The latest shitlib outrage du jour is about Cambridge Analytica and their work unwittingly helping LITERALLY HITLER DRUMPPHPHPH win in 2016 through totally legal purchased access to data-mined Faceborg info for user sentiment. Suddenly, shitlibs have noticed that monopolistic social media companies have too much privacy-violating control of our personal details now that those Big Brother-esque companies and their willingness to sell user data have been exploited by Trump campaign hires instead of the Gay Mulatto campaign.
TJP recaps a surprisingly good National Cuckview article about the Left’s strange new respect for the Social Media Menace,
The moral panic over social media and the ‘misuse’ of information is ONLY about suppressing right-wing speech and taking away the tools of mass communication from people on the right.
That’s all it’s about and that’s all it’s ever been about. The Obama campaign quite literally wrote the book on social media manipulation and massive data harvesting. Nobody in the press or Silicon Valley cared, because he won.
Now that Trump won based on (largely organic) social media success, our democracy has suddenly been ‘corrupted’ by a ‘war’ of ideas and information that manipulates people into voting the wrong way.
The left had a monopoly on broadcast media for decades. They got to decide who was legitimate and who wasn’t. Then the internet came along and gave THE PEOPLE a voice — and surprise, it’s not working out so well for the left.
All these current social media recriminations are about is reestablishing the old order. Instead of the big-three broadcast networks where liberals decide what voices are heard, we’re headed into the big-three social media networks where, again, liberals decide what voices are heard.
Simply breaking up the big tech monopoly isn’t going to fix this — we need legislation binding tech monopolies to the Constitution. It’s the ONLY way we’re going to escape censorship.
Shitlibs are getting worked up over what are essentially targeted political ads because their side didn’t get to benefit from it this time. It’s a grab at maintaining their total control of the informational vertical and horizontal.
Countenance Blog writes,
I’m so old that I remember when the Democrat-left-media just LOVED the political data game.
Like, five years ago.
Exactly. I can recall the fawning articles delving into Gay Mulatto’s “big data” gurus and super savvy datanauts. It’s like the history-washing shitlib Left thinks no one remembers anything more than five minutes ago. Trump came along and his team basically co-opted lib battlefield tactics, and OUTMANEUVERED libs on their own turf! That’s gotta burn, so libs are in full hysteria mode trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes long enough to build a Fake Impeachment case against Trump. Russiahoax isn’t working, so it’s back to the well with Cambridge Analytica, and maybe Stormy Daniels as a last ditch effort.
The Big Four Socials — Goolag, Faceborg, Fapple, Twatter — along with the Biggest Technopoly, Scamazon, have to be broken up under existing anti-trust laws, and/or regulated as common carrier utilities. The shitlibs who run these companies have way too much power to censor and demonetize political opponents, (not to mention get employees like James Damore fired for speaking uncomfortable truths about the Diversity Racket). Big Data and the selling of personal user information to the highest bidder is an affront to a humanistic interpretation of civilization, and there really is a dire need to curb the power of the Dopamine Drippers and protect users’ privacy.
If it takes Cambridge Analytica to focus shitlib minds on the Social Media Menace, then so be it; just make sure your local indignant lib is continually reminded that regulating the socials means his tribe won’t be able to exploit them for narrative control or electoral profit any longer like they’ve been doing.
Unrelated, but too funny to wait for an appropriate post:
Girl sidles up next to you at the bar to browse the tap selection. You, after binge reading CH: “I see the way you’re looking at me. Might want to tone it down a bit, I don’t date amateurs.”
Girl: “I wasn’t looking at you.”
You: “Win-win.”
What does a woman want? A man who’s rejected her.
Clear the way for Preemptive Rejection Game! From PBR Streetgang,
Can’t decide whether to shit or go blind with the options – I’m going on a campaign of rejecting women from the get-go. Gonna respond to even passing glances with ‘I’m not available’ – reject, reject, reject – my new modus operandi.
“Can I pet your dog” – You’re not my type
“Would you like your receipt” – Stop hitting on me
“Press the button for 5th floor” – I’m dating someone
“Good Morning…” – Too bad, I’m gay .. Try that guy
I was all in for ‘Approach Week’ – but their behavior recently has me fed up – her comes ‘Rejection Week’ – And I’m not feeling the lease bit anxious about it.
This is all upside if your approach game isn’t working for you. Sure, you might lose a few girls who’ll call your bluff, but overall your number of hits should go up because girls find it tough to resist a man who resists them.
Preemptive Rejection falls under the umbrella category of Disqualification Game and is an extreme version of the Assume the Sale tactic. You go about your day assuming all women want your D, but they have no chance to get it. You are disqualifying girls from being worthy of your consideration, while collaterally implying they want you. It’s courtship script flipping on steroids.
The best thing about Preemptive Rejection Game is that it’s just damned funny if your timing and delivery are right. Most girls will laugh, a little anxiously, not knowing whether you’re serious or joking around, because it’s something they never hear from most men. Humor can take a totally cold open from Zero to Curious in ten seconds flat. Even faster if the humor is deadpan.
I like recalling 2015-2016, when Trump steamrolled 17 cuckservative GOPers to secure the nomination. There are enough highlights of Trump hilariously insulting his opponents to create a separate blog dedicated to cataloguing them.
Jim Christian writes,
[Trump] always told Rubio he gets better pussy than Rubio ever did, a sly insult to Rubio’s wall-impacted Jew wife.
Did Trump say that to Rubio? Maybe JC is confusing Rubio for Tucker Carlson, whom Trump *did* taunt about him getting hotter women than Tucker.
He was right. There’s a picture of Rubio’s slag. She was wearing this dress with the Jewey, really, really Jewey stars embroidered into her dress. Would love to see that one again. Bitch’s phone clutched tightly in one hand, pushing her husband away with the other. What a cunt, although Rubio is a cuck. Clearly a half-a-faig. The two of them deserve the miserable divorce rape they have coming.
Here ya go:
B E T A
She’s “leaning out” farther than Sheryl Sandberg’s husband did on the treadmill that tragic day.
“George Washington slept here” is a pretty common plaque found at or near historical sites throughout colonial America. As his legend grew, American households which hosted the Great Man for the night were proud to publicly say so, even if his presence in their humble abodes was apocryphal.
Likewise, hot sluts who hosted today’s Great Man — President Donald Trump — in their vaginas are proud to publicly say so, and will go to any lengths to be allowed to preen that their vajeen was a canteen for Trump’s alpha cream.
Porn whore Stormy Daniels is so desperate to prove that she caught the attention of the world’s most foremost alpha male who used her as a Godseed receptacle that she took a lie detector test, and gave us this timelessly iconic Clockwork Orange-esque pic instead:
Atavator writes,
Game measured! [ed: lol] And by the way, is this a polygraph, or a tit scale? I think this is excellent pictorial representation of just how desperate the establishment is to take Trump down.
Yes, you’ve gotta think that for a number of these women, “Trump slept with me” is their last hurrah. It’s a great study in female psychology. At the time they signed these agreements, they figured they’d have no trouble abiding by them. After all, having concluded their affairs with Trump, they were off to ride other Alpha men. They didn’t foresee… apparently couldn’t foresee… a time when that would be over.
That’s exactly it. This is all sexiness signaling by aging has-beens. The difference between sexiness and sexiness signaling is the same as the difference between virtue and virtue signaling: the former is the real deal while the latter is a claim to being the real deal (but is usually just hypocrisy or self-serving ego stroking). A sexiness signaling woman is admitting she USED to be sexy and tacitly suggesting she MAY still be sexy enough to catch the eye of high value men.
Carlos Danger wonders,
Who rivals Trump’s bedpost notches in terms of quality? DiCaprio? Maybe Brady pre-Gisele? And Trump gets there with 50 more pounds, 30 more years, and the pompadour. Impressive.
If the stories and rumors are true, I don’t think many men can rival both the quality and quantity of Trump’s notch count. The man is as close to a modren day Genghis Khan as a Westerner can be. Wilt Chamberlain? Nah, I read somewhere most of his lays were with ghetto groupie trash. Porfirio Rubirosa might top Trump’s meet-to-lay ratio.
I have to imagine Sinatra is up there.
Wasn’t Sean Connery legendary in his day? Going way back, you’d have to give the nod to Lord Byron, Voltaire, and similar Supreme Gentlemen of the West. Some (pre-indie hipster) stadium rockers could rival Trump’s womanizer score. John Bonham was known for his unreal hotel room orgies. He once said he couldn’t tell which vagina belonged with which face when he was in the middle of a romp.
anon writes,
from the the looks of it, Trump has never slept with an ugly girl in his life.
That’s the small detail that elevates Trump’s womanizing well above the human plane.
A word about Trump’s Women. We have the obvious angle — a cat herd of Wall impact whores looking to cash in on the bottomless appetite of Shitlib, America for salacious stories about Trump’s sexual stamina (Freud would have a field day) while the cashing in is good — and the angle obvious only to Chateau guests: none of these cum dumpsters cumming out of the woodwork now to relive their glory days getting Pump and Trumped, or accusing Trump of allegedly taking their flirtations at face value, were scandalized at the time of the alleged affairs and grandfathered PoundMeToo infractions.
I guarantee that every woman who is now crowing about getting fucked by Trump, or moaning about getting groped by Trump, absolutely, undeniably, LOVED HIS GOD ALPHA ATTENTIONS AT THE TIME THEY HAPPENED. This is because women are viscerally attracted to powerful men, much the same way men are viscerally attracted to beautiful, young women. Women can’t help themselves around powerful confident men; they lose all sense and judgment and notion of personal accountability.
Women go into every alpha male flirtation with the subconscious hope that he will make her his princess (or his movie star, in the case of weinstein). Even the sloppiest of slopworn sluts feels this way in the presence of a mortal GodKing. It’s not until years and hundreds of wrinkles later that some of these women, realizing they have been had by a cad and by the merciless approach of the Wall, give in to their bitterness and lash out at the man who would be theirs but chose differently. In a fury of spite against the God of Biomechanics, these cast-aside bitterbitches try to take down the powerful men who once loved them, believing in their tiny black hearts that this will redeem their poor life choices.
And this secret desire hits ostensible Trump-hater pussyhatters, too.
Trump (or Trump’s hog) is living rent-free in her vagina.
In related news, feminists are finally starting to catch on that sexbots will mean the end of their romantic possibilities. In France, femcunts are trying to change the law to include nonconsensual sex with sex dolls under the definition of rape. Please don’t bother trying to work out the logic of their stance, you’ll only be met with MUH FEELZ, MISOGYNIST!
If feminists are allowed to ban male sex substitutes, then patriarchs are allowed to ban dildos, vibrators, pulp romance novels, and pretty much everything broadcast or streamed on TV. Fair’s fair.
***
Jay in DC writes,
There has been a long list of vag slayers of Trump caliber. Sinatra, Warren Beatty, Redford, (Connery as mentioned), etc. Even Kennedy was neck deep in pussy far beyond Marilyn Monroe if the rumor mill is to be believed.
This was a non-event in times passed. Only in this faggoty and #metoo era are high status alpha males who are showered in trim some kind of neo-puritan scandal.
Fuck man, for anything you think about him even Slick Willy was a very smooth talker and got ALOT of pussy. Far more than Killary would like her cogdis to ever come to grips with.
Both Bill Clinton and Art of the Sealed Deal Trump are charming. but Bill is a classic case of the charming alpha hitched to a snarling ballcutter, so to him any juicy adoring prolehole seemed like a goddess. Trump has mingled and commingled with hotties his whole life. His wives were the opposite of thecunt hillary. Trump’s mistress standards were thus a lot higher than Bill’s. And tbh I think Bubba was a borderline sociopath and probably did rape that Paula broad in a fit of sexual energy after spending weeks on the couch escaping from dragonbreath hillary breathing fire on him.
Trump, otoh, is not a sociopath. He’s a confident jerkboy full of justified swagger who seems to genuinely love women, and loves making love with beautiful women. He hurts his wives satisfying his urges, but he has the good sense to keep it discrete, and I wouldn’t doubt if he’s had conversations with his wives that his appetite is yuge and they should accept that part of him, in exchange for assurances that they will always be his number ones and he will never fall in love with his mistresses.
If you want a leader with the HEAVY BALLS to take on the Deep State, then you’ll have to reconcile yourself to a leader with the HEAVY BALLS to have a romantic history filled to brimming with porn stars and centerfolds.
Manly vigor is a complete package. (heh)
williamk writes,
Trump gave this lifestyle up for us.
Other men (like Bill Clinton) attain power for the purpose of getting pussy. Trump gave up getting pussy in order to deserve power. Its pretty amazing.
His enemies know his weakness; he’s probably swatted away numerous honeypot attempts. My bet is Trump was smart enough to give up getting strange when he decided to run for president. And of course, chances he’s had any new pussy since getting inaugurated is just about 0%.
Trump’s sacrifices shame our craven self-serving establishment rulers. He deserves our loyalty. He deserves our fight.
A fat tax has been seriously discussed on various platforms for years, usually supported by the premise that fat craps cost society a lot of money in higher health insurance premiums, mitigation overhead, and the daily annoyances of dealing with fatties in public spaces, making room for them, avoiding their stank, and spending mental energy looking away from their disgusting blobbiness while trying to suppress the retch reflex.
A well-meaning but nutritionally misguided fat tax (which taxed foods high in saturated fat) was even tried in Denmark, with positive results (the tax was later scrapped due to open borders…not kidding).
But what if I were to tell you that a Fat Chick Tax makes a lot more sense than a sex-blind generic fat tax? Tucked into a great post on macro-sexonomics (which reads a lot like Heartiste posts) from the blogger who calls himself Giovanni Dannato, the justification behind the Fat Chick Tax:
When most men rarely see higher than a 6.5 in public who isn’t flagrantly anti-social, their morale and motivation is sapped and the scale of sexual market value is drastically distorted in favor of those obese and plain women who stay behind.
While men will always get thirsty enough to settle for whatever they can find, they aren’t as willing to sacrifice as they would be if access to potential mates were more equitable. Once the girls they could approach are repulsive enough compared to anime porn, enthusiasm for the chase goes into a downward spiral.
For every low-status nerd who is willing to date a fat woman, there is another who ends up a celibate omega. This creates millions of bare branches with no roots or prospects in the social order, a state of affairs which makes steadily increasing agitation against the establishment inevitable.
Even those men who still succeed with women know they could be doing a lot better. Without any real status or bargaining leverage they are struggling with long term relationships and family formation. They have no more stake in the present state of affairs than do incels.
Just as illegal immigration and offshoring push down wages for everyone, most men see their sexual market payoff reduced by relentless demand inflation.
To put it in perspective, we all know how an influx of millions of pretty young women would be received by the matriarchy.
The overwhelming thirst caused by the hyper-inflationary collapse of the sexual market has played a significant role in the death of civic life. […] Clearly, a society that wants to persist under modern conditions must acknowledge the importance of balancing the sexual market for the sake of cohesion and stability. […]
A main point here is when we objectively rate beauty in a new inegalitarian age we can incorporate it into policy. A special tax on obese women for instance would tacitly acknowledge they are reneging on their side of the social contract by depriving society of the beauty that motivates male participation and helps sustain a workable balance of power between the sexes.
Similar penalties might apply to disfigurative piercings or tattoos.
Congregating in a few neighborhoods in a few cities could be dis-incentivized by removing feminist laws that make it easier for women to get nice white collar jobs they can’t get fired from and imposing special taxes on certain places of residence for single females.
These kinds of measures would obviously trigger massive female opposition, but if women as a whole tried living within a stable balance of power rather than an extractive matriarchy, they might actually like it.
The modren post-America sexual market is horribly skewed against men and their interests, and this as noted is a recipe for revolution. Giovanni is essentially recapitulating the same themes CH touched upon in posts like “Obesity to blame for Game“…
Game has been refined, taught and embraced by men in direct proportion to the shrinking pool of attractive thin girls. As the reduced supply of skinny chicks have seen their sexual market value skyrocket, they have adjusted by pricing their pussy out of reach for the average guy. In return, men have sought solutions to this new challenge in the rapidly advancing science of seduction. Where simple courtship worked in the past, it is no longer effective against the deep bunker defenses of the in-demand slender woman.
There has always been an evolutionary arms race between men and women in the quest for sex but now, for the first time in human history, the sheer numbers of fat chicks — in concert with the increase of financially independent women — is accelerating this arms race so fast that many people can’t cope and drop out. The tools of seduction for men become better by the day and the women counter with more impenetrable defenses. The tension is palpable. The whining and bitching is cacophonic. Distrust and dating blogs are at record highs.
If just 20% of fat chicks lost weight relations between the sexes would start to noticeably improve. And there would be more happiness in the world, because a skinny girl with hunger pangs is happier than a fat girl with a sheepdog and peanut butter.
In short, no sociological theory into sex, marriage and family trends is complete without a long, hard look at female hypergamy, the one biomechanical force to rule them all, and its intersection with economic realities. The science is out there; when women become financially empowered, they begin to choose men based on criteria other than their ability to provide.
But that’s not all that Murray, et al are missing. I’m here to tell Murray and others perusing his findings that there is another, MASSIVE factor at work skewing the sexual market, and one that, just as unsurprisingly, gets almost no attention from the PC-soaked punditariat: female obesity.
Imagine you are an unmarried working class dude recently unemployed. You look around you and marvel at a sea of grotesquely misshapen fat women, rolls upon rolls of undulating flesh hiding stores of cheesy poofs, porky hellion spawn trailing their wakes, chins resting atop chins, bloated diabetic cankles stomping the Walmartian grounds like lumbering elephants. In some towns, close to 40% of the available single women are clinically OBESE.
This is obesity folks, not just overweight. Overweight women are physically repulsive, but obesity renders them monstrous. To clarify this assertion for the modern indoctrinated female reader: an obese woman is as sexually undesirable to men as a jobless, charmless, humorless, enfeebled, dull man is sexually undesirable to women.
So back to our realistic scenario: Our typical unmarried working class man surveys his cellulite-blasted kingdom (and it does not matter how fat he, himself, is, for fat men and thin men alike prefer the exquisite sight of slender female bodies), and he makes a quick hindbrain calculation. Does he bust his ass in a crappy service sector job doing women’s work for a shot at legally bound long-term commitment to a shuffling shoggoth dragging the bastard spawn of a hundred alpha males in tow, or does he say “fuck it” and turn to video games and porn featuring hot, thin chicks for his status and dopamine fix?
You see where this is heading. It’s entirely reasonable, and expected, that a lot of men would drop out of the intensified competition for the few remaining childless slender babes in a world full of fat asses, single moms, and fat assed single moms. And even among the small contingent of sexually appealing women, they make enough in government and HR paychecks to cover expenses plus gifts for their Skittles Men. What working stiff beta provider can compete on those terms?
A Fat Chick Tax would go a long way to bringing balance back to the force — bringing Truth & Beauty to a swellscape scarred by Lies & Ugliness — and in so doing return to White Men, the creators and maintainers of civilization, the motivation to keep sacrificing for the Good.
The look of admiration, which in women is the same as the look of love. Thus, adoration, the coupling of admiration with love.
PS Stormy Daniels alluded on-air in 2007 that Trump was “the best sex she ever had”. Reminder that this was when Trump was in his 60s, and she was a porn whore who had taken untold numbers of cock to all of her holes. Add her to the list of Trump’s lovers who have said the same about his bedroom prowess. (Also add to the list of Trump qualities that drive shitlibs insane with rage and envy.)
FYI if you are a powerful man with a dominating personality and a ZFG attitude, it won’t matter if you’re 60 and out of shape….porn stars will feel like they’ve had their world rocked in bed with you.
PPS An excellent forum-form essay by Harry Dexter Whyte on the Trump-Mueller shit show and the rusty, road-worn shitlib outrage machine that fails against the force of nature in the White House.
There is no end in sight, the charges are dubious and unanswerable, the media reaction is unhinged and extreme, the potential punishment is completely over the top (execute him! the second generation “Russian” immigrant insists).
The Trump-Russia hysteria, and the Mueller investigation it has produced and sustained, has all the hallmarks of the s**tlib outrage machine. It’s interesting to note that they behave the exact same way when going after some random guy on Twitter for wrongthink. Of course the difference here is that they are trying this approach on the most adept politician of the last fifty years.
The comparison works on another level too. Ultimately what’s at stake here is speech. What Trump has said. The charges now being levied against him rely on uncharitable interpretations of his words to Comey and patently absurd interpretations of US law. Twisting and turning the most innocuous phrase into the gravest offense is a s**tlib specialty. They do it all the time!
Again, the big difference is that the man they are attempting to slander is no ordinary man. Dain has said that freedom of speech in modern society has become the privilege of the rich and those with nothing to lose. I think that’s a profoundly truthful statement, but I also think that, as in many other areas, Trump is the exception to the rule. It is true that he is very wealthy, and it seems (to many outside observers) that he has nothing to lose, but neither of these things has been what’s saved him.
What saved him was getting elected. It was the voters who supported what he said, in anticipation of what he would do. They took him at his word, because he spoke in a blunt and frank way about issues that seriously concerned them. Had the voters not given him their support he would have been left with a ruined reputation at best, after losing the primaries, and possible prison time at worst, after losing the general election. The stakes were high and the victory was narrow but he overcame the odds. That is what is so enraging about him for some people and so impressive about him for others.
All this is to say that Trump’s speech is a Janus coin – simultaneously appalling and delighting people. It produces such a dichotomous reaction that it becomes almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it, the divide being so stark. And when it comes to accusations of obstruction of justice, the same issue arises. For some people he clearly obstructed (and by implication must be guilty of something else even if we can’t prove it!) and for others he simply spoke reasonably to his subordinate (who, like the weasel he is, “recorded” every conversation he had with his boss).
The question, then, is when Mueller looks at what Trump says what side of the Janus coin does he see? Given everything we know, I highly doubt his interpretation is kind. Indeed, it is a testament to the lasting power of the cuckservative mindset that people like Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy still act as the Mueller investigation is some high-handed, fair-minded, truth-seeking enterprise.
But Trump is smart enough to see the investigation for what it is. This will undoubtedly inform his decision making, and at some point he will have to take drastic action. Shitlibs may think it is reasonable to keep this investigation going for the next three years but I can’t imagine Trump will stand for that. Inasmuch as anyone can divine his future plans (a folly that journalists continue to fruitlessly engage in) I think that much is clear. If the shitlibs force his hand he will not hesitate.
I can’t wait for the day that things finally turn around and the investigations start pointing the other way.
Huma Abedin committed actual crimes. This is a confirmed fact. Those emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop are all the evidence needed to convict. The only reason she hasn’t been prosecuted so far is “prosecutorial discretion”/corruption.
James Comey committed actual crimes. Every time he anonymously leaked classified information he committed a crime.
Hillary Clinton took money from Russian groups for her “charity” while delivering their favored policies via the state department.
Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House.
Why the f**k is the only investigation in Washington pointed at Trump?
The legislative branch won’t pull the trigger because it would feel too much like winning, but I expect Trump is eventually going to turn the prosecutions around on his enemies.
The IG report is expected to drop soon. Trump may be waiting for that to give him cover to fire Mueller (which would be the predictable move), or he, being Trump, may strike now, inciting Democrats and their fanatic shitlib base to anti-America apoplexy, only to have his judgment confirmed by the IG report that is released shortly after.
I can’t believe this hasn’t been done before. A criminally curious researcher averaged the faces of normies and compared the composites with an average of the faces of those possessing the Dark Triad personality traits (a suite that includes psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) and discovered that jerkiognomy is real.
Is facial structure a valid cue of the dark triad of personality (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)? I obtained self-reports and peer reports of personality as well as expression-neutral photographs of targets, and then I created prototypes of people high and low on each of the three dimensions by digitally combining select photographs of Caucasian targets. The results indicated that unacquainted observers reliably detected the dark triad composite, especially in female prototypes. Thus, not only is the dark triad a set of psycho-social characteristics—it may also be a set of physical–morphological characteristics. In the Discussion, I introduce a website that stores these personality prototypes and many others (http://www.nickholtzman.com/faceaurus.htm).
The evidence is piling up that we really can judge a book by its cover. Fat chicks are bitter. Manjaws are cunts. The gayfaced are narcissists. Waifs are emotionally manipulative. Wide-faced men are aggressive. Dindus are [laundry list of dysfunctional behaviors]. (Although even within the world of dinduognomy, there are less sociopathic and more sociopathic individuals.)
The face is a window to the soul. Character is countenance.
Lest we get ahead of ourselves, this study had a very small sample size. There’s more research to be done to see if this replicates with a much larger subject pool, and if it correlates across race. But it provides a chilling hint at the nature of our humanity — it’s more mechanical than transcendent.
My thoughts on the commonalities of the DT and non-DT composites (DT = Dark Triad):
Overall, the DT women look more attractive than the non-DT women. The attractiveness differential isn’t huge, though, so if you don’t want a bunny boiler you needn’t have to settle for a plain jane. However, the difference is big enough to ungenerously conclude that pretty women are all manipulative, attention whoring psychocunts.
The attractiveness differentials for the men are more of a mixed bag. The male narcissist looks more masculine (heavier jawline and brow, thinner lips, smaller eyes) than his humble counterpart, but the masculinity differences are much less obvious between the psychopath and machiavellian composites. If anything, the psychopath male looks more feminine than his trustworthy counterpart. The machiavellian male is your classic “pretty boy” but I wouldn’t say he is more masculine looking than his counterpart.
This is important for Game aficionados and students of the crimson arts, because men with the Dark Triad personality traits do better with women, so their success is not necessarily a function of associated masculine physical attractiveness.
(One wag in that Twatter thread noted that the narcissist male looked arabic…and that the DT women looked “more White”.)
Interestingly, the non-DT women and the DT men appear to share facial structures. As someone noted, the DT women have slimmer (and longer) faces and juttier chins. Which is close to the mirror image of the men; the non-DT men have the slimmer and longer faces and the DT men are wider-faced.
All the DT men look meaner than the non-DT men. All the DT women look sexier and sluttier than the non-DT women (ie they are ready and eager to fuck…with your head).
Mm hmm, makes sense. DT men succeed by dominating the social space or others’ perceptions of them, rather than cooperating within the social space or allowing others to form their perceptions unimpeded. DT women succeed by exploiting their sexuality to get men to do their bidding, rather than meet men halfway in mutual adoration to build a long-lasting relationship. All this is apparent in the shape of the face, which acts as a palimpsest of one’s innate character.
The physical facial differences are greater between the DT and non-DT women than they are between the DT and non-DT men. Why? I don’t know, but it aligns with my observations and romantic experiences with waifish, lithesome cuties batting big eyes and resting their dainty heads in their delicate hands as they attempt, usually unsuccessfully, to mindfuck yours truly into surrendering frame and losing state control. (I may or may not be a DT kinda guy, but I learned early on how to spot them and flip the predator-prey script.)
DT women are femmes fatales. Particularly, the femme fatale known as the Eternal Ingenue. So cute and sexy….and so likely to rob you blind in divorce court, spend the winnings on her live-in methhead boyfriend, and wind up on a list of hot female teachers who have been caught banging their students.
A buddy is a study in contrasts. He likes to do the opposite of whatever the masses are doing, but without the pretension that often characterizes iconoclasts. The idea, as he puts it, is to transgress social norms in one medium while following them in another, parallel medium, to disorient women and pique their interest.
For instance, he wears a deep red t-shirt on St Patty’s Day to go out in, while everyone else is dressed in a shade of green. Naturally, this draws the attention of hungry poon, particularly the girls who are up for a deep tissue flirtation. A girl walks over and gives him shit about his shirt, he smiles and, rather than smugly going off on not being Irish or how he’s too autistic to celebrate ethnic holidays in post-racial American, he says “eh, green makes me look washed out” or “I’m color blind. Feel better?” Or he might self-incriminatingly reply, “I’m a nonconformist prick.”
Opposite George Game — “I’m unemployed and bald and live with my parents” — can juice your bantz to incredible heights as long as you avoid even a hint of defensiveness, discomfort, or trepidation, and you don’t take yourself, or your marks, too seriously.
