Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2010

Just what is our sociosexual evolutionary heritage?

Here is a comment left by Christopher Ryan, author of “Sex at Dawn“:

The ‘ancient biological reasons’ that you’re referring to are currently being called into question by serious primatologists and anthropologists.

It is not really obvious that ancient homo sapiens really gave a fuck about paternity, because it wouldn’t have been obvious to them how sex and reproduction were actually related considering everybody was banging everybody.

Also add to this the fact that not only are women naturally promiscuous, but men are attracted to other men having sex with women ( your web browser history will back this up. )

This is why women scream during sex. to attract more men to join the fight. Literally, almost, considering the fight that takes place inside the woman. Not only does one sperm compete against millions of your own, but millions of other men. Considering women’s immune system treats sperm as invaders, women select their mates on a cellular level regardless of what their instincts might tell them.

A lot of this research calls the science behind the alpha male / game worldview into question. It isn’t that I’m arguing against evolutionary biology, either. I’m arguing for it, against a conception of it which mistakes our very recent cultural shifts ( agriculture ) as a constant in our 200k year + history.

It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor. This is a cultural adaptation not an ancient biological fact.

How do we know ancient (i.e. pre-agricultural man) didn’t give a fuck about paternity, or that they didn’t know that sex eventually led to children? And if it’s true that they were unconcerned with who’s the daddy, what relevance does this have for modern post-agricultural humans, who have had 10,000 – 12,000 years to evolve a different reaction to the threat of false paternity and female sluttiness? We now know distinct traits can evolve rather quickly in different human population groups. See: Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, northern European lactose tolerance.

From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), homicide rates are incredibly high. Something like 30% of men in those tribal societies are killed off by acts of male-on-male violence. This would release some of the competitive pressure on the men for mates. In a society with a heavily skewed male-female ratio favoring men, “everybody banging everybody” wouldn’t elicit as much of a jealousy response if each man was spreading his seed with multiple women, increasing his chances to procreate.

Women are naturally promiscuous, true, but to a lesser extent than men and in a different way. Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month. Men’s promiscuity is noncyclical. Men can cheat whenever and wherever, and can do so whether in love or out of love with their primary partner. Women are often emotionally unable to cheat if they are in love with their partner.

Addressing Ryan’s other points, there is no evidence that men in any significant number outside of a tiny fetishist minority enjoy cuckold porn, or are attracted to other men having sex with women. If you look at porn, you’ll notice that the most popular videos (really, 90% of the videos on major porn sites) block out the male actor’s face. The camera zooms in on the penetrating cock and the woman’s body and face contorted with (albeit faked) pleasure. The man’s face and chest are deliberately excised from as much of the sex scenes as possible. What men really like to watch is women having sex with a disembodied cock, (hence, point of view porn, which is very popular), into which the viewer can imagine he is the one fucking the girl.

Do women scream during sex to attract more men to the fight, or to warn other men away? I don’t see how the former is more clearly the reason than the latter. Or is there another explanation why women scream during sex? Perhaps to advertise their attractiveness to alpha males to other women, as a sort of status competition?

It’s understood that the penis is shaped like a sperm scoop, and that this is evidence that there is some amount of sperm competition resulting from female promiscuity going on. But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them. Did the invention of private property cause this powerful drive in men to seek out virgins in many parts of the world, or has the drive been a part of the neuronal network of the male brain for longer than that? Occam’s Razor normally falls on the side of biological imperative rather than social construction, as the latter is rarely an answer for anything except as a comforting illusion to help feminists and assorted blank slate lefties to sleep at night.

Bottom line is that there seems to be evidence for some kind of a balance between the sperm competition-female promiscuity nexus and mate guarding jealousy, and that this balance varies by population group. (r selected populations may lean more toward the large male genitals-female promiscuity part of the spectrum.) Double bottom line: Do you really want to live in a society where men don’t give a fuck about paternity and “everybody is fucking everybody”? We already have an example of what such a society might look like: sub-saharan Africa.

***

Interesting comment left by Rum:

What is the advantage to a woman of being less-than-aware of her actual arousal? It helps with her pretending to love a type of guy that her pussy really does not want. After all, if we accept the 80:20 rule regarding men and gina tingles, a lot of women are doomed to be paired via monogamy with a guy they never truly wanted – for sex. It is simple math. How could too much awareness of her true pussy-feelings help her attract a beta? It is just an extra burden for her to carry. So nature gives her an anesthetic for those unwelcome, burdensome insights.

This angle deserves further reflection. A lot of supposedly low libido women are simply women who settled for resource providing beta males who don’t sexually excite them. It’s already been shown that women are more likely to orgasm when they step out with an alpha male during that golden week of ovulatory sluttitude. If women were consciously aware of the connection between what they find attractive and what arouses them — in the same way men are aware of the connection — then women might be less inclined to remain loyal to the beta provider, and thus jeopardize the raising of their young. Or maybe the arousal ignorance is the cause of the infamous female caprice, which serves as a mate-selecting strategy ensuring that only men who are good with women will be able to navigate her seemingly illogical whims.

Read Full Post »

I have this fire- and waterproof safe at home. I store financial papers, love letters from past and former girlfriends, and backup hard drives in it. In other words, anything that I don’t want a girl I am dating to see, or to ever see.

Maxim #20: Do not ever reveal the details of your finances to a girlfriend or wife. Avoid getting joint accounts. As a man, you must draw a line in the sand separating money from love. If she balks, dump her.

Naturally, when girls come over and happen to notice the safe (it’s in a closet) they are curious about its contents. Most of them are usually savvy enough to refrain from asking me what’s inside while the relationship is still in its infancy. If a girl is champing at the bit that hard to discover my secrets so soon after starting to date, then she is likely an untrustworthy, self-aggrandizing prospect for the long term. If she asks after a couple of years, that’s more understandable. But she still won’t get to know.

There’s something else I keep in the safe. Since I know that a girl will sometimes ask, I have prepared for the eventuality.

GIRL: “Ooo, you have a safe. Um… so what’s in it?”

THE GRAVEN IMAGE U FAP TO: “The severed fingers of my enemies in a jar.”

GIRL: “Ha, ha, funny. No, seriously.”

At which point, and with a totally straight face, I open the safe and remove a jar of yellow red-ish liquid resembling formaldehyde containing severed fingers which I then show to her. The last time I did this, the girl screamed at the top of her lungs and fell backwards over my couch, bruising her shin on my coffee table in the process.

You can get realistic looking novelty severed fingers at any online magic shop.

Later that night, we copulated with a ferocity that would have made wild boar sex seem tender in comparison. She never asked to see what was in the safe again.

So, yes, there does appear to be a direct line of connection between the fright neurons and the vagina neurons in girls’ brains. Stimulate one, and the other kicks out reflexively. (During foreplay, girls are often frightened — and cross-eyed — when I whip out my enormous offshore drill.)

Surprising girls with pranks is also an effective arousal state inducer. The girl in this video might have been pissed for an hour after she was victimized by her boyfriend’s prank, but I guarantee he had the best sex of his life that night.

Read Full Post »

The Plain Girl Test

Whenever you’re stuck with a particular girl you’re trying to bed, and wondering what to do next, a good mental test to give yourself is to swap roles so that you are the one being chased by the girl. Except that in this reformulation, the girl is a plain looking girl for whom you have no strong feelings one way or the other. In other words, imagine a plain girl is gaming you exactly the same way you are gaming the new girl you want. The psychology of this scenario closely mimics what is going on in most girls’ heads when you game them. Does this imaginary plain girl’s game actively repulse you or does it spark an attraction for her? If it repulses you, then you’ll know that the game you are running on the actual girl is probably repulsing her as well.

For example (actual email from a male reader seeking advice):

An acquaintance invites me to meet some girls who are in town for a short while.  It turned out to be a chaperoned “date” with his parents, us two guys and three girls.  We are seated strategically, but I’m not next to the girl I want to know.  After stupid conversation my friend and I take two of the girls to a nearby bar.  I suggest we break into a nearby campus and make other comments.  In the car ride to the next place, the girl says “sketch” and says that the guy in front has better conversations.

I know, half of that paragraph was Beta.  Anyhow, the girl I was furthest from was hanging on my every word and gave me her number.  I barely said “hi” to her, but she saw the attention the other girls received.  I have her b-card and number.  How to proceed?  I was thinking “You didn’t get to talk to me, though you were dying to.   Coffee?”  I hear she has a bf, but that does not concern either of us.

The emailer should imagine he is being chased by a plain girl running the same game that he is thinking about running on this chick he likes. So in this thought experiment the plain girl has his business card (nevermind how she got it, it’s irrelevant), and she has just called or texted and said the following to our emailer:

“You didn’t get to talk to me, though you were dying to. Coffee?”

As a man, would you be more or less interested in a plain chick who texted the above to you? Probably less. It sounds like a girl who is trying vainly to conceal her motives, i.e. try-hard. If you were the man being chased by a plain girl running this game, you would say to yourself “No, I’m not really dying to talk to her.”

Well, that’s close to what the real life hot chick is saying to herself.

Now what if the plain girl called or, preferably, texted you this instead:

“I have your business card for some reason. Did we talk last night?”

More intriguing, eh? A little more aloof, too. You’d wonder if this plain chick was hotter than you thought, and you’d be compelled to follow-up with an offer to meet. Well, if our emailer sends this improved version to the real life hot chick, she will think the same way. This text is tighter game.

The plain girl test won’t apply in every hypothetical situation, but it is a handy guide for deciding whether your next move would be ill-advised or helpful toward getting the close.

Read Full Post »

A Chick Who Gets It

The purple nail polish is killer. Now if we could just get wide angle shot with nekkid breastessesss included.

“There is no God but Love and Breastessesss are His prophet”

Read Full Post »

If you write in for advice and have included photos of yourself, write the word “Chateau” on your palm and hold it up for the camera. Make sure it is clearly seen, along with your face, in the same pic. This will serve as the verification process, and prevent future cat’s-paw breaches of the Chateau grounds.

Read Full Post »

Hoax?

Has the Chateau been duped by a scorned beta male? A reader (who shall remain anonymous) emailed the following to Chateau headquarters regarding yesterday’s post about a woman seeking advice whether to upgrade from her current boyfriend to a luxury model alpha:

That chick has used the name [xxxxxx] to comment on other blogs.  She frequents [another dating website].  She previously claimed that she was a virgin.  Her real name is [xxxxxxx].  She didn’t seem dumb enough to do this so I’m thinking maybe someone with a grudge is pretending to be her.  If it is really her, this is an epic fucking fail on her part.

As has been repeated here many times, if you email looking for advice and don’t specify that you wish to keep it private and off the blog, your email can and sometimes will be used for a post. The girl in question did not state any wish for her advice-seeking email to be kept private. Fair warning was given, and total privacy was offered. Chateau proprietors keep their word.

However, if it is the case that someone impersonated her, then this is unfortunate. Betas impersonating in email their cheating girlfriends, ex-girlfriends or women they just don’t like for whatever personal reason and pretending to seek advice from your humble hosts in hopes of exacting a bit of the ol’ ultravengeance through the medium of this blog are engaging in subterfuge of the vilest sort. We run a tight operation here. And the Chateau *really* doesn’t like to play the dupe.

It’s a clever ploy, and one that is impossible for Chateau keepers to defend against. Thus, because of the ploy’s indefensibility and potential to harm innocent parties, the post has been removed. In addition, all future reader mailbags have been put on hold until further notice. There is now no way for the hosts here to know which emails requesting advice are genuine and which are impersonations by sly, vengeful betas intent on summoning the Kraken for a game of “let’s her and Chateau fight”.

While there is no hard proof that the original email is fake, the Chateau has decided to take all necessary precautions and treat it as if it were fake. As a result, the reader mailbag is dead. So thank you, haxxor betas, you have ruined it for every other emailer seeking genuine advice to improve their love lives and find happiness.

Read Full Post »

Great Zing

In the comments section to an article in The Daily Mail about the gilded weaponry of Mexican drug lords, Bill from Richmond, VA responded to an effete glove slap from an Englishman.

“Its so comforting to know that our American friends have so much time to concentrate on the finer things in life such as part and model numbers of guns… keeep it up chaps!”
– Peahead, Hebden Bridge

Well, Nancy, the next time the topic is part and model numbers of the latest purses, we’ll be sure to ask you.
– Bill, Richmond, VA

Ya gotta hit em where it hurts. And with the Euroweenies, that’s just about everywhere.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: