The Modern Sexual Market In A Picture

Met online? Check.

Beta herbling? Check.

Chubby American woman on the wrong side of 30? Check.

Pretentious SWPL photo? Check.

Rode the cock carousel until age limit was reached? Check.

Two people settling for each other when options have run out? Check.

From this article, a treasure trove of dating tawdriness and romantic bleakness confirming many CH maxims.

I was 30 years old, just out of a long-term relationship and no longer interested in playing the field. It was time to settle down with the right man, get married and start a family. At the urging of several friends (and my worried mother), a strategy was settled upon: I joined Match.com and JDate, a website for Jewish singles.

What followed was a series of bad dates worthy of a romantic comedy: stupid sexual remarks, too much alcohol consumed (by them). A surprising number of men high-fived me, for reasons that remain unclear.

You can read the rest at the link, if you have the stomach for it. Warning: it’s bad. Here’s a taste:

I quickly realized that the popular women seemed to know something I didn’t; they were clearly attracting the sort of smart, attractive professionals who had been ignoring my profile. Being hypercompetitive, I wasn’t about to let some bubblegum-popping blonde steal the neurotic Jewish doctor of my mother’s dreams.

Here’s some advice, ladies, straight from the lords of the Chateau, and you don’t even have to reverse engineer online dating by making dummy JDate profiles and Excel spreadsheets to benefit from this advice:

1. Don’t get fat.

2. Don’t be ugly.

3. Don’t act like a man or a bitter feminist.

3. Don’t wait until you’re over 30, rode hard and tossed away wet, to start looking for a serious partner worthy of marrying.

See how simple that is? 1,2,3,4. Voila, love! But I suppose the simplicity is the problem for you girls. There’s no way to hamsterize the advice into something palatable to your egos.

PS As a bonus, here’s some CH advice for the men:

1. Don’t be a beta.

2. Don’t act like a woman or a manboob.

3. Learn game, bust a move and date the women you really desire before you’re forced to settle for the above.

Yours in Yahweh,

CH

Read Full Post »

The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!

CH has been at the forefront of noting a trend among Western, particularly American, women toward masculinization. This “manning up” by secularized post-industrial women is prominent in both their physical features (fatter, manjaw-ier, bigger framed) and their personalities (bitchier, more entitled, less fecund, more prone to binge drinking). A theory was put forward that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, among other downstream effects they have caused, have pushed women away from their essential femininity, via exact mechanisms poorly understood as yet.

Genetic alteration does not seem a likely candidate, because it is mathematically impossible for alleles coding for manlier women to sweep through a large population in a couple of generations, unless some cataclysmic event were to wipe out the majority of people. Adaptation to cultural stimuli is likelier, though that leaves us wondering how it is culture can physically change the shape of women’s jaws to resemble Christmas nutcrackers. Some sort of biological insult, like a toxin or estrogen in the water or BPAs or high fructose fattening syrup, could be the culprit. Or maybe it’s an epigenetic phenomena — the response by protein-coding enzymes to environmental stressors, such as that of becoming financially self-sufficient, being surrounded by supplicating beta males, and riding the alpha cock carousel until closing time.

Some of you naturally will ask, “But are your personal suspicions supported by the evidence? Are American women really getting more masculine?” A fair question! And for that, we may turn to… science! (She pleasured me with science… ) A reader writes:

As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.

This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html

In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!

Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)

This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.

Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.

One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.

One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.

By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community.

“Power posing influencing behavioural outcome.” Now where have I come across that idea before? Hmm….. lemme think…. oh yeah!
YET AGAIN, science proves a core game concept. How about that? ♥♥♥♥♥♥

This reader’s inference — that the social expectations of feminism and the accumulated effect of grrlpower SWPL parents who push their daughters in the same direction as their sons induces physical as well as behavioral changes in girls and boys through hormonal mechanisms that tend toward androgynizing the population — deserves serious investigation. It’s time to pull out the calipers and assays and begin measuring the geometry of jaws and testosterone levels in Western women by generation and over lifetimes. If it is true that power posing influences not just behavioral but physical outcome, then we can boldly assert that

FEMINISM MAKES WOMEN MANLIER.

And that, my friends, will finally and once and for all, kill the rancid ideology deader than dead, because no woman in her right mind wants to be manlier. This bizarre epoch will come to be seen as a time when women were led so far astray that they became, socially and biologically, men. And men, for their part, became manboobs.

Read Full Post »

No One Is Entitled To Commitment

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up “a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.

Read Full Post »

What Kind Of Woman Cuckolds A Man?

Following hot on the crooked heels of yesterday’s BOTM nomination, a new study is out which gives support to the conventional wisdom that skanks, fugs and other assorted low value women are the ones most likely to employ the cuckold strategy (or, looking at it from a different angle, the ones least likely to be concerned with the consequences of impulsively cuckolding their boyfriends or husbands).

Menstrual Cycle Changes in Mate Preferences for Cues Associated with Genetic Quality: The Moderating Role of Mate Value

Abstract: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of mate value and fertility status on women’s implicit and explicit preferences for male traits associated with genetic quality. It was hypothesized that a woman low in mate value would experience greater fluctuation across her menstrual cycle in her preferences for characteristics associated with genetic quality than a woman high in mate value. Specifically, a low mate value woman during the non-fertile part of the cycle would experience a reduction in a desire for traits associated with health and reproductive success. To test the hypothesis, the college age female participants completed two measures of mate value and a self-report measure designed to gauge fertility status. Then the participants performed an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) designed to measure implicit associations with a male trait related to genetic quality and a questionnaire designed to measure their explicit responses to the same trait. As predicted, mate value moderated the relationship between fertility status and implicit preferences. […]

Inherent in Gangestad and his colleague’s reasoning about cyclic changes in [female] mate preferences is the proposition that the mixed mating [cuckold] strategy would be most adaptive for women who are unable to obtain mates that are high in both genetic quality and resources. Women who can attract both high genetic quality and resource rich males for long-term relationship have less need to acquire high quality genetic material through short-term mating. For this type of woman, the costs incurred from infidelity are less likely to outweigh the genetic benefits. An individual difference that is likely to play a pivotal role in woman’s ability to attract high quality mates is mate value (Fisher, Cox, Bennett, and Garvik, 2008). Although there are a variety of different definitions of mate value, most conceptualizations suggest that mate value is determined by observable characteristics that indicate the persons quality as a sexual partner (Kirsner, Figueredo, and Jacobs, 2003) and ability to increase the reproductive success of mates (Sugiyama, 2005; Waynforth, 2001). Not surprisingly, research has already demonstrated that a woman’s mate value influences many male behaviors and emotions, e.g., mate retention behaviors (Jones, Figueredo, Dickey, and Jacobs, 2007; Miner, Starratt, and Shackelford, 2009) and jealousy (Phillips, 2010). Further, numerous studies have found a woman’s perceived attractiveness influences her mate preferences (e.g., Feinberg et al., 2012; Little and Mannion, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2003; Vokovic et al., 2008).

It seems very probable that women who are low in mate value will have more difficulty in attracting long-term mates that possess both genetic quality and resources than women high in mate value. Hence, for low mate value females it may be adaptive to pursue a mixed strategy forming long-term relationships with lower genetic quality males and pursuing high genetic quality males for extra pair couplings. For these women, this is the best way to obtain the benefits of a long-term relationship and obtain high quality genetic material.

This is yet another study which validates scores of maxims propounded over the years by the Chateau for your reading pleasure. It’s almost as if being a layman simply observing how the world works with open eyes is as precise a method for discovering universal and lasting truths as being a credentialed scientist with a lab full of hardware drily measuring every jot and tittle of human interaction!

The study is very interesting in the details, both for what it reveals and for the inherent limitations it must work around, and I suggest you read all of it. Using a combination of explicit self-reporting and implicit association measures of attractiveness of stimuli (how desirable the men were to the women) and self-attractiveness (how desirable the women consciously and subconsciously thought themselves), the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that low mate value women — ugly, fat, crass, skanky hobags, or 3/4ths of American womanhood, in other words — are more likely to feel a desire to cheat on their beta male partners during their window of ovulation to acquire higher value male seed on the sly. Higher quality women — the cute babes PUAs target — are less likely to cheat or to feel a desire to cheat on their partners because they are the kinds of women who get what they want in a man, and are therefore more fulfilled with their romantic relationships.

(If you’re the type of person who enjoys aesthetic ornamentation on your dose of ugly truths, it helps to read this stuff while imagining a bulbous, half cyborg Cacodemon God of Biomechanics enthroned in the void firmament belching lube and smoke from his clanking flesh gears, cruelly laughing from his cosmic perch at his insignificant experimental human subjects toiling on earth below.)

As mentioned above, the study had to deal with some limitations present in the subject matter; specifically, the reliability of (explicit) self-reporting for measuring self-attractiveness, and the general reliability of implicit association tests. (Note that implicit association tests have been used to claim that white people are innately racist, conveniently forgetting the social context within which whites form their implicit associations, and the mitigating variables which influence them.)

On the first limitation, although women may be prone to overestimate their own attractiveness, it seems safe to conclude that such overestimation, because it presumably occurs in all test subjects, would still provide useful information on the relative rankings of all the women in the study. But that is of course open to debate. For instance, hotter women may be less apt to over-rate their looks, and may even downgrade them a bit to make uglier women feel better about themselves. (There are those people, too, who would assert that female beauty is subjective and thus unable to be accurately assessed, by either an observer or the subject. But those people are stupid.)

On the second limitation, although Implicit Association Tests are regarded as being less susceptible to “social desirability distortion” (i.e., peer pressure and social expectation to answer correctly), a problem arises that implicit feelings can vary based on hormonally-influenced or otherwise-influenced fluctuations in self-perception. Nonetheless, implicit association appears to be more trustworthy than explicit self-reporting, at least as regards the measuring of sexual desirability and sexual preference. As stated in the paper:

Contrary to the expectations, the study did not find the moderating effect of mate value when explicit responses were measured. Both high and low mate-value women expressed an explicit preference for muscular arms.

Why did mate value act as a moderator with implicit preferences but not with explicit preferences? One possibility is that the processes involved were operating without conscious awareness, limiting the participants’ ability to explicitly state preferences. Remember that an explicit preference is a positive or negative evaluation that is retrievable from memory and directs behavior. Whereas an implicit attitude is the product of positive or negative associations with an object (muscles) that can no longer actively be retrieved from memory. This explanation is consistent with the notion that many evolved processes operate passively without deliberate thought (Cosmides and Tooby, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 1989). Yet it is puzzling why participants would be able to explicitly state preferences influenced by the menstrual cycle but not by mate value. Another possibility for the divergence between implicit and explicit responses is that the participants’ were giving socially desirable explicit responses. The women may have believed that expressing positive attitudes towards the muscles was the expected or correct response, i.e., normal women should like muscles. Consequently, both the low and high mate value women gave positive explicit ratings of the muscular arms. On the other hand, the Implicit Association Test used to measure the women’s implicit preferences was able to detect the moderating role of mate value because the Implicit Association Test is less susceptible to this type of social desirability distortion (see Cvencek, Greenwald, Brown, Snowden, and Gray [2010] and Steffens [2004] for a discussion of Implicit Association Test’s resistance to response distortion).

Chateau Heartiste has been at the forefront inculcating the masses with some very valuable knowledge, primary among the oeuvre that men should never listen to what women say; instead they should watch what women do in order to learn what women really want in men. And this study, with its findings that there exists a discrepancy between what women explicitly self-report and what they implicitly feel, is another vindication of that hallowed CH principle. Recall that a woman’s brain has no fucking clue what her vagina is up to. Or, more precisely, women’s frontal lobes are not consciously aware of what their vaginas are feeling. For that, you must peer into their ids.

The sexual market works this way: on a subconscious level. In fact, it MUST work this way. It must, because it is the medium for the barter and trade of genetic material, the tiny, invisible Chief of Operations which is the ultimate beneficiary of all human motivation and goal-directed behavior. Dispiriting, sadistic, conscious awareness of the workings of the sexual market adds a level of unnecessary complexity that would not have been favored by natural or sexual selection.

So now you know… the rest of the story.

Moral of the study: Don’t marry a low value woman!

Better yet, don’t even bang a low value woman. If she gets pregnant and is unable to dupe her beta provider to stay with her and raise your illegitimate hellion, she may hit you with a paternity claim. But why would you bang low value women in the first place? If you’re that desperate or lacking in taste, porn is a more satisfying pressure release valve.

PS The study results show that high value women — aka hotter women — are not as subconsciously attracted as uglier women are, during the ovulation stage of their cycles, to bigger muscles in men. So if you are a womanizer who prefers the company of truly exquisite ladies, you don’t have to swole out to achieve your dreams. But if you like your broads a little slutty and road-worn, hit the gym hard. Probably explains why I see so many meatheads dating harsh-looking gym rats on the fast track to cougarville.

PPS This doesn’t mean muscularity, all else equal, won’t help you with the ladies. It just means that it’s one input among many which trigger female attraction modules, and it’s not as vital an input for attracting better looking, more feminine women as it is for banging out the substandard whores of pathetic cuckolds on the make for a fly-by-night injection of cad cream. Personally, I love the post-lift feeling I get, so I take some pleasure in knowing that I can exploit the flirty attentions of skanks to inspire jealousy, and improved sexual performance, in my sweeter lovers.

PPPS One other thing I would point out is that low mate value and IQ likely correlate. A beautiful woman is likelier to be smarter, and hence more conscientious and less impulsive (all these positive, K-selected personality traits correlate with IQ) than an ugly woman. So perhaps another unidentified operational factor that this study has uncovered is the notion that smarter girls grasp the negative consequences of cuckoldry better than do dumber girls, and are therefore better at resisting their temptations.

PPPPS You might also title this study “Ugly Chicks Must Settle for Beta Males, and That Makes Them Sad and Unfaithful”. Isn’t love grand!

Read Full Post »

Are The Cads Outbanging The Dads?

The dude who runs the Evo and Proud blog has an interesting post about earlier male maturation rates indicating that females may be favoring cads over dads as mates.

There is thus plenty of genetic variation for selection to act on. No need to wait for new mutations. But why would there be natural selection for earlier male puberty?

One reason is that early puberty is genetically linked to other sexual characteristics. In particular, a class of X-linked androgen receptor alleles is linked in males to aggression, impulsivity, sexual compulsivity, and lifetime number of sex partners and in females to paternal divorce, father absence, and early menarche (Comings et al., 2002). It is likely that these alleles also influence male pubertal timing, but research on this point is lacking—apparently because it is difficult to find a marker for pubertal maturation among boys that is as salient as age at menarche among girls (Ge et al., 2007). Early male puberty thus seems to be part of a “package,” or more precisely a reproductive strategy, that affects the way men go about finding a mate. Natural selection may favor one strategy or another, depending on the current cultural environment.

Is natural selection now favoring the “cads” over the “dads”? That might be what’s happening. As sexual relationships become less stable and shorter-term, women will ignore men who are oriented towards stable, long-term relationships.

I am on record as hypothesizing that two major sexual market shifts are pushing boys to earlier puberty: 1. Diversity and 2. Unrestrained female hypergamy.

Diversity of different groups of boys who mature at different rates would tend to favor the selection of boys with alleles for earlier maturity rates, given a sexual market that benefits sexually aggressive cads. Or, late-maturing k-selected boys will conform to the norm for r-selected early-maturing boys instead of the other way around, given a lack of cultural or circumstantial constraints on female sexual choice.

Female hypergamy — women’s desire to mate with the highest status men they can get, given what their looks and willingness to put out can afford them — is the complementary force that pushes evolution to select for earlier maturing, and thus more caddish, boys.

If earlier puberty among boys is real, no matter the cause, and is indicative of women favoring cads over dad, then core philosophical underpinnings and cultural analysis of the dating market found at Le Chateau Heartiste are validated in some measure.

You’ll notice I titled this post “Are the cads outbanging the dads?” That was deliberate, because there remain questions about whether cads are actually breeding more or less than dads. Outbanging is different than outbreeding. A woman could casually ignore potential beta dads throughout her teens and 20s (her prime years) for a sterile ride on the cock carousel with alpha males, only to settle down later with a beta male and bear him 1.8 children. Cheap and easy contraceptives thwart the natural procreation advantage that alpha males would normally have over beta males in the state of nature, so it is very possible that alpha males could be winning the Banging Sweepstakes while losing the Breeding Sweepstakes.

Evidence that cad outbanging and supercharged female hypergamy is occurring resides in the later age of first marriage rates, and the lower overall marriage rate, as well as the higher STD rates among women.

And there is evidence for cad outbreeding as well. Serial monogamy — which is a form of soft polygyny — is on the rise, and men who have had more than one partner have more children than men married to one woman.

On the other side of the debate are the GSS (General Social Survey) gurus who marshal self-reported evidence that dads are winning the breeding wars over cads.

I remain skeptical of the GSS data, but give it its due. My contention has never been that cads are having more children, but rather that cads are having more premarital sex than dads with higher quality (read: better looking) women when those women are in their sexual primes. This, not the discrepancy in fertility rates between alpha and beta males, is the contraceptively-aided shock wave that is roiling the sexual market and upending organic rules thousands, perhaps millions, of years old.

A society of both cad ascendence and civilization is unsustainable and incompatible. One or the other will go, and the pendulum with either swing back to dads or civilization will regress to accommodate the rise of women choosing cads. All social and economic indicators (particularly the debt overhang), and my personal experience in the bowels of the dating market, lead me to be pessimistic about a happy resolution to this building tension. Hopefully, I’m wrong, but in the meantime I’ll do what is necessary to secure my pleasure.

Read Full Post »

Fat Women And Fat Men Aren’t Equally Repulsive

Marriage is more satisfying when the wife is thinner than her husband.

[M]en who had a higher Body Mass Index than their wives (calculated from a person’s height and weight) were a little happier at the outset than those who had the same or a lower BMI. This advantage was maintained throughout the period.

What is more it appears it’s not just the husband who is happier if his wife is thinner.

How heavy the husband was didn’t play a role in happiness at the start of the study for the wives.

However, by the end of year four, the wives whose BMI was lower than that of their husbands were significantly happier than those who had the same BMI, or a higher one.

These finds held true even when other factors such as depression and income level were ruled out.

The researchers from the University of Tennessee speculated that physical attractiveness was a more important quality in a partner to younger men.

This is yet more evidence that physical appearance in a potential mate is less important a criterion for women than it is for men. Fat chicks suffer a graver penalty in the sexual marketplace than do fat men. And slender babes who fulfill the sexual polarity directive — that is, women who are more naturally feminine and relish their roles as such within relationships — are happier than women who look and act more like their men.

Is there anything feminism ISN’T wrong about?

Read Full Post »

Economic Game Theory Support For Male Relationship Coyness

A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.

Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.

The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we’re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.

In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn’t and he’s looking for commitment or he’s not. Therefore, he’s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.

Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There’s no apparent upside to guy D.

That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man’s dating outlook?

• guy A: he’s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
• guy B: he is incapable of commitment
• guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
• guy D: he’s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I’m not in his league)

Guy B is an interesting case, but I don’t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he’s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can’t get it from guy B. That said, he’s better than desperate guy A.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It’s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don’t chase game.

• guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don’t chase game
• guy D: indirect only; don’t chase game only

If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you’ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don’t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.

You can also simulate a “seek no commitment” outlook by treating the woman poorly.

An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.

You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.

If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.

And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.

If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.

If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women’s senses and so fulfilling to women’s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.

Best case scenario for men who can’t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it’s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being “too nice”.

So far, so good. But… I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman’s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to “chase” an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don’t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.

I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.

Read Full Post »