Why Are Some Beta Males Bitter About Women?

They weren’t born that way, they were made that way, by repeated failure with women in the sexual marketplace. Their romantic failure is a consequence of their inexperience, lack of game, and their poor understanding of female sexual nature, each reinforcing the other in a feedback loop of infinite incel, until marriage at 33 to a dumpy hausfrau (and they are legion).

But there’s another, even crueler and more invidious, reason why beta males become bitter about women:

Women treat beta males worse for no reason other than that they aren’t alpha males!

As we learned from yesterday’s post, a study has found that women who are rejected by an alpha male experience a surge of bitterness and bad feelings that they then dump onto any beta males unlucky enough to be next in line for the faire maidens’ hands.

Now, a question for the tough guys who like to dump on the bitterbetaboys (and CH stands accused along with the sadistic rabble): If women are autonomically treating beta men like shit, through NO FAULT of the beta males’ own, might it stand to reason that a legitimate explanation for beta male bitterness and romantic failure is their parallel sexual market reality in which they have to deal with cranky, bitchy, demeaning women who are pissed off that they didn’t get the alpha male of their dreams? Just sayin’.

Read Full Post »

¡SCIENCE!: ‘Five Minutes Of Alpha’ Is A Real Thing

Chateau Heartiste, 2009:

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

¡SCIENCE!, 2015:

Resisting Connection Following Social Exclusion: Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor

Social psychologists theorize that individuals seek connection following rejection. However, accepting connection from a low status other may imply that one is of similarly low status, which may call into question one’s prospects for future acceptance. Thus, we hypothesized that rejection would lead individuals to distance themselves from a low status other even when the low status other is accepting. In two studies, single, heterosexual, female participants received simultaneous acceptance/rejection feedback from one physically attractive man and one less attractive man. As predicted, rejected individuals derogated their rejecters as indicated by a decreased desire for affiliation and more negative evaluations. Moreover, participants rejected by the attractive man also derogated the unattractive man even when the unattractive man offered acceptance. These data may shed light on specific circumstances under which rejection leads to antisocial behavior.

It’s a bit circuitous, but the relevance of this study to CH Maxim #101 becomes clear once we accept the premise that “five minutes of alpha (male)” is to women, for all practical purposes, a rejection. “Five minutes of alpha” is an aesthetic interpretation of a one night stand or a short fling that ends without any commitment extracted by the woman from the man. A woman WILL feel the sting of commitment rejection in much the same way a man will feel the sting of sexual rejection; and yet, the fleeting pleasure of an alpha male’s attention can ruin a woman for all promise keeper beta males to come after.

This is what the study uncovers, in its sphere of examination. Women “rejected” by the alpha male were more likely to be a bitch to the lesser/beta male. That sting of rejection the women felt from the alpha, and the ensuing bitterness about it, redounded to the betas a hundredfold.

Conclusion: If you are a beta male… STOP DROP AND MOLD yourself into an alpha male. Also, the more alpha fux a woman has accumulated over her prime fertility years (without commitment from any of them), the worse she’ll behave toward any beta males unfortunate or stupid enough to take on the role of her sloppy sixtieths.

Again, we see the wisdom, first dropped at CH and later confirmed by 😎SCIENCE😎, that men who want admiration, devotion and loyalty from a lover would do well to avoid dating (or god forbid marrying) any woman who could challenge them in the bed post notch department. Virgins aren’t prized the world over for no reason.

But, please, feel free to pump and dump those “dick is abundant and low value” try-hard feminists and add to their future beta husbands’ misery.

Read Full Post »

Break A Dog Leg Man

There’s nothing more comically predictable than stories about chicks doing what they do best: Digging jerks. Reader Waffles passes along a chicks dig jerks anecdote, Double Infinity Plus in a Series.

Just wanted to add this to the “chicks dig jerks” evidence pile. Quite the story. A girl I know recently broke up with her boyfriend and moved out of the place they were sharing because he disliked her dog. He broke her dog’s leg on purpose. I repeat, PURPOSELY BROKE HER DOG’S LEG. She moves out on him and goes back to her apartment which she still had. She proceeds to go on rants about the incident, gets sloppily drunk at a large group gathering, and gets her old boyfriend (the one before the dog leg breaker) to drive over an hour to pick her up. She gets back with the the old bf and he moves into her apartment with her. Flash forward about a week [ed: one week!] and she is posting beach selfies with the dog leg breaker. Apparently she also moved out of her apartment to move back in with him, straight up just leaving the old bf there by himself. LOL

If you had to choose to emulate Skittles Man or Break a Dog Leg Man to win the imperishable loving devotion of a girl, choose Skittles. At least no dog gets hurt, the only innocent, loveable party in the whole sordid spectacle.

Read Full Post »

The Beta Orbiter’s Lament

It’s a good idea to avoid the temptation to ask a girl out on a public stage, especially if you don’t know for certain that the girl likes you “that way”. But leave it to beta males to endorse hope over (lack of) experience. A viral video of a teenager prompositioning his lust object to be his prom date ended with what must have felt like the ne plus ultra of humiliating rejections.

She was, naturally, “already seeing someone”.

The beta orbiter’s lament is always being the guy who arrives at his decision for romance too late. And when he does arrive there, his mountaintop announcement is maladroit and swiftly dismissed.

Why is the beta orbiter so clueless about the feelings of the girl he orbits? I’ll tell you what’s likely happening behind the scenes of these public spectacles of romantic rejection.

Stage One Beta Orbiter: He “hangs around” this girl he really likes, but only peripherally. Her proximity, however unattached and fleeting, strengthens his feelings for her. She, of course, is oblivious to his feelings.

Stage Two Beta Orbiter: As his love grows beyond the bounds of possible reciprocation, he projects his passion onto the girl he orbits, actively fantasizing and even beginning to imagine real indications that she is as interested in him as he is in her. She remains oblivious to his feelings.

Stage Three Beta Orbiter: Time definitely does not heal blue balls. The beta orbiter now envisions a day not too far in the future when his p will enter her v. He starts to act weirdly (more weird than usual) around her planetary trap zone, and it is at this point that she suspects his romantic interest, leaving her grappling with feelings of discomfort, but also of manipulative promise. It will be hard for her now to resist her subconscious impulse to use her beta orbiter toolbag for emotional and practical provisioning. Even the sweetest girls can give in to the lure of exploiting loyal, lovestruck beta males for asexual profit.

Stage Four Beta Orbiter: He is so infatuated and hypnotized by her platonic company, he can’t see that jerkboy pinching her on the ass as he walks by and her turning red-faced with aroused embarrassment. All the real life signals are red, and all his fantasy life signals are green. He ignores the obvious lack of interest from her and pays attention only to what he has concocted in his fevered mental masturbatorium. A collision is coming.

Stage Five Beta Orbiter: He can’t contain his feelings any more. The time is ripe! Public proposition, because it can’t fail and he wants the world to know his good fortune, or because he nurses a seed of doubt and thinks a crowd of sympathetic allies will exert just the right amount of pressure on the girl of his dreams. Horrible rejection ensues, hug from mom, lesson learned? Not always. Not often.

A beta orbiter can be rescued by a wise male buddy or mentor, and by learning game, sometime around or before Stage Three. By Stage Four, he’s a lost cause, and he’ll have to endure Stage Five humiliation to snap out of his delirium. That’s what happened to the teenager in the above story. That’s what had to happen.

Read Full Post »

The Nonprofit Tweeconomy

What kind of economy do women prop up, and propagate? A reader forwards an unintentionally funny, and portentous, chart.

Women in their 20s, 30s, and beyond flock to nonprofits for work. There are three reasons for this:

1. Women are psychologically much different than men and have a sex-based preference for work in the “helping” and “schoolmarm” industries. If a woman gets to tell you what to do, and also gets to enjoy a sanctimonious glow from the thought that she’s bettering the world, she is a happy clam.

2. Nonprofits are post-scarcity economy work that appeals to people who want to “self-actualize”, the preponderance of these people being women. Profit maximizing and corporate ladder climbing are icky to women, unless that greed and self-aggrandizement occurs in the context of a do-goodism NGO.

3. Nonprofit work requires little to no UGH MATH CLASS IS HARD education or skills. Women have both less mathematical acumen than men (on the whole), and less desire to do work which involves the rigors of logic and maths.

A job that lets a white woman write jargony word salad all day, get paid for it, AND status whore about uplifting Africa’s women and children (men? what men?)? Hole-y twat tingles, sign her up!

Most nonprofits are a waste of human capital. 99% of them do nothing for their causes, or actively harm their clients and the donors duped into believing the equalist PR. The growth of nonprofits — and the rush of women into their ranks — is a hallmark of a pre-implosion empire.

You may think, “Aren’t nonprofits a luxury, and therefore proof that the society which can accommodate them is a wealthy and self-confident society able to afford a grandiose (and futile) amount of charitable giving?”

Yes, but no. Nonprofits are a luxury, but luxuries often foretell coming hardships. Pride cometh before the fall, and so do nonprofits. A tired, self-doubting, enervated culture will, contrary conventional liberal wisdom, often turn en masse to helping outsiders because, one, it has lost the will to enrich itself materially and spiritually and two, turning one’s energies outward can serve as a psychological balm for personal failings. Nonprofit work functions as a kind of palimpsest, underneath the veneer of which we spy scribblings of social unrest.

UPDATE

Reader YIH adds his .01 cents.

Here’s what that $1 you give to ”help the starving children of Africa” (or other
charity) does:
.80 – Fundraising: The phone banks and all those ads (What? You didn’t know those were paid for? LOL)
.10 – Administration: The lawyer (on staff, comes in handy), Accountant (gotta document what comes in and what goes out don’cha know) and the guy (or gal) in the suit behind the desk.
.09 – The costs to transport the ‘aid’ and the ‘aid workers’ plus all needed supplies as well as round-the-clock armed security for them. Not to mention the spokesperson and the cameraman – those ads don’t make themselves y’know!
,01 – That’s how much ‘Starvin’ Marvin’ gets – plus those nice t-shirts telling them that the Seahawks just won their second Super Bowl.

Liberals just have to learn to accept that inequality is a part of the human condition — perhaps a necessary and beneficial part — and…

Read Full Post »

Women And Handbags

Steve Sailer contemplates the riddle of women and their whoring for handbag status. It’s a worthy topic, because handbags appear to confer no sexual market advantage to women, and yet women spend inordinate time and money acquiring the latest trendy makeup container. “Hey, sexy mama, I noticed your Birkin handbag, and it is turning me on!”… said no straight man ever.

“But, CH…” you ask, “if, as you claim, the sexual market is the one market to rule them all, how do you explain women and handbags?”

Easy there, brosephus. I think the best explanation is the one Steve gave: Women use handbags as a signal they can carry with them everywhere to advertise the alpha male-ness of their husbands/lovers, and the women’s ability to secure commitment from their alpha men. Since most people will presume the burn money for the handbag came from a soulmate wealthy male donor, the pricey handbag serves as a relatively inoffensive proxy for a woman’s own SMV.

Why the connection between alpha males and HSMV women? Because we subconsciously know in our ape-shaped brains that the more attractive a woman, the better able she will be to land herself a high status man who, himself, will have the options open to him to capture the interest of beautiful women.

Why doesn’t the kept woman just flaunt her pretty face and sexy body to send the same signal more directly? Because in the world of alpha males with sexual market options and the women who circle them like hawks, that is a little too threatening to other HSMV women in her social milieu. She risks total social ostracism from other women if she sluts it up beyond the acceptable norm for her group.

I have another theory about women and handbags that parsimoniously bridges their behavior to the primary demands of the sexual market: Handbags are a sort of runaway sexual selection module gone haywire, similar to brawn on men, a secondary sexual display in men that is still attractive to Western women despite the environmental conditions having radically changed so that male muscularity is no longer needed for survival. But some men take it too far, bulking up in the gym well beyond the point of usefulness, and most women don’t have any special preference for men with bloated roid muscles.

The handbag, under the female inverse of this theory, is just an extension of a sexy, hip-hugging cocktail dress and beautifying makeup. The former do increase a woman’s sexual appeal to men, and women, knowing this on a deep limbic level, have evolved to maximize their efforts at improving their appearance. This evolution for female self-beautification has “spun out of orbit”, resulting in the modern predilection for collecting and showcasing feminine accessories like handbags, despite male indifference to them.

***

Philomathean adds some heft to the sexual market primacy theory of female handbag collection,

Handbagism is a signal of aggression females employ to communicate the accumulation of tangible and intangible resources.

This is a good point. Women can be aggressive with one another, but their particular brand of aggression doesn’t make headlines or rouse moral umbrage because it isn’t delivered through fists and projectile weapons. “Handbagism” is aggressive signaling to other women who could be potential poachers of husbands and boyfriends. An expensive handbag is one way a woman intimidates her competition from entering the arena. It says, “Hey, my man is fully committed to me, and deeply in love with me, as you can see by all the stuff he lavishes me with, so you’d be wasting your time trying to seduce him away from me.”

Remember, sexual infidelity is a man’s worst fear, while love and resource infidelity are a woman’s worst fear.

Read Full Post »

The Upside Of Blue Balls: Evidence For The No-Fap Philosophy

It’s biomechanical feedback loops all the way down.

Reader chris forwards a study that examined the relationship between testosterone levels and mating success.

Fulfilling desire: Evidence for negative feedback between men’s testosterone, sociosexual psychology, and sexual partner number

Men who achieve what, for them, represents a successful pattern of mating, whether through committed relationships or uncommitted sex, should lower these costs by decreasing T production. The present results thus point to negative feedback in which T promotes copulatory success, and copulatory success in turn down-regulates T production.

So I’m guessing the inference from this is that abstaining from mating while still desiring to mate produces highest testosterone levels.

Testosterone must be costly to the male to produce and sustain at high levels, otherwise the body-brain axis wouldn’t shift to down-regulating T production once reproductive success was achieved. And note that the use of contraception wouldn’t attenuate this down-regulation: The brain-endocrine system has not evolved to keep up with modern procreation-thwarting technologies. (Evolution never takes a break, so it’s possible people, and particularly secular Westerners, are presently evolving in unforeseen ways to accommodate the reality of cheap, widely available contraception.)

This study jives with Mangan’s writings on hormesis — the idea that low level stresses (e.g., weightlifting and eating mildly toxic vegetables like broccoli) on the body and brain promote the health of an organism — as it would seem copulatory denial causes a man’s body to ramp up testosterone production, resulting in more vigor and initiative. Temporary bouts of incel may, in fact, do a man’s body good.

So maybe the No-Fappers are onto something. Hardcore porn may trick the male brain into recognizing that solitary onanistic spurt arced over the flicker of a sexy 2D babe as the culmination of a real life reproductive success. Hardcore porn, like the Pill and condom, is an evolutionary shock for which the human brain and its underlying genetic imperative are ill-equipped to make sense of. Relative to the timeline of human evolution, Tab 31 may as well be a Toba event.

And when we look around at American men, especially Millennials raised on a diet of internet porn (and high fructose corn), we behold a ghastly churn of manboobs, psychological faggotry, poz, and Scalzied male feminists bleating like tender lambs about their daughters’ ability to bench press more than they can.

What does this all mean for the inveterate player? Getting into a relationship with one of your plates will make you soft, figuratively and literally. So you’d better choose wisely which girl you allow to tame you.

Finally, if you’re looking for a way around this T down-regulation caused by the curse of your own sexual success, take up weightlifting. It’s been shown to increase resting testosterone in both the short- and long-terms.

UPDATE

Commenter Anti-Citizen demurs,

Meh, I just know that if I don’t fap for 3 days I start considering banging fat chicks. Not worth it.

There are two legit pro-fap arguments to be made. This one, and the idea that a pre-date fap will relax and imbue a man with that aloof and indifferent alpha male aura chicks dig (as explored in Something About Mary).

Although, tbh, fat chicks are so visually and pungently disgusting to the majority of (white and asian) men that even a semen backup of Hoover Dam proportions wouldn’t convince them to do a triple lindy into the deep end of the back boobs.

Read Full Post »