Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Girls’ Category

…don’t do these “perfect responses”. Self-deprecation and tacit acknowledgment of one’s rejection may amuse an audience of Buzzfeeding drones, but it won’t make ginas jingle.

Ironically, one of the “perfect” text responses to a wordless antagonist unintentionally reveals the seductive power of “radio silence game”.

A little digging suggests the author of this particular text is a girl. Sarcastic nuance to the contrary notwithstanding, not texting back for hours does appear to be very adorable to chicks, because there she is sending out a distress signal for her silent suitor. Interest confirmed. (When a girl loses interest, or never had interest, she’s not thinking of you hours later.) If this guy were to reply “lol” right now, she’d be ready all over again to slip into her pretty panties and dream of his objectifying gaze.

So what do you do when a girl doesn’t text you back (say, after you’ve sent out a feeler text for a meet-up)?

  1. She will not reply. Don’t bother setting up a date. Her interest level isn’t strong enough. You’ve just saved an hour of your time and $20 for drinks.
  2. She will reply a few hours later, or the next day. She’s on the fence and probably dating other guys. Use your discretion to decide whether to give her the chance to enjoy the pleasure of your real live company on a date. If you’re juggling a lot of girls and getting laid already, you may want to skip these wafflers.
  3. She will reply within ten minutes. She’s into you. Take her on a date and bring a condom.

If a girl doesn’t text you back within a reasonable window of time (two days, max), don’t bother trying to reopen the lines of communication. Her interest level is zero and she’s hoping you forgot you met her.

That said, there is a case to be made for attempting something on a long shot. It’s not like texting is any serious expenditure of your time or effort. So, for example, let’s say you’ve heard nothing from a girl you texted three days ago about meeting up. A last ditch text that might bring her fold back into your fold is this favorite of mine:

“made you look”

It’s funny, it’s non-needy, and it’s low expectation. (Don’t forget insouciantly unpunctuated, your liege.) Most intransigent girls will respond to the above.

Another one I sometimes use on disappearing act girls:

“hey carrie, drinks thur at [x], 8pm”

The bite in this broadcast happens to be the fact that “carrie” is not the name of the girl I’m texting. She reads it, wonders who Carrie is, and feels compelled to respond in some manner. Her response could be positive or negative, and it doesn’t matter, because *any* response from a girl is better than no response. A talking girl you can work with; a silent girl is unreachable. She might therefore reply,

“I’m not Carrie”

…to which I would say “close?” and wait to see if she chomps on the stinky bait.

Texting has really opened up a world of experimental game possibilities because of its low barrier to entry (pun intended). Phone calls are emotionally draining for many men and require focus on multiple attractiveness cues, like vocal tone. Plus, girls are readier to ignore phone calls than they are texts, for similar reasons as men are to avoid making phone calls: There are more mate value variables of which to be cognizant in a phone call than there are in text.

Read Full Post »

How should a man respond when his woman has begun sexually withdrawing from him? This post will examine the issue and offer a method called the “De-escalation Ladder” that reforms women’s bad behavior and robs them of the ability to use sex as a weapon.

For those unfamiliar with pickup literature, the De-escalation Ladder is based off Vin DiCarlo’s “Escalation Ladder” concept of speedily and deliberately moving a courtship to sex. The Escalation Ladder

…is a step-by step formula, followed by a number of laws which govern it’s use for maximum effect. It is designed to provide a smooth escalation, containing no significant jumps that may cause a woman to object. At the same time, the [EL] contains no extraneous steps which are non-essential to the seduction process. This results in a FAST escalation sequence which is compatible with a variety of verbal structures, and has been field tested and perfected by myself, Vincent DiCarlo, in hundreds of trials.

There is an inherent value and attractiveness to a man who can escalate in such an intelligent and socially aware manner, which is why your verbal content does not matter very much when using this method.

The idea is that if you aren’t physically (if not verbally) escalating a girl through all the stages of seduction and through her natural reticence to engage sexually, you risk stagnation and losing her interest or, worse, getting slotted into the dreaded friendzone. A.B.E. Always. Be. Escalating. Why? Because women reward men who take the initiative, particularly early on when their antennae are exquisitely tuned for any arousing signals of alpha male sexual entitlement.

DiCarlo’s historical tome is still relevant, and worth reading in full. The basics of his Escalation Ladder are, in order of application:

1. Strong eye contact.
2. Incidental asexual touch (aka kino).
3. Overt asexual touch.
4. Incidental intimate touch.
5. Overt intimate touch.
6. Incidental erogenous touch.
7. Overt erogenous touch (pre-kiss kino).

Total time for the above: 30 minutes – 4 hours. After you have isolated her in a sex location, proceed to

8. Kissing.
9. Kissing her neck.
10. Touching her bare back below her shirt.
11. Stomach to stomach contact.
12. Touching her bare body (breast inclusion not necessary).
13. Incidental vaginal stimulation.
14. Direct vaginal stimulation from back.
15. Direct vaginal stimulation from front.
16. Remove her clothes for sex.

Steps 8 – 16 can take as short as 15 minutes. Any resistance during any step is handled by backing off a little and continuing with the previous step until the next one is “unlocked”.

That’s the Escalation Ladder. What about the Dark Heartiste’s inverse, the De-escalation Ladder? Just as you “escalate” a girl toward sex, you “de-escalate” from a girl who is withdrawing sexually. ELs are about rewarding girls to encourage good (read: sexual) behavior, DELs are about removing rewards (read: validation) from girls to discourage bad behavior.

Note the distinction between “removing rewards” and “punishment”. Punishment — the kind that’s intentional, obvious, and reactive — can often backfire on a man. If the girl perceives her punishment as immediate retribution for something she did to (or is not doing for) the man, she will accept that as validation of her higher relative SMV. Punishment, therefore, should be wielded with expert care, which means it’s ideally cloaked in a veneer of plausible deniability. The best punishment in matters of fraying romance is not the whip, but the poison.

The CH maxim — Punish promptly, reward intermittently — is not violated by this nuance. A reckless inadvertent punishment can be executed as promptly as a retributive deliberate punishment.

Not all retributive punishment is ineffective, however. At the highest levels of female id manipulation, a mix of purposeful and inadvertent punishment with oddly-timed rewards delivers an intoxicating ambiguous message that can so sufficiently stir fears of abandonment and incoherent jealousy that a woman will find herself defenseless to recapture lost relationship hand. She’ll be incensed to offering generous servings of her sex with no contractual obligations just to keep herself in your game. Any man who’s been fortunate to receive such desperate magnanimity from a woman will tell you it’s heaven on earth. The closest we have, in fact, to unconditional love in this corporeal realm.

The De-escalation Ladder follows a similar, albeit invidious mirror image, progression as the Escalation Ladder. As reader Arred explained,

…progressive punishments and withdrawal techniques tailored to waning interest and misbehavior at various levels of severity.  Kind of like the color coded terror threat level chart, for the gradations of dread required to regain hand.

Assuming your wife or girlfriend or fling or lust target has begun the (emotional or sexual) Withdrawal Protocol, the De-escalation Ladder sequence of responses that follow would be:

1. Break rapport.

Cut her off mid-sentence to talk to someone else, or to switch to your own subject of interest. Negs are also a type of rapport break.

2. Indicate disinterest (IOD).

For example, “It’s a good thing I’m not trying to pick you up.” Make feints toward hooking her up with “one of your niceguy buddies”.

3. Backturn.

Literally turn your back on the girl. Don’t act peeved. Do it with a wan smile or a neutral expression. If she’s says, “That’s rude”, you’ve won the battle. Pretend like you don’t know what you did wrong.

4. Break physical contact.

Stop touching her. When she goes to touch you, gently move away from her. Perhaps with a  sly grin, warn her against “moving too fast” for your comfort. Breaking physical contact can include putting your clothes back on (an especially potent form of hamster torture if done prior to her redressing herself).

If she goes for a goodbye reconciliation kiss, pull back and say “whoa, that’s a little needy” or “hey, I only do that with girlfriends/lovers”.

5. Break emotional contact.

Emotional connection is more important to women than physical connection. Any bedroom cop-out that plowing won’t fix should be answered with a feigned distraction. Your eyes will drift to magazines, the internet (to “read some new emails”), video games, or even text messages from “some quirky friends”. (A girl will always presume a quirky friend is a female “friend”.) You will not act spitefully; it will appear as if your attention merely got captured by something more entertaining.

Mystery calls this the “freeze-out”, and it’s effective, but only if you pull it off with a credible thoughtlessness. At no point should your voice betray a hurt pride or impatience.

Note: Do NOT freeze-out until you have exhausted your mental reserve for pushing her toward sex. Girls love to “be taken”, and you don’t want to misinterpret that peculiarly female desire for sexual frigidity.

Over the longer term, emotional disengagement would include things like terse conversations, diminishing nonsexual time together, provisioning withdrawal, and a careless attitude toward her promised fidelity or threats of infidelity.

6. Depart under mysterious circumstances.

If you’re at her place and a freeze-out isn’t logistically possible, leave. No need to give a reason, just say you “have to go, it’s important”.

It’s incredibly powerful to depart in this manner before you’ve been pushed to it. If you sense even a little bit of withdrawal from a girl, but still far from complete withdrawal when her interest has subsided faster than her curiosity remains engaged, you can say “We’ll catch up another time” and leave her to ponder what the hell just happened.

This is also known as a “takeaway”, or leaving on a high note.

7. Ignore her efforts to get back in contact with you.

Keep her on tenterhooks. Wait a day or two before texting or calling her back. When you do reply and she wonders why you didn’t answer right away, deflate her indignation with a caustic reframe. “I didn’t know we were married!”

8. Initiate the “cheating in my heart” gambit.

Now we’re moving toward strategies to deal with relationship trouble. This is when the infamous “dread game” comes into play. Many powerful tactics are described in that seminal post, so I’ll just wrap them under a single umbrella here called “she wants what she can’t have (or is starting to lose)”. Making late night phone calls with girls’ voices in the background, flirting with other women (either over the phone or in front of her), turning off your phone during seduction hours (after 5pm), making offhand remarks about your sexually voracious exes, polluting your social media space with pics of you in the company of other women, commenting how much you appreciate being “single and free”, scattering “other woman” props around your bachelor pad, and generally acting as if you’re sexually satisfied and not needing her particular brand of physical release are all TNT to a sexually withdrawing woman’s self-conception.

9. Keep two in the kitty.

It’s a Poon Commandment for a reason. The ultimate de-escalation hand over a game-playing woman is another woman. Drained balls won’t betray you. De facto harems are self-perpetuating. The bigger your harem, the more women want in. Sad but true.

10. Actually cheat.

When steps 1-9 fail, you have to deploy the BFG. (childhood Doom ref) Cheat. Get caught. Don’t apologize, but say you’d still like it to work out between the two of you (meaning your withdrawing gf, not your mistress).

11. Break up with her.

Believe it or not, there is something even more emotionally explosive to a woman than catching her man cheating. Preemptively breaking up with her is the Excalibur of shivs. You will hew her ego in half. If you’re married, unceremoniously announce you want time to yourself, and check out. For added impact, slip out the back Jack and lodge your plea for freedom via absentee breakfast table letter.

As women, slave to their hypergamous instinct, are the initiators of 70+% of divorces, so too are they the initiators of the majority of unmarried relationship break-ups. Given this reality, the man who initiates a break-up packs an outsized wallop to a woman’s bloated sense of sexual worth. To a woman, getting dumped must be similar to what a world class chef feels when a starving man turns his nose up at his buffet of scrumptious pastries. Unimaginable.

This is why, when you break up with girls, few will happily or serenely accede to your judgment. Not even those who were having doubts will be able to accept your resignation with tact or calm relief. 9 out of 10 times she will forget all about her prior sexual indecisiveness as she surrenders to a sudden and inexplicable urge to win your favor, like a schoolgirl with a crush on the class badboy. Over the next weeks, you’ll get voicemails and texts and emails pleading for a reconciliation, or an explanation. When she is at the breaking point and starved for your attention, slide a bowl of gruel under the door of her solitary confinement. Wonder, “maybe we could work this out” and recline in libertine splendor as the year closes out with her glued in obedience to your member.

***

The De-escalation Ladder is excerpted from the darkest pages of the tomes of the crimson arts. Few delve here, fewer still delve and attempt to put the devil’s instruction to practice. And the fewest possible can muster the state control to apply the lessons as intended. And yet, when you see the results for yourself, you’ll learn to your great shame that the De-escalation Ladder can be as strangely enjoyable as the traditional Escalation Ladder is exciting. Proceed with caution.

Read Full Post »

One of the more amusing private pains-turned-public spectacle to leak out of an internet pustule recently graced the combox of Reddit (/r/relationship). A sexually deprived married man (but I repeat myself) crafted a meticulous spreadsheet documenting the number of times his wife denied him sex and the excuses she gave each time. He then emailed this “unspread”sheet to his wife while she was away on business (red flag right there). She went public with it, hoping to both shame her thirsty hubby and to trawl for advice from male feminists that would rub the fur of her hamster with the grain.

at least she didn’t use “i have a headache”

For those keeping score, that’s three marital congresses out of twenty-eight attempts, for an 11% successful lay ratio.

An 11% lay ratio is pretty good for the average single beta male picking up girls (1 out of 10 approaches yields sex), but horrible for a married man who pledged his freedom, natural polygynous urge, and HALF to a woman who presumably loves her husband unto death, and who tacitly agreed by signing the marriage contract to offer her body on a regular basis to him.

But as visitors to Chateau Heartiste know, marriage is no respite from the perpetually clanking meat machine of the sexual market. If you recline into complacently dull beta maleness, you will lose your wife’s desire to please you as readily as you would lose a girlfriend’s, or a fling’s, desire. Worse, if you make the mistake of thinking that marriage will energize your wife’s sexual cravings beyond the limp gestures she had exhibited toward you pre-marriage, you’ll learn soon enough that the line that is dotted is not the ‘gine that is prodded.

No marriage contract in the world is sufficiently coercive to wrest sexual desire from the limbic node of a woman’s arousal center. Sexual desire is an animal instinct that predates legal fictions or social expectation. If the animal slumbers, “talking it out” or making it promises won’t rouse it to rutting; the animal must be confronted on its own terms, with equally primal cues that waken its instinct to mate.

The trope of the married man reduced to begging for sex from his wife stricken with yet another “headache” is a stereotype for a reason. These things hardly ever materialize out of thin air. But exactly how many married men labor in the purgatory known as the thirstzone? Numbers are hard to come by, although General Social Survey wizards have played the contrarian and dug up data suggesting married men have slightly more sex on average than unmarried men.

The problem with that survey data, beyond the inherent flaws of self-reporting and social expectation bias (and burning shame), is that the huge swell of omega and lesser beta single men who suffer involuntary celibate lives greatly skews the stats to promote an illusion that married men enjoy a cornucopia of sex (with one woman, let it be reminded). This incel ballast must be jettisoned to get a truer picture of what kind of sex lives married men actually enjoy. If the typical married man gets laid once per month (as our pubic flogging victim above has documented), then a more accurate assessment of his bounty would come from comparison to unmarried men who aren’t hopeless sex market rejects.

Compared to an incel, once per month married sex sounds like a pretty good deal. Compared to single men with girlfriends, fuck buddies, and flings tossed in for flavor, once per month sex sounds like painful blue balls. Ask any single man what a year-long relationship with a hot girlfriend is like, and he’ll tell you it’s a copulation carnival. His married buddies will turn green with envy.

As often surfaces on megafeminist sites like Reddit, hackneyed hackers and bromide belchers rush to fill the void of useful advice with Hivemind-approved diagnoses that abjure the wife of even the tiniest bit of responsibility for her role in her husband’s desperate sexual deprivation. Two common refrains — the husband isn’t doing enough to “support” his wife, and the wife has “low libido” — receive rounds of applause from the benighted.

These are handy rationalizations without a scintilla of realistic relevancy. In the real world, husbands who support the shit out of their wives are often less sexually rewarded than husbands who follow a program of benevolent sexism. And no scientist has yet, to my satisfaction, proven that there is an epidemic of pathologically low libido among married women. What is much more likely is that married men are, or become, less sexually stimulating to their wives, and the infamous “low libidio” of their wives is nothing more than selective female libido. Divorcee tell-alls revel in confessions of rejuventated sex lives once the beta provider hubby package was sent adrift.

A married man stuck in the thirstzone is not without options. Mistresses have traditionally been outlets for such men, and the culture used to give a wink and a nod to such arrangements, because the culture used to have a healthy and normal appreciation and acceptance of innate sex differences, before everything turned to poopytalk and hamster fuel.

There, too, is the advice offered by this very outpost of recivilization: A dab of dread will make legs spread. The poor sexless husband who attempted to shame his wife into fulfilling his most basic need in a marriage has, by accounts, ended all contact with her. Radio silence, while not the ideal solution to such crises of the cunt, is better than abject mewling and prone apologia. It has, at the least, made his wife think so hard about her lack of desire for her husband that she has taken to an internet forum full of spergs to find serenity now.

Dread game works, but only if the timing and execution occur before betatization has metastasized. A husband who repulses his wife is in a sorry position from which no remedy will work within a time frame not measured in years. The unspreadsheet man had undoubtedly been suffering months, perhaps years, of sexual isolation from his wife before he became so desperate that he felt it necessary to painstakingly chronicle his pain and accost her with it while she was at a hotel bar thinking about unleashing her inner bed fiend with a business associate.

At that late stage, any active effort to reverse his misfortune would be perceived as spite by his carnally estranged wife, stemming from a place of hurt and neediness. Perception is king in the mating arena, and butthurtness is kryptonite to women’s horny levels. The proper dose of dread needed to be delivered earlier, under circumstances less likely to be confused for vengeance.

The most effective punishment for a sexually withdrawing wife is punishment that can be construed as inadvertent. A woman is validated equally by intentional punishment as by intentional reward; both tell her “I’m so desired I rouse my husband to flattery and to retribution.” And a validated woman is an unpliable woman.

But punishment that appears almost “off-hand”, or apathetic and callous, is gold. This is the kind of punishment of female misbehavior (and, yes, denial of historically regarded marital duties counts as misbehavior) that strikes wee hamster nerves. It’s the punishment of indifference that follows when a husband’s mind has started wandering to thoughts of other women. The classic “late night phone call to wife with girls laughing in the background” ploy is an example of indifference punishment.

Wives can handle being punished when it validates their higher status. Cause-and-effect kneejerk punishment won’t rattle their self-possession or shake them into suddenly renewed desire. But no woman, wifed up or not, can handle being an afterthought to her man without compensating for her perceived demotion with reinvigorated lust.

This type of “punishment by gradually escalated indifference” of wayward wives/girlfriends — what a reader suggested can be called the “De-escalation Ladder” — will feature in a future post.

***

PS: Here’s an example from real life of “accidental” dread game in action.

Read Full Post »

An attractive woman emptied her brain bowels online and pinched off a tapered string of sentences so vapid that you would be challenged to find a more inane splatter of poopytalk. From her article at a site called The Daily Love, titled “You do not have to prove yourself to anyone“, in which she tries to prove her point of view to anyone reading, the following nugget is excavated:

As a soul sister to many, I often find myself being called upon for a variety of supporting reasons. Today, I got a phone call from a fellow goddess and she was in absolute disarray. She was, well, a hot mess.

Separately, each of those sentences is empty überfeels nonsense. Together, they create a kind of super storm of silly doublethink (why would a goddess be in disarray?), solipsistic posturing, and infantile prattle.

This is your modern American woman with a cable modem. The internet, among its pantheon of induced pathologies, has had as well the salutary (sadistic?) effect of exposing dim-witted women, and particularly the attractive ones, to criticism and mockery of their forehead furrowing thoughts that they normally would not experience in the real world where people are politer and men more indulgent of non-obese fuckables.

This doesn’t seem to thwart the flow of distaff nonsense, though. Instead of retreating to lick their wounds and go back to doing what they do best — defer to the man of the house — they circle the wagons and soundproof their echo chambers. But the walls come tumbling down eventually. Some of the shivs must penetrate; expect an epidemic of mental illness among our wired women in the coming years.

Read Full Post »

A particular paradox of the sexual market is one that works in the favor of men. More precisely, men with balls. It’s what I call the “Prime Pussy Paradox”.

Reader Scott explains,

I’m 48 years old, overweight, and out of practice after being married for 20 years. But I’ve still never understood the fear of approaching women. In my younger days, I dated roommates at the same time, a Playboy model, and regularly bagged ladies in the 8-10 range.

Now I have a 24 year old son. I told him when he was a teenager, that the easiest way to get a hot chick to go out with you is to simply ask. Since most guys are too wimpy to approach a 9 or 10, it is actually the girls in the 6-8 range that get hit on the most. In reality, 10′s get hit on less, and are easier to pick up than the less attractive girls in the 6-8 range.

That is the honest truth – believe it or not.

I believe it, because I’ve experienced the same. As have many of my player buddies. That sexy 8 will give you a warmer smile and more feminine charm than that ego-inflated 6 with a chip on her shoulder who’s had to deflect the horny intrusions of a hundred middling beta males who thought that 6 would be easy pickings.

The Prime Pussy Paradox states that the very hottest girls – high 8s, 9s and 10s — get hit on less frequently and by fewer men than do women in the “pump&dumpable” or “cute” range from 4 to 7s, and that this male approach skew psychologically grooms the hotter girls to be more excited when a man does boldly hit on them. The essence of the PPP is that hot girls are often MORE APPROACHABLE than cute or, god forbid, plain girls.

Why is the PPP a valid concept? The intersection of a woman’s self-esteem (modulated by her intrinsic hotness and the male attention she expects to get based on her self-perceived hotness) and a man’s sexually entitled boldness is where love explodes. A handy graph visualizes the phenomenon.

PPP

The black line represents a hot woman with unmodified self-esteem; that is, self-esteem which exists in a sexual market with perfect mate information flow where she gets exactly the amount of attention that her looks should theoretically command.

Naturally, such a world doesn’t exist, because men don’t make a decision to approach based entirely on a woman’s looks. Men also internally calculate their risk of rejection and their own courtship savviness. Which is where the red and green lines fit in. A woman with immoderately high self-esteem (green line) — i.e., a woman who thinks more of her mate value than her looks inform — will be a tough rut to shellac. A man would need to be very bold (and skilled) to hurdle the huge cockblock that is her bloated self-esteem.

A woman with immoderately low self-esteem (red line) — i.e., a woman who thinks less of her mate value that her hotness would conceivably suggest — will be an easier target than presumed, and who won’t require preternatural reserves of boldness to seduce. These women are a dying breed in America, (bloated self-esteems, along with bloated bodies, are the growing female demographic), but they do exist, and happily enough, they exist in surprisingly disproportionate number among the very hottest women whom men imagine are the least likely to have lower-than-expected sexual-esteems.

Like an information bottleneck in the stock market, the PPP is a sexual market vulnerability which can be exploited by fearless men with insider connections. 9s and 10s (and most 8s) don’t get conspicuously hit on as much as 4s, 5s, 6s, and 7s. Consequently, hot girls tend to harbor stirrings of doubt about their SMV. Their egos (and love lives) hunger for proof of validation, and they gorge on the rare direct attentions of bold men who aren’t afraid of or humbled by their beauty.

There are limits to the PPP exploit. Very low SMV men won’t be able to capitalize on it with the same profitability as moderate SMV men. The sweet spot is a man one to three SMV points lower than the hot girl, and who acts with the prerogative of a man with equal (sex-adjusted) SMV to the hot girl. Male 6s and 7s (as ranked along male-specific measurements of attractiveness) who approach with the bold intention of a male 9 can “shock” a female 9 into aroused curiosity.

Now some of you are wondering, “Don’t hot girls get a lot of leers from admiring men?” Sure, but female self-esteem operates as a more complex feedback system than male self-esteem. A female 9 will receive ten times the number of head snaps from men than will a female 7 (it’s exponential), but she’ll also receive ten times FEWER the number of intentional approaches from men than will the female 7. Women register the glances from afar, but the bold approach is so unmistakable in intention that it counts for more as a self-esteem boosting factor.

Hot women, experiencing a relative paucity of men hitting on them compared to that experienced by mediocre-looking women, tend as a result to carry less ego-stroked baggage. They are more grateful, and more interested, when a man dares to pierce their bubble of hotness. To approach such a beauty as she, why this man must truly be worth her company!

Read Full Post »

Women project their charisma-induced arousal onto men. Men project their visually-induced arousal onto women. And where the streams of these two projections meet, confusion and frustration with the seemingly strange behavior of the opposite sex emerge.

Commenter AErickson perceptively observes,

I have a little under 9% body fat, a good amount of lean muscle fiber, visible abdominal muscles, etc., and can generally concur that it really is not that useful in attracting women. Further, in line with your argument that women are generally pretty solipsistic when it comes to bodies, when first seeing me shirtless, women are more likely to comment “Wow, how much do you workout/I wish I had your flat stomach!” then they are to comment “So sexy/I want your body/etc.” I workout because I enjoy it and because I care about my health; for attracting women it is more important to focus on other things, like charisma and outside passions.

This rings true, because I’ve heard (in context) the same lines from women, almost verbatim.

In relation to the functioning of the sexual market and how women perceive men’s bodies, it’s useful to think of male looks and physique as an inspiring aesthetic rather than a perspiring analeptic. Men hunger at the sight of women’s sexy bodies; women appreciate the sight of men’s masculine bodies (and then wonder if the man behind the body is interesting). As Elaine said, men’s bodies are utilitarian, like Jeeps, built to get things done.

While this formulation is by no means exclusive of overlap or exceptions, as a general rule it works well. A man with a good body is like a fine sculpture, or a technological wonder; enjoyable for women to admire and to uncover the artist’s or engineer’s intent, perhaps even going so far as to use the work of art for a solipsistic moment of self-reflection.

A woman with a good body is art, but she is also a drug, stimulating instant desire in men that is like the human aesthetic sense distilled in raw form to its ancestral animal essence, whereby the object is not to admire, but to consume.

Women can be stimulated to instant, wall-climbing desire as well, but it usually requires more… much more… than a muscular body. If you want to know what instant, insistent, existential female horniness looks like, go to high society parties and watch how they behave in the company of a famous or powerful man.

Read Full Post »

If you waste ten minutes of your life scanning relationship or dating advice from female columnists, one theme you’ll often read is the belief that compliments and flattery are the way to a woman’s heart. Naturally, as it goes with 99% of the “””wisdom””” of your feminist elders, this advice is a crock. Any man who has interacted with live women in anything other than a submissive capacity will quickly learn from experience the self-defeating consequences of attempting to court women with compliments.

Reader Joe Sixpack forwards an example of the awful advice you’ll ingest from Hivemind drones, and of the glimmering shards of Realtalk that are beginning to pierce the veil of vapidity,

A Game element leaks out, of all places, a Yahoo! message board comment:

This was regarding an article that said, “Here’s a wakeup call for you: Women spend an average of 55 minutes getting ready every morning — frittering away the equivalent of 6.4 hours a week, or 335 hours a year, on looks alone, a new survey finds. ”

There is a good way to reduce these numbers. Men, tell your woman that she is pretty. I once dated a guy who told me on a regular basis how pretty I was, how much he loved my eyes, how I was the smartest girl he had ever dated, ect. Who cares if he didn’t mean all of it, it made me feel good. I started wearing a little less makeup and found simpler ways to do my hair just so I could get over to his house early before work. He still said the same things. Sadly the whole thing started to go downhill after his daughter called me mom. Now I’m married to a man who never tells me I’m pretty, smart, ect. I put on loads of makeup and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention with no success. I have decided to use up my makeup and only replace the ones I really care for. Maybe he will notice when I’m no longer trying to dress like the playboy playmates he claims he wants.

So, the one beta guy tells her how hot/smart/etc. she is all the time. The result? She turns frumpy and obviously is no longer with him.

She is now married to a man who never tells her such things. The result? She puts on “loads of make up and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention” and dresses “like the playboy playmates he claims he wants”.

[Ed note: Link no longer works.]

You can sometimes pry nuggets of truth from women, but it requires a facility with comprehending subtext. Women will drop clues revealing their true feelings stuffed between over-sized cushions of egoistic pabulum.

Do you want to persuade your girlfriend or wife to keep up her looks? (And if you’re a non-gay man with T readings above 0.1 ng, you will.) Then keep her on her toes.

Maxim #101: Compliments breed complacency. Critique breeds conciliation. A woman will never work as hard for a man’s approval as when his approval is most elusive.

Read Full Post »

Regular readers who are familiar with the long-running CH series cheekily titled “Chicks dig jerks” will fall deeply in love (or hate) with this study, which just touched down like an F5 tingle in the Provencal lap of the Chateau Lordship.

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

Did you hear that thpppft? That was every prostrate manlet, peeved tradcon, and jizzebel gorgon loading their diapers in unison.

It’s as if ❤SCIENCE❤ thumped the great brass triskelion knocker on the oak doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, and uttered upon entrance, “I’m home”.

You’ll excuse me if I allow myself this moment of grandiosity. In keeping with the tenor, it’s well-deserved.

The concordance of this study with observations put forth over the years here at CH, and with the near-daily drumbeat of news stories about women falling hard for all sorts of badboys who flout convention, the law, and others’ well-being, should give the shibbolethians who nurse an ego-wounded hatred for CH pause. The hammer blows they have been taking to the noggin must surely be leaving an impression by now.

But if morale isn’t yet up to snuff, I guess the beatings will have to continue!

criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships.

Single mommery has exploded in the last two generations. If that isn’t a sign of low parental investment and low commitment to reproductive relationships, what is? Exposure?

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

laughing all the way to the end.

Paging Audacity of huge

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.

It takes two to tango. And badboys tango with a lot of willing dance partners (women who inexplicably lose their attentiveness to contraception use when beguiled by badboys). That part about criminal offenders being more likely to get remarried is telling; if an asshole has a little bit of a soft spot for (ceremonial) monogamy, he’ll have an easier time finding a second wife than the niceguy who got eatpraydumped by his bored wife. It appears that Swedish women (the most evolved of white women, wags may note), when they are presented with badboys from a broken marriage, can’t wait to offer themselves as second chance redemption to such misunderstood paragons of maleness.

Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

There’s a rumor spread from certain sectors of female astonishment that men with significant sexual histories turn off women.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country

Where have the enlightened CH readers come across a variant of this formulation before?

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

It’s clarifying to think of women as having two core sexual natures that can shift at the margins in the direction of favoring the expression of one or the other, and thus influencing mating behavior, in response to rapid and sweeping environmental cues. Scientifically, these core sexual strategies are known as r- and K-selection, the former epitomized in nature by the fast-breeding, fast-dying small mammal (mouse) and the latter by the slow-breeding, slow-dying large mammal (elephant).

For practical everyday purposes, the human female desire template is largely immutable. Feminist delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, you aren’t going to realign female nature to conform more closely with male sexual nature, (say, by making casual sex less emotionally impacting on women). However, if you had the power to perform an unethical experiment and rearrange society in the trajectory it has taken organically (or perhaps conspiratorially) in the West these past 100 years, you would begin to perceive changes, subtle at first and building to pandemic scale, in the choices and courtship rituals that women abide. You may, for example, start to see women pulling away from beta male providers and indulging more frequently their latent lust for exciting badboys.

What this study above is saying, and what CH has been saying for years based on real world experience in the urban wench trenches, is that criminality — in its milder, accessible form, jerkboy charisma — is quickly becoming a favored male trait by women, who are choosing these men using the only instrument that matters: their vaginas. When life is easy and contraceptives flow like the River Orinoco, women get bored and seek the orgasmic release of aloof, reckless, throwback assholes. Women in modern industrialized nations come to desire the sexiness over the security.

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks.

I’ll leave it to the reader to infer the nuances of meaning from this maxim. Hint: “muh dik” is not an escape hatch.

This transformation in female mate choice doesn’t have to be huge to have a deleterious effect on civilized prosperity. In fact, changes at the margins can be enough to send the entire system careening into a tailspin. Like an advantageous allele, you move the badboy-loving needle from 1% to 2% and some serious consequences will accrue in a few generations’ time.

Now, I didn’t have a team of PhDs to confirm my hunches for me. All I had was my senses and my time in the company of the modern civilized American woman. I could see it all around me, what was happening. I had stories from my ancestors to compare my own experiences, and the contrast was striking. I figured change was going down, and a theory emerged.

and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

In the land of the deferential beta male, the rule-breaking alpha is king.

Permit yer ‘umble Poonstradamus another theory-of-everything prophecy: This *could* end well.

I’ll explain. As of now, the situation looks bleak. Criminals and cads monopolizing the prime sex years of Western women. Beta males being left with the used-up hags as recompense. r-selection creating perverse incentives that divide men from women, family from community, people from nation. A surge of bastards set to steamroll over the culture in the coming decades. Crushing debt loads piling up as once-dutiful citizens, aided and abetted by diversity, move toward a pragmatic philosophy of looking out for number one and shredding the safety net for filaments of silver.

Alpha fux, beta bux is credit-rolling bacchanalia, a temporary condition which must find its denouement in the ruin of a civilization abandoned by its watchmen and looted by its jackals.

How could this possibly end well?

Note the study participants: Swedes. People from a nation which is the pinnacle, or nadir, of feminized manboobery. This is a nation that is asphyxiating under the weight of its own feminist crackpottery. Perhaps, in a moment of hope, we can see the outline of a future Sweden where harder, sterner men — the issue of all those womb-widening orgasmic shrieks of delight squeezed from the firm choking grips of badboys — resume their place at the genetic table. Sweden’s jerkboy-chasing women may be, unwittingly, judging their emasculated beta males unfit for further propagation, and populating a future reborn Sweden with psychopath protectors of their way of life.

The Vikings (or Moors) may rise again.

***

This post went way beyond what I intended it to be — just another shiv in the crusty hides of deluded freaks. As much as I love to tune my twelve-string to their wails of pain, there is a benefit in all these “chicks dig jerks” posts for the common man who wants more, and better, love in his life. Think of the series as a field book to navigate modern womanhood. Dependability, humor, taking girls on interesting dates, paying their way… these things don’t cut it anymore. You need edge. You need aura. You need an asshole attitude.

You don’t need to commit crimes (although it can only help). You do need to be a little less deferential, and a little more inconsiderate, to the civilized Western woman if you want to make a positive impression on her.

You can already see signs, if you’re willing to look, of a trend among men toward maximizing their alpha traits (often at the expense of their beta traits) so that they are better equipped to leverage the modern mating market. It’s no coincidence that interest in testosterone replacement is sweeping through online discourse.

Our civilization is getting plundered, and women are first to the treasure chest with their grubby hands. You can lament this turn of affairs and withdraw from a fulfilling sex and love life, or you can do what is necessary to enjoy the rewards of women’s love that your civilization-building great-grandfather enjoyed when the wild sex compulsions of his time’s women were wisely constrained by better men.

You won’t stop this juggernaut of decivilization. It’s too big and moving too fast. Like the fate of empires that have come and gone before, it has to finish its preordained path of destruction. Something good may rise from the flattened earth, but in the meantime, poolside is the only sensible choice.

Read Full Post »

Vitaly rents a Lamborghini and picks up girls without saying a word.

I laughed. Some of you cried. Is it staged? Maybe. Is it plausible? Yes. And did you see the cameo appearance?

zoom zoom!

If you have a son about to enter manhood, and you want to impart a quick lesson in women, you won’t go wrong having him watch this video.

Read Full Post »

There’s a lot of chatter among the cuntocracy about how men aren’t “manning up” and doing their duty to marry off all the single ladies. But maybe, just maybe, part of the reason for this male abdication of the sacred institution of marriage is the poor quality of the women on offer.

Just how bad is the marriageable American female market? Jay in DC writes,

‘Hot 99.5′ is basically the hippest and most relevant DC radio station in that it has the youngest listener demographic.

They are currently holding a contest for “new brides” to post their hottest photo to win the contest (1,000 dollar prize). Now granted, more intelligent chicks are probably NOT going to put their pic out there. But there are about 100 submissions up there already so this is a pretty good cross-section of not only DC, but really the US.

Behold men, and look upon your ruination. Betas WILL marry anything. ANYTHING, and this is what keeps the perpetual cycle of disgusting fat entitled average americunts reproducing.

I really advise you take the 15 minutes or so to REALLY look at every photo. This is our future. Out of those 100 photos there are FIVE women I would date, a few more I would fuck, and 3 I would marry if they had the classic femininity to go with their looks.

That is a SAD ASS RATIO. 97 to 3 in a pretty good statistical sample are marriageable? Welcome to the USSA.

http://www.hot995.com/contests/summer-bridal-showdown/297456/Vote/photoDetail/402513

p.s. Don’t bother posting comments, they will be shot down in seconds, just enjoy the grotesquery that is these women in bridal gowns.

Browsing the blushing attention whores, I’d have to concur with Jay’s assessment; the majority of the American East Coast brides are beastly. Beauty and the beast, inverted.

Beta males won’t marry anything. That is a stretch. Ugly, older, masculine, and fatter women DO pay marriage marketplace costs that you won’t be able to readily discern in their smiling wedding day photos. The hidden nature of the cost does not preclude its exorbitance.

And what is that exorbitant cost? Settling. It’s all of the better men with whom the post-prime, pre-Wall, porky-princess American bride had to give up hope of fettering to a marital contract. As age, size and attitude veer away from the feminine ideal beloved by the vast majority of men, women will find it harder — sometimes impossibly harder — to land the man of their dreams. They will have to settle for second, third, or even 30th best if they want to be married at all.

And so what you don’t see in those blushing blimp pics are the men they truly wanted who pumped and dumped them, or ignored them for their prettier friends. What you also don’t see are the hapless losers who vowed last-ditch lifelong monogamy to a land whale in exchange for avoiding the walking death of incel, as their hearts privately sank away in forlorn regret.

That is the individual, human dynamic. What about the big picture? Interesting — in the horrible sense of the word — things happen when the supply of attractive women drastically shrinks in proportion to the supply of megafauna, feminists, careerist shrikes, manjaws, and bitter spinsters. When the marriage market essentially become an outpost of Wal-Mart (Wall-Mart!) — cheap, throwaway, high fructose corn syrup goods — men experience what could be described as an exogenous “restriction of range” problem when they set out to find marriageable women.

Instead of a normally functioning sexual market where men are presented with many options among marriageable women of varying degrees of attractiveness (who nonetheless meet the men’s threshold for long-term commitment worthiness), what transpires in a shit market like what we have now is a massive limitation in men’s acceptably attractive mate choices and a replacement with a dichotomous mate choice system. In a dichotomous mate choice system, beta males no longer have the luxury of choosing between, say, a feminine slender 6 and a tomboyish slender 7. Now they’re restricted to choosing between involuntary celibacy and marriage to a ghastly apparition.

Unfortunately for the progress of the human species, the male sex drive is so strong that more than a few hard-up betas and omegas will choose the sad, dreary marriage to a circus sideshow over the soul-crushing solitude of sexlessness.

Beauty is truth. CH is among the greats in asserting the truism of this plea for an aesthetic sensibility, and for good reason. When ugliness of body is the norm, ugliness of character and, ultimately, of nation is sure to follow.

Related:

obesity-map-GIF-j

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,959 other followers

%d bloggers like this: