Options = Instability: Another Heartiste Maxim Externally Validated By SCIENCE!

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

Read Full Post »

Higamous, Hogamous, Civilization Is Monogamous

Via Mangan (Twatter link: @Mangan150), the reason why monogamy beat polygamy:

It all comes down to paternal certainty. Where (beta) men are reasonably assured the kid is theirs, civilization can flourish. Where men have no idea if the kid is theirs or some other (alpha) dude’s, chaos, dysfunction, and indigence reign supreme.

Ironically, the incredible success of the modern West portends a near future of less monogamy and more de facto polygyny, possibly reverting Western Civilization to a more primitive form:

It was not until 1943, amid world war, that penicillin was found to be an effective treatment for syphilis. This study investigated the hypothesis that a decrease in the cost of syphilis due to penicillin spurred an increase in risky non-traditional sex. Using nationally comprehensive vital statistics, this study found evidence that the era of modern sexuality originated in the mid to late 1950s. Measures of risky non-traditional sexual behavior began to rise during this period. These trends appeared to coincide with the collapse of the syphilis epidemic. Syphilis incidence reached an all-time low in 1957 and syphilis deaths fell rapidly during the 1940s and early 1950s. Regression analysis demonstrated that most measures of sexual behavior significantly increased immediately following the collapse of syphilis and most measures were significantly associated with the syphilis death rate. Together, the findings supported the notion that the discovery of penicillin decreased the cost of syphilis and thereby played an important role in shaping modern sexuality.

The mid-20th Century and 21st Century War Against the Beta Male will have profound consequences for the West, none of them good…. except for one potentially beneficial outcome.

Read Full Post »

Male Vs Female Forms of Group Cohesion

Recall the aphorism, “Men invade, women invite“. I wrote not too long ago that Western White women are at the forefront of pushing open borders multikult annihilation.

Now, reader Passerby forwards a study (with commentary) which provides evidence of a deeply rooted, evolved sex-based psychological underpinning for women’s generally higher rate of enthusiasm for welcoming the mud world onto historically White shores.

Circle of Friends (women) or Members of a Group (men)? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/6/3/251.full.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/8/2/159.full.pdf

In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group’s importance to her. In contrast, men’s ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity).

Men perceive the bigger picture. Women primarily perceive their feelz. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing… until the scope of women’s influence extends beyond their immediate childcare-recruiting social group to the scale of a nation, with all that entails (e.g., border control).

One interesting consequence of women’s lack of interest in a group’s collective identity is that it may lead to important sex differences in group-related outcomes. For example, if women value a group based only on their attachment to individual members of that group, then their group membership may be less stable than men’s. Prentice et al. (1994) suggest that groups with strong common identity attachments may last longer because their existence is less contingent on good relations between current group members. It is possible that this extends to individual group membership as well. The importance that men place on a group’s identity may result in greater longevity and stability in the face of changing group membership. If common bonds dissolve, men may remain in a group for its sense of common identity, whereas the group would lose all value for women.

What is the practical meaning of this? Women care mostly about close people, their “circle” , and not about larger groups based on common identity. If her lover is from another group, then she will (most likely) no longer care about her original group (her ethnicity).

Women are more trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity. In contrast, men are less trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize interpersonal interactions (relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize teams and large groups (tribes).

Basically, women are loyal only to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their own tribe).

Loyalty is a mostly alien concept to women. They JUST DON’T GET IT.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Mutter Merkel is a childless spinster. That alone should have disqualified her from running a country.

This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.

Like I’ve written before, feminization of culture and politics can be beneficial to the stability of a nation when it’s exploited during high T times to mitigate the worst excesses of rugged, expansionist, lassez faire, free-for-all masculinity. But those times are rare and brief. When societal feminization hits an inflection point of weepy vaginatude, and establishes itself deep into every institution’s nook and cranny, the result is Death of the Nation… invasion by migrant foreigners, gibsmedats are far as the eye can see, and glorification of the feminine vices at the expense of the masculine virtues.

The results of this study are interesting in that they somewhat contradict tangential studies of the online dating market which have found that women, especially White women, prefer to date same-race men. In fact, White women, if those OKCupid data analyses are to be believed, are the most racist group of prospective daters.

Maybe these conflicting findings can be reconciled by understanding that online dating market environments like OKCupid are evolutionarily atypical, aridly calculating simulacra of the real world contexts in which women sift through potential mates. Online, women have to fill in profile information explicitly asking for mate preferences, but in the hustle and bustle of the meat market women are buffeted by an extraordinary array of male mate value signals (Game) that affect their choices.

Online, a White woman, given time to mull it over in her head, will state a preference for White men, but offline (aka 99.99999999999999% of the time in which human interaction evolved) her choices will be susceptible to the frothy currents of social spindrift, and in that environment she’ll choose whichever intimate relations — native or migrant — best satisfy her immediate needs.

PS Women’s differently evolved group cohesion strategy partly explains why White wives vote more like their Republican husbands than like their Democrat single lady friends. Once married, a woman’s husband is her MOST INTIMATE relation, which means she will adopt her husband’s views as her own as her prime feminine directive subconsciously instructs her to do.

Read Full Post »

What Lesbians Tell Us About Straight Women

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

*band name alert

PS Reader The Observer observes,

You can learn a lot by watching a lesbian work on her target paramour while out and about, too.

They push boundaries HARD. They know it works, and where the limits are, and walk right up to them. They understand the function of obligation in the female psyche.

Observe, and learn.

Obligation and submission are two powerful psychosexual undercurrents in the roiling sea of a woman’s soul. It’s a shame it goes so little remarked upon by mainstream social analysis. But that’s why the Chateau exists; a beacon of truth guiding the way through a dark wood. *heart bursts with vanity*

Read Full Post »

It’s Time To Ban Women From Working At Male Prisons

File the latest SCIENCE! study in the “Chicks dig jerks” binder (it’s bulging).

Women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds

There has been a long history of people falling for inmates and criminals and now a study has found the phenomenon may be more common than thought.

According to a new study of prison guards and other correctional workers, the attraction is felt more by females than males, and hardly ever has a happy ending. […]

In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2015. […]

The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce. [ed: much less than half. in 2011, women were a quarter of total prison facility employment]

The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE!: American Women Are Becoming Less Feminine

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE! ❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Read Full Post »

The Sexual Market Is The Prime Market

Forget the free market economy. The sexual market is the one market to rule them all. As if my preening weren’t already supremely ostentatious, here’s a recent SCIENCE! study confirming another Heartiste axiom: every human interaction and transaction is downstream from the existential struggle to find a quality mate, fuck, and procreate.

Fewer romantic prospects may lead to riskier investments

Encountering information suggesting that it may be tough to find a romantic partner shifts people’s decision making toward riskier options, according to new findings from a series of studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Environmental cues indicating that one will have a relatively difficult time finding a mate can drive people to concentrate their investment choices into a few high-risk, high-return options,” says psychological scientist Joshua Ackerman of the University of Michigan, lead author on the research. “This is true even when the decisions people are making are not explicitly relevant to romantic outcomes.”

I’ve received some scoffing from spergy types projecting their spergitude onto this ‘umble outpost of love concerning the assertion often made here that the sexual market governs, consciously or subconsciously it doesn’t really matter, the machinations and ultimately the outcomes of the more palpable activity that takes place in the economic market. But here we have a study proving the truth of the CH observation that ripples and undercurrents of sexual compulsion and romantic desperation are the “invisible loin” that guides all human behavior in the secondary market of the economy and its supporting markets (like academia).

“This is exactly opposite from the pattern of investing we would predict if we assumed people were using an economically ‘rational’ decision strategy,” Ackerman explains. “From an evolutionary perspective, if the options are to do whatever it takes to find a romantic partner or risk not finding one, the more rational choice may be to do whatever it takes.”

This is a stone cold truth that no libertardian like Alex Tabbarak or Cheap Chalupas will ever get. Humans aren’t rational actors; they’re rationalizing actors. And what they rationalize are choices, in all spheres of transaction, that directly or indirectly improve their chances of landing that alpha male or that hot babe.

In a second online study, 105 participants read a newspaper article discussing demographic trends in the U.S. They then evaluated stock packages with equivalent values (e.g., 100 shares in 8 companies, 200 shares in 4 companies, etc.) and chose which package they would invest in.

Again, the data showed that both male and female participants who read about unfavorable sex ratios opted for riskier investments, choosing more shares in fewer companies, than those who read about favorable ratios.

In practice, “riskier strategies” for women amounts to what we see today on college campuses, where women outnumber men 60-40. The zeitgeist is a sexual pornucopia for a few alpha men getting the milk for free without buying the cow, and a lot of disappointment and depression among marginally pretty women who thought they could turn that fling into a thing.

The fact that sex ratio had an impact on decisions that were not directly linked with mating success suggests that sexual competition elicits a general mindset geared toward achieving the largest possible reward, regardless of the risk involved.

Polygyny, as is the norm throughout Africa, can induce the same risky investment strategizing from men as can an unfavorable sex skew. When a few men lock up many women, each individual man has an incentive to throw caution to the wind to be one of those few winner men.

As such, the researchers argue, these findings could have implications for decision making in domains as diverse as retirement planning, gambling, and even making consumer purchases.

Executive Summary: The meaning of life is to fuck.

Read Full Post »