Charles Manson, 79 years old and still proudly sporting a swastika on his forehead, has a 25 year old girlfriend.
Charles Manson, perhaps the most infamous convicted killer of all time, is 79 years old and still locked up in California’s Corcoran State Prison, where he walks with a cane and sports chipped prison dentures. Star is a 25-year-old brunette who’s been loyally visiting Manson in jail since she was 19 years old and maintains several websites devoted to defending Manson and his pro-Earth environmental causes.
For those two of you who don’t know, Manson is one of America’s most infamous killers and cult leaders. When you combine fame with that sexy psycho vibe, pussy juice erupts all over the fruited plains.
And Star [ed: girls with one name are same night lay guarantees] says she can prove Manson is more devoted to her than any other girl: “I’ll tell you straight up, Charlie and I are going to get married,” she tells us. “When that will be, we don’t know. But I take it very seriously. Charlie is my husband. Charlie told me to tell you this. We haven’t told anybody about that.”
Star says there won’t be any conjugal visits because “California lifers no longer get them.” If they were an option, “we’d be married by now.”
Manson, however, seems less convinced the impending nuptials are a reality, “Oh that,” he says. “That’s a bunch of garbage. You know that, man. That’s trash. We’re just playing that for public consumption.”
Young hottie falls deeply in love with imprisoned killer 54 years her senior (and looking kind of badass for a geezer if you ask me). Young hottie wants to marry her old killer. Killer brushes aside her nuptial dreams as a PR ploy.
Senior Management: the harem kings.
Management: the first wives.
Accounts Support: the inner circle concubines.
Sales Support: the trafficked East European sex slave.
Support Team: the royal penis washers.
Account Managers: the threesome coordinators.
Business Managers: the young dick sucking upstarts.
There you have it, the modern corporate harem, in all its flowcharted glory. Seven women per one high status man. A more illuminatingly succinct snapshot of the Western sexual market aligned with the globalizing economic market you won’t see. The only surprising thing about it is the lack of any land whales or witches among the female staff. This is Britain; you’d have to spend years scouring the countryside to find and place that many bangable women under one corporate umbrella. So you know a lot of hard work went into developing a staff that looks like a country with all its men and war pigs removed.
The other thing that’s missing from the chart: Beta males, the invisible demographic.
The four kings at the top of the Spermular Solutions organization may or may not be boffing their happily indentured servants (but if you had to bet…), however the exact dimension of their relationships with their underpantslings is irrelevant in the bigger scheme. These women are, no doubt, enthralled by the power of their male masters. They don’t need to be taking their masters’ cocks to experience the same feeling of submissive joy that a real concubine would feel. All those women are de facto harem girls, at the beck and call of their four alpha kings, gossiping and tittering amongst themselves like court mistresses to determine who is the favored girl of the moment.
This social and quasi-sexual dynamic, playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office. In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!
What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.
Naturally, foul feminist cunts and their bubble-headed beta male toadies immediately saw a “glass ceiling” at work in this corporate chart. For them, a workplace that is 90% female is discrimination against women if the top four positions are held by men. All the lesser men who are missing from the bottom 90% ranks are completely forgettable, nebulous specters resembling some human shape and form. Beta males? Who? What? Is that a new social media app?
I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice: When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.
Update
It gets better. As if more confirmation was needed that what we are witnessing is the legitimization of soft concubinage, the fine alpha males at Spermular Solutions held a bikini contest featuring their charges. The winner was the guy holding his mic.
Researchers developed a computer model to simulate the human evolutionary process, and what they discovered was a possible explanation for why chicks dig “less supportive partners”, aka jerks.
We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.
The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.
Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.
We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.
As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict.
So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.
This newest theory is interesting because it cuts against the grain of conventional thinking. It’s assumed by the unimaginative masses that the badboy exploits a sexual market niche of fatherless, low self-esteem skanks. The “Forever Seeking Daddy’s Approval” theory of jerkboy attractiveness rests on the premise that women who have been abandoned by their fathers will seek male approval from similarly emotionally distant lovers. A sort of “fuck it forward” karmic philosophy.
But now a computer simulation has spat out a possible new cause of a badboy love phenomenon that no one with any sense denies (even foul feminists can’t deny it). And in this simulation, it’s not the sluts craving daddy’s comforting hug who fall into the jerk’s tatted arms; it’s the daughters of large, intact families who exploit the material generosity of their parents (really, their fathers) by dating jerks who could use some outside support.
Does this new theory square with reality? At the risk of outing myself as a charming jerk, ( 😎 ) few of the women I’ve taken to bed on the first date came from broken families. Most were smart, psychologically balanced, and raised in the bosom of a loving nuclear family. The “first date” qualifier is important, because it’s a simple metric to use in a pinch that distinguishes impulsive, jerk-loving girls from playing-the-long-game cockteases with ice in their pussies.
Naturally, you would be right to protest that those are just anecdotes. But from anecdotes and personal observations, we build theories of the world. Gotta start somewhere. And it’s also true that some of those same night conquests (a notable minority) turned out, upon later inspection, to have a closet full of family strife skeletons.
The “Parent Exploitation” theory is not without its flaws. For one, it does not, as far as I can tell, include male mate choice in its algorithm. This is a huge oversight. Men, by nature of their reproductive expendability, may not exercise as much choice in the mating market as do women, but they exercise some choice. The pockets of exceedingly beautiful women around the world prove that men, when the ecological conditions are favorable, do adhere to standards when choosing long-term mates. This theory has nothing to say about that. For instance, what is the SMV of the women who choose unsupportive partners and fill in the gaps with their parents’ assistance? How does female SMV inform jerkboy choice? How does a daughter’s or a suitor’s SMV influence parents’ willingness to provide support? What about the kinds of men who choose sexytime women over coy princesses, and vice versa?
Then there’s the issue of declining fertility. How well does the model work when there are more one-child families? It’s not a leap to imagine that a one-child dystopia would encourage the parent exploitation strategy by entitled lone daughters, because there are no sisters to compete for daddy’s money. A one-child family unit world might also spur more cad-chasing by daughters who are sole inheritors of the family wealth.
What about a massively scaled-up dating market, like the one we have today, wherein parents have little to no influence over their daughter’s mate choices which are made in the shadow of urban anonymity and severance from any familial or community roots? Does a daughter’s exploitation strategy work as well under those conditions, or is dad so fed-up with his powerlessness that he cuts her off completely? Or, conversely, does dad lavish gifts on his faraway daughter as substitute for his lack of presence in her romantic life?
That’s the problem with these mathematical modelings: too many unspoken-for variables. A model can be useful, especially as a guide to lead to further inquiry, but its shortcomings are also made more evident by its executable.
So I remain agnostic on the ultimate cause of the female craving for cads. My preferred theory — and the one that makes the most sense from an up-close-and-personal vantage — is a combination of the “sexy sons” and the “dominance signaling” hypotheses. Women are attracted to hard-to-get, noncommittal, charismatic jerks because the sons of those jerks will inherit the jerk’s smooth, reproductive fitness maximizing way with women, and the jerk’s dominance with women is a strong cue that, in the future, he will dominate any enemies who might threaten his family or his lover.
PS Have any of you noticed that the hottest daughters have lumpy, chipmunk-cheeked beta male fathers? It’s the Sitcom Dad-Hot Piece of Princess Ass phenomenon. Enticing femininity is almost guaranteed when both mom and dad are feminine. Women who marry very masculine men tend to produce masculine sons (good) and masculine daughters (bad). Reverse the polarity when dad is very feminine. John Scalzi better hope he bears nothing but daughters… for YaReally to poop on!
So maybe the simulation above is best understood as a palimpsest of the fact that most families which have the resources to give to daughters who choose jerk loverboys are headed by beta provider fathers. And that, since most beta provider fathers are more phenotypically feminine, their daughters will be hotter and thus better able to both attract love from discerning jerks and extract resources from distributing fathers. But as society becomes less monogamous at the margins, the ability and willingness of fathers (not to mention the number of these fathers) to play along with this game gradually decreases.
One of the biggest problems of our phallocentric culture is the constant pampering to the superficial behavior of men. The dating arena is a prime example of this. I won’t ridicule mainstream dating advice. That the “golddigger” strategy is dubious at best should be common knowledge by now. Instead, I want to attack a particular corner of the Internet that proclaims that they have the solution to the dating problem: the so-called “women’s issues” community. A lot of the criticism applies to the “glamourmagosphere” as well, though.
What struck me always as absurd was that those alleged relationship madams didn’t teach women to “woman up”. No, not in the “be a real woman and get a high-paying career so you can marry a grateful niceguy after you’ve had your fun”, but for real. They just don’t tell you to stand up for yourself. No, instead you are supposed to become an expert on cosmetology, fashion, exercise science, gossip, looking your best, behaving in a sweet feminine manner, and all kinds of frivolous nonsense. This alone should make any reasonably smart woman very skeptical. Even if this stuff worked — wouldn’t you want to have an at least halfway intelligent man instead, since as we know intelligence and primal biological sexual preferences are mutually exclusive?
That’s not all, because mainstream relationship madams also tell you how you should react to his ambiguous behavior. They call it “charming” when he’s acting flirty towards you, and tell you to “just keep making him chase you, girl!” Do you know what any girl with an inkling of self-respect would do? If he’s charming, you just move on, but if he’s really sexy and dangerous, you can just tell him to go fuck himself. Amazingly, some men are so damned sexy that they’ll get turned off by that and next you.
The men you’re interacting with are supposed to be adults, but if he behaves like a high value man with options, you have the choice of either confronting him or trying to change his behavior. Have fun with that! What also works is to not bother with him and looking for a more mature man instead. By “mature” I don’t mean some boring man with no game, but a man with a modicum of mental maturity who has a bug up his ass about the idea of having to impress the opposite sex. Mental maturity depends on a cultivated resentment that there exist two sexes with differing reproductive goals and psychologies that must be accommodated if one is to make it through life as something more than a loveless loser. There are plenty of shockingly immature normal people who don’t carry chips on their shoulders — men and women — around.
Let me just dwell on this topic a bit longer. Probably any girl who ever agreed to go out on a date with a man, or went along with it when he wanted to “hang out” will have experienced that some men just won’t commit. No, they don’t toss you out of bed. Instead, they just don’t show up three months later. A smart way of dealing with this problem is to make the man wait a little for sex so that you can tell if he’s the type just looking for a fun time or if he’s really into you and wants a deeper relationship.
It is not the case that men are unaware that they are cagey about commitment. I guess the “matriarchy” keeps them down so that they can’t pick out a ring and marry you, or just say “I don’t want a relationship” in the first place. What do those ridiculous dating madams aka your grandmas tell you, though? They talk about “getting Mr. Right”. You’re supposed to keep showing cleavage and dressing sexily and putting on make-up and watching your figure and flattering him to “build attraction”, and if he still won’t commit, you’re supposed to play hard to get and withdraw sex and generally act as if time is short and you need real commitment before your peak fertility window of desirability closes.
I mean, whom are those “relationship artists” kidding? Even if you managed to eventually win such a man over, what kinds of precedents did you set? If anything, the man now knows that you like him for more than sex (horrors!), and that you’ll work hard to pin him down in a long-term relationship. He knows that you’re a completely normal woman who happily gives up self-righteous celibacy for the remote chance to get some love. As if a man’s love was the solution to anything (*snort*)! Instead of calling him out on his foot-dragging, you invite him to remain indecisive, and you even make excuses for his normal male behavior, all for love!!! This is nothing but absurd. Congratulations, you’ve turned yourself into what they call a “lovestruck girl.” Yes, this — “relationship game”, they call it — is the supposed alternative to mainstream dating advice. It’s laughable.
“Relationship management” and “beautification” are just more elaborate forms of penis worship and pedestalization. Women will never earn their self-respect until they are ready to “go their own way”.
Many thanks to Paul Elam for publishing this post at his blog A Voice For Women.
From the CH archives, an observation that gay men have something strangely distinctive about their faces,
There is such a thing as a “gay face”. Hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. Think big bright feminine eyes, full lips, and an all-around glow.
As usual, CH was ahead of the cultural curve. A new study supports the stereotype of a “gay face”.
Shape Differences Between the Faces of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men.
Previous studies have shown that homosexual men differ from heterosexual men in several somatic traits and lay people accurately attribute sexual orientation based on facial images. Thus, we may predict that morphological differences between faces of homosexual and heterosexual individuals can cue to sexual orientation. The main aim of this study was to test for possible differences in facial shape between heterosexual and homosexual men. Further, we tested whether self-reported sexual orientation correlated with sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity attributed from facial images by independent raters. In Study 1, we used geometric morphometrics to test for differences in facial shape between homosexual and heterosexual men. The analysis revealed significant shape differences in faces of heterosexual and homosexual men. Homosexual men showed relatively wider and shorter faces, smaller and shorter noses, and rather massive and more rounded jaws, resulting in a mosaic of both feminine and masculine features. In Study 2, we tested the accuracy of sexual orientation judgment from standardized facial photos which were assessed by 80 independent raters. Binary logistic regression showed no effect of attributed sexual orientation on self-reported sexual orientation. However, homosexual men were rated as more masculine than heterosexual men, which may explain the misjudgment of sexual orientation. Thus, our results showed that differences in facial morphology of homosexual and heterosexual men do not simply mirror variation in femininity, and the stereotypic association of feminine looking men as homosexual may confound judgments of sexual orientation.
Asscinating! Gay face definitely has feminine features (the small noses and childlishly expressive eyes) but they appear to be set against a backdrop of more masculine features, like a big jaw. One can only speculate how this discrepancy came to evolve, but if a combination of a gay germ and chimerism is responsible for full-blown gheyity, then it’s possible that whatever neural rearrangement molds the gay brain also leeches into facial morphology, resulting in mixed feminine and masculine traits.
I wonder what that huge… iconoclast… Andrew Sullivan thinks of this news? At first, I bet he would leap in his loafers, his burly bear arms outstretched to the skies, overjoyed that more evidence suggests his condition is biological and immutable. But biology is a dangerous ally for the leftoid flamer. Imagine a gay germ is discovered. Does he doubt parents, even squishy liberal SWPL parents who read his dull blog, would avail themselves of a remedy? If so, I have news for him. Should a “cure” for gayness ever be found, that will mean the extinction of homosexuality as we know it.
National Geographic has an illuminating series on alpha males in the human wilds, documenting a slew of experiments which demonstrate that the term ‘alpha’ has validity as a descriptor of the top dog in emergent human male hierarchies. The bitter sperg denialists of the CH worldview are gonna have to retire their empty-headed argument that alpha is a taxonomic term that only applies to wolves. 🙄
There’s a lot to chew on in this video, so take some time to watch the whole thing. Right in line with Heartiste game techniques, the experiments vindicate the idea that adopting “power poses” and other mannerisms of the alpha male pack leader can actually make a man feel more alpha, and more importantly will make him be perceived as more alpha by other men and by women. This is nothing less than total validation of the game concept of “fake it till you make it”.
Video highlights:
– Being a big man automatically confers alpha status, but the effect is contextual. A small man with the right attitude, as you will see later in the video, can out-alpha a big man.
– Conversely, being a little man automatically confers beta status, unless the little man acts in a way to dispel the assumption. So, yeah, you shorter men have an extra hurdle to clear that taller men don’t have. But it is surmountable.
– There really are body language and voice “tells” that reveal whether a man is alpha or beta. These subtle mate value cues have been discussed numerous times before on CH. Check the archives. A man with tight game knows that body language and tonality — how to stand, sit, make eye contact, speak with authority — are crucial components of seduction.
– Don’t ever put your palm facing up when challenged by anyone. It’s a classic submissive gesture.
– Remember, when shaking hands, try to position your hand so that it lays slightly atop the hand of the person you’re greeting. Most people will acquiesce quietly to this dominance move. (Knowledgable CH readers will notice it right away and attempt a counter-maneuver, resulting in a hilarious hand-twisting spectacle resembling a game of thumb wrestling.)
– It’s better to hold eye contact to the point of discomfort than to avert your gaze prematurely.
– Men with salt and pepper hair shouldn’t bother getting it dyed. The touch of gray is a high status cue. (Note: Does not work the same for women, who will just look old and unsexy with gray hair.)
– When you hug, make sure your arms are on the outside of the hugbox.
– Take up space, own the space, claim other people’s space. Any vagina within that space will then assume it is subject to your jurisdiction, and behave accordingly.
– A smaller, less stereotypically masculine man, can out-alpha bigger and harder-looking men by using simple mannerism tricks. Proof that alpha is more about attitude than appearance.
– Don’t sit at the corners of a rectangular table.
– You might think that being the Number 2 Alpha would be enough to get plenty of girls, but female hypergamy is insatiable. Number 1 gets exponentially more attention than Number 2 gets from women.
– Alpha males PROJECT their voices. I have yet to meet a successful salesman who didn’t have a booming voice that commanded attention. You may think an obnoxiously loud voice is the Call of the Douchebag but, you know, chicks dig douchebags. Are you gonna bitch about it or are you gonna play to win?
– There’s a reason a seductive male voice is a register lower in tone: It sounds dominant. For those men who don’t have naturally deep voices, it is possible to practice speaking in a lower tone, and to avoid reverting to a higher-pitched beta singsong. See the “get out of my box” experiment in the video. Really outstanding demonstration of how a stronger vocal tone can immediately command respect and obeisance from others.
– Having a woman around you, silently and subconsciously judging your male qualities, can boost your alphaness. This may explain the phenomenon of beta male orbiters; perhaps they realize on some deep level that they act stronger in the company of a woman than they do alone, or with other men. This doesn’t compensate for their wretched beta supplication and willingness to be used as emotional tampons, but you can’t fault them for trying to find and exploit any edge, no matter how trivial.
– The “sneaky fucker” strategy really does work.
– Direct game (like the kind Naftalie uses on the girl at around the 28:30 minute mark) has its place in any man’s arsenal of allure, but it’s clear that bold direct game is a high risk, high reward proposition. If the girl doesn’t take your direct game bait, you can quickly be out-alphaed by *her*. Indirect game is lower risk, lower reward but, like the parable of the tortoise and the hare, it’s my observation that, over the long run, the ingenuity of indirect game will result in more successful pickups.
– For those interested in the racial angle, it appears black men have more “up front” alpha body language — that is, black men engage in more conspicuous alpha displays such as strutting, bellowing, and space monopolizing. But white men (and in particular nerdy ectomorphs) have a compensating version of alpha game that can neutralize heavy-handed posturing by more physically aggressive adversaries: They lean on their smarts. (See the tech-savvy display at the 27:30 mark.) There are, indeed, plenty of exceptions to this rule. See, for example, the total lack of strutting by another black guy in the group, Isem.
– Open body language beats closed body language, nearly every time. Exception: Any time a beatdown that you want to avoid is imminent. #LiveToSeduceAnotherDay
– If you posture or behave like a beta male, you will FEEL like a beta male, and women will practically SMELL the beta stink on you. So make it a habit to posture like an alpha male as often as possible. That alpha male posturing will transform you into a real life, breathing alpha male, even down to your hormones.
– WE ARE HARD-WIRED, BIOMECHANICAL AUTOMATONS carrying out the directives of ancient genetic algorithms. We are also expert at deluding ourselves otherwise.
– Acting like an alpha isn’t all poon-chasing fun and games. It also lowers cortisol levels. Low stress is a formula for a long, healthy life.
– Alpha humans, like alpha apes, react to the world with amused mastery. Grace under pressure is chicknip. Sometimes it’s to your benefit to sit back and let the beta males and the women squabble amongst themselves.
– At around 36:00 minutes in, we see what happens when the putative alpha male of the group, Naftalie, is challenged by an interloper alpha male (the AMOG). This scene is great as a teaching aid for how to handle AMOGs cramping your style. Commenter YaReally will be very pleased with this scene, because it affirms a lot of his anti-AMOG tactical knowledge; namely, stay calm, stay positive, groom the group, and don’t let the challenger get under your skin.
A few final thoughts:
Some men, like Naftalie, are great alpha males of MEN, but not so great alpha males of WOMEN. This is a not so uncommon disjunct that one finds in some leaders of men who are not very good at being seducers of women. We all know that captain of industry (in whatever flavor) who nonetheless acts like a dullard or an oaf in the company of women. Generally, alpha males of men are also alpha males of women, as the dominance required for the former is also attractive to the latter. But disjuncts do occur, and this opens windows of opportunity for men who may not be leaders of other men, but who are leaders of their own emotions and experts at speaking the female language of love.
Under extreme duress or threat, white knighting as a strategy to bang women may actually work, (see the last experiment in the video). But you have to be prepared to back up your white knight posturing with real intention.
Ever notice how most primatologists in the field are women? It’s almost as if… chicks dig dangerous apes!
Chateau Heartiste is proud to see the concepts of this community, and the wider game community, spreading into the mainstream. I expect the whining and shrieking denials of haters to reach a very beta-ish fever pitch in the coming years.
***
One more final thought: For those of you men still doubting the seductive power of alphatude, think on how you feel when you see a gorgeous woman with an hourglass figure, bodacious titties, and a firm round ass pass by you. Now remind yourself that the immediate thermonuclear blast of lust which you feel then is the SAME feeling that women have when they are in the company of a dominant alpha male. They, like you, can’t help themselves. It’s just the way they were drawn.
CH has been at the forefront of predicting rather astutely that beta males experience worse results in a sexual market where women are economically self-sufficient and can follow their tingles to alpha cad land, and conversely do better (i.e., maritally or otherwise lock down prettier women in their beauty primes) in a sexual market where women are increasingly out of work and needing a charmless company stiff to support them. Right on cue, a news report states that a major “sugar daddy” dating website has seen a 50% increase in sign-ups since the government shutdown, and that half of the new members are single moms.
A lot of government bureaucrats are women. A lot of government teat sucklers are women, many of whom are single moms with low impulse control. When the money flows freely, the pussy flows freely… to fly-by-night alpha males with the right mix of JERKBOY CHARISMA. When the State Sugar Daddy money spigot slows to a sad dribble, so too does the willingness of women to indulge their darker desires with exciting but unreliable swains. In tough times, beta provider males enjoy an expansion of their sexual market niche.
Do you know what wonderfully focuses the mind of a single mom? Visions of her bratty bastard starving to death in her arms. Yep, works every time.
ADDENDUM
In related ♥SCIENCE♥ news, a study found that divorce risk correlates with the wife’s share of household income.. The more money your wifey makes relative to what you make, the likelier it is she will stick the divorce court shiv in your hide. This shouldn’t be news to regular guests of Le Chateau, where we have been saying for a fucking long time that economic self-sufficiency reduces women’s need (and thus desire) for beta provider males, and creates incentives for female-initiated divorce and cad chasing. However, it’s always a fun time when one of these studies comes out reaffirming ancient wisdom. You just know it gets under the skin of the right sorts of degenerate freaks.
Game-less beta males who espouse feminism are really working against their own romantic interests. One wonders if they realize this, or if they do but just enjoy the feeling of cucking themselves into prostrate submission.
