Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

The Wickedest Links

1. A gene for brain size is discovered and it’s only found in humans… and in Neanderthals. If you think we’re getting very close to a total refutation of the 20th Century liberal equalist faith, you’re right.

2. More evidence (in a roundabout way) that the Game concept of “faking it till you create it” is a potent seduction-improvement strategy.

3. Another CH principle is affirmed by ¡SCIENCE!: Playfulness is twat crack. (this rhyming dyad works best if you pronounce “twat” with a brit clip.)

4. This is a legitimate fear conservatives have about the risk of neuroscience being used to absolve violent criminals of any responsibility for their crimes. (“He dindu nuffin yerhonor, because he’s a slave to his neural wiring.”) The CH take: If genes are found which dispose to violent criminality, nothing should change in the realm of jurisprudence. The balance of faaaaaaaiiirness favors removing dangerous animals from public circulation.

5. If all it takes are small DNA changes to separate chimps from humans, how much smaller is the degree of DNA change necessary to separate the human races? Preemptive heh.

6. Are paleo eaters prepared to go all the way?

7. Processed agribusiness foods are really fucking bad for you, news at 11.

8. Feminists like to crow about older fathers passing on more DNA mutations to their children (an overblown concern troll and a reproductive “hit” that pales in comparison to the Wall-smashing fertility terminus that affects all women). Apropos the impotent ragepouting of feminists against older fathers, here’s a study which found that there were DNA mutations in the children of *teenage* fathers.

9. Beta male manlets trapped in feminist-friendly egalitarian marriages are unhappy with the extra household chores they are browbeaten into doing in exchange for once-a-year birthday blowjobs.

10. House of Cards, Season 3: Who Bitch This Is? (h/t furiousferrett) (meme source)

11. How many of these warnings have come true?

12. “More likely America will be finished as a single nation.” A constitutional crisis, and a resulting collapse, loom.

Bonus link:

13. Women don’t care about your job. What women care about is an emotional connection. (Score another one for game.)

Commenter 7darktriad3 writes about his ONE POON-HUNTING TRICK that turns around recalcitrant girls,

Not strictly redirection but I’ve found a great way of yielding high % of numbers when you get this type of response:

You: Send me your number
Her: But I hardly know you etc
You: Your right we should stay Tinder BFF and chat on here forever and ever
Her: Hehe I guess your right – ######

Essential Game Techniques 101 should be required coursework for all middle school boys.

Commenter nash2z writes,

[The sexual marketplace] is beginning to favor the much older man/younger woman pairing.

I will illustrate. I am a 52 year old white man, and am currently dating a 21 year old white woman, and a 24 year old white woman; simultaneously. I met both online, thru a dating site. I’ve gathered from both that their attraction to me (I do look a few years younger and can pass for mid-forties, and this is a prerequisite I believe) is in their expectations that I am more old school masculine than the younger men they can choose from in their pool. But there’s another reason I’ve picked up as well – and that is the expectation that the older man is not part of the pump-n-dump crowd (little do they know) of which the predominance as of late has been making these women feel cheated out of what they consider to be quality relationships. What they are looking for, in response to what they have been enduring their entire sexual lives, are for men to consider them in a more serious LTR light – never mind that they don’t deserve it. Putting off a muted version of this vibe while at the same time reminding them of the overall beta-flavor of their respective man-circles has done wonders not only to score with these two women, but in my favorable responses from other under 25 female prey when approached.

Could we be seeing the response from women to game – in the wider acceptance of the older man/younger woman pairing. Time will tell.

Effeminizing Millennials works to the sexual market advantage of older, more masculine men who haven’t yet learned of the wonders of the brony, male feminist, and transsexual anime lifestyles. But nash2z hits on another explanation that may be more pertinent: There are some younger women who crave a rock solid relationship. Whatever the objective reality, I would bet that older men do give off a “I’m capable of, and willing to, form an adult relationship with a woman who meets my stringent criteria for a worthwhile lifelong mate” vibe.

By filtering for these kinds of younger women tired of the dating scene, the older man can increase his meet-to-lay-to-love ratio. Beyond this implication, it’s a hypothetical exercise whether the acceptance and utilization of game by cad hopefuls will drive significant numbers of women into the arms of older (or younger) men who signal their readiness for more serious commitment.

The Redirection Rejection

Have you ever had to deal with an annoying girl who answers a question with a question, like she’s trying to put her tier 14 law school degree to use? A reader laments:

Thanks so much for your blog. I’ve read it for at least 5 years, and learned a lot. Lost my virginity at 18, so not a natural, but have banged 25 chicks in the last five months in South America by learning from your blog and others’, going to a spot suited for me, and generally improving myself.

At this point, I mainly worry about specific issues that crop up over and over. One is that I’ll text a girl an invitation, and she’ll ask a follow up question about it instead of answering. I call it the redirect rejection. Examples from tonight:

A girl I hooked up with 8 years ago and have seen twice since. Really.

Me: Better for me. I eat brisket like a glutton. I watch the game. They get you drunk. You come after.
Her: I can’t drink alcohol. (First redirection)
Me: Pregnant? (Plan to get back to the invitation, but first thought I’d tease)
Her: hahhahaha
Her: hahahaha
Her: Can I drink alcohol before traveling?
Me: No. No you can’t. You have to arrive skinny for more contrast with Americans.
Her: Hahahaha
Me: You drinking was the least important step. Most important is that I have my brisket and you come after. I will prepare you for your trip.
Her: What is brisket (second redirection)

Not expecting to see her tomorrow

——–

A girl whose number I got at a party and who I have invited out a few times with no success. I had given up. Tonight she texts me.

Her: Hey! You up to anything tonight?
Me: Working up the courage to ask me out? ;) (don’t chomp the beta bait, frame her as chasing, I toy with dropping the emoticon but I don’t want to discourage her)
Her: Hahahahah. Call it whatever you want.
Me: (stop fucking around and make the plans) Come by at 11. I have the best drink in town chilling in my fridge. Maybe you can convince me to go to [well-known club]
Her: What exactly is the best drink in town? (redirection)
Me: [Image of the bottle with the caption Trust Me]
Her: Haha. Alright. I’m sold.

expecting her in two hours

——-

A girl whose number I got out once. Never met up since. Been texting some. She went on vacation.

Me: [funny picture of me on a glaciar, I happen to be wearing tight jeans] are you back?
Her: I’m coming back.
Her: And that photo?
Me: A little present for you. Look how tight my jeans are.
Her: Hahahahahah
Me: I would send you a photo in my bathing suit but I don’t want to cause an accident
Her: hahaha good idea
Me: Let’s get together this week. There is a bar cafe I want to try.
Her: What bar? (redirection)
Me: The important thing is the company.

No response.

In only 1/3 did I turn around the redirection rejection, and that was when the girl had basically begged me to ask her out. Is the redirection rejection game over? I know that it means my game up to that point has been weak, but can I recover?

When a girl is in a positive mood and open to you, and she asks you which bar you plan to take her, it’s OK to just tell her, so I wouldn’t consider that last exchange a great example of the redirection rejection. You have to have a feel for when it’s in the interests of both of you to drop the banter and speak plainly. However, the first text snippet is a classic redirect. The reader made multiple meet-up offers, and she responded coyly to each suggestion with a lame question.

The redirection rejection isn’t game over, but it is game on life-support. She’s bored, maybe a little curious where this is going, but so far you haven’t excited her out of her resting female stupor. But she keeps the romantic possibility, however remote, open. Mostly to amuse herself.

If you are getting a lot of these redirection rejections, that means you’ve become predictable. Stale. She can see your friendly teases coming a mile away. She throws questions back at you because that’s her way of trying to extract a little excitement nugget from the conversation. She’s trying to amp the teasing to a level of edginess that makes her vagina feel alive. This is good news in one way: She’s saying you have a chance.

You need to surprise her. Don’t grace her questions with a relevant reply, like some earnest beta looking to solve all her problems. Instead, dodge and dislodge her hamster from its comfy resting state.

Her: Can I drink alcohol before traveling?
Me: Maybe you should stick with diet coke.
Her: Hahahaha
Me: You drinking was the least important step. Most important is that I have my brisket and you come after. I will prepare you for your trip.
Her: What is brisket (second redirection)
Me:

Be silly, be nasty even. The goal is a seismic shift of her emotional state from boredom to shock, dismay, and intrigue. If, after amping your alpha for a few iterations in this manner she still doesn’t make a firm commitment to seeing you, abruptly stop communication. If you can leave her with her last text dangling for a response, that’s good. She’ll be wondering why you didn’t reply, and it might upset her just enough to plant thoughts of you in her head for a week, after which she may be more amenable to your charms.

Five-star commenter chris marshals ¡SCIENCE! to support the theory that feminists are masculine women who use the ideology of feminism to rearrange normal society into a twisted slutscape that serves the interests of less attractive women who fail at extracting commitment from high value men. Quoting him in full:

******

Here’s a theory for you:

Feminists are a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

“Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.”

This study shows that feminists are masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating. It explains why they defend women being sluts. It explains why they defend women cuckolding. It explains why they defend and agitate for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse values.

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist or patriarchal morph.

And here’s the catch: most women are in the long-term mating / anti-feminist / patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

******

A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.

CH is doing its sadistically fun part of getting that message out to the masses.

Chris’s theory jibes closely with CH’s theory of feminism:

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

Masculinized feminism-congenial women want an unnatural order instituted that grants them the shame-free sexual freedom inherent to men while simultaneously restricting any expression of the natural sexual impulses of men themselves. Feminists want to be able to call all the sexual market shots, take no heat for misfires, and publicly excoriate anyone who fires back. This is the dictionary definition of insanity.

National Review, in a rare moment of ballsiness, also corroborates the chris/CH theory of feminism:

Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.

Allow me to reword the conclusion of this NR statement for endarkening clarification:

“In a world where fewer ugly, unfeminine, financially self-sufficient women can or need to rely on provider beta males, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity that leaves them feeling gross and unloved the next morning after Jack has slipped out the back.”

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

ugly,
out of shape chunksters,
unfeminine androgynes,
older, Wall-victim spinsters,
spiteful, LSMV misfits…

who simultaneously loathe and envy the natural freedom and energy of male sexual desire. Because feminists are losers in the sexual marketplace, (and because they know it), they seek to tear down the organic, biomechanically-grounded social and sexual orders and replace them with bizarre androgynous dystopias that help them feel better about themselves. Their justified feelings of low self-worth cause them to lash out at men in the aggregate, (and particularly at lower value beta males), and at prettier, feminine women who by their mere existence daily remind feminists of their pitiful ranking in the hierarchy of female romantic worth.

When losers stop knowing their place, and begin insisting their betters are no such thing, and worse when the losers have acquired the power and means to punish their betters, you get what we have today: A failure to propagate; to propagate as a race and to propagate as a successful civilization.

Types Of Game

This post is 1/8th tongue-in-cheek, so don’t get yourselves too worked up into an inference lather. Disclaimer aside, there is a solid, observable foundation for the basic premise that there exists a need for categorical types of game streamlined for efficiency in different contexts and with different women.

Don’t misconstrue this to mean that there are no universal game principles. The point is that along with the universally applicable seduction techniques, there are refinements of execution that a man could undertake to improve his return-on-courtship (ROC). On that rascally note, here’s reader Putin with a cursory list of what he considers different types of game:

Types Of Game:

1. Quick Picker Upper Game
2. Text Game
3. Recover Relationship Game
4. Marriage Game.
5. Crazy Women Game? Is there such a thing or are they all crazy?
6. Dating/relationship game

Any others……

Why are there even “types” of game? The need for differing styles of game rests on three realities: One, the races and cultures of women are different from each other just as women as a sex are different from men. Two, women’s desire changes with age (and by monthly cycle). Three, environmental contingencies can subtly realign women’s mate choice priorities.

These realities suggest that game tailored to a woman’s specific needs which are informed by her racial, life stage, or contextual realities will be superior to a “one size fits all” game.

To recap: Game will vary according to three major input variables:

-Women’s race/culture. (Race and culture are nearly synonymous, notwithstanding leftoid beliefs to the contrary.)
-Women’s age and monthly cycle. (Evidence, both laboratory and real world, show that women crave alpha cock more when they are ovulating.)
-Women’s mating context. (Context includes relationship status, sex ratio, pickup venue, etc.)

I can already smell some of you sweating the small stuff. Pat yourselves dry, un-knot your laden brows, and put down your pickup manuals for a second. There’s a simple rule that governs the effective range of beneficial modifications to game:

Maxim #20: All types of game are basically variations in the balance of beta male and alpha male traits.

To visualize this maxim, imagine a line representing the spectrum of male psychosexual characteristics, running from extreme beta on one end to extreme alpha on the other.

ßeta<—————————————————————————>Alpha

Now, if one had to (or could) choose between the two poles, and nothing in the middle, it is BY FAR better to choose extreme alpha over extreme beta. The latter will get you laid more often, and for most men getting laid more rather than less is at least one of the primary ingredients in the recipe for life happiness.

But women are creatures with a dual personality — they crave both the provider beta and the piledriver alpha. Alpha fux, beta bux, as a wise man once said. A man will maximize his ROC if he knows how and when to balance the expression of his plush beta side with his dominant alpha side.

How much beta or alpha maleness to display in the presence of a woman in whom you want to incite spasmodic gushers of… love… depends in part on the confluence of those three input variables I mentioned above. What is her race/culture? What is her age? Is she a girl you just met on the sidewalk, or is she a girl you’ve been dating for six months?

Taking all that into account, plus a girl’s particular personality profile, will guide you to express the best mix of beta and alpha traits. Or, to put it in PUA parlance, you will find that important balance between comfort game and attraction game.

Returning to Putin’s “types of game”, it’s easy now to evaluate each type based on the metric of beta-alpha balancing. I have placed hatch marks along the beta-alpha spectrum to show you how much of each you should emphasize relative to the other.

1. Quick Picker Upper Game

ß<———————————-|–>A

You’re shooting for a quick lay. This means you’ll do best targeting horny girls with few scruples and low impulse control. 90% alpha.

2. Text Game

ß<—————————–|——->A

Text game is an impersonal medium that favors alpha over beta. Comfort stage game doesn’t translate very well to ASCII. (She’ll miss that strong eye gaze.)

3. Recover Relationship Game

ß<———————–|————->A

Insufficient data. A relationship could falter because the man became too domesticated or too emotionally disconnected. (NB: It can also falter when the woman becomes too chunky.) However, most relationships fail because the man lost touch with his inner alpha asshole. The hatch mark slightly favors the alpha side.

4. Marriage Game

ß<—————————|———>A

Marriage game is a specific instance of relationship game. Time and familiarity erode a man’s alphaness, so marriage game typically requires more infusions of alpha, although there are exceptions (like when a woman manages to rope a charming cad into marriage, and later discovers it’s hard to change a tiger’s stripes).

5. Crazy Women Game? Is there such a thing or are they all crazy?

ß<———-|—————|———->A

Thanks to their dual mate choice algorithm issues, all women are a little crazy, but only a tiny minority are bunny boiling crazy. I put two hatch marks here because the genuinely crazy chick is best played like a fiddle, alternating potent doses of beta and alpha until she feels like she’s on a seesaw. With crazy chicks, a good offense is the best defense. PS: Cut and run as soon as you’ve drained your balls (this could be a full year for those of us with robust testicular bounty).

6. Dating/relationship game

ß<——–|—————————->A

Assuming this type of game refers to that delicate moment in time between the passionate first few weeks together and the serene routine that distinguishes relationships that have reached the six month milestone, I’d say that more beta is the key here. You’ve already established your alpha fides, and now she’s wondering if you’re boyfriend material or just another pump and dumper about to break her heart. This is a good time, if you’re so inclined, to do those little beta things for her that relax her amygdala and dilate her labia minora.

In a future post, I will explore in greater detail the specifics of each type of game as they relate to common scenarios most men will experience at some point in their lives. This post was meant as a general outline to get your head in the right mental space.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,172 other followers

%d bloggers like this: