Every Girl Adores A Hard-To-Get Boy

A sharp-eyed observer can’t fail to notice how Game principles extend forward and backward in life, all the way back to early childhood. If you can recall your own childhood, or have opportunity to see tykes at play, a familiar dynamic emerges. The boy (usually just one boy, but may be more) who is least interested in what the little girls are doing, who is totally immersed in his own world, and who will even go so far as to push the girls away when they curiously peak around the periphery of whatever has his attention, is the boy who can’t beat the wee lasses off with a stick.

This will be especially obvious where the little boys are outnumbered by the girls. Early years sex skew produces the same intersex psychological phenomena that is produced by adulthood sex skew. And the hard-to-get challenging little boy is a tot magnet just like the hard-to-get challenging grown man is a thot magnet.

Little girls, just like tig ol bittied growed girls, adore a boy-II-man who makes himself the center of the universe. Girls of all ages can’t resist the fire and ice.

(Ever notice the “bad girls” of yesteryear rock had more femininity than the Lilith Fair femmes of the 90s or the cartoonish slutwalkers of today? Yet another signpost of metastasizing civilizational necrosis.)

So on the zero sum playground, little boys adhere to the Poon Commandments and little girls love them for it. Specifically, Commandments III and VI:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

***

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

The fact that cub cads and tiny thots instinctually obey the timeless biomechanical laws of the Poon Commandments strongly suggests that these principles of Game have a solid footing in the deepest, primal parts of human nature, and given that they are in evidence so early in life the later manifestations of it should not come as a shock to anyone but those in a low fertility society who have forgotten the wisdom of the wees.

Game is not socially constructed. Social construction is the effluvia of Game.

PS ¡SCIENCE! agrees! (what else is new?)

Science of dating: why playing hard to get only works for men

Men should play hard to get if they want to attract the opposite sex on a first date otherwise women will see them as unmanly or manipulative, new research has shown.

However women should ‘be nice’ as it will make them appear more feminine in the eyes of the opposite sex.

The research, which only studied straight couples, found that women are suspicious of a man who is too attentive, and are likely to view him as ‘vulnerable and less dominant.’

lol niceguys BTFO.

The studies worked on the basis that people often say that they seek a partner that is “responsive to their needs” and that such a partner would arouse their sexual interest.

However it seems that in the early stages of dating, women are more turned on by unresponsive men.

Professor Gurit Birnbaum of the Interdisciplinary Centre, Israel, said: “We still do not know why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers.

I know why, and readers of this blog know why. Perception of female preselection. A standoffish, self-possessed man who isn’t promptly smitten by a hot chick is perceived to be a man who has lots of options in quality and quantity of female company. In Darwinian terms, his seed is likely to birth champions who will find themselves living in a poosy paradise, which means his women can look forward to their genes spreading (heh) farther and wider (heh).

However, in contrast, the advice for women is to ‘play nice’ if they want to attract a male, even though dating Bibles such as ‘The Rules’ suggest they should remain aloof and disinterested.

The first experiment involved 112 single undergraduates aged between 20 and 33 years old who were paired with a member of the opposite sex on a 30 minute ‘date.’

It found that women who were judged to be more friendly and responsive were seen to be more sexually attractive.

Nicegirls are not the flip side of niceguys. What works for men doesn’t usually work for women. This is why Game exists, because there are stark and profound psychosexual differences between the sexes.

Men who interacted with an agreeable and attentive female perceived her as more feminine and as more sexually attractive than did men who found women aloof.

In this corner, we have cheap sperm. It prefers women who signal sexual and romantic availability.

In this corner, we have expensive eggs. It prefers men who signal outcome independence and a surfeit of mate choices.

Ten rounds, no ear biting, and don’t bother placing bets, because there can never be a winner…for long.

PPS Joe Biden and the Pope got a tingle up their legs reading this post.

Read Full Post »

¡SCIENCE!: Sluts Really Are Asking For It

The Chateau is no longer an outpost in a dark world. The dark world is an outpost of the Chateau.

File under: Ladies, if you act like a slut, you’ll be treated like a slut.

Subcategory: Liberal women, rape fantasies, and the PoundMeToo SMV signaling hysteria: A Theory of Femme.

Via Steverino:

Why Are Liberal Women More Likely to Report They’ve Been Sexually Harassed?

On Twitter, a guy calling himself Zach Goldberg does these amazing long tweet data dive explorations of hot topics. For example, he has a new one inquiring into why liberal women are more likely to report being sexually harassed than conservative women.

I don’t think he has yet ruled out all other reasonable explanations. For example:

– Liberal women turned liberal because they were sexually harassed. […]

But Goldberg has come up with a barnburner of a correlation I’d never heard of before, which you can read here.

Reposting the Twatter thread here:

Since then, I've gathered enough data to generate a longitudinal trend line to determine a) whether the high % of women reporting sexual harassment is historically unprecedented; and b) whether liberal women are consistently more likely to report experiences of sexual harassment

— Zach Goldberg (@ZachG932) August 31, 2018

The whole thread is worth reading (I’m sure AE would be interested in this treasure trove of sexual market data, given that it was largely pulled from the GSS).

Lascivious Summary: Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to report being sexually harassed, because liberal women are more likely than conservative women to have erotic rape fantasies (i.e., women tingle when they think about being forced to have nonconsensual sex).

Most women have “forcible sex” erotic fantasies, but overeducated liberal women really run with it. And remember, fantasies are based on real desire. If they weren’t, by the property of randomness we would hear of women having sex fantasies about beta males. They don’t.

Other findings: Alcohol and working in an office where one is alone with a lot of relatively alpha male bosses are somewhat predictive of the likelihood of reporting being the “victim” (sneer quotes now backed by hard data) of sexual harassment.

But…

number of sex partners + rape appeal appear to be doing most of the heavy lifting. Unfortunately, this data set did not include a measure of ideology; but the effects of Party ID point in the ‘Democratic’ direction.

I’m working up to something, bear with me.

Another finding: The data don’t necessarily show an increase in workplace sexual harassment in the PoundMeToo era (roughly the past two years); what it shows is an increase in *reports* of sexual harassment. Media saturation coverage of isolated sexual harassment stories grabs women’s attention and motivates them to jump on the sexual harassment victim bandwagon.

That said, considering some of the other media effects I’ve previously shared in the context of perceived discrimination, I do think it’s at least plausible that the salience of the issue in the media–and the concomitant prestige/sympathy that awaits those who claim victimhood–produces these sudden upward swings in the reporting base rate.

In other words, the ‘real’ base rate–i.e. what the average person (i.e. not gender studies majors) would consider sexual harassment–has remained relatively stable overtime, but that media salience + the broadening of the definition (to include even innocuous or unintended behavior) encourages a kind of ‘identity-expressive’/socially motivated reporting.

Propaganda works (especially if the recipients of it are psychologically predisposed to accept the premises of the propaganda because parroting it would increase their social and/or sexual status). In sum, the Chaimstream Media has weaponized the minds, bodies, and souls of our White women.

So here we go with my Theory of Femme. Women are natural attention whores, and shitlib women are the biggest attention whores. As a woman becomes more conservative, she is less interested in attention whoring.

Media propaganda feeds into women’s natural conformism; their need to be socially accepted by the dominant in-group. For shitlib women, this means conforming to shitlib fads, like PoundMeToo. Combine women’s conformism with their attention whoring and media coverage, and you get sexual harassment moral panics.

Furthermore, the attention whoring is really a sexual market value display. Women who claim to be sexually harassed by men are implying that they are so desirable men can’t control themselves in their company. Shitlib women who dream of being erotically raped would, naturally, boost their SMV signal by casting themselves as victims of rape-y men. SMV signaling is reward enough, but shitlib women also get a…tingle…in their nethers when they imagine themselves in the role of the overcome woman who had no choice but to give in to the brutish alpha male.

Here’s the catch: most shitlib women work in fields where they are surrounded by flappy-wristed soyboys and supplicating male feminists. These are not the men erotic rape fantasies are made of. The PoundMeToo cyclical sexual panic can best be seen, then, as a sexual wish fulfillment hysteria coupled with a disgust for the weak males who by convenient proximity would be unwittingly enlisted to play the role of the irresistible, dominating, self-entitled alpha male. Women hate that these soft males are their “fantasy fuel”, so when one of these soys makes an innocuous gesture that can be misinterpreted by a battlecunt with a chip on her shoulder as sexual harassment, they get taken to the she-shed for the requisite social shaming and livelihood destruction.

And now we know why single White women with college degrees — nearly all of them shitlib — signal so hard for open borders to the Brute World. Maybe they aren’t signaling. Maybe…juuuuust maybe….these shitlib chicks want more aggressive men to fill in for the role of the rapist hunk of their deepest starkest sexual fantasies.

That is my Theory of Femme. Someone notify Jordan Peterson and see what he thinks.

In other common sense news, it takes two to tango. If a girl dresses slutty and acts slutty, men will (often enough rightly) assume she is DTF. The failure to communicate only occurs when the slut gets the expected solicirations from betas she’d rather not entertain. This mismatch between endeavor and reward brews toxic spite in sluts, who take it out on all men, making themselves less commitment-worthy with each year closer they careen to cat ladydom.

Read Full Post »

The Masculinizing Effects Of The Birth Control Pill

CH is on record noting the disturbing trend toward physical and behavioral masculinization of American women. Maybe the Pill is the primary culprit? From the BBC (Big Blubbering Cucks):

With an affordable source of progesterone found [Mexican yams], researchers turned to its uses as a contraceptive. The birth control pill hit the market less than a decade later. Marker, on the other hand, mysteriously disappeared from public life and became obsessed with collecting silver.

Maybe he couldn’t handle the knowledge that he had unleashed one of the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse?

The economic and social side effects of the pill were as profound as they are well-documented. Sex could be enjoyed without fear of pregnancy. Suddenly women could devote their 20s and 30s to furthering their education and careers, rather than housework and nappies.

Shareholders rejoiced.

But right from the beginning, the pill has had a secret.

In recent years, scientists have started to realise that the brains of women on the pill look fundamentally different. Compared to women who aren’t taking hormones, some regions of their brains seem to be more typically ‘male’.

Whoo boy, buckle up, this ride’s gonna unsettle more than a few feminist snowflakes.

There are behavioural changes, too. Women on certain types of pill aren’t as good at coming up with words – something our gender are usually highly skilled at. On the other hand, they’re better at mentally rotating objects, as is often the case in men. […]

Every brand of combined pill on the market contains the same type of synthetic oestrogen, ethinyl estradiol, and one of eight synthetic progesterones, called progestins. Ethinyl estradiol prevents the body from releasing an egg every month, while progestins thicken the mucus at the entrance to the cervix and conspire to make the womb inhospitable. Even if an egg slips out and becomes fertilised, it won’t be able to settle down and start growing.

So far, so good. But though the hormones are effective at preventing pregnancy, they aren’t perfect matches for our natural hormones. The end result is that these synthetic versions also have effects that you would never get from raw progesterone. […]

The women were sweatier, hairier and spottier. Some noticed that their voices had deepened. Nearly one in five baby girlsborn to mothers taking it had masculinised genitals. Some of these unlucky children required surgery.

Is the Pill the genesis of Clown World trannyism?

Generally speaking, the older, cheaper brands of pill tend to contain androgenic hormones, while newer, more expensive ones tend to contain anti-androgens. This may be one reason that just 17% of women on the combined pill in the US take the anti-androgenic versions.

Is there a class distinction developing between feminine and masculine women?

The scans revealed that several brain areas were larger in the women on the pill, compared to those of women who weren’t. These areas just so happened to be larger in men than women, too.

But gender is a social construction blah blah Hi, My Name Is Feminist!

The study involved a relatively small sample and didn’t separate androgenic and anti-androgenic contraception, so Pletzer cautions against reading too much into the results. But other research has hinted that both types of hormones actually may be changing our behaviour.

Modren society is a crash course in how many endocrine disruptors can be squeezed into the environment (and up SJW buttholes).

Other studies have found that women on oral contraception remember emotional stories more like men – recalling the gist more than the details.

Lol “you never listen” (said by soyhubby to manjawwife)

They’re also not as good at recognising emotions in others, such as anger, sadness, or disgust – just like men. It looks suspiciously like certain types of pill are “masculinising” women’s brains.

Perhaps the most striking evidence, however, comes from a paper published in 2015. This time, Pletzer compared the brains of women on the two types of pill with women who were not. Several brain areas were larger in the women whose pills contained the newer, anti-androgenic progestins.

Crucially, these changes seemed to be affecting their behaviour.

Two brain areas were particularly engorged: the fusiform face area, a region about the size of a pea that processes facial information (from photographs of friends to cartoons), and the parahippocampal place area, which important for recognising places (such as cityscapes). These women were also better at recognising faces.

Hey, let’s mess with the primal forces of human reproduction. What could go wrong?

To complicate matters further, all combined pills contain synthetic oestrogen, which is feminising. This means that the same women may be experiencing both ‘feminising’ and ‘masculinising’ effects on their brains at the same time.

jfc worst of both worlds. You get a passive-aggressive battlecunt. “honey, did you remember our second date anniversary? No? GET THE FUCK OUT NOW BEFORE I DROP A #METOO ON YOUR SORRY BETA ASS”

No one could have predicted that an ugly yam would give rise to a feminist revolution.

Mexico hasn’t been sending its best for a long time.

The pill has repeatedly been called the greatest invention of the 20th Century and is said to be responsible for a third of the increase in women’s wages since the 1960s.

Coincidentally, it’s also been responsible for a third of the decrease in women’s lifetime fertility and lovability.

But contraceptive pills may have a darker side. As Pletzer wrote in 2014, when athletes take steroids we call it ‘doping’ – it’s considered abuse and strongly condemned by society. But we’re happy for millions of women to take these hormones every day, sometimes right through from puberty to menopause.

When you fuck with the laws of Nature, don’t be surprised when Nature fucks you back. The God of Biomechanics will not be denied for long.

Read Full Post »

Will White Political Dispossession Precede White Demographic Dispossession?

If current political alignments within Team White can be linearly extrapolated into the future, then this comment by Zorost Zorost makes sense,

It is a great meme, but the implication isn’t quite accurate. Some whites vote anti-white, so long before whites are a demographic minority, whites will become a political minority.

The Brookings Institute estimates that 2028 is the last year a Republican can win the presidency, for example.

pg 35 summary graph
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SOC2016report.pdf

I won’t pretend to clairvoyance, but I do have a pretty good grasp of human nature, and I predict that the trajectory of White political dispossession will stall, allowing time for White demographic dispossession to catch up, so that in the end a cataclysmic political inferno engulfs the US when Whites are roughly politically neutered at about the same time as they are demographically neutered.

And yes, this is taking into account the American nations, heritable ideologies, disparate outlooks and degrees of clannishness, differential intraWhite fertility, and runaway anti-White virtue sniveling.

My reasoning: shortly before Whites are forced into numerical minority status in their own homeland, a significant chunk of shitlib Whites will jettison their anti-White posturing and cross political boundaries in a last desperate act of survivalism. IntraWhite differences are real and lasting, but never before in American history (and possibly in world history) have skirmishing groups of Whites been pushed to the precipice of political and demographic annihilation by maximally alien nonWhite outsiders invited at the behest of rapacious White elites. We’re in uncharted territory. (Somalis aren’t your grandpa’s Irishmen.)

Briefly, the share of shitlib Whites in the US will shrink in proportion to the increase in the nonWhite US population, give or take a lag time of approximately a decade for the existential fear to snake its way to the White amygdalae.

Or: White Identity becomes more salient in a Dusky Diversitopia.

PS If I’m wrong, we’re all wrong, if you catch my drift.

PPS Cuckservatism, ladies and gents!

pic.twitter.com/38rYkgrZsr

— Philippe Lemoine (@phl43) August 16, 2018

Motto: “Born to Lose”

Read Full Post »

The Phenomenon Of Heedless Hos Cheating On Hard Men

Damn Crackers wonders,

What’s with all these chicks cheating on their MMA boyfriends? Didn’t some dude land in jail for beating up his porn star cheating girlfriend?

Good question! Have the immutable laws of attraction been revoked?

NO. What we have here is a penumbra of those laws. A labial efflorescence, if you will.

How is a hard man victimized by a heedless ho? Sometimes men get duped. It happens, especially to men who experience sudden fame and cash in their inflated SMV chips for a sexy HBharlot they can’t properly handle.

Some hard men are hard only on the outside; their ignorance of female nature and clumsy relationship management, missing red flags left and right, betrays an Inner Beta. These men are the perfect cat’s-paws of manipulative minxes, who use them for the “leader of men and crusher of my enemies” thrill and who exploit their gullibility and blindness to women’s soulless sexual natures.

Likewise, hard men often attract schizoid sexpots who can’t decide which flavor of alpha male they want, so these chicks wind up fucking around to satisfy an ever-shifting panoply of tingle permutations. These are the r-selected sluts who flit from cock to cock, depending on mood. One day it’s MMA fighter, the next it’s brooding artist.

(A wag asks, “What’s a K-selected slut?” It’s the difference between a nice buzz and vomiting on the sidewalk.)

Then there are the HBsociopaths, designed by God for fucking all night and into the day, their lithe bodies and sweet aroma releasing a man’s animalfuckpower to prowl a 48 hour bender tearing them up from the inside. These psychocunts love to fuck hard men, and they love to test the limits of their intoxicating feminine power by fucking around on hard men. How far can she push it with a man who could snap her neck? The mystery embedded in that question energizes her hamster-clit-vaj Bartholin’s axis until it is oscillating with Pure Sploogery.

Finally, hard men typically don’t have a soft switch. They’re hard, all day every day. Women who hook up with hard men can begin to yearn for a more romantic touch as the hardness pile drives her into a predictable persiflage or overbearing cavebanter.

I think that about covers it. Still, it’s better to be a betrayed hard man than a loyally bound soft beta, because at least as the former you’ll get to Pound Town with a hottie, even if Pound Town has weak border security.

Read Full Post »

GAME CONFIRMED By Biomechanical Truths Uncovered In Online Dating Market Research

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (18, 19).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (15, 20), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (26, 27). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?

Read Full Post »

Why Women Prefer Taller Men

File under: common sense confirmed by the labcoats. Height of a partner matters more to women than it does to men.

The study, “Does Height Matter? An Examination of Height Preferences in Romantic Coupling,” was conducted in two parts. Part one, which used data from the Yahoo! personal dating advertisements of 455 males (average height of 5 feet 8 inches and average age of 36 years) and 470 females (average height of 5 feet 4 inches and average age of 35 years) from throughout the U.S., found that 13.5 percent of the men wanted to date only women shorter than they are. In contrast, nearly half of the women – 48.9 percent – wanted to date only men taller than they are.

Men are more open to dating women of any height, while women are more likely to objectify men based on their height. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs, as seen through the prism of sex-based average height differences.

I wonder if shorter men have a stronger preference than do taller men for women shorter than themselves, partly because most men like looking down at a woman (it feeds the male need to feel like he is protective and dominant) and partly because shorter men especially intuit that relationships are stabler (and the paternity more assured) if the woman is shorter than the man.

The really interesting discovery from this study is that it answers why women prefer taller men than themselves. Short version (heh): women want to feel dominated by a man.

According to the study data, the dominant reasons females cited for preferring a tall partner are matters of protection and femininity.

“As the girl, I like to feel delicate and secure at the same time,” said a woman in the study who is 5 feet 3 inches tall. “Something just feels weird in thinking about looking ‘down’ into my man’s eyes.”

Women feel protected and more feminine when they are with a masculine, physically imposing man. Likewise, men feel protective and more masculine when they are with a feminine, physically vulnerable woman. Sexual polarity ftw. (The Leftoid Fuggernaut wept)

Men, for their part, are much more practical about the considerations of a woman’s height,

Men were much less likely to say that height mattered, and for those that did, they preferred shorter women, but not so short that it would cause problems with physical intimacy.

“I like it when the body of your partner fits yours,” said another study participant, a male who is 5 feet 11 inches tall. “It also makes it easier to kiss, hold hands and do other activities with your partner.”

The wheelbarrow.

From the study’s lead poopytalk squid inker,

George Yancey, a professor of sociology at the University of North Texas and the study’s lead author, believes that the height preferences of men and women can be explained by traditional societal expectations and gender stereotypes.

Nope. Societal expectations got nothin’ to do with it. It’s biologically evolved predispositions all the way down.

Decades of radical feminism and cultural conditioning at odds with the notion of a functioning patriarchy have done nothing to diminish women’s preference for taller men. Atavator writes,

It’s common sense until they lapse into the usual social-constructivist genuflection at the end. Do social scientists realize how they undermine their own credibility with this crap?

Most do, but they’re cowards who’d rather keep their sinecures than their integrity.

Another thing they didn’t think through: how are such perceptions and preferences affected by species-constant (or at least race-constant) proportions and emotions? By that I mean this: *I* never wanted to be with a woman taller than myself, but then, I’m 6’1″.

How many women over 6’1″ fit within biologically-conditioned boundaries of “attractive”? A much smaller proportion than those who are 5’4″, I’d venture to guess!

Shorter/smaller people across the world live longer than taller/bigger people, which may explain why there hasn’t been an evolutionary arms race toward ever-taller humans. That aside, it is a little bit of a mystery why very short men still exist in Western populations when they take a big hit to their reproductive fitness. It could be that there are enough even shorter women to satisfy the short men.

Heather adds,

I don’t like a guy who is too skinny either. I don’t like feeling like I could knock him over accidentally.

Women are averse to being with men who are mentally, physically, emotionally, or psychologically feebler than themselves. While there are exceptions, generally I’ve found that slightly overweight men do better than underweight men do with women. Gross obesity is another story, so don’t think you can grow out a dick-concealing gut and expect the ladies to swoon. (OTOH, if your dick is big enough to be seen jutting out from a giant beer gut, then the ladies might come up with some creative euphemisms to describe the appeal of your belly.)

PS Shorter men shouldn’t despair. The best PUA I’ve known was in the ballpark of 5’5″. But he was confident, smooth, and fearless, and those traits were enough to compensate for his shortness. He often went home with women taller than himself. Shortness is a strike against a man, but it’s not an SMV-killing death blow. Even if a short man has no Game, he can substantially improve his odds simply by targeting shorter women (or, not uncommonly, taller women who would be more impressed by a show of self-entitled confidence from a short man than from a tall man (from whom it would be expected)).

Read Full Post »