Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Continuing with CH’s Goodbye America in a Photo series, here’s the latest entry from “Sharpshooter“.

class. it doesn’t come in a can.

He explains,

Gotta classic photo for your Goodbye America campaign (attached).  I figured a newly minted bride chugging a four loko [ed: Four Loko is a prole alcoholic energy drink that a few states tried to ban for reasons of health safety] whilst being cheered on by the surrounding groomsmen (a couple she’s more than likely fellated) and bridesmaids is a microcosm of what this campaign is all about.

It’s tragically funny how the culture has changed so much that people automatically suspect one or more groomsmen at a wedding have had, at one time or anther, a piece of the bride’s downy. Our expectations for female behavior have shifted to a lower valence. Yes, the message this photo delivers is “A wedding is just another excuse to get drunk enough to forget that you’re marrying a beta buxtoy and will probably cheat in five years time.”

Personally, this isn’t half as bad as some of the Goodbye America photo submissions I’ve seen so far. But I post it because it speaks to a general corrosion of class among both sexes, but a corrosion which is especially pronounced among women. Class, in all classes, seems to be on the way out, if it hasn’t already made its final exit.

It makes sense if you realize that Western societies are moving away from K-selection (delayed reproduction, emphasis on monogamy and relationship investment, division of sexual labor) and toward r-selection (early sexual maturation, emphasis on polyamory and relationship instability, convergence of sexual labor). Raw sexual display by women — and this is what we mean by “low class” — will increase in a society gradually becoming more r-selection oriented.

It’s all part and parcel of cultural exhaustion and decline, exemplified by the twisted, ugly, and classless imposing their values on the normal, beautiful, and noble.

PS Happy Independence from Accountability Day!

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

In Ottoman Imperial Harems, the palace eunuchs — men who were castrated typically before the onset of puberty — would serve the role of guarding the harem from fully male interlopers who wanted a taste of that concubine freshness. The eunuchs would also directly report to the Queen Mother, who was the mother of the Sultan and oldest of the Sultan’s father’s concubines.

Palace eunuchs were, essentially, the historic version of today’s beta male cockblocker and anhedonic white knight. And like their antecedents, the modern eunuch reports directly to the modern Queen Bee, aka loudmouthed feminist cunt.

At least the palace eunuchs of ancestral times had the excuse of being sold into slavery and castrated against their wills. The modern eunuchs, like male feminist Chris Gethard, willingly choose their psychological castration, a condition which feminizes and usually manifests physically in the putative man as a soft, slackened body and high-pitched whiny voice incorporating aspects of teen girl vocal fry.

Here is male feminist Chris Getpegged chastising, some would say humorously, his personal bogeyman, the “woman haters”.

His video plea is illuminating. The first question that pops to mind… Is Chris Getrammed gay? Survey SAYS…


Unlike Chris the Catcher, the gayometer doesn’t lie. But perhaps Chrissie GayTard can clear the air on this mystery.

like a gay burrito, bursting with fruit flavor

Forgive me. I unnecessarily slander gay men. After all, the gays I know are more masculine than GayTard and exude more sexual vitality. GayTard is the vegetable lasagna of malehood. Ken Doll called. He wants his smooth plastic crotch back.

How ad HOMOnem of me. Shouldn’t I take the high road and refute Chrissie GayTard’s vapid assertions? Fine.

- The pay gap is a myth so thoroughly debunked that to favorably repeat it now is to indict oneself as a lying liar. Or a shitlib. Same diff.

- Noting sex differences or female-biased applications of the law that outrage feminists is not “villainizing” women. It is mocking lying femcunts, which bothers pudding pops like Chrissie Getgerbiled who still feel the sting of that 5th grade atomic wedgie.

- Judging by his girlish giggling, Chrissie thinks “it should be legally bound you never find love” is the height of comedy.

- Chrissie admits he was a high school dweeb. But he promises it will get better, especially if you forswear sex with attractive women.

- “Having sex with your couch” Did this undifferentiated androgyne steal the CH “having sex with your couch crease” line?

The specimen spends the last minute rationalizing his dreary conformity and his obeisance to Hivemind goodspeak. An HDTV and a mortgage will make you a man. I suppose if you set the bar for manhood that low, anyone can qualify. Which is pretty much the fantasy of every sexual misfit and mutant manboob loser throughout history. To set the bar for normalcy and group acceptance low enough to accommodate their wretchedness.

Fellow pragmatists may wonder, doesn’t a veldt teeming with herds of slouching Chrissie castrates reduce the sexual competition to yours truly? Sure. Manlets are universally repulsive to women worth seducing. On the abacus of eros, the more manlets there are, the more women will want to be sexually rescued by a turgidly impudent Heartiste.

But aesthetics matter. Grotesqueries like Chris Gethard who are deformed rejects of their sex and who proudly push their deformities, both physical and mental, onto normal people are like pollution. I don’t want to choke on smog or gaze at a mountain vista obscured by coal dust. I don’t want to drink water slicked with oil. And that’s what Chris Gethard and his ilk are: Oil slicks running down the asscrack of humanity. They are a blight, an eyesore, bad form. They are monsters and diseased cripples who provoke the natural and normal production of antibodies in healthy people, so that their disease is disgorged with extreme prejudice.

There aren’t enough shivs in the world to lance the pustular ids of the Chris Gethards. But this blog is a start.

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Achieving romantic dominance over a woman — a dominance, mind you, women intuitively crave — and therefore her fidelity and everlasting love, is as simple as finding her thermal exhaust port and lubing the entrance with your id-penetrating sheathseeker. Every woman has one, though some women’s psychosexual ports are more accessible. The cougar’s nemesis is the younger woman. The ugly, the beautiful. The dull, the smart. The fat, the slender. The misshapen, the lithe. The slut, the modest pretty girl next door.

And the single mom’s torment is the carefree childless woman.

Reader olympiapress writes,

I dabbled with a few single moms right after the ex and I separated.

Nothing wrong with a sexual expediency to get over an ex.

They will try to push you around/flake/issue rules for you that no other guy followed if they think you’re weak. Secret is, if they see you in the company of women who are just single and not a mom, they’ll go nuts letting you know they’re interested. You can easily build a harem of spawn-encumbered lassies if you want. Social proof for the win.

As long as you don’t mind tripping over the toys on the way to her bangroom.

(And I do mean nuts. One chick, couple years younger than me that I took home but didn’t quite bang, flaked, got deleted, came back on the scene a few months later to discover I’m hanging out with gals 15 years my junior. She threw herself at me every time she saw me afterwards, and when I didn’t respond to her efforts, she decided to have a going-away threesome with two guys, one of whom usually hangs out at this gay bar up the road. Which… didn’t make her more attractive in my eyes, actually.)

Female preselection is an amazingly effective attraction generator. You can turn a woman from coldly indifferent to crazy with desire through the transmogrification process known colloquially as “other women”.

The best thing about fucking a single mom (and it is fucking we’re talking about, nothing more) is that you won’t feel the slightest twinge of guilt hastily jettisoning her once an unencumbered womb-fresh woman enters your life. There is a profoundly repulsive force that operates within the male psyche that propels him safely away from wasting any precious resources on helping, however apathetically, the bastard spawn of another man’s short-lived lust. This force is so naturally strong in healthy men with functioning testicles that absence of it in a man is evidence he sleeps in a blue fox costume and can’t bench more than a twelve year old girl.

Yer tunnel aerator loves to troll the shit outta single moms (they are in fact a blight on civilization, and most of them gravely overestimate their ability to coax a quality man into a surrogate father relationship under one happy broken family), but societal ramifications and overstuffed hamster rationalization issues aside, a hot young single mom is no worse a ten minute lay than a hot young child-free woman. If you find yourself trawling the waste product of womanhood for easy lays, you’ll have a blast (literally) manipulating single moms into frenzies of appeasement. Although my personal experience with single moms is limited (and self-imposed, due to justified concerns that a desperate single mom might misconstrue my giddy romantic abandon for long-term commitment probings), I can tell you that this tactic of slyly slighting the single mom with offhand comparisons to her untethered competition is a winning one. The trick is to smash her ego with a velveted fist. Frame the contrast in a way that appears, superficially, to be complimentary of her chosen (or ill-chosen) lifestyle.

“It’s nice to talk to a woman who understands responsibility and has bigger concerns than just her own fun. I date enough carefree women to know how shallow they can be.”

After you’re banging the tragic yearning out of her, you have to take care to sidestep her attempts to insinuate you into the rhythms of her shattered family life. The longer you’re with her, the harder it will be to avoid kid cuff chafing. Either limit your use of her to no more than two months, or affect an air of borderline psychopathy whenever her chess pieces are present. The following three rules should suffice to protect yourself against bloodsucker assimilation:

1. Make it a priority to bang at a neutral location. The less time in her romper room, the broader your path of escape. And keep in mind that a lot of single moms are emotionally unstable, so giving them your home address is not recommended.

2. Don’t do favors for her. Single moms will test the commitment waters by assaulting you with requests for favors that gradually increase in complexity with time. Smarter single moms can entrap men this way within a year, leaving the man wondering what the hell just happened. What happened, goon sir, is that you just forfeited your genetic prime directive.

3. NEVER play with her kids. You may acknowledge them with a head nod or a dry observation about how big they are for their age, but anything more than that and you risk stoking dangerous hope in the single mom.

The above three rules are for men with a conscience. If you are a clinical psychopath, you may find it more fruitful (and instinctive) to pretend interest in commitment, marriage, and proxy fatherhood, and then, when your dick has rifled her barrel to satisfaction and her heart has swelled with visions of green lawns and a decent school system for her future juvenile delinquents, to bolt with no reason nor closure given.

You might drive a few single moms to self-deliverance in this manner, but that’s a small price to pay to ensure your fathering isn’t wasted on the spunkjunk of a felon or bankrupt basketballer.

Approach Week: Pfft Game

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

There are many ways to agitate a hamster.

A reader explains,

Hey – Considering myself too old and respectable to use “gay”, I tried “pfft” as a text game variation and it seems to have worked. Like “gay” it’s dismissive but cryptic, and implies transgression on her part. You can bet she spent 10 minutes checking various online dictionaries trying to determine my exact meaning.

For the record: this woman is a real head turner, almost a ‘9’ with fantastic sexual charisma, and 19+ years younger than me. (A 30-something female friend who saw us out said to me later, “You like to shop in the juniors department, huh?”)

New models beat pre-owned models in everything but cost.

She’s very aware of her beauty and shit-tests relentlessly. Her response to my request for a second date was total rejection: she waited 6 days to turn me down with an obvious bullshit line, which I recognized as a test, otherwise why respond at all after so long? I responded “pfft” and then went dark. This morning, three weeks later, she re-initiated contact.

Because I recognized the test and responded to it correctly, I was confident that sooner or later she’d be back, which was a nice feeling.

A very hot, young woman knows she has high sexual market value. To get a crack at her crack, you have to carve out a piece of her ego with a lexical knife forged by the Cryptonomicon. “pfft” works because it’s the word equivalent of interpretive dance; what you see is what you feel. And women left to their own devices — that is, left unsure of the visceral impact they leave on a man’s arousal center and reeling with self-doubt that they may have been substituted with another woman — are apt to interpret mysterious utterances as sexual indifference. The challenge to their feminine power issued, they react as you would expect a child: Indignant, affronted, and all too ready to prove you wrong.

Speaking of children… the best rule I can give to men, one that has stood me well, is to treat all women like children. When a precocious wee child innocently sasses you, do you lash out in bitterness? Do you anger or recoil defensively?

Only if you’re mentally deranged. If you’re normal, you’ll laugh off the child’s insolence, and perhaps tousle its hair, charmed by the tyke’s unfiltered joie de vivre. You would react like this because you and the child know you are its superior.

Such it should be with women. If a girl commits the equivalent of backtalk, (e.g., she flakes a week later), you metaphorically tousle her hair and call her a brat. The man-woman dynamic mirrors the parent-child dynamic in any successful seduction, so much so that sexual tension is dissolved when the woman is denied the pleasure of being treated as the man’s adorable inferior. If you lash out defensively at a misbehaving woman, you will earn her contempt and emotional withdrawal, just as you would if you did the same to a darling child. You would not be worthy to be the woman’s man, as you would not be worthy to be the child’s protector.

Comments are disabled on all posts published during Approach Week to encourage readers to limit their internet time and go outside to apply the lessons they have learned here. Approach Week celebrates the spirit of the approach, which is, in essence, a celebration of the spirit of assertive masculinity.

Patrick insightfully comments over at Liger of the Blogosphere, using the Elliot Rodger shooting spree as a backdrop to explain why chivalry no longer applies in the context of a modern, industrialized, female-empowered society where the state has a monopoly on punitive force.

Elliot [Rodger] feared, and eventually, hated women because he simply could not understand them. His ineptitude in this regard was almost cartoonish, e.g. sitting on a park bench waiting for a cute single girl to approach him.

“Nice guys finish last,” is a cliche because it’s a truism most people don’t want to believe.

Elliot, having never harmed anyone in his life, was a gallant gentleman in his own eyes. What he doesn’t understand is that the high-minded concept of chivalry originated in a time when the abject brutalization of women was commonplace and expected. It was a sort of counterculture set against the time-honored beat’em & rape’em de rigueur of the day. And it only mattered because those practicing it — knights — were those most capable of brutalizing women. An intimidating, armored and mounted professional killer acting in a genteel manner towards a maiden he could otherwise violently defile is the stuff of romantic legend, and it set them apart as a class above the brutish peasant infantrymen.

Because the context of constant fear of sexual subjugation no longer applies, “chivalry” is an anachronistic concept, and being a gentleman is in more looking the part and behaving otherwise, like the well-dressed and stately character of Christian Grey who enjoys whipping and inserting butt-plugs into women. [CH] would say this misdirection and unexpectedness is like crack to women. And it is.

None of this knowledge ever permeated Rodgers’ brain, because he refused to believe it.

As CH has said before, chivalry (or gentlemanliness) only works when it is accompanied by a cultural expectation of female deference to men. Since we are far FAR from the social conditions in the West where women are deferential to men (the opposite is more true), chivalry as a concept and a practice becomes a joke, akin to asking men to anoint the feet of haughty, entitled women in exchange for the masochistic delight of cultural contempt.

The point of mercy — which is what chivalry is, stripped to its core — is that it only means anything when there’s a credible threat serving as its justification. A mercy “granted” from a position of weakness is a fiction; an expedient that permits the continued operation of the fundamental premise without questioning. What the vast hordes of beta males fail to grasp is that their niceguy poses are only effective as a mate acquisition strategy when a jerk assumes them. Niceguys playing niceguys is a plushboy recursion matrix that repels tingles. If anything, niceguys should do the opposite and be *less* chivalrous, as a means of persuading women that they aren’t supplicating pushovers.

Men who think chivalry toward the modern woman will help their romantic prospects are worse than poetically deluded; they’re self-sabotaging.

Game Is Social Savviness

Humans are unique among sexually reproducing animals in the subtlety of their flirting behavior.

Covert sexual signaling: Human flirtation and implications for other social species.

According to signaling theory and a large body of supporting evidence, males across many taxa produce courtship signals that honestly advertise their quality. The cost of producing or performing these signals maintains signal honesty, such that females are typically able to choose the best males by selecting those that produce the loudest, brightest, longest, or otherwise highest-intensity signals, using signal strength as a measure of quality. Set against this background, human flirting behavior, characterized by its frequent subtlety or covertness, is mysterious. Here we propose that the explanation for subtle and ambiguous signals in human courtship lies in socially imposed costs that (a) vary with social context and (b) are amplified by the unusual ways in which language makes all interactions potentially public. Flirting is a class of courtship signaling that conveys the signaler’s intentions and desirability to the intended receiver while minimizing the costs that would accompany an overt courtship attempt. This proposal explains humans’ taxonomically unusual courtship displays and generates a number of novel predictions for both humans and non-human social animals. Individuals who are courting should vary the intensity of their signals to suit the level of risk attached to the particular social configuration, and receivers may assess this flexible matching of signal to context as an indicator of the signaler’s broader behavioral flexibility and social intelligence.

There’s a reason the apocalypse opener is so rarely encountered.

The entire study is worth reading at the attached PDF link. Essentially, humans, often men (since men are usually the courtship initiators), coyly flirt to preserve their social capital (public shame/rejection) or to protect themselves from interference by aggrieved third parties (cockblockers/AMOGs).

Whereas the standard model of sexually selected courtship signaling suggests that maximum intensity is always favored, we propose flexibility as an alternative route to reproductive success. Signalers who skillfully assess and adjust to social context (i.e., good flirts) display their quality not through high-intensity displays that index physical prowess and condition, but through sensitive signal-to-context matching that indicates behavioral flexibility and social intelligence.

Game is applied charisma, and applied charisma is best thought of as revealed social aptitude. Good flirts can read signals in a timely and precise manner, and respond to those signals with interest level gauged to the social context within which the signals occur.

Muscles, looks, and money aren’t the key variables driving, or even instigating, female attraction in most complex modern social contexts. Social savviness — the ability to flirt confidently and skillfully, aka game — is the fitness trait that really matters. Even a top 1% looking man will flounder if he lacks the social prowess of a less good-looking but more socially keen competitor.

The more social costs that can be imposed, the more covert your flirting needs to be to reduce the risk of social annihilation. Office romances have a Coyness Rating (CR) of 90%. One-on-one weeknight approaches in empty bars have a CR of 20% (you can go pretty direct there). Daygame pickups on the sidewalk have a CR, give or take depending on number of onlookers and proximity to relevant observors, around 40%. Picking up a second cousin at a family funeral has a CR of 100%.

The lower the social risk of courtship, the better direct game will work. Anonymous, thumping urban nightclubs are playgrounds of direct game. SWPL bars where a girl is surrounded by all her friends, beta orbiter and female? You had better insinuate yourself indirectly.

The key quality of Gricean implicature—for the flirt—is that it allows speakers to claim two distinct meanings at once: the surface meaning as well as the implied one. For example, the question, “Do you want to grab coffee sometime?” can be both an innocent invitation to drink coffee and a sexual overture.

Chicks dig ambiguous men. Ambiguity is a challenge to a girl’s self-conception (does he really want me?) and an affirmation of the social risk she may incur by following through on the man’s courtship attempt. A man with a highly intelligent grasp of social dynamics is likely a man who does well with women, and we all know how much women love preselected men.

A couple of final points. One, ff the “receiver” — the woman you are approaching — is much higher SMV than what you could be expected to get, your instinct will guide you to very coy (plausibly deniable) flirty game, to lower your social risk of rejection. But that’s exactly why you should try to go in with more intention; you increase the perception of your own relative SMV by flirting more intently as if you were a higher value man. Perception is king in the field. If you act like a winner, women will treat you like a winner. Maybe not right away, but in time, as long as your frame is solid.

Two, you should be adept at varying the intensity of your flirting. Tight game means attention to context. Finger her in the public restroom? Sure. Avoid PDA when friends are watching? Yes. Sexual intention must be communicated at some point between “hi” and “slip it in”, but the timing of that revealed intention, and the strength of the revelation, will vary according to circumstance, and a good player knows this.

If you waste ten minutes of your life scanning relationship or dating advice from female columnists, one theme you’ll often read is the belief that compliments and flattery are the way to a woman’s heart. Naturally, as it goes with 99% of the “””wisdom””” of your feminist elders, this advice is a crock. Any man who has interacted with live women in anything other than a submissive capacity will quickly learn from experience the self-defeating consequences of attempting to court women with compliments.

Reader Joe Sixpack forwards an example of the awful advice you’ll ingest from Hivemind drones, and of the glimmering shards of Realtalk that are beginning to pierce the veil of vapidity,

A Game element leaks out, of all places, a Yahoo! message board comment:

This was regarding an article that said, “Here’s a wakeup call for you: Women spend an average of 55 minutes getting ready every morning — frittering away the equivalent of 6.4 hours a week, or 335 hours a year, on looks alone, a new survey finds. ”

There is a good way to reduce these numbers. Men, tell your woman that she is pretty. I once dated a guy who told me on a regular basis how pretty I was, how much he loved my eyes, how I was the smartest girl he had ever dated, ect. Who cares if he didn’t mean all of it, it made me feel good. I started wearing a little less makeup and found simpler ways to do my hair just so I could get over to his house early before work. He still said the same things. Sadly the whole thing started to go downhill after his daughter called me mom. Now I’m married to a man who never tells me I’m pretty, smart, ect. I put on loads of makeup and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention with no success. I have decided to use up my makeup and only replace the ones I really care for. Maybe he will notice when I’m no longer trying to dress like the playboy playmates he claims he wants.

So, the one beta guy tells her how hot/smart/etc. she is all the time. The result? She turns frumpy and obviously is no longer with him.

She is now married to a man who never tells her such things. The result? She puts on “loads of make up and wear revealing clothing around him all the time just to get his attention” and dresses “like the playboy playmates he claims he wants”.

[Ed note: Link no longer works.]

You can sometimes pry nuggets of truth from women, but it requires a facility with comprehending subtext. Women will drop clues revealing their true feelings stuffed between over-sized cushions of egoistic pabulum.

Do you want to persuade your girlfriend or wife to keep up her looks? (And if you’re a non-gay man with T readings above 0.1 ng, you will.) Then keep her on her toes.

Maxim #101: Compliments breed complacency. Critique breeds conciliation. A woman will never work as hard for a man’s approval as when his approval is most elusive.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,944 other followers

%d bloggers like this: