Female Hypergamy Getting Acknowledged By The Mainstream

How influential is this blog? Well, four years ago, Le Chateau Heartiste was writing about the overlooked social and sexual phenomenon of female hypergamy, and how this innate biological female predisposition has ramifications for a society’s structure and well-being. A term was coined by yer humble narrators for the changes being wrought in America and the West by the advancement of feminism, equalism and corporate globalism: the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

A recurring theme here, and one that has gone wholly underappreciated by our elites on the Left and the Right, is how insidiously the culture and the sexual market have changed since the advent of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse. As a helpful reminder, here are the four sirens I’m talking about:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

As I have written, these changes are slowly, but powerfully, tectonically shifting the courtship playing field. The big winners are alpha males and the big losers are beta males.

Recently, thanks in part to the release of Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart“, there’s been a flurry of acknowledgement from the 1% bloggers that female hypergamy is real and its unleashed version may indeed be having tremendous effects on the shitty direction American society is currently heading. Ol’ Cheap Chalupas himself has been getting in on the action with a series of posts examining the issue. The comments are illuminative, particularly the ones from some rascally rogue going by the handle “CH”.

you know, it’s not like we don’t have historical precedent for this sort of sociosexual and cultural dystopia leading to civilizational collapse. the fact that female hypergamy — or other very unPC taboo subjects such as those concerning group population differences in civilizationally advantageous traits — wasn’t even on the smartypants pundit radar until, oh, right about now, should tell us how vigorously the elites in control of our discourse need to be pummeled over the head with the facts on the ground. It’s gonna be funny when, on the night before the long day of the rope, our leading light intellectuals confront the past 60 years of their cherished beliefs and realize it was all a pack of lies and wrongheadedness.

And when they do, they can look back at this blog — when no one’s watching them, of course — and tell themselves “Well, it’s not like we weren’t ridiculed warned.”

Read Full Post »

Study: Men And Women Are Different Species

Science continues lavishing hungry, wet kisses all over game and core Chateau Heartiste concepts. A huge study has come out which pretty much confirms what any man who has lived a day in his life already knows: men and women are fundamentally different in many important aspects, and this has ramifications for how to bed women.

The data, pulled from 10,000 American men and women who took a questionnaire that measured 15 variations of personality traits, records that men and women feel and behave in very specific (and gendered) ways.

Men are more:
– Dominant
– Reserved
– Utilitarian
– Vigilant
– Rule-conscious
– Emotionally stable

While women are more:
– Deferential
– Warm
– Trusting
– Sensitive
– Emotionally “reactive”

Well, duh. But if you ignore, or choose to disregard, the obvious, then you will pay the price in the sexual market. Reality does not suffer fools or ideologues gladly.

Of course, yer ‘umble narrators were on top of this AMAZING REVELATION INTO SEX DIFFERENCES long time now, based on nothing more academic than simple observation of reality and direct experience with the subject matter, remarking only half-jokingly that men are more closely related to male chimps than they are to female humans, or that women are comfortable doing social activities with each other that you will never catch men doing.

Here’s another study showing that men have a higher density of synapses in the temporal neocortex — a region of the brain involved with social and emotional processes — than do women. It would be fascinating to watch a feminist try to explain how cultural conditioning causes women to have fewer neocortex synapses than men.

The verdict is in: there are biologically innate sex differences in the brain that manifest, on average, in different personality traits, different temperaments, different mannerisms, different predilections and, most relevantly to the practiced seducer, different desires.

Let us raise our steins in a toast — here’s to hoping all the world’s feminists read these studies and simultaneously blow a cervical aneurysm from rapid blood pressure rise. Chin chin!

Read Full Post »

Why, And When, Women Cheat

Alternate title for this post:

Game and science: Deeply in love!

Once more, from one of my favorite blogs, a study which catalogs the reasons women (and men) cheat, and confirms a few core Chateau concepts as well. None of the study results will be a surprise to regular readers.

We’ll compare the study’s conclusions to claims previously made on this blog. The first one is a doozy, as it validates the very foundation of game and male-female sexual dynamics as elucidated by yours truly.

1) Women who wear the pants in the relationship are more likely to cheat:

The imbalance of power in the primary relationship has been associated with infidelity. Edwards and Booth (1976) found that wives who reported that they “get their way” more often during disagreements were also more likely to have extramarital sexual involvements.

There ya go, fellas. If you’re a beta with your girlfriend or wife, you’re increasing your odds that your “better half” will surreptitiously spread her legs for the veiny cocks of strange men. And she will orgasm with them. Oh yes, she will orgasm. Hard, powerfully and pleasurably.

There are only two paths you can take to avoid that nightmare — the path of celibacy or the path of alpha. Which one sounds more fun?

Beta males cede disagreements with women all the time. It’s their knee-jerk response anytime a vagina talks to them. But women HATE HATE HATE that mincing sycophancy. A woman CRAVES the dominance of the alpha male who won’t take her shit and who will get HIS way more often than not. Beta males, slaves to their fear of loss, cringe at the thought of sticking up for themselves against women who hold the power of pussy over them, but that is exactly what the women in their lives want them to do.

As with all infinite truths, this one was nailed Luther-like to the Chateau doors a long time ago:

This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting – wholly, completely – to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.

All healthy primary relationships have an imbalance of power. But that imbalance needs to go one-way only — in the direction of the man wielding most of the power. The further the relationship veers from that ideal — that is, the closer it gets to equality and beyond into the horrid realm of the woman being more powerful — the greater the likelihood the woman will cheat, her heart filling with incoherent, growing contempt for her pussified lover.

The feminist battle cry for women to take up paychecks and “bring home the bacon” has been nothing short of a genitalcidal campaign against the sexual and romantic desires of beta males. Women who follow the feminist agenda of empowerment are consigning themselves to a smaller dating pool, and broken marriages, because they have turned their backs on their true natures — their will to submit.

2) An imbalance in education increases the chance of cheating:

…in a large U.S. national study of dating, cohabiting, and married women, Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity; but if the husband was more educated than the wife, she was less likely to philander. Level of education relative to that of the partner appears to be more important than absolute level of education.

Education is a form of power. Women who have more education — i.e. more power — than their male lovers are more likely to cheat on them. Conversely, when the man is more educated than the woman, she does not feel the stirrings of infidelity as strongly. Male power is a female fidelity guarantee. Men would be wise to focus on somewhat less educated women than themselves for marriage prospects. Women who have marriage in mind would be wise to avoid lengthy educational commitments. Again, the Chateau was on top of this a while ago.

3) Jobs have a lot to do with whether people have an affair:

Individuals who work outside the home while their partners remain in the home also express higher rates of extramarital sexual involvement (Atkins et al., 2001), perhaps because the work environment provides the opportunity and time to get to know coworkers (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In clinical samples, 46% to 62% of individuals reported that they met their extramarital sexual partner at work (Glass, 2003; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). The likelihood of extramarital involvement is also related to the degree to which an individual’s job involves touching clients, discussing personal concerns with colleagues or clients, or working alone with co-workers (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

If you are a stay-at-home dad and your wife works outside the home as a personal trainer for rich businessmen, you may as well start ordering the paternity testing kits now and practice your nighttime cheek swabbing technique.

4) The timing of infidelity is predictable:

Among married women, the likelihood of extramarital involvement peaks in the seventh year of marriage, then declines; but among married men, the likelihood of extramarital involvement decreases over time until the eighteenth year of matrimony, after which the likelihood of extramarital involvement increases (Liu, 2000). Similarly, in a sample of couples in therapy for infidelity, sexual infidelity first occurred after an average of seven years of marriage (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Lawson and Samson (1988) reported, however, that the length of marriage prior to initial sexual infidelity is decreasing with younger cohorts. Certain developmental stages in a marriage, including pregnancy and the months following the birth of a child, are also high risk times for infidelity among males (Allen & Baucom, 2001; Brown, 1991; Whisman et al., 2007).

Don’t forget that women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating. So if you just celebrated your seven-year wedding anniversary, and it’s two weeks past your wife’s menstruation, you need to hire a private detective as a gift to yourself.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, younger marriages experience initial infidelity sooner than older marriages. The explanation is simple: younger wives are hotter than older wives, so they have more options in the sexual market. And since marriage is no escape from the sexual market, it makes perfect sense that infidelity is a more urgent risk with a younger wife.

The study also confirms some age-old wisdom that men are less trustworthy when their wives are pregnant or nursing. It’s the old “cold feet” syndrome that pushes men into the arms of mistresses who aren’t burdened with child, aka duties and responsibilities.

5) Most men that cheat claim to have a happy marriage:

…regardless of the many correlations between relationship dissatisfaction and adultery, Glass and Wright (1985) reported that among individuals engaging in infidelity, 56% of men and 34% of women rate their marriage as “happy” or “very happy.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with women cheating, but I thought it worthwhile to mention because it confirms yet another Chateau assertion: that men are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man. As the study shows, more cheating husbands than cheating wives are still in love with their spouses and thus sincere when they say that their marriages are happy.

There is a big sex difference at work behind this statistic. Men cheat because they desire a variety of pussy. Women cheat because they are unhappy with their primary partner. So for a woman, a necessary ingredient has to be that her current lover is not fulfilling her in some important way. But for a man, dissatisfaction with his current lover is not necessary as a springboard to cheat. Men are prone to cheat if the opportunity, and the guarantee of secrecy, are strong enough enticements, regardless of their love for their wives or girlfriends. That is why an unfaithful alpha husband is less likely to disrupt a marriage, while an unfaithful wife is more likely to end it all in divorce.

So, to recap, here is what you need to know to prevent your woman from cheating on you:

1. Learn game and become the alpha male that women need.

2. Do not allow your woman to wear the pants, unless it is in relation to some trivial point of contention that you let her win to demonstrate your big-heartedness.

3. Be more educated than your woman.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, spend time as a stay-at-home dad.

5. If your wife works, make sure it is in an occupation requiring little travel, where she will be confined to a sterile office surrounded by women and beta males. Any job where a massage table is involved is an example of a job you don’t want her to have.

6. Act a little more asshole-ish and unpredictable when your marriage approaches the seven year mark. Or when she’s approaching her monthly ovulation.

7. Failing all of the above, cheat first. She will smell it on you, and her love will grow in proportion to her fear of losing you.

Read Full Post »

Another Game Theory Vindicated By Science

Yet another vindication of game theory as espoused on this blog has emerged from the scientific social laboratory.

Back in this post, it was noted that to successfully navigate the comfort stage of seduction requires not only more listening than most men typically do, but an improvement in how one goes about the process of listening. You’ve got to not just listen more, but listen better, if you want to forge that all-important “connection” that women love so much.

Now a study has come out (from one of my favorite blogs) showing that you can improve your listening skills dramatically with a very common — and some would say devious — game tactic known and used by salesmen and Presidents alike. And by “game”, I am using the broader definition of the word that includes general social skills along with seduction skills. The scientific term for this game technique is called non-evaluative listening.

We can achieve real communication and avoid this evaluative tendency when we listen with understanding. This means seeing the expressed idea and attitude from the other person’s point of view, sensing how it feels to the person, achieving his or her frame of reference about the subject being discussed.

This may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. In fact, it is an extremely potent approach in psychotherapy. It is the most effective way we’ve found to alter a person’s basic personality structure and to improve the person’s relationships and communications with others. […]

We know from research that such empathic understanding—understanding with a person, not about her—is so effective that it can bring about significant changes in personality.

If you think that you listen well and yet have never seen such results, your listening probably has not been of the type I am describing. Here’s one way to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your spouse, friend, or small group of friends, stop the discussion for a moment and suggest this rule: ‘‘Before each person speaks up, he or she must first restate the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately and to that speaker’s satisfaction.’’

You see what this would mean. Before presenting your own point of view, you would first have to achieve the other speaker’s frame of reference. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But if you try it, you will find it one of the most difficult things you have ever attempted to do.

Get that? Basically, just *repeating* a person’s ideas and feelings back to her from her frame of reference makes her like you more, and makes her feel like you know her bettter.

For example, how many times have you heard Obama restate an opponent’s ideas before launching into a totally opposite conclusion that benefits his agenda? Say what you will about him, Obama is a master salesman at selling himself. And that is the crux of gaming women — you’ve gotta sell yourself by manufacturing connections with your audience that may not, in fact, logically or rationally exist. This is high level manipulation of the mind stuff.

I think you can connect the dots and see how this would apply to seduction game. When you repeat a woman’s words back to her — not necessarily verbatim, but similar enough that there’s no risk she’ll misconstrue your restatement  — you enhance the rapport you have with her. She will start thinking to herself “this guy GETS me”. You know how bad the “he doesn’t get me” rejection is? Well, that’s how good the “he GETS me” connection is.

And once you’re in that red zone of a woman’s mind, a touchdownthere is only a flea flicker away.

***

On a related note about scientific studies proving the validity of game, a few readers questioned the relevance of the study in this post to game. Specifically, they expressed doubt that male sociosexuality was a good proxy for game. Here is the important passage:

men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness (see Table 3)…

Interestingly, there is evidence that all these [male attractiveness attributes] can be accurately judged in short periods of time…

However, only sociosexuality added incremental predictive power over and above physical attributes in the current study. Unexpected was that sociosexuality emerged as a relative powerful predictor of men’s popularity to women, particularly because women largely expressed a long-term mating interest. A possible explanation is that male sociosexuality indicates a history of successful mating experience or mating skills that are attractive to women.

High male sociosexuality is essentially high male predilection to have emotionally unattached, or as the scientists call it, unrestricted sex. Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.

It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.

In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness. (I say “loose sense”, because sluttiness need not necessarily entail indiscriminate promiscuity.)

Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.

Thus, male sociosexuality is a good proxy measure for game acumen. A man with HSS is a man who likely has tight game.

And thus, the study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.

***

It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.

And a moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.

And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.

If the readers are just going to soak in the Chateau posts, follow up by playing a few hours of video games, and then hit the sack feeling like they really know women without actually putting any of the advice here to real world use, then this blog is failing in one of its missions. The time to ungrip your joystick is now. The time to get out there and strike up a conversation with the girl standing at the intersection is yesterday. You know what to do.

Read Full Post »

Newsflash! Sexually Obsolete Jilted Wife Reconsiders Divorcing Unfaithful Alpha Male Husband

This is what happens when a woman who has passed into sexual worthlessness has to contemplate the stark reality of divorce from a cheating alpha male husband who fathered a child with his mistress, but who still tingles his wife’s tangle.

Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That’s what we heard.

Tipsters cite the Kennedy princess’ strong Catholic faith as one of the main reasons she might be reconsidering tossing the husband who cheated on her.

The religion excuse is squid ink. Maria has lost her looks and is facing the merciless indifference of the zero sum, free-for-all dating market as an aged divorcée. She knows, on some deep primitive level, that as a newly single woman she could very well wind up living out her years unloved by any man. Or at the least unloved by any man even close to Arnold’s level of alphaness.

A woman in this position, and swirling with these feelings, can forgive a lot. I mean, A LOT.

Arnold, for his part, is reported to be treating her nicely. What’s that sound… cha ching.

It’s almost as if there is a powerful sexual market guiding people’s decisions. Weird.

Read Full Post »

Sinead O’Connor: Proof Of Women’s Rapidly Declining Sexual Market Value Trajectory

Sinead O’Connor’s first marriage at age 21: 5 years

Sinead O’Connor’s second marriage: 1 year

Sinead O’Connor’s third marriage: 8 months

Sinead O’Connor’s fourth marriage at age 45: 16 days.

Sez it all, really.

(The typical benighted SMV trajectory of women is even worse when you consider the quality of men with whom Sinead progressively got hitched, which, if photos and lifestyle status are any indication, demonstrates that Sinead had to gradually settle for ever more beta lovers.)

Read Full Post »

The Feminists, Equalists And Economists Are Gonna Hate This

The NewYorkBetaTimes, of all the flaccid media organs!, reports on a study that finds genes play a major role in primate social behavior.

Social behavior among primates — including humans — has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.

The scientists, at the University of Oxford in England, looked at the evolutionary family tree of 217 primate species whose social organization is known. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, challenge some of the leading theories of social behavior, including:

– That social structure is shaped by environment — for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.

– That complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones.

– And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.

By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.

If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists — Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson — found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.

One by one, the shibboleths of the post-Enlightenment Left crumble into dust, their lies scattering like tumbleweed on the purifying desert winds.

The Old World monkeys, for example, a group that includes baboons and macaques, live in many habitats, from savanna to rain forest to alpine regions, and may feed on fruit or leaves or grass. Yet all have very similar social systems, suggesting that their common ancestry — and the inherited genes that shape behavior — are a stronger influence than ecology on their social structure.

Genes a stronger influence on social structure — aka culture — than the environment? Now who was it said something similar not too long ago on this very outpost of mortifying truths? Ah, yes:

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” [feminists] so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

Great crops of corn, I hate to toot my own horn, but goddamn… strike up the band!

The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, “spells trouble” for ecological explanations, Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a commentary in Nature. Also, the finding that there has not been a steady progression from small groups to large ones challenges the social brain hypothesis, Dr. Silk said.

The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal.

Think about the radical implications this study *should* have on public policy. (I say “should” because the old guard will work tirelessly to smear anyone who dares draw the arrow from human genetic predisposition to informed social policy.) If it became commonly accepted knowledge that genes play a major, maybe even predominant, role in how human population groups organize socially, sexually and economically, then in one fell swoop the following canons would be reduced to the dung heap of exposed lies, alongside such luminous repositories of sacred thought as geocentrism, Freudianism, Communism and the theory of buying chicks stuff on the first date in hopes of sex:

– redistribution (in any form) for any means other than intergroup pacification

– feminism

– egalitarianism

– rational actor economics

– multiculturalism

– laissez-faire libertarianism in heterogeneous societies

– unrestricted immigration

– ideologies with cultural conditioning theories as their centerpiece

– exported democratization

– cheap chalupaism

The strawmen armies will, naturally, come marching out in force to cow anyone from waving this study in the air like a beacon to guide the free thinkers through a battlefield shrouded in choking gas, mud and fog. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with them all here, but for a few exceedingly trite and trollish objections.

“Apes aren’t humans.”

Funny how the pro-evolution Left is so quick to highlight the gulf between apes and humans when it suits their agenda. Apes aren’t humans, but apes are our closest cousins. From them we can learn much about ourselves, if not everything.

“Genes aren’t destiny. Our fates aren’t predetermined.”

Reductio ad absurdum. Genes aren’t destiny, but they are significant constraints on destiny. For instance, (and to use a very obvious example), a man with a genetic predisposition to criminality can have his unobstructed destiny to inflict pain and suffering on others severely altered by a long prison stint. But remove that environmental influence, and his genetic impulse resumes primary ownership of his behavior. So while we don’t have exact destinies given us at our birth from which we may never stray, we do have paths laid before us that are closer to, or further from, alignment with our natural genetic proclivities. The rockier the path, the stricter the environmental or cultural controls needed to keep us trundling along it. The smoother the path, the looser the controls needed.

“Ok, genes may play a role, but humans share 99.whatever% of their genes.”

Great. We also share 99% of our genes with mice, but no one would mistake a man for a mouse. Unless he’s named H. Schwyzer. That .whatever% of genes we don’t universally share makes for a lot of difference.

“Humans can adapt.”

Correction: Humans can adapt more or less easily. And sometimes, not at all. Public policy should be that which encourages the construction and maintenance of a prosperous national environment that puts as few stressors on its citizens’ store of ability to adapt as possible.

Within my lifetime, I would love to see the self-evident truths encompassed in this post recognized and embraced by the elite. But it’s looking more and more like that is a pipe dream. Instead, traitors and liars will drag us down into the dark, murky abyss before they surrender their pride.

Read Full Post »