Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Break rapport.

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

2. Indicate disinterest (IOD).

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

3. Backturn.

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

4. Break physical contact.

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

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

5. Break emotional contact.

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

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

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

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

6. Depart under mysterious circumstances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Keep two in the kitty.

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

10. Actually cheat.

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

11. Break up with her.

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

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

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

***

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

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Read Full Post »

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 »

CH’s power grows, but it hasn’t grown enough to prevent thieves from plagiarizing classic Chateau tomes. See for yourself.

Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo article titled “How to Get Your Ex-Girlfriend Back” that dates to September 19, 2007.

Rule number one: Let her leave. Don’t beg and plead for her to stay or text and call her incessantly after she does. This only adds to the image of you being needy and nothing without her and as we all know, women love power. Take at least 3 days before you even consider contacting her. If she doesn’t get a hold of you in those 3 days, consider waiting longer, to each his own. When you finally do talk to her be in control of your emotions. It is vital at this point that you do not let her get under your skin. VITAL! Keep the conversation general and don’t pester her or talk too heavily about getting back together.

And here’s the related CH article titled “How to Win Back an Ex-Girlfriend” published on April 10, 2007.

The less experienced man caught offguard will need to learn the art of turning it around after her decision to leave is made but before she has reached the no-looking-back stage.  Chances of re-notch success are much lower once she has verbalized her need for space, but with proper post-relationship game you can improve your odds dramatically.  The key is in the timing.  A mathematician has shown that the dumper’s loneliness and nostalgia for the broken relationship peak at about 3 weeks after the breakup, unless she has found another man in the interim.  Therefore, your job is to let her go and not speak to her for 3 weeks.  This will amplify her feelings of loss.  Then, at her most vulnerable 3 weeks later, call to say hi.  Keep the convo short and friendly.  Chances are best right at this moment that she will offer to meet you for drinks.

Once more, from the Yahoo article,

Women want what they can’t have any while they love the chase, keep your distance and keep them wondering. If she calls, don’t immediately answer or don’t answer at all. If she leaves messages call back at your convenience. Have some back bone and discipline, don’t be a lap dog! If you try to make plans with her and she either denies or agrees and then blows you off, don’t offer again, let her make the next move.

And the (earlier) CH version,

You must be the one to leave first.  Minimize face time.  Don’t call her.  Be friendly but ambiguous.  Don’t inquire into her life.  Laugh off her crappy attitude.  Most importantly, act as if nothing is wrong.  If she senses you are acting aloof out of spite the spell will be broken.  Eventually, she will wander back to you, bewildered and intrigued, filled with doubt about her hasty judgment.  You will resume a pattern of dating and sex that eerily resembles the first few weeks together.

Even the writing style is similar.

It’s a net benefit to society that the Rude Word of CH is disseminating to the masses, but blatant plagiarism is a theft too far. Unfortunately, there’s nothing to be done about it. Libertardians bemoan a trend to excessive copyright litigation, and they perhaps have a point (if only they could see how diversity and copyright mania intersect), but on the ground, in the ascii alleys of ideas, stuff is stolen all the time and there’s little recourse to those unwilling to pay the fee in time and energy to right the wrong. If you value the freedom that anonymity gives to speak truthfully and boldly, you have to put up with a fair amount of idea pilfering.

 

Read Full Post »

The post subject says it all. A reader asks,

Read your site regularly. Thanks for the time and effort.

Interested in your thoughts: I’ve got a recent girlfriend- good looking, moneyed background, sweet girl but lots of confidence.  She is, however, outright jealous- or at least catty- about an ex of mine who she has found notes from and a couple pictures of us together.

She recently lost her phone and asked to temporarily borrow my old one.  While sanitizing it I found found a few nudes my ex sent me.  She looks good.  Do I leave them and stoke the flames further? Or leave it to simmer? Opportunity or foolishness?

A girlfriend who is excessively jealous of an ex-girlfriend of comparable SMV is projecting a desire to have a boyfriend who is adept at attracting other women. The catty jealousy is manufactured drama that she indulges because it serves the purpose of making her more attracted to you. You may consider this flattery… or a warning sign of troubles ahead.

If your ex is hotter than your current girlfriend (be honest with yourself), the jealousy is nothing less than raw insecurity. Women know, despite their socially acceptable protestations to the contrary, what really matters to men. A hotter ex-girlfriend translates as a greater risk of you trading up in the near future.

My answer is partly dependent on which of the two contexts above is relevant to you. If you get the sense that your girlfriend is very much in love and her jealousy is revealed insecurity, the smart move is to delete the photos so she doesn’t see them and melt into a puddle of manic self-doubt. (The smarter move is to not let her borrow your phone so that you may keep the photos for your old age when the nostalgic masturbation material will come in HANDY.)

But if she seems like the drama-prone type (INFIDELITY ALERT) and her jealousy strikes you as deliberately hyperbolic, you may want your girlfriend to “accidentally” come across those nude photos of your ex as a means of assuring she stays in your orbit. A drama queen needs these occasional reminders of your surfeit of sexual market options. Keep the ho on her toes.

Read Full Post »

Does this post title sound like a paradox? It is to virgin ears which have yet to hear the Rude Word of CH. But once again ♥science♥ waltzes onto the Chateau ballroom floor to plant a giant wet kiss on the stubbled cheek of your e’er ‘umble host and announce with stentorian resolve that “Aloof Indifference Game” is real and it works.

Erin Whitchurch and her colleagues conducted a study on 47 female undergraduates to find out. Each woman was told that several male students had viewed her Facebook profile and rated how much he’d like to get to know her.

One group was told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them the highest ratings (“liked-most” condition). Another group of women were told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them average ratings (“liked-average” condition. Finally, another group of women (“the uncertain condition”) were told that it is unknown how much the guy likes her. The women then viewed four fictitious Facebook profiles of attractive male college students.

After they viewed the profiles, they reported their mood and rated multiple aspects of their attraction to the male students (e.g., “someone I would hook up with“). The participants then rated their mood again, and also reported the extent to which thoughts about the men had “popped into their head” during the prior 15 minutes.

They found evidence for the reciprocity principle: women liked the men more when they were led to believe that the men liked them a lot compared to when they thought the men liked them an average amount.

Women in the uncertain condition, however, were most attracted to the men. Women also reported thinking about the men the most in the uncertain condition, and there was tentative evidence that the effect of uncertainty on attraction was explained by the frequency of their thoughts. In other words, it wasn’t the uncertainty per se that was attractive but the thoughts it induced.

Interestingly, women in the liked-best condition were in a more positive mood than women in the liked-average condition, but women in the uncertain condition were no different in mood than women in the liked-best condition. Women felt just as positive under uncertainty as they did knowing for sure the guy liked her!

When women think of assholes they don’t want to date, they’re thinking of caring assholes. The kind of men who are clingy, mate guarding buffoons. The assholes who are loved by women are the men whose jerkitude is implied through emotional distance, cocksureness, outcome independence, and inscrutability. The man who cares least earns the most love (and sex) from women. The gradient of this Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is steep at the beginning of a relationship (courtship, dating) and levels off as the relationship deepens, to a point where the man’s SMV is noticeably higher than his lover’s and she is practically begging for romantic beta signs of his continued love and commitment.

The Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is also dependent on the comparative sexual worth of the partners. A beautiful woman with a lot of options will be more attracted to romantically ambivalent men. In contrast, an ugly woman with few options will need and feel grateful for conspicuous signals of sexual and romantic interest from men.

As a man with game, you should always default to the Uncaring Male-Loving Female dynamic. If you overshoot, you have room to rein your indifference and bedaub the woman with tiny jewels of romantic intent; if you overshoot in the other direction — i.e., you lavish too much beta wooing on a woman — there’s no chance to come back from that category error.

Interestingly, psychologists are coming around to the CH theoretical (and field-tested) framework that the frequency and amplitude of “care least” courtship and dating rituals are increasing. Women, at least those in the highly sexually charged ruthouses of our major anonymizing cities, are responding more to aloof men, and are themselves mechanistically cranking the reverse gears of their pair-bonding algorithms. There are a host of reasons for this state of arid affairs, but one major factor has to be something like this: Women have become as men, and the flipped sexual polarity is warping every incentive structure of the dating market.

We’re tits-deep in the era of men and women competing like cheap date gladiators for the honor of most invulnerable animatronic ego maximizer.

One thing for certain: In this environment women are unhappy, society loses, and men with game win. Because if it’ll be about nothing but banging with piston-like efficiency and avoiding romantic entanglements, men will clean up the arena with the battered husks of women’s egos.

Read Full Post »

A year late and a neural synapse short, the New York Beta Times has stumbled upon a dusty CH tome and (re)discovered an obvious fact of the sexes: Domestic servitude makes a man undesirable in the eyes and loins of his woman.

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

This news so shocked the NYBTimes readership that the high IQ assembled emptied their bowels en masse and vaulted the article to #1 most-emailed. In a den of liars, a simple truth is meme-king. Quoting the CH bastion of enlightenment,

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology. May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its divine directive.

You may now take a moment to ponder what terrible, horrible, no good, very bad truths the high priests of leftoidism will scare themselves into noticing next. Down the hall, second door on the right… what’s that you’ve found? Biological race differences? Good God, man! Brace yourself against something sturdy! Third floor, door at the end of the hall… women love badboys? Lawdy it’s another breathtaking nugget of common sense! You’ve just loaded your diaper. There there, dear.

Let them have their circus act. Whatever they need to keep those UES cocktail party invites flowing, and their naughty thoughts checked before their self-admiration is wrecked. It’s all fun and games unless $$$trillions$$$ are wasted on turning their self-medicating lies into public policy. Woops.

Read Full Post »

Another stirring affirmation of CH-elucidated sociosexual realities comes courtesy of a peculiar agreement arranged between a married couple and researchers designing an experiment to test whether stubbornness by one or both spouses produces unhappy marriages. (ps: ♥)

It is better to be right than to be happy – at least for one husband on the cutting edge of science.

As part of an unusual experiment, the husband was instructed to “agree with his wife’s every opinion and request without complaint,” and to continue doing so “even if he believed the female participant was wrong,” according to a report on the research that was published Tuesday by the British Medical Journal. [...]

Based on the assumption that men would rather be happy than be right, he was told to agree with his wife in all cases. However, based on the assumption that women would rather be right than be happy, the doctors decided not to tell the wife why her husband was suddenly so agreeable.

Both spouses were asked to rate their quality of life on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the happiest) at the start of the experiment and again on Day 6. It’s not clear how long the experiment was intended to last, but it came to an abrupt halt on Day 12.

“By then the male participant found the female participant to be increasingly critical of everything he did,” the researchers reported. The husband couldn’t take it anymore, so he made his wife a cup of tea and told her what had been going on.

That led the researchers to terminate the study.

Maybe the researchers thought that aiding the dissolution of a marriage violated ethical boundaries.

Over the 12 days of the experiment, the husband’s quality of life plummeted from a baseline score of 7 all the way down to 3. The wife started out at 8 and rose to 8.5 by Day 6. She had no desire to share her quality of life with the researchers on Day 12, according to the report.

Translation: The wife was appalled by the revelations into her sexual nature.

“It seems that being right, however, is a cause of happiness, and agreeing with what one disagrees with is a cause of unhappiness,” they wrote. They also noted that “the availability of unbridled power adversely affects the quality of life of those on the receiving end.”

Behaving like a supplicating beta male will increase your unhappiness, partly because it feels unmanly, but mostly because you’ll incite the seething contempt of your girlfriend or wife. CH readers won’t be surprised to read that an overly agreeable husband earned nothing but nagging criticism from his wife. The wife’s self-reported happiness didn’t budge much from Day1 to Day 6 of having her ego relentlessly stroked, but as we all know women are distinctly incapable, as a sex, of honestly and accurately aligning their socialized thoughts with their unsocialized feelings. A woman possesses a deep pool of innate talent for subconsciously reconciling contradictory emotions.

It would have been interesting to see how the wife rated herself on Day 12, but the self-reported result wouldn’t have had much impact on her *true* feelings, as manifest by her compulsion to nag the shit out of her husband for agreeing with everything she said. Never mind the wife’s words; her actions say it all. Women don’t respect, don’t desire, and certainly don’t tingle for excessively agreeable men. We know this from cold hard experience, and we know this from scientific inquiry. What a woman wants is a man who will put her in her place when she’s wrong or being silly. To stand up for himself. To call her out on her bullshit, aka shit tests. Oh sure, she’ll make a show and bitch and moan at first… but then watch her face vulvaically glow with desirous urgency as the life-giving waters of his insistent masculinity pour into her thirsty feminine soul. Yeah, just like that.

The Chateau covered this ground before, referencing a similar study. “Yes, dear” men get nothing but headaches, both their own and their wives’. “No, dear” men get enduring love, bordering on worship, from their grateful wives.

Continuing with the linked study above,

The three doctors think they might be on to something, and they wrote that they would like to see the work continue: “More research is needed to see whether our results hold if it is the male who is always right.”

Happy Whoridays! There has been “research” along those lines. As commenter Trimegistus asked,

Everywhere this article has been reported on they leave out the obvious, critical detail: WOMEN don’t react well to always being agreed with by men. If the experiment had been done with the opposite approach (wife agrees with hubby) it could go on for years because both of them would come to find it satisfying and pleasant.

A wife, writing on PuffedHo about her most intimate personal matters, decided that in order to resurrect her marital lust life she would agree to her husband’s desire for as much sex as possible. She didn’t want to do it, not on a conscious awareness level at any rate, but she discovered that acquiescing in total to her husband’s wishes made her own life a lot… happier! And less stressful. Feminists of course will be delighted to learn that wives who follow the Biblical command to obey their husbands enjoy a much more positive state of mind.

This is where women need to be, even if they will never say so, or are incapable of saying so, outright: Following the lead of their lovers instead of leading them around like a neutered cat on a leash. Anything less would be… unsatisfying.

Read Full Post »

The results from an interesting scientific study which could be fairly interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of the neg shows that men and women cooperate with each other differently, and that this cooperation disparity is based in differing expectations between the sexes. {Greek chorus: *FEMINISTS WEEEEEEEEEPT*}

In summary, women don’t trust beta males well-meaning men who appease them.

While men tend to match their partners’ emotions during mutual cooperation, women may have the opposite response, according to new research.

Cooperation is essential in any successful romantic relationship, but how men and women experience cooperation emotionally may be quite different, according to new research conducted at the University of Arizona.

Feminists are getting ready to weep.

Randall wondered how the act of cooperating, a beneficial relationship process, might impact emotional coordination between partners.

“Cooperation – having the ability to work things out with your partner, while achieving mutually beneficial outcomes – is so important in relationships, and I wondered what kind of emotional connectivity comes from cooperating with your partner?” she said.

What she found in her recent study – published in SAGE’s Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and featured in the journal’s podcast series, Relationship Matters – were surprising gender differences.

She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an “inphase” response to their significant other’s emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive.

On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an “antiphase” pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.

Aaaand… torrent of termagant tears!

Take, for example, the following familiar scenario: A woman emerges from a department store fitting room and asks her husband what he thinks of a potential new shirt. He likes it, he says, hoping his time at the mall is nearing an end. So does the woman head straight to the cash register and make the purchase? Probably not. Chances are, her husband’s enthusiasm won’t be enough; she’ll want to try on a few more shirts first.

Social psychology literature on cooperation tells us that women generally tend to cooperate more, while men often try to avoid conflict. Thus, men might be subconsciously syncing their emotions with their partners’ during cooperation in an effort to avoid conflict or reach a speedy resolution, Randall says.

If that’s the case, it’s possible, although Randall’s study didn’t test for it, that women may pick up on the fact that their partner’s agreeability is not entirely authentic. If she suspects he’s not really as positive as he seems, or that he has an ulterior motive, she may become less positive herself in an attempt to get at his real feelings and reach a more mutually satisfying resolution, Randall suggests.

Read the bolded part again. Here are the grounds for interpreting this study as providing evidence for the effectiveness of the game concept known as the neg. If you agree too readily with a woman — if you appease her and supplicate to her and seek her approval — she’ll feel less happy, even less aroused, in your company. She’ll instead attempt to “dramatize” your mutual interaction by becoming a sourpuss and challenging your agreeableness, which in certain contexts (such as bar pick-ups) materializes as the shit test.

Now we have the insight to know why, perhaps, the neg works on women: Because by deliberately adopting a pose of contrariness, of resistance to accommodation, a man can inspire feelings of connection, curiosity and craving in women. Be the jerk, and you’ll be beloved. Be the placater, and you’ll be perpetually pestered for proof of sincerity.

If you’ve ever had to endure a grilling from your girlfriend or wife for your opinion on something she’s wearing, you’ll know the pain of being a “yes, dear” man. The harder you try to smooth the waters, the more tirelessly she churns open sea turbulence. And so, having been in this exasperating situation a few too many times for my taste and sanity, I had discovered a better way, a way now bolstered by ♥SCIENCE♥:

Be a “no, dear” man.

Tell the light of your life, “No, dear, that dress looks bad on you.” “No, dear, those shows don’t make you look good.” No, dear, this look isn’t working for you.”

[GBFM version: "No, dearlzzlol, that thongzz covers the butthosllezx. Don't make me do all da work when all da men before me got your butholeszzs for free lzlolzzzlolz"]

Betaboys shriek, “But she’ll hate me for saying that!” FEEBS! Have you not learned a single thing reading this blog? Lemme tell you what really happens. She makes an indignant face, looks shell-shocked for a half second, retreats to the dressing room or closet, and returns with a new item to buy or wear, no further questions asked, yerhonner. The “yes, dear” demon infant has been killed in the crib.

Seduction is the art of flirting, and flirting is an artful term for pushing away and pulling toward. All betas know how to do is pull toward, aka “Please like me! You’re the best! Here’s proof of my love!” game. But this is boring to women, and actively repulses them during their one week ovulatory period. Taking the opposite tack is the blinkered douche, who only knows how to push away. This is exciting for women at first, but the novelty wears off quickly.

The right balance is struck between alternately pulling toward and pushing away. As all great seducers know, and as science is now coming around to confirming, the ideal male lover is the man who understands the value of emotionally desyncing with women. He doesn’t distance himself from a woman; rather, he cleverly directs her arousal by undermining feelings of closeness just at the moment she starts to relax and senses that she can predict his desire and behavior, and then drawing her back in when she fears his loss of interest. By alternately undermining and reengaging like this, he subverts the Male Chaser-Female Chasee expectation, and thus flips the normal sex status differential that is the standard operating procedure of an unobstructed and undirected mating market so that, by his manipulations, he is perceived as the more valuable commodity.

From there, female hypergamy finds root and the labia flower like spring lilies in the noon sun.

Prompt punishment for bad behavior, intermittent reward for good behavior, emotional desyncing and resyncing for creating deep feelings of arousal and connection: These are the tools of the modern Casanova in a global mating village where the old rules to curb the primal chaos of female sexuality have long been discarded and forgotten.

PS Here’s Psychology Today‘s analysis of the same study.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,948 other followers

%d bloggers like this: