Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Girls’ Category

CH continues to explore the Elliot Rodger story because it reveals cracks in our culture that go beyond one man’s murderous rampage. In the days that have followed, the Hivemind has been busy concocting twisted narratives to see which one best tarnishes its free-thinking enemies. I examine their accuracies and fallacies below.

Sexual Entitlement

This theoretical gambit is a favorite of feminist fruitcakes, who blame the killings on Rodger’s thwarted “entitled” belief that he was “owed” sex with hard 10s, a feminist-friendly analysis that provides a handy springboard upon which they can launch into attacks on “pickup artists” who are learning how to become sexier men in order to date higher quality girls.

The fallacy in this feminist hypothesis was astutely noted by Liger (recently upgraded from Lamb) of the Blogosphere, who wrote that sexual and romantic entitlement is a natural condition of humanity, and that without it men would feel they had no right to approach women and initiate a courtship, and the human race would go extinct.

Here are some uncomfortable truths about “sexual entitlement” that feminists dare not contemplate:

- What Elliot Rodger had was sexual desire. Feminists often confuse sexual desire for sexual entitlement (because feminists loathe male desire), but they are two very different things. To conflate them, one would have to assert that Rodger was weird for feeling attracted to a hot young blonde. But men are attracted to beautiful women. That is their nature. Rodger was no different than the vast majority of men in this regard, alpha and beta alike. However, this is the part where Liger goes astray; Elliot didn’t need to be surrounded by pretty Hollywood actresses or steeped in a culture that reveres female beauty to feel urges to want to fuck cute girls based on their looks. The stripling CH did not grow up in Hollywood, and yet I, like almost every boy I knew, valued girls for their looks above all else. No “looks message” is necessary for a boy like Elliot to feel sexual urges for cute chicks, and to feel dejected if those urges aren’t fulfilled.

- Women feel more true entitlement to men’s commitment and money than men feel to women’s sex. Few men will rape in order to feed their sexual entitlement, but many women will hold out until they get promises of commitment from men, and many marriages end with women feeling entitled to half their husbands’ wealth. A more accurate description of the sexual market, then, is that women have commitment and provision entitlement.

- Finally, the scariest realization for feminists: Sexually entitled men are more attractive to women! If you don’t feel entitled to a woman’s love, she won’t think you’re worth her love.

Elliot Rodger’s problem was not sexual entitlement. His problem was sexual desire coupled with crippling introversion that left him no means to satisfy his desire. This created a cognitive disconnect that he filled with his own untested theories for why women weren’t with him when they were with (to him) obviously inferior specimens.

Father Emotional Abandonment

Elliot Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, from all accounts sounds like he was uninterested in Elliot’s upbringing and preferred his time in the company of naked women taking pictures of their behinds, (which included Elliot’s mother). His father either never loved Elliot, or grew to despise him when he began to sense something was off with the boy. (If the former, it’s likely that Elliot’s biracial appearance contributed to his white father’s disenchantment with him.)

Bolstering the father abandonment theory, a reader sent some juicy insider information which I will post here, taking care to edit it in a circumspect manner so that no identities are accidentally revealed.

Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.

Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.

Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.

In other words, complete family dysfunction.

Elliot doubtlessly sensed his father’s loathing and embarrassment of him, and this family dynamic may have set the ball rolling on Elliot’s eventual psychosocial schism.

Regardless where you fall on the “fathers are crucial/father’s genes are crucial” argument about children’s development, it’s a good bet Elliot lacked a positive parental influence and a loving father’s advice that would have helped him through his struggle into manhood. Nevertheless, the father emotional abandonment theory can’t fully explain Elliot’s eventual psychotic break; something awry already had to be present. Was Elliot’s blood tainted?

Psychopathy/Schizophrenia/Narcissism/Neuroticism/Asperger’s Syndrome

A common theme that often emerges from mass shootings is the revelation that the killer was on some kind of psychotropic or suffered from an anti-social disorder like autism. Then people say “Aha! He was a bad seed, not right in the head”, and feel satisfied that they can ignore any environmental insults that may have triggered the killer’s rage.

News stories present contradicting information on how much, or whether, Elliot was on any happy pills or had been formally diagnosed with any personality disorder. If he was on pills, the causal mechanism then becomes the issue; did Elliot’s psychological disease push him over the edge, or did the drugs he take to ameliorate his disease act as the trigger for violence? Evidence is slim that Elliot had a congenital mental disease, but this photo of him as a child is telling (via reader Tony Nick):

Dem eyes. We’ve seen them before, staring vacantly out of the faces of Dylan Kliebold and Seung-Hui Cho.

Right now it’s a guessing game, but the best guess is that Elliot Rodger had inherited a form of narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder. Some wags may ask your esteemed host, “If chicks dig dark triad narcissists, why didn’t they dig Elliot?” The problem here is that narcissism doesn’t attract girls if it’s hiding behind a shy, retiring, aggrieved personality. You’ve gotta bust a move, and Elliot Rodger clearly never saw a move he wished to bust, unless it involved spilling coffee on a girl who was dating a guy he didn’t like.

A severe organic personality disorder alone won’t typically create a killer, but combine it with some external variable — like incel — and all the bomb needs is something to light the fuse.

Male Feminism/White Knightism

A good argument can be made that Elliot Rodger was, in his writings and beliefs, a male feminist. And that the cancerous, deceitful message of male feminism warped his view of women and contributed to his ignorance about female nature and dating. Rodger believed “supreme gentlemen” should get the girls. He thought merely showing up and plopping down on a park bench would have the girls falling into his lap (and like a peculiar subspecies of MGTOW, his belief system similarly embraced the strange notion that making efforts to get girls was beneath him). His dad, probably equally deluded about women and dating in the year 2014, figured that buying his son a BMW in the last year of his life would help him get dates.

Did male feminism create a monster? It certainly didn’t help Elliot get laid; in fact, it helped repulse girls from him, the external factor which seems to have been the dark driving force throughout his post-pubertal life. Male feminism is not just castrating, it kills. Ask Hugo Schwyzer.

Status Envy

In the Hollywood culture Elliot knew, very high status men, beautiful women and botoxed women, and snotty children of high status men and beautiful and/or botoxed women surrounded him. Most of these people are entitled (far more entitled than Elliot) and bipolar. A fun bunch to throw a party, not so great for raising a biracial, effeminate (though not physically unattractive) male like Elliot who couldn’t look people in the eyes and barely spoke two words to family acquaintances. In this milieu, Elliot would have felt like a tragic outcast, and everyone who knew him would have thought that, too.

Absolute low status does not destroy souls, but relative low status can do the trick. Any other town, Elliot might’ve stood a chance of carving out a social niche for himself. A dad with some awareness and compassion would have taken him out of Hollywood, but then that would have meant no more naked photo shoots and handshakes with Sly Stallone.

The Anti-Boy Therapy Culture

Elliot’s family had him in therapy for years. The psychiatrist he saw was a quack who dated a skank blonde with gargantuan fake tits. Harken back to your childhood. How would you have felt if your family basically pulled a Pontius Pilate and washed their hands of you, sending you to a sleazeball who’s idea of therapy was promptly writing a script for Risperidone, an anti-schizophrenia drug?

This is a tragic example of the anti-boy therapy culture that pervades the US. And by “therapy”, I mean that feminized, womanish therapy that shoves pills down throats to solve the problem of boyness. Maybe Elliot was born sick and needed therapy. But what he didn’t need was a castrate asking him his feelings about his mother while he jerked off under the desk. Elliot needed the therapy of a clear and present father to inform him of the ways of the world. Maybe that wouldn’t have saved him, but it at least would’ve given him a fighting chance.

Pickup Artists and PUAHate

Elliot Rodger didn’t frequent the PUAHate forum to grouse about pickup techniques he tried that didn’t land him a bombshell hottie. He went there to bemoan women and the men those women loved with sympathetic company, and to complain about his looks. While there, (and elsewhere), he picked up (heh) a few bits and pieces of PUA jargon and proceeded to construct an inner fantasy world featuring himself as the put-upon alpha male. But, sadly, to the outside world he was still that shy kid who never talked and looked at his shoes. This was about the time when a complete dissociation between Elliot’s inner world and his outer reality was underway.

The Estrangement Of The Modern Sexual Market

If ever there was a subculture where the modern sexual market was most conspicuously operable, it was the la-la land Elliot grew up in. You can imagine what it was like for a shy kid who had to navigate a dating apocalypse where 90% of the girls were bangable and 99% of them were chasing after the top 1% sons of A-list insiders. This poor lesser beta didn’t stand a chance.

Elliot Rodger’s 132-page autobiography/manifesto (autofesto? manigraphy?) is filled with brutally confessional admissions of loserdom. If he carried even a fraction of that self-pity with him to real life interactions with girls, they would have immediately written him off as a romantic prospect. Girls can smell the stink of beta incel from twelve parsecs.

Failure with women compounds until the beta male succumbs to bitterness, at which point the process of sexual isolation accelerates and solidifies. If an intervention goes missing, the beta can drift into omegaland, and fall victim to his worst compulsions.

Reader Steve Johnson writes,

He was totally isolated because he made bad choices.

He chose world of warcraft over socializing because it’s an effective narcotic.

He chose puahate because it told him what he wanted to hear – that girls choose guys for mysterious reasons that no man can understand – or change about himself.

He specifically avoided socializing in any way that would threaten his narcissistic self-image and motivate him to change in any way – after all if he has to change, then he’s not perfect and we all know that can’t be true, right?

He was omega by choice because it was easier than doing any work.

Martyrdom complex, bad family, crippling shyness, pathological narcissism, biracial neuroticism, unfulfilled sexual desire, a sexual market rapidly separating introverted beta males from the sexual spoils… these things put together don’t guarantee a man will become a killer, but they sure don’t help.

Read Full Post »

Commenter having a bad day writes,

one of the better things that i did to get confidence was to recognize the MANY IOIs that women are putting out all the time. women, especially young fertile (hot) women, ping their environment ALL the time. learn to recognize and encourage these, and it will build your confidence…you can also learn to spot these when they are thrown at other males in the environment…

note – it will also make you sort of depressed if you still hold any illusions regarding the nature of women. most of the ‘ping backs’ you will get are from women in ‘relationships’ (married or otherwise) with betas…sometimes (a lot actually) right in front of the guy’s nose…

This is true. The most obvious flirtations are often from women who are taken, and sometimes with their man present and accounted for! It’s less common to get aggressive flirts from single women.

My understanding of this aspect of female nature is:

1. Sublimated hypergamy. Women are always looking to trade up (whether they know it or not) and flirting while with someone comes more naturally to them.

2. Fishing for reassurance that she’s still attractive. Women in LTRs tend to discount the assurances they get from their partners as less valuable than the arousal they can inspire in strange men. The man she already snagged and who has invested in her is less trustworthy as a biased judge of her attractiveness.

Note that both reasons #1 and #2 are rendered null and void if the woman is in a relationship with an alpha male. (1: she won’t feel the urge to scope as much and 2. an alpha lover’s opinion of her remaining attractiveness is weighted more than a beta lover’s opinion.)

Read Full Post »

The subject of hugs as a social lubricant surfaced recently in the comments. Before continuing, I’ll say that hugs as a tactile ploy to quickly escalate physical comfort with a girl is an entirely different matter than hugs as they are used by girls when meeting friends or even loosely affiliated acquaintances. The former is an established game technique; the latter is, well… emasculating.

Gadfly Amy writes,

This is an interesting observation. I hug people all the time, and you are right, the “alpha” guys don’t really hug back. They don’t freeze up and act uncomfortable or nervous… they just don’t physically react. They make me do the work.

Hugging is all the rage in SWPL-land. And it’s something I could do without. But some social forces are so deeply ingrained that even the mighty iconoclast you know and luv, Highlander Heartiste, must bend to the will of the herd.

Although hugging is a great kino escalation tactic, in nearly every other context it’s phony and suspiciously emasculating. People (mostly women) feel the pressure to hug, and like lemmings they dive right over the personal space cliff to hug everybody from exes to bosses to friends of friends to friends of friends of boss exes. Whatever import accompanied the practice has long ago been stripped mined from it by perfunctory overuse.

Hugging is Depo-Provera for the Androgyne Generation. It’s the final snippity snip of soft castration for men whose testes are already halfway ascended to their diaphragms. It’s a comforting boundary in a world of hair-trigger offense, and a reprieve from busting a move to get the girl.

Hyperbole? Ok, try imagining Don Draper hugging Peggy or Joan or his secretary du jour every time they got together at a party. Try picturing James Bond hugging a woman he had no intention of seducing into bed. Try imagining your father, or your grandfather, or this guy, asexually hugging women at a backyard barbeque.

It is to laugh.

Fact: If you aren’t initiating hugs to fast-track a familiarity that can be leveraged into quick seductions, or you aren’t hugging a girl as post-coital homage to her bedside acrobatics or sympathy for her dead grandma, then the hug you are receiving is beta.

Naturally, if I have to put up with hugging I’m gonna press in real close if the hugger is a cute girl with a big rack. That’s called making smoosh juice out of lemons. And lemons it is, because hugging, besides feeling like a coerced gesture to which one submissively relents, is in most ways subtly desexualizing. I don’t know when or how the practice got to be the go-to social greeting among self-regarding liberal whites (aka alien grays), but I’ve no doubt that many women now deploy it as a means of preemptively dissipating any simmering sexual energy that might radiate from a man who still has stones knocking between his legs.

In some cases, the sexual energy she subconsciously seeks to dissipate is her own. Which is flattering to the man, until he stops to think that the hug is basically the girl pulling a Heisman on him.

Exceptions exist. Hugging is occasionally an overt come-on by a girl who wants to communicate her sexual intent using tools deemed safe and plausibly deniable by broad social acceptance. If you can tell that’s happening to you, then by all means welcome that hug and let your hand drop to the top of her ass.

But more often, hugging is a female power move to claim control of a man’s beastly sexuality. It’s emasculating in the sense that the hugger feels so at ease in your company, so blissfully unthreatened by your percolating sexuality, that she can swoop right into your flaccid body and press her supple flesh into your spirit house. Not in your house? Oh yes, in your house.

The female hug is a nonverbal message delivery vehicle. It can say “Wow, I like this guy and just want to feel his strong swaying manboobs”, or, more typically for your average SWPL betaboy who must entertain upwards of ten friendzone hugs per day, it says, “Wow, this guy is such a team player, but just in case he’s got life left in that microbone of his, I’m gonna arouse him with the proximity of my body and drink of his nourishing despair as he realizes the extent of his paralyzed impotence.”

You don’t want to be that guy. But what to do when the world is hug-happy and refusal would assuredly consign you to the disinvite list?

Based on what I’ve seen charming alphas do, there are two effective countermeasures. One, you can do as Amy observed, and let your body hang in languid repose, forcing the girl by your inaction to assume all the sexual pre-penetrative tension that is always bubbling not far underneath the polite veneer of a hug. Call it, “amused receivership”. The trick is to substitute calm indifference for rigid discomfort. Done right, it’s a great way to non-verbally wedge a girl into the “chaser” role. She’ll feel like she’s doing all the work, so you as a man must be worth it.

The other method requires a more cantankerous personality. When she moves in for the hug, agree and amplify. As she’s hugging, let your hands roam over her back and hips. Exaggerate your pleasure for the entertainment of the crowd or for your own amusement. Smile like you’re getting a hummer and press harder into her. Moan a little. Sexualize the hug. Accuse her of copping a cheap feel, or making you feel dirty. Force her world to accommodate your insolent penile aura. She’ll either be aroused by your manly effrontery and begin to contemplate unclothed transactions with you, or she’ll be thrown into a state of perturbation and think twice before hugboxing you again as if you were a little eunuch doll.

Either way, you win. If the second method should scandalize the gathered, prep them with a clownish attitude. This way there’s less chance they’ll mistake your gropings for anything but physical humor. If she, or her friends, really chafe at your impudence, you shouldn’t be hanging with such uptight pussies anyhow.

Amy continues,

How do your girl friends greet you, then? How do you expect/want them to greet you?

I don’t press up against guys when I hug them, it’s a greeting type hug, quick, and I usually kiss them on the cheek. The only exception is if I’m really glad to see them for a specific reason, i.e. the other night I saw a friend of mine who just recovered from a freak illness that almost killed him. I was so happy to see him out and looking healthy that I hugged him hard. But I don’t think anyone would confuse that with a sexual advance.

You underestimate the proclivity of men to interpret all variety of female attention as a cry for copulation. But to your question, long-time close girl friends I have no intention of fucking may get a hug now and then. Mostly though, there is a tacit understanding that it’s cool to get together without having to grease the friendship wheel with gobs of histrionic symbols of affection.

The French have it right, like they do in so many matters of intersex politesse. If you must have a physical greeting with women you aren’t fucking, the lean in, arm grab, and air kiss on the cheek is sufficient. Otherwise, just chill and go for the high five, pulling away at the last second leaving her hand flapping in empty air, after which you execute the “who’s gay” finishing move.

Failing that, there’s always the fist bump, a gesture which ironically works a lot better to establish your alluring dominance when used on girls than on male friends.

Read Full Post »

Girls may be sugar and spice and everything nice, but in the no holds barred, winner take all tournament to the procreative death known as the sexual market women are just as ruthless – perhaps more ruthless – than are men to their same sex competition.

How do women undermine other women? They employ two strategies.

1. Ostracism/shaming.

Ostracism is public shaming. And despite the torrent of nonsense, (of which feminists have a seemingly inexhaustible supply), asserting that men are the primary slut and fatty shamers, that honor actually belongs to women.

2. Disinformation.

The other tactic women deploy to kneecap their competition is far more invidious. Women are adept at the art of disinformation campaigns, a strategy that both superficially soothes the fragile egos of other women and manipulates them (borrowing a legal term) to declare against interest.

Disinformation is essentially the propagandizing of pretty lies. Its power rests on an implied flattery. “You don’t need to slim down to find love, because you’re great just the way you are!” The hope of disinformation propagators is that their marks are gullible enough to follow their bad advice, thus reducing the number of sexy female competitors for the tiny pool of desirable alpha men.

(Remember from the CH archives that women feel the pressure of the sexual market more acutely, in part because there are far fewer alpha men for all the women who want them than there are bangable attractive women for all the men who want them for at least a night.)

A classic example of strategy #2 is this PuffedHo demotivational poster.

bikini is now a synonym for elephant hide

Women, especially loser women, love love love to hear these platitudes that validate their romantic worth, but the reality that would result if women followed this deceptive advice is more fat and ugly women (waddling around beaches in tent canvases) and more desirable men focusing all their attention on shrinking numbers of slender women. A sexual desirability skew of this nature would be a godsend for the hotties, who would experience an increase in their options so profound that the entire SMV sorting system would seismically shift. Thin cuties would be able to amass multiple greater beta orbiters and extract commitment from alphas who would otherwise pump and dump them or ignore them for hotter prospects in a dating market within which female attractiveness was more evenly distributed.

It is therefore in the interest of every red-blooded man to call out this manipulative female bullshit wherever and whenever he sees it. It is his DUTY to warn women against the forked tongue of other women seeking to cripple their competition with fat and ugliness apologia. Beauty is truth. Aesthetics is no mere formality hinting at deeper revelations. Aesthetics IS revelation. Chateau Heartiste has made this maxim central to its mission statement with full understanding of its cosmic importance and its centrality to all that is good and true.

Read Full Post »

Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.

Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

Appeasement is relationship death. Appeasement is the damping oscillation that brings a woman’s tingle to rest. There is hardly a self-defeating behavior a man can exhibit more hazardous to his love life than appeasement of his woman’s fickle and endlessly reconsidered stipulations. Once you go down the road of appeasement, the cliff side is an inevitability.

Given this reality of female nature, the riddle is why so many men resort to appeasement when the heat is on?

Part of the reason for the reflexive beta male embrace of the appeasement strategy is that it does work… occasionally, and only temporarily. Betas are so scared — picture a shivering, frightened little bunny as symbol of their state of minds — to provoke their women’s ire that appeasement becomes not only the emotionally satisfying recourse, but also the logically rationalized one based on retrieved pleasant memories of those few times it worked when nothing else works for them.

Barring competing effective strategies to pacify a pissy wife or girlfriend, an appeasement gambit only has to “work”, say, one out of ten times for it to become the go-to prostration for befuddled beta males. And remember that in the beta male’s worldview, a working romantic strategy is one that doesn’t end with his lover leaving him. The bar for healthy LTR management is set very low in the beta universe.

(For comparison, the typical alpha male standard of satisfying relationship health is the continuance of morning surprise hummers.)

A beta husband may be able to briefly calm his wife down by appeasing her, but the escape he narrowly engineers is just a trap door to a pit of lifelong termagant torment. That’s the poison appeasement pill he swallows: Quick relief, followed by progressive system failure. Tragically (and comically), he knows no other way.

Commenter ‘having a bad day’ serves up his own hard lesson in the futility of appeasing women:

my wife was like that too. pick a fight for no reason, not getting enough attention, blah blah blah…it almost ruined me and my ‘happy home.’

but wife’s behavior was based on the ‘best friend’ model of marriage that was indoctrinated into my impressionable young mind throughout my life…

who knew that women didn’t really know what they really want…? (that’s the real ‘crazy’…)

i had bought into the feminine imperative and was trying to ‘have it all’…best friend, lover, confidant, etc…and she hated it!

she was a follower, because all women are followers if they are happy. (just like the ‘teachings’ around here state.) it really is true…if they are happy, they are following someone they can look up to, admire, respect, feel safe and protected by, blah blah blah…if not, not happy…

the ‘crazy’ comes out when she doesn’t have that in a way that is unmistakable. she’ll put pressure on the relationship (shit test) to check for leaks…no leaks = anything you want…with a big shit eating grin at being able to please her ‘leader’

the ‘big crazy’ comes out the same way you train a guard dog…you push it a little, it ‘fights’, you let it ‘win’…you push a little harder, it reacts, you let it win…soon enough you can break a baseball bat over its head and it’ll still rip your arm off…same with women…and the younger, more fertile (hotter) the woman, the faster the escalation goes…so she can ‘win’ at uncovering the ‘beta’ (so no sex) or ‘alpha’ (so anything you want, just use me and not that other chick over there…)…because her body knows that her time is short, and it wants those better genes…

my marriage was shot because of the ‘friendship model’, but i got some game and turned it around, thanks to this place and the related ‘outposts’ and for that i am truly thankful…

my wife is ecstatically happy, deferent, doesn’t pick fights, apologizes for being crabby or in a bad mood, goes out of her way to offer support, etc. in other words, she has become much more feminine…

she does NOT want to go back to the ‘best friends’ model of marriage. Just today, i was doing something and happened to slip back into a beta response to something, and she got kind of panicky, and told me ‘you know, i don’t want you to beat me, but you need to sack up, and make a decision.’ (direct quote…) she did not want me to be her ‘oh, i don’t know, what do you think?…’ ‘best friend’…and yes, there was a little bit of panic in her eyes…but only a little, and then it went away when i told her what i wanted…so she could work on being a good follower…

better follower = happier woman…

Why do women come to resent their appeasement in time? The male mind formulates, “She’s getting what she wants, why isn’t she happy?” The problem is projection: The male mind draws a direct connection between wants and demands. Accounting for a few Machiavellian exceptions, when a man makes a (rare) relationship demand, you know that’s what he wants. And so men project their mental experience onto women. But what most men (and most men are betas by definition who lack a sufficient learning curve in the hearts and beds of women) don’t comprehend is that women have a disconnect between their demands and their wants. When a woman makes a demand within the context of a relationship, it’s a reflection of her want, not the want itself. Her demands are better understood as either child-like gropings toward self-expression of confusing and troubling emotions, or subconscious gom jabbars (tests of mind) that aid her in her hypergamous (yes) quest to obtain the best man her looks and femininity can afford her.

Seen in this way, appeasement is a strategy that misses the mark entirely or, worse, fuels resentment because it is evidence of failure to live up to a woman’s ideal lover and protector. And it makes sense if you put yourself in women’s stilettos; appeasement is the biopolitical strategy of the weak, and what woman wants to be with a weak man? Weak men are inherently untrustworthy. You can’t know with the requisite certainty that a weak man will have your back when threats emerge. Grrlpower glorification notwithstanding to the contrary, women are slaves to their hatred for weak men, and a manjaw or six figure salary won’t change that innate female revulsion for pliant men. This visceral revulsion is so strong that even the obvious benefits of a reliable and generous provider can’t fully extinguish a woman’s bodily disgust at the thought of receiving his seed.

“Women with the really good, stable guy felt more distant at high-fertility periods than low-fertility periods,” Haselton said. “That isn’t the case with women who were mated to particularly sexually attractive men. The closeness of their relationships got a boost just prior to ovulation.”

To ensure that the findings were not an anomaly, Haselton and Larson repeated the experiment with 67 other co-eds in long-term relationships. This time, however, the researchers administered a better-recognized measure for relationship satisfaction than the one they originally used. They also administered a questionnaire aimed at illuminating a dimension not studied in the first round: pickiness. The questionnaire asked the women to rate how characteristic such faults as being moody, childish, emotional, thoughtless and critical were of their mate.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility.

The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

“Since our female ancestors couldn’t directly examine a potential partner’s genetic makeup, they had to base their decisions on physical manifestations of the presence of good genes and the absence of genetic mutations, which might include masculine features such as a deep voice, masculine face, dominant behavior and sexy looks,” said Haselton, who is affiliated with UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

Men can’t (pragmatically) change their Hollywood looks, but they can change their behavior to conform more with dominant behavior that is typically associated with irresistible alpha males. A big first step that doesn’t require huge amounts of willpower is simply avoiding the temptation to appease women.

They also plan to look into how, if at all, the [aggrieved female] behavior is perceived by the male partners of these women.

“We don’t know if men are picking up on this behavior, but if they are, it must be confusing for them,” Larson said.

You bet it’s confusing for them, if by “them” you mean beta and omega males with limited experience navigating the shoals of women’s ids. Men who have bedded more than two or three women know the score, and the female behavior that’s confusing for most is for them an opportunity to play and enlarge the scope of their authority. The plain fact of this highlights the trade-off inherent in the womanizing lifestyle: The sexual experience that permits exploitation of women’s mate choice ploys to one’s personal benefit will also degrade a man’s ability to feel transcendent emotional attachment. Knowledge inevitably leads to cynicism, which is corrosive to romanticism and relationship stability unless one has the unearthly capacity to resolve the tension between self-interest and self-transcendence.

Relationship appeasement, then, is a Pyrrhic victory, buying time at best. When you stand accused by your woman, don’t act like a guilty party. Instead, act like a powerful authority figure suffering a self-incriminating tantrum from one of his acolytes, no matter who is technically at fault. I’ll give you an example from CH’s own repository of rendezvous.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ GARDEN HOSE: Sorry. I’ll stop.

hahaahha. Bizarro world CH. No, that’s not how it went.

GIRL: You’re really being an asshole. Why am I with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: [silently waits a beat, then stealthily moves in to perform the same asshole move at half intensity and half speed.]
GIRL: Cut it out! What’s the matter with you?
HADES’ HOWITZER: Would you say I’m being the biggest asshole you’ve ever known, or just a run of the mill asshole?
GIRL: Enough of an asshole.
HADES’ HOWITZER: Cause you know, I can turn it up so I’m number one asshole in your heart again.
GIRL: [starts to smile] Seriously, you have problems. No don’t turn it up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: [pulls same asshole move]
GIRL: Fuck!
HADES’ HOWITZER: Oh yeah, that hit the sweet spot.
GIRL: Grow up.
HADES’ HOWITZER: You know what I’m hearing? “Please pee on me in the shower tomorrow morning.”

To all the beta male readers: Next time you feel the need to appease, stop, and do the opposite. Pacification is the province of pussboys. You will take the road less traveled. The road to goad. Expect push-back. That’s a good thing. If you can stand strong against the immediate headwinds, you’ll find a tranquil, and deliriously scenic, vista open before your eyes.

Read Full Post »

If your girlfriend tells you she needs “space”, your relationship was over months earlier. You just got the memo late. “Space” is girlcode for “making space in my vagina for other cockas”. If you hear those words, leave, and don’t bother her for clarification. The only dignity you’ll have left to spare is what you don’t give away trying to salvage a stone dead relationship. If you want to exit stage right with Heartistian flair, you can relievedly exclaim with acting class sincerity, “Phew! I’m glad you brought this up. You were reading my mind. Really takes the pressure off”, or maybe even a simple “Yeah, I hear ya”.

Maxim #44: There is a three month lag time between a woman’s vaginal prerogative and her words. Her heart gets the message long before you do.

This womanly lag time between her true feelings for you and her verbal confirmation is the reason why you have to learn to rapidly identify the subtle signs of a woman’s emotional detachment, and make a course correction before her vagina has petrified to an impenetrable thicket at the thought of your approaching dick.

A perfect example of this comes from that reject repository, Reddit:

My girlfriend of 11 years broke up with me saying “She just needs some space now, and we may get back together.” I am wondering what the chances are that she actually intends on giving a relationship another shot, or if it was just said to get me to easily sign over the house and let her keep everything.

About four weeks ago she dropped this on me. As far as I knew everything was going great – we had just gone on a nice vacation together, night before had a bunch of friends over for a little get together, and were planning out future together. She said it was because we fight all the time, we honestly haven’t had a single fight in 2+ years.

That’s not a positive development. A chronically peaceable woman is a romantically withdrawn woman.

We owned a house together. We bought it about seven years ago, renovated it all, and made it into something we both liked. Wasn’t a particularly fancy house, but it was our house. We also had two dogs we got shortly after moving into the house. She now has the house and everything that was in it, I didn’t put up a fight for any of it.

Hope is often a prerequisite to failure.

She kept saying things like “I’d like to try a relationship again, but I know if you piss me off I’ll probably never even talk to you again.” Me being the broken hearted sap I was tried my damnedest to not upset her.

Classic niceguy mistake. Your appeasement made things worse. When a woman threatens to leave if you piss her off, what she’s really saying is that she’s pissed off with herself for her incapacity to tolerate your predictable amiability.

Signed the house over to her (her mother paid off the mortgage for her, I got nothing) and let her keep the dogs and everything we had gotten over the past 11 years.

pwn3d

except imagine the matador walked backward onto the horn.

I packed up my clothes, and found an apartment to move into.

So I officially moved out over the weekend, and sitting in my shitty little apartment my mind can’t help but keep racing to the idea that I just got manipulated out of everything I had. It just seems that if she really had any intentions on ever making things work there would have been much better options than this.

tl;dr: GF wanted a break, I gave her everything on the chance of another shot. Did I just get swindled?

A man can’t get swindled unless he swindles himself first, and the one thing idealistic beta males excel at is swindling themselves about the nature of women and the vagaries of love.

But there is a solution. You can read Chateau Heartiste and learn the ways of the ruthless sex, or you can continue to self-immolate in a one-window masturbatorium while your ex straddles a new man to orgasmic escape velocity on the bed you paid for and from where you cooed eleven years of your devotion into her pillow-framed ear.

Read Full Post »

Study of the Year material here. You’ll laugh, you’ll nod knowingly, you’ll thank god you weren’t born in Kenya.

The prevalence of extra-marital partnerships among women was 6.2% within a reference time of six months. Factors that were independently associated with increased likelihood of extra-marital partnerships were domestic violence (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI 1.09–1.92), women reporting being denied a preferred sex position (aOR, 3.34; 95% CI 1.26–8.84) and spouse longer erect penis (aOR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.00–1.78). Conversely, women’s age – more than 24years (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI 0.14–0.78) and women’s increased sexual satisfaction (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.96) were associated with reduced likelihood of extra-marital partnerships.

Domestic violence, denial of a preferred sex positions, longer erect penis, younger age and increased sexual satisfaction were the main predictors of women’s involvement in extra-marital partnerships. Integration of sex education, counselling and life skills training in couple HIV prevention programs might help in risk reduction.

The first positive predictor of cheating whoredom — domestic violence — is likely mixing up cause and effect. Husbands who think they’ve been cuckolded by slutty wives are more likely to lash out violently to keep them in line. The rest are both predictable and hilarious. Women not getting off with their husbands cheat more. No surprise. Younger women with more sexual market options cheat more. Again, no surprise to any guest of Le Chateau.

The longer penis association with wifely infidelity is way out of left field. Apparently, penile enlargement remedies are a big thing (heh) in Kenya. But their women canna only take so much, captain!

“…some penis may be large yet my vagina is small, when he tries to insert it inside, it hurts so much that I will have to look for another man who has a smaller one [penis] and can do it in a way I can enjoy”

Are monster dicks more of a visual turn-on for women than a tactile turn-on? (Personal CH experience wielding the boomstick says both.) Or are black women as tight as Chinese finger trap?

The study also points up the importance of keeping your wife sexually satisfied if you don’t want her dreaming of trysts in the tall brown bush (heh!).

“Some [men] just take a minute and leaves you there when you are still ‘hanging’… You cannot even tell if this thing is over or still continuing. Sometime we arent satisfied yet we cant explain it [to our partners]. However, when we get men who can satisfy us, we do not waste such chances. For a woman to be ready and get sexual satisfaction usually takes time. Yet he has some high sexual desire and can just finish very fast before you understand how. We are left wondering and can be very happy if we can get someone who can do it better and makes you feel that your body is satisfied. I can just continue with him because his sex is sweet and your husband can then do it on short time basis”

So much for the myth of black male sexual prowess. To be fair, Kenyans are only one type of black. Maybe West Africans can go all night. Gotta love that wife’s rationalization for her cheating: “My lover has a slow hand, which gives me many orgasms so that I’m spent and don’t feel like demanding too much from my two-pumps-and-done husband.”

AIDS is rife in Kenya. Not coincidentally, 6.2% of Kenyan wives cheated within the study’s time span of six months. That’s actually a formidable number when you consider that Kenyan men are world-class cheaters. Add up all the dalliances and condom refusals and it’s no wonder Africa is getting the HIV shiv.

Read Full Post »

nuke the phone from orbit

Superb alpha frame. Mucho lulzo. But not very effective. There’s really only one way to pass a pregnancy shit test.

Disappear.

Read Full Post »

A cat cafe opened in New York to great fanfare, and female lawyers (genus: lawyercunt) may be on the way out as a member of the human species.

The latter assertion gets a boost from ❤️science❤️ recently with a new study which found that stressed out women have a harder time getting pregnant.

Stressed out women have more difficulty getting pregnant than women with less stress, according to a new study this week in the journal Human Reproduction.

Although the relationship between stress and trouble getting pregnant has been hinted at before, it had never been scientifically proven before now. This new research marks the first time that scientists have found a direct link between stress and infertility. [...]

In a study that followed more than 400 women just as they were starting to try to get pregnant, the researchers found that women with the highest levels of the stress indicator alpha-amylase in their saliva were 29% less likely to get pregnant than women with the lowest levels.

They also found that women with the highest levels of alpha-amylase were more than twice as likely to meet the clinical definition of infertility–meaning they did not get pregnant even after a full year of trying.

Law is a stressful field. Hopefully the hordes of unfeminine, ballcutting manjaws who streamed into law schools the past thirty years will see their genetic lineages go the way of the dinosaurs.

Thankfully, a barren womb isn’t necessarily an inactive womb! Lawyer chicks can still serve as great pump and dump adventures.

The researchers still do not understand exactly why stress affects a woman’s ability to become pregnant, but this study did rule out some possibilities. For example, they found women with high levels of alpha-amylase had the same amount of sex as some of their less-stressed counterparts. “It’s not that stressed out women have less intercourse,” she said.

They also found no correlation between high levels of alpha-amylase and ovulation problems.

One theory the researchers plan to explore in future studies is whether stress changes what Lynch called “the hormonal milieu” of the uterus in such a way that it becomes inhospitable to implantation.

The god of biomechanics doesn’t care how many degrees you have or which firm’s dick you suck if you haven’t fulfilled your prime directive as a woman.

Read Full Post »

It gives great pleasure to the Chateau lordship to bestow upon deserving women the honor of Feminine Woman of the Month. Alpha and beta males, manboobs, and feminists all get their due here, but it is the feminine woman, the woman who defies the weight of social pressure urging her to advance an androgynous ideal with her own clarion call for a triumphant femininity, who more than earns the Chateau’s respect and admiration. In this twisted transculture, few voices, outside of men with descended testes, will speak for the rare woman who accepts her natural feminine role, embraces it, and revels in it.

So the first recipient of the coveted CH Feminine Woman of the Month is Kirsten Dunst.

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” Dunst, 31, said in an interview for next month’s Harper’s Bazaar UK.

“We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking — it’s a valuable thing my mom created.”

“And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armor. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work.”

Some would call this madness. But madness is simply temporally displaced truth.

The sisterhood went psychotic.

The stuck pig always squeals loudest before the killing blow. A vapid feminist entity politely demurred,

“Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it,’’ wrote Ryan, who evidently considers herself an expert on gender theory.

Notice how this VFE defines the worth of an idea: Are you getting paid to propagandize it? If not, your opinion is automatically discredited. This, folks, is what runaway credentialism unmoored from accomplishment or truth value looks like.

“So I guess my marriage is doomed to fail because I don’t have kids and write d- -k jokes for a living and my husband is more of a cat person than a dog person,” Ritzen concluded.

Her marriage may “survive” — in the loosest interpretation of the word — but her lineage will die.

“THANKS, KIRSTEN DUNST.”

Such butthurtness over a few harmless words about femininity. Why, one would almost think this feminist cunt wasn’t so satisfied with her egalitarian romantic life.

In the newly released issue of W Magazine, Dunst was asked by the mag’s guest editor, filmmaker Sofia Coppola, if she was ever hit on sexually by a director.

Dunst laughed.

“I don’t give off that vibe,’’ she said. “I think that you court that stuff, and to me it’s crossing a boundary that would hinder the trust in your working relationship.’’

Smart girl. Feminists cleave to their victim card like a newborn chimp to its mama’s teat. But it takes two to tango. When young starlets are “preyed upon” by older, powerful directors, it never occurs to these “gender theorists” – or rather, it does occur to them but they choose to ignore that tiny part of their brains where reason and recognizable humanity reside — that women are attracted to powerful men and will flirt with them and encourage on-the-job trysts that can be later back-rationalized as sexual harassment when regret begins to assert its domain.

Maxim #67: Women regret the cocks unwrapped; men regret the poon untapped.

A resurgence of femininity — not “womanization“, which in this zeitgeist is the opposite of femininity — would be a step toward restoring what America has lost. Kirsten Dunst may not be a raving beauty, but she’s cute enough, and who among you men, reading her words like they were an arterial sip from a chalice of life-giving blood upon parched heartlips, didn’t bump up her SMV a half point?

Men desire vulnerable women as women desire self-confident men: Ravenously.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,948 other followers

%d bloggers like this: