The source also informed Page Six that “staffers have been told that if they find out about any affairs, romances, inappropriate relationships or behavior in the office, they have to report it to human resources, their superior or the company anti-harassment phone line.”
Since when did consensual office romances become sexual harassment? Oh yeah, since bitter aging has-been whores deemed it so.
Imagine the type of person who’d be willing and eager to snitch on a co-worker having an office romance. The caricature that comes to mind is a giant, walking pussyhat. Nasty Womanhood, Inc. The anti-sex schoolmarms are on the loose.
The mass movement of women into the workforce and its consequences have been a disaster for Western nations.
To take it to the next level, the source further claimed NBC’s new rules stipulate employees wishing to hug one another “have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact” and are forbidden from sharing taxis home or, oddly, “taking vegans to steakhouses.”
We need a new word to describe the hysterically man-hating, anhedonic feminist dystopia that’s unfolding at a rapid clip in America. Gynarchy doesn’t quite nail it. Prisstopia?
This would all be stupidly funny if it wasn’t dead serious, but tbh i’m not a fan of the hugging trend. Compulsory hugs between acquaintances phags up male friendships and desexualizes potential romances between men and women. Thanks, Shrillennials! But I think we’ve hit Peak Hug. Gen Zyklon is bringing back head nods, and with them, a return to electric sexual polarity.
Shitlibs are working themselves into another anal lube froth, this time over the prospect of Oprah running for president in 2020. A negression to the mean ousting orange hitler? Collective lib splooge!
So this is a good time to keep reminding them that Grope-rah was an enabler of Harvey Swinestein’s pervtastic predations. Groprah was in the thick of it, running interference for Harvey, and probably grooming young actresses for him with promises of access and fame. She may as well have been holding harvey’s dick over the potted ficus.
Every time shitlibs catch a whiff of a heroine coming to save them from Trump’s Reich, it turns out she’s as tits-deep in depravity and mendacity as the rest of their icons. The Fuggernaut will never have an ally or an hero who isn’t compromised by association with their ugliness.
PS Drudge is drenching his panties over Grope-rah. Maybe he should put up the red alert for real news, such as James Damore’s individual and class-action lawsuit against Goolag. The anti-American, degeneracy-glorifying, anti-White male tech monopolies are GOING DOWN.
CH is fond of saying that $$$ has poor return in terms of women. I suspect you need real wealth (>$10 M) and live a truly different lifestyle (weekend trips to st Barths, aspen, other global hotspots) in order for it to make any real difference.
Below the level of extravagant male wealth, money doesn’t make a huge DIRECT impact on women’s attraction to men. If a man has a nice car and condo, no economically self-sufficient careergirl will be wowed by that. The benefit of money comes from the confidence it instills in men, which women DO love.
Another anon has doubts about the efficacy of money to pull women,
I feel like a distinction should be made about “high-status men” in what context. My experience says that now “high-status” is almost completely determined by “hookup criteria” and not long-term considerations until chick hits the wall (but preaching to the choir).
If modren Western women are indeed switching to an r-selected reproduction strategy — i.e., focusing on short-term hookups that advantage cads over dads and chads over NOWAGS — then a man’s earning power will have a smaller impact on female attraction than it historically has had in more patriarchal (aka Regulated Monogamy) times when women weren’t paper pushing corporate whores who could afford their own mortgages and streaming pussyhat entertainment packages.
Of course, this will not end well for civilization. When the big bulging mass of beta providers realize they can’t leverage their provisions for a loyal young babe who isn’t saddled with a porn star’s sexual history, they will drop out of the mating market and make just enough to satisfy their immediate needs. Then after the fiat economy collapses from the disengagement of its most competent and conscientious men, there goes the female workforce it enabled, and we’re right back to the primordial patriarchy of young, chaste, dependent women locking down that beta provider while she still has miles of virgin road left on her hodometer.
Commenter days of game offered the “normie” objection to female hypergamy that I’ve come across from other readers in previous posts on the topic: specifically, both sexes want the best deal they can get in the mate market, so “hypergamy” isn’t limited to one sex.
I don’t understand the manosphere’s interest in “hypergamy.” It’s the most obvious thing… girls are looking for the best opportunity. That’s not girls… that’s everyone.
And then: Eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap. Got it.
So… girls have more bargaining power, and thus… a lot of guys lose (due to low SMV)… and girls hop around (because they can)… as that egg is in demand (until it isn’t).
Why does this need a billion hours of analysis?
This particular research continues the pattern of underwhelm:
A seller with a high-demand product (her pussy), that can find more and more markets (online)… can charge a higher price, and/or burn more potential buyers (for fun or profit).
Econ 101.
When I see guys that get frothy about MUUHHH HYPERGUUHHHMEH… I increasingly read all that as signals of beta reality/paranoia. And a waste of our time as men to go over this again and again.
The cool guy get the girl. Dur.
For a simple concept, a lot of men (and women) dismiss female hypergamy out of hand as having no basis in reality. And that reality is this: There is no equivalent male hypergamy to female hypergamy. “Everyone is looking for the best possible deal” is a trivially true statement which obfuscates the fact that men and women look for mate market deals with differing intensities of commitment and with differing emphases on what constitutes a good deal. These differences are so profound in both a quantitative and qualitative sense that they may as well be representing totally different mate selection strategies (which they are).
I’ll quote myself here on the subject of “male hypergamy”, before illustrating the Fake Comparison of male and female sexual market bargaining using a car dealership analogy,
Some readers would demur that hypergamy isn’t sex-specific, pointing out that men also strive to find the best possible lover they can get.
My rebuttal is two-part: One, men don’t date up based on social, economic, or occupational status. Men, if and when they are able to date up, do so based almost entirely on women’s looks. We’ve all seen or experienced how men trade up when they’ve come into a financial or social status windfall — younger, hotter, tighter women, as the GBFM would put it. So male hypergamy — what is more precisely termed “physiogamy” — is different in kind from female hypergamy.
Second, male physiogamy is also different in degree from female hypergamy. Women are biologically compelled to aim for a man higher in SMV from themselves, and this compulsion is strong enough that many women will accept long bouts of solitude before settling for a man at their own SMV level (usually at the moment when The Wall first looms on the horizon). When men aim higher, they a. don’t aim quite as high as women aim and b. won’t opt out of the sexual or marital market (like women will often do), if they don’t get everything they want in a lover.
Another point of difference between male and female “dating up” limbic algorithms which I alluded to in that quote but didn’t clarify is this: Male SMV is largely contextual and relational. Social, occupational, financial, and prestige status have to be measured against a backdrop of other men all competing along the same metrics that women use to assess male mate worth. Women only have to look young and pretty, which can be accomplished with or without other women to use for comparison purposes.
This has an impact on how each sex dates up. Men will upgrade to a hotter younger babe after they have spent considerable time improving their SMV, either through amassing resources or social/psychosexual capital (Game). Men’s ability to date up is thus limited by the time and energy commitments required to do so. Men respond to this sex-differentiated mate market reality by de-emphasizing dating “up” and settling for dating “as good as possible for right now”.
In contrast, women have to commit relatively little time and energy to improving their SMV, largely because their mate value is set at conception and there isn’t much they can do to improve upon what they were given by their parents. There’s no point working hard to improve that which has only a tiny margin for improvement (unless we’re talking about a fatty who could slim down and gain 5 SMV points). What this means in practice is that women can spend a lot more time and energy “dating up” while their looks are holding up. Their window for primo action is smaller than it is for men, but within that window they have a lot more leeway to entertain suitors and hold out for the best, even if the best is a cad illusion who offers empty promises of commitment (the age-old risk that women take when they hold out for mr right aka mr beta bux and mr alpha fux in one man). Dating up comes more naturally to women because it comes more easily; as long as they aren’t old fat or ugly, women can leverage their looks almost as an afterthought to attract attention from a lot of men, both low and high SMV.
The analogy of female hypergamy is this:
A man goes to a car dealership. He’s a sensible fellow, and just needs a commuter vehicle. He sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. He salivates. He walks over, runs his hand across the finish. Maybe he asks to sit in it and dream, gripping the leather steering wheel. But he knows he can’t afford it, so he quickly focuses his thoughts and leaves fantasyland behind, to browse the boring sedans. He consoles himself with the hope that maybe, someday, he’ll have made it and can return with enough to buy that Corvette. In the meantime, he haggles like a champ with the seller to drive down the price of his sedan and maximize the amenities at his budget. No undercarriage rust protection, thank you! Finally, he signs on the dotted line, and drives off content that he got the best deal he could, and as he’s heading home he thoughtfully itemizes all the good things about his new car. The smell! The climate control! The gas mileage! He’s happy for himself.
A woman goes to a car dealership. She’s a sensible lady (for a lady), and just needs a commuter vehicle. She sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. She salivates. She walks over, runs her hand across the finish, sits in the car, applies lipstick in the rearview mirror, lays across both front seats in a languid pose, asks to take it for a test drive, motors giddily around town for an hour until the seller has to gently chide her to call it a day, returns and labors some more over the Corvette, sighs heavily as a penny drops out of her purse, shuffles over to the boring sedan and gives it a perfunctory once-over, noting with depressing self-encouragement that it gets 35 mpg on the highway. She haggles with the seller for five grueling hours before announcing she needs more time to think on it. (meanwhile, the seller wonders why she’s shit testing him.) On her way out, she stops by the Corvette again, for one last flirtatious hand graze. Over the next six months, she stops by the dealership weekly to cavort with the Corvette, until her current rust bucket dies in an intersection to a thousand honking cars and sheer embarrassment drags her shamed butt back to the dealer to grudgingly trade in her dead clunker for the boring beta sedan. She resents her new car the second she rolls off the lot in it, and abuses it daily with cigarette butts, spilled coffee, and unchanged oil, until she has to repeat the process, except next time with even less money in her pocket, which forces her to browse the sub-compacts. Oh lord, what will her friends think?! They’ll know she settled because she waited too long. Maybe she can get a bike instead and rationalize it as environmental activism. One night, in a horny and desperate mood, she sneaks into the dealership and fucks the Corvette’s stick shift. She slumps spent, in the love puddle she left in the bucket seat, and whimpers softly for a romance that will never be.
The CEO of Netflix is Reed Hastings, who from what I know is not parenthetically circumscribed. But Hastings is a big hater of Trump, and his current physiognomy is the morning drink equivalent of a mint sprig soylatta, so he may as well be a shabbos goy.
From the Y1dTube comments:
The humor is that if you are a white male who don’t agree with decadence, you wife will get BLACKED and LESBOD, while you, evil white cis male, kill yourself and your kind for the benefit of the sem… oops… benefit of HUMANITY!
***
Is this supposed to be funny? Are men of Germanic or Slavic descent supposed to not notice the obvious propaganda? Large alpha black man dominating the passive, weak “white boy.” And the black stud gets all the white women, who are equally attracted to him. (((Who))) could be behind this “Kalergi Plan” commercial??
***
My wife’s son really enjoyed this video. He laughed and then told me I should go back to playing Nintendo so now I’m gonna play some switch while enjoying some nice soy. I’m so proud of Tyrone.
***
(((They))) aren’t even trying to hide their power level any more.
***
Now imagine a reverse ad: a tall, white stud cuckolding a short, black dude with his black wife. The chances of such an ad being made are zero. Funny how one interracial narrative is OK with Netflix, but the other way it’s a total taboo.
Cutting cable only gets you halfway to a poz-free, proudly pro-White life. Unfortunately, the streaming services have taken up the slack and then some, weaponizing the delivery and sugary rush of the poz so that even little White children can imbibe it by the vat and beg for more. The only solution to this state of genocidal fervor is a mass (legal) culling of fancyboy shitlibs from all layers of the media-entertainment sewage reclamation complex, to be replaced by less antagonistic White shitlords. The other option — the nuclear option PA recommends — is tossing the TV from your home. Starve the beast of ad money and eyeballs, and eventually it will shrink and slink away, perhaps to find a foothold in China, though that’s becoming less promising by the day what with China fast developing its own in-house entertainment machine.
Well, to be honest, there IS one last ditch option……
Owing to its theme, I feel duty-bound to alert the CH readership to this very good post examining the interaction between technology and female hypergamy, over at a blog named Selonomics.
“Why does it appear that the vast majority of women prefer the same small group of men?”
[…]
In my model, I decided to test how simple mate selection strategies resulted in wildly different statistical distributions in each of the final selection pools.
In the simulation, men make their mate selection decisions by minimizing over the age of their prospective partners, whereas women maximize over the status of the men in their accessible vicinity.
[…]
Although the simulation results above show only the most extreme scenarios, one biased in the direction of the median man (Regulated Monogamy, or Patriarchy) and the other in the direction of the median female (Open Hypergamy), it is interesting to note that contemporary real world data looks a lot more like the extreme scenario on the female side of spectrum.
The author’s conclusions won’t surprise regular guests of the Chateau, but he spells them out lucidly and adds some insight into how social media and the technology which supports it have magnified female hypergamy and made it nearly virulent.
In summation, I found the following:
There is a strong outcome asymmetry in preferences between men and women when it comes to selecting a mate.
We don’t have to assume very much to see this play out in the real world, only that men prefer young women and women prefer high status men.
The positional trait (social status in this case), when amplified by both technology and the freedom to use those technologies, i.e. social norms favoring the Feminine Imperative (in Saudi Barbaria, women wear burkas and can’t use Tinder) the selection pool of prospective mates increases far faster for the median woman than it does for median man.
Given that women are primarily interested in status, which is a positional good, then any technology that amplifies your ability to be noticed by high status men, will also increase mating inequality. Consider, for example, how men do not benefit nearly as much from the scale offered by Tinder as do women. In the graphs shown below, Hypergamy is calculated as the difference in median in-degree (number of incoming links) between the two distributions.
In layman’s terms, this is the MOST IMPORTANT GRAPH IN THE WORLD. It shows the stark sex difference in how mate quality of the opposite sex is perceived. Start at the extremes: the top 1% of men and women will receive “likes” from nearly all members of the opposite sex. The bottom 1% of either sex will get almost no likelove. In between is where it gets interesting.
At a female attractiveness level of 80% (corresponding to an HB8 on the 1-to-10 hotness scale), only men in, roughly, the 97th percentile of male attractiveness will get “likes”. HB6s will give “likes” to men in the top 5% of male attractiveness. HB4s will “like” the top 10% of men. HB2s (ffs) will “like” the top 25% of men. Men at the 20% attractiveness level will only get “likes” from the BOTTOM 2% OF WOMEN.
You see where this is heading. As far as female DESIROUS INTENT is concerned, the bottom 80% of men may as well be distracting nuisances at best and utterly invisible #MeToo potential violators at worst to the top 80% of women. That’s what unrestrained female hypergamy looks like. A few alphas bathing in a lube-slicked ocean of vagina juice, while the mediocre beta male masses languish in their masturbatoriums.
Of course, real life pairings don’t arrange themselves according to online “likes” (yet). One look around, and you can easily see that far more than 20% of men have some success with women. What accounts for the difference between online intent and offline action are a number of factors, the most relevant of which are:
female resignation to the inevitable and frighteningly quick loss of their beauty and the romantic settling that most women who aren’t batshit crazy eventually accept as a part of living in the real world where men have standards
holistic female attraction criteria that result in more complex mate quality evaluations of men in real life, face to face interactions, which contrast sharply with the artificially myopic female attraction criteria that inordinately emphasize a man’s dating app profile and best-angle photo (this is why Game shines IRL)
porn and other sex substitutes that dampen the realization of female hypergamy by robbing middle of the pack women of valuable feedback on their allure
Social media amplifies female hypergamy by introducing more high status men to more women, and vice versa more hot women to high status men. Localism moderately contains female hypergamy simply by limiting the number of HSMV men in any given woman’s immediate environment, (which many women get around by moving to the big coastal cities). So Burnham’s critique of SCALE is apropos here, as a major factor in the development of runaway female hypergamy.
The THREE CULTURAL CHANGES that have had the biggest negative impact on beta male romantic fortunes have been:
Urbanization
Social media and online dating
Female obesity
#1 and #2 increase beta male competition with alpha males (by proxy) which relationally lowers beta SMV, while #3 reduces beta male dating market leverage by shrinking their pool of acceptable prospects.
If we are to solve the crisis of incel soyboys, we have to de-urbanize the shitlibopolises, log off our gadgets while mocking the women and thirsty betas who remain addicted to them, and Make American Women Waifs Again.
Age in men tends to be a proxy of social status, where as age in women tends to determine genetic quality. Genetic quality is normally distributed, on a Bell Curve, whereas social status (and the wealth and income that results) is either log-normally or Pareto distributed in a population (What if Bill Gates Were as Tall as His Money?), following the truism that “20% of the men get 80% of the women.” While close to true, what my simulations actually show is that what is really happening is something closer to “20% of the men receive 80% of all female intent.”
He’s made an important distinction here. Intent isn’t fulfillment, but it certainly smooths the path. Formal social regulations and informal cultural regulations have historically been used to stymie the full and free expression of female hypergamy, at least in Eurasian peoples, because there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.
Over time, the cultural and geographic constraints against hypergamy imprint via sexual and natural selection onto the racial genetic code, so that today Eurasians are more constitutionally comfortable with monogamy than are, say, Africans. But some universal traits still linger, and female hypergamy is one of them, shared by women across the world. This is because the force of sexual selection provided by the evolved hypergamous urge is such a powerful Darwinian mechanism to ensure survival that selection pressures against hypergamy were only able to slightly alter primal Eurasian female sexual proclivities in the direction of monogamy and intersex SMV complementarity.
Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.
It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.
In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.
As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.
A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.
***
Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.
I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:
In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.
In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.
Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.
One obvious outcome of reckless hypergamy in a sexually atomized mate market is delayed marriage and childbearing, and too many years spent in endless dating cycles hopping from cock to cock and job to job, only to surrender at the last with a few remaining years on the ol’ biological clock as a consolation prize for the unlucky also-ran herbling who has to eat the pain of wifing up a woman who historically would qualify as a road-worn spinster whore, a pain amelioration which he typically accomplishes by posturing as a white knight male feminist pretending it was his choice to leap at the flappy labia scraps thrown his way.
The good news, especially for readers of this blog, is that there are many Game techniques devised specifically to leverage female hypergamy to the benefit of men….push-pull, DHV, disqualification, outcome independent mentality, assuming the sale, etc. This is a benefit to the few individual men dedicated to learn Game, and more so to those committed to put it to practice. But runaway female hypergamy is a disaster for the West as a whole, after accounting for the few Machiavellians who can extract pleasures from its dwindling resource of feminine women. Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.
My next few posts will cover this explicitly. The Mating Economy is likely best understood as a series of feedback loops, in which a balance between Regulated Monogamy and Open Hypergamy maximizes the “socioeconomic growth rate” of a Civilization.
I’m looking forward to those posts. (To the author: If they’ve already been published, please link to them in the comments, and I’ll add the links to the post.)
Behold the face of Fair America. Old, tatted up like a common street whore, eyes ablaze with the psychosis of having spent too many years on the cock carousel and in the working world of men with nothing to show for it, and a Very Fake Smile belying a deep well of spinster soulpain.
The reader who emailed this photo explains,
“educated” american female. She’s a medical doctor, tired, old, used up tatted, and single. Look at the “you go grrl” comments
We have beautiful women. They’re just using them up and burning themselves out on a career
The social media revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the female sex. The dopaminergic addiction to internet “likes”, and the irresistible compulsion of undersexed beta males to stroke the online egos of bangable girls to pathological tumescence until they’re so deluded to the nature of male sexuality and the inevitability of the Wall that they can no longer perceive a future of sexual invisibility that is the fate of all women, has accelerated the trend toward later marriages and the growing demographic of childless spinsters full of regret for all those eggs lost in time, like tears in rain.
A generation of Forgotten Furies is the tragic detritus of Facecock and Spoogle and Twatter.
Nasty Womanhood, Inc — a wastrel horde of aging pussyhatters and manjawed lawyercunts — now roam the land like lepers, rattling a dusty vagina for a pence of penis and begging for romantic handouts from men who long ago looked past them to their younger and less careerist competition.
The Fempire Shrikes Back, but this episode doesn’t end with Darth Vajeen’s victory over her UGH JEDI WHITE MAN secret crush. Instead, it ends with her sulking back to read 50 Shades of The Force and diddle her dying bean in a grrlaxy far far away.
Shiv of the Week goes to the person or persons who put up this id-rending sign in the beating heart of Shitlibistan. Bonus shiv points for making it look like a legitimate State authorized welcome sign. I would guess Sabo did this handiwork, and for obvious reasons can’t take public credit for it.
Trump should retweet this photo with this simple attached message: DEMS WANT CHEAP VOTES, GOPE WANTS CHEAP LABOR. THEY GET MS13! That would go a long way to scaring the living FUCK out of the Globohomo Uniparty, and practically guarantee a successful realization of his nationalist-populism MAGAgenda.
As reader PA has said, shitlibs have to know they don’t own the public spaces. Not anymore. There’s a new agitator in town, and he’s had it up to here with the leftoid orthodoxy.
Adhering to standards and expressing them to women is what separates the quenched alphas from the thirsty betas. Too many men cede the Darwinian high ground of standards to women, an assumption not without biological basis in reality — the vessel housing expensive eggs can demand more than can cheapo spermos — but nevertheless an assumption that can cost men a lot of romantic possibility, and tragically an assumption which can be overturned with minimal mental effort.
We are all familiar with the 463 bullet point checklist that fertilely-fledged women carry in their subconscious to be accessed when and where potential suitors are found. The online dating market doesn’t even require the cloak of subconsciousness; there, women are forthright about their criteria. Some female Tinder profiles can run to upwards of fifty dealbreakers, often hilariously coupled with fatty bluehairs and fishmouth tatted freaks belying either their sincerity or their sanity with which they make their demands.
The “out and proud” female bullet point checklist accompanied by ravenous hordes of thirsty betas tripping over themselves to meet those female standards is solid evidence that the modren sexual market has shifted to the favor of women — likely culprits in the imbalance: numerical sex skew and female obesity — and that men are falling right into their roles as desperate hound dogs chasing after table scraps.
It’s even worse now that we’re in the era of Trump, and ideology has become one of if not THE sorting mechanism for Shrillennial hookups and relationships. “TRUMP VOTERS SWIPE LEFT” is a common refrain on girls’ profiles.
It doesn’t have to be this way. So much hidden love can explode in the world if men abided for themselves the same laundry list of criteria that women take for granted as the prerogative of their sex. Men with freely and boldly expressed standards are a lightning rod to women who labor under a scarcity of such men. Try it and see for yourself. Set standards of what you will allow or disallow in women and follow those standards. You don’t even have to be sincere; the mere revelation of your standards and ACTING as if they matter to you will be enough to flip the seduction script and have women effortflirting for your approval.
EVERY WOMAN SUCCUMBS TO THE BITTERSWEET THRILL OF CHASING A MAN OF DISCRIMINATING TASTE.
And I’m not talking about demands for physical perfection. Women already know men lust most forcefully for 36-24-34, barely legal, and blemish free. NO FAT CHICKS is just a start. You need to flesh that out with MORE demands, MORE criteria, MORE checklists. For example: HILLARY PUSSYHATTERS SWIPE LEFT. NO FATTIES, NO TATTIES, NO WHACKIES. BPD? SAVE IT FOR YOUR BETA MALE ORBITER. LTR FOR THE GIRL WHO EARNS IT.
Then sit back and recline in your cowgirl position banging chair as the ladies line up to
meet your exacting standards or
shit test you to kingdom cum
Either reaction is good. Remember, the shit test is prologue to sex. If a girl is uninterested, she will ignore you or curtly reject you. If a girl is interested DESPITE her forebrain telling her you’re no good, she will tease, taunt, and try to wind you up as a gauge of your alpha male state control (or beta male emotional and libidinal incontinence).
Some readers object: what’s to stop a girl from simply lying to you about meeting your standards?
A lying girl?
Is there another kind of girl?
If you ask the second cumming of Mother Theresa how many cocks she gave alms to in her youth, she will lie about the number.
Why it doesn’t matter:
You’re still getting laid.
And, unless you’re a hard-up buffoon who marries the first girl who looks at your cock cross-eyed, you are gonna have (at least) a three month trial period breaking her in; few women can sustain the illusion of a perfect fit with you longer than that. Her annoying tics, untrustworthy sluttiness, antagonistic value system, psychological scars, and feminist proclivities will eventually out, and they almost always out post-coitally, when she (like all women) thinks her vagina is sufficient to placate any doubting thomas and divert his attention from her shitty personality.
Know the ho
in the afterglow.
By then, you’ll be well-positioned to offer or rescind any implied promises of exclusivity.
