Feeds:
Posts
Comments

James Franco is an A-list Hollywood actor who could have women fellating him within fifteen minutes with an inviting smile, so it would be surprising if his text game read like it came from a tone-deaf beta sperg. Or would it?

in case you didn’t know, i’m a really famous dude

don’t i look like a brooding james dean in my avatar?

i mean the # of inches you can take

autistic? or accustomed to easy lays?

he just has that “x” factor.

A normal non-famous man without compensating attractive personality traits would bomb badly running Franco get-to-the-point anti-game right out of the gate. But Franco is not a normal man; he’s famous, and Fame Game is the most powerful game known to exist in the universe. Franco has likely had no problem throughout his starfucked life getting laid when he wants, so he has been conditioned by his experiences with eager beavers that anything beyond minimal “name, rank, phone number” is unnecessary effort. His SMV is so high he could condense his courtship displays to pointing at his crotch. It would therefore be a mistake to draw lessons from Franco’s text game and apply them to the average aspiring womanizer.

But even the gravitational pull of Fame Game will yield to the electromagnetic push in the opposite direction of needy omega-ish anti-game. Women HATE HATE HATE desperate beta behavior maybe more than they LOVE LOVE LOVE famous men. It appears here that Franco’s charmless interrogation was sufficiently off-putting to ruin his chance with a springtime fresh Scottish lass. As a commenter put it, “Dewd gave her the social validation she craved, and is now in damage control mode.”

More than a few celebrities could use a dollop of game (as well as a primer in discretion). Some readers have shared stories of celebrities they overheard in the act of hitting on women, and they recall how surprised they were by the celebrity’s incongruous beta behavior. Being famous doesn’t necessarily mean being a smooth seducer. Presumably, these hapless actors either fell into their fame by accident, or they are so accustomed to women making all the effort to bang them that they regress to an M.O. of sheepish grins and stilted interview-style questions, perhaps resorting to handlers to do the actual dirty work of arranging face-to-face meetings with their hoped-for conquests.

Funny enough, the best part of Franco’s text game was near the end, when he wrote a curt “bye” to the girl. The threat of his disappearance suddenly loosened her tongue and switched her id gears from chasee to chaser. It was a helpful reminder of his incalculably numerous sexual market options.

Addendum

To head off the mewling nancyboys and nurse ratcheds menstruating about age of consent and “creepy older men”, a strong dose of reality: It’s as creepy for older men to lust for nubile teen girls bursting with secondary sexual characteristics as it is for teen girls to lust for older male stars bursting with charisma. That is to say, not at all. The necessity of drawing arbitrary legalistic AOC boundaries to thwart genuine pedophiles to the contrary, it’s totally normal and sexually healthy for older men to be aroused by the sight, scent and aural sphere of sprightly teenflesh. Nothing abnormal about it. Of course, whole edifices of cultural baggage to shame and contain that natural male impulse have been erected (heh) by threatened older women and beta males on the receiving end of the fallout from unchecked alpha male romantic pursuit and the delight of their pursued.

Email #1

Southern Man writes,

Sunshine Mary is reviewing a book in which the authors (both women) propose that the five core needs of a woman are:

to be cherished by a man
to be protected by a strong man
to rescue a man
to be sexually alive
to escape reality

We are of course skeptical of any advice for women written by women but this list doesn’t look too bad. How would it fare under the harsh light of the Chateau dungeon?

Heaven forfend, the Chateau is not a dungeon good sire! It is a temple. With a dungeon.

It’s natural and justifiable to be suspicious of romantic advice from women. As CH has explained at length before, the predominantly visual component of women’s attractiveness precludes them from having to grasp too much bowel-shaking reality. Men, however, can’t just apply makeup and slip into a slinky dress to get scads of attention from the opposite sex; men must learn what makes women (and competitor men) tick if they want a decent shot at sex and love.

Nevertheless, there are those rare fair flowerings of insight from the passive sex. The list above compiled by “Sunshine Mary” distinguishes itself by avoiding the flagrantly shallow and self-serving pretty lies that are the stock in trade of most of her sistren. But like most female advice, a heaping helping of contextual hedging is necessary to make any use of it.

Yes, women want to be cherished by a man… an alpha man. And they don’t want to be cherished too soon, too often, or too egregiously.

Yes, women want to be protected by a strong man… who makes them wet. And they want that protection in small doses, before it lurches into possessiveness.

Yes, women want to rescue a man… from his own jerkboy sexiness.

Yes, women want to be sexually alive… but that’s a symptom, not a cause, of the kinds of men to whom they freely give their love.

Yes, women want to escape reality… no qualification needed.

My advice… take women’s sex and romance advice with a flat of salt. Even the well-meaning ones.

***

Email #2

A reader channels Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds,

40$ up for grabs in case I find your advice good enough.

Disqualification noted.

I’m 25 years old and I’ve only recently discovered game, but already found a wide range of instances where even just a little game makes a huge freaking difference. I’m still new and grasping basics, but the sex life with the wife has improved significantly. Yes, I have a wife and child already. Trying to get the nuclear family thing going to keep western civilization outside of America running (you’re all fucked already).

Anyway, long story short, I have to get a job as a temp at a junior high-school to support my family. No other options available. The school isn’t one of the worst, around 75/25 white/other. I want to be prepared for troublemakers however, so I read some about AMOG’ing, but all examples are in bars (naturally).

Chateau, how to deal with annoying brats, trying to take a swing on the alphatemp? Examples highly appreciated.

A physical swing? From 13 year olds? Sounds like juvie instead of junior high.

This is perhaps beyond even the cosmic ken of the all-seeing id of CH, but one thing I can pass along is what I remember my alpha teachers behaving like when they had to deal with a class badass (*innocent look*). One such teacher used to feign obliviousness to the distracting student’s antics as he strolled along the aisles formed by our chairs, and then in a swift movement and without warning would send his pointer stick crashing down on the offending rapscallion’s desktop with an eardrum-breaking crash, saying not a word in the aftermath but what was spoken by his glaring eyes. That usually did the trick.

If you prefer the subtler approach, try dunce caps (a comic trope that needs renewed life), making the loser “L” sign on your forehead, quoting an updated Dean Wormer’s classic “fat, dorky, and stupid is no way to go through life son”, or pimp slapping. CH takes no responsibility for any helicopter parent’s wrath which may be incurred by pursuing the above tactics.

***

Email #3

A refreshingly self-aware reader would like some tips on how to improve his anti-flake artillery. His Tinder/text replies are on the right (if it wasn’t obvious).

Passing along a tinder/text convo that ended in a flake. Fully aware that she never hooked very hard, if at all. But she gave a lot of shit tests which you might find interesting

Anyway the convo is for your amusement. For me, I am wondering if you have any tips for me as a 27 yr old w/ girls who are under 21 (can’t take to bars). Thanks and please dont use my name/email in anything.

reel… reel… reel….

damn! an old shoe!

My first take: You didn’t answer her shit tests hard enough. You were too forgiving. You started tossing in “fun” routines before you had energized her curiosity. That’s why your routines and leading questions fell like a led zeppelin. Also, you qualified her to soon. “You seem cool” should only be reserved for girls who have shown real effort to seem cool to you. But I think you know all this.

By the way, girls sometimes unintentionally drop clues that they’re liable to flake. “We’ll see if it works out” is one such pre-flake clue. The tiny clause “we’ll see” is one of the worst things you as a man will hear from a woman. She’s so noncommittal she can hardly contain her ennui.

To answer your question, think about what excites under-21 girls. What excites them is what over-21 men do that men their own age don’t or can’t do. Backstage passes. Shows. Artsy house parties. Introductions to movers and shakers. Cultural or urban nooks and crannies to which only older men can give her access. Yes, bars too. Ice cream? No. That’s a date you have with a girl you’ve been fucking for a long time.

I don’t think the problem is your uninspired venue-choosing algorithm. She’d have been happy to go to a bar with you if she was sufficiently intrigued by your company. Never blame a flake on a logistical imperfection that could just as readily be blamed on a dearth of excitement. If a girl desperately wants to meet you, a crusty public bathroom can suffice.

***

Email #4

A reader broods,

I have a question re: men’s looks. I know this isn’t as important as things like social proof and attitude but the thing is, where I’m not considered ugly, I’m also not very masculine-looking; I have quite feminine facial features and I’m very thin (working on this). Men who self-identify as “ugly” typically still have masculine features, just not in very good proportions. I, on the other hand, have decent proportions but not very masculine features. In terms of objective measurements like symmetry and proportion I’d say I was a 6, but I wonder: does having a “baby face” count against me, and how much? And how, physically-speaking, do I counter this? Should I play up an effeminate angle (not really my preference), or try to defeat it in some way (I also can’t grow decent facial or chest hair yet despite having very hairy legs — thanks mom and dad!)?

You’re thinking too much about this, like a little girly-woman with a little girly-hamster. Can you change your face? No. Can you approach more women and try to be more charismatic and challenging? Yes. If you do what you can theoretically do instead of complaining about what you cannot possibly do, you’ll meet women who will either love your baby-face or who will make up rationalizations for loving your face when it’s really your attitude they love.

About the only practical advice I could give you regarding your face is to abide the maxim “contrast is king”. Women will be expecting a trustworthy, genial fellow when they meet your baby-face; they’ll be pleasantly shocked when you flash your jerk pass.

On the other hand, I suppose you could go the plush beta orbiter route and aim for the bang circa 2023.

***

Email #5

The spring must bring out the brooders. Ohiomega laments,

Hi, liege. Imagine a man had taken your DMV test and received a very low score–almost everything about him was subpar in terms of its ability to help him snag snatch. How could he most efficiently go about improving his lot? What is the order of operations, so to speak, of male improvement?

Ok, this may go against conventional pickup doctrine, but the *quickest* path to improving your lot is through the weight room. Squats, deads, bench, pull-ups. We’re talking fast, right? In two months, you’ll feel manlier and you’ll look manlier. Game ROI is pretty quick too, but in my experience nothing will boost your outlook like a month or two of hard lifting. Don’t worry about “getting hyooge”. That’s not the point. Attitude adjustment is the point.

Now, if we’re talking about *total* ROI, rather than quickest, you’ve gotta hit the field and apply the core game principles on real live women. Efficiency-wise, that means:

Get rid of crutches, aka loser male friends, who are unintentional or otherwise obstacles to you walking up to women to meet them for eventual copulation as the good lord intended.

Find someone who knows how to dress. Emulate that person.

Keep a few negs, a few conversation starters, a few generic text replies, a few juicy alpha male movie quotes, and a few psychological games in your memory bank for instant retrieval. Trawl the CH archives for these.

Be a good boy scout and prepare for every woman to shit test you.

Have a pre-planned “date night activity list” in your head, which you will use for just about every woman you meet. This means you know beforehand you will take the girl from Venue #1 -> Venue #2 -> Home/Venue #3, and you will know which drinks you’ll get and who works there, as well as transportation options and distances from your 150-count bedsheets. Confidence is a side effect of tight planning.

Learn to engagingly tell one story from your life that makes you look good. Frame it in such a way that it seems you are reluctant to tell her, but oh well, she seems really interested.

Reader Mailbag entries are piling up. Expect some more in the coming weeks.

Abundance Mentality

How will you know you have an abundance mentality with women? When you screw around on a girlfriend, or think about leaving her, and all your buddies tell you how crazy you are for messing up a great thing with such a cutie.

Despite their uniform dissent, you still do it.

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.

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

You’ve ever inconspicuously texted under the table or called from the bathroom another girl while you were on a date.

You’ve ever snuck out on a date going badly.

You’ve ever bailed on a date because you met a hotter girl in the interim.

You’ve ever walked into a first date’s apartment, made a bee-line for her bathroom, pissed on the seat, farted loudly, exited, and strolled up to her to plant a passionate kiss.

You’ve ever held two simultaneous relationships, one for “appearances”.

Your women get carried away and relent to raw dog in the heat of the moment.

You’ve ever brazenly lied to a woman to cover up an infidelity. And didn’t feel bad about it.

You’ve ever banged a woman while another woman’s life force was still adhered to your dick.

You’ve ever said “Are you fucking kidding me?” to an attractive woman.

You’ve ever banged a woman in public, within view of families.

You’ve ever legitimately forgotten about a woman you started dating. Super alpha bonus points if you met her on the street and had to stare blankly for five seconds before recollecting.

You’ve ever forgotten a woman’s name up through the third date. And didn’t bother apologizing for it.

You’ve ever steadily pressed for sex beyond three half-hearted “No”s, and achieved your goal.

You’ve ever replied more than an hour later after a girl texted, and it wasn’t a calculated maneuver. You genuinely didn’t feel like putting in the effort.

Girls cum with you in every sex position.

You’re not the one who’s nervous.

You’ve rarely had to wait past the third date for sex.

You’ve ever flirted with girls when every social expectation at the time was that you shouldn’t.

You’ve ever taken a call from a girl while another girl was sleeping naked against your bare chest.

You’ve ever walked away from a long-term relationship out of boredom.

You’ve ever had to deal with a pregnancy scare.

A girl has ever cried for you.

You’ve dumped more often than you’ve been dumped, and when the latter happened you rarely had a dry spell longer than a month.

You’ve ever scheduled two dates for the same night. Super alpha bonus points if both dates ended in bangs. Super alpha doubleplusalpha bonus points if both dates ended in bangs together.

You’ve ever banged a girl on the first date without either of you using the disinhibition elixir of alcohol.

You’ve ever dated a girl who was persuaded to, temporarily at least, acquiesce to your insistence on a one-way sexually open relationship.

You’ve ever acquired an honest-to-god stalker. (This may be indisputable proof of alphaness.)

You’ve had girls approach you and solicit you for a drink, or even sex.

You’ve ever taken a girl home without needing an excuse to coax her compliance.

You’ve ever had a girl call you an asshole not long before she succumbed to intimacy.

You’ve ever had a girl spend more on you than you on her before she offered her sex.

You’ve ever been eagerly paraded in the presence of your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend.

You’ve ever had a girlfriend accuse you of cheating, even when you weren’t.

You’ve ever truly, madly, deeply loved two girls at the same time. And they loved you back.

1. Girls love selfish badboys.

2. Nonconsensual erotic rape fantasies are more common among women than previously thought.

3. Girls love dominant men who take what they want.

4. Girls hate men who do as they’re told.

5. Girls hate sensitive, emotionally available men.

6. Girls love men who take charge.

7. Girls love it when men touch them without asking.

8. Girls love men with “appetitive-aggressive” tendencies.

Women of all (pre-menopausal) ages and all social strata are fascinated by mental parlor tricks. They enjoy the self-revelatory aspect of psychological quizzes, and especially those versions which summon the senses and amplify the feels. Once a girl is emotionally charged, it’s a simple matter to anchor her good feelings to your company.

Today, I will reveal a very special game routine that as far as I am aware exists nowhere else in the game literature. It is a proprietary and leather patented CH blend of neural witch-craftery that engages girls so powerfully they won’t want you to stop. This routine — what I call the Imagination Test — is ideal during that getting-to-know-each-other phase of the pickup, (or what PUAs call the comfort stage). You could try to use it at any time during a pickup, though; the routine is designed to work within a broad array of contexts.

The premise is uncomplicated. Like an acting class instructor, you guide the girl through various sensual exercises simulating brief scenarios or actions that you choose at your discretion. For example,

“Imagine you’re holding an ice cream cone and the scoop falls out to the ground. Feel your face change as your disappointment rises.”

Or,

“Imagine it’s midnight and you hear a loud knock at the door. All the lights are out and you have no idea who it could be.”

The gist of this routine is to heighten the emotions that a girl feels in your presence. The mere evocation of sensual stimuli will produce authentic elevations in her emotional calibration, much the same way that adopting power poses will produce real elevations in a man’s testosterone level and feeling of confidence. Couple the mimetic onslaught with a shrewdly anchored hand to thigh or forearm and when she recollects her dreamy night feeling the fuzz of an imaginary peach you concocted from thin air, her mind will travel a short hop from fruit to you, farmer of emotions.

By getting a girl to essentially play-act imaginary stimuli recruiting one or all the senses, her mind opens to further exploration with you and she becomes quite a bit more pliable to your commands, (a pliability to which she secretly yearns to release herself). The Imagination Test is, besides a stimulant for bored girls’ wary ennui, a demonstration of your creativity and originality. Rest assured, there are few men riding these kinds of thought trains through the stony skulltunnels of girls just met. Women are always looking for men set apart; this routine is one way to accomplish that.

The hard part is not the routine itself, but the sophisticated segue you must have to open an unweird social space for the routine. A couple of springboards I use that work well:

“Are you interested in learning a little bit about yourself?”

Or

“Many girls can get by on their looks, but not many can get by on their imaginations. How good is your imagination?”

Neither segue is failsafe verbillade, but they’ll get the job done often enough.

Further examples of the Imagination Test:

Imagine yourself…

stroking a puppy’s belly.
searching through a dark attic with a flickering flashlight.
holding a pigeon to your chest.
seeing a loved one for the first time in a long time.
overhearing your parents having sex.
catching a whiff of a man’s cologne.
smelling freshly mown grass.
tasting something you hate.
feeling an ice cube on your neck (or breast, if mood permits).
massaging a lover’s face.
letting rose petals slip through your fingers.
wrapped in a sheer satin curtain.
breaking warm bread fresh out of the oven.
gently tracing the face of your grandmother.
rolling your fingertips over a strong back (substitute female body part if you think she’d be down for the FFM).
biting into a juicy sweet melon.
revealing yourself naked for the first time to someone you love.

After your hypnotized hussy has gamely visualized and phantom experienced your sensate novellas, the opportunity is rich for a well-placed neg or a grudging acceptance of her imaginative, if unexpected, spark. Too, there is the chance to reveal to her (fib, really) what her mien during the exercises says about her personality (feel free to wing it here). As long as it’s about her and her centrality to the cosmos, she’ll feel that ever-present but slyly nebulous “connection” that women so love and that men strive to fabricate for slits and tingles.

Your post-thespian responses can run the gamut:

“When you tasted the food you hated, your mouth made this funny snarl, like a dog trying to lick away peanut butter.”

“When you smelled the grass, you had this incredibly serene look. What was it that made you so contented?”

“You put your hands behind your back when you imagined being naked. This small movement tells me you want no obstacles between yourself and a lover.”

***

Seduction comes in three stages for a reason: it’s the rediscovery of a natural mating rhythm that has likely remained unchanged for eons beyond memory. Now you, reader, imagine a woman’s heart as a pot of water on the stove. You tease her and challenge her to turn on her burner. You draw her in with words festooned in emotional garland to warm her lifeblood. You raise her temperature with feints toward the gas jet until she is boiling over. Tease, engage, escalate.

TEASE. ENGAGE. ESCALATE.

Maxim #20: First, lead by defying. Then, lead by inspiring. Finally, lead by desiring.

All steps, however abbreviated, must come in their order to inflame her curiosity, just as your eyes must travel the expanse of her body and the inflection points of her face, and your ears receive the chirp of her voice, to form the full measure of your lust.

Via The League of Extraordinary Sadists comes another study concluding that diversity is incompatible with a sense of community.

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community. (spoiler: it isn’t)

IQ fetishists who want to bring boatloads of Asian to America are almost as silly as pathological altruists who want to import Africa to Minnesota. I say almost because, yeah, at least with the Asians you don’t have to worry about getting jacked while walking down the street. You just have to worry about your finances, bureaucracy and cultural institutions getting jacked.

So here’s another study affirming what Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) found in his reluctantly published study about diversity decreasing levels of social trust. Studies are nice and all, but you don’t need multiple degrees and strict adherence to experimental procedure to walk out the door and notice how different the races of people are, and how everyone, even and especially hypocrite SWPLs, have a natural affinity for their own kind.

Maybe the leftoid lie machine is permitting these studies to be released now because they sense where the logic of their stinking ideology is heading:

Is this actually a breakthrough of any kind, or is it exactly the sort of thing elites will appreciate? The lower and middle classes have been well and thoroughly diversified now. The logic of diversity is pretty clear: the rich white/jewish gated communities should be diversified as well. But before anyone gets around to noticing this, there’s scientific reason to forestall such efforts. Sorry about that, goy, but the arguments we used to obliterate *your* communities don’t work anymore. It’s unfortunate, yes, but there will be tradeoffs. You know how it is.

Does anyone doubt for a second that the richest communities will ensure that tradeoffs in *their* cases go in the opposite direction from “diversity”? These studies aren’t challenging shitlibs at all. They aren’t even advances in our understanding (as PMAN points out, how hard is it to realize these things could be opposed). Instead, it’s just toadying to an elite that refuses to suffer the consequences of its own decisions.

Like Robert Ringer wrote, always look out for #1. And the elite are nothing if not practiced in the art of looking out for themselves.

Sadly, the burdensome diversity is already cooked in the books. CH predicts that within the century America will break up into regional entities, along broad racial and ethnic lines.

Cheap Chalupas would weep if he weren’t an android.

Romeo Had Game

A dataslut at FiveThirtyEight tallied the lines each pair of characters spoke to each other and found that Romeo was following Poon Commandment V.

Juliet speaks 155 lines to him, and he speaks only 101 to her. His reticence toward Juliet is particularly inexcusable when you consider that Romeo spends more time talking than anyone else in the play.

And yet these two are the most famous star-crossed lovers in literature. Romeo knew, or more precisely Shakespeare knew, that women — and female readers — love a man who doesn’t give away the store.

In general, Shakespeare’s female lovers lavish a larger share of their lines on their men than the men do on them. This is true not just of “Romeo and Juliet,” but of “Macbeth,” “The Taming of the Shrew” and all four couples in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The only real exceptions, tellingly, occur in the plays where the women pose as men: “Twelfth Night” and “The Merchant of Venice.” (Antony and Cleopatra spend roughly equal shares of lines on each other.)

:lol: There’s more egalitarian relationship communication when the women pose as men. Says it all, really. But you feminists keep telling manboobs to emote like girls; that’ll really make them more attractive to women.

Forget modern culture in its totality. Everything important you need to know about men and women you can find in the works of Shakespeare.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,841 other followers

%d bloggers like this: