Feed on
Posts
Comments

Marilyn Monroe Was Skinny

Jul 1st, 2011 by

I really love these posts that rip feminist mythology to shreds (a fun and easy sport even the kids will love!). You can just imagine their porky forehead veins throbbing with rage as they read the following article by Virginia Postrel:

We should never again hear anyone declare that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, a size 14 or any other stand-in for full-figured, zaftig or plump. Fifteen thousand people have now seen dramatic evidence to the contrary. Monroe was, in fact, teeny-tiny.

The 15,000 were the visitors who turned out over eight days to oooh and aaah at the preview exhibit for the June 18 auction of Debbie Reynolds’s extraordinary collection of Hollywood costumes, props and other memorabilia.

The two comments heard most often in the crowded galleries were (to paraphrase), “Wow, they were thin” and “It’s such a shame. These things should be in a museum.” […]

The auction’s top-ticket item was Monroe’s famous white halter dress from “The Seven Year Itch,” the one that billowed up as the subway passed. It sold for almost $5.66 million (including the buyer’s premium) to an unknown phone bidder. Sharing a rotating mirrored platform with Hedy Lamarr’s peacock gown from “Samson and Delilah” and Kim Novak’s rhinestone- fringed show dress from “Jeanne Eagels,” Monroe’s costume was displayed on a mannequin that had been carved down from a standard size 2 to accommodate the tiny waist. Even then, the zipper could not entirely close.

But that’s just one dress. Perhaps the star was having a skinny day. To check, you could look across the room and see that Monroe’s red-sequined show dress from “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” was at least as petite, as were the saloon costume from “River of No Return” and the tropical “Heat Wave” outfit from “There’s No Business Like Show Business.

In fact, the average waist measurement of the four Monroe dresses was a mere 22 inches, according to Lisa Urban, the Hollywood consultant who dressed the mannequins and took measurements for me. Even Monroe’s bust was a modest 34 inches.

That’s not an anecdote. That’s data.

The other actresses’ costumes provided further context. “It’s like half a person,” marveled a visitor at the sight of Claudette Colbert’s gold-lame “Cleopatra” gown (waist 18 inches). “That waist is the size of my thigh,” said a tall, slim man, looking at Carole Lombard’s dress from “No Man of Her Own” (a slight exaggeration — it was 21 inches). Approaching Katharine Hepburn’s “Mary of Scotland” costumes, a plump woman declared with a mixture of envy and disgust, “Another skinny one.”

The pattern she noticed was real. At my request, Urban took waist measurements on garments worn by 16 different stars, from Mary Pickford in 1929 (20 inches) to Barbra Streisand in 1969 (24 inches). The thickest waist she found was Mae West’s 26 inches in “Myra Breckinridge,” when the actress was 77 years old.

The average waist size of American women in 2011?: 34.5 inches.

The insistence by fatty fat fatty apologists and the misfit motley crew of “cultural conditioning” feminists that Marilyn Monroe was a plump woman, a chubby chick, Rubenesque, zaftig, or, (my personal favorite), cuuuuuuurvy is nothing but the oinks of lying propagandists who want you to believe that men have since been somehow magically programmed by… who, exactly? Government agents? Hollywood? Frat boys? Stuxnet?… to prefer anorexic chicks over their true preference for supposed chubsters like Monroe.

For a long time this claim went unanswered; one, because no one bothered to fact check its self-evident PC truthiness, and two, because loudmouthed, ugly femcunts have cowed journalists and pundits into abject submission. But now the facts are in: Marilyn Monroe was a SLENDER BABE. There wasn’t a BBW bone in her skinny sexy body.

Women REALLY WERE thinner back in what the feminists call the bad old days. There wasn’t some fairytale fatopia in the 1950s when the men lusted for rotund mamas, and women were real women with curves and meat on the bones. Nope, women of the past were definitely thinner, and they were even thinner than what we would consider a thin girl today! That’s how warped our professed standards in female beauty have become. Men and women alike have drunk the feminist Koolaid, and coupled with the inability to avoid the sheer numbers of fat chicks rumbling over our frappuccino plains the result is a grudging, deflating acceptance that bigger, fatter, heftier women are here to stay, and baby you better believe they are HOT STUFF. A lot of men, seeing how few options they have when 9/10s of their prospects roll with a mushroom cloud top, are gonna revert to the one face-saving ploy in their arsenal: sour grapes.

“Hey man, I don’t want some anorexic bag of bones. Fat-bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go round. A whole lotta woman needs a whole lot more. Big girls you are beautiful!”

Nice try, JoeBob, but I know what you’re really thinking.

(Ever notice how gay male rockstars love to sing the praises of fat chicks? Wazzupwitdat?)

This is all part and parcel of a cultural plumping up of the American woman over the last half century to go along with her actual plumping up. Dress sizes have changed to accommodate the tender egos of the lardasses thundering around clothing stores now, so that, for example, what once was a size 10 dress is now a size 6 dress. What was considered a really fat chick in 1950 might’ve worn a size 15, but today the typical fat chick is so much fatter than her 1950s counterpart that she slips into the equivalent of a dainty size 38 number.

You can’t blame the retailers and clothing manufacturers, though. They just want to turn a profit, and if that means giving fatties an artificial high from being able to claim they wear a smaller size than they really do, then they’ll minimize dress sizes forever. If present trends are indicative of future results, a size 0 dress will soon be able to double as a mosquito net.

The fattening of American women is a goddamned fucking TRAGEDY. It robs the country of beautiful women, and thus robs American men of tactile sexual pleasure and aesthetic visual pleasure. A direct analogy would be if the nation’s men all decided to quit their jobs, shart on first dates, act like nervous dweebs and change diapers for a hobby. Yeah, don’t sound so hot, does it ladies? Now maybe you can grasp why every evangelical equalist effort to normalize expanding waistlines and rolling waves of blubber is a sin committed against beauty, and thus, against truth.

Game isn’t so much about being able to play the field in perpetuity as it is about navigating a shrinking dating pool of sexy slender chicks getting squeezed by an advancing army of fat chicks. It’s been written here before: as the expendable sex, men react to conditions in the sexual market; they don’t create those conditions. And right now conditions are Code Well-Fed, mothafuckaaaaaa.

PS I’d like to start a new advocacy group called the National Association for the Advancement of Half-Weight Women. God bless those half-weight women we’ve lost to the tidal wave of sugar and midnight snacking. Boners unite under the banner of Half-Weight Women! Raise your flag and smite the enemy Double-Weight Women! Smite them with a cupcake avalanche!

Posted in Girls, Hungry Hungry Hippos, Pretty Lies, The Pleasure Principle | 426 Comments »

DSK And False Rape Accusations

Jul 1st, 2011 by

The rape case against DSK is falling apart because the accuser’s story isn’t adding up. She’s inconsistent and contradicting herself, according to prosecutors who are now debating whether to go forward with the charge.

Back in May, I wrote, in connection with the accuser’s statement that she was orally raped:

Is it even possible to mouth rape without some modicum of consent? Women have teeth; they could just chomp down.

I had a suspicion this story was fishy from the get-go. Feminists (of course!) will claim otherwise, that mouth rape is a plausible criminal offense, but the more plausible belief is that forcing your dick into an *unwilling* woman’s mouth is a dangerous sport and liable to get it bitten off. Or at least nicked, which is pretty damned painful on the sensitive penis shaft.

So the fact that this Guinean woman claimed to be mouth raped immediately roused me to disbelief. Roused, baby! And now it seems my initial gut reaction was correct: the bitch be lyin’. The fact that she was a foreign national also fueled my suspicions. Contrary to popular conception, the world isn’t full of Anglo-Germanic proto-Americans ready to be assimilated without incidence into the glorious melting pot.

False rape accusations seem to be on the rise. I remember reading a startling factoid somewhere that fully 50% of all rape charges are false. Can anyone dig up the data? I’d be curious if the trendline on FRAs is rising.

This is not to say that alpha males never do bad shit. When you are king of the world, you start to believe your turds are gold-plated, and nothing can touch you. DSK probably did something bad that nevertheless didn’t cross the rape line. But women are manipulative little creatures given the right incentives, and those who aren’t in love know they can leverage a wealthy and famous alpha male’s vices into personal gain and profit. This doesn’t happen as often as it could, because women involved with alpha males are usually in love with them, the power of being alpha and the influence it has on women’s feelings being what it is. It’s the loveless whores that alphas need to be wary of. (Paging Tiger Woods.) My suggestion to alpha males: If you’re gonna fuck around with the help and the strippers, throw them a bone occasionally. Tell her she smells nice, and you smiled when you thought about her today.

Posted in Current Events, Globalization, Misandry, The Id Monster | 97 Comments »

Why Most Libertarians Stupidly Embrace Open Borders

Jul 1st, 2011 by

A core principle of libertarianism is the free movement of labor. On paper, this principle sounds admirable, even workable. That damned paper! Libertarians would have to betray a lot of what they believe in to accept that restrictions on the free movement of labor are advantageous, economically and culturally, for a nation’s well-being. Thus, they don’t. Instead, they pull an ostrich and ignore the negative externalities that mass immigration has brought to the USA. Free movement of labor is such an entrenched free market concept that many libertarians have taken to arguing that open borders is a natural, and moral, extension of the principle.

But when does free movement of labor across national borders as a concept break down? Three heretofore largely unexamined premises should enlighten those who believe the concept is trustworthy.

1. As Milton Friedman said, open borders and the welfare state cannot coexist. If one country offers a generous welfare package to all and sundry that immigrants cannot get in their own countries, they will happily cross unguarded borders to take advantage of the manna from government heaven. Who pays for this manna? Why, you, the productive libertardian citizen. There’s a word for your kind. Sucker.

2. Population group differences in human capital are real. If country A is filled with highly productive and intelligent citizens on average, and countries B, C and D are filled with less productive and less intelligent citizens on average, what do you think will happen when the bulk of countries’ B, C and D least productive citizens emigrate to country A? A libertarian in good standing will argue that those B, C and D immigrants will do the crappy jobs that need doing, and the natives who are displaced from those jobs will be incentivized to educate themselves and get better paying and higher status jobs. Hey great! Except what happens if those displaced native citizens, due to innate limitations, CAN’T DO MORE CHALLENGING JOBS? What you’ll get is what we are seeing today: a structural increase in the chronic unemployment rate. Bootstrap philosophy has been thoroughly discredited by the advancing scientific knowledge in genetics.

3. Evidence suggests political ideology is genetically imbued and thus mostly immutable. Latin Americans — specifically those of Amerindian ethnicity — consistently vote 2/3rds for Democrats and more state intervention. What do libertardians think will happen to their precious policy proposals when a 2/3rds majority of 50 million illegal migrants, continuing in perpetuity with their children and children’s children, vote for politicians who believe in the exact opposite of what libertarians believe? Does this really need spelling out?

Why do I give libertarians so much shit? I share an affinity with their worldview, so when they fuck up it inspires me to level the hammer of Thor on their blockheads. It’s like how you give your brother way more shit for fucking up than you would a stranger. Being of your blood, he should know better.

Posted in Globalization, Goodbye America, Ugly Truths | 218 Comments »

An Old Chateau Concept Confirmed By Science

Jun 30th, 2011 by

Years ago, the writers of this blog made the bold and controversial assertion that female economic empowerment and growing government largesse were helping to fuel the desire of women to ride the alpha cock carousel in their 20s, only to settle down with a beta provider later in life when their sexual peak had been passed.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

This blog = perceptive. Prophetic, even. Now science has come around to the Chateau point of view with a new study that shows women with money problems prefer softer, beta men who would make good resource provider candidates.

Those [women] primed to worry about their finances showed the least interest in the macho men, the Royal Society journal Biology Letters reports.

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

This would allow women ‘to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as pathogen outbreak or a famine’, they said.

Or to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as the introduction of the Pill, feminism and economic self-sufficiency.

So here we have scientific evidence proving a core Chateau concept that women who are materially comfortable — as many women became after their assault on the workforce and colleges beginning in the 1970s — are less likely to seek out beta providers and more likely to indulge their hypergamous drives and sex it up with studly alpha cads; that is, until Father Time cruelly etches the first of his brandings on delicate, feminine faces. This would go a long way to explaining why age of first marriage has been steadily climbing since 1970; more years devoted to schooling to make the middle class money, yes, but also more years to slut it up with the high status alphas women truly desire but don’t need for material resource procurement.

Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.

Also of note: Women who worried about health problems were attracted to the masculine studs. So if you are an alpha male with game and a goal to bed as many women as possible before kicking off, your best bet is to target hypochondriac careerist chicks.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

Best,

Yours in politically incorrect but bracingly truthful dating advice.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Dating, Ugly Truths, Vanity | 199 Comments »

Running Solo

Jun 29th, 2011 by

A reader asks:

First of all, great blog.  A lot of the information conveyed here has been useful to me in consciously making a positive impact on my “gaming” skills….it’s almost eerie to think back and realize the times where I unknowingly ran game and was getting the strongest attraction without knowing why.

Anyhow, I’m more of an introverted guy….21, recently started going to bars on the regular.  However, most of the time I run solo.  I’ve lurked here for awhile now and gotten a good feel for game, but there’s still some psychological itch about not running with a group as often as I used to that makes things feel somewhat awkward.  I’ve searched the blog, but found nothing specific pertaining to “solo” game.  Are there any specifics that you would suggest keeping in mind when going it alone?

One specific problem I’ve run into is my age….a lot of the 23 + older girls seem to have their interest doused by hearing that I’m a mere 21 years old, even if everything else has been going smoothly.

I used to run solo at least twice a week. My best pickups (that is, the hottest chicks I banged and the quickest I moved the seductions to the bedroom) happened when I approached a girl or group of girls by myself. Unless you’re still in college, you shouldn’t be rolling with more than two buddies, anyhow. The more men in your group, the douchier you look, and the less courageous you’ll seem to girls who have to deal with wolf packs of sausage eyeballing them every time they go out.

The awkwardness you feel is strictly a fear based on how you will be perceived by girls. The act of running solo itself is not the cause of your bad feelings. It’s the fear that girls will think you are a loner without friends.

In my experience, this fear is totally overblown. Most girls don’t immediately lurch to thoughts about your lack of friends when you approach them solo. They are sizing you up and that is a function entirely of your game. When going out alone, just enter a frame of mind that you are the mysterious, dark stranger with a wealth of worldly experiences to share with someone worthy of your company. If girls ask about your friends, tell them you left them behind at a crappy party that was too pretentious for your tastes. Or just say you went out without them because they hold you back.

As for your age, my advice is to lie if you want to take the path of least resistance. It’s true that a lot of girls have a mental checklist that forbids them from dating younger men. Women are, by and large, viscerally attracted to older men. The cougar phenomenon is swamped by the older man-younger woman dynamic. If you don’t want the hassle of dealing with this constraint on women’s desires, then just fib about your age.

On the other hand, it’s a relatively simple subterfuge to neutralize an older woman’s objection to sleeping with you.

HER: You look young. How old are you?

YOU: You first.

HER: 23.

YOU: Oh, too bad.

HER: What?

YOU: You’re too young for me. I normally date women in their 30s. I find them much more interesting to be around.

HER: [massive self-qualifiying]

If you have good game, age won’t be much of a barrier to sex. Or love.

Posted in Game | 227 Comments »

Diversity + Proximity = War

Jun 29th, 2011 by

In the clearest illustration yet of this infamous Chateau maxim, a new study is out showing how increased diversity in the form of bordered territory is leading to more war.

Wars steadily increase for over a century, fed by more borders and cheaper conflict.

New research by the University of Warwick and Humboldt University shows that the frequency of wars between states increased steadily from 1870 to 2001 by 2% a year on average. The research argues that conflict is being fed by economic growth and the proliferation of new borders.

We may think the world enjoyed periods of relative freedom from war between the Cold War and 9/11 but the new research by Professor Mark Harrison from at the University of Warwick’s the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and Professor Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University, shows that the number of conflicts between pairs of states rose steadily from 6 per year on average between 1870 and 1913 to 17 per year in the period of the two World Wars, 31 per year in the Cold War, and 36 per year in the 1990s.

Professor Mark Harrison from the University of Warwick said: “The number of conflicts has been rising on a stable trend. Because of two world wars, the pattern is obviously disturbed between 1914 and 1945 but remarkably, after 1945 the frequency of wars resumed its upward course on pretty much the same path as before 1913.”

One of the key drivers is the number of countries, which has risen dramatically – from 47 in 1870 to 187 in 2001.

People like to form into competing groups. This natural impulse is encoded in every human being’s DNA. It is a deeply embedded encoding, and can’t be excised. It can only be controlled by authoritarian measures, i.e. ultimately at the point of a gun. More 20th century borders is likely the manifestation of these ancient desires seeking to congeal into ever smaller, and thus more closely related, human tribes, and now being free to do so. It should be no surprise to a realist of human nature that more borders would lead to more war.

Naturally, the hopelessly naive among you might ask, “Why not just dissolve borders like we are doing here in the USA? Fewer borders should mean less war, right?” Incorrect. What instead will happen — and what we are seeing happening today in the USA — is a chaotic scramble — a BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE — to form de facto borders within the essentially borderless nation. (The modern USA is the closest approximation we have to an essentially borderless nation ruled by a legitimate government. There is no way to explain the unsupervised migration of 50 million Mexicans in 30 years that starts with the premise that we have a working border mechanism in place.)

De facto internal borders are based on race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, and social status, just as hard borders. La Raza is an internal border. The Congressional Black Caucus is an internal border. Journalism is an internal border (80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats). Cosmopolitan elites are an internal border. Schools are an internal border (ever notice how students congregate in a lunchroom cafeteria? How about the quickness with which urban white elites set off for the decidedly less diverse suburbs when the kids reach schooling age?). J-Date is an internal border. NASCAR is an internal border. Libertardian blogs are an internal border. Gay Pride and Puerto Rican Day parades are internal borders. Gerrymandered districts are internal borders. Neighborhoods are internal borders. Of course, one notable group has no recognized internal border at all. And we know what happens to undefended, borderless lands: they get overrun.

Active wars of bloodshed might not be the result of such internal border-making (though don’t count your ammo before it’s fired), but all the political machinations and propaganda of hot wars are there in spades in our relatively bloodless diversity wars. The only thing missing is the stack of dead, uniformed bodies. “Uniformed” being the operative word here.

A country as (formerly) gifted with human capital as the USA can live with a little bit of diversity. But like every other nation on earth, beholden as we all are to our Darwinian overlord, it can’t live with a lot of it. We’ll soon find that out.

Posted in Current Events, Globalization, Goodbye America, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 241 Comments »

Comment Of The Week

Jun 29th, 2011 by

From Miley_Cyrax:

Bitches love them r-selected Zergs.

On a related note, here’s another massive StarCraft nerd with a hot girlfriend. She’s a beauty queen, Miss Oregon.

Posted in Comment Winners | 91 Comments »

StarCraft Nerd Has Cute Girlfriend

Jun 28th, 2011 by

It might be time to rethink the assertion that video gaming is exempt from the maxim that every male endeavor has female groupies. Here’s video of an interview with a StarCraft nerd who, at 3:15, surprises the viewers when his cute girlfrined bounces on stage to be next to him.

If you are alpha enough in your demeanor and mannerisms, you can overcome the handicap of association with a nerdy hobby. Watch the vid closely. This guy — a Zerg champion apparently — emanates an alpha aura. Note the minimal time spent smiling. Or his slow, controlled body and facial movements. The way he keeps his chin up. Or the way he deftly handles questions, and the steady tone and timber of voice in which he talks. Note too, how he has spent some time buffing himself up. (He’s far from huge, but he’s done enough to prevent looking like the typical doughy nerd with a Cheetos moustache.) Listen as he trash talks the competition; this guy is a cocky asshole.

And finally, watch how he reacts when his girlfriend bounds next to him; no beta supplicating there. He stands firm and lets her nuzzle into his personal space. She is the one with exaggerated body motions, while he remains the oak tree under which she frolics like the nymphette she is.

Often, you can identify the alpha male better by watching how the women in his company react to him than by his accomplishments or his leadership skills.

Posted in Alpha, Game, Videos | 239 Comments »

Yet Another Study Validates Game

Jun 24th, 2011 by

The effectiveness of kino — the act of casually (and calculatingly) touching a woman during a pickup to establish your sexual interest, to make her comfortable with the idea of sex with you, and to guide her away from putting you in the friend zone — is confirmed by a scientific study.

Previous research has shown that light tactile contact increases compliance to a wide variety of requests. However, the effect of touch on compliance to a courtship request has never been studied. In this paper, three experiments were conducted in a courtship context. In the first experiment, a young male confederate in a nightclub asked young women to dance with him during the period when slow songs were played. When formulating his request, the confederate touched (or not) the young woman on her forearm for 1 or 2 seconds. In the second experiment, a 20-year-old confederate approached a young woman in the street and asked her for her phone number. The request was again accompanied by a light touch (or not) on the young woman’s forearm. In both experiments, it was found that touch increased compliance to the man’s request. A replication of the second experiment accompanied with a survey administered to the female showed that high score of dominance was associated with tactile contact. The link between touch and the dominant position of the male was used to explain these results theoretically.

Kino and compliance are two integral parts of seduction.* There are plenty of posts in the Chateau archives covering these two important topics. If you are not touching a woman early on in a pickup, chances are you will fail to get her number, let alone a lay. Don’t listen to indignant feminists when they claim that men should keep their hands to themselves until they are invited to touch; the truth is, as it often is when feminists and their distorted beliefs are the subject, the complete opposite: men who touch early and without permission are the ones who win girls’ hearts.

Why do women respond so positively to kino from men, to the point of complying with the men’s requests for a slow dance or a phone number? The answer is in the survey results of the study: kino is associated with male dominance. And women LOVE LOVE LOVE male dominance. If you need a reminder:

Chicks dig power.
Men dig beauty.

Salesmen have known the secret of kino for ages, which is why the best salesmen, if you’re paying attention, will find a way to lightly put their hand on your elbow when they’re guiding you to their product. Kino is a little trickier in male-on-male interactions, though, because the same dominance display that works to sexually arouse women will cause another man to bristle like a porcupine.

Women also emphasize touch more than men do. If you go shopping with a woman, you’ll notice how often she caresses linens or traces a finger along furniture and vases. A woman lives in the world of touch, exquisite touch, and a man who can create that bond of touch early in a pickup will leave a bigger impression on her than a man who keeps his hands firmly by his side.

Kino leads to small acts of compliance, which eventually lead to the big act of compliance for sex. Nonverbal kino — hand on upper arm, then forearm, then thigh — isn’t the only way to escalate a seduction through its stages. Creating an emotional connection with graduated verbal compliance — asking a series of increasingly personal and sexual questions — is like the conversational form of kino. The two together — nonverbal and verbal compliance — combine to create a powerful arousal in women.

*Works on sluts and non-sluts, proles and SWPLs alike!

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Game, The Pleasure Principle | 160 Comments »

Girl Admits She Loathes Niceguy “Boyfriend”

Jun 24th, 2011 by

This email, assuming it’s not fake, has been making the rounds (via Instapundit):

I have been seeing a guy for seven months now. He is a nice guy — probably the nicest guy I ever dated — very caring, respectful and treats me like a lady (brings me flowers unexpectedly, watches horror movies even though he doesn’t like them). Before him, I dated guys who were unavailable or just with me for all the wrong reasons. I started dating him four months [after] a break-up with a guy I was madly in love with and I still think of him.

My problem is that I am not sexually attracted to this nicest guy in the world and I feel super guilty about it. I don’t know what’s wrong with me; I feel like a horrible and shallow person by saying this but I am not attracted to his body type. We haven’t had sex, and we rarely kiss when he tries to make out with me (I usually have to force myself when we do). He has asked me on several occasions if I am not attracted to him and I have always lied and said that I am and that I am not ready to have sex, but the truth is I am not ready to have sex with him.

Recently he has introduced me to his family and has even mentioned the “love” and “marriage” words, and now I am confused and afraid that I am far to into it to just tell him that I am not into him. I don’t want to hurt his feelings as I believe in Karma and think that it will come back to bite me. I want to be sexually attracted to him because I think he will be a good provider and is definitely marriage material but I don’t know how to get myself there. I have read self-help books to try and seek the answer to this question but with no help. I can’t have a conversation with my girlfriends because I am afraid they will judge me. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to end up alone or realize that he was the best thing in my life after he is gone. Please help. — Not Sexually Attracted

First, let’s get something straight. You haven’t been “seeing” a guy for seven months if you haven’t banged. At best, you’ve been hanging out with him and using him for seven months to meet your nonsexual needs. Like you might do with a friend. Or a puppy. Chicks these days need to stop redefining words that strip them of their implied meanings. That road leads to believing anal sex isn’t really sex. Or purple saguaros are actually back massagers.

Second, any man who tells a girl he loves her and wants to marry her AFTER SEVEN SEXLESS MONTHS is a leading candidate for beta of the year. Such a man wouldn’t know the first thing about how women work, and it’s no surprise that any girl stuck with a clingy loser like that would take advantage of him. We humans are programmed to prey on the weak, and this chick is no exception.

Third, never propose to a girl who writes “super guilty”.

Fourth, as a man with a pulse, you should be able to tell when a woman isn’t into kissing you. If she’s pulling backwards constantly, or making scrunchy faces like she just drank sour milk, you need to find that last ounce of dignity and walk away.

I don’t think there’s any news here that chicks love unavailable assholes and feel nothing in the vageen for genuinely nice guys. We’ve trod this territory plenty of times. Its truth is self-evident to anyone with the eyes to see. The more interesting angle, (again, assuming this email is legit), is the inside look at how easily, and without any apparent remorse, a girl will string along a beta schlub to extract emotional and material benefits from him.

Whenever the traditionalists and fembots pipe up about the innate purity of women’s sexual desire as opposed to men’s creepy and animalistic desire, it’s a good idea to helpfully remind them that the crass manipulation of a lovestruck suitor is an equal opportunity moral failing. I’d go so far as to say that using the opposite sex for favors while offering nothing in return that they want is largely the province of women who, after all, far outnumber the small wedge of alpha males who are able to successfully use women for sexual gratification. On the numbers alone, there have to be a lot more situations where a girl strings along a parade of sycophantic betas in a sexless purgatory than where a high status man strings a harem along in noncommittal sexual pleasure.

My advice to the girl who wrote the email:

Keep using your #1 herb. But don’t push it too far, or he might crack. Don’t be surprised if one day he has a Rainman freakout, his eyes wild with rage and spittle flying everywhere, the vein bulging in his neck, yelling at you for some trivial infraction that finally puts him over the edge.

My advice to the beta protagonist:

Grow a pair. Quit her.

My advice if this email was fake:

Thanks for the springboard.

Posted in Beta, Biomechanics is God, The Id Monster | 306 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion