Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Love’ Category

Have you ever banged a woman you thought was impossibly hot, too hot for a mere peasant boy like yourself? Chances are, you haven’t. Most men don’t reach for the ass ring. Fear — and sometimes experience — cultivates an exquisite sense for one’s sexual rank, and an avoidance mentality that preempts rejection by sultry specimens thought to be “out of one’s league”.

But most men are not all men. A few warriors of the whiskered wound have banged out of their league, and lived to tell of the tail. Men with game will occasionally, maybe even often, bang women considered by the general population to be too beautiful for them. Other men will luck into an amazing fling with a superb hottie. Usually, some combination of fortuitous circumstance and seduction skill is the backdrop to a stunning mismatch between a regular guy and a boner fried bombshell.

In before the trick-less trolls and baffled haters hijack the substance of this post to nasalize their belief that men’s sexual value is judged by the same looks metric as women’s sexual value, let it be hammered into their blocklike skulls (again) that women judge a man’s mate worthiness by many measures, not least of which is his social value and his seductive savviness. So when we say that a man is shooting “out of his league”, we don’t necessarily mean the spectacle of a very ugly man with a beautiful woman (though it could mean that). We could also mean a man who compares favorably in the looks department with the woman he is dating, but who falls short in other equally important criteria. A good-looking but socially awkward nerd with a hottie is one such mismatch that strikes a discordant note on observers’ pattern-recognition tuning forks.

With that anti-hater disclaimer out of the way, we can move on to the meat and potatoes. Kai Peter Chang, a self-professed informal dating coach and boffer of beautiful babies, describes his experience dating what he figured (that’s the important qualifier) was a woman way out of his league.

Have you ever had the experience of getting a taste of a life light-years above your social class/station? 

Perhaps it’s being a guest at an extravagant $200,000 wedding thrown by a distant relative you barely know. All you can do is marvel at the gorgeous decor and decadent food you can never afford on your own.

Perhaps it’s a wealthy uncle/friend-of-a-friend who inexplicably allowed you take his $120,000 sports car for a spin around the neighborhood. All you can do is pray you don’t crash the car, or pop the clutch and embarrass yourself.

Perhaps you were summoned to an urgent work meeting that requires your presence thousands of miles away, and your employer authorized you to fly on the company jet (ordinarily reserved for its top executives). All you can do is fantasize about the day you’re powerful/rich enough to use a private jet for all your travel.

TL;DR: it’s like that – but involving the deepest part of sexuality and romance.

[A] number of years ago, I dated someone substantially “out of my league” for almost a year.

Her: a former Miss Hong Kong pageant gal, B-list actress/model/TVB television personality. In her prime, she was courted and pursued by the super-Alpha kings of Hong Kong: A-list movie stars, million-record-selling musicians, property tycoons, CEOs and power brokers at the apex of Hong Kong society.

Me: At the time, a Mergers & Acquisitions Analyst at an investment-banking firm – an easily-replacable cog in a financial behemoth, four years her junior. During that period, I commanded a low five-digit net worth, and no status to speak of. A nobody.

She told me afterward that she gave me her number because she was amused by the fact that I clearly didn’t recognize her; in Hong Kong, the only strangers who approach her are autograph-seekers and those who want to pose with her for a photo and I was utterly oblivious to her stature when I was flirting with her.

Nice neg.

It is also helpful to note that during this time, I was at still in first blush of youth – a few years out of college, filled with brazen and unrealistic cocky ambition of what I can accomplish, arrogant to the point of delusion, and impervious to feedback/advice.

I was also insecure as hell, and in complete denial about it.

With all that backdrop, the question was how did it feel as the “lesser” partner?

It was flattering, thrilling and unnerving all at once.

The more beautiful women you bed, the less unnerving (and thrilling, sadly) it becomes. You start to internalize the belief that you deserve them. This is the asshole’s secret of success.

Dating far above my station gave me a glimpse of the life that exists at a completely different strata of society. Growing up a son of broke-ass immigrant parents and attending public schools my entire life surrounded by others of modest immigrant socioeconomic background, the first thing that stood out was her nearly-unlimited access to favors and accouterments of her elevated station.

When you socialize with people who own spare yachts, faraway luxury properties and infrequently-used personal jets, you can cobble together an impromptu exotic vacation with a few phone calls. It will end up costing you little more than the price of a full tank of jet/yacht fuel and the promise of reciprocity of access to your own toys/properties at some unspecified future date.

I, of course, had nothing to offer in these types of trades – and that knowledge was a source of gnawing insecurity; while I was stupidly confident that I was just a few years/career moves away from joining the company of Hong Kong aristocracy on my own, my immediate financial circumstances were far more modest and I flew Coach to visit her, while she flew First Class or via private jet to rendezvous with me.

If you doubt your worth to a woman, she will feel compelled to agree with you. If you don’t doubt, neither will she.

The clandestine nature of our relationship (officially, she was the spoken-for consort of a powerful Hong Kong property tycoon two decades her senior and her lifestyle was bankrolled by his largesse) added a further element of illicit excitement; it was thrilling to be checking into hotels under fake names, arriving to locations at staggered times to avoid being seen together in public.

The sneaky fucker MO. It’s exciting because you know you’re getting something for free (outstanding pussy), that other men have to pay for in yachts and high society access.

In retrospect, I now understand what she meant when, right before the first time we slept together, she whispered in my ear “Please don’t fall in love with me.”

She was wiser and more pragmatic than I; she knew, better than I did at the time, the ephemeral nature of our doomed fling.

After several months of our relationship – which consisted writing letters to each other (she has a gorgeous, calligraphic handwriting and a wry playful prose that was a delight to read) and time-zone-spanning international phone calls, interspersed with week-long face-to-face rendezvous where we exhausted ourselves in hotel rooms in various locations along the Pacific rim, she tearfully confessed “Do you remember what I said to you that first night? I’m having a hard time following my own advice.”

It was as close as she could get to tell me she loved me, but it was clear that whatever we had would end someday.

Better to have loved a hottie and lost her, than to love a fug and keep her.

No doubt losing a pathway to high grade pussy is a blow to a man’s pleasure center, if not also his ego. But it was more dangerous for her to fall in love, because the nature of woman doesn’t allow for shared love between disparate men who offer her competing comforts beyond the wildest dreams of the average representative of her sex. She risked discovery, and the concomitant loss of feminine prestige and resources from her richer suitors. Truly beautiful women possess a degree of pragmatism that those who have little to lose can barely comprehend. Although if your charm is mesmerizing and your confidence imperturbable her love can bond her so tightly even the baubles of princes won’t steal her from your embrace.

Read Full Post »

Are you an incorrigible flirt? Because if you’re not, you should be. ♥Science♥ has discovered that flirting trumps looks as a courtship strategy for getting laid and getting loved.

Does flirting actually work?

Very much so. In fact, research says it’s more effective than looking good.

Signaling availability and interest trumps attractiveness.

Dr. Monica Moore, a psychologist at Webster University in St. Louis, has conducted research on the flirting techniques used in singles bars, shopping malls, and places young people go to meet each other.

She concluded that it’s not the most physically appealing people who get approached, but the ones who signal their availability and confidence through basic flirting techniques like eye contact and smiles.

“Flirting” is really the old school term for “game”. If you had to describe the panoply of game techniques and strategies in one everyday word, “flirting” would fit. Charismatic flirting, that is. There’s good and bad flirting, and the thrust of game is to teach men how to flirt well.

What type of flirting works best?

Two types of flirting are universal: smiling and eye contact are indicators pretty much everywhere and work for both sexes.

A classic beta male tell is an inability to hold eye contact to the point of tantalizing discomfort.

But what works better than anything else?

Touching.

And research has isolated which types of touching are regarded as “merely friendly”, in the zone of “plausible deniability”, or “going nuclear.”

Another game principle victoriously vindicated.

  • Friendly: Shoulder push, shoulder tap, handshake.
  • Plausible Deniability: Touch around the shoulder or waist, touch on the forearm.
  • Nuclear: Face touch.

The behavior that participants rated as reflecting the most flirtation and the most romantic attraction was the soft face touch, followed by the touch around the shoulder or waist, and then the soft touch on the forearm.

The least flirtatious and romantic touches were the shoulder push, shoulder tap, and handshake. Thus, touching that is gentle and informal, and that occurs face-to-face or involves “hugging” behavior, appears to convey the most relational intent.

You gotta love science that points up a glaring disconnect between what turns on women in the real world (presumptuous touching) and what rabid feminist cunts shriek is evidence of an oppressive OMG RAPE!! culture as envisioned in the fever swamps of their twisted fantasies.

The effectiveness of flirting is somewhat context-dependent.

Behavior is perceived differently in different locations. The more formal the setting, the more obvious you need to be to get the signal across.

Via The Mating Game: A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage:

For each scenario, participants indicated whether they believed the stranger was flirting with them or not. The results revealed significantly higher percentages of “yes” (i.e., flirting) responses when the stranger was in the restaurant bar as opposed to the school hallway (61% vs. 49%)…

Daygame players take heed. You’ll have to amp your flirting level when hitting on girls during the daytime, outdoors. Otherwise, she might not take the hint.

Here’s some more juicy research which shows that, for men, their social dominance is more important than their looks when attracting a mate.

Research has shown that flirting which emphasizes physical attractiveness has little effect when males do it.

The flirting that is most effective for men involves displays of social dominance.

Via Close Relationships:

The results indicated that the men who successfully initiated romantic contact with women exhibited a greater number of particular kinds of nonverbal flirting behavior than men who did not establish romantic contact. Specifically, successful men directed more brief glances at their intended, engaged in a greater number of “space maximization” movements (positioning the body so that it takes up more space; e.g., extending one arm across an adjacent chair, stretching so that both arms extend straight up in the air), changed their location in the bar more frequently, and displayed greater amounts of non-reciprocated touching to surrounding men (e.g., playfully shoving, touching, or elbowing the ribs of other men).

In discussing their findings, the researchers concluded that men who provide signals of their positive intentions (e.g., through glancing behaviors) and their status (e.g., through space maximization and non-reciprocated touch of male peers) receive preferential attention from women.

Readers often ask, “How do you square the advice to communicate intention with the seemingly contradictory advice to appear disinterested?” Well, this is how. You demonstrate “active disinterest”. Bold players show intention, but they also signal their status through displays of dominance that are often proxies for communicating an attitude of outcome independence.

And how do you know if you’re spitting tight game?

How do you know if it’s working? When you start talking to her, ask yourself: “Is she speaking smoothly and quickly?”

Because MIT research says that’s a very good sign.

Fast talking is low status. A girl who is in the lower status position is a girl who is in thrall to your higher status male allure.

Beta males often complain that women never notice their interest. One reason might be because beta males really aren’t good at subcommunicating their sexual intention.

Researchers have documented a bias where people think they’re being clear about their intentions but, in reality, nobody but them thinks they’re flirting.

Via The Mating Game: A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage:

A more recent series of investigations by Vorauer and her colleagues (Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, & Pearce, 2003) demonstrated that the fear of being rejected by a potential partner can produce yet another pernicious attributional bias.

The “signal amplification bias” occurs when people believe that their social overtures communicate more romantic interest to potential partners than is actually the case and thus fail to realize that they have not adequately conveyed their feelings of attraction.

You may need to amp it up, even if that makes you a bit uncomfortable.

Fear is the mindkiller. Fear of rejection is the lovekiller. Alpha males have less fear of rejection because they operate from a mentality of abundance, (“No worries, if I don’t get her, there are plenty more waiting for the pleasure of my company”). This abundance mentality is honed from years of experience dealing with women. Beta males, in sorry contrast, have less experience with women, and so each potential rejection in the field matters a lot more to them. They approach women with a scarcity mentality, and this results in an excessive concern for appearing “too forward”, lest the beta male provoke the wrath of his idolized object of deference. The alpha male doesn’t give a crap about provoking wrath; in fact, he welcomes it, as the cascading drama gives him an opportunity to display his sexy bona fides.

♥Science♥ has now proven the efficacy of Poon Commandment XIIIErr on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little. Beta males new to the game must first unlearn decades of bad habits by striving to be acutely aware of how poorly their tepid flirtations are received by women. To succeed, the beta male must commit himself to reaching beyond the comfy boundaries of his beta bubble. He has to be ready to provoke romantic rejection, and in the so doing will achieve, paradoxically, more love in his life.

Read Full Post »

Lust Is Love

A shopworn shibboleth heard often in various permutations from people who fearfully shirk from reality is that lust is dirty and craven and superficial while love is divine and transcendent and meaningful. This pretty lie probably has its basis in early religious texts, which pegged (heh) lust as one of the seven deadly sins.

And yet, without lust there would be no love. Much philosophy, supernatural or secular, which reveres the concept of endearing, lifelong romantic love must necessarily also revere lust for bringing its only begotten son — love — into the world. Evidence for this cosmically bonded relationship between lust and love abounds in personal experience. (Who here ever fell deeply in romantic love with someone they didn’t also sexually lust for, at least at the beginning of the relationship?)

CH knew this intimate entanglement between lust and love, long ago, before the “manosphere” was a twinkle in the blogosphere’s eye:

We here at the Chateau have in the past written that it is just as easy — in fact, may even be easier — to fall in love and begin a healthy long term relationship with a woman after having sex with her on the first date as it is with a woman who has made you wait for weeks or months before having sex. [...]

Pure, feral lust is a necessary prerequisite to romantic love. A love not undergirded by animal lust is not a romantic love at all. It is, at best, a companionate love, or an affectionate love, or a phony love that two losers convince themselves to feel when no other options are available. So why delay the inevitable? If you feel hot for each other, go ahead and consummate on the first date! You won’t poison any budding relationship that might follow.

Now there is evidence from ♥SCIENCE♥ that… HO HUM… once again vindicates another vantage point in the Heartiste worldview.

Lust: Sexual desire forges lasting relationships.

People often think of love and lust as polar opposites—love exalted as the binder of two souls, lust the transient devil on our shoulders, disturbing and disruptive. Now neuroscientists are discovering that lust and love work together more closely than we think. Indeed, the strongest relationships have elements of both. [...]

Brain imaging is revealing the distinct but interlocking patterns of neural activation associated with lust and love.

Lust is most likely grounded in the concrete sensations of the given moment. Love is a more abstract gloss on our experiences with another person.

Powerful lust conceives enduring love. And when lust wanes, love — romantic love at any rate — follows in its dissipating wake.

This provides ample justification for the player’s intuition that the best relationships are the ones that begin passionately, and sooner rather than later. The bounder who collects his bounty on the first date is more likely to segue into a loving long-term relationship than is the idealistic betaboy supplicant who dutifully waits ten dates for a scrap of tepid snatch.

That three date rule is more than just a game strategy for avoiding the curious cruelty of a cockteaser; it’s also a litmus test for the presence of irrepressible lust, which in turn heralds the prophetess of love. If you, or she, can hold out longer than three dates, your future love, should it come, will more closely resemble a candle flicker than a blast furnace.

This CH-embracing study also lets the air out of feminist bromides that women have to sleep around in order to determine with whom they’re sexually and temperamentally compatible. Such hogwash. If love is kin with lust, then the first man who inspires a woman’s convulsive orgasms can be, and likely will be, the man she falls in love with, or dreams of falling in love with, or regrets having let his love slip away. Such a man needn’t be her twentieth lover any more than her first lover.

And temperamentally, lust has a way of enabling superlative post hoc rationalizations of compatibility.

No, women who assert a “need to sleep around to find the right man” are playing the age-old hamster game known as “I keep getting dumped because I’m a foul skank, but I can’t tell myself that or the razor blade will start to look very inviting.”

With love,

CH

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

1. A commenter over at HBD Chick proposed in the comment thread to a post about chicks digging jerks that modern liberals (for all practical purposes the global Western elite) are like a nomadic r-selected species — that is, they prefer the metaphorical pump and dump lifestyle to the family formation lifestyle. He also passed along the catchy aphorism that [liberal elite] nomads are “farmers of civilization. The nomads allow civilizations to grow and then when they are ripe they eat them.” Ideas like this should catch on within Dark Enlightenment circles, even if they aren’t fully fleshed out. The world desperately needs courageous, free thinkers, now more than ever.

2. I read this Dissent article by [vapid shrike alert] Jezebel writer Katie J.M. Baker [/vapid shrike alert], about cad bounder Roosh’s time as a farmer of pussy in Denmark and his disdain for the local women there, and I thought something sounded off about both the tone and substance of the article, as if Baker’s ostensible book review of “Don’t Bang Denmark” was really a springboard for her to launch her stupid feminist agenda talking points. Having not read “Don’t Bang Denmark”, I couldn’t be certain my suspicion was well-founded. But now Roosh has answered Baker and accused her of distorting pretty much everything about his book and his time there. Suspicion confirmed. Good rule of thumb: When a feminist flaps her gums, she’s lying through her teeth.

3. Male self-delusion. The rationalization hamster can thrive anywhere there is a habitat for it, such as a field of sour grapes.

4. Remember the post about the gigantic obese chick who complained about all the weird looks she got from people who saw her and her thin “boyfriend” out together? The boyfriend has responded. (See the attached photo for extra :lol: s.) I still say the guy is a closet homo with the typical leftoid pathological over-sensitivity to hurtful hurtiness. The dude is a walking sexual identity crisis who gets off playing a martyr for the cause.

5. Answers to objections to monarchism. File under: It’s good to be the King’s subject!

6. The Obesity Era: Animals are getting fat, too. An intriguing theory: Is the obesity epidemic nature’s way of preparing all animal life for a coming Ice Age?

7. John Derbyshire on the cruelty of the overclass. One day, the wronged part of white America will notice the boot on its face. How they’ll respond, is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they’ll have learned to love being ground to dust. Or perhaps they’ll shed their inertia, and execute an escape move. If reaction fully unleashed, to be followed by a finishing move.

8. TED trolled.

Read Full Post »

The Wickedest Links

1. “[Taleb's] antifragility not only resembles Game, it describes Game, and to a certain extent, it even explains why Game is so effective.”

2. “At that moment, I wondered if I was the only one of my group who hated with everything in my heart the slimy hypocrites around me.”

3. “The best map ever made of America’s racial segregation libertarian bubbles.”

4. “This threatpoint gives leverage to women in a marriage, giving her unilateral control over the future of the commitment.”

5. Commenter to Amanjaw Marcuntte: “In other words, Massachusetts profiles.”

6. “Brookings, like any not-for-profit organization, survives through contributions. And it is a fact of life that these organizations cannot afford to do many, if any, studies that are counter to the goals of the donors.

7. “and that’s the part that the happy leftists are missing from their thinking [sic] about epigenetics. epigenetics is obviously some sort of adaptation… so it must be coded for in our genes somewhere. that methylation happens to alter the expression of genes isn’t some miracle, however amazing it may be. it’s coded for.”

8. “If she moved into your apartment sans a ring, you’re better off than married folk in the happiness department, new research suggests.”

9. Opt out of global data surveillance programs.

10. “They had every Facebook post I had ever made in a huge file, along with all my wife’s information, and parent’s information,” As Vox says, your two choices when under assault by a power-hungry Big Brother 1984-ish surveillance state are either go dark, or go disinformation. Or, like CH, do both.

Read Full Post »

A (possibly foreign) girl writes about a dilemma that should be familiar to any pretty woman with dreams of alpha males pledging devotion dancing in her bed,

I am writing to ask you a question related to dating and marriage. Just what you wanted to and so rarely hear :) First, to introduce myself, I am what most men would rate as an 8, or on a really good day perhaps a 9, [ed: legit] am 26, and really only date alpha males. I can’t help it, I like the fire that can burn me. My last two boyfriends were both extremely charismatic, successful, magnetic et al and I spent a year with each before I realized they had something in common: aversion to marriage. Both were around 33, an age when many men begin to consider that stuff, in my opinion. My question is this:

As I am 26 and not going to be more attractive in five years, and I would like to get married within that time frame, how do I go about eschewing the alphas who are not interested in me for marriage? Should I start directing my attentions to the ones around 40 and up? Right now I can have my pick of most men, though it will not always remain thus, but as alphas are harder to marry than other men and commitment is what I want, should I redirect my attentions towards betas?

Of course perhaps it was just me that neither wanted to marry, but it was the reason for both breakups, and really I would rather not waste my time/energy/looks/emotions on men who just want to enjoy me for a year or two….

Anyway I appreciate you taking the time to read this and if you decide to post this and answer it on your website, feel free to, but please alter my name. Thanks :)

A critical detail remains unanswered: Did you initiate your break-ups with the last two alpha boyfriends? If not, you are probably dating out of your league — that is, you are fucking men who don’t think you have the goods to persuade them of an early retirement from the field — and the men decided your marital ultimatum, or innuendos of marital ultimatums to come, was a cramping of their style they couldn’t tolerate. So they dumped you while the dumping was good.

If, however, you did initiate the break-ups, it suggests your exes thought well enough of you to stick it out for as long as possible, holding out the hope of nuptial rewards until you called their deceptive feints. In this scenario, you are not dating out of your league so much as you are experiencing what it’s like to be with men who have the hearts of cads, but love you nonetheless.

My advice, should you choose to accept it:

Yes, dating older men is a solution. An older alpha male begins to feel two pressing awarenesses: his posterity, and his mortality. In this psychological stew, the love of a younger, loyal woman beckoning him to surrender his bachelor freedoms is a temptation hard to resist. But, if this is not an option…

Pursue the greater beta male. Often, the only notable differences between an alpha male and a greater beta male are the former’s superior charisma and the latter’s superior commitment. If you can suffer the even-temper and placid mood of the greater beta for his gift of marital capitulation, you will live a happy life. If not, prepare for my final piece of advice…

Continue your Sisyphean quest for the magnetic alpha male who inflames your ichor yet who is also willing to abide your peculiarly female constraints on his vital energies. These men do exist, but they’re rare. Not quite phantoms, but you’ll have to hunt them down. To start, you must identify warning signs of flightiness, and hopeful auspices of lifelong devotion.

- Is he a social king? The man who holds court, holds the love of many women. Try to date men who are less extroverted. The alpha introvert is socialy savvy, but he also prefers his solitude. This desire for solitude is correlated with conscientiousness, low impulsivity, and affinity for home and hearth.

- Are his parents still together (if alive)? The faithful apple doesn’t fall far from the tree of fidelity. Don’t underestimate the influence of genes on behavior.

- Has he dated and dumped a lot of beautiful women? Red flag.

- Are you better looking than his exes? You may be the one to quell his urge to wander.

- Is he willing to wait more than three dates before having sex with you? Hopeful auspice.

- Does he go out of his way to learn things about you? He’s smitten. (Or he’s a grandmaster player.)

- Does he have a (big) dog? He’s got an incipient paternal instinct.

- Is he politically conservative? If so, he’s more likely to want to marry and raise a family.

- Are his friends womanizers? He’s sympatico with the swinging scimitar lifestyle.

- Is he an epicurean of food, drink and art? He might also be an epicurean of women.

This is a partial list to get you started. One other thing. Beware prowlers bearing charming wit. Unlike men you meet within your social circle, the lone wolf does not come favorably endorsed nor does he fear betraying your friends’ trust.

Read Full Post »

How To Defeat Realtalk

A modest suggestion for the Cathedral and her foot soldiers. You know you can’t win on the facts. And you know you can’t win when there’s an army of independent broadsheeters (aka bloggers) more than willing to call you out on your lies. Not only willing, but happy to do so.

Realtalk is now a thorn in your side which will soon become a Poe-ian swinging blade pendulum whooshing over your noodle neck. You sense this, which is why you are in panic mode, squealing loudly like a cornered pig about to get mortally stuck.

So here’s how you take back the night. It’s quite simple, really. Deprive the truth-tellers of their power. Strip them of their online anonymity. Make it so that they can easily and quickly be identified by your PC Stasi and forthwith excommunicated from polite society and lawful employment. Do this while you still have a stranglehold over the collective consciousness and uncontested rule over the societal, bureaucratic and cultural apparatuses.

Gather your silent shock troops — the NSA, the CIA, PRISM, Google, Microsoft — and reveal the underground resistance that may one day explode into a full-blown revolution out of your control. But hurry!, before the enforcers that man your expensive military hardware wake up as well and point their gun turrets back at you. You know what to do. I’ve given you the keys to victory. Get cracking. Heh.

Read Full Post »

1. “So there’s really nothing that can be done about the decline of the Republican Party. As virtue and ability decline in the electorate so does the republic.” Randall, and Reihan, are right. Demography and character are a nation’s destiny. And right now, the US of Gay is going down the crapper on both counts.

2. Do you have a palette of tissues handy? Because feminists are about to weep their last bitter tears. Satoshi Kanazawa is back in the news with a study that concludes the maternal instinct decreases by a quarter for every fifteen extra IQ points. Smart and over-educated lawyercunts are a dying breed. Literally. I believe it was the Audacity of Huge who once tabulated and correlated GSS data to find that smart men have more children than dumb men, while smart women have fewer children than dumb women. I call this the “Alpha Male-Cute Secretary Assortative Mating” theory. You may know it better by its street handle: Female hypergamy. And… wait for it… it will be the salvation of the white race in multicultural miasmas.

3. Study shows girls commit dating violence as often as boys. If you’ve ever dated a drama whore, you know that they can get physically aggressive. It comes with the hot sex territory. You’re banging the bejeezus out of her one night, and the next day she’s pushing you into the knife rack. Now of course, owing to inherent size and strength differences, this sort of physical violence from women carries less risk than the same violence would from men. Men are also more unwilling to admit they get pushed around by their girlfriends and/or wives. Which may be why girls resort to physical violence more often, because they know they can get away with it. The study authors also looked at “verbal violence” — which in CH terms is known as psychological warfare — and this too, is one area where women excel. Now I don’t believe verbal violence is nearly as bad as real violence, but if you take feminists’ and leftoids’ words for it — that bad words are trés hurtful and on a par with stabbings and shootings, and therefore their expression ought to be regulated by the state — then a lot of women should be thrown in jail for nagging and needling their men. #feministlogic

4. “[T]he West began to diverge from the rest long before the Growth Revolution.” Why did the West rise? If you look at GDP per capita, instead of total wealth, it becomes clear that the West diverged from China long before the 19th century. Conclusion: The North Sea diverged from the rest in 1,000 AD. Why? Outbreeding is one answer. Whatever the precise answer, it appears that genes are more and more becoming the obvious candidate for explaining Western greatness. #equalistpain

5. Chicks dig violent jerks. #hohum

6. Suicidal libertarianism. In multiracial, open borders societies, libertarianism is nothing short of a death cult. Any time sperglord Bryan Caplan is owned, is a time to

th_SnoopyDance

The inevitable logic of their Rainman ideology that libertarians don’t get (or pretend not to get for tribe-scoring subterfuge) is that, although open borders to the world’s riff-raff may bring short-term proximate benefits like cheap strawberries, it also brings longer-term costs in the form of sacrificing ultimate interests, like one’s ethnic genetic continuity. But perhaps that cost is what the open border libertarian traitors really want. In which case, all that needs saying to them is

7. Sex video exonerates men who were falsely accused of rape by a world class cunt. It’s ironic that the feminist push to enlarge the domain of legal rape and to make it easier for women to accuse men of various sexual improprieties is also creating an incentive for men to videotape every sexual liaison they have with women that feminists would hold up as cultural heroines fighting the patriarchy. But, that’s what you get when you follow #feministlogic.

Read Full Post »

Visual proof of the damaging toll that fatness extracts from a woman’s sexual market value, and of the major increase in SMV that accrues when the excess fat is shed, is in this series of photographs of a single girl taken at regular intervals as she lost weight and went from a hippo to a totally bangable hot babe.

At 197 pounds, this girl was a hard 3 on the 1 to 10 looks scale. A hard 3 means that she would have had trouble getting love from a dweeby loser beyond a shameful one-night drunken rutting.

At 124 pounds, this girl is a solid 7.5, perhaps pushing into 8 territory. Let’s call her an 8 and unsplit the difference. Perfect curvy body (“feminine curvy”, not “feminist curvy“), youthfully peaking nubility, shock of fire engine red hair, exquisitely smooth milky white skin. You wonder if your eyes aren’t playing a trick on you and this is a different woman from the one at 197 pounds. But your boner doesn’t wonder which of these women it wants to nestle within. At SMV 8, this girl will have no trouble getting a high value man to commit to her for the long-term, and even to marry her.

From a 3 to an 8. Five whole SMV points — that’s a lot — at the low low price of losing 73 pounds.

This is the rough male equivalent of an average Joe going from a suburban shut-in to a semi-famous B-list actor. Or of a run-of-the-mill beta male mastering core game techniques, putting on ten pounds of muscle, dressing more stylishly, and behaving with unshakable overconfidence.

Love is pressing a biomechanical lever. You press the right levers, in the right order, and you can make the opposite sex fall in love with you. No magic required.

Read Full Post »

Frequent commenter Kate (who used to go by the handle GeishaKate) reports that she is engaged to a manosphere writer, Mark Minter. Naturally, your genial hosts wonder if the passion-inspiring auspices of Le Chateau brought these two lovebirds together into a promise of holy matrimony. What a slap in the face this news must be to the barbarian peasants who incessantly claim CH is about nothing but pumping and dumping bar skanks. Excuse me, good haters, but I don’t see your blogs resulting in any nuptial engagements.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,841 other followers

%d bloggers like this: