Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘The Good Life’ Category

In the first installment of “Optimizing Your Womanizing”, we discussed the value of targeting a field of play that has a favorable sex ratio.

In this post, we’ll talk about the value of physique to augmenting your game.

A man’s physique is less crucial to his romantic fortunes than a woman’s physique is to her’s. This discrepancy is a natural outcome of the biological differences between the sexes. A woman’s mate value is connected predominately to her window of prime fertility, and by proxy to those physical cues — a pretty face, a slim hourglass figure — that alert men to her capacity to gestate the next generation.

Men’s mate value, in contrast, is determined by a number of factors, physical fitness being but one of them, and not even the most important one (at least for 29 days out of the month). And we see this playing out in the real world; the sight of an unattractive, rich man with a trophy wife, or an out-of-shape, charismatic hipster with a cute girlfriend, is far commoner than the inverse.

Nevertheless, it is better, all else equal, to look physically masculine than not. This series, after all, is about optimizing your womanizing, which means maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses until you have crafted yourself into a complete package Casanova.

Bang for buck, pump for fuck, weightlifting is the king of physique transformation protocols. No other exercise comes close to the improvements that performing the equivalent of dragging a large animal carcass across the veldt will make to your body and your attitude. The Iron Pill even provides anti-aging benefits.

(Endurance exercise has its place, but studies show greater physiological rewards from resistance exercise.)

And, like game, nearly everyone will see improvements from weightlifting. There are few exceptions to this rule.

(Even in those few randomized studies that find nonresponders to resistance training, the number is typically small – on the order of fewer than 20% of total participants, the subjects tilted female, and the time period too short. So, worst case scenario, one out of five men and women won’t get much muscle growth from doing light weight knee raises for three weeks. Good news: 80% of you will see results within only three weeks! Better news, the worst case scenario from this one study is likely not indicative of real world results from resistance training for the great majority of people.)

(Those who want to disingenuously argue that resistance training response is heritable should remember that longevity is heritable as well, but has been dramatically increasing for the past century. Environmental input matters.)

No, not every man will see equal improvements in the gym, nor look like Franco Columbu, but there will be noticeable improvement. And sometimes a little improvement is all it takes to open a man’s world to a wider vista of vagina.

I won’t discuss exercise form here. It’s relevant, but you can find plenty of YouTube clips showing how to do various compound and isolation movements. Sticking to the basics of resistance training, here’s a list of answers to typical beginner questions:

- You will gain just as much size from hypertrophy (i.e., “bodybuilding”) training as you will from strength training. If size and leanness are your goals, you don’t have to do high weight, low repetition sets like powerlifters do. If strength is your goal, then you’ll want to incorporate more high weight, low rep strength building exercises.

(Hypertrophy training also results in strength gains; just not as much as the strength gains from pure strength training. The difference isn’t big.)

***

- The optimal combination of sets and reps and weight is, wait for it, somewhere in between low sets/high reps/low weight and high sets/low reps/high weight. The former, geared to hypertrophy, and the latter, geared to strength gain, both result in approximately the SAME AMOUNT of muscle growth. A 3/10/10RM (3 sets of 10 repetitions each at a weight you can lift for ten consecutive repetitions) routine will give you the same muscle growth as a 10/3/3RM (10 sets of 3 reps each at the maximum weight you can lift for three consecutive repetitions) routine.

Since women can’t really tell the difference between a man’s size and strength, and don’t really care, most men who aren’t competitive lifters but are competitive splitters will prefer the hypertrophy protocol.

Men who care about both size and strength (they’re correlated, but not precise mirrors) will want to devise a lifting plan that includes both high rep/low weight and low rep/high weight. In the long run, muscle response is highest when your body has to adapt to different loading schemes. A mix of hypertrophy-based and strength-based training will create a synergistic muscle response.

Therefore, the ideal lifting routine would be something like 3/8-12/8-12RM: Three sets of eight to twelve reps at a weight that you can lift for eight to twelve consecutive reps. Every third workout, substitute this protocol with a strength-based, higher weight circuit.

Another option, and a popular one, is to simply mix the two systems into one workout session. So you would start your exercise with a lower (60-80% of maximum) weight at higher reps (8-12) for the first two sets, and then finish up at a high (90-100% of maximum) weight at lower reps (1-4) for the third set.

***

- Another advantage of the hypertrophy routine is the time savings. More rest is needed between sets of very high weight, less rest for sets of low or medium weight. At 1/3 the time, you can achieve the same muscle growth as you could from a strength training system.

***

- Injuries happen. To minimize the chance and severity of injuries, favor a hypertrophy routine over a strength-building one. Most injuries occur under the stress of very heavy loads.

***

- Full body, compound exercises – squat and deadlift being the two most representative – are better than isolation exercises (e.g., bicep curls) but not for the reasons gym rats think. Studies find that “big” lifting exercises don’t alter the hormonal profile any differently than do smaller movement exercises. The primary advantage of compound movements is that you can hit a lot more muscle per rep, and you can do heavier weights which, when controlling the number of reps, will generally produce more muscle growth than lighter weights. The ideal is a mix of compound and isolation exercises.

***

- The downward motion of a lift (known as the eccentric phase) is perhaps more critical to muscle growth than the contraction movement. It’s during the “deceleration” part of the lifting movement that muscle damage accrues, and from that damage the body heals itself by building the muscle up. Injury is also more likely during a point in the eccentric motion, so take care to lower your weights (or your body, if you’re doing squats) slowly and deliberately.

***

- The average man will see observable results in as little as six weeks. Six months later, girls will take notice. A year later, he’ll be a new man. Three years later, he’ll intimidate other men. Now, you can train three years for a marathon and get nothing from it but a participation ribbon and noodle arms, or you can lift for three years and at least look like a physically active man.

***

- All you need is 2-4 workout sessions per week, 30-60 minutes each. Hell, you’ll see positive results going just ONCE per week for FIFTEEN MINUTES. In fact, it’s better to err on the side of training too little than training too much.

***

- Steroids work. Most men won’t need them. People who demonize testosterone replacement therapy have a secret fear of masculinity.

***

- Here’s a good list of the top strength and health supplements for men. If you only buy three supplements, make them whey protein, creatine, and magnesium citrate.

***

We’ve reached the end of this post. Psst lean closer, I’m gonna tell you a secret…

The times of my life when I slew pussy like the Quim Reaper were times when I slacked off at the gym. At my physically weakest, my pussy pioneer skills never left me. I haven’t seen much of a connection between my muscle strength/size and my harem size. Yeah, sure I get more looks from girls, and more playful arm squeezes, when I’m fitter, but the true test of a man’s seductive prowess is the bang. A man still has to approach and charm a girl to her final surrender. And on that measure, my close rate was independent of my bicep circumference. The weight room did not hold my hand on the way to the bedroom.

So why did I write this post?

Because the evidence that the Law of Iron holds for every man is too great to wave away. The Law of Iron states:

Every man is a better man when he’s stronger rather than weaker.
A strengthened body strengthens the mind.
Looking and feeling stronger imbues a man with that aura of confidence so alluring to women.

Character, Fortitude, Confidence. That’s the Law of Iron.

I don’t know how much better my total to-date notch count would be had my gym time been more consistent and less interrupted by injury or laziness. Maybe much better, happy as that is to contemplate. I do know that, during those gym down times, my boldness and no-fucks-given attitude took me a lot farther with women than my lack of muscle definition pushed me away from women.

That’s the core lesson of the Law of Iron, right there. Boldness. Weightlifting will benefit introverted men the most, which is most of the men who seek game advice, because the confidence and masculine attitude that flows from muscle development will nudge men closer to women and to interacting with women. It isn’t the muscles that will make a man a great slayer of poon, it’s the boldness and cocksureness that follows from lifting and inevitably enshrouds his personality.

PS: Lyle McDonald’s Body Recomposition website is a valuable resource of exercise and diet information.

Read Full Post »

Reader Jeremy suggests a way to get the game blog reader addicts off their asses to bust a move.

CH, I have a suggestion.

It would take the cooperation of other major manosphere sites.

If you want to kick the keyboard jockeys out of their habits. Then have an “Approach Week” where all comments sections on manosphere blogs are DISABLED. Leave everyone the explicit instructions to go forth, and approach.

Good idea. I’m game (heh) if at least five other “manosphere” sites agree to the terms. (Qualifier quotes added because I don’t quite know what constitutes a manosphere site.)

The ground rules

Approaching means making a first move on women. The definition of a first move is a bit fluid. For instance, a girl could glance at you flirtatiously, and you could take that as a cue to walk up and say hi. Or you could go in cold and open inattentive girls.

Vocalizations have to be delivered face-to-face so that your approach can’t be mistaken for the passing mumblings of a street bum. You may grunt or wink or belch if it starts a conversation. Approaching does NOT mean staring at a girl and turning away satisfied that she registered your existence.

Comments will be disabled during the chosen “approach week” to motivate bleary-eyed keyboardists into a pair of pants and out of doors to say something to women. Go forth, and approach, as the Good Lord might say in an era when straight up multiplying will get you slapped with child support payments.

Posting may continue during Approach Week. Either the post title or the top of any post published during Approach Week will include a disclaimer that comments are off to honor the spirit of the Approach. (For example: Comments are disabled during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here.)

Off the top o’ me scruffily precocious head, here are five manosphere sites which write about game and pickup that might be interested in participating: Return of Kings, Rational Male, Danger & Play, Krauser, Alpha Game. I’m certain there are plenty of sites I’m missing, so if you’re one of them and you like this idea let us know in the comments and we’ll hammer this thing out.

If your broadsheet is listed here and you’re not interested, don’t worry about it. It won’t be skin off anyone’s nose.

Approach Week should happen sometime within the next two months, while the sun is high and the girls are barely clothed. Pending any objections, let’s set aside the holiday week of June 29-July 5 as Approach Week.

Post-Approach Week, CH will dedicate a day to you readers when you may share your experiences in the comments of an open post.

PS If something akin to Approach Week has already been done by other game blogs at other times, disregard this post. The remix is never as good as the original.

Read Full Post »

The CH mailbag received a while back results from an unpublished study that added confirmation to the weight of evidence that househusbands (aka kitchen bitches, sexual egalitarians, plush manlets) have worse sex lives and unhappier wives. Quote from the original CH post:

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.

We have to be careful, as we were left with explicit instructions to not reveal the source of the study or the precise study results. But this was too juicy to pass up, so an attempt will be made to paraphrase the important findings without risking confidentiality.

1. A woman’s sexual attraction and general satisfaction increases when her man does “masculine” chores like DIY projects or car repair. Her sexual attraction doesn’t budge when he does “feminine” household chores.

2. Households where men do most of the chores were those most likely to argue frequently about sex.

3. Female breadwinners argue more about finances, household chores *and* sex life. The less money the woman made relative to the man, the fewer arguments and the better her general relationship satisfaction.

4. Equal division of major financial decisions decreased attraction, feelings of love, and general satisfaction in the women, and this decrease was even stronger than the decrease seen when household chores were shared. The more responsibility the men had for financial decision-making, the more sexually and romantically satisfied their spouses/partners.

5. Men were more attracted to women the more the women cooked. So ladies, you can make your man happier by donning the apron and sizzling the bacon he brings home. (Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes. You’ll just have to resolve your dissonance on your own time.)

6. Across the board, women who are breadwinners are less satisfied with everything.

7. Arguments about chores, money, sex life, and romance were highest in couples where the woman made all or most of the decisions. Female decision-making status was an even stronger determinant of relationship dissatisfaction than female breadwinner status. Women can handle making more money in a relationship, but they despise being the leader in a relationship.

8. Argument frequency decreased among female breadwinners if they were not the primary decision-makers. Lesson for men: You can have a happy relationship with a woman who makes more than you as long as you remain the dominant force in her non-work life. Or: GAME SAVES MARRIAGES.

9. Most dishearteningly for the equalist pissboys, men who do most of the chores in households where the woman is the breadwinner have the highest likelihood of frequent disagreements about chores, sex, and romance. Let that sink in: The more household work you do to compensate for your girlfriend or wife making more money than you, the bitchier she gets!

The source explains why this study has yet to be published:

But now that the findings are there [ed: N is large], they are reluctant to release this to the media. They fear that releasing such findings might create negative press for us instead of positive media attention. Their reluctance annoys me for many reasons, and I really want to get my study published. I have till XXXXXX to come up with a good reason for why they should publish this study. If they do, then my investment bank, a reputable objective third party would be behind this finding. Normally, they have the ability to circulate our studies through dozens of major media outlets (WSJ, NYT, NPR etc). Thus, it would be really helpful to getting this kind of idea into the public consciousness to have the study released through my investment bank.

But right now there are barriers to getting my study released. The marketing head isn’t very comfortable with the findings I gave her. She thinks it isn’t a story at all and doesn’t know how to market it. I want to somehow convince her to go forward with it. Can you help me come up with ideas? Right now, she says I have to “soften” it and come up with an explanation of what investment management people could do about these findings. Those recommended actions would have to be things HR would not frown on.

Another great example of how female-dominated HR retards progress and the pursuit of knowledge. But hey, everybody is kumbaya, so the sacrifice is worth it, right ladies?

Anyhow, a “softening” lede attuned to your particular clients’ sensibilities would be something like, “Financially responsible husbands make happier marriages.” Or, “A division of labor means an addition of love.”

 

Read Full Post »

Continuing with our latest CH series exploring the historical records for choice bits of wisdom that would be the equivalent of PUA game and Heartistian theories of the sexual market today, reader Arbiter forwards this excerpt from a 1902 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine (before it became a women’s rag. Rag. Heh.):

The author explains the “Sissy”:

He is polite and rather anxious to please. He wishes always to do the thing which happens to be the proper thing at any given time. He never would think of initiating anything novel or starting out in a new and unexpected course. He likes very much to be with ladies, and ladies like him – in a way. He is a most useful creature and absolutely harmless, intended by Providence to carry wraps and rugs, to order carriages, to provide theater-tickets, flowers, bon-bons, opera-boxes and four-in-hands, according to his means and the position which he holds. He will call regularly upon a girl and in fact upon all the girls he knows, and he will keep it up for years, and it will never mean anything to him or to them, for he is essentially a tame cat…He is really an indispensable person in our modern life; for it is desirable that young women should have some male creature about them to fetch and carry – one who will do it all for the mere pleasure of the service, and who will never agitate them and disquiet them or make them feel it necessary to be on their guard.

“In a way”. :lol: :lol:

In 1902, (a modern age to the men living back then), men knew what being a beta orbiter meant. Thus we have proof that the sexless friendzone and the female exploitation of servile, supplicating men for “beta bux” have existed for over 100 years, and probably a hell of a lot longer than that.

He then proceeds to describe the qualities that make men respect other men. The explanation is long, but in short he must be honorable, reasonable, courageous and gentle.

The last one does not mean being effeminate, but a refinement in character:

Intellectually it means intuition, sensitiveness to all impressions, and the imaginative element which illumines the dark places of the mind and shows the way to great achievement. Temperamentally it denotes gentleness, and the tenderness which is the perfect complement to strength. It is to men who have this last and finest gift, that other men, since history began, have given not alone their liking but their service, their devotion, and their very lives.

What then is the conclusion? Men like in men these traits: the honor that ennobles; the justice that insures the right; the reasonableness that mellows and makes plain; the courage that proclaims virility; the generous instinct that disdains all meanness; the modesty that makes no boast; the dignity that wins respect; the fineness and the tenderness that know and feel. But when one thinks of it more carefully, may he not sum it up in just a single sentence, and accept it as truth, that all men like a gentleman?

Beta niceguys reading the above passage are undoubtedly saying to themselves, “Reasonableness? Generosity? Modesty? Tenderness? Hey, wait, I have all those qualities! Why don’t men admire me and women invite me to their beds?”

Because, dear beta, you must impress upon people you are those virtuous things by choice, and not by necessity. And the way to prove that is by first demonstrating that you are capable of behaving in the opposite fashion, as suits your needs.

Take a page from the sexy jerk. Watch how he shits with impunity on the polite norms of society, gets the girl and the admiration of his friends, and then pulls a rabbit out of the hat with a sudden and unexpected generous gesture that provokes an explosion of love kibbles raining on his dinner plate.

People, particularly women, overdose on virtue quickly. The scarcity principle applies here. You don’t want to be that dependable guy who’s always there for her; you want to be that inscrutable dark triad jerk whose occasional forays into the Light are greeted with glowing encomiums and flowering furrows.

Read Full Post »

A reader writes,

I wrote to you before about your advice improving the relationship with my mom.

I want your critical and scrutinizing take on another situation. I’ve been in a relationship for almost 3 years now. It’s going great. I keep it in-line with CH preachings and wisdom, and I would even go as far as saying that both of us are pretty happy. I’ve never been the type to be the super macho alpha male. I would describe myself as Tom Haverford from the show Parks and Rec, except caucasian, and a bit taller. Now that the necessary background info is out of the way, here’s the question: I find it much easier to talk to girls and make friends with them than with guys. I have 1 guy friend, and about 11 girl friends. (As a side note, from those 10, about 2 of them are dtf.) I’ve never cheated on my gf. I don’t hide the fact that I am in relationship from any of them, and I do not broadcast every detail of my relationship either. I find that girls are easier to go out and do things with, like go to the bar, play pool, or even just grab a coffee, or lunch with. (Maybe it’s easy for me due to the fact that I internalized your ways of game and flirting, and had ample of practice on my actual gf.) Where as with guys in the past and now I had friends who I would do a certain activity with i.e. soccer sam, xbox mike etc. but thats about it.

Anyways, naturally this drives my real girlfriend nuts. She’s not the overly attached girlfriend, who texts me every minute asking me where am I, but if she hears that I’m in company of girls when she calls, she would go like “oh right, you are with your girlfriends, sorry I’ll call you back” Or if I’m about to send a text to someone and she sees my phone messaging screen and its mostly girls names she gets upset. She also met a few of my “girlfriends” and every now and then would throw something like “sorry I’m not Katie” etc. My gf keeps hinting that I need more guy friends, and that it’s “weird” that I don’t hang out with guys at all, and that I should do something about it. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied with the situation.

What’s your take?

My take: you’re sitting in the driver’s seat. You’re right to feel quite satisfied with the present arrangement. Everything you’ve written tells of a woman who is beset by irritating, if manageable, jealousy pangs, and has assumed the perpetual chaser role of the girlfriend who feels she must continually re-earn her man’s love and affection.

This state of affairs may sound bad in print, but these kinds of men aren’t the ones getting taken to the cleaners by icy ex-wives.

When a girl like this one tells you to swap out most of your female friends for male friends, she’s practically confessed to feeling threatened.

Women who are in charge of their relationships typically put the kibosh on their men hanging out with their male friends too much because those women don’t want their men’s attentions (read: resources) spent frivolously on his gang of bros.  These women don’t worry so much about female competition because they don’t believe their beta herbs are capable of seducing other women. This is how it goes for, oh, 80-90% of long-term relationships.

In contrast, women who *aren’t* in charge of their relationships typically fret more about their men spending time in the company of women, any women, in any context. These women do worry about the female competition, because they know their boyfriends/husbands have the charismatic chops to woo aspiring mistresses. And they know that women are mercenary behind the fair maiden masks, and will eagerly encourage a betrayal.

Be happy that you hold court with women. It’s not weird, it’s exhilarating, for you and your girlfriend.

Read Full Post »

This was the advice of an Italian female author of a bestseller book titled Cásate y sé sumisa – “Get Married and Be Submissive”. The book is now a hit in Spain, where the fertility rate of the native Spaniards is very low as one prime fertility generation of women after another squeezes into the crowded and expensive cities to pursue the accumulation of alphas and gadgets instead of betas and cherubs.

Naturally, Spain’s feminists (is there no Western nation safe from the shrieking of the clams?) are outraged, OUTRAGED I tells ya, by the book’s premise, and are, as is the wont of this subspecies of open-minded and tolerant leftoids, calling for it to be banned.

The book, which was a bestseller in Italy, preaches a message of “loyal obedience, generosity and submission” on the part of the new wife and offers nuggets of advice for the newly-wed on how to please one’s husband.

The book currently appears at number 15 on the Amazon bestseller list in Spain but has raised the hackles of modern-minded Senoras who even staged a public demonstration against the tome, where they tore up copies.

Women’s groups are considering legal action to get it banned arguing that it promotes gender violence.

Here is a photo of the Italian authoress, Costanza Miriano, advocating a wife’s submission to her husband:

Here is a photo of a group of Spanish feminists tearing apart copies of the book:

I could drop the mic right here and walk off stage, confident that the argument against the feminist position, such as it is, remains incontestable. But tragically there are still people in the world who believe raw ugliness exerts no influence upon one’s warped beliefs or bizarro worldview, so the shivvings will continue until morale improves.

One passage suggests: “We [women] like humiliation because it is for a greater good.”

The Story of Oaths. Women in traditional marriages are happier than women participating under more “egalitarian” marital auspices. Lovely Costanza is correct; the nature of women… unchangeable, sculpted in the crucible of a millions-year old mating environment that has bred in them an instinctual adoration for the powerful man who by force of will extracts from his lovers a damegeld, i.e., submission to his prerogatives… is a wild beast that needs a dose of loving humiliation to remind it for whom it ploughs and pleases.

Miriano has touched on something important here, something very dark and naturally suited for examination by the learned scribes of Chateau Heartiste. A woman seeks her submission to a better man, belying her own socially greased words to the contrary, and will take the measure of a man in part by his willingness to indulge in humiliations, usually small, sometimes great, as proof of his worthiness.

What does Miriano mean by “for the greater good”? I believe she alludes to an idea articulated at CH in the past: the idea that women’s unbridled sexual nature is wilder and more dangerous than man’s sexual nature, and that leaving women’s ravenous desire to its own devices — that is, giving women the freedom as demanded by feminists to hunt in an endless chase for perfect romantic fulfillment, no matter the consequences — will in the end breed deep discontentment, and the restless queefly quest that can never be quenched will transform the ancient courtship rituals into an acid bath disintegrating the last fibers of social connectedness.

Women, slave to limbic compulsions far beyond the mere abilities of prefrontal willpower to contain, need a man who will stop them embarking on this quest, whether embarking in reality or fantasy (both are caustic to social and familial bonds in their own ways), and the only assurance that a woman will be satisfied leaving the quest behind is if a man wrests her from pursuing it.

The author claims the book is based on the teachings of St Paul and that a perfect wife should be submissive.

Paging Matt King…

“It’s true, you’re not yet an experienced cook or a perfect housewife,” she writes. “What’s the problem if he tells you so? Tell him that he is right, that it’s true, that you will learn. On seeing your sweetness and your humility, your effort to change, this will also change him.

Smart women understand that men won’t move heaven and earth for unfeminine shrikes. Even an ur-leftoid like Maureen Dowd, by way of a fortuitous brush with brotherly reality that would have made her a wiser woman had she heeded the unmissable lesson instead of lied to herself her whole life for status whoring points at her New York Beta Times cocktail circuit, comprehends that feminine niceness, and nothing but feminine niceness, is a balm of which men will never tire.

The sassy, snarky, arch bitch inspires the competitive instinct in men, and weakens their protective instinct. Men won’t feel motivated to change for a woman who isn’t capable of evoking vulnerability and, yes, submission. Men will fuck the invincible modern woman, and then leave her unloved, untroubled that such a woman softly weeps herself to sleep at night.

Granada’s Archbishop Francisco Javier Martinez, who chose to publish the book has defended its content and insists that the furore surrounding it is “ridiculous and hypocritical” in a society that allows abortion, which he argues is a much clearer example of violence against women.

The Fifth Wave Feminist: Keep hacking at those fetal limbs but zero tolerance for awkward nerds committing microaggressions by telling dongle jokes.

The present condition of Western elite thought is unsustainable. Something will give, soon. And then those who always felt the Western world was amiss but were too cowardly to say so without twelve layers of sniveling PC ass-covering will embrace the wrought iron door to the Chateau and enter, imbibing its teachings without apology, without reluctance, and with only regret at having not arrived sooner.

Read Full Post »

Senior Management: the harem kings.
Management: the first wives.
Accounts Support: the inner circle concubines.
Sales Support: the trafficked East European sex slave.
Support Team: the royal penis washers.
Account Managers: the threesome coordinators.
Business Managers: the young dick sucking upstarts.

There you have it, the modern corporate harem, in all its flowcharted glory. Seven women per one high status man. A more illuminatingly succinct snapshot of the Western sexual market aligned with the globalizing economic market you won’t see. The only surprising thing about it is the lack of any land whales or witches among the female staff. This is Britain; you’d have to spend years scouring the countryside to find and place that many bangable women under one corporate umbrella. So you know a lot of hard work went into developing a staff that looks like a country with all its men and war pigs removed.

The other thing that’s missing from the chart: Beta males, the invisible demographic.

The four kings at the top of the Spermular Solutions organization may or may not be boffing their happily indentured servants (but if you had to bet…), however the exact dimension of their relationships with their underpantslings is irrelevant in the bigger scheme. These women are, no doubt, enthralled by the power of their male masters. They don’t need to be taking their masters’ cocks to experience the same feeling of submissive joy that a real concubine would feel. All those women are de facto harem girls, at the beck and call of their four alpha kings, gossiping and tittering amongst themselves like court mistresses to determine who is the favored girl of the moment.

This social and quasi-sexual dynamic, playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office. In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!

What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.

Naturally, foul feminist cunts and their bubble-headed beta male toadies immediately saw a “glass ceiling” at work in this corporate chart. For them, a workplace that is 90% female is discrimination against women if the top four positions are held by men. All the lesser men who are missing from the bottom 90% ranks are completely forgettable, nebulous specters resembling some human shape and form. Beta males? Who? What? Is that a new social media app?

I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice: When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.

Update

It gets better. As if more confirmation was needed that what we are witnessing is the legitimization of soft concubinage, the fine alpha males at Spermular Solutions held a bikini contest featuring their charges. The winner was the guy holding his mic.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,028 other followers

%d bloggers like this: