Scientific Evidence That Men Will Choose Women Over Money

In Scarface, Tony Montana famously advised, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, you get the women.”

Tony wasn’t wrong. (Piles of) money and power will buy a lot of pussy. But ♥♥science♥♥ disagrees about where men’s priorities actually lie, and what is the most efficient path, as implied by neuronal feedback, for men to pursue to increase their reproductive fitness.

An unusual but very illuminating study concluded that, given a choice between viewing a hot babe and making some dough, men will choose the babe almost every time.

An ERP study on decisions between attractive females and money.

To investigate the neural processes of decision-makings between attractive females and money, we recorded 18 male participants’ brain event-related potentials (ERPs) when they performed a novel task of deciding between viewing an attractive female’s fuzzy picture in clear and gaining a certain amount of money. Two types of attractive females were included: sexy females and beautiful females. Several new electrophysiological discoveries were obtained as following. First, the beautiful females vs. money task (task B) elicited a larger positive ERP deflection (P2) than the sexy females vs. money task (task S) between 290 and 340 ms, and this probably related to the perception matching process between a visual input and an internal representation or expectation. Second, task S evoked greater negative ERP waves (N2) than task B during the time window of 340-390 ms, and this might relate to response conflict and cognitive monitoring for impulsive tendency. Third, the ERP positivity in task S was larger than task B in the time interval of 550-1000 ms, reflecting that sexy female images may have higher decision value for males than beautiful female images. Fourth, compared with choosing to gain money, choosing to view an attractive female evoked a larger late positive component (LPC) during the same time window, possibly because attractive females are more direct and evolutionarily earlier rewards for males than money amounts.

See the accompanying graphs at the link posted to get a better handle on the study results. There’s a lot of dense scientific jargon to wade through here, but the gist of it is this:

Based on neural imaging results (“brain event related potentials”, or ERPs), men will choose to view a sexy woman (read: a slut signaling her availability for sex) over making a bit of coin. Men will choose to view a beautiful woman (read: a modestly posed looker you would take home to mom) about the same amount as they will choose to make coin when viewing the slutty sexy woman, but they will choose to view the beautiful woman more often than they will choose to make money while deciding directly between those two choices.

In even lazier shorthand, men are hard-wired by evolution to choose a shot at the ultimate reward of sex with hot, sexually available women over choosing a shot at sex through a proxy fitness signaler like making money. Or: yes, it really is all about the nookie.

Call it the theory of path of least resistance to sex (a concept elucidated here at CH many times, and THANK YOU science, for once again validating core Chateau Heartiste concepts about the workings of the sexual market). Those MGTOWs and tradcons who argue that the best feeling of reward men get is from making money and being one’s own man, are simply wrong. The best feeling men get is from sex, or even a promise of sex, with attractive, young women. The Christmas tree lights of neural imaging results don’t lie.

Not to say that making money or earning power doesn’t feel great on its own. Certainly each of those do. But if the choice is between the great feeling from a DIRECT evolutionary reward and the feeling from an INDIRECT evolutionary reward… well, it shouldn’t take a scientific study to figure the bleeding obvious. Men will go for the sex directly and skip the hard slog to make themselves more attractive as sex partners if they have the option to do so. There’s a lesson there for women who ride the cock carousel with aloof, low investment cads.

One interesting part of the study was the result that men will be somewhat more likely to concern themselves about making money if an attractive but chaste woman is within view. This suggests that men, justifiably, perceive less slutty women as better investment vehicles. It also implies that beautiful women who don’t need or want to use their sexuality to curry favor with men will be more aggressive about screening for men who can provide for them, or who signal potential that they can provide for them.

Do women have their own sexual market theory of path of least resistance? Yes. Except it’s not a path of least resistance to sex; it’s a path of least resistance to commitment. Women will go for a man’s emotional commitment EVERY TIME if said man makes it easy for them. “Easy” means, in this context, sexually undemanding. Anhedonic. Effectively neutered. LJBFed. BETA. A woman gives up nothing to get a beta orbiter’s loyalty, support and, in some tragic cases, hard-earned provisions. There’s a lesson there for supplicating betas. Make the ho say no? How about “make the slut pay up front”.

Read Full Post »

Woman Admits To “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux” Dating Strategy

Some gross feminist careerist reptile who works for Facebook (dying media company if the decline in young recruits is any indication) has a long interview in Salon explaining her insipid views on the disparity between the sexes in upper echelon representation and the oft-debunked (but obviously not often enough) “gender pay gap”. I urge you to skim it quickly, because it’s largely the usual unverifiable, proof by assertion femcunt claptrap. However, there is one response she gives which bracingly reveals how a lot of modern American women, unawares or not, strategize their dating lives.

Look, I’m not pretending I can give advice to every single person or every single couple for every situation; I’m making the point that we are not going to get to equality in the workforce before we get to equality in the home. [ed: could you imagine being hitched to this repulsive ballbuster?] Not going to happen. You know, I give advice to young women. I say “pick a partner.” If that partner is female you are in good shape because you are likely to split up things very evenly; the data’s very strong that same-sex couples split responsibilities much more evenly. [ed: the data is also strong that dyke couples have high rates of domestic violence] If you are a female and your partner is likely to be male, this is something to really pay attention to. I say in the book, date the bad boys, date the crazy boys, but do not marry them. Marry the boys who are going to change half of the diapers.

“I don’t wanna sound like a feminist slut or nothin… but I kinda wanna fuck the sexy jerks and make the niceguys wait to put a ring on it.”

I hope every beta male in the world is reading this post right now, because this bitch just opened up and exposed the mouth to hell that burns at the heart of every woman’s naked id. Not all women are so aggressively calculating, but most feel the subsonic thump of compulsion to autonomically follow the alpha fux, beta bux dating strategy. It’s your job as a man with functioning testicles to stop women from using you in this manner. Paradoxically, most women will love you harder for stopping them from indulging their worst instincts.

Reader Days of Broken Arrows writes:

Few quotes reveal what’s so dysfunctional about modern dating than this — and that includes her desultory use of the word “boys” in lieu of men.

Exactly right. While the cad/dad dichotomy of choice in women is as ancient as the tree of life, the social constraints on satisfying the dichotomy have never been looser than now. Post-modern, post-industrial, pre-singularity West — whatever you want to call it — is enabling women to not only pursue an ultimately self-defeating dualistic cad/dad strategy that will leave the lot of them feeling spiteful and unloved, but it’s encouraging them to extol the strategy as an empowering way to interact with men. It’s as if women have forgotten that men respond to sexual market cues as well, and won’t just casually accept disadvantageous dating roles that leave them supine to women’s machinations.

I’ve noticed that as Western women have become masculinized and set adrift from their main purpose as nurturers and child bearers to ricochet down a rocky crevasse of careerism, multi-decade pump and dump victimization and pre-wall beta male settling, their desire, their need, to belittle men has increased. This need is likely born of frustration. And so we see them tossing around terms like “boys” and “guys” to avoid addressing their potential lovers and providers as “men”. Similarly, as Western men have become feminized and neutered of their ability to project dominance, their need to glorify women and accord their every trivial accomplishment or wayward musing a hero’s benediction has increased. The behaviors of the sexes are in the process of meiosis and reformulation, a classic switcheroo, and this is a harbinger of the end days of a cultural empire.

What the vapid feminist entity above confesses, perhaps unwittingly, is that chicks truly deeply honestly dig jerks. They dig jerks so much that they have to be counseled not to seek marriage with them, and to seek instead marriage to boring men who don’t viscerally excite them. For you see, it’s a myth that women don’t want the jerks for long term romances. They do. The problem is that the jerks don’t want to be tied down, especially not to unfeminine battle-axes who think their vaginas are gold-plated and their reality-denying stridency is evidence of their sexual worth.

A few very beautiful women — not the Salon interviewee — can successfully pursue an “alpha fux, alpha bux” dating strategy. This is the equivalent of hitting the jackpot as a woman. And in point of fact, beautiful women have fewer sex partners than their more modest-looking sisters. The reason is simple: when you have the goods, you are less likely to give them away for free. Beautiful women can capture — and keep — alpha male attention without resorting to leg-spreading enticement. Homelier women must spread… or accept loneliness.

But most women are not that beautiful. For the majority, an “alpha fux, beta bux” strategy will net them, if they are in reasonably good shape, a decade of fantasy-fueling sex and miserable relationships, culminating in marriage (and a bank-busting wedding extravaganza) to a doughy herbling who must know deep in his bones that he is paying dearly for damaged product which better men than he used for free back when it was fresh off the shelves. He must also know that his rode-worn beloved who is about to execute the final stage of her indentured beta male servant plan considers him a second-rate alternative to the lovers of her past. If women don’t think this galls the betas who must accede to these liberated, feminist-friendly conditions, they are in for a rude awakening when they discover how quickly the hubby herblings give up on life and on pleasing their cackling sow wives.

An “alpha fux, beta bux” dating strategy may sound, on paper, very pleasing to women, but pursuit of it is almost guaranteed to lead to frustration and bitterness for most women in the modern mating market. One, the natural order of things can withstand only so much subversion before the spirit breaks. An aging woman with an extensive sexual history will come to resent her unexciting diaper-changing bore of a husband with whom she settled, and he will resent her rapidly imploding sexual attractiveness, acidic demeanor and daily tacit reminders of his low status.

Two, men are not wind-up toys ready to do the bidding of manipulative women; those jerkboy fux and betaboy bux may refuse to play along. The sexual market is the collision of competing reproductive goals, and in that plunderdome of all against all, where the only guiding principle is self-interest, the jerkboys may not bother showing up for a date and the betaboys may decide the jerkboys are getting the better end of the deal, and adjust their behavior accordingly, perhaps in the arms of a mistress or porn. Or game.

A woman who plays this strategy to the hilt is taking a big risk that she will be left a destitute single mom or, at best, an unhappy and unloveable EatPrayLove commodity, an appendage to the dehumanizing globalist corporate borg, desirable to no one but the most desperate loser men or conniving schemers. And, looking around, this is what we see happening all over America. The crosstabbed and powerpointed nth wave modern feminist woman will realize, at the end of her long, exhilarating but empty journey, that her happiness as a woman was never amenable to her best-laid blueprints for the efficiently maximized love life.

Read Full Post »

Women Are More Emotional Than Men Because Of Biology

A reader keeps it real:

[T]he male brain experiences an acid flush about three months into gestation damaging the corpus callosum, or intermediary between the two hemispheres.  This makes women more prone to bounce around between hemispheres, and men more prone to focus cognitive energy to areas of the brain consistently.  Furthermore, the caudate nucleus, ventral tegmental area (VTA), limbic system, are shown to be up to three times larger and far more active in the female brain than in the male brain.  The combined over influence from irrational, emotional centers of the brain together with the propensity to bounce around frenetically between hemispheres, leads to a less rational, more emotional product.

And why would nature build women in such a manner?  Because, in accordance with CH axioms, nature has designed women to be more emotionally prone for the (main) purpose of child rearing.  Furthermore, the rapid oscillation between hemispheres allows them to parallelize household tasks in the home, i.e. taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, negotiating with other units in the tribe, etc.  Males on the other hand, have more inherent ability to focus.  That combined with a heightened depth perception made us more adept for the hunter gatherer role.  It goes without saying thus far, we are in complete agreement with CH maxims.

Blaming ‘gender inequality’ for the gender disparity in the sciences is equalist ego assuaging bromide proffering at its finest.

Much of game can thank biological sex differences for its inspiration. Women and men, on some very fundamental and relevant grounds, differ to the bone, and many of these psychological sex-based divisions are set in motion before birth. Instead of society or culture molding humans like clay into “gendered norms”, it is innate human biology which molds culture and society into manifesting observed sex differences. Further molding occurs as forces within the cultural fold exert amplifying or dampening effects on preexisting biological dispositions. But the culture will always reflect the biological basis of its people; it will never transform wholly into something the people are not. Or: You can’t make a Zimbabwe out of America without first swapping the Americans for Zimbabweans.

There is some reinforcing feedback between biology and the culture which biology births, and nations become strengthened (or weakened) by the best and worst genetic characteristics of its source material. As humans are bequeathed a certain degree of adaptation capability in response to environmental stressors, there can be cultural shifts to accommodate new and aggressive memes which themselves emerge organically from the biological substrate. Thus is belched from the bowels of hell the twin reality-denying Western ideologies of feminism and equalism.

But sex differences are powerful, more powerful and more fundamental than even cognitive differences between individuals or groups, issuing as sexual desire does from the more ancient hindbrain rather than the relatively recently developed forebrain. Even the most virulent memes can’t dislodge and replace sex-based desires, as we can see by the fact that men and women continue to differ radically in noticeable ways. Women have to understand that, contrary to the bitching of feminists, it is not a validation of their worth as women to strive for dominance in pursuits that have traditionally been the domain of men. (Traditions, we must note, which became established practice and unquestioned common sense because they grew out of intrinsic biological urges.)

Men must realize the opposite, as well — that they are not made more man by becoming kitchen bitches or doing more housework — but for now the propaganda campaign to push men into women’s pursuits is muted compared to the propaganda push of the feminist devolution to deny women the fulfillment of their feminine natures.

Women are more emotional, intuitive and illogical than men. Anyone who’s lived a day in his life knows this. In the worlds of corporate industry, war-making and invention, perhaps these traits are setbacks. But women should not be measuring themselves by those standards, the standards of men. They should seek succor in the standards of women, and there — in the worlds of family, social cohesion, lawfulness, empathy and child-rearing — women excel and men struggle.

There will always be among men those shut-ins, universalist heart-bleeders, and comfortably ensconced middle class herbs married to unchallenging frumps who deny or downplay the psychological differences between men and women to focus on the similarities. Yes, as members of the same species (barely), men and women are similar. Both sexes whore for status, both sexes want the best for their kids, both sexes prefer flattery to criticism, both sexes like a peck on the cheek before heading off to work. But beyond those human qualities, sex looms, in all its divergent, polarized energy, ready like a feral beast in the shadows to burst forth and maul the delusions of the most naive believers in a common humanity.

And from that realization, it’s just a hop skip and jump to noticing other divergent, multipolar differences between peoples. The shadow beasts are everywhere.

Read Full Post »

The Myth Of The Indiscriminate Alpha Male

Some readers took yesterday’s post as an opportunity to grind an axe about the supposed fact of alpha males rutting with undesirable females. Puzzlingly, a few readers credulously assumed the factual basis of the featured BDF’s (Bitter, Delusional Fattie) proof-free assertions that she has spread for the seraph rods of “Adonises” of “wealth and success” with “chiseled abs”, despite the BDF having a history as a hardcore delusionist spinning weird, often self-contradictory, fantasies on feminist websites.

Sorry, gullible readers, but this does not happen in real life, at least not nearly as often as fat, deluded shits trying to pump their sexual market value would like you to believe. Perhaps a reacquaintance with the rules of the sexual marketplace are in order:

1. Men prefer younger, hotter, thinner babes over older, uglier, fatter broads.

2. Men with options — aka alpha males — will exercise their freedom to date and fuck and even marry younger, hotter, thinner babes.

3. The sorts of men who date and fuck older, uglier, fatter women are men with fewer options, aka beta males and omega males.

I hope this clears things up. But if not, allow me to bring the abstract down to earth with a personal story.

I know a guy who possesses almost every single genetic and personality marker for high male mate value that a woman can dream of in her wildest fantasies — he’s charming, funny, top 2% looks, wealthy, mesomorphic, ambitious, has a certain amount of local fame, loves kids, owns a dog, stylish, seductive, and cocky — I mean, the dude is heaven sent for women, no homo. If he has a flaw it’s that he’s not very interested in romantic gestures, or putting much effort into pursuing women. It’s a flaw most women he dates are all too happy to dismiss as irrelevant. Mostly his “game” is to demonstrate social status by cracking jokes that get the whole group laughing, tease any hot girls nearby, pull back, and wait for them to throw themselves at him. He is very lazy about the follow-up and closing the deal, preferring instead to call it an early night, skip out on exchanging numbers or insta-dates, and walk home in anticipation of sex as the girl nips at his heels, eager to oblige. His laziness in regards the courtship of women means that he will often “slum it” with 7s and 8s rather than put in effort to get the 9s and 10s who would be ecstatic to assume the role as his natural prey. He is the perfect emblem of the “lazy cad”, iow.

In all the time I’ve known him (a long time), he has never, not once, not even a little bit, bedded a woman less than a 7. And when he has bedded a 7, he treated her with a summary cruelty that would be the envy of badboy loving feminists diddling their beans to female porn about sadistic billionaires. Worse still, when shameless BDFs like the chick showcased in yesterday’s post shower him with attention and practically beg for his cock, he stares at them coldly and arrogantly waves them away, as if to say “what in the hell makes you think you have a chance with me?” He does not disguise his contempt for the over-reaching, sexually aggressive BDF. Most alpha males don’t disguise their contempt, because to be approached with an almost open invitation for sex by a grotesquerie is a slap in the face, a denial of the alpha male’s high standing.

This is, I believe, an accurate reflection of the workings of the sexual market at large. True “Adonises” are not slumming it with gross pigs. They are ignoring them, totally, utterly, completely. That is, when they’re not ridiculing them for shits and giggles. Instead, the rare “Adonises” that BDFs claim to fuck are much more likely, upon closer inspection, to be revealed as simply chucklehead losers or, on very good nights, slightly higher value than bland, nondescript lesser betas. In all my forced acquaintances with these “Adonises” who were banging BDFs, the dude turned out to be much less than the BDF proudly advertised. And, along these lines, you have never seen a more wretched prototype of man than the omega orbiter who revolves around BDFs hoping for some of that fat slut love.

In reality, the following observations are the typical scenarios for low value women:

BDF 3s pumped and quickly dumped by male 4s or 5s, with a very lucky few once in a decade (or year, depending how depraved the slut allows herself to become) getting a shot at male 6 penis. And penis is all she will get.

BDF 3s getting short term flings with male 3s or 4s.

And BDF 3s getting long-term flings with male 2s and 3s, possibly male 4s, and most of the times with no men at all.

The rarity of the BDF 3 hooking up with a male 7 cannot be over-emphasized. It happens, but it happens so infrequently that it tells us nothing generalizable about the mating market. I have never seen nor heard of a male 8 or higher hooking up, even for a few seconds in a dark corner of a club, with a BDF 3, unless he was so blotto that he couldn’t clearly see the pig he was sticking.

Some readers will balk and offer Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hugh Grant as examples of alpha males who slummed it with ugly women. Yes, but the reason they are noted punchlines of jokes about indiscriminate horny men is because they are exceptions to the rule, and hence less forgettable than the hordes of alphas who only abide the love of hot babes. For every Arnie banging a Mexican maid on the DL, there are hundreds of Clooneys, DiCaprios, Pitts, Depps and Berlusconis who have a long, long history of banging only grade A ass. And let’s not forget that Arnie has been under the judgment-altering influence of steroids on and off his whole life, and if you have any experience hanging around meatheads on roids, you know that their powers of discrimination quickly yield to their wall-climbing horniness. I once knew a a guy on the juice who said his erections became so uncomfortably insistent that he would look at any hole, animate or inanimate, and wonder about ways to make it conducive to penetration. He was once caught masturbating into a gym towel in the locker room. No one paid him much mind, though, because apparently it is common practice among juicers to relieve themselves at the gym.

Other readers will claim that high testosterone makes men indiscriminate, and they will point to young men or black men as examples of “alphas” who will bone almost anything, thus vindicating the assertions of the BDF. Two problems with this: One, teenage youth — which is the age at which young men have the most free-flowing T and are presumably the most indiscriminate, is not in and of itself an attractive male trait to most women. Since women judge a man’s mate value on a suite of factors of which facial attractiveness is only one variable, it stands to reason that younger dudes out for a thrill would be lower value to most women. So their rankings, from the BDF perspective, would be lower than what she is claiming to score internet debate points. Two, most white women, which is what the BDF under discussion is, want to date and sleep with white men. They may claim their lovers are Adonii, but if their lovers are black men, the BDF is likely to feel that she is settling.

Black men are, not to put too fine a point on it, more willing than are men of other races to fornicate with the dregs of womanhood. I know there are brothers reading this site, and I know you know that I’m right. This point, along with accompanying scientific evidence, was made in the coda to yesterday’s post, so I suggest readers peruse it again so as to avoid these annoying redundancies. It is a horrible, viciously sadistic point I make, but it is a true point. If the black guys in the studio audience have a problem with it, they can start raising their standards and stop dumping in plumpers. I won’t be holding my breath.

Still more readers argue that every man goes through a dry spell, and it is during these periods that BDFs get their holes morosely plundered by alphas. Again, this claim falls under closer examination. First, alpha males have fewer and shorter dry spells than other men. They are rarely without the company of cute girls, so they rarely feel the need to dumpster dive. When they do experience the odd down time, they attempt to end it by aggressively pursuing… more cute girls! Second, beta males, who would be the natural constituent of BDFs looking to satisfy a hypergamous tingle for higher value men (remember, the omega male is the BDF’s SMV equal) are MORE likely to retreat to video games and porn than to recklessly dumpster dive with a fattie! Even betas have a sense of self-respect, arguably a greater sense than do alphas, for the beta is ever so closer to falling permanently into a BDF dating career track.

Finally, there are some readers who argue that alpha males dumpster dive a lot because “they just don’t give a fuck what people think”. Funny, this theory. Since when has a “don’t give a fuck” attitude been incompatible with adhering to standards for oneself? If anything, alpha male don’tgiveafuckness correlates highly with not giving a fuck about risking rejection from hot girls.

The bottom line is this: Alpha males, like all males, prefer thin babes. The difference is that alpha males have the power to fulfill their preferences, and they do. Betas and omegas are the men who must make sacrifices in quality, and who will occasionally dumpster dive because they feel more urgency to grab those infrequent opportunities when they arise.

And doesn’t that just get to the heart of it? Alphas make their opportunities. Betas mind their opportunities.

Nothing in this post should be taken wholly as a counterfactual to the above claims of BDF sexual opportunity. There is, in fact, truth to the notion that BDFs occasionally get their sloppy wet holes serviced by men somewhat higher in value than the BDF could be expected to realistically date in longer term arrangements. The issue I take with those readers who credulously (and curiously) buy BDF assertions of sex with Adonises is the lack of perspective they reveal about the relevance of sexual market hierarchy gradations.

Dumpster diving men above the omega male threshold do exist, but they are rarer than BDF fantasists assert. And they are not nearly as alpha as the typical BDF will eagerly claim in credulous company. Accidental real life meetings with the “sex toys” of BDFs usually confirm suspicions the BDF was lying to stroke her ego: The “lovers” are either black men who are gonna bolt in two days time, or they are white men who are way more beta, charmless, goofy, older, uglier and/or socially awkward than the BDF let on prior to public exposure of her “conquests”.

But even if the BDF gets her ego temporarily massaged by a parade of one night stands only one SMV point higher than herself, that is still enough pressure exerted on the mating market to skew the pairing up and pairing off outcomes. A one point SMV differential between herself and her regretful pumper can be enough to raise the expectations and entitlement of the BDF, and when a slew of these fly-by-nighters are accumulated, the BDF may actually come to believe her own bullshit. When that happens, omegas and lesser beta males who would be the rightful and natural heirs to the puffy sausage hands of BDFs come to find themselves passed over by these beasts who continue to trawl the singles scene hoping to capture the attention of an out-of-sight greater beta male.

The BDF who thinks herself a CSB (Certified Sexy Babe) is bad news for the nation’s betas, who are forced by circumstance of bloated BDF entitlement to put more effort into wooing women lower on the sexual market totem pole. Luckily, this is a self-correcting market skew, as the egotistic BDF who has not made a realistic reappraisal of her romantic worth is left, at last, lonely and unloved under the rubble of the wall that smashed down on top of her.

This is why game is so important for reasons beyond simply the promotion of techniques for snagging verifiably cute chicks; game is an invaluable market-correcting mechanism that redounds to the benefit of beta males who only wish to date IN THEIR OWN LEAGUE. Game opens pathways to hard 10s, and closes off dead ends to flabby 2s.

Read Full Post »

The “IKEA Effect” Supports The Game Concept Of Compliance

We’ll just begin this post with a preen.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥ *self-love* *self-love* ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Ah, that’s better.

Wait. Did you hear that? Someone out there thinks this preen invalidates the science that is about to follow. What a strange duck that person is.

Pick-up artists have a term called compliance, which is a game tactic designed to raise a man’s value relative to the woman’s value, and to gauge a woman’s interest level. The concept is simple: You make a request of a girl, and if she complies you know that she is attracted to you. Furthermore, the very act of complying with your request will cause her to feel more attracted to you.

Compliance techniques can be physical or verbal. The verbal forms are known as “hoops”, as in “jump through your hoops”. For instance, raising your hand and gesturing for a girl to grab it and twirl is a physical compliance test. Asking her to watch your drink as you take a bathroom break, or to participate in a mind game of your choosing, are verbal hoops.

Compliance is a powerful seduction technique, for two reasons: One, it is grounded in an accurate appraisal of human, and particularly female, psychology and, two, it is so rarely used by men (and so frequently deployed by women) that the man who co-opts it for himself is immediately more alluring to women.

While there appears to be no scientific study directly measuring the effect of female compliance on a man’s desirability, there has been an analogous study examining how labor compliance affects people’s feelings of love for the objects of their labor. It’s called the “IKEA Effect”, and the study concluded:

In a series of studies in which consumers assembled IKEA boxes, folded origami, and built sets of Legos, we demonstrate and investigate the boundary conditions for what we term the “IKEA effect” – the increase in valuation of self-made products. Participants saw their amateurish creations – of both utilitarian and hedonic products – as similar in value to the creations of experts, and expected others to share their opinions. […]

Adding to previous literature on effort justification, we also show that successful completion is an essential component for the link between labor and liking to emerge; participants who built and then unbuilt their creations, or were not permitted to finish those creations, did not show an increase in willingness-to-pay. In addition, our experiments addressed several possible alternative IKEA Effect explanations for the increased valuation that people hold for their own creations. We show that successful assembly of products leads to value over and above the value that arises from merely being endowed with a product, or merely handling that product; in addition, by using simple IKEA boxes and Lego sets that did not permit customization, we demonstrated that the IKEA effect does not arise solely as a result of participants’ idiosyncratic tailoring of their creations to their preferences.

What psychological mechanisms underlie the increase in valuation when participants self-assemble their products? In the introduction, we suggested that the increase in liking that occurs due to effort (Aronson and Mills 1959) coupled with the positive feelings of effectance that accompany successful completion of tasks (Dittmar 1992; Furby 1991) is an important driver of the increase in willingness to pay that we observe. Of course, effectance itself has multiple psychological components: actual control over outcomes and mere perceived control over outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Given that our participants are in “control” by building their own products yet assembling them according to preset instructions (i.e., “not in control”), further exploration of perceived and actual control is likely to lend insight into the IKEA effect. In addition, there are likely additional underlying mechanisms that vary by the type of product being assembled. For instance, the assembly of more hedonic products often results in the opportunity to display one’s creation to others (Franke et al. 2010). Indeed, many of our participants who built Legos and origami in Experiments 1B and 2 mentioned a desire to show them to their friends, suggesting that the increase in willingness-to-pay for hedonic products may arise in part due to the social utility offered by assembling these products. We suggest, however, that social utility is likely to play a more minor role in increased liking for self-assembled utilitarian products like the storage boxes used in Experiments 1A and 3, given that the social IKEA Effect utility gained from displaying products decreases as product complexity decreases (Thompson and Norton, in press). It is also possible that the enjoyment of the assembly task itself is a contributor to the IKEA effect – building Lego frogs is more fun than building storage boxes – such that task enjoyment is another contributor to valuation that varies by product type. Future research is needed to unpack what are likely to be multiple drivers of the IKEA effect.

We note that we used generally small ticket items, and the question of whether the IKEA effect occurs for more expensive items is important both practically and theoretically. While future research should empirically examine the magnitude of overvaluation as a function of price, we suggest that, even for very costly items, people may continue to see the products of their labor as more valuable than others do. For instance, people may see the improvements they have made to their homes – such as the brick walkways they laid by hand – as increasing the value of the house far more than buyers, who see only a shoddily-built walkway. Indeed, to the extent that labor one puts into one’s home reflects one’s own idiosyncratic tastes, such as kitchen tiling behind the sink that quotes bible verses, labor might actually lead to lower valuation by buyers, who see only bible verses that must be expunged – even as that labor leads the owner to raise the selling price.

This is a boffo study with wide-ranging implications for numerous human social dynamics, including the seduction of women. Parsing the academese, what the study says is this:

The more work (labor) you put into a project, the more you will value the outcome of that project, even if objectively the value of your output is not high.

This relates to game. The charismatic tactic of inducing female compliance is essentially the coaxing of women to perform labor on your behalf, and for your benefit. When a woman labors for you, (“Carrie, hold my scarf”), she has invested in you, and her love for her “project” (you) grows commensurate with her degree of labor aka investment. It sounds counterintuitive (Typical Blue Piller: “Why would a woman love a man more if he’s being demanding and she’s being accommodating?”), but that is the nature of male-female mating dances: the reproductive goals of men and women are at odds, so romantic interactions tend to resolve into counterintuitive, even paradoxical, strategies.

And how often have we all seen this strange predilection of female nature play out in real life? Watch any natural/jerk/douchebag/player and you’ll see his lovers bending over backward to please him. And when you ask a girl why she loves the jerk who squeezes blood from her stone, she defends him to the high heavens, much like an IKEA consumer will defend his rickety, self-assembled Nordbox to any who question its actual worth.

This is one reason why artists do so well with women. Though he may not be consciously aware of the biomachinations that fuel his seductive charms, the artist’s “demand” of a woman to “get his work” or “grasp his message” is basically a challenge to her self-valuation, and a challenge that requires of her some mental (or physical) labor to reaffirm. Fashion photographers, the straight ones at least, absolutely clean up with hotties because they put their exquisite models in a constant, elevated state of laborious challenge — do this, move here, drop your chin, look this way, stop looking that way — which heightens their feelings of arousal and love for the photographer. It is akin to the feelings evoked by the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome.

Making demands of women feels very unnatural to beta males because those men have little experience with women beyond that which is acquired by flaunting their ability to provide, sympathy mewl on cue, and show up on time. To beta males, the notion of arousing a woman to dizzying sexual cravings through the conduit of compliance testing is incomprehensible. The beta male invests in women; he knows no other way. The alpha male lures women to invest in him. He knows there is another way.

Read Full Post »

This House Is Clean (And Sex-Free)

Back in September of 2012, CH highlighted a study which showed that modern couples who share the housework are at far higher risk of divorce than couples where the woman does most of the domestic duties.

Divorce rates are far higher among “modern” couples who share the housework than in those where the woman does the lion’s share of the chores, a Norwegian study has found.

In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work.

Women have been claiming for God knows how long that they want a man who will do his share of the housework, but when he does, their vaginas dry up like the Sahara. You see, equality of the sexes is a myth. Women don’t *really* want equal husbands. What women want are strong husbands who don’t act like women, which means, in practice, not puttering around the house dusting, mopping, vacuuming, cooking, or doing the laundry.

Right on cue, feminists plugged their ears. The ones who stumbled into this happy hating ground tore at their pendulous breasts. Even the trolls had no room to maneuver a subterfuge.

As good as that post was, there is a new study out which may trump it in delicious equalist-eviscerating goodness. Following in the same vein as the study above, researchers discovered that married men who do more housework have less sex.

Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores — such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping — reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.

“Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage,” said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.

“Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks — such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance — report higher sexual frequency.” […]

“The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity,” Kornrich said.

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology. May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its divine directive.

This isn’t a truth borne of social constructs, or of cultural conditionings, or of privileges of privilege. It’s a truth woven into the fabric of our origin atoms, the glue that binds our helical commandments and reaches outward to breathe life into the monolith of our souls.

It is what is.

The “correlation is not causation” crowd will surely attempt a say with this study, but you know what? It won’t matter whether it’s a primarily correlational or causal force which accounts for the reality of this particular intrinsic sex-based dynamic. If you are a man interested in sparking your flailing marriage and reigniting your wife’s dying lust, and you have come here to the Chateau for guidance, I will tell you to put down the vacuum and laundry detergent and take up the power tools and lawn mower. Leave the womanly domestic chores for your woman, and the manly handyman chores for yourself. Do this, and your sex life will improve. I promise. And it won’t matter if it improved because you fixed a correlational or a causal upstream factor of your marital woes. You will have realigned the sexual polarity, and even a hardcore feminist’s vagina can’t resist the allure of that naturally evolved gender construct.

I really love these sorts of shivtastic studies. It’s almost as if Science approached the doors of Chateau Heartiste, asked to be let in, peered and poked around, and solemnly announced, “This house is clean”.

And if you are a sexy man, it will have been your wife who cleaned it.

PS Two of the authors of the original study are surnamed Sweet and Bumpass. Sweet. Bumpass. Sweet Bumpass. Yes. Sweet Bumpass? Meet Purple Saguaro. Sweet Bumpass and Purple Saguaro? Meet Skittles Man. Sweet Bumpass, Purple Saguaro and Skittles Man? Meet the Rationalization Hamster. And on the eighth day, CH rested.

Read Full Post »

Predicting How Married And Single People (Think They) Live And Love

Match.com is conducting its third annual survey on singles’ views and lifestyles, but this time they’ve included married people in their survey pool. The survey results will be released in a week. In the meantime, there is a video posted at the Match.com blog which has a sampling of the questions that were asked of respondents, and predictions by staff and randoms. Watch the vid and make your own predictions for how people responded to the survey questions. I’ve included my predictions below (based not on survey data but on personal experience  socializing with both single and married friends and acquaintances, and on my talent for reading between the pretty lies people say in polite company).

CH predictions for how men and women, singles and married people, responded to survey questions

“What’s the number one feature both men and women judge most on the first date?”

Men: Kindness.

Women: Confidence. (Or some similar variant thereof.)

(This question is interesting, because they are asking what people *judge*, not what people *check out*. Men judge women’s bodies and faces the most, but that judgment occurs before the first date, when the man first sees the woman. A first date usually means the man has deemed the woman’s body acceptable, so he is free to judge other things about her. Kindness happens to be that specific female trait that men value because it is a signal that she will be open to sex in the near future.)

“Who goes out more, singles or married people?”

Single men: Singles.

Single women: Married people.

Married men: Married people.

Married women: Singles.

“Who thinks about sex more, singles or married people?”

Single men: Singles.

Single women: Singles.

Married men: Married people.

Married women: Singles.

“What percent of single women would never date someone shorter?”

Men: 75% (average of answers).

Women: 40% (average of answers).

“How many times has the average single been in love?”

Single men: 1.5 times. (average)

Single women: 2.5 times. (average)

“Who does more pre-date “research” on Facebook, single men or women?”

Single men: Women.

Single women: Women.

“Who are singles less likely to friend on Facebook, their boss or an ex?”

Men: Boss.

Women: Boss.

“Who fantasizes more about co-workers, single women or men?”

Men: Single men.

Women: Single women.

“What do married people miss the most about single life?”

Married men: Freedom.

Married women: Excitement.

***

The usual caveat to take self-reporting surveys, especially answers from women, with a flat of salt applies. Remember, what women think and what their vaginas actually compel them to feel are two totally separate things. Nevertheless, it’s interesting in its own right to read how people perceive others conduct their love lives, or even how they perceive themselves in the conduct of their own love lives. Perceptions are the tuneful melodies people hum over the jackhammer rhythms of reality to soften the cacophony.

Read Full Post »