More Scientific Evidence That Chicks Dig Jerks

A reader writes, “We’re getting close to definitive proof that (most) chicks dig jerks.” Yes, we are.

Single women had their brains scanned as they looked at photos of men. The pictures had been subtlely altered to make the men’s faces more or less masculine.

The more masculine faces won out in terms of attraction — but the areas of the brain that were activated indicated these faces were also ones the women found most threatening. [ed: :shock:]

The group found a few interesting results. First, compared with the feminized faces, masculinized faces led to more activity in five specific brain areas: the left superior temporal gyrus, bilateral precentral gyrus, right posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral inferior parietal lobule, and bilateral anterior cingulate cortex. These areas have been implicated in face processing as well as the assessment of risk, suggesting that, consciously or not, masculinized faces are perceived as not only more attractive but also more dangerous. The effect was quite robust considering just how slightly the faces had been morphed.

Let that sink in. Brain scans prove that women are attracted to threatening men. The female hamster has just been CAT-scanned, x-rayed and magnetically resonanced, and the wicked truth behind all the feelgood claptrap and feminist boilerplate is revealed for the world to gaze upon with eyes half-shut at the gruesome sight, repulsed and yet fascinated:

Chicks dig jerks. Assholes. Douchebags. Dangerous motherfuckers.

Another clue Rihanna may be getting back together with Chris Brown … the two partied at the same club at the same time last night … AGAIN.

Chris and Rihanna were spotted at Avenue nightclub in NYC. Sources at the club tell us the two were in the club together for roughly 30 minutes … and Brown spent some time hanging out at Rihanna’s table.

I’m fond of saying the boner doesn’t lie. The same could be said of lit-up neurons; hard to fake that funk.

I predict there will be much gnashing and flapping of labia from the usual suspects (manboobs included) about this latest study to prove that chicks love the badboy. But the evidence is irrefutable and really beginning to pile up that women are hard-wired to tingle for a dark triad.

For those of you who insist — INSIST, damn you! — that they’ve never needed to be an asshole to get women, I’ve only this to ask:

When was the last time you successfully picked up a hot, young woman?

HOT

YOUNG

Get it?

If you’re married to a frump, a plain jane, a cow (and odds are, you are), a has-been… well, no wonder you don’t need to be a jerk to keep her around. She’s got no options. She’s just grateful a man is willing to stick with her.

But the chicks with options… the ones who can pick and choose from among many men… the IN-DEMAND ones… they love the dickish dick.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I’ve never gotten more radical, more INSTANT, positive results when hitting on cute babes than when I deliberately amped up my asshole vibe. I mean, to the point of nearly insulting them. Eyes brightened and sparkled, legs uncrossed, fingertips danced all over my arms. And these were the upper class smart chicks with multiple degrees.

If you *have* to choose between being a niceguy and a total dickwad when picking up high value women…

ALWAYS err on the side of dickwad.

Read Full Post »

Do Fat Girls Get More Sex?

A reader whose contributions carry more weight than the offerings from the rabble emailed the following about fat chicks and the amount of sex they do, or do not, get:

[I]t is a consistent finding that fat women tend to have more, not less, sexual partners than thinner women.  Poor impulse control etc. So, that explanation for late female virginity seems totally implausible.

The reader is referring to a speculation I made in this post that higher virginity rates among educated women may be skewed by the ENLARGING population of fat chicks who have a harder time convincing men to rut with them. The study he links to finds evidence that fat girls have more “sexual encounters with men than [do] normal-weight women.”

I find this interesting because it contradicts other studies I have read that concluded the opposite. For instance, here’s one that found obese French women were 30% less likely than thin women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. (Maybe French men have more dignity? Or fat French women more shame? Either way, it proves the French are superior to Americans on at least one moral metric.)

So, are fat chicks getting laid more or less than sexier slender babes? Evolutionary theory regarding the evolved mating preferences of the sexes actually offers plausible explanations for both assertions to be true. On the one hand, we have plenty of evidence that men prefer fucking and dating young, slim, BMI 17-23, 0.7 waste-hip ratio women because these attributes signal that the women are maximally fertile, and thus more likely to pass on a man’s genes. Since men prefer these kinds of women, it stands to reason that fat chicks would attract less sexual interest from men, and experience greater rates of involuntary celibacy.

On the other hand, we can presuppose, using evo-psych theory, that fat women are more likely to put out quickly and to offer more sexual access (read: orifices) to men because that’s the only way they can compete with the better-looking thin women who tend to leverage their beauty by making men demonstrate more signs of investment before being permitted to tap that ass.

Of course, both mating market dynamics could be at work, but one more efficiently than the other. If, say, there are more fat women willing to go all the way right away than there are men unwilling to ever bang a fat chick, the overall trend will be towards fat chicks getting laid more than thin chicks. Plus, throw in the fact that the obese population of American women is nearing 50%, at which point the planet earth begins to wobble out of its orbit, and you could make a strong case that American men have highly constrained choices in the sexual market and are thus forced to choose between masturbation with their height-weight proportionate hands and dumping a shameful fuck in a smegma-ringed porkhole.

Another way a skewed desirable female market could affect the sexual encounter ratio between fat women and thin women is by making thin women so spectacularly high value that they are able to pretty much command the price at which they reward their sex. In practice, this means the few thin chicks will hold out for a long time until they find the alpha male willing to wait and buy and wait for a life-giving gulp from the oasis of their sexiness. In a roomful of slutty fat chicks, the cockteasing hourglass-shaped girl is queen.

Finally, a sexual market that is filled with fatties will tend to lessen the shame that each individual fatty feels about her grossness; c.f. the fatkini “revolution”. When you are one fatty in a sea of hotties, you will know the excruciating feeling of being an outcast and, at best, invisible to men; at worst, cruelly mocked by them. But when you are one fatty amongst many fatties, and the sexy chicks are in the minority, you won’t be an outcast. Your friends and those around you will be just like you. Strength in numbers means you will hold your triple chin high, and your gorilla gut out proudly, giving desperate men who, in a normal functioning market, wouldn’t deign to speak to you for a second, an unreasonable amount of shitty, entitled attitude. You will imagine your blubber is attractive to men because Cleon the methhead got really drunk and horny one night and wooed you with a compliment about your “big, beautiful titties.” You will feel no shame undressing before a man with the lights on.

None of this says anything about the *quality* of the relationships that fat chicks get. As the first study states:

“These are very objective measures,” she said of the current data. “It probably begs for more qualitative studies … to better understand the quality of relationships.”

That’s a nice way of putting it. Fat chicks might be getting a lot of sex, but they are probably not getting a lot of love, if we measure love by signs of male investment and length and intensity of commitment. And for women, happiness and a feeling of success at life is found in love, not sex, the latter of which holds hardly any value for women because it is so easy for them to get, relative to the hoops men have to jump through to get laid.

The question of whether fat chicks get more or less sex than slim chicks remains an open one. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute much in the way of anecdotal support for either hypothesis, because my interactions with fat chicks have been extremely limited. By choice. And isn’t that the crux of the whole debate? In a world of real options — real, attainable choice — 99 out of 100 men are going to choose the slender babe over the shambling she-hog

EVERY

TIME.

That’s how you put a self-professed, proud fatty fucker to the test. Forget what he says. If he is approached for sex by two girls, one fat and one thin, and no one’s watching him, he’ll bang the thin one. Naturally, in real life, he won’t have that choice, because most fatty fuckers are losers who have no chance with slender girls. The exceedingly few men who would choose the fatty over the slim girl are freak outliers that serve to prove the rule rather than discredit it.

What does this all have to do with game? In countries with more fat women, your game will have to be very tight indeed, if you don’t want to be put in a position of choosing between porn and beast mounting.

Read Full Post »

Game, Kino, Science: Choose Any Three

If you aren’t touching women early and often during a pickup attempt, you’re handicapping yourself.

Even non-sexual social contact can raise body temperature.

Researchers at the University of St Andrews found that non-sexual social interactions with men caused a noticeable rise in the temperature of a woman’s face, without them even noticing. […]

Lead author Amanda Hahn, explained, “We used a thermal camera to record skin temperature during a standard ‘social interaction’ where we measured participants’ skin colour at ‘non-personal’ (i.e. the arm and palm of the hand) and ‘personal’ (i.e. the face and chest) locations on the body. The thermal response was dramatic when the male experimenter made contact at ‘personal’ locations.”

While it may not be surprising that people have a physiological response to social contact, the size of the reaction was surprising. Hahn commented, “We observed some women whose facial temperature increased by an entire degree (Celsius) during interaction with the male experimenter.

“This thermal change was in response to simple social interaction, without any experimental change to emotion or arousal. Indeed our participants did not report feeling embarrassment or discomfort during the interaction.”

The study, published later this month in Biology Letters, shows that gender alone influenced the reaction of women, who showed no response to interaction with other women.

Sexual arousal and body temperature fluctuations (the literal manifestation of “buying temperature”) are intimately entwined, so much so that neglecting to elicit body temp spikes in women will make the process of seducing them more difficult. If your hands aren’t exploring a woman’s body while talking to her, you are flirting with the disaster of getting friend-zoned.

It’s already been demonstrated that touching a woman lightly on the arm will increase the odds that she will give you her number. Now we have scientific evidence that touching will dramatically raise a woman’s body temperature, especially in the facial region. Note that the women in the study did not respond to the touch of other women; it was only the wandering hands of men who got them flushed in the face. Note also that none of the women claimed to feel discomfort when the men touched them; their body temp rise was unrelated to any feeling that they were being threatened or their personal space was being invaded.

The difference in temperature rise between getting touched on the palm/arm and the chest/face was large, although there was a small rise elicited from simple arm touching. Game theory is very clear on the importance of kino and how it should progress (by “escalation”), so these studies are simply gravy on top of what is already experimentally proven by thousands of men running game in the field. To recap:

– It’s better to touch a girl more than you think is comfortable than to avoid touching too much because you think it would make a girl uncomfortable.

– Always touch sooner rather than later, and more often rather than too infrequently.

– Begin your touching on innocuous parts of a girl’s body, like the forearm and hand, and gradually move to more erogenous zones of her body, like the small of her back, the upper arm, the thigh and even her face. Also gradually increase the duration and pressure of your touching.

– The “slow boiling frog” principle is at work here. If you move too quickly from “safe zone” to erogenous zone, you might spook a girl. But more gradual kino escalation will allow you to touch “danger zones” with impunity.

– Don’t touch extremely charged body areas in public spaces. There’s too much risk of activating a girl’s anti-slut mechanism. Save the petting for private areas.

I’ve often wondered (well, not that often) why, if kino is critical to success with women, so many beta males (who, as a reminder, occupy the bulk of the male population) are so skittish about touching women? Now I have a theory. Lacking the confidence of their caddish convictions, it makes sense to betas to avoid boldness in action with women who are less likely to assume their impertinences. There is a real risk, in other words, of a crippling incongruency should the beta male decide to kino with a fury without the requisite overconfidence to sway the ladies and gird his fortitude.

From the female perspective, instinctively welcoming kino at a deep physiological level — that is, readying herself for sex in the most shamefully unfeminist manner — is actually a sub-subconscious biological shit test that signals to a girl who among the men hitting on her has the alpha goods. If her vestigial vellous hairs rise automatically at the touch of a man’s hand, any man’s hand, and her cheeks glow a rosy hue, then it’s a simple evolutionarily-greased leap of logic to be more open to the entreaties of men cocksure enough to touch her than to the hovering hands of “creepy” beta males. The act of touching — especially if exercised with devil-may-care élan — is sort of a preselection for alpha attitude that women use to screen men into despondent categories of desirable and undesirable.

As always, a jaunt through the female hamster brain is illuminating. We’ll compare what escapes like a hissing balloon out of a termagant feminist’s mouth to what the gentlehamster underneath it all actually thinks.

Asply-coiled feminist: “Unwanted touching ANYWHERE on my body is sexual harassment!!”

♥Hamster♥: “I can’t explain in socially approved turns of phrase why I feel closer to this guy.”

Misfiring pistoned-feminist: “You WILL respect my boundaries!”

♥Hamster♥: “This guy hasn’t touched me once in a half hour of talking to me. So much respect, but so little chemistry.”

Yoko Ono in a chokehold mid-warble feminist: “Check your male privilege at the door!”

♥Hamster♥: “This man is very comfortable touching me. That shows confidence. Which must mean he has a lot of experience with women. Which really turns me on.”

♥♥Hamster’s hamster♥♥: “…thus improving the odds that any son I have with this man will grow up to inherit the same pussy slaying skills, spreading my genes yonder and hither.”

As most of you are beta males, you should take this post to heart and begin training your reflexes away from automatic discomfort at the thought of touching women and toward taking liberties with their personal spaces. You may think you are disrespecting women, but in fact you are respecting their vaginas. Don’t be surprised if, after a few months of violating every known feminist taboo, you wind up not in a diversity seminar, but between the sheets with a very satisfied woman.

Read Full Post »

Women Want To Be With Men Less Physically Attractive Than They Are

A reader quizzically wonders about something I asserted:

I was reading the post about men’s smarts and their value. You made a comment about women not wanting a guy hotter than themselves. I understand what you meant, but wondered how far you could carry that logic.

That is, women do not want a man who is hotter than her because hotter women will hit on him and she has a fear he might step up to a new woman. Having said that, is the implication that the hotter women will go for lesser looking men?

The examples I see are Goldie Hawn, being with Kurt Russel. Russel is an alpha male, as demonstrated by his life, but his boyish looks died years before he got with her.

Another is Demi Moore, in that for years, she was with Bruce Willis…another alpha male, but whose looks were never on the Ashton Kutcher level. Speaking of which, I suspect it was him who made the split…and that she is batshit crazy. But, that also points to the fact that after she hit the wall is when she went for the looks guy over the alpha male.

What are your thoughts?

Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are were the notable exception to the rule — there is a lot of talk about them in the media and amongst wishfully thinking aging cougars because their arrangement is was so rare and, hence, conspicuous. But as the invisible groin of the sexual market worked its self-regulating magic, Kutcher eventually cheated on his older lover with a bevy of much younger cuties, driving Moore insane with self-loathing and fear of her rapidly encroaching sexual obsolescence (which she desperately tweeted to the world in the guise of blurry, half-naked bathroom shots). Who can blame a prowly has-been?

Nevertheless, it is absolutely the case that most women prefer men, at least for long-term relationships, who are not physically better-looking than they are. The matter was discussed in this archived post. The referenced scientific study provided evidence for the curious real-world observation that there are a nontrivial number of couples featuring average looking men with cute chicks hanging off their arms. And the phenomenon of downright ugly men with beautiful women is, based on my steely-eyed observation, a good ten-fold more common than the inverse.

New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.

There are a few reasons for this sex differential in attractiveness criteria, some of which were mentioned in the study. I’ll clarify.

1. Very good-looking men have more opportunity to stray, so less attractive women would not want to risk being with them out of fear of investing themselves only to lose to a hotter interloper.

2. Very good-looking men have higher testosterone than less physically attractive men, and are thus more likely to pursue extrapair fornications. Women instinctively know this, and the less attractive of them avoid dating much better-looking men, influenced by their visceral grasp of the relationship power imbalance.

3. Men place more emphasis on women’s beauty than women place on men’s looks, and this innate predilection manifests as a willingness (and a honed ability) by men to strive harder than women for mating and LTR opportunities with relatively hotter opposite sex prospects.

But the most important reason, I believe, is egoism.

4. Men and women love to enjoy the privileges of their greatest strengths. It brings them happiness. For women, this means that they love the feeling of power that their beauty gives them. A woman who is with a better-looking man has that power robbed from her in subtle and in sometimes transparently humiliating ways; she has to deal with the attentions of female competitors, the attention her lover gives to female competitors, and the unspoken, but not any less felt, degradation of her number one asset. When a woman can’t leverage her beauty because the better-looking man she is with doesn’t value it as much as a less attractive man would value it, she loses a sense of purpose to her life.

It’s a similar dynamic to the stay-at-home dad married to the breadwinner wife. Maybe he thinks he scored by marrying a rich woman who can give him an easy life dusting up around the house, but over time nagging doubts about his masculinity and his wife’s faithfulness — even if she gives him no reason to doubt her fidelity — will eat away at his self-esteem. He will drift into an ennui of purposelessness and dreamscapes of receding chins and pendulous manboobs, because the soul-enriching feeling that comes with being able to leverage the natural male power which resides in providing, leading and dominating will have been stripped from him. Subcutaneous machinery of self-doubt will gradually shred well-intentioned insistent, mutual professions of love.

The reader asks if hot women will go for lesser looking men. The answer is that hot women will go for higher status men: an evasive answer befitting a misguided question. Women won’t actively seek out uglier men, but they will feel imperceptible compulsions to avoid dating men better-looking than themselves, which ultimately means that many women will wind up in the arms of less physically attractive (but perhaps higher status!) men. The study linked above suggests that all women, not just hot women, will gravitate into LTRs with men who are less good-looking compared to themselves. And they will be happier for it.

The study also implies women are more open to an uglier man’s game than men are open to flirting with uglier women. While ugly men won’t turn women’s heads, a bold ugly man can overcome the obstacle of his ugliness with the right attitude and seduction skill set. This is only true because physical ugliness is not the crippling deficit to a man’s dating success that physical ugliness would be to a woman’s dating success. It’s a difference of degree so pronounced that it almost qualifies as a difference of kind.

This doesn’t mean you can be an ugly man and expect hot babes to line up for the ego-boosting thrill of your comparative ugliness. You’ve still got to offer something women value, whether that’s money, charm, talent, game or social status. But it does mean that you can, and should, do better than your ugly looks have conditioned you to believe, particularly if LTRs are your goal.

This is all very good news for those uglier men who think game can’t help them date a point or two higher up the female attractiveness scale.

Maxim #214: Most men can get cuter girls than they think. False psychological projection of their own sexual attraction mechanism onto women blinds them to this reality.

High Fructose Postscript

Some of you have no doubt heard stories about, or experienced for yourself, women who seem to go for nothing but looks when choosing which men to date. You’re not imagining things. A minority of women — I’d estimate 10-15% of the fertile female population — place excess emphasis on men’s looks, almost on a par with the emphasis that men place on women’s looks. These women tend to be more masculinized than the typical woman. They aren’t necessarily unattractive, but they are less feminine than their curvier sisters. They usually have small tits and narrow hips, although their asses can retain their juiciness. They have manly personalities and are argumentative and horny all the time. They cheat without remorse. The sluttiest slut I’ve been with was one of these types who gun for the hottest guys in the room, and couldn’t be trusted as far as I could jackhammer her. (Which, proud to say, was clear across the lengthwise distance of the bed.)

If you meet one of these types, jump for joy. You’ve just gotten a ticket to ride her with minimal investment. They like sex, and they are easy to justify dumping for more loyal, less sexually predatory women. Be mentally prepared to catch her cheating, so when the inevitable parting of ways occurs, it’ll be no skin off your nose.

Interestingly, I have a pretty good hunch that a lot of female readers of sex-related blogs written by men, like Le Chateau, fall into this “looks-centric” masculinized female category. This explains the outsized vocal insistence by this minority of blog-traversing women that male looks are the most important thing in their suite of attractiveness criteria. Some of them are likely lying to score troll points, but some are telling the truth. Nevertheless, keep in mind that these women do not represent the majority of women you will meet in real life, offline. Most cute girls will not consider your average looks a dealbreaker, if you have some decent game or other compensating trait to woo them.

Read Full Post »

Identifying The Self-Centered Girl

BD writes:

[W]hen I first learned of game, I saw the videos of these dudes and thought what fags these dudes looked like! I wondered if these feminine-sounding PUAs actually liked the women or they were just playing a fun game like dress-up or doll-house.

A few posts back I submitted a link to a study that showed how women talk can reveal how self-centered they are (I can’t find or remember link right now) by using “I” so much. Ex. Upon asking them what the weather will be like tomorrow, they could say, “It will be cold,” or they could say, “I don’t know; I think I heard on the television it would be cold.” The girl that answers the first way isn’t self-centered. The girl that answered the second way, using three instances of “I” is self centered. Watch a group of hot girls talk. What’s the first response each of them says after one of their friends says something? It’s, “I know, I know right!” Isn’t that a trip!

So, I can neg the group with this concept in a masculine way, but when I highlight the examples of how women answer questions to reveal their self-centeredness, I can go all gaylike on them and mimic their feminine responses. Win/Win.

People like to talk about themselves; it’s fun and it makes us feel happier. The problem with identifying the self-centered girl in any group is that there are so many of them. Where to begin? Most women are self-absorbed by nature; it comes with the territory when you are, biologically and hence psychologically, the more valuable sex. This is why women should never have been given the vote; when the world revolves around you, it’s not a huge rationalization leap to decide that the world owes you lots of gimmedats.

But there are girls who defy even the bounds of their own sex and exhibit a level of conceit and self-focus that would shock even a bar top dancing whore. It behooves the master hamster seducer (where all seductions must begin) to know who these girls are, for they can be your greatest ally if harnessed correctly, or your worst enemy if left untended.

Find out which girl in the group is the most self-centered by listening for overwrought first-person singular pronoun usage, but also by watching for which girl is constantly interrupting someone else’s conversation to interject her opinion or exclamation, or which girl is moving her body forward into the group’s center of mass to draw attention to herself. This is the girl who will assuredly cockblock you if you don’t take preemptive countermeasures. (Example: “Who brought their attention-seeking little sister along?”)

Unusually self-centered girls are narcissists par excellence, and they love “screening” men for their friends and playing matchmaker, when they aren’t actively stealing those men away from their friends. This eternal cycle of drama feeds their insatiable egos, for the girl who self-loves more than she loves has a paradoxically fragile ego that requires a steady injection of external validation to keep it respirating.

BD’s suggestion to neg the ego-driven girls by mimicking their female solipsism is an ancient craft, and one I’ve used many times. Girls love it when you make fun of their girl-isms, and this can be in the form of aping their words or their mannerisms (easy to do if you have observed enough girls socializing and have a handle on their gender’s peculiarities). This is another one of those rapport-building techniques that is so powerful it can be easily overdone. Just a little to spike buying temps, and not more, or you risk sounding like a clown. And a gay clown, at that.

Or you could dispense with all this keen psychological acumen, and just drop a killa line on a girl like the one my buddy uses on occasion: “Does this fine pocket square smell like chloroform to you?” 1% of the time, it works every time.

Read Full Post »

Quality Vs Quantity, Formula Version

Ah, that perennial conundrum. That gavel of masculine judgment. Does the quality or the quantity, or both, of women that a man beds determine his alpha mojo? The hosts have graciously elaborated on this topic in the past, which should have been the final word, but not all of the world’s 7 billion people have yet stayed a night at the Chateau to wake in the morning infused with the knowledge of the Celestials.

Any guy who claims to have game but picks up hundreds of circus freaks a year will be a laughingstock. And the boastful guy with few notches who claims to know everything about women because he’s been dating his cute high school sweetheart his whole life will similarly be mocked.

To put it in logical terms easily grasped by the aspies among us (first number in each series refers to penis-in-vagina notch count unless otherwise noted; second number refers to female attractiveness rating on a 0-10 scale):

Stiff autumn breeze <more alpha than> 100 0s

Unlubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 hundred 1s <more alpha than> 200 0s

Couch crease <more alpha than> 100 2s <more alpha than> 200 1s <more alpha than> 300 0s

Lubed masturbation <more alpha than> 100 3s <more alpha than> 200 2s <more alpha than> 300 1s <more alpha than> 400 0s

Barely legal porn-assisted masturbation <more alpha than> 100 2s <but less alpha than> 100 3s over a two month time span

Handjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 10 3s

Blowjob by a 4 <more alpha than> 15 3s

Chandelier swinging, titty fucking, throat gagging, motorized defiling, publicly violating, video recorded facialized money shotting, post-coital sammich making, never see her again sex with a 4 <more alpha than> 50 missionary style 3s

Fleeting glance from a 10 <more alpha than> 100 1s

Handjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 1,000 1s

Blowjob by a 10 <more alpha than> 10,000 1s

Sex with a 10 <more alpha than> 100,000 1s

Anal sex with a 10 <more alpha than> Infinity 1s

100 5s <more alpha than> 100 4s <more alpha than> 500 3s

50 6s <more alpha than> 100 5s

40 7s <more alpha than> 100 6s

30 8s <more alpha than> 100 7s

10 9s <more alpha than> 100 8s

1 10 <more alpha than> 3 9s

LTR with a 10 <more alpha than> one night of sex with a 10 <more alpha than> LTR with an 7

One night of sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Rotating harem of multiple LTRs with 100 5s and 6s <more alpha than> One night stands with 1,000 4s

LTR with a 0 <more alpha than> Nothing

Serial LTRs with 5 10s <more alpha than> One night stands with 100 9s <more alpha than> Lifelong monogamous LTR with an 8

Unmarried, cohabiting, child-free, sex-gorged LTR with an 8 <more alpha than> Once-a-month married sex with a 9 <more alpha than> Once-a-day married sex with a 7

Unmarried, commitment-free, responsibility-absolved, sex-on-demand with a cast of 1,000s of faithful 10s wearing kneepads and schooled in the culinary arts <more alpha than> The universe

***

So, if you have ass-banged one 10 in your life, you have equivalent bragging rights to the guy who has banged every 1 in the world.

If you have effortlessly banged 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who has gotten one (freely given) blowjob from a 10. If you needed to expend huge effort to bang those 10,000 1s, you have less bragging rights than the guy who stuck it in a couch crease for quick relief.

If you have inspired a 6 to want a relationship with you, you have more alpha bragging rights than the guy who has inspired 10 4s to spread their legs for him.

Where it gets blurry is in the plain middle of the beauty arc. A guy who banged one 6 technically will be more alpha than the guy who banged two 5s, but at those fine gradations, who’s really keeping tabs? That’s where the Template will influence the grading curve and make distinctions harder to delineate.

Ultimately, the essence of alpha maledom all comes down to inspiring beautiful women to, first and foremost, desire your poundage, and then to desire your continual poundage, and finally to desire your love. If you can seduce a hot babe into bed multiple times, then seduce her into love, and then do this same thing with many hot babes over the course of your life, you are an alpha male, no matter what else you have or have not accomplished in your life. Many will balk at this, but that doesn’t change its truth.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science

One billion readers have sent me a link to this study proving the old Chateau maxim — and conventional wisdom before the feminists and their lapdogs seized control of the sophistry regurgitation emulator — that chicks dig jerks.

Women choose bad boys because their hormones make them, new research suggests. When ovulating, a woman’s hormones influence who she sees as good potential fathers, and they specifically pick sexier men over obviously more dependable men.

“Previous research has shown in the week near ovulation women become attracted to sexy, rebellious and handsome men like George Clooney or James Bond,” study researcher Kristina Durante, of The University of Texas at San Antonio, said in a statement. “But until now it was unclear why women would ever think it’s wise to pursue long-term relationships with these kinds of men.”

The researchers had women view online dating profiles of either a sexy man or a reliable man during periods of both high and low fertility. Participants were asked to indicate the expected paternal contribution from the men if they had a child together based on how helpful the man would be caring for the baby, shopping for food, cooking and contributing to household chores. Near ovulation women thought that the sexy man would contribute more to these domestic duties.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.”

Here’s a direct link to the study, titled “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.”

What’s particularly interesting about this study is that it proves women don’t just seek badboys for short-term flings; when a woman is at her horniest, she wants sex AND loving commitment from the jerk. And she deludes herself into believing the jerk wants the same thing. (Or rather, her hormones help fuel her hamster into believing the unbelievable.) This goes a long way to explaining why women take on “project” men and attempt to reform them. It’s not because women are nurturers who want to save jerks; it’s because women are TURNED THE FUCK ON by jerks and want desperately to keep them around and help raise the children they hope to have with them.

This flies directly in the face of the assertion by feminists, manginas and game haters (oh my!) who love to crow, without any evidence in hand, that women only want to sleep with jerks for a night, and want nothing to do with them the rest of the time. But of course, all that baseless crowing reveals is the phlegmy bile of bitterness dribbling down their porcine, slackened chins.

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

Tingles trump reason. Once you get a woman tingling nether-wise, she will rationalize into insignificance any deficiency or character flaw you may possess in service to her unquenchable love for your jerkitude. But beware her friends! They are not so blinded and will whisper sour sabotage in your woman’s ear.

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.'”

In other words, it’s evolutionarily better for a woman to risk it all on the jerk women love than to risk nothing on the beta provider women tolerate. Such is the power of the force behind a woman’s prime directive. This is the stuff that Hallmark won’t put on Valentine’s Day cards.

I consider this post another slam-dunk confirmation of core game principles. It will, baal willing, drive my haters livid with rage.

Some of you may be tempted to ask, “Heartiste, how can you be so right, so often? What’s your trick?” It’s simple.

1. Don’t live by lies.

2. Step outside of the house.

That’s it! You too can be a man of wisdom and great perspicacity by simply following those two rules above.

So what game lessons does this study offer for students of the university of alpha-as-fuck?

Lesson #1: It’s better to err on the side of too much jerkiness than too little.

Lesson #2: It’s easier to segue a woman from short term fling to long-term lover by being a jerk than by being a dependable niceguy.

Lesson #3: Keep a mental record of your woman’s cycle. Amp up game when she’s ovulating; toss her a compliment and a cuddle when she’s bleeding. Do this regularly and you will experience a love so strong you will wonder if you can do any wrong by her at all.

Lesson #4: If game is the aping of certain jerk characteristics, then game is an important variable in not only attracting women for sex, but keeping them around for the loving long haul.

Best of luck!

PS In totally unrelated news, here’s an article about a (white) Aussie woman who killed her own son in order to win the attention of her on-again-off-again badboy (Kiwi) boyfriend. I suppose that’s one way to slow dysgenia.

Read Full Post »