Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Limits On Hypergamy

Aug 27th, 2010 by

Via Randall Parker, here is a study of birds showing that less attractive female birds choose equally unattractive mates.

Less-pretty female house sparrows tend to lower their aim when selecting a mate. Addressing the lack of studies on condition-dependency of female mate choice, researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology found that female sparrows of a low quality prefer males of an equally low quality.

Researchers from the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology in Vienna studied sexual selection preferences in the common house sparrow. Though it has always been assumed that females will want to choose the best possible mate, in terms of reproductive and genetic fitness, Matteo Griggio and Herbert Hoi have found that, in fact, unattractive females dare not dream of mating with males who are considered out of their league. […]

“Actually, we found that overall, female sparrows don’t have a preference for badge size in males”, Griggio explains, “but we did find that less attractive females – those with a low weight and poor condition – have a clear preference for less attractive males with smaller or average-sized badges”. Rather than not find a partner, unattractive females will simply settle for an unattractive male.

Griggio continues: “There is some good news for the plainer females though – while they may be forced to settle for less dominant males with small chest badges, these males have been shown to invest more time in parental care than their good-looking counterparts.”

We here at the Chateau write a lot about female hypergamy, as it is a powerful motivating force in shaping the dating market and, ultimately, influencing your own success or failure with the opposite sex. Female hypergamy gets short shrift in studies and in popular culture because it is one of the uglier truths about women’s natures. Since gender is one of the four pillars of protected PC classes holding up the high church of leftist blank slate theology — right behind race but trumping homosexuality and any-religion-that-isn’t-Christianity — it makes sense that our commissars of media agitprop would work hard to avoid having to touch the subject of female hypergamy.

But we touch it here! And grope and fondle it lasciviously. That’s why it’s worth mentioning that even hypergamy must occasionally bow to the restrictions imposed on free market choice by female mate value. Although the above study is of birds, some parallels can be drawn to human behavior; parallels which are corroborated by real life experience. Women may loathe the idea of settling, but many of them do, as you can readily see by walking out your door and noticing all the ugly ass couples canoodling like they really enjoy the prospect of fornicating with each other.

Like the female house sparrow, less attractive women may deliberately avoid dating higher quality men in favor of beta males for a number of reasons:

  1. Less attractive women sacrifice too much to keep an alpha male around. There are plenty of couples where a much better looking man invested absolutely nothing into a skewed relationship and got all the sex he wanted in return. This might be fun for the plain jane for a while, but I’m sure the thrill wears off after a few months, (or years, if she’s truly deluded about her own value).
  2. Less attractive women figure they don’t have a shot, and so don’t bother flirting with alpha males. Call it the Sour Grapes Syndrome; a homely chick insists she prefers niceguys or nerds to the exclusion of those “meathead jocks” or “douchebags”, but in reality she is simply rationalizing her limited options. Sour Grapes Syndrome explains why ugly chicks don’t commit suicide en masse.
  3. Less attractive women have to make a trade off that more attractive women don’t. A hot babe can land *and* keep an alpha male around to help her raise her young, but a homely chick has to decide between a one night stand with a horny alpha who will be embarrassed by his slumming the next morning and a relationship with a beta who will lavish more caring attentiveness on her and any brood she may have with him.
  4. Less attractive women like to feel they are better looking than what their partner normally gets. This is a power law of mating dynamics. We all want to leverage our power in the dating market to the hilt, and a relationship where there is a big imbalance in power sharing is inherently unstable. Homely chicks know, either through experience or instinct, that dating alpha males results in a huge power differential that will almost always result in a breakup with her in tears. So she avoids dating alphas when it’s time to get serious about landing a committed man. Homelier women are smart to do this; studies have shown that the strongest relationships are ones where the woman is better looking than her partner. When a women feels pretty in the context of the man she is with, she will be happier… as long as the man keeps up his end of the bargain by having higher social status and/or game.

Note that none of the above reasons should imply that female hypergamy is rendered null and void for unattractive women. Human females are a little more complicated than house sparrows. In real life what we see are homely girls giving hypergamy the ol’ college try until their options, and their ability to stoically endure continual pump and dumps, are exhausted. This often plays out in practice with the widely observed phenomenon of urbanized 4s, 5s, and 6s suffering a series of humiliating short term flings with men well above their level during their 20s, followed by a grudging acceptance of the utility of settling for the boring beta male in their later 20s and 30s.

Seduction artists who like to dumpster dive (and really, you should probably turn in your PUA card if you prefer taking the easy road to low quality pussy) should continue treating the playing field as if female hypergamy was in full effect all the time, because most homely chicks — even the married ones — can’t resist getting used like a disembodied hole by a superior man.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Girls, Self-aggrandizement, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths | 84 Comments »

Relationship Game Thoughts

Aug 26th, 2010 by

If your girlfriend is complaining about your selfishness, you’re doing it right.

Your gift to her is that you don’t go around sleeping with other women.

Meaningless acts of romance are far more meaningful to girls than meaningful acts of romance.

Similarly, spontaneous expressions of romance will linger in a girl’s memory far longer than elaborately planned romantic gestures.

‘Romantic gestures’ is redundant. *Any* gesture done for a girl who already likes you is romantic.

Role-playing is worth ten diamond tennis bracelets in a girl’s captured imagination.

A girl’s urge to pressure you to marry is inversely correlated to her depth of love for you.

Corollary: a marriage ultimatum means she is on the cusp of falling out of love with you.

Love is as corrupted as any other barter in the mating market, but its great advantage is that it never feels that way.

Marriage counselors could save more marriages simply by uttering these two words: tease her.

The alpha male way to apologize for a minor offense is a shoulder rub. The alpha male way to apologize for a grave offense is cunnilingus.

All regrets and apologies should be expressed long enough after the offense was committed that a direct connection between offense and contrition is plausibly deniable. This is known as the Betafication Avoidance Buffer.

A strong relationship is defined as one in which your girlfriend’s friends all want to sleep with you.

Once a girl falls in love with you, she will stop taking the counsel of her friends’ opinions regarding your compatibility with her.

Corollary: You are then free to piss off her friends as much as you want.

Love is margin for error.

Love like an idealist, think like a cynic.

Relationships are more erector set than blank white canvas.

But when the time comes to paint, paint with the entire palette.

If she wants to see you one more day per week than you want to see her, you’re doing it right.

Texting is a great way to get out of hour-long nightly phone conversations, while at the same time keeping the embers of infatuation burning.

If she plans three dates for every two of yours, you’re doing it right.

A girl in love is one who withers as much from withheld compliments as from supplied criticism.

Give her an email address that you rarely access. There are many ways to stoke the female yearning for an elusive man.

Her infidelity is an automatic relationship or marriage terminator, except under one circumstance: she was cheating with your other girlfriend.

If she sneaks away to reapply her lipstick after every make-out, she is afraid she’ll stop pleasing you. Or she’s a street walker.

A bay window, a cool summer’s night breeze, and ambient light backgrounding fettuccine alfredo and pinot noir is the female equivalent of receiving the perfect hummer.

The neg never dies. It just fades away.

If she assumes the doggie position unprompted, you’re doing it right.

If she gives you mouth love without you having to ask for it, you’re doing it more right than you can fathom.

“You make me feel happy” is the pre-cum of a girl’s oxytocin-greased mental ejaculation. Her orgasmic “I love you” is less than one month away.

A good relationship is one in which you joke that you are her king, and there is an undercurrent of wishful seriousness in her playful response.

If you tell her you feel a little under the weather, and she comes over to your place with OJ, herbal tea, soup, and cough medicine, you’re doing it right.

Don’t rush the naturally emerging stages of the relationship. Men who rush things are insecure about their staying power. Men who have options are comfortable taking their time getting entangled with a girl. Most hot young girls prefer the latter; cougars, fatties, and single moms prefer the former.

If you are significantly higher value than the girl you are dating, don’t underestimate the degree to which she can become obsessed with you. An available alpha male giving signals of commitment is like finding a giant diamond lying on the ground in a state park; it just doesn’t happen for most girls.

When she starts inviting you on her vacations and business trips, she loves being with you. When she pays your way, she hates being without you.

Better she is an infatuated lover than a loving dilettante.

If you haven’t had an argument within the first two months, you’ve passed an important test. If you haven’t had an argument within the first year, you’ve failed an important test.

Girls take seriously their pets’ opinions of you. One purring cat can shave off seven hours of courtship.

Beware girls who always want to go to “events” or “do interesting things” with you. They fear the connection will break without the scaffolding of a contrived shared experience. If she’s happy sitting on a park bench with you people watching she’s a keeper.

Joyfully fornicate with girls who are always drunk when they’re with you. But don’t date them.

If a girl loves you, all problematic matters that would have presented an obstacle to the initial seduction become irrelevant or are actually turned in your favor.

After one month together, you will be astonished at how often and how vigorously a girl in love will qualify herself to you without you even trying to instigate it. Don’t interrupt her when she’s doing this.

It is a girl’s natural state of mind to question your worth when she is not in love. In contrast, it is her natural state of mind to question her own worth when she is in love.

When a girl is down on herself, do not try to lift her up. It is enough that you are there listening to her.

Saying less is always preferable to saying more. She will be inclined to imbue your silence with positive connotations, and your loquacity with suspicion.

Girls will sometimes preemptively break up with you if they suspect you are too much alpha for them. In these cases, the impending breakup is best averted by nuzzling your head in her boobage for ten minutes. Your body language should mimic a cat’s.

Occasional displays of testosterone (ODTs) are more effective, require less effort, and are more fun than “talking it out” when the relationship is rocky. Curse profligately, punch a wall, slam a door, grab a wrist, break a lamp, menacingly wield a heavy object, and disappear for days at a time — then sit back as she swoons and resubmits to your authority.

Preternaturally serene mindfucking is the ultimate ODT, but should not be attempted by men low in intelligence or feeble of will. Do not mindfuck girls who are less than an 8; you could destroy them for any future beta desperate to settle down with a has-been and populate the country with future generations of danegeld-paying cogs.

You know that song “Love is Like Oxygen”? There’s no such thing as too high.

You could spend $100,000 on a lavish wedding, but the thing she’ll most fondly remember is that erotic note you hastily scrawled on a cocktail napkin and passed to her under the table. Think about it.

Posted in Love, Maxims, Relationships | 193 Comments »

Sex At Dusk

Aug 25th, 2010 by

Just what is our sociosexual evolutionary heritage?

Here is a comment left by Christopher Ryan, author of “Sex at Dawn“:

The ‘ancient biological reasons’ that you’re referring to are currently being called into question by serious primatologists and anthropologists.

It is not really obvious that ancient homo sapiens really gave a fuck about paternity, because it wouldn’t have been obvious to them how sex and reproduction were actually related considering everybody was banging everybody.

Also add to this the fact that not only are women naturally promiscuous, but men are attracted to other men having sex with women ( your web browser history will back this up. )

This is why women scream during sex. to attract more men to join the fight. Literally, almost, considering the fight that takes place inside the woman. Not only does one sperm compete against millions of your own, but millions of other men. Considering women’s immune system treats sperm as invaders, women select their mates on a cellular level regardless of what their instincts might tell them.

A lot of this research calls the science behind the alpha male / game worldview into question. It isn’t that I’m arguing against evolutionary biology, either. I’m arguing for it, against a conception of it which mistakes our very recent cultural shifts ( agriculture ) as a constant in our 200k year + history.

It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor. This is a cultural adaptation not an ancient biological fact.

How do we know ancient (i.e. pre-agricultural man) didn’t give a fuck about paternity, or that they didn’t know that sex eventually led to children? And if it’s true that they were unconcerned with who’s the daddy, what relevance does this have for modern post-agricultural humans, who have had 10,000 – 12,000 years to evolve a different reaction to the threat of false paternity and female sluttiness? We now know distinct traits can evolve rather quickly in different human population groups. See: Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, northern European lactose tolerance.

From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), homicide rates are incredibly high. Something like 30% of men in those tribal societies are killed off by acts of male-on-male violence. This would release some of the competitive pressure on the men for mates. In a society with a heavily skewed male-female ratio favoring men, “everybody banging everybody” wouldn’t elicit as much of a jealousy response if each man was spreading his seed with multiple women, increasing his chances to procreate.

Women are naturally promiscuous, true, but to a lesser extent than men and in a different way. Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month. Men’s promiscuity is noncyclical. Men can cheat whenever and wherever, and can do so whether in love or out of love with their primary partner. Women are often emotionally unable to cheat if they are in love with their partner.

Addressing Ryan’s other points, there is no evidence that men in any significant number outside of a tiny fetishist minority enjoy cuckold porn, or are attracted to other men having sex with women. If you look at porn, you’ll notice that the most popular videos (really, 90% of the videos on major porn sites) block out the male actor’s face. The camera zooms in on the penetrating cock and the woman’s body and face contorted with (albeit faked) pleasure. The man’s face and chest are deliberately excised from as much of the sex scenes as possible. What men really like to watch is women having sex with a disembodied cock, (hence, point of view porn, which is very popular), into which the viewer can imagine he is the one fucking the girl.

Do women scream during sex to attract more men to the fight, or to warn other men away? I don’t see how the former is more clearly the reason than the latter. Or is there another explanation why women scream during sex? Perhaps to advertise their attractiveness to alpha males to other women, as a sort of status competition?

It’s understood that the penis is shaped like a sperm scoop, and that this is evidence that there is some amount of sperm competition resulting from female promiscuity going on. But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them. Did the invention of private property cause this powerful drive in men to seek out virgins in many parts of the world, or has the drive been a part of the neuronal network of the male brain for longer than that? Occam’s Razor normally falls on the side of biological imperative rather than social construction, as the latter is rarely an answer for anything except as a comforting illusion to help feminists and assorted blank slate lefties to sleep at night.

Bottom line is that there seems to be evidence for some kind of a balance between the sperm competition-female promiscuity nexus and mate guarding jealousy, and that this balance varies by population group. (r selected populations may lean more toward the large male genitals-female promiscuity part of the spectrum.) Double bottom line: Do you really want to live in a society where men don’t give a fuck about paternity and “everybody is fucking everybody”? We already have an example of what such a society might look like: sub-saharan Africa.

***

Interesting comment left by Rum:

What is the advantage to a woman of being less-than-aware of her actual arousal? It helps with her pretending to love a type of guy that her pussy really does not want. After all, if we accept the 80:20 rule regarding men and gina tingles, a lot of women are doomed to be paired via monogamy with a guy they never truly wanted – for sex. It is simple math. How could too much awareness of her true pussy-feelings help her attract a beta? It is just an extra burden for her to carry. So nature gives her an anesthetic for those unwelcome, burdensome insights.

This angle deserves further reflection. A lot of supposedly low libido women are simply women who settled for resource providing beta males who don’t sexually excite them. It’s already been shown that women are more likely to orgasm when they step out with an alpha male during that golden week of ovulatory sluttitude. If women were consciously aware of the connection between what they find attractive and what arouses them — in the same way men are aware of the connection — then women might be less inclined to remain loyal to the beta provider, and thus jeopardize the raising of their young. Or maybe the arousal ignorance is the cause of the infamous female caprice, which serves as a mate-selecting strategy ensuring that only men who are good with women will be able to navigate her seemingly illogical whims.

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Pretty Lies | 318 Comments »

The Plain Girl Test

Aug 23rd, 2010 by

Whenever you’re stuck with a particular girl you’re trying to bed, and wondering what to do next, a good mental test to give yourself is to swap roles so that you are the one being chased by the girl. Except that in this reformulation, the girl is a plain looking girl for whom you have no strong feelings one way or the other. In other words, imagine a plain girl is gaming you exactly the same way you are gaming the new girl you want. The psychology of this scenario closely mimics what is going on in most girls’ heads when you game them. Does this imaginary plain girl’s game actively repulse you or does it spark an attraction for her? If it repulses you, then you’ll know that the game you are running on the actual girl is probably repulsing her as well.

For example (actual email from a male reader seeking advice):

An acquaintance invites me to meet some girls who are in town for a short while.  It turned out to be a chaperoned “date” with his parents, us two guys and three girls.  We are seated strategically, but I’m not next to the girl I want to know.  After stupid conversation my friend and I take two of the girls to a nearby bar.  I suggest we break into a nearby campus and make other comments.  In the car ride to the next place, the girl says “sketch” and says that the guy in front has better conversations.

I know, half of that paragraph was Beta.  Anyhow, the girl I was furthest from was hanging on my every word and gave me her number.  I barely said “hi” to her, but she saw the attention the other girls received.  I have her b-card and number.  How to proceed?  I was thinking “You didn’t get to talk to me, though you were dying to.   Coffee?”  I hear she has a bf, but that does not concern either of us.

The emailer should imagine he is being chased by a plain girl running the same game that he is thinking about running on this chick he likes. So in this thought experiment the plain girl has his business card (nevermind how she got it, it’s irrelevant), and she has just called or texted and said the following to our emailer:

“You didn’t get to talk to me, though you were dying to. Coffee?”

As a man, would you be more or less interested in a plain chick who texted the above to you? Probably less. It sounds like a girl who is trying vainly to conceal her motives, i.e. try-hard. If you were the man being chased by a plain girl running this game, you would say to yourself “No, I’m not really dying to talk to her.”

Well, that’s close to what the real life hot chick is saying to herself.

Now what if the plain girl called or, preferably, texted you this instead:

“I have your business card for some reason. Did we talk last night?”

More intriguing, eh? A little more aloof, too. You’d wonder if this plain chick was hotter than you thought, and you’d be compelled to follow-up with an offer to meet. Well, if our emailer sends this improved version to the real life hot chick, she will think the same way. This text is tighter game.

The plain girl test won’t apply in every hypothetical situation, but it is a handy guide for deciding whether your next move would be ill-advised or helpful toward getting the close.

Posted in Guy Rules | 72 Comments »

Scaring A Girl Into Sexual Arousal

Aug 23rd, 2010 by

I have this fire- and waterproof safe at home. I store financial papers, love letters from past and former girlfriends, and backup hard drives in it. In other words, anything that I don’t want a girl I am dating to see, or to ever see.

Maxim #20: Do not ever reveal the details of your finances to a girlfriend or wife. Avoid getting joint accounts. As a man, you must draw a line in the sand separating money from love. If she balks, dump her.

Naturally, when girls come over and happen to notice the safe (it’s in a closet) they are curious about its contents. Most of them are usually savvy enough to refrain from asking me what’s inside while the relationship is still in its infancy. If a girl is champing at the bit that hard to discover my secrets so soon after starting to date, then she is likely an untrustworthy, self-aggrandizing prospect for the long term. If she asks after a couple of years, that’s more understandable. But she still won’t get to know.

There’s something else I keep in the safe. Since I know that a girl will sometimes ask, I have prepared for the eventuality.

GIRL: “Ooo, you have a safe. Um… so what’s in it?”

THE GRAVEN IMAGE U FAP TO: “The severed fingers of my enemies in a jar.”

GIRL: “Ha, ha, funny. No, seriously.”

At which point, and with a totally straight face, I open the safe and remove a jar of yellow red-ish liquid resembling formaldehyde containing severed fingers which I then show to her. The last time I did this, the girl screamed at the top of her lungs and fell backwards over my couch, bruising her shin on my coffee table in the process.

You can get realistic looking novelty severed fingers at any online magic shop.

Later that night, we copulated with a ferocity that would have made wild boar sex seem tender in comparison. She never asked to see what was in the safe again.

So, yes, there does appear to be a direct line of connection between the fright neurons and the vagina neurons in girls’ brains. Stimulate one, and the other kicks out reflexively. (During foreplay, girls are often frightened — and cross-eyed — when I whip out my enormous offshore drill.)

Surprising girls with pranks is also an effective arousal state inducer. The girl in this video might have been pissed for an hour after she was victimized by her boyfriend’s prank, but I guarantee he had the best sex of his life that night.

Posted in Game, Girls, Self-aggrandizement, Videos | 270 Comments »

A Chick Who Gets It

Aug 22nd, 2010 by

The purple nail polish is killer. Now if we could just get wide angle shot with nekkid breastessesss included.

“There is no God but Love and Breastessesss are His prophet”

Posted in Vanity | 56 Comments »

New Rule For Reader Mailbag

Aug 21st, 2010 by

If you write in for advice and have included photos of yourself, write the word “Chateau” on your palm and hold it up for the camera. Make sure it is clearly seen, along with your face, in the same pic. This will serve as the verification process, and prevent future cat’s-paw breaches of the Chateau grounds.

Posted in Reader Mailbag | 101 Comments »

Hoax?

Aug 21st, 2010 by

Has the Chateau been duped by a scorned beta male? A reader (who shall remain anonymous) emailed the following to Chateau headquarters regarding yesterday’s post about a woman seeking advice whether to upgrade from her current boyfriend to a luxury model alpha:

That chick has used the name [xxxxxx] to comment on other blogs.  She frequents [another dating website].  She previously claimed that she was a virgin.  Her real name is [xxxxxxx].  She didn’t seem dumb enough to do this so I’m thinking maybe someone with a grudge is pretending to be her.  If it is really her, this is an epic fucking fail on her part.

As has been repeated here many times, if you email looking for advice and don’t specify that you wish to keep it private and off the blog, your email can and sometimes will be used for a post. The girl in question did not state any wish for her advice-seeking email to be kept private. Fair warning was given, and total privacy was offered. Chateau proprietors keep their word.

However, if it is the case that someone impersonated her, then this is unfortunate. Betas impersonating in email their cheating girlfriends, ex-girlfriends or women they just don’t like for whatever personal reason and pretending to seek advice from your humble hosts in hopes of exacting a bit of the ol’ ultravengeance through the medium of this blog are engaging in subterfuge of the vilest sort. We run a tight operation here. And the Chateau *really* doesn’t like to play the dupe.

It’s a clever ploy, and one that is impossible for Chateau keepers to defend against. Thus, because of the ploy’s indefensibility and potential to harm innocent parties, the post has been removed. In addition, all future reader mailbags have been put on hold until further notice. There is now no way for the hosts here to know which emails requesting advice are genuine and which are impersonations by sly, vengeful betas intent on summoning the Kraken for a game of “let’s her and Chateau fight”.

While there is no hard proof that the original email is fake, the Chateau has decided to take all necessary precautions and treat it as if it were fake. As a result, the reader mailbag is dead. So thank you, haxxor betas, you have ruined it for every other emailer seeking genuine advice to improve their love lives and find happiness.

Posted in Uncategorized | 112 Comments »

Great Zing

Aug 20th, 2010 by

In the comments section to an article in The Daily Mail about the gilded weaponry of Mexican drug lords, Bill from Richmond, VA responded to an effete glove slap from an Englishman.

“Its so comforting to know that our American friends have so much time to concentrate on the finer things in life such as part and model numbers of guns… keeep it up chaps!”
– Peahead, Hebden Bridge

Well, Nancy, the next time the topic is part and model numbers of the latest purses, we’ll be sure to ask you.
– Bill, Richmond, VA

Ya gotta hit em where it hurts. And with the Euroweenies, that’s just about everywhere.

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Globalization | 56 Comments »

What Should She Do?

Aug 20th, 2010 by

A reader sent the Chateau the following email with no explicit instructions to withhold releasing for readership consumption the photos she attached. As per Chateau rules (Sec. 8, para. 14), if you don’t want your advice-seeking email correspondence or accompanying pics posted to the blog, say so. Otherwise, it will be assumed you are OK with it.

Hi Chateau,

I have been reading your blog and although I’m not a fan of some of the misogyny some of the guys that comment spew, I respect overall that you have a pretty good handle on the dating game. I saw the post & advice you gave that one girl who posted. I’m wondering if you would give me your honest opinion on how well I can do in NYC dating based on my attractiveness & other stats? I just moved here from California & it’s a jungle out here

Background on me: I just turned 25, am 5’6, around 125 pounds (attached photos). 0.7 hip to waist ratio, D breasts (they’re real).

Other statistics: went to Stanford, used to work in finance but quit that when it started changing my personality into a man’s, am now a writer / marketer. I can be funny, I have good manners & etiquette, I’m usually very positive and nice, and guys I’ve dated have said I’m fun to be around / very low drama/maintenence. Although I can be opinionated & want to be respected, I definitely voice those opinions in a respectful way. I can also cook decently well & I like sex a lot.

Money is important to me since I want to be a stay at home mom eventually (or at least have the option) and I never want to worry about money, and I’m wondering if I can do better than the guy I’m currently dating who wants an exclusive relationship with me. As I know my prime is now, and my options will only decrease with time, I’m wondering if you can give me an honest opinion of whether I should stay with him or start taking other offers more seriously? My friends don’t like this guy because he gives people shit sometimes / doesn’t care about being polite & so they’re saying I can do better, but they always say that. I like him, and I want your opinion. I have recently had the CTO of [major bank] ask to date me, and various other high earning finance guys. I just want to know what my chances are of actually landing a guy like these instead of being dicked around, or if I should even be concerned with it since I am really enjoying the guy I have now who I think is on the way up and I’m definitely unsure I’ll be able to match the level of chemistry and compatibility? I am wary of dating in NY because I’ve heard how brutal it can be, and I remain pretty much unscathed so far. I’d really hate to lose my optimism by getting abused by some douchebag who was never that into me anyway.

There’s nothing wrong with us, we get along really well for the most party. [Editor: A most excellent Freudian slip.] He’s a beta, 27, learned a lot of this pickup stuff and is dominant, which is great. Also can be cooperative & talk about psychology / relationships with me, which is so fascinating. He comes from a poor background in eastern europe, just started working for a hedge fund (seems to be good at it, the youngest guy there by 20 years) & sends money back home (admirable but a possible detriment in the future if they need to be continually supported). Very focused & interesting. Negatives are that he can be manipulative & critical, and doesn’t socially dominate / lead like some guys I know (was very uncomfortable in one large party situation where he didn’t know anyone & I knew some guy friends from school). Although he’s not the largest guy (5’10), he could probably hold his own in a fight (have heard stories about his rough upbringing).

Anyway, your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry the email is really long, I’m not a concise person

L.

She wants to know whether to stay with her doting, all-around niceguy boyfriend or to dump him to take one more stab at trading up in the hothouse dating market of Manhattan.

(rubbing hands)

She’s come to the right place!

Reading between the lines what we have here is a girl who likes, perhaps loves, her boyfriend, but has recently been propositioned for a date by a higher status man (the CTO of [major bank]). Her sexual market options suddenly thrown into stark relief, her hypergamous instinct is kicking in and she is contemplating, via the sounding board provided by the residents of the stately countryside Chateau, whether her boyfriend is really all that she thinks he is, and whether her ego isn’t as big as it deserves to be.

Gentlemen, behold the awesome power of female hypergamy. You can be the best boyfriend in the world, (and judging by her description of him, he sounds like a stand-up guy with plenty of positive traits), but if a higher ranking man comes along and shows some interest in your girlfriend (or wife!), you can bet your last penny she will be unable to resist pondering the opportunity to trade up and the concomitant reevaluation of her own market worth that goes along with attention from higher status suitors.

Women, of course, will cheer this as an example of female empowerment and being honest with oneself and yada yada down with the patriarchy yada, but imagine a man doing the same to his loyal girlfriend when a hotter, younger, tighter babe flirts with him. Those same women would be screaming like banshees from the rooftops.

It is the nature of the beast when the sexes have opposing reproductive goals.

But enough highlighting the underlying mechanism. Let’s examine this woman’s situation in point by point detail to determine whether it is in her interest to risk a breakup with Beta Lover for a shot at Mr. Big.

The Chateau keepers have reviewed the facts and rendered their judgment.

She is:

A 5.5. Maybe a 6 on a good day. She is not especially cute, but not invisibly plain either.

Her youth is her strongest asset. 25 years old gives her three to five years to complete her marriage quest according to the demands she has set for herself. Much depends on how well she ages. Her swarthy ancestry (Puerto Rican? Half black? Lebanese?) suggests she will stave off wrinkles for a longer time than the average white chick.

Her body is good. The numbers she has given put her at 20.1 BMI, which is right smack in the center of body weight desirability. But the photo she supplied makes her body look chubbier than would be expected with that low BMI. There is some tentative agreement among the hosts that she could stand to lose ten pounds.

Her breasts are magnificent funbags. But watch out! D cups are mesmerizing in their prime, but their prime is short-lived, surrendering rather quickly and ignominiously to National Geographic style sag.

The tone of her email gives the impression of a pleasant personality, but the content tells otherwise. She might qualify as a genuine golddigger. Golddiggers are one step below whores, because at least whores have the integrity to follow through on their end of the deal.

Look at the waist-hip ratio. She is the submissive type who needs a dominant man to make her feel like a woman.

She had a U-shaped smile. Untrustworthy.

Stanford? Irrelevant.

Writer/marketer? Irrelevant.

Good manners and etiquette? Meh. Girls who know where to place the salad fork have a detailed mental schematic for how to get them off in bed. Woe be the man who deviates from the script. Also, “good manners” reeks of try-hard, as if she is compensating for a poorly mannered cultural background.

Positive and nice? Your boyfriend might think differently if he reads this.

Opinionated? Translation: Loudmouthed nag.

Cooks well? Bonus.

Likes sex? Double plus bonus. But not much of a selling point in this raunchy day and age.

Her current boyfriend is:

A greater beta. He sounds like a higher ranking man than she is giving him credit for.

27 years old. So much for closeness of age being an important factor.

“Gives people shit sometimes / doesn’t care about being polite”: This is a trait of a greater beta, lesser alpha. Regular old betas do not give people shit. Instead, they take shit.

“On the way up”: Greater beta. At least.

“Level of chemistry and compatibility”: This guy sounds too good for her. If I were him I’d tell him to let her go get pump and dumped by the (likely married) CTO. When she comes crawling back, he can have his new, hotter girlfriend see her to the door.

“Learned a lot of this pickup stuff and is dominant”: Not seeing the problem with this guy? Oh, that’s right. He’s not a CTO. Manhattan, isle of twue wuv!

“Also can be cooperative & talk about psychology / relationships with me, which is so fascinating”: She is talking herself into staying with him. The hamster is really running the shit out of his little legs in this email.

Poor East Europe background? Irrelevant. Possible net positive, if he has brought over to America some of his cultural learnings for benefit of good wifely obedience.

Hedge fund work? Slimy, but alpha.

Sends money back home? As much as women say they admire generous family men, their self-interest pushes them into the arms of selfish men who give all their money only to wifey and the kids to the exclusion of her in-laws.

Manipulative and critical? Again, this is a characteristic of greater betas and alphas, not run of the mill betas. A beta always attempts to assuage his woman when she is upset. Stronger, more dominant men take a different tact.

Doesn’t always socially dominate/lead like other men she knows? This is beta, true. But it also shows how a woman’s perception of her lover is so heavily skewed by the behavior of other men in her social circle. If you are a beta, you’d do best to date a girl who is not often in the company of alphas.

5’10″? Neutral to slight negative.

******

The Chateau has rendered its judgment:

You are a fucking handful. You ask for advice, and yet every other sentence is a self-pleading justification for staying with your current boyfriend.

So stay with the man. But don’t be surprised if, in a few years time when his status goes up as yours is going down, he decides to dump your demanding 463 bullet-point checklist ass for a hotter chick.

Quite simply, in New York, you don’t have the looks to compete for the alphas as anything more than a convenient wet hole to be discarded unceremoniously when girlfriends #3 and #4 call.

Having delivered that harsh judgment, the Chateau does understand where you are coming from, and your feelings in the matter. A higher status CTO wants to fuck you. This makes you feel good about yourself, and you wonder if maybe, just maybe, this alpha will be the one who marries you and gives you the life of the princess stay at home mommy you’ve always dreamed of. There is room in the world for such arrangements. But based on your looks, it is more likely that you will begin dating the CTO only to either

a. find out he is married, or

b. get dumped after a three month fling.

What you didn’t tell us was a description of the looks of the CTO. If he is particularly ugly or nebbishy then there is a chance that dumping your loyal boyfriend to date him would work out for you. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of couples featuring hot chicks dating physically unimpressive but rich herbs in our glorious cities.

But the bottom line is this: You answered your own question.

If you were truly tempted to stray with the CTO or any other high flying finance guy, you would have done it without emailing the Chateau beforehand for the imaginary green light. That you have done this instead tells us that you find yourself falling in love with your good-hearted but sometimes awkward boyfriend, and it scares you.

It scares you because love means a cutting off of options. But that is a risk worth taking. Before it’s too late.

Posted in Girls, The Id Monster, Vanity | 268 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion