Feed on
Posts
Comments

Shaming Mistresses

Jun 2nd, 2011 by

A reader writes about a banner put up by an Argentinian wife whose husband had an affair with a woman named Eliana.

So making its rounds as the meme-of-the-day all over twitter/the Internet, about two weeks ago, was this photo of a banner that a scorned woman posted on the street near her house, in a city in Argentina (where I live):

Translated, it means: “Eliana Dora Duek: You enjoyed fucking my husband – and he gave it to you in the ass! Veronica”

Here’s what I don’t understand: why did the scorned woman Veronica *want to publicize to everyone in her neighborhood* that her husband was cheating on her?. What is Veronica thinking, and what is she trying to achieve? And what’s the significance/importance of the “ass” detail?

Women are born with a martyr mentality brain module that guides their every thought process. Thus, when a wife suffers infidelity she does not think that advertising this fact will redound negatively to her. She can announce to the world that her husband cheated on her with a mistress who let him do her in the ass, and the wife won’t ever feel like this embarrasses her in any way. Quite the opposite; she will win allies and supporters to her side.

But a man advertising the fact that his wife made a cuckold of him will win no allies and supporters. People won’t rally around him and give him group hugs to lift his spirits while calling the wife an ungrateful whore. Instead, most people will feel pity for him and want to get far away from his problems.

Why the difference? *Women are reproductively more valuable than men*. People, men and women, are wired to rush to the defense of a scorned woman more readily. It is in the nature of both sexes to immediately assume the worst about the man and the best about the woman in any domestic dispute. A scorned wife? Poor dear. He’s a pig and a lout. A scorned husband? I heard they were having trouble.

So a wife who publicizes her husband’s affair can expect more social benefit from it. She has not lowered her sexual market value by admitting to being the victim of infidelity because women’s SMV is almost entirely wrapped up in their looks. On the contrary, a man who publicizes his wife’s affair HAS lowered his sexual market value, because a man is judged on conditional status-based metrics, one of which is his ability to keep a woman happy and loyal. It’s preselection in reverse: the unfaithful wife has *deselected* the duped husband.

I predict, then, that you will see a lot more of these public shaming tactics from women against their cheating men then you will from men against their cheating women. And I base this on a simple grasp of evolutionary psychology fundamentals. (There’s a reason “Don’t Date Him Girl!” is a popular website without an equivalently popular “Don’t Date Her Man!” site.)

Interestingly, the wife also gets some benefit from outing the mistress. By naming her and describing her actions in lurid detail, she is tarred with the implied slut brush. Women will sneer at her wanton ways, and men will want to seek her out for sex (but not for commitment! Which would be a victory for the spurned wife.) It takes two to tango, and all that, and wives are not blind to the threat that younger, hotter, tighter competition poses to their marriages. The ass detail was simply embroidery to maximize the slut smear.

If I were friends with this wife, I would tell her that she might have avoided all these problems if she let her husband spelunk the stool cavern. Anal love is the balm that binds.

Posted in Foreign Girls, Funny/Lolblogs, Inner Beauty | 188 Comments »

White Knighting Explained

Jun 1st, 2011 by

There is a popular theory that white knighters — those men who jump at the chance to defend the virtue of women at every opportunity, no matter if the defense is warranted — are beta males who hope their stirring gallantry will get them into women’s panties. Offering a shoulder to cry on or an indignant word after an asshole hurts the girl of their dreams, these men turn themselves into emotional tampons with the goal of sneaking into the pussy when she is at her most vulnerable.

They usually fail, but they keep at it because once in a blue moon, it works. Yes, most men with some choice in women would balk at spending so much time and effort trying to tap a reticent snatch, and at the cost of so much dignity, but the white knighter emo dude has the patience of a saint. Or a eunuch.

But, honestly, how many guys like this do you see in real life? They exist, sure, but not in the numbers assumed. Especially after college, when adult men simply don’t have the time to waste on platonically orbiting a oneitis who can juggle ten blue balls at once.

Instead, I’d like to offer some different explanations for the white knight phenomenon.

The Oblivious Super Alpha Male

Surprisingly few alpha males — those men who are good with women — are white knighters. Experience with women disabuses such men of any romantic notions of the fairer sex. You will hardly ever hear an alpha male praising the sublime virtues of women because he knows they have none (as a gender). But a few alpha males do embrace the white knight schtick. These are the snobby guys who have had no trouble getting women since they can remember, and are so high status that they have never seen the seedy, gritty, grimy part of women’s natures. Women are extra careful around very high status men to present only their sanitized best, so the super alpha never gets to know the annoying shit that women put typical men through. As a result, he is genuinely perplexed when he hears other men complain about women’s behavior, and feels a compulsion to rush to the women’s defense.

The Father of a Daughter

He knows better, but because he has a female charge under his supervision and caretaking, he hypocritically enforces social sanctions against lifting the veil on women’s true sexual natures. This is as much for his benefit as his daughter’s. If beta males stopped white knighting for his daughter, she would be nakedly exposed to the merciless vagaries of the dating market, and suitors would not bend over backwards to please his daughter with gifts of myrrh and golden pedestals. It is in a a father’s interest for young men to glorify his precious little princess, and provide for her and her dalliances with the DJ.

The Married Schlub/”I’m in a relationship” Guy

You know that lifeless herb who has been married for so long that he doesn’t remember what it was like to be single and on the prowl for pussy? Or how about that oddly proud guy who can’t wait to blurt out at the flimsiest excuse that he’s in a relationship? A lot of white knighters are drawn from this group of men, because being in a marriage or long term relationship clouds a man’s perceptiveness of women. Like heated molecules in a chamber, LTRs tend to settle from a high entropy state into a comfortable equilibrium of Netflix queues, sushi and missionary style. Men in these testes-shriveling circumstances lose their powers of observation and begin to assume all women are just like their contented, faithful (and aging) partners. It’s a classic case of psychological projection, whereby men ensconced in secure relationships project their limited experience with their wives or girlfriends onto all of womankind. These men are often the most infuriating white knighters, because when you listen to them blab on and on about “treating women with respect” and all the good women that are out there, you know that as soon as they get cheated on or dumped by their cow girlfriends they’ll be blaming themselves right to the grave.

The Male Feminist

Similar to the gallant bait-and-switch beta males, male feminists are their ideological cousins who try to ingratiate themselves to the slutty fat feminists in their company in hopes of tapping some water balloon-shaped vulvae. These guys wear shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like” and cross their legs when they sit. They are huge hypocrites, because despite having been on the receiving end of a lot of female neglect, manipulation and shit testing, they still cling to their unctuous little ideology. Ideologues are auto-brainwashed. They will never see the light. Best just to enjoy a cruel laugh at their expense.

The Self-Denier

Imagine a plush beta male who has experienced nothing but woe with women. He has been LJBFed, ignored, pitied, humored, used, dumped and drained of all his resources except his balls. He’s not repulsive to women, but he just doesn’t much turn them on, and he can’t figure out why. He grows bitter with the years and the fat chicks and wrinkly cougars he manages to bang as a consolation prize. The truth about women stares him in the face — in fact, smacks him upside the head every day — and yet he clings to platitudes and juvenile romantic idealism with all his power, afraid that should he let go, his whole dating life will be revealed for the sham it is. In self-deception, there is sanity. Oftentimes, the most emphatically dogmatic white knighters are these hopeless losers in love, teetering on the precipice of revelation, a hairsbreadth away from total ego meltdown.

The Deeply Embedded Gene Machine

Underlying it all is the genetic machinery that propels groups and nations of men in different sociosexual directions. Fittingly, white knighting appears to be predominately an ethnically European white man disease. Those schooled in the science of evolutionary psychology would say that harsh winters evolved a modern European man predisposed to monogamy and, hence, to jealously guarding the virtue of his mate. White knighting and pedestalizing thus serve the dual functions of artificially boosting the perceived value of a potential lifelong mate, and of warning male interlopers away.

There are too many forces in motion that keep white knighting alive and relevant, so unless outposts like this humble blog go global with the truth about women, there is almost no chance that more than an enlightened minority of men will wake up to reality.

Posted in Beta, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | 193 Comments »

Low Energy Younger Women

May 31st, 2011 by

A lot of older men in the comments of this blog complain that they find the frivolity, shit testing and emotional demands of younger women too frustrating to tolerate, so they nix entire groups of women from their target designation list. As one who has dated plenty of crazy whimsical women and enjoyed their company, I can’t wholly commiserate with these men who avoid younger women, but I can understand the reason for their gripes. Compared to women over 30, younger women are a pain in the ass. But they’re also fun and exciting and girlishly feminine and lovesick and sweetly naive and horny and curious and submissive and romantic. And they have perfectly unwrinkled tight asses. There’s your primary trade-off: PITA for PUTA.

However, there is a way around this conundrum. You could date low energy younger women. There is a sizable minority of early to mid-20s women who aren’t high maintenance drama queens. You’ll have to screen for them, but they are out there. They don’t dance on bars or shamelessly flirt, because they find those activities mentally taxing. They won’t constantly shit test because their minds require more peaceful repose than the party girls. They don’t make demands to be entertained because they don’t get easily bored with life. They don’t get antsy sitting still or enduring more than five minutes without male attention because they’re comfortable residing in their own world. They’re certainly cute enough to do all those things, but they don’t because it doesn’t suit their temperament.

The Man Who Was… writes:

I’ve said it before, both the best and the worst younger women like to date older men. On the one hand are the golddiggers and the girls who will indiscriminatly fuck anyone who makes them horny at that moment. On the other hand there are the girls who honestly appreciate your maturity.

But let’s face it the younger a woman is the flakier and more drama laden she is likely to be.

No argument there. Flakiness is very age-dependent. Teens and early 20s girls are the flakiest, then it falls off through the 20s, has a second, but smaller, peak again late 20s up to just past 30, and finally nosedives into and beyond the 30s when no man who isn’t a complete loser will put up with dating a 30+ woman who still flakes. (Sane women intuitively know this, too, which is why older women are so agreeable when you first meet them.)

Flakiness is just another term for having a wealth of options. Or, in the case of the 30 year old single careerist, having a mental breakdown. A woman of 21 simply has more options in the dating market than her older self at 31, and vastly more options than her 41 year old self. Finally, at around 50 years old for most women, their options dwindle to whatever man will have them. Which is close to zero. Paging Naomi Wolf…

So a flake is really just a hindbrain burp from a hot young woman who is beset with male admiration. She flakes because she is uncertain about choosing from amongst many potential suitors. It’s the beautiful agony of nearly limitless choice within a limited time frame.

Here’s another good thing about dating low energy younger women: they age slower than their attention whore counterparts. This must be related to a telomere sparing metabolic thing. Corollary: If you want to know how well your girlfriend will hold up should you decide to marry her, ask her when she hit puberty. In my observation, late bloomers are also late wilters.

The downside to dating low energy younger women? Your game will inevitably… ahem… soften. You need those dramatic hamster chicks to keep your game in tip top shape.

“I am a wiltin’ flowaahhh.”
– Naomi Wolf in her terrifying nightmares

Posted in Girls, Guy Rules, Hitting The Wall | 171 Comments »

Piss Bomb

May 27th, 2011 by

Reader Alex wants to know if this photo bomb of a guy pissing in the background (aka ‘piss bomb’) is sufficiently alpha:

Just another HS student at the Chateau. Was strolling through the internet and found this photo which I think has the right attitude towards posing for photos with women.

only problem is he’s looking at the camera. Do you say yay or nay to pissing in a photo where your girlfriend or fb tries to strike an attention grabbing pose? I think it’s a neg, a tease, and dhv all in the same photo; it shows you don’t give a shit about who sees your johnson, in fact exposing it to the world, while putting down your girl’s attempts to grab attention by ruining her photo and turning your back to her. Simply genius in my opinion.

I agree, the piss bomb is an alpha maneuver. It’s especially demeaning to a girl who is trying to look hot for the cameraman and her pussy posse on Facebook (posse includes both girls and beta orbiters). Butr it’s only alpha in the sense that the pisser will receive high fives from his buddies. The chance of him closing the deal with this hot babe is low, unless she turned around and was impressed by his girth and urination distance. If you squint, it almost looks like she’s arching her back so that the pee splashes on her ass.

As for his looking at the camera like a goofball, I think it would have been funnier if he casually stared at the horizon with an expressionless face, but he was probably so excited to get away with this shot that he couldn’t help smiling from ear to ear. Also, I’m certain the camerman was in on it. The guy taking the shot is either the boyfriend who’s playing a prank, or a frustrated LJBF who is lashing out passive aggressively. If the cameraman and the pisser don’t know each other, then my hat’s off to that dude for managing to insert himself into that photo without tipping off the shooter. My guess is he was facing away from them so they couldn’t see his dick out, and then swiveled at just the right moment and let loose with a stream of golden goodness as the shutter clicked.

The world needs more of these piss bombs to prick the ego bubbles of the Facebook generation girls, who have had their heads grow too large from constant fawning flattery every time they post a status update or a dumb photo of themselves drinking shots with their slutty girlfriends. All hail the piss bomb man, for he will be the savior of the West.

Posted in Alpha, Funny/Lolblogs | 46 Comments »

Dating Preferences Vs Options

May 27th, 2011 by

Is assortative mating simply a function of convenience, i.e. mate proximity? There’s a lot of chatter on the blogs about how the college-educated are marrying others in their same educational and class bracket, and that this proves that men and women are selecting partners based on criteria such as intelligence and socioeconomic status. In other words, people are assortatively mating along education and SES lines because that’s what they prefer to do.

Here at the Chateau we make the bold claim that assortative mating doesn’t tell the whole story. The Ivy League grad who goes on to marry a plain jane Ivy Leaguer would, in fact, be a lot happier marrying a hot and sexy waitress with decent smarts. And that the marriage statistics don’t so much reveal preferences as they reveal restrictions imposed by lack of options. The CEO or IT entrepreneur doesn’t avoid marrying the hot waitress because she’s less intelligent or of lower social status, but because he simply doesn’t have the amount of social contact with her that would encourage meeting, dating and marrying.

Lo and behold, here is a study from the excellent Barking Up The Wrong Tree blog which lends credence to the Chateau view.

Marriage data show a strong degree of positive assortative mating along a variety of attributes. But since marriage is an equilibrium outcome, it is unclear whether positive sorting is the result of preferences rather than opportunities. We assess the relative importance of preferences and opportunities in dating behaviour, using unique data from a large commercial speed dating agency. While the speed dating design gives us a direct observation of individual preferences, the random allocation of participants across events generates an exogenous source of variation in opportunities and allows us to identify the role of opportunities separately from that of preferences. We find that both women and men equally value physical attributes, such as age and weight, and that there is positive sorting along age, height, and education. The role of individual preferences, however, is outplayed by that of opportunities. Along some attributes (such as occupation, height and smoking) opportunities explain almost all the estimated variation in demand. Along other attributes (such as age), the role of preferences is more substantial, but never dominant. Despite this, preferences have a part when we observe a match, i.e., when two individuals propose to one another.

What this is telling us is that educated men marry educated women not so much because they prefer education in itself as a mate quality, but because that’s what’s available to them. Ergo, smart men would prefer to date hotter but less educated girls but don’t because they don’t run in the same social circle. You have to meet the hottie community college grad before you can propose to her.

Individual preferences will always remain for men centered on women’s youth and beauty. Luckily for all the chunky college attending careerist femcunts, the men they marry don’t mingle very often with Hooters chicks. If they did, you’d see less assortative mating along SES metrics, and more along the natural preferences of men to date and marry PYTs irrelevant of their educational attainment. This theory also elegantly explains why so many American men settle for fat chicks — when 60% of the nation’s women are tub-a-lards, options are quite limited. And for a lot of desperate losers, sticking a dick in a wet, flabby, porcine hole beats celibacy.

Now you know why rich, geometrically-jawed snobs like Maria Shriver diligently work to surround their alpha male husbands with ugly mestizo housekeepers instead of uneducated but hot Russian au pairs. An aging upper class wife knows who her true competition is. Regrettably for the Shrivers of the world, even a sausage-y third world maid is ripe for the banging to a guy who’s been tapping the same depreciating pussy for years. Arnold’s case illustrates well how important convenience and opportunity can be to a guy on the lookout for strange.

So for all the lawyercunts who married lawyers and are proud of the fact: sugartits, you were just in the right place at the right time.

Viva romanticismo!

Posted in Dating, Ugly Truths | 356 Comments »

Liberals And The Acceptance Of Biological Determinism

May 26th, 2011 by

I’ve long believed that when the weight of evidence in favor of some degree of genetic determinism affecting human behavior was so overwhelming that blank slate liberals could no longer ignore it without seeming foolish, they would move to Ego-Salving Plan B and claim to have believed in it all along. Well, Kevin Drum leads the pack in Mother Jones:

I’ve never been either a hardcore blank slater or a hardcore biological determinist, but there’s no question that I have a pretty healthy belief in the power of genes and biology. [Ed: News to his readers, I’m sure.] As Karl says, this belief tends to be associated with conservatives more than liberals, but that’s really very odd. After all, it’s pretty easy to fool ourselves into dismissing the benefits of being raised in a rich, stable culture and assuming that everything we’ve accomplished has actually been the result of hard work and personal rectitude. But what if you believe, say, that (a) IQ has a strong biological component and (b) high IQ is really important for getting ahead in the world? If you believe this and also happen to be blessed with a high IQ, how can you possibly convince yourself that this is anything other than the blind luck of the genetic lottery?

What we have here is a liberal seeing the light and coming to grips with the dawning fact that Great Society-like government largesse is futile in the face of intractable genetic predispositions. But instead of admitting he and his ilk are wrong in their blank slate ideology, he claims to have believed in genetic influence all along. As the science — and daily observation thrown into stark relief by mass third world immigration — continues to flatten cherished liberal shibboleths like a massive, merciless steamroller of galling truth, expect to see more of this backpedaling by liberals intent on remaining relevant in the political discourse.

Well, I suppose people can convince themselves of just about anything. [Ed: You bet!] And certainly a smart person who works hard is likely to do better than a smart person who sits on the couch all day playing videogames. Still, to the extent that you really do believe that cognitive abilities are (a) important, and (b) strongly biologically determined, shouldn’t you also believe that the poor are more unlucky than anything else, and haven’t done anything to deserve hunger, lousy housing, poor medical care, or crappy educations? If genetic luck plays a big role in making us who we are, then support for income redistribution from the rich to the poor is almost a logical necessity for anyone with a moral sense more highly developed than a five-year-old’s.

Long story short, belief in biological determinism should make you into a liberal. And yet, here in the real world it mostly does just the opposite. Go figure.

Also expect to see, among those reluctant liberals coming over to the biological determinism camp, a framing of the issue as one of “blind, genetic luck”. This is how the liberal will make the gene pill go down easy — by couching it in terms of unfairness, a vice the liberal suckles on with hungry fervor to give his life spent posturing about all the unfairness in the world some semblance of meaning. The problem with genetic unfairness is that there is no obvious oppressor one can point to as the cause of the unfairness. How exactly are straight white men going to be blamed for the genetic dumb luck of the poor and indigent? By accusing them of racism for not marrying and reproducing with non-white women? Don’t laugh, it could go in that direction.

Drum deserves credit for at least broaching the subject of genetic predilection, which still gives the majority of liberals the high holy hives. Try dropping a “genes n’ IQ” bomb on a Jon Stewart audience member and you will witness a shrill sanctimony unmatched by the most religious fundamentalists. Drum is right about one thing: plain and simple, genetic dumb luck accounts for a lot of who we are and how successful our lives are. And it goes beyond just IQ and nose shape, too. There is evidence that genes influence everything from political leanings to conscientiousness to ambition to impulsiveness.

So Drum has the diagnosis correct: life is unfair and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Where he fails is in his prescription for curing the unfairness of it all. Genetic luck does not make it a moral or logical necessity to redistribute income from the rich to the poor anymore than it makes it a logical necessity to redistribute happiness from the happy to the depressed (a trait that may also be genetically influenced). In both cases, actively punishing the rich and the happy for possessing mental characteristics beyond their control is just as immoral as punishing the poor for fecklessness and stupidity. The child of smart parents didn’t ask for his smarts anymore than the child of poor parents asked for his dullness.

My advice to liberals who are beginning to accept the truth about human nature and all it implies:

Deal with it.

And get off yer fuckin SWPL pulpit.

Posted in Culture, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | 219 Comments »

Top 10 Signs You’re Not A Beta Male

May 24th, 2011 by

A (presumably) female author going by the nom de plume ‘XX’ has written an article for AskMen (hereby renamed to AskNancyboys) called “Top 10 Signs You’re Not An Alpha Male.” (Aren’t you glad to see Chateau concepts popularized throughout the legacy media? Next up: The New York Times renames itself to the more appropriate New York Beta Times.) After reading through, it became apparent the authoress should have titled her article “Top 10 Signs You’re Not A Beta Male”, because her complaints more accurately reflect the behaviors of higher value men.

Let’s go through her list.

No.10 You Let Her Pay For Dinner

An Alpha Male provides for his pack. If she tries to contribute to this, he calmly takes the check and says, “I’ll handle this.” End of discussion.

First, an alpha male does not take women he hasn’t sexed yet on dinner dates. He takes them to bars and keeps his cost-per-lay low by limiting expenditures to a couple of vodka tonics, and does not entertain the idea of spending a lot of money on women until they have proven themselves worthy of his resources. The judgement of her worthiness necessarily follows her sexual surrender.

Second, a pretty woman is not a “pack” that must be impressed. She is a self-absorbed princess wannabe who must be seduced. Any successful seduction begins with bringing her down to earth where her unnaturally inflated value won’t intrude upon her desire to sleep with you. Groveling for her approval by throwing money and meals at her is the wrong way to cut the legs out from under her symbiotically fused princess pedestal.

No.9 You Never Apologize, Even When You’re Wrong

An Alpha Male has no hang-ups. He simply says, “I was wrong. I apologize.” And he rectifies the problem if possible.

Is ‘XX’ a regular reader of this beautiful blog? It sounds like she is directly responding to concepts explored here. Anyhow, she is trying to pound alpha males (heh) into a self-serving definition that is 180 degrees at odds with reality. And what is that reality? Betas do the apologizing. Alphas reframe, evade or accuse nebulous third parties. “Mistakes were made”. See: Bill Clinton. Or any high-powered politico for that matter. Now women may love the *idea* of a man who never balks to apologize for a misdeed, but like with so many pleasantly comforting notions that get derailed somewhere between the female brain and her pulsing vagina, the truth is that what she claims she wants in men and what she actually falls for are rarely the same.

No.8 You Suck Up To Leaders And Seek Their Approval

An Alpha Male doesn’t suck up to anyone. He is the leader.

True, but banal. And in fact, there are times when the alpha male may decide it is personally advantageous to suck up to a person in a position to advance his interests. The alpha male is, above all else, out for himself.

No.7 You Gossip

About your boss. About your buddies. About your girlfriend. You don’t mind pointing out other people’s failings and weaknesses and having a good laugh. An Alpha Male never betrays his pack. He doesn’t need to build himself up by tearing others down.

Wishful thinking. Alphas often enjoy a laugh at others’ expense, and betrayal, normally an invidious vice, is just another tool in the alpha’s box of Machiavellian self-advancement. Alphas will sometimes tear others down just for the cruel thrill of it, even when it serves no useful purpose. It seems what we have here in ‘XX’ is a woman who is describing what she wishes alpha males were actually like instead of what they really are like. Of course, if she got her wish, there wouldn’t be any men left that would make her horny.

No.6 You Panic In A Crisis

An Alpha Male’s natural element is change. Rapid change is simply an interesting challenge to him. He goes into a special kind of ice-cold, almost detached state, quickly sums up the situation, does due diligence if time allows for it, and acts immediately and decisively based on prior experience if there is no time to spare.

“Ice-cold”? “Detached”? ‘XX’ loves that stone cold killer instinct in alpha males. It doesn’t take much for the veil of pretty lies to slip, eh XX?

No. 6 is true, if again banal. Of course, grace under pressure sometimes entails lying and manipulating to neutralize the crisis.

No.5 You Act Before You Think

An Alpha Male may act with lightning speed, but he always thinks before he acts. He never runs to the corner and goes off in all directions like a type-A guy does.

This is too vague to accurately define an alpha male in all circumstances. There are times when the alpha male is impulsive, and reckless, and women, bless their hamster-y hearts, flock to these types of ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ guys. Male risk-taking is, in fact, very attractive to women. The kid who just did a triple flip on his skateboard is going to get a lot more attention from girls than the studious bookworm.

What ‘XX’ is circuitously describing is alpha male intelligence. The most desirable alpha males couple their risk-taking with intelligent aforethought, maximizing their chances of success. But women aren’t interested in the prudent thinking process leading up to a risky decision. It’s the fireworks at the end of a spectacularly successful gamble that turns them on.

No.4 You Blame Others

An Alpha Male takes responsibility for his own actions.

Not if he can get away with blaming failures on others. If successful, naturally he will seek to take as much credit as possible.

No.3 You Lie

To your boss. To your buddies. To your girlfriend. An Alpha Male isn’t a liar. He’s a stand-up guy; he shoots straight. He doesn’t have to slither out of a mess he got himself into. He does what’s right, and lets the chips fall where they may.

Fat girlfriend: Do you think my ass looks big in this dress?

Alpha male straight shooter: Yes, because your ass is too fat. And, by the way, I’m cheating on you with a thinner girl because I can’t get it up for you anymore.

No. 3 FAIL.

No.2 You Betray Others To Get Ahead

An Alpha Male never betrays a member of his pack.

What’s with this pack shit? ‘XX’ has some serious issues about betrayal. Was she betrayed by a man she loved? An alpha male vows fealty to one pack: the package in his pants.

Beta males are the ones less likely to betray a “member of the pack”, because they don’t have the stones to do it.

No.1 You Bully People

An Alpha Male takes on a real fight when it is necessary, and only if it is necessary (Alphas are not “scrappers”), but he won’t think twice taking on someone far bigger/stronger/better-situated than he is if the matter being decided is serious. And due to his fierce drive, chances are good he will win.

Wrong. An alpha male will act to hide his views or avoid a lopsided fight if it is personally advantageous to do so. It’s not cowardice to sidestep a fight with a man much bigger than yourself; it’s smarts. Just like it’s not bravery to stand in the path of a speeding train. As for bullying people, yes, alpha males don’t usually engage in that because their value is high enough that they can afford to be magnanimous to lessers. But it’s not betas who bully either. Betas, true to their natures, don’t really have the balls or assertive spirit to bully. Instead, it’s usually those men just below alpha status — the lesser alphas — who love to bully, because they see it as an opportunity to raise or maintain their “pack” status.

Every time I hear these steaming turd piles of pretty lies from women, I’m always impressed by how utterly oblivious they are to their own histories with men. When you hear a woman prattle on in vapid platitudes about her ideal virtuous alpha male, you can be certain she has banged a parade of the biggest assholes in her own life. It makes sense when you consider that so much of female thinking is rationalizing away the unsettling truth of their sexual natures.

If you’re looking for a girlfriend, this is how you know when it’s time to file your date under the pump and dump category: if she waxes eloquent about how important it is to her that a man doesn’t lie, cheat, steal, betray, or neglect to hold doors open for her, you know she has dated plenty of exactly those types of men. Do the opposite of what she says she likes in men.

Conversely, if she divulges that she likes men who sometimes, heaven forfend!, say impolite things or let her pick up the bar tab, you are dealing with a girl who has dated decent fellows. It’s often the genuine nicegirls, with their histories of dating non-assholes, who feel comfortable opening up about their craving for a just a tiny bit of assholery in their lives.

Posted in Alpha, Beta, Pretty Lies, Ugly Truths | 184 Comments »

Break Rules, Get Laid

May 23rd, 2011 by

When you break rules, you seem more powerful.

When people have power, they act the part. Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

People with power have a very different experience of the world than people without it. The powerful have fewer rules to follow, and they live in environments of money, knowledge and support. People without power live with threats of punishment and firm limits according to the research team lead by Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam. Because the powerful are freer to break the rules—does breaking the rules seem more powerful?

Good question. If game is a valid concept and an effective means of making oneself more attractive to women by projecting the behavior and mannerisms of higher value, then the answer will be yes. Let’s find out!

People read about a visitor to an office who took a cup of employee coffee without asking or about a bookkeeper that bent accounting rules. The rule breakers were seen as more in control, and powerful compared to people who didn’t steal the coffee, or didn’t break bookkeeping rules.

Acting rudely also leads people to see power. People who saw a video of a man at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, drop cigarette ashes on the ground and order a meal brusquely thought the man was more likely to “get to make decisions” and able to “get people to listen to what he says” than the people who saw a video of the same man behaving politely.

Survey saaays… you don’t have to actually be powerful to be perceived as powerful by others. Corollary: You don’t have to actually be servicing a harem of hot babes to be perceived as an attractive man with lots of options on the table. All you need to do is mimic the traits of the powerful and the attractive. This study, despite its modest aims, is a huge endorsement of game.

What happens when people interact with a rule breaker? Van Kleef and colleagues had people come to the lab, and interact with a rule follower and a rule breaker. The rule follower was polite and acted normally, while the rule breaker arrived late, threw down his bag on a table and put up his feet. After the interaction, people thought the rule breaker had more power and was more likely to “get others to do what he wants.”

“Norm violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please” write the researchers. Power may be corrupting, but showing the outward signs of corruption makes people think you’re powerful.

Bingo. And showing the outward signs of male desirability makes women think you’re desirable.

Chicks dig power. If you can ape the mannerisms and conversational technique of powerful men, chicks will think you are more powerful than you may objectively be. When chicks think this, they get wet. Some of them even have your baby in secret.

A big part of the mission statement of this blog, this outpost of outrageous sanity, this kingdom of clear thought, is to impart you, the readers, with the knowledge and tools to act in such ways that you maximize your attractiveness to women. This includes improving your body language, voice, and social skills so that you emanate the aura of a powerful man, a state of male being which is universally arousing to women. And now science has come to the fore, zig zagging along its destination, to confirm what we implacable womanizers have known all along — game is the real deal. Call it game, or call it charisma — if you don’t have it, you are handicapping yourself in the dating market.

So the next time you want to impress the ladies with your massively tumescent power, kick your legs up on the table, drop your ashes on the ground, interrupt freely, glance around the room when others are talking, nod up then down, take your time responding to questions, and for god’s sake, stop smiling like a goof.

Posted in Alpha, Game, Status Is King, Ugly Truths | 109 Comments »

Comment Of The Week

May 22nd, 2011 by

Ryan explains the silent conversation that goes on between a women’s vagina and brain when she listens to a man insinuate his higher value:

How to overtly DHV without overtly DHVing:

Roleplay as the super-cocky asshole. Flash a crooked smile while you brag shamelessly. Make it a shit-eating grin every time you manage to effortlessly tease across her alleged line. Dismiss all those playful attempts to dethrone your ego. When she tries to flip the script by leading you into obvious absurdity, assume a position of faux-humility and make fun of her ridiculous suggestion.

Never speak what you both know. Subconsciously, she’s thinking:

a) He can actually pull off being an asshole quite well; and without fear of rejection or repercussions, so he’s not just a bitter, cowardly wannabe…

b) But he’s also mocking the guys who are legitimate assholes — the guys I typically tingle for — with amusement, as if he’s above them…

c) I’m superficially getting all the excitement and ego-management I crave from jerks, yet possibly without the inevitable negative aspects, which require so much tedious rationalization…

d) Brain: Uh oh.
Vagina: Send that arrogant smooth-talker my way.
B: Hasn’t ended well in the past…
V: Just do it, bitch. Now.
B: Can’t you at least pretend to persuade me? I’ve got a self-image to protect here, and we’re both gonna need it one day so that I won’t give off slut-tells. I’ve actually been reading some stuff by Robert Trivers lately about the function behind —
V: Alriiiiight, all right. Geez. OK, here: can you just try focusing on the possibility that this is the one special exception, then, instead of, well, the high probability that this is, like every time in the past, just a case of me recklessly getting us into some shit and asking your hamster to bail me out?
B: Is that sarcasm?
V: Oh, right. See? Nothing to worry about. Do your thing.
B: So you promise this is safe?
V: No.
B: (greasing enormous wheel): Ugh. I swear, this is the last time. I’m not covering for you anymore after this, dammit.
V: Shut up. Nomnomnom!

Except (d) won’t actually happen.

Runner-up is a comment by ‘From the can’ (great nick, btw), who discusses omega male game:

Counterpoint: dude is running Jabba game. He eats what the fuck he wants and drinks his fucking juice from a baby bottle. Juice? No, blue label. Girlfriend? No, human beanbag chair. I’ll bet she’s comfortable as fuck, AND gives back rubs. Also, this bastard gets his money from the populace: regal. What this picture is hiding is the smoking hot princess on a chain. Totes jelotes of this pimp.

Totes means “totally”. Not sure what jelotes means.

Posted in Comment Winners | 28 Comments »

Obama Is Not Dumb

May 22nd, 2011 by

Obama waited to announce a pro-Palestinian/Arab friendly policy after righteous vengeance was visited upon Osama Bin Laden. This timing has inoculated him against charges of being soft on Islamists, and has granted him leverage to push a policy that otherwise would have been perceived as being pro-Muslim, particularly given Obama’s own quasi-Muslim background.

If the right wants to beat this guy in 2012, fist step is to acknowledge that, because of his understanding of human psychology, he will be a formidable foe. Unless gas hits $7/gallon.

*Note: This was not a post about the rightness or wrongness of Obama’s Middle East policy. Just an observation that personal advantage is gained not so much on the strength or morality of logical argument, but by the handicapping of political enemies.

Posted in Current Events, The Id Monster | 113 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion