Urbanization and the accompanying social disconnection have the effect of pathologizing female hypergamy, turning it from a useful Darwinian selection mechanism to an auto-immune disorder that robs women of their prime child-bearing years and elevates their risk of spinsterhood.
De-urbanization will throw a monkey wrench in the gears of the cock carousel and corral runaway female hypergamy. If you want to improve the romantic and marital prospects of beta males….that is, if you want more beta males to have access to relatively unsullied feminine women who forsake gogrrl careerism and avoid emotional pollution by shitlib hivemind propaganda in favor of family formation and hearth duties…you’ll support de-urbanization.
A de-urbanization program (aka a Heritage America Renewal Project — HARP) plus an immigration moratorium for a couple of generations are together the only long-term solution to feminist dysgenics. Federal and state incentives should be structured to support small city and town development, antitrust to break up megacorps…basically decentralization and de-scaling.
Infrastructure projects will help revitalize the US interior, making it more attractive for businesses and locals, which will limit the brain drain from rural regions to the coastal megacities. Ending immigration and thwarting the menace of Diversitopia will make good districts more widely available and thus more affordable.
Now if we can only solve the existential problem of female obesity in the heartland, we’ll truly have made America great again!
An old man excused himself to ask me for directions. I can’t remember the last time that happened. Not in the car nor on the sidewalk. Everyone’s got their snarkphone GPS to tell them where they’re going.
We the people are atomizing, socially and neurally. Our gadgets make us stupid and solitary. We are losing those common social graces and facial cues and verbal tones that have helped us for millennia navigate complex social arrangements and the demands of civilization. The rotten fruit of this devolution to a human-paramecium hybrid is all around us if we’re willing to see it with open eyes and de-politicized egos. For the latest example of it, see #MeToo. Men and women have stopped knowing how to deal with each other, preferring instead snarkphone listicles that make fun of people who still cling to their antiquated notions of sex differences.
The little culture deaths will add up until nothing is left but for the barbarian hordes to storm our unwalled fortress of mass solitude and put the decomposing, fap-wearied body of our nation to rest.
The topic of this post comes via a 2014 study, so it’s possible it may have been written about already here at the Chateau. Regardless, it’s good enough to write about again and educate the newbs who are always stumbling into this coven of lovin’ and wondering with wide open eyes and whiplashed brains just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Often it is claimed by catastrophically bitter feminist cunts that men love bitches such as themselves as much as women love jerkboys. This is a bluehaired lie. And now ¡SCIENCE! has arrived on the scene to ONCE AGAIN (i will never tire of this) gorge on the CH knob and validate my anti-feminist worldview: men don’t like crazy bitches unless those crazy bitches are sexy and willing to go all the way right away. What men like when they have their choice of vixens are nicegirls. Nice, feminine, natural hair-colored girls.
Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men.
[…]
The study examined burgeoning sexual interest and the participants’ feelings on the possibility of long-term dating with their new “partners,” and how those connected to their perceptions of a personality trait the study calls “responsiveness.”
In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.”
Responsiveness, AKA appeasement. To put it a nicer way: approval seeking. To put it a psychotherapeutic way: External validation. To put it a PUA way: outcome dependence.
But it’s not as important of a factor when you first meet someone, according to the study. “Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people,” stated Birnbaum.
Overly responsive suitors can be perceived as manipulative suitors. Have you ever been creeped out by someone trying too hard to please you? That’s your mind-body axis telling you to distrust that person. This is particularly true for women and responsive men, because women have to be more on guard for men who just want to get them in the sack fast, and will tell those women whatever they think they want to hear to win their affection. Men, in contrast, don’t have to guard against responsive women because fast sex is an equally, if not more valuably, prized achievement as a committed relationship.
The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.
Nicegirls are more feminine than crazy bitches, and men prefer feminine women. Why would men perceive nicegirls as more feminine? Maybe because those girls aren’t busting their balls for propping up the patriarchy. Also, the default posture of women toward unfamiliar men is one of neutrality bordering on contempt. The responsive nicegirl therefore stands out as a real romantic prospect in a sea of resting bitch faces. And niceness is just more estrogen-y, which looks, sounds, and smells SO MUCH BETTER to men than does the caustic testosterone-y gogrrlism of your typical urban slore.
On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.
In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.
You have to attract women before you can have a relationship with women. Jerkboy attitude is necessary if not sufficient to lock down a quality (read: hot) nicebabe. The opposite is true for women: a bitchgirl attitude will make it harder for them to find a quality man.
The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.
Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable.
And yet every couples therapist in the degenerated West advises the opposite: that men should be MORE responsive and attentive to women. How many relationships would be saved, and lonely men and women rescued from romantic failure, if the Chateau was the only couples therapist in the world? I give and give and give, like the humanitarian I am, and yet all I get is grief from the gatekeepers of socially approved discourse. It wounds me deeply!
The third and final study presented in the paper sought to test specifically whether the mechanism by which “responsiveness” motivated individuals to pursue relationships was, in fact, sexual arousal. To do so, they replicated the second study, but added a specific measure of sexual attraction. They then found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal among men. That, in turn led to greater desire for a relationship.
The petaling pussy is always more enticing than the dormant pussy, all else about the pussies equal. Male arousal is primed for action when the pussy is within jizzing distance. (Female arousal is primed for action when the pussy has to close the jizzing distance.)
While the studies shed some light on why men find responsive women more sexually desirable, Birnbaum explains that researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.
“Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons,” said Birnbaum in a press release. “Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.”
All of the above, but mostly for the reason I’ve described at this blog: responsive niceguys betray a lack of romantic options, and since female desire is holistic rather than primarily visual as it is for men, a man without romantic options is very unsexy to women, who will assume his desperation is evidence of weakness and deficient character. Chicks dig non-responsive jerks because any man who can afford to be a jerk with women must have his pick of the clitter. And every woman wants to be the one who snags the man who can have any woman. Not to mention, a man successful with women will pass on his pussy-smashing genes to her sons (sexy sons hypothesis).
The hierarchy, from most romantically valuable to least romantically valuable:
Jerkboys (desired by all women, for sex and love, rarely dumped)
Nicegirls (desired by all men, for missionary sex and love, not as rare as jerkboys)
Bitterbitches (desired by some men, for kinky sex, if she looks hot)
Niceguys (desired by no women, except Wall victims, cougars, and fugs. as common as cat dander)
***
Anonymous objects to one implication of this study:
Kind of disingenuous. Nice girls win IF they are attractive. When feminists or women in general complain of men liking crazy women, it’s usually in comparison to average/ugly women. I used to complain of this in high school. I used to say all the guys like the crazy/mental girls. The real issue was they liked them because they were hot. The craziness was just extra.
No doubt the crazy bitches who get a lot of men have to be very hot to compensate for their shitty personalities. But nicegirls win against bitches when matched for looks. I would bet nicegirls even win when they are one SMV point lower in looks. Bitches only “win” when they are significantly hotter and sluttier than their nicegirl competition, but since there are at least as many hot nicegirls as their are hot bitches the point is moot, and we’re back to the original conclusion: nicegirls win, bitches lose.
The one countervailing factor that bitches use to their advantage is sluttiness. Nicegirls don’t do slutty, so they will lose the men just looking for an easy lay. Bitches can compete more effectively against nicegirls by advertising their willingness to fuck without strings attached. This is a potent defensive tactic, and one reason why women are the primary slut shamers in society.
Rod Dreher, Über-Poseur Pussy-Pedestaler Christcuck Cuckstian Cuckstraordinaire and advocate for the Craft Brew Selfie Option, linked to a Free Northerner blog post (and tangentially to this rumble abode) to explore the reasons why young Christians have stopped meeting their potential spouses at Church.
I’ve discussed the same interesting dating market changes underlying the graphic Dreher featured at his blog and highlighted in this older CH post (with correct attribution along the margin of the graph, so the spergatroid dreher commenters can quit their bitchin’….and fyi, readers email unattributed jpegs to me all the time, so if I post a few without PROPERLY linking the source you can sleep soundly that the oversight wasn’t intentional).
Excerpted from that CH post, remarking on the sexual market changes to women and their place in it caused by the rise of bars and online dating as the primary mediums facilitating courtship:
Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy [ed: thirsty] men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.
This is coming at the change from the angle of women’s egos, and how their over-inflated and over-stroked egos will be a barrier to love and marriage. But there are other ominous portents in the major changes to the way men and women meet.
As you can see from the graph, every avenue for meeting the opposite sex is down over the last twenty years, except one. The percentage of couples who met through college is down (partly a result of college becoming 60% female-40% male). Couples who met through family is way down (continuing a long-term trend). Couples who met through Church is down (and almost near zero). Couples who met through work is way down (and likely to hit rock bottom after this #MeToo sex panic burns itself out).
The majority of couples still meet through friends, but that too is on a downward trend, set to be eclipsed soon, if the trajectory holds up, by restaurant/bar, which is the only meeting place that is upwardly trending. Couples who met through online dating appears to have leveled off. This might be a temporary lull as privacy and security issues are worked out, but I suspect it’s the calm before online dating takes a nosedive as a matchmaking facilitator. I predict this because it has dawned on women that men use online dating as a sex supplement to their “real” dating lives, and it has dawned on men that women use online dating to hide their physical flaws (fat) and to aggressively filter out any but the top 5% of men in looks (which is an unstable selection filter utterly divorced from the reality of what women want in men, and which means that exclusive online dating will end badly for women’s romantic hopes of commitment with a good man).
Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser.
What does the massive and radical change in the way men and women meet each other mean for Western society? Can we glimpse the ropey contours of our future Jizztopia?
Relevant, from that older CH post,
This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.
Church won’t be restored as a meeting place for singles any time soon, barring some unforeseen seismic shift in attitudes toward religiosity and patriarchy (the two go together when both are healthy).
Neither will college, as long as it remains a warehouse for aggrieved Diversity and intellectually mediocre but conscientious girls, and antagonistic to young White men. Feminist cuntsent culture is turning campuses into anhedonic deserts.
Family? Age of first marriage is later than ever, fertility is down, single mommery is way up, miscegenation is up, and families are geographically and socially atomized to the edge of becoming total strangers with a shared genealogy. Family will continue its downward slide as a matchmaker.
Meeting as coworkers? MEEEE TOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Nope, the days of the corporate office as informal imprimatur of marital proposals are past us. The future is the increasingly rare (and risky) after hours bang in the janitor closet.
Social media, video gaming, porn, and the attendant isolation are undermining the service of friends as the primary means of bringing people together for the making of loves. It’s possible friends can come back as the major matchmaking vector, but I wouldn’t count on it happening until Generation Zyklon matures, and by that time it will have assumed a much different pallor than what it has been for most of the last sixty years.
Online dating is stagnating. I predict it will crash further, for the reasons noted above.
Restaurant/Bar is the new Family/Church, and given that post-atomization friends mostly meet offline at bars nowadays, these venues will also be quasi-dating services run by close friends and acquaintances. The upward trend should continue.
Anything new on the whoreizon?
Clubs.
SWPL shitlibs shudder at the thought because clubs imply exclusivity (as well they should…no club is worth the membership that doesn’t have exclusionary practices), but they’ll have to get over it or just admit that their preferred venues are de facto exclusive clubs. How many blacks and browns do you see at craft breweries? Artisanal distilleries? Shooting ranges? Bowling alleys? Painting classes? Wineries? Art shows? You get the idea.
As Diversity scours at our communality and social bonds, expect to see implicitly White (or nonWhite) clubs re-emerge as forces of social glue and romantic promise. If Gen Zyklon is real, this movement will be helped along by a renewed support for the principle of free association.
One more possibility that I don’t think is a positive development: ideology will loom larger as a requirement for meeting the opposite sex. I hate this trend, because it elevates the abstract (pussyhattery) above the concrete (blood sugar sex passion). What this portends is a dire future in which ideologically oriented clubs and venues become the dominant medium by which people meet and pair off. After that happens, it won’t be long before Civil War 2.
I’ll end this post with a comment pulled from Dreher’s post, by Tex Austin:
Historians will one day seek to unravel the mystery of how, in our present unsustainable cultural moment — rife with contradictions as it is — a corner of the blogosphere intended to help hapless “betas” learn how to “bang HB 9’s” morphed into the source of the most convincing arguments for traditional sexual morality.
That said, I never thought I’d live to see Rod link to Heartiste!
Why wouldn’t he? I’ve had nothing but the moloko plus of love for Rod! Who was first to praise Rod for standing firm with Trump and for recognizing the yuge shift in the political and cultural landscape that Trump’s rise represented?
Rod is an hero to me. A true Instagram Christian. A man for the times.
Read this depressing but illuminating account by JudgyBitch recalling her wicked mother alienating her and her siblings from their father, and how it affected the children. At the end, a redemption and the victory of truth will lift your spirits, because this is one sad tale that is repeated all too many times in post-America.
There are two pills to swallow from this story. A Red Pill on the divorce industrial complex and how it effectively shields bad mothers and wives from punishment while shafting fathers and husbands with extreme prejudice, and a Crimson Pill on the primal sexual nature of even good-hearted, well-meaning women.
First, you take the Red Pill:
[My father] met my mother when she was just nineteen years old and he was considerably older. He never told her about his family back in Germany, and they married and had four children by the time my mother was 25 years old. My three brothers, and me.
And they were fucking horrible parents. There is no nice way to spin it. They embraced a religion that encouraged extreme violence against children. Their philosophy was that a child’s will must be completely broken so that the child will then accept the will of God. My mother was ecstatically violent, and my father less so, but they were both culpable. Their particular brand of religious violence continues in America to this day.
[…]
And then….my mother discovered feminism. She exchanged one violent, irrational, dehumanizing ideology for another, and she soon decided that she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. After countless physically violent arguments with my father, including one episode where she hit him in the head with a cast iron frying pan and left him for dead on the front porch, he turned his back and walked away from us, just like his first family.
One day we woke up and he was gone. My mother was quick to inform us that he simply walked away, and left us to starve in the streets, and that she alone would be the sole reason we survived and prospered. She never missed an opportunity to curse him. She told us about his first family, and how she did not need to divorce him, because they were never married in the first place. She hated him and hated all men and our daily lives were filled with her anger and vitriol and violence. She never gave a moment’s thought to what her hatred of men and our father was doing to her sons. She gave us daily rations of rage and blame and every bad thing that happened was always his fault.
Being a child, I believed it. So did my brothers.
And we loathed him for it. How could he leave us with such an evil woman? My mother once held a knife to my throat and made me beg for my life. When I was eleven. And I remember going to bed, thinking not how much I hated her, but how much I hated HIM for leaving us to her devices.
Turning children against fathers has been a female specialty since forever, but only the post-industrial man-hating femcunt dystopia we know as the progressive West institutionalized and weaponized this malevolent female predilection, by removing moral culpability from women and adding a presumption of guilt to men.
The Red Pill payoff (you knew this was coming):
And then I received a phone call. It was my father, calling to tell me that my mother’s mother had passed away, and that I should let her know. So much of the pain had seeped away that I felt confident confronting my father, and I asked him why he had done it.
Why did you just turn your back and walk away?
And then the truth came to light. He hadn’t walked away. He certainly had not left us to starve. My mother had filed for an annulment and requested a restraining order, which she was granted. When I finally saw my father again, he had two boxes with him. One was filled with income tax returns showing that he had never missed a child support payment, and court orders preventing him from seeing us based on his violence towards my mother, along with supervised visitations that were all scheduled for when he was overseas, working to meet his child support payments.
The other box contained cards and letters. Birthday cards and so many letters. All returned. By my mother. He never stopped sending them, hoping one of us would one day get the key and fetch the mail, but my mother was always adamant that the mail was her business.
As an adult, it makes so much sense. How did we continue to live in our house? How was my mother able to afford food and clothing and YMCA memberships for four children without my father’s support? Of course she had his support. But she hid it from us, and poisoned our minds against our father. It’s called parental alienation, and she is not the first, nor the last woman to destroy her children in this way.
It’s a special kind of evil.
In the end, she meets her father, he asks her forgiveness for the way he raised her before her mother excised him from his kids’ lives, she forgives him and welcomes him into her family, he gratefully becomes a much better grandfather to her kids than he was a father to her. As for the awful mother, JudgyBitch did to her what mom did to her dad: removed her from her life.
Nestled in the middle of this story is a Crimson Pill so big it’s a choking hazard.
Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly. I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father. Quite the opposite. I didn’t seek out pain in an effort to work through what I had suffered. I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy. He was the gentlest man I have ever known. And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.
He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to acquiesce to what I wanted, even though I never wanted anything bad. I could trust him to treat me with the utmost kindness and care, but I could not lean on him. That was impossible. I declined his proposal and moved on.
Appeasing, supplicating niceguys turn off women, because women perceive their niceness for weakness. And sometimes, the women are right. Very nice men who give women what they say they want, and who dutifully parrot feminist boilerplate and share the household chores under the false assumption that equality out of the bedroom is carnality in the bedroom, sow distrust in women.
Women trust the jerk because they know the jerk won’t tell them whatever he thinks will win their approval. And THAT’S how the jerk, ironically, wins their approval. By not trying for it.
A big reason women are attracted to jerkboys is the aversion jerkboys have for acquiescing to anyone’s demands, let alone women’s demands. That delightfully novel and romantically exhilarating jerkboy self-regard leaves a potent impression on women, who see refracted in the trait a forthrightness and strength of character and purpose that is lacking in niceguys.
Recall the CH Poon Commandments: You are the oak tree, immoveable and solid, under which she frolics and runs to when the rains come. She senses this strength in jerkboys because she can trust them not to bend to her whim, unlike niceguys who do nothing but bend and bend until they’re licking girls’ boots. And no tingle ever gushered for a polite lackey.
***
safespaceplaypen comments,
Thesis:
Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly. I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father. Quite the opposite…
Antithesis:
I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy. He was the gentlest man I have ever known. And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.
Synthesis:
He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit logic bullshit logic bullshit I declined his proposal and moved on.
Commenter Randon Guy points to a comment JudgyBitch made in which she described in more detail why she left her first niceguy boyfriend who helped her through the ordeal of her broken family.
Later on in the reply to the comment section so as to further explain why she said what she said about him being too weak.
She said partly it was because she couldn’t trust herself to be a good wife for him, that his willingness to bend over would end up with her mistreating him.
To some extent it seems like she was doing it to also avoid becoming like her father/mother had been.
This is pure post hoc, ergo propter hamster rationalization. Niceguys hear this crap all the time from women — a glorified it’s not you, it’s me — and it must drive them batty. Imagine you’re the niceguy dating JudgyBitch and she dumps you because…wait for it…she was afraid she would treat you like crap.
So treating him like disposable crap and dumping him is the solution to treating him like reusable crap while still fucking him.
You’d have to forgive a guy for thinking that’s a load of self-serving BS and the real reason is something else. The typical niceguy would be glad for more time in Pound Town and a chance to decide for himself if she’s mistreating him.
I don’t mean to pinch a steamer on JudgyBitch’s parade. As far as one can bitchily judge from a single blog post confessional, she seems like a decent woman who turned she life around. She made an edible omelette out of some very rotten eggs, defying what could have been her genetic fate. She doesn’t hate men, which is a minor miracle in this day and age. And scanning her archives, it appears she’s /ourgal/, so I can’t find it in me to savage her hamster too much.
But I will use her as a springboard to remind the beta males strolling into this happy hunting ground that whatever reason a woman gives you for dumping you, it’s WAAAAY downstream from the real reason, which is that your niceness shut off her tingle spigot.
The tingle is immunized against all rationalizations: one may call it a splooge, gush, womb flume, squirting hibiscus, it all runs off her vagina like tepid beta sperm off a greasy keyboard. But call the tingle a command center of the female vessel and you will be astonished at how she recoils, how injured she is, how she suddenly shrinks back: “I didn’t want to hurt him!”
This is important, because it gets to the heart of what this blog is about: Don’t listen to what women say; instead, watch what women do.
A woman will NEVER dump a niceguy because she’s afraid of hurting him. Or for any other rationalization that sounds good to community college couples therapists. A woman WILL dump a niceguy if she stops wanting to fuck him.
It’s only when a woman’s tingles dry up that the thought of her niceguy boyfriend touching her repulses her, and it’s only when that happens that she rationalizes plausible sounding but nevertheless fantastical reasons for why her labia furled like a slug under a shower of salt.
The Tingle is the gom jabbar. The one ring to rule them all. The Voight-Kampff replicant test. The cosmic palimpsest. The Prime Directive. The Force. Women DO NOT STOP FUCKING a man who gives them the Tingle. Women DO NOT DUMP a man who gives them the Tingle. Women DO DUMP a man, for sundry rationales, who is incapable of giving, or has stopped giving, them the Tingle.
Once the Tingle is gone, a woman’s heart is gone, and her head is recruited to gussy up the only reason for the coldness in her heart and vagina.
No matter how nicely a man treats a woman, no matter how much of a gentleman he is to her, she won’t love him as long as he doesn’t give her the Tingle. If a woman doesn’t feel the Tingle, she’ll rationalize any nice behavior from a niceguy as bad behavior, or as behavior that incites her to bad behavior. She will invent new and creative reasons for dumping the niceguy, reasons that could fill a ten page listicle in Teen Vogue, when the reducible truth is that his niceness desiccates her vagina.
Similarly, no matter how badly a man treats a woman, no matter how much of an asshole he is to her, she will not leave him as long as he gives her the Tingle. If she feels it, she’ll rationalize any shitty behavior from a man as good behavior, or as reasonable and predictable behavior caused by her own bad behavior, and invent new and creative reasons for staying with him. Sure she will bitch and moan and continually ignore her friends’ advice to dump him, but she’ll always run back to his arms, happy to be with the man who coaxes the Tingle from her. Maybe, some day in the distant future, she will have put up with enough of his assholery and decide leaving him is better than more Tingles, but she won’t do it without plenty of personal anguish, and she’ll never feel great about leaving him.
The niceguy? She’ll hardly spare a second for the pain of losing him. *shrug* No Tingle, No Linger. But he will make an appearance in a blog post about a journey of self-discovery, as the token emotional tampon.
***
Waffles comments,
Beginning to think that over 75% of LTRs are just window dressing and the majority of LTR and married couples are not happy. The best part of any relationship is pretty much universally accepted as the beginning. Once that is gone it is hard to get back to that point sexually. Which isn’t always a bad thing, but can quickly lead to other issues that are common in any LTR.
“The best part of any relationship is the beginning”. This is one of the ugliest truths. “Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be” is one of the prettiest lies to distract from that ugly truth.
All the passion, the white hot passion, the delirious vertiginous love, the beautiful obsession….it’s front-loaded, going downhill after (if you’re lucky) the first year or two. Later, tenderness and affection and maybe joy replace the passion, but the best part has been lost forever, to familiarity, age, time, and benumbing.
Londonistan calling. I can’t tell if this is subversive street art satirizing post-moderinity or a sincere cry for self-abnegation. The educated guess is that it’s sincere, given that White Brits have become a Jim Jones cuck cult.
We all need a dendrite cleanser after that: Based boy makes pro-White Pepe hand sign during a meeting with President Trump.
Look at the shit-eating smirk on that little Whitelord. America is gonna be all right, after all. In due time she’ll fall into the loving care of a whole generation of ZFG Trumps.
A reader remarks,
This is actually no joke lol I’ve seen several kids doing that shit constantly. I told one if he knew it’s a Nazi sign. He answers, and I quote:
“Yes I already knew it meant white power or something thats offensive to lesbian dance theory majors”
This kid is like 12 LOL
Let’s face it, secret society pro-white hand signals under the noses of the Globohomo elite that provoke the jewish interest media to spill vats of ink dissecting for nefarious intent are so much cooler than any rebellious act the Left has done in the past fifty years of their cultural dominance.
A lot of the hatred on the Left for the dissident Right is motivated by artistic and aesthetic envy. Case in point: If hillary had come up with MAGA, the Left would have creamed themselves over her superior branding skills.
Tales of woe and perfidy like this one abound. The sexual and marital markets are two way streets. It takes two to tango. If our culture and society degrade or flourish, it will be because men AND women contributed in their particular ways.
Ignore this lesson to polish the pussy pedestal, and you are complicit in whatever social dissolution follows.
Jay in DC writes as a jerk who earned his jerkitude the hard way — by circumstance and experience instead of gifted to him by the cosmic overlord.
I unfortunately find myself walking down this same road. But I got here in an odd way. I was on the OTHER side of this equation for almost a decade. Law Enforcement and Prison were my job. The thing is, because you are dealing with literal animals all day, its adapt or die. So you get hard as fuck just like the creatures you have to “handle”.
This is also when I noticed the pussy starting to flow like mana from heaven. Couple that with already being a bit of a natural alpha and very decent looking (think young pre-insane Charlie Sheen) and yeah… I slayed vag for 2 decades straight.
In the last few years, I was on the OTHER side of the bars and that shit ain’t no kinda fun. Not going to get into the whole story but I nearly was killed in the process by overzealous cocksuckers who like to play “soldier” against US Citizens. (read: SWAT faggots)
Survived, but it just made what I already was much much worse. I have true killer instinct now because if I’m ever threatened in such a way again, I will put you in the fucking ground even if I’m going with you.
The thing is, this is a double edged sword. You usually have to soften this up around chicks because if you are ‘full on’ they will be afraid. Some natural charisma will leave them fearful but turned on. It is a balancing act for certain.
That last paragraph is crucial. Most men don’t readily grasp how entwined fear and arousal are in women. When men are aroused by the sight of a hottie, fear is not the emotion rumbling through us. There’s a bit of fear just before the approach, but that’s the fear of rejection and hurt pride, not the fear of physical harm, and it vanishes as quickly as it appears. Women….they’re different. Powerful, dangerous men arouse them, but these men also could hurt them, badly, in ways Mean Girls can never do. That fear is always present in women and it’s always bound closely with the men women find most alluring — the jerks, the assholes, the powerful, the strong, the sociopathic, the charismatic, the passionate, the unpredictable, the ambitious, and the reckless. The irresistible man is also the uncontrollable man, and women are fated to love the very men who could crush them as easily as they crush weaker men.
So when women say they are “intimidated” by sexy men, they aren’t lying, nor are they denying their sexual interest. A sexy man is necessarily an intimidating man, in one form or another, or he wouldn’t be sexy to women. Fear and arousal are hitched to the female id and work in concert to coax her to a fulfilling relinquishment to the insistent and desirous sex of a powerful man. Grrlpower is a temporary phase shift in the sexual market; a response by women to the emasculated soyboys who leave them cold. What women really want, beneath the feminist posturing for social media head pats, is to embrace their vulnerability and repose in their femininity, reflected through the overpowering lust of a man who doesn’t take to the leash.
This is why dangerous men have to walk it back and soften their hard edge, and why your typical beta male mediocrity has to find his inner jerk and turn it up. Without that element of fear, women won’t feel the white hot passion they are all capable of feeling for a man. But too much fear and women’s survival instinct will override their desire. (Not all women, though. Many such cases of women ignoring their fear response in favor of their furrow response, and paying the toll later.) This is where the fear-charisma axis comes into play; charisma, aka a self-knowing facility with teasing banter, relaxes women just enough to allow their fear of a powerful man to sublimate as carnality. This is why a woman will sometimes confess in the afterglow that the idea of you “having your way with her” turned her on so much. That’s the chord of fear you skillfully plucked in her which merged with the rhythm of her desire to elevate her to ecstatic surrender.
I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing. – O
How the fuck do you deal with this shit? I’ll tell you. You surrender to it. Because the alternative is much much worse….for you.
I sleep easy at night knowing, or at least believing, that this ‘umble abode of Blood Squat rack Sex Realtalk helped birth and inspire the shitlord army about to descend on the land and crush the Globohomoists.
