I Could Tell You, But You Won’t Like It

A naive beta male wonders why there’s a dearth of single men willing to marry the aging spinsters he knows.

why don’t I know any single men who could be fixed up with a well-educated woman in her late 30s?

Smart people say the stupidest shit sometimes.

This seems to be a common situation among our friends. We know single women whom we believe would be wonderful companions and mothers, but none of the single men whom they are seeking as partners.

Wonderful companions and motherhood potential don’t make dicks hard.

A friend in D.C. says “Single women nearing 40 have spent decades perfecting their adult selves.

That’s their problem, right there. Instead of spending decades perfecting their adult selves, they should have spent some time getting serious with a man while their bodies were still perfect.

Men of the same age are still stuck in their teenage personality.”

Bitterbitch snark for normal, natural male sexual desire for younger, hotter, tighter women.

What is the explanation for this phenomenon?

Hard-on heuristics.

…finding an unpartnered adult male who is in possession of said good stuff seems to be impossible.

For mangy cougars. But for spry springboks, not at all impossible.

Separately, I’m wondering if the large quantity of involuntarily single-and-childless women shows poor life-planning strategies.

That Pill-lubed, anonymous urban living-facilitated cock carousel isn’t gonna ride itself!

These women have advanced education, great job skills, and good careers compared to the American average.

Yeah but do they have clear skin, pert tits, firm asses, and pussies that smell of lavender?

Inadvertently, our plucky White Knight shilling for his starving cougars stumbles upon a payout system that likely incentivizes the pursuit of alpha fux over settling for beta bux.

we must observe that [women’s] after-tax income is in nearly every case lower than if they’d had sex with a dermatologist or dentist in Massachusetts and collected child support.

Note to dermatologists and dentists: if you’re gonna bang a desperate aging beauty, wear your own condom and dispose of it in the toilet.

(Most of these women want two children, which, if properly planned, could easily offer a tax-free cash yield of $200,000/year via child support (multiply by 23 years in Massachusetts).) See this from the Practical Tips chapter:

In most states, the potential child support profits from a one-night encounter are roughly the same as the profits from a short-term marriage. … “Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”

All women can be mercenary given strong enough incentives, but luckily (for men) most women still strive to have children within a marriage. Single momhood is not (yet) a desired life outcome for psychologically healthy women, despite its inglorious rise over the past forty years. What this means is that for the typical man, the odds of getting fleeced by a woman pulling the ol’ gotcha pregnancy maneuver are low.

Rich men do have something to worry about, especially rich men with Game, because women will lose all sense around them (like men do around barely legal sexpots) and are liable to think pregnancy and child support entrapment are reasonable first date objectives.

From the point of view of having the children that they want prior to the exhaustion of their fertility and from the point of view of financial security, these women would have been better off spending their 18-22-year-old years having sex with married men rather than attending college. That’s not to suggest that 18-year-old child support profiteer is the optimum lifestyle for every American woman, but the fact that it would yield a better outcome measured against their own goals than what the women we know have accomplished suggests that they pursued a pretty bad life strategy.

Here’s a better idea that isn’t compiled in the abstracted kookland of the homo spergonomicus mind:

Women who want kids should get married in their early 20s and start having them by their mid-late 20s, then spend some years at home raising them, afterwards returning to their careers soulfully satisfied and serenely accepting of the fact that they can’t have it all and motherhood necessarily means the corner office won’t be a realistic option for them. No “child support profiteer” shenanigans needed. (Any woman who seriously follows such a cold, sociopathic blueprint deserves all the pain and suffering she will inevitably receive in the romance market.)

Readers: Looking at the 35-45 age group, and restricting to people who have a college degree, above-median earnings, agreeable personality, and responsible habits, what’s the ratio of single women to single men?

Who cares? It’s like asking what’s the ratio of garden slugs to single men. The one will have no influence on the behavior of the other.

The first commenter to the original author’s blog post gets to the heart of it:

Men select for beauty and fertility; both of which are on the decline in the women you mention. They also select for low-conflict behavior, kindness, etc., which may or may not be found among the women you mention.

Reality is, that any guy who is 40 and has his act together, is going to date younger; especially with the horrible economy -there are lots of 28yo women without a clear path to career at this point.

A 37yo with possibly 2 years of fertility left should be looking not for 40 or 42, but for someone about 50 to 54 who is in good shape and still wants to have 1 or 2 kids.

Satanic feminists have lied to women for so long that simple truths like “don’t wait too long to marry and have kids because your fertility window is short and men won’t be interested in you when you’re older and uglier” are willfully ignored or twisted into nostrums of oppression that should be fought against and actively denied through the alchemy of embracing gogrrl, leaned in, cock-hopping, careerist lifestyles that ironically will leave women more miserable than if they had just submitted to the patriarchy’s price of admission.

Read Full Post »

The Four Sirens Of The Sexual Apocalypse

A long, long time ago, in a pleasure dome far away, CH introduced the idea that the West is currently besieged by the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.

Later, CH expanded on the Four Sirens theme.

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

Two secondary Sirens were added to round out the list:

• Penicillin (reduced the cost of contracting STDs)
• Widely available hardcore porn.

Probably of all the CH scribblings on this subject of Western Decline, this passage gets to the meatiest heart of it:

So, a crib sheet of quippy replies if you ever need it to send a feminist or manboob howling with indignation:

1. The Pill
2. No-fault divorce
3. Working women
4. Man-hating feminism
5. Penicillin
6. Porn

Toss into a social salad bowl already brimming with an influx of non-European immigrants thanks to the 1965 soft genocide act, mix thoroughly, and voila!: a huge, inexorable, relentless leftward shift in American politics, an explosion of single moms, wage stagnation, government growth, upper class childlessness, lower class dysgenics, and a creaking, slow deterioration in the foundational vigor of the nation and the gutting of the pride of her people.

Into this pot pie of portent throw in the Skittles Man, Bring the Movies Man, Nah Man, and Disappeared Again Man, for whom girls have always swooned but who now, thanks to relaxed pressure from women themselves requiring men to put a ring on it before getting any huggy or kissy, and the incentivizing of risky sexual behavior by government policy and contraceptive technology, could enjoy sex without the entanglement of marriage or gainful employment.

Game, for all the shit it gets from the usual suspects, was just a rational response to a radically altered playing field. It didn’t cause this calamity; it just profited from it.

Meanwhile, beta males are left scratching their block-like skulls, wondering what the fuck just happened.

All well and good, says the reader, but where is the ¡SCIENCE! buttressing all this speculation and real world observation to satisfy sperg demands? How about right here. (Via The Cheapest of Chalupas)

Family structure in the United States has shifted substantially over the last three decades, [HBDer: MUH GENETICS] yet the causes and implications of these changes for the well-being of family members remains unclear. This paper exploits task-based shifts in demand as an exogenous shock to sex-specific wages to demonstrate the role of the relative female to male wage in the family and labor market outcomes of women. I show that increases in the relative wage lead to a decline in the likelihood of marriage for those on the margin of a first marriage, and present suggestive evidence that these effects are concentrated among less-desirable matches. A higher relative wage also causes women to increase their hours of work, reduce their dependence on a male earner, and increase the likelihood of taking guardianship over their children. These findings indicate that improvements in the relative wage have facilitated women’s independence by reducing the monetary incentive for marriage, and can account for 20% of the decline in marriage between 1980 and 2010.

BOOM THERE IT IS. CH WAS RIGHT. Female economic self-sufficiency decreases the marriage rate and increases urban slut factory churn, because self-sufficient women need beta male bux less and therefore can indulge the chasing of alpha male fux more.

SCIENCE! has confirmed the existence of Le Chateau Heartiste’s Third Siren of the Sexual Apocalypse.

It’s like some people think I make this shit up outta thin air. No, I’ve just spent a lot of time in the trenches of the dating market. I have seen much. I have learned much. And my wisdom is infinite. YUGE, even.

You only had to listen.

***

“Ok, enough crowing. How about a solution?”

Sure. Here it is:

Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Maybe slightly more realistically, get rid of Title IX and the rest of the man-hating, human nature denying, legal fictions shoved down our throats in the last sixty odd years by rancid feminist cunts and their lackey low T manlets. Culturally, real progress can be made by simply ending the GRRLPOWER propaganda and returning to teaching the virtues of the masculine ideal. Too many boys in STEM? Great! That’s what boys are good at. Too many girls preferring marriage and stay-at-home mohterhood? Great! That’s what girls are good at.

Simple truths and simple beauties have more power than labyrinthine lies and grotesque ugliness, as long as you hold them close to a heart that has banished cowardice.

Read Full Post »

The Great Men On The Welfare State

Bertrand Russell is a patron sadist of Chateau Heartiste for good reason; when he’s on, he’s quite good at cataloguing the ills that befall those cultures which turn their backs to the gods of the copybook headings. Here he is on the welfare state and its corruption of the sexual market:

If you got a chill reading this, that’s normal. You see how prophetic Russell was — the rise of single momhood, the destruction wrought by the divorce industrial complex, the encroachment of leftoid authoritarianism, the disavowal of kin and country — and you fear what is to come next.

Read Full Post »

Our Distant Ape Ancestors Were Polygynous

For evidence of our true sexual natures when artifice and compromise are stripped away, we look to the world around us and watch it go with our lying eyes… and if distrustful of our powers of observation we look to the historical record for an idea of how our distant ancestors navigated the sexual market.

One such very distant ancestor to humans, it turns out, was polygynous (one man, many women).

“The Y chromosome tree for gorillas is very shallow, which fits with the idea that very few male gorillas (alpha males) father the offspring within groups,” Hallast continued. “By contrast, the trees in chimpanzees and bonobos are very deep, which fits with the idea that males and females mate with each other more indiscriminately.” […]

Study leader Mark Jobling, also a geneticist from the University of Leicester, noted that “humans look much more like gorillas than chimps” when considering Y-chromosome data and mtDNA.

“It’s interesting to compare the shapes of the trees between humans and our great-ape relatives,” he said. “This suggests that over the long period of human evolution our choice of partners has not been a free-for-all, and that it’s likely that humans have practiced a polygynous system — where a few men have access to most of the women, and many men don’t have access — over our evolutionary history as a species. This is more like the gorilla system than the chimpanzee ‘multimale-multifemale’ mating system.”

A figure that gets bounced around the realtalkosphere frequently is the 80/40 ratio: 80% of women, but only 40% of men ever reproduced, over the course of human history and up until the relatively unique modern era. If this number is accurate, its implications are astounding.

One, it confirms a degree of influence on mating systems from female hypergamy. Women’s deeply hypergamous compulsion to prefer the shared company of an alpha male over the monopolized company of a beta male is a tough truth for most to accept. Though it is a universal truth subject to mitigation by recent evolution just like any human trait, and certain races of women may have been selected for a less hypergamous disposition.

Two, it suggests an ultraviolent past, far removed from the noble savage fantasies percolating in liberal minds, when death stalked men constantly. If murder, lethal accidents, and animal maulings were common throughout most of pre-modern human history, then there wouldn’t be many men surviving to reproductive age, skewing the sex ratio.

Three, most ominously, it portends dysgenic evolution in modern societies. We are near a 1:1 ratio of reproductive success for women and men in Western societies. This is a great egalitarian achievement from the perspective of those who would lose in a sexual market governed by the laws of nature, but the equal mating field may come with a stiff (heh) price: too many low fitness misfits passing on their mutational loads to future generations. Nature, in the end, always wins. No Title IX, condom, or Pill will thwart Nature from her appointed mission of culling the losers and rewarding the winners. And as of now, it appears the winners of tomorrow are those with healthy genomes and an aversion to contraceptives and the sex and the city liefstyle.

Read Full Post »

White Men With Black Women

White man-black woman couples are exceedingly rare. Not as rare as asian man-black woman couples, but close to that level of rarity. In the past year, I can recall seeing maybe five WM/BW couples.

Given the small sample size, it’s difficult to identify patterns and generalize about the traits of WM/BW pairings. But I will try. Here’s what I’ve noticed (take it with a grain of salt-n-pepa).

– The White men drilling for oil are usually big nerdy galoots. They are tall and burly, but walk with an ungainly lope. Nevertheless, they could probably win a few fights if their lives depended on it. (Being big, however nerdy, also helps stay the impulsive beatdown fists of any black men who see the Towering White Nerd with his black girlfriend.)

– If I had to guess based on appearance alone, I’d say the White men with the black gfs make a reasonable living and aren’t likely to stray.

– The black women in WM/BW couples aren’t particularly facially pretty, but they are all thin. And they don’t have steatopygous ghetto glutes. Their figures resemble the bodies of well-muscled, athletic White women.

– The black women dating White men are very dark. Almost purple. This might seem strange, but their dark skin contradicts their facial features, which tend toward less prognathism and more toward a Horn of Africa caucasian-ness. Don’t get me wrong; they will never be mistaken for dark-skinned White women, but their black features are more exotic than urban hood rat.

– I suspect the black women dating White men are African immigrants, or 2nd or 3rd generation removed from immigrant parents, going by their skin darkness, noticeable lack of permanent scowl, and fashion sense (which is understated and in line with the style norms for White women).

– I have never seen a WM/BW couple with a mystery meat kid in tow. The couples’ rarity of occurrence might explain this, or…… the White men jump ship before marriage and kids loom large in their black girlfriends’ minds.

My theory: White men who date outside the race do it for the exotic bedroom pleasure factor, not for the affordable family formation reason. A White male shitlib will never admit this, but when thrust comes to buns the arid subconscious calculation of the inherited traits, positive or negative, of any mixed race child will give him pause. And the typical White male shitlib, for all his virtue signaling, secretly knows the score on race and genetics.

So, one may ask, why don’t White women who burn the coal make the same subconscious calculations before shitting out a mocha chip? First, mudsharks are generally low sexual market value; fat, ugly, dumb, and low class. Without black men to service them, they might never get laid and conceive a child. Second, women can be their own worst enemies when a dominant or charming man raises their horny level. Women don’t get climbing-the-walls horny very often as a rule, which means that once aroused they are capable of making horrible mistakes of judgment.

Cheers!

PS It’s my impression that, despite the rarity, the numbers of WM/BW couples have increased in recent years, keeping in line with US Census Bureau data that mixed race couples have increased by a nontrivial number in the past two decades. The Council on Igloo Affairs cackled with glee.

Read Full Post »

Spot The Alpha

This photo of the four remaining couples at a dance marathon was taken circa 1930, in Chicago. Can you spot the alpha?

Right off the bat, it’s not the two fine mate guarding gentlebetas hugging their dance partners from behind. Too protective, and they look like they’re delivering the Heimlich maneuver. If one of those guys instead had his hand cupped over a breast, kneading slowly and deliberately, he’d vault into alpha male consideration.

Number 7 is hovercrotching, a distant cousin to hoverhanding. I know you’re tired, man, but NEVER STOP GRINDING. Also, that pose is Lubio-level GAY.

But number 15 (or 51), he’s our leading alpha male contender. Passed out, from exhaustion or drink? Who cares! Normally it’s easy to be a ZFG alpha while asleep, but this dude is literally off his feet and his Children of the Corn woman is holding him up. That’s how you know a man is alpha; his girl enables his lack of commitment.

Truly, though, the real alpha male in this scene is the guy in the background refusing to participate in the spectacle.

***

Bonus Spot the Alpha, Ye Olde European Bounder Edition:

This one was primarily included for entertainment purposes, and to remind the sarcastic, Game-hater Poosy Pedestalizers pulling the “durr you’re teaching muh dik to White men” gambit that the fine art of wily seduction has been a storied part of White European history since at least Ovid.

The answer is obvious: The alpha is The Trumpening, front and center. That’s ¡Yeb! in the background, sulking and fiddling with his pocket turtles.

The woman, ofc, is Megyn Kelly, her billowy dress concealing the snail trail she’s leaving on the chair.

Read Full Post »

“This guy!”

Molon MAGA!

Read Full Post »