An Old Chateau Concept Confirmed By Science

Years ago, the writers of this blog made the bold and controversial assertion that female economic empowerment and growing government largesse were helping to fuel the desire of women to ride the alpha cock carousel in their 20s, only to settle down with a beta provider later in life when their sexual peak had been passed.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

This blog = perceptive. Prophetic, even. Now science has come around to the Chateau point of view with a new study that shows women with money problems prefer softer, beta men who would make good resource provider candidates.

Those [women] primed to worry about their finances showed the least interest in the macho men, the Royal Society journal Biology Letters reports.

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

This would allow women ‘to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as pathogen outbreak or a famine’, they said.

Or to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as the introduction of the Pill, feminism and economic self-sufficiency.

So here we have scientific evidence proving a core Chateau concept that women who are materially comfortable — as many women became after their assault on the workforce and colleges beginning in the 1970s — are less likely to seek out beta providers and more likely to indulge their hypergamous drives and sex it up with studly alpha cads; that is, until Father Time cruelly etches the first of his brandings on delicate, feminine faces. This would go a long way to explaining why age of first marriage has been steadily climbing since 1970; more years devoted to schooling to make the middle class money, yes, but also more years to slut it up with the high status alphas women truly desire but don’t need for material resource procurement.

Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.

Also of note: Women who worried about health problems were attracted to the masculine studs. So if you are an alpha male with game and a goal to bed as many women as possible before kicking off, your best bet is to target hypochondriac careerist chicks.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

Best,

Yours in politically incorrect but bracingly truthful dating advice.

Read Full Post »

Yet Another Study Validates Game

The effectiveness of kino — the act of casually (and calculatingly) touching a woman during a pickup to establish your sexual interest, to make her comfortable with the idea of sex with you, and to guide her away from putting you in the friend zone — is confirmed by a scientific study.

Previous research has shown that light tactile contact increases compliance to a wide variety of requests. However, the effect of touch on compliance to a courtship request has never been studied. In this paper, three experiments were conducted in a courtship context. In the first experiment, a young male confederate in a nightclub asked young women to dance with him during the period when slow songs were played. When formulating his request, the confederate touched (or not) the young woman on her forearm for 1 or 2 seconds. In the second experiment, a 20-year-old confederate approached a young woman in the street and asked her for her phone number. The request was again accompanied by a light touch (or not) on the young woman’s forearm. In both experiments, it was found that touch increased compliance to the man’s request. A replication of the second experiment accompanied with a survey administered to the female showed that high score of dominance was associated with tactile contact. The link between touch and the dominant position of the male was used to explain these results theoretically.

Kino and compliance are two integral parts of seduction.* There are plenty of posts in the Chateau archives covering these two important topics. If you are not touching a woman early on in a pickup, chances are you will fail to get her number, let alone a lay. Don’t listen to indignant feminists when they claim that men should keep their hands to themselves until they are invited to touch; the truth is, as it often is when feminists and their distorted beliefs are the subject, the complete opposite: men who touch early and without permission are the ones who win girls’ hearts.

Why do women respond so positively to kino from men, to the point of complying with the men’s requests for a slow dance or a phone number? The answer is in the survey results of the study: kino is associated with male dominance. And women LOVE LOVE LOVE male dominance. If you need a reminder:

Chicks dig power.
Men dig beauty.

Salesmen have known the secret of kino for ages, which is why the best salesmen, if you’re paying attention, will find a way to lightly put their hand on your elbow when they’re guiding you to their product. Kino is a little trickier in male-on-male interactions, though, because the same dominance display that works to sexually arouse women will cause another man to bristle like a porcupine.

Women also emphasize touch more than men do. If you go shopping with a woman, you’ll notice how often she caresses linens or traces a finger along furniture and vases. A woman lives in the world of touch, exquisite touch, and a man who can create that bond of touch early in a pickup will leave a bigger impression on her than a man who keeps his hands firmly by his side.

Kino leads to small acts of compliance, which eventually lead to the big act of compliance for sex. Nonverbal kino — hand on upper arm, then forearm, then thigh — isn’t the only way to escalate a seduction through its stages. Creating an emotional connection with graduated verbal compliance — asking a series of increasingly personal and sexual questions — is like the conversational form of kino. The two together — nonverbal and verbal compliance — combine to create a powerful arousal in women.

*Works on sluts and non-sluts, proles and SWPLs alike!

Read Full Post »

Girl Admits She Loathes Niceguy “Boyfriend”

This email, assuming it’s not fake, has been making the rounds (via Instapundit):

I have been seeing a guy for seven months now. He is a nice guy — probably the nicest guy I ever dated — very caring, respectful and treats me like a lady (brings me flowers unexpectedly, watches horror movies even though he doesn’t like them). Before him, I dated guys who were unavailable or just with me for all the wrong reasons. I started dating him four months [after] a break-up with a guy I was madly in love with and I still think of him.

My problem is that I am not sexually attracted to this nicest guy in the world and I feel super guilty about it. I don’t know what’s wrong with me; I feel like a horrible and shallow person by saying this but I am not attracted to his body type. We haven’t had sex, and we rarely kiss when he tries to make out with me (I usually have to force myself when we do). He has asked me on several occasions if I am not attracted to him and I have always lied and said that I am and that I am not ready to have sex, but the truth is I am not ready to have sex with him.

Recently he has introduced me to his family and has even mentioned the “love” and “marriage” words, and now I am confused and afraid that I am far to into it to just tell him that I am not into him. I don’t want to hurt his feelings as I believe in Karma and think that it will come back to bite me. I want to be sexually attracted to him because I think he will be a good provider and is definitely marriage material but I don’t know how to get myself there. I have read self-help books to try and seek the answer to this question but with no help. I can’t have a conversation with my girlfriends because I am afraid they will judge me. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to end up alone or realize that he was the best thing in my life after he is gone. Please help. — Not Sexually Attracted

First, let’s get something straight. You haven’t been “seeing” a guy for seven months if you haven’t banged. At best, you’ve been hanging out with him and using him for seven months to meet your nonsexual needs. Like you might do with a friend. Or a puppy. Chicks these days need to stop redefining words that strip them of their implied meanings. That road leads to believing anal sex isn’t really sex. Or purple saguaros are actually back massagers.

Second, any man who tells a girl he loves her and wants to marry her AFTER SEVEN SEXLESS MONTHS is a leading candidate for beta of the year. Such a man wouldn’t know the first thing about how women work, and it’s no surprise that any girl stuck with a clingy loser like that would take advantage of him. We humans are programmed to prey on the weak, and this chick is no exception.

Third, never propose to a girl who writes “super guilty”.

Fourth, as a man with a pulse, you should be able to tell when a woman isn’t into kissing you. If she’s pulling backwards constantly, or making scrunchy faces like she just drank sour milk, you need to find that last ounce of dignity and walk away.

I don’t think there’s any news here that chicks love unavailable assholes and feel nothing in the vageen for genuinely nice guys. We’ve trod this territory plenty of times. Its truth is self-evident to anyone with the eyes to see. The more interesting angle, (again, assuming this email is legit), is the inside look at how easily, and without any apparent remorse, a girl will string along a beta schlub to extract emotional and material benefits from him.

Whenever the traditionalists and fembots pipe up about the innate purity of women’s sexual desire as opposed to men’s creepy and animalistic desire, it’s a good idea to helpfully remind them that the crass manipulation of a lovestruck suitor is an equal opportunity moral failing. I’d go so far as to say that using the opposite sex for favors while offering nothing in return that they want is largely the province of women who, after all, far outnumber the small wedge of alpha males who are able to successfully use women for sexual gratification. On the numbers alone, there have to be a lot more situations where a girl strings along a parade of sycophantic betas in a sexless purgatory than where a high status man strings a harem along in noncommittal sexual pleasure.

My advice to the girl who wrote the email:

Keep using your #1 herb. But don’t push it too far, or he might crack. Don’t be surprised if one day he has a Rainman freakout, his eyes wild with rage and spittle flying everywhere, the vein bulging in his neck, yelling at you for some trivial infraction that finally puts him over the edge.

My advice to the beta protagonist:

Grow a pair. Quit her.

My advice if this email was fake:

Thanks for the springboard.

Read Full Post »

The Pedophile Libel

A 51 year old actor married a 16 year old woman and the comments section exploded in accusations of pedophile. Here is a pic of the newlyweds:

His posture is a bit beta, but can you blame the guy? He hit the jackpot. He even got her parents’ approval.

Whenever an older man hooks up with a much younger woman, there is a chorus of haters from almost every demographic smearing the guy with the pedophile label. It’s a malicious slander. These dimwits quick to hurl the pedo insult need to be educated on some basic facts about human biology.

Pedophilia is sexual attraction for biological children. Note I used the qualifier “biological”. Technically, in many jurisdictions, a 17 year old is legally defined as a child, but most 17 year olds have already developed adult bodies. True pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children who have not yet developed secondary sex characteristics. Real pedophiles have a brain malfunction and need to be kept as far away from kids as possible, because their disease is incurable.

To make the point clearer for the idiots, malcontents and misandrists who can’t stand to see an older man dating a younger woman: Sexual attraction for a woman who has gone through puberty and has a sexually developed adult woman’s body is not pedophilia.

It is not pedophilia for an older man to be sexually attracted to a 16 year old girl who has breasts, wide hips, a round and full ass, and a feminine face. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an ignoramus or is engaging in propaganda war, truth be damned. The older women who love to throw around the pedo libel whenever a man their age chooses a younger woman are known as… oh, great Odin’s raven, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yes… cunts.

C

U

N

T

S.

But hags and spinsters aren’t the only ones who freely fling the pedo accusation. Plenty of white knighters and sour married men do it, too. The reasons why they do it are obvious. Older women dread the younger competition and use shame to influence men’s behavior more to their liking. Men who aren’t dating young, fresh flowers shame those who do out of red-hot envy. Feminists do it because they loathe male desire. And so we have an alliance of nearly every demographic against the minority of men who have the skill to land significantly younger lovers. With such a stacked deck, it’s a small miracle that love is able to overcome a malicious mass lie.

It’s all part and parcel of the last fifty years of feminized Western culture pathologizing normal, natural male sexual desire. A sure sign of cultural decay if ever there was one is the demonization of maleness. Feminists and the whole of the liberal media have done their job codifying the currently reigning zeitgeist that male sexual desire is aberrant and uncivilized while female sexual desire is the very pinnacle of saintliness.

Well, this armed outpost of blogdom is here to set the record straight. To expose the lords of lies for what they are, to grind their shitfuck faces in their falsehoods, and to taste the unfathomable sadness of their bitter tears.

Mmm… tastes so sweet, like illimitable pain.

So to help bring balance to the force, I propose an equivalent lie to demonize natural female sexual desire. We don’t really see enough of this, so let’s start with female hypergamy, the powerful primal force that compels women to date higher status men than themselves, and preferably to date the highest status man possible. Let’s call it by the DSM IV term it deserves:

Strataphilia, -noun, 1. a deviant sexual attraction predicated on the social and economic stratum that a man occupies.

FYI: A true pedophile is not the 51 year old in that photo. Far from it. A true pedophile thinks more like this:

Read Full Post »

Is The Sexual Market Efficient?

In yesterday’s post, it was posited that later marriages are less likely to end in divorce because older spouses have fewer options in the dating market. A 24 year old wife contemplating divorce has more opportunity to jump back in the saddle than a 34 year old cougar tired of her nuptials. So according to dating market value theory, we should not be surprised to see that marriages at a younger age tend to be less stable than marriages at an older age.

To continue on this theme, commenter Sidewinder proposes a flaw in the sexual market theory of options as the limiting factor in relationship stability (i.e., the more options you have, the less likely you are to be monogamously faithful):

Women get much more feedback in the sexual marketplace than men. But you are only getting feedback on immediate sexual interest, not long term sexual relationship interest. This could explain the market error re female divorce choice. Their perception is skewed by short term sexual interest, leading to divorce based on artificially inflated sexual market value. Once single, and after a few pump and dumps, their true sexual market value is revealed, and they have to settle for something within their shrinking relationship options.

As we know here at the Chateau (but you wouldn’t know by reading only the MSM), the majority of divorces are initiated by women. It stands to reason, then, that a lot of marriages dissolve because the wives get bored of the arrangement, or agitated with their husbands’ domestication. In other words, the martyr theme that women, with the help of their feminist enablers, have carefully crafted for themselves over the decades is a cartload of bullshit. Women are perps as often as, if not more often than, they are victims.

A lot of women initiating divorce probably feel that they have plenty of good years left to snag another man of at least equal value to the husbands they are leaving. It would be more accurate to say “of greater value”, because women hardly ever leave relationships for a shot at a man of the same value. Due to her gender’s hypergamous algorithm, a woman in flux between relationships or freshly out of marriage will be compelled to seek out men of higher value than the man she just left. Until she has had her heart broken one too many times.

The problem, as Sidewinder astutely noted, is that the sexual market is efficient at offering immediate feedback on the kind of sexual interest that a woman can command, but not so efficient at offering feedback on her value as a long term relationship partner. A woman can walk down the street and know instantly by the number of men’s eyes which glance her way, and by the obsequiousness with which men relish her company, how easy it will be for her to arouse a man to want to sleep with her. But she cannot know how many of those men willing to fuck her are also willing to invest in her and nurture a loving relationship with her until she has herself invested time in them. Most men aren’t going to come right out and tell a marginal fling that she isn’t cut out to be his long term girlfriend or wife.

So you see the quandary that women are in. The dating market is great at giving them information on their sexual desirability, but not so good at giving them feedback on their relationship desirability. The later is usually learned by experiencing relationships with men of varying market value to determine a best fit. If she shoots too high, he pumps and dumps her. Too low, and his provider stability isn’t wanted.

And time is no friend to women, whose attractiveness window is shorter than men’s, being as it is contingent almost solely upon their looks. A man’s attractiveness window can conceivably go right to the end of his life, if he has compensating alpha traits for his declining looks.

The problem is compounded for married women, who presumably have been out of the dating scene for years. A woman sheltered in the confines of marital piss has lost touch with distant memories of the alpha males who used her for sex and ignored her need for love and commitment. The memories of inglorious pump and dumps that followed from shooting out of her league have faded, replaced by a feedback mechanism that relies solely on sexual interest, thus titillating her ego as if she were a fresh-faced teenager again.

A woman who thinks inspiring a man to get erect is the ultimate arbiter of her relationship worth is in for a world of pain. It is a harsh lesson many women seem to forget as they are gleefully anticipating dating life after escape from marriage to a beta provider.

You might say there is price inelasticity in women’s long term mate value. The most powerful agent working against falsely held perceptions of men’s long term sexual interest in a woman are memories of past relationships that ended badly when she tried to date out of her league. But in a multi-year marriage, those memories tend to fade and so we get the phenomenon of women initiating divorce with the belief that they can get as good as they got when they were younger.

Reality soon disabuses them of that notion, and the aging divorcée either settles with a man of lower value than her husband was when she met him, or she persists in her delusion aided by the hallucinatory effects of mimosas, cockhopping and cheerleading spinsters like herself.

Read Full Post »

Why Are Later Marriages Less Likely To End In Divorce?

Because older divorcées have fewer options in the dating market.

Picture two married couples. Couple A got married at 21. Couple B got married at 31. Assume for the sake of simplicity that the spouses in each marriage are the same age, and neither one has had children.

At year three, Couple A stops having sex on a regular basis. Arguments become a daily feature. The wife begins pulling a beta valentine on her hubbie’s ass because she is turned off by his gradual betatization. They are now age 24, and divorce is whispered. Both of them survey their options should the unthinkable happen. Both realize, based on subconsciously acknowledged experience in the real world, that they could find new lovers in short order should the marriage fail. Divorce proceedings, while a testament to failure, don’t inspire them with fear and dread. There are green fields just past that horizon.

At year three, Couple B suffers the same fate as Couple A. The marriage has lost its allure. But this time, the response to impending divorce is different. The now 34 year old wife has stopped receiving glances from men when she walks around town to do errands. She senses, though she will never admit it even to herself, that her salad days are over and being single would not be the fun adventure it was when she was 21. The husband also believes (wrongly) that he has fewer options, because his marriage has made him rusty and dependent upon regular female companionship. He has doubts in himself and can’t imagine life as a single man. Both dread the repercussions of divorce and what it means to be thrust into a cutthroat dating market for which they are ill-prepared. So instead of divorce, they grit their teeth and he retreats to porn and poker while she has an illicit affair with her boss.

So there you have it.

Options = instability.

This is the kind of psychological analysis that you just won’t glean from a dry social survey that is prone to false information, particularly from female respondents.

Read Full Post »

Why Don’t Women Politicians Get Caught In Sex Scandals?

A female author at the New York Beta Times asks why women politicians don’t get caught in humiliating sex scandals.

Naturally, the author offers the PC feminism-approved answer to explain the discrepancy in peccadillos.

But there may be something else at work: Research points to a substantial gender gap in the way women and men approach running for office. Women have different reasons for running, are more reluctant to do so and, because there are so few of them in politics, are acutely aware of the scrutiny they draw — all of which seems to lead to differences in the way they handle their jobs once elected.

“The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “Women run because there is some public issue that they care about, some change they want to make, some issue that is a priority for them, and men tend to run for office because they see this as a career path.”

Riiiiight. That’s the ticket. The pleasingly martyr-like “women can’t afford to mess up” rationale. Well, I’m here to tell you that’s not the reason why female politicians don’t get caught in sex scandals. The answer is much less convoluted, and less politically palatable as well. Female politicians are OLD and unattractive; they don’t have salacious affairs because men aren’t interested, especially the powerful men whom these hypergamously-straitjacketed women lust after. For an old broad like Pelosi, or an ugly one like Hillary, to have a sexy fling would require a willing participant. Now maybe with a lot of elbow grease and an ego that can handle rejection, the typical congresswoman could scrounge up the rare man who would carry on with her over text, but the time and energy to find such a man would be exhausting for even a manic Type A personality.

In contrast, male politicians, including the old ugly ones, by virtue of their high status and power, have no trouble meeting women. Usually, the women reach out to them and make their jobs easy. Weiner seems to have had his share of young, female groupies.

Oh yeah, and one more bleedingly obvious answer for why there aren’t more female politicians caught in sex scandals:

Men are biologically programmed to spread the seed. Men dig variety. No matter how old they get. The limiting factor isn’t age, it’s options.

So the next time you swoon over some old guy who has stayed faithful to one woman for forty years, just remember…

he likely didn’t have the power of a politician to act on his urges.

Read Full Post »