Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Relationships’ Category

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 A chronically peaceable woman is a romantically withdrawn woman.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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,998 other followers

%d bloggers like this: