the country becomes more diverse, this factor is going to become stronger, not weaker—for the same reason race is such a dominant factor in U.S. prisons.
Correct. This is already happening in America. I wrote about this a while ago, making the point that the salience of Whiteness as a personal identifier will increase alongside the increase in proximate racial diversity.
Understanding that White Americans don't have the strong ethnic touchstones which are familiar to Europeans (owing to our high rate of interethnic marriage), it was always more likely to be a broadly White racial identity that would coalesce in the consciousness of White Americans.
In a 90% White America, Whites reflexively preferred to identify themselves by their particular ethnic ancestry, if they thought about their racial heritage at all.
In 60-50-40% White America, Whites will reflexively prefer to identify themselves by their Whiteness, and because of America's influence on Europe, Europeans will slowly inch toward a similar pan-White identity, converging with the racial consciousness percolating in America.
As a historical phenomenon, in spite of the current state of politics, there are several factors that favor the reemergence of Nazism, in a great power on the world stage, in the United States—on a long enough timeline.
I continue to hold to my hypothesis that the Holocaust narrative and it's associated reign of terror will be mothballed in the coming years due to Israel and World Jewry’s genocide of Gaza. The mothballing plan will be a slow, steady, decay of presence in all entertainment and information media, and Jews will receive orders to not bring the matter up or discuss it with gentiles under any circumstances.
Maybe. But imo it could easily go the other way, too, as jews feeling the heat come round the corner might double and triple down on their virtuous victim hagiography, hoping to leverage "Hyper Holocaust 2: Electric Jewgaboo" to secure the continued loyalty of a sufficient number of (mostly liberal) Whites who will shield jews from mounting criticism.
Either way, jews are in a bind. Loosen their grip on White consicousness and guilt-manipulation and risk White flight from finkelthink, or tighten their grip so much that it provokes a backlash.
It really “cemented” the hypothesis for me that the Holocaust’s presence in our minds was entirely due to career intimidation by Jewish power. I always knew people only publicly supported the Holocaust narrative because the consequences were, without exception, swift and severe. Every case, no matter how slight, deserved exemplary punishment.
I don’t want to mislead people with my comment. While I “doubted” the necessity of such vicious intimidation regarding the Holocaust, at this time in the early 2010s, I still believed it was a true story, even if Jews were exaggerating and being overbearing about it. But as the years have gone on, I think we really have been victims of an elaborate, orchestrated, coordinated confidence scam by the world Jewish community. It really was just atrocity propaganda thought up by the Allies and Jews after the war to deflect away from horrible Allied bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan.
The Purge was a movie with the premise that all crime is legal within a 12 hour period.
I wish there was something similar with social media. A 12 hour period when it's legal to fedpøost like a warrior bard.
And it'll still be the jews.
