Archive for the ‘Love’ Category
Reader Alif Male passes along an excerpt from an Agatha Christie book.
From “Dumb Witness” Agatha Christie, (1937) Chapter 2
“But this feeling of hers for Rex Donaldson was different, it went deeper. She felt instinctively that here there would be no passing on…. Her need of him was simple and profound. Everything about him fascinated her. His calmness and detachment, so different from her own hectic, grasping life, the clear, logical coldness of his scientific mind, and something else, imperfectly understood, a secret force in the man masked by his unassuming slightly pedantic manner, but which she nevertheless felt and sensed instinctively.
In Rex Donaldson there was genius – and the fact that his profession was the main preoccupation of his life and that she was only a part – though a necessary part -of existence to him only heightened his attraction for her. She found herself for the first time in her selfish pleasure-loving life content to take second place. The prospect fascinated her. For Rex she would do anything – anything!”
A crime-writer’s outline sketch of one character written 77 years ago tells more truth about women than the last thousand editions of Cosmopolitan and the entire output of Jezebel put together.
The purpose of glam mags and feminist websites is not the telling of truth; it is the propagation of ego-assuaging pretty lies. Assemblages of words are merely scaffolding women use to scale and repair their crumbling self-conceptions.
Of what does the above excerpt remind you?
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.
CH never read “Dumb Witness” by Agatha Christie, but as the royal they say, great, and honest, minds think alike.
Women come to despise men who spend their lives placating them. Leave the placating to women. It’s the role to which they are suited, and to which they naturally hew.
1. “Unnatural Selection.” A brisk narrative of the history to date and the history to be made of the Darwinian culling machine.
2. A contrarian’s argument in favor of porn as sexual sufficiency strategy. (Note: Linkage does not necessarily represent Heartiste endorsement. CH believes that there is a greater risk that too much porn viewing, like soliciting prostitutes, will psychologically deflate a man’s self-perception.)
3. At the neural level, Catholics think differently than atheists about moral dilemmas. You think IQ research is dangerous to the status quo? Wait until researchers begin uncovering population group differences in the moral senses.
4. Hello, M’Lady. It’s funny ’cause it’s so godawfully true. “Stalkers have balls, hello m’ladys just make you feel guilty.” Odds that Amy Schumer is a CH reader? She couldn’t just come right out and say “beta males”; that would be too obvious.
5. Mangan’s Breviary lists the top 10 supplements for men’s health and strength. A hearty thanks! One strengthening supplement not on Mangan’s list that I’ve read good things about: Xpand 2X. Opinions welcome in comments.
6. Women love sexist men. Everyone is catching up to the wisdom of Chateau Heartiste. Here’s another example of the Hivemind bending to the will of CH. I hate to preen, but… oh who am I kidding. *preen*
7.The neg’s neurological power is universal. Rude salespeople who disqualify potential customers make more sales. I see a shift in the mainstream reporting landscape towards more acceptance, at least tangentially, of tried-and-true game techniques. Almost forgot… the above link requires the obligatory “Ha ha, it’s Cheap Chalupas!”
8. One confounding variable that behavioral genetics studies may miss is the influence of the external environment on adult life outcomes.
9. Mozart was a Red Pill kinda guy.
10. Monogamous societies are superior to polygamous societies. Lots of interesting angles explored here by Razib Khan.
11. Racists make a better first impression than appeasing suck-ups. Who’da thunk it! /sarcasm
12. Self-segregation alert: Most whites don’t live anywhere near appreciable numbers of blacks. Tim Wise ducked for cover. Implication: The twisted multicult state apparatus survives in direct proportion to the number of whites who don’t experience its vibrantly diverse
13. Another study finds that women are most attracted to lean and toned male bodies. Not fat, not overly muscled. (CH observes that if the choice is between skinny or swole, always go with swole. There are enough beautiful babies who love meatheads that the average female preference won’t matter so much to you.)
15. A “dark triad” personality test. Find out how irresistible you are to women.
Over in the comments section of a Mangan post about the possible direct health and happiness benefits of marriage, The Anti-Gnostic writes (replying to another commenter),
The biggest upside for men of marriage over cohabitation is that breaking up is harder in a legally recognized union. Since most breakups/divorces are initiated by women, making it harder to separate benefits men more than women.
I’m going to venture a hypothesis that most break-ups of cohabitation arrangements are initiated by men, and most marriage break-ups are initiated by women.
Divorce itself is not hard. You file a paper that says the marriage is over. Women will get the children, because the man will have a harder job with longer hours, and most households don’t have enough net worth to fight over.
I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion.
CH is on record stating that the incentive structure of marriage has changed to favor women’s discretion. That is, wives are now incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. The data — especially the “wives initiate 70% of divorces” figure — strongly suggest that the CH view is the correct one.
But constitutional white knights — you know who you are — claim that figure could just as easily mean that 70% of husbands are shitty spouses. Well, maybe. But that interpretation is no less speculative than the opposite, and in fact is less sustainable under scrutiny, because the simpler explanation for the 70% female divorce-initiation figure is that men and women are about equally represented among the crappy spouse demographic, but women initiate more divorces because they perceive that a host of benefits will accrue to them from severing their marriages. Husbands, in contrast, perceive no such benefits, and are thus more loathe to divorce even when their wives are insufferable.
One way to test this hypothesis, as The Anti-Gnostic implied above, is to look at which sex initiates more non-marital break-ups. If men really are crappier partners than women, then the break-up initiation rate will be roughly the same inside and outside of marriage. The break-up initiation rate should skew approximately 70% in favor of women in whatever form of relationship they’re in. The premise behind this assumption is that a person’s romantic character or “livability” traits are fairly constant throughout life.
Using the variable FAMPER3 (“During the last year, did you… 3. Break up with a steady boyfriend/girlfriend or fiance?”) from the General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, we find that men broke up their non-marital relationships almost twice as often as did women.
Surveys about people’s sex lives are distinctly untrustworthy, but the GSS does give us a peak behind the curtain at trends in relationship dynamics. As claimed here at the venerable Chateau, it would appear that women have more to lose from breaking up non-marital long-term relationships and more to gain from breaking up their marriages, (and vice versa for men.) This makes sense to any astute observers of the sexual and marital markets; women are on their best behavior prior to marriage, before they’ve gotten a boyfriend or fiancé to sign on the dotted line and tacitly forfeit HALF. A woman’s peak attractiveness window is much shorter relative to a man’s attractiveness window, and this incentivizes women to make nonmarital relationships work until such time that money has changed hands and kids have popped out.
Men, on the other hand, have a lot more to lose in divorce, and a lot less to lose in nonmarital breakups, and this male-peculiar incentive structure is seen in the differing rates of breakup initiations by sex in and out of marriage.
To put it in Heartistian terms…
Maxim #30: Men can leverage their commitment far longer than women can leverage their sex.
Skeptics may note that the GSS question as posed doesn’t specifically ask who initiated the breakup, but the wording strongly implies it. (Perhaps a Master GaSSer could fine tune the data at his pleasure?) But the very fact that there is a sex difference in breakup rates between nonmarital relationships and marriages is ample evidence that social and legal incentives can influence the motivations of men and women.
The substantiating evidence so far, in surveys and in the field, is that women are more responsible for the rise in divorce, and that their self-justification for divorce has gotten more fickle and more self-aggrandizing rather than less.
A final note: If you look closely, you’ll see emanations and penumbras of female hypergamy in the GSS results above.
Jesus wept? Oh no, my friends. Jesus charmed!
Jesus, like so many leading protagonists in the great books for men, had game, and used it to mesmerize the fuck outta his audiences of admirers. There’s a direct line throughout history leading from the thorny crown to the furry hat. Jesus was mystery, and Jesus was the first Mystery.
Proof of Jesus’ mad skills with the coy doubters comes to us via this nifty list of his best follower pickups.
One of the best-described of all charismatic leaders is Jesus. About 90 face-to-face encounters with Jesus are described in the four gospels of the New Testament.
Notice what happens:
The Son of God is about to raise your buying temperature.
Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?”
The text goes on that Jesus does not look up at them, but continues to write in the dirt with his finger. This would not be unusual; Archimedes wrote geometric figures in the dust, and in the absence of ready writing materials the ground would serve as a chalkboard. The point is that Jesus does not reply right away; he lets them stew in their uneasiness.
Jesus used tension to build attraction.
Minutes go by. One by one, the crowd starts to slip away, the older ones first– the young hotheads being the ones who do the stoning, as in the most primitive parts of the Middle East today.
Finally Jesus is left with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightens up and asks her: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She answers: “No one.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says. “Go now and sin no more.” (John 8: 1-11)
Jesus is a master of timing. He does not allow people to force him into their rhythm, their definition of the situation. He perceives what they are attempting to do, the intention beyond the words. And he makes them shift their ground.
Jesus forced others into his frame.
He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.
Jesus passed shit tests.
Jesus is a charismatic leader, indeed the archetype of charisma. Although sociologists tend to treat charisma as an abstraction, it is observable in everyday life. We are viewing the elements of it, in the encounters of Jesus with the people around him.
Game is applied charisma. I wonder if Jesus was a Dark Triad? Or should I say, Dark Trinity?
(1) Jesus always wins an encounter [...]
Jesus never lets anyone determine the conversational sequence. He answers questions with questions, putting the interlocutor on the defensive. An example, from early in his career of preaching around Galilee:
Jesus has been invited to dinner at the house of a Pharisee. A prostitute comes in and falls at his feet, wets his feet with her tears, kisses them and pours perfume on them. The Pharisee said to himself, “If this man is a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him– that she is a sinner.”
Jesus, reading his thoughts, said to him: “I have something to tell you.” “Tell me,” he said. Jesus proceeded to tell a story about two men who owed money, neither of whom could repay the moneylender. He forgives them both, the one who owes 500 and the one who owes 50. Jesus asked: “Which of the two will love him more?” “The one who had the bigger debt forgiven,” the Pharisee replied. “You are correct,” Jesus said. “Do you see this woman? You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet them with her tears and dried them with her hair… Therefore her many sins have been forgiven– as her great love has shown.”
Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.
The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.
Jesus the charismatic alpha male was unpredictable. You expect him to say one thing; he says another. AMOGs show deference and vaginas weep on cue.
(2) Jesus is quick and absolutely decisive
As his mission is taking off in Galilee, followers flock to hear him. Some he invites to come with him. It is a life-changing decision.
A man said to him: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”
It is a shocking demand. In a ritually pious society, there is nothing more important that burying your father. Jesus demands a complete break with existing social forms; those who follow them, he implies, are dead in spirit.
Chicks hate mincing betaboys. Jesus was not a mincing betaboy. Chicks dig rule breakers. Jesus was definitely a rule breaker.
The Pharisees complained, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Jesus perceives who will make a good recruit, and who will not.
Jesus was practiced in the art of target selection.
(3) Jesus always does something unexpected [...]
Some of the disciples said indignantly to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.
“Leave her alone,” Jesus said. “She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare me for my funeral.” (Mark 14: 1-10; Matthew 26: 6-13)
A double jolt. His disciples by now have understood the message about the selfishness of the rich and charity to the poor. But there are circumstances and momentous occasions that transcend even the great doctrine of love thy neighbour. Jesus is zen-like in his unexpectedness. There is a second jolt, and his disciples do not quite get it. Jesus knows he is going to be crucified. He has the political sense to see where the confrontation is headed; in this he is ahead of his followers, who only see his power.
When was the last time you saw an alpha male do the dull, boring thing? Never.
(4) Jesus knows what the other is intending
Jesus is an intelligent observer of the people around him.
Jesus was situationally aware.
He is highly focused on everyone’s moral and social stance, and sees it in the immediate moment. Charismatic people are generally like that; Jesus does it to a superlative degree.
Jesus lived in the moment. Jesus did not suffer “paralysis by analysis”.
Jesus’ perceptiveness helps explain why he dominates his encounters. He surprises interlocutors by unexpectedly jumping from their words, not to what conventionally follows verbally, but instead speaking to what they are really about, skipping the intermediate stages.
Jesus knew how to “elicit values”, and build deep connections with people.
(5) Jesus is master of the crowd [...]
Crowds are a major source of Jesus’ power. There is a constant refrain: “The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” His enemies the high priests are afraid of what his crowd of followers will do if they attack Jesus.
Jesus was socially proofed.
[His disciples] are the privileged in-group, and they know it. Jesus admonishes them from time to time about their pride; but he needs them, too. It is another reason why living with Jesus is bracing. There is an additional circuit of charismatic energy in the inner circle.
Jesus can still arouse this crowd, but he cannot silence it. He does not back off, but becomes increasingly explicit. The metaphors he does use are not effective. His sheep that he refers to means his own crowd of loyal followers, and Jesus declares he has given them eternal life– but not to this hostile crowd of unbelievers. Words no longer convince; the sides declaim stridently against each other. The eloquent phrases of earlier preaching have fallen into cacophony. Nevertheless Jesus still escapes violence. The crowd is never strong enough to dominate him. Only the organized authorities can take him, and that he does not evade.
Alpha males can be taken down by a state-sanctioned beta male show of force.
(6) Jesus’ down moments
Even an alpha male occasionally gets cockblocked.
Leaving aside the miracle itself and its symbolism, one thing we see in this episode is Jesus conflicted between his mission– to demonstrate the power of resurrection– and his personal feelings for Lazarus and his sisters. Jesus let Lazarus die, by staying away during his sickness, in order to make this demonstration, but in doing so he caused grief to those he loved. The moment when he confronts their pain (amplified by the weeping of the crowd), Jesus himself weeps. It is the only time in the texts when he weeps. It is a glimpse of himself as a human being, as well as a man on a mission.
Finally Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor. Jesus gives his usual sharp replies, and indeed wins him over. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asks.
King of the Poon, amirite?
“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asks in return, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a player? Only if you want me to be.”
In the crises, Jesus’ interactional style remains much the same as always; but the speaking in parables and figurative language has given way to blunt explanations. Parables are for audiences who want to understand. Facing open adversaries, Jesus turns to plain arguments.
Sometimes it’s necessary to drop the flirty banter and aloofness and draw a line in the sand that you don’t want a woman to cross.
Jesus the alpha male. Jesus the PUA (of disciples). Jesus the master of the crimson arts. Men followed him. Powerful men feared him. Prostitutes paid *him*.
Jesus is risen, indeed!
When a woman publicly, willingly, and happily prostrates herself to a powerful alpha male, it triggers the egalitarian instinct in northwest Europeans (men and women) who, feeling vicarious indignation, snark and sputter their displeasure. For instance,
Proof that men are completely helpless.
Yes, it could be proof of that (if you ignore the fact that he appears to be a healthy man capable of standing on his own without aid). But much more likely it’s proof that his beautiful lover takes great pleasure in serving him.
To the modern, equalism-addled Western mind, such displays of raw female submission to raw male sexuality are both alien and unsettlingly evocative of sexual relations as they may occur without social censure, or as they may have occurred in the distant past when fewer formalized rules were in place to constrain the sexual gluttony of alpha males and the dewy-eyed slavishness of the women who loved them. Threatening, too, because the occasional display of stark sexual polarity in egalitarian societies, consensual and brimming with joy by both parties, is a shivvy reminder to the mass of mediocrities of their own organically constrained romantic options.
In short, sour grapes and snark are the typical reactions by losers suffering the ceremony of winners.
Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,
I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%
Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.
If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.
“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:
V. Adhere to the golden ratio
Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.
It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.
Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!