Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

Chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. It’s a stereotype for a reason. Our ancestors who had experience with women beyond typing furious white knight screeds on feminist blogs and collecting cheetos dust in their manboob cleavage have witnessed this adage in action so often that it’s long been accepted wisdom, passed down from grandfather to father to son. (Until the chain of realtalk was broken with the advent of equalism.)

This facet of female sexual nature is so plain as day that even indignant feminists and ignoramus tradcons have conceded some ground on the issue. As they have retreated in shame ahead of the advancing armies of the Chateau id-palers, they’ve been reduced to arguing “yeah, well, ok but so do men!” and babbling incoherent nonsense about men preferring “bitches”.

CH corrected their misunderstanding in as gentle a manner as befits this noble house, noting that, absent a few rare self-gelding exceptions to the rule, the desire to love and be loved by a jerk is a far stronger and frequently expressed impulse in women than the desire to love a bitch is in those few men who like to be pegged.

Or: If the “bitch” is hot, men will still want to fuck her, albeit with reservations concerning any long-term commitment potential. If the “bitch” is not hot, they won’t.

Women, as is their sex’s formerly inscrutable wont, are markedly different from men in this regard. The jerkboy attitude ITSELF is inherently attractive to women, and women even prefer to harness the commitment of jerks to the detriment of beta male supplicants.

But, why bother retelling the wisdom of the ancients and of the clear-eyed moderns to low born plebes when one can summon a mighty Shiv forged of Heartistian steel instead? A twist of the hilt and equalist ego guts spill out in technicolor anguish.

Men are sexually attracted to women who show an interest in them or who are responsive during a date, the study found. On the flip side, women are not sexually interested in the responsive men they meet for the first time, the research also discovered.

“We wanted to understand the reasons for these gender differences,” said the study’s lead researcher, Gurit Birnbaum, an associate professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. “What makes a responsive woman sexually attractive, and what makes a responsive man less sexually attractive?” [...]

Men who perceive women to be interested in them rated the women as more feminine and sexually attractive. They also showed more interest in having long-term relationships with the responsive women than with the nonresponsive women.

Men dig non-bitchy, feminine women. Commence with the flabbergasting!

At the end of each experiment, the students rated their partners on scales such as responsiveness, attractiveness and masculinity or femininity.

Gender-based stereotypes may play a role in the men’s preference for responsive women, Birnbaum said. During a first date, people tend to rely on gender stereotypes for how they think a person should act. Men may find women more attractive if they fit the female stereotype of showing care and concern, she added.

Nope.

Or, men may think that responsive women are sexually interested in them. This may explain why men rate these “nice” women as more attractive and feminine, Birnbaum said.

Bingo. Also, I’d add that a nice, feminine woman signals to a man that she’ll be a faithful wife and nurturing mother to his children.

“I didn’t know until this [journal] article that men perceive responsive women not only as feminine, but also as sexually arousing,” Finkel told Live Science in an email. “I could have imagined a different set of results in which men found such women feminine, but then viewed them as dainty or less sexually desirable. Birnbaum and colleagues showed that the opposite is true.”

Yes, nicegirls aren’t just admirable or coveted for nonsexual reasons; they are also very arousing to men.

In contrast to the men, the women in the study did not rate the responsive men as more attractive or masculine than the nonresponsive men — a finding that surprised experts.

“Nonresponsive” = “jerk”.

The study did not reveal why women are not sexually interested in responsive men on the first date, but Birnbaum offered several ideas.

Women are typically more cautious daters than men are, and may be skeptical of a responsive man, Birnbaum said. Or, she added, women may think the men are trying too hard to win their affection and get them into bed.

Or, women may see responsive men as eager to please, or even desperate, Birnbaum said. Perhaps, the researchers noted, women may view a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.

Bingos all around!

“Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down, if their goal is to instill sexual desire,” Birnbaum said.

Or, be a challenge.

For Hivemind takes on the studies, see “Study finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around” and “Why playing hard to get only works for men.”

Mmmm. The Scalzied tears of a feminist clown.

So here we come to the close of yet another series of studies which vindicate CH teachings and game. I’d say my turgid vanity couldn’t handle any more old fashioneds, but no, my appetite for strokings is inexhaustible.

Lesson for women: The way to a man’s heart is straight and true.

Lesson for men: The way to a woman’s heart is oblique and discreet.

Read Full Post »

Once again, ❤science❤ has entered, stage right, as a supporting cast member of Chateau Heartiste’s magnum opus. Once again, you won’t be led astray if you embrace CH observations as your own. You could say there’s a Heartiste Rule in effect at this happy hurting ground: 80% of keen-eyed CH lessons drawn from field experience are in short order confirmed by empirical rigor. The remaining 20% either await scientific vindication, or are too nuanced to mimic in the laboratory without great difficulty or unethical experimental tactics.

The latest salvo from science supports (right on cue!) the knowledge contained within a Heartistian Horcrux that the sexes perceive looks differently and are, as a result, affected by the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex differently.

In a series of interesting experiments measuring selective attention for beautiful people, it was discovered that,

When we strained our subjects’ attentional capacities, we found exactly what I had suspected several decades before: Men overestimated the number of beautiful women (though their estimates of handsome men were unaffected). Female subjects also overestimated the frequency of gorgeous women in the rapidly presented crowds, but they did not overestimate the frequency of handsome men. The whole body of findings points to a simple conclusion about beautiful women: They capture everyone’s attention and monopolize downstream cognitive processes. The conclusion about handsome men is different: They grab women’s eyes but do not hold their minds; good-looking guys quickly get washed out of the stream of mental processing.

This is in line with what we have been saying here for some time: Women are essentially less viscerally affected by good male looks than men are affected by good female looks. And whatever effect male handsomeness has on women’s senses is dissipated much faster from their mental landscapes than female beauty is expunged from men’s mental landscapes. This beautiful truth has far-reaching implications for practitioners of the crimson arts.

In our first study, [we] asked people to judge an average-looking woman after being exposed to one of two series of other women. Half the participants judged the target woman after seeing a series of unusually beautiful women; the other half judged her after seeing a series of average-looking women. As in the case of exposure to extremes of water temperature, exposure to extremes of physical appearance affected people’s judgments of what was average. As we had predicted, an average-looking woman was judged significantly uglier than normal if the subjects had just been gazing at a series of beauties.

And as game theorists will tell you, a charming man will be judged more attractive than he is if the woman in his company had just been hanging out with a bunch of boring betas.

Subjects in the control group first judged the artistic merit of abstract paintings such as Josef Albers’s Homage to the Square. The men in the experimental group saw centerfolds from Playboy and Penthouse; the women saw handsome naked men from Playgirl. After they had looked at either paintings or centerfolds, we asked our participants to rate their feelings about their current relationship partners. Again, there was a cover story — that psychologists were divided on whether being in a relationship opened people up to new aesthetic experiences or made them less open to novelty. To test which side was right, we told them, we needed to know about the extent to which their reported level of commitment depended on whether they had seen centerfolds.

Once again, the results displayed a curious gender difference:

Men who had viewed the centerfolds rated themselves as less in love with their partners; women’s judgments of their partners were not so easily swayed.

Once again, we see that male looks don’t compel nearly the same aroused urgency from women that female looks compel from men. Or, when women cheat, it’s not usually because they found a handsomer lover; it’s because the man they’re with stopped exciting them with their personalities.

The harmful side effect for guys … is this: Real women … do not look as attractive once the mind has been calibrated to assume the centerfolds are normal. And for guys in relationships, exposure to beautiful photos undermines their feelings about the real flesh-and-blood women with whom their lives are actually intertwined.

No this is the PC interpretation. More precisely, limited options and exclusion from beautiful women calibrates men’s minds to assume “real women” are prettier than they are.

But lest we’re too quick to assume men are the only ones who conform to the worst of their gender’s stereotypes, women didn’t fare much better when the experiment was repeated with power rather than beauty as the variable:

Seeing a series of socially dominant men undermined women’s commitment, just as seeing attractive women had done to men’s.

CARDIAC ARREST goes the feminist and manboob hamsters. Recall a very early post from the Chateau archives:

As I’ve written before, what men like in women is simple. In descending order of importance, here are the female attractiveness traits that men desire in women:

Beauty.
Femininity.
Sexual eagerness.

In descending order of importance, here are the male attractiveness traits that women desire in men:

Psychosocial dominance (game).
High status/fame.
Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
Wealth.
Good looks/height/muscularity.
Cleverness/smarts.
Dependability/reliability.
Sexual prowess.

Men dig beauty.
Chicks dig power.
The rest is commentary.

And what a shitstorm of commentary it has been in the interim! Feminists and bitter beta males both heaving sandbags of rationalizations and wishful thinking and earnest platitudes against the ramparts so that they may bunker down and avoid dealing with these eternal earthy truths about the different sexual natures of men and women.

So what’s a mortal to do [about sensory overload and adaptation]? Are we helpless in the face of our evolved mechanisms, which may lead us astray without our conscious awareness? Not completely. People who understand the dangers of overabundant fats and sugars can control their diets. People who understand the dangers of an overabundant diet of mass-media images can stop gorging on Playboy, People, Sex and the City, or Dancing with the Stars.

Good god, this is some realtalk right here. Just as fatties can keep crap food out of their homes, the loveless and love-hungry can keep porn — the male and female versions of it — out of theirs.

It’s two for one day at Le Chateau, so here’s another recent relevant study that finds partner physical attractiveness is less important as a predictor of women’s marital satisfaction.

Do men value physical attractiveness in a mate more than women? Scientists in numerous disciplines believe that they do, but recent research using speed-dating paradigms suggests that males and females are equally influenced by physical attractiveness when choosing potential mates. Nevertheless, the premise of the current work is that sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness are most likely to emerge in research on long-term relationships. Accordingly, the current work drew from 4 independent, longitudinal studies to examine sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for trajectories of marital satisfaction. In all 4 studies, both partners’ physical attractiveness was objectively rated at baseline, and both partners reported their marital satisfaction up to 8 times over the first 4 years of marriage. Whereas husbands were more satisfied at the beginning of the marriage and remained more satisfied over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive wife, wives were no more or less satisfied initially or over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive husband. Most importantly, a direct test indicated that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands’ satisfaction than predicting wives’ satisfaction. These findings strengthen support for the idea that sex differences in self-reported preferences for physical attractiveness do have implications for long-term relationship outcomes.

Happy wife, happy life? Happy husband, stronger lovin’. Husbands have a responsibility to provide emotional and material support. Wives have a responsibility to provide beauty and sexual support. If either party reneges on their end of the deal — the equivalent of the dull, withdrawn, couch potato husband is the fat, unfeminine, nag wife — then the deal is severed, in practice if not in procedure. This is as decisive an IF-THEN statement as you’ll come across in the realm of human social interaction.

Men, know that your dominance and self-confidence are your passage to bangkunt. Women, know that your youth, beauty and slender hourglass figures are your passage to bangkok. The losers in life will wail and rend their XXXXL muu-muus disclaiming this romantic reality, but after a million terabytes and a billion snarled memes they are still on their knees, receiving a hot load of ostracism and despair from the winners at the party they desperately, secretly yearn to join.

UPDATE

Three for one, baby! Reader Will passes along another study that used MRIs to peer deep into male and female brains to discover the elemental neural processes at work when an attractive member of the opposite sex is in view.

Apologies (not too sorry) for this off-topic. Not sure if CH or anyone else has read this (probably). But it’s *science* that shows that guys are biologically wired to be *motivated* (read: boner) for visual ques (read tits and an ass) moreso than girls. This is an MRI being done on the brain that shows the amygdala is fired moreso in guys than girls when sexyness is visually seen.

This can be interpreted as how guys don’t care so much about status because the blood is rushed to our amygdala based on visual…. Not comparative social relations (such as power). Girls thus have more blood focusing on other parts of there brain such as which guy will give me higher status in terms of my social context.

Quoting the study results,

The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images, according to a Center for Behavioral Neuroscience study led by Emory University psychologists Stephan Hamann and Kim Wallen. The finding, which appears in the April edition of “Nature Neuroscience,” demonstrates how men and women process visual sexual stimuli differently, and it may explain gender variations in reproductive behavior. [...]

The fMRI scans revealed significantly higher levels of activation in the amygdala, which controls emotion and motivation, in the brains of the male subjects compared to the females, despite the fact that both males and females expressed similar subjective assessments of their levels of arousal after viewing the images.

Hamann and Wallen had a separate group pre-select the images to ensure they would be equally arousing to both males and females.

“If males and females found the pictures equally arousing, you would assume they would have similar patterns of brain activation,” said Hamann. “But we discovered the male brain seems to process visual sexual cues differently.”

The scientists’ discovery also is consistent with an evolutionary theory that natural selection spurred the development of different sexual behaviors in males and females.

“There is an advantage for males in quickly recognizing and responding to receptive females through visual cues,” explains Hamann. “This allows them to maximize their mating opportunities, which increases their chances for passing on their genes.”

Another CH truth lovingly caressed by SCIENCE. And this is a humdinger of science, because it directly measured brain activation rather than indirectly through surveys or behavioral analysis.

Men are more viscerally aroused by female looks than are women by male looks. Men, therefore, can neither rely on their looks to get and keep women, nor excuse their failure with women based on their looks. Game, aka applied charisma, is about exploiting that soft space between a woman’s subjective assessment of her own arousal and her actual, primal arousal. As always, don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do. And nothing watches as closely as an MRI looking right into her friggin noggin.

Read Full Post »

Regular readers who are familiar with the long-running CH series cheekily titled “Chicks dig jerks” will fall deeply in love (or hate) with this study, which just touched down like an F5 tingle in the Provencal lap of the Chateau Lordship.

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

Criminality is highly costly to victims and their relatives, but often also to offenders. From an evolutionary viewpoint, criminal behavior may persist despite adverse consequences by providing offenders with fitness benefits as part of a successful alternative mating strategy. Specifically, criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships. We linked data from nationwide total population registers in Sweden to test if criminality is associated with reproductive success. Further, we used several different measures related to monogamy to determine the relation between criminal behavior and alternative mating tactics. Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

Did you hear that thpppft? That was every prostrate manlet, peeved tradcon, and jizzebel gorgon loading their diapers in unison.

It’s as if ❤SCIENCE❤ thumped the great brass triskelion knocker on the oak doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, and uttered upon entrance, “I’m home”.

You’ll excuse me if I allow myself this moment of grandiosity. In keeping with the tenor, it’s well-deserved.

The concordance of this study with observations put forth over the years here at CH, and with the near-daily drumbeat of news stories about women falling hard for all sorts of badboys who flout convention, the law, and others’ well-being, should give the shibbolethians who nurse an ego-wounded hatred for CH pause. The hammer blows they have been taking to the noggin must surely be leaving an impression by now.

But if morale isn’t yet up to snuff, I guess the beatings will have to continue!

criminal behavior may have evolved as a reproductive strategy based on low parental investment reflected in low commitment in reproductive relationships.

Single mommery has exploded in the last two generations. If that isn’t a sign of low parental investment and low commitment to reproductive relationships, what is? Exposure?

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense.

laughing all the way to the end.

Paging Audacity of huge

Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders.

It takes two to tango. And badboys tango with a lot of willing dance partners (women who inexplicably lose their attentiveness to contraception use when beguiled by badboys). That part about criminal offenders being more likely to get remarried is telling; if an asshole has a little bit of a soft spot for (ceremonial) monogamy, he’ll have an easier time finding a second wife than the niceguy who got eatpraydumped by his bored wife. It appears that Swedish women (the most evolved of white women, wags may note), when they are presented with badboys from a broken marriage, can’t wait to offer themselves as second chance redemption to such misunderstood paragons of maleness.

Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners.

There’s a rumor spread from certain sectors of female astonishment that men with significant sexual histories turn off women.

We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country

Where have the enlightened CH readers come across a variant of this formulation before?

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

It’s clarifying to think of women as having two core sexual natures that can shift at the margins in the direction of favoring the expression of one or the other, and thus influencing mating behavior, in response to rapid and sweeping environmental cues. Scientifically, these core sexual strategies are known as r- and K-selection, the former epitomized in nature by the fast-breeding, fast-dying small mammal (mouse) and the latter by the slow-breeding, slow-dying large mammal (elephant).

For practical everyday purposes, the human female desire template is largely immutable. Feminist delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, you aren’t going to realign female nature to conform more closely with male sexual nature, (say, by making casual sex less emotionally impacting on women). However, if you had the power to perform an unethical experiment and rearrange society in the trajectory it has taken organically (or perhaps conspiratorially) in the West these past 100 years, you would begin to perceive changes, subtle at first and building to pandemic scale, in the choices and courtship rituals that women abide. You may, for example, start to see women pulling away from beta male providers and indulging more frequently their latent lust for exciting badboys.

What this study above is saying, and what CH has been saying for years based on real world experience in the urban wench trenches, is that criminality — in its milder, accessible form, jerkboy charisma — is quickly becoming a favored male trait by women, who are choosing these men using the only instrument that matters: their vaginas. When life is easy and contraceptives flow like the River Orinoco, women get bored and seek the orgasmic release of aloof, reckless, throwback assholes. Women in modern industrialized nations come to desire the sexiness over the security.

Maxim #70: Civilized, coddled chicks dig jerks.

I’ll leave it to the reader to infer the nuances of meaning from this maxim. Hint: “muh dik” is not an escape hatch.

This transformation in female mate choice doesn’t have to be huge to have a deleterious effect on civilized prosperity. In fact, changes at the margins can be enough to send the entire system careening into a tailspin. Like an advantageous allele, you move the badboy-loving needle from 1% to 2% and some serious consequences will accrue in a few generations’ time.

Now, I didn’t have a team of PhDs to confirm my hunches for me. All I had was my senses and my time in the company of the modern civilized American woman. I could see it all around me, what was happening. I had stories from my ancestors to compare my own experiences, and the contrast was striking. I figured change was going down, and a theory emerged.

and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

In the land of the deferential beta male, the rule-breaking alpha is king.

Permit yer ‘umble Poonstradamus another theory-of-everything prophecy: This *could* end well.

I’ll explain. As of now, the situation looks bleak. Criminals and cads monopolizing the prime sex years of Western women. Beta males being left with the used-up hags as recompense. r-selection creating perverse incentives that divide men from women, family from community, people from nation. A surge of bastards set to steamroll over the culture in the coming decades. Crushing debt loads piling up as once-dutiful citizens, aided and abetted by diversity, move toward a pragmatic philosophy of looking out for number one and shredding the safety net for filaments of silver.

Alpha fux, beta bux is credit-rolling bacchanalia, a temporary condition which must find its denouement in the ruin of a civilization abandoned by its watchmen and looted by its jackals.

How could this possibly end well?

Note the study participants: Swedes. People from a nation which is the pinnacle, or nadir, of feminized manboobery. This is a nation that is asphyxiating under the weight of its own feminist crackpottery. Perhaps, in a moment of hope, we can see the outline of a future Sweden where harder, sterner men — the issue of all those womb-widening orgasmic shrieks of delight squeezed from the firm choking grips of badboys — resume their place at the genetic table. Sweden’s jerkboy-chasing women may be, unwittingly, judging their emasculated beta males unfit for further propagation, and populating a future reborn Sweden with psychopath protectors of their way of life.

The Vikings (or Moors) may rise again.

***

This post went way beyond what I intended it to be — just another shiv in the crusty hides of deluded freaks. As much as I love to tune my twelve-string to their wails of pain, there is a benefit in all these “chicks dig jerks” posts for the common man who wants more, and better, love in his life. Think of the series as a field book to navigate modern womanhood. Dependability, humor, taking girls on interesting dates, paying their way… these things don’t cut it anymore. You need edge. You need aura. You need an asshole attitude.

You don’t need to commit crimes (although it can only help). You do need to be a little less deferential, and a little more inconsiderate, to the civilized Western woman if you want to make a positive impression on her.

You can already see signs, if you’re willing to look, of a trend among men toward maximizing their alpha traits (often at the expense of their beta traits) so that they are better equipped to leverage the modern mating market. It’s no coincidence that interest in testosterone replacement is sweeping through online discourse.

Our civilization is getting plundered, and women are first to the treasure chest with their grubby hands. You can lament this turn of affairs and withdraw from a fulfilling sex and love life, or you can do what is necessary to enjoy the rewards of women’s love that your civilization-building great-grandfather enjoyed when the wild sex compulsions of his time’s women were wisely constrained by better men.

You won’t stop this juggernaut of decivilization. It’s too big and moving too fast. Like the fate of empires that have come and gone before, it has to finish its preordained path of destruction. Something good may rise from the flattened earth, but in the meantime, poolside is the only sensible choice.

Read Full Post »

As anyone who’s lived a day and quaffed a vial of barrel-aged truth serum will tell you, the men who do well with women are often the most entitled, narcissistic pricks they know. “Good guys” they are not, except in the retroactive imaginations of the women who swoon for their impudent swells. Now, a recent study confirms a slew of Chateau Heartiste observations.

Recent research has shown that narcissistic men in the United States express more ambivalent sexism than their non-narcissistic counterparts. The present study sought to extend these findings by hypothesizing that psychological entitlement would be a predictor of ambivalent sexism but that that this relationship may vary by gender. Given entitlement’s associations with hostility and aggression and the previously established link between narcissism and sexism in men, we hypothesized that entitlement would predict hostile sexism in men. Given that entitlement is characterized by a pervasive sense of deservingness for special treatment and goods, we expected that entitled women would endorse attitudes of benevolent sexism. These hypotheses were tested using two cross-sectional samples in the U.S.—a sample of undergraduates from a private university in the Midwest (N = 333) and a web-based sample of adults across the U.S. (N  = 437). Results from regression analyses confirmed that psychological entitlement is a robust predictor of ambivalent sexism, above and beyond known predictors of sexism such as low openness and relevant covariates such as impression management. In addition, entitlement was a consistent predictor of benevolent sexism in women, but not in men, and a consistent predictor of hostile sexism in men, but not in women. These relationships were largely robust, persisting even when relevant covariates (e.g., socially desirable responding, trait openness) were controlled statistically, although in one sample the link between entitlement and hostile sexism in men was reduced to non-significance when benevolent sexism was controlled for statistically. Implications of these findings are discussed.

So entitlement — you know, that loving anti-feminist feeling that you deserve the sexual favors of any woman who piques your fancy — correlates with benevolent sexism in men.

And, it is known that women are more sexually receptive to sexist men.

So it would appear that holding benevolent sexist views about women that don’t cross the Taliban line, acting like an entitled douche, and being deeply in love with oneself are fantastic personality traits to possess or cultivate if you want a woman’s love.

Feminist and manboob blogs might punish you for your antediluvian views, but then feminists and manboobs aren’t lying in your bed spread-eagled with hearts bursting full of desire and loins aflame like napalm. This is not to say they don’t wish they were, but you are a man of wealth and taste, after all.

So wake up and start your day with a satisfying preen, player! You know how much girls love you loving yourself.

Read Full Post »

You may not think a study of social spiders would have anything to say about such disparate topics as racial diversity and pickup, but that’s just because you haven’t taken a fistful of shrooms and gone on a vision quest.

…these oddball spider socialites may offer fresh insight into an array of human mysteries: where our personalities come from, why some people can’t open their mouths at a party while others can’t keep theirs shut and, why, no matter our age, we can’t seem to leave high school behind. [...]

[Researchers] have determined that character-building in social spiders is a communal affair. While they quickly display the first glimmerings of a basic predisposition — a relative tendency toward shyness or boldness, tetchiness or docility — that personality is then powerfully influenced by the other spiders in the group.

In laboratory experiments, the researchers showed that spiders exposed to the same group day after day developed stronger and more distinctive personalities than those that were shifted from one set of spiders to the next. Moreover, the spiders in a stable social setting grew ever less like one another over time.

In other words, far from fostering behavioral conformity, a predictable social life accentuated each spider’s quirks and personal style, rather as the characters in a sitcom — the Goth girl, the huckster, the lovable buffoon — rise ever more to type with every passing laugh-tracked week.

“The longer the spiders were with the same individuals, the stronger their personalities became, and the more different they became from each other,” Dr. Pruitt said. “The aggressive ones became much more aggressive, the docile ones more docile.” The consistency of their behaviors also mounted with time, he said, “to the point where they seemed almost rigid.”

As most readers are here to learn how better to attract women in a world gone mad, the story within this story is what group familiarity and uniformity say about your chances to escape your beta box, (or, conversely, to exploit your alpha cred).

Summarizing, a lack of inter-group diversity (say, growing up in an idyllic all-white suburb where Rush blasted from angst-y teen bedrooms) actually increases individual diversity, through the mechanism of amplifying preexisting personality differences among same-group members. In contrast, a lot of inter-group diversity (say, moving to a SWPL hipster enclave in a minority white city soaked in vibrancy that makes daily living an adventure in survival) produces a uniformity of thought and, CH will note, of aesthetic within groups, which is why we see SWPL hoods in nearly every major American city converging on the same farm-to-table Obama-loving liberal hypocrite norm.

Paradoxically, group cohesiveness creates more individual diversity, while inter-group diversity creates more intra-group uniformity. Diversity + proximity = conformity.

In other words, the diversity that really matters — diversity of thought and personality — flourishes in less racially diverse environs.

That’s the diversity angle of this spider study, What about the game angle?

Equally dramatic was the impact of social conditions on the boldness test. Stable spider groups, composed of six spiders that remained together for up to four weeks, showed the greatest variety between individuals, the greatest mix of bold and shy, as well as the highest individual consistency: The pebble-playing times of the boldies grew shorter while those of the timids lengthened.

Among shifting spider groups, by contrast, the boldness scores proved far less predictable, as though the spiders didn’t quite know what was expected of them. [...]

Alison M. Bell, who studies stickleback personality at the University of Illinois, says the spider work neatly illustrates the mix of plasticity and predilection that underlies personality.

“I think it’s such an appealing idea that social interactions could cause social niches, and it resonates with our own experience as humans,” she said. “When you go into a group, your behavior changes depending on the nature of that group, but it can only change so far.”

Yet so long. Soon after getting results from the experiments, Dr. Laskowski met with a group of friends she hadn’t seen since graduating from high school a decade earlier.

“All of a sudden I’m high-school Kate again,” she said. “Just being in that social environment completely reinforced my old behaviors. It was my social niche, that’s what I felt.”

Your identity can be altered by removing (or removing yourself from) social dynamics that reinforce your old identity. Personality is part predilection, part plasticity (ratios subject to debate), and what this spider study hints at is that if you are a docile beta male who wants to inject some alpha characteristics into your behavioral regime, you can move the needle on your suite of personality traits by getting the hell away from stale social settings in which you are known as the niceguy who doesn’t pick up women.

For some men, this won’t be news. Many a former beta male has testified to social and sexual success that accrued after he left his comfortable social circle, or his hometown, for strange new lands and new friends who didn’t know of his past nature. Like the rattled spiders who got confused when their social landscape shifted, the beta male will be able to more easily experiment with bold alpha moves in a new environment filled with new people who haven’t yet pigeonholed him. Additionally, the alpha males who luxuriated in the rewards that familiar people’s expectations granted them will be less bold in new environments, thus paving a path for uppity beta males to exploit the slick seducer niche.

Read Full Post »

💋Science💋 has once again dropped to its knees and slobbered the knob of CH, vindicating the Heartistian observation that women love laconic men.

For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. [...]

When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine.

Terse charm > loquacious charm > charmlessness. Gabby men are simply not very attractive to women. Men who keep their cards close and don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves are sexier to women. Men whose jokes are powerfully succinct rather than tiresomely pedantic are considered socially savvier. Brevity is the soul of wit and, apparently, the stroke of clits.

There are times when following the exception to this rule will be personally beneficial, but you should strive to express yourself more laconically, more pithily, as you work to craft your new sexy identity.

They found that people are naturally drawn to friends and colleagues with voices that sound familiar.

People prefer those who have a similar accent, intonation and tone of voice to themselves, for example.

Theoretically, group selection shouldn’t exist, but in practice there’s a lot of evidence for some sort of in-group favoritism motivating human interaction.

Read Full Post »

A series of riveting studies, referenced in this video from 7:15-11:05, examined the effects of reward, punishment, or a mix of the two on behavioral attachment. The reader who forwarded the video summarizes the studies’ results,

Experiment where baby animals are rewarded, punished, or a mix of both, for following researchers, their “mothers”.  The researchers measured attachment this way, and while punishment leads to more attachment from baby animals to the researchers, a mix of both, uncertainty leads to the most attachment.

Applied to game, this shows that while being an asshole is better than being nice, a mix of both, keeping a girl on her toes, will lead to the most attachment/attraction.

The pertinence of these studies to game should be obvious to the proto-illuminated. In turn:

- Young monkeys who were scared avoided the wire-constructed feeding mother in favor of the non-feeding, comforting cloth mother. Warmth and comfort were more important than food to fostering attachment (aka LOVE).

Game relevance: Beta males who think they can buy women’s love are sorely mistaken. Corollary: The comfort stage of game should not be neglected.

- A fake “rejecting” mother (a blast of air pushed the young monkeys away) increased the monkeys’ attachment. Frustration actually amplified the monkeys’ desire to attach.

Game relevance: The optimal game strategy is neither All Push nor All Pull, but Push and Pull working in concert to create delightful, tingle-generating uncertainty.

- Puppies who received random, intermittent love became the most attached to the researchers.

Game relevance: Relationship dread increases emotional attachment. This is a ❤️direct vindication❤️ of a core CH principle of intersexual relations.

A brutally truthful quote glares at you from the linked video:

…stress, including the mental stress of uncertainty, is an ingredient in attachment or love and that perhaps even manifestations of hatred (its polar opposite) somehow enhance love.

Where have you heard this before?

Indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love.

Of course, you don’t need the science to convince yourself of the merits of game. You could do the more personally rewarding thing and exit into the real world, try it out on women, and discover the power of applied charisma in the charts and graphs of women’s wet, yearning eyes and venturesome fingertips.

There’s a tangential point to be made regarding this slew of studies. The carrot and the stick together work best to alter people’s behavior. Those weepy liberals who decry “shaming” tactics take note. All access/all the time kumbaya self-esteem feels boosts make puppies and monkeys and ducklings… and humans… selfish little ingrates. If you want women to try and please you, they need to ride the exquisite see-saw of your acceptance and repudiation. Women may not *want* this, but they *need* it to feel the release of passions they escape to pulp romance to obtain vicariously.

ps For those claiming this “works on men too”, do note an important implied qualification: It works on beta men. Desirable men with options are rarely hornswoggled by women playing the same game they play.

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 »

An interesting study, with findings that won’t surprise regular CH readers,

This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses [ed: KINO!]. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain.

To put it in LAYman’s terms: Women seduce men with their bodies, men seduce women with their nimble tongues (aka game).

Women require plausible deniability in matters of the tingle. Ambiguity is, to women, the essence of seduction. Hints and innuendo, “does he or doesn’t he?” mental calisthenics, and dramatic reversals and forward movements all contribute to heightening a woman’s sexual arousal.

Men need none of this. A pretty woman could present her naked body for the taking, and the man will take it, no (sincere) questions asked. Men abide the nuanced female view of seduction because women hold the key to sex; men who don’t abide women’s unspoken romantic predilections tend to go home alone. To bed a woman, a man must find a way to oscillate on her tingle frequency, and then to amplify that frequency. This tingle amplification needn’t be permanent; short bursts of wavelength alignment are often enough to do the job, because most men hardly come close to hurdling that low bar.

The best male seducers are those who relish the inherently feminine nature of seduction. These are men who not only understand the rules of the game, they are overjoyed to apply them, and in so doing come to master them.

So women use coy facial expressions and sexy displays of their bodies to entrance men, while men use words and subtle touch to entrance women. In other words, each sex PLAYS BY THE RULES OF THE OTHER SEX. Women give men what men want (visually stimulating sexiness and lip-licking promise) and men give women what women want (a torrent of seductive, pregnant words anchored with erotic, escalating touches).

Somewhere, right now, a weirdo omega hater is shrieking about GAMEBOYZ DANCING TO WOMEN’S TUNE. It shrieks alone tonight.

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,956 other followers

%d bloggers like this: