The Great Men On Bored Wives

Commenter Otsuka Duojinshi highlights another great H. L. Mencken quote, this time on the topic of the romantic isolation of the wives wedded to boring beta male providers.

HLM identified a wife’s contempt for the beta/omega precisely:

A woman, if she hates her husband (and many of them do), can make life so sour and obnoxious to him that even death upon the gallows seems sweet by comparison. This hatred, of course, is often, and perhaps almost invariably, quite justified.

To be the wife of an ordinary man, indeed, is an experience that must be very hard to bear. The hollowness and vanity of the fellow, his petty meanness and stupidity, his puling sentimentality and credulity, his bombastic air of a cock on a dunghill, his anaesthesia to all whispers and summonings of the spirit, above all, his loathsome clumsiness in amour—all these things must revolt any woman above the lowest.

HLM, if he were alive today, would wholly cosign Game as a legitimate pursuit for men, because he would understand that improving one’s sexual charisma does a marriage good. Here’s the Wiki on HLM. A lot of notable quotables by the great man!

Read Full Post »

The Era Of The Apex Alpha

Men throughout history have known that the top dog attracts women. They saw it when their wives made shiny eyes at the circus ringleader. They saw it when politicians came around to give stump speeches. They saw it in school when the athletic boy or the dangerous boy magically acquired a doting harem of admirers, like some Poon Piper.

So the fact of female hypergamy wasn’t a mystery to at least a large minority of men, even if those men couldn’t put to words what they were seeing. There had to always have been a sense among the common man that women feel an instinctive attraction to powerful men. But that sense was circumscribed by the limited availability of provocations which could stimulate unrestrained raw desire in women. There weren’t that many powerful men to go around in, say, 1850 America, and of those there were, the communication mediums to transmit their sexy power to potential throngs of adoring female fans didn’t exist in any meaningful form. If a powerful man passed through your small town, you were one of the few (un)fortunate local men to witness first-hand how women would veritably kneel before this exotic stranger from afar.

That all changed with the advent of rapid transportation, radio, TV, and stadium amplification.

Commenter Chairman of the Board excerpts,

“What Girls Want: Seventy Years of Pop Idols and Audiences”

“When former bobby-soxers remember Frankie of the bow-tie years, they emphasize that the Voice was seductive. Janice Booker saw her generation of bobby-soxers using Sinatra to express the beginnings of feelings otherwise inexpressible. Writes Booker, “[h]e was safe because he was unattainable; unattainable because he was a celebrity, and unavailable because he was married with children” (74). [ed: laughable. sinatra’s marriage wasn’t stoking sexual frenzy in his female fans.] Martha Lear recalls a feeling less proto-sexual and more actively sexual: “Whatever he stirred beneath our barely budding breasts, it wasn’t motherly. And the boys knew that and that was why none of them liked him, none except the phrasing aficionados… [T]he thing we had going with Frankie was sexy. It was exciting. It was terrific” (48).

In the highly restrictive prevailing sexual mores of the 1940s, girls’ options for exploring their sexuality were severely limited. Through movies, radio shows, and popular novels, girls were taught that sexual intercourse was for marriage only. Their own magazine, Seventeen, instructed girls to be extraordinarily careful about the liberties they allowed their dates to take; the magazine advised against necking and petting—and anything further down the line was definitely out of the question. Discouraged from loving in private, teenage girls did love in public—they loved their Frankie, fiercely, unashamedly, loudly. They made a spectacle out of themselves, they made a star out of Frank Sinatra, and they made a social space into which generations of girls following would continue to scream and faint.”

Right around mid-20th Century America, the era of the apex alpha male began, an era that could rightfully be called something new on the scene, for there were few comparable eras in human history, save for ancient empires ruled by khans on horse and emperors in palaces.

Reader PA writes about one mid-century American apex alpha,

Another bullet to DoBA’s list of [Charles] Manson’s accomplishments — the girls stayed loyal to him through their own murder trials. They didn’t plea bargain or confess for a sentencing deal.

I wonder… a decade earlier Presley set off a mass hysteria just by shaking his hips. The Beatles had girls scream-ovulating. Was there a … female hunger in apex-America that some musicians and sociopaths tapped into. Their success suggests a low hanging fruit effect. No rocker today makes girls scream quite like that.

Mid-century America — circa 1940-1970 — was the time of the “Great Compression”. Economic and social equality were high among whites; the American Beta Male was in the primacy of his rule. All that equality is a turn-off for women; it’s bad business for female desire. There must have been a craving among young women during that time period for a big cheese, a kingpin, an aristocrat, a head honcho, a cult leader, a proto-Obama… a man who stood shoulders above other men. A…. rock star.

If the sexes were reversed, that time in America, (if you’ll allow me a loose-fitting analogy), would look like a time of great equality among dumpy plain janes, and no stand-out beauties to inspire men to reach for greatness. It’s not a great analogy, because, well, it’s hard to imagine any culture in which men faint in the presence of a hard 10. Abject veneration of HSMV members of the opposite sex is primarily the wont of the female of the human species.

Imagine how the masses of mild-mannered, provider beta males experienced mid-century America: Their shock and confusion watching their best women literally throw themselves at pop culture icons, begging to give their sex away for free to unapologetic cads. This was something new, something beyond the conventional wisdom about female nature, and it must have royally fucked with the heads of men. What lesson did our mid-Century forefathers learn? It wasn’t an idealistic one. In twenty years, a Western civilization’s worth of pussy-propping pedestals got knocked over, never to stand upright again.

Commenter Arbiter writes,

this is something I often make a point of, and it’s one of those things that move people’s circles. Women screamed and fainted at Beatles concerts. Men never screamed and fainted at Madonna concerts.

Feminists say behavior is programmed by capitalist media, for whatever reason that would be. But what media ever told women to scream at concerts? None. What media ever told men not to do so? None. Feminists can at the most claim that women “are made to desire the men in the band”, but the screaming would be completely unnecessary for that purpose.

Those who claim media can mold raw sexual desire are either lying or old and so far removed from their youthful yearnings that they have forgotten what it’s like to experience a sudden rush of lust for, if a man, a cute girl or, if a woman, a socially popular man. No media was responsible for that first thermonuclear blast of lust when my stripling teenage eyes saw the red-headed girl’s pert tits and round ass in a whole new light. That was a fire that started deep inside, and has smoldered there since.

So it is with women. Their hypergamy isn’t a media creation; it’s God’s creation. The media at best can only poke and prod the dangerous beast from its slumber.

So what lessons did our mid-century beta males take to heart as they had to endure watching pathetically from a corner their women en masse essentially cuckolding them with their ids (and many with more than that). As the romantic insults piled higher, I bet America’s beta males — some of whom invented space exploration and high def porn — began to share a general outlook on life and on women.

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV’s

Now look at them yo-yo’s that’s the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Money for nothin’ and chicks for free

The Sexual Devolution of the late 60s was as much or more a reaction of men to the change in their women’s comportment as it was a protest by women against cultural restrictions on their sexuality. The Kraken was released from its subterranean prison in women’s hindbrains, and once surfaced it wrought psychological destruction on a mass scale. Profoundly disillusioned and not a little nauseated, salt-of-the-earth mid-century men must’ve thought, “And I’m supposed to slave away for something these yapping faggots are getting younger, hotter, tighter, and for free?!”

It’s an irony of human experience that the golden ages of great civilizations, the heights of their power, immediately precede their sudden and rapid collapses. It’s becoming clearer with time that America’s Golden Age was the 20th Century, a Golden Age which coincided with a Golden Boy Age, and that had our fatherly forebears the wisdom they would have more readily perceived the omens in two generations of their women prostrating themselves in worshipful sexual abandon at the feet of the apex alpha demigods of the day.

Read Full Post »

Men Not At Work

Many readers forwarded this NYBetaTimes article about men dropping out of the workforce. The author listed several factors aggravating this War on Men trend.

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list.

Thank you, mass immigration and Wall Street wunderkinds!

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

All of these are doubtless contributing factors, but as with most Hivemind reporting on the topic of men dropping out, there is a studious avoidance to analyzing the role that women, and their marital worthiness, play in men’s choices. I will explain below.

Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

A misleading stat. Divorced women get custody of children, and men pay child support. So some number of these no-employment men living alone are indeed providing for others, just not in the way they would prefer.

A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

Women initiate 70+% of all divorces. Who’s retreating from marriage and fatherhood, again?

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas.

Yes, mass immigration and automation are certainly demoralizing to unemployed men who weren’t born with the capacity for abstract thinking and symbol manipulation, but you know what else is demoralizing to men? Fat women, single moms, and sluts looking to settle down after a lifetime cocking up.

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children.

Cost of getting a degree = runaway credentialism.
Cost of staying healthy = following the government low-fat guidelines.
Cost of hiring a nanny = embracing the DIOK (dual income, one kid) lifestyle.

Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

Corn and porn.

So many conservative social commentators, like Ross Douthat, fail to account for feedback loops in the sexual market, and how that trickles up and affects the economic market. They have a blind spot about women, preferring to lay blame for all society’s woeful indicators at the feet of men, so that they may continue polishing the pedestal of their faire maidens.

But men react to opposite sex cues just as much as women do. Think of men as having two engines of motivation, one internal, one external. The internal engine is self-starting and self-perpetuating, and it evolved to confer upon men a shot at raising their status so that they could attract more and better women.

The external engine is context-dependent. Visual cues fuel it, and it puts out more power the more enticing visual cues are fed into it. This engine, too, is a product of evolution, but it is more easily short-circuited by negative environmental inputs that were rare in the millennia when evolution was working to perfect both engines.

Men’s (white men’s, at any rate) external engine of motivation looks around, surveys a landscape teeming with land whales, single moms, and sluts, and decides that, hey, working their asses off in a crappy, low-wage job for a shot at wifing up George Lucas’ pelican gullet is the dictionary definition of a raw deal. Throw in the growing ranks of single moms, even the thin fuckable ones, and the women who have amassed considerable premarital histories on the cock carousel and are therefore less likely to stay faithful or to avoid the divorce altar, and men’s motivation to perform for these female losers dwindles to nothing.

Now add the finishing ingredient — porn — and you have most of what you need to know about why marriage rates are falling and men are dropping out of the economy, particularly among the lower classes. (The upper classes have more stable marriages because getting married later in life circumscribes the availability of tempting extramarital options, especially for older wives. Plus, upper class women are generally thinner and hotter.)

Dropped-out men may not be consciously happy about their non-employment and increasing alienation from society, but subconsciously they are making very rational cost-benefit decisions based upon real world incentives and disincentives. In 2014 America, cheap online porn is more rewarding than an expensive fat wife, and disability insurance more rewarding than working at a paint shop for $9 an hour. Change those two inputs — make both American women and American wages more attractive — and you will begin to see men dropping back into contention.

Read Full Post »

Boredom, Diligence, And Greatness

An inability to get easily bored may be racially distributed. Peter Frost discusses studies that show Asians are less monotony averse than Europeans, and this trait likely evolved from selection pressures created by rice farming. Probably related to this race difference in boredom avoidance, Chinese infants show a greater toleration to disturbance than do White infants.

A tolerance for boredom seems a prerequisite for diligence and studiousness. People who bore easily can’t sit still long enough to imbibe pages and pages of information. They have trouble finding personal satisfaction in rote learning. Conscientious students are often also risk averse and, less charitably, dull. But boy are they good at doing their homework and maximizing their GPAs.

In the context of modern credentialist society, a high tolerance for boredom is beneficial. Restlessness isn’t a trait of a good globocorporate cog. But boredom toleration can go too far, culminating as an inert man with a weak inner fire to propel him to greatness beyond his immediate practical concerns.

The personality sweet spot would be where focus, conscientiousness, curiosity, nonconformism, and yearning come together in a human supernova of creativity and accomplishment. This sweet spot may explain why Europeans dominated global exploration.

Read Full Post »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Chicks Dig Charlie Manson

Days of Broken Arrows provides a short history of Charles Manson, convicted murderer, cult leader, psychopath, and alpha male with a knack for harem building and marrying much younger women while in prison for life.

Manson:

Son of a prostitute.
No father.
Awful childhood.
Barely literate.
5’2″ tall.
Spent most of his youth in detention centers.
When he was finally released as an adult, he begged to stay inside, worrying he could not handle life on the outside.
With a few years he had harems of women.
Held orgies.
Orgies were so great that Beach Boy Dennis Wilson invited them to move in.
Dennis Wilson was a major Alpha Male rock star of the ’60s.
Manson then order his women to kill.
They were so devoted that they did.
His women were not ugly losers — some were former cheerleaders.

Say what you will about the guy, but he had an innate Alpha quality. Shame it was put to such bad use. Guys who whine they can’t get women should think about his life and how he managed to not only get women to sleep with him but basically make them servants to his will. He had some serious charisma.

I’m not surprised at the wife who is a fraction of his age. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have groupies.

He was even a talented songwriter. He placed a song on a Beach Boys album and penned this, which was later covered by Guns N’ Roses.

True love.

<dr seuss>

Yes, chicks dig jerks.
Some dig them a little
some dig them a lot.
Some chicks dig them
in the parking lot.
Some dig them white
some dig them black.
And some chicks even dig them
when they go on the attack.
Yes, chicks dig jerks
this much is true.
They dig jerks more
when they’re black and blue.
Chicks dig jerks
of all sizes and hues.
They dig charmers and badboys
and prisoners too!
Some chicks dig jerks
of the jerkiest sort.
They marry crazy killers
60 years older, and short.
Nice men and kind men
need not apply.
It’s dangerous folk
who catch a chick’s eye.
So when you see a puddle
and lay down your coat
just remember the chicks
backstage at death row.
Ol’ Charlie Manson
got himself married.
While you sit at home
and whack your tally.

</dr seuss>

On a related topic, F. Roger Devlin pondered the reason for the observable preference of women for jerks, in an article titled “The Question of Female Masochism“. A CH read of the week. The take-home punch:

I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism. […]

I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.

You only had to listen… to yer loveable Heartiste.

Read Full Post »

The Fat Daughter Vs Thin Mother Thought Experiment

Commenter natphilosopher poses an interesting thought experiment,

What I want to know is, what’s the CH translation factor [for female age versus female fatness]?
I figure, maybe 2-2.5 pounds/year?
A 20 year old who’s 50 pounds overweight against the same woman 20-25 years later, but now she’s lost the extra weight and toned up?

No, better yet, CH, they are both at the end of the bar. It’s the middle of nowhere, so there’s no other action and your stationed here for a while. The newly divorced mother, toned and horny, and the overweight but otherwise hot daughter and two of her overweight friends. The mother is so hot for her age, which is 39, that under the circumstances she appeals to the mighty CH. How many pounds per year does the daughter have to be overweight for the Mom to win CH’s attention?

The variables:

39-year-old mom, slender and toned.

VERSUS

20-year-old daughter, 50 pounds overweight.

Which woman commands not just CH’s turgid attention, but most men’s attention (since the vast majority of men share the same preferences in women)?

In other words, how much fat has to accumulate on a prime nubility young woman before a height-weight proportionate woman twice her age begins to look like a more sexually alluring prospect?

Reminder: Presented with two equally slender women 20 years apart, most men will, given a free choice, choose the younger woman for sex AND love. (yes, both)

The formula is simple: Youth >>>> Cougardom, at a healthy body weight, every time. It gets complicated when we fiddle with the variables and compare a young fatty to an older, age-adjusted hottie.

Thinking hard about this (because neither cougars nor fatties are sexual fantasy material), I conclude that the thin mom would earn the CH rod of approval. Youthful bloom, rare and exquisite as it is, can’t withstand 50 pounds of disfiguring blubber. Wrinkles and sag are no man’s idea of boner-fuel, but the equivalent of Lindy West is like the anti-Viagra: Boners implode into a black hole of flaccidness, from which no seed can escape.

I’d therefore have to agree with natphilosopher’s mathematical elegance: A 20-year-old daughter would have to be 2.5 lbs per year fatter than her 39-year-old mom. But only if her mom is already thin. If the daughter is 50 pounds fatter than her obese mom, that’s a dirigible sideshow no one wants to contemplate puncturing.

50 pounds of superfluous fat is a lot of unsexxxy BBBBBBBBW adipose. What if the daughter is, say, 40 pounds heavier than her twice-as-old slender mom? 30 pounds? 20?

At 40 pounds difference, most men would still opt to bang the thin mom with the extra 20 years.

At 30 pounds difference, the pattern of fat accumulation on the daughter will start to matter. Did her additional 30 pounds settle on her ass and tits, and avoid her face, neck, belly and arms? Then I conclude that even numbers of men would choose the daughter and the mother.

At 20 pounds difference, the same as above applies, but now the daughter’s sheer youthfulness exerts a powerful influence on men’s autonomic desires. Most men will overlook an extra 20 pounds on a 20-year-old if the only alternative is sex with a thin 39-year-old (again, presuming equal facial attractiveness, i.e. bone structure).

At 10 pounds difference, the daughter wins nearly every time.

I hope this answer has cleared up everyone’s questions on the matter of female fatness and female age and their deleterious, and synergistically deflating, effects on men’s libidos.

Read Full Post »

The Fundamental Problem With Man-Hating Feminists

Ultimately, the problem with stupid, bitter feminists and their lackeys is their inability to understand, let alone empathize, with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or psychosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your tits are thrust three feet in front of you. This is what a religious adherence to feminist lies gets you: Fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity and swiftness that is alien to your gynocentric worldview.

Most women who aren’t deranged feminists trying to make a victim class point know that, for instance, catcalling is mostly harmless, and take it in stride (even if driven to annoyance by excessive street solicitations). Normal, psychologically healthy women (read: pretty women), intuitively grasp that men and women are very different on and under the hood. They may not know the evolutionary reasons for the differences, or care to know, but their acceptance of men as men permits them to behave in a more charming feminine manner, and to appease men’s desire (or avoid inciting it when necessary) because it’s fun and exciting instead of an “injustice” that must be raged against. Feminist spite and resentment towards men comes from a place of studied ignorance and, in some instances, envy of male sexuality. I think a lot of avowed feminists are ugly broads who secretly yearn to possess the liberated and unencumbered sexual joy that is the birthright of men.

If there’s one common bond that unites all feminists and feminist-lite pundits, it’s a loathing of male desire. Scour away the SJW jargon and that’s the angry little id you’ll find deep inside shaking a clenched black fist at an unforgiving reality it cannot change.

Read Full Post »