• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Perspective
12 Year Old Girl With Game »

Beta Valentine

January 18, 2011 by CH

The crack team of Chateau clit crits does not review movies too often because most of what passes for entertainment in theaters is rubbish. However, once every decade or so a movie so bracing, so truthful, and so relevant to the cultural moment comes along that we feel compelled to give it a platform for the readership.

The post ahead contains spoilers. If you are a giant vagina, close your eyes and think of momma’s womb.

Blue Valentine is an exploration of a modern marriage in the process of disintegrating, told via alternating scenes between the couple’s sordid present and their romantically heady past of five or six years ago. The flashback scenes aren’t labeled as such; the viewer knows they are flashbacks by the youthful hairline of Ryan Gosling’s character, Dean, and by the fact that there’s no kid around. The effect of the flashbacks is like a prolonged near-death experience, where the characters’ dying relationship is punctuated by gauzy vignettes of happier times.

Although the theater was filled with SWPL women probably on a bender from Glee house parties, don’t mistake this film for a chick flic. There’s too much truth told in the portrayal of a relationship hitting the skids for this to be anything resembling the typical sappy romance movie. For one, there’s no happy ending. Women’s faces after a manipulative cheese-fest chick flic show the telltale signs of throat-lumped weepiness: the glisten of fresh tears on cheeks. But the crowd of women filing out of the theater after Blue Valentine had only the vacant-eyed look of a shellshocked soldier who has just seen his buddy catch shrapnel. Or, in this case, catch a little too much reality.

Quite simply, there hasn’t been a movie in our lifetimes which depicts the fall of a man from charming nascent alpha to inept needy beta, and the loathing that this engenders in his lover, better than Blue Valentine.

Every male reader of the Chateau needs to see this movie, if for no other reason than to absorb the lessons it offers as a cautionary tale. The movie hits upon a number of powerhouse themes of this blog, and doesn’t flinch from the consequences. It makes one wonder if the director, Derek Cianfrance, reads this humble outpost of id brutality.

Michelle Williams plays Dean’s girlfriend/wife/pedestaled princess, Cindy. The two of them are from lower middle-class backgrounds. She’s a young, knocked up slut with daddy issues (she confesses to a nurse in one riveting scene in an abortion doc’s office that she has had “20, maybe 25” sexual partners, and the guy who got her pregnant — an alpha male wrestler — left her holding the baby bag), and he’s a high school dropout who works as muscle for a moving company who unironically wears American bald eagle sweaters and loves his job because it allows him to drink at 8AM. In other words, they are proles, with tastes, habits and dysfunction to suit.

Gosling and Williams give stellar performances. You will not see better acting unless Daniel Day-Lewis is on the bill. And this is the kind of movie that absolutely requires a high level of acting expertise; the subtle emotions and facial tics that are evoked to flesh out two ordinary people in a downward spiral of contempt, bitterness and fear, victimized not by each other but by ancient, primal mating forces pushing them in opposite directions, are beyond the range of most actors and actresses.

The casting here is important, because an unrealistically good-looking female lead would have strained credulity. Williams is cute, but not hot. She has a thick Teutonic neck, a slight belly roll, narrow hips, and an incipient double chin lurking underneath her long flowing blonde locks. That her cuteness is physically grounded like this helps explain why a guy of Dean’s caliber can feel simultaneously awed by her beauty and motivated by her attainability. Williams’ pedestrian 7 or 7.5 ranking delivers the message that exquisite female beauty is not the only instability factor that can corrupt a marriage; a man’s betaness can do the same.

The critical Chateau (and game) themes this movie hits upon include:

– alpha pump and dumps and beta providers and how women react to each type of man
– negs (AKA teasing) as a pivotal component of successful courtships
– the never-ending cycle of female shit testing
– the flame-out of male shit test failing
– forcing closeness before attraction is built
– the near impossibility of reviving a woman’s love after it has been squandered by beta behavior
– the deviousness of a woman’s female friends
– the well-poisoning that ensues when a woman gains higher social status than her husband
– the absolute irrelevancy of children to influence the modern woman with regard to her relationship choices
– the influence of competitor alpha males on a woman’s relationship trajectory
– the misguided idealism and romanticism of kind-hearted men
– the utter cluelessness of kind-hearted men about the nature of women
– the brute self-denial men practice when they project their romanticism onto women
– the inability of women to understand — let alone control — their own maelstrom of emotions
– the wisdom of the 2/3rds rule when expressing sentiments of love
– the recklessness and stupidity with which the lower classes careen in and out of relationships
– how easily unenlightened men are blindsided by women’s biomachinations
– how easily women can be bedded with simple charm
– how complimenting a woman can turn her off
– how a failing relationship can cause a man to forget what he did to attract the woman
– how a man can lose his sense of self when he allows himself to be defined by the strength of his LTR or marriage
– the foolishness of pursuing a relationship with a single mom
– and the tingle-killer of excessive self-deprecation.

There are scenes in this movie where you will cringe with a mix of disgust and pity. When Dean leans against a door frame, sobbing and pleading with Cindy to “tell me what to do. I’ll do whatever you want to make it better”, you want to slap him hard across the face and lead him to the tree of knowledge that is the Chateau. When he forces a hug upon her in the hopes that it will stir those old feelings and she responds with a stiff-armed turtling, visibly aching to escape his touch, your cringing will reach epic proportions.

Similarly, there is a visceral sex scene, while not very graphic (you only see boobs once in this movie), that you will have a hard time watching. Suffice to say, a woman out of love is no fun to make love to.

The disgust you will feel over Dean’s immolation and Cindy’s cold retreat is made all the more palpable by the flashbacks to times when Dean was the cocky, charming troubadour who swept Cindy off her feet with some solid early game and a hipster ukelele. In what is perhaps the greatest (and thus most realistic) neg ever delivered in a Hollywood movie, Dean says to Cindy, during his second attempt to pick her up, that he “heard pretty girls are nuts. You must be crazy insane then.” Pitch perfect. That, my friends, is how you deliver a competent neg. In fact, Cindy even acknowledges the neg concept when she replies “you have a funny way of insulting and complimenting a woman at the same time.” It wasn’t long after that they fell into bed.

The attention to detail is apparent in Blue Valentine. Cindy gets knocked up by an aloof alpha whom she allows to fuck her raw dog from behind, rutting like animals. He, naturally, cums inside her and issues a perfunctory “Oops, sorry” after he is spent. She rushes to the toilet to urinate out the sperm but it is too late. In another flashback we see her examining a pregnancy stick with fear in her eyes.

In contrast, when Dean first lays with Cindy, he goes down on her. He eats her out dutifully until she has climaxed. We do not see Dean penetrating her during that scene. The message is clear — alphas fuck the way they like to fuck, betas selflessly please their women. Since Dean never has a kid with Cindy despite a flashback scene where he expresses his desire to have one with her, we can assume that either she went on the pill or she required him to use a condom even in the marital bed.

Another message that should not be lost on the viewer: Cindy keeps the alpha asshole’s kid while denying Dean a genetic legacy of his own. She changes her mind while laying down and in stirrups in the abortionist’s office that she wants to keep the kid. Dean seals his fate when he agrees to love and support her and her kid, because he wants to build a family. Cindy, a desperate, broken single mom-to-be, eagerly jumps into a Justice of the Peace marriage with Dean.

But Cindy cannot tame her desire for a higher social status man (read: a bigger asshole), and Dean’s satisfaction with his banal employment, and his profligate flattery of Cindy’s looks, eventually undermine the charm which initially attracted her. Her growing contempt for his beta neediness is so strong that she is willing to cast Dean out and traumatize her kid, who loves Dean because he is a doting stepfather.

This is why you should never treat single moms as anything more than holes into which to dump a few inconsequential fucks. As harsh as that sounds, a worse fate awaits the man who would attempt to build a relationship with a single mom. Every minute of every day, her kid reminds her of the alpha asshole who impregnated her, and whose seed she willingly chose to bring to life. You, as the provider chump assuming the role of the unrelated daddy, will always be second best in such a woman’s eyes, particularly if she chooses not to have kids by you. You will always be that guy who wasn’t quite good enough to burden her with child.

What man would want to live with such a daily reminder of his inadequacy? Well, men without any game, for example. When you feel the restriction of lack of options, you tend to settle for the dregs of womanhood.

Dean is a sympathetic character, so it would have been easy to stoke the audience to his side, but thankfully Cianfrance avoids that pitfall. Though less superficially sympathetic, Cindy is no villain. She is just following the dictates of her Darwinian script. She knows not what she does, and so you can’t really get annoyed with her. She even says as much: “I’m done, I can’t do this anymore!” This is the wail of a woman who feels unsettling guilt for falling out of love with a good man, and yet can do nothing about it.

The only real villain in the movie is the brief appearance of Cindy’s female co-worker, a grade A cunt who shouts “Don’t let him brainwash you, honey” at Cindy as she is leaving the office to calm Dean down. She even has sharp, vampiric teeth which she flashes at Dean through the office glass.

This lack of an obvious foe perhaps explains the blank faces of the crowd leaving the theater; what do you do when there is no one to root for, and no one to revile?

And that really gets at the heart of the matter. The forces that nurture relationships and that break them apart aren’t agents of good or evil. They are laws, like gravity, that we all must accommodate if we want to find love and be happy. Blue Valentine does the best job to date of any movie at illuminating the crass functioning of the mating market and the competing, and mutually alien, desires that animate men and women. It’s a dark and claustrophobic reminder of the fragile contingencies which sustain love. If the movie makes the phalanx of women leaving the theater uncomfortable, it’s only because it hits a little too close to home.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Beta, Culture | 358 Comments

358 Responses

  1. on January 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm First

    First!

    LikeLike


  2. on January 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm Anonymous

    second!

    *golf clap*, great post fwding on…

    PREACH

    LikeLike


  3. on January 18, 2011 at 5:30 pm Confidunce

    Reading this post makes me feel the same way I felt when I learned about death at age 7 (when my dog died). It’s a cold, mean world, and no amount of wishful thinking can make it otherwise.

    LikeLiked by 1 person


  4. on January 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm lover of women

    better flic that represents modern love – Let Me In – final scene spoiler – leaving home with hot (for a kid) vampire girlfriend in a traveling box ..communicating thru morse code..and the hopeful promise that if she gets angry later in the relationship ..she wont eat me..Im cynical maybe

    LikeLike


  5. on January 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm Jokah Macpherson

    Too bad it’s only limited release right now.

    LikeLike


  6. on January 18, 2011 at 5:34 pm The Rookie

    i will have to bookmark this post and return to it after i see the flick

    LikeLike


  7. on January 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm lover of women

    ps ..not denying or trying to take away the excellent validity of the post and relevant themes .. nice work

    LikeLike


  8. on January 18, 2011 at 5:39 pm Murph

    bravo, you’ve out-done yourself with this one

    LikeLike


  9. on January 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm Mr. C

    Fucking Epic !

    LikeLike


  10. on January 18, 2011 at 5:46 pm Philosopher

    This is how it’s summarized online.

    A complex portrait of a contemporary American marriage, “Blue Valentine” tells the story of David and Cindy, a couple who have been together for several years but who are at an impasse in their relationship. While Cindy has blossomed into a woman with opportunities and options, David is still the same person he was when they met, and he is unable to accept either Cindy’s growth or his lack of it. Innovatively structured, the narrative unfolds in two distinct time frames, juxtaposing scenes of first love and youthful sexuality with those of disenchantment and discord.

    —
    What crap.
    Cindy has blossomed, while David is the same person.

    LikeLike


  11. on January 18, 2011 at 5:51 pm MACHO CAMACHO

    I think somebody a while back wanted a list of Roosh’s maxims.

    Well, you got it now, pal. Just read the list he posted of beta fuck-ups and DON’T do those. Then you’ll be an Alpha.

    LikeLike


  12. on January 18, 2011 at 5:54 pm aoefe

    Didn’t read the post – don’t like spoilers, but now I want to see it. Hope you get some royalties. 😉

    LikeLike


  13. on January 18, 2011 at 5:58 pm gl0wskull

    Sounds like the movie is spot on.

    It would be great if this movie taught Women to tame their tingles and hamsters, but as Philosopher above pointed out, although the film might make Woman a tad uncomfortable their hamsters have spun it into “Cindy is blossoming in life and David is a loser who is dragging her down”.

    Sad really, because if you can’t reach females through their favorite form of media brainwashing – the romance movie – then all hope is lost.

    So, keep rolling out the cads and sex bots.

    LikeLike


  14. on January 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm Simple Man

    Yeah man, I heard Gosling on the radio talking about this and watched some of the previews already. Coupled with your painfully thorough diatribe, I feel a pang in my belly:

    I was that guy in my last relationship. Ugh. I’ll probably vomit upon watching it, that I was such a puss.

    LikeLike


  15. on January 18, 2011 at 6:01 pm Dave froim Hawaii

    Now that is what I call a red pill movie review.

    Bravo!

    When Dean leans against a door frame, sobbing and pleading with Cindy to “tell me what to do. I’ll do whatever you want to make it better”

    Been there, done that.

    She knows not what she does, and so you can’t really get annoyed with her. She even says as much: “I’m done, I can’t do this anymore!”

    Before discovering game and re-discovering the principles of masculinity, I heard multiple variations of that line quite a bit.

    The only reason I wasn’t doomed to the same fate as Dean, is probably because she didn’t have toxic friends goading her to dump me, and I was her first and only sex partner, so she never road the carousel and didn’t have any other experiences to compare me to that would heighten the building dissatisfaction.

    But the attraction killing beta-fication?

    I will not go and see this movie. I already lived it.

    Thank God I found the red pill on the internet and avoided a similar ending.

    LikeLike


  16. on January 18, 2011 at 6:01 pm julian

    I didn’t want to see this after the trailer last week with the ukelele scene and I just thought “oh another beta love story” next ! After reading some of the other reviews online, this is not what I expected; this is raw harrowing stuff in the Cassavetes tradition. A director all Chateau readers should check out. Btw the female film critic at the Village Voice called it “misogynistic”.

    http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-12-29/film/blue-valentine-s-got-lady-problems/

    LikeLiked by 1 person


  17. on January 18, 2011 at 6:06 pm Anonymous

    A number of times during the film I wondered, what if you could give Dean a fast-acting injection of alphaness? Would Alpha-Dean be able to get the relationship back on track, or was it beyond repair? – [I’m ignoring that he would actually not bother. He’d leave, hit a bar, pick-up the next hot woman he met, and feel a lot better]

    LikeLike


  18. on January 18, 2011 at 6:08 pm Throwback

    I have few disagreements with the concepts expressed in this blog. However, I wonder what your thoughts are on the old content married (often Christians) couples of 40-50 years who have a kind of slow burn love and respect for one another and in which the male assumes a natural biblically-derived patriarch role and yet showers his wife with adoration and affection.

    What’s that?

    LikeLike


  19. on January 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm askjoe

    In one of CR’s first introduction to polyamorous hypergamy, the linked-to sociologist noted that (divorced) men don’t share the pain of rejection well (a silent bon-homme?), so most men don’t know that the pain of the beta is an all too common thing, and I think a lot of guys waste time blaming themselves.. If only guys knew that their attempts to heal a relationship in a rom-com manner will drive the bitch away even more, there’d be a revolution of happy men out there.

    So it sounds like this movie could be a good learning tool for guys out there, if they are able or instructed to learn what the proper lessons are.

    LikeLike


  20. on January 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm quetal

    you gotta watch in the company of men…it has many truths in it too

    LikeLike


  21. on January 18, 2011 at 6:17 pm MACHO CAMACHO

    Great post. My comments in (parentheses) for each maxim:

    – alpha pump and dumps and beta providers and how women react to each type of man

    (i.e. women want excitement; hypergamy is REAL; be an aloof Alpha a beta cuckold; your choice)

    – negs (AKA teasing) as a pivotal component of successful courtships

    (absolutely critical to keep women off-balance; neg them constantly; in a humorous way;)

    – the never-ending cycle of female shit testing

    (ignore the vast majority of them; answer nonsensically; e.g. Do you really love me? Answer: How can you help me fix my dog’s skin problem?)

    – the flame-out of male shit test failing

    (gooey answers to gooey questions is beta-prime; do NOT do this; fail a shit test and she will hate your guts)

    – forcing closeness before attraction is built

    (Back the fuck OFF; aloof, aloof, aloof;)

    – the near impossibility of reviving a woman’s love after it has been squandered by beta behavior

    (“You HAD your chance”; and she’ll never give you another one)

    – the deviousness of a woman’s female friends

    (self-explanatory)

    – the well-poisoning that ensues when a woman gains higher social status than her husband

    (She’s unhappy, you’re unhappy, EVERYBODY’S unhappy; you look like a beta-chump to your friends, and you look like a beta-chump to HER friends, which is even worse;

    – the absolute irrelevancy of children to influence the modern woman with regard to her relationship choices

    (most child murders are committed by the mother; look it up; corollary: women turn to God when the devil will have nothing more to do with them;)

    – the influence of competitor alpha males on a woman’s relationship trajectory

    (keep her away from Alpha competitors; if she works, she works with YOU in the workplace and helps YOU succeed; she’s happy, because she’s got a successful Alpha;)

    – the misguided idealism and romanticism of kind-hearted men

    (beta wimps who are quasi gay already; don’t be one)

    – the utter cluelessness of kind-hearted men about the nature of women

    (see above)

    – the brute self-denial men practice when they project their romanticism onto women

    (It’s YOUR plans that count, NOT hers; she is YOUR helper always; you are NEVER her helper, except by allowing her to help YOU, you ARE, in fact, helping her;)

    – the inability of women to understand — let alone control — their own maelstrom of emotions

    (estrogen is a unstable hormone; it is a force of Nature; underestimate this force and you will PAY, dearly)

    – the wisdom of the 2/3rds rule when expressing sentiments of love

    (again, she helps YOU more than you help HER)

    – the recklessness and stupidity with which the lower classes careen in and out of relationships

    (lower classes generally have lower IQ; they don’t “get” it; thus, they suffer)

    – how easily unenlightened men are blindsided by women’s biomachinations

    (men, being essentially idealistic and rational, fail to understand stark raving selfishness and insanity)

    – how easily women can be bedded with simple charm

    (Inside every woman is a Queen; speak to the Queen, and the Queen will answer – Finnish proverb)

    – how complimenting a woman can turn her off

    (Deep down, she doesn’t WANT to be better than you; she want to “trade up”;)

    – how a failing relationship can cause a man to forget what he did to attract the woman

    (Beta laziness and sloth; Nature punishes and doesn’t care; God forgives; Nature doesn’t)

    – how a man can lose his sense of self when he allows himself to be defined by the strength of his LTR or marriage

    (Again, it’s all about the man’s adventure, not the woman’s; I mean, who gives a shit about a woman’s plans?)

    – the foolishness of pursuing a relationship with a single mom

    (Cap’n Save-a-Ho’s exist by the millions; see “White Knight Syndrome”; flaming fools every last one; let them crash and burn)

    – and the tingle-killer of excessive self-deprecation.

    (Again, how many times do it need to be repeated? She wants to look UP to you; every woman wants an Alpha, and every romantic starry-eyed fool gives her exactly what she doesn’t want)

    LikeLike


  22. on January 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm Dan

    @Legion

    Serious post.

    LikeLike


  23. on January 18, 2011 at 6:29 pm College Slacker

    Damn, I must see this. I’m half tempted to bring along this chick I’m seeing out of some sort of cruel sadism

    LikeLike


  24. on January 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm lover of women

    wanna see flics..beta becomes alpha .. see .. A Prophet

    harsh well done survival best prison flic in a long time

    LikeLike


  25. on January 18, 2011 at 6:57 pm The_King

    @R

    The movie really got you didn’t it? You are writing like a vag.

    LikeLike


  26. on January 18, 2011 at 6:58 pm cptnapalm

    Legion: I think it is a pretty good representation of the movie, from the reviews I’ve read. I do not think that the reviewers for a movie like this would like the Chateau’s take on it, but they’d be hard pressed to point out why without screaming “sexism” or some other heresy-of-the-week.

    LikeLike


  27. on January 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm z

    Very impressive movie review. Hollywood, if they got their act together, could equip people with a lot of innate knowledge about humanity, but generally elects not to do so.

    LikeLike


  28. on January 18, 2011 at 7:07 pm My Name Is Jim

    Looks like this movie originally got nc-17 because it offended feminists, not bible-thumpers. Feminists are positively the worst censors on the net, just try posting the alpha worldview to sites like slate and jezebel in non-abusive, unemotional cold-light-of-day language and you’ll see. I think maybe 25 percent of my posts get through. It’s been that way since the usenet days, when soc.feminism was one of the most heavily censored of the moderated groups.

    LikeLike


  29. on January 18, 2011 at 7:09 pm erik

    Gold.

    ive been reading this blog every day for six months. The best article yet.

    LikeLike


  30. on January 18, 2011 at 7:10 pm walawala

    “”and the tingle-killer of excessive self-deprecation.””

    This is fascinating and worth a few more lines.

    I’m discovering that the learning of game is that while women HATE self-deprecation, they do want to see a softer side of their alpha men.

    For several of the women I’ve recently gamed, I’ve been seen or even accused of “over-gaming”, “Player-vibe” and being “too alpha”.

    There’s a book that examines this phenomenon in business called “The Alpha Male Syndrome”.

    The authors look at various types of alphas and their strengths and their weaknesses.

    The danger in learning game is to be too asshole without a clear understanding of Emotional Intelligence.

    The learning for newbies from this movie is that women hate guys who look to them for support. They hate being pedestalized.

    But…I’ve learned the idea of giving attention, then removing it, is an art.

    I am now in a situation where to tone-down the over-gaming I’ve tried a new game/frame.

    Not sure the name, but it goes like this:

    “I wanted to show you this photo exhibit because I used to be a photographer and it’s important to me….”

    Or, “Let’s go to this restaurant, it has Vietnamese food, I was in Vietnam and it’s important to me that you see it….”

    The “it’s important to me….” sounds beta but the impact is actually to instill in the woman that you have passions and you are inviting her in.

    It appears to pedestalize by making her “feel” special she’s being invited in while still giving me something I can later turn on or off.

    If she doesn’t like photography, or cooking or hiking or whatever, then she can either learn to like it…or lose me.

    Women want to see the guy they’re investing their ginas in, have some cachet.

    The movie demonstrates the dangers of being too beta provider. Gives away everything without establishing any anchor for the woman.

    LikeLike


  31. on January 18, 2011 at 7:35 pm j r

    From the Village Voice review:

    Even when transparently plumbing for depth, Cianfrance’s film is frustratingly surface-bound in ways that reflect, if not out-and-out misogyny, then at least a lack of interest in imbuing his female character with the rich interior life and complicated morality he gives his male lead. Cindy is written as a cipher, inexplicably veering from indifferent to Dean to purringly hot for him (and not just him—in an infuriating scene set in a women’s clinic, Cianfrance gives us just enough information about Cindy’s past to be able to write her off as a tempestuous slut), and then back to uninterested.

    I love that misogyny has lost all real meaning and is now just a catch-all for anytime you question a woman’s motives or critique her choices.

    Also, the lack of self-awareness is astounding. This is probably why women’s self-reported levels of happiness are going down while their incomes and career prospects are rising. I imagine it’s pretty hard to be happy when your own mind remains a constant mystery to you.

    LikeLike


  32. on January 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm The_King

    Just skimmed through that pseudo-indie garbage. Holy shit I rather get punched in the face or have needles stuck in my dick than sit through the whole thing. Half the movie was the beta holding her, doing jack shit like regular preoles. Damn you R for wasting my time, the only chick flick that you should recommend is Vicky, Cristina in Barcelona or Inside Cindy’s Ass.

    LikeLike


  33. on January 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm D. Simms

    that he “heard pretty girls are nuts. You must be crazy insane then.” Pitch perfect. That, my friends, is how you deliver a competent neg.

    Is that a great neg? Its too obviously a compliment. You are saying that she is exceptionally beautiful. That is not a neg, at least not the way Mystery defined the term. You have tipped your hand and shown appreciation for her looks, what Mystery used to call “an anatomical based compliment.” That is not proper neg technique.

    LikeLike


  34. on January 18, 2011 at 7:43 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Is this movie in theaters now?!? I want to see it BADLY!!!!

    LikeLike


  35. on January 18, 2011 at 7:49 pm Schfifty5

    Never before has a movie review left me with a chill…this sounds like a very rare piece of work.

    I want so bad to post a link to this on facebook…the reasons why I can’t are the reasons I hate facebook

    LikeLike


  36. on January 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm jkr

    you’ve outdone yourself

    LikeLike


  37. on January 18, 2011 at 7:58 pm yitieiriutie

    Good review, haven’t seen the movie.

    It got me wondering, have you done a review of Brown Bunny?

    LikeLike


  38. on January 18, 2011 at 8:03 pm Marcus Marcellus

    This website is not without merit or wisdom, but this obsession with alpha-this beta-that evinces a deep insecurity on the part of the author and his readers. So much worthwhile social and psychological commentary gets lost in sophomoric bravado and pseudo tough guy proleisms. If you wrote like an secure adult you’d have a wider, more sophisticated audience.

    LikeLike


  39. on January 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm Mr. C

    “” – the recklessness and stupidity with which the lower classes careen in and out of relationships

    (lower classes generally have lower IQ; they don’t “get” it; thus, they suffer) “”

    Lower classes tend to have less money or at least have to work harder to get it and as a result have less (available) choices.

    The upper classes are more likely to have support mechanisms or at least are more likely to gain access to them … psychologists, counsellors, therapists etc. ; more intelligent friends that are able to impart some advice or help.

    LikeLike


  40. on January 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm Legion

    I’m on the lookout for decent films. One question: is the Chateau joking or being serious? I haven’t read the post yet, to avoid spoilers. Or is this film a giant mould of festering shit, upon which he is lavishing sarcasm?

    LikeLike


  41. on January 18, 2011 at 6:16 pm Dan

    This whole post is superb but the last two paragraphs make it truly epic.

    Thanks for helping me escape the beta-hell matrix. It is very unlikely that I would have escaped on my own.

    The politically correct garbage is still deeply ingrained in me however. A life-time of being fed bullshit has really fucked with my mind. I accept the message of this site on a logical level but it will take time to truly internalize it.

    LikeLike


  42. on January 18, 2011 at 8:32 pm Nice Young Ladies

    Sometimes I’ve worried I’m too smart for my own good that I never settled down and focused more on my career and my music.

    I think of shallow Hal’s father’s dying words. He’s right y’know. Of course you know.

    Without the knowledge, I could easily have been this guy, if I was taller, would I have been beta-beaten into a provider role as other commenters have claimed they were? It may be late, but it’s never too late to not be that guy.

    The SNL I scored on saturday says to me casually on sunday morning, “You’ve got a big nose. And you’re old.” I was too exhausted from making her squeal all night to care. hahaha. #shittest

    ps she also discovered how much she likes being spanked . . . thats definitely one I picked up being a reader here . . .

    LikeLike


  43. on January 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm Ronin

    “The post ahead contains spoilers. If you are a giant vagina, close your eyes and think of momma’s womb.”

    The Rookie
    i will have to bookmark this post and return to it after i see the flick

    LikeLike


  44. on January 18, 2011 at 9:08 pm James A. Donald

    Marcus Marcellus piously complains:

    “So much worthwhile social and psychological commentary gets lost in sophomoric bravado and pseudo tough guy proleisms. If you wrote like an secure adult you’d have a wider, more sophisticated audience.”

    Which plea raises the question, why do the ruling elite seem like gays and betas? Biology should predict that the senior accountant at Countrywide bank should be pursued by a horde of hot panting chicks, but obviously he is not. The unsophisticated prole tough guy gets laid more.

    I conjecture that just as females are weak at logic and stuff, they are weak at judging male/male status relationships. On this theory, as they get older and wiser, they would start chasing the senior accountant at Countrywide bank, but by that time he does not care or much notice.

    LikeLike


  45. on January 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm Rum

    M.M.

    The concepts of alpha and beta do have a real existence. They exist most concretely in the programming and instincts of females. They are about a hundred times more real there than in the instincts of men or anywhere in “society” or anything that might fairly be deemed socially constructed.
    In other words, it is women who already obsess on this, deeply, although they could not ever tell you about it.
    So, just how can a sophisticated analysis of female sexual instincts avoid dealing with this topic in nearly every frame?
    And would it not be harzardous to even try?

    LikeLike


  46. on January 18, 2011 at 9:52 pm Fred

    Not to forget the totally unrealistic expectation that this woman will find happiness marrying a young doctor (get real. What doctor will marry her.) or that she will get back with her alpha guy.

    It is hard to imagine why any decent man would marry a single mother, especially one who got there by dumping a good husband.

    What a realistic portrayal of the female social animal. The only thing that continues to amaze me is the devotion that men still continue to give women. Happily, for men, the haze is lifting. The revealed landscape looks pretty unattractive, for women. The problem is, a new crop of clueless young men is always at hand.

    LikeLike


  47. on January 18, 2011 at 8:03 pm Lupo Leboucher

    Steve Sailer was a few hours ahead of CH:

    http://takimag.com/article/blue_valentine_and_the_decline_of_men/

    LikeLike


  48. on January 18, 2011 at 10:13 pm Peter Phoenix

    Watch for free here:

    http://www.movie2k.to/movie-403539-Blue-Valentine-film.html

    LikeLike


  49. on January 18, 2011 at 8:17 pm Surfed

    Here are the Maxim’s. i renumbered some of them to give me a better working handle with them. Especially when I pass them off to non-readers of the website.

    Maxims

    Maxim #1a: Women desire men of better quality than themselves.

    Maxim #2: Women are turned on by displays of male power.

    Maxim #3: Whenever an attractive girl tells you she hates assholes, or describes her experience in the past dating assholes and claims to avoid them now, or recites a laundry list of asshole-y things guys do that she disapproves of, you can bet your weight in gold bricks that she wants you to be an asshole to her.

    Maxim #4: Never trust a woman who is missing a sense of humor.

    Maxim #6: Never. Make. It. Easy. For. A. Woman.

    Maxim #7: Your girl will thank you for your steadfast devotion to your belief in yourself.

    Maxim #8: Always assume she is a slut. It helps kick the legs out from under the pedestal you will be tempted to put her on, and it is more often than not true.

    Maxim #9: The greater the age difference between the older man and the younger woman, the tighter his game will need to be, barring compensatory attributes (money).

    Maxim #10: Marriage is a social mechanism designed to exchange sex for indentured servitude.

    Maxim #11: Calling a girl out on her lie accomplishes nothing.

    Maxim #12: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

    Maxim #13: When in doubt, game.

    Maxim #14: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. Human nature says that you can‘t have it both ways.

    Maxim #15: Be narcissistic. There is no greater divergence than that between a woman’s stated disapproval of male narcissism and the rapidity with which she jumps into bed with a male narcissist.

    Maxim #16: The two fundamental propositions are male choosiness and female abundance. All alpha males have these two mindsets in common. Corollary: Male choosiness and female abundance do not necessarily have to be true for the strategy of behaving as if they are true to be effective at seduction.

    Maxim #17: The alpha male thinks and acts more like a woman than a man in matters of seduction. He understands his adversary’s psychology, and uses it to allay her defenses.

    Maxim #18: Never talk about getting into a relationship even if she says that’s what she’s looking for.

    Maxim #19: Withholding sex is the tactic of a woman who has already lost. It is mutually assured destruction.

    Maxim #20: If a woman says the word “sex” in conversation with you or about you, no matter the context, it means she’s thinking about having sex with you.

    Maxim #21: Women are more pliable in the company of competing women.

    Maxim #22: You have to make marriage an attractive alternative for MEN — not women — if you want the institution to thrive.

    Maxim #23: The vagina tingle is the principal moral code to which women subscribe. All other moral considerations are secondary.

    Maxim #24: When in doubt, ask yourself “WWJD?” What Would a Jerk Do? Then do that.

    Maxim #25: NO girl wants to be thought she isn’t a special little snowflake.

    Maxim #26: Never tell a girl how much you make, even if you’re loaded. In case of marriage, keep separate accounts.

    Maxim #27: If you want a wife, stay clear of investing much in girls who constantly remind you they like to have “fun, fun, fun” and “get bored easily”.

    Maxim #28: The more experience you have with women, the more you’ll know which women have experience with men: It is the inexperienced beta male who is most often in the dark about a woman’s sexual history and liable to be victimized by it.

    Maxim #29: Xenophobia is good for diversity.

    Maxim #30: Women will not hold it against you for trying to get into their panties on the first night. In fact, they will respect you more for your boldness and willingness to follow your manly desires.

    Maxim #31: If you plan on cheating and subsequently get caught, act like a total dick who did nothing wrong. Your girlfriend will then wonder if it’s something she did.

    Maxim #32: Commanding women to do your bidding will give you a bigger beta margin of error when needed.

    Maxim #33: Women need to test men for their grace under pressure.

    Maxim #34: If she’s hot, why would she bother with online dating?

    Maxim #35: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.

    Maxim #36: A woman’s sex and relationship advice isn’t meant to help men; it’s meant to distract men from what really works to attract women.

    Maxim #37: High IQ is no inoculation against beta delusion. If anything, high IQ obstructs clear thinking about women’s nature.

    Maxim #38: The longer you are away from seducing new women, the harder it will be to seduce one when you want.

    Maxim #39: The worst thing to happen to women in America was women’s suffrage.

    Maxim #40: Men are becoming ever bigger betas in their dealings with women. Men are losing the leverage to shape and push women’s child-like and selfishly amoral political opinions in logical, just and long-term oriented directions.

    Maxim #41: The definition of Inner Game: Hit on every woman who excites you. Make life uncomfortable for them, not yourself.

    Maxim # 42: When a girl signals that she doesn’t enjoy blowjobs or sex, do not spend one second more with her. Your libido is too important to gamble on such a girl.

    Maxim #43: In their sexual primes women’s attraction for assholes is at its strongest. You can catch a lot of hungry flies with honey, but shit attracts the most well-fed flies.

    Maxim #44: If you get sexually rejected, don’t admit it to yourself, and especially don’t admit it to the girl.

    Maxim #45: Women will screech louder the closer your words get to damaging or exposing vulnerabilities in their sexual market value.

    Maxim #46: Whenever you hear or read the words “gender”, “gendered”, “gendered norm”, “subtle gender bias”, or “increasingly egalitarian, yet there remains…” know that you are dealing with a leftwing moonbat, blank-slate believing fruitcake who cannot deal with the fact that men and women are biologically different from birth.

    Maxim #47: Awareness of a woman’s games is a precision-guided weapon in a man’s arsenal of seduction.

    Maxim #48: Respect the momentum.

    Maxim #49: The rare older woman-younger man pairing is like a lab experiment gone wrong. It violates the natural order of things, and leaves its practitioners emotionally twisted and in a constant mental race to hyper-rationalize their sub-par mate choice.

    Maxim #50: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.

    Maxim #51: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

    Maxim #52: Underneath the veneer of civilized discourse we act in ways that are brazenly self-interested in the short term.

    Maxim #53: All kneel before the god of biomechanics, by sword or by surrender.

    Maxim #54: When a woman has incentive to lie, she will choose lying over honesty EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    Maxim #55: Run for your Life Shit Tests:
    BEWARE the classic gun-to-the-head marriage pressure administered by your typical non-descript, rudderless late 20’s/early 30’s woman.
    When a woman pressures you mercilessly to marry her, bullying to the point of threatening a break up – this is the shit test of ALL shit tests. Treat it as such – If you fail this shit test, you are RUINED. FOR. LIFE.

    Maxim #60: Waving a roll of benjamins at a woman will not give her tingles. In fact, it will often do the opposite.

    Maxim #73: When a girl emphatically insists she is so over you, she’s never been more into you.

    Maxim #21: Betas pay, alphas split, super alphas profit.

    Maxim #39: A woman’s standards are like a house of cards: kick out one from the bottom and the whole edifice crashes down.

    Maxim #85: As women’s bodies age and weaken, their rationalization hamsters grow bigger and stronger. Eventually, the hamster is powerful enough to take control of all higher order consciousness.

    Maxim #87: The more expensive or thoughtful the gift you give a girl, the greater the risk that she will subconsciously begin to think she is too good for you.

    Corollary to Maxim #87: If you are dating out of your league, or you are dating a young hot babe in her prime, you should do the exact opposite of what everyone will tell you to do — *don’t* buy her expensive gifts. Be particularly wary of advice from women. No woman in the world is capable of thinking clearly or impartially on the matter of “acceptable” levels of male provisioning. Even old, fat hausfrau hogs will expect mountains of jewels in offerings from men.

    Maxim #105: Where there’s incentive, there are lies.

    Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

    Maxim #198: Use of the word “disenfranchised” or other similar nomenclature of deconstructivist post-modern pablum automatically discredits an argument for serious consideration.

    Maxim #200: Chicks dig guys willing to risk an early, gruesome death. Expendability is a DHV.

    LikeLike


  50. on January 18, 2011 at 10:21 pm lover of women

    once you value your time energy body more than NEED a womans body ..the game is up ..I dont mean in a narcisstic way ..just a true self poised way..the pendulum shifts…

    you spend time doing stuff that interests you..make money be competent well rounded interesting..thats the gig ..women are like flies then ..a by product of a well ordered functioning life..

    hard to do in your 20’s ..but worth the foundation building for your 30’s 40’s ..

    Guy in the film .. was a no where good guy ..if he had a life..and not a life for the reason of impressing women.. with a few small changes to his game .. which as documented was weak.. he could have maintained that relationship..easy ..question would have been ..Why?

    I guess …love connection loyalty ..sense of family ?

    LikeLike


  51. on January 18, 2011 at 10:26 pm Albert Magnus

    I just saw the movie and I would like to point out a couple of things:

    1) Maybe I misinterpreted it, but I thought she dumped the wrestler. That’s why he was leaving her psycho phone calls, showing up at her parents with flowers and beating up Dean. I thought it was a good example of of one-itis.

    2) Michelle Williams is “my type”. Something to do with the lips and narrow hips. Her tits lacked a certain fluffiness that I imagined though.

    3) Humanity needs to cure baldness. I’m sure even Yul Brenner looked better with hair.

    LikeLike


  52. on January 18, 2011 at 10:28 pm Wize

    Watched that movie, and that sex scene in the hotel was an important scene, because it was the scene where she gave him the chance to save his marriage: He should have banged her like the whore she was. That girl actually, in retrospect, was doing him a favor but he was too beta to acknowledge it.

    There are two great lessons I ever learned in game, and both came from friend’s uncle:

    1. A woman’s desire for an alpha male, is stronger that what might actually be good for her.

    2. A woman will embrace a man who gives her what she wants, but she’ll only be loyal to a man who gives her what she needs, and what she needs is someone who is better than her.

    Those are the cornerstones of game to me.

    LikeLike


  53. on January 18, 2011 at 10:28 pm Mr. C

    Doctors tend to marry other Doctors.

    Surgeons tend to marry nurses.

    LikeLike


  54. on January 18, 2011 at 10:47 pm Mellors1

    As long as we’re looking at cultural artifacts, what do you think of this incredible blog by a super-Christian pastor who on some level understands betas and the women who desire alphas – or think they do?
    http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-you-sure-you-want-husband-who.html

    “Are you sure you want a husband who…?
    “by Dan Phillips
    “…leads?

    “I was a young(er), inexperienced pastor, and befriended two church members. … As I got to know them better, I got the message very clearly from “Suzy”: she was really frustrated with “Bill,” because Bill just wouldn’t lead. Suzy made this known in many ways, over and over. Bill was not leading, Suzy really wanted him to, she was really bitter and angry and frustrated over it.

    “Well I was youngish and green, and my dutiful goal was clear to me: I needed to work with Bill, help him become a leader in that marriage. So I spent time with Bill, worked with him, made suggestions. Bill was initially a bit leery but not unwilling. In fact, he became very cooperative.

    The result? Bill became an effective leader, Suzy was radiantly happy, both praised and honored God, both loved me, and they remain dear friends to this day.
    …
    That sound you just heard, in that pause? It was 97% of the pastors reading this, laughing bitterly and saying “Riiiight!”

    “Those pastors can tell you what really came next. Suzy was not happy with Bill or with me, and both ended up hating me. Why? I’m sure many of you will assume I did things wrong, and I won’t disagree with you. But the bottom-line was that Suzy did not want a leader for a husband, and Bill’s reticence was a form of self-protection forged from that conflict.

    “Bill’s shortcomings gave Suzy what she really wanted. She really wanted something to complain about in her husband. She wanted a tale to tell on him in gatherings. She wanted something to bring her sympathy and commiseration, to make her look martyred and longsuffering. It fed into her self-image. And she wanted to stay in charge.

    Take away from that, and she lost something dear to her. See, everyone does what (s)he does because (s)he believes it will bring happiness. So this poor woman was batting away what she needed by the very things she did in pursuit of what she wanted. And I was sap enough to come between her and it, in kind of a Proverbs 26:17 no-win situation.

    Ladies, does any of that strike any chord within you, any “ouchy” chord? Look, it’s just you and me, nobody’s watching. You can be candid. You grouse about your poor schlub of a husband who doesn’t initiate this and doesn’t pursue that and doesn’t decide for himself and do the other thing. Maybe your pastor and girlfriends know how frustrated you are. Maybe your pastor knows. Worst of all, maybe your children even know.

    Let me ask you just two questions, as I’ve asked many more elsewhere.

    First question: have you possibly contributed to his abdication?

    Note the careful wording. [Bible quoting here deleted]

    So how does he feel about leading you? Does his heart sing at the prospect? Or does he wince and cringe and groan, because he knows every decision will be faulted, criticized, found wanting, and countered; every mistake will noted, analyzed, and commented on; and every success will be minimized or credited elsewhere? Were I to ask your husband who his most loyal admirer and supporter was, would your name leap to his smiling lips? Should it?

    “Your husband listens to you better than you think he does, very possibly better than you listen to yourself. He hears you. What you say has an impact. If he’s off in a corner somewhere rolled up into a ball, it may say all sorts of horrible things about him. But I’m not talking to him right now. I’m talking to you. And I’m asking you — have you played any part in that?

    “Second question: do you really want him to become a leader?

    “You see, the thing about a leader is he leads. That doesn’t mean that he always demands his way, untouched by others’ input. That’s a fool, not a leader (Proverbs 12:15; 13:10; 15:22; 20:18). But it does mean that he will lead, that he will make the final decision. And it means that you must follow, and that not in a formal, outward, dotted-i-but-resentful-hearted way; you should follow respectfully and from the heart. At least, that’s what God says (Ephesians 5:22f.; 1 Peter 3:1-6 [remember this post?]).
    ….
    “But in parting I will try to sum it all up in one final pointed question: are you the sort of wife you would want to lead, if you were in your husband’s shoes?”

    LikeLike


  55. on January 18, 2011 at 11:24 pm Begby

    thanks for the bang-up job compiling the maxims, surfed.

    LikeLike


  56. on January 18, 2011 at 11:24 pm T-Doggz

    Whoa! Fascinating analysis. I might actually see it now. I only heard pc critics calling it *dark* and implying it was sort of X rated…

    I bet it through the RomCom crowd for a loop to see their beloved Gosling going beta. (Sounds like a gutsy call actually).

    Fascinating, as I said. Kudos Chateau for your unrestricted analysis. If the NY Times and co, were equally honest, I might see more movies.

    LikeLike


  57. on January 18, 2011 at 11:33 pm Augustine DeCarthage

    CR, good post. Can’t wait to see the movie. Maybe it will be the spark to revive my blog.

    Surfed, thanks for putting those together. Brilliant.

    LikeLike


  58. on January 18, 2011 at 9:38 pm Stud Dynamite

    James A. Donald, because “unsophisticated prole tough guy” can beat the crap out of your honor student.. sorry, senior accountant. To you and all complaining about too much alpha/beta talk, you don’t quite get it. This is not even about losers and winners in life and even less so about what’s good for “society”, this is about what is attractive to women in the same way big perky tits are attractive to men.

    Thanks for the pointer, definitely will watch.

    LikeLike


  59. on January 18, 2011 at 11:41 pm LOLzLOLz

    Okay, I’m gonna pull out the stops for you shmucks who can’t afford movie time right now like the rest of us mere mortals:

    http://www.movizxpress.com/2011/01/18/blue-valentine-2010-dvdscr-ac3-xvid-t0xic-ink/

    Also, don’t forget that the same [amazing] actor who stars in “blue valentine” was also in” Lars and the real girl” which was really sweet and an almost hilarious follow-up movie to watch after “blue valentine”.

    Life? Live it.

    Love? Give it?

    Heart? Protect it?

    Hate? Reject it.

    LikeLike


  60. on January 18, 2011 at 11:42 pm Green Tea

    I beg to differ that she is only a 7-7.5. When they first met she is a solid 8 maybe even an 8.5. Seriously a thin, cute, blonde girl in this country is sadly way above par of the obese Oprah watching trainwrecks that so many women in America are.

    LikeLike


  61. on January 19, 2011 at 12:02 am Gorbachev

    I’m thinking this is a good date movie.

    LikeLike


  62. on January 18, 2011 at 10:03 pm CB

    Great post. This blog is the greatest literary resource I’ve come across since the dawn of the internet.

    LikeLike


  63. on January 19, 2011 at 12:04 am Solvemygirlproblems

    AFC regression = the bane of self-proclaimed Alphas

    “sadly way above par of the obese Oprah watching trainwrecks that so many women in America are.”

    lmfaoooo nice comment

    LikeLike


  64. on January 19, 2011 at 12:06 am Chris from Dublin

    Regulars of the Chateau will be interested to read about a plotline in Eastenders, the hit soap opera from the BBC in London, which is watched regularly both in Britain and Ireland.   Teenager Michelle Fowler becomes impregnated by Dennis (“Dirty Den”) Watts, the owner of the Queen Vic, the local pub.   Den is a serial philanderer and even though Angie, his own wife, is still well fuckable for a woman in her forties, Den continually bangs young hot London chicks and older classier birds – and these upper-crust English ones are particularly dirty in bed.   When Michelle tells Den of her pregnancy he initially responds with kind words but, from that points onwards, consistently refuses to have anything to do with her.   This is weapons grade Alpha-asshole – suit yourself by making cooing noises to the woman at first and then going off and doing your own thing.
     
    So, eight and a half months later Michelle has a baby girl, who she names Victoria (“Vicki” in a suitable nasal London / Estuary drawl) seemingly a subconscious invocation of the pub whose owner tupped her in the first instance.   Michelle never discloses the identity of the father.   Den completely shuns the child and she.   Her working class omega parents and harridan grandmother are distraught and, in a moment of weakness, Michelle lets herself become engaged to Lofty, a nice, herby, low-beta man in his twenties with a shit income.   Michelle and Lofty get married and, almost immediately, Michelle realises that she does not love or want to remain with a clingy and needy beta-herb provider.    However she has become pregnant by Lofty.
     
    Michelle, without hesitation, aborts his child and divorces him.  Lofty suffers the bitter rage of the spurned beta and, when decorating their flat, paints “slag” all over the living room walls – upon discovering that she has aborted his child he cracks up and leaves the plot.   Eastenders still runs today and is one of the BBC’s biggest cashcows.
     
    Let’s just clarify this for those American chateau-lovers who are not used to the ripeness of Blighty television (pip-pip, old chap!):
     
    – woman aborts her devoted husband’s child while keeping bastard of asshole who’d shame Skittles Man
    – in a soap-opera that is broadcast on BBC1, the mainstream British TV channel
    – at 7.30 in the evening
    – in 1987.
     
    Yes!   Nineteen EIGHTY seven!!!!!
    That’s my bombshell – British television was running a story that so eerily follows the alpha-beta paradigm it might as well have come directly from the chateau!!
    They did it nearly quarter of a century ago to a mainstream, primetime British and Irish audience who were just finishing their bangers and mash at half seven in the evening!
    Now, try THAT stateside, milquetoasts!
     
    The more things change … !

    LikeLike


  65. on January 18, 2011 at 10:08 pm samseau

    good job with the list surf.
    I will watch this movie because of its alleged accurate depection of reality. movies that follow the truth are always the best movies.

    Have you guys seen jules et jim or the 400 blows? these films are also accurate epithets for our time.

    LikeLike


  66. on January 18, 2011 at 10:21 pm Sal Paradise

    I agree. All dudes should see this movie to avoid the pitfalls that Gosling’s character makes. Great movie!

    LikeLike


  67. on January 19, 2011 at 12:31 am luvsic

    right on gorby, i’m taking my girl and telling her how much i liked it.

    a good dose of dread now and then

    LikeLike


  68. on January 19, 2011 at 12:43 am xsplat

    glowskul

    Sad really, because if you can’t reach females through their favorite form of media brainwashing – the romance movie – then all hope is lost.

    Hope?

    LikeLike


  69. on January 19, 2011 at 12:46 am julian

    “but she’ll only be loyal to a man who gives her what she needs, and what she needs is someone who is better than her.”

    If a woman is always looking to trade up, wouldn’t this in essence mean the man is always trading down ?

    LikeLike


  70. on January 19, 2011 at 12:48 am xsplat

    Julian

    Btw the female film critic at the Village Voice called it “misogynistic”.

    The female definition of misogyny is divorced from any notion of slander. It’s simply any negative thought towards women, whether it be true or not.

    The frightening thing is that most woman are simply not mentally capable of admitting or even acknowledging any public fault. The way their brains are wired is literally insane.

    LikeLike


  71. on January 19, 2011 at 12:54 am xsplat

    … in which the male assumes a natural biblically-derived patriarch role and yet showers his wife with adoration and affection.

    What’s that?

    It’s probably the 2/3rds rule.

    LikeLike


  72. on January 19, 2011 at 1:03 am Lupo Leboucher

    Jimmy D wrote: “why do the ruling elite seem like gays and betas? “

    Let’s see: Gay men who spend all their money on consumer goods, and men who are strapped to the slave wheel of work to pay off their wives and ex wives… I wonder why the ruling elite likes them gays, betas and single women with their hamster wheels?

    LikeLike


  73. on January 19, 2011 at 1:07 am Rum

    Again; the real location of the reality of the alpha/beta dichotomy is in the female hind-brain.

    LikeLike


  74. on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 am Reality Pains

    Again, the truth in this movie is subtle in that she is faking all of her orgasms with all of the men she encounters including the one she finally “settles” for.

    Even though the guy is going down her, it doesn’t matter because like 90% of women who don’t get off by tongue or fingering themselves even, they too need electric stimulation and tongue and penis don’t do shit for ’em.

    Women really need to wake up and realize that they just don’t need dick at all just like men should wake up and realize that they don’t just need pussy at all.

    Relationships and building a bond with someone is far more important than just banging any skanky thank that says “yes” (especially since you all demoralize woman who say “yes” in the first place).

    Love means sacrifice and ‘manning up’ whether some of you pussified pansies who are a sad ass excuse for an “alpha pretender” like it or not.

    Grow UP.

    LikeLike


  75. on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 am xsplat

    Feminists are positively the worst censors on the net

    Yes, their state of denial is SOCIAL. Thoughts are denied in the PUBLIC realm. What happens inside their own heads, no one, not even the girls themselves know.

    LikeLike


  76. on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 am Peter Phoenix

    At least she didn’t tell him it was his.

    LikeLike


  77. on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 am Rollory

    I just wanna point this out:
    We are Wheatons

    (linked from a recent blog entry of his)

    Yeah, I was a Star Trek fan in my foolish youth. And yeah, I admit it, I thought Wesley was cool. So it’s been with that same slow sense of futility that I watched Wheaton turn into an accessory to some woman using him to raise some other guy’s kids.

    Mind you, the other guy seems to have made a couple of rather worthwhile kids. Even just looking at them in that photo: they look like decent young men. But … who’s the immature kid in that photo? The one who’s play-acting at being a man? The one who’s being tolerated by the hard-faced woman? The one who has never had, and will never have, children of his own flesh?

    Seeing things like that saddens me.

    LikeLike


  78. on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 am xsplat

    If a woman is always looking to trade up, wouldn’t this in essence mean the man is always trading down ?

    I realized years ago that an excellent trade for a man is intelligence for looks. Imagine that your qualities add up to 100 mate value points. You get to spend them for the various positive qualities in a girl; looks, conversational skills, sex skills, cheerful temperment, values, etc. It’s like creating an online role playing character – you can’t create a perfect being – you choose between an strong ogre or a savy wizard.

    Men should aim for a prettier girl, who is dumber than he is, trading on his strengths for the acquisition. The best deal you’ll get is if the girl is from an extremely low class, relative to yourself, and in that case you have extra points to spend on brains.

    LikeLike


  79. on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 am walawala

    I started watching this movie after exhausting all other choices on a recent flight.

    Interesting dynamic. The Josh Duhamel character Tom, is the ambivalent conflicted groom, the Katie Holmes character as Laura his romantic foil who still holds a torch for this alpha badboy who’s marrying Laura’s best friend. Laura is the maid of honour.

    Pure chick flick. But what’s interesting is the way in which alpha Tom stares, remains aloof, disappears and eventually bangs Laura one last time before his wedding.

    Throughout this, the two women are fighting over Tom. Tom does show a beta side at the end when he confeses to being scared of going further with Laura.

    But it seems to me it’s a good example of Beta-provider game.

    Chicks would love this film and this guy, the alpha who is marrying the rich, smart chick, while still banging the emotional intense basket-case who throws herself at him.

    The other male characters are all Tom’s beta orbiters.

    All the other girls want to bang Tom.

    Watch it with a game-eye and it’s not a bad film.

    The beta-provider game is killer. The fact he can confess to being scared in order to bang Laura…pure gold. This is Master Class.

    LikeLike


  80. on January 19, 2011 at 1:56 am walawala

    LikeLike


  81. on January 19, 2011 at 12:11 am Rivelino

    this is why CH is still the man.

    LikeLike


  82. on January 19, 2011 at 12:26 am Tim

    Haven’t commented in awhile, you’re commitment to your craft is exceptional. This was an excellent parceling of a movie which I will now most certainly see. My heart is almost broken for Gosling’s character, even now, after reading your review. I intend on twisting up one of Vancouver’s best weed specimens and getting a nice glow before the movie starts.

    Oddly, Alaina, of http://www.mssinglemama.com fame, has recently broken up with her guy. I wonder if this is how it all went down…

    LikeLike


  83. on January 19, 2011 at 2:27 am Guest

    For those who want to see the movie

    http://www.moviewatch.in/watch-1723867-Blue-Valentine

    LikeLike


  84. on January 19, 2011 at 2:28 am Lindsey Buckingham

    Dude, what you did for my life is amazing. Man, I couldn’t get over (you-know-obvious-who) and my heart was an effed up emotional minefield.

    LikeLike


  85. on January 19, 2011 at 2:30 am lawyerjourno

    but it is true about almost all the movies. Not many films show about games. Can anyone tell us where are the movies which show about ALpha males and their games. …lack of all this may be because most of the movies portray victory to moral values than games!

    LikeLike


  86. on January 19, 2011 at 12:35 am Toby

    I see that a lot.

    I had this friend who always pester me with the question “why don’t you have a girlfriend?”. He always ask that, even though I already had several sex partners. He thinks that I should try being in a committed relationship…

    He could witty talk a girl to give him her number, turn them to his girlfriend, then start to act differently than when he was still gaming her and end up being dump by the girl and he wonders “what happend?” everytime we go on a drinking session.

    I always tell him to stay the way he was when he was still gaming the girl or you can be like me, game them and fuck them and dump them if you don’t want them anymore.

    After hearing that from me he would reply “Why would I be a loser like you? No wonder you don’t have girlfriend til now!”

    What an idiot my friend is.

    I guess its really hard to swallow your mistakes when its pointed out by someone who you think is beneath you. Ego is, most of the time, a game breaker if you can’t keep it in check…

    LikeLike


  87. on January 19, 2011 at 3:19 am Monex

    I even enjoyed that they both gained weight to play their older selvesits insanely annoying to watch very skinny actresses play downtrodden wives. Its hard to even choose whose side youre on.

    LikeLike


  88. on January 19, 2011 at 4:18 am n/a

    See Hitchcock’s “Marnie.” Connery takes down a nice brittle blonde. Tippi Hedren a master of the bitch-shield if ever there was one.

    So much truth about male/female antics served up in a kind of hysterical emulsion.

    Females fascinated by this film. You can learn a great deal about a girl’s sensibilities by showing her this film and watching her out the corner of your eye.

    LikeLike


  89. on January 19, 2011 at 4:57 am Paladin

    This movie sounds very interesting, downloading it now! The local cinemas aren’t showing it, sadly, but there is always hope…

    LikeLike


  90. on January 19, 2011 at 4:58 am Ubermind

    Your american use of the world – theater – already shows your brainwashed – advertisment buying degeneracy.

    A theater – is a place where actual living people play drama or comedy on stage for you. it is something that is created a new every time and arises from sweat and emotion of real human beings. It is art. There are no computer graphics and childish unrealities. It is a place of cultural heritage and some remains of intelect are usually needed to enjoy it. Both of these are rare among americans – so it seems. I bet most of you have never been to a theater yet you use and abuse this word as you are told by your feminist-Holywood masters. Miserable.

    The place where Holywood movies is showed is called a cinema. It is the best word this place deserves. It should actually be called brain-to-shit-transformer. Even if some good movies sometimes wander in there.

    LikeLike


  91. on January 19, 2011 at 4:59 am Mr. C

    Worth posting again …

    LikeLike


  92. on January 19, 2011 at 5:20 am Zoo

    Sounds good. How does it compare to the “The Last American Virgin”?

    I laughed for about 10 minutes at the end of that movie. Never has a more realist situation been dramatized in film.

    LikeLike


  93. on January 19, 2011 at 5:30 am Jerry

    Thanks for the film recommendations and perspective.

    Having the ability to do off-the-cuff film reviews with knowledge of a woman’s favorite or new film’s back-history, film location, trivia and bloopers is a major DHV, plus it fills out a first date with very little downtime, giving a smart woman the impression you would not bore her if she were to have a relationship with you.

    It used to also provide a segway into another date (“I can take you to see that Friday night at the Drive-In”) but that option has since been overtaken by the woman saying “Wow, I have to download that immediately”. 😉

    It still falls into “shared experience” game (which differs from the shared hobbies pitfall).

    Just last night on a first date I convinced a young woman to download the new “True Grit” immediately.

    I recently saw “Love and Other Drugs”. I couldn’t relate to it because Anne Hathaway looked like a concentration camp victim.

    It was about an alpha male reduced to a sniveling beta by this concentration camp victim whom he couldn’t get enough sex from.

    Very.Painful.To.Watch

    LikeLike


  94. on January 19, 2011 at 6:16 am Mr. C

    I have even heard female reviewers on independent radio describe “Love and Other Drugs” as a stupid piece of shit movie.

    LikeLike


  95. on January 19, 2011 at 7:32 am lover of women

    The idea that you can control your woman thru alpha game ..great sex mastery or money in the USA within a marriage especially with kids … is in general ..a dream.

    Yes there are exceptions ..but in general ..say 95% cant do it ..not because of lack of game ..but because the weight of the culture is to great …

    LikeLike


  96. on January 19, 2011 at 7:52 am Wize

    After watching the American premiere of Skins, I can honestly say that the American public has been beaten to a pulp, much more than their European counterparts.

    LikeLike


  97. on January 19, 2011 at 7:58 am xsplat

    The idea that you can control your woman thru alpha game ..great sex mastery or money in the USA within a marriage especially with kids … is in general ..a dream.

    Even in the best of circumstances, keeping a woman down can be hard work.

    I had to go to quite extreme measures today to get my personal-assistant-plus back in line. Even if you are Mr. King Shit, the girl eventually assumes she is Mrs. King Shit. Girls get ideas as to their place; wrong ideas. I had to threaten to leave this girl penniless and jobless to correct her attitude.

    It’s bloody hard stressful work to keep your bitches in line.

    LikeLike


  98. on January 19, 2011 at 8:16 am Jerry

    Normally I get a sadomasochistic kick out of seeing the average chic flic’s descent into a fantasy world that I know passes for reality back in the US. These normally come in four different flavors:

    1) Dork finally gets some hand with his best friend who LBJF’d him 20 years ago and, since then, slept with 40 other men and had a child from one of them. In his getting the hand after 20 years, she deigns to accept his hand in marriage and we’re supposed to feel he finally made himself worthy. Women tend to weep at how “romantic” the ending is. I let them know that, in real life, no man of value would accept sloppy 41sts.

    Main Example: When Harry Met Sally
    New Example: The Switch

    2) Alpha enjoys the ladies but meets anorexic A-lister and, shortly, is ready to burn his black book of phone numbers because he could never again touch another woman.

    Main Example: The Pick Up Artist (with Molly Ringwald)
    New Example: Love and Other Drugs

    3) Fate separates two people when they are young but they find each other in late middle age or old age and the man is ready to propose on the spot.

    Main Examples: Forever Young, Mamma Mia
    New Example: A Golden Christmas

    4) A Sisterhood Includes Some Cheating Men Who Get What’s Coming to Them (Violently) While the Victim is Loved By Her Sisters and Their Beta Husbands (with the bad ex-husband regretting his loss at the end)

    Main Example: Waiting To Exhale (only second to Thelma & Louise as the most disgusting piece of feminist trash ever produced)
    New Example: Why Did I Get Married & Why Did I Get Married Too (explains why black men side with feminists more than white guys do)

    Of the 4 types, I have no serious problem with #3 (the fate separated us fantasy).

    But the other types, especially the new “Love and Other Drugs,” are like watching someone with long fingernails scratch them across a blackboard.

    The main plot device of this new film is that the Anne Hathaway character has early stage Parkinson’s and would be an extreme burden down the line to anyone who married her, despite supposedly being a prime sexual catch now. So she lives her life like a slut and tells the hero this, because she doesn’t want to be hurt by getting into a committed relationship and having the husband leave her later.

    This device came across to me, however, as a thinly disguised substitute for any young woman’s realization that she will get old and unattractive, down the line, for any man she marries. This realization should not encourage the woman to slut it up early on.

    The alpha male, after getting totally smitten by the woman for being a feminist and a slut, is basically played into having a guilt trip about her Parkinson’s and making the commitment to care for her the rest of their lives.

    The whole film came across to me as presenting a guilt trip scenario to all alpha males with a good heart to “please commit to us ladies”. There’s almost an admission of “we may be attractive now but we are going to need you alpha males to love us for our minds later on (and to Hell with the betas)”.

    Apparently even young women with early stage Parkinson’s are supposed to hope for an alpha instead of just a beta provider.

    That theme wouldn’t have been half bad (it played well in “Love Story” back in the 1970s and it also played OK in “Autumn in NY” despite Richard Gere’s bad acting and long white hair). Both of these tearjerkers featured the young woman falling ill and dying.

    But in those films the woman was not a feminist slut where said characteristic was the reason for the man falling in love with her.

    LikeLike


  99. on January 19, 2011 at 8:25 am PA

    This one is one of Chateau’s best posts ever.

    LikeLike


  100. on January 19, 2011 at 8:27 am Thor

    I just saw the movie. And Cindy/Williams
    is better than a 7.5!

    And, you REALLY have to work on keeping
    straight what is the “now” and what is
    flashbacks.

    And Gosling plays a really low-level prole,
    I doubt that even game would work in the
    long run when his wife is so much smarter
    (even though emotionally totally confused,
    like most women) and besides she is
    surrounded by high-status men – even if
    they would never marry her.

    He just cannot measure up in the long run!

    Thor

    LikeLike


  101. on January 19, 2011 at 8:39 am Workshy Joe

    I’m definitely going to see this film with my girlfriend.

    LikeLike


  102. on January 19, 2011 at 8:48 am Stress

    Great article and great analysis. I was thinking the same after seeing the film. Its a very real portrait of relationships. Another film id argue that got it right but without the great details and as good acting would be “Casino”.

    LikeLike


  103. on January 19, 2011 at 8:58 am Anonymous44

    Surfer, thank you for the list of maxims.

    LikeLike


  104. on January 19, 2011 at 9:00 am Jerry

    Just saw the trailer for Blue Valentine. Can’t relate to the concentration camp victim look the man falls for. I also can’t see why he’s ever a great catch (lower class alkie? – I can sing with a guitar better than he can and I can’t even play the guitar).

    I’ll have to see this however…but the lesson so far is don’t be a lower class, know-nothing alkie who doesn’t know how to shave or work out with weights and with no ambition and who can’t even sing to save his life.

    New CNN article “Men Have Upper Hand in College Sexual Economy” is getting some great comments that suggest a lot of men read this blog:

    http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/men-have-upper-hand-in-sexual-economy/?hpt=C2

    This other CNN article from today, that discusses the woman who was playing on Facebook while her 13 month old drowned in the bathtub, doesn’t say where the father was or how he might have lost custody and been paying excessive child support that funded her playing Farmville:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/18/colorado.mother.charged/index.html

    Finally, Todd Seavey at http://www.toddseavey.com is going to town about his resentment of the PUA community for supposedly trashing him a few months ago along with the NPR (National Pubic Radio) feminists (a rare incidence where NPR and the Chateau were supposedly in agreement).

    But, as I recall, the original Chateau article about Seavey actually defended him by saying that the video of him publicly criticizing his ex-girlfriend should not be used to ridicule him (as a beta or whatever) more than a video of Brittany Spears ridiculing her ex would be used to ridicule her.

    He calls both PUAs and feminists “haters.”

    LikeLike


  105. on January 19, 2011 at 9:13 am Jerry

    Best comment comeback under the first CNN article:

    Sarah: “You’re a catch I’d love to cook and clean for. Gag.”

    Zeus: “You’d probably burn the water”

    LikeLike


  106. on January 19, 2011 at 9:41 am green player

    Wow! And to think I almost passed this one up! An unexpectedly manly movie, this is. I’m gonna check it out, and bring my notepad.

    LikeLike


  107. on January 19, 2011 at 9:56 am Madras

    The subject of “class lines and this blog” is an interesting one.

    Every review I have heard of that movie, even short snippet reviews, have referred to as about the ending of a “BLUE COLLAR MARRIAGE.” Yet here that is never mentioned.

    This combined with the prefixation on SWPL and the attention paid to women purposefully geting pregnant out of wedlock sort is a not so subtle tell of where we are coming from class-wise.

    A lof what is written here is true, but all of it is a lot less intesne or vibrant for the better educated, higher earners. HTH. TY.

    LikeLike


  108. on January 19, 2011 at 10:01 am Turts

    The premise of this movie disgusts me. It gives good women a bad name.

    Not all women are like the bitch in this movie.

    I hope a safe fell on her in the end, and Dean found someone who really appreciates a good family man.

    LikeLike


  109. on January 19, 2011 at 10:21 am Stud Dynamite

    Wize

    Watched that movie, and that sex scene in the hotel was an important scene, because it was the scene where she gave him the chance to save his marriage: He should have banged her like the whore she was

    Kinda goes back to my comment in previous post…
    I’ve banged some whores, free and otherwise, what exactly is the difference between banging her like a whore or like not a whore? Rose petals and kisses and long cunny sessions with the latter? I’m confused. Guess I gotta watch the movie and that scene, heh.

    LikeLiked by 1 person


  110. on January 19, 2011 at 10:36 am Jerry

    Here’s an old, well-written, and amusing article “Men, the Gender Wars Are Over and We Won” that I don’t actually agree with:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/men-the-gender-wars-are-over-%E2%80%94-we-won/

    It presents, via sarcasm, the tired argument that alphas are supposed to wish the sexual revolution had never happened thus giving them more of an advantage over betas (by implication: the author apparently doesn’t understand the concept that an alpha might be glad to have more access to women because of 1st Wave Feminism).

    Going down this “anti-premarital-sex” road will only hurt the GOP and big time.

    It’s certainly not a valid men’s rights issue to say “We demand less access to women” or “We want to get laid less”.

    LikeLike


  111. on January 19, 2011 at 11:08 am T

    do yourself a favor and go read the reviews of this movie on rottentomatoes.com. while you can probably imagine how a bunch of lib critics interpreted the film, its a nice reminder of our current state of affairs.

    one disturbing thing to me was that, having read 5 reviews, not one of them mentioned that their child was not his. i guess maybe this could be classified as a spoiler (haven’t seen the movie yet) but i tend to think that its just selective omission. how dare anyone care that the child wasn’t his! shut up, beta, and keep the paychecks coming!

    also chuckled at a female critic who called it “misogynist” because it insinuated (and rightfully so) that she was a slut because she admitted to 20+ sexual partners (!!!!).

    in short – gotta see it. anything that causes this kind of confusion/commotion among critics has got to be worth seeing…

    LikeLike


  112. on January 19, 2011 at 11:27 am Sidewinder

    Madras,

    I agree with you and the neglect towards class differences has been one of my longstanding complaints of this blog. Class is the most taboo subject in american society, especially for conservatives. It makes them very uncomfortable to discuss. To his credit, i have noticed that the editor has incorporated more analysis of class differences in the past 3 months.

    You are correct. Higher class women from stable 2-parent homes on average do not behave as egregiously as the hypergamous, alpha-chasing slut stereotype that is often assumed as the female baseline on this blog. Being from an upper middle, or upper class background is no guarantee of virtue, by no means, but when speaking in generalities, I think you have to acknowledge huge differences in behavior to college-educated women from economically and emotionally stable households, and women from broken homes with a working class standard of living.

    LikeLike


  113. on January 19, 2011 at 11:52 am Schfifty5

    I second the notion of M. Williams being underrated here…I’d give her a high 8, at least. My type exactly and perfect tits in that ewan mcgregor movie, too.

    LikeLike


  114. on January 19, 2011 at 11:53 am Schfifty5

    And that “crazy pretty girl” neg sounds pretty complimentary to me

    LikeLike


  115. on January 19, 2011 at 11:56 am Evil Alpha

    Great analysis save two things.

    1st. Michelle Williams is filmed as just a 6 so as to represent “every woman”. Brilliant move by the director as it prevents the excuse from the audience that she “deserved” a different man.

    2nd. Cindy (Michelle Williams) is surely filmed as villainess through out the movie and in several key scenes. That’s why that fag rag the village voice called the movie misogynistic. They couldn’t deal with the cold hard truth.

    LikeLike


  116. on January 19, 2011 at 12:09 pm Jerry

    Film opens: Good father, good husband but bad haircut and the cigarette in his mouth with the kid in his arms, makes it look like this guy is just begging to lose the modern American woman. Then he pours outmeal on the kitchen table so he and the daughter can eat like leopards. Before she said it I was thinking “Oh c’mon, the wife doesn’t need to clean up after two kids”.

    This is going to be interesting…

    LikeLike


  117. on January 19, 2011 at 12:11 pm Jerry

    Note that what I just described wouldn’t score or keep a traditional Russian woman from the country either.

    The wife does look better in the later sequences with the weight on. Definite 7.5

    LikeLike


  118. on January 19, 2011 at 12:11 pm T

    speaking of Michelle Williams – she’s made quite the living playing the seasoned, jaded, “don’t ask me about my past” jizz receptacle. from her “bad little girl with bad little secrets” character on Dawson’s Creek all the way to her cuckolding wife bending over for Ewan McGregor while her family is killed in Incendiary – she seems eerily eager to play the role of alpha seeking cock-puppet. wondering how much her acting is based on real life experience?

    LikeLike


  119. on January 19, 2011 at 12:24 pm Evil Alpha

    “Higher class women from stable 2-parent homes on average do not behave as egregiously as the hypergamous, alpha-chasing slut stereotype that is often assumed as the female baseline on this blog.”

    Umm. Did you go to college?

    LikeLike


  120. on January 19, 2011 at 12:25 pm Jules

    This sounds similar to the French film 5X2 by Francois Ozon. Wouldn’t surprise me if it is yet another American remake or rip-off of European cinema.

    LikeLike


  121. on January 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm Edward

    Evil Alpha
    Cindy (Michelle Williams) is surely filmed as villainess through out the movie and in several key scenes. That’s why that fag rag the village voice called the movie misogynistic.

    That sounds like a grave sin against the Hollywood zietgiest. In a situation involving a man and woman of the same race, the man is always supposed to be the villain.

    LikeLike


  122. on January 19, 2011 at 12:34 pm Evil Alpha

    “I doubt that even game would work in the
    long run when his wife is so much smarter”

    His wife is not smarter (did you forget Cindy’s talent comments to Dean?), she’s just better educated. Game is surely his problem. Why else would a man act as if he were going go jump over “intuition” about some girl hiding her feelings from him. ?

    LikeLike


  123. on January 19, 2011 at 12:43 pm JR

    7-7.5 ranking? I think even these are generous estimates.

    I’d rank Williams at 6, perhaps 6.5 at the high end.

    Put a different way: If she is indeed in the 7-7.5 range then we are all in big trouble!

    LikeLike


  124. on January 19, 2011 at 12:47 pm Sidewinder

    Evil Alpha,

    Yes, went to college in big college town. Fun parties. Nice girls did not magically turn into sluts. They were willing to go a lot further in relationships, or they dated around, but the “girls gone wild” culture is really an over-represented minority of college girls.

    But I think this blog is typically speaking of post-undergrad chicks anyway. I think if a girl from a good family had a few wild nights in college, it isn’t a bad thing for their long term wife prospects, and may even be a good thing. Again, I realize there are exceptions, and you can have upper class sorority sluts with 10+ partners through college, but again, since we’re talking generalities, the undeniable trend is that girls from good families tend to make better girlfiends and wives.

    LikeLike


  125. on January 19, 2011 at 10:53 am Woof

    I suspect bringing a date to this movie won’t turn out as expected. I think the guy will come to the conclusions he did and she’ll come to some goofy conclusion like Dean didn’t “grow” with Cindy. She’ll insist that it was his fault. Don’t think a woman is suddenly going to “see the light”.

    If you take a date do it only as an experiment. Don’t expect her to learn a lesson.

    LikeLike


  126. on January 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm Evil Alpha

    Of course girls from “good” families tend to make better girlfriends and wives, but “good” does not require money or college.

    A middle class girl whose mom is a church going widow will be better in an LTR than the daughter of 2 east coast liberals.

    LikeLike


  127. on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm Jerry

    At the hotel with him acting like a child, the wife: “I thought we came here to get away from kids”. This scene definitely doesn’t make the woman look like the woman is a villain. It makes him look like he is trying to impress his own wife by acting like a kid. It’s like he’s yelling “please leave me”.

    And the cigarette smoking in front of her, the bathroom humor, all as if calculated to become marriage roadkill.

    Contrast that with his brilliant alpha move when he gets to know her 5 years earlier: Empty bus. He walks up to her, points to the seat next to her and says “Can I sit here because all the other seats are taken”. It takes guts to say that. That scene would be worth the price of admission for its PUA advice value.

    LikeLike


  128. on January 19, 2011 at 11:15 am Sidewinder

    One thing he wrote rings so true: in a marriage with kids, the woman does not give an f about the psychological welfare of the children when the relationship is struggling or she is upset.

    And I have a good wife. It is almost shocking to observe. When a woman is emotionally upset, there is no logic, empathy, or accountability to their resulting actions. They can be extremely knee-jerk self-destructive and destructive to the family, and when asked to justify their actions they will say: I was upset.

    Your job as a husband is to keep the peace. A woman’s mind is not wired to lead and to consider long-term consequences in making decisions. They need you to make those decisions. And as long as they feel safe and secure*, they will follow your lead. Its when that safety and security is threatened and they feel that they can’t trust you that they get out there on the fringes on their own, basically winging it and making terrible decisions. Don’t give them everything they want, provide a structure to their life and expectations for their behavior that they can rely on.

    *this statement refers to women committed to their marriage and family.

    LikeLike


  129. on January 19, 2011 at 1:30 pm Evil Alpha

    Jerry,

    Not every scene can feature her as “evil”.

    Her “stop acting like a kid” is directly preceded by her complaint about the room and about not having a fridge. The director means for Michelle Williams to come off as bitchy and it works.

    And since it took an act of god for Cindy to agree to a “sex motel” in the first place. And then of course the ride doesn’t exactly place her in the best light.

    She is indeed a villain.

    LikeLike


  130. on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm Jerry

    Abortion Nurse: How many partners have you had in your life?
    Wife as a Very Young Woman: 25

    Automatic disqualification even for mid to upper betas.

    LikeLike


  131. on January 19, 2011 at 2:02 pm Jerry

    Another equivalent to Blue Valentine would be “Star 89” about the Canadian guy (true story) who brought his girlfriend down from British Columbia to try to be a Playboy Playmate. He expected to be the agent but started behaving insecure. Hefner ended up kicking him off the property.

    She eventually left him for a film producer but apparently only because he couldn’t stop being insecure (there might be another side to the story I haven’t seen – anyone know more about the backstory on that?).

    Then he invited her to his ratty Santa Monica apartment to sign the divorce papers and he killed her with a shotgun. The film shows her agreeing to have sympathy sex at the end but that only enrages him more. That was one of the more shocking films I’ve ever seen.

    LikeLike


  132. on January 19, 2011 at 12:05 pm Chip Smith

    I haven’t seen “Blue Valentine,” but based on your account it might be interesting to compare and contrast with the 1967 film, “Two for the Road” starring Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn. That film employs a similar cross-cutting narrative structure to depict the course of a relationship and marriage, but Finney’s character is — on my impression, at least — quintessentially alpha.

    LikeLike


  133. on January 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Been keeping an eye out for a good movie to watch lately. Downloaded this one last night but haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but I have to agree with other posters who have pointed out that if you expect that “game” in and of itself can carry you through a marriage in today’s world, you are in for a rude awakening.

    Reading this review reminded me of the only real problem I have with the philosophy that is promoted on this blog- the idea that Game is King and can trump wealth, status, power, and looks.

    Game can trump SOME of these things SOME of the time, but at the end of the day all of the psychological tricks in the world are no substitute for true mating market value. Game is nothing more than mimicking and projecting the behaviors of a man who has value. At the end of the day pussy is a commodity that is exchanged for resources so you better have something tangible to back up your swagger if you expect a woman to stay with you for any length of time.

    Do you honestly think that the main character in this movie would have been able to hold his relationship together, despite his lack of ambition, simply by practicing a little psychological judo on his wife? Tell me you guys aren’t so delusional as to believe that you can live with a woman day in, day out, for five years without increasing your wealth/status/power and expect your woman to remain attracted to you?

    Having game can help you get laid. Having game AND ever increasing W/S/P will help you get laid and sustain relationships.

    Bottom line- if you want to avoid being a victim of hypergamy you are going to have to build real, long term value. Women are risk averse creatures who are afraid of change. As long as your mating value increases you have little to worry about. The moment you take your foot off the pedal it is the beginning of the end.

    LikeLike


  134. on January 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Good Luck Chuck, how insane are you?

    Have you never seen gorgeous women with down and out losers and hustlers, who completely hold them through game, when attractive, rich men are vying for them?

    You truly are a moron if you think a high paying job and good looks will keep a broad in line. Any street pimp’s stable or a trip to hotchickswithdouchebags.com should disavow you of that fallacy.

    LikeLike


  135. on January 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Jerry, you’re thinking of “Star 80” which is about the real life playmate Dorothy Stratten.

    Stratten’s life was fascinating. Two films about her, and she was the lover of director Peter Bogndonavich. Something about her drew people famous and powerful and obsessive. Much mkore than the typical Playwhore bimbo.

    LikeLike


  136. on January 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm Jerry

    That was “Star 80” with Mariel Hemingway (who had silicone breasts implanted for the film and then took them out. Ouch). Another film about the Dorothy Stratten murder was “Death of a Centerfold” with Jamie Lee Curtis.

    The book about that was “The Killing of the Unicorn” which was written by the producer Stratten had moved in with.

    Blue Valentine = Excellent film, but it’s a study of a gamma. Even betas wouldn’t make most of the mistakes this guy made. He just happened to have a few good moments when he was young (like the “can I sit here” line on the bus). Plus, she was already thinking of going to med school before the marriage. Anyone could have predicted, beforehand, that marriage was doomed.

    LikeLike


  137. on January 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm Firepower

    Jerry

    Hefner ended up kicking him off the property.

    Man, just imagine the kind of dbag you’d have to be, to have that creepy King of All dbags (Hefner) kick you out.

    Either that, or World’s #1 Cockblock

    LikeLike


  138. on January 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm James A. Donald

    Sidewinder

    Higher class women from stable 2-parent homes on average do not behave as egregiously as the hypergamous, alpha-chasing slut stereotype that is often assumed as the female baseline on this blog.

    You are probably right that upper class women from two parent families are not as bad, but the difference is not that great, female lawyers outscrewing any drunken slut from the trailer park.

    Upper class women have a better appreciation of what status is (they are more likely to go after the countrywide senior accountant than the guy with lots of tattoos and a very noisy bike).

    When you are out on a business trip, your upper class wife will get the young doctor to make a house call for your sick children, then bang him, while the low class slut bangs the pizza delivery boy.

    LikeLike


  139. on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Is this really a nascent alpha at the beginning? Sounds more like a beta.

    His pickup line sounds lame (although delivery would improve it, I haven’t seen the film), he agrees to take another man’s child as his own, he’s aware she’s a raw-dogging slut and yet marries her, she’s an abortion-loving girl and he knows it and yet takes her seriously, etc….

    This is classic beta signalling. Perhaps higher beta, but beta nonetheless. I think this movie is her coming to terms with his betaness.

    LikeLike


  140. on January 19, 2011 at 3:42 pm whatami

    I do pretty well with girls but I don’t know if you can call me alpha because I don’t act typical alpha and I screw up a lot. But I don’t screw up a lot in the beta sense, I don’t know. Girls just end up thinking I’m fucking insane (and not in a good way). I’ve been told they like me for my looks (no vain, no homo). But usually they just end up thinking I’m crazy or strange, some stop seeing me because of this. Others like it for a while. Is this “niche alpha”?

    LikeLike


  141. on January 19, 2011 at 3:46 pm Black Rebel

    I like your posts when you analyze game in the media. Here’s my own analysis of The Big Bang Theory.

    Penny – Chronic pump and dump victim
    Leonard – White Knight
    Howard – Creepy game devotee
    Raj – When Sober: Omega, when drunk: Alpha
    Sheldon – Asexual omega with super alpha potential

    LikeLike


  142. on January 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Black Rebel you forgot this one:

    People who watch “The Big Bang Theory”= omega.

    Enjoy your right hand, kiddo.

    LikeLike


  143. on January 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm Ludwig

    Once again you prove yourself to be the amazing writer you are. Are you doing a book or not?

    Please write more posts at the Chateau.

    Movie question/comment: Was it made clear that Dean understood that he was merely the step-dad? Maybe I missed that. Yes, he should have known…but if he ACTUALLY WAS TOLD that the kid was a bastard….sheesh….pathetic.

    Extra hard to have sympathy in that case.

    Don’t be a beta, men.

    LikeLike


  144. on January 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm gramercy

    I also liked the portrayal of the sleazy “nice guy” doctor who tries to worm his way into Williams’ life. Dean’s punching this guy in the face is one of his few later alpha moments.

    LikeLike


  145. on January 19, 2011 at 4:47 pm Good Luck Chuck

    A. Nonny.mous

    Good Luck Chuck, how insane are you?

    Have you never seen gorgeous women with down and out losers and hustlers, who completely hold them through game, when attractive, rich men are vying for them?

    You truly are a moron if you think a high paying job and good looks will keep a broad in line. Any street pimp’s stable or a trip to hotchickswithdouchebags.com should disavow you of that fallacy.

    What’s the shelf life of a pimp/ho relationship? Of a hot chick/douchebag relationship? We aren’t talking about getting laid we are talking about a long term relationship or marriage.

    Let me ed-u-ma-cate you a little.

    Women desire two different types of men. They want to bang it out with the cad but they also want the security that comes from the guy who has the ability to procure resources.

    You aren’t talking to a high income wage slave dude. I have pictures of me with girls that could probably end up on hotchickswithdouchebags.

    Douchebag game is great for getting laid. No problems there. But the women primarily want SEX. Try to wrangle them into a relationship and they RUN.

    For a relationship to work long term you have to appeal to a woman’s provider instincts. The illusion of wealth, status, and power can attract women, but they will eventually need to see a return on their investment.

    They all respond to game in the beginning because they are wired to respond to shortcuts that can determine mating fitness. But at some point after you get into a relationship she is going to start to look for proof that she made a wise mating choice.

    Could the main character in the movie have saved his marriage by maintaining frame? He probably could have prolonged it, but a good looking woman isn’t going to squander her mating capital indefinitely on a loser. Had Mr. house mover progressed from minimum wage grunt laborer to owning a small fleet of trucks and making $150k a year, wifey would have had a lot more incentive to remain attracted to her hubby.

    If women were ENTIRELY emotionally driven creatures the idea that a man can control a woman’s feelings indefinitely might hold some water, but women aren’t governed 100% by their emotions any more than men are governed 100% by logic.

    This Game Rules All meme is just as shortsighted as the idea that piles of money are all you need to attract women and keep them in line. True long term mating market value is derived from the ability to acquire resources AND maintain some semblance of masculinity.

    I’ve been the douchebag and the rich dude. Live life on both sides of the fence and then come and talk to me.

    LikeLike


  146. on January 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm Ovid

    women turn to God when the devil will have nothing more to do with them;)

    That was beautiful, Macho.

    He might want to review an old Game-related Brazillian film when he gets the chance. It’s titled Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands. Haven’t seen it in a while, but it’s a real gem if I remeber correctly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dona_Flor_and_Her_Two_Husbands

    LikeLike


  147. on January 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm A. Nonny.mous

    lol Good luck Chuck. A white knight trying to ed-u-ma-cate. How cute. You must impress all the feminists that way.

    What’s the shelf life of a pimp/ho relationship?

    For as long as she earns him money. Until she’s too beat to last, and then he kicks her to the curb.

    Of a hot chick/douchebag relationship?

    Until she starts to sag. Then she’s kicked out for the next piece of ass, and she spends the rest of her life trying to get him to fuck her on the side while she bleeds sad little chumps like you for alimony and pocket change.

    Here’s a clue, bitch: when “your” kids come out of that raging whore of a wife’s gaping slit, get a blood test or two. You might save a few dollars (and years).

    LikeLike


  148. on January 19, 2011 at 5:18 pm James A. Donald

    Good Luck Chuck

    What’s the shelf life of a pimp/ho relationship? Of a hot chick/douchebag relationship?

    Every stable marriage, every single one, is patriarchal and authoritarian. The man leads, and the woman follows, the man commands and the woman obeys. The man takes out the garbage and the woman washes the dishes. Women always fight to take control, fight dreadfully hard, fight dirty, but are never happy if they succeed. The man has to keep control, in a legal and social environment loaded against him.

    In politically correct academia, they did a survey looking for marriages that equitably shared the housework. They found a few, but the husband who shared the housework was sleeping on the couch, while the wife’s lover who sporadically visited the household slept in the big double bed and did not share the housework.

    LikeLike


  149. on January 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Of course, since you have resigned yourself to the fact that you will be Mr. house mover for the rest of your life, you have to protect your ego by attempting to shame someone who has experience on both ends of spectrum.

    Like I said, live it and then come back and preach.

    LikeLike


  150. on January 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm Sidewinder

    Good luck Chuck, very well stated. have been trying to make this point on here for a while.

    LikeLike


  151. on January 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm Alan Roger Currie

    I just discovered this blog & site yesterday. I’m a Book Author and Dating & Relationships columnist for the Examiner.com

    Here is an article that I think many men who favor this Blog post will want to read:

    http://www.examiner.com/men-s-dating-advice-in-los-angeles/how-women-respond-to-you-often-times-depends-on-the-alpha-vs-beta-dynamics

    This deals with my take on “Alpha” traits VS “Beta” traits, and women’s responses to each….

    LikeLike


  152. on January 19, 2011 at 6:02 pm askjoe

    the smartest comment I’ve read on this site was the rom-com disambigulation that rom-coms reverse gender roles. Girls place themselves in the shoes of the pining dude, chasing after a hard to get girl. That is, the girl identifies with her feelings of how she’d like to be chased by an alpha-male. This movie, it seems to have erased that lie by portraying the real world where clinging betas are repulsive for most attractive girls.

    LikeLike


  153. on January 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm Surfed

    Thanx for all the props on the Maxim compilation…

    Truest words ever sung;

    Bob Dylan – singing to Ruthie a dancer waltzing beneath a Panamanian moon” from Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again”

    “And I say, aw come on now,
    You know, you know about my debutante,
    And she says, your debutante knows what you need,
    But I know what you want.”

    LikeLike


  154. on January 19, 2011 at 6:38 pm Tinderbox

    Man, sure are a lot of movie pirates in here. Get out of the house and pay for your $10 popcorn like everyone else lol

    LikeLike


  155. on January 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm LarsB

    I have to agree with “good luck”

    “Good Luck” is simply saying that a male that has good looks, height, acumulated wealth in the bank, power over other males, status, and high income will be better able to create the image that he is an alpha and sustain that image.

    Game is exceptionally important. Framing is even more important. But the reality is that they work better when coupled with money looks power and status.

    The readers of this blog laugh at the delusions that others are under. The readers of this blog have seen through the Matrix.

    At the same time, many readers of this blog are trapped in a a fantasy world of their own where devotion to “game” can overcome all else.

    Some readers of this blog who are short ugly and low income just come here for a cheering session to tell them that they can use game to magically succeed. There is an element of unbelievable irrational cheerleading going on.

    Grow up and come to reality. Game plus real income, real wealth, and real good looks totally totally trumps Game all by itself.

    Face the truth

    LikeLike


  156. on January 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm Tinderbox

    Reality Pains said:
    Again, the truth in this movie is subtle in that she is faking all of her orgasms with all of the men she encounters including the one she finally “settles” for.

    Like we care if a woman has a real orgasm or not? If she can’t then all I care about is if she sounds hot while faking it.

    Love means sacrifice and ‘manning up’ whether some of you pussified pansies who are a sad ass excuse for an “alpha pretender” like it or not.

    Grow UP.

    Been pumped and dumped by plenty of alpha males, I see.

    LikeLike


  157. on January 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm Tinderbox

    Ubermind said:
    Your american use of the world – theater – already shows your brainwashed – advertisment buying degeneracy.

    A theater – is a place where actual living people play drama or comedy on stage for you. it is something that is created a new every time and arises from sweat and emotion of real human beings. It is art….The place where Holywood movies is showed is called a cinema.

    Do you look anything like this?

    LikeLike


  158. on January 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm Tinderbox

    Perhaps the Voice reviewer’s feminist sensibilities were offended because the Cindy character hadn’t reached triple digits by her mid-20s.

    LikeLike


  159. on January 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm Tinderbox

    Evil Alpha said:
    Of course girls from “good” families tend to make better girlfriends and wives, but “good” does not require money or college.

    A middle class girl whose mom is a church going widow will be better in an LTR than the daughter of 2 east coast liberals.

    The best indicator of a woman’s predisposition to stay in a marriage is whether she comes from an intact family with parents who got along and never divorced.

    LikeLike


  160. on January 19, 2011 at 7:05 pm whorefinder

    Ah, SteveJG, the David Alexander of the moment.

    LikeLike


  161. on January 19, 2011 at 7:13 pm Kingdom Come

    This is a great movie based on this review for a number of reasons.

    Most woman/girls are lying manipulating skanks irrespective of eductation, career or social status and class.

    They do not have a mans best interests at heart in this day and age in “western” culture unless it directly relates to their own best interests.

    What do they respond to in the “real world” is the only question that needs to be asked.

    More “beta” behaviours should be encouraged, this is to give them (the beta’s and woman) their dose of media fuelled fantasy which Alphas can feast upon.

    Yeah its a shame beta’s are fucked over by media/mom/pop/friends/society/culture etc, but there is a reason for the saying “Know Thyself”

    If this movie wakes up a few men or women, so be it.

    Alpha’s adapt to and rule their world, beta’s comply with what they think is wanted of them. Period.

    LikeLike


  162. on January 19, 2011 at 7:15 pm SteveJG

    David Alexander was always honest and realistic. He laid it all out there with sincerity. He said that he was born with an IQ too low to allow him to pass the civil service exam. Look up his posts. No exaggeration, no beating of his own chest. He told it like it is

    LikeLike


  163. on January 19, 2011 at 7:18 pm whorefinder

    I’s a a gonna take a wild guess here and say SteveJG and Good Luck Chuck vote Democrat—-or at least only RINOs.

    How’s your wife’s strap on feel, boys?

    LikeLike


  164. on January 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm hbd chick

    “She is just following the dictates of her Darwinian script. She knows not what she does, and so you can’t really get annoyed with her.”

    yup.

    LikeLike


  165. on January 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm whorefinder

    Who is this faggot Good Luck Chuck?

    “Like I said, live it and then come back and preach.”
    —lol. Yes, Mr. Internet Beta, you truly have been a playa *and* a rich dude. Of course. your say so is all we need when you posit a theory that is wildly contradictory with all the reality we are subject to.

    Pretty lies…sigh. ban this beta bitch.

    LikeLike


  166. on January 19, 2011 at 9:18 pm Good Luck Chuck

    LarsB

    The readers of this blog laugh at the delusions that others are under. The readers of this blog have seen through the Matrix.

    At the same time, many readers of this blog are trapped in a a fantasy world of their own where devotion to “game” can overcome all else.

    Some readers of this blog who are short ugly and low income just come here for a cheering session to tell them that they can use game to magically succeed. There is an element of unbelievable irrational cheerleading going on.

    I was going to say something along to this effect, but these guys can’t get past their ego investment long enough to accept a watered down version of the truth let alone the cold reality that status, power, and material resources are still.

    Mystery the PUA got tooled by a Russian model. Mystery the tv star can have ten Russian models fighting over him at any given time.

    All of this anecdotal “evidence” of rich men who can’t get laid cracks me up. Of course there are going to be guys who don’t do well with women despite their wealth, but for every rich guy who can’t get laid there are ten who clean house.

    It’s always the same story- pick your perceived shortcoming and invest yourself in the idea that game is all you need to meet, attract, and retain sexual exclusivity with a hot chick. Problem solved.

    The idea that money means nothing when it comes to a man’s sexual market value or that it only attracts golddiggers or that it will hurt your chances with women always comes from guys who never had and never will have money. Why try to improve yourself when you can convince yourself that you can sit on the couch and play video games and drink beer for the rest of your life and still have beautiful women fighting over you?

    [Editor: Well, it beats settling for a fat cow. Game may not work miracles but it can help the average man date 1 or 2 points higher than what he’s used to.]

    Agreed.

    If all you care to do is fuck 1-2 points above your weight then by all means, forget about self improvement. But if you think that game alone will enable you to secure exclusive, long term mating rights with a high caliber woman you are in for the same kind of hurt as the guy who thinks his money alone will keep a woman attracted and faithful.

    Hypergamy cannot be controlled by psychology alone.

    whorefinder

    I’s a a gonna take a wild guess here and say SteveJG and Good Luck Chuck vote Democrat—-or at least only RINOs.

    Yea, and I’m a liberal white knight male feminist.

    Any more shaming fellas? You sound like a pack of disillusioned cougars confronted with an uncomfortable truth.

    LikeLike


  167. on January 19, 2011 at 9:21 pm Good Luck Chuck

    I meant to say

    “I was going to say something to this effect, but these guys can’t get past their ego investment long enough to accept a watered down version of the truth let alone the cold reality that status, power, and material resources are very important to maintaining female attraction.”

    LikeLike


  168. on January 19, 2011 at 9:30 pm Anonymous

    Brilliant article.

    It’s painful even reading about this movie. I look forward to watching it.

    LikeLike


  169. on January 19, 2011 at 7:35 pm Beta from Europe

    Superb article. Good comments too.

    LikeLike


  170. on January 19, 2011 at 9:52 pm whorefinder

    Any more shaming fellas? You sound like a pack of disillusioned cougars confronted with an uncomfortable truth.

    Oh, it’s not shaming, beta. Liberal manginas know no shame. Just confirming that the stereotype holds true. Again.

    But please, amuse us all. Regale us with the tales of your conquests through your wallet. We would love to hear about this rich fantasy life you have.

    LikeLike


  171. on January 19, 2011 at 9:57 pm Andrea

    It goes to show that women, for all the feminist crap about equality and all the gay/metrosexual crap about gender-neutrality, want a man who’s a man, a man who can take control, a man who provides, a man who makes her feel like a conquered mate.

    LikeLike


  172. on January 19, 2011 at 10:12 pm seran235

    Ubermind,

    I’m sorry, buddy, we could not understand you with that cock in your mouth.

    Something about theaters or sumptin’?

    LikeLike


  173. on January 19, 2011 at 10:42 pm Anonymous

    Is the sexy sons hypothesis just a hypothesis?

    LikeLike


  174. on January 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Saw the movie tonight. Wow. Deep.

    This blog entry was right on the money. Great acting in this film.

    LikeLike


  175. on January 19, 2011 at 11:40 pm Diabolos

    Just finished watching this sucker.

    I think that was more painful than Kimi Ga Nozomu Ein, though for a far different reason. That shit hits WAY too close to home; I’ve seen this happen to guys. What happened to me was somewhat similar, though nowhere near the nuclear fucking impact that it is for the men who have suffered through exactly this (and worse). To this day, I thank whatever gods are out there I was taught my lesson before I got married to the worthless cunt, but then hating her for what happened is like hating the sun for being hot. She could no more control herself than a baby could…she was never taught to be able to do anything more.

    And me, lied to like most men. Like the guy in the movie obviously was. Course you can only observe objective reality for so long and not come to the conclusion something is horribly wrong only if you’re absolutely mad. Though when you learn the truth, you find it’ll set you free, but first it pisses you off.

    Still, I’m rather curious how many not on this blog will actually see this movie for the horror it really is. Horror because it IS truth, in its purest, its rawest form. How many will grasp the full significance of it, or will be able to?

    Heh, a friend of mine would call this quite subversive. In terms of the prevailing socialist/femenist doctrine infecting our society like a cruel form of AIDS, it most certainly fits that bill.

    LikeLike


  176. on January 19, 2011 at 11:42 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Good feedback Diabolos

    LikeLike


  177. on January 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm whorefinder

    long term mating rights with a high caliber woman

    yep, these women are “high caliber” who, paradoxically, fall for game for one night stands, but never for relationships. Because they’re so darn “special.” We idiots need to “earn” these whores’ love, because their “hearts” are the prize. lmao.

    Is this Jessica Valenti’s wife? CH, I take it back, don’t ban him, we need this lying delusional amongst us so you can a) demolish him regularly with reality; and b) we can recognize such duplicitous buggers and their arguments more easily.

    LikeLike


  178. on January 20, 2011 at 12:19 am Good Luck Chuck

    whorefinder

    Oh, it’s not shaming, beta. Liberal manginas know no shame. Just confirming that the stereotype holds true. Again.

    But please, amuse us all. Regale us with the tales of your conquests through your wallet. We would love to hear about this rich fantasy life you have.

    How you get that I am a “beta liberal white night mangina” from my posts I have no clue.

    Oh wait, I do know. It’s a defensive reaction to being confronted with a reality that doesn’t support your ego.

    Now run along. Your video games are calling.

    LikeLike


  179. on January 20, 2011 at 1:02 am xsplat

    Good Luck Chuck

    If all you care to do is fuck 1-2 points above your weight then by all means, forget about self improvement. But if you think that game alone will enable you to secure exclusive, long term mating rights with a high caliber woman you are in for the same kind of hurt as the guy who thinks his money alone will keep a woman attracted and faithful.

    Hypergamy cannot be controlled by psychology alone.

    Balanced.

    LikeLike


  180. on January 20, 2011 at 1:04 am joemomma

    I read this blog, then I smoked a few bowls and watched this movie.

    Deep as fuck, and very realistic. Even if I wasn’t high as hell I would have loved this movie. There’s so much to think about, but even if I do have kids one day, much thanks to this blog I swear I will never fall into the same traps so many fucking men fall into.

    LikeLike


  181. on January 20, 2011 at 1:34 am Black Rebel

    ‘quote at A. Nonny.mous

    Black Rebel you forgot this one:

    People who watch “The Big Bang Theory”= omega.

    Enjoy your right hand, kiddo.’

    Oh no, I have Omega tastes! Good thing some retard told me from behind the safety of his computer screen.

    Go fuck your mother, you can have her after I’m done fucking her in the ass.

    LikeLike


  182. on January 20, 2011 at 4:46 am Rarfy

    damn, blogger, Ebert’s got nothing on you. Good writing as usual, very powerful.

    LikeLike


  183. on January 20, 2011 at 4:53 am Jerry

    The Playboy Curse (if you’ve got old copies, this is interesting if not necessarily statistically abnormal):

    Miss February 1955, Jane Mansfield, had her head cut off by a tractor her convertible crashed into from behind.

    Miss June 1955 was killed in the Canary Islands plane crash in 1977

    Miss July 1958 died of lung cancer at age 30

    Miss March 1961 also killed in a car crash

    Miss January 1962 didn’t wake up after an operation when she was still young

    Miss April 1965 took her life on her 24th birthday (first playmate to have had breast implants)

    Miss November 1968 didn’t wake up after taking sleeping pills (6 years after being Miss November)

    Miss November 1969 fell asleep behind the wheel of her VW and was killed in the resulting crash

    Miss July 1970, an adorable 19 year old American Indian woman named Carol Willis, was killed in a car accident one year later at age 20

    Miss February 1971, a redhead, died of a drug overdose at age 23

    Miss February 1977 turned to street prostitution (Apparently Hefner didn’t want her living at the mansion anymore with an allowance). She was strangled to death by a stranger who was never caught.

    Miss August 1979 was Dorothy Stratten who was murdered by her jealous ex after she starred in a major film and moved in with its director.

    Miss December 1994 died soon after of a heroine overdose

    Marilyn Monroe appeared in the first edition of Playboy and died of an “overdose”. Several others who were not official playmates of the month also died of drug overdoses and one was murdered by a psycho when she was 40.

    A lot of former Playmates of the Month have since died of cancer, but those who died over the age of 40 were not listed above because that is, sadly, natural.

    LikeLike


  184. on January 20, 2011 at 5:38 am Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls

    A little off-topic, but is it the position of the greater Game-o-Sphere that “nice girls” just don’t exist anymore?

    Or that “nice girls” do exist, but that you don’t want to humiliate yourselves by venturing out into hayseed cornpone flyover country to meet them, and that you’d rather waste your lives pursuing these vile monstrous Blue State urban Medeas?

    I mean – seriously – who the hell wants to date the kinds of chicks that you guys are dealing with on a regular basis?

    Yikes.

    PS: What the hell is the purpose of a “LTR” if you aren’t making babies with the chick?

    Why not just download pr0n and be done with it?

    LikeLike


  185. on January 20, 2011 at 5:41 am Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls

    Oops

    Medea = Medusa

    LikeLike


  186. on January 20, 2011 at 4:12 am Tuttle

    Saw the flick today. It’s almost as if it had been designed to illustrate CH maxims. (One quibble: the “alpha” wrestler was a jealous stalker, so maybe he wasn’t quite so alpha as CH suggests. But everything else R. said was bang on.)

    LikeLike


  187. on January 20, 2011 at 7:17 am Jerry

    One reason why, in the past 2 years, feminism has come under attack by the host and other PUA bloggers, is because it was apparent that an outside force, other than game, was capable of having a huge effect on the quality of a relationship between a man and a woman, including whether they ever got together in the first place and what it might take to make things happen.

    One reason, apparently, why the host got political was that he saw that socialism was actually building a wall between men and women that effected whether certain people end up dating, regardless of game (for instance, I would be getting fewer dates with women of college age in a rich, socialist country where the young women are given money by the government after the government steals it taxes it from the older men who, if they were asked, would have otherwise wanted the young women to at least personally thank them for the largess).

    One can almost say that any man who pays taxes in a socialist country is a lower beta because he’s paying for young women’s “gender studies” grants and student loans and getting nothing in return for that.*

    When liberal policies give women huge loans to be used when they are at their most fertile/attractive and paid off when they are less fertile, you get the “T-Bird Syndrome” where the girls are going to have fun, fun, fun without a lot of older alphas and betas of all ages until daddy (the government) takes the T-Bird away.

    Everyone knows that, where women are paid the same as men, there are suddenly fewer “available good men”.

    Extrapolate from there.

    Think of a toolbox and game as the hammer.

    Looks would be the masking tape.

    Money would be the 3-in-1 oil.

    The hammer is the most important.

    *by the way, when will the Chateau become part of the Georgetown Gender Studies faculty giving an evening course in Men’s Studies 101 which should be equal to Women’s Studies 101?

    LikeLike


  188. on January 20, 2011 at 7:30 am Thor

    @Jerry
    “*by the way, when will the Chateau become part of the Georgetown Gender Studies faculty giving an evening course in Men’s Studies 101 which should be equal to Women’s Studies 101?”

    Yup. Imagine….

    Imagine…. (etc, half a page of NLP/whatever tuning)

    Imagine a course going over the cultural contributions
    made by MEN over the last couple of hundred
    (or thousand) years.

    Reminiscent of a Harvard Lampoon spoof ca 1976,
    a “magazine” called “Ivory” (I kid you not), which,
    among other things, listed some of the contributions
    made by white people. (It also had useful info on how
    to re-do your hair to the new “Euro” looks, etc)

    Thor

    LikeLike


  189. on January 20, 2011 at 7:39 am Jerry

    But the professor would deal with all that in the first 10 minutes of the first class. In fact, he’d probably go over the major contributions made by women to civilization and then say “everything else was done by men.” 😉

    At the beginning of the second ten minutes of the first class, he would introduce Evolutionary Biology and then go into game, etc.

    Seriously, I see this blog influencing the creation of a course in this material which would become mandatory at several universities as a prerequisite to continuing to grant monies to “gender studies faculties”.

    18 year old men need this type of course to survive.

    LikeLike


  190. on January 20, 2011 at 8:09 am Male use of Battered Person Syndrome back in the news

    […] is no guarantee against a wife falling out of love with a man – possibly even because of his own actions aimed to demonstrate commitment and caring – and, maliciously or not, making him an indentured servant to her, the state and the courts. […]

    LikeLike


  191. on January 20, 2011 at 8:12 am dontmarry

    The golden rule in male-female relationships.

    Alpha fucks and beta bucks.

    Whatever you do, don’t be the beta.

    If you don’t want to be either, avoiding women completely and going ‘ghost’ is also an option. This gets easier with age, when your libido simmers down. Saves your sanity, cuts out the drama and bullshit from your life, and keeps your wallet fat.

    Just never be the grovelling, placating beta. I see plenty of their kind on he streets, in the malls. I see them and I feel a mixture of rage, horror, disgust and pity.

    LikeLike


  192. on January 20, 2011 at 9:28 am A. Nonny.mous

    How you get that I am a “beta liberal white night mangina” from my posts I have no clue.

    Because you admitted it and you argue a LTR with a whore is worth it.

    Oh wait, I do know. It’s a defensive reaction to being confronted with a reality that doesn’t support your ego.

    Projection ain’t just for the movies, kids!

    Now run along. Your video games are calling.
    —Now run along, beta. Your fantasies about being a rich man drowning in vagina are calling.

    LikeLike


  193. on January 20, 2011 at 9:30 am A. Nonny.mous

    Black Reberl, hilariously:

    Oh no, I have Omega tastes!

    Stupid is as stupid does there, Bubba Gump.

    Go fuck your mother, you can have her after I’m done fucking her in the ass.

    lol. Sorry, she doesn’t like your omega show either there, chump.

    LikeLike


  194. on January 20, 2011 at 10:56 am Evil Alpha

    @ Good Luck Chuck

    Hypergamy for you is too linked to money. Even if Dean hit the lottery the relationship is doomed! This movie is not about money at all! Blue Valentine’s story points the audience to the conclusion that the break down is not over finances. And the director is particularly careful not to give the ladyfolk their typical out.

    Is it obvious that Cindy responds best to dominance. Cindy disdains an equal which because of her flaws registers as “unsexy” . She is a woman that prefers negging to caresses, and raw dog doggie style to cunnilingus. She is undoubtedly the villain of the story. When she is given the “sweet” guy in the form of Dean… the good father and the good husband… that she and every other woman says they want, her vagina dries up.

    Derek Cianfrance calls women on that and is the reason feminist critics are going ape shit over the movie.

    LikeLike


  195. on January 20, 2011 at 11:01 am Scipio Africanus

    This kind of frustration probably happens most often with women in that 7 – 8 zone.

    8 – 10’s are more than good looking enough to be able to pull the most desireable men, even if she has a kid, no degree, and is of somewhat lowly stock.

    6’s and below tend to be realistic enough to admit to themsleves they need to take what they can get and be happy about it.

    The cautionary tale to women here (which, after reading imdb and other sites, is *not* being realized) is that if you’re a 7 – 8, do *not* mess up your life by being easy or having a kid out of wedlock. Your situation is way too tenuous for you to be able to pull that off successfully.

    LikeLike


  196. on January 20, 2011 at 11:12 am Scipio Africanus

    “Derek Cianfrance calls women on that and is the reason feminist critics are going ape shit over the movie.”

    I did a quick perusal of some of the more popular feminist blogs last night and they all seem to be focused on the NC-17 kerfuffle of a few months ago, not on anything else about the movie.

    This site and this analysis seem to be the only place I’m seeing these exact issues mentioned at all, besides that one Village Voice review linked up top.

    I think alot of the ideas and concepts Game and the PUA community have uncovered have actually not made their way outside of this community yet. Or those ideas have been actively labeled as retrograde right away by feminists, which prevents the public at large from really chewing them over in any real way.

    I need to find an online interview with Cianfrance to see if he’s asked about this stuff explicitly, because I’m starting to suspect he may not be fully conscious of how insightful he actually is about the nature of women and how they receive Alphas vs. Betas.

    LikeLike


  197. on January 20, 2011 at 11:19 am Evil Alpha

    @Scipio

    Don’t equate feminist critic with “queen bee bitch with a blog.” Feminist critic is everyone one with that mindset. You obviously have not been in the thread sections of any movie site!

    LikeLike


  198. on January 20, 2011 at 11:28 am Jerry

    In this case regarding money, Dean’s winning the lottery would have only made the divorce deal better for her and the wrestler’s kid.

    Besides his lack of alpha traits (and, no, punching that doctor near the end was a major omega moment to me) she was also way smarter than Dean. In the scenes where he courted her, she told him a funny but morbid joke and that great actor who played Dean did a great job of making it seem ambiguous as to whether it went over his head or not.

    When he mumbled his way through his ukelele repertoire, I got the strong impression the director and actor wanted to convey a sense that he didn’t have the song properly memorized. Immediately after this, however, she shows off by reciting all 43 US Presidents up to that time.

    This also seems to go way over his head (or he doesn’t want to admit to her that she’s really brighter than he is).

    So what she was doing that I found most reprehensible was she had been deliberately dating almost below her own class and below her IQ Belt which is what I find tons of women do (possibly to retain control of their lives out of insecurity that a smarter guy would abandon them and their kids).

    Here’s a scene to make my point:

    A good looking doctor, the kind of guy whom one would expect someone like that to marry or date up to (and who doesn’t come off as a beta), says that he’d like to help her in her career and be more of a friend to her with no sexual overtones or pressure (sexual harassment) put on her. Men will offer to hang out and have dinner with other men when they are work colleagues. She needed to get with that program if only for her career, but also for her social life (the friends of that doctor could have given her a great social network).

    However, although she knows she’s leaving her husband, she interjects “I’m married”.

    Then she makes the stupid feminist remark “I thought you wanted to help me because I was good at my work”, which is something I’d fire someone immediately for saying (men should have zero tolerance for that anti-male mindset in the workplace). This helps get her fired a few minutes later.

    Now a few minutes later she gets fired mainly because of all the screaming and swearing she does when Dean invades her workplace like a gamma psycho.

    But she’d already sealed her fate with that doctor by denying even friendship.

    She clearly did not want a better man than Dean.

    That’s why she married him and screwed everyone over.

    I’ve known hundreds of these women, not just dozens. They’ve been roommates, they’ve been in the extended family, they are everywhere.

    They do not WANT to marry up. They want to wallow in the mud and later claim to be victims.

    LikeLike


  199. on January 20, 2011 at 11:40 am Scipio Africanus

    Jerry,
    Another way to read some of that is that she has taken school more seriously than he has – a nod to the school gender gap that’s been going on for the last 30 years.

    LikeLike


  200. on January 20, 2011 at 12:39 pm anonymous

    She clearly did not want a better man than Dean………They do not WANT to marry up. They want to wallow in the mud and later claim to be victims.

    Congrats, Jerry, on stating a blindspot truism contra to Manoshpere teaching.

    Many women desire a tryst, a flirt, a nod, a screw, or some semblance of sexual attention from a high status male, but would they truly step up to MARRY him? NO. She feels much secure in the role she knows (wife of a lower ses man), than the role she doesn’t know (wife of a higher status man).

    LikeLike


  201. on January 20, 2011 at 1:35 pm Evil Alpha

    Jerry,

    This is not an IQ issue. Cindy is better educated than Dean, but not smarter. Example: She can’t even make instant oatmeal …something he criticizes her for. Near the very end of the movie we see that the the fundamental issue with the relationship is Cindy’s concept of “manly”. She even goes so far as to call her husband a cunt.

    LikeLike


  202. on January 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm Thor

    @Evil Alpha
    “Hypergamy for you is too linked to money. Even if Dean hit the lottery the relationship is doomed! This movie is not about money at all!”

    Yes and no. Money falling from the sky, like the
    lottery, would not have helped. But if he had
    advanced to a better job that paid serious money,
    now that would have increased his status and
    would have been helpful – IF he stopped acting
    like both a wuzz and an idiot!

    As to the gender gap in colleges, not sure it
    matters. Much that women study are dead-end
    studies career-wise.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  203. on January 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm Jerry

    @Anonymous

    I agree its a blindspot on PUA blogs (the idea that women are often hostile and impossible with higher status guys).

    Part of the reason is that, to teach/learn game, one needs to pretend/assume a controlled environment where, if something goes wrong, it was because the game was wrong.

    It’s like the software game Larry the Lounge Lizard:

    When you play this you know ahead of time that there does exist a way to seduce the hotties; in fact all of them. So, if you fail, it is just because you didn’t know what to say and do at various key junctures.

    And it’s good to live life like that as well – to be optimistic with every attractive woman no matter how many signs of incompatibility she shows (dumber, no class).

    This blog needs to teach men to be optimistic and try to rely on their game.

    But there is a downside to thinking all the time “it was my fault”. It can make a young man lose his confidence when gaming a more confident or high status woman, if he were just rejected by a lower status woman.

    A woman from a superpower like Russia is more likely to be ready to date/marry a sophisticated American than a woman from little Denmark or Moldavia, even if the Moldavian is financially desperate and the Russian woman’s parents own apartments worth millions of USD.

    He needs, for his own sanity, to know this because it’s otherwise quite humiliating to be rejected by a beautiful Moldavian who is dirt poor.

    A woman lawyer is more likely to say yes to a date a rich businessman than a hairdresser.

    @Evil

    Cindy definitely rejected Dean because he wasn’t acting manly enough. No argument with you or the host that he needed to get major game.

    This, in fact, fits in with what I said she was doing in my comment above.

    She would have wanted to stay with her lower status husband if he had game, rather than get someone even as intelligent and educated as she was.

    She was prepared to reject that doctor big time. He could have seriously helped her get a social network.

    Yes, I still believe she was more intelligent than Dean was but we can disagree on that. I can’t recite the list of all 44 American Presidents myself (admittedly I could if I took 20 minutes to memorize her pneumonic).

    LikeLike


  204. on January 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Evil Alpha

    @ Good Luck Chuck

    Hypergamy for you is too linked to money. Even if Dean hit the lottery the relationship is doomed! This movie is not about money at all! Blue Valentine’s story points the audience to the conclusion that the break down is not over finances. And the director is particularly careful not to give the ladyfolk their typical out.

    You guys are missing the point.

    It isn’t about money. It is about ambition. It is about climbing the status ladder. If your social status increases (as it should) hypergamy becomes much less of an issue because you are becoming a bigger better deal. When your woman is constantly worrying about hotter, younger chicks taking her man, she has little time left to whore it up with someone else.

    His satisfaction with the status quo killed the tingle. Doctors don’t necessarily get laid because of the money they make, they get laid because of the status and power their position provides them. This chick married down. She settled for the first guy who offered to take care of her and her bastard kid. A doctor, on the other hand, has a lot more leeway to fuck up because of the status differential.

    When talking about money and how it influences attraction you have to understand that money is secondary to status and power. Women respond to indirect cues. Status and power are indirect cues that show women that you very likely have the ability to amass resources.

    LikeLike


  205. on January 20, 2011 at 3:26 pm P

    Jerry, Thor:

    imagine instead, no such thing as a “women’s studies” program and the complete discrediting of the marxist “theory” that makes such abominations possible.

    LikeLike


  206. on January 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm Alan Roger Currie

    I agree. Social Status is generally more important than income. You could be a drug dealer and be earning six figures, but there is no status behind that.

    Status wise, there is a big difference between being a college professor earning $80,000 per year and being a construction worker, plumber or electrician earning the same salary

    LikeLike


  207. on January 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Good Luck Chuck:

    It isn’t about money. It is about ambition.

    Moving the goal posts again, eh liberal? No surprise there.

    LikeLike


  208. on January 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm Rollo Tomassi

    You could be a drug dealer and be earning six figures, but there is no status behind that.

    You’ve got it backwards. A drug dealer, a gang leader or any other high profile criminal has status within the context of his peers. Status is context specific, not a demographic. Dean and Cindy do not function within the same context. Dean’s a statusless beta schlub to be sure, but he exists outside of her context.

    LikeLike


  209. on January 20, 2011 at 4:03 pm Evil Alpha

    @Thor.

    Cindy’s concept of status is not tied to money. Her concept of status is tied to dominance and Dean does not display that characteristic. As I said before… this movie is not about money.

    When Cindy runs into her ex, her pussy gets wet, but not because Bobby has a great career( What does an ex jock do after college? Did he graduate? Cindy surely doesn’t know!) . She drips because Bobby fucked her like a dog, impregnated her, beat Dean’s ass and then opens with “are you faithful?” after 5 years of distance.

    LikeLike


  210. on January 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm JonnyB

    Saw the flick last night.

    Brilliant acting, directing. Hit way, way too close to home, sadly.

    Should be mandatory viewing for all 7th grade boys, right after the sex ed film coach shows in gym class the first semester.

    Would save them all a lot of grief.

    LikeLike


  211. on January 20, 2011 at 4:41 pm Evil Alpha

    @Good Luck Chuck

    I’m beginning to think you haven’t seen the movie.

    Dean doesn’t lack ambition. His ambition is to be a good father and good husband. He is recognized as both of these things to a woman not damaged like Cindy. Because Cindy is so fucked up she confuses her husband’s lack of domination with a lack of ambition. Her rejection of the doctor is yet another directorial hint that… money/ambition is not why her marriage failed. And if that doesn’t make it clear enough to you, Cindy’s failed drunken attempt to get raped sure should.

    LikeLike


  212. on January 20, 2011 at 5:11 pm Evil Alpha

    You’ve got it backwards. A drug dealer, a gang leader or any other high profile criminal has status within the context of his peers. Status is context specific, not a demographic. Dean and Cindy do not function within the same context. Dean’s a statusless beta schlub to be sure, but he exists outside of her context.

    Rollo I agree with the first part. Brilliantly stated.

    However, Dean and Cindy DO function in the same status context, but they are incompatible within it. Cindy thinks less of any guy who doesn’t sexually dominate. Dean is not that guy.

    LikeLike


  213. on January 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Evil Alpha

    @Good Luck Chuck

    I’m beginning to think you haven’t seen the movie.

    Dean doesn’t lack ambition. His ambition is to be a good father and good husband. He is recognized as both of these things to a woman not damaged like Cindy. Because Cindy is so fucked up she confuses her husband’s lack of domination with a lack of ambition. Her rejection of the doctor is yet another directorial hint that… money/ambition is not why her marriage failed. And if that doesn’t make it clear enough to you, Cindy’s failed drunken attempt to get raped sure should.

    Good point.

    I did see the movie. I watched it last night and THOUGHT I posted something about it but it looks like it didn’t go through or it got deleted. Oh well.

    Ambition and dominance are two sides of the same coin. Yea, dominance carries a lot of weight, but it primarily appeals to the alpha seed seeking mechanism in the female brain. That’s why she got hot for the ex. Hubby could certainly have maintained respect and attraction from his wife for a period of time with dominance alone, but you can’t neglect the influence society has on western women. He could have maintained a dominant frame and she still could have lost attraction for him if he failed to maintain higher social status relative to hers.

    About Dean’s “ambition”- unfortunately the ambition to be a good father and husband doesn’t build or maintain attraction in a significant way. Attraction is triggered by ambitions that build status. Masculine/creative hobbies, building businesses, climbing the corporate ladder- these types of things create attraction.

    This isn’t an all or nothing deal. I’m not saying that a guy can rely on wealth/status/power 100%. But neither can he rely on dominance ploys to indefinitely trick her hindbrain into believing that she is getting a good deal in the mating market. The ideal man should always seek to improve his position in society, his wealth, AND his dominant, masculine frame.

    LikeLike


  214. on January 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm A. Nonny.mous

    Evil alpha:

    I’m beginning to think you haven’t seen the movie.

    It’s more like he’s never actually been with a girl.

    LikeLike


  215. on January 20, 2011 at 5:44 pm Good Luck Chuck

    A. Nonny.mous

    Good Luck Chuck:

    It isn’t about money. It is about ambition.

    Moving the goal posts again, eh liberal? No surprise there.

    You’re obviously a little slow. I mention that wealth, status, and power are dominant attraction triggers, and all of a sudden I’m a liberal who throws money around to get laid. You aren’t even close dude.

    Try not to get your panties in a wad over the fact that you’re gonna be the low man on the totem pole for the rest of your life. I know, it sucks, but if you have resigned yourself to that fate, so…oh well….sucks to be you….

    LikeLike


  216. on January 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm Sidewinder

    I think the effect of this movie on women, that it makes them very uncomfortable, is demonstrative of how alien and unacceptable feminity has become in the U.S.. Feminism has made feminity shameful. And men are shamed for being men. Its as if both genders are shamed for their irrational qualities.

    While it can take on negative tones, a woman’s drive to create a better environment for her offspring is a good one. And a man’s drive to attain the most genetically gifted female to bear his child is also a tendency that is beneficial to the species. Both of these natures have their petty and selfish natures, whether its a female whore or a male womanizer, but these tendencies do underlie our behaviors, and they can serve to create a semblance of social order. A male that can attain a woman a point or two above his looks grade, is also likely going to be motivated by that higher value female to improve himself and his family’s lot. And to even attain that higher value female to begin with, the male has to cultivate masculine qualities.

    LikeLike


  217. on January 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm James A. Donald

    Thor wrote:
    As to the gender gap in colleges, not sure it
    matters. Much that women study are dead-end
    studies career-wise.

    The college gender gap occurs because women are affirmative actioned into college. If you put stupid people into college, you are forced to create stupid things for them to study – hence certain infamous college courses are overwhelmingly full of women. But despite studying stupid things, they are then affirmative actioned into high status employment: For example HR was created largely to provide high status, high pay jobs, for not very competent people that the business is forced to hire to avoid gender bias lawsuits. It is a place where the CEO can stuff the high pay, high status idiots where they will not do too much harm.

    Thus, though college girls disproportionately do dead end courses, those courses are only dead end when white males do them. Women disproportionately get hired for high status high pay jobs despite disproportionately doing the moron courses at college.

    LikeLike


  218. on January 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm whorefinder

    Man, Good Luck Chuck is quite the little lying liberal beta, isn’t he? His rationalizations are right up there with Obama’s!

    ” It isn’t about money. It is about ambition.”

    and then, in his very next post:

    “wealth, status, and power are dominant attraction triggers”

    So in consecutive posts, GLC has gone from saying “money doesn’t build attraction” to “money builds attraction.”

    QED, Beta.

    Also, note how our lovely little Obama voter equates wealth with status in his second quote. He’s such a feminized mangina, I’ll bet he can’t even see it.

    Money is not status. Ask any 7 figure lawyer that.

    LikeLike


  219. on January 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm Kingdom Come

    Most western woman whether they realise it or not are running “Damsel in Distress” syndrome, the cure for which is “White Knight in Shinning Armour” or “Prince Charming” to make all the bad things go away whereupon the “Happily Ever After” effect comes into play.

    Unfortunately a lot of men have bought into the “White Knight in Shinning Armour” or “Prince Charming” disease.

    This movie, as it is described (cause I haven’t seen it yet) demonstrates the disconnect between “reality” and the childrens fairy tale most people have been taught to seek.

    Once the “Happily Ever After” effect doesn’t materialise given the individual allowance for timeliness…re-cue “Damsel in Distress” syndrome.

    One of the fucked up beauties of this fairy tale is “Prince Charming” is always … well, “Prince Charming”, he doesn’t have or is given any other role to play in this woman centric fairytale.

    Alphas have worked out one way or another how to game this.

    LikeLike


  220. on January 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm JonnyB

    Check out Roger Ebert’s clueless review of Blue Valentine:

    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110105/REVIEWS/110109996

    Ebert has declined into phoning in his movie reviews.

    Also, note that he either didn’t get that the child was the alpha guy’s spawn and WHY that’s so critical to the story, or Rog, being the uber-Lib he is, can’t make himself understand why the genetic heritage the child represents is a big deal. All children are the same, aren’t they? Takes a village, you know.

    LikeLike


  221. on January 20, 2011 at 7:03 pm Tim

    Disagree. Ol Ebe’s review was pretty good I thought:

    “Dean thinks marriage is the station. Cindy thought it was the train.”

    That’s a pretty good line.

    LikeLike


  222. on January 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm Thor

    @James A. Donald
    “Thus, though college girls disproportionately do dead end courses, those courses are only dead end when white males do them. Women disproportionately get hired for high status high pay jobs despite disproportionately doing the moron courses at college.”

    Interesting point. But there are lots more null-career
    college grads than openings in Human Remains.

    Another thing is that US businesses have
    (or used to have) lots of overpaid clerks
    (both men and women)
    who thought of themselves as managers,
    and were sometimes paid as if they were.
    The current competitive climate tends to
    counteract this.

    Incidentally, as to “they don’t do much damage”,
    that varies. Many Hum Rem departments are
    pretty good, handle the paperwork for
    vacations, payroll, insurance etc.

    Other Human Remains department people
    get into their heads that they should
    try and tell manages whom the managers
    should hire, often with disastrous results.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  223. on January 20, 2011 at 8:31 pm Good Luck Chuck

    whorefinder aka A. Nonywhateverthefuck-

    I was going to call you out again by pointing out how you took my “it’s not about money” quote out of context, but then I decided to click on your blog, and it all became clear. Since you are probably only here trying to stir up traffic for your site, I will give you a hand.

    The underemployed recent college graduate who rails on about how UNimportant money is to getting laid actually pays women to have sex with him!

    http://whoresoftheinternet.wordpress.com/

    I’m sure those whores swoon at your tight “game”

    LikeLike


  224. on January 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Anyone seen “(500) Days of Summer”? On IMDb.com, a few users have loosely compared the storylines in “Blue Valentine” to the storylines in “(500) Days of Summer”

    LikeLike


  225. on January 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm rebelliousvanilla

    I told a few men to their face that if they married me after I got pregnant by another man, I would have no dime of respect for them and that I apologize, but I can’t feel nothing but contempt for the men who marry single mothers. It’s some sort of seething instinctual disgust.

    Funny enough, those men either told me that I’m cynical or that women love men who care about X or Y. Geez, you frigging fruitcake, you think that our instincts differ? What I feel is felt by all women. I just am introspective enough to figure things out.

    LikeLike


  226. on January 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm rebelliousvanilla

    James, women get more into college due to their IQ distribution. Take a look at the graph and move a line up and down on it. As more people get into college, the share of women goes up as you get to the mean. And affirmative action.

    LikeLike


  227. on January 20, 2011 at 11:04 pm whorefinder

    Good Luck Chuck:

    Since when does getting a hooker require game?

    LikeLike


  228. on January 20, 2011 at 11:24 pm James A. Donald

    rebelliousvanilla

    James, women get more into college due to their IQ distribution.

    Most college bound people take the Sat. More boys than girls do well on the Sat. If more girls than boys are being admitted to college, that means some other factor is weighing their favor – presumably that they are girls.

    Women’s IQ distribution is narrower than mens. (There are more brilliant men, and more stupid men) So if everyone with above average IQ went to college, the number of men and women would be equal. If only those with substantially above average IQ went to college, the number of men would be considerably larger than the number of women.

    Official truth is that girls do better than boys in college – and they do, according the college grading – yet everyone sees that the moron classes are full of girls, and the hard classes full of boys, suggesting that the college grading is loaded.

    LikeLike


  229. on January 20, 2011 at 11:28 pm Anonymous

    Given a choice, child support for a kid that yours beats raising somebody else’s and not having your own.

    LikeLike


  230. on January 20, 2011 at 11:05 pm whorefinder

    And I’ve been a long time commenter here, ding back. This ain’t about stirring traffic. I’d ask CH to link if that were the case.

    it’s more fun tearing down manginas like you.

    Now please, do tell us all how your quotes don’t contradict themselves. Also, how Obama’s slips of the tongues are just mistakes but Palin’s make her a moron.

    And don’t forget to add how much money you make, lol.

    LikeLike


  231. on January 21, 2011 at 1:48 am Stud Dynamite

    just watched about halfway, omg, it’s boooring. Disappoint. Written by the guy who actually enjoys artsy-fartsy, Vicky Christina is one of my favorites and rest of Woody Allen too.
    As far as analysis, you guys gotta lay off your alpha worship. The wrestler came off as a rather losery guy who’d do for now. As far as the main character, yes, I see a lot of myself in it – the curse of middle of the road higher beta/lesser alpha guy – he got just enough game to score just enough pussy not to get cynical yet not much enough to see the whole picture. Then he keeps getting more and more emasculated as he can’t let go. The whole thing is pretty easily fixed by next – but the shitty part of life, when you have the little girl, the house all that crap, you can’t quite just next. So you get trapped.
    Major beta moments (f’n mandoline, the stache, WTF?) seem rather forced. Also, the pickup line on the bus came off betaish to me. Would Genghis Khan say some shit like that? But overall, not much to it really, yes there’re some things I can relate to, but should’ve watched True Grit instead.

    LikeLike


  232. on January 21, 2011 at 3:11 am Tim

    I dated a single mother once.

    It was, as Jerry McGuire would say, “an up at dawn, pride-swallowing siege that I will never fully tell you about, ok?”

    Just don’t do it.

    LikeLike


  233. on January 21, 2011 at 3:30 am Badguy

    The movie is boring but it has a huge merit: it shows what a real world woman is. Unlike most other movies.

    LikeLike


  234. on January 21, 2011 at 5:06 am Jerry

    @JonnyB

    The Roger Ebert review was incredibly clueless.

    He must already be senile.

    It was worth reading because of the concept that people get married in order to have a witness to their lives (and I’ll probably use the train/station analogy sometime).

    Other than that, he didn’t give any reason for anyone to go see the film.

    He admits that it confuses him what might have gone wrong with that marriage. He’s so far away from romancing hot women that he’s no longer relevant as a critic for romance films.

    @Alan

    Yes. This was very much like “500 Days of Summer” which should be required viewing for all PUA aspirants.

    @Dynamite

    In real life on a mostly empty train or bus, if a 9 or 10 is sitting there, I can guarantee that the beta males will be the ones who take a seat at a normal distance from her in order to give her space, which is what people do in such situations when one is not sexually attracted to the other.

    In my observation, betas worry about “bothering” women. This mostly keeps them from opening at all.

    It takes balls to deliberately move to a relatively near seat in such a situation and it takes balls of iron to ask her if the seat next to her is free (with dozens of empty seats in plain view to her). When you do this latter, she is basically agreeing to get to know you (and if you smell OK and look good, you’d be surprised how many women will say yes to letting the man sit next to her on an empty bus or train).

    Other than putting the foot in the door to keep Cindy talking when he first met her, this was (in my opinion) the only moment I saw Dean behaving like an alpha should.

    LikeLike


  235. on January 21, 2011 at 10:26 am Blue Valentine «  Modeled Behavior

    […] The review and the money quote And that really gets at the heart of the matter. The forces that nurture relationships and that break them apart aren’t agents of good or evil. They are laws, like gravity, that we all must accommodate if we want to find love and be happy. Blue Valentine does the best job to date of any movie at illuminating the crass functioning of the mating market and the competing, and mutually alien, desires that animate men and women. It’s a dark and claustrophobic reminder of the fragile contingencies which sustain love. […]

    LikeLike


  236. on January 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm Shelley

    Any man who actually follows those maxims that Surfed listed will surely be single for life.

    LikeLike


  237. on January 21, 2011 at 12:30 pm Anonymous

    Stud Dynamite said: “As far as analysis, you guys gotta lay off your alpha worship. The wrestler came off as a rather losery guy who’d do for now. …”

    True, but he put the bun in the oven. (Goal!) And that’s what counts– he planted his kid and bailed, pump and dump! See ya!

    LikeLike


  238. on January 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm HarmonicaFTW

    @ Shelley

    That’s the point. Who wants to be attached to any conniving bitch for more than a few months?

    LikeLike


  239. on January 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm Alan Roger Currie

    I’m with HarmonicaFTW. If it were a choice between being single for life, and being a good, quality woman … then of course, I would choose the latter.

    But if it is a choice between being single for life, and being with a manipulative, duplicitous, low-character woman … I choose the former.

    LikeLike


  240. on January 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm Evil Alpha

    “Attraction is triggered by ambitions that build status. Masculine/creative hobbies, building businesses, climbing the corporate ladder- these types of things create attraction.”

    Yup true. But once again status in Cindy’s eyes is not job/hobby related. What matters to Cindy is that Dean doesn’t fuck her like she’s property and that Dean can’t kick Bobby’s ass.

    The majority of women drink martinis with vodka, but plenty ladies prefer it made with gin. The kind of alcohol matters, chuck.

    It is not good enough to say all women prefer men of higher status without ALSO asking what kind of status the given woman is into. I once had a LTR with woman whose dad was filthy rich. There was no way I could every match his wealth, and probably never her income, but $$$ status was not what made her pussy ache.

    Her dad was soft and nerdy. I am visceral and athletic. Not surprisingly, my ex loved to be physically and verbally manhandled. In bed she loved to be bossed and bounced around and when she got lippy outside of the bedroom she liked to be put in her place as opposed to be told “yes dear” like her Dad would her mother.

    We split because I did not want her to be the mother of my children, not because I couldn’t have been with her successfully. Dean didn’t need a different job to keep Cindy. Dean needed a different psyche.

    LikeLike


  241. on January 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Evil Alpha-

    All good and valid points.

    I think we are at the point of splitting hairs. Neither one of us can say for certain exactly what would have maintained attraction in this marriage. Either/or/both probably, to varying degrees.

    It’s important to remember that maintaining the right frame is always key to a healthy relationship, but as a man confidence and a dominant, masculine demeanor are most often derived from achievements. That’s why women go gaga for these traits in a man, because most of the time it means that the guy who is projecting them either has resources or has the ability to amass resources.

    Another thing to keep in mind is the materialistic culture we live in. Women are consummate followers. They LIVE to scale the social ladder, usually via a man. When a nurse sees her coworker who ismarried to the surgeon living in a huge house and taking spa vacations a few times per year, envy sets in. “I’m prettier than her. I deserve everything she has and more!”

    Despite the rampant consumerism we see today the subject of money and its relation to “love” is still a taboo subject. Add to that the promise of being able to build and maintain attraction indefinitely if you have “tight game” and you have a bunch of guys who are going to be in for a rude awakening if they ever do manage to land a high value woman. If you you think that a supermodel is going to ignore your lack of ambition indefinitely so long as you maintain a masculine frame, I have a bridge to sell you. A woman in the 7 and below looks range, maybe. But you would be a fool to think that an 8+ is going to be satisfied living in a crappy apartment eating ramen noodles for the rest of her life.

    LikeLike


  242. on January 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm Evil Alpha

    Chuck,

    I know you don’t mean to but you come off as a member of the money = everything crowd.

    So I’ll ask you this way so I can understand your perspective and experience on the subject a little better.

    What level of income in dollars should a man that has excellent game make in order to keep an 8, 9 or 10 “attracted” ?

    And for a reference point Michelle Williams in the futureroom shower is a 6.

    LikeLike


  243. on January 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm P

    EA et al:

    Haven’t seen the film but Michelle Williams, like essentially all professional beauties, is a 9 (though fading, and she might not be to your tastes, but who cares about your tastes?). From the stills I’ve seen, the character she plays is supposed to be a 6 or a 7. Hard to tell. That trick never works so she ends up presenting as a 7 or an 8.

    So “Michelle Williams in the futureroom shower is a 6” is pretty much meaningless.

    LikeLike


  244. on January 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Evil Alpha-

    You are still misinterpreting my point.

    It isn’t all about income. A guy with tight game will be able to keep a desirable woman attracted for a LONG time as long as he continues to show that he has what it takes to eventually “make it”.

    Women look at men as investments. You don’t have to be a multi-million dollar company as long as she sees that your balance sheet is in decent shape and you have good future growth potential.

    This is why status and power are even more important that wealth and material possessions. Women are attracted to indirect mating fitness indicators. This is why game will serve as a substitute for status and power, at least for a period of time.

    If Cindy was a 30 year old 6, she was a 7 at 20. House painters generally don’t have a whole lot of access to younger hotter tighter ass even if they have the means to attract it. If Dean had gone on to build a company or climb the ranks in someone elses company, Cindy may have been more inclined to maintain or even improve her appearance. She could have easily been a mid 7 if she put in some effort.

    Money definitely isn’t everything, but just as some men overestimate its importance lots of men who don’t believe that they will ever have money, status, or power are seduced by the idea that a silver tongue can give them EVERYTHING that “true” value can.

    LikeLike


  245. on January 21, 2011 at 7:20 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Although it doesn’t prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will share the story of a recent g/f which supports the idea that money does matter to hot women-

    We dated for about 4 months. She was one of the hottest pieces of ass I have ever had. She was the type who downplayed her looks, so when she showed me her modelmayhem profile my jaw hit the floor. Had she been a little more ambitious, she could have made a decent living as a bikini model.

    Everything started out great. Hot woman. Hot, freaky sex. She had her flaws, but she was feminine and submissive in most respects.

    As time passed, I found out that amongst the social group that introduced us, everyone believed that I was “loaded”.

    A little background on me- I had a goal to retire by the time I was in my mid 30’s. I was on track to reach this goal when the economy tanked. This required me to take a step back. The days of wild parties and naked women in the rooftop jacuzzi were amazing, but I was forced to go into reorganization mode. Still had a nice car and a nice place to live, but nothing compared to the rockstar pad with two nice cars in the garage.

    When she met me I still had status and the reputation of having a lot of money.

    A few months into the relationship I noticed her behavior started to change. Classic signs that she’s seeing someone else. I didn’t have any direct proof, but I’ve had that gut feeling enough times to know that it is NEVER wrong.

    As I mentioned, she had some other flaws that would prevent me from ever considering her for a true long term prospect. So when her erratic behavior got to the point where it really started to bother me, I cut it off. It’s not easy to tell an 8+ feminine, submissive woman that you don’t want to see her anymore, but I did it.

    A month or so later the mutual friend who introduced us told me that the ex was recently involved in a bad car accident. so I contacted her to make sure she was ok. As fate would have it, she was attending a meeting a few blocks from my place at that very moment. She suggested we meet for a drink, and I ended up banging her one last time that night.

    A few months pass. We haven’t been in contact with each other. One night I was out with our mutual friend and she tells me that the ex has a new man, and that nobody in the group likes him. Older, schlubby, not very social, etc. My first thought was “Oh, you mean the dude she was banging when we were together?” The friend didn’t know this, but I’m almost 100% sure that I was right.

    The next time I talk to our mutual friend she brings up this new guy again. Apparently he’s “some rich guy she met at work”. She had started working two nights a week behind the bar at a strip club to pay for school which was coming up. She also mentioned that the ex and her new man were on vacation that weekend. The ex has no money. Wonder who funded that trip?

    That last night she stopped by my place she said something to the effect of “What were we going to do? Hang out here and drink every night?” Once I dusted off my handy chickspeak translator I realized what she was REALLY trying to say- “I’m a good looking woman. I can use my looks to barter for vacations and tuition. You didn’t offer to help me out so I had to do what I had to do”.

    I should mention that the official breakup happened when she texted me that she wanted to talk and I texted back “Don’t bother”. It would sound as if she were trying to break up with me, but to this day she maintains that she absolutely did not want to end our relationship.

    So putting aside the fact that she wasn’t relationship material, where did things go wrong? Did I fail to maintain an alpha frame? No, I was outgunned by someone who has more disposable income than I do at the present time.

    She didn’t want to stop fucking me. I could still be banging her on the side if I were up for dealing with her issues. But she wasn’t going to sit there and drink cheap canadian whiskey and watch movies with me a couple of times per week when she could be using her tight body to help her improve her financial situation.

    LikeLiked by 1 person


  246. on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 pm narciso

    glc

    She didn’t want to stop fucking me. I could still be banging her on the side

    you have a strangely inclusive definition of “outgunned”.

    if she’s bleeding him for vacations and baubles and still giving you the pussy, i would say it’s you that has the bigger guns, no?

    LikeLike


  247. on January 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm Good Luck Chuck

    narciso

    glc

    She didn’t want to stop fucking me. I could still be banging her on the side

    you have a strangely inclusive definition of “outgunned”.

    if she’s bleeding him for vacations and baubles and still giving you the pussy, i would say it’s you that has the bigger guns, no?

    It depends on your definition of winning. This post is about a film that depicts a marriage that fell apart. My point was that in order to tie a high value woman down for a long period of time, you will eventually need more than just words.

    You have to know what the goal is before you determine the winner. Now that I am approaching 40 the goal is beginning to shift from banging it out with random skanks to finding a long term partner at some point in the near future.

    Being the guy on the side is great if you are looking for cheap sex. Not so great when you prefer something more stable.

    LikeLike


  248. on January 21, 2011 at 8:41 pm xsplat

    narciso

    you have a strangely inclusive definition of “outgunned”.

    if she’s bleeding him for vacations and baubles and still giving you the pussy, i would say it’s you that has the bigger guns, no?

    Are you just trying to be cute, or does your brain actually work like that?

    If the guy can afford the baubles and vacations, he’s not being bled. And the old schlumpy not so social rich guy is obviously getting his share of her pussy. He purchased the young models time with greater resources. Why is that complicated to you? Next thing you are going to say is that it’s not real quality time because she’s just a gold digger.

    LikeLike


  249. on January 21, 2011 at 9:09 pm Doug1

    Jerry–

    Interesting comment. Yeah the idea that there’s one type of game that will work on all women no matter who they are, their cultural beliefs etc., if only it’s tight enough is wrong. It’s also wrong that game techniques alone, without real world status and sociability and so on will work on the hottest girls and/or the highest status ones.

    At the same time there are some basic game principles that do apply quite universally. Psychosocial dominance and status for example. Social proof esp. from hot women, and better yet if from similar or higher social status than the target. Pretty much reversing all feminist and chivalrous advice. Confidence and congruence. Strong, aggressive sexual escalation. Demonstrating higher value. And so on.

    The game part of this is mostly returning to old fashioned masculinity, within a current cultural frame.

    A woman from a superpower like Russia is more likely to be ready to date/marry a sophisticated American than a woman from little Denmark or Moldavia, even if the Moldavian is financially desperate and the Russian woman’s parents own apartments worth millions of USD.

    Why would/are Moldavian girls not so inclined to be attracted to American men? I’d have thought it like the Ukraine.

    LikeLike


  250. on January 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm julian

    all you guys saying michelle williams is an 8 or a 9 need to have your eyes checked. she’s a 6.5 to 7.5.

    LikeLike


  251. on January 22, 2011 at 2:15 am Good Luck Chuck

    I have a comment stuck in this ridiculous moderation system, but xsplat’s reply is insightful, as usual so I wanted to chime in.

    You fellas gotta understand that with wealth/status/power comes leverage.

    xsplat makes a very compelling argument for keeping a woman down financially. The fact that you can afford to “keep” a woman gives you a lot of power.

    Why do you think we are in this situation with western women? A big part of it has to do with the fact that they are financially INDEPENDENT. It is very difficult to keep a woman in check if she can fend for herself. All of these six figure career women that I know are raging sluts. Female dependence is a GOOD thing for both men and women. Left to their own devices women ultimately self destruct, which is what we are seeing today.

    The same logic that tells us that keeping a woman dependent upon you applies to ensuring that there is a significant wealth and status differential. In this movie Cindy is not happy in part because she’s a couple of rings up the ladder from Dean. The best game in the world isn’t gonna fool most women indefinitely. You need to have TRUE leverage, TRUE power in the form of higher status and preferably a higher net worth.

    With female independence the bar has been raised. This is why American women behave like hedonistic children. This is why when you step foot in a more traditional country as an American man, you are afforded instant status. One of the rudest awakenings I ever experienced was when I stepped off the plane here in the US after having spent a couple of weeks in Eastern Europe. As soon as I stepped into the crowd I felt invisible. It was the most bizarre feeling I have ever experienced. It was as if crossing nine time zones had turned a rock star into a vagrant.

    LikeLike


  252. on January 22, 2011 at 9:16 am Evil Alpha

    @P

    “So “Michelle Williams in the futureroom shower is a 6″ is pretty much meaningless.”

    Ummm. that’s the moment in the story when you find out that Michelle Williams’ character is a Tranny! Maybe not to you, but that’s a big deal for most guys. Guess you should have actually watched the film before you posted some meaningless comments. Huh?

    Stupid dude I am not interested in whose airbrushed photo you like to jerk to I am interested in what the director filmed Cindy to look like for his audience.

    LikeLike


  253. on January 22, 2011 at 11:48 am Jerry

    It is true that, no matter how much a young man wishes it weren’t true that older men with money AND GAME have an advantage over him for women his own age, the most important message from the PUA/MRA community needs to be that, in the end and over the long run, it is advantage to men for them to be financially way, way, way above as many 10s as possible.

    The T-Bird Syndrome is real.

    A gorgeous young woman who has lots of money from daddy, will often squander her beauty on unworthy (and not necessarily alpha) males (more like young, good looking guys their own age who happen to be nearby and/or willing to withstand loud night club music for hours) riding the carousel.

    The best way out of that is for daddy not to have money (as bad as that sounds, it’s true and the host has said it before).

    And while that sounds mean (but true) one definitely must want the government to STOP BEING DADDY, especially after it robs you (or at least the older more successful guys) of THEIR MONEY.

    Lots of younger guys were happy when the economy and tax revenue were booming because older wealthier men were being robbed, while simultaneously going to bed early so they could get up in the morning to produce, while those younger men and the most fertile women their own age were getting that money themselves in the form of student loan largess from the government (stolen from the older producers).

    Therefore, lots of older guys were happy about the financial crisis, because it has made a lot more young women “get real”…benefiting older men but also many of the more serious younger men who don’t spend all their time in night clubs instead of trying to produce something that civilization values.

    QED: It’s liberal to think “it doesn’t matter to me whether a woman has money or not because money doesn’t really matter, only game does.”

    Because that way of thinking (that money doesn’t matter), makes a young man complacent about liberal socialist policies that transfer money from the older producing males to the young women without requiring the young women to kiss the older producer’s butts.

    Of course it’s in the young men’s SHORT TERM interest to be OK with this socialism.

    But, if any guy here is over 30, it is NOT in your interest for socialism to take your tax money and give it to young women without the women required to even say thank you to you (not the government). For any guy over 30, it’s harmful to to try to theorize too much that money doesn’t matter in dating and sex.

    Sure, it’s helpful to improve your game to think that way, but don’t believe it so much that you become complacent about socialism/feminism.

    LikeLike


  254. on January 22, 2011 at 11:52 am Jerry

    I wrote that without editing. Where I wrote THEIR MONEY, I meant YOUR MONEY.

    I also meant to say that, during the boom, young men were hooking up with women their own age in night clubs and benefiting from the care free lifestyle that student loans engendered, while the older, more worthy men (in terms of production) were going to bed early so they could get up to produce (and pay taxes to support the student loans that made the women want to spend their time in night clubs seeking sex with non-producers).

    LikeLike


  255. on January 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm Jerry

    QED: Socialism in a culture helps create the illusion, to some beneficiaries (young men) that money doesn’t matter in dating outside of a feminist culture (where women are often even trained to actually hate any man who seems to have money – of course game will be even more important in such a culture).

    Blue Valentine (a fictional film) could have featured the wrestler meeting Cindy in the present, dressed in a $900 business suit and noting that he was the lead salesguy for some electronics firm. Maybe the sequel will show him this way because this film didn’t say that he hadn’t done anything with his career.

    I understand the director hadn’t shown him this way because, it is true, that Cindy would still like him better than Dean because he was more alpha.

    But I’m talking about a sequel where Cindy actually decides to get back with the wrestler.

    I know cases personally where this kind of thing happened (the bad guy from high school had a good career while the nerdy guy actually remained a nerd).

    A sequel of “Blue Valentine” also might feature Dean having to pay excessive child support for a child that wasn’t his biologically, and finally waking up to how wrong this is while he learns to be alpha with new (younger, hotter, tighter) women he dates.

    LikeLike


  256. on January 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm Jerry

    The actress that plays Cindy might refuse to do a sequel where she meets Dean five years later and he has a beautiful 21 year old by his side (and a more alpha demeanor) while she looks old and weathered.

    That would be a realistic scenario, especially as PUA/MRA concepts get released to the general population of current American beta shlubs.

    LikeLike


  257. on January 22, 2011 at 12:19 pm Thor

    @Jerrry about the new 21y.o.

    That would be very unlikely, but I can see two
    scenarios:

    1) Dean get his shit together and starts his own moving
    firm (or something) and becomes if not rich at least
    well off and “serious”. In this case the new 21 y.o. might
    last. And Dean would have had to get over his betaness.
    The shitty mandolin playing works for a very young man,
    not for an older man who would have to be a VERY good
    player for it to matter.

    2) As above, except Dean gets a windfall like inheritance,
    or lottery winning. (And Dean would still need to get over
    most of his betaness). This would last until the money
    ran out, which would be less than five years, regardless
    of the amount of money – the spending rate would adjust
    to a five-year-or-less burn.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  258. on January 22, 2011 at 12:32 pm Firepower

    Jerry

    The actress that plays Cindy might refuse to do a sequel where she meets Dean five years later and he has a beautiful 21 year old by his side (and a more alpha demeanor) while she looks old and weathered.

    That would be a realistic scenario, especially as PUA/MRA concepts get released to the general population of current American beta shlubs.

    That’s not realistic.

    That’s what impressionable 20 year-old forum/seminar acolytes of MPUAG millionaires believe and hope and wish.

    You can’t turn Jordies into warriors – at least with any credible longevity. What you get is the unfortunate Style.
    A good guy whose Dream Girl ends up deserting him.

    That – and 50 million douchebags emulating Jersey Shore Asshole Game every night in every single fucking bar you go to.

    LikeLike


  259. on January 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Another point that I try to impress on guys is the fact that as a man, you have the opportunity to have the sexual market value of a hundred “10’s”.

    Super wealthy, powerful, and socially connected men can have dozens of women standing in line waiting for a shot at a piece of the pie.

    An extremely high value woman might also have many suitors, but she will usually only have one MAYBE two at a time, and most of these guys once they realize they have no chance will float away and fixate on the next attractive woman for a few months.

    In other words, beauty is common. At least in relation to wealth/status/power in a man. For every hundred 10’s you see on the street (better leave the US for that one) there are only a small handful of Richard Bransons, Warren Buffets, Johnny Depps, etc.

    And you don’t have to be a billionaire to reap many of the benefits of W/S/P. If you project the image of being a few notches above average if you have even a little game you will have women literally fighting over you. So instead of trolling the clubs and running “day game” collecting dozens of phone numbers from flaky women, you can instead sit back and watch as woman after woman drops into your lap.

    I’ve been the guy collecting numbers from flaky women and I have been the guy hosting that party where I had to decide which of the chicks that was fighting over me would end up in my bed later that night. Which would YOU rather be?

    LikeLike


  260. on January 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm Evil Alpha

    Umm Jerry,

    I have yet to meet a liberal who doesn’t think money matters. As a matter of fact, liberals think money is the solution to everything.

    Case in point.
    Fat elementary school kids don’t need to exercise they just need money for healthy lunches.
    Sluts don’t need to keep their legs closed to stop pregnancy they just need money for abortions.
    Women don’t need to learn how to be good wives to keep a man they just need money for child support.

    And of course the way the liberals gets all this money so they can solve all the world’s problems is through taxation! ie. YOUR MONEY!

    LikeLike


  261. on January 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm Timothy Webster

    @Good Luck Chuck xsplat makes a very compelling argument for keeping a woman down financially. The fact that you can afford to “keep” a woman gives you a lot of power.

    You know, Chuch, in the Hebrew system, each wife had to give her husband half of her income. How is that for leverage? No matter how much she made, she would never surpass her husband. She could go out and be filthy rich if she wanted; but he was coming for the ride.

    If the man had two wives, or three wives, it just got better and better.

    It is a finely balanced system to incentivise everyone to produce (and reproduce) as much as possible.

    LikeLike


  262. on January 23, 2011 at 9:19 am Linkage is Good for You: Big Breasted Edition

    […] – “Beta Valentine“, “Losing a Few Good […]

    LikeLike


  263. on January 23, 2011 at 3:28 pm luvsic

    After watching the movie, my big takeaway is how useful knowledge of game theory and fundamentals is for everyone, even naturals. Obviously, most of what’s going on in game circles is betas trying to change bad habits and learn alpha behaviors, but it’s interesting to watch even ‘naturals’ make killer mistakes with girls they’re really into (mistakes readers of this blog would not make). Gosling’s character has some natural game qualities (his initial approach is fantastic), and the wrestler is obviously a born alpha, but they both do some horrible backsliding (flowers!), and don’t know how to control an argument/fight with a woman.

    LikeLike


  264. on January 23, 2011 at 4:11 pm Laura

    Well, this was an informative thread. I feel like I got a good look inside the heads of brain-washed bitches. And uh bitches ain’t shit to me!

    LikeLike


  265. on January 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm whorefinder

    Being the guy on the side is great if you are looking for cheap sex. Not so great when you prefer something more stable.

    —because we must make ourselves worthy of their love.

    GLC, you pee all over yourself.

    LikeLike


  266. on January 23, 2011 at 3:19 pm Tinderbox

    Sounds to me like Chuck, as her alpha on the side, could have kept gaming and banging the hottie for as long as he wanted despite the downturn in his financial fortune, while she kept the schlubby richer beta provider as her official boyfriend or fiance.

    His story only proves the point that while only game is necessary for one-night stands and STRs with a high SMV woman (8+ or anything above your own SMV), a man needs to maintain extra incentives (relative wealth, some kind of status) in order to keep her in a LTR. It’s the difference between her perception and your reality.

    Which is what CH has been telling us all along.

    LikeLike


  267. on January 23, 2011 at 11:01 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Tinderbox

    Sounds to me like Chuck, as her alpha on the side, could have kept gaming and banging the hottie for as long as he wanted despite the downturn in his financial fortune, while she kept the schlubby richer beta provider as her official boyfriend or fiance.

    Probably. But by the time things changed I was just starting to settle into the idea that we were a couple so I wasn’t of the mindset that I could change it into a f-buddy situation overnight. Plus, she has some other issues that made dumping her and creating distance the only real option.

    His story only proves the point that while only game is necessary for one-night stands and STRs with a high SMV woman (8+ or anything above your own SMV), a man needs to maintain extra incentives (relative wealth, some kind of status) in order to keep her in a LTR. It’s the difference between her perception and your reality.

    Which is what CH has been telling us all along.

    CH alludes to the importance of wealth/status/power in many posts, but I can’t remember reading anything about the NECESSITY of bringing something more to the table to keep a LTR around.

    As much as I agree with most of what is written here, I will never agree with the presumption that game is the only tool needed to effectively deal with women.

    whorefinder

    —because we must make ourselves worthy of their love.

    Come back and talk to us when you have some real life experience dude.

    LikeLike


  268. on January 24, 2011 at 4:11 am Jerry

    I get annoyed when young guys call older men with harems “beta schlubs” while daring to imply that a young guy with a whore for a girlfriend is somehow more alpha than the harem owner for whom the girlfriend works.

    I’ve noted before that there are about a dozen muscular young guys who proudly walk around with their girlfriends without knowing that their girlfriends have been in my bed.

    In fact, recently more than one of these women has told me, in bed, that the boyfriend has asked her to marry him.

    Here is how the conversation generally goes:

    “Should I marry him? I don’t love him. But he loves me and would provide for me. I wish I could marry you but I know you couldn’t stay with one woman. Of course, I will continue to come to you after marriage.”

    These young beta schlubs (who are getting the milk for “free”) have no clue about what’s going on.

    And I have no worries that one of them will ever learn and come to do me harm.

    Women keep their secrets.

    And muscles and youth in a male does not equal game. I don’t buy for a second that most of these young guys I see with 10s have much game. They were in the right place at the right time and, if they don’t get game, they will never be in that place again. This is why these guys ask their 10s to marry them.

    LikeLike


  269. on January 24, 2011 at 4:57 am Jerry

    I haven’t been to whorefinder’s blog, but apparently he seems to separate professional whores from regular women? The whore/madonna concept is the biggest mistake any guy can make in PUA.

    because we must make ourselves worthy of their love.

    That had to have been said in jest because it’s the opposite of what the Chateau teaches.

    Another massive mistaken assumption here is that non-professional women who take gifts from a sugar daddy don’t respect him for that.

    The opposite is often the case. Most women respect daddy.
    Think about it.

    Young guys are talking apples and oranges about what young women want in a man of any given age.

    Audrey, a young and active British woman who comments a lot here, has stated that most men under 40 should not have to have or use money to get laid if they’ve got tight game and aren’t stupid enough to try to have an LTR, but guys over 40 are expected to have money and there’s no shame in him using it to shut out the competition.

    When young women flake with men, most guys don’t understand that it is because the women don’t know how to be honest with the guy about what it would take to get her (money). If you badger a flake enough, she might tell you.

    Let’s all remember that most young women will take the equivalent of a month’s income to do something sexual, even if it takes her a week to think it over and, at first, she will only watching the guy strip (don’t knock that until you’ve tried it).

    A high paid female lawyer would, therefore, not be for sale

    …for less than $6k.

    But no alpha would want her if she’s not still 19. This is why its not a bad thing that women can have great careers, but it is devastating for alphas when 18-21 year old women are overly provided for with our tax money.

    The government is, thereby, cockblocking men for the most fertile women.

    What I’ve noted above is that, in socialist countries where any beautiful young woman can garner at least $1k per month in school subsidies (grants, student loans) and minimum wage allows 19 year olds to earn at least $1k per month, it might take $1k to get them in bed (using the ballpark “one month income” rule).

    And that is too much money for almost all men including me, thus forcing all men who live in socialist countries into trying to use game and game alone to get women.

    This is why men only pay PUA experts thousands of dollars in western feminist cities where young women “price
    themselves out of the market”.

    The rhetoric about western women being priced out of the market can be taken literally.

    But when the average monthly income is less than $200 per month for 19 year olds, a man quickly learns how to deal with flaky college girls. He quickly learns the one month rule that can change a college student from being a solid bitch into being one of the best lays a guy ever had.

    You guys in the west don’t talk about the effect of money on game mostly because almost all young women in your area are outside of your budget.

    If you’re making less than $100k in the west, you can’t afford to do anything but use game and hope for the best.

    Remember, the host himself admits that a huge number of young women flake after he wins their phone number.

    Sadly, I have learned why women flake. It’s not because the guy wasn’t alpha in getting her number. It’s because she’s too embarrassed about admitting what it would take, in dollars, to really get her (if he’s not muscular and her own age and sees her every day on campus).

    LikeLike


  270. on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 am Jerry

    When you look at porn online you see the average 9 or 10 from next door who did it for $1k.

    Think about it.

    LikeLike


  271. on January 24, 2011 at 5:49 am slumlord

    @Jerry

    When you look at porn online you see the average 9 or 10 from next door who did it for $1k.

    Probably the most profound comment on this blog for the last two years.

    LikeLike


  272. on January 24, 2011 at 7:08 am alegría rioplatense

    jerry
    When you look at porn online you see the average 9 or 10 from next door who did it for $1k.

    damn mac, how many points are on your scale?

    LikeLike


  273. on January 24, 2011 at 7:32 am alegría rioplatense

    and, jerry

    A gorgeous young woman who has lots of money from daddy, will often squander her beauty on unworthy (and not necessarily alpha) males (more like young, good looking guys their own age who happen to be nearby and/or willing to withstand loud night club music for hours) riding the carousel.

    okay hoss, why’n’t you define “alpha” for us, howzit.

    c’mon slick, we’re all curious to see how you manage to define it in such a way as to exclude the men that women pick if given free, unfettered choice

    y’also define “top shelf” liquor in such a way as to exclude the liquor that people would pick, if all the brands were free?

    hmmmmm

    LikeLike


  274. on January 24, 2011 at 7:37 am Evil Alpha

    When you look at porn online you see the average 9 or 10 from next door who did it for $1k.

    Yeah. But that’s only after she realized that it paid better to fuck someone on camera than everyone who works with her at Chili’s Grille & Bar.

    Think about that!

    LikeLike


  275. on January 24, 2011 at 7:42 am Daily Chateau Reader

    A real-life paternity-test failure story, on Reddit today:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f7vxo/found_out_that_the_9yo_ive_been_raising_is_not_my/

    LikeLike


  276. on January 24, 2011 at 7:51 am Jerry

    Easy Alegria. An Alpha is the guy who gets the most beautiful women in bed.

    If the kid who hangs out in smoky nightclubs does better in numbers and quality than the older businessman, than he wins.

    But if he hangs out there to only get skanks or one 9 who happens to be just one member of an older man’s harem, he isn’t winning. It doesn’t matter if he got the whore for free.

    The Chateau recently wrote a post called Fooling Gold-Diggers. He was being politically correct when he said that they were a minority. They are only a minority when Daddy Government is paying the way for a lot of young women to go through their college years.

    What the left wing Alegria is saying is that Daddy Government supposedly gives young guys in night clubs a “free market” which is the opposite of reality. Life in socialist countries is unnatural.

    When the government subsidizes young women during their most fertile years, that is not natural and their choices are not natural.

    Feminists controlling a culture is also not natural.

    We all know that younger guys do better with women their own age in socialist and feminist countries.

    That is why young men vote Democrat or left wing in most countries.

    They don’t realize that they are fucking themselves over for when they turn 30 and beyond.

    Nobody is saying that game isn’t paramount at all ages. But a senior citizen, whether he is alpha or upper beta, isn’t going to have as easy a time as a 21 year old beta male in getting the beta male’s classmate if she still thinks like a child in terms of money growing on trees.

    LikeLike


  277. on January 24, 2011 at 8:01 am lawyerjourno

    Professor Göran Arnqvist from the Department of Ecology and Evolution, Uppsala University and associate professor Trine Bilde from the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Aarhus, have tested this possibility directly for the first time and shown that it is not true.

    Their study on seed beetles shows that, contrary to predictions, males of low genetic quality are more successful in fertilizing eggs. Males who gained the highest share of paternity were actually males with low genetic quality. These males also fathered offspring that did less well.

    LikeLike


  278. on January 24, 2011 at 8:02 am alegría rioplatense

    When the government subsidizes young women during their most fertile years, that is not natural and their choices are not natural.

    What if her pops is “subsidizing” her, mate? Y’gonna call that “unnatural,” too?

    Don’t know bout ya’ pauly, but, I likes the food I eat at buffets better than the scraps I gets when I’m starving. y’hear?

    Read between your own lines, hoss — the girls’ll only pick you and your type when they have to, in order so that they’n’t have to eat bread n’ water for lunch an’ dinner an’ supper too.
    If you’ve managed to convince yourself this makes you an awesome alpha-sheik haremboss, then good on you, though. Get em’ tiger. rowrr!

    I’d rather gets ’em because they wanna fucks my dick, not my wallet.

    LikeLike


  279. on January 24, 2011 at 8:16 am Jerry

    @Alegria

    That is because you are young, hostile, poor and obviously not that educated or interesting. This plus game and some weight lifting will get you women until about age 30.

    And you are missing the point.

    In a room filled with 100 guys like you, I will get the hottest one talking with me the whole time and leaving you out because of your lack of conversational ability.

    That is before money becomes a factor, not after.

    But since many immature college girls are unable, because of their own insecurities, to have an LTR, what will often really close the deal fast is if I get her and her friends back at my place stripping for chump change while you go home with a 7 or 8 if you’re lucky.

    That is natural choice on her and her friends’ part.

    LikeLike


  280. on January 24, 2011 at 8:48 am Jerry

    We are now seeing why left wing males vote for Daddy Government to subsidize young women in their most fertile years (and subsidize themselves at the same time so they can be free to chase women instead of having to work).

    They want money to be “off the table” so they can deal with women their own age in a “natural” environment (where neither they nor the women have to work in an office all day).

    In reality it hurts all men, young and old when young women are subsidized, even it is via “natural” means like a rich real father.

    And the Beach Boys “T-Bird Song” immortalizes this.

    In the “T-Bird Song” some very young men are deploring the fact that a woman has a rich father.

    The woman in the song is flaky.

    That should tell young left wing males to think again about the Nanny State, especially as they will soon be “old” for the college crowd (in about 5 years).

    It isn’t normal or natural for a 19 year old woman to think she’s “good to go” financially when most people (and most women) spend their lives worrying about finances.

    Feminism and socialism temporarily convince women at that age to even hate guys with money. In fact, “Blue Valentine” shows Cindy in her late 20s disrespecting the doctor, indicating that, when she dumps Dean, she will probably end up with another financial loser (because of her insecurities and need for control, not because the loser is an “alpha”).

    This kind of woman often ends up confused and unemployable for many years until she gets a clue when its too late to count (which is what the US and, probably, Australian culture is like now).

    LikeLike


  281. on January 24, 2011 at 10:19 am Alan Roger Currie

    In everyone’s opinion, what are the Top Ten movies that send a “cautionary warning” to men of “Don’t be a Beta Male with your woman! You will regret it in the long run!”

    (Other than “Blue Valentine” and “(500) Days of Summer”)

    LikeLike


  282. on January 24, 2011 at 10:20 am Jerry

    Field reports show the real world:

    Last week, despite having a beautiful marriage material 25 year old 8 for a girlfriend, I had two dates with two of the most attractive women on the local university campus. One 19 year old was a dummy and the other was the most brilliant on campus as well as best looking. Both dates went well. Both women made statements about money not being important during the dates, although I had not brought the subject up.

    The smarter one had gotten upset that I paid for the coffee she drank. That alarmed me about western feminism arriving on local campuses.

    So while Chuck was saying money matters, I was almost agreeing with Whorefinder that, no, I guess it doesn’t (this time around).

    But then both flaked. Big time. They wouldn’t answer their phone or texts. That mostly never happens to me outside of the feminist west. Sure I’m 30+ years older than they are but that wouldn’t explain the cruelty of being flaked on like that (a woman can politely tell a man she’s not interested).

    I found the dummy at Midnight on a weekday at the local night club filled with dumb working class guys who don’t have jobs to go to the next day. This was obviously a college girl who didn’t think much of herself. Like Cindy in the above film, she was deliberately slumming it.

    So I made an “indecent proposal”. She thought about it for 2 days and complied. It was some of the best protected sex I’ve ever had. She said she hadn’t had sex in six months. Whatever.

    The brilliant one answered my 6th text message with “I haven’t been answering you because I’m embarrassed to say I need a sugar daddy. Do you hate me now?”

    This was the one who had faked getting upset when I paid for her coffee.

    This was a shock to read. Where the Hell are the good girls?

    So it turned out Chuck was right at least about the two local women whom I had thought he was wrong about.

    What’s at least good about this woman was that I qualified and, thus, was told the truth.

    Most guys that get flaked on are NEVER told the truth because the women aren’t going to admit to them that he wasn’t financially qualified. So the women just refuse to answer calls.

    But I can extrapolate to the women of Harvard and Georgetown.

    I wouldn’t qualify for this kind of 10 there so I’d be flaked on there. They would never admit to why.

    I’d qualify for an 8 or even maybe a Harvard 9, because of my professorial qualities, but a 10 would want me to have gotten seriously rich.

    Note that 10s tend to become 9s in a matter of months or two or three years.

    LikeLike


  283. on January 24, 2011 at 10:47 am Evil Alpha

    @alegría
    I’d rather gets ‘em because they wanna fucks my dick…

    LMAO. You’re getting tail and so you project it’s because you have biggest, bestest schlong in the club. Well not only are you without the biggest, bestest schong in the club, but that’s not how women rank men in the 1st place. Women aren’t men in reverse. They don’t think like us, nor behave like us, but you’re too naive and inexperienced to realize how deluded you are.

    I mean think about it. Even ugly guys in a no name band get 10 times the pussy you get… cuz well they are in a band. One day you’ll realize that all those women that “wanna fucks your dick” do so for reasons starting with everything from revenge on a cheating boyfriend to sorority peer pressure. They are not picking you because you’ve got the best cock on the planet.

    Stop fooling yourself and stop putting bitches on a pedestal.

    LikeLike


  284. on January 24, 2011 at 11:13 am Jerry

    The Russians keep getting hit by major terror attacks.

    The people don’t deserve this from the Religion of Peace.

    This time the government knew there would be an attack somewhere but didn’t make a warning of any kind.

    LikeLike


  285. on January 24, 2011 at 1:05 pm Jerry

    Regarding the Moscow terror attack, the very idea that the CIA might be funding Chechen terrorists can have a HUGE effect on whether American men might get laid with Russian women.

    Many American women wouldn’t mind Russian women hating American men. Believe me, politics can turn that way very quickly. All you’d need is a Wikileaks document in this case.

    Remember also that White Knighters in the US have zero interest in ever getting laid in Russia.

    LikeLike


  286. on January 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm Jerry

    @Alan

    A classic film of the kind you’re thinking of is “The Last American Virgin” from 1982.

    Nerd seems to get the girl after the alpha refuses to pay for an abortion and dumps her. She gets back with the alpha in the classic (crushing and “unexpected”) ending embedded below.

    It needs to be shown to every 14 year old male as an example of what NOT to do. The teachers need to specifically spell out what the kid did wrong.

    LikeLike


  287. on January 24, 2011 at 1:46 pm nugganu

    I remember my ex ‘blossomed’ to the point she’s now 35, ugly, single, childless, and nobody can stand her wretched personality.

    LikeLike


  288. on January 24, 2011 at 1:52 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Thank you Jerry. Feel free over the next few days and weeks to add more titles that you think validly fall under this theme.

    LikeLike


  289. on January 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm Good Luck Chuck

    Jerry-

    True “mercenary” gold diggers are rare. For the rest of the population money IS a factor, they will deny it till their dying breath.

    If anything, the social landscape has ensured that wealth/status/power are more important than they have ever been to long term success with high value women. What do you do to stand out from every other dude who makes $40k per year when the women are making the same loot?

    A woman’s idol used to be her husband. Now it’s the flavor du jour movie star who gets the most tabloid press that week.

    Men today are held to a much higher standard. Game exists as a countermeasure to women’s impossible standards. It is a means to get laid and maintain some control in a relationship. Effective LTR game requires dominance, masculinity, AND maintaining higher relative status.

    Most younger guys who manage to get laid fall into a delusional state similar to that of a cougar. The cougar believes that because she can attract sexual attention from men, that she is still viable in the mating market. Younger guys think that just because they can get sex from a good looking woman without any real value (aside from token social status derived from their personality), that they will be able to tie one down in a committed relationship.

    LikeLike


  290. on January 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm Four Aces

    A great write-up, but the wrestler boyfriend was hardly an aloof alpha – he was a borderline stalker. Following the girl around, showing up at her door and wanting to see the kid, and beating up Ryan Gosling when he didn’t get his way. He clearly wanted to be a part of her life, or at least a part of the kid’s life.

    LikeLike


  291. on January 24, 2011 at 4:20 pm alegría rioplatense

    jerry —

    Feminism and socialism temporarily convince women at that age to even hate guys with money.

    Well, no, mate, girls aren’t gonna start “hating guys with money” any more than guys’re gonna start hating girls with long hair and big knockers.
    The current environment just remakes the situation so that your money is one of many factors. You’re cryin’ foul ‘cos you just can’t compete without a monopoly. Sorry boss.

    Do understand that, if your ramblings ever reach the mainstream, you’re going to do more to derail the mrm than feminists could dream of.

    LikeLike


  292. on January 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm alegría rioplatense

    evil alpha (presumably like alpha software, internal use only ‘cos you crash all the time) —

    LMAO. You’re getting tail and so you project it’s because you have biggest, bestest schlong in the club

    Sigh. Ever heard of synecdoche, chief?
    If I tell you to get your ass outta here, w’ya wonder whether the rest of you should follow?

    LikeLike


  293. on January 24, 2011 at 4:34 pm liarfinder

    jerry
    But then both flaked. Big time. They wouldn’t answer their phone or texts. That mostly never happens to me outside of the feminist west. Sure I’m 30+ years older than they are but that wouldn’t explain the cruelty of being flaked on like that (a woman can politely tell a man she’s not interested).

    didn’t you say you’re in your early-mid 40’s?

    LikeLike


  294. on January 24, 2011 at 4:37 pm (r)Evolutionary

    @Lawyerjourno, re: seed beetle study on sperm quality.

    You left out a key feature of your claim: It’s only “true” if you’re a seed beetle.

    In other words, until which time seed beetle reproductive dynamics are demonstrated to be “close enough” to humans, the study means nothing, nada, zip, zilch about humans.

    LikeLike


  295. on January 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm LOL

    “okay hoss, why’n’t you define “alpha” for us, howzit.”

    stupid Alegria

    If you read Jerry long enough you will discover “Alpha” is defined by paying college girls to strip for you

    You thought fucking women made you Alpha?
    Dumbass

    LikeLike


  296. on January 24, 2011 at 5:43 pm James A. Donald

    Good Luck Chuck

    So putting aside the fact that she wasn’t relationship material, where did things go wrong? Did I fail to maintain an alpha frame? No, I was outgunned by someone who has more disposable income than I do at the present time.

    Well if you meet women in a strip club, they are for sale, high bidder wins, and if you read this blog you are probably not going to be the high bidder, because you probably don’t think women are worth much money.

    If, however, you meet women on a tropical beach ….

    LikeLike


  297. on January 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm Evil Alpha

    @Alegria

    “Sigh. Ever heard of synecdoche, chief?”

    Yup but unlike you, I know when to use it. If you actually understood female sexuality you’d would never write about chicks who “wanna fucks your dick. “any more than I would have written “getting tail” to you had you been a female commenter. Synecdoche needs to make sense dude! And your bad usage indicates that you don’t comprehend some behavioral basics.

    Rule #1 Dicks do the fucking. Vaginas get fucked.
    Rule #2 Men see primarily looks. Women don’t.

    LikeLike


  298. on January 24, 2011 at 7:20 pm Evil Alpha

    @Alegria

    “The current environment just remakes the situation so that your money is one of many factors.”

    Spoken like a true socialist. Subsidizing fathers can surely make all the spoiled daddy’s girls they want, but that is not what governments should be doing. Women can surely choose to make Jerry’s money ONE of many factors, but that is not the case. The case is that money is being systematically given to women so that women’s choice is not needed as they already have Jerry’s money whether he likes it or not. You have a fucked up notion of “free” and “unfettered”.

    LikeLike


  299. on January 24, 2011 at 11:50 pm C

    @xsplat:

    “Men should aim for a prettier girl, who is dumber than he is, trading on his strengths for the acquisition. The best deal you’ll get is if the girl is from an extremely low class, relative to yourself, and in that case you have extra points to spend on brains.”

    Good theory. It works in a perfect world. In this world, the awareness held by even the dumbest or poorest of women that they can march to the courthouse for a no fault divorce, and ruin your life, nullifies any advantage that a man has in the social class or brains department. At least as far as marriage risk goes. At least a smart woman has a better chance at making a well thought out rational decision, rather than one that is solely directed by the tingle in the giny, or lack thereof. However, that “better chance” is admittedly slim at best.

    If a man really wants to even the field, march her into a church community and insist on building deep social relationships within it. Only social stigma will work in your favor. BTW, I’m an atheist.

    LikeLike


  300. on January 25, 2011 at 2:07 am Good Luck Chuck

    C-

    You are falling into that trap of buying into the PUA definition of alpha/beta.

    You use criminals as an example of men who get attention from women. Sure, they get attention from women, but are these high value women? How long does this infatuation last?

    My brother is a prime example. He’s an ex con who has always been able to attract women. He has a kid with some hippie chick who long since moved on with her life and despite the fact that my brother has gotten his life back together, she doesn’t want anything to do with him and he barely even gets to see his kid because she and her family don’t want him around.

    Don’t make the mistake of believing that short term “alpha seed” attraction automatically converts to long term “beta farmer” attraction. These are two entirely different attraction mechanisms that women have evolved to allow them to have their cake and eat it too. Unless you are able to flip all of these switches in a woman, be prepared to get dumped or cheated on. Very, very few men can pull this off with psychology alone.

    Over the past few years I have been the “alpha seed” guy. Several women have left me for what at first glance would seem like pathetic excuses for men. My mistake was thinking I was gonna play some kind of middle ground where I could have MY cake and eat it too. DENIED. From the chick who left me to marry a fat, old looking high school sweetheart, to the chick who wanted DESPERATELY to live in Manhattan who settled down with the dude with a condo near Union Square, to the 8 who needed tuition money, all of these women moved on to a dude who could give them something that I was either unwilling or unable to give them at that particular time.

    LikeLike


  301. on January 25, 2011 at 1:29 am C

    The average level of discourse in these comments is good.

    However, the intellectualism of CH causes a phenomenon that is quite annoying. It allows some guys to gain a little bit of perspective, but an even larger ego in believing that they have the total perspective. They then get catch diarrhea of the keyboard.

    First, to all of you playing the conservative/liberal game, you sound like morons. You will always be controlled, and your opinions fed to you if you subscribe to this dichotomy. Its about class. All of it. Its not about party affiliation. There are too many economic and social contradictions in party line beliefs, which completely negate the relevancy (or at least effectiveness) of party based politics as they exist in the USA today. Wake the fuck up. Or at least leave the sophomoric party-centric barbs at home. Go debate someone else retarded, who cares. Or learn to act in your self interest, along class lines. You can advocate for socially conservative values concurrently. Stop embarrassing yourselves on a public forum that draws a modicum of intelligent readers.

    Second, about all of the man/woman/game advice. Most of it is spot on, as its primarily informed by his correct view of the way things work.

    However, you get some guys who have differing opinions. One of the most abundant in these comments is of Good Luck Chuck.

    I believe that the following quote best summarizes his central premise:

    “If anything, the social landscape has ensured that wealth/status/power are more important than they have ever been to long term success with high value women. What do you do to stand out from every other dude who makes $40k per year when the women are making the same loot?

    A woman’s idol used to be her husband. Now it’s the flavor du jour movie star who gets the most tabloid press that week.

    Men today are held to a much higher standard. Game exists as a countermeasure to women’s impossible standards. It is a means to get laid and maintain some control in a relationship. Effective LTR game requires dominance, masculinity, AND maintaining higher relative status. ”

    Also” I’ve been the douchebag and the rich dude. Live life on both sides of the fence and then come and talk to me.”

    First, let me say that I agree with almost everything else GLC wrote that diverged from this topic. Some of it was very good and insightful.

    But GLC, on the above quoted subject, I will assert that your experience and perspective is limited and flawed. I do respect your experience with that 8 who then and claimed a sugar daddy. I’m sure that it was a good learning experience. But remember, that our perspectives are completely limited by our experiences. Especially with women. I repeat, especially with women. I posit that you have had some fairly normal experiences for someone with your level of income and game (whatever that may be) but it doesn’t mean that you have the full picture as to what is possible in relationships.

    First, let me just get this out of the way. Your premise that LTR require income and status is mostly correct. But what you fail to mention is that, from a socio-biological perspective, an LTR is a beta males proposition. That is, it is a situation reserved for male genes which are less desirable. From a biological perspective, the dynamics of an LTR are defined by genes that are not the most viable on the market. It is a man committing to limiting the dispersal of his genes to one woman, and to raising the probability that he will now or in the future be raising the offspring of an alpha man who fucks a lot of women. He is willing to trade commitment and income (compensating factors for less than viable genes) for sex. Therefore, you are correct in that income is most times required for a beta male (or even low/middle alpha males) to maintain LTR’s. I’m not accounting for kids in this scenario.

    From a biological perspective, a top alpha male (as defined by physical and emotional fitness) doesn’t desire an LTR because he has a wide pool of available women who will fuck him. In reality, an alpha may desire children or stability for whatever reason, and therefore may acquiesce to an LTR, but it doesn’t negate the fact that he is making the commitment reserved for males who’s genes are not as desirable.

    However, the income and status components are not necessary for the top alpha males. It happens constantly. The female who will be with a man, long term, who has very little economic or social prospects. The best proof isn’t in polite society (which remains largely hidden) but in witnessing the attention that criminals get. Men with zero social or economic potential, yet who embody the extreme tendencies of the pre-civilization alpha. Sociopathy. Murder.
    Ted Bundy would receive 200 letters from obsessed women PER DAY. Are you telling me that if he could resist killing some of these women, that he couldn’t have strung them along for years in an LTR? Extreme alpha males, almost bereft of compensating factors, will get and keep the most desireable of women for LTR’s. I’m not saying that your premise isn’t reality for most men out there, I’m just saying that it isn’t reality as far as the unfettered dynamics work for the most powerful of men.

    Now, you challenged that someone only speak who has been there and done that. My credentials are that I’ve had desirable women pay me tens of thousands of dollars to date them, over time. I have had several relationships where very hot women (the last one a 9) have supported me over a period of at least a year at a time. I am one of the few men out there who can assuredly claim that women have spent much more on me than I have on them in my life. Its not even close. The funny thing is that I’m not particularly good looking and I’m a pretty nice guy (not a total dickhead alpha). But I can fuck well, apparently. At least that’s what I’m told.

    At this point, I’m tired of being supported (I now actually want to pay for stuff-weird, I know) and I want kids. I briefly had a successful business which crashed due to a partners malfeasance. So I’m back in school to work in the medical profession, to facilitate the beta LTR dream. But if I didn’t want kids, I wouldn’t do it because of the unmitigated male risk involved in today’s LTR’s.

    LikeLike


  302. on January 25, 2011 at 5:15 am Jerry

    Smart young alpha males aren’t going to get upset about the older male “patriarchy” competing with them for women by all natural means (natural meaning with factors that have been in play for 6 million years). Biologically, men of all ages will want the most fertile women. No need to hate human nature.

    Here are good reasons why not to hate older competitors:

    1) Most men over 35 go downhill fast looks-wise and gym membership declines precipitously. The 5% who stay great looking include guys like Steven Segall and John Travolta. You can see why even 19 year old women will want the genes of guys like that for their babies. But a smart young guy is going to want to hang around with these guys, not spit in their face.

    2) Since 85% of all men are betas, you can be sure that 85% of all millionaires over 35 will be betas, and that means they won’t even dream of competing with you for the women 18-25 (or they would be too afraid to try).

    Think about it: how many rich male celebrities over 35 can you name whom you’ve seen dating a woman 18-25? I can talk for an hour about famous men who seem to be genetically wired NOT be seen with women under 25. Take Paul McCartney, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg and Richard Scaife as examples (the latter four are billionaires who control the American media). On the other hand I might name only Berlusconi and Putin who seem to have the personalities I would expect to date much younger women (note these are not brainwashed Anglo-American men).

    On top of the fact that so few men over 35 will have the looks, money and the personality to want to compete with you for women under 25, many will be like Gulliver, tied down on the beach by women who’ve become their best friends and confidants.

    There are too few older guys, rich or otherwise, to worry about who are constitutionally capable of competing with a young alpha for a 19 year old 10.

    There is no general threat to young men.

    In your entire 10 years of being a young male, you will probably never see an older man take a woman and her friends away from you so they can go strip at his place for $100. 😉

    Seriously, there will always be so few guys who would do that. And its not as if a young man couldn’t afford to compete with the paltry sums required to get women to do that himself. It’s fun.

    Remember: COLLEGE GIRLS DON’T STRIP FOR MONEY – THEY DO IT FOR THE THRILL. Any young guy can compete here. Any hetero guy would be a liar to say he wouldn’t go along to watch this happen.

    Also remember: It is EASIER TO GET A GROUP OF WOMEN TO GO HOME WITH YOU than it is to get one woman to do so. After the group’s been at your place, individual women will feel much more secure in agreeing to go the man’s place a few nights later. Again, there is nothing about this advice that says you have to be an older man with money to try this (you can’t be living in your mom’s basement however).

    What’s happening with the youngsters who get their panties in a twist about older men and “money”, is that they’ve been getting rejected by hotties and they feel it was because of their own lack of money, when it was probably because of their own lack of confidence, lack of imagination (and failure to lie about their income). 😉

    See the Chateau’s “Fooling Golddiggers” post for more info on that.

    So they lash out at older guys online and support the socialist concept of “transfer of wealth to create an even playing field”.

    A year ago, PUA blogs including this one, had a lot of insecure young males who basically supported all feminist agenda points. I and others have helped to change that and the Chateau has written newer posts that isolate young guys who hate the older competition “patriarchy”.

    Here are elements of the feminist agenda that the PUA community once unwittingly supported but which I’ve helped to reverse:

    1) The main feminist drive is to stop older men from dating young women, thus abandoning the older women and/or making them less relevant. One way of doing this is to directly stigmatize older men dating younger women.

    A year ago, some younger men on this blog (no longer here) were using the most foul language to say things like “Fuck you Grampa” to any man over 35 who wrote that he was competing in “their” territory. You would actually see comments on this forum saying that all “winners” at the PUA game would be married by age 35!

    So the PUA community was in line with the feminist agenda on this point. Older women, especially professional feminists, were just fine with the idea of PUAs being young men sowing their wild oats with lots of premarital sex in their 20s with women their own age before “retiring” and settling down at 35.

    I and others have helped to reverse that bullshit and some people, mostly feminists, don’t like that at all.

    2) When feminists can’t directly stigmatize older men desiring younger women, they resort to criminalizing or stigmatizing behavior that serves to put more younger women in the arms of older men, even if temporarily. So they tried to get “PUA Theory” to stigmatize the following as “beta” or “gamma”:

    A) Dating Foreign Women

    B) Paying for Sexual Activity

    Feminists consider stopping both of these to be Priority #1 above abortion rights protection. They call the above two behaviors “Human Trafficking”.

    A year ago, it was common on this and other PUA forums to say that any man who was good with women “didn’t have to resort to going overseas”. The counter-idea was unknown, that a man who would fly to Italy to buy a Ferrari instead of a Ford, wasn’t exactly projecting poor driving skills.

    Feminists couldn’t have been happier with the general PUA attitude that American women were better and “alphas” were “strong enough” and would pursue only American women.

    That has all changed. It is widespread now among the PUA community that, if you have the ability to travel, you should do so. Women are often much better quality overseas (but not always).

    Regarding paying for lap-dances, etc, most mainstream males have ALWAYS maintained that this is a good thing and the right to do so needs to be maintained.

    But, up until last year, the PUA community outrageously pretended that there was something wrong with getting off with a 10 at Deja Vu on an off night (you can’t be on the hunt for regular dates 7 days a week).

    Feminists (and social cons) couldn’t have been happier.

    Regular men could only laugh at PUAs rationalizing about the reasons why they would fag out of a stag party.

    If paying for sexual activity is “off the table” then 70 year old “Alphas” wouldn’t really have much of a choice or chance to get with 20 year olds and consider abandoning their 50 year old wives.

    Feminists could at least count on PUAs to draw the line at alphas only dating 2 points above their “station”.

    But the Chateau has recently written how, if a man can get a hottie for free, there is nothing wrong with paying for marginal sexual activity (its value neutral).

    Guys who actually DO have a harem (in real life as opposed to theory) won’t have time to actually romance more than a few women at the same time. Its time consuming to date women the normal way, meaning, if you already have more than one girlfriend, you aren’t going to have time to date new women the normal way.

    Remember this:

    1) If feminists don’t like guys paying for sexual activity, then there must be something beneficial to men about it (like allowing men over 70 to reject women over 25).

    2) Most paid sexual activity does not involve seedy professionals but the girl next door (it actually involves the fact that most women have a secret whore fantasy that they will only talk about to guys who know it exists.)

    Your own sisters and mothers are probably not telling you about the indecent proposals they’ve gotten and accepted from the most unlikely places.

    In any event, it is a men’s rights issue to stop the feminists from criminalizing men who might do this now and then.

    So there needs to be no hostility coming from any insecure younger males toward the “patriarchy”.

    Young males need to realize that, at age 30, they will be considered too old to date western 19 year olds.

    And that is not a good attitude to get from the culture that raised you and for which you may have served in the military to protect (I served most of my 20s to protect the United States only to see asshole American parents tell their daughters that I was too old for them at age 30 – If could take back those years, I wouldn’t serve).

    LikeLike


  303. on January 25, 2011 at 3:24 am Legion

    I watched it. Outstanding review.

    I went onto IMDB – it’s frustrating how fucking stupid and deluded some of those dumb cunts are over there.

    Women and white knights bleating in the most horrifically warped and wrong way about the movie.

    I want to round them up and execute them for being such fucking retards who are not just incapable of grasping the dynamics of a movie like this but of disorting it so violently through the thick lens of feminist bullshit and PC faggotry.

    All my swearing is done now for the day.

    LikeLike


  304. on January 25, 2011 at 6:01 am Jerry

    @LOL

    If you read Jerry long enough you will discover “Alpha” is defined by paying [multiple] college girls to strip for you

    No, that’s not the definition but it’s definitely gay, religious or “bitter older woman” to feel that there is anything wrong with that and imply that any heterosexual PUA would, in real life, refuse to watch.

    College girls do this for the thrill, not the paltry sum which can easily amount to less than $25 per woman. They get orgasms from doing this all the time (assuming the guy doesn’t keep his hands to himself).

    Would they go to a stranger’s house whom they don’t respect (which defines Beta and Gamma)?

    Hardly.

    Imagine you’re a female college student and you are out with your friends and you all meet a guy who games all of you at the same time, making you laugh and enjoy the night out. He says his refrigerator is filled with great food.

    You will feel safe going home with him with your friends. You don’t have to strip if you don’t want to (some women don’t but peer pressure makes this rare).

    When you’re there you have a great time. Your friends are having a great time. You get the orgasm and you are embarrassed about that because you thought you were just going to have fun stripping.

    Women won’t directly admit to having a secret whore fantasy. You have to just know it’s there.

    Do you think the guy won’t be getting a phone call from you or one of your friends to meet him alone at a later date?

    That’s what mostly happens. To think otherwise only means you think the worst of the women (imagining them not to be upper middle class college students but low class scammers who couldn’t care how little they respect the man, they would still go to his place).

    And it wouldn’t be that much more or less “Alpha” to get the women to pay the man for him to strip. The money part is just social lubricant for making the events happen without romance.

    Remember the recent post “Just Say Something” where the Chateau says it doesn’t matter how “beta” the opening line is as long as you actually do the open?

    Well, the important thing for men is to “Just Get Women to Strip”.

    It breaks the ice.

    It doesn’t matter how beta the method of getting them to strip was as long as you made it happen. Sure, its OK to be alpha about it and do it the “normal way”, but, if you don’t make it happen at all and go home alone, well that’s gamma.

    Believe me, once an upper middle class college student has stripped for a man for any reason, he is far more likely to get her into a regular relationship than other men. He has the advantage of having already “been there”.

    I have to ignore phone calls from women who’ve done this, some of them good marriage material types who have fiances.

    So, no, anyone who has a problem with getting a group of upper middle class educated women to strip is either gay, religious, feminist or the kind of young guy with Asperger’s Syndrome who heard somewhere that it was “beta” to buy women drinks (and get nothing in return) at a bar and, thus, makes an illogical projection.

    LikeLike


  305. on January 25, 2011 at 9:44 am Alan Roger Currie

    Women won’t directly admit to having a secret whore fantasy. You have to just know it’s there.

    That is so true, it’s not even funny…

    LikeLike


  306. on January 25, 2011 at 11:57 am C

    Oh, and its also worthwhile to make another point about relationships of the x-sport guys.

    The most alpha of the guys, in personality and physical appearance, had what seemed to be the highest quality hot women as wives and girlfriends. Women who seem like they have a modicum of selfless interest in the relationship, and who also seem like they will remain faithful – at least for at the present time.

    In the last episode that I viewed, the one guy that was more of a beta x-sport star (its relative – he would be very much an alpha in the company of most men – but his beta characteristics are amplified in the presence of the other x-sport stars – he was just a nicer guy), had a woman who was at least as hot as any of the other girlfriends and wives, but who was an unstable whore.

    This models what I constantly witness:

    Top alphas get stable, good looking “high quality” feminine submissive women. IF they know how to screen women.

    Low alphas get good looking whores, or the better looking controlling alpha women. Usually the pull of these women is too strong to allow him to focus on what he should be focusing on, which is the less good looking quality woman.

    Generic betas get ugly whores, an less good looking “quality” woman (if he is smart) or a better looking whore/controlling alpha who will emotionally castrate and dominate him. Usually, the latter type that goes with a beta male is deeply disturbed, but as a result of her experience is realistic enough to know that she can’t function with any other type of man. Even though he doesn’t turn her on.

    The rare beta with social status due to some type of talent (music, sports, whatever…), which can be confused with a low alpha, can catch any woman on the spectrum. Although, they are prime targets for abusive and unstable women and often wind up with such.

    This is all a loose model, but is verified by what I have witnessed over my lifetime.

    LikeLike


  307. on January 25, 2011 at 12:49 pm Good Luck Chuck

    C-

    Never underestimate the power of even “low level” fame. That kind of thing can act as a reasonable substitute for wealth for a long, long time. It is not necessarily about money. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT MONEY. It is about money OR maintaining higher relative status and power. If you have both you can do little wrong.

    LikeLike


  308. on January 25, 2011 at 11:04 am C

    @Alan Roger Curie

    -How goes it my friend? Its good to see you here, as your material changed my life above any other. Go reference my last post where, at the end, I explain the average relationship that I’ve had over the past 5 years. Sex based relationships where women pay for either most things or everything. Including cash gifts. Although I think it took a little bit of natural talent in certain areas, you had a lot to do with it. Changed my life. Thanks again.

    @Good Luck Chuck –

    Again, I agree with what you posit about long term relationships, but again I think that the difference of opinion resides in the fact that I believe that an LTR is a refuge for males who have few other options. (This is from the perspective of biology, not sociology, as the most alpha of men can desire a family). Therefore, its irrelevant to the high alpha as to whether or not he can sustain an LTR. Entering into a proposition which is reserved for men with less than desirable genes (most men), most often requires money to augment the deal for the woman.

    HOWEVER, insofar as a biological perspective goes, its not necessary if the man is seen as very powerful by the woman (alpha dog criminals – the best example of powerful men with no augmenting characteristics).

    A friend of mine, a smart hot alpha female with a good job, just married a indie “musician” with little to no future long term prospects other than the distant chance (read: “no chance”) of making it big. He treats her like shit. He actually over does the alpha routine in my opinion, because he constantly challenges other guys in small ways, including myself, but he got his girl. No long term provider characteristics needed.

    Ever see that show where they profile the lives of X-sport stars? These guys have some minor fame, but that’s about it in most cases. Some have money, but most don’t. And, largely due to the widespread proliferation of neck tattoos, they have very little future work prospects after their short lived X-sport careers. They have a bad boy image, their physical health (although death or paralysis is threatened constantly) yet have these women who are 9-10’s bearing them children and sticking around to raise a family with them.

    There will be very different psychological states between a woman who justifies away the need for provider characteristics and the woman who demands them. But both women will stay with a man for years. And both will bear children if given the opportunity. Although the nature of the relationship is different, the length of the relationship still causes it to fall under the category of a LTR.

    As far as criminals go, not every criminal fits the profile which I am referring to. I would say that most don’t. However, the ones that do are great examples. I’m talking about the alpha dog criminal with violent tendencies. I’m sure that there is a world of difference between an arian biker gang member, or Ted Bundy, and your brother. Of course, some women wake up after years of abuse, or realize that provider characteristics are necessary, and reject the type of man that she formerly agreed to bear the children of (perhaps your brother). This later moment of clarity (rare rational thought) doesn’t negate her deep seeded emotional and sexual tendencies.

    Or perhaps your brother just wasn’t the dominant violent type of criminal, and he only represented a bad bet without all of the top dog alpha characteristics. Then scenario with your brother makes perfect sense. That woman knows his true self, and any alpha leverage that he had on her is long gone. If that image was based on his future capacity for social status, then the conviction would eliminate that base for attraction instead of enhancing it or having no effect as is the case with physically and psychologically powerful males.

    As he explains, once that base alpha attraction is eliminated (or the love goes) you can almost never get that back. The illusion has to be created and maintained for any one woman to maintain that “alpha seed” attraction. Your brother went and made himself into a good provider, but those men are a dime a dozen. Its a real shame though about his child. A woman should care about his/her relationship with their father, but most of the time doesn’t. Avoiding situations like that (the ruination of a family) is my primary motivation for actively studying female psychology now. Sex is easy. Avoiding a situation such as your brother has is not.

    You are correct that to have a LTR, for almost every man, requires provider characteristics. Your experiences reflect my own in terms of women that are dead set on the long term provider game. If that’s what she wants, then that is what she will get. However, I guess LTR has to be defined. A woman that stays with a man for two years, based on nothing but sexual attraction, has to be deemed long enough to count as an LTR.

    It happens often. Just because its not your experience or my experience doesn’t make it the truth. Although I have had a significant enough taste of it to convince me of its reality.

    I agree that the terms “alpha” and “beta” are not ideal, but they stand as easy terms that we can mostly agree on the basic definition of. I think the terms are more true than not, and even though you and I might be alpha males, there are men who better embody that ideal and therefore better realize the behavior of women in the presence of that ideal.

    LikeLike


  309. on January 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm Legion

    May I submit a request to the Chateau? Could you suggest a list of some films you liked? I will reward you with deep flattery and violent destruction of your enemies and haters.

    The ones you mentioned so far, such as Roger Dodger, In the Company of Men (and Blue Valentine) have all been very good.

    I’m finding it next to impossible to find good movies. I can’t trust reviewers these days.

    LikeLike


  310. on January 25, 2011 at 6:19 pm Legion

    Fuck, I was hoping my above message would get locked in moderation so a Chateau member could read it.

    LikeLike


  311. on January 25, 2011 at 6:41 pm Thor

    @legion
    “I’m finding it next to impossible to find good movies. I can’t trust reviewers these days.”

    Actually, there may be a way, if you care to develop it.
    Find a reviewer you REALLY disagree with. Then go to
    the movies he trashes.

    The same trick may work for buying and selling stock.
    Some brokers give notoriously bad advice (no surprise,
    they are peddling their REAL customers’ castoffs,
    so as not to depress the market – and to make
    two commissions). So go short on whatever they recommend.
    If they recommend going short (most brokers
    never do), BUY the stock.

    You may occasionally have to make a small trade
    on what they suggest, to have them calling you
    with there excellent (when applied in reverse) advice.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  312. on January 27, 2011 at 8:01 am blert

    Thor…

    You are dead nuts right.

    LikeLike


  313. on January 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm Amelia

    holy shit. this article just blew my mind. granted, I’m only 19. It’s so funny though because when I first heard about this movie I didn’t want to see it because this guy and I were getting serious and I thought it would be just a downer. But we’ve since distanced ourselves (he was just like Dean! He even went down on me for like forever the first time we got together!) And I’m really happy I got to see it in theatres it was good to watch. Gave me a shit ton to think about and it led me to this blog! this is so great!

    LikeLike


  314. on January 28, 2011 at 2:57 am SilkSting

    This is one of the most interesting comment threads on the entire blog, and I have read quite a few of them.

    LikeLike


  315. on January 28, 2011 at 3:20 am Cane

    Check this link out ‘Blue Valentine tinged with misogyny,’ http://thefilmsmith.com/2011/01/24/blue-valentine-tinged-with-misogyny/

    It seems its author Remington Smith is quite the beta male.

    “Once the audience puts together the reveal of Bobby beating Dean in the Past, with the liquor store scene in the Present, Cindy seems the most terrible of the two. How could she be filled by such joy upon seeing someone so cruel?”

    Oh you poor, naive, misguided soul.

    LikeLike


  316. on January 28, 2011 at 4:23 am Danny

    top notch discourse @C and @Jerry

    LikeLike


  317. on January 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm Alan Roger Currie

    @Alan Roger Curie

    -How goes it my friend? Its good to see you here, as your material changed my life above any other. Go reference my last post where, at the end, I explain the average relationship that I’ve had over the past 5 years. Sex based relationships where women pay for either most things or everything. Including cash gifts. Although I think it took a little bit of natural talent in certain areas, you had a lot to do with it. Changed my life. Thanks again.

    You’re welcome my friend.

    Moooooooooooooooooode Ooooooone!

    LikeLike


  318. on January 28, 2011 at 1:18 pm Firepower

    Hey douchebag:

    Many here will appreciate you’re not tripping our well-honed bullshit detectors with sockpuppet testimonials.

    Fuck you very much.

    LikeLike


  319. on January 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm Alan Roger Currie

    Are you talking to me?!? If so … dude … please don’t address me again. Ever.

    LikeLike


  320. on January 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm Firepower

    Since you want to slap me with your lace hankie, don’t ever call me “dude”

    Ever, never ever.

    That goes even more for your fleet of sockpuppets.

    LikeLike


  321. on January 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm Alan Roger Currie

    You’re a hard-headed mutha fuc**a I see. DUDE. Stop talking to me.

    LikeLike


  322. on January 28, 2011 at 2:10 pm Firepower

    I’m a Black Man – I can do whatever I want in this country and you rayciss whiteys can’t keep me down no longer.

    LikeLike


  323. on January 28, 2011 at 2:22 pm Alan Roger Currie

    This is sad. You must be 16-years old and living in your Mom’s basement. Because if you are 21 years of age or older, you are a pathetic excuse for an adult.

    LikeLike


  324. on January 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm Firepower

    Trying to diminish my accomplishments as a Black Man? Trying to infantilize me just because I be black?

    Man, you is racist. I bet you a Glenn Beck fan.

    LikeLike


  325. on January 28, 2011 at 2:36 pm Jerry

    @Alan

    He’s just jerking your chain. Your input was very welcome here and it would be great to see you comment on other threads.

    @Firepower

    You’re black?! I had no idea. When the WNs (White Nationalists) were hanging out here, they weren’t attacking you as I remember.

    Where did they all go anyway? Did they decide, after that Chateau post about anti-semitism, that he isn’t really a WN himself so they were on the wrong forum? 😉

    LikeLike


  326. on January 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm Tinderbox

    I thought Firepower was a chunky white poetry-writing single mom yesterday.

    LikeLike


  327. on January 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm Tinderbox

    Since the State of the Union speech the white nationalists have been feverishly scanning the sky with their hunting rifles looking for African satellites.

    LikeLike


  328. on January 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm Firepower

    Hey tenderbox – how that Hope n’ Change workin’ out for ya?

    Good thing Lord Obama ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – you’d have to enlist.

    LikeLike


  329. on January 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm Firepower

    Jerry

    @Firepower

    Where did they all go anyway? Did they decide, after that Chateau post about anti-semitism, that he isn’t really a WN himself so they were on the wrong forum? 😉

    Yo, Jungle jere—

    You be right. Gettin’ R-dawg to pull his article on how Semites can’t be criticize-izzled be a victory fo our side

    LikeLike


  330. on February 3, 2011 at 2:51 am Means of Production

    Big fan of the Chateau, mega-dittos, etc. Nevertheless, I just watched Blue Valentine and the Chateau overstates its importance as a cautionary tale, in my opinion.

    I didn’t dislike Dean, but I didn’t have much sympathy for him, either. Dean isn’t just a beta, he’s a loser by almost any objective measure.

    [Editor: You’re playing fast and loose with the loser label. By any objective measure? No. Dean was good looking, young-ish, fully employed, and able to pay his bills on time. Not to mention he had a charm that went missing as his marriage cratered around him owing to his incomprehension about his wife’s hypergamous instinct.
    A loser by any objective measure would be a homeless street bum pissing his pants and begging for handouts.]

    Non-high school graduate.

    [The movie didn’t portray Cindy as being any smarter than Dean.]

    Dull.

    [You watch the same movie everyone else did? Dean was quite charming before he turned beta.]

    No ambition.

    [Depends. He was ambitious enough to work full time and support his “family”. Cindy was a receptionist at a doctor’s office. Not any better than Dean’s occupation on the merits, but of course Cindy worked with high status doctors who filled her head with alpha female dreams.]

    Neglects basic grooming.

    [That really wasn’t emphasized by the director. Dean let his faical hair grow in. Big deal. In the meantime, Cindy let herself get bloated and unfashionable. They both stopped taking care of themselves.]

    No fashion sense.

    [Neither did Cindy. They were both proles.]

    Reeks of alcohol and cigs all the time.

    [Now you’re just making shit up. Reeked? All the time? Yeah, Dean drank a bud in the morning before work, but it was never insinuated in the movie that he ws an alcoholic. He was just a regular joe who liked to toss back a coupla beers every day.]

    Granted, he has a good heart and loves the child, but this doesn’t cause him to modify his destructive behaviors. Dean is an uber-prole.

    [The only one with destructive behaviors is Cindy, whose actions will result in emotional trauma for her kid. Btw, the film is pretty clear that they are both proles. Cindy is in the same class as Dean. The flashback scenes to her abusive upbringing and general sluttery are critical to an understanding of her place in the pecking order.]

    Cindy, on the other hand, has a lower middle class background.

    [Nope. High prole at best.]

    College educated.

    [Was this mentioned in the movie? I don’t remember that information being relayed. Was it community college?]

    Professional.

    [That’s a stretch. She was a receptionist.]

    Able to interact with and attract high status professional males.

    [Based on her looks alone. Which gets straight at the point I made in my review. For Dean to hold onto a cute chick with natural hypergamous compulsions, he would have had to maintain his initial alpha frame. But he lost it and betatized himself.]

    It is unreasonable to expect that Cindy would be satisfied with Dean long term.

    [It’s perfectly reasonable. Cindy is getting older and uglier. She doesn’t have illimitable options. She’s a single mom saddled with an alpha male cad’s kid. She’s not gonna get the commitment of a doctor who knows the score. Dean’s biggest mistake was becoming clingy and forcing the instinct module in Cindy’s brain to reevaluate his alpha cred.]

    Doubtful that she would have married him in the first place had she not been pregnant.

    [She’s not the type to be that calculating. After all, she kicked Dean out and harmed her kid based on an emotional revulsion, so there’s no reason to believe she would be able to ignore her emotions and marry a man she didn’t love. The director has stated in interviews that the movie showcases the progression of a relationship from loving to indifferent to hateful.]

    Dean would need a lot more than game to keep Cindy.

    [Not at all. Cindy is exactly at Dean’s market level. Maybe a nudge higher. But nothing disastrous to forming an LTR if Dean had kept his wits about him.]

    He’d have to become an entirely different person.

    [Dean *did* become an entirely different person. He became a desperate needy beta out of synch with who he was when he courted Cindy.]

    So as a cautionary tale I think Blue Valentine is limited to the following message: uber-proles should stick to their kind.

    [Cindy was a prole, as well. Anyhow, the message you took from the movie is incorrect. See: any underemployed uber-prole bad boy with an employed hot chick.]

    LikeLike


  331. on February 3, 2011 at 9:46 am Whackjob

    Haven’t seen this movie, but I have a fundamental problem with the premise that no one seems to have touched upon.

    What if a guy is happy in what job/work he is doing and he is *contended* enough in the money that the aforementioned job brings ? Granted that the money may be lesser as compared to other prestigious jobs, granted that the guy may not be interested in rising up in the money making ladder (“owning a fleet of moving trucks” as someone suggested rather than laboring on individually) – but what if he makes enough as let’s say a low to mid level office guy but does not have the smarts nor cunningness in him to succeed in a business – then does he become a “beta” by your definition ? I disagree with this label slapping just because you want to pursue the agenda of greedy women everywhere just so you can get into their pants ?

    There are many guys in their thirties / forties who earn enough, more than enough to afford a good middle class lifestyle – and they may be contended in what they do – but unfortunately, it’s never enough for the hypergamous women and so these men become beta ? WTF ?

    And you guys all rush to adopt that twisted logic so that you dont get cuckolded ? Wouldn’t it be more prudent and sane to let the woman go ? Especially in LTR perspective.

    BTW, love this blog. Even if I disagree with several things, it’s taught me a lot. Good work guys.

    LikeLike


  332. on February 4, 2011 at 5:02 pm Means of Production

    Many thanks to the Editor for his thought-provoking response to my post!

    Most of our disagreement stems from our differing interpretation of some key facts. I believe your most critical factual misinterpretation centers on Cindy’s lower middle class status, and your refusal to acknowledge that she is a professional. Cindy is a nurse, and as such she is clearly several rungs higher than Dean in the social pecking order.

    “Cindy was a receptionist at a doctor’s office.”

    Incorrect. The doc called her his “best nurse” at one point.

    [Editor: I don’t recall that line. Cite? The line may have been inserted to show the sleazy doc falsely flattering Cindy for some poon action later. Anyhow, nursing is not a high status job. It’s borderline professional at best, especially the kind done at small med clinics.]

    You assert that Cindy is a “high prole at best.” I disagree. Not many proles become medical professionals.

    [She’s not a medical professional. Nursing is filled with upper proles. And the filmmaker went out of his way to demonstrate that Cindy is not much more intelligent than Dean. Her convos with him are not exactly the stuff of scintillation.]

    And what about the awkward dinner scene at Cindy’s parents’ house during which Dean reveals that he did not graduate from high school, and Cindy’s parents immediately exchange disapproving looks? The mere fact that the family still sits down together for dinner indicates that they’re not proles, at least as I understand the term.

    [The father physically and verbally abused her mom. Prole through and through. That was a telling scene. Plus, Cindy is a huge slut, which is also the mark of a prole.]

    “For Dean to hold onto a cute chick with natural hypergamous compulsions, he would have had to maintain his initial alpha frame.”

    What initial alpha frame? Dean was beta from jump street.

    [You clearly did not see the same movie everyone else did. Dean was charming and a bit cocky, negging her occassionally. His betaness exerted itself and his alphaness abandoned him after the marriage started turning sour.]

    I’m surprised you’re willing to give him alpha cred based on a few cocky/funny lines and a ukulele routine.

    [It’s also a general vibe. Plus, he had balls.]

    Dean had “love at first sight” one-itis for Cindy based on a 60 second hallway conversation. Then, as you noted in your review, the director shows Dean performing oral sex on Cindy, in sharp contrast to the alpha wrestler’s raw dogging. Then Dean begs Cindy to marry him so he can raise the wrestler’s offspring. All this happens within a few weeks of their first meeting.

    [Actually, we don’t know the exact timeline. It’s never clearly stated. It could’ve taken place over months or years.]

    And this guy’s an alpha? Please. Just the opposite: Cindy married Dean because she was pregnant and desperately needed a beta provider. She ultimately dumped him because she got the beta but concluded that he was an inadequate provider.

    [CIndy would not have married a man she didn’t love. She was impulsive (hence the 35 partners and bastard spawn). SHe wouldn’t have married Dean for calculating reasons. As for Dean’s provisionship, he was contributing as much if not more than Cindy to the household. Small time clinic nurses (or receptionists) don’t get paid much.]

    “Anyhow, the message you took from the movie is incorrect. See: any underemployed uber-prole bad boy with an employed hot chick.”

    I agree that it’s possible for some underemployed prole bad boys to nail employed hot chicks from time to time (“Bring the movies.”) But, as was the case in Blue Valentine, few such relationships blossom into successful marriages.

    [Define successful in a way that doesn’t also disqualify good provider betas.]

    LikeLike


  333. on February 4, 2011 at 6:17 pm Thor

    @Means of Production
    @Editor

    I think your discussion illustrates a major point.

    Cindy is professionally and intellectually
    (and, probably, socially) above Dean,
    BUT NOT BY VERY MUCH.

    She is also prettier than some posters think.

    So she MAYBE has options. The very ambiguity
    is essential.

    If she was a schlub at exactly the same level as
    Dean – or lower – the movie would not be plausible.

    Nor if she was WAY above him.

    As an aside, is it true that “proles” (the women, that is)
    have more partners than middle class women?

    I have no idea. Sites? Stats? Anyone?

    I suspect that regional differences might swamp
    class differences here, but I don’t know.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  334. on February 4, 2011 at 7:29 pm Danny

    I have a general idea but can someone elaborate on why it’s titled “Blue Valentine?”

    LikeLike


  335. on February 4, 2011 at 11:38 pm Means of Production

    @ Thor

    Thanks for your comment.

    Reasonable people may differ over the relative social status of nurses, I guess. But nurses have college degrees. Their course of study includes the hard sciences. They must pass a licensing exam in order to practice. Doesn’t make them brain surgeons, but it’s silly to deny they’re medical professionals, or to try to place them on par with high school dropouts with no marketable skills.

    I think Cindy’s relative status vis-a-vis Dean changed during the course of their relationship. Cindy was a student when they met and got married. No status in that. But after she obtained her license and began her career, she quickly outstripped Dean in status.

    [Editor: You’re not weighing all the variables. Cindy was a SINGLE MOM with little money. That she went to community college to study a very easy major does not place her status higher than Dean’s. And she KNOWS this, which is why she is so despondent over her lost love for Dean who she knows was a good provider for her and her kid. Unfortunately, she cannot fathom why she has lost her love for him. She is unaware that Dean’s growing betaness was the ultimate cause of their distancing.]

    LikeLike


  336. on February 5, 2011 at 2:51 am Randoms « Gucci Little Piggy

    […] Lakshmi was unsure if her child was Dell’s or billionaire financier Ted Forstman’s (who went all Blue Valentine on us and stayed around to be called “Papa” by a kid who isn’t his).  Lakshmi has kept […]

    LikeLike


  337. on February 5, 2011 at 5:30 am MC

    Great post, except the selfless pussy eating. I wouldn’t consider eating pussy selfless. Or beta.

    LikeLike


  338. on February 7, 2011 at 9:05 am DirkJohanson

    Thanks to this fantastic review, I saw the movie over this weekend. In fact, I had forwarded the review to my 76YO father, and he actually spurred us going, perhaps because he has two unbelievably (to him; we know better) cunty daughters-in-law.

    While we are all used to the ridiculous assertions of misogynism that permeate our entire society, any claim that this movie is misogynistic is particularly ridiculous, and one scene makes that clear. In that scene, a flashback to the wife character’s youth, her father explodes at her mother because he doesn’t like dinner. This is a scene reminiscent of many that at least one family member of mine directed at his wife. By including that scene, the makers of the movie were clearly stating that, while a generation ago, men dominated the household and often treated their wives like shit, times have changed, and now – in this window into all all-too-typical 21st century young couple’s life- the dominant trend is women treating their husbands like shit.

    My parents left the movie immediately acknowledging the parallels between the lead couple in the movie, and my brothers’ marriages. Indeed, they are so down on those marriages, that the day before, for the first time my dad told me – for the first time – that he was far from convinced that, at 48, I should ever want to get married. And my father asked me to email him this review again, so he could read it after having seen the film.

    There is no understating the relevance of this movie to 21st century relationships, nor is there any understating its brilliance.

    And yet some reviewers say the wife had grown? How? By not, as she had planned, becoming a doctor? By not being responsible enough to lock a dog’s cage? By getting visibly flustered from running into a guy she had fucked in high school?

    The Ryan Gosling husband character is who grew. He went from what is regarded – correctly or otherwise – as an unskilled occupation – moving, to one that is regarded as a skilled one (painting homes). He was clearly the more responsible, and beloved, parent. He evinced no interest whatsoever in chasing other broads.

    There were at least two gay male couples in the audience. I couldn’t help but think how glad they felt upon leaving that they don’t deal romantically with women.

    LikeLike


  339. on February 7, 2011 at 9:09 am DirkJohanson

    @ MC

    As portrayed in the movie, the pussy eating was clearly beta.

    She gets knocked up by getting barebacked from behind by a violent, asshole wrestler, and years into the marriage, she’s still trying to get her husband to smack her around in bed, but he won’t do it.

    Yet on the her first night sexually with her husband, I’m not sure he even did more than eat her pussy, and it was a long pussy-eating scene. While, as I have voiced on this website, eating pussy is certainly not always beta, it unquestionably was beta in this movie.

    LikeLike


  340. on February 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm Tinderbox

    I consider eating pussy to be an appetizer, not dessert.

    LikeLike


  341. on February 7, 2011 at 8:38 pm DirkJohanson

    @ Albert Magnus, Tuttle, and Four Aces

    I’m pretty sure the wrestler showed up with flowers to sweet-talk her into an abortion. He beat up Dean because she elected not to have the abortion and he figured it was Dean’s idea. Why would she have dumped the wrestler? Chicks don’t dump guys when they think the guy knocked them up.

    Finally, wasn’t the wrestler the guy she ran into early in the movie, in the supermarket, that gave her the gina tingles? It much less likely that she would have gotten the tingles if she was the dumper.

    The wrestler was stalking for an abortion, not for pussy. He showed up with flowers because she had been blowing him off, due to his abortion stalking. Betas like us don’t have much experience with stalking for an abortion, but I understand from a friend who went through it that it becomes pretty all-consuming, with dreams of pushing the chick down a flight of stairs. No alpha is aloof when stalking for an abortion.

    LikeLike


  342. on February 8, 2011 at 1:57 am Tim

    Ok, I just saw Blue Valentine tonight. I will be asking my parents to see it, so that they can understand me a little better. I was engaged once for two years, but once a woman looks at you with disgust, it’s game over. Nice guys truly do finish last.

    One important thing to note. Gosling’s character, Dean, never made an attempt to style his hair near the end of the relationship. In the beginning, he looked good, a little asshole cocky alpha game going on. But near the final stages of the relationship, pure mewling beta. All he had to do was style his hair, lose the scrub look. Wipe the fuckin paint off his hands and not eat cheerios off the kitchen table. Come on, let’s be honest. I’m beta through and through. I know my station in life. But eating cereal off the kitchen table and walking around with fucked up paint smeared clothes? Come on. And I’m not a heartless guy. My ex and me didn’t make it either, because one day she looked at me with contempt. That’s all it took, and I hit the road. I got amog’d. Big time. But I always had nice clothes and a fresh shave.

    As for the nursing profession, I disagree that it’s upper prole. It’s lower middle class. Upper prole still connotes a crack habit, or at least chemical dependency. Nurses must possess a four year degree. However, CNA’s and LPN’s, I guess they could be considered upper prole.

    Did anyone notice something interesting during the closing credits? One minute into the credits, during the music, the camera flashes on Gosling holding up a sign which reads:

    Is this you?

    Google it. (the closing credits) he is pointing the sign at the audience, and looking directly into the camera.

    So….is this you?

    LikeLike


  343. on February 8, 2011 at 11:41 am Tinderbox

    Did anyone notice something interesting during the closing credits? One minute into the credits, during the music, the camera flashes on Gosling holding up a sign which reads:

    Is this you?

    Nice catch, Tim.

    LikeLike


  344. on February 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm DirkJohanson

    Tim wrote, “But near the final stages of the relationship, pure mewling beta. All he had to do was style his hair, lose the scrub look. Wipe the fuckin paint off his hands and not eat cheerios off the kitchen table. … But eating cereal off the kitchen table and walking around with fucked up paint smeared clothes?”

    You’re being way too hard on him, guy. The “final stages” in this film took place over the course of only two days, during which time he (presumably) went to work as a painter, dealt with the dog dying, and spontaneously decided to go to the motel, over the resistance of his wife. Had he taken the time to wash his hands, which may not be easy after a day of painting, she could easily have firmly decided not to go to the motel. He had to usher her out spontaneously; they showered only when they got there.

    For the same reason, he was wearing work clothes – a wife beater shirt, in fact, with a wife who likes getting smacked around. He was at least trying to look the part of what she wanted.

    He was eating off the table in play with her daughter – it was part of the early build-up in the film showing how good a father he was. If I hadn’t read the review, it wouldn’t have even occurred to me until long into the film that he wasn’t even the girl’s natural father. In any event, an alpha could have had his feet up on the table and she probably wouldn’t have said a word.

    Of course, the blue paint on his hands – the very hands he uses to help support her and her daughter (yes, the wife worked, but how many married bitches don’t outspend their own earnings?) bothered her, as did his every move. If it wasn’t the blue paint, then it would have been something else.

    Consistent with the point of so many of the articles on this site, she’d ridden the alpha cock carousel (she hesitantly admitted to 25 sex partners before graduating from high school, so it was probably really more like 75), and the very act of marrying her – especially considering she was carrying someone else’s baby – caused her to disrespect him. He asked her to tell him what he should do differently – I don’t remember her saying or indicating anything about his appearance throughout the entire film, and he was still in shape. He was doomed from the start.

    LikeLike


  345. on February 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm Tim

    Dirk,

    Yep, when I look back on it, when I was Dean’s age, maybe 15 years ago, I was probably not much different. So I think I was too hard on him. An ordinary American guy is not remotely close to Casanova, and shouldn’t be expected to be. My bad.

    Just like his review, I left the theatre last night contemplative; it wasn’t until I got home and went to bed that I felt truly sad. The one time in my life i was engaged, I bent over backwards for my ex. I gave her everything she wanted, but the more I gave her the more she became disgusted with me. Me and all the world’s lesser betas will never get it. Women can only have a Knight in shining armour, there is no other option for them. Women cannot settle for nice guys, even if it means traumatizing their daughter(s).

    I think its important to recognize one crucial distinction, Dirk. I’m 41 now, turning 42 in September. Dean portrays a guy in his late 20’s I believe, perhaps 30, tops. A guy learns a lot in between those years, which is why I was critical of his unkempt appearance, an obvious turn-off to women.

    Make no mistake: I’ve traveled all over the USA, with the exception of the South. This movie is the story of who we are, at this point in time. Show me an ordinary american whom this does not resemble; I defy you. The upper classes inter-marry, so it is not their story. But the upper classes are not so numerous as the vast swathes of the middle and lower classes. (Yes, we are now a stagnant, europeanized, class-based society).

    Gosling says in an interview this is not a sad story, there is healing in the end. Yes and no. If getting divorced and growing up is healing, then ok, it isn’t a sad story. But let’s clear about Cindy’s and Dean’s trajectory: After the break up, she would have been a single Mom, got a Plenty of Fish profile, maybe a tattoo of a rose on her ankle, and become a pump and dump for aloof assholes -and liked it. The potential for Dean to become something greater is much more likely. He would have had to pay child support, but that might amount to $500 per month. He would have gotten older, and as men age they become even more attractive. He might’ve started his own painting company. Perhaps picked up a hobby, maybe taken some courses at the local college. Perhaps re-married.

    LikeLike


  346. on February 17, 2011 at 9:24 pm King

    Interesting website. I got here through National Review / Noah Millman / Steve Sailer, a little too late to join the comment discussion.

    I love the fearless approach to stating the truth that you got going on here, but you really need to ditch the acronyms and the numbered maxims and the contrived jargon. “Tight game,” “PUA,” “LTR,” etc. What? The nascent intellectual discourse you are attempting to conduct suffers for it. It smacks of an insidery secret language of disaffected nerds, like Elvish or Klingon.

    Say what you mean to say. Don’t make us look up acronyms. Who has time to decode your pathetic patois? We too busy slangin’ our game, yo.

    Also: as much as you may have discovered the fatal conceit at the heart of the postmodern, liberal illusion, you’re still miles away from what makes a man a man. It has something to do with virtù (check the etymology of vir), a topic that this site accidentally approaches before fleeing. You are wasting so much manly energy on your sad and lonely dedication to the satisfaction of base, childish pleasures. It appears that commenter Good Luck Chuck, with his mid-life course correction, is beginning to grow into this wisdom, even as he feels he must defend the first half of his misspent youth with an appeal to ch.

    You are probably too invested in the myth at this point to make an honest assessment of the wretchedness of being slave to incontinent passions. Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate the blunt debunking of the regime of sexual lies. Keep up the good work. But you should know that there is much beyond this cramped little horizon you’ve staked out for yourselves, this mutual admiration society of self-reinforcing self-esteem half-a-fag puffery.

    The “game” is rigged. You are caught in a contradiction of effeminately analyzing and proclaiming your manliness, complete with more slanguage than a year’s subscription to Cosmo. You have a queer need to express your virtue anonymously. Women chit-chat. Men demonstrate. (Does that maxim have a number?)

    I mean: doesn’t it feel a little un-game-like to be pontificating about the deep roots of your prowess on the internet? It’s a serious question. What would your female conquests think about your exquisite self-reflectiveness? The men I know don’t talk about themselves so much. They just are.

    Either take your analysis to the next level or ditch the faux-intellectual rationalization of being a cad. You are stuck in a middle ground that does nothing so much as demonstrate your unmanly wishy-washiness, regardless of the substance of your chit-chat.

    That said, I’m an instant fan. First time listener, first time caller.

    LikeLike


  347. on February 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm DirkJohanson

    King,

    Welcome. I’m sure many of us are still reading the comments.

    You’ll find The Spearhead (the-spearhead.com) more to you’re liking, and, on the other side of the equation, compared to me (“The Balls Monologues” at guyinism.com), He’s a prude. But most of us have at least some measure of respect – and many of us a lot – for your point of view. If you read more posts here, you’ll see that much, if not all, of what you raise is regularly contemplated.

    Don’t change a thing, except maybe a link to the slang for this guy – I thought about doing that on my site for the slang I’ve made up, as well. That slang is helping develop our subculture and reference points. You rule, and are well on your way to leading a revolution – I hope.

    Well, at least I think I hope; it could go badly awry.

    LikeLike


  348. on February 18, 2011 at 4:39 am Jerry

    @King (please choose another moniker because another guy is using this and you don’t need to confuse things that way)

    Welcome.

    Some good advice for most forums is not to be extremely condescending unless you’re an expert on the subject and feel you can debate the denizens with one hand tied behind your back. That would be especially true if you just went to a feminist left wing forum.

    For this forum, you can get away with what you just did because the guys here will recognize most of your insults as just the kind of bluster that men who are still brainwashed by feminism will initially feel.

    In other words, stick around and you’ll soon be one of “us” (meaning you will become a PUA/MRA if you are a real male with a functioning prostate gland).

    About the acronyms, I agree with Dirk about the need for an accessible glossary off to the side of the page, but you know it’s wrong, in every field, to constantly have to spell concepts out for beginners.

    PUA is best left as an acronym because spelling it out makes PUAs look juvenile. “Pick Up Artist” sounds bad but, because it’s actually quite legitimate and vital for every man to be one, it’s a great thing to say “be a PUA”.

    MRA is “men’s rights advocate”. It takes too long to spell out the latter everytime you want to describe what everyone should be (including fair-minded women). It takes one second to write PUA/MRA community. It takes 20 seconds to spell that all out.

    Let’s take the most important acronym used in discussion of game: MLTR

    It’s a better term for “harem” which people associate with Turkish women lounging in some desert fortress and it carries less of a bragging connotation.

    If I constantly said that I have a harem, I would look like I am bragging or that I’m juvenile or even lying (the same is true for anyone here who might write that they have a “harem”).

    But, by saying that I have an MLTR, I am only showing that I am doing what most men should strive to do even if they ultimately just want to find one woman to be monogamous with, and that is to date more than one woman at the same time and let them compete with each other even if they aren’t sure each other exists.

    Beginners and casual lurkers may have to spend 30 seconds looking that acronym up via Google search, but the benefits of their not getting turned off by the pejorative word “harem” vastly outweigh the 30 seconds they need to get used to the acronym.

    Now you can say that semantics don’t matter and you still think the word MLTR looks as juvenile as harem. But that means you don’t respect the idea of dating more than one woman at the same time and have bigger problems with the people here than their use of acronyms.

    I do try to be polite to newcomers by writing ASD (anti-slut defense) whenever possible in a comment while then simply writing ASD further down in the comment if I have to use the term again. If someone high up on a thread has done that, however, there is no reason for me to spell it out.

    Psychologically, it has been shown that learning acronyms about a concept helps a person realize that this something actually exists and isn’t just a theory.

    Once you start thinking about “ASD” when you interact with women you will probably believe more that such a thing exists and deal with it better.

    Acronyms are especially important if they pack a lot of meaning that one has to get up to speed on.

    LikeLike


  349. on February 18, 2011 at 4:48 am Jerry

    Also, it is far from a “mutual admiration society” here and maybe less so than most forums.

    Very few guys dare to post field reports for fear of being eaten alive.

    And feminists monitor this place like sharks in a feeding frenzy (few dare to bite because they know the prey here doesn’t taste too good and will fight back).

    LikeLike


  350. on February 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm King A

    My angle of attack has been slightly misunderstood. But that’s okay. I’m most impressed by the even tone of the comment boxes (of all things to find on the internet). Most places online respond to mild criticism with shrill and ineffective overcompensation. There is a serenity here that comes with possessing the truth: a blessed “take it or leave it” and shrug.

    The confidence with which you permit challenging opinions is an impartial indicator that you are onto something. To be clear, there is no serious rebuttal to this site’s richly appropriate and long-delayed flay-roasting of feminism. No serious person has anything interesting to say in counterpoint to the argument per se. The most a critic can fault you for is a less than chivalrous tone. But even this is rather weak, since, while most internet brutality is a mask for poor argumentation, this site does not traffic in insecure putdowns. Your rhetoric is supported by wit and research. And in a war such as this, at this stage, one must be brutal. Make no mistake, on substance you are unassailable. You have a secret weapon, the truth.

    My quibble isn’t with your target — we share a common enemy, the pussified feminist lies that have been internalized by the very men who are its victims. I depart from your vision with regard to the post-war strategy. There is the thrill of combat in the battle of the sexes, yes, but Why Do We Fight? The answer I’ve gleaned from taking a longer look at Chateau’s posts is: We Fight To Swim in Acres of Pussy. That’s not an aim worthy of your hard-won wisdom and skills. It’s low, base, ultimately futile and somewhat pathetic.

    Chateau was hinting at the limits of his approach in his April Fool’s ennui, albeit mockingly. Some commenting hommes d’un certain âge are already hitting the wall, a fate fast approaching every gracelessly declining pick-up artist. Better men mature after sowing their wild oats and look for higher things. This is not an indication of a lack of “game.” It is a principled rejection of “game,” which, among a whipped-up monomaniacal mob like the one present online, actually takes a more manly courage to effect. There is something precious about overgrown children caught in a loop they should’ve escaped by age 30, and there is something inescapably twee about a mutual-supporting culture of jargon-laced braggadocio.

    You have identified the fight. Good. Delineated its parameters. Excellent. Now where is the place for chaste warriors in this war? What role do we who have mastered our passions play in this drama? The thought of applying all of this knowledge, gained through many years of trial and error and sacrifice, just so we can “pump and dump” some needy girl with daddy issues seems like drawing up the Normandy Invasion to go drop a turd. Way too much concentration on — I can barely stand to type the unintentionally revealing man-boy word — “game.” Once we understand that feminism is a hollow box, once we are privy to the secret that their intimidation is based on a big fat nothing, there is no need to dilate on method so minutely. What follows from wisdom follows naturally. It needs little defense or explanation.

    You’re fixated on Darwin like a schoolgirl crush. “God is Biomechanics”? No, God is God (and Mohammad is His prophet PBUH*). Yours is reverse-engineered amateur philosophizing and a rationalization that betrays the superficial foundation of your project. If you want to run with the big dogs, brush up on your Homer, Plato, Cicero, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Nietzsche. The huddled remnants of testicular fortitude among so many countless castrated modern “men” need a sturdier footing than your third-rate “Selfish Gene” plagiarism can supply.

    Granted, that’s a tall order, perhaps impossible to graft onto your devoutly confessed Nicene Creed of Poon at this late stage. But it’s not a taller order than you’re inspiring your followers to attempt themselves, and the intellectual quality of your approach and the sharp attentiveness of your audience are clearly sufficient to the task. Challenge them.

    In any event, I will remain a fan, probably until the bravado starts to become repetitive, and in repetition, gross. (I had to stop reading Texts From Last Night when the nausea began to overwhelm the comedy value.) What gifts both author and readership have, only to be wasted on ephemeral things! I’m thinking you will have to be the generation of Nietzschean freien Geistes, pavers of the way but never arriving. First the hollow idols must be knocked down — keep faith with your manly project, you’re off to a smashing start — and the next generation will profit from your sacrifice. But not you.

    O sancta simplicitiatas! http://tinyurl.com/2hvfsy

    – – –
    * Just kidding. Christ is Lord. The original Alpha … and Omega! A koan to ponder.

    LikeLike


  351. on February 18, 2011 at 12:58 pm T

    a blessed “take it or leave it” and shrug.

    alpha

    LikeLike


  352. on February 18, 2011 at 1:19 pm King A

    Jerry, I appreciate the rookie orientation and your patience. Much is clearer after spending a few hours looking through the archives. Yes, apprentices must earn their inside knowledge through work, not glossaries and short-cuts. Something in me recoils at being initiated in a monomaniaclly focused cult, however, and I’m quite confident it isn’t cryptic femo-brainwashing.

    It was worth the risk of misunderstanding which attended the criticism of such a project because your efforts are so close to mission perfection, save one egregious deficiency.

    I’ll field-test some of this stuff if the mood strikes, for shits and giggles. What you have attempted to patent as Game™ is not very different from the method most socially comfortable men already deploy by instinct. I agree, articulating this method in vividly explicit terms has a value beyond entertainment — it focuses the mind on consciously refining one’s behavior, even if taking too much fastidious care in the details is decidedly nerdish or gay.

    No man present should fear “being eaten alive” by pseudonymous pixel pundits. No confident man should be addicted to bloviating war-stories of exaggerated conquests. Why talk about it? I never understood this, never was much tempted by blabbing, like women at a kaffeeklatch. Why pontificate anonymously? For the therapeutic value? To help a brother out? This empowers the competition, however remotely. But fellow prowlers aren’t the competition, are they? Esprit de corps runs contrary to the stated mission of this site — to score pussy — and this contradictory impulse tells me what the real purpose of these communities are organized for: fellow-feeling above actual female conquest. Bros before hos.

    So the primary mission is to run the harridans and their enabling philosophy off a cliff, not really to get into their panties. Sign me up for the former. I’ll attend privately to the latter, thanks. This voyeuristic need to know what other men are doing with their dicks just feels like peeking into an adjacent urinal to me. I don’t share the impulse. (-3 points on the “Value Test”?)

    On the other hand, I’m addicted to wisdom. There are enough unspoken truths circulated here and only here that it’s worth subscribing. Is it practical advice? Maybe. Funny? Yes. True? For the most part. Good enough for me.

    First, let’s kill all the feminism. A declaration of war focuses disparate parties with even opposing aims. We can sort out our differences later on the charred battlefield with the smoke of victory in our lungs. In the meantime, permit me a few free chuckles at your rallying cry of “game” and the forced bonhomie of practical acronyming. Whatever gets you through the fight. It’s not an indication of my association with the enemy, and it’s not even a denial of the underlying truth of what you say, but I will on occasion be unable to suppress a mocking laugh. Don’t take it personally. Press on, soldier.

    LikeLike


  353. on February 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm (R)Evolutionary

    King A,

    Welcome. Your commentary is most welcome here. You’re right, we who have come to the Chateau for the truth, know that you can take it or leave it. Just like the more ‘twee’ aspects of the culture here. Not every man who reads or comments here seeks to Swim In Acres of Poon. Many of us seek only to use these tools of understanding, the seeds of Applied Evolutionary Psychobiology (my term for Game) to develop healthier, stronger loving relationships with a woman worthy of the value we bring as enlightened men. (read: a young, hot, tight, intelligent non-feminist.)

    But to accomplish that goal, men today must winnow through hectares of chaff, for feminism has dinged and damaged so many of the young women out there, as to make them unserviceable as wives. The few remaining women worthy of wifehood know their value, and challenge men to demonstrate their reproductive fitness, and men need, more than anything, knowledge, to pass those tests.

    We also need practice, and all women subconsciously test men, whether they’re worthy of delivering those tests or not. So, we hone our chops, we become more comfortable in our own skin, and develop a deep and abiding sense of self-confidence and unflappability in the process of dating a lot of girls while probing for those gleaming diamonds in the roughness of post-feminist industrial culture,

    So judge not, before you understand.

    A perfect example: your condescension precedes you in your specious claim about the ‘preciousness of overgrown children caught in a loop they should have escaped by age 30.’ Clearly from this remark, you don’t understand the modern dating scene, née, the SMP (look it up).

    So, I’ll infer from your naiveté that a). you’ve been married to for a long time to a doting partner, or b).you haven’t had a date in a decade. Either way, it’s clear you’re clueless about the machinations of modern women.

    The situation in the dating market has been completely discombobulated by the feminist agenda, by applauding frivolous divorce, and by largely freeing women from societal slut-shaming mechanisms. The result is that women often will follow their vaginal tingles into the arms of other men quite easily, when her male partner is stricken with betatude. It takes concerted effort (at first), and a real understanding of our evolutionary drives, to truly lead in a relationship as a man the way it’s required in today’s environment.

    So do continue to read here, to comment, to study and understand. Knowledge gleaned here and in other outposts of truth will help you in all your relations.

    LikeLike


  354. on February 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm DirkJohanson

    King A wrote, “…..If you want to run with the big dogs, brush up on your Homer, Plato, Cicero, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, and Nietzsche. ….”

    I think Great Books for Men (“GBFM”) has finally taken a break from poon to return to us commenting under a different alias, with the sex having somehow given him the ability to use actual vocabulatory words.

    Nothing at all against the old GBFM, whose posts I consider both high art and future legend, but so far, I also like the metamorphosis.

    LikeLike


  355. on February 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm Tinderbox

    Literally, MLTR = “multiple long term relationships”

    A few other acronyms often seen here:
    DHV = “demonstration of higher value”
    DLV = “demonstration of lower value”
    AMOG = “alpha male of group”
    AFC = “average frustrated chump”
    LJBF = “Let’s just be friends”
    SNL = “same night lay”
    ONS = “one night stand”

    It isn’t a cant designed to restrict people from joining the discussion. If anything’s ever unclear to anyone just ask and someone will help explain an acronym or concept. Like Jerry, I usually try to write it out the first time but those who don’t aren’t trying to be aspergery and to keep it a secret. It’s just a convenient shorthand.

    LikeLike


  356. on February 18, 2011 at 7:52 pm Thor

    This senescent post has suddenly got new life!

    Let me just observe that “game” is actually
    a subset of a much larger phenomenon,
    applicable to a wide swatch of negotiation,
    viz. the strategy of playing hard to get.

    This works from flee markets to trade
    negotiations – most of the time.

    It works especially well when the other side
    feels a pressure to get _some_ kind of deal.
    A typical – and very common – case is when the
    negotiator is an agent without much of his
    own skin in the game. Then, he most likely
    cares about “process” (i.e. getting SOME kind
    of deal), but not necessarily much about
    the actual content of the agreement.

    Topical example: Politicians negotiating
    away taxpayers’ money to public
    employee labor unions.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  357. on February 26, 2011 at 8:27 am JM

    I saw this garbage and was appalled. It reminded me of the mistakes that I’ve made but I haven’t reached the point that Dean has. Thanks for the review. Keep up the good work.

    LikeLike


  358. on March 1, 2011 at 2:42 pm King A

    There can be no sustained conversation here due to comment volume alone, unless one subscribes or regularly (obsessively) checks for updates. By the time one can respond, the herd has moved on. That’s a shame because there is value to this site’s honest approach to an important subject. I wonder if there is a better medium.

    Either way, I appreciate those who took the time to answer my questions or criticize my own observations weeks after the initial post materialized. And yet it is not helpful to make sweeping assumptions about those of us who are not fully on-board with this subculture’s methodology. Nor is it a good practice to dismiss us by assuming we are insufficiently indoctrinated. The doctrine itself may be flawed, in small ways and large.

    In three comments already an easy dismissal of my criticism — plebeian though it may be — has followed three times from three separate people. (“the guys here will recognize most of your insults as just the kind of bluster … a snap judgment … infer from your naïveté”) This constitutes a pattern. Is this wave of the hand a common reaction to those who attempt to probe the reigning ethos? The practice is weak. Worse: it dulls your edge.

    Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your … behavior … may be put to shame.

    There is much to learn from prior (wildly successful) campaigns to upend the culture.

    Further, if the uninitiated’s criticism seems repetitive to you, get used to it. These questions haven’t been asked and answered, except among the true believers who have a natural tendency towards sola fide. These controversies are recurring matters you will have to address constantly until there is a cultural sea-change, that is, if you intend to influence an audience beyond the choir. Your impatience will not serve you. Rather than leading a revolution, you will consign a nascent movement to cult status, a ghetto of gamers replete with passwords and secret handshakes.

    To neuter yourself would be a real shame. You should be more serious about your mission, and more systematic. The culture at large needs your critique to enter the mainstream.

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Recent Comments

    redlightgo on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    redlightgo on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Lichthof on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Lichthof on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Peter Jackson on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory…
    Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory…
    Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory…
    Sentient on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
    Sentient on Mocking The Globohomo Cor…
  • Top Posts

    • Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat Catladies Hate Trump
    • Mocking The Globohomo Corporatocracy
    • The Confound Of Silence
    • Slutty Women Are Unhappier Than Caddish Men
    • "Conspiracy Theory" Conspiracy
    • The Great Men On Holding Marital Frame
    • Beta O'Rourke
    • Manifest Depravity
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
    • Betrayal Is A Woman's Heart
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: