Chicks Dig Jerks: Norwegian Terrorist Gets Love Letters In Jail

Emma the Emo writes:

That Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is getting love letters in jail now, after killing over 70 people, most of which are teens. Psychologists theorize that women want to save/heal him somehow. If they wanted to save and provide emotional help, they could instead write letters to the victims who survived. There is no point in saving a murderer like that, it’s too late, and just gives men more reason to become murderers.

Emma is right. If “saving” or “healing” broken men was the prime motivation explaining women’s lust for assholes, then we would see women saving and healing all those unfortunate victims of a psychopath’s rampage. Not to mention, there are a lot more beatdown betas who are in need of saving via pussy therapy than there are happy-go-lucky alphas.

Which of course puts the lie to the feminist and mangina explanation for women’s attraction to jerks and thugs. While the savior complex may explain, in part, women’s craven desire, it is not the primary or sole explanation, or even a very important one. As everyday observation to those with the eyes to see demonstrates, the primary motivation is women’s love for unrepentant, rule-breaking assholes. That is the elemental, core female hindbrain algorithm that governs all other lustful dispositions and is the catalyst for her mate choice decisions.

Women love assholes because they are assholes. Because it inspires in women those emotions that most delight their pleasure centers. And that, based on the reaction it engenders from civilized men and women alike, is the truth too scary to contemplate.

Read Full Post »

Why Chicks Dig Egotistic Men, &c.

You can judge who’s nice and who’s a dick simply by looking at them. We humans have tells, and some of those tells are outside of our conscious control, like the shape of our faces. Other tells, such as smiles, are difficult to fake convincingly without willful effort.

Further analyses of Oda et al.’s data show that the key to detecting altruists is genuine smile, which is under involuntary control and is therefore difficult to fake. Altruists genuinely smile more frequently than egoists during natural conversations.

And this is where game comes in. We all know by now, thanks in part to the illumination provided by this blog, that women are sexually attracted to men who are self-centered egotists; in layman’s nomenclature: assholes, dicks, douchebags, pricks and masters of the universe. The kinds of men women swoon for possess the “dark triad” of personality traits: narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. It stands to reason that women would be drawn to egoists, and that, at least according to the science, one way in which a man feeds the perception that he is an egoist is by smiling less frequently than niceguys would smile during natural conversations. Which leads to…

Maxim #39: Stop smiling so much! Girls will think you’re ingratiating. Girls prefer men they can ingratiate themselves to.

So you have another weapon to add to your arsenal of seduction. Work on suppressing the smile instinct when you talk to a girl. Be especially wary when she flatters you or flirts with you; that’s when you’ll be under the least amount of voluntary control over your smiling reflex. A smile should be tamed to a barely perceptible upturned mouth corner, and limited in its dispensation so as to maximize the effect it has when it is deployed.

Note for the recently lobotomized: During the non-ovulatory phase of their cycle, women do feel some attraction for altruistic, beta providers. It should go without saying that the best seducers balance the asshole with the altruist. Within that balance is the key to unlocking a fountain of women’s love.

***

Women remember your words better if you speak them in a deep voice.

[T]he authors found that women had a strong preference for the low pitch male voice and remembered objects more accurately when they have been introduced by the deep male voice.

Smith concludes: “Our findings demonstrate that women’s memory is enhanced with lower pitch male voices, compared with the less attractive raised pitch male voices. Our two experiments indicate for the first time that signals from the opposite-sex that are important for mate choice also affect the accuracy of women’s memory.”

This confirms a lesser known game concept that men who speak slowly and deliberately are more attractive to women. When you speak slowly, your voice pitch lowers, which raises your attractiveness. Try it sometime. If you want a girl to remember something you consider helpful to your goal of getting her to sex, be sure to deliberately lower your voice when you say it.

***

I was right about cutters. They do it to because it distracts them from their worries and alleviates stress and depression.

The majority of people involved in self-injury do it to deal with anxiety or emotional pain, Adler said. It “self-soothes” and gives people a sense of control. And it helps many people get over a rough patch in their lives.

I contend that cutters are probably the fastest lays you will encounter. If you catch sight of the telltale stigmata, push for a same night lay.

***

File under: No duh! A lack of a father in the home is bad for children’s future prospects.

Despite the widespread assumption that paternal investment is substantial in our species, previous studies have shown mixed results in relation to the impact of fathers on both offspring survival and reproductive outcomes. Using data from a large representative sample of British men, we tested whether father absence is associated with the timing of reproduction-related events among boys, while controlling for various cues denoting early childhood adversity. We further tested whether the loss of the father at different childhood stages matters, so as to assess whether early life is the most important period or if effects can be seen during later childhood. The results show that father absence before age seven is associated with early reproduction, while father absence between ages 11 and 16 only is associated with delayed voice-breaking (a proxy for puberty), even after adjusting for other factors denoting childhood adversity. We conclude that fathers do exert an influence on male reproductive outcomes, independently of other childhood adversities and that these effects are sensitive to the timing of father absence.

You kind of have to read between the lines in this study to get to the meat of the issue: if you like living in a prosperous, civilized nation, you want boys to reach sexual maturity later in life, as such late bloomers are a sign that more parental investment into learning and developing is taking place. K-selection strategy, in other words. If you want to live in a shithole, you can’t go wrong in a place where boys are sprouting pube grass and wolf whistling by age 9. The scourge of single momhood in the USA and other Western nations is an early warning sign that our once great nations are headed down the path of shitholeitude.

***

If you want a quick and effortless path to sex, you should focus on gaming girls when they are alone and away from their peers.

Peer pressure? It’s hardwired into our brains.

A new USC study explains why people take stupid chances when all of their friends are watching that they would never take by themselves. According to the study, the human brain places more value on winning in a social setting than it does on winning when you’re alone. […]

The researchers found that the striatum, a part of the brain associated with rewards, showed higher activity when a participant beat a peer in the lottery, as opposed to when the participant won while alone. The medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain associated with social reasoning, was more activated as well. Those participants who won in a social setting also tended to engage in more risky and competitive behavior in subsequent lotteries.

“These findings suggest that the brain is equipped with the ability to detect and encode social signals, make social signals salient, and then, use these signals to optimize future behavior,” Coricelli said.

As Coricelli explained, in private environments, losing can more easily be life-threatening. With no social support network in place, a bad gamble can spell doom.

In group environments, on the other hand, rewards tend to be winner-takes-all. Nowhere is this more clear than in sexual competition, where — to borrow a phrase from racing legend Dale Earnhardt, Sr. — second place is just first loser.

What does this have to do with women and ease of sex? Well, peer pressure acts on adult women too, (it’s not just a teen skaterboi phenomenon), and is particularly relevant when the woman is surrounded by her clucking hens in a mixed group environment where men are hitting on her. Taking risks to impress friends and potential mates manifests differently in men than it does in women. A man will engage in derring-do in front of a crowd to boost his status; a woman will look good to try to capture the interest of an alpha male to boost her social status.

A woman is going to feel more pressure to snag the top dog when her friends are watching, so she will have a bigger bitch shield (to more effectively screen out the betas) than she would if she were sitting alone when you approached her. Ergo, you probably have an easier path to sex if you game her when there are none of her peers around. And this tends to confirm my real life experience. Women are especially keen to avoid the slut label when friends are watching.

But I can imagine some readers reaching a contrary conclusion (and there are enough personal examples to support an opposing conclusion). A woman alone risks more if she winds up sleeping with a cad; as the study mentioned, she has no support network to ameliorate any bad decision she might make. You might, therefore, have a better shot at sex if you can successfully capitalize on her genetically wired need for social approval by instilling the fear of loss in her through jealously plotlines; for example, by disqualifying her with negs while you flirt with her friends.

The “woman alone” vs “woman in group” theory needs some more fleshing out by field testers and theorists alike. My take is this: Women alone are better same night lay prospects, especially if you’re strong in the comfort stage, but women in groups offer more opportunity (via social dynamic pathways) to raise your value and build attraction in the early stages of pickup.

And if you keep getting blown out by cockblocks, well, a woman by herself won’t have that problem. Which brings us to day game…

but that is a topic for another time.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton Is Wrong: It Doesn’t Take A Village To Raise A Child

This is getting to sound like a broken record. Yet another liberal shibboleth is discredited.

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child after all, according to University of Michigan research.

“In the African villages that I study in Mali, children fare as well in nuclear families as they do in extended families,” said U-M researcher Beverly Strassmann, professor of anthropology and faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR). “There’s a naïve belief that villages raise children communally, when in reality children are raised by their own families and their survival depends critically on the survival of their mothers.” […]

In her study of the Dogon, Strassmann found that children’s risk of death is higher in polygynous than in monogamous families. This reflects the hazard of living with unrelated females whose own children are competing with the children of co-wives for limited resources.

Supporting this finding, Strassmann cites “Hamilton’s Rule,” established by British evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton in the 1960s. It is the first formal, mathematical description of kin selection theory, the idea that the degree to which we are willing to invest our resources in another person depends, in part, on the degree of genetic kinship we share with them.

It should also be noted that different human population groups, adapted to their specific environments, practice different reproductive strategies. In Africa, where this study took place, monogamy is less the norm than it is in Europe or Asia, and fathers come and go and have less certainty of paternity. This encourages an r-selection strategy where women pump out lots of kids and hope for the best, as opposed to a k-selected strategy in groups where enforced monogamy is the norm and fathers have more certainty about paternity. In the latter, you can expect to see more fatherly devotion and resource provision to his family, and more ill effects when the father abdicates his duty or the children are bastard spawn raised by single moms. (The author of the study commits a laughable PC error when she says that Bill Clinton is proof that kids of single moms turn out all right. No, that is proof that kids with extraordinary IQs and a particular suite of personality traits can overcome a crappy single mom family environment. Some of these social scientists should refamiliarize themselves with the axiom that exceptions prove the rule.)

Read Full Post »

Another Game Concept Confirmed: The Allure Of Male Choice

Camelot007 writes:

I believe there is no better explanation of what women need than in this excerpt:

“And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.”

It comes from an article titled “What Do Women Want” written by Daniel Bergner and is backed by research done at Queen’s University in Ontario Canada.

The stability of a long term relationship rests mostly on the happiness of the woman. Men in lackluster LTRs are perfectly happy keeping the thing sputtering along if they are getting their sexual needs met on the sly with mistresses. But women are a different beast entirely in this matter; if a woman feels turned off or egregiously neglected by her lover, she will prefer to jettison the relationship altogether and start fresh (as fresh as an aging woman can start) rather than share her intimacy with multiple men concurrently.

And so when a man loses interest in his partner the LTR or marriage is in less trouble than when the woman loses interest in her partner. Married men would be wise to recognize this insidious imbalance in the sexual force and behave accordingly if they don’t want to get the barrel end of the divorce theft industry pointed squarely at their nads. You may not like it, but under the restrictions imposed by the corrupt state of modern marriage the onus is on men to keep their wives happy, rather than the other way around. (Yet another reason to skip out on marriage in favor of LTRs or cohabitation.)

What this research implies is that if you want to sustain the hot sex in an LTR for longer than the first few months, and by extension reduce the odds that your girlfriend will cheat or generally behave like a bitch, you need to frequently qualify her. Qualifying a woman makes her feel like she has to continue working for your affection, and thus overcomes the naturally emergent impediment common to all LTRs of anhedonic emasculation. She wants to know she has earned your interest, for only when this final piece of the puzzle is in place will you remain the mortal god she yearns to idolize.

In the turbulent bazaar of the sexual market, perception is everything. No matter how deftly a wife or long term girlfriend is able to logically convince herself that her partner’s SMV is no lower than when they first met, her altered perception of his value that accompanies LTR confinement and complacency will inevitably corrode her feelings of lust. Game can remedy this dissolution by instilling in her a renewed appreciation for her man’s desirability. A healthy reminder, if you will.

A woman loves to feel that the man she is with has illimitable choice among competitor women. A man with sexual choice is a desirable man, for he is preselected by women and will pass on his preselected genes to her sons. A man without choice in women — and, however wrongly, such can seem the case to a woman hitched to a man in a familiarizing and deballing monogamous LTR — is an undesirable man, for why should she love a man whom no other woman would deign to love? She begins to question not only whether he still finds her attractive, but more importantly whether he is himself still attractive to other women and is choosing her among a smorgasbord of pussy options. The disenchantment spiral unwinds.

A man “trapped” in an LTR can avoid, or at least temper, the disenchantment spiral by employing various game methods designed to validate his woman’s hypergamous need to be with a higher status man than herself:

1. He can instill dread.

For example, kill complacency dead by calling her from a location where girls’ screeching voices can be heard in the background.

2. He can screen her like he did when they first met.

“It’s important to me that a woman knows how to do the reverse spider monkey hanging from a pull-up bar.”

3. He can provoke competition anxiety.

“Your friend Carrie looks like she’s been hitting the yoga classes a lot. A man can tell.”

4. He can helpfully remind her of his options.

To wit: Don’t look away in misguided appeasement when that sexy waitress tosses you a flirtatious glance under your GF’s/wife’s nose. Instead, revel in the moment. Grin and wink back at her. Make it obvious that you could get a new woman in a day if your lover was to leave you.

5. He can cheat.

This is the trepanation of reviving a flagging relationship. Use with caution. Fact is, when you cheat on a woman her perception of your sexual market value skyrockets.

A woman will fight with the last fiber of her being against the encroaching discomfort that she is being settled for by a man with a lack of options. Every marriage and LTR, left to their own inertial devices, encourages this encroachment. Do her, and yourself, a favor: game the shit out of her til death, or the wall, do you part.

Read Full Post »

Another Feminist Myth Debunked: Women’s Sex Drive Is Not As Strong As Men’s

Feminists love to claim that women’s sex drive is as strong as any man’s. They assert this because it would be a blow against their crippled, withered ideology to accept that there is a sex-based difference in libido. Acceptance of this reality would also undermine a key tenet of left wing women’s studies programs that the crazy things men do for access to hot, young, slender women are motivated not by sexual urge but by “social conditioning” or power dynamics. And, in what is probably the most galling humiliation should the truth supplant establishment lies, it would silence the tankgrrl and slutwalker battle cry that they love to slut it up just as much as men, and can do so without suffering any of the trite emotional consequences which they have convinced themselves are nothing but a manufactured burden foisted on them by the patriarchy.

Too bad for feminists the science totally refutes their core beliefs. Across a slew of studies, the conclusion is unavoidable: men have stronger sex drives. Via Randall Parker over at Parapundit, the following study:

The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex.

It’s been written on this blog before that a woman can be just as voracious in the sack as a man, as long as she is in bed with a man she desires. But discrete sexual voracity is not the same as generalized sexual appetite. Wise women know better than to confuse their unleashed libido in bed with a man they love for a lusty exuberance to do every inspiring member of the opposite sex within their visual field. The latter is the domain of men, and men alone.

Women have some preternatural sexual abilities and reservoirs in bed that many men would envy, like multiple orgasms and erogenous zones, but no woman, except the rarest outlier, experiences the clawing, wall-climbing, unrelenting horniness to mass pound brigades of complementary genitalia like men experience every moment of every day.

If you like your smartphones and Netflix and just about anything that is a grade above grass huts, it’s a good thing they don’t, either.

Read Full Post »

Women Prefer Dominant Men. You Don’t Say!

Straight from the laboratory, yet another study confirms a core game concept (namely, the concept of demonstrating higher value than the woman you are trying to seduce):

Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige.

In many human societies, high male social status associates with higher fertility, but the means by which status increases lifetime fitness have not been systematically investigated. We analyse the pathways by which male status begets reproductive success in a small-scale, Amerindian society. Men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation, i.e. dominant men, have higher intra-marital fertility for their age, and men with more community-wide influence, i.e. prestigious men, exhibit both higher intra-marital fertility and lower offspring mortality. Both forms of status elicit support from allies and deference from competitors, but high status men are not provisioned more than their peers. Prestigious but not dominant men marry wives who first give birth at earlier ages, which multivariate analysis suggests is the strongest pathway between status and fitness in this population. Furthermore, men are motivated to pursue status because of fitness gains both within and outside of marital unions: dominant and prestigious men have more in-pair surviving offspring as well as more extra-marital affairs.

Chicks dig male power, and power is a catch-all word encompassing the variety of dominance displaying avenues that men pursue to attract women. Large men who can beat other men in fights are dominant. Captains of industry are dominant. Men who demonstrate artistic talent that wins accolades from others are dominant. Musicians who wow audiences are dominant. Preachers who captivate whole congregations are dominant. Men with enough social savvy to win friends and influence people are dominant. Men who are deferred to for their expertise are dominant.

And, yes, men who can seduce by displaying the characteristics of dominant men are irresistibly sexy to women.

In game, many factors contribute to dominance displaying. The oft-misunderstood neg is best seen as a tool to rapidly express male dominance by switching the approval seeking algorithm from the man to the woman. DHVs (demonstrations of higher value) are subtly embedded assertions within a conversational framework that suggestively influence a woman to believe the man she is talking with is a dominant alpha male. Compliance tests (eg: getting a woman to hold your hat for you while you go to the bathroom) are displays of dominance that rely on the natural human instinct to perceive those in whom we have invested our time and attention as high status people. (After all, who in their right mind would spend energy on a low status person? Right?) Flirty teasing is a form of dominance in that the use of it implies you are so high status that you don’t care if your teasing offends and turns a girl off.

Men who lack dominance do the opposite of all the game tactics described in the above paragraph. They are self-deprecating and loath to assert themselves or hint at their accomplishments. They will never neg, preferring instead to compliment women. They will never ask a woman they’ve just met to do anything for them. And they drone, instead of tease. So if you find yourself acting like a low status man, stop, and immediately force yourself to do the opposite. Think of Opposite George. It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Girls are subconsciously hard-wired to respond with sexual interest to men of higher value than themselves, and to men of higher value than other men in their milieu. In other words, women are attracted to dominant men, and dominance is relative to social conditions. A penniless singer in a crappy indie band can get as much play as a high-powered lawyer, because their social circles are distinct and they don’t directly compete, either man to man or by proxy through the girls who follow them around. A janitor who has better game than a stockbroker will take the girl home more often because his skill at instantly communicating his dominance trumps the broker’s higher occupational status in any venue outside of the office environment or expensive restaurants where the broker’s fatter income really shines.

Dominance that results in gina tingles can be achieved through two strategies. Dominance over other men (DoM) or dominance over women (DoF). There is much overlap between these strategies, though the overlap tends to go in the direction from DoM ==> DoF. That is, men who are dominant over other men are usually dominant over women, while men who show dominance over women (think of every smooth-talking seducer in the literary classics) are a little less likely to be dominant over other men, though still more likely than the average beta bear.

There are notable exceptions, which have been discussed in posts like this one and this one. A man can be a wealthy CEO and still be a piss-poor nincompoop with women, while another man can sweet talk the hottest chicks out of their pants but have no interest or talent in running companies or leading groups of men to victory.

If it’s quick sex you want, then the DoF strategy should be your primary focus. The investment required to be dominant over men is significantly more costly than the investment required to display attraction-inducing dominance over women. Game is primarily a DoF-centered strategy (though there are important game concepts dealing with AMOGs — alpha male other guys), but the mastery of game will eventually redound to mastery over other men, because success will women will fill you with confidence that will carry over into all areas of your life.

The DoF strategy may seem separate and distinct to the DoM strategy, but that is an artifact of the particular skillset brought to bear on the issue of seducing women, and the time compression that DoF operates within. Cockiness, aloofness, negs, DHVs, teasing, hoops, takeaways and venue bouncing — all of them displays of dominance over the women you are picking up — are simultaneously subcommunications of dominance over other men as well. A woman who gets aroused at your neg and subconsciously replaces her suitor assessment mental algorithm with a “self-assessment” mental algorithm (as one astute commenter put it) is turned on by your deft composure in the presence of her beauty as well as the tacit implication that your self-interested, cocky confidence is powerful circumstantial evidence that you also possess a facility with dominating other men.

However you seek it, know this: the pussy must always be subordinate to the cock. If it isn’t, she’ll let you know with an icy cold stare, a backturn, a polite dismissal or, worst, another man’s baby.

Read Full Post »

Phrenology Is Legit: Wide-Faced Men Are Untrustworthy

Think you can’t judge a person’s character by the shape of his skull? Think again:

Researchers spanning many scientific domains, including primatology, evolutionary biology and psychology, have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for morality. While researchers have identified social and cognitive adaptations that support ethical behaviour, a consensus has emerged that genetically determined physical traits are not reliable signals of unethical intentions or actions. Challenging this view, we show that genetically determined physical traits can serve as reliable predictors of unethical behaviour if they are also associated with positive signals in intersex and intrasex selection. Specifically, we identify a key physical attribute, the facial width-to-height ratio, which predicts unethical behaviour in men. Across two studies, we demonstrate that men with wider faces (relative to facial height) are more likely to explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation, and are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain. Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power. Our results demonstrate that static physical attributes can indeed serve as reliable cues of immoral action, and provide additional support for the view that evolutionary forces shape ethical judgement and behaviour.

So, you really want to limit your dealings with guys who look like this:

This whole subject — that character traits and behaviors can be predicted by physical features — is pregnant with deliciously unsavory thoughtcrime. Do women get more viscerally aroused by wide-faced, beady-eyed men because of women’s attraction to the male dark triad of personality traits? Are long-faced, large-eyed men, presumably more trustworthy, more likely to ascend the corporate ladder? Do wide male faces differ in frequency among population groups? Are people with sloping foreheads really stupider than people with high foreheads? If the genes responsible for making wide male faces and beady eyes also predispose those men to unethical or criminal behavior, what does that say about free will? Criminal culpability? And why, in the first place, would wide faces evolve to be associated with a badboy personality? Why not long faces?

And can we make predictions of women’s behavior based on their facial structure? This blog previously examined the connection between women’s looks and their behavior, and the hysterical screeching it caused amongst the feminists suggests that this avenue of inquiry will not be one any scientist concerned about his reputation or tenure track will want to vigorously pursue.

Luckily the Chateau is here to talk about the things everyone else REALLY wants to talk about, but is afraid to do so.

Read Full Post »