Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for 2010

What would be your criteria for the greatest job a man could have in the world? I’ll list what I think should be your criteria:

  1. Continual exposure to a variety of young, pretty, naked women
  2. Willingness of a significant subset of those young, pretty women to sleep with you
  3. An occupational dynamic that requires leadership skills in the form of ordering young, pretty women to do your bidding
  4. Very little competition from other men in the field, or on the job
  5. Relatively high pay
  6. Relatively high status
  7. Minimal amount of rote work
  8. Maximal amount of fun and creativity
  9. Lots of travel to exotic and charming locations around the globe
  10. Plenty of opportunity to discreetly cheat, if married or otherwise committed

Is there a man alive with working testicles who wouldn’t agree with my description of the perfect male job? No, I bet not.

So what is the greatest job in the world?

Meet Richard Kern.

Kern has been taking photographs of attractive naked women for 25 years in countries around the world. Young women in various states of undress. Naked women in pools. Naked women in showers. Naked women smoking pot. Naked women combing their hair. Naked women on all fours scrubbing the floor. And, presumably, naked women sucking his dick after work hours.

I know what you’re thinking. Kern is not gay. He’s married to a hot chick more than half his age. Kern is in his 50s, but he looks younger and, more importantly for men interested in picking up younger women, he *acts* like a man half his age. His is a life of unrelenting joy and exquisite pleasure. If there is a heaven on earth, Kern has found it. When asked if he has slept with any of his subjects, he is not coy, admitting that he’s had a number of sexual relationships with the ladies he photographs.

Surprisingly, Kern does a lot of his shooting with a pocket digital camera. He prefers capturing in voyeuristic style the natural beauty of the girl-next-door, the kind of girl you most want to despoil. Kern is almost clinical about the sexuality of his subjects that infuses his work, going on for impressive lengths about the shape, size, color and texture of the great megafauna of breastessesss constantly bouncing in front of his camera lens. Reminds me of someone else.

Some may wonder if it’s Kern’s job that attracts the girls, or if the job is merely incidental to Kern’s seductive alphaness. It’s more the latter, but no doubt photography, and the men skilled at it, are especially attractive to women, probably for the reason that any visual-based skill or artistry, being primarily the domain of maleness, is naturally intriguing to the visuo-spatially challenged sex. But that is a minor effect. The status of Kern’s job, and his status within the field, is the predominant attractor when we separate his personality from his achievements. Men who excel in female-oriented fields are also very attractive to women.

I bet you’re curious about Kern’s wife. I was. So I found this illuminating documentary video of Kern and Martynka. It’s short, about 11 minutes. You should watch the whole thing. It is 11 minutes demonstrating the power of pure game. What comes out of the video is just what a natural player Kern is, and the classic seduction and alpha male dynamics which hold powerful sway over the pretty Martynka’s emotional fidelity to her husband.

Some choice quotes:

Interviewer: Do you ever get jealous?

Martynka: No, I actually… it’s a weird thing… but it turns me on that he’s like shooting 18 year old hot girls. I find it exciting. I don’t get bored of him in that sense, because… I know it sounds weird but I actually thinks it’s cool he’s out, hanging out with like some 18 year old girl in her bedroom, showing him her tits, and um, it keeps things exciting for me, cause that little bit of jealousy makes my obsession last longer.

You don’t say!

I remember when I wrote that “women want you to cheat” post it engendered howls of indignation from my many female commenters. Oh, how you say… what was it again?…. oh yah…

Watch what women do, don’t listen to what they say.

What about the proposal? Certainly an inveterate and experienced womanizer like Kern would know better than to drop to one knee and beg for indentured servitude. Does Richard Kern follow my advice and propose to Martynka like an alpha male? Does a herb load in his pants?

Interviewer: So you guys got married in June. Was the proposal special, was it kind of romantic?

Martynka: It was very Richard style.

Interviewer: What was it?

Martynka: He didn’t really propose. But it was really cute. Cause he was so nervous about it.

Interviewer: So he kind of proposed but didn’t propose?

Martynka: No, he didn’t even say what it is.

[Scene switch]

Interviewer: Tell me about when you proposed to Martynka?

Richard: Oh, um, I couldn’t actually say the words that you have to say to do that, and, um…

Interviewer: Will you marry me?

Richard: Yeah. So, I, um, I didn’t have a birthday present for us, see, and I knew she had to get married to get a green card, so I tried to pass it off as my birthday present.

Interviewer: She said it took like 45 minutes to understand what you were asking.

Richard: Yeah, I never actually said it. [Ed: Richard almost sounds proud of this. Ha!]

But this was my favorite Kern-ism:

Richard: I’m fine with being married as long as I don’t have to talk about it, or acknowledge it.

Talk about a cunt-wetting frame.

By the way, Kern stole Martynka away from her much younger boyfriend. As the internet nerd herd might say: THIS.

Read Full Post »

It was early evening and the sun still blazed on the horizon, casting shards of soft yellow light across faces and dewy beer pints. Sitting on the bar stools to my right were two white women. I could tell they were friends by their isolationist banter. I looked over and visually judged them; both were in their late 20s or early 30s, frumpily dressed, and of average attractiveness. Not hard on the eyes, but not boner inspiring, either. They didn’t exercise with weights; the first betrayals of droop were beginning to intrude. They looked like typical city yuppies, likely SWPL to the bone. One smiled invitingly at me. I decided neither one was good-looking enough to warrant an effort to hit on them, so I smiled back perfunctorily and returned to my dinner. (Note to Satoshi Kanazawa at ‘Psychology Today’: this is what is known as male mating choice.)

By the by, two men approached the women seated to my right in what looked like an obvious pickup attempt. There was no other reason for them to have struck up a conversation with the ladies; where the women were sitting was out of the way of the main patron thoroughfare, so a cold approach meant, quite accurately, “I have designs to fuck you for the least amount of resource investment and on the shortest timetable possible”. The men ably paired off with the women, (a smoothly executed maneuver that suggested they had discussed beforehand which of the two women appealed to whom), and a dry four-way commenced.

Because of my proximity to their group, I couldn’t help but overhear the ensuing rapid fire chit chat. The men sounded like they had some rudimentary understanding of game, or at least of how to be cool enough not to trigger a woman’s anti-dork alert system. They were able to stay in set for about ten minutes before the whole thing dissolved in a debris heap of… well, judge for yourself. What follows is the critical excerpt of their conversation.

MAN 1: You guys watching the World Cup? That Ghana game was incredible.

WOMAN 1: The one where they played Uruguay?

MAN 1: Yeah, Ghana was robbed of a goal. It’s too bad we didn’t beat Ghana. The US had a pretty good team. I think we could have taken Uruguay.

WOMAN 2: I wouldn’t have rooted for America.

MAN 1: What do you mean? You wouldn’t have rooted for America against Uruguay? [smiling crookedly, a pained lifeline to a sucker punched rapport in its infancy] That’s weird. [looking at his buddy, then back at the girl] Are you anti-American?

WOMAN 2: Anti-americaaaaaan??! [looking at her girl buddy, open-mouthed, then back at the guy] Haha, I just think America isn’t as good at soccer. They don’t really deserve to win.

MAN 2: You always root for the home team, even if they suck.

WOMAN 2: I don’t. Ghana and Uruguay are real soccer countries. They have so much more tradition. I would have totally rooted for them against America.

MAN 2: That’s anti-American!

WOMAN 2: Well, whatever, you can call it what you like. We don’t have to win everything, you know.

Tempers flared, then subsided as the men worked diligently to keep the pretense of a seduction going. The conversation fizzled to a snippy end and the men left for another bar. The women giggled as they recounted the awkwardness of the interaction, placing the blame for the failed seduction entirely on the men, as is the wont of the unaccountable and unreflective gender.

I would not claim the men performed with verve. Their game — if you could call it that — was haphazard, verging on slapstick. They let their anger bubble to the surface, and allowed their alpha prerogative to remain calm under pressure accede to the juggernaut of their hothead emotions. As noxious as the women were, calling them out on their anti-Americanism would only have served to confirm their self-satisfied pseudomorality of nation-state transcendence. If it was pussy the men wanted, a bristle-backed argumentative posture is not the way to get it. If, however, they merely wanted the exquisite sadistic pleasure of getting under the women’s skins, there are better ways than raw effrontery to accomplish that.

Allow me to demonstrate. Here is how the conversation would have transpired if I was at the helm and had it in mind to cruelly twist the shiv in their stunted SWPL souls.

THE DEVIL U LUV: You guys watching the World Cup? That Ghana game was incredible.

WOMAN 1: The one where they played Uruguay?

THE DEVIL U LUV: Yeah, Ghana was robbed of a goal. It’s too bad we didn’t beat Ghana. The US had a pretty good team. I think we could have taken Uruguay.

WOMAN 2: I wouldn’t have rooted for America.

THE DEVIL U LUV: Interesting. So you wouldn’t have rooted for America against Uruguay?

WOMAN 2: I just think America isn’t as good at soccer. They don’t really deserve to win.

THE DEVIL U LUV: [totally straight face] Hm, you know, I agree. I like the way you guys think for yourselves. Not many people are cool enough to root for a foreign country.

WOMAN 2: I suppose…

THE DEVIL U LUV: It’s important to be cool, wouldn’t you agree?

WOMAN 2: [starting to feel the burn] I guess… are you mocking us?

THE DEVIL U LUV: Not at all. I like you guys. Stay cool. [exit, stage sweet victory]

******

On this 4th of July, We the post-Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 People should spend a moment to reflect on the tenuous grasp the inheritors of the great American tradition have to their homeland. When you wave your sparklers with your kids this holiday weekend, cast a wary eye at your neighbor. A disease has metastasized in huge swaths of the American population and threatens to suffocate the grandiose and noble idea that ironically nourishes their trite impudence. The host which ennobles has become the rotting carcass upon which to feed. Gnawing and chewing parasites dripping venom and toxic bile have replaced the immune boosting white blood cells and defiantly proud armies of red blooded corpuscles of a body politic once happy, grateful, and giddy to be alive. And not just any sort of alive; the kind of exalted living that comes from knowing your good fortune to have been born in a prosperous country culturally superior to so many alternatives. Yes, superior. The very word sends shudders down the spines of the mincing globocrats and mewling equalist butterfucks.

A vector of patricidal vengeance, a boiling plume of acrid anti-native stock spite, travels up and down our coasts, from Miami to Boston, LA to Seattle, in our newsrooms, our boardrooms, our schools, and our social gathering places, carrying a message of spastic hate for America, her founding ideals, and the historically great figures who have traveled her hallowed corridors. Pockets of internal organs are infected, Chicago and Austin. These are not traitors in action… mostly… but their souls are traitorous in configuration. Their feelings are the knee-jerk bleats of a bastard people at growing unease with the country they are required by law to call home. A nation of latchkey kids — stupid in their ahistorical ignorance and frightened of the breaking surf of censored knowledge about to crash on their heads — has been in open revolt against its beneficent parent for generations now, and the opiate of distracting technoporn and glam mags can only hold off the coming reckoning for so long. They live for the comforting swaddle of the trend, and right now every trend is pointing in the direction of dialectic anti-patriotism.

In reaction, hordes of indignant evangelist armies in middlemarch shout their loyalty from rooftops. But theirs is the rearguard wail of a dumbfounded, shellshocked bit player forced by circumstance and disposition to play by the stronger enemies’ rules. It is the enemies’ first principles they must attack and subvert, but servility and cowardice prevent them from unleashing the hell they must if victory is to be total. They scream guns and glory for wars they know deep in their hearts serve no true American interest. They laugh jovially at diversity seminars that they then attend dutifully, mouths shut, for they have families to feed. They stupidly stand four square behind leaders who have checkmarked the correct ideological box despite all evidence to the contrary putting the lie to those leaders’ presupposed beliefs. They retreat to a chapel ghetto as the gleaming city around them shatters to the ground, confident that the Word and the Faith will see them through. They fight incoherent losing battles with phantom threats while ignoring or resignedly acquiescing to the real threats in their midst. They toe the line of rebellion, then quickly scuttle back under a counterstrike of nerve-rattling platitudes and orchestrated insults.

Soon… sooner than you think… the status-fueled citizen hate will yield to indifference, and exhausted resignation, if it hasn’t already. (We Americans do things on a sped-up time schedule.) And then the final days of America will descend, a tattered curtain closing on a dream corrupted by the nightmare of human nature and the willful blindness to the motivations of our enemies, internal and external. There is no stopping it now; it must play out. The smart man, making his way through this current decaying epoch, has but one choice before him — one self-interested choice — and that is the path of hedonism.

Many eons from now, when anthropologists are picking through the remains of the American Empire and piecing together a narrative for why things went so horribly wrong, may they come upon this blog post as an answer to their questions. For I truly believe that nothing else than that small snippet of a conversation on a rooftop bar in an American city circa 2010 between two typical youngish men and two typical youngish women better illuminates the cause of America’s decline and the depravity of her people who are the nominal heirs to Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

When the World Cup comes around again, I will be rooting for the soccer-indifferent USA to crush the smaller soccer-fanatic countries. And I won’t apologize for my loyalties, even as I laugh at soccer for being the girly, flop-happy sport it is.

Read Full Post »

Status whoring citizen of the world SWPLs cry into their artisanal beers. I laugh. It’s also nice to see a European team that actually looks European (hi, France!). Before any of you start bitching, how many were complaining that Ghana looked too Ghanaian? Yeah, that’s what I thought. No one.

I wonder how good the USA would do if we had our best athletes playing soccer instead of baseball, basketball and football? I bet we would rule FIFA like the petulant peasant province it is.

(This post certified gig bait.)

Read Full Post »

Canceling Dates

Here’s a good rule of thumb: Whenever a woman cancels a date and doesn’t offer an alternative time, she is rejecting you.

It doesn’t matter if the excuse she gives sounds plausible, or you have proof that she really can’t make the date due to other obligations. If she doesn’t offer a make-up date, she’s not interested enough to see you again. You *could* press the matter, but you’d be better off forgetting her and sticking with girls who demonstrate more enthusiasm to spend time with you.

In my experience, almost every girl who has cancelled a date for a presumably legitimate reason, has offered another time to meet if she already had it in her heart that she wanted to fuck me. Knowing this, it’s tactically savvy to refrain from counter-offering a make-up date until she has had a chance to make her counter offer. So when a girl cancels on you, give her space to offer another date and time; don’t rush to suggest an alternative meeting time. Like trial texting, this is a great way to gauge a woman’s emotional investment in you, and to consequently avoid dropping too much money and time on girls who are on the fence about their feelings for you.

Read Full Post »

“AZ” wrote:

I am rooming with one of my buddies from college and we go all the way back to freshman year. I am from [foreign country] and I started college when I was 17, and as I grew older I began to act more like a man, but my buddy has not. He will talk for hours on end about inconsequential shit, how this 6 looked at him, and how he wants to pound crotch all day long etc, yet does nothing about it. What is driving me to the edge here and making me write this email is that [REDACTED]. At this point I’ve been trying to help him out, introduce him to game, get him to be less of a looser, but I have given up hope.

How do you deal with your beta friends that don’t want to learn? I don’t want to stop the friendship, and I have been trying to avoid him, but we hang out about 2 hours a day. How do I stop myself from cringing in his presence and resenting him for being himself?

If you are going to publish this in the mailbag please omit all personal details.

There were a lot of personal details, so I had to redact a full paragraph worth of juicy beta goodness. Suffice to say, it was nauseatingly bad, involving awkward hugs, egregious service worker tips, and invitations to cheesy strip mall restaurants. On the scale of game acumen, 0 being no game at all and winging it spergy style, and 10 being a Casanova for the ages, AZ’s friend was a -2.

Unfortunately, AZ, women do judge men based on the friends they keep. It is one of the more glaring psychological differences between men and women, and it has evolved for a good reason: men get all they need to know about a potential mate by looking at her for a second, while women need to recruit information about potential mates from a variety of sources, direct and indirect, because a visual impression is not nearly enough to trigger a woman’s full blown attraction for a man.

The ideal alpha projection attraction multiplier (APAM) social circle is a mixed clique of good-looking and socially savvy men and women, where you are the coolest guy among a group of slightly less cool guys, and the girls are hanging on your every word. You want to shine among your friends, but you don’t want to shine on the cheap by surrounding yourself with nerdos. Girls will not give you cunt watering points for being the exasperated leader of a bunch of social rejects.

A good example of what I mean is the movie ‘Swingers’. Jon Favreau’s character is basically a chill, decent guy with some issues connecting with girls. But he’s not so socially inept or teeth-gnashingly clueless that he continually embarrasses his cooler friends. Thus, Vince Vaughn’s character never experiences moments of crisis like you are in your email to me deciding whether or not to sever a friendship entirely for the sake of meeting girls.

I know some of my male readers will complain that a genuine alpha — a real man — never puts hos before bros, but that’s the kind of principled talk that almost always disintegrates in the acid wash of reality. If a male buddy you hang out with regularly is so blockheaded that he’s actually costing you chances to meet girls, you have to decide if the friendship is worth prolonged dry spells. For most men, that answer would be a resounding NO, despite their high-minded rhetoric to the contrary.

You see, a real man, besides having principles, also makes the difficult and unpopular choices. He screens out the losers when building a social circle of friends, and he dumps those who have demonstrated an unwillingness to take the advice of their betters to meet the high standards of the group. Your roommate is not special; there are many guys like him — stubbornly regressive, hopelessly ignorant, constitutionally spastic. A man like that is as much a product of his genes as he is of his environment. Maybe you enjoy his company when it’s just you two LANing it up Quake-style, and maybe he strokes your ego just by being there, nipping at your heels like an orphaned chihuahua. And that’s all good, until it’s time to go out into the real world and you find yourself making up excuses to avoid him. Am I right?

You can play that game for a while, but you’ll feel like crap constantly having to come up with reasons not to hang out with him. That he’s your roommate makes it doubly hard. Avoiding a college roommate is like avoiding your mom when she wants you to mow the lawn and your friends will be over in two minutes with a ride to the beach. Trap doors and escape chutes come to mind.

My advice to you is this: Give your friend one last chance to prove himself worthy of your company. But this requires some sacrifice on your part. Don’t just throw him to the wolves, blindfolded. Bite the bullet. Explain that his social skills suck, that he kills your chances with girls when you two go out together, and that he has to shape up fast if he wants to live the good life. Tough love is what we men are good at. Then offer him some tips, and show him where he’s fucking up. If he can’t abide your conditions for friendship, you have all the moral imperative you need to use him when he’s useful (playing video games) and dispose of him when he’s not (all real world activities). Get used to ignoring him. On your way out the door to parties, learn to visualize him as a lamp, an inanimate object you have no responsibility for placating. In fact, alpha males are skilled in the art of visualizing the vast hordes of male competition as lamps. Steal a page from their playbook.

Read Full Post »

Tard Game

A buddy was telling me about a semi-famous tard intern who works in his office. He has a job responsibility that is about as complex as Walmart greeter. He also has very tight game.

“The way he handles the hot girls in my office is nothing short of amazing.”

“How so?”

“Girls will go up to him and say ‘Good morning, Joe*!’, and Joe will bark back ‘You’re crazy don’t even talk to me!'” [*fake name]

“Wow. Nuclear neg.”

“If a girl says ‘Hi’ to him, he’ll say ‘Don’t kiss me, I have a girlfriend.’ If she gets too far into his personal space, he’ll scold her: ‘Don’t touch me! You’re not my girlfriend.'”

“And the girls find this charming?”

“You wouldn’t believe it. The girls are scrambling to figure out how to get this tard to like them. ‘Why doesn’t he like me?’ He’s friendly to all the guys in the office, but he gives the girls a hard time. Sometimes, when he sees one of the girls talking to another dude, he’ll go up to them and tell the girl not to touch him, he has a girlfriend.”

“Fascinating. He totally assumes the sale. And he’s an expert AMOG. Killer combo.”

“I told him once, ‘Hey man, your frame is incredible.'”

“Tard game. The next evolution in pickup. Does he actually have a girlfriend?”

“Yeah. He’s dating another tard chick.”

“I wonder what their lovemaking sounds like.”

“Probably like angry seals.”

Read Full Post »

Chicks dig dominant men (at least for hot sex). Men with low voices are perceived as more dominant. Hence, you should take up smoking to give your voice that rich, deep, gravelly timbre that make chicks swoon. Isn’t a shortened lifespan worth the extra poon?

Men with a deep, masculine voices are seen as more dominant by other men but a man’s own dominance – perceived or actual – does not affect how attentive he is to his rivals’ voices. His own dominance does however influence how he rates his competitors’ dominance: the more dominant he thinks he is, the less dominant he rates his rival’s voice.

Paging G Manifesto… (women should avoid smoking for the same reason.)

******

If you are a white man with brown eyes, chances are you have a more dominant looking face (and, thus, more access to pussy!).

Faces of brown-eyed men were rated more dominant than those of blue-eyed men, even when their eyes weren’t brown.

The effect, which didn’t hold for female faces, may have something to do with the shape of brown-eyed men’s faces, said study researcher Karel Kleisner of Charles University in Prague. On average, brown-eyed men had broader chins and mouths, larger noses, more closely spaced eyes and larger eyebrows than blue-eyed men.

Ever notice how closely spaced the eyes are on criminal thugs and stupid people? It’s a telltale sign that a person is probably not very trustworthy. And, yes, ugly people really are more criminally inclined than better looking people. You CAN judge a book by its cover, Virginia!

Naturally, one wonders why blue eyes — and thus less masculine faces — evolved in men. Perhaps in northern climes, where blue eyes predominate, there was selection for more cooperative males who could put aside strutting displays for the sake of reliably providing for the community and the family during long, cold winters. Or maybe it’s just a vestige of the sexual selection for very fair women with blue eyes.

******

Make her swoon with a love tune:

If you’re having trouble getting a date, French researchers suggest that picking the right soundtrack could improve the odds. Women were more prepared to give their number to an ‘average’ young man after listening to romantic background music, according to research that appears today in the journal Psychology of Music.

I slap on some Metallica — from the Kill Em All album — to get girls to leave my place after sex.

******

People discriminate based on beauty:

In her provocative new book,The Beauty BiasThe Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. […]

Volumes of psychological research have shown that unattractive people are assumed to be less intelligent, less capable and less trustworthy. Almost from birth, infants stare longer at faces that adults rate as attractive.

No doubt Deborah Rhode is a raving lunatic equalist femicunt. But she’s right that people treat the ugly worse than they treat the pretty. Where she goes off the rails is in her solution to the “problem”. Does anyone think this isn’t the endgame when “anti-discrimination” became the religion of the USA in the mid-20th century? It was only a matter of time before those who argued against discriminating based on race — an immutable human characteristic — realized that it was the next logical step to justifiably argue against discrimination based on looks — a mostly immutable human characteristic. (Fatties are exempt from playing the immutability card.)

In fact, most facially ugly people really can’t do a thing about their unfortunate condition. In a “fair” world, anti-ugly discrimination would be outlawed, and the ugly would receive some recompense for their suffering.

This is why I am a true believer in the freedom of association. I knew that the eternal egalitarian quest for “fairness” would inevitably lead to the absurd totalitarian state we see unfolding all around us today. The only way it could be stopped was by rejecting its first principles — namely, by insisting that people have a right to associate with whomever they please. Equalists need to come to grips with the fact that life is not fair, that some human beings really are worth more than others, and that the constant pounding of square pegs into round holes is, in the long run, neither good for the peg nor the hole.

******

From the No Duh! files: fat chicks have trouble getting laid.

Scientists say being fat can be bad for the bedroom, especially if you’re a woman.

In a new study, European researchers found obese women had more trouble finding a sexual partner than their normal-weight counterparts, though the same wasn’t true for obese men, and were four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy. Fat men reported a higher rate of erectile dysfunction. […]

Obese women were 30 percent less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. In comparison, there was little difference among obese men and normal-weight men as to whether they found a sexual partner.

This should disprove the notion (propounded most often by Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today) that women do all the choosing in the dating market. In fact, they don’t. Men actively choose against dating and fucking fat chicks, old chicks, and, in some cases, single moms.

Not only are fat chicks sexually denied, they also skew the dating market to the detriment of men. What good are fat chicks? Just air drop ’em on an island somewhere, preferably all on one side so that the island might tip over and capsize.

Previous studies have found similar trends, but researchers were surprised by the discrepancy they found between the genders as to how excess weight affects peoples’ sex lives.

“Maybe women are more tolerant of tubby husbands than men are of tubby wives,” said Kaye Wellings, a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and one of the BMJ study authors.

Women don’t care as much about looks as men do. Cue the Drudge red siren.

The researchers found that obese women were less likely to ask for birth control services, and thus, four times more likely to accidentally get pregnant. Pregnant fat women and their babies also faced a higher risk of complications and death than normal-weight women.

“Accidentally” my ass. Fat chicks know that they have fewer chances than slim chicks to bed a man, so when the opportunity arises, they take full advantage to fill their slovenly, bloated wombs with a reason for existence. My advice to low self esteem men with dumpster diving issues: don that schlong before you impale a whale.

******

More proof for female preselection and the game techniques that spoof it:

“The idea is if you walk into a room and there are 50 people there, you can’t talk to everyone. So whom do you choose to talk to first? You could talk to the most attractive person or you could see whom others are already interacting with. If you’re a female and all the other women are just talking to 10 men, the other 40 aren’t potentially good mates. It would seem it’s a cognitive short-cut.”

One of the best things a guy can do for his game is to go out with a female friend. Instruct her to smile a lot and laugh at your lame jokes.

******

Courtesy of Vox Day, proof that women prefer fucking alphas:

About 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. health officials said on Tuesday… women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

******

It’s a myth that marriage is good for a man’s health.

But while it’s clear that marriage is profoundly connected to health and well-being, new research is increasingly presenting a more nuanced view of the so-called marriage advantage. Several new studies, for instance, show that the marriage advantage doesn’t extend to those in troubled relationships, which can leave a person far less healthy than if he or she had never married at all. One recent study suggests that a stressful marriage can be as bad for the heart as a regular smoking habit. And despite years of research suggesting that single people have poorer health than those who marry, a major study released last year concluded that single people who have never married have better health than those who married and then divorced.

All of which suggests that while Farr’s exploration into the conjugal condition pointed us in the right direction, it exaggerated the importance of the institution of marriage and underestimated the quality and character of the marriage itself. The mere fact of being married, it seems, isn’t enough to protect your health. Even the Healthy Marriage Initiative makes the distinction between “healthy” and “unhealthy” relationships when discussing the benefits of marriage. “When we divide good marriages from bad ones,” says the marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, who is also the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, “we learn that it is the relationship, not the institution, that is key.”

What this says is that men can get all the benefits of a good marriage within an unmarried relationship. So what was the point of getting married again? Oh yeah, right… to keep the cogs firmly ensconced in the gears of the grinding globocorporate machine.

******

Giving women the right to vote really was a bad move:

Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws. We were also able to deal with questions of causality by taking advantage of the fact that while some states voluntarily adopted suffrage, others where compelled to do so by the Nineteenth Amendment. The conclusion was that suffrage dramatically changed government in both cases. Accordingly, the effects of suffrage we estimate are not reflecting some other factor present in only states that adopted suffrage. […]

More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

Yes, women’s suffrage really did herald the end days of America. The result of giving women the vote has been an ever-increasing nanny state funded on the backs of increasingly sex-dispossessed betas (dispossessed from banging women during their prime years). The elevation of diversity as a moral value and the flooding of the country with incompatible third world immigrants has no doubt been a secondary consequence of suffrage for women, who naturally bring their feminine sensibilities, for better or (more usually) for worse, to the polls. This is why I have argued that the next step in this national devolution toward mindless compassion is the creation of armies of cads. Men want sex, and will do whatever it takes to get it, whether that be good or ill for society.

******

More American women choosing to not have children:

More American women are choosing not to have children than three decades ago, according to a new report.

Nearly 20 percent of older women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the Pew Research Center said.

It’s possible the procreative pendulum will naturally swing back to replacement rates, but for now the economic and cultural empowerment of women has de facto rendered their wombs barren. The fulfillment of their demands has been the harbinger of their own annihilation. I think the hipsters would call that irony.

******

I’ve written before that for women, travel is just an excuse to bang a swarthy local. Now the proof arrives:

Study: For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex.

For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex and lots of touristy activities – whether they are with their partners or not. Even so, if the overseas trip involves intense physical activity, the women reported no significant improvement in their sex lives.

Such are the findings of a new study of the sexual behavior of vacationing Israeli women, conducted by the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

If you’ve got a girlfriend, and she’s going on vacation by herself, odds she will cheat rise 50%.

If she’s taking this vacation in a Latin country, odds rise 75%.

If she says you don’t have to drop her off at the airport, odds rise 90%.

If she bought a new bikini for the trip, odds rise 120%.

If she’s staying in a hostel for the duration of the trip, packed some spare rubbers, and routinely emails some guy named Jacque who runs a tour guide group, odds rise 1,000%.

Poria views this phenomenon as part of the ritual that accompanies the tourism experience: Just as tourists feel the need to tour the museums and famous sites in the cities they visit, even though they have no real inclination to do so, “having sex is sometimes also perceived as compulsory.”

Also known as the “ovulatory ritual”, the “hybrid vigor ritual”, the “anti-slut deniability ritual”, and the “expert from afar ritual”.

Business trips, on the other hand, were portrayed in the study as inappropriate for much sexual activity, since they are not perceived as free time that presents an opportunity for such activity in an anonymous environment.

The interviewees explained that sexual permissiveness is impossible when they are accompanied by their colleagues from work.

Opportunity + anonymity + beta back home = infidelity.

******

Speaking of cheating

Two new studies find that women may be genetically predisposed to cheating on their partners.

One study published today by the University of California, Los Angeles Center on Behavior, Culture, and Evolution and the University of New Mexico says women have evolved to cheat on their mates during the most fertile part of their cycle, but only when those mates are less sexually attractive than other men.

The study in the Journal of Hormones and Behavior examined 38 coeds from one large, unidentified U.S. university.

“We found that women were most attracted to men other than their primary partner when they were in the high fertility phase of the menstrual cycle,” said Dr. Martie Haselton, a UCLA researcher. “That’s the day of ovulation and several days beforehand.”

Small sample size, but still. My advice to men who don’t want to risk a cuckolding:

Dread.

If she understands in no uncertain terms that cheating will guarantee she loses you, she will think less with her clit and more with her head.

The other precautionary measure you could take, besides being better looking than 99% of other men, is to make sure you are around and fucking her hard during the ovulation part of her cycle. If she denies you access during this part of her cycle, DUMP HER POST HASTE. You have just been served a huge, unfurled red flag.

Or you could skip marriage and kids, and just enjoy the ride of multiple, tacitly open relationships.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: