Alpha Male Body Language

There’s a lot going on here that adds up to a snapshot of pure alphatude in full display. The easy stride, the ownership arm draped loosely but heavily over her shoulders —

Just hold on loosely
But don’t let go
If you cling too tightly
You’re gonna lose control

— the deliberate avoidance of nuzzling or any soy-laced PDA, the contrapposto pose in motion (check the angle of his right foot), and the “I’m surveying my kingdom” wandering gaze.

Even if you’re an ugly man, you can project an aura of alphaness, and therefore look more attractive to women, if you walk with the insouciant confidence of this fellow here. Every little improvement helps.

Read Full Post »

The Number One Reason For Sexless Marriages

Commenter Johnny Redux nails the answer to this post’s title with an ugly truth few men, let alone women, would be willing to confront head on, obliquely, or deniably:

A sexless marriage, in many (if not most) cases, is the result of a man marrying a woman his own age, and after time losing all sexual interest in her as she quickly morphs into an old woman before his eyes, much quicker than he is aging.

Men are maximally attracted to young women.

Men age more slowly than do women. (At least going by outward appearance.)

Men’s sexual worth climbs through their 30s and 40s while women’s sexual worth declines through their 30s and 40s.

Put the three preconditions together, and marriage between “age appropriate” men and women is a recipe for sexlessness, followed by lovelessness, and then finally divorce.

Which is why I advise men, if you’re gonna do something stupid like get married, make sure the deal is as sweet as it can be for you by choosing a younger woman to be your monogamously avowed last fuck. You’ll come to appreciate her extended shelf life when your married buddies are staring down the barrel of a dumpy hausfrau and dreaming of escape. You don’t want to wife up a woman on the wrong side of supple.

PS This post explains the true cause of “mid-life crisis”. The crisis is the rapidly diverging SMV values of the husband and wife. And the cure is trading up, fapping off, or dropping out.

Read Full Post »

The Main Reason Women Despise Niceguys

Because niceguys excuse women’s shitholistic behavior.

There will always be an urge in people (not just couples therapists and marriage counselors, although they are more prone to experiencing the urge) to relieve women of and burden men with responsibility and accountability. This is a consequence of the Fundamental Premise, which states that eggs, being pricey, add value to the vessel which houses them, and therefore that vessel commands deference and apologia from all social and institutional forces.

The feminist complaint of an oppressive patriarchy that puts women under the jackboot of men is literally the opposite of reality, but we should not be surprised by feminist delusion because it’s also in the nature of women to ignore their advantages and to focus on those perceived injustices that insufficiently coddle them to a torrential splooge.

On female unaccountability, @TrevorGoodchild notes the connection to Game and the modren dating market,

Women are also more attracted to men who hold them to account, and are actively repelled by betas that give them a free pass (they’ll still take the freebie, though)….

This may be one of the clearest definitions of Game and sexual market dynamics I’ve read outside of my own very stable genius scribblings. What kind of men hold women to account? Jerkboys. What kind of men absolve women of personal responsibility? Niceguys. Women love the former, and hold the latter in contempt.

Women don’t want a toady, regardless of any claims to the contrary. Women want a challenge. A man who will call them out on their shit. And jerkboys are the men who will give them that thrill.

Read Full Post »

The Tattooed Slut Is A Redundancy

2007: From the CH post “She eats her peas one at a time“:

Does she have a large trashy tattoo anywhere near an erogenous zone?

Slut.

2017: From ¡SCIENCE!:

We collect numerous measures of time preferences and impulsivity of tattooed and non-tattooed subjects and find broad-ranging and robust evidence that those with tattoos, especially visible ones, are more short-sighted and impulsive than the non-tattooed.

Tattoos are therefore a slut tell, because sluts are short-sighted and impulsive. A girl who’s impulsive in one domain is sure as Bartholin’s life-giving lube to be impulsive in other domains. And the more visible her tattoo, the more likely that hipsteress you have your eye on will go up to your apartment on the first date, let you finger fuck her mouth, give you a blowjob, and then complain about feeling “uncomfortable” in a long-winded solipsistic article written for “The Babe” or whatever menstrual rag is the current pit stop for butthurt feminists lamenting their inability to be wined and dined like the chaste ladies they aren’t.

The ThotTat life trajectory:
age 18-25: slut tell. easy lay, bring condom
age 26-35: cuck tell. she’ll cheat, bring paternity test
age 36-45: crazy cat lady tell, bring deodorizer
age 46-: sexual worthlessness. who cares about her saggy tats?

Future tradvaj to repopulate the lands with remnant based Whites will have clear, unscarred skin from head to toe, and the LoveLord who undresses her unpolluted body will draw a breath as the beauty of her unbroken porcelain wrapping turns his bachelor pad into a bioluminescent breeding ground.

Read Full Post »

The Social Costs Of Miscegenation: Paternity Uncertainty Edition

I intend this to be a long-running series, because miscegenation (mongrelization if you’re feeling sadistic) is one of those taboo topics that triggers the right people with the maximum voltage.

One social cost of miscegenation which no one but a few inner circle Chateau-lords has brought up are the negative externalities of children who don’t look like their parents.

A reader writes,

Don’t racemix. Period. Your white genes are generally recessive, at least the eye, skin, and hair color, so you’re doomed to have kids that look like their mother and not you. You’ll find yourself looking up paternity tests on the internet.

Good point about paternity tests. I bet we’ll find in the coming years that the increase in interracial couples coincides with an increase in paternity testing. That’s my hypothesis, and I’m sticking to it. I expect to be proven correct.

Miscegenation and paternity testing out the wazoo for the goyium! These are the “right side of history” changes that really bind a society together. /sarcasm

If you’ve got spare change, invest in paternity testing companies. The stock price of this barely recognizable baby is about to go through the roof.

Read Full Post »

Just Like Us: The Gay Marriage Lie

Commenter chris and myself have objected to gay marriage on grounds that heterosexual marriage is essentially an anti-cuckoldry social rule codified into law, and gay marriage undermines that social rule by importing homosexual norms into heterosexual marriage. (This is inevitable if gay marriage is the legal and cultural equal of heterosexual marriage.) The consequence of gay marriage and its attendant norms will be the end of monogamy and the patriarchal nuclear family, which will destroy the most important lynchpin of civilization.

Coming to the same conclusion, but from a different angle, is Quads, who writes succinctly about the ways in which gay marriage upends the traditional order honed by millennia of evolutionary trial and error.

Gays of yesterday used to understand that they were in some way broken. It wasn’t just that they had a sexual dysfunction, but that they were excluded from broader social life. They could never produce a family, they could never be part of the basic unit of society. They knew it and embraced it. This is no longer the case.

Society has changed. Its basic unit is no longer the family, where men and women each play a part, where knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. (That was too bigoted.) Now it’s the individual, a citizen who pays taxes and consumes goods and services, who is society’s basic unit. This is all it means to be normal — this is what the social revolutions of our time asserted. Everyone is identical — men, women, blacks, whites, asians —  and everyone plays the same social role. In this atomized context, where marriage and sex are private behaviors, then gays really are Just Like Us.

Today’s gays see themselves as normal. Any bigotry against them is just arbitrary and irrational, because they can do anything you can do. They work and pay taxes and consume goods, Just Like Us. And to an extent they are normal, they’ve marinated their whole lives in a culture of atomized individuals. Marriage isn’t a ritual, something with social significance, but just an achievement, like buying a car or getting a diploma. So any combination of private reasons — tax benefits or a fantasy of being “married” some day — is justification enough. Gays are Just Like Us, their money is as good as yours. Gays are Just Like Us, and they’ll believe this even as they get fisted by a stranger in the airport bathroom.

Just Like Us is a pithy phrase that encapsulates the conflict Quads mentioned between socially significant ritual and individually rewarding achievement. In a society increasingly breaking down into being defined by its least common constituent parts (ie consumerist cogs), the normalization of and rationalizations for gay marriage will necessarily have a corrosive effect on heterosexual marriage, subverting the social oversight dimension of marriage and substituting it with a shrunken hyper-individualistic quality which reduces marriage to a private consumer purchase with no implication for the wider society.

Gay marriage is an empty sacrament of accumulation — a rite of crassness — without a broader and deeper connection to family or society, past or future, and without the gravity of acting as an occasion and a commitment enforcing a collective rule which exists for the benefit of a larger social purpose than the kitschy gratification of deracinated and atomized consumerist impulse.

Mark my words, we will pay dearly for the folly of passively acceding to the gay marriage fuggernaut.

Read Full Post »

Is Male Hypergamy Real? (No)

Commenter days of game offered the “normie” objection to female hypergamy that I’ve come across from other readers in previous posts on the topic: specifically, both sexes want the best deal they can get in the mate market, so “hypergamy” isn’t limited to one sex.

I don’t understand the manosphere’s interest in “hypergamy.” It’s the most obvious thing… girls are looking for the best opportunity. That’s not girls… that’s everyone.

And then: Eggs are expensive, sperm are cheap. Got it.

So… girls have more bargaining power, and thus… a lot of guys lose (due to low SMV)… and girls hop around (because they can)… as that egg is in demand (until it isn’t).

Why does this need a billion hours of analysis?

This particular research continues the pattern of underwhelm:

A seller with a high-demand product (her pussy), that can find more and more markets (online)… can charge a higher price, and/or burn more potential buyers (for fun or profit).

Econ 101.

When I see guys that get frothy about MUUHHH HYPERGUUHHHMEH… I increasingly read all that as signals of beta reality/paranoia. And a waste of our time as men to go over this again and again.

The cool guy get the girl. Dur.

For a simple concept, a lot of men (and women) dismiss female hypergamy out of hand as having no basis in reality. And that reality is this: There is no equivalent male hypergamy to female hypergamy. “Everyone is looking for the best possible deal” is a trivially true statement which obfuscates the fact that men and women look for mate market deals with differing intensities of commitment and with differing emphases on what constitutes a good deal. These differences are so profound in both a quantitative and qualitative sense that they may as well be representing totally different mate selection strategies (which they are).

I’ll quote myself here on the subject of “male hypergamy”, before illustrating the Fake Comparison of male and female sexual market bargaining using a car dealership analogy,

Some readers would demur that hypergamy isn’t sex-specific, pointing out that men also strive to find the best possible lover they can get.

My rebuttal is two-part: One, men don’t date up based on social, economic, or occupational status. Men, if and when they are able to date up, do so based almost entirely on women’s looks. We’ve all seen or experienced how men trade up when they’ve come into a financial or social status windfall — younger, hotter, tighter women, as the GBFM would put it. So male hypergamy — what is more precisely termed “physiogamy” — is different in kind from female hypergamy.

Second, male physiogamy is also different in degree from female hypergamy. Women are biologically compelled to aim for a man higher in SMV from themselves, and this compulsion is strong enough that many women will accept long bouts of solitude before settling for a man at their own SMV level (usually at the moment when The Wall first looms on the horizon). When men aim higher, they a. don’t aim quite as high as women aim and b. won’t opt out of the sexual or marital market (like women will often do), if they don’t get everything they want in a lover.

Another point of difference between male and female “dating up” limbic algorithms which I alluded to in that quote but didn’t clarify is this: Male SMV is largely contextual and relational. Social, occupational, financial, and prestige status have to be measured against a backdrop of other men all competing along the same metrics that women use to assess male mate worth. Women only have to look young and pretty, which can be accomplished with or without other women to use for comparison purposes.

This has an impact on how each sex dates up. Men will upgrade to a hotter younger babe after they have spent considerable time improving their SMV, either through amassing resources or social/psychosexual capital (Game). Men’s ability to date up is thus limited by the time and energy commitments required to do so. Men respond to this sex-differentiated mate market reality by de-emphasizing dating “up” and settling for dating “as good as possible for right now”.

In contrast, women have to commit relatively little time and energy to improving their SMV, largely because their mate value is set at conception and there isn’t much they can do to improve upon what they were given by their parents. There’s no point working hard to improve that which has only a tiny margin for improvement (unless we’re talking about a fatty who could slim down and gain 5 SMV points). What this means in practice is that women can spend a lot more time and energy “dating up” while their looks are holding up. Their window for primo action is smaller than it is for men, but within that window they have a lot more leeway to entertain suitors and hold out for the best, even if the best is a cad illusion who offers empty promises of commitment (the age-old risk that women take when they hold out for mr right aka mr beta bux and mr alpha fux in one man). Dating up comes more naturally to women because it comes more easily; as long as they aren’t old fat or ugly, women can leverage their looks almost as an afterthought to attract attention from a lot of men, both low and high SMV.

The analogy of female hypergamy is this:

A man goes to a car dealership. He’s a sensible fellow, and just needs a commuter vehicle. He sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. He salivates. He walks over, runs his hand across the finish. Maybe he asks to sit in it and dream, gripping the leather steering wheel. But he knows he can’t afford it, so he quickly focuses his thoughts and leaves fantasyland behind, to browse the boring sedans. He consoles himself with the hope that maybe, someday, he’ll have made it and can return with enough to buy that Corvette. In the meantime, he haggles like a champ with the seller to drive down the price of his sedan and maximize the amenities at his budget. No undercarriage rust protection, thank you! Finally, he signs on the dotted line, and drives off content that he got the best deal he could, and as he’s heading home he thoughtfully itemizes all the good things about his new car. The smell! The climate control! The gas mileage! He’s happy for himself.

A woman goes to a car dealership. She’s a sensible lady (for a lady), and just needs a commuter vehicle. She sees a cherry red Corvette center stage. She salivates. She walks over, runs her hand across the finish, sits in the car, applies lipstick in the rearview mirror, lays across both front seats in a languid pose, asks to take it for a test drive, motors giddily around town for an hour until the seller has to gently chide her to call it a day, returns and labors some more over the Corvette, sighs heavily as a penny drops out of her purse, shuffles over to the boring sedan and gives it a perfunctory once-over, noting with depressing self-encouragement that it gets 35 mpg on the highway. She haggles with the seller for five grueling hours before announcing she needs more time to think on it. (meanwhile, the seller wonders why she’s shit testing him.) On her way out, she stops by the Corvette again, for one last flirtatious hand graze. Over the next six months, she stops by the dealership weekly to cavort with the Corvette, until her current rust bucket dies in an intersection to a thousand honking cars and sheer embarrassment drags her shamed butt back to the dealer to grudgingly trade in her dead clunker for the boring beta sedan. She resents her new car the second she rolls off the lot in it, and abuses it daily with cigarette butts, spilled coffee, and unchanged oil, until she has to repeat the process, except next time with even less money in her pocket, which forces her to browse the sub-compacts. Oh lord, what will her friends think?! They’ll know she settled because she waited too long. Maybe she can get a bike instead and rationalize it as environmental activism. One night, in a horny and desperate mood, she sneaks into the dealership and fucks the Corvette’s stick shift. She slumps spent, in the love puddle she left in the bucket seat, and whimpers softly for a romance that will never be.

***

I hope that clears things up.

Read Full Post »