Archive for the ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Category

A new study has apparently put the lie to that old song with the lyrics “If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife”.

In the study, which was recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, psychologist Andrea Meltzer tracked over 450 newlywed couples during the course of four years and posed the question: does a good-looking spouse lead to a more satisfying union?

What Meltzer and her team discovered was that spousal attractiveness does play a major role in marital satisfaction — but only for men. In other words, men care about looks more than women do.

The authors write, “The significant effect of wives’ attractiveness on husbands’ satisfaction was significantly stronger than the nonsignificant effect of husbands’ attractiveness on wives’ satisfaction, indicating that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands’ marital satisfaction than it did in predicting wives’ marital satisfaction.”

Wow, my friends. Just wow.

Excuse me, I was channeling your typical feminist there for a moment. If you’re a CH acolyte, you probably are not a dumbfuck feminist, ankle-grabbing mangina, or lying leftoid, and therefore the results from this study won’t surprise you. Instead, you’ll amusingly wonder how anyone could have doubted that men are happier with attractive women and women don’t care as much about men’s looks. Stop the goddamned presses! You mean men and women are… *GASP*… different?

Interestingly, the attractive wives also reported higher levels of satisfaction, all because having a happy hubby made them happier too.

The natural state of woman is submission to a confident man. When woman’s nature is allowed to express itself, she is happy. When her nature is stifled — say, by being married to an unhappy or insecure beta male — she is contemplating an eatpraylove getaway. We can conclude that the ideal arrangement is a beautiful wife with a self-assured, dominant husband.

A study conducted in 2008 at the Relationship Institute at UCLA reached a similar finding. Researchers theorized that men who felt they “lucked out” by marrying attractive wives were happier and more likely to care about their wives’ needs — and in turn, the good-looking wives were happier in the relationship as well.

“The husbands seemed to be basically more committed, more invested in pleasing their wives when they felt that they were getting a pretty good deal,” study author Benjamin Karney explained.

Bodacious tit-for-tat. The sexual market is an immense bazaar of endless barter regulating the exchange of biomolecular entities with differing reproductive goals. Bad poets try to ignore this reality. Good poets try to transcend it. Great poets find beauty in it.

Karney said the opposite occurred when the husbands felt they were better looking than their wives, explaining, “They didn’t seem to be quite as motivated to help out their wives when they were more attractive than their wives.”

Options = instability.

What do you think, do you agree with the “hot wife, better life” theory? Sound off below.

Chateau Heartiste already answered this question, using a metric that frames the issue in a tangible way for men. Again, the CH worldview, however despised and resented by the patrons of the pretty lie megaplex, is vindicated by ♥science♥. And now we can add LOVE to the list of pleasures that attractive women inspire to epiphanic heights in men.

Read Full Post »

Lust Is Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lust: Sexual desire forges lasting relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love,


Read Full Post »

Take a look at this series of photos. Which woman, left or right, is more beautiful?

How elusive is the concept of beauty? Apparently, not very. With a few microtweaks of geometric proportions, a woman’s face can turn from plain to pulchritudinous. The Marquardt Beauty Mask uses the pentagon and decagon as a foundation that, when a face is aligned to the mask, objectively proves that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder (beyond the trivial biological fact that a visual processing center in the brain must apprehend beauty), but rather is a definable and universal constant of formulaic precision that can be replicated and duplicated to achieve the identical hornytoad response in men the world over.

Nihilism and cynicism are perfectly justified when the timeless mysteries of human wonder yield to the investigative scalpel of cold numerical analysis.

Read Full Post »

Michael Blowhard once challenged CH and readers to look at what the great writers in the Western literary tradition had to say about courtship. Many responded.

Alas, it is not God’s plenty. A man who relies on literature for his models can easily get swept away by the glorious pedestalizing.

Ovid’s seduction manual, The Art of Love, is pretty uneven in its advice. Stendhal’s On Love is pretty good. Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier is a good manual for how to be an overall attractive man. (Both were used to good effect by Robert Greene in The Art of Seduction.) Moliere shows what not to do in The Misanthrope, as does Flaubert in Madame Bovary. Byron has some scattered good thoughts. Burke, from a more traditionalist perspective, has some profound thoughts on masculinity and femininity. I’ve never read Casanova’s memoirs so I cannot tell you how good they are as literature or as pickup advice. I haven’t read Laclos’ Dangerous Liasons either. It’s been a long, long time since I read Richardson’s Clarissa, with its famous seducer Lovelace. Freud expounds nicely on female narcissism.

I’d also throw in How to be the Jerk Women Love by F.J. Shark (truly a great classic in the annals of lit-ra-choor), Nine and a Half Weeks by Elizabeth McNeill, and Story of O by Pauline Reage. Even pulp romance novels, however hackish, can be helpful to your learned pursuit of utterly dominating a woman’s will and heart. As with the last two book recommendations, female authors will invariably reveal their pulsing erotic ids through their characters. The trick to reading romantic literature written by a woman is to pay attention to what TURNS ON the female character. Not what the character claims to want in a hypothetical boyfriend or husband, but what she specifically describes that got her tingling like a Van de Graaff generator. Editorial commentary can be ignored, because the prerequisite for becoming any woman’s ideal lover is to first become her actual lover.

Read Full Post »

Would you call this man smart? I would.

He jams, drinks, surfs, lounges beachside all day, and eats lobster on the public dime. Oh sure, he doesn’t have a lot of material possessions (but how’d he get that car?) that define the accomplished SWPL life, but when you’re banging hot southern Cally girls, (and I bet you big bank he’s tapping more sweet ass than a hundred Apple employees turning six figures are buying dinners for), the urge to bust your balls hunched over a computer screen 50 hours a week so you can acquire the latest iteration of some useless gadget and pay taxes for your active dispossession kind of fades away. The Dude abides his new perspective.

Poolside in America is the nation’s 21st century battle cry. And why not? The country is sinking fast under mounds of debt, unemployment, and alienation. The government pushes propaganda and policies that undermine the very concept of a nation, so no wonder growing numbers of Americans are jettisoning any feeling of duty toward their homeland like so much gassy ballast. Social atomization and the sheer massive scale of a bloated 300+ million population of competing races, ethnicities, behaviors, and temperaments herded like cats under ever-tightening rules and regulations and surveillance drones doomed to fail are splintering hard-earned loyalty and severing bonhomie. Obscene inequality of wealth and the total abandonment of noblesse oblige by the ruling classes has emboldened the leeches and parasites and sociopaths and hedonists and nihilists and clear thinkers. In the land of the left-behind, the poolsider is king.

Toward the end of the video, the interviewer asks RattLife Surfer if he feels guilty for taking advantage of Obama’s removal of restrictions on qualifying for food stamps, and helping himself to $200 of “free” money every month. He says no, and I believe him. It would be strange to feel guilt for sucking a pittance of Danegeld from fat cats helping themselves to ungodly profits from arcane financial transactions abetted by a cognitive firewall between the masses and the gated 0.1%ers on the hunt for ever-cheaper labor imported from shitholes. RattLife has made a very rational decision regarding his well-being: He has looked at the world he inherited, at the immense chasm between the haves and (relative) have-nots, and has figured that slaving away in a cube farm or a grimy sweatshop on a stagnating wage to serve a smaller and smaller cadre of super wealthy and femcunt HR schoolmarms is no life at all. What is the point of busting your hump when the brass ring has moved from your fingertips to Alpha Centauri?

“My job is to make sure the sun’s up and the girls are out.”

Now that’s radical.

Read Full Post »

Commenter FeministX, Indian woman (she would be offended if you called her “Indian-American”, as that would be too disparaging of her vibrancy privilege) says,

Based on media attention, it doesn’t seem like white women have been the gold standard for a long time. Doesn’t seem like blond women were ever the gold standard as neither Raquel Welch nor Sophia Loren were blond and they were beauties of yesteryear. Of fair women, it’s really difficult to see how nordic women were ever more attractive than slavic women.

It seems like all caucasoid groups can produce 10s though the average female attractiveness surely differs across groups. Salma Hayek is half lebanese half mexican. Monica Belluci is Italian and black haired. Aishwarya Rai is south Indian. Adriana Lima is a latina mix that includes black and native. Even Vanessa Williams looked like a 10 to me in the early 90s as her face is very caucasoid.

Personally, I’m not sure if Ive ever seen a 100% east asian or 100% sub saharan woman with a 10 face. But to me it looks like caucasoid groups can all produce beauties of the same grade A+ caliber. Across different caucasoid groups, 10s look sort of similar to each other despite the difference in skin tone. They seem to be the standard of beauty, not a particular race.

There are three methods for determining if a race’s women are the globalized gold standard in physical attractiveness:

1. Direct measurement

There is substantial evidence that beauty is quantifiable and measurable. Direct measurement of various facial ratios found in women from around the world would tell us which race’s women came closest to meeting the beauty ideal. This method would result in the most accurate results, but many religious believers in equalism would go to their graves denying in the face (heh) of all scientific evidence and common sense that beauty has an objective basis. It is likely this sort of scientific inquiry will not be done in our lifetimes.

2. Media exposure

The premise is simple: The most desirable women are the ones most represented in mass media as icons of beauty. If Unavision and Korean beauty pageants are any indication, white women (and facsimiles of white women) are beloved in large swaths of the non-white world. In fact, based on media presence, it seems the only areas of the world where the beauty of white women *isn’t* idealized are in the homelands of whites: the Anglosphere and Europe.

The downside to using this method to determine white women’s relative attractiveness is the result-skewing effects of propaganda. The media both reflects cultural taste, and molds it in the image that the gatekeepers of social discourse want it to go. So a media blitz to, say, elevate the desirability of Aboriginal women would not be fairly representative of their attractiveness to the world’s men.

3. Male preference

Outside of direct measurement, this is the method that will yield results closest to reality. Watch what men do, not what they say. Which women do men from around the world prefer to gaze at? Which women do men prefer to bang? Marry? Etc. For that, we can look at porn stats to see if white women are disproportionately represented. Another method is to examine the historical sex slavery data to find out, contra FeministX, if white women have or haven’t been the “gold standard” in attractiveness for a long time.

Peter Frost has a series of post looking into this very question, and the results are sure to stick another shiv into the black hearts of beauty relativists: White women (and whiter women) have historically been desired as concubines and sex slaves by non-white men.


Putting it all together — (limited) direct measurement data, total media exposure, and male preference (both current and historical) — the conclusion is hard to escape: White women are indeed the global gold standard in beauty. There are exceptions, of course, and not every white woman is beautiful (far from it, and less so today thanks to the obesity epidemic), but on a large scale analysis, white women appear to be the women that all the world’s men want, and the women that the world’s women want to be.

Read Full Post »

New research examining marital patterns in the Disunited States is out, and it’s not looking good for the nuptial blissers (or for the civilization gatekeepers).

Marriage Rate Lowest in a Century

Fewer women are getting married and they’re waiting longer to tie the knot when they do decide to walk down the aisle. That’s according to a new Family Profile from the National Center for Family and Marriage Research (NCFMR) at Bowling Green State University.

According to “Marriage: More than a Century of Change,” the U.S. marriage rate is 31.1, the lowest it’s been in over a century. That equals roughly 31 marriages per 1,000 married women. Compare that to 1920, when the marriage rate was a staggering 92.3.

Since 1970, the marriage rate has declined by almost 60 percent. “Marriage is no longer compulsory,” said Dr. Susan Brown, co-director of the NCFMR. “It’s just one of an array of options. Increasingly, many couples choose to cohabit and still others prefer to remain single.”

Furthermore, a woman’s average age at first marriage is the highest it’s been in over a century, at nearly 27 years old. “The age at first marriage for women and men is at a historic highpoint and has been increasing at a steady pace,” states Dr. Wendy Manning, co-director of the Center.

Well, that’s one way to avoid the temptation to cheat and deep six your marriage: Get married when you’re older and have fewer sexual market options.

There has also been a dramatic increase in the proportion of women who are separated or divorced. In 1920, less than 1 percent of women held that distinction. Today, that number is 15 percent. “The divorce rate remains high in the U.S., and individuals today are less likely to remarry than they were in the past,” reports Brown.

Welcome to the Eat, Pray, Love iteration of America: E – Eat ourselves to death. P – Pray we still got it. L – Love our cats.

The marriage rate has declined for all racial and ethnic groups, but the greatest decline is among African Americans. Similarly, the education divide in marriage has grown. In the last 50 years there have been only modest changes in the percentage of women married among the college educated and the greatest declines among women without a high school diploma.

It’s ironic that the pointless lib-arts over-education that correlates with women getting married also correlates with them staying childless. Meanwhile, Clevon and Anfernee pop out ten parasites by their single mom weekday flings. What was the whole point of marriage, again? To encourage and sanctify responsible procreation and child-rearing, right? No, no, how silly of me. Times have changed. Marriage is now all about celebrating multiple forms of love, like butthex and cuckold fetishism and, coming soon to a Detroit near you, polygamy.

Was Idiocracy just about the most prescient movie ever made?

None of this depressing news should be any surprise to regular guests of Le Chateau. We were the first to make the connection between the social rot and the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, and we will be the first to rub it in the faces of the lords of lies when this whole shit show comes perilously close to oozing in on their guarded gated communities.

In silver lining news, casual, no strings attached sex with smart, sassy white chicks has never been easier to get.

Read Full Post »

…is keeping her away from her fat friends.

I’ve seen it happen too many times, the slender girlfriend of the happy man — attending an endless procession of house parties with an expanding (heh) circle of girl friends slowly but surely piling on the pounds month by month, year by year — suddenly wakes up one morning to notice her muffin top has rolled over and her boyfriend’s eyes have glazed over.

You have one duty ladies… ONE. Stay thin and sexy. And yet so many of you can’t seem to manage that simple fucking thing. We lenient gentlemen of the jury aren’t asking for much. We don’t care if you drive a sports car. We don’t expect you to climb the soul-killing corporate ladder. We don’t give a flying fig if you went to grad school. We don’t inexplicably lose our interest if you happen to get overly affectionate. We don’t burden you with demands for more commitment or drill you for opinions about how our butts look in these jeans. We instead ask for simple things from you, such as a refusal to turn into this:

Men, you can help your lover stay thin by keeping her the hell away from her fat and feminist girl friends. Her fat friends will infect her with their fat disease, through some poorly understood mechanism of orca osmosis, and like fatty fat fatass pockmarked dominoes one after another thin girl will get knocked down, until not a single height-weight proportionate babe is left standing. You think I’m joking? Nope, ♥SCIENCE♥ has found that obesity is socially contagious.

Her feminist friends will infect her with the mind diseases of nonjudgmentalismbeauty equalism and loathing of male desire, all of which are the psy-ops trifecta for brainwashing a girl against her man and turning her into a ham-shaped self-entitlement cartoon.

Relationship management takes work. But men don’t need to make it harder than it needs to be. An easy intervention that will improve relationship health and harmony is staring men in the face. Give your girl the gift of lithe. Cast her BBBFFers to the icy wastelands.

Read Full Post »

Reader “Mr.C” writes,

One measure of Fuckability: How long you are prepared to wait in order to fuck her.

True, but how does one square this with the alpha male imperative to seal the deal in three dates or fewer?

The Three Date Rule isn’t binding. It’s best thought of as a hedge against developing one-itis or getting taken to the Tenth Circle of Blue Ball Hell by a cockteaser, where you drown in a sea of unexpelled sperm.

There are indeed scenarios where an alpha male might wait quite a while (relative to his normal allowance for waiting) to bang a glorious hottie. The crucial difference between an alpha male and a beta male waiting for a girl to put out is that the alpha usually has other irons in the fire and waiting for sex is his prerogative, while the beta has no one else and waiting for sex is his sufferance. And women can sense this differing weight of alpha vs beta male expectation. They sniff it out like dogs picking up wet poop in the air.

Naturally, men will be more inclined to invest their time and energy into a pretty girl than a plain girl. And their investment will rise in accord with reassuring signals of payout. That is, a girl who is making it obvious by her anticipatory behavior that she’s working hard to restrain herself in your company is a girl whose coyness you’d be more willing to accommodate.

So what are some other Measures of Fuckability (MOFs)?

- Amount spent on girl.
- Ratio of eye-to-eye contact to sidelong glances cast at other women walking by.
- Number of hours (or days) before scheduled date that the man thinks about the date.
- Boner triggers. Does smelling her intoxicating ovulatory aroma trigger a boner? High MOF. Does she need to wrap her lips around your schlong to coax a chub? Low MOF.
- Amount of feminist blather man is willing to tolerate.
- Degree of stupidity man is willing to tolerate.
- Rapidity with which man leaves post-coitus. Does he linger past brunch? High MOF. Is he out the door as the last spurt is settling in a flesh nook? Low MOF.
- Inducement to showcase his conquest. Is the man scheming to be seen in public with his lover? High MOF. Is he making excuses to her about having a rare allergy to sunlight *and* moonlight? Low MOF.
- Yes-man to No-man ratio. Being a yes-man = High MOF. Being a no-man = Low MOF. (Game-aware men subvert this tendency.)
- Fap to fuck ratio. If you’re fapping more than fucking your girl, LOW MOF.
- Porn to foreplay ratio. If you’re spending more hours watching porn than engaging in sexy foreplay with your girl, LOW MOF.
- Video gaming to fucking idle thoughts ratio. Extremely low MOF if time spent thinking about vidga gaming is more than time spent thinking about fucking your girl. (Actual time will vary regardless of MOF level, because GUILD WARS.)
- The degree to which an undersexed game hater resents your date for throwing into stark relief the dumpy frumpiness of his wife or girlfriend. More resentment = higher MOF of your date. You lucky dog! Banging a hottie *and* driving an old skooler traddork to histrionics!

Author note: The longest yer humble Chateau proprietor has waited for a bang was five dates, not counting those first tentative steps toward poosy paradise at the tender age of [REDACTED ON ORDER OF CPS] when yer humble pubescent pioneer had nothing but his wits and an untrained, if keen, power of observation to guide him.

Read Full Post »

Readers have been writing to express their gratitude ever since the CH “Dread” post was published, which advised men in loveless relationships to become more aloof and unavailable as a means of reigniting their women’s desire for them.

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you.

The bitterboy haters really swooned with indignation after reading that post, feeling deep in their bones that anything less than flowers and constant supplication was the only way a man should act if he wanted to revive a flagging relationship. Hundreds of testimonials to the contrary would not convince them. Theirs is a Hallmark world, and goddamnit it’s going to stay a Hallmark world.

By why heed your real world experiences and the wisdom of CH when you can wait for CREDENTIALED EXPERTS to give you the go-ahead to try something new and daring with your life?

But the [female] rationale [for wanting sex] I’d like to focus on here is one that’s rarely alluded to in the literature: namely, a woman’s wanting sex–and at times desperately so–out of fear that her partner may be on the verge of leaving her. That is, she may actively pursue her spouse sexually to help deal with powerful feelings of anxiety, stemming from her intuition or knowledge that her relationship is in jeopardy–fragile, teetering, or on the brink of collapse.

The woman’s apprehension about a possible break-up may derive from her partner’s broadly hinting that he wants out of the relationship or, in fact, from his directly informing her of his intentions to move out and file for divorce. Or it’s possible she might suspect that he’s having an affair; or (because of the vast emotional distance separating them) that he’s actually fallen in love with someone else and, on that account, secretly planning to desert her. In a panic about it all–especially if she still feels devoted to him, or there are children involved and she’s frantic to keep the family together at all costs–she may be desperate to initiate sex to feel less helpless, as well as to exert some control over (and hopefully alter) her husband’s errant, non-loving behavior toward her. [...]

As a consequence of her distress, or anguish, she’s strongly impelled to prompt a heated sexual encounter whereas previously she may have shown ambivalence, apathy, or even a marked antipathy toward making love with her partner. Withdrawn and quite possibly sexually shut down, in the bedroom she may take on the role of “aggressor”–or, probably a better term, “seductress.” [...]

Ironically, the sex that can emerge from the considerable trepidation and anxiety I’ve been describing can be unusually passionate. Though I’ve already characterized such sex as “fear-inspired,” the very intensity of this fear can transform itself into substantially heightened sexual arousal – such that the end result of lovemaking can be electrically charged (what noted sex therapist, David Schnarch, actually refers to as “wall socket sex”!). It’s as though, ironically, the woman’s pronounced fear of abandonment renders her capable of having more abandoned sex than she may have been capable of before.

As we say in the business —  Game. Set. Snatch.

Le Chateau ahead of the curve, again. A little bit of fear and dread will motivate a sexually retreating woman to joyfully spread for the sake of committed love. To put it in even more concise terms: Do the opposite of a beta male.

Dread is essentially a form of the scarcity principle, producing effects in the sexual market similar to the effects seen in the economic market when an in-demand good is in short supply. Not only will calculated doses of dread revitalize relationships, but it will also allow average men to date much hotter women than they would be expected to date by the dunderhead masses.

Maxim #55: A man can shoot way out of his league if he acts as if he is the one occupying the higher league.

Dread, or fear-inspired romance, is not a relationship cure-all. An average man can keep a level-headed hottie on a string for about six months using nothing but anxiety-inducing seduction techniques, but beyond the six month mark fissures will begin to erupt. Women’s hindbrains can fry from too much sustained anxiety, and past that point relationship management with a beautiful woman becomes more difficult, requiring more emotional investment from the man. Accepting this reality, the man will usually opt for gaudy beta displays of commitment, and as if on cue this will cause the hottie to reevaluate her relationship options.

Given the long-term risks of overuse, dread is still the winning move for the average man. Just as five minutes of alpha > five years of beta for women, six months of sex with a hot babe > ten years of sex with a plain jane for men.

The best news is that dread is exceptionally effective as a tool to coax hot sex from a woman if you are within an already established relationship, such as marriage. The trick to keeping the bedsheets stained with poos joos is the subtle application of intermittent dread, which releases your woman’s anxiety just long enough that she swings wildly between cuddly comfort and ravenous restlessness. Sustained dread is better when you’ve started dating a girl, and particularly the types of eye-catching girls who get propositioned on the daily.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,839 other followers

%d bloggers like this: